I believe that this principal of the Constitution is very important because without this put into effect the senate of the president could become much too powerful and overthrow the whole government and we would be in a dictatorship or we would be in a direct democracy or some other form of government. The second principal of the Constitution that I believe that is the most important is that of Checks and Balances. This Principal makes it so that each branch of government has some different control over another type of government. This principal is important to society today and I believe that our government would fall apart without it, because without it the branches of government would be able to do what they wanted and they would easily be able to become much to powerful that’s why veto’s and overrule veto’s were created. Also that is why the President is able to appoint judges in the court and how the courts are able to declare other branches unconstitutional.
A caucus would provide the party organizations with a meaningful activity, and give local party activists a real role in the nominating process. Given the weaknesses of political parties these days, a caucus could provide an impetus for party building and party activity, long missing from contemporary politics. The word "caucus" itself comes from the Native People of America and means "to gather together and make a great noise." This seems rather appropriate but this system of electing a presidential nominee is becoming less and less popular as it puts a great deal of power in the hands of local party bosses and the fear is that the beliefs of the people themselves at a local level are not necessarily listened to. By 1980 only 25% of the delegates to the national conventions (coming from 18 states)
Many of the states were concerned about the government having too much power, and by allowing the citizens more power than just what was stated in the Bill of Rights, it ensures that the government will remain in check. The tenth amendment took power away from the federal government and gave more power to the states. This is what makes the American constitution so unique because it restricts the main government, unlike how it was in Britain. This was the most important addition to many representatives, as they would not sign the constitution because they feared the government would overpower the states, and it would be a repeat of everything they were trying to free themselves from. Luckily, the tenth amendment has made sure that will never
This means that instead of making the House of Lords elected, it would probably be more practical just to get rid of it all together and just have the House of Commons. Also, the fact that the current chamber works perfectly well would suggest that it is very unnecessary to make the second chamber elected. Another argument against an elected second chamber is the fact that you would lose all of the expertise that the members of the House of Lords have built up over the years. This knowledge has made them very good at making political decisions that will be for the good of the whole country. However, the fact that they cannot actually prevent a bill from being passed but only delay a bill slightly contradicts this because their expertise can’t be
However, Parliament is sovereign and civil rights and liberties have been put suspended but only in the interests of law and order or national security. Unlike many other democracies, the government retains control over rights and freedoms of citizens. Democracy can lead to the abuse of power and there are fears that if those who govern are left to their own devices, they may claim substantial amounts of power and begin to abuse their position. By making governments accountable to the people, this can be prevented. Governments must submit themselves regularly to re-election and by guaranteeing that they are controlled by elected representatives, the people can feel safe from the corruption of power.
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.
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. Furthermore, many think the UKs fragmented constitution leads to more flexibility in political matters and allows politicians to easily modernise and adapt outdated clauses. This view is often supported with negative examples from the USA’s codified constitutional system. Such as, the topical debate on amending US citizen’s constitutional right to bear arms amidst rising gun crime. The fact the amendment is codified makes it difficult for the US government to modify it even though it is outdated and highly detrimental to US society.
One main point is that without voter identification laws, such as registering in your home state, Americans will try to vote in several states in hopes of increasing their candidates chance of winning the election. This would create in unfair advantage to the candidates at the polls and would not result in an honest election. Another argument is that these laws reduce the chances of Americans voting under fake names or under deceased names. If someone is using another person’s identity or making up a name, it can only be concluded that they do not want their actual identity discovered or known for whatever reason. Not only is it dishonest but it’s also against the law to use a deceased persons information for any reason.
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?
* Having control of the past allows the government to have control of the future. * The future is a direct consequence of the past. * The party will feed them lies about the past, to gain more support for their political agenda by portraying the past in a negative light. * Limiting memory, to limit knowledge of the past. * Makes control of people easier, as they will be more like to support the Party if they think the party has brought positive changes.