And taxes were to be levied only through the consent of the elected officials. The Magna Carta was different from the Constitution in that the Magna Carta was mainly concerned "…with largely feudal issues that benefited the aristocracy," whereas the Constitution was based on creating fair representation by the people (Arnheim, et al., 2009). TWO: The fairness of the laws is similar in that when the phrase "rule of law"

Judicial Appointments Constitution Qualifications for the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, & U.S. Presidency and The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Which articles and sections deal with the qualifications that people must have in order to serve as a member of the House of Representatives, as a Senator, and as President of the United States? How do those respective qualifications differ? Article One, section 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution

In fact, during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Slonim notes that the need for a bill of rights was not even a topic of discussion until Virginian delegate George Mason raised the issue just several days before the Convention was scheduled to rise on September 17; Mason suggested that a bill of rights "would give great quiet to the people." Following this assertion, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts moved that the

Reparations for Black American Communities through Educational ReformResearch QuestionsThis study was guided by three main research questions as follows:1. Are the black descendants of slaves in the United States today entitled to reparations for their ancestors� bondage and the uncompensated financial contributions they made to the development of the United States as a nation?2. If so, in what ways can education reform serve as reparation for black communities?Rationale for and

S. Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment. States can no longer ignore the Fourteenth Amendment following the ruling in Duncan v. Louisiana, and that makes this case a landmark case. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court, saying that basically if a state is going to convict a person to a crime that is - by state law - punishable by up to two years, it is then considered a serious

At that time, the arguments against interracial marriage were identical to those now popular among those still opposed to same-sex marriage. I also believe that in fifty years, Americans will look back at the current controversy over same-sex marriage in exactly the same way and future generations will wonder how it could ever have made sense to so many people that marriages of same-sex couples somehow "threatened" the institution