Chapter 2

Please Everyone bare with me on this post because I still learning about the whole "blogging process."

1. Why is the United States Constitution stronger than the Articles of Confederation? How would history of the US have been different if the country still operated under the Articles of Confederation?

The Articles of Confederation was not very strong. There wasn't enough structure or organization. It seemed as though, they didn't really have many boundaries. The book claims, "too much freedom and not enough order." Congress had full authority over foreign military and Indian affairs. They couldn't tax citizens or products directly and it could only be requested. The governing was not very good because each state had one vote in Congress with consent of nine of the thirteen required for most important matters. The Constitution today had made more rules for the government to go by and helps out the citizens. If the government has more rules, then they are less likely to hurt us in the long run. I believe since the Constitution has been around for this long, something must have been done right. If the government still ran off of the Articles of Confederation, our country would be in worse shape than it really is today. There was no control and that can lead to way to many problems.

2. The first three articles of the Constitution establish/define the three branches of government-read these articles. What did you learn about the government that you didn't already know?

After taking a few government electives in highschool, there was a few things I already have heard about the government. I was very familiar with these articles. One thing I may have known but not realized is that the Congress assembles on the same day every year. They are required for a meeting once a year and it's always the first Monday in December. This date only changes if the law appoints to be changed.

3. How important is the Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison and why?

It was very important because they used judicial review. Judicial review is the authority of the court to strike down any law passed by congress if the courts believe the law violates the Constitution. The law was conflicting with the Constitution, so therefore the Supreme court had rule for the judicial review.

4. Looking at the US government today, is it more like what the Federalist or AntiFederalist envisioned and why?

I could be wrong about this agruement, but this is just what I took from it.
I believe the government is like the Federalist envisioned. They believed if we started making a certain type of list of our freedoms people would start saying things that were left out. Here we are today, and all people do is argue about what kind of freedoms we have. They say something vulgar and afterwards, "I have freedom of speech." They go to assemble and petition, but get in a huge fight. "I have the freedom to assemble and petition." They forget about the slander rules. They tend to forget they have to assemble and petition in a peacefull manner with no disturbance. The Federalist believed that people would get out of hand with a bunch of "list of freedoms." Which I am not saying that I don't agree with having our freedoms listed, that is not my intentions at all! I could have taken the Federalist wrong on this whole topic but this is how I believe it was.