Some supporters say that a state should have more power than the federal government and then there are others who say the Federal government should be the ruling body alone. You have a central government that functions to keep the country working as a unit, but also works to keep the states from encroaching on individuals and becoming too intrusive. The same works for states. The states have a lot of control over what their citizens should be subject to. For example, criminal laws, property laws, contract laws...etc are decided by the state, not the federal government and they aren’t allowed to govern those areas.
However, both principles function under one principle which is checks and balances. The second part of the U.S. Constitution focuses on individual rights and liberties. However, we will only be discussing the first part of the Constitution in this essay. The framers of the U.S. Constitution wanted to prevent the concentration of power into the hands of one individual, or even one group of individuals, within the national government. In order to accomplish their goal they decided it was necessary to divide the governmental functions into three: legislative, judicial, and executive.
Do pressure groups strengthen or weaken democracy? It is extremely difficult to reach a conclusion on whether groups are good or otherwise for democracy but it is important to realise how they can be both beneficial and damaging to it. In debating the matter we face the difficulty that the group’s methods, aims and composition vary significantly and so they cannot all be thrown into the same group. So while we make comments on judgements they are only generalised and do not apply to all groups in all circumstances. Government’s aims are always to please the public, or do the best for the state and so these groups clearly show the government what a certain band of people wish to happen.
Third parties are willing to touch subjects that pose threats to the main parties, subjects that are either too controversial such as abortion or too hard for either major party to come to a consensus such as handling the national debt. If either the Democrats or the Republicans stray too far from their middle ground they will lose votes , yes the Democrats have taken more liberal stands and the latter more conservative but both make sure to stay in the middle or as close to the middle to seem appealing to a larger number of citizens. (Citrin) Having a two party system places restrictions on viewpoints because it has to be made more general to accommodate the public. So an argument is made that third party will provide a purer democracy seeing as the current system makes some Americans feel marginalized. But what is this feeling that marginalizes Americans?
A large republic would be better to control these factions 1. Harder for “unworthy” statesmen to proceed with their “viscous arts” 3. Mercy Otis Warren Attacks the Constitution a. Beware the promises of the men who bring you this Constitution for they may use their future powers to give or take away freedoms b. We will see chaos because these men will be given powers greater than what our forefathers wanted i. Few men with all the power 1.
However, there are inevitably some questions arising about the electoral college and whether it still works best for the US today. Some say it should be completely scrapped, with a more democratic direct election taking it's place; others day that it can be mended by reforming it, and the final argument is to defend it, and leave it as it is. One reason to end the electoral college system is because it is not democratic enough. The winner of the nationwide vote could in fact lose the election because of the way the electoral college works. Popular vote winners have been denied the presidency in 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000.
However, the citizens wanted to make their own rules to follow, sensible and understandable rules. Further on Paine explains “the sun will never shine on a cause of greater worth?” I think that Paine is saying that it is such an issue that we should look to reform it in any way so that it is more fair to all citizens. The struggle of having a King or a Monarchy for the people at that time was difficult. The community wanted a more fair and equal government, while the king was not giving that to them. Let’s take for instance when Paine refers to the past writings of another author, Mr. Pelham “they will last my time.” The name of ancestors will be remembered for their great deeds by future generations with destinies of their own.
Stalin was more popular because of Trotsky’s “political paralysis” he couldn’t be a good public speaker. This links to my next point because they both result in Stalin’s getting more power. Stalin made an alliance with Zinoviev and Kamenev to form the triumvirate. The triumvirate’s main aim was to defeat Trotsky. Trotsky advocated a permanent revolution with Stalin didn’t want.
In 1787, original essays began to appear in newspapers across New York and Pennsylvania. Between October 5, 1787 and June 27, 1788 a total of 85 articles appeared. Written primarily by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, they are referred to as The Federalist Papers. These articles were intended to built support and convince the states to ratify the Constitution. Federalist No.
However on the other hand a separation of powers undermines the idea of political sovereignty, because even though they have gain legitimate power, they are not able to run the country as they wish in terms of financial and economic policies. Flexibility is big problem also as an uncodified constitution allows the government to change the constitution and allows them to amend it to suit the needs of the party instead of the party in office working within the framework of the constitution, this can lead to a dictatorship also and pretty much removes the importance of a constitution, as it does not limit the government, whereas a codified constitution would most likely entrench these laws, meaning they would only be changed in an extraordinary circumstance . Regardless of this it could be argued that due to the ever evolving philosophy, it