Even if we assume, however, that Hobbes’ state of nature is true, it still would not justify obeying a tyrannical government. Having to live under a tyrannical government that does not protect one’s rights is in no way better than having to compete with other people for survival. In competing with other people, at least everyone is on equal footing. However, when competing against a government, then there is a power imbalance and the government can use its power to oppress the people. Therefore, the people should have the right to rebel against such a government.
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
On the contrary, submission also has some limitations. When people are instructed, they have capacities to do evil and blind obedience sometimes leads to disasters. Being obedient to a reassuring leader will make it easy to win a war. In the American Revolutionary War, George Washington acted a pivotal part. Before he was appointed to be the president, all the decisions had to be made by the Continental Congress.
This is perhaps one of the more controversial powers given to the President because it begs the question of how a President can be held responsible if the people don’t know what they are doing? On the contrary, executive privilege is necessary because it maintains a certain level of security that is needed in all government
There are many types of governments, but the government I like best is a constitutional monarchy. However, there is always the possibility that a government can become corrupt, but it is less likely with a constitutional monarchy. A constitutional monarchy is a good form of government because the leader can decide who is worthy of the throne, the monarch has parliament to back them up, and
It is nearly impossible to control people with their love for ruler because they will not love the ruler once the ruler goes against their interests, but if they fear the ruler they will fear going against them and stay under the influence of their ruler. Machiavelli has the most correct ideas on both controlling the people as a ruler and on being remembered as a great one. These two viewpoints had great influence during their time and for centuries to come, both with modern ideas and correct ideas even though they had a lot of contrast. Machiavelli’s The Prince may be thought of the more recognizable of the two in the present, but people in the present day have many of the same ideas that
Leaders in position of power like the King’s have to discover and maintain a fine balance between confidence and overconfidence. That fine line quite literally can be the difference between life or death. The issue of overconfidence in positions of power is directly reflected in the current politics in the United States. While it may not be life or death for the people in power, it does toe the line of keeping or losing their power. As well as, their decisions can very well be life or death for the people they are supposed to be protecting and ruling over.
This would keep people from reaching their full potential, possibly to help the whole of the population. Yes, it is good to for the government to have control, but the power the government has in the story Harrison Bergeron is way too much. In present day, the government has set boundaries, does not overstep them. If it were to overstep them, there would be outcries against it, but by that point it would be too late to fight back. One should be able to control their own destiny, and be allowed to reach their full potential and all of the good it might
A representative democracy incorporates checks and balances within the government so that one group doesn’t gain more power over another group. When each party is performing their duties correctly, it is designed to have people work together. Democracy allows people have a say in how their government operates. If the public elects an official into office then they have the right to allow that person to stay there by re-electing them. At the same token, if the majority are displeased with the performance of their reigning elected official, they can vote to remove that person on the next term.
All citizens want equality, but if everyone is equal, no single person has the right to claim authority. As such, the only way to rule society is to listen to the majority. This is where the real danger is, it is easy to fall subject to the tyranny of the majority which can easily lead to despotism. The tyranny of the majority is when the majority places its own interests above those in the minority. Additionally, “as conditions are equalized in a people, individuals appear smaller and society seems greater”, this notion gives off the appearance that social power is greater than individual power, thus, people are more willing to give up individual thoughts in favor of the majority (Tocqueville, V2, P4, CH2, pg.641).
When talking about the power of the governor, it is natural to speak of the formal powers. However, it is harder because these are powers that come with the office itself. Weather it would be because the Constitution provides them to the governor or because the state has passed laws giving the governor such powers. Many people often say that they have long talked about strong and weak governors and compared one state’s governors to others based on these powers and what they mean to one in office. However, many of the factors in fact may affect how powerful a governor will be.
Bipartisanship is crucial to passing effective legislation. When both party disagree with each other gridlock occurs. This gridlock forces both sides to stonewall the other to get a bill passed that is lopped sided favoring one party over the other. Bipartisanship allows all voices to be heard which creates a bill that congress can pass that represents the greater good of the country rather than one party’s constituency. With bipartisanship congress works smoother and is favored by the country with positive rating.
With the checks and balances the government was able to get more power or something subjects but the government 's branches could still get check to see if they were stay in line and not getting too much power over everything or everyone else. Document 4 supported this claim because the legislative branch could have the president veto the law or goal the other branches suggested, the Exec branch appointed the judges for the judicial branch and the legislative branch could impeach the judges for the judicial branch and ⅔ of the branches could veto anything the legislative branch did if it wasn’t a benefit. We had got a bill of right in the constitution. This new bill of right was made as a compromise for the federalist and antifederalist argument over ratifying the constitution and the bill of right also gave us a ten amendments, Document 3 supported the claim because with the bill of right it had gave us more freedom over some things over subject that had been restrict to the people and what the were allowed to do and not to do. The constitution has saved our country from being like England/Britain and has saved us falling apart.