From the Stamp Act of 1765 until the Treaty of Paris in 1783, colonists from thirteen small colonies fought for independence from British Parliament and its authority they imposed upon the colonists. This change for a political revolution to remove British control of absolute sovereignty led to the establishment of a nation that become the United States of America. Tensions were already in place between the colonists and the British, and grew even more when British Parliament placed taxes upon the colonists, creating laws that controlled colonial liberties. Colonial protests and rejection began with the Boston Tea Party in 1773, followed by Coercive Acts, and in response, colonists created their own alternative government known as the First …show more content…
However, many states like Virginia, believed that British mixed government was the best remedy for the states, where the king has arbitrary despotism along with absolute power from the monarchy and aristocracy. Parliament makes the law while the monarch executes them. This idea of government potentially limits the power of the king with some form of law rather than becoming a “tyrannical state.” The colonists’ preference of a mixed government is fundamentally evident in Adams’s Thoughts on Government, where Adams proposes the larger idea for an “unrestrained democracy.” A mixed republic government would allow for a “free and independent exercise of judgment” thus, preventing the government from having absolute power. Adams continues to state that the legislative power must be more complex; as in if one power is wholly in one assembly and the executive in another, the two powers can simultaneously oppose one another until the strongest branch of power wins. Upon this argument, Adams addresses the idea that each state must have a “district assembly” who stands as a “mediator” between the people and the government. The idea of mixed government was in order to provide a sense of stability through the success of a republic where offices of state are elected upon “virtue” and not of hierarchical inheritance. Unfortunately, such limits of power are …show more content…
The first state under a mixed government was Virginia. Virginia believed that government was to have a two-bodied legislature with separation of powers; however, representation of the lower house and voting would still be under the Crown, still allowing the king power. The House of Delegates and the Senate were created under the two legislative branches, known as the General Assembly of Virginia and are voted in by counties and districts. All laws originate in the House of Delegates, and with the advice of a Council of State exercise the executive powers of government according to the laws of Commonwealth and not by the laws of British Parliament. Virginia’s Constitution formed a mixed government, where the central characteristics of a republic’s executive power is divided between a “governor” (monarchy, an unchecked power), the Senate, who represents the state (aristocracy, a closed power), and the House of Representatives (democracy, which demonstrates anarchy). Following Adams argument that each state should have a free and independent exercise of judgment and power, in A Perfect Model of the English Constitution, Carter Braxton states that in order for a government to fully function, it should be divided into the simple forms of Despotism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, and
In addition the people, instead of the States, would elect the lower house of the legislature who in turn elected the upper house (DFC pgs. 8-9). Furthermore, Federal power
This specific system of government is described by the 21st Century American Government and Politics textbook as, “The allocation of powers and responsibilities among national, state, and local governments and the intergovernmental relations between them.” When deciding whether the Framers intended for federal or state governments to be supreme in the federal system, a divided answer among the Founders surfaces. If one was to present this question to Alexander Hamilton and his fellow Federalists, he would undoubtedly express his support for a strong federal government. Conversely, Thomas Jefferson and the anti-federalists were in favor of state government supremacy in the federal system and even resented the ratification of the Constitution.
When states powers are separate and different from the Government's’ powers prevents tyranny by separating the powers between the Central Government and the State Government. Also if the Government's had all powers, then the states wouldn’t have any freedom, which is what America was built for.
1. Equal representation is when each state sends the same number of representatives to make decisions. Proportional representation is when a proportionate number of representatives are chosen based on the states population. If there is a bigger population, more representatives are sent. The smaller states thought this was unfair because they thought they would just me controlled by the bigger states, and they would have no say in anything.
The colonists had decided that they had enough of Britain and the King being unfair. All of the colonies were unhappy with the fact that they were being taxed without representation in parliament. “Disregarding American protests that the colonies could not be taxed because they were not represented in Parliament, in March 1765 the British government enacted a stamp tax to take effect in the American colonies on November 1, 1765”(Alexander 174). Many of the colonists were not happy with the Tea Act that was passed to help the East India Company that was struggling. The Boston Tea Party created tension due to the fact that colonists disrespected British cargo.
