By doing this it would lead the democracy to a dictatorship. The separation of powers is another way to ensure that checks and balances are being enforced and followed through. Caplan brings the issue of the debate of the meaning of separation of powers, “…the separation of powers means that each branch has exclusive control of matters in its domain or whether the Constitution generally gives Congress and the president overlapping, or blended, powers, all of which are quite extensive but none of which obviously serves as an absolute trump to the other,” (Caplan 21-2) So the presidential power used in the issue of foreign policy has been somewhat validated by this statement
The first one is that our rights are not well enough protected. If we had a written constitution with a proper Bill of Rights, as they have in America, we would feel safer and more sure that we would be protected from governments that wish to take too much power. We have lost many of our rights in the UK and this is because we do not have a written Bill of Rights and because government and Parliament have too much uncontrolled power. Another argument is that the people of the UK would feel more patriotic and identify more with politics if there was a written and codified constitution as they have in the USA. Every American citizen knows about their constitution and they are proud of it.
However, this is not true because the Congress is both an independent and co-equal branch of Government. As David Obey said “We may belong to the same party but we are an independent branch”. Checks and balances are required to keep the government stable and avoid the President going against the wishes of the people. “I think Barack Obama is terrific. But people still need to recognise we have an institutional responsibility to do oversight on the President” Garry Bass, Congress.
Providing the Confederacy with war supplies influenced Southern power, and their assertiveness towards the Union proved beneficial to international relations. The victory of the Union encouraged the forces in Britain that demanded more democracy and public contribution into the political system. Rather than an outbreak of war, relations between America and Britain were ultimately improved when the idea of widespread famine threatened England. The American Civil War proved difficult but eventually beneficial for Britain, giving them the opportunity to check their growth and rise to power. Keeping within British tradition and diplomacy, Britain never openly partnered with the South and their involvement in the war was to protect their own people, economy, actions and
Our founding fathers fought for a separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to avoid conflict and rise of power in one or more branches. In that aspect I believe the government works in a constructive manner to ensure equality between the branches, however, in the matter of working in a constructive manner for the good of the people is less certain. This country is facing an economic crisis and there are members of both parties that would tell the general public they would like the war in Afghanistan and Iraq to come to an end when in reality an economic recovery is the last thing they want to happen in a foreign country. The Republican Party, for example, would have liked to see a higher unemployment rate towards the end of 2012 in hopes of decreasing the chances of the President’s re-election. Higher unemployment rates lead to a more devastating economic crisis resulting in the failure to re-elect a democratic President or more precisely, our current President.
With British imperial power collapsing during World War II, the United States was ready to move in. Hull said early in the war:Leadership toward a new system of international relationships in trade and other economic affairs will devolve very largely upon the United States because of our great economic strength. We should assume this leadership, and the responsibility that goes with it, primarily for reasons of pure national self-interest.” This point got my attention because it reminded me of the “white man‟s burden” that we talked about regarding imperialism, except that in this case the idea of acting out of “pure national self-interest” is plainly stated, not hidden behind a mask of good will. “The economic aid countries would need after the war was already seen in political terms: Averell Harriman, ambassador to Russia, said in early 1944: "Economic assistance is one of the most effective weapons at our disposal to influence European political events in the direction we desire,.. ."
The Founders of the Constitution wanted to create a strong central government but were concern about it having unlimited power as they new it could be dangerous. As James Madison wrote, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition” (1). Once the Constitution was complete it was a government with three branches (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) that were independent of each other but which had checks and balance over the action of the others. In this essay, we will see how Bush has attempted to fight terrorism and some of the checks and balances of the Judicial and Legislative branches that were for and against his policy. On September 11, in 2001, four planes were hijacked by Al Qaeda terrorists and were then used as human missiles again US targets.
The Incheon Landing was hugely significant, because it showed that even though General MacArthur faced many risks, due to the geographical nature of the task, by successfully reclaiming the area, he was able to show that US was indeed a powerful force in terms of its military feats. Another event that shows the US military success is when UN/US forces held the Chinese advances and prevented them from over-running the South. The significance of this is that through careful and tactical alliances, the US was able to prevent one of the main sources of threat from attacking ROK, and therefore, restricting the North from gaining control of the South. However,
In this essay, I will show that democratic peace theory which state that liberal democracies do not go to war against each another provide reasonable arguments in promoting democracy to nondemocratic states. Democratic proponents emphasize that the shared norm between liberal states is one of the factor that ensure peace among them. Besides that, citizens play a major role in declaring war by liberal democracies which result in a lower frequency of wars between the nations. Next, declaring war is complex and democratic leaders will not opt for it unless inevitable. Firstly, democratic peace is able to promote greater stability in the world as a result of the shared norms between liberal democracies.
The strongest argument is that war is acceptable if it’s in self defence or in the defence of a weaker power incapable of defending its self against a stronger power; in liberating people from an oppressive dictatorship or government; finally where the conflict will save more people than it kills. These are the main principles from the just war theory. The just war theory is highly credited in politics as it has been created over many centuries by the greatest philosophers of the ages like Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Grotius. For example in the first gulf war when Iraq invaded Kuwait and the United Nations intervened in force headed by the Americans. This war can be perceived as just in the just war theory as it uses two