So the royal throne is not the throne of a man, but the throne of God himself. Bossuet describes, that Kings are sent from God to express the laws giving a King all absolute power. In theory, there was an assumption suggesting, Kings were the “chosen ones” by God to rule, this belief also implied that these Kings were not liable to anyone other than God. Bossuet argued that a King should not have any restraints on their actions. As he states in the Political Treatise, It appears from this that the person of kings is sacred, and to move against them is sacrilege.
Locke and Montesquieu believed that limited government (government has limits and every person has rights) was best. Montesquieu thought that governments such as monarchies and despots caused conflict between the people and the government. Limiting the government’s power over the people would take away the chances of a monarchy or despotism forming, and the best way to do that would be to divide the government into three different branches. Dividing the government into three branches will make sure one branch is not becoming more powerful than another, eliminating the chances of it becoming ruled by a monarch or despot. Locke believed that the government should never even be given such a great amount of power.
In addition they let people vote so that “every man will more willingly obey laws to which he has yielded his consent.” By doing so the people got to vote for who they wanted to make their laws, giving the colonists more incentive to follow the laws. By contrast, Plymouth`s form of self-government was the Mayflower Compact. This was an agreement to collaborate with each other, to make a colony, to be friends, and to make a civil body politic. A civil body politic is a temporary government, and it was necessary because the “Strangers” were thought that they would defy the Pilgrims if they landed outside of the grant that they received from the London Company. Also, it was necessary because of different religious views; because of the Mayflower Compact, they however, were friends and
Louis XIV Monarchy and Bousset’s Holy Writ Bishop Jacques Bossuet, a French theologian, expressed his ideas of the divine rights of the monarchy in a treatise entitled, Politics Derived from Holy Writ. It was in this treatise that Bossuet stated his views of how the government was devinely ordained by God, and that is what allowed its people to live in a society that was organized. Bossuet felt that God established kings for the purpose of reing over the people of the world, and since God did this their authority was absolute. Every aspect of Bousset’s Holy Writ does accurately describe Louis XIV monarchial power. King Louis XIV reign of France was exampled by an absolute monarchy, which gave him the ultimate governing authority over his sovereign state and subjects.
(Page 12) Reagan demanded that the Soviet’s “surrender “ (change their behavior) and without changing these behaviors, they would no longer receive the many benefit they were benefiting from, from the West. Sharansky explained that this had been a revolution in diplomatic thinking, and in doing this…Reagan was able to find the “Achilles Heel” of His enemies. PART 2: Sharansky’s formula for the mechanics of tyranny divided the world into two different categories. One category was free society in which people could speak freely of their opinions and not be punished for it and the second society was know as the fear society which was pretty much the opposite.
Social Contract: A social contract is the theory of where the government came from originally. This theory was started by Thomas Hobbes. He states that the people as a group decided to give up some of their power for the overall wellbeing of the group. John Locke believed that the role of the individual was very important and the people had an obligation to have a revolution if at any time the government became too powerful. These men greatly influenced the founding fathers.
Branches of Government Jefferson said it best, “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government” (The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., 1996-2012, para. 1). After the ultimate control while under rule of the crown, the founding fathers sought to create not only a government that provided for rights and liberties of the people, but also to ensure that government interaction and authority was spread amongst various branches. This distribution of power would provide checks and balances to guarantee reduced influence, while allowing each section to operate independently. However, agreement of each party would be problematic to achieve when needing to enact new laws and regulations.
For example Pharaoh Narmer, who ruled Upper Egypt, used his power over the Egyptian military to unite Upper and Lower Egypt. After doing this he wore the crowns of both Upper and Lower Egypt together to show that he was the ruler of both as one united country. A chieftain only had control to use the military if the council also agreed that it was necessary. Plus if the people wanted to get rid of the chieftain then they would simply pick another one they did not have to worry about a military force trying to stop them. A second way that the power of kings and chieftains differ is their power of the law.
Baron de Montesquieu, a French Enlightenment thinker, said in his book The Spirit of Laws that he thought “there should sorts of power; the legislative; the executive… and the judicial” (Doc 3). The church ruled as a monarchy before the Age of Enlightenment and Montesquieu provided an idea of separation of powers and also said that liberty cannot be achieved if only one institution has all the power. Another French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, claimed in his text The Social Contrast that “to renounce liberty is to renounce being a man,” he is saying that the authority of the church takes away so much liberty from the people that they don’t even have room to be who they want to be or say what
They claimed that disobeying them would be against their religion. Thus, people saw the pharaoh as a figure of authority with powers as great as God himself (Higgs). This left most people helplessly under the impression that they had no other choice but to follow any given order. This gives the ruler a sense of superiority over his people. War as a more modern version of ruler supremacy.