It also helps prevent “accumulation of all powers [...] in the same hands,”(B). For example someone cannot be president and a Justice at the same time because it will give that person to much power, because could pass law and declare them constitutional. There is also a system of checks and balances that prevent a tyranny of rising. This system is“to divide and arrange the several offices [...]to check on the other [...],”. This makes it so one branch can not be come to power full and overpower the other two.
During the time of the revolution, John Dickinson drafted the first constitution of the United States, the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation established a central government that consisted of just one body, a Congress. There were many strengths and weaknesses of the Articles. Many of the strengths of the Articles included the powers to declare war, make treaties, and borrow money. However, under the Articles, the national government was weak and states operated like independent countries.
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.
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.
Strict vs. Loose Interpretation of the Constitution Many argue what were the intentions of the Founding Fathers when creating the U.S Constitution. "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases," quoted Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson believed in a strict view of the constitution while he was an advisor.
UK citizen are more informed and able to make analytical judgements in their best interest, this in turn, challenges the authority of the state to decide what is in our best interest. In light of these developments many UK citizens now want to be protected from the frequently exposed dangers of an uncodified constitution. On this basis it is fair to evaluate citizens need for safety overcomes the need for flexibility, thus a codified constitution is now needed to a large extent. Some argue the UK does not currently need a codified constitution because they already have a fragmented constitution. Where large parts of it are written down, in the laws passed in Parliament - known as statute law and ‘The Doctrine Of Parliamentary Sovereignty’ all of which clearly outline the laws, principles and established precedents according to how the UK is governed.
Isolationism sounds like the right choice, staying out of other countries business’ and protecting its own country but on the other hand, seeing as America is superpower and has a powerful military, why should it not help out other countries in need of political reinforcement and aid? Although there are many great points in favour for interventionism as the policy for the United States, a more peaceful and “keep to itself” nation is the more favorable policy. The United States could worry about its own problems, keep to the original policy of President George Washington, “the great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have as little political connection as possible...” and other countries may respect America more because of their seclusion from international issues that are unimportant to it. In regards to the famous campaign speech of Albert Beveridge in 1898, a senator from Indiana, he believed in a nation that should rein the world, saying things like, “shall the American people continue their resistless march toward the commercial supremacy of the world?”(Beveridge,)ical e United States, I believe in a more pea, he believed in an imperialist nation, he
Case 2: Do International Institutions Weaken the Nation-State? 1. International institutions help nation-states manage everyday interactions and conflicts that can arise, even internationally. Therefore, they do not weaken the power of nation-states – they strengthen them. The United Nations is a stabilizing force that plays an important role in international relationships. Not only does it affect commercial relationships, but there would be no set “infrastructure” for the global economy without it, because no standards or norms would be in place.
Is America better than all of the other countries in this world because we offer more opportunity and hope for humanity? Are our constitutional ideals that are focused on personal and economic freedom giving us a top seat to other cultures and nations that share this earth with us? A lot of Americans would like to think so. We live in a country that is arguably one of the best and most free nations not only personally, but also politically. We are governed by public and private interests.
For this reason the political culture of Great Britain combines a great number of contradictory. Thirdly, British monarchy proved to be a effective, so there is no point in removing this political institution. Any replacement might result in the loss of a national symbol and a historical connection that unites the country Moreover, the author believes that it is necessary to remember that Queen Elizabeth is head of 53 nations of the commonwealth. She fosters an idea of unity between nations and that leads to developing strong trade ties between countries which is beneficial to the British economy. According to the author, legitimacy of monarch flows from its history and from the fact that it cannot be replaced by a short-lived cult of personality.