Controlled by a non-heredity emperor, which was chosen by the Senate, usually by predecessor. Rome developed a set of laws that all had to follow. In contrast, the Gupta Empire lacked political organization due to geography and focused more on caste membership and group allegiances also basing on military conquest. A similarity that these empires share is the organization of social classes. Also the acquisition and inheritance of property.
2. Caesar assumed dictatorial control over Rome by bringing all of Gaul under his control then defeating Pompey. Caesar treated the Senate with disregard and in turn 60 senators stabbed him 23 times on March 15, 44 BCE, the Ides of March. 3. Cicero’s concept of Roman argument differs from Plato’s Socratic dialogue because his is purposefully deliberative in character, where the primary objective is to give wise advice, where Plato’s dialogue only provokes that advice.
Furthermore, neither the Prime Minister, nor the cabinet signs a bill once it has been passed; rather the Governor General signs the bill. The parliamentary bill to law process is superior to that of the congressional process, because the American system, creates inefficiencies due to the all or nothing veto which the President has. Furthermore, this all or nothing veto system; creates what is called Omnibus legislation. Which is where several bills are bundled together; therefore, if the President really wants a bill to pass he or she may have to also accept a number of unrelated bills. Essentially, a President may be enacting a bill into a law, for which they know nothing about.
There were also magistrates appointed to deal with certain aspects of criminal activity. In Rome these were minor magistrates called tresviri capitales, who 'may also have exercised summary jurisdiction over slaves and humble citizens' (Oxford Classical Dictionary). These magistrates were only assisted by a small number of public slaves and had neither the authorityy nor the resources to act as a police force. At Rome the lictors who attended the senior magistrates were only symbols of the state's authorityy to discipline and punish; they had no effective power to coerce. The authority of magistrates depended absolutely on the acceptance by the citizens of their political institutions and the men who operated them.
As mentioned before, the bulk of the army was citizens. These citizens did not get to choose which legion the wanted to be in. Any man “from ages 16-46 were selected by ballot” and assigned to a legion. Up until the Roman military disaster of 390 B.C at the Battle of Allia, Rome’s army was organized in similarity to the Greek Phalanx. This was due to Greek influence in Italy “by way of their colonies”.
Also, there was a senate with 300 rich men. In the Republic, people could only serve for one year. This was a law so that one man cannot gain absolute power. However, in the Roman Empire, there was one ruler that had absolute power (like Pharaoh). The Roman Empire spread to between Mesopotamia and England.
Both houses have to pass a bill before it becomes a law. An other advantage is allows for representation on a reasonably equitable footing for both large and small states. Only the House can impeach a President or executive officer in government. Then the Senate plays judge and jury in all impeachments bought on by the House. The disadvantages are the recurrent gridlock seen in Congress, even if the a House passes a bill it still has to go to the Senate.
Development of Roman law Origins Before the Twelve Tables (754–201 BC), private law consisted of the old Roman civil law (ius civile Quiritium), which applied only to Roman citizens. It was closely bonded to religion and it was undeveloped with attributes of strict formalism, symbolism and conservatism, such as the highly-ritualised practice of Mancipatio, a form of sale.The jurist Sextus Pomponius said, "At the beginning of our city, the people began their first activities without any fixed law and without any fixed rights: all things were ruled despotically by kings".It has been suggested that the ancient roots of the Roman Law derive directly from the Etruscan religion, which puts great emphasis on the rituality and is rather formality-centred concerning its nature. The Twelve Tables It is impossible to give an exact date for the beginning of the development of Roman legal system. The first legal text, the content of which is known to us in some detail, is the law of the twelve tables, dating from the middle of the 5th century BC.According to Roman historians, the plebeian tribune C. Terentilius Arsa proposed that the law should be written down in order to prevent it from being applied discriminatingly by the patrician magistrates. After 8 years of struggle the plebeians convinced the patricians to send a delegation to Athens to copy out the Laws of Solon.
Compare the Roman Republic with Athenian democracy? Romans lived in a much more out-of-the-way corner of the Mediterranean world. They struggled with next to no enemies what so ever. (Under the kingship) the Romans governed as a tyranny spread their civilization to the far reaches of Italy taking any land that the Etruscans may of held away from them. The only enemies that the Romans might have faced were the Carthaginians, whom they eventually defeated.
‘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.