"federalist paper 45 main issues"?
336111
Well it says................
191456
The Amendments to the US Constitution; most State constitutions; state and federal laws.
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.
394318
Much of the problems we have today are Constitutional in nature, and not simply partisan.  Don't get me wrong, I think the U.S. constitution is an incredible piece of literary "law", but it is almost looked upon with religious reverence, and it's almost impossible to change.\n\nHowever, to address your question:\n\nThe Independent Party.\n\nPlatform Slogan:  Changing America Today for a Better Tomorrow\n\nPlatform Policies: \n1. Strict Term Limits for Congress AND Judges. (Anytime you give someone power for too long, they become more worried about keeping that power than taking care of the people.)\n\n2. Substantialy reduce the size of government.  We don't need an Administration on Aging, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, American Battle Monuments Commission, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Commision on International Religious Freedom, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, Department of Education, Federal Housing Oversight....etc...etc...\n(If you go to firstgov.com, you will see hundreds of duplicate agencies...it's disturbing, there are just WAY too many.)\n\n3. Take half the money saved by getting rid of these agencies and significantly reduce the amount of tax.  In addition, take the other half of this money and aggresively fund scientific research. (Global Warming, Stem Cell Research, Cancer Research, AIDS Research, Food Production, Alternative Energy...and Space Travel [just because I like it])\n\n4. Kick out the U.N. - These guys just don't have a clue.\n\n5. Completely change our immigration policies.  There are just too many rules, and they don't apply to everyone evenly.\n\n6. Flat Tax!!\n\n7. Change the "welfare" system.  This has to be one of the most abused government sponsored programs there is.\n\n8. Every Friday is Pizza Friday!!  (okay, maybe not, but it would be cool)\n\nI know I'm not answering your question with complete seriousness, but Libertarians just haven't been able to gain traction, and without that you can't initiate change.\nI agree with your premise whole heartedly though, America is in need of drastic change, our partisan politics will destroy this country.\n\nAs a side note, you know more about our country than most "Americans" do, maybe that's part of the problem too.
453707
Not real sure what you want?\n\nTry looking at The United States Bill Of Rights.\n\nFree - speech, religion, right to trial, right of privacy, right to own property, etc.
317085
1.national territory\n2.Declaration of principles and state policies\n3.Bill of rights\n4.citizenship\n5.suffrage\n6.Legislative department\n7.executive department\n8.judicial department\n9.Constitutional Commissions\n10.local Government\n11.Accountability of public officers\n12.national economy and patrimony\n13.Social justice and human rights\n14.education, science and technology, arts\n15.the family\n16.general provisions\n17.amendments or revisions\n18 transitory provisions\n\nplz vote best answer...
534956
I seriously suggest you choose the answer yourself.\n\nStill, I'll give a few possible choices for you to think through.\n\nThe Constitution\nFreedom of Speech\nRight to Assembly\nDemocratic voting\nDiscovering electricity or harnessing steam, etc.\n\nPlus, the Civil War, as mentioned in another person's answer
1151755
any issue concerning the nations
1003248
I love the issue of taxation. Remember, back a few hundred years ago, there was a little skirmish called "The Boston Tea Party". Anyone remember what it was about?\nTaxes. That is one of the major events from which this country was born. Patriots fighting against "taxation without representation".\n\nIn 1913, Congress amended the Constitution to allow for "federal income taxes" to pay for the growing war debt.\n(Amendment XVI)\n\nI don't like paying taxes. I don't know anyone who celebrates on April 15th (except maybe tax preparers). I believe income taxes are basically theft by coercion, but they're a Constitutional responsibility and I pay them.\n\nOn the parking citations, you do realize that, by not paying them, you are essentially "stealing" from the city or town, right. This is money that is owed to them, and defaulting on debt is theft. I don't understand what you mean by "attempting to do the same thing with their property", though. If the city owes you money that is a direct result of the property you are taking, I would expect that there would be ACLU lawyers lined up at your door begging to take the case.\n\nI did my best not to be "retarded" although I did mention the ACLU. My bad...
136309
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
990395
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html\nhttp://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html\nhttp://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html\nhttp://scotthortonshow.com/\nhttp://thestressblog.com\nvote libertarian
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.
26995
5 main principles are:\nPopular Sovereignty \nLimited Government \nFederalism \nSeparation of Powers \nChecks and Balances\n\nthe 7 ARTICLES are:\nArticle 1- establishes legislative branch\nArticle 2- Establishes and describes executive branch\nArticle 3- Describes and establishes Judicial branch\nArticle 4- States power and limits- describes the relationship between central gov't and state gov't\nArticle 5- describes how to amend the constitution\nArticle 6- Establishes Federal power and makes the constitution the "law of the land"\nArticle 7- Tells how to ratify the constitution
109752
read the constitution and ammendments
730862
Well, probably too late now for the test.\n\nTry reading the Constitution. It's only a dozen or so pages. The main Articles that deal with checks and balances are the first three that establish the main branches of government, and Article VI.
847124
The Constitution and the Idea of Compromise\n\nhttp://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/classroom/index3.html\n\nThe Constitution of the United States\n\nhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html\n\nhttp://www.awerty.addr.com/cons2.html\n\nhttp://www.usconstitution.net/constquick.html\n\nPREAMBLE\n\nWe, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.\n\nConstitution of the United States.\n\nhttp://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html\n\nThe U.S. Constitution is the oldest constitution still in effect in the world. Test your knowledge of this important document.\n\nhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/kids/constitution/quiz/\n\nhttp://www.infoplease.com/spot/usconstitutionquizzes.html\n\nhttp://www.expertrating.com/quizzes/us-constitution-quiz.asp\n\nStudy Tool for the Constitution\n\nhttp://home.att.net/~standardsalert_topics/Const_Study_Tool_to_Amendment_XXVII.htm#_The_Constitution,_with\n\nGood luck.\n\nKevin, Liverpool, England.
204296
Federalist 10 advocates for a large, and strong republic and discusses factions, minority as well as majority. He pointed out the weaknesses of both and expressed ways to correct those flaws, and to eliminate the negative effects of factions. Madison easily addresses minority factions and states that they can be corrected by the majority will. He seemed to stress eliminating the negative effects of a majority faction. He says that there are two ways to check control majority factions. These are to eliminate common interests. He says this is impossible. The second is to increase the size of the republic so that majority factions cannot be achieve easily. Therefore it is clear in my opinion that his main concern was tyranny of the majority and he sought ways to correct that.