Zinn also uses an excerpt from historian Charles Beard to explain his reasoning. Beard basically said that the rich controls the government or the laws the government operates by. Zinn points out that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights shows that quality of interest hides behind innocence. Meaning that Congress completely ignores the freedom of speech. Professor of history Gordon S. Wood views the struggle for a new constitution in 1787-1788 as a social conflict between upper-class Federalists who desired a stronger central government and the “humbler” Anti-Federalists who controlled the state assemblies.
The current UK constitution has so many strengths that reform is unnecessary. Do you agree with this statement? In the UK we have an uncodified constitution, which means we have many different sources of the constitution rather than have a single authoritative document, which would be a codified constitution. The most significant source of the constitution is legislation which consists of both Acts of Parliament and lesser legislation like Orders in Council, and rules and regulation made by ministers under statutory authority. Common law, which has developed over many years becoming accepted due to court judgements.
Parliament in Britain is generally regarded as making laws that apply to the entire population but there is no universal agreement that it should have unlimited power to make laws of whatever kind. In many constitutions, legal limits on parliament to make laws are set out in their written constitutions but as Britain does not have such a written constitution, does it mean that there are no legal limits on parliament? The traditional doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty was first defined by Dicey in the 19th century in his book “The Law of the Constitution”. According to Dicey’s theory, parliamentary sovereignty means, “the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a ride to override or set asides the legislation of parliament.” This idea of parliament being sovereign was formed at time where England was not a democratic country and it could be argued that this theory is dated and can no longer be regarded as an immutable part of UK Constitutional law. If Dicey’s theory is placed in historical context, it was produced in a very different political environment to today.
The previous Constitution, called the Articles of Confederation, gave state governments more authority. The Anti-Federalists worried that the Constitution gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments, and that there was no Bill of Rights. (16) Patrick Henry argues for a Bill of Rights, “ the necessity of a Bill of Rights appears to me to be greater in this government than ever it was in any government before… Without a Bill of Rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind than ever the world saw a government that was abandoned all its powers the power of taxation, the sword, and the purse.”(17) George Clinton argues that a republican style of government cannot ensure the rights of the people and will in turn; make the country into a monarchy. “ A consolidated republican form of government… divided against
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'.
Tyranny is a government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. The Constitution had guarded against tyranny in four different ways which were Federalism, Separation of powers, Checks and balances and big states vs. small states The beginning guard against tyranny was Federalism, which is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant. James Madison had stated in a “Federalist Newspaper” about Federalism and how it basically worked for the Colony. Federalism protects against tyranny because Federalism isn’t an absolute power, it’s a division of power to certain members of a covenant. The additional guard against tyranny was Separation of Powers which means the government was separated into different branches.
To what extent is it reasonable to describe modern British prime ministers as presidents in all but name? Few, if any, now doubt that the office of prime minister dominates the British political system. As long as the holder of that office is not faced by too many limiting factors, such as a small parliamentary majority or a divided party, the British system has moved away from the traditional ‘cabinet government’ model to a ‘prime ministerial’ model. We argue that the system has now become ‘presidential’. * PMs perform most of the functions of a head of state: The prime minister has come to be, effectively though not legally, the head of State, the leader of the nation, irrespective of party allegiance.
Although, on the other hand the soveriegnty of parliament does widely interfere with the judicarys ability to protect civil liberties in britain. Acts of parliament are binding on everyone within the UK including the supreme court. The soveriegn status and power of Parliament puts it above the judicary. This means that if a ruling is passed and the government do not approve they are able to avoid the ruling. This was seen in 2005 when in response to the Belmarsh case the government passed the 2005 'Prevention of Terrorism Act'.
Parliamentary sovereignty 'Although in theory Parliament is sovereign, the problematic reality is that British constitutional arrangements ensure that true power lies with the Executive.' Part A: Many countries such as the United States have a written constitution but Britain does not, however 'it must have something which is at the heart of its constitutional arrangements'[1] and this need is fulfilled by the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The traditional and most often applied definition of parliamentary sovereignty is that of Dicey, who stated, 'the principle of parliamentary sovereignty means... the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament'[2]. From this definition, three fundamental principles can be derived; the first is that Parliament can make or unmake any law. An example of this principle in practice; The Septennial Act 1715 was passed to extend the life of Parliament from three to seven years out of fear of the effects of an election.
As the fourth President of the United States of America, James Madison was a complicated leader. He is most often referred to as the “Father of the Constitution.” He was a strong nationalist that believed a strong central government was essential for the existence and future of the new country he helped found. He exercised his powers in fighting secessionists and would-be tyrants. But in many ways, President Madison contradicted his own beliefs. While Madison supported a strong central government, he also helped implement what are common separations of power and checks and balances.