There are several issues surrounding the plan of the new federal government. To begin with, there will be no equal representation in the government, because small and big states will have the same number of members in the Senate, regardless of their geographical size. Ideally, this ought not to be the case. The citizen’s liberty will be at the mercy of the army, because their strength will most likely overpower the government’s interest. It is also important to note that the nature of power to be granted upon the judiciary is very questionable. The fact that more power will be vested in one person is another issue. Something else to note is the authority to collect imposts, taxes, duties along with excises, which will be the sole decision of the legislature. Thus, by my constitutionally approved right to vote for or against the New Federal Government, I strongly stand on the opposing side citing the numerous shortcomings.
Firstly, the new federal government constitution undermines the essence of ensuring the equal resource allocation, taking into account geographical differences. The fact that both small and big states will have the same number of members in the senate implies that equal, full and fair representation of citizens will be difficult to achieve (Brutus, 1788). A functional democracy is mostly determined by a game of numbers. This argument echoes views expressed in Federalist paper (index 13), which proposes a reliable structure for having confederations by focusing on the administrative functions at state and federal levels (Lloyd, 2012). This implies that the people who are voiceless will not have their grievances heard through their political representatives. Hence, to bring a balance, it is important that regional differences arising from contextual issues be taken into consideration when choosing the elective posts.
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
Secondly, the instruments are the power at state and federal government levels and need to be safeguarded from potential abuse using a favorable legislative framework. Thus, in as much as making the function of collecting imposts, taxes, duties and excises under the authority of the legislature may look beneficial; in the long run, this will exclude other important stakeholders (Brutus, 1788). In essence, this will decrease the influence of the state governments. In order to prove this, it is pertinent that one traces the Federal government’s actions in particular instances. The Federal government has misused its authority in some instances, consequently undermining the citizen’s rights. In most cases, the Federal government will pursue a selective approach when answering issues. Therefore, I would propose that some reforms should be made on this arrangement.
Thirdly, vesting the power of the military forces under the Federal government may increase incidents of leaders misusing the military to achieve personal ambitions. For example, this will affect the people’s liberty, since they will not have enough stakes to advice the government on using the military. Chances are that vesting a lot of power to the military by putting faith in its operations may pose some danger to the civilians. Changing allegiance to the army due to unfavorable political decisions may spur unwanted conflict, which may in the long run affect the stability of the nation. To review history a little bit, Rome and Britain have formerly been powerful nations, but unfavorable political decisions, brought about by opportunistic alliances, landed the nations in conflict.
Fourthly, the proposed constitution framework will undermine the very fundamental of justice, as envisioned by the United State of America’s fore fathers. The extent and nature of the powers to be granted to the judiciary are questionable, because the proposed formula may actually increase the power of the judiciary beyond its present mandate (Brutus, 1788). This will raise questions on how the government will effectively ensure that there are effective checks and balances in the makeup of the judiciary. In a nation where it is well-known that the distribution of justice and more specifically, the manner in which enforcement is selective, it will be a major issue. In essence, individuals to whom the function of making laws and serving justice has been bestowed upon ought to exercise the power diligently by showing independence and a desire to serve the people. The checks and balances ensure that the judiciary carries its functions more appropriately.
Fifthly, the Supreme Court possesses the authority to make decisions, regarding the legal issues, specifically those concerning the interpretation of certain clauses of the constitution. The role definition should strongly be proclaimed and clearly derived from the constitution with little interference from parliament. In essence, the latter cannot deprive the former of this right, since either of them can take orders from the head of state with close consultation with the counsel of the senate, who holds the authority to appoint diplomatic missions or make treaties (Brutus, 1788). Hence, if the issues are observed carefully, it will be found that judicial judgments regarding the constitution will prove to be beneficial, when they appropriately direct the legislature when delegating the instruments powers.
In a nutshell, the plan of the new federal government has several limitations, which undermine its effectiveness in the face of a changing political climate in the modern day America. By decreasing the people’s liberty through recommendation of military interventions, this puts the civilian’s rights at risk. Choosing to delegate the instruments of power on a single area is also a major weakness given previous practices in which power has been mishandled. The issue of institution proper checks and balances, as envisioned by the fore fathers, needs to be protected. This vision is what has driven America’s prowess compared to other democracies. Additionally, appointing legislative control on the function of collecting tax and duty needs to be revised with an aim of improving decision making. Finally, the Supreme Court will have the power to decide on questions that are likely to arise during legal discussion, regarding construction and meaning of the constitution.