Martin’s argument on how the Charter is antidemocratic has six main premises. Firstly, Martin supports his claim by making a point that judges, as they hold no accountability for what their judgments, can “overturn deliberate policy decisions made by the elected representatives of the people where those decisions do not accord with the way the judges interpret the Charter.” Thus, the Charter, according to Martin, is antidemocratic. Secondly, Martin discerns the differences between liberalism and democracy, creating operational definitions for each. He explains that liberalism “is about individual rights,” and is “about the ability of individuals to do as they please without interference from the state.” Therefore, according to Martin, Liberalism “makes protection of the autonomy of the individual more important than the promotion of the welfare of the
Arguably the elected MPs are the reason that a representative democracy flourishes with the elected MPs superseding the knowledge of the public. However, it could be argued that MPs have the interest of toeing the party line, or even acting in their own interests rather than the constituent’s interests. Nevertheless, MPs are learned individuals who would make the correct decisions with the interests of their party, their constituency and themselves, effectively fulfilling the role of an MP. The government within a representative democracy is advantageous as it is held to account for its
The modern development of virtue ethics is often linked back to a paper by G. E. M. Anscombe entitled ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’. In this paper Anscombe questioned whether there could be moral laws if there was is no God. What do wrong and right mean if there is no lawgiver, she suggested eudaimonia is the obvious answer as it is not dependent on God. Other modern philosophers such as Alasdair Macintyre believed that ethical theories just resulted in disagreements and that morality should be seen
Such a weak executive could hardly balance the power of the legislature, however. John Locke, addressing this difficulty in his Second Treatise, added a third power to the balance to strengthen the executive. The "federative" power, as he called it, concerned foreign relations (the ability to federate or ally with other countries). While this federative power was theoretically distinguishable from the executive, in practice it was inseparable from the executive, because it, like the executive, presupposed the united power of society. Circumstances would frequently demand that these two powers be exercised for the common good, but in the absence of a standing law and sometimes even against the law.
Alexander Hamilton once stated, "Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint." By saying this, Hamilton meant a government is required because people cannot make decisions based upon their instincts. The voice and thoughts of one are too irresponsible or unreasonable to make decisions. Mankind needs laws and obligations to live by, not only to keep peace but to protect ourselves from our basic nature.
1) Evaluate the ways in which the different approaches to Enlightenment held by France, Britain, and America impacted their own societies. Thesis: The extreme and different approach of to Enlightenment of the French alienated it from the British and Americans, and also led to the destruction of the country. Both America and Britain had a moderate reform, while the French had an extreme upheaval that led to its ruin. All three Enlightenments were based on the same concepts of reason, liberty and justice. Britain built their Enlightenment on ‘social virtues’, not reason.
This way of thinking was totally different from that of England who was a monarchy even up to now. Americans going a different and bold direction with the well established Constitution made sure that this Constitution was monarchy hostile. An example will be the title of nobility, which states that the title of nobility usually leads to inequality among people even though there is no such thing as equality but the theory was still created a government where under the circumstances people are treated equal. Therefore, the main reason the Constitution was dedicated to the idea and goal of equality. In other to discourage monarchy and reinforce the American idea, our founding fathers came up with the three branches of government where they would each have certain role to fulfill, share power which will allow them to oversee each other.
The state assumes that it has power over individuals, which a view blights human freedom as was expressed by Proudhon ‘to be governed is to be inspected by creatures who neither have the right nor virtue to do so’. Liberals on the over hand do not view the state in such an pessimistic way, however believe that if the state was so have too much power it could indeed become oppressive and tyrannic thus threatening the sovereign individual: something that liberals heavily endorse. Therefore, liberals argue for a minimum ‘night watchman’ state (Nozick). This essay will argue that the state is not an oppressive body but instead a paternal figure, which serves to protect individuals more than it oppresses them. It can be argued from the anarchist perspective that the state is an oppressive body, which undermines human reason and the capacity for self governance.
In order to assess how constitutional conventions are recognised and enforced within the UK system of government, firstly, will require a look at the different definitions of what amounts to a constitutional convention, and to discuss their function or purpose, within the U.K's constitution. Furthermore, it will be necessary to identify and consider the different examples of constitutional conventions and also examine their characteristics. As way of a starting point, conventions according to AV Dicey are defined as: "conventions, understandings, habits or practices which, though they may regulate the conduct of the several members of the sovereign power…are not really laws at all since they are not enforced by the courts. This portion of constitutional law may, for the sake of distinction, be termed the 'conventions of the constitution', or constitutional morality…" This definition concentrates on what conventions are supposed to achieve. However, this view is not entirely accurate and it is important that conventions are distinguished from habits and practices.
Rather than be content with what history had taught them, they would seek the truth, rather than settle for superstition and fear. Postmodernism, as Granz points out, derived from this philosophy. Its thought denies the very grounds on which western cultures have based their “truths”: absolute knowledge and meaning. Jean-Francois Lyotard, a French philosopher and leading postmodernist, was sceptical about the Enlightenment, and wrote about Grand Narratives and Little Narratives in reaction to this theory. The Grand narrative (known as meta-narratives) is a term used in the Enlightenment to describe everything inside a certain framework.