The main arguments for federation were a united defence force, easier transportation and communication services and abolishing tariffs between colonies. However, independence was the main reason for federating. Many people believed that we needed to become independent from Great Britain as we already had the means to manage a country by ourselves. Separating from Great Britain also meant that we had to create our government and laws. An independent and federal government was thought to be stronger than separate colonial governments.
Finally, Australia’s reliance on unwritten conventions and how this leaves our democratic institutions vulnerable and open to attack is also considered. On the 1st January 1901 Australia was unified under a federal system of government by the Australian Constitution (“Parliament and Government,” n.d., para. 1). The Constitution “established the Commonwealth Government (now known as the Australian Government), defined its structure, powers and procedures, and defined the rights and obligations of the states in relation to the Commonwealth” (“Australia’s federation,” n.d., para. 3).
It all began with James Madison who was, “considered the “Father of the Constitution,” and believed that strict limits on federal power were best for liberty. Powers of the federal government which were not enumerated in the Constitution were forbidden” (“Constitutional” 1). This is how society should be today, where the federal government is restricted to enacting on the laws solely stated in the constitution. Now many presidents and high authority leaders began to follow this idea. With all other powers off limits to the federal government, they didn’t get too powerful.
Parliament in Britain is generally regarded as making laws that apply to the entire population but there is no universal agreement that it should have unlimited power to make laws of whatever kind. In many constitutions, legal limits on parliament to make laws are set out in their written constitutions but as Britain does not have such a written constitution, does it mean that there are no legal limits on parliament? The traditional doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty was first defined by Dicey in the 19th century in his book “The Law of the Constitution”. According to Dicey’s theory, parliamentary sovereignty means, “the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a ride to override or set asides the legislation of parliament.” This idea of parliament being sovereign was formed at time where England was not a democratic country and it could be argued that this theory is dated and can no longer be regarded as an immutable part of UK Constitutional law. If Dicey’s theory is placed in historical context, it was produced in a very different political environment to today.
The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.” Here he sets the theme of his discussion creating the system of checks and balances that keep our country from becoming an anarchy. James Madison wrote 29 of the 85 Federalist Papers mostly dealing with the ratification of The Constitution. When The Constitution was ratified in 1788 James Mason became a member of the house of representatives and drafted 9 of the 10 amendments The Bill of Rights. He also had a large part in acquiring The Louisiana Purchase doubling the size of the nation at that time. Dolly Madison, and James were forced to flee the White house in The War of 1812, but she managed to save many national
Of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, and the Art of the Sale The Constitution of the United States of America is often called the American Experiment by political powers outside our borders. From the time it was drafted it has been scrutinized by enemies as well as allies, each with their own political agenda on what it means to them both individually and collectively. Through the drafting of the Constitution the founding Fathers established a federal government that had more power over their sovereign states but cleverly policed itself from any one organized group within that federal body from gaining ultimate authority over all. This was accomplished by developing three branches of government to counter balance: Legislative, Executive
Parliamentary sovereignty 'Although in theory Parliament is sovereign, the problematic reality is that British constitutional arrangements ensure that true power lies with the Executive.' Part A: Many countries such as the United States have a written constitution but Britain does not, however 'it must have something which is at the heart of its constitutional arrangements'[1] and this need is fulfilled by the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The traditional and most often applied definition of parliamentary sovereignty is that of Dicey, who stated, 'the principle of parliamentary sovereignty means... the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament'[2]. From this definition, three fundamental principles can be derived; the first is that Parliament can make or unmake any law. An example of this principle in practice; The Septennial Act 1715 was passed to extend the life of Parliament from three to seven years out of fear of the effects of an election.
Jessica Sarley Prof. Michael Brillman EUH 4542 21 March 2012 Superior Sunken Class vs. Inferior Noble Caste The society of Victorian Britain appears to have placed an incredible amount of emphatic importance upon the ideas that defined class and status. One's social-standing within the eyes of their peers (whether they were superior or inferior) was based on familial economic stability and an inherited (or cultivated) family name. This superficial standard that measured a person's worth was taking place throughout the entirety of the British Empire. David Cannadine's book ORNAMENTALISM How the British Saw Their Empire, is the first published work which eloquently explains how this - new, different and quite extraordinary - theory of societal interactions is applicable on an individual and empiric level during Britain’s hegemonic period of Imperialism.
Cynthia Jones Madison’s Federalists #51 The Federalists papers were written for encouragement of ratification to the Constitution. We learn that Madison says “we are all citizens who need checks and balances throughout the government.” There are three branches of government the executive branch, legislative branch, and the judicial branch that all have separate powers in American government. Madison breaks down how each should be keeping pieces of their power in its place within its constitutional means. One goal was to ensure no branch of government have more power to be tyrannical and violate against right and liberties, so that one branch may not dominate another. When we only had thirteen states, they wanted to become sovereign countries,
(Blair, Annice, Law in Action: Understanding Canadian Law: Chapter 1, Page 22)(Berkeley) The Justinian Code was composed of three main parts; Codex Justinianus, the Digest, and the Institutes. The Codex was the first of the parts to be completed but was later revised after the Digesta had been completed. (Fordham) The Codex was the reflection of social order in the empire. The codex states that the emperor is an absolute monarch with unlimited legislative, executive and judicial power. A number of provisions were made and secured Christianity as the state-religion and anyone not connected to the Christian church is ruled as a non-citizen.