Question

what are the weakness and strength of the new constitution? please write 1 page

Answer 1

Answer:

hey mate here is your answer:

Explanation:

Strengths:

• Checks and balances. No one person or part of the government is superior (at least normatively-speaking) to the others. Power is shared.

• Separation of powers. No one person or part of the government has total power. Each branch has its own compartmentalized area of responsibility, and cannot (at least normatively-speaking) stray into the area of another branch.

• Supremacy. It is enforceable and, even though it delegates the majority of government power to the states (at least normatively-speaking), it takes precedence over the acts and laws of the states and confines them to the manner of government laid out in it.

Weaknesses:

• It does not deal with the problem of parties. Even if parties were to be banned, there is no way to stop like-minded officials from cooperating. A party is still a party even if you’re not allowed to call it that. A rose by any other name smells as sweet. By failing to deliberately incorporate parties into their system and provide strictures to limit and regulate their operation and activities, the Framers left the Constitution with a massive blind spot.
• It presumes that the majority of elected officials will be honorable. The Framers were not foolish enough to fail to imagine the election or appointment of a corrupt official, but they designed the Constitution’s response to such an event with the assumption that, were this to occur, the majority of other officials could swarm this interloper like antibodies and expel him (or her). They failed to imagine or to provide a remedy for a situation in which a majority of the government was filled by corrupt individuals. Perhaps they imagined that in such a case, the people would rebel and form a new government — but they failed to imagine the effect of industrial technology upon the ability of professional militaries to completely outclass a civilian uprising. The Second Amendment, if it was imagined in the 18th century to represent a check on government corruption, is today completely inadequate in that role. Anyone who imagines that a gaggle of civilians with AR-15s and Desert Eagles would represent anything more than a speed bump to the U.S. military is delusional. Even if the combat ability of such a force was on par (and it’s emphatically not); realities of supply, communication, mobility, maneuver, and command & control are decidedly in the government’s favor in the event of an uprising. Yes, we defeated the British Army in the 1770’s and 1780’s, but warfare was much less sophisticated then. If you could gather and feed a large group of men, and arm them with muskets and ammunition, you were most of the way to making yourself an obstacle to an Army like that of Great Britain. That’s not what you get today. Today, an “army” is so much more than a an organized group of people with firearms. The 2nd Amendment guarantees absolutely nothing in terms of government oppression.

hope it will help you....