This is because it gives the government the power to raise and keep an army during peacetime. I’m concerned because if the people do potentially become a threat due to the the Constitution, by rebelling, the government could use the army to suppress the people. The Constitution give the government the power to tax citizens. The national government’s laws are superior to the laws made by the states due to the supremacy clause, and it will only be a matter of time until the state governments are destroyed. The proper and necessary clause in the Constitution is too general, and is dangerous due to the fact that it doesn't list all the powers of government in order to put clear limits on them.
The only way to change our country is by working with each other, not against each other. With some Americans refusing to stay open minded to the beliefs of the opposite political party, our country will get nowhere. As one of our country’s Founding Fathers, Washington would not approve of this, and demand the next president change this. If George Washington was still alive today, he would be able to give the next president advice to transform our country. Someone with the unbiased mindset toward the two main political parties would be a much needed perspective for the next president.
Summary The three branches of government should be independent No branch should have power over selecting who makes up the other two branches However, the citizens cannot practically elect individuals for every office for example, the people may not be able to distinguish what makes a good judge (for judicial branch). the government has to be able to govern itself, meaning since men can be greedy, there must be constitutional walls that prevent one branch from becoming too powerful Usually, legislative branch is the most powerful in a republican government The legislative branch is divided into two to avoid an unfair concentration of power Majorities threaten the interests of the minorities Solution one: have a powerful government whose will is more powerful than the simple majority Solution two:
There is always another side to the story. Federalist, these people supported the constitution. Though they knew that the constitution wasn’t perfection yet, According to document 3 George Washington state 's ”We have errors to correct… would to God, that wise measures may be taken in time to avert the consequences we have but too much reason to apprehend”. George was sure that the constitution wasn’t perfect but that in this time of need they need something like it. They need a strong government, to win over the people who won’t support over fear of loss of natural laws, like mentioned in document 1 “Let us look and behold the distress which prevail in every part of our country… View these things, fellow citizens, and then say we do not require a new, a protection, and efficient federal government if you can” this document was quoted from a newspaper in Massachusetts.
President’s power is seen as persuasive because it involves bargaining that stems from their position, status, and prestige (Howell). Because the president’s power is more in a persuasive scale, he has scarce sources to reach the large expectations of the public. The President takes his ideas for new policies and expectations to the office but to achieve it, he must work together with the Congress (Neustadt 30). Second, the unilateral perspective from William G. Howell comprehends presidential power as a power beyond persuasion and negotiation with the Congress. For this perspective, presidents have direct power on government and public policy.
US History Test #2 The United States Constitution responded effectively to the weaknesses of the Article of Confederation, and provided important “checks” on power distributed among the three branches within the new, more powerful federal government. The Articles of Confederation left out very important powers that were later added in the United states Constitution like “Checks and Balances” which allow the three branches to almost have equal power. Each of the branches have the power to keep a bill from becoming a law. These “Checks” can also be a bad thing when a government becomes gridlocked. Gridlocked means that the government cannot pass any laws because the branches are all split on their decisions.
So, the branches check one another and the people elect the members other than in the judicial branch, whose members are chosen by the executive branch. Madison brings up that it isn’t possible to divide power absolutely equally and “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” (2). And so, the legislative branch will be divided even more to try and combat the unbalance of power. Madison thought this system was a good method because he believed that it was part of human nature to have conflicting ideas and wants, and so each branch could keep the others in line and therefor no one power is above the others. Furthermore, Madison believes a bigger government with multiple branches is better because then it becomes difficult for one
They want to place a limit on the presidency since when the president stays in office for a long time, the president gets corrupted and unwilling to give up his or her position in government as head of state. When government official stays in office they tend to think that they are better than everyone, and they’re scary to lose power. When they limit the president 's term, they are creating a better definition of freedom, as in creating a place where
It is perhaps opportunely that our government is able to push through boundaries and traditions to come up with resolutions and better policies/laws. All this time, the Philippine Economy has been deemed to have strong growth hindered by political uncertainties. This is so true. We have a potential to be great and yet we still move slow towards our development and sustainability. Our country has its own strengths and weaknesses that affect positively and/or negatively our over-all status.
Federalism is a topic one might be familiar as one of the advocacies of the current Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. In all cases and in the most succinct way, a federal political system is a political system in which there is equality of status between its constituent levels of government (Law, 2013). It has been deemed magnificently controversial, looming both threats of empowered regionalism and division and promises of nationwide development and solidarity. Regardless of the sentiments (whether positive or negative) towards the political system, this paper aims to analyze the possibility of Philippine Federalism though the structural-functionalism approach. Federalism in the Philippines can theoretically empower the regions to strive