Australia’s Most Recent Constitution, Essay Example

I chose to examine Australia’s most recent constitution, which was written in 1900. One interesting fact that I found in this document is that the government is set up similarly to the government in the United States in some aspects. For example, the national government has a Senate and House of Representatives. In addition, I learned that this government is a parliamentary system that functions to represent many distinct states. Last, it was interesting to learn that there were comprehensive marriage and divorce rules.

1. b) Three similarities between the U.S. constitution and the constitution of the Australia is that both are written in the same language, indicating a common language and political background that influenced the particular rules that were written. In addition regulating citizenship is a responsibility of the federal government in both nations. Furthermore, the federal government is responsible for creating projects that are conducted across state lines, such as the building of railways.

It is necessary to ratify the constitutions because it will unite the country, making it more powerful. As a new nation, it is essential to demonstrate strength to avoid conflict. Furthermore, the national constitution is similar to the state constitutions and brings more power to them.

The constitution should not be ratified because it will detract from state power. The states are best aware of how their residents should be represented and the constitution may make laws that benefit some states and hurt others.

It is not fail that businesses can become stuck between the laws of the federal government and state because these laws are supposed to generally be in agreement. He should listen to the federal government because it has more power. The Founding Fathers wished to create a strong government to protect the new country from other powers, like Britain. However, the country began to fall apart over arguments about the balance between federal and state government rights. The federal government can step in on the rights of states by deciding what is unconstitutional. The depression put the nation in crisis because there wasn’t sufficient collaboration between the federal and state governments to fix this problem. Therefore, the federal government took charge to require certain procedures to be passed. The New Deal arose from the executive branch. A negative of this law was that the federal government gained more power. Wickard believed he was right because they were overstepping the rights of the states. He didn’t win because this situation was an emergency, and this strengthened the power of the federal government over all states.

The video shows us how the power balance between the federal and state government shifted over time. This debate has occurred since the initial framing of the constitution. Half of the nation wished for the federal government to have more power, while the other half wished for the states to have more power. Ultimately, these opinions depended on the size and population of the state.

The New Deal changed the balance between the federal and state government significantly because it showed that during times of emergency, the federal government would be able to take complete control that is necessary to rectify the problem. Following the New Deal, many of these regulations remained in place, which kept the power of the federal government above that of the states.

Federalism is advantageous because it unites the states more significantly, which promotes the interest of all of the citizens of a country. However, this is a disadvantage because it allows for less personalized representation at the state level. This is an advantage with regards to the death penalty because it will ensure that a person’s life is being treated fairly no matter what state they are convicted in. The federal system makes this problem easier to resolve if the issue crosses state lines.

The films demonstrate that there has always been an opinion clash concerning two opposing parties in the United States. During the Constitutional era, this clash was between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Over time, the names and ideals of these parties changed, but there were always two black and white opposing views. In the modern era, the Republicans and Democrats still encounter these problems.

Despite the names of the parties, there is always a more liberal and more conservative party. Conservatives traditionally act based on religious values and believe that change is bad. They favor the power of the state over the federal government. Meanwhile, liberals wish to enact change to promote social equality and believe in a stronger federal government.

In the 2012 election one of the major debates was over the creation of social welfare programs. Conservatives believed that these programs were out of line for the federal government because they would impinge upon state rights. However, liberals believed that this was necessary to improve the situation of the country. Another issue is gay marriage. Conservatives believe in the definition of marriage that is in the Bible as a union between men and women, while liberals opposed this view to support the rights of these individuals.