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
A man has an obligation to act according to the commands of his conscience, even if it goes against majority opinion, the reigning leadership, or the laws of society. In cases where the government supports unjust laws Thoreau's idea of service to one's country ironically takes the form of resistance against it. Resistance is the highest form of patriotism because it demonstrates a desire not to overthrow government but to build a better one in the long term. Thoreau just wants to eliminate the ideas that make it a bad government not the entire government itself. Thoreau then talks about the issue of change through democratic ways.
The power of the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional leads some people to assume that the judicial branch will be superior to the legislative branch. Hamilton examines this argument, starting with the fact that only the constitution is fundamental law. To argue that the constitution is not superior to the laws suggest that the representative of the people are superior to the people and that the constitution is inferior to the government it gave birth to. The courts are the arbiters between the legislative branch and the people; the courts are to interpret the laws and prevent the legislative branch from exceeding the powers granted to it. The courts must not only place the constitution higher than the laws passed by congress, they must also place the intentions of the people ahead of the intentions of their representatives.
However the other two will check the one wanting to exceed thus, balancing out the power and securing citizens from a dictatorship type of government. Another reason would simply be when he states, “If men were angles, no government would be necessary.” In other words since we are not angles but are men if we had power in our hands we would abuse it. Then he continues that even though the powers are shared and are equal the government should still be able to control not only the people but, themselves. This will only help protect the people’s individual rights including the minority. In the end he says that in order to have a balanced government the majority must agree on justice.
It follows, then, that the ruled would be acting justly if they were to act in the interest of the stronger. In this defining passage, the influence of Thrasymachus’ equally ruthlessly-realist contemporary Thucydides is immediately apparent – for it is little more than a revision of the notion that “might makes right.” It is a statement of favour for what might be deemed “coercionist justice” in which one party (the ruler) freely shapes the actions of another (the polity), with little to no thought given to anything but the end result: namely, the maintenance of the aforementioned ruling party’s position of power. Thrasymachus also offers insight into why it is in the best interest of the ruled to follow rules at all: “For mankind censure injustice, fearing that they may be the victims of it and not because they shrink from committing it” (344c). In essence, it is little
1. Government has been defined as “the institution created by a society to create and enforce public policies”. It has also been defined as “a group of people who have the power to make and enforce laws.” Which definitions better expresses what your understanding of government is? Explain your choice. If you find both definitions inadequate, write your own, and explain it.
But, pure democracy, where everyone weighs in on every issue, becomes impractical as societies become larger, more complex, and replete with issues. Therefore, a representative republic is a logical alternative for a functional government, in a society that assumes that all men are created equal. Jonathan Boucher, an Anglican minister opposed to the American Revolution[i], stated that a government formed by the
However, the federal Supreme Court ensures the appropriate division of power. As President George Washington stated “Government is not reason, it not eloquence – it is a force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action” (Jordan,
He explains that the strong can only be powerful when they make just choices, otherwise they will be overthrown by a united majority. Plato, and Socrates, introduces the idea that knowledge exists for the benefit of others, and that justice is no different. Therefore, rulers must exist to benefit others, or else they will rule no more. The Republic goes on to show many more examples throughout text, including why justice benefits the weak as well. Socrates argues that justice, when defined properly, is not subjective nor does it benefit only one group of people.
Question What is constitutionalism? How does it differ from absolutism? Constitutionalism, as opposed to absolutism, balances authority throughout the government. Not only does it create equilibrium in governance, it also gives liberties and rights to its people. It does so by consisting of a set of rules and principles, “.