In the case of the Provisional Government they changed it from autocratic to democratic and Lenin changed it to a one party state; although the result was different the basis was the same. In some cases all of the rulers passed reforms that they had no choice whether to or not, it was simply necessary. All of the Tsars wanted to uphold their autocratic position, Alexander III most of all due to what happened to his father, so keeping absolute control was essential. Nicholas II was the only tsar to make any major political reforms due to the Tsar’s wanted to keep their power. However, Nicholas II had no choice to create the Duma because of the 1905 revolution; so he reluctantly did so he did not completely lose his position.
ISSUE 5 Does the President Have Unilateral War Powers? I found this to be an interesting issue about the President having unilateral war powers. I can definitely see the “grey” area and reason for this issue to arise. As stated in the book, the confusion/conflict comes from the constitution and how it’s written. In summary, the Congress is given the power to declare war and “to raise and support armies”, but the president is authorized to serve as commander-in-chief of the armed forces “when called into actual service of the United States.” This means the President has the power to move troops where he deems fit regardless of congress.
The Aztecs transformed their political organization by introducing a monarchial system similar to that found in more powerful neighboring states. Aztec rulers did not have absolute power, and royal succession was not based on primogeniture. A council of powerful aristocrats selected new rulers from among male members of the ruling lineage. Once selected, the ruler was forced to renegotiate the submission of tribute dependencies and then demonstrate his divine mandate by undertaking a new round of military
Therefore, people no longer had to worry about changing the currency when crossing into other states. Another problem with the Articles of Confederation was that it allowed each individual state to have its own militia. This was a problem because each army was small and run by different people, and the states did not have sufficient funds to arm their men adequately. The Constitution corrected this failure by raising and supporting armies, providing and maintaining a navy, and designating the President of the United States as the commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Federal Government now has the right to organize, arm, and discipline the militia.
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
These nobles expected a monopoly of influence over the king. As a result, the king had to perform a balancing act between expectations of the nobles and the King’s own freedoms of action to appoint his own councillors. The King needed to stop one faction from dominating and not exclude people of royal blood, something that Henry would struggle with. Although Henry was not directly responsible for the growth in power of the nobility, many of his actions certainly exacerbated the problem. More powerful nobles meant hat Henry had to dispense patronage fairly or risk upsetting and isolating powerful nobles.
The new king had real power and was in control of the army and he would also personally select the prime minister and all the individual ministers meaning the people had no real vote; they could vote in a person as a minister only to have the king turn him away. In parliament there was a huge lack of political parties. Politicans were linked by family and local interests rather than political principles. This gave the king more influence and made room for him to manipulate people through his favorite prime minister to support a certain ministry. This way of running government became known as
Richard III in many ways could be described as either a good or a bad king, as well as hi actions before and during his short reign as King. Before Richard III became King, the people of England wanted him to be the protector of Edward V eldest son of Edward IV, thus giving him power until Edward V could make his own decisions. This proves that Richard III was thought of by the people of Britain as trustworthy of ruling their great nation. During his reign in October of 1483 Richard crushed an attempt at rebellion against him, this is one of his strengths as it proves that he was capable of retaining his power whilst under threat. He also had the Duke of Buckingham who plotted against him captured, tried and put to death, this shows that
In his rule over Thebes and ideals of a King, Creon suffers from the incessant flaws of arrogance and pride. Even his values of what leadership should consist of show no humility when he announces, “The State is the King” (Sophocles 842). Creon is commenting that he thinks that a leader should be the entire government and have all of the power in his country; therefore that he himself should have the entirety of the power. When Creon asserts that “[his] voice is the one voice giving orders…” (843) in Thebes he again shows that he alone should be supreme and wield the power and decisions of his people. Along the lines of his values his reign is much more like a dictatorship than any other.
He also desired equality and justice for all regardless of their religious or political affiliation but not through a government that had complete control over its people like an aristocrat would over “commoners.” Equality and protection of all citizens should be granted and protected by the government of America; a government elected by the people and for the people. Both men desired the government to have the common interest of the people at its cores, but had different ways of achieving it. Unlike Washington, who favored a centralized government, Jefferson opposed it. This created a conflict because Jefferson feared that the ideology of republicanism was threatened with a centralized and powerful government proposed by Washington as well as the supposed monarchical tendencies of Hamilton and the