Therefore republicanism called for thriftiness, simplicity and plainness in all things, be it fashion or food. Only by closely adhering to republican values could men guard against greed and corruption within others and within themselves. The second set and opposing political idea being birthed at this time was the idea of Liberalism. Whereas republican liberty had a civic and social responsibility, liberalism focused on privacy and the rights of the individual. It defined itself as striving to maximize individual liberty through a democratic system of rights under law.
His views on life tenure and judicial reviews were split upon the framers and intimidated anti federalist, but it is the most methodological way to deal with the separation of powers and prevent different branches from overpowering one another. Although I agree with his claims that the Judicial branch is the least dangerous, because the lack of direct involvement and inability to initiate a change, I believe that without the Judicial branch, the separation of powers would be missing a key feature to prevent a tyranny. Without the Judiciary, it would be easy for the government to take advantage of their powers and overrule the
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
Like mentioned above, the literati were a group of scholars who truly believed man was good-natured and if left to their own wills would prove to be trustworthy and generous on their own. The literati represented the voices of merchants and farmers whose interests had been infringed on by the state’s monopolies (You, 2010). As such, the literati debated on why the market was not equitable and why the government should not be involved in such affairs. On the other hand, you had the Legalists who believed the people were evil and so put into place harsh laws to control them. They also wanted to keep the policies to fund the armies and keep the treasuries full, even if it meant the people would go into poverty.
While as per Thoreau, policies of the State should never be put above the individual's needs. It is true that one is accountable to obey just laws; similarly, one has the moral responsibility to speak against unjust laws. However, it would be an extreme statement that one should disobey unjust laws. Anyways, laws are based on majority vote and cannot always suit everyone in different situations. Unjust laws do exist, but there is a proper way to reform them.
As James Madison stated, “whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial consideration.”[viii] They understood that the unruly masses responsible for the Boston Tea Party could spark a revolution[ix], however the frenzied approach would not serve well as a functional government. They understood that “democratic governing is not the same as democratic discourse”[x]. Boucher was correct, absolute democracy is not practical. This is why a representative democracy, where all voices are heard, but where decisions are made rationally, reflecting the views of the general public, is a logical solution for a functional government representing the will of the people. A representative democracy is a form of democracy whose foundation is built on common sense.
These arguments, although they do not specifically state to physically riot against authority, become enabling factors by which the population should rebel. To begin with, Paine argues that the population of each individual colony would be subjected to better living should they be responsible for their own governing laws. Rather than follow the set rules of the British monarchy, Paine suggests the citizens should “establish a common interest with every part of the community, [and] they will mutually and naturally support each other.” (Paine, 49) Next, he argues that the British monarchy is very complex, contradictory, and unfair to its citizens. For instance, Paine notes that the monarchy “first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required.” (Paine, 50) The contradictory case does not just end here, it is also witnessed in the fact that the monarchy continues through the act of hereditary succession – whereby the King’s descendent automatically becomes heir to the throne. He
Parts of the medieval court system which are still used in our American court system today Open-door policy The notion that our system is better because law and order happens behind closed doors especially needs to be challenged,There is a real downside to keeping those who are punished out of the public eye—we often have no idea how they are being treated most medieval communities lacking any proper policing, crime prevention was trusted in the hands of the village common-folk. There was no reason—or means—for punishment to be any different, say experts. "Punishments therefore had to be simple and generally seen to be fair," according to the online exhibitions of the United Kingdom's National Archives. "Fierce, physical mutilation common in earlier periods, was now rarely used. "Though murderers were often executed, the majority of lesser medieval offenses were punished by shaming the criminal publicly, according to Carrel.
This essay will be in an affirmative position in regard to Albert Einstein’s quote “nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced”. This quote means what’s the point in making a law when you can’t make sure that it’s enforced and upheld. Also it is saying that if the law isn’t respected. One of the reasons laws are put in place are to maintain a civil society. Therefore if laws are not respected we will lose a civil society and everything will turn to chaos.
Englishmen are ruled by the law, and by the law alone; a man may with us be punished for a breach of law, but he can be punished for nothing else. It means, again, equality before the law, or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law courts; the 'rule of law' in this sense excludes the idea of any exemption of officials or others from the duty of obedience to the law which govern other citizens or from the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals". (Tomkins and Turpin, 2011) I will demonstrate in this essay how Dicey's 'Rule of Law' is reflected in the Constitutional Reform Act or 2005 and how the Act resulted in a number of significant changes. Up until 2006 although there may have been an independent judiciary they were not completely separate from Government. The Lord Chancellor was part of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.