In addition, referendums are a form of direct democracy, consequently giving the public control over decision making. Not only this, but some would say these clear answers to specific questions can in a sense be seen as "pure democracy". To put if differently, democracy is unmediated by representatives. People would declare referendums as a reminder that democratic authority finds its legitimacy in the consent of the people- the social contract. Hence, giving people the power to choose the answer to a decision can be seen as sticking to the social contract.
I have produced an introduction and some paragraphs for this question which should be helpful in providing you with a guide to the correct approach in essay-type questions. In particular, note the importance of linking the arguments to the wording of the questions and maintaining an objective approach, with supporting evidence. To what extent is the UK a genuine democracy? In assessing whether or not the UK is a genuine democracy, it is important, at the outset, to consider what is meant by democracy and the criteria which need to be met in order to regard a country as being genuinely democratic. Democracy may be defined as a political system in which people exercise power over the decisions which affect their lives.
Many members of congress believed that individuals should have these rights regardless of having it formally written and didn’t want to create a Bill of Rights. In fact, some believed that implementing personal rights might actually take away rights (UMKC, 2012). These people were called federalists. James Madison had a different agenda though. The anti-federalists sought after a proposal that focused on passing laws, which protected the people as well as the government.
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint Judicial restraint is a doctrine which encourages the judiciary to adhere closely to the wording of the law, be mindful of precedent, and should defer to decisions made by legislatures. In other words, it is a doctrine that urges judges to refrain from incorporating their own philosophies or personal preferences into the law in order to avoid misconstruction of the law. This is based on the concept that judges are to apply the law rather than determine it. One example is Luther v. Borden (1849).
Additionally, I saw two other techniques that go well together. They are evoking emotion and the use of persuasion. In the second paragraph it reads: “Besides, it is due to our Constitution and Government, that we should train ourselves as to fit us for the discharge of the duties of freeman, in full.” While you are reading this sentence, it is hard not to feel as though the author is correct. By the seriousness of her tone, and the logic of the sentence, it persuades me to believe in Cary’s opinion that she expresses. In the paper they also mention: “They either pass us by, in cold contempt, ignore us altogether, keep themselves or their readers, or both ignorant of what Canada is.” In this sentence, she is conjuring negativity and gives me a critical point of view while reading this passage.
Congressional oversight prevents waste and fraud; protects civil liberties and individual rights; ensures executive compliance with the law; gathers information for making laws and educating the public; and evaluates executive performance. It applies
By saying this I mean that we should analyze sentences in its "definite description" - in the form of a sentence such as "The X is Y". The "X" in that sentence would be the definite description. This "X" is always a "thing" or a noun and is deemed "proper" if it implies a specific thing, object or individual being. For example a proper definite description would be "the current USC football coach". One that is not would be like "students from that philosophy class" because it denotes no specific individual being.
I believe that no one should be held back from expressing themselves as long as it’s within the boundaries of the law. If the words leaving a person’s mouth directly contradict and go against the confines of the American law, then it is definitely acceptable for them to be removed from any area of public speaking. If they are not breaking the law and are truly just expressing their opinions, how is it beneficial to force them into silence? Colleges and other institutions should be selective when choosing speakers but they should not base their selections on the opinion of the speaker, but on the quality of their character. It is essential to have a variety of standpoints on most
In this paper I will critically evaluate the social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau and attempt to explain why we will always obey the social contract and why it is important that we continue to do so. SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY Social contract theory is a branch of political philosophy which examines the foundations on which the legitimacy of political authority is built (Lessnoff 1990). The fundamental premise of social contract relied upon by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau is that political authority, political legitimacy and political obligations are derived from the consent of those who create a government (the people), and those who operate it through some form of quasi-consent (majoritarianism) (Riley 1982). It requires a mutual transferring of right in which people relinquish their freedom by allowing others to make choices that will benefit society in general. This notion can be found in the literature of the theorists.
It does so by consisting of a set of rules and principles, “. . . creating, structuring, and possibly defining the limits of, government power or authority.” (Waluchow) Absolutism, on the other hand, the monarch would claim power by “divine right”. They and only they created law, in a pure absolutist state.