The doctrine of parliament sovereignty has been regarded as the most fundamental element of the British constitution. It can be summarised in three points: that parliament has the power to make any law they wish; that no parliament can create a law that a future parliament cannot change; that only parliament can change or reverse a law passed by parliament. Parliamentary Sovereignty thus gives unconditional power to the Westminster Parliament. A.V. Dicey describes it as ‘the dominant characteristic of our political institutions',and ‘the very keystone of the law of constitution'.
Is what Socrates says in Crito about the obligation to obey the laws inconsistent with what he says in Apology? In Crito, Socrates’ view of one’s obligation to obey the state-mandated law was profoundly inconsistent against the view he fervently expressed in his defense in Apology, in which he argued that divine law is inherently superior to the law created by men. These two opposing interpretations are problematic and largely contradicting and therefore could not be reconciled given by the strong objections he presented in Apology and throughout his defense and the necessity to obey the city laws in Crito. This paper would elucidate his inconsistent views in Crito and Apology and argue in which law should he follow given his stance on what’s constitute piety and harm. “Men of Athens, I am grateful and I am your friend, but I will obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath, I shall not cease to practice philosophy (Apology, 29d).” He made an emphatic hierarchical distinction between these two laws in which he argued that divine law should dictate one’s moral compass and must take precedence over the laws mandated by men.
The founding fathers used many concepts and ideas when writing the constitution and a lot came from John Locke. The constitution is the guideline to United States political culture and society. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. The beginning of the U.S Constitution establishes rules and separates the powers of government. Powers of government are separated into three main categories.
In a representative democracy it is important to “guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the unjustice of the other part.” (Madison) The republic protects the rights of the people and varying minority factions. Madison recognizes that under the Constitution, society is divided into many groups of people that hold different views and different interests. The more minority groups, the harder it is for one large group to dominate or threaten the minority. Madison also speaks out against a confederal system of government. He, and the framers of the constitution, believed that in a confederal system that the states may have more power.
Another limitation referring to the source could be the media becoming very hostile. They could portray the Prime Minister as a very weak and unworthy character which could affect his personal image, but also the image of the party they lead. 2b) With reference to the source, and your own knowledge, explain the Prime Minister’s prerogative powers (10). The prerogative powers that the Prime Minister enjoys are the extensive arbitrary powers that they enjoy. These powers were first exercised by the monarch but they are now exercised by the prime minister.
The Mexican War is taking place which Thoreau utilizes to demonstrate how the government “abuses” their powers. Boldly but surprisingly, Thoreau does not just criticize the government, he criticizes the people too, with the fact that they have a tendency of not taking initiative to rebel against the government immediately and individually. He says “Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they
There are words in some of the rulings that maintain the ”ex post facto” and “due process” provisions inherent in our United States Constitution are being violated including and stating “collateral damage”. The legal definition of collateral damage clearly indicates punishment. This is Punishment after the fact and strictly forbidden. In addition they have substituted the word civil proceeding as opposed to “criminal proceeding”. Most of us are not totally ignorant, as courts would like to believe.
Andrew Mondrus Professor Varon Civil Disobedience: The State and Law 10 December 2014 Beware of the United States Supreme Court Democracy has been defined as a “government by which the supreme power is vested in the people” by the U.S Department of State’s Bureau of International Information. Unfortunately, the judicial branch has acted oppressively. The design of United States judicial system is indeed flawed, allowing the courts to become undemocratic. Consequently, the courts have become an oppressive figure in American politics. The erroneous nature of the judicial branch has led the court to become authoritarian.
However, oppression is a form of a mind game as well that many of us do not recognize. We recognize oppression as states of unbalanced power but fail to realize the creation of distort power. Power is given not created, thus recognizing the distorted power or disturbance is the first step to breaking free from the oppressed state. Martin Luther King is known for breaking the oppression between black and white powers. King’s article, “Three Ways of Meeting Oppression” describes the ways to confront the unbalance of influence.
Lack of democracy In many ways the US Constitution is an undemocratic document. Many of the founders were scared of democracy because they believed in bad human nature: people are both virtue and self-interest, so simple democracy can’t work (Federalist #55). In general, the constitution was created to protect the minority from the majority. In order to prevent over use of power, faction (#10) and tyranny a separation of power complex structure (also known as “checks and balances” #51) was built (based upon the philosophy of Montesquieu), under which the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government are kept distinct. Philosophers, such as John Locke, supported the principle in their writings, whereas others, such as