Ever since England colonized America, the colonists were governed by Great Britain. The French and Indian War was a drain on the resources of American colonies because Britain had a war debt that it wanted the colonies to help pay. Little by little, the colonists’ resentment towards King George built up because of the demands of higher and higher taxation on everyday goods. In addition, during this time, the colonists were forming their own thoughts about self government after learning about ideas from the Enlightenment movement. About ten years before the Revolutionary War, three pivotal events caused the American colonists to contemplate breaking away from England and establishing a new nation- the French and Indian War, Great Britain's
This mixed government kept power to the people and prevented the central government from becoming too powerful. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments [state and federal]. The states had their own reserved powers while the federal government had the delegated ones (Doc A). The shared powers of the two were called concurrent powers. Through these, state sovereignty, or power to the people, was maintained and both powers could even tax and make laws.
After deciding to write a new constitution, the delegates could not decide what new form the government should take. One of the options was the Virginia Plan created by Edmund Randolph and James Madison. The plan included a strong government with three branches (the legislative branch, The judicial branch, and the executive branch). In the Virginia Plan, the legislator would consist of two houses and seats would be awarded on the basis of the population. Due to the fact that the seats are awarded based on population, larger states would have more representatives than smaller states.
James Madison wrote Federalist 51 over 200 years ago, yet its words still impact today’s government in 2016. When writing Federalist 51, Madison had two main objectives in mind; he wanted a government with a separation of powers, and he also wanted minorities to be protected. Both of his objectives have been accomplished and continue to be present in today’s American government with the latter objective being more present in today’s government even more so than in the past. To begin with, power is separated in today’s government, preventing a single person or group from having absolute power since, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” according to John Dalberg-Acton. The American government is composed of three branches which power is separated amongst.
West Virginia is a small eastern Rust Belt state founded in 1863, making it the 35th oldest state in the Union. Since its inception, the West Virginia state government has worked for its people to provide structure, safety, and order to its citizens. Comparing West Virginia to Florida highlights a striking difference between the two states, but with a similar result: a tradition of voting red despite most citizens being registered as Democrats. West Virginia’s state government is made up of three branches, the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch. Each branch plays a role in constructing and enforcing laws and maintaining the state government infrastructure.
“The different governments will each control each other at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” (Doc A, Madison,James, Federalist Paper 51, 1788). Each part of the government had there own jobs to do, for example the central government has the power to regulate trade, conduct foreign relations, provide an army and navy, while the state government set up local governments, holds elections,
Under this type of government one groups interests are always expressed, and consequently, there is always a perpetual loser. This is not what Madison had in mind when he wrote Federalist 10, instead he argues that as long as there are multiple factions competing, the control, and therefore interests of the government should be moderate, as well as changing. He goes into more depth, arguing that a representative form of government is ideal, due to the representative’s ability to effectively represent smaller populations, such as states. He continues to explain that factitious leaders might be able to “kindle a flame”, but would be unable to progress their movement throughout the states due to a series of checks and balances. He describes to the reader that each branch of the government would have some control over the other, balancing out the governmental power, thus keeping the effects of factions to a minimum.
The only form of government discussed above, capable of transparency, good governance, stewardship, freedom, and equality is the democratic system of government, where there are hierarchical administrative structures that ultimately report to the executive arm of government. Notwithstanding the nepotism, corruption, and inequalities that mired the Monarchy, Aristocracy, Oligarchy forms of government. We can argue that there are peace and stability in Monarchy, Aristocracy, Oligarchy forms of government, compared to the democratic system, for example, the madness of the mob in the Athenian poleis. These are a false sense of peace due to fear of repression and victimization. These forms of Government are the similarity in their style of governance, power is in the hand of the few individuals by hereditary or usurpation, it is an unrepresentative system of governments, unlike the democracy, where power is in the hand of the citizens.
The best type of government however likely the hardest to accomplish is polity. A polity happens when every single pertinent subject of the state take an interest in the central leadership through open discourse, trade off, and placation. Obviously, this is just conceivable in the little city-expresses that Aristotle knew so well. Once more, the attributes of this administration are only, the most noteworthy type of intelligence is the trade off and placation, and government that for the most part works for the advantage of all. The unreasonable type of Commonwealth was marked as Democracy.
In the anthology Princeton Readings in Political Thought, editors Mitchell Cohen and Nicole Fermon, tell us that, “what political theorists look at, speculate about, and contemplate,” involve the question of how we should organize ourselves.1 Moving beyond speculations, and contemplation about how States are born - and what justifies them - arguments, pro et contra who is fit to rule, and under what type of system, become the pressing questions of political theory. The history of political theory provides many examples of the various types of both people and systems of rule that have predicted, with some accuracy, what type of system and ruler would be best for any society. It is my intention to first, describe two of the more popular political theories on the systems of rule, those of Plato and J.S. Mill. Further, I will compare and