However reform of the House of Lords could be said to have not gone far enough, 92 hereditary peers still remain in the House of Lords, and the Liberal Democrats call for a wholly elected upper chamber, to make Parliament fully accountable. The House of Lords are also limited in the fact that they can only delay legislation for up to a year and therefore not able to check executive power as much as they should be able to. The Human Rights Act 1998 is another example of constitutional reform. The Human Rights Act adopted the European Convention of Human Rights and set it as UK statute law. This allows for citizens to be clearer on the rights and freedoms they possess.
Outline Although the founding of the Constitution was a revolutionary, positive turning-point in American history, the US Constitution has a few unconstitutional and democratic shortcomings. Introduction In order to understand the shortcomings of democracy of the US Constitution, is it is important to know the background of its’ founding and how each article serves our country. Federalist No. 10, written by James Madison, asserts the importance of having the image of a democracy without its real substance. There seems to have been a very strong opposition towards democracy at the Constitutional Convention, although the framers were in the midst of creating democratic principles to appeal to the majority of the country.
PT 1: The American Constitution: Structure & Ideology Last Week - Negative Liberty – Leave me alone mentality - Education itself is not government involvement. But progressing people - American Tradition puts the Constitution as a contract (by consent) - Self Rule – “We the People” - Power works through the office of the president (we the people govern) - Virginia Plan/New Jersey Plan - The U.S. Constitution is not simply a model to be given to other countries to copy. It goes back to the Constitution being a compromise. Article 1: Congress (7 Articles) - Longest section of the Constitution (2,243 words) - Compromised of 10 sections [Framers thought Congress would be the most important aspect in government.] [What is the opposite of freedom?
27th Amendment The Bill of rights were parts of the constitutions of the several states of the day (and today), placed there to ensure that certain rights were recognized by the government. Most of the delegates did not feel such a bill was necessary, and other may have been on the fence but were weary from the months of negotiations.The lack of a bill of rights was one of the main arguments that Anti-Federalists used to try to convince the public to reject the Constitution. But the need for change was all too evident, and it was not rejected. However, some of the states sent suggestions for amendments to the Constitution to add an enumeration of certain rights. The ratification messages of the states included many varying suggestions, which
However, under the Articles, the national government was weak and states operated like independent countries. Furthermore, when the weaknesses surpassed the strengths, a Constitutional Convention was called in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. Under the leadership of George Washington, the current US Constitution was drafted during the convention. The Constitution had amended many of the weaknesses of the Articles, and many of the problems it had failed to address. Even though the changes proposed in the Constitution were essential to the survival of the nation, the Articles of Confederation also had some positive and effective measures.
The debate over ratification of the US Constitution was an argument of democracy versus repression, states and the rights of individuals; and overall, a reaction to the serious period. Each side, anti-federalist and the federalists, presented its case before the nation in anticipation of getting its support. The shrift in American attitudes, because of the crises of this critical period, possibly determined the ultimate acceptance of the Constitution. It took a while to ratify the Constitution (two years), but not without great effort from both sides. By early 1787, most people were content under the Articles of Confederation.
It is understandable that the founding fathers did want neither the Congress nor the people to have the power in electing the president. They were afraid that the people were too emotionally driven and susceptible to mob mentality and if Congress chose, then the president would commit their job to Congress; and this would corrupt separation of power. Electoral College ensures that the most qualified person, not necessarily the most popular, would be selected by groups of electors, representing their states but also expressing their personal convictions. If we were to abolish the Electoral College, it would mean Amend the Constitution. With two-thirds of both houses are needed to pass a constitutional amendment, and in the states, also three-fourth of which are needed to ratify an amendment.
It also means that members of Congress are not elected on a joint mandate as members of a prospective government, as would be the case in a parliamentary system, but to represent the interests of their districts and states, and on a separate mandate from the president. However it can be argued that this hinders the system as the president only has limited influence over Congress, and this creates the potential for gridlock and contributes to the weakening of parties. So if the president is a different party than Congress he has hardly any power which is concerning considering the president is head of state and should therefore have the most power. On the other hand it can be seen as a positive, since legislation is the product of compromise and consensus and it is therefore better founded than, for example, legislation whipped through the House of Commons. To conclude it helps the system in a way that it stops there being a dominance of one person or party which is good in a way that the parties have to find compromised and there want me dictatorship.
These ideas were rejected as the framers of the constitution thought this would cause corruption and disrupt the balance of power between the branches of the federal government (Webster, 2016). Later in the convention the Committee of Eleven proposed the idea of electing the President through a College of Electors. The founders thought the selected group of electors was a better process to select the President than going with a direct voting system. The purpose of the Electoral College is to create a safeguard between the population and selection of the President, and to provide power to the smaller states. This system was then written into the Constitution and can only be altered by an
American came after the revolution, Germany’s after the abolishment of the fascist regime. It can therefore be said that, in the past, the advantages to adopting a codified constitution did not outweigh the disadvantages to doing so. Prior to Labour taking office in 1997, little change had been made to the constitution since 1689 – and changes were made as and when needed. However, the changes made during Labour’s 13 years in Government have led some to believe that a codified constitution is now required, and topical issues such as the Human Rights crisis preventing the deportation of known terrorists has meant increased pressure from the voting population. The conservative view on the situation is that the current arrangement works, and is stable; and therefore there is no need to change it.