...How the Constitution Guards against Tyranny The United States of America learned from Great Britain’s government and used what they had learned to create the government that the United States has today. After the Thirteen colonies broke away from Great Britain, they needed a plan of government so, they made a document entitled the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation worked like a constitution would and it worked very well until the framers of our now Constitution realized that The Articles of Confederation would never work to suit the needs of the new blossoming country. Upon this realization, they made a whole new plan of government called The Constitution which protected the people’s rights, set out the rules of the government, and most importantly protected all the citizens from an abusive government otherwise know as a tyrant....
Words: 972 - Pages: 4
...the introduction of a fully codified constitution’ Discuss Plan Arguments against * Ruins the doctrine of sovereignty-Parliament sovereignty is effectively beaten. * Judges have to police the constitution and effectively interpreted. – Threat of judicial tyranny. Codified constitutions cannot be interpreted by the public so the judges would have to interpret it which could bring out preferences and values of senior judges * Un-necessary- doesn’t Philly limit governments * Hard to change * Easily outdated * Legal documents created at one point of time rather than a document which has been endorsed by history and created over time Arguments for * Clear rules * One codified document * Limited government * Neutral interpretation * Protecting rights of individual liberty * Education value – highlight certain values and strengthen citizenship Introduction The argument of a codified constitution has been a debated subject for a long time within the UK political spectrum. The argument stands at present moment that if the UK should or should not implement a codified constitution. Both sides of the argument withstand staggering evidence both in favour and factors denouncing the idea being drawn at the same time. The fact of a codified constitution would invoke a greater judicial intervention within the UK – maybe even put the state under risk of judicial tyranny. On codified constitution we have at the moment, have a scattered...
Words: 1530 - Pages: 7
...Essay on The Dangers of Democracy In a democratic political system, the ultimate power is before a body of citizens who has the power to elect their representatives. At one point, James Madison described American democracy, in comparison to that of Athens, as “lies in the entirety segregation of the people in their collective capacity.” Thus, Madison feared that common factions turn tyrannical, hence threatening liberty. On the other hand, Centinel argued that the government should not be taken away from the people, as this lead to oppressive to their liberty as well as unresponsive to their needs. According to my viewpoint, I concur with Madison that too much democracy is dangerous. Thus, there is need to control the degree of democracy in political governance. The paper will be focusing on evaluating why too much democracy can be dangerous, and the precautions that should be undertaken to respond to the primary danger without falling to the other dangerous tendency. Democratic form of government accords people an added advantage as it incorporates their ideas into the system of governance. However, despite this advantage, foolish notions can seize it (Kishore 1-5). Any organization in which democracy rules i.e. Majority of members or citizens can pass rules and laws, which suit them, without considering other group members who must adapt to the laws and rules they enact. Judgment is crucial in distinguishing laws, which are reasonable and sensible, from those that are undemocratic...
Words: 1194 - Pages: 5
...The Antifederalist were not for the ratification of the constitution. They believed that the government could be easily corrupted. They were big believer of restraining government power. They were against the federalist papers because they had a lack of protection for individual freedoms. They wrote their own essays such as the “Centinel” against the federalist papers and it was to warn about the danger from tyranny. Samuel Bryan, the author of the letters of centinel, wrote: ‘Without presuming upon my own judgment, I cannot think in an unwarrantable presumption to offer my private opinion, and call upon others for their’s…” The Centinel purpose was to include a bill of rights in the new constitution and to adopt those rights. The Antifederalist achieve their goal and the federalists compromise with the bill of rights added to the Constitution. Many people say that the first amendment would not be here without the “intent of the Framers.”. But they did not adopt the first amendment. The Anti-federalist was still scared because the constitution did not really guarantee that the government could take people’s right to worship away. For example, the first amendment does not say that freedoms of speech or press shall not curtail, it only prevents...
Words: 651 - Pages: 3
...The Anti Federalists The Supporters of the Proposed Constitution Called Themselves Federalists They favored the creation of a strong federal government that shared power with the states federalist’s policies, emphasized commercial and diplomatic harmony with Britain, domestic order and stability and a strong national government under powerful executive and judicial branches. Their new solutions were a significant change of political beliefs in that period. Federalist paper 10 is thought of as the most famous and important federalist paper. Madison wrote about the problems with factions and interest groups. A common fear for the new government was that small groups or factions would compromise the integrity and stability of the government. Madison suggests a plan for a democracy that allows a vote per person, but also states the use of a republic, where citizens vote for delegates to make decisions for them. This is our modern day Congress, representative democracy. “A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischief’s of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” They see this as a way to protect from minority factions taking over the government but also as way...
