Respuesta :
The checks and balances keep every branch of the govt. from victimization their job to induce too powerful. the perspective of Federalists on ratifying the Constitution is that a powerful national government is required to shield voters from threats, which the Constitution ought to be sanctioned like a shot to stop injury. the perspective of Anti-federalists on ratifying the Constitution is that the Constitution doesn't give enough protection for people's rights, which there's Not enough protection for powers of state governments.
From the start of US history, the people have been keen on being able to control the government. This led to the Founding Fathers of the US to create the US Constitution, a document that shaped the US culture, and built the foundation of the country. However, even with the Constitution, the founding fathers though of a problem.
As seen inside the creation of the government, the Founding Fathers decided to create a government that was fairly different from the British Government, giving the people most of the power. This can be seen in our everyday lives, as people have the right to elect, petition, recall, and influence the government in many other ways.
However, the Constitution can only provide so much protection. In a evolving world, we see that there are new technologies, which creates a totally different atmosphere from the one our founding fathers had. We see the creation of weapons and technology currently not known to the Founding Fathers, leading us to ask the question: "Does the system imposed during the Colonial Age still can be used in today's society?" Over 200 years has passed since the creation of the Constitution, and people wonder if we can still use age-old beliefs in today's society. As people struggle in keeping or changing the constitution, we must look towards higher commands to continue it's protection.
This brings a final question. Is the protection of one's right an infringment of another? As stated in the First Amendment ofThe Bill of Rights, we have the "right to free expression and free association... the government does not have the right to forbid us from saying... [or] writing what we like;..." We must first look at history. As seen through historical Supreme Court rulings, the rulings waver in between what is allowed or not. For example, in "Yates v. United States (1957)", free speech, expression of opinion, and advocacy of action for radical beliefs were "upheld, unless it posed a clear and present danger". Another example can be seen at "National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie". Inside this ruling, we see that the Nazi Party wanted to host a rally near a Jewish village in Skokie, prompting the citizens of Skokie to file complaint. However, the Supreme Court denied the Supreme Court of Illinois's ruling, in that the previous ruling did not give equal rights to all people, the Nazi Party including. This shows that the Constitution does provide enough and equal protection, for the Supreme Court ruled that the Nazi Party of America was also protected under the 1st Amendment.
Through these examples, we see how:
1) Checks and Balances allow a balance of power, and allows the people of the US to have constant power over the government
and
2) The Constitution works to protect each and every one of us, regardless of our beliefs.
Without the Constitution (as well as the rulings of later courts), we would not have our rights, as well as the upholding of the rights today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hope this helps
