Does the contradiction need to be resolved, or can we accept that the Maryland revolutionaries had both radical and conservative objectives?

3 PAGES FOR EACH QUESTION

Question 1. Articles 1 and 5 of the Maryland State Constitution’s Declaration of Rights (originally articles 1 and 3 in 1776), appear somewhat contradictory. The first boldly asserts the (Lockean) principle of popular sovereignty and independence from Great Britain, but the second clearly aims (in lawyerly fashion) to preserve legal continuity with the past and the continuing authority of the common law and British Statutes after the revolution. How significant is this apparent contradiction? Does the contradiction need to be resolved, or can we accept that the Maryland revolutionaries had both radical and conservative objectives?

Question 4. Benedict writes that after the bitter elections of the 1790s, “the [peaceful] transfer of power from the Federalists to the Republicans [post 1800] was a crucial event in American constitutional history.” After that political parties, representing very different view points “became the main institution for making the Constitution work.” This is a very big conclusion. Explain how Benedict arrives at this conclusion by examining three or four of the major issues dividing Federalists and Republicans and two or three major electoral contests. Did parties make the “Constitution work” by compromise, or by other means?

 

"PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH BLACKBOARD MASTERS AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT"