A Constitutional Paradox, Politics, and Rationality Today
Today, all citizens of the United States are witnessing “competing visions of statesmanship.” Unfortunately, there seems to be confusion between what is a “Politician” and what is a “Statesman,” however, as you have learned, they are far from being one-in-the-same. The paradoxes and solutions of a democracy can be troubling.
- Explain “A Constitutional Paradox”
- Explain “Political Rationality”
- Define “Statesmanship”
- Describe the how government has changed over the decades
- Barton: chs. 12–18
Barton, David: Original Intent. The Courts, The Constitution, and Religion. Wallbuilders, 1996.
- Danoff & Hebert: ch. 15
Danoff, Brian and L Hebert Jr.: Alexis de Tocqueville and the Art of Democratic Statesmanship. Lexington Books, 2011.
Presentation: A Constitutional Paradox, Politics, and Rationality Today
Wow We finally made it seven through seven weeks we have been examining constitutional order and all of those things that that went into creating the country that we have so finally in this week we’re going to try to pull it all together and let’s start talking about the paradox of Constitutional Order No one is a statesman today we have statesmen that think that they are politicians and politicians and think they are statesman and neither one are the same we must think about these things because a statesman always is looking for a solution a politician is always trying to legislate by what happens to be popular at the this particular moment and there are very few of those states and left in our country today it seems to me. It has been a pleasure to be with you this through this last seven weeks and through this final week I thank you for the privilege of your time and for taking this course I’ve enjoyed getting to know some of you and and reading all of your writings I challenge you to go forth not give up on your educational journey and please call on me if and I can ever be of help to you in any time May God always bless you and your families and thank you again.
There are several constitutional paradoxes but I agree with you that the creation of the Bill of rights is one of them. The US Constitution is not specific on the rights that that should be protected from an incursion of the government and then allow the federal government to exercise any power that it views as suitable as long as it concerns that set of rights. The Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights has redundantly listed rights thus not defining. The Bill of Rights was introduced after the growing emphasis and need for extra protection of citizen’s rights against overreaching government officials. Nonetheless, it was not inserted for the delineation of a huge list of rights enjoyed by the Americans (Labunski, 2006). As a result, inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution faced opposition and was feared by both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.
In Federalist#84, Hamilton stated that he believed that this inclusion was both dangerous and unnecessary (Wilmarth, 1988). He was against the introduction of a specific list of rights into the US Constitution because the Framers had already ensured that the document presumed every conceivable right was protected unless the delegation of an enumerated power had specifically restricted it (Barton, 1996). Thus “permitted unless prohibited” was the general rule that was widely understood as the US Constitutional foundational principle. Hamilton and Madison viewed the Bill of Rights as dangerous due to negative pregnant, a legal concept that operated within the confines of Article 1 of the Constitution that prohibits the states from laying any duties or imposts on exports or imports without the consent of the Congress (Melton, 2001).…………for help with this assignment contact us via Email Address: firstname.lastname@example.org