The Federalist Versus Anti-Federalist Approaches to Constitution

Please note! This essay has been submitted by a student.

As one can imagine there are many steps before a law is put into action. As stated in the book in chapter 11, “Congressional powers; The authority to introduce and pass legislation is a very strong power” (Krutz 2017). When one holds majority power that can be a good and bad thing. The powers are divided into three types enumerated, implied, and inherent. The separation is to separate powers and give balance. Another factor is the different branches of government. For example the three powers attempt to balance the powers amongst the three. More importantly Congress holds the power to introduce bills; “the Senate who has the final say on many presidential nominations and treaties signed by the president and the House’s ability to impeach or formally accuse the president or other federal officials of wrongdoing” (Krutz 2017). To implement there powers they carry, “The “necessary and proper clause” directs Congress “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States…” (Krutz 2017). Also, congress has power to override a veto with a two-thirds vote of both houses. A law may not make it the senate if the house votes two-thirds against.

Essay due? We'll write it for you!

Any subject

Min. 3-hour delivery

Pay if satisfied

Get your price

If it were up to me the process for how a bill were to become law, I would start by a more in-depth definition for inherent powers so there is clear set guidelines, thus adding more balance to the powers. I would keep the necessary and proper clause up front and center. I would not leave the final decision up to Senate. I would raise the age requirement for the House of Representatives to thirty to match the requirement for the two Senators. The senators would serve four years instead of six I would put strict limits on gerrymandering. Lastly, I would push for a new law to go past the house of representatives even if they vote it down and if Senate agrees to vote for then they can both meet and come to a compromise on the best way to set groundwork for a new law. As for the clause, Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution; “Congress is empowered to regulate Commerce with foreign nations…” (Krutz 2017). This expanding all encompassing power should be regulated and shared to avoid sticking US hand into too many honey pots. The commerce clause can limit powers to states which can be limiting important powers. An example in Gibbons v. Ogden; “Court has, first, determined that it has power to decide when state power is validly exercised, and, second, it has coined or given currency to numerous formulas, some of which still guide, even when they do not govern, its judgment (Justia law). Yet, they seemingly take away and put limits on powers resulting in negative effects. Lastly, I agree with the Federal Election Campaign Act and all the information should be disclosed and available.

A major Act of the US congress in history is the Marbury v. Madison, the debate over the case is said to not have ended and has gone on for over two centuries. The major act included Jefferson v. Adams, Adams siding as a Federalist and Jefferson (Anti-federalist) Democratic Republican. Another factor is, “The court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, is considered one of the foundations of U.S. constitutional law” (Urofsky). As it goes for many case a power struggle between two rivals Anti-federalist Jefferson created 16 new judgeships that would need to be filled and Adams Federalist took it upon himself to fill with Federalist aiming to put a damper on Jeffersons plan. Marbury (Federalist) and Marshall prior served as Adams secretary of state which could have been contradictory in the case, which wasn’t raised as an issue at that time. Marshall holding power, “despite the political difficulties involved, recognized that he had a perfect case with which to expound a basic principle, judicial review, which would secure the Supreme Court’s primary role in constitutional interpretation” (Urofsky). As Jefferson took office would direct James Madison his secretary of state to withhold the commission of Marbury. Rightfully Marbury; “Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to act” (Urofsky). In this instance the court had no power to override Jefferson and enforce the writ in the case of the reverse the court backdown from issuing writ would show the judicial branch government not doing their part. The act was deemed unconstitutional going against the Constitution set jurisdiction lines being skewed and the balance of power out of order. Britannica stated, “In fact, it is likely that the issue will never be fully resolved” (Urofsky).

Get quality help now

Prof Essil

Verified writer

Proficient in: American Constitution, Forms of Government, Presidents of The United States

4.8 (1570 reviews)
“Really responsive and extremely fast delivery! I have already hired her twice!”

+75 relevant experts are online

More Essay Samples on Topic

banner clock
Clock is ticking and inspiration doesn't come?
We`ll do boring work for you. No plagiarism guarantee. Deadline from 3 hours.

We use cookies to offer you the best experience. By continuing, we’ll assume you agree with our Cookies policy.