What was federalist no. 10 basically about?
155955
Federalist No. 10 was basically about how a Republic (the kind of country and government we now have) can work to govern and manage a really large, really diverse country with lots of different types of people and groups (what the authors call "factions" in the paper itself). The idea was that the republic-style checks and balances and the lawmaking process in the Constitution gave minority groups a way to express their differences and be heard, and it forced negotiated settlements between majority positions and minority positions (these are political positions, by the way, not minorities like African-American, Native American, etc.).\n\nIn fact, the brilliant part of how the Founding Fathers did this was that exactly BECAUSE there were all these minority viewpoints and widely varying types of people represented in the republic, it would PREVENT a majority from exercising tyranny over those who disagreed but were smaller.\n\nThe Federalist Papers were published at a time when our population was arguing about the Constitution (remember, we were a very young country). The Federalists were the pro-Constitution people, and they were trying to win popular support for the Constitution among the people.\n\nOne of the main arguments against the Constitution was that the U.S. was such a big place, with so many different kinds of people (and religions, and backgrounds, etc.), that a Republic couldn't work. That's why out of all 85 Federalist papers, Federalist No. 10 is considered one of the most important. It argued that a constitutional republic was the right way to form our country...and for the past 230 years, it's basically worked!\n\nThere's a pretty good answer in Wikipedia, too.
869265
Basically, its about Great Britain. At least that's what this site says......\n\n"AN ACT for the better securing the dependency of his Majesty's dominions in America upon the crown and parliament of Great Britain......"\n\nHope this helps. Good luck with the project!
864464
Marbury v. Madison.  But the fact is, the Tenth Amendment was then and has been violated with this "supremacy."  The federal jurisdiction was supposed to be limited to those powers granted in the Constitution.
758022
Assuming you are taking about the United States government...\n\nThe federal government derives its power from the states.  Any powers not granted to the federal government by the states (in the US Constitution) are reserved for the states.  The 10th amendment to the Constitution states "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."  That is why the US government is known as a government of enumerated powers- if the federal government wants to do something they have to find a way to justify that action in the Constitution (which they are pretty good at doing).
698297
let's see, in 1000 words or less:\n\nJefferson was an architect of our "constitutional republic" and Hamilton was the architect of our economic system. Each of our founding fathers have had various roles in forging the baseline of who and what America is today. Washington was the 'action hero' who led America's armies and then the government out of it's conception (and then dared to turn over power peacefully! Unheard of!) and created precedence for how power is to be handled. Franklin, the man who embodied the ideals of personal drive and creativity and how success can be achieved in our society. You really need to read all about these people and what they did... you just can't type it out here...
916904
Both of the current examples are wrong.  Federalism means that there are certain aspects of life that the U.S. Government cannot regulate and MUST leave to the states.  Oftentimes, the Supreme Court will declare a law unconstitutional because it was not enacted purusant to Congress's "enumerated powers" in Article I of the Constitution.  Congress can't make any law it want, but can only make a law pursuant to the powers dedicated to it (Usually article I, section 8 of the Constitution, although there are other sources of Congressional power, such as the Fourteenth Amendement "enabling clause")\nThis was an issue prior to the New Deal.  But here's the most recent example:\nIn the 1990s Congress passed a law that made a federal penalty to possess guns near school zones.  They tried to enact the law pursuant to the "commerce clause" (Congress may regulate interstate commerce, most guns travel in interstate commerce, threatening students harms interstate commerce etc.)  \nThe Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional, finding that Congress didn't have the authority to enact that federal law pursuant to the Commerce Clause.  The regulation of guns near schools wasn't substantially related to the traveling of the guns in interstate commerce, nor did you have to prove the that guns traveled in interstate commerce.  The case was United States v. Lopez.  (See link below.)  If states want to enact such a law pursuant to their general "police powers," they're free to do so, but that law was outside the particular scope of Congressional authority.
321966
It is NOT in the constitution, nor was it the intent of the framers of the constitution.  Jefferson wrote a letter to a person, pondering the question of a STATE RUN RELIGION and That is NOT what they wanted like England.  England has the church of England and many of the European countries at the time were tied to the catholic church.  The Framers wanted freedom of religion.  But Every single one of the Framers, had a GOD awareness, whether it be a deist in practise, or a believer in a Personal God. This is a concept which has been badly misused to take God out of the public.  It is a sorry state of affairs when the pledge of allegiance or the dollar bill or the ten commandments is threatened to be shredded from the very nation which core principles are founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs.   An apologist for non-fictionalized history,,,
839702
Federalism is a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces), creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists. In Canada, federalism means opposition to sovereigntist movements (usually that of Quebec). In Europe, "federalist" is often used to describe those who favor a stronger federal government (or European Union government) and weaker provincial governments. The same is historically true in the United States, with those who generally favor a confederation, or weaker federal government and stronger state governments, being called "anti-federalists". However, in recent years in America "federalism" has come to be associated with opposition to a stronger federal government.
