The full question is: Jacksonian Democrats viewed themselves as the guardians of the United States Constitution, political democracy, individual liberty, and equality of economic opportunity. I'm looking for someone to either guide me and the right direction of how to write this or any websites with information on this. Thank you.
203776
The extent of this would be in parts large and also not. First you have to see that Jackson was a Jeffersonian, which means that he believes in his ideas. Examples would be laissez-faire and the common man voting. It doesn't provide individual rights because it does not protect the rights of the indians and he passes the indian removal act also known as the trail of tears. pet banks would also provide some type economic opprtunity, but he destroys the bank Biddle wants to recharter. An economic opportunity would be the spoils system which gives the chance for the common man to rise.Hope that helps.
511156
The first answer from lareddawg is as correct as the second answer is absolutely WRONG! The philosophy of the American left is socialists and anti theme to the concept of America as a republic.\nNote Art 4, Sec. 4, founded as a Republic...The founders detested the concept of democracy as a government form that has historically always failed.
388012
About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: \n\n"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."\n\n"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:\n1. From bondage to spiritual faith; \n2. From spiritual faith to great courage; \n3. From courage to liberty; \n4. From liberty to abundance; \n5. From abundance to complacency; \n6. From complacency to apathy; \n7. From apathy to dependence; \n8. From dependence back into bondage." \n\nProfessor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:\n\nPopulation of counties won by: Gore-127 million; Bush-143 million; \nSquare miles of land won by: Gore-580,000; Bush-2,427,000 \nStates won by: Gore-19; Bush-29 \nMurder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore-13.2; Bush-2.1 \n\nProfessor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare . . "\n\nOlson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase. \n\nIf the Senate grants Amnesty and citizenship to 20 million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then goodbye USA in less than 5 years.
53941
You’re asking a great deal, whole sections of libraries hold many books just on this one subject and you could spend a lifetime studying the nuances associated with this Amendment.  For example, It states. . . . . \n\n“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”\n\nThis has roots in the Articles of Confederation which state in Article II. . . . \n\n“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”\n\nThese were not simply words to the Founders, during the convention (4 December 1787), James Wilson (Delegate of Pennsylvania) said. . . . \n\n“ . . . Sir, I think there is another subject with regard to which this Constitution deserves approbation.  I mean the accuracy with which the line is drawn between the powers of the general government and those of the particular state governments.  We have heard some general observations, on this subject, from the gentlemen who conduct the opposition.  They have asserted that these powers are unlimited and defined.  They have already been answered by my honorable colleague, (Mr. M’Kean) therefore I shall not enter into an explanation.  But is is not pretended that the line is drawn with mathematical precision: the inaccuracy of the language must, to a certain degree, prevent the accomplishment of such desire.  Whoever views the matter in a true light, will see that the powers are as minutely enumerated and defined as was possible, and will also discover that the general clause, against which so much exception is taken, is nothing more than was necessary to render effectual the particular powers that are granted. . . ”\nContinuing he stated, “ . . . But let us suppose – and the supposition is very easy in the minds of the gentlemen on the other side – that there is some difficulty in ascertaining where the true line lies.  Are we therefore thrown into despair?  Are disputes between the general government and the state governments to be necessarily the consequence of inaccuracy? . . . ”\n\nMy point is that the Founders were both concerned and not of the same mind as to the consequences of the Constitution in the relationship between the general government and the several State governments.  This resulted in a wide difference as to the need of a Bill of Rights including the 10th Article.\n\nIt is also interesting to note that at the time of the convention, all States (colonies) had existing constitutions and these constitutions provided incentive to the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Here with one example, from The Declaration of Rights for the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania. . . . . \n\n“Chapter I.  That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable Rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defining life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”\n\nEven after ratification differences arose and these few following selections from United States Supreme Court decisions demonstrate that reality.\n\nFrom the opinion of the U. S. Supreme Court case, Gordon v. United States [1864].  “The reservation to the States respectively can only mean the reservation of the rights of sovereignty which they respectively possessed before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and which had not parted from by that instrument.”\n\nAnd then in the case of Kansas v. Colorado [1907].  “This Amendment disclosed the widespread fear that the National Government might, under the pressure of a supposed general warfare, attempt to exercise powers which had not been granted.  With equal determination the framers intended that no such assumption should eve
1939
2 words buddy, John Locke. If you talk about Locke, and "The Rights of Man" you should be OK. Use Wikipedia, and look up his Second Treatise on Government.
408833
Go back to our roots.   The Declaration of Independence, Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  \n\nWe were founded by rebels who wanted free religion seperate from government and declared it a basic human right to pursue happiness in equality with all.\n\nOur beginning is quite beautiful...we have fallen off the road somehow.  Jefferson said when Capitalism surpasses Democracy we will become  disfunctional. ...Guess what?
317292
I will try it be short - no guarentees.. History can be long and complex.\n\nEver since the subject of Congress taking up Birthright Citizenship have we seen the power of ignorance at work through the main stream media. It is difficult to find any editorial or wire story that correctly gives the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States. Most often the media presents a fabled and inaccurate account of just what the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means. \n\nDuring the reconstruction period following the civil war the view on citizenship was that only children born to American parents owing allegiance to no other foreign power could be declared an American Citizen upon birth on U.S. soil. This is exactly the language of the civil rights bill of 1866: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." \n\nThe author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Rep. John A Bingham (OH), responded to the above declaration as follows: "I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." \n\nAlready before we get to the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause we have the entire Congress declaring only children born to parents who owe no foreign allegiance shall be citizens. We also have the author of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring this is law of the land. It just gets worst for advocates who want to either believe or, revise history, to support their fable that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow magically makes anyone born in the United States regardless of the allegiance of their parents a natural born citizen. \n\nSen. Jacob Howard, who wrote the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause to the US Senate as follows: \n\n[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. \n\nSo than, what exactly did subject to the jurisdiction mean? Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, framer of the Thirteenth Amendment told us in clear language what the phrase means under the Fourteenth: \n\n[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. \n\nSen. Jacob M. Howard, responded to Trumbull's construction by saying: \n\n[I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. \n\nMyths can be difficult to dispose of, and birthright citizenship to aliens is no exception.\nCivil Rights bill of 1870 declared those children born to parents subject to a foreign power cannot be declared United States citizens. \n\nUS Su
178402
Ignore that crap...  The most basic way I can answer this is to look at the words: Republican: Are trying to look out more for the over all "Republic".  Democrats: Are trying to look out more for the individual.  It's a whole lot more complicated than that, but that's the easiest way I could try to explain it.
446751
I realize this is probably a waste of time; but what the heck.\n\nAs explained, the idea of a "people's right" was based entirely on the predicate assumption of State regulation. So actually, the militias then are the 18th century equivalent of the National Guards of today. And what the amendment protects is the states' right to have them. These are the only state defense forces recognized by law. You say that you won't get into the discussions of Supreme Court decisions in the last decades. You may recall my original answer. The Supreme Court has NEVER in the history of the Republic (repeat: NEVER) substantiated your interpretation. So forget about "recent decades," as you say. Your view is not substantiated by American Judicial History -- period.\n\nYou say that it's shooting myself in the foot to say that portions of the constitution are anachronistic? How? The Letters of Marque clause is anachronistic. The 3/5ths compromise is anachronistic.\nThe 3rd Amendment is anachronistic. (There is absolutely no case law under it -- it's dead). All but one sentence of the entire, long, 14th amendment is anachronistic. There are many elements of the document that have no relevance today because they addressed concerns that were limited to a specific time. That's just the way it is -- sorry.\n\nAs stated, your idea of a self regulated private militia being what the founders intended by this amendment is refuted by the extant record of the Constitutional Convention and the minutes of the First Congress. The whole idea of eliminating private militias was why the states wanted this amendment in the first place. They wanted to put private militias out of business.\n\nThe greatest single impetus for convening the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was the private militia movement known as Shays' Rebellion, in which disgruntled former soldiers in Massachusetts formed a private (well regulated) militia force to stop courts from farm foreclosures. The Founding Fathers were horrified by this. And so were the states. And again, to reiterate, THAT's why they wanted to regulate the militias.\n\nI've already addressed the issue of "shall not be infringed." If your interpretation is correct, then why have courts over the centuries (not "recent decades" as you imply) NEVER ruled in your favor.\n\n\n\n==============================================\n\nYes, as a matter of fact I do know what it means.\n\nLike the Article One provision giving Congress the authority to grant "Letters of Marque," the 2nd Amendment is an anachronistic holdover from the late 18th century.\n\nSupporters of the NRA and other like organizations always forget about that all important opening clause (which I'm glad you included). The purpose of the amendment is stipulated right there -- "A well regulated militia being necessary..."\n\nAfter the United States gained independence it was still confronted by many threats: the British to the north, the Spanish to the south, and the Native American tribes all around. After George Washington laid down his arms, the national army ceased to exist, and the burden for security fell on the states. Unfortunately, the states at that time were no more capable of providing the security than the infant central government. This meant that local communities and individuals were responsible for providing their own security. With few roads for transporting armies, and no money for troops, what else were the people supposed to do?\n\nThe militia system developed to enable local populations the ability to provide defense. By law, the militia was defined as every able-bodied male between the ages of 16 and 55 who owned a firearm. They could be mustered by order of the governor of the state or by special order of the President of the United States.\n\nThis was not part of the original constitution. The reason it exists is that during the ratification of the
77613
dba_gregg is right - its in the Declaration:\nWe hold these truths to be self-evident That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
507265
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/B/langdon/langdon.htm\n\nHe was a strong believer in the American Revolution. He was a member of the committee that found a compromise on the issue of slavery. Initially, his sympathies laid on the side of a strong central government, so he was a member of the Federalist party. Later he changed his views and joined the Democratic-Republican party. \n\ns
69518
Andrew Jackson fought with Congress over any act that he believed favored the rich.  He signed into law the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which allowed the American government to forcibly relocate Native Americans to territories west of the Mississippi River. He was called King Andrew because he abused his power in the name of the people (who handily reelected him, by the way).  Jackson didn't just like to win....he liked to make sure his competition failed.  He used political power to fight personal enemies.  He was what is known as an "imperial president", as is Bill Clinton and Nixon.  You can probably see the similarities in policy if you compare the three.  Anyway, I hope this helps, as it's from my own recollection and not a book.  Good luck.
383667
Go to the democrats.org and gop.org websites. You'll find the information there. Just rephrase it; it should take about one hour, or two if you're a slow writer like me.
463498
Bill of Rights \nAmendment II\n\nA well regulated militia, \nbeing necessary to the security of a free state, \nthe right of the people to keep and bear arms, \nshall not be infringed. \n\n\nTry This\n\nUS Constitution\nArticle 4\nSection 4. \n\nThe United States shall guarantee \nto every State in this Union \na Republican Form of Government, \nand shall protect each of them against Invasion; \nand on Application of the Legislature, \nor of the Executive \n(when the Legislature cannot be convened) \nagainst domestic Violence\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFor abqdan (Above)\n\nIf YOU Read Carefully You'll See The Part That Says\n\n " the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms \nshall not be infringed "\n\nA MILITARY And A MILITIA \nAre Two Completely DIFFERENT Things\n\nThe 2nd Amendment Was Introduced To The Bill Of Rights\nTo Assure The CITIZENS \nThat They Will Not Be OPPRESSED \nBy Their Own Tyranical Governments Military\n\nLightbulb Go Off Yet Einstein ?\nNO ??\n\nJust In Case \nWE THE PEOPLE\nMust DEFEND OURSELVES \nFrom Our Own GOVERNMENT \nOr OVERTHROW Our Own GOVERNMENT ....\n(necessary to the security of a free state)\n\n\n\nIn Other Words\n\nIf The GUARANTEE To Every State in this Union (Art 4)\n( shall protect each of them against Invasion )\nIs A Guarantee Unfulfilled By The United States\nWE THE PEOPLE Have The RIGHT \nAnd The OBLIGATION\nTo DEFEND Our Nation\nFrom ALL ENEMIES\nForeign And Domestic\n\nWITH OUR GUNS (Amendment 2 )\n\n\n\nGet It ??
75035
JUST A FEW SUGGESTIONS SO THAT IT READS A BIT SMOOTHER...(I'M A TEACHER!)\n\nAFTER ONLY seventeen days, Thomas Jefferson finished WRITING the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration stated that men should be created equal, and have some unalienable rights.\nWilliam Pennington's dream was what Jefferson HAD stated in the Declaration of Independence. He wanted to escape from slavery, to the free state of Pennsylvania. If he were to be caught, he would be sent to the far South, never to return. Leaving his loving family, AND FACING MANY OBSTACLES ALONG THE WAY, he finally made it to Pennsylvania, ACHIEVING HIS LIFELONG GOAL OF FREEDOM. \nElizabeth Stanton FELT THAT IT WAS UNFAIR THAT WOMEN HAD FEWER RIGHTS THAN MEN. SHE BELIEVED THAT WOMEN SHOULD BE GUARANTEED THE SAME RIGHTS AS MEN AND USED "THE FIRST WOMENS'S RIGHTS" CONVENTIONS TO VOICE HER HOPES FOR THE FUTURE.\nStanton, Jefferson, and Pennington are famous for being brave, strong and courageous. \n\nMAY HELP, MAY NOT!\nGOOD LUCK
471675
well the state is build on the constitution and has so by violated the very democratic thing that once brought forth the liberty of freedom by which we all have come from. and further more we must continue to fight for the freedom to constitutionaly solve the issues of statehood and democracy.  there that makes about as much since as the question.  Thanks for asking it was fun.
461950
C\nA\nC\n\nDiscussion on number 2:\nA. There was no president as we view the office today, in fact, the original founders did not want a central government led by one person. They were afraid of tyranny so they deliberately stayed away from that system.\n\nB. The articles did not discuss a central court, but did establish full faith and credit between the states of the the judicial and court proceedings of the states.  However, Congress was the "court" to determine disputes between the states.  A Central court, or judicial branch came later with the US Constitution. \n\nC.  The regulation of interstate commerce by the Federal Government was a sticking point.  At this time, the 13 states were 13 separate republics.  There was an attempt to amend to amend the Articles to allow Congress power over interstate commerce, but the conception of the new Constitution coincided so the "former" articles never really addressed interstate commerce.\n\nD.  Again, no president as we view it today, but there was a president of the Congress.  That position did not make decisions, because most decisions needed the votes of 9 states and major decisions needed all 13.  Vetoing power and the executive branch came later, with the new US Constitution. \n\nBEST ANSWER for #2 is A.