These intentions disclose the structure of government it aims to articulate and subsequently protect over time. In doing so, it lists only governmental powers that are necessary to maintain its enduring political system, which reflects the state’s identity and indirectly promotes civic virtue. Powers regarding various policy areas are not included as they are instead determined by the people via the legislature. As an extension to this, in order to preserve its fundamental ramifications, the constitution must be drafted in a manner that makes it difficult to amend. By retaining a rigid amendment process, it protects the people from the passions of small factions that threaten to sabotage its original meaning.
The most important differences between absolutism and constitutionalism are the setup of government power. In an absolutist government the monarchy has complete power; whereas in constitutionalism, the monarchy must share power with an elected assembly of representatives. Another important difference is the interests of those in charge. Absolutist rulers usually pursuit their personal interests. Constitutionalist rulers think more of the common people, or the country as a whole.
Representative democracy, Republic, oligarchy, dictatorship. No two forms of governments are exactly the same, each having to adapt to the culture and the people around it. Many governments are more than one form, such as Britain is a monarchy and a representative democracy. Rome was a republic, letting its people elect officials and allowing any male citizen hold office. Carthage was an oligarchy and a republic, having elected officials but only from a certain class.
How does the constitution guard against tyranny? The constitution guards against tyranny because of the power being shared, government branches, and checks and balances. I know this because of the documents in the DBQ I also knew it from the questions based on what I read. First of all, the power is shared. This can guard against tyranny because when one person gains too much power, then tyranny is almost guaranteed because there would not be an easy way to stop them from doing only what they desire.
The fault in this lies in the motivation behind the justices’ decisions; with judicial activism, it is nearly impossible to view law as objective and free of bias. Many fear that in acting as policy makers, justices bring their own partialities and beliefs into account instead of allowing the literal interpretation of the Constitution guide their decisions. On the other hand, judicial restraint can also be used when deciding cases. Judicial restraint refers to justices interpreting the United States Constitution word for word, keeping from bringing their own beliefs or biases into account and most importantly refraining from assuming the role of policy maker. Under judicial restraint, justices work to uphold the laws that are already in place and to maintain the laws as they stand except in the event that they are blatantly unconstitutional.
The Constitution protect against tyranny through federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. Firstly, we can’t endorse the national government have all the power to decide what happens in each state, that’d be crazy. To let a bunch of people in Virginia decide on what happens in Colorado, it would be unethical. To prevent that, there needed to be a federal government. Each state has it’s own mini-government
The Roman constitution was made up of three different elements, making it as democratic as possible. These three elements consisted of Consuls, The Senate, and The Assemblies. each one having individual and independent powers. The Assemblies being the most important out of all three because it is the people who grant office to the ones that deserve it through elections. According to (Doc A) “The Assemblies had the final say in passing or repealing laws, and the final decision on whether they were going to have peace or war.”
Montesquieu stated that the best way to secure liberty and prevent a corrupted government was to divide the powers of government among separate groups that could check and manage one another. Madison and the other Founding Fathers listened to Montesquieu and established an executive, legislative, and judiciary branch in the federal Constitution as well as a system of checks and balances. In conclusion, Enlightenment thinkers greatly influenced the Founding Fathers in the creation of the Declaration of Independence. These Enlightenment thinkers included John Locke, Joan-Jacques Rousseau, Charles Montesquieu, and many more. Their ideas of natural rights, checks and balances, consent, and division of power are not only found in the Declaration of Independence but are still used and are relevant
You were either a Federal or a Anti-Federal (against or with the Constitution). Both sides had their own reasons to believe to accept or decline the offer. Anti-Federalist believed that some poor would never get into government, there was no liberty in press, the government had too much power, and most of the rights they fought for in the war isn’t present in the constitution (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness). The Federals said that the Constitution was a new protecting, efficient federal government for the many current problems, the complaints of the farmers, the
Internal support and agreement is crucial in any form of rule. Whether the citizens are convinced to support and do not know of the ruler’s intentions or the citizens genuinely support and agree with the ruler’s decisions, support is what will allow a ruler to continue to rule. The citizens are the backbone of any society, as they make up the majority of the people, so if they do not comply with the ruler’s actions, the societal structure collapses and a new ruler is needed to reorganize the
The Democratic-Republicans followed a strict interpretation of the constitution, where Federalists believed that the document was up for interpretation, and followed a loose construction. The Federalists believed that there should be a strong central government and that elected officials should not be directly influenced by the people. Essentially, they believed that the people would make poor decisions, if left to their own devices. They represented the elite and well off of society. The Democratic-Republicans thought that there should be a small central government, meaning that the power stayed with the states.
Define Loose Construction and Strict Construction Strict constructionism is described as being literal interpretation of the Constitution. Strict constructionism is when the Constitution is read as well as interpreted exactly the way it was intended to be. Loose constructionism has a more vast interpretation of the Constitution. Meaning loose constructionism allows plenty of spaces to miss interrupt the wording amongst the lingo of the Constitution. Strict constructionism is generally recommended more by conservatives rather than loose constructionism.
2- The constitution of the judiciary department might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principal. The system of checks and balances is one of the big ones. This gives all 3 branches of government about the same power but over certain things. They are all ruled over