English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Please help with this questions. I'm now very stumped so..........................I need your help!!!!!!

2007-09-17 11:48:20 · 6 answers · asked by Dorinda 2 in Politics & Government Government

6 answers

It doesn't. People who pay attention to it, respect it and use it as a legal tool do that part.

...otherwise, it's just a piece of paper.

2007-09-17 11:53:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Through the three seperate divisions of the government; legislative, executive andjudicial. The Constitution set it up that way to ensure that no one department/division could gte too powerful because the other two could limit it through legal finding (Judicial), funding (legistative) or use of the veto (Executive). One reason the Supreme Court is life time appointments is so that aPresident cannot remove then all and then install his own people to give tw out or three "sides" in his pocket. FDR faced that when he was trying to establish Social Security and with the approval of Congress he increased the size of the Supreme Court, assigned "his" people and then had the majority he needed to ensure that the program would be found within the power of the federal government. Yes that a serious and very unclear question of the time and he was concerned it would be challenged and lose as outside the power of the federal government. The fourth side of this seldom mentioned and has been badly eroded over the years which is the power of the state government; the Constitution relegated all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the states. That power has been eroded partially by expanding definitions and through the Supreme Court after the expansion. Interesting "play case" for the Supreme Court was the right of the state to leave (secede) the U.S.-it was found to be Constitutional as nothing in the Constitution forbids it so it is outside the power of the federal government to enforce. The case as a educational thing in the 1960's if memory serves me right. Sorry for meandering off subject.

2007-09-17 19:04:05 · answer #2 · answered by GunnyC 6 · 0 0

it's all right there in black and white in the constitution, although there could be some difficulty in translating the text from old english to new (in other words, people tended to talk a little bit differently back then but their intent was still clear). this country's founders understood the threat posed to people's rights by an overbearing, intrusive government and wrote the constitution as a defense mechanism to prevent the government from infringing apon those rights. in essence, the constitution tells the federal government what it can and can't do, and it doesn't allow it to do much. unfortunately, today the constitution is largely ignored by the vast majority of america's politicians as evidenced by just how intrusive and out of control the federal gov't has become. how do they get away with that you may ask? it's simple. a majority of the american people just don't care and refuse to hold the politicians feet to the fire. even worse, some citizens actually would like for the gov't to do everything because they just don't trust the people to get the job done on their own.

2007-09-17 19:11:08 · answer #3 · answered by White 5 · 0 0

Assuming your question is about Canadian rights.
The Constitution includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was signed in 1982.
It guarantees our rights by ensuring that statutes passed by our government do not infringe on prohibited grounds like sex, race, religion, etc.
Individuals who's rights are infringed for example when a father had wanted to take parental leave and EI benefits were denied, the laws governing EI payments needed to be changed. The father would go to court and argue that his rights were being denied. The Judge would determine if their has been an infringement and if so, was that infringement justified.
The Oakes Test has 4 planks that are considered when reviewing whether s.1 of the Charter allows for the infringement. If the law is not saved under s.1, the law must be changed.
This same scenario has been used when a drunk driver is given a breathalizer test without first being given the right to legal counsel. This is an infringement of one's right to not incriminate oneself, however it is saved under s.1 therefore it is legal and the law remains in place.

2007-09-17 19:08:57 · answer #4 · answered by justimaginenow2 1 · 0 0

Read the Bill of Rights...that's the first 10 Amendments...

2007-09-17 18:53:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It once did but no longer does.

2007-09-17 18:54:30 · answer #6 · answered by InSeattle 3 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers