Where Do You Stand?I would not be in favor of my state petitioning for a new constitutional convention. I feel if we did petition there could or would be lasting effects. I feel like this would not only further divide the country but also would significantly reduce how the world views us as a financially, stable institution. The repercussions would have the potential to seriously negatively affect our citizens. Many would lose benefits, money, and potentially jobs. A writer from the Economist said that “Despite its age, the American constitution has worked better than any other constitution in any country.” (If it ain’t broke). I believe that statement wholeheartedly. Like the old saying goes, If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.I would be interested in the tighter gun amendment to be proposed. We are having a major issue with the way it is now.I do believe that the founders would be surprised by the growth and power but not in a good way. I think that they would be ashamed of what America has become. For one the founding fathers would be very upset at the number of wars we have been in. Jefferson Washington and Madison all said how they abhorred war. (Michael Payne, Why the Founders Would Decry What America has Become)Political conservatives favor a limited government because a vast government would entail limited freedoms. A limited government would allow for the free market to operate with little to no interference.Part of me wants to agree with each generation being able to create its own constitution seeing that each generation has its own problems to resolve but I think that that could also be a problem. Our government was shut down for 3 days because Congress couldn’t come up with a government funding law before the old one lapsed. Could you imagine the government coming up with their own Constitution every generation? I don’t believe it would be a pretty sight. I believe that the two changes that would most benefit us would be that the president serves a single 6-year term and that there should be an addition of “National Senators. In Seitz Walds’ article, he mentioned that the president should serve a 6-year term to make the governing less political and to give them enough time to implement change. I agree with this wholeheartedly. No president can make the major changes they would like to make in 4 years with the hope of reelection. Giving them 6 would hopefully ensure them the time that they would need. Also mentioned in that same article, the addition of national senators. These national senators would include all former presidents and vice presidents and possibly others. Their main job would be to guard national interests over parochial (or narrow-minded) ones. (Alex Seitz-Wald, The U.S. Needs a New Constitution—Here’s How to Write It, 2013) I think that if they implemented the national senators it would be a good addition because since they’ve done the time as being leaders and running the county they would know to keep the focus on what’s important.Describe the structure of government established by the Articles of Confederation and some of the strengths and weaknesses of the Articles.In this structure, it consisted of the continental congress. They were responsible for all decisions and enforcing them. There was no president. There were many strengths and weakness of this Congress. Some strengths were that Congress could raise an army, sign treaties, declare war. Some weakness was that it was an overall weak government. Each state had one vote. No power to tax, enforce treaties and they didn’t have a separate executive and judicial branch.List the major compromises made by the delegates at the Constitutional Convention and discuss the Federalist and Anti-Federalist positions on ratifying the Constitution. There were three major compromises made by the delegates at the constitutional convention: The Great Compromise (Connecticut Compromise), The Three-Fifths Compromise and the Trade Compromise. The anti-federalists felt that the constitution gave too much power to the courts while giving none to the state and local courts. The Federalists believed that the courts had limited jurisdiction. They felt as if the courts were needed to provide the checks and balances system. Summarize the Constitution’s major principles of government, and describe how the Constitution can be amended Separation of powers, checks and balances, Judicial Review, Limited Government, Federalism and Popular Sovereignty. There are 4 ways the constitution can be amended. The most common way to propose an amendment is by approval of both houses by at least 2/3rd vote. The most common way to ratify an amendment is by a vote of ¾ of all state legislature. The least common way is that the state legislatures can call a convention where 2/3rd approval is needed and the least common was to ratify an amendment is where the states call a convention where citizens can attend where 3/4th must vote for approval.I personally do not believe that Anti-Christianity is a problem. According to Gallups News around 48% of the population is Christian.According to that same census from Gallups news about 0.8 Americans are Muslim. (“Five Key Findings on Religion in the U.S.”, 2016) You don’t see much on the news about people being discriminated because they’re Christian but you do see many many news stories about discrimination against Muslims. In Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian article in The Atlantic she raised a very valid point she said “How will we know when American Christians are genuinely under threat? When they start changing their names from the obviously biblical “Andrew” and “Mary” to the more secular “William” or “Jennifer” in order to avoid hiring discrimination.” (“No, Christians do not face looming persecution in America,” 2017).This is a very good point. Numerous people of different faiths and ethnicities have to change their name to just get an interview for different jobs. When this happens then Christians can say that they’re religiously discriminated.Federalism is when a nation ( national and state ) has authority over the same land and people. In a unitary government the constitution vests all power in the national government. In a confederal system, the national government exists and operates only at the direction of the subnational governments. Federalism exists because it works. It is proven successful in large countries.In our federal system power is distributed between the state government and the national government.According to Daron Acemoglu, American checks and balance aren’t as strong as they seem because he said that Congress is controlled by Trump’s party, the judiciary can be shifted by new appointments to the supreme court and the executive branch bureaucracy 4000 appointees will bend the agencies to the presidents will.Acemoglu said that the “American political system, in fact, has too many checks and balances, and should be streamlined to permit more decisive government action” So he believes that they should be weaker.Trump presidency will have many challenges and checks. One right in the executive branch. James Mattis, Rex Tillerson and Nikki Haley (Trump’s Cabinet) have expressed opposing views.Trump will also have to deal with issues ending Obamacare and funding different infrastructure projects. According to the author, the reason for Trump’s rise was that many thought that the Political system was broken and they wanted a “Leader” who could break all the rules.According to the article, the power of the executive branch has been growing for decades. After the Watergate scandal, the presidency was at an all-time low. Presidents such as Bush and Obama helped to bring back the power. Bush enhanced the president’s control with the institution of Guantanamo and authorizing warrantless wiretapping. Obama took actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and helped to reform immigration. According to the article, it is up to Congress to investigate allegations of wrongdoing.I believe that the author was insinuating that since Congress is majority Republican controlled, would they be willing to sell out one of their own since Trump is also Republican?According to the article, the courts have already checked and balanced Trump many many times. Back in January of 2017, Donald Trump signed the Executive Order 13769, better known as the Muslim Ban. He restricted travel from 6 countries (that were majority Muslim.) The article brings out that at the hearings, judges from two courts of appeals challenged the ban. The argued over what weight (if any) to give Trump’s statement that he was protecting the country from terrorists rather than shutting out Muslims. Another example was when Trump’s own words tripped him up from cities and states that limited their cooperation with federal immigration agents. Again, this was challenged in court and they argued that Trump’s order only applied to small amounts of money and Judge William H. Orrick didn’t like that explanation. He said that “If there was doubt about the scope of the order, the president and attorney general have erased it with their public comments.” He also said that Mr. Trump called that same order a “weapon” and that attorney Jeff Sessions threatened to claw back the funds that were already awarded.