Another purpose for the Federalist Constitution would be in regards to the safety of each individual state. They believed that each state should find a motive to make some sacrifices for the purpose of the general protection. The Anti-Federalist Party, led by Patrick Henry, objected to the constitution. They objected to it for a few simple reasons. Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong of a central government.
Thoreau’s purpose is to convince the citizens of America to not follow the majority, but do what is felt to be morally right. Thoreau believes that citizens have the right and responsibility to disobey laws and regulations if they are unjust and not moral. Another one of Thoreau’s main points is that there
The state assumes that it has power over individuals, which a view blights human freedom as was expressed by Proudhon ‘to be governed is to be inspected by creatures who neither have the right nor virtue to do so’. Liberals on the over hand do not view the state in such an pessimistic way, however believe that if the state was so have too much power it could indeed become oppressive and tyrannic thus threatening the sovereign individual: something that liberals heavily endorse. Therefore, liberals argue for a minimum ‘night watchman’ state (Nozick). This essay will argue that the state is not an oppressive body but instead a paternal figure, which serves to protect individuals more than it oppresses them. It can be argued from the anarchist perspective that the state is an oppressive body, which undermines human reason and the capacity for self governance.
There is a strong case for both sides of this argument, but I believe that the power level given to judges is the right amount in relation to how important a role they play in supporting British society to work to its full potential through their requirement of upholding the law. Although, there is a strong argument to claim that despite this, they may not be the right people for the role as their independence and neutrality can be questioned, with a view that their power should potentially be limited. One of the strongest arguments, which can be used to defend the power given to the judiciary, is that despite what many believe, they can not over rule government, and government can in fact overrule the judiciary through their sovereignty, and this was backed by Lord Neuberger, head of the Supreme Court who claimed that the thought of parliament not being sovereign is ‘quite simply wrong’, highlighting the fact that the power is ultimately not with the judiciary. The judges do not have the power to repeal any laws despite their opinions on them; their job states that it is obligatory for them to enforce the law despite their personal opinions. However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws.
In the end he says that in order to have a balanced government the majority must agree on justice. The historical significance of this article is, during this time if no separation of powers or checks and balances were enforced the government would have collapsed. If the powers were not limited; with time a certain person would end democracy and bring forth once again a tyranny government. It is also important that the government was equal yet had power to control its people because if not there would be no type of
Laws accepted in one state may be unnecessary in another. Some may believe this would cause too much laws and chaos throughout our nation, but even though a form of the constitution covers a wide array of problems, it doesn’t get too deep into specific details. Thankfully, this power can narrow down those laws into more specific policies needed for just that state; other states would not be affected and may have different policies of their own. In addition, a separation of powers would hold the executive branch directly accountable by the electorate. Even though some might criticize that these politicians might not make radical choices in order to prevent upsetting their supporters, that’s what democracy is about: for the people and by the people.
If you find both definitions inadequate, write your own, and explain it. Answer: The first definition is more accurate from my experiences and understanding. Even if the ones who are ruled object to the power given to the leaders, they still have to exist for the leaders to hold power. Also, public policies might not always be laws, as the second definition says. (10 points) 2.
The United Kingdom’s s uncodified constitution relies heavily on established conventions and trust in order to prevent widespread corruption. To some extent this type of constitution historically has served the UK well. However, due to increasing disillusion with politicians and their ethics. Which some claim to be the result of more transparency and a higher level of education. 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.
PROS AND CONS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION Several justifications can be offered for affirmative action. Because, by definition, affirmative action involves working to assist society’s less-advantaged members, one reason to promote affirmative action policies is to remedy the effects of past discrimination. This remedial justification of affirmative action recognizes that wrongs have been committed in the past and acknowledges a moral obligation to set things right. Opponents of affirmative action do not contest the moral obligation to remediate past harm. Their objection to remedial policies is frequently centered on the claim that specific affirmative action policies will not help those who have in fact been harmed, but will sweep too broadly and provide benefits to those who do not deserve them.
Meanwhile, It is necessary for us to rebel against unjust laws that may potentially exert a detrimental influence on social well-being, and to seek changes for the betterment of laws. However, there has no a universal standard to evaluate the farness of laws. Whether the law is just or unjust depends on one’s personal interests and value system. Towards the same law, one may see this clause to be dubious while the other sees it perfectly making sense .For instance, "abortion", "euthanasia" are the central of violent controversy, some regard them are unjustifiable as against basic human right; thereby forbidding by laws. Ironically, some hold the view that they are acceptable as people can choose their lifestyle freely.