He seems to lean to the left in the political spectrum, and yet, he always seems to be running against the democratic candidate for presidency. Nader has the country's best interests at heart when he runs for president, however, and it is the right of every citizen to run for president and to vote for whomever they wish. Hopefully Nader will continue to live a long life so that he may further defend the rights of consumers. But even after Nader is gone (he is 75 years old after all) his non-profit organizations will live on to extend the power of democracy in this nation, organizations like Appleseed, Democracy Rising, and Essential Information. Perhaps in 2012 America will find that Nader is running once more for president.
The House of Representatives and the Senate make up the two chambers of Congress in the United States. People elect both bodies during regular elections, usually held in November. Many have wondered why the United States Constitution calls for a bicameral approach to governance, thinking a single body would perfect the process of governing the people. The founding fathers that wrote the constitution and created Congress back in 1787 believed the power should be a shared process among all units of the government. The House incumbents and Senate seats are likely to change in the 2012 election with the impact of candidate characteristics, incumbents, money and primaries on race competitiveness.
At the polls, citizens are actually voting for a state of electors who are committed to supporting a particular presidential candidate but are not required to. The candidate with the highest number of popular votes in a state wins all of its electoral votes. In December they conduct a meeting with the Electoral College and the electors vote to determine the next President. Although, this meeting is only a formality for the results of this vote are known immediately after the popular votes are tallied a month earlier. Finally, inauguration day is here.
The federalism created by the founding fathers differs, as the essay title suggests, in many ways to that of todays. This is most obviously the case when it comes to influence and power. The early federal system devised by the Founding Fathers and regulated by the constitution was a ‘duel federal system.’ What this means is that the national (federal) government and the states both had separate spheres of authority and worked independently side by side. This made the two levels of government ‘equals’ and ‘sovereign’ within their own jurisdiction as there was little interference from one to the other (Miroff, Seidelman, Swanstrom, 2002, p418). The U.S constitution outlines which areas are to belong: exclusively to the federal government; make treaties, coin money, regulate interstate and foreign commerce; to both the
‘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.
It means that the government’s justification of power is derived from the people in the society. If the people consent, the government has the right to rule. * Social contract theory- The view that people create agreements that result in the formation of government or an organized society that defines and limits the rights and duties of the individuals in the society. * Describe the major weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation * Congress had little powers besides maintaining army and navy, and did not even have $ for that. They had no power to tax.
He refers to the “majority” and its “absolute sovereignty as the essence of democratic government: in a democracy, nothing outside of the majority is capable of mounting resistance to it.” He goes on to explain that legislatures will always “respond most readily to the will of the majority.” That is important, as the legislative branch is elected directly by the people and “thus constituted, the legislatures have acquired almost all powers of government.” Perhaps Tocqueville’s most important revelation is that of “tyranny of the majority,” that is, the idea that the majority in a government can do whatever it pleases, is a real danger to the sustainability of American democracy. He likens the majority to that of an “all powerful individual with the capability to abuse his power to harm his opponent,” and goes on to say that the majority can do the same. He blames the protections of tyranny by the American government as the thing he detests about democracy in the United States, but is quick to fault the irresistible power available, not the weakness of government as perceived in Europe. Legislative instability and the fact that almost every American constitution has been amended in the last 30 years and that there is no state that hasn’t modified its legal principles are seen as weaknesses that could prevail into a tyranny of the majority. It’s safe to say that an
Rebecca Rupley April 19, 2012 “No courts. No justice. No freedom.” The United States’ government is a constitutional democracy. This means that the nation is subjugated under the will of its people, so long as it is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. In a more concrete understanding, the Constitution of the United States includes those “unalienable rights” initially granted to each citizen in the Declaration of Independence (1776).
The Senate is more elite and prestigious of the two of the two houses of Congress. The Senate differs from the House mainly because of the way they do business. The Constitution allows the Senate and the House to make its own rules for Parliamentary procedures. One of the Senate rules is a tradition to allow unlimited debate, they have no time limit on discussion of legislation. Both houses have to pass a bill before it becomes a law.
Those studying Comparative Politics have always been keen on finding out whether the presidential or parliamentary form of government is more conducive to a stable government and democracy. This essay aims to discuss which system is more suitable to new democracies. Presidentialism A presidential system is a system of government in which an executive branch exists and presides separately from the legislature. The executive branch is not accountable to the legislative branch and the legislature cannot dismiss the president except in rare cases. In a presidential system, the president is both the head of the state as well as that of a government.