America's Constitution Of 1787: A Philosophical Analysis

The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention, where it was held in Philadelphia. It was written by a group of people known as “Farmers,” or the “Founding Fathers,” and few of the most famous Founding Fathers were George Washington (The first president of the USA), Thomas Jefferson (The first vice president and the third president of the USA) James Madison (The fourth president of the USA), Samuel Adams, and Benjamin Franklin. The old government, the Articles of Confederation was not working as it supposed to be, it was vulnerable and cannot secure and defend the new born nation and for that reason the constitution of the united states saw the light.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held to address problems in governing the United States which had been operating under the Articles of Confederation since it’s independence from Britain. Fifty-five delegates from the states attended the convention to address these issues. The delegates consisted of federalists who wanted a strong central government to maintain order and were mainly wealthier merchants and plantation owners and anti-federalists who were farmers, tradesmen and local politicians who feared losing their power and believed more power should be given to the states. The Constitutional Convention dealt with the issue of the debate between federalists and anti-federalists. The debates, arguments and compromises

A constitution is a written document that sets forth the fundamental rules by which a society is governed. Throughout the course of history the United States has lived under two Constitutions since the British-American colonies declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776. First in line was the Articles of Confederation (1789-1789) followed by the Constitution of United States of America (1789-present). The Articles of Confederation was the first formal written Constitution of America that specified how the national government was to operate. Unfortunately, the Articles did not last long. Under the words of the Article’s power was limited; Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them. Also the articles stated

Mill claims that his purpose in writing on liberty is to assert what he describes one very simple principle. The principle that ought to govern society and that principle has come to be known as the harm principle. The individuals own good either physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant for societal intervention. The individual cannot rightfully be compelled to do or not to do because it will be better for him to do so because it is better for him to do so because it will make him happier.

In 1787 at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America worked together to identify the best way to elect the President (Patterson, 2013). The ideas suggested varied and ranged from selection by members of congress chosen by lottery, to a popular vote of the people. By the end of the Convention the matter had yet to be settled as the framers fore saw that many of the suggestions were prone to corruption, error, and were very chaotic. The issue was passed down to the Committee on Postponed Matters, who in turn created the system that is used today and is commonly known as Electoral College (Kazin, 2011). The Electoral College was outlined by the Committee to up hold the views of the founding fathers, who were the framers of the Constitution.

Based on your interpretation of the course text, explain the framers’ (framers’ of the U.S. Constitution) position on the Presidency:

“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America.” Without the right that the Constitution brings us, we wouldn’t have rights therefore the United States wouldn’t be a good place to live in. The Constitution brings us the right of freedom of speech (first amendment) , the right to bear arms (second amendment), and the right to protect against unreasonable government actions such as search and seizure of person property (fourth amendment). Being an American citizen means that you have rights that they would like you to fulfil. As an American citizen is it voluntary to vote, but others are required such as obeying the law and paying taxes. The Magna Carta, John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, and the Petition of Rights explains the rights and the responsibilities of an American citizen.

The plan to divide the government into three branches was proposed by James Madison, at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He modeled the division from who he referred to as ‘the Perfect Governor,’ as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; He will save us.” http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

Mill’s harm principle of ““One should not interfere with other people’s lives unless those people are doing harm to others” (p.G3), is in other words, if a person do not cause harm to others, there is no reason to prevent his/her actions. Mill’s belives that an individual is the supreme sovereign of his/her own acts. Even when the decisions taken may be some harm upon him/her, the responsibility of these actions is only on the individual.

According to Antonin Scalia there are two types of approaches to interpreting the Constitution: originalist and living. Which approach do you believe the Court should take? Why? How does this approach affect the policymaking process?

Mill claimed that there must be unconditional rejection of paternalism by the state, only invalidated to prevent persons from selling themselves into slavery. Reinforcing his case Mill argued that paternalistic intervention is unlikely to work because an individual is acutely more aware of his or her own needs than the state is. Additionally, he argued that it is improbable compulsion would work. This can also be taken into account in the form of liberty. Mill alleges that an autonomous life has more value than a life of dependency, since one cannot be forced to be autonomous paternalism has a damaging effect on an individual. As a contemporarily relevant issue, Devlin indirectly delivers his rebuttal to paternalism by embodying a stance on homosexuality. He defends societies right to protect its own existence by vetoing behavior that threatens its sustainability, since homosexuality is detrimental to society that union has a right to prohibit it. This is consistent with Devlin's definition of "tangible harm", described as a harm that instigates a diminution of the physical strength of society. When practiced in trivial quantities these activities can be harmless, however as its participants

John Stuart Mill’s idea of the 'harm principle' argues that the government may only justifiably interfere in individual actions to prevent harm, or the threat of harm, to others, or to the greater community. Mill’s argument is designed to protect the greater collective society from what he states are individual actions that could prove to be detrimental for the state, including the use of addictive drugs and suicide. Mill states that this is the only time that the government should interview with the actions of the individual within society because of it, for Mills, is an example that would bring a concern to others, and harm. Similar to Mills is Frances Declaration of

In accordance with Mill’s description of his harm principle, the statement that “protecting liberty through this principle prioritizes the development of individuality over social progress” is somewhat valid. It is only somewhat valid because Mill prioritizes the self– development of the individual in order to help society progress rather than instead of the progression of society. He believes that freedom is designed to protect individualism and that in a state of nature there would be no social contract because of the concept of social good. This concept conveys that because people receive protection from society then they owe a specific behavior in return.

Mill uses the Harm Principle to identify his argument for freedom of speech. The Harm Principle explains that the government are only justified in interfering with individuals who express their views if only their views cause harm to others. If a person’s actions only affect himself, then society, which includes the government should not be able to stop a person from doing what he wants. Three ideas helped shape the harm principle. The first idea, Mill states that the harm principle is composed of the liberty of expressing and publishing opinions as being important as the liberty of thought, which

John Stuart Mills “Harm principle” states that the only actions that can be prevented are ones that create harm. In other words, a person can do whatever he wants as long as his actions do not harm others. If a person's actions only affect himself, then society, which includes the government, should not be able to stop a person from doing what he wants. This even includes actions that a person may do that would harm the person himself. A example that I can provide to support this principle is murder, if a person murders another person then they're harming the other person. Since it's the governments job to not let citizens harm each other there's a law against murder. You can go down a ample amount of incidents that will fall under to break the “Harm principle” such as assault, rape, robbery, etc. Relating back to what Mills states as his principle a big example I can think of is the riots that have been occurring all over the United States. I say this because, Mills principle justifies that power can only be taken when another person is at harm, this is what the police of states all over have been doing to take action. You are allowed to protest in a peaceful manner at your will, but when it turns into the result of a “riot” or a non peaceful protest then this is where officers do have to take action with the power they are given. A question that has brought many thoughts to myself is, according to Mills principle what would be the circumstances considering the fact if you