Things would run better with no competition for office. The program would have problems. The people of the state might not agree with the program. Philosophers may refuse to take up office because the life of a philosopher would be better than that of a ruler. It would be hard for this program to work in a democracy since the people may not agree with it.
If people demand the extension of marriage to include same sex unions in a state arguing it is unconstitutional, but the court deems it as constitutional, then a statute is in place for future cases to be based on. Once a statute is in place, it becomes more difficult to upturn the initial ruling. Also, because of religious ties, there are a large number of people who are against same sex marriage. As a result, a vote to change marriage laws in a state must come at a time when the majority of votes will not be against it. If the majority of people vote against same sex marriage, then it shows that is not an important issue and future votes may not be called for due to the large number of people against it.
It may have no actual basis in this topic, but I perceive it as having enough time when you are older to think more wisely and act more conservatively. Knowledge and wisdom follow with age. Since I claim that Cleon is showing signs of a younger politician he is acting on pure passion. Cleon honestly views that the Mytilenians have wronged his people and that he will not rest until they are punished. I do not want to say that he does not care about the future, but it does not seem like he is giving any thought as to what the consequences are going to be.
A). The idea of the small confederacies, though they were not the most efficient ways of governing, seemed safer to many as less likely to abuse power. Others like George Clinton worried that a new, centralized form of government would not be possible to manage or maintain given the large territory of the U.S. and the vastly different interests and politics in the different states, that the country would end up divided. (Doc. D) Another point of opposition to the Constitution was that it lacked a bill of rights.
The Articles of Confederation wasn’t working for the fifty-five individuals at the Constitutional Convention on May of 1787 in Philadelphia. Under the articles, there was no chief executive, court system, or a way to force the states to pay taxes. For Madison and his delegates, they were challenged by having to write a Constitution that was strong enough to hold the people and states together without letting one person or group, branch, or level of government gain to much control. How did the constitution guard against tyranny? The constitution guarded against tyranny by providing federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and big states vs. small states.
Most of congresses oversight comes from congressional committees as unlike in Britain congress cannot hold question time as the executive is not present in congress so it is only in committees that members of congress can directly question the executive. There is much evidence to suggest that congressional oversight is only effective when the controlling party in congress and the presidents party remain distinct due to that idea that when they are not, oversight and the scrutiny that comes parallel to it, would do the executive unnecessary harm, in the words of David Broder 'no Republican committee chairman wanted to turn over rocks in a Republican administration'. This argument is highlighted by the fact that almost all of the senates rejection of presidential appointments existed in a time when the presidents party did not control congress, for example, the democrat senate's rejection of George H W Bush's appointment of John Tower to secretary of defence and the republican senate's rejection of Clinton's nuclear test ban treaty. The most noticeable example however comes from George Bush JNR's time in office where for the majority of his first 6 years in power he held a republican congress. During this time of lapdog congress, congressional oversight was practically non existent with a measly 37
Congress: He supported the idea a new constitution (one that followed the New Jersey Plan) to be signed into law. He was so against the idea of some states not having as much rights as others that he threatened to make alliances with other countries to insure the small states were cared for. As the convention went on Bedford became more flexible and was in the committee that drafted the Great Compromise, which he supported. Voting Rights: Bedford cared more about states right than voting rights of individuals in the convention. Legislative wise, he supported the New Jersey Plan where each state would have the same amount of representatives in congress regardless of their size, thus giving all states an equal vote.
For instance, the President is not able to directly pass legislation, although he or she may recommend laws to be created; however, the congress has no obligation to follow through with the Presidential recommendation (Singh 130). Thus, the President may officially be the head of the executive branch; however, power is limited by other branches of government. This is in contrast to the Canadian Parliamentary style of government there is little to no separation of powers between the different levels of government; therefore, the executive and legislative branches are decidedly connected to each other. Therefore, the Parlamentary system in which the ministers of the executive branch are drawn directly from the legislature. Therefore, the role of Prime Minister and cabinet is one which is much more encompassing than is the role of President.
“One group may be all for it while another group may be against it, how is it ever going to be negotiated?” Dr. Bluthenthal trying to emphasize how crucial opinions and views are in trying to resolve ideas. New proposals and improvements will never get resolved with opinions coming from opposite
They stressed that the newly created form of central government did not threaten the states’ rights. The Anti-Federalists touted the “spirit of ‘76” (Schultz, page 15) in favor of a weaker central government, preservation of states’ rights, strong individual liberties and at the very least a robust bill of rights to protect individual liberties. Ratification stalled as Anti-Federalists from larger states such as Massachusetts, New York and Virginia refused to ratify until a bill of rights for citizens was guaranteed, and Federalists, eager to see the Constitution enacted, resisted lengthy amendments to the Constitution for fear of having to begin writing the entire framework over