The first essay he talks about the importance for the judiciary system to be separated from the legislative and executive, while the second was his conclusion of how the system should work. He concluded that the judiciary system should be empowered to enforce the laws passed by the congress. In Hamilton’s vision, the judiciary was the weakest of the three branches of the government, through this idea, this branch should be independent, and avoiding the corruption or interference of the other branches in the decisions, according to Hamilton the branch had "neither force nor will but merely
Under the British unitary system, U.S was a string of colonies. When the revolution implemented, U.S became a confederation under the articles of confederation and when that system verified as abortive, it was transformed into a federal system by the Constitution. This system is preferred for several reasons. The explanations may involve the size of the nation or the miscellany of the partisan divisions. As unitary system in the U.S and the diverse interests of different states made confederation impossible to run over.
DBQ - Democracy in Colonial America Essay Due to British political traditions the 13 colonies One democratic feature is the control of the abuse of power, it means that no person/persons can disobey or break our laws and get away with it not even government leaders. For example say our president broke a law he would not get any special treatment he would have the same punishment as as everyone else which is explained in document 6:Engraving of Virginia's House of Burgess's. One undemocratic feature is individual or human rights, it was undemocratic because we had slaves back then in the olden times and the slaves had no rights, it was undemocratic because , and things of that sort are not democratic, this is explained in document 5:
The members of the upper house would be elected by the lower house making the smaller states have little or no representation in the upper house at all. The New Jersey plan gave the plan for a federal rather than a national government giving the congress the power to tax and commerce. Even though the Virginia Plan remained a large part of the convention the states were looking for equal representation. They wanted the upper
Although there were some positives of the Articles, such as the Northwest Ordinance, which created new states in the Union, there were also some negatives, such how the, "Articles had limited powers: it had no power to tax, it could not compel the states to contribute to financing its operations," as explained by historian Jon Gjerde. Taxes are meant to fund the development or building of something that will help the country.The Articles of Confederation stated that the government would ask for a voluntary donation from the states, who would pay 1/4 of the times that they were supposed to, while the government couldn’t enforce this policy. If this continued, then America would have little to no money to fund anything expensive, such as a war or an exploration of land. Another flaw with the Articles of Confederation, was that, "It had no executive branch and no separate judiciary; instead, it relied on a legislature in which each state had equal representation”. When I read this statement, I thought that it was a fair law, because even though there was only one branch of government, each state had an equal representation, which meant that small states such as New Jersey would have the same amount of power as large states, such as Virginia.
This made them create the law that to pass any amendments, or to change any, it needed to have 2/3 of congress to vote on it and 3/4 of the states approval, unlike when they had the articles of confederation. The Articles of Confederation had to have all the states agree on an amendment. The only problem with this was that the states had different opinions and views, which resulted in nothing changing. The Articles of Confederation only had 1 representative per state. This was a problem because the ratio of population to the 1 representative was unfair.
After the American War of Independence, America and its citizens declared their independence from Great Britain. The America that emerged from the war was a nation based on shared national values as well as ideas and principles protected by national documents. Defeating the British meant that every American citizen would have a chance for political independence. Under this new-found freedom, America would create a system of government (American Democracy) that would put the political power in the hands of its citizen. Even though American Democracy claimed to be a system of government that would give political power to all its citizens, in the late 18th century and into the early 19th century, most blacks living in America were not recognized by law as citizens.
The first is that they rarely threaten military force when they come in to conflict, as it is the nature of democratic political systems. This is because the majority of the people would vote against war and very few if any would benefit. Therefore, the government would not risk their seat of power to go against the wishes of the people and put them in harms way by declaring war. The second, as previously stated, that democracies never go to war with one another. Jack Levy claimed that “This absence of war between democracies comes as close as anything we have to an empirical law in international relations” (Levy, 1988, pg 662).
It is reasoned that the substantive contents of a constitution adopted by a country at a particular point of time reflect the will of its framers. However, it is not necessary that the intent of the framers corresponds to the will of the majority of the population at any given time. In the Indian setting, it is often argued that the members of the Constituent Assembly were overwhelmingly drawn from elite backgrounds and hence did not represent popular opinions on several vital issues. Furthermore, the adoption of a constitution entails a country’s precommitment to its contents and the same become binding on future generations. Clearly the understanding and application of constitutional principles cannot remain static and hence a constitutional text also lays down a procedure for its
Since the founding of the United States, there have been two main parties. Disagreeing on whether the constitution should be ratified, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton helped in founding the first political parties while serving on George Washington’s cabinet (ushistory.org). Starting with the Federalist and the Democratic-Republican parties, then Democratic Party and the National Republican Party, and then the Democratic and Whig Parties, and finally to the now well-known rivalry between the Democratic and Republican Parties, the two-party system is a long-standing tradition in the United states (Blake). The two-party system definitely has some advantages. It allows for political stability, a smaller pool of candidates for public office, a simplified version of political information, and the representation of multiple political ideals (“9 Advantages and Disadvantages”).