Constitutional Monarchy Vs Geniocracy

However, two of the most important regulations of the Britain constitution are known because it is much based on Parliamentary Supremacy (means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to the fundamental principles of human rights) and the division of powers (meaning that Parliament, as opposed to a written constitution, it is the highest source of law in the United kingdom and that the executive, the legislature and the judiciary powers would be divided among themselves. Additionally, the possibly existence of only a few other countries in the world that does not have a written, along with new change of constitution such as the Human Rights Act of 1998 and the Constitutional Change Act of 2005 have rekindled the debate on whether or not the United Kingdom should write its constitution . This essay will start by introducing some of the proposal that have been shown and forwarded for a codified constitution. It will then argue that even though it is

He/she should be of good character and has the characteristics of an ideal Confucian official. If he is a good official, he can use the law without destroying the moral basis. Combining the Western and Confucian thought about the characteristics of a good official is what I think a good solution to help our country change for the better. We do not remove law but we let the morals and values be in government officials. People would say that law destroys the society for it prevents us to be free.

Totalitarianism states use tight control over their citizens, by employing strict laws, not only for the public realm but as well as the private realm. They then use propaganda and police or military intimidation to inforce these laws. This can be interpreted as an advantage because it is argued that it is easy to rule under these conditions because voting and other exercise of a citizen’s freedom are not an inconvenience to governance. Totalitarianism establishes a strong government.

  Human dignity, equality, freedom to live without harassment and intimidation, social harmony, mutual respect, and protection of one’s good name and honor are also central to the good life and deserve to be safeguarded. Because these values conflict, either inherently or in particular contexts, they need to be balanced.” Even in our democracies, where free speech is claimed every day by million of people as a complete right to express their opinion, as hurtful as it could be, intellectual pluralism should not belong there. Democracies are created for people’s regulation, satisfaction (« government (...) for the people ») and happiness (proved by the interest created by the notion of Gross National Happiness, which could measure it), and letting everyone express their hate or harm someone orally could attack this idea of happiness promoted by many governments. As a consequence, the Secretary General of the United Nations write a « Model Law Against Racial Discrimination » which restricts the freedom of opinion, expression, and peaceful assembly: « it shall be an offense to threaten, insult, ridicule or otherwise abuse a person or group of persons with words or behavior which may be interpreted as an attempt to cause racial discrimination or racial hatred »; « it shall be an offense to defame an individual or group of individuals on racial grounds.

Is a hereditary monarchy compatible with the principle of democracy? Should Britain get rid of the monarchy and establish a republic? Hereditary Monarchy is the most dominant form among the surviving monarchies. It has the advantages like continuity of the concentration of power and wealth and predictions of who controls the means of governance and preferential treatment.

He was able to appeal to the morals of millions in the country, by forcing them to understand that black people are just as human as white, with emotions and personalities, who deserved justice. People are more than their labels, and we should not be defined by our race, gender, or social class, but how we treat others. This theory appealed to me personally, because I feel it is the most true, realistic, and practical theory that we can apply to our lives. People share different values and virtues, and we all have a different definition of what makes us happy, but we can all acknowledge everyone’s individuality and still treat them with respect. I have found myself in situations, especially in the workplace where people have treated me as a machine for their food rather than a person who is sensitive to insult.

In the Authoritarian style of government on the other hand, has many benefits, advantages and like any other type of government, has its own disadvantages and weaknesses. I remember in our previous discussions, we talked about Hobbes’ state of nature which states that a person is naturally selfish and that without a government, there would be total chaos so in result, man agrees to be a part of a government. In this sense, man would agree to be under that government and would agree to be served. It is not assured that there would not be chaos if one joins a government but through this form of government, war would be lessened – and it could be render void. Under this type of government, there are benefits and advantages as well as restrictions.

The totalitarianism is too ambitious to achieve an aim, especially for the nontotalitarian Europe countries. The use of terror of the totalitarian regimes and extreme way to destroy other races are often being criticized. (Villa, 2006, p.2) However, the totalitarianism served well enough with its strong power to organize the masses in the society of the country. The more organized condition of the society ought to be one of the advantages brought by the totalitarianism.

Systems of government are ensured to maintain structure in order for nations to develop significantly. Various systems are supported by different political principles, ideologies and distinctive ways of leading a civilization. Governments are formed to provide economic security for the welfare of their inhabitants and protect people’s rights. (Oak) Republicanism and absolute monarchy are examples of two contrasting systems due to their own strengths and weaknesses. Burkina Faso accepted a parliamentary republic but recently faced civil political tensions.

Persuasive Essay – Intelligence vs. Charisma Leaders are the people that we trust to hand in our future and we believe that they can develop our nation. When we, as the society who votes, are considering the candidates one question comes to mind: Intelligence or charisma? In this question, the meaning of the charisma is not the only looks; it is the power of persecution or effectiveness of people. Even with this explanation on thing is very clear: intelligence is more important than charisma in a leader. Intelligence is a weapon for all people to be more confident, persuasive and reliable.

With the Articles of Confederation, one strength was that the power was spread out over the country. This lets all states help decide what’s best for the nation, instead of the central government have all the power. A weakness to this is that it might lead to a lack of unity within the United States. Another positive to this type of government is the ability for each state to have different laws. This allows each state to do what’s best for themselves.

As Landgrave and Nowrasteh (2017) illustrate, “Incarceration rates by race and ethnicity paint a more nuanced picture.” (pg. 2). The rhetorical strategy of imagery works in this specific example because it paints a problem with many different perspectives and meanings. In other words, the legalization of DREAMers should be considered because the beneficiaries are less crime-prone than either DREAMers or natives. Landgrave and Nowrasteh (2017) implement imagery into their argument in order to persuade their audience by letting them visualize the amazing and safe future with new members of our country being less crime-prone and previous legal citizens.

Another fact that can be brought up is that some minors are more mature than others. So why doesn 't this change the statutory rape laws. To make sure every court has an equal understanding otherwise it would only favor those on each case. To base Statutory laws on situational factors is really unfair. Laws can not be changed on each case basis.

Did you ever think that conflict could cause more good than bad? Conflict does in fact cause more good than bad. It doesn’t matter what kind of conflict it is, because it will show us some good that will come out. Much as the good and the bad for learning from our mistakes that we make in the world. It will help with the government and make it to run better.

Our founding fathers realized that, governmentally, there were already some great divides in our country, much of it economical in quality, and much of it due to simple situation. The office of the committee and the vice presidency is the only internal decision we hold all other lawmakers are voted in at or below state level, but for these two highest offices, the election is internal. and they wanted to establish that no certain type of industrial or political circumstance could control this highest election, so they conceived of the 'electoral college ', and it always has the same number of members as the total of our congressmen in