First of all, the checks and balances guards against tyranny because if we don't stay in check someone might gain too much power. This is very bad because then if they have all the power they want they can do pretty much whatever they want. Many people would end up not agreeing to the laws they make this would basically guarantee a tyranny. The next reason is because checks keep a strong government. An example is without keeping check then the government wouldn't be as strong because of having multiple people with power there would only be one.
If there wasn’t an Electoral College then the smaller states would be at a complete disadvantage. It is giving the smaller states equal power compared to the larger states. If it was based on popular votes, the people around the coasts would dominate and dictate the election. The constitution is big on giving states rights and power, so this helps give all states power. Getting rid of the popular vote would get rid of this idea that the peoples vote does actually impact the election.
However, the Court interpreted the Act in a way that made it harmless, and instead used it go against interstate strikes, since they restricted trade, revealing how unsuccessful the government legislation was at curbing businesses’ corruption. On the other hand, according to the Pageant, the Interstate Commerce Act, though not revolutionary, helped stabilize the businesses. The Pageant felt that the Act was still a significant red-letter law, and it did prove to be a good stepping stone for an effective legislation that curbed corruption. Furthermore, the Pageant believed that even though the Sherman Anti-Trust Act had legal loopholes, it still threatened the power of the monopolistic businesses and introduced a revolutionary principle. Unlike the perspective of Zinn, the Pageant argued that both these acts helped start the transformation from private greed to public need, while Zinn strongly believed that the government legislation was not effective at curbing the corruption, highlighting a difference in perspective.
Additionally, Brennan Center, a non-partisan law institute that focuses on issues of democracy, found that allowing felons to vote would lead to an expansion of democracy (Bernd 5). The United States prides itself on the principle that it serves as the model democracy for the world around it, but those who plead for the enfranchisement of felons do not see this principle being upheld. Instead, they see the United States directly discouraging participation in government and democratic ideals by ignoring millions of American citizens’ opinions on political and governmental decisions. Furthermore, this reduction of American democracy warrants a reduction in the rights of American citizens
Summary The three branches of government should be independent No branch should have power over selecting who makes up the other two branches However, the citizens cannot practically elect individuals for every office for example, the people may not be able to distinguish what makes a good judge (for judicial branch). the government has to be able to govern itself, meaning since men can be greedy, there must be constitutional walls that prevent one branch from becoming too powerful Usually, legislative branch is the most powerful in a republican government The legislative branch is divided into two to avoid an unfair concentration of power Majorities threaten the interests of the minorities Solution one: have a powerful government whose will is more powerful than the simple majority Solution two:
The argument of those who believe this way has many components. First, the Electoral College is felt to be an outdated system which is no longer necessary for our elections (The Electoral College). Opponents of the College admit that yes, at one point in time, the Electoral College was a necessary component in electing the President of the Union. However, technology has made it so that the information necessary to make informed decisions about voting is available to the majority of voters (The Electoral College). Voters today are more informed than they were back when the constitution was written and, because of that, placing the final vote in the hands of electors rather than the people is unnecessary.
According to Document 2, the Constitution was not secure enough. The Constitution did not have restrictions put in place in order to prevent a political office from ruling for life. The possibilities of the U.S. government transforming into a monarchy were too high, making it ideal to not ratify the Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution posed a threat to those less wealthy. Document 5 expressed the concerns of the people, stating, “These lawyers and men of learning, and monied men … make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill”.
Thomas Paine opposes the ideology of government, stating that, “Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil,” (Paine 3). Essentially, the purpose of government is to protect people from preforming vices, and defend their natural right to Locke’s ideology of life, liberty and property. Without government, coercion would occur, and destroy one’s ability to express their natural rights. For America, Paine believes that the establishment of a strong fundamental government could allow for the cohesion of citizens to form a society respected by other nations
As previously talked about in The Federalist 10, the majority group most often threatens the rights of the minorities. Madison believes that there are only two ways to avoid the wrongs brought about by citizens. The first solution is to create a powerful government. This solution would be chancy because a government of this type may place power behind a certain group that is working against the common good. Ultimately if this occurred, the purpose for creating a powerful government would be overlooked.
According to my Social Studies books, “The President’s main power however, would be to make would be to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’ If this duty was not carried out, Congress could impeach the President, or accuse the President of crimes. If found guilty the President could be removed from the office.” Without the enforcement of a law, there cannot be accountability under the law, which is essential to a functioning