Advantages And Disadvantages Of Party Government

In the Authoritarian style of government on the other hand, has many benefits, advantages and like any other type of government, has its own disadvantages and weaknesses. I remember in our previous discussions, we talked about Hobbes’ state of nature which states that a person is naturally selfish and that without a government, there would be total chaos so in result, man agrees to be a part of a government. In this sense, man would agree to be under that government and would agree to be served. It is not assured that there would not be chaos if one joins a government but through this form of government, war would be lessened – and it could be render void. Under this type of government, there are benefits and advantages as well as restrictions.

When the Founding Fathers were planning the country, each one had different ideas on what the country should be like. Some favored a strong central government, others saw that strength in the states would make for a better government. Most of the time, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are seen as the two biggest influences, and opposing views on the role of the federal government. Jefferson opted for a weaker central government, with stronger states and more individual rights, while Madison favored a strong central government, and weaker states. Given that the country was founded on ideas of liberty and democracy, Thomas Jefferson is the more correct of the two.

Washington would see that individual communities and movements have created change for themselves, while working against others. It’s amazing what could be done if we stopped working against each other. While political parties aren’t going away, which would be to Washington’s dismay, he would suggest that the next president figure out a way to stop the two main parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, from being convinced their beliefs are the “correct” beliefs. If we cannot get rid of political parties, the best we can do is unite them. The only way to change our country is by working with each other, not against each other.

This where the governor has too much power so they try to slow the power down by limiting the time that he is in office. If you leave too much power in one person's hands it could go bad very fast by some personal rights being taken away. They could also abuse power by completely changing major things to make things the way they like them. This is why the control of the abuse of power is a democratic feature of Colonial America. Economic Freedom is a major undemocratic feature of Colonial America.

One of the only similarities of Jefferson and Hamilton was their want to diminish national debt. Each one had their own view of how to do this, but it was a main goal of both politicians. Alexander Hamilton was a founding father and leader of the Federalist party. Hamilton wanted America to be just like Great Britain. He believed that in the best interest for the country, the government should be run by elite people with lots of money.

According to federalist 10 suggested by Madison, he identifies the chief danger to a collapse of the Republican government as factionalism where the most numerically strong factions will be able to advance their self-interests at the expense of the minorities and the common good. He fears that the majority factions with different interests would constantly fight with each other that will lead to the eventual collapse of the collective self-government. He recognized that the effects of factions can be controlled through the structure of government which is federalism. The proposed Constitution will minimize the Effects of Factions where the effects are better controlled in larger size of the republic under a representative form of government. In a larger society, it will result in people selected to govern by the constitution be drawn from a wider pool and hence better refining the policies.

While on the other corner of the ring, the Federalists believed that the newly founded country would run best if the national government was strong and powerful and in effect if the Constitution was loosely interpreted. This started a series of issues between the two opposing sides with the Federalists pretty much winning every issue. From the issue of funding the war debt, whether a bank of America should be created, to the Alien and Sedition Act; the two sides did not see eye to eye. However, when Jefferson became president, it could be argued that the same abuse of power that he criticized the Federalists to have done could be argued against his own presidency. It is more than fair to say that Jefferson was a hypocrite not only from a Federalist standpoint but also from the

Parliamentarism, or a parliamentary government, is defined “as a system of government in which the executive, the government, is chosen by and is responsible to…the legislature.” (Gerring, Thacker and Moreno, 2005, p. 15) With this form of governmental control, many advantages and disadvantages arise, especially when this system is compared to the likes of ‘Presidential systems’ or even that of ‘Semi-presidential systems’. However, my aim within this essay is to, both, highlight to advantages of parliamentarism, and to also give my opinion as to why this system is better when compared and contrasted with the aforementioned systems. According to Hague and Harrop (2007, p. 336), there are three different branches relating to the parliamentary system. Firstly, the legislature and the executive are “originally linked”. Secondly, the parliamentary executives, the cabinet minister and the Prime Minister, share responsibilities.

It is of great ease for those opposed to posit that the federal judiciary usurps the power of the executive if it sets precedent that narrows the authority that the Constitution grants the executive, but it is far more difficult for those opposed to accept the reality that the federal courts operate not to remove power from the executive, but rather to prevent it from infringing upon the rights of the people. For example, at present, various United States District Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeal have ruled upon the executive actions of the current presidential administration of Donald J. Trump with regard to immigration policies, with the Supreme Court following by granting writ of certiorari as well. Executive Order 13769, signed by President Donald J. Trump and infamously referred to as the “travel ban,” saw actions brought against it in federal courts in nearly fifty different times and on behalf of various parties, many of them states. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a temporary restraining order on the executive action. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in another instance that the executive action violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution,

The theory says that the national states behavior is sharply connected to the international relations. One of the most discussed developments within the theory is “democratic peace”, which argues that democratic states are not very likely to go to war with each other. The liberalism does not describe states as machines that simply wants to survive and succeed in a system characterized by uncertainty, Liberalism argues that international institutions minimize “uncertainty” in the international system. States are not only concerned of power they also have commercial interests or ideological beliefs, if war is too costly will the state calculus mean that states are less likely to military