Answers for your legal questions

Why did the framers of the constitution adopt the federal system? law answers (57502)

People haved asked the following law querstions similar to "why did the framers of the constitution adopt the federal system?". If you have other legal doubts, use the box above to get answers.

Q: 

Are citizens of the state of California protected by the U.S. constitution?

A:  Yes, obviously.. and everyone uses the constitution (state or federal) only when it''s in their best interest. But remember that the federal constitution only protects against specific things -- mostly in Article VI, 6 of the first 8 Amendments, the 14th and 15th and a few others. The rest is just about how the federal govt is supposed to work. As usual, no facts, no proof, no examples...whatever. Yes, the U.S. constitution applies even in the People''s Republic of California. And I find it interesting that you don''t cite any examples of this in your question. Why is that, I wonder? As a citizen of California already...

Q: 

To the supporters of Roe vs. Wade

A:  Re: To the supporters of Roe vs. Wade john w k wrote:To the supporters of Roe vs. Wade[/color] I have long been amazed at those who defend Roe vs. Wade and their complicity in the subjugation of our constitutional system! The constitution secures and protects individual liberty from both federal and STATE oppression of individual liberty. The Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, struck down an oppressive state law as unconstitutional in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court decided a case or controversy arising under the constitution and was acting in accordance with the powers it was delegated in the

Q: 

Why would Jefferson want the Bill of Rights?

A:  Neil wrote:have heard this was "to make sure" etc., but that sounds like a flabby argument. What do you think, and what was said at the time? No, that is pretty much correct. You see Jeffferson and the anti-federalists did not even want to ratify the constitution. They just wanted to amend the AoC. Madison, jay, and the federalists (who were really nationalists) wanted a constitution. The anti-federalists said that they would agree more with the federalist position provided that a bill of rights was included. The purpose of the bill of rights was to establish FURTHER declatory standards. Most people don''t...

Q: 

A most formidable domestic enemy: the SCOTUS!

A:  And here I thought this thread was going to be about Duns Scotus, the medieval theologian! No, but seriously, I think it''s an outrage and terribly small-minded of the court......

Q: 

In the U.S. how is it possible that..................?

A:  States can adopt or create or get rid of any law they want, as long as that law (or lack of law) doesn''t violate the "supreme law," which is the U.S. constitution... Occasionally, laws get on the books that come up as "Questionably constitutional" (in possible violation of the constitution) or some states or local governents attempt to establish a law that violates the constitution, and so that''s when the Supreme Court is called upon to make a decision on the issue.... Such as Abortion or...

Q: 

NOW Spokeswoman asks, "Was It Born?"

A:  It? Since when is a human being with a God-given human soul referred to as "it"? According to one NOW (National Organization of Women) spokeswoman, when the child is not yet born? Or, as my wife, when she/he (It) was born a Pseudohermaphrodite. Such commentary by NOW reps is a disgrace to motherhood and all women. New Haven wrote:It? Since when is a human being with a God-given human soul referred to as "it"? And of course, you can show without question that there is a God -- and that the God gives souls -- and that the fetus has a soul -- is that correct? If you can -- I am sure we would all appreciate your sharing your information with us. I''ll provide proof of all that, just as soon as you provide evidence of how YOU keep your respiratory and circulatory systems...

Q: 

28 years in prison for 2 grams of meth?

A:  fritsch wrote: [snip 250 lines of crap] It should have been summary execution. We cannot afford to have our prisons filled with criminals. Space must be reserved for the coming flood of political prisoners. Homeland Severity must be seen to operate and enemies of the State must be cleansed. Uncle Al wrote: fritsch wrote: [snip 250 lines of crap] It should have been summary execution. We cannot afford to have our prisons filled with criminals. Space must be reserved for the coming flood of political prisoners. Homeland Severity must be seen to operate and enemies of the State must be cleansed. No joking by mis-spelling. It''s ''Fatherland Security'' - and they are not political prisoners but ''non specific criminal detainess in preventive detention''. Pointed out recently in sci.chem that...

Q: 

Is the executive branch the most powerful branch of goverment?

A:  Our system of government was set up to have three branches of government, and so no branch would have more power than the other two, the framers of the constitution set up a system of checks and balances. Under this system, each branch has the ability to stop the other two branches from gaining too much power. For example, one way the executive branch (the president) is able to stop the legislative branch (Congress) is through the presidential veto. The president can veto any bill that has been passed by Congress and stop that bill from becoming law. The judicial branch (Supreme Court/court system) has the ability to check the president and Congress through judicial review. With this power, the Supreme Court can...

Q: 

The constitution was ratified over 200 years ago, how can it still be an effective governing document today?

A:  Because we''re constantly amending it. The difference between right and wrong hasn''t changed since the beginning of time. New things do come up, and that''s why laws and amendments are added to the original constitution. It keeps the original constitution relevant to today''s society. The fact that 200 years later you guys are still following it. If I were you, I''d be glad to have one. Here in sunny old England we answer to the Europeans. If the politicians of today had the brains that the framers of the constitution had, it would work......... RIGHT ON BILL AND CAREY S. The sad part is that most adults today never read it, they might talk about it, but they never...

Q: 

What about the voters in Palm Beach County, Florida? Thousands of ballots were mismarked and many thousands more were thrown out. Isn''t the right to vote a constitutional right?

A:  What about them, indeed! You''re right, voting is considered a ''fundamental right'' under the constitution. And as of this writing (Nov. 9, 2000), there has already been at least one lawsuit filed by voters in Florida. The result won''t affect the rest of the country if Gore ends up winning the Florida electoral vote on the recount anyway. But if he doesn''t, as you know, the whole election appears to turn on what happens with these votes. Of course, the big question is, if the voters'' constitutional rights are found to have been violated, what is the remedy? Ideas flying around include:1. nothing2. revote of all of the affected precincts3. revote of just those who voted on Nov. 74. disqualification of the whole...