Although the people had a right to be involved in the government, the author of Caesar No. 2 thought that it should be left up to people of greater intelligence to choose the government and its actions. The argument against this was that the people had the ability to choose the people that would have authority in the government. This idea helped place a foothold in the government for the people to always play a role. The last concern was that of the
There is a strong case for both sides of this argument, but I believe that the power level given to judges is the right amount in relation to how important a role they play in supporting British society to work to its full potential through their requirement of upholding the law. Although, there is a strong argument to claim that despite this, they may not be the right people for the role as their independence and neutrality can be questioned, with a view that their power should potentially be limited. One of the strongest arguments, which can be used to defend the power given to the judiciary, is that despite what many believe, they can not over rule government, and government can in fact overrule the judiciary through their sovereignty, and this was backed by Lord Neuberger, head of the Supreme Court who claimed that the thought of parliament not being sovereign is ‘quite simply wrong’, highlighting the fact that the power is ultimately not with the judiciary. The judges do not have the power to repeal any laws despite their opinions on them; their job states that it is obligatory for them to enforce the law despite their personal opinions. However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws.
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. This is not a matter of which branch is superior; it is simply to acknowledge that the people are superior to both. It is futile to argue that the court’s decisions, in some instances, might interfere with the will of the legislature. People argue that it is the function of congress, not the courts, to pass laws and formulate policy. This is true, but to interpret the laws and judge their constitution are the two special functions of the court.
This is criticised because the current political party in power have the ability to make their own decisions for the UK before listening to what the people want. This then becomes a problem because they may make changes that the majority of the population will not agree with. However, near to the next election they may decide to listen to people as they want them to vote for them (the current political party in power) during the next election. Secondly, the UK has a hereditary monarchy and a house of lords, both which are not elected. This contradicts a democratic society and is seen as a dictatorship because elections are the cornerstone of a democracy.
It has discussed the different types and styles of assemblies and the chief functions such as to enact legislation, act as a representative body and oversee and scrutinise the executive. It has shown how the role of parliaments is changing and the reality is that legislatures do not initiate many policies, more usually they influence or are executive-dominated. The emergence of disciplined political parties, the growth in the role of government and the increasing strength of interest groups and the mass media has changed the way parliaments and assemblies carry out their roles. However, parliaments possess a unique authority to force politicians and civil servants to account for their actions before a body which still represents the nation and remains an essential element in the architecture of democracy. Bibliography Axford, B., Browning, G.K., Huggings, R., Rosamond, B., (2002), Politics an introduction, 2nd ed.
When looked at in comparison to an entrenched constitution it seems better as in an entrenched system, parliament would be unable to pass such reforms so easily as entrenching something makes it incredibly hard to change. On the other side of the argument, many would say that due to the UK having a constitution whereby the head of Parliament is also the Head of the executive and also with the government mostly having a majority in the House of Commons, it means that the Prime Minister can pass through any legislation that they really want to pass. This could be seen undemocratic of the UK. Moreover, due to the Parliamentary Act of 1949, the House of Lords are only able to delay legislation for one year before it becomes automatically passed. This means that the House of Lords are unable to act as the judiciary in rejecting and checking unwanted bills.
The New World Times How will the constitution affect the presidential elections? In terms of this, the constitution will affect the elections because the federalists and the anti-federalists will oppose to vote for the right representative but because that the representative comes from that class…… the classes will only vote for their representative. This attempt will trouble the nation with election issues and pretty soon… the constitution will be abandoned set America for a monarchy. Editor’s opinion In my opinion the U.S constitution provided more detailed political laws that was able to help out the economy itself to prevent form having a dictatorship. However the constitution first needed to be discussed before being passed out
n Great Britain laws are made in Parliament at Westminster. Its law-making status makes Parliament Great Britain's main legislative body - though the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament do have legislative capabilities. However, it is difficult to estimate what the impact of law making by the European Union will be in future years. To date, most EU laws that have been imposed on the UK (and other members off the EU) have concerned environmental issues. Some political parties in the UK, such as the UK Independence Party, fear that the EU will broaden its net with regards to areas where it will impose legislation.
This was to help keep someone from making the democracy into a monarchy for one example. Another would be that the Articles of Confederation allowed for a strong legislature for the states, but the executive branch was basically nonexistent or was without enough power to override laws that would be against basic human rights.
The separation of powers is quite pivotal for the US government otherwise there tends to be some corruption relevant to the extreme utilization of powers. Those two points of view are states by James Madison while planning to set up the Constitution of the national government, and those opinions are all crucial to the development of