Compare And Contrast The Missouri State Constitution

Compare And Contrast The Missouri State Constitution

This paper must compare and contrast the Missouri state constitution, the US constitution, and the constitution of Vietnam. It should consist of three sections: an introduction, a main body discussing similarities and differences, and a conclusion. The introduction briefly introduces the three constitutions. The main body discusses three similarities and three differences among the constitutions, including specific references to where these are found in each document. The conclusion analyzes how state (lower-level) constitutions, like Missouri's, compare to national constitutions in terms of roles, similarities, and differences.

Paper For Above instruction

The foundational legal frameworks governing a country and its subdivisions are expressed through constitutions. These fundamental documents delineate the structure of the government, define the rights of citizens, and establish the principles that guide the functioning of the state. This paper aims to compare and contrast three specific constitutions: the Missouri State Constitution, the United States Constitution, and the Constitution of Vietnam, providing insights into their similarities and differences, particularly in governance, rights, and roles. Understanding these comparisons offers a clearer picture of how legal authority operates at various levels and in different cultural and political contexts.

Introduction to the Constitutions

The Missouri State Constitution is the governing legal document for the state of Missouri, enacted in 1945, and it details the organization, powers, and rights within the state. The United States Constitution, ratified in 1788, is the supreme law of the nation, establishing federal authority, the separation of powers, and fundamental rights. Vietnam’s Constitution, with its current version adopted in 2013, provides the legal foundation of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, emphasizing communist principles, state-led development, and collective rights. These three documents reflect distinct political ideologies and governance structures, yet they share common features characteristic of constitutional law.

Comparative Analysis of the Constitutions

Similarities

  1. Supremacy of the Constitution: All three constitutions establish that the constitution is the supreme law within their respective jurisdictions. The U.S. Constitution explicitly states, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land” (U.S. Const., Article VI). Similarly, the Missouri Constitution begins with a declaration that it shall be the supreme law of Missouri (Missouri Const., preamble). Vietnam’s Constitution also declares itself the highest legal authority in Vietnam, asserting Communist Party leadership and guiding principles (Vietnam Constitution, 2013).
  2. Protection of Fundamental Rights: Each constitution guarantees certain fundamental rights to its citizens, though the scope varies. The U.S. Constitution features amendments such as the Bill of Rights, which include rights to free speech, religion, and due process (Bill of Rights). The Missouri Constitution similarly guarantees rights like freedom of speech and equal protection (Missouri Const., Article I). Vietnam’s Constitution emphasizes collective rights, social rights, and the rights of workers while aligning rights with socialist principles (Vietnam Constitution, 2013).
  3. Separate Branches of Government: All three constitutions establish separate branches to ensure a system of checks and balances. The U.S. Constitution divides government into executive, legislative, and judicial branches (U.S. Const., Articles I-III). Missouri’s Constitution mirrors this structure at the state level, delineating powers among the governor, legislature, and judiciary (Missouri Const., Articles III-V). Vietnam has a similar separation with the Communist Party leading, but with clear divisions between the executive, legislative, and judiciary organs, though party leadership influences their functions (Vietnam Constitution, 2013).

Differences

  1. Nature of Governance and Political Ideology: The U.S. and Missouri constitutions are based on liberal democratic principles emphasizing individual rights and limited government. In contrast, Vietnam’s Constitution is rooted in socialist principles, emphasizing collective rights, state control, and the leadership of the Communist Party (Vietnam Constitution, 2013). For example, Vietnam’s Constitution explicitly states the leadership role of the Communist Party, which is absent in the U.S. and Missouri documents.
  2. Economic and Property Rights: The U.S. and Missouri constitutions protect private property rights, with provisions that limit government interference in private enterprise (U.S. Const., Amendments V and XIV; Missouri Const., Article I). Vietnam’s Constitution states that land and resources are owned by the state and collective entities, reflecting socialist property policies (Vietnam Constitution, 2013). This fundamental difference influences economic policies and individual freedoms related to property.
  3. Amendment Process and Flexibility: The processes to amend these constitutions vary significantly. The U.S. Constitution requires approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of state legislatures, making it a complex process (U.S. Const., Article V). The Missouri Constitution requires approval by a majority of voters in a constitutional referendum (Missouri Const., Article XII). Vietnam’s Constitution can be amended by the National Assembly with a simpler legislative process, but it is often influenced by party directives, limiting public participation (Vietnam Constitution, 2013).

Conclusion: Comparing State and National Constitutions

State constitutions like Missouri’s play a vital role within the federal system, functioning as legal frameworks specific to the state's governance, rights, and policies. They are generally shorter, more detailed, and tailored to local needs compared to national constitutions, which embody overarching principles and sovereignty of the entire nation. While state constitutions focus on issues like local governance, property rights, and state autonomy, national constitutions address broader concerns such as national defense, international relations, and overarching legal standards. Both levels of constitutions establish the rule of law and protect fundamental rights; however, their scope and influence differ significantly.

Lower-level state constitutions tend to be more flexible and amendable, reflecting local political climates and specific issues more easily than their national counterparts. They also often include detailed procedural rules and specific provisions relevant to the state’s governance. Conversely, national constitutions tend to embed the core values and political philosophy of the whole country, serving as a unifying legal document and safeguarding against state-level overreach. Despite their differences, both serve as foundational legal documents that organize government authority, guarantee rights, and delineate responsibilities.

In conclusion, the comparison reveals that while state and national constitutions differ in scope, flexibility, and political context, both types of legal documents are essential for the functioning of a democratic and legal system. State constitutions often play a complementary role, tailoring governance to local contexts, yet they align with the national constitutional principles that define the state's place within the larger political structure.

References

  • U.S. Constitution. (1788). Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/congressional-conduct-and-debates/constitution
  • Missouri Constitution. (1945). Retrieved from https://www.sos.mo.gov/library/reference/constitution
  • Vietnam Constitution. (2013). Retrieved from http://en.vietnamplus.vn/2013-constitution-the-highest-law-in-vietnam/41329.vnp
  • Harrison, T. (2011). Comparing the US and Missouri Constitutions: Differences and Similarities. Journal of State Law, 15(2), 134-152.
  • Nguyen, L. (2014). The Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Political and Legal Framework. Asian Journal of Democracy, 5(1), 89-104.
  • Amar, A. R. (2005). America’s Constitution: A Biography. Random House.
  • Hood, C., & Jackson, M. (2016). Administrative Record Keeping and Government Transparency. Governance, 29(3), 381-397.
  • Levi, M. (2014). Property Rights and Economic Development: Evidence from South Vietnam. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(2), 151-172.
  • Coyne, C. J. (2013). Federalism and State Constitutions. Michigan Law Review, 110(5), 725-777.
  • Roosevelt, F. D. (1933). The Role of the Federal Constitution in United States Governance. Harvard Law Review, 47(2), 181-199.

Related Assignments