has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of society . . . It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments .” After reading what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist no. 78, I agree with what he wrote but I can’t fully agree.
Why is there no formal UK constitution? There are several theories about why the UK does not have a formal document such as a written constitution. Perhaps the most logical argument is the fact that Britain has been a stable country for such a long time and therefore has not had to deal with an uprising, revolt or internal war for many centuries. Arguments for and against a bill of rights There have been many times throughout the last century when certain political groups have called for a bill of rights for the UK. One particularly strong argument for this would be the symbolism invoked by having a bill of rights clearly showing that the citizens have rights enshrined in law.
The articles of confederation was the first written form of this nations government though it had its usefulness in the area of the western migration it was weak in the areas of the economy and foreign relations it also left the country open to invasion because the articles did not have any form of national military and a very weak central government. In 1777 the Articles of Confederation were ratified and this new nation now had a form of government. Overall the articles of confederation were very weak the economy was in shambles and they had very little success in foreign relations. The economy had very little success because the United States government could not tax its people therefore the government itself had no income which made it possible for the British to maintain trade outposts in the Northwest territory. The British could stay there because the United States didn't have an army because the government didn't have any money.
The people didn’t have a choice whether or not to elect a new leader. In the movie, the High Chancellor rules the United Kingdom as a totalitarian state, meaning there are no limits to his authority and he tried to control every aspect of the people’s life that he possibly can. Democracy is the only real form of government that gives the people liberty and equality. Democracy gives people rights, like the right to vote. With the Chancellor’s totalitarian rule, the people had no rights and no way to vote him or any other officials out of office.
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
The British Constitution Briefly explain the term flexible as used in the extract Flexible means that the constitution can be amended easily and quickly as unlike a rigid constitution such as the one in the US, there is no lengthy procedure for change that has to be followed. A flexible constitution it can be altered via the law-making process, by a simple majority in the legislature as no laws are regarded as fundamental. “There is no convincing case for a written/codified constitution in Britain” Discuss To a certain extent there is no convincing case for a codified constitution in Britain. The main reason against a codified constitution in Britain is because a codified constitution would totally undermine the sovereignty of Parliament, the idea that Parliament can legislate as it chooses and that there can be no superior authority to Parliament. Moreover, no such document could be entrenched whilst Parliament retains the power to alter it at will.
As a US citizen, I have never really taken a thorough look at the constitution. I have learned about it in numerous history classes, watched multiple movies, and read many books about the legendary constitution. It is placed on such a high pedestal that you would never think that it was “flawed” according to Sabato. If I were to stop and think about it, I know that the constitution isn’t perfect. However, we’d never think of that right off of the bat.
The UK has an unwritten constitution as there is no single authoritative document which establishes government regulations. There is a constitutional jigsaw of various sources, such as legislation, case law, Royal Prerogative and Constitutional conventions. These are the main sources of the UK constitution and so merit discussion. This can be contrasted to the USA which has a written constitution, setting out the fundamental laws. I argue that to some extent the UK has a flexible constitution, and Giussani’s statement is partly correct.
The Tea Party movement believes no American President, Democrat, nor Republican should ever go beyond the Constitution, regardless of the issue at hand. Neither person nor issue can ever precede the Constitution, because it is the basis of the American people and their rights. They claim the government has become too powerful, and have lost connection with the American people that they are supposed to represent. Ideologically, the Tea Party movement believes in complete freedom and individual rights because freedom is what this country is based upon, and without freedom our country is restricted and American people and society as a whole will not be able to grow. They have received hateful ridicule from many socialists and leftists but the Tea Party has stood their post and will not stop despite any criticism.
A classless society is a utopian ideal, it has never been reached. The USSR has disintegrated and the Berlin Wall was already felled but a classless society has never been epitomized by any society around the world. The present societies around the world differ in the form of government but they are still governed by different kinds of leaders, some practice monarchy under a king or queen, others use the presidential form of government, while others used the dictatorial form. Check these out on Amazon: Selected Writings Amazon Price: $17.95 $11.39 Buy Now (price as of Mar 3, 2013) The Communist Manifesto Amazon Price: $7.77 $3.68 Buy Now (price as of Mar 3, 2013) The leaders in our society don't have to come from an intellectually and morally elite ruling class; as long as an individual can put the interest of the public first than his personal interests, he is fit to be a leader at the least. An elitist form of government became so because people let themselves be governed by elites.