Words: 571 - Pages: 3
...Abstract This paper seeks a philosophical insight of democracy in general and American democracy in particular by unfolding the paradoxes entailed to whittle a credible conclusion. It attempts to explore contradictions of democracy whether democracy is a best system of governance? Is true democracy possible? Has it to be moral in character? Why other systems of governance tend to challenge the basic fabrics of democracy? Why democracy has turned out to be more productive than other forms of government? Then focus shifts to paradoxes entailed in self evident truth of American democracy. Is American democracy a representative of a true democracy? Does it cater the smaller factions of society? Has the democratic system fostered the rights of liberty, justice, life and pursuit of happiness to good effect for masses once challenged by terrorism, racism, poverty and recession? What good it has brought to its people? Why does America deserve to lead world community? Finally, conclusion is inquired about by addressing the question that How American dream can be pursued in its true democratic meaning? Isn’t it strange that few render democracy as the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people? On the other hand, for some, it is a government of all the people, by all the people, for all the people; a government after the principles of eternal justice, the unchanging law of God; the idea of freedom. Idea of democracy as rule of people traces its expression from...
Words: 2171 - Pages: 9
...Edexcel A2 Political Ideologies 1 Liberalism A Short-answer questions 1 Distinguish between economic liberalism and social liberalism. • Economic liberalism means both classical liberalism and neo-liberal economic theory. • Its core idea is the notion of the self-regulating market, based on Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ and the belief that the market tends towards long-term equilibrium. • Individuals are seen as rational, self-interested and largely self-sufficient; and market competition ensures choice and consumer responsiveness as well as efficiency and growth. • In line with the principle of laissez-faire, the state should leave the economy alone because state intervention is likely to have more economic disadvantages than advantages. • Economic liberalism is associated with negative freedom. • Social liberalism, by contrast, is modern liberalism, also sometimes known as welfare liberalism, associated with the belief that an unregulated market economy results in an unequal and unfair distribution of wealth. • The state, therefore, has important social responsibilities, especially in safeguarding individuals from the social evils that can cripple their existence: poverty, disease, unemployment etc. • Social liberalism is thus linked to a qualified form of welfarism: the desire to help people to help themselves, thus still reflecting a general liberal preference for self-reliance. • Social liberalism is associated with positive freedom...
Words: 1135 - Pages: 5
...officials and ruled by the majority. The written dialogues of Socrates by Plato take into account that democracy is actually inefficient and undermines the true values of their citizens. Plato’s best known and comprehensive work is the Republic. He criticized democracy as an inadequate form of government because it caused corruption of people through public opinions and created rulers whose main concern it to the ability to influence its citizen rather than being knowledgeable of proper rulership. Therefore, this government is capable of molding the perception and ideas of the citizens. According to Plato, democratic governance is a poor form of government due to the focus on self-interest rather than the welfare of society as a whole. In this essay, Plato’s background, views on politics will be presented first; then, his in-depth opinion of democracy and what he believed to be an ideal society. Plato wrote, in his autobiography Seventh Letter, that he could not identify himself with any political parties because they were heavily engage in corrupted activities. However, it was due to the execution of Socrates that provided Plato with the assurance that the existing governments were fallacious without any possible reparation. He perceived politics as unhealthy and wanted to achieve an eradication of politics. According to Plato, society can possibly be harmonious, productive, and obtain sustainable social living if liberated from politics. Through politics, citizens have a tendency...
Words: 2213 - Pages: 9
...US political system has overcome issues faced by most parliamentary democracies such as elective dictatorships and poor scrutiny of the executive. This has been due to the structure of the US political system based on the separation of powers. In this essay I will assess the positive and the negative aspects of the US political system. I will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages the separation of powers has brought to the US system of government. I will first assess the positive aspects of the US political system. I will then discuss the negative aspects of the US political system, finally drawing a conclusion. The ‘separation of powers is a central structural feature of the United States constitution’ 2. The US political system was designed first and foremost to prevent tyranny, something the founding fathers still feared even after America had gained independence from British rule. When writing the US constitution, the founding fathers were worried about concentrating too much power in any one institution 3. The framers therefore dispersed constitutional authority between the three branches of government and the accumulation of power in the hands of a single institution was denied 4. Article I of the constitution, specifically vests...
Words: 2565 - Pages: 11
...In 1787, the framers signed the Constitution “in Order to form a more perfect Union” (US Const. Preamble). They intended to establish a central government without granting it too much power. To ensure that, the framers both, limited and empowered the government in certain ar- eas. But since the original seven articles of the Constitution are over 200 years old, the framers could not foresee the expansion of the government’s power that has happened until the present day. With the “war on terror” being one of the governments priorities, questions arise if the gov- ernment has become too powerful, especially with regard to practicing surveillance. This essay aims to analyse the limits and powers given to the government by the framers in the seven Arti- cles of the Constitution, and finally apply these Articles to the government’s practice of sur- veillance today. The most essential points limiting the government’s power is the separation of power and the system of checks and balances. The federal government itself consists of three branches, the legislative, executive, and judicial branch; in other words, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. The power is divided between these three branches in order to keep any of them from becoming too powerful. Thus, the framers intended to prevent a corruption of power and tyranny over the states by imposing controls on each branch. The legislative branch, for in- stance, is kept in check by the President, who has the power to veto...
Words: 1221 - Pages: 5
...The Federalist papers were written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. These were a series of eighty-five anonymous essays published in the New York newspapers. The main focus of the Federalist papers was to convince the people to ratify the proposed United States Constitution. During this time period, the people of the states were hesitant of the new written constitution. They were concerned that this new proposed form of government was going to be a too similar setup as to the King they had just fought a war to declare independence from. The states were also concerned that they were going to lose the majority of their powers to a declared and newly established federal government. The federalist papers were written with the intent of informing...
Words: 1523 - Pages: 7
...Essay on Federalism Your Name School/College/Course Name INTRODUCTION TO FEDERALISM : The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution (ratified in 1971) states the basic principle of the system of Federalism in America, saying "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (Hayes). Federalism is thus a system wherein a written constitution bestows powers to a central government and regional or sub-divisional governments. Both types of governments retain a significant amount of authority, being autonomous in nature and possessing the power to act directly upon the people through their officials and laws. Power sharing is done by granting delegated powers, concurrent powers and reserved powers to the national government, national and state governments, and state governments respectively. For instance, determination of foreign policy, power to make treaties and declare wars, control imports and exports, and printing money is done by the federal government. On the other hand, state and federal governments share responsibilities such as taxation, business regulation, environmental protection, and civil rights. At the Constitutional Convention of 1788, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were undecided on which style of government would suit America best. They debated over the actual scope of national authority versus the protections of individual rights. While...
Words: 1840 - Pages: 8
...QUESTIONS – A2 (UNIT 4) Short Answers 1. Why do liberals support constitutionalism and consent? (Jan 02) Constitutionalism is a belief in limited government brought about through external (usually legal) and internal (institutional) checks on the exercise of power. Consent is the idea that govt power should be based on the agreement of the governed, usually expressed through regular and competitive elections. Liberals support constitutionalism and consent because they fear that govt may become a tyranny against the individual, based on the assumption that power is inherently corrupting and concentrations of power will lead to absolute corruption. This assumption is rooted in the liberal view of human nature: as individualism implies self- interest, those with power over others are apt to abuse it for their benefit and at the expense of others. Liberal constitutionalism is expressed through support for various external and internal devices, such as codified constitutions, bills of rights, the separation of powers, federalism or devolution, and so on. Liberal support for consent is evident in support for electoral democracy in general and, more specifically, sympathy for referendums and proportional representation. 2. Distinguish between negative freedom and positive freedom, and explain the implications of each for the state. (Jun 02) Negative freedom is the absence of external constraints upon the individual, usually understood as non-interference. It is manifest...
Words: 13343 - Pages: 54
...Fidel Castro’s Influence on the Cuban Revolution, 1953-1959 The year was 1953 and Fidel Castro was a dashing and daring reformer that was determined to make a impact in a country that was ruled by an unjust president. With the Movement strong and confident, Castro delivered these strong words to his group of men: “In a few hours you will be victorious or defeated, but regardless of the outcome – listen well, friends – this Movement will triumph. If you win tomorrow, the aspirations of Martí will be fulfilled sooner. If we fail, our action will nevertheless set an example for the Cuban people, and from the people will arise fresh new men willing to die for Cuba. They will pick up our banner and move forward... The people will back us in Oriente and in the whole island. As in '68 and '92, here in Oriente we will give the first cry of Liberty or Death!” These words by Castro illustrates what type of leader he was and still is to this day. Castro is one of the most polarizing figures in Cuban history, with many natives of Cuba arguing that he was the central cause of the destruction of Cuba, while others consider him to be the visionary that saved Cuba from the destruction that would have come about if a capitalist system had been instituted instead of a communist one. Actions taken by Fidel Castro during the Cuban Revolution shaped Cuba politically and socially to what we know it to be today. Fidel Castro was born in southeast Cuba, in the Oriente Province on August 13, 1926...
Words: 5057 - Pages: 21
...A Conservative Revolution Whether the American Revolution should be viewed as a conservative or radical movement is a hotly debated topic among historians, and each side provides a convincing case. Historians who view the movement as radical praise the colonists’ effort to send the British crown’s rule and effective implementation of a democratic government to the extent the world had never seen before. On the other hand, historians who view the American Revolution as a conservative movement note that Americans inherited the freest democratic society in the world, and see the movement as an inevitable breakaway from the British crown. Due to the subtlety of change within the government structure as a result of the preexisting democratic framework and the small percentage of the population that actually gained utility from these efforts, the American Revolution can be viewed as less of a radical revolution and more of a conservative movement by white male colonists to continue to exercise a form of democratic government they had had before King George started further implementing oppressive British policies. Louis Hartz highlights characteristics that not only make the American Revolution unique from other revolutions around the world, but also more conservative in comparison. Hartz claims that America was a unique case because the Revolutionary effort was not an “effort to build a new society on the ruins of an old society,”1 as all other revolutions of the time were, but rather...
Words: 1515 - Pages: 7
