Was it too vague or too specific? Did it give too much power to the federal government or to the states? Do you think it gave too much or too little protection to slavery in the states? Do you think it did too little to expand or protect the rights of individual citizens? Does it make sense to have representation by state and by population? Is the electoral college a useful institution?
2007-04-23 15:58:49 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Problems with the Constitution,
1. Slavery, while it did ban the international slave trade, it did not stop slavery and even counted them as 3/5 of a person. This major error was a major factor of the Civil War.
2. No Direct Election of Senators, The people who were supposed to represent the people, were not even voted on by the people instead they were appointed by the State Governments.
3. No set number of Justices on the Supreme Court, This has led some presidents to try and pack the court with their justices, see FDR in his 2nd term.
4. The Electoral College, Was ment as a way for only the educated to cast votes for the President of the USA. Now it is an antiquated system that should be changed.
5. No set term limits for the President. This led to periods of 1 party rule such as FDR's 12 years as President.
Many of these problems were fixed by amendments. and the only current problem is the Electoral College.
2007-04-23 16:46:59 · answer #1 · answered by Willie 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I presume you're talking about the U.S. Constitution. The biggest flaw in the constitution is that it gives Congress a blank check. The same people who spend the money are in charge of writing tax laws and there's no limit on borrowing. This is a major conflict of interest and it's an incentive to spend. Job One for every Senator and Congressman is to bring home the bacon to their district. There should be a limit on spending and borrowing and the only way to enforce that is to have a separate entity in charge of the money. It would take a Constitutional amendment to accomplish this and the the only people who can amend the constitution is Congress who ain't about to cut their own purse strings so there's no solution.
2007-04-23 16:13:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think there were too many compromises to get things done. I don't think there should be a senate at all, there should not have been a 3/5ths compromise about slaves, and while I'm fine with indentured servitude - especially for prisoners - slavery is wrong.
And also, many people up north don't know this, but there is a legal procedure in the constitution for state to suceed from the union - which they did. The north's war against them was illegal, but at least we freed the slaves.
2007-04-23 16:03:36 · answer #3 · answered by thedavecorp 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It was written to protect citizens and their rights before government became a career and life long job.When a term in office was two years and you got back to the job that you earned your living with.It was written for the betterment of the country and not individuals who pursue politics as a life time career to riches and to build individual empires and riches.Two years for the country not the individual would work well today as 200 years ago.
2007-04-23 16:01:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
i think of human beings on the comprehensive are dumb. in case you're taking out each and all the opinion and sensational "editorials" it is the sequence of activities that have befell over the final couple of months. one million. Obama gets elected 2. Obama signs and indicators a bill giving over one trillion income "stimulus" to precise substantial CEO controlled agencies. 3. Obama has a dinner occasion with a hundred greenback steaks 4. Obama passes yet another bill giving money to precise initiatives hand picked by making use of our representatives. 5. Obama records a tax return reporting an earnings of over 4 million money. I propose merely on the info, Obama would not look to care lots approximately familiar human beings.
2016-12-26 21:27:22 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Right to ARMS.
It was made so the British would have a fight if they were to invade. It's all different now. Think of how the world has changed back then.
We change the way we have to be politically correct. We change the way we refer to different races.
Do you realize that within 15 mins of the last school shooting, these gun nuts were calling the radio shows to defend their rights to guns? Should that really be someones first reaction to 32 people dying?
2007-04-23 16:04:43 · answer #6 · answered by Matt 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
i think its pretty incredible that a room full of guys a couple hundred years ago could put together a constitution that would still be embraced today even through the amount of social and technical change the world has gone thru. no way could they ever put together a new consitution today. there'd be bloodshed in washington
2007-04-23 16:01:50 · answer #7 · answered by TGBoston 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It did not specify that you should be able to own fully automatic machine guns.
2007-04-23 16:02:24 · answer #8 · answered by Heads up! 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