Comparison of Nevada and U.S. Constitutions

Paper Summary:

The paper explains how state constitutions tend to show deviation from the structure of federal rule maintained by the U. S. Constitution. The paper describes how, in the case of the Nevada State Constitution, there is ample evidence that this document sets forth a policy of law that is far more democratic in tone and in application than the constitution. The paper further discusses how there are strong similarities between the two documents, both, for example, stress the rights of the citizenry and even focus on issues such as the right to assemble and a citizen's ability to refuse to quarter other citizens in their homes upon order from the government.

From the Paper:

"It is generally understood that the United States is built upon the principles of democracy, in which the majority consensus of the citizens helps to define the shape of issues or elections. However, in assuming that the Constitution - the document upon which such practices are founded - is inherently democratic is only partially accurate. Indeed, it has been frequently argued that the U. S. Constitution is representative of the rule of law from a federation as opposed to a pure democracy; in a federation, elections occur among the majority of the citizenry but this process results in elected officials who then determine the direction of the country. In short, a federation transforms a democracy from the rule of the many back into the rule of the few, with the "few" in this sense being the elected officials selected through an elections process."

More papers on Comparison of Nevada and U.S. Constitutions:

• Comparison Essay # 103340 : "A Childcare Systems Comparison: France and U.S."
• Comparison Essay # 116662 : "Comparison of Hume and Kant's Moral Theories"
• Research Paper # 66313 : "Military and U.S. National Security"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: