Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong of a central government. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. They were afraid that the power of the states would be lost and that the people would lose their individual rights because a few individuals would take over. As a result, they proposed The Bill of Rights, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. They believed that no Bill of Rights would be equal to no check on our
Stanley Milgram Obedience is an essential instinct. Stanley Milgram’s essay, “The Perils of Obedience,” shows his us that humans will basically do anything they are told to and he tries to figure out why this is. Milgram proposes that people feel responsible for carrying out the wishes of an authority figure, but they do not feel responsible for the actual actions they are performing. He decides that the increasing division of labor in society encourages people to focus on a smaller task and to avoid responsibility for anything that they do not directly control. Conservative philosophers debate that the very basics of society are endangered by rebellion, though humanists strain the importance of a singular conscience.
Both federalists believed the new Constitution would help with providing protection, the general welfare of the people and enforcing the laws. (Doc 1 & 3) Two men, Patrick Henry and Amos Singletree, were both antifederalist and opposed the Constitution. Patrick opposed the Constitution because he believed the states would lose power. He thought it was too late to try to fix something that separated America from Great Britain. Amos Singletree believed the men who drafted the constitution are using it as an excuse to gain more power and money for themselves.
Socrates constantly reiterated that divine law must supersede the laws created by state in the Apology, an argument he completely contradicted in Crito, where he emphasized on the importance of respect of institution and one’s civic obligation. A functioning government and society would not be feasible if there is an absence of clearly defined laws. Legitimate nation-states have constitutions, sets of rules that their constituency must respect and obey to establish a social order. It also serves as a binding social contract or an agreement between the government and its subordinate
He also desired equality and justice for all regardless of their religious or political affiliation but not through a government that had complete control over its people like an aristocrat would over “commoners.” Equality and protection of all citizens should be granted and protected by the government of America; a government elected by the people and for the people. Both men desired the government to have the common interest of the people at its cores, but had different ways of achieving it. Unlike Washington, who favored a centralized government, Jefferson opposed it. This created a conflict because Jefferson feared that the ideology of republicanism was threatened with a centralized and powerful government proposed by Washington as well as the supposed monarchical tendencies of Hamilton and the
Sandel suggest discarding the whole culture of hiding moral convictions from debate because it is unnatural. This suggestion seems to be heading along the right path to creating a more reflective democracy. He is essentially asking for a “free market place of ideas” to ensue and that people will be swayed by truth and conviction. Sandel is very invested in discussing the purpose, the core of things and this leading us to a better form of democratic debate. It is a very ideal way of government and would require a high degree of autonomy on the part of the citizens and it would most likely cause slow progress.
The only thing the judicial system can do is uphold that law the way congress intended but they don’t have the power to change it. The power of lawmaking I feel is most important because that means you have the power to regulate and decide how our society will be ran and Congress sits at the top of that chain when it comes to constructing our society. Being in charge per say of what laws are passed and the stipulations that come with these laws means you dictate are lives and keep us in check. It gives individuals consequences for their actions, it permits or allows people from doing certain things or at least make them think twice before they do it. If you think about it when you’re in high school prom ends early because teenagers have curfews and they can’t be out after midnight.
However states that did not ratify the Constitution would not be considered a part of the Union so people started to form two groups, the Anti-Federalists and Federalists. Both groups did not agree on certain things the way the country should have been governed. Many people at that time opposed the creation of a federal or national government that would have power over the states. Those people were called Anti-Federalists. They believed that each state should have a self governed, and independent.
One of the most important topics Locke wanted to encourage, was that people have control over the government, setting limited power for a temporary time, and in having this, the people can demolish the form of government if the government does not comply to the people’s needs “the people have a right to act as supreme, and continue the legislative in themselves” (Locke). He believed that using reasons to explain what is true will ensure the purpose of
The effect was to ignore a law he is bound to enforce and simple not enforce it. Kings and monarchs engage in this behavior. They rule by edict. The president is not acting like the president; he is acting like a king. If he can simply ignore laws he doesn’t want to enforce for whatever reason, what keeps him from simply doing what he wants and ignoring the congress of the United States?