Tse
GOV Tammie 310L
THREE SUPREME COURT CASES
T H RE E S UP R EM E CO UR T CA SE S D RA M AT ICA LLY E XP A N DE D T H E PO W ER O F T H E FE DE RA L GO V E RN M E NT . E XP LA IN T HE O UT CO M E O F T HE S E CA S E S , IN CLU DIN G A N A NA LY S IS O F H O W E A CH IM P A CT E D T HE T RA DIT IO NA L IN T E R E ST GR OU P S A LIGN E D W ITH T H E FE D E R A LIST A N D A NT I - FE DER A LIS T T RA DIT IO N S .
INTRODUCTION
IN THE COURSE OF AMERICAN HISTORY, MANY THINGS HAVE HAPPENED THAT HAS EXPANDED THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DRASTICALLY. THIS COULD BE SEEN THROUGH THREE FAMOUS COURT CASES: MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, MARBURY V. MADISON, AND GIBBONS V. OGDEN
MCCULLOCH VS. MARYLA ND
CONGRESS HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH A BANK BECAUSE IT IS IMPLIED AS TO "FACILITATE COMMERCE" MCCULLOCH WON, ALLOW ING THE GOVERNMENT TO SET UP A BANK SUPPORTED IDEA OF IM PLIED POWERS OVER THE 10 T H AMENDMENT (ALL-UNENUMERATED POWERS GIVEN TO STATES OR PEOPLE) AND ALLOWED FEDERALISTS TO GET MORE POWER OVER COMMERCE
MARBURY V. MADISON
SUPREME COURT IS THE FINAL ARBITER FOR WHAT THE CONSTITUTION MEANS AND ALSO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DECLARE AN ACT OF CONGRESS AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL MADISON/ANTI-FEDERALISTS WON THE COURT RULING BUT THE FEDERALISTS GAINED MORE POWER TO REGULATE ITSELF BY
Tammie Tse
GOV 310L
ALLOWING JUDICIARY TO REVIEW CONGRESSIONAL LAWS THROUGH "JUDICIAL REVIEW" ANTI-FEDERALISTS WON THE BATTLE BUT LOST THE WAR
GIBBONS V. OGDEN
COURT GRANTED CONGRESS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MANAGE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT INTRASTATE COMMERCE IS RULED BY THE STATES GIBBONS WON, WHICH REAFFIRMED FEDERAL POWER, GIVING THEM MORE CONTROL OVER THE STATES.
CONCLUSION
IN ALL THREE CASES, FEDERALISTS WON THE OVERALL TRIUMPH AND RULE. THUS, IN THEIR FAVOR, FEDERAL POWER HAS INCREASED BY A TENFOLD. BECAUSE OF THIS, WE WERE ABLE TO BUILD THE STRONG GOVERNMENT THAT WE HAVE TODAY.
Tammie Tse
GOV 310L
TYRANNY AND THE CONS TITUTION
D IS CU S S T H E D IFFE R E N T V IE W S O F T YR AN NY H E LD BY T H E FE DE R A LIS T S A N D TH E A N T I- FE DE RA LIS T S , AN D H O W T HE IR CO N CE RN S W E R E A DDR ES S E D AT T H E CO N S T IT UT IO N A L CO N VE NT IO N O F 1 7 8 7 . BE S U R E T O IDE N T IFY SP E CI FIC FE A T U R ES O F T H E CO N ST ITU T ION T H AT R E FLE CT T H E CO M PR OM IS E S FO R GE D A MO N G T HE CO M P ET IN G IN T E RE ST S .
I.INTRODUCTION
TYRANNY HAS ALWAYS BEEN A FEAR OF GOVERNMENT AND THE OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS OF FEDERALISTS AND ANTI-FEDERALISTS HAVE LAID THE OUT HISTORY OF OUR CONSTITUTION THROUGH A SERIES OF OPPOSITE VIEWS AND A CONVENTION, OUR CONSTITUTION WAS BORN.
ANTI-FEDERALISTS AND FEDERALIST VIEWS
FEARED THAT FEW WOUL D USE THEIR POWER TO TYRANNIZE THE MANY (ARISTOCRACY) FEARED THAT A COOPERATIVE POPULAR MAJORITY WOULD TRAMPLE THE RULES OF JUSTICE AND TYRANNIZE THE MINORITY
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVE NTION OF 1787
THE GREAT COMPROMISE (VIRGINIA + NEW JERSEY PLAN) ANTIFEDERALISTS ACHIEVED THEIR DESIRES FROM THE SENATE IN WHICH THEY ALL GET THE SAME NUMBER OF VOTES WHILE FEDERALISTS ACHIEVED THEIR DESIRES FROM THE HOUSE IN WHICH THE NUMBER OF VOTES DEPEND ON THE SIZE OF THE STATE POPULATION 3/5 COMPROMISE: FEDERALISTS WANTED SLAVES TO COUNT TOWARDS VOTING AND ANTI-FEDERALISTS DID NOT; THEY COMPROMISED THAT EVERY 5 SLAVES WOULD CLAIM 3 VOTES
Tammie Tse
GOV 310L
CONSTITUTION
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AND MOST OF THE CLAUSES IN A1S8 (CONGRESS POWERS) EXPRESS THE RULINGS OF THE GREAT COMPROMISE 3/5 COMPROMISE IS MENTIONED IN A1S2P3
CONCLUSION
THROUGH OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS, THE FEDERALISTS AND ANTIFEDERALISTS WENT ABOUT TO MAKE COMPROMISE. GOVERNMENT HAS ADVANCED ACCORDING TO THESE COMPROMISES AND WE'VE CREATED OUR CONSTITUTION.
Tammie Tse
GOV 310L
POWERS AND FEDERALIS M
T H E LA R GE E CON O M IC I N T ER E ST GR OU PS W A NT A S T R ON G GO V E RN M EN T TO P RO TE CT T H E IR E CO NO M IC IN T E R E ST . T H E S MA LL IN T E R EST S W A NT E D LIM IT E D FE DER A L P OW E R . H O W D ID T H E "S E P AR AT IO N O F P OW ER S " A N D " FE DE R A LIS M " R ES O LV E T HE S E CO N FLICT IN G DE M A N DS ? U SE S P E CIFIC E X A M P LE S.
I.INTRODUCTION
UNITED STATES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN DIVIDED BY THE SMALL AND LARGE INTERESTS. BY ENACTING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND FEDERALISM, WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE A COMPROMISE WITH EVERYONE'S DEMANDS.
SEPARATION OF POWERS
EACH BRANCH IS GIVEN NOT ONLY ITS OWN POWERS, BUT ALSO SOME POWER OVER THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES (CHECKS AND BALANCES) EACH BRANCH IS ALSO HAS DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCY
FEDERALISM
POWER IS DIVIDED BETWEEN STATES AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STEP AWAY FROM CONFEDERATION AND TYRANNY
SPECIFIC EXAMPLES
TAX LAW CONGRESS CONTROLS INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND STATE CONTROLS INTRASTATE COMMERCE VETO CONGRESS CANNOT ACT UNILATERALLY WHILE THE PRESIDENT MUST AGREE AS WELL
Tammie Tse
GOV 310L
CONCLUSION
SMALL AND LARGE INTERESTS WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THEIR DESIRES THROUGH COMPROMISE. AS SEEN IN THE GOVERNMENT, NOBODY HAS TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE POWER.