Most of the Ancient Greek city-states practice democracy as their system of government although only Athens is well-known for it democracy. In Athens, the Assembly could meet at least once a month or even two to three times a month. Any male citizen of age 18 or above could speak and vote in the Assembly. Their voting system was simply a show of hands. Those who attended the Assembly could even get some pay which was a kind of motivation to lure more citizens to participate.
As various studies suggested, ancient Athens pursued permissiveness and democracy, which its form of government was the antecedent of nowadays 'rule by the people '. After toppling the dictator Hippias in 510 BC, Athenian demos not only took power, but also introduced electoral system that "with no single ruler. A public assembly of male citizens met 40 times a year to vote on state decisions. The agenda was set and decrees carried out by a 500 strong council, chosen by lot to serve one year each"(Finley, 1983). In my view, the authority was no longer centralized in the hands of one administrator, more ordinary people got a say in running the
Before this act, most public officials didn’t receive a salary, and only the most wealthy citizens could become an official. Now, the poor and the unwealthy may serve as an official if they were to be elected. Because there were many newly added public officials, Athens had more citizens participating in their government. This improvement made Athens on the greatest democratic
The Articles of Confederation were so different from the constitution. For example, The Articles of Confederation only had one branch of government called congress, while the constitution 3 branches. These branches are the Legislative branch, the Judicial branch, and the Executive branch. These
However, going back earlier in time, we question why was the Gracchi allowed to have such authority and audacity to challenge the powers of the senate in the first place? Why, for Athens, such an influential nation at that time was able to rise to power but yet unable to make the right decisions to protect itself from threat? Although from previous discussion, the reasons might seem entirely different, however upon closer inspection, it might not be so dissimilar after all. A possible answer to both earlier questions could be due to the rise of populism. At the earlier stages of demokratia, democracy was still limited and the voices of common people were still far more inferior to that of the aristocrats.
Imperial Presidency Imperial presidency can be described as when a president uses a greater power without the implement of Congress or the other branches. The three branches of government include the executive, legislative, and judicial. The executive branch consists of the president. The legislative branch has the Senate and House of Representatives. The Judicial branch supports the Supreme and lower courts such as state.
Redistricting has been a cause of debate for many years in the United States. The process of manipulating the boundaries of voting districts for party or class gain is as old as our nation. In 1788, Gerrymandering was already being used by Patrick Henry to put James Madison at a disadvantage in the race for presidency (Barasch). Although certain rules are in place – like how districts must be contiguous and and compact – there is little said about the actual process of redistricting in the constitution, which is why redistricting has been taken so wildly out of its constitutional context through the centuries. Many states and activist groups have tried to reform the redistricting process, but only twenty-one states utilize a non-partisan commission
After the Dark Ages all true monarchs were all but gone except for the reconfiguration in Sparta (Carr, K.E. Government in Ancient Greece). Sparta had two kings instead of the more typical singular family rule. An aristocracy is a form of rule in which the elite all of the decisions. An example of this is in the city-state of Athens where only the wealthiest can hold powerful positions in government.
Michelle Alexander’s book, The New Jim Crow, summarizes the justice and prison systems as an unfair institutions that push low-level offenders into detention centers with harsh sentences due to the “tough on crime” stance of major politicians on both sides of the aisle. Alexander brings up the case of Florida vs Bostick, where stop-and-frisk procedures have somewhat violated the fourth amendment. In Bostick’s case the US Supreme Court believed that if he were a “reasonable person”, he could have refused the search, but most do not realize that arrests can still take place, even in a reasonable situation, when someone does not comply with an officer. As crazy at it may seem, the innocent in some cases often go unheard because of the fear, power, and lack of resources to fight back. Many succumb to pleading guilty and never have the opportunity to speak with a lawyer or public defender.
Who gets to decide whether a person gets to vote or not? The laws in America seem to be limiting the ability to vote for their future president. When you think “voting” in the United States, you think about being a citizen. To vote you must be a citizen but another big factor is you cannot vote if you are a convicted felon. A convicted felon is prohibited from voting in the states excluding two other states.
Greecians created systems that would not be imagined in a person’s wildest dreams. They created things WELL that were way before their time. For example, democracy. If that is not an impact Greece has made on our culture, then I don’t know what is. This political system started in Athens, where it started as a Monarch, then grew to an oligarchy, until it finally reached a democracy.
Another way the Cconstitution protected against tyranny was, through the power of big states vs. the power of small states compromises over representation. This process worked as, the amount of representatives appointed was based off the population of that state. The higher the population,= the more representatives. This obviously made making the bigger states happymore happy, because if they had all those representatives they could shift leeway the laws toward their liking, but not too much. The way this evened out was that when senators were appointed every state was given two for six years.