They also Primarily enforce the laws that Congress, but only if the Judicial branch finds those laws to be wrong or unconstitutional. The Legislative branch is basically the House of Representatives and the Senate, their job is to write laws and get the president to not veto their laws so that they can pass. When the President vetoes a law it means that, it cannot be put in place. But, when the president vetoes that law then, that president can change what Congress has proposed. Then it will become a federal law if it passes through the government.
Matthew Wong Ms.Yuan History-Duke 12 October 2017 How the Constitution affects tyranny That could happen if the Constitution was not set in place to guard against tyranny. Tyranny occurs when the government has an absolute ruler who rules harshly. The previous constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was not very powerful and lacked many laws needed leading to a decision to forward a new constitution. The Constitution set up different laws to split the power between different powers so that they would never be ruled by a tyrant once more. As such, they split the power between the state and central government, federalism, so that one government does not have more power than the other.
In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke argues that citizens have the right of revolution when the government acts against their interests. To Locke, revolution was an obligation, however, many other philosophers do not view it that way. Edmund Burke, for example, believed that gradual change was better than all out revolution. Other philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes believed that the people need to obey their government due to a ‘social contract’ between them and the state. This essay will argue that a right to revolution needs to be granted to citizens in the case of a tyrannical government because it is the government’s duty to serve its citizens, and if it fails to do so, the people need to replace it with an alternate form of governance.
It was only for the American freedom and to exile the French, but the Colonists took this the wrong way and declared the separation between them and the British Parliament. The Colonists should have never wanted independence from Great Britain, because in reality, Britain was providing freedom. “All they asked for was loyalty and money for debt due to the war’ (Gregg 1). So therefore, the ones being unfair were the Colonists because all they had to do was pay taxes and be loyal to Great Britain. Another reason the Colonists wanted to depart from Great Britain is because the English King chose a judge and was sent to the colonies from London.
A Anti-Federalists point of view is extremely different from a Federalists point of view. Anti-Federalists wanted to stay with the British government which at that time in history they were a monarchy.This happened to form a major problem considering the violence already happening between the government and their own people. With a monarchy the people were given no say in what would be happening to their country, while in a Anti-federalists community they were scared that a strong central government would take away their right and freedom. Marcus Junius Brutus shows a bit of dislike for a central government by stating this phrase in article no. 1, section 8, clause 18 and it states the following; “And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government.“ the thing that
In addition, Laclau proposes to appropriate and fulfill populists’ demands. He argues that one could attach a different political connotation to the populist claims, because no claim had a fixed political connotation (Laclau 2005, 42f). But it is questionable whether firstly, everything should be allowed in politics. For instance, authors such as Canovan have warned that populism would hurt the rights of minorities and thus endanger democracy (1999, 7). Tolerance towards the intolerant will lead to intolerance.
This meant that only by being a citizen were one be seen as loyal to their country. By holding dual citizenship, the legislators were afraid that immigrants would not integrate into their country as they would still be loyal to the country they were originally from. Also, the politicians were scared that the citizens from the enemies would cause trouble. There is also the view that dual citizenship will cause national citizenship to lose its value. It was also thought that dual citizenship would threaten the legitimacy of democracy as it would clash with the principle of “one people, one vote”.
While both philosophers’ writing can be very useful to the government in some ways. The leader should not be cruel or mean to the people but should know when to tough. The big difference is how they disagree most strongly on how a government should run and how they believe in war. They also disagree on when mercy should be given and how the money they own should be spent. Neither one of the ideas that they have for the government will work for the world today, because the world is not as good and peaceful as Lao-tzu describes in Tao-Te Ching, and not as chaotic or mean as Machiavelli says in The Prince.
It is all about communication with your people you cannot expect the colonist to be happy about their invasion of privacy by having British troops all over the place watching their every move. Being controlled from overseas is not exactly what the colonist had in mind when they moved to the Americas to create a new life. The Boston Massacre could have been avoided if King George III did not enforce these taxes on the colonists and would have thought of another way to pay for all the money lost in the war the Americans probably would not have declared their
According to Greenberg and Page, mention that political liberty and equality are necessary for a democracy to be considered successful (Greenberg and page, pg. 30). Political liberty states that all citizens in a democracy are protected from government; this notion is being threatened. Polarization is threatening political liberty primarily because of laws that allow ideological gerrymandering. With more conservative states getting more conservative and Democratic states becoming more liberal it is allowing voters to sort themselves into more ideologically homogenous districts that it is politicians drawing these lines.