The Tsar had advisers, but he was not bound to listen to their advice, and laws were made by imperial decree. This total power made the Romanov dynasty, which ruled Russia from 1613 to 1917. There are some factors to take into account that say that Russia did begin to move in the direction of a parliamentary system of government, including the fact there was an elective local government called the zemstva. The zemstva was created during the reign of Alexander II, and consisted of elected officials – 74% of which were nobles. Even so, the zemstvo did allow the greater population more say in the ways they wanted a small part of their lives to be run.
Question: “In Louis XIV’s view, what were the qualities of an effective monarch? In his opinion, what were the main obstacles to absolute rule? Louis XIV’s view of an “effective” monarch is absolutism in power and direct control over his subjects by giving them no more and no less to “carefully guard against their excess (Document D) as well as external glory in foreign affairs. Louis wasn’t fond of nobilities during his absolute rule as monarch in France, because of the past rebellion of the Fronde, however in Louis XIV’s view he wasn’t to be effective if he had dissolved the nobles rather he would work through them instead. With the Fronde in the back of Louis’s mind, he was to make an effective choice of picking members for his council, which would rule his political, military, administrative, and economical affairs.
The monarch also decided what Parliament discussed. When looking at Parliaments authority in the years 1485 – 1603 there are several important factors which can help to determine whether or not Parliament’s role and influence increased. The number of times the Parliament was called during each reign and used to pass legislation is important and can be used to explain how much influence Parliament had because the monarch was under no obligation to summon the body. However when looking at these factors they differ from reign to reign so it can be argued that the role and influence of Parliament did not increase smoothly and steadily as it depended on the monarch. The historian Chrimes describes Henry VII’s use of Parliament as ‘Little or nothing of much significance occurred in the history of Parliament in the reign of Henry VII’ However at the beginning of Henry VII’s reign the first Parliamentary session was of great importance to him as it acknowledged his claim to the throne.
Parliament believed that,as the elected representatives of the People (albeit on a very narrow franchise),that they had the right to wield supreme political power. These opposing viewpoints manifested themselves as Parliament's demands for Charles to address alleged abuses of power and give Parliament more say in running the
Which also allowed the federal government the opportunity for revenue. One of the main emphases for the Hamilton and the Federalist Party was that the federal government was too over power the states. They felt that leaving too much power in the hands of states would only create a weak type of government, with very little power to act. Citizen’s rights would be protected by the legislation, court systems, and of course the Bill Of Rights; distrusting the people with the vote. The federalist created the House of Reps which was directly voted by the people.
France was known as what is called an absolute monarchy in which King Louis XVI had complete control over the nation. As a result they lack a legislative body such as checks and balances. Because France had an unchecked government is what led to gross fiscal irresponsibility. The word democracy can be traced back to ancient Greek times. The interpretation or the meaning of democracy literally means rule by the people.
‘A political, not a judicial institution.’ Discuss this view of the Supreme Court. It can be argued whether the Supreme Court is more of the political or judicial institution because of the number of issues such as appointment process and who judges appointed by, as well as their power of judicial review which could stop any legislation by determining it unconstitutional. However, there are still cases when Supreme Court judges could decide to make restraint decisions, which are independent from any other branch of the government and those decisions are purely based on the Constitution. To start with, the Supreme Court can said to be a political institution because all the judges are being appointed and confirmed by politicians, who are members of other two branches of federal government (Congress and President). It is clear that president choose his nominee from people who share the same (similar) political philosophy and ideology.
They are in place so as to contain the power of any one branch attempting to overstep its authority and act in a tyrannical matter. Although it is argued the three branches are not equal, we see that none clearly holds the majority of power between them. Political parties, you could say, are organizations that attempt to push a particular agenda, theoretically of their constituency, through legislation and executive action. They “represent” their supportive electorate by creating and upholding policies based on their party platform. Their party platform is essentially the agenda that is voted for by the electorate, although some might say it is placed in front of them, and not a true
Its origins traced to the King’s council which essentially was an assembly of advisers to the King which also decided on appeal cases. This assembly, under one house, together with the crown made up what was known as the Parliament. The separation of the house into two houses as we know it today, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, occurred during the fourteenth century, although some scholars believe that the houses were separate since its origin. Functions of the houses at the time as juxtaposed with today were different. At the time, the Lords gave advice to the King, while the Commons consented to the King’s proposals.
Absolute rulers had control over religious sects; they could “. . . abolish the liberties long held by certain areas, groups, or provinces.”(p532) However, the parliament having power in constitutionalism, the monarch lost that kind of power. For example, Charles I (r. 1625-1649) was quite partial towards Catholicism.