695225
The tenth amendement is quite clear: "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\nThe federal government slowly has expanded its role through the judiciary branch by overinterpreting laws and by taking powers out of context and to a higher level than was intended.\n\nOne of the cries of the Revolution was that the colonies didn't want to be controlled by a single government thousands of miles away.  So I don't understand why the states allow that same thing now from the Federal government.
367761
D. Federalists wanted a strong central government. Anti-Federalists wanted the individual states to have more power than the national government. The Constitution was very pro-federal government. Try reading the Federalist Papers (dry, sure, but fascinating if you take the time). Also check out the History Channel's show "10 Days that Unexpected Changed America" - the episode about Shay's Rebellion.\n\nMoseschung - good answer, except slavery DID concern them long before the Civil War. I'm reading Alexander Hamilton's biography by Ron Chernow, and slavery was a major sticking point between factions from the very beginning of this country.
1152586
I actually thought it was more Federalist/Republican, cause it gave much more big government rights than the Articles of Confederation, but I suppose it preserved and made lasting many democratic traditions (like House of Reps depending on population, voting for those in office--even though electoral college was made to protect the rich from the masses), and even though the men were very elite, they made every effort to give everybody equal rights, as long as they did not fear the danger (ie French Rev. memories) and gave the poor a chance to ascend to the top.
202490
Read the Federalist Papers
1167231
The federalist party was really a non-factor after the war of 1812. The party was led by Alexander Hamilton, although it's figurehead was Washington. Other notables are John Adams, John Jay, and John Marshall. The Federalist party was born of the Federalists, who I assume you know were the supporters of the ratification of the Constitution (and, of course, many were framers, Hamilton, Washington, and Jay included). Hamilton and Jay wrote the famous letters in The Federalist. The party was for a strong central government and support of the economy through Hamilton's ideas (Hamilton was first secretary of the treasury), like: paying back the loans given to finance the revolution, spending to encourage growth and business as well as trade both foreign and domestic, spending that would spur the economy and hasten the transformation from an agrarian to a more diverse economy. Federalists also preferred to remain neutral toward France (republicans wanted to support republicanism in France) and wanted to build a stronger U.S. military. You could make a decent case that the Federalists were similar to today's republican conservatives in overall policy, while the Jeffersonians and Madisonians were more libertarian. The most important piece of legislation in the federalist period was the alien and sedition acts, second was a treaty with britain negotiated by John Jay that created a political firestorm. When Jefferson and his democratic-republican party won in 1800, the federalists began a decline in relevance, and by Madison's presidency, the "era of good feelings" (because there was relatively little opposition to the Jeffersonians anymore) the federalists were really over.
792430
The Articles of Confederation didn't create a functioning nation, so the Constitution created a federal system with a unified currency, post, foreign policy etc., while letting the states decide less national matters.
34088
I don't quite know why you placed this in the government section, but the main objective of the Council of Trent was to settle disputes about doctrine in the Catholic Church. Its main point of contention was the rise of Protestantism, and in response to it, they solidified the sacraments and what was included in the Bible and the Mass. Some more detailed information is at the site below.
34000
The most part of the U.S. Constitution was written by James Madison, and there is also some part is written by Hamilton, Washington, and other federalists.
907207
When is this due? How long does it have to be? And if you had help on it would it help you understand this any better? \n\nMarbury v. Madison, is a landmark case in United States law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review of Federal statutes by the United States Supreme Court under Article Three of the United States Constitution.\n\nThe case resulted from a petition to the Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams shortly before leaving office, but whose commission was not delivered as required by John Marshall, Adams's Secretary of State. When Thomas Jefferson assumed office, he ordered the new Secretary of State, James Madison to withhold Marbury's and several other mens' commissions. Marbury and three others petitioned the Court to force Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. The case was ultimately unsuccessful for Marbury, who never became a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia.\n\nThere is a lot more, but basically this states the whole premise of judicial review by the federal courts. \n\nCheck Wikipedia, and Compton's Encyclopedia, or any other good encyclopedia. Just don't plagarize, that is, don't use the article word for word. Change it enough so that you are telling it in your own words, that's what narrative means. You are telling the story, not using someone else's words to tell the story. \n\nDoes that help? I believe by the time you get through, you will understand what the prof is asking. I wish I could write this for you, but I can't.