On the other hand, the liberals, or Judicial Activists, believe that the founding fathers recognized that standards of their time wouldn’t apply to the future, so therefore left the constitution broadly based and available for contemporary interpretation. In my opinion, as in many others, Judicial Activism is just an excuse for justices to rule based on personal opinion. The judicial branch of the government needs to show judicial restraint because of the variety of the cases they receive. They need to make sure that the rulings they enact are rulings that follow the constitution and not their own personal beliefs as they have been doing for some time now. In my opinion, the most important example of judicial restraint being in need in American history occurred on May 20, 1940.
Rigobero Chavarin English 10 11/08/12 What are the principles rulers of the people should follow? Thomas Jefferson defines his interpretation of the rights and freedom of the people within the Declaration of Independence; however, even if a government under those elements and Jefferson’s conception were developed, history would repeat itself, thus making the people live under the principles of Machiavelli. As Machiavelli said, there’s a difference between the way we ought to live and the way we do live. Niccolo Machiavelli would find Jefferson’s concept of ideal government absolutely useless and antagonistic towards his aspect of government, which he defines as reality. Machiavelli would find Jefferson’s skepticism of immoral justification and Tyranny within the British government as antithetical towards his belief in successful power.
He cites the existence of unjust laws and declares that we as citizens should not be obligated to follow them. The basis for this argument is that the government is run by a majority with the most power, not the most valid perspective. This is the reason why Thoreau advises citizens to follow what they believe to be right and not embrace what the government says. Thoreau states that is not a man’s duty to pledge to eradicate all wrongs from his country but that it is one’s duty to “wash his hands” of it and to not support the wrong in anyway (page 183 para13). He continues to tell a story of how he used this method to protest the Mexican American War which was being waged at the time the essay was written.
The Anti-Federalists’ strongest argument, however, was that the Constitution lacked a Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists warned that without a Bill of Rights, a strong national government might take away the human rights won in the Revolution. They had great apprehension about the potential loss of sovereignty through the power given to the national government in the proposed Constitution and the resulting horrific effects that such a loss would have on the nation and the people as a whole. The Anti-Federalist belief was that through the integrity of state sovereignty, effective restraints would be in place to keep the national government from deteriorating into a despotic government thus protecting the liberties and freedoms of the people. Anti-Federalist felt that the Constitution gave more power to central government and less to the states.
There many arguments for and against Britain having a codified constitution but one could say that they are too rigid for such a time of social change. Firstly, a codified constitution is limited government and would cut the government down to size. A codified would effectively end the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and subsequently elective dictatorship. Both of which were shown in Blair and Thatcher’s Governments. It would also prevent the government to interfere with the constitution unfairly, as it would be protected by the existence of the higher law and the ‘supermajority’.
Martin’s argument on how the Charter is antidemocratic has six main premises. Firstly, Martin supports his claim by making a point that judges, as they hold no accountability for what their judgments, can “overturn deliberate policy decisions made by the elected representatives of the people where those decisions do not accord with the way the judges interpret the Charter.” Thus, the Charter, according to Martin, is antidemocratic. Secondly, Martin discerns the differences between liberalism and democracy, creating operational definitions for each. He explains that liberalism “is about individual rights,” and is “about the ability of individuals to do as they please without interference from the state.” Therefore, according to Martin, Liberalism “makes protection of the autonomy of the individual more important than the promotion of the welfare of the
The first is that justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger. Second, that justice is obedience to laws and lastly, justice is nothing but the advantage of another, returning no benefit to the one who is just. It should be noted that all three of these claims are dealing with a ruler of a state, whether democratic or tyrannical. Since these claims were made on a large scale, I will discuss how Thrasymachus’ opinion that justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger is flawed when it is applied to a ruler of a government such as ours. To do so, we will first look at Thrasymachus’ definition on the nature of justice, and examine what exactly is in the interest of the ruler.
‘Liberal democracy’ embodies a whole range of doctrines and devices that actually seek to restrain popular rule and prevent government from flexing direct will of majority. The liberal’ features are reflected in a network of internal and external checks on government. For example, guarantee of civil liberty and healthy civil society. The ‘democratic’ features are that it is a system of regular elections, universal suffrage and political equality. In contrast James Madison saw democracy as a defence against majoritarianism, with checks and balances on government, which would make government responsive to competing minorities and safeguards the propertied-few from the property-less masses.
The main flaw with the constitution of the United Kingdom is that it allows the government of the day too easily to remould constitutional issues in ways which suit their own interests. Critically discuss. This essay aims to critically analyse arguments concerning whether the constitution of the United Kingdom can be altered by the government of today, in modes which suit their best interests. In relation to the statement above, a conclusion will be deduced after looking into the functions of the constitution, the theories of Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Separation of Powers, alongside means by which the government has sustained power. Professor KC Wheare defines the constitution of a state as: “… the whole system of government of a country, the collection of rules which establish and regulate or govern the government.” The evolving nature of the UK constitution implies that it is somewhat straightforward for the government to alter the constitution and adapt it to ever changing times.
Many of the states were concerned about the government having too much power, and by allowing the citizens more power than just what was stated in the Bill of Rights, it ensures that the government will remain in check. The tenth amendment took power away from the federal government and gave more power to the states. This is what makes the American constitution so unique because it restricts the main government, unlike how it was in Britain. This was the most important addition to many representatives, as they would not sign the constitution because they feared the government would overpower the states, and it would be a repeat of everything they were trying to free themselves from. Luckily, the tenth amendment has made sure that will never