Interactions amid the provinces and the federal government, from constitutional issues to the most irresistible topics bang up-to-date in the country, are indemnified beneath the umbrella of “Federalism”. Authorities are shared so that on some matters, the state governments are decision-holders, whereas on the other matters, national government grasps the autonomy. In last twenty-five years, the upsurge of federal fiats on both governments, local and state, has shifted the power amongst state and national governments. Now, the national government is beginning to have more governance over the state’s engagements. Under the British unitary system, U.S was a string of colonies.
Both of these systems have their pros and cons, and as such a mix of both is preferable. The idea of the country is in the name, the United States of America, and as such we do need a central government to truly be united. This central government would need certain powers, which were granted by the Constitution. However, the world has changed a lot since then. The Constitution granted the central government the power to do whatever is, “necessary and proper,” but that vague wording has allowed the federal government to grow over the
They were scared of tyranny, especially pertaining to the fact that under the new Constitution, the national government, or Congress, would be able to make decisions without even asking for the states’ permission. (Anti-Federalist 1: Brutus). Even though the Constitution called for checks and balances, Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry, was convinced that the president would be the one making all the decisions, not unlike a king. (Bianco and Canon, 44). The national supremacy clause in the Constitution even stated that national law supersedes any state law when there is conflict.
Parliament is equipped to make any law subject to the functioning of the Constitution and there is no other legislative power. The Judiciary is free in its field and there can be no impedance with its legal capacities either by the Executive or by the Legislature. The Supreme Court and High Courts are given the force of judicial review and they can announce any law went by the Parliament or the Legislature as unlawful. Considering these variables, many legal thinkers and scholars have accepted the fact that Separation of Powers has been acknowledged in the Indian Constitution . However, much the same as American constitution, in Indian constitution likewise, express specify the official force of the Union and of a State is vested by the constitution in the President and the Governor, separately, by articles 53(1) and 154(1), yet there is no relating procurement vesting the legislative and judicial forces in any specific organ.
Position in Canada: Pith and substance is a legal doctrine in Canadian constitutional interpretation used to determine under which head of power a given piece of legislation falls. The doctrine is primarily used when a law is challenged on the basis that one level of government (be it provincial or federal) has encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of another level of government. The British North America Act, 1867, which established a federal constitution for Canada, enumerated in Sections 91 and 92 the topics on which the Dominion and the Provinces could respectively legislate. Notwithstanding that the lists were framed so as to be fairly full and comprehensive, soon, it was found that the topics enumerated in the two sections overlapped,
Institutional and historical analysis often portray the motives of governments, especially in the cases of Quebec separatism and Aboriginal mistreatment. History describes attempts at compromise to rectify the problems by altering political institutions to provide more autonomy to the provinces, witness in various accords and the methods described previously. However, in regards to Aboriginals a historical relationship of exploitation and eradication sheds on the systemic issues that Aboriginals cope with and the institutions that caused them. As scholars of Canadian politics, it is important to consider historical and institutional analyses when looking at any issue, as it reveals the underlying motives of actors in regards to the cleavages that comprise a state. This is especially evident in Trudeau’s account of how over-zealous nationalism prevented Quebec from modernizing prior to WWII, setting it behind the rest of the
For that reason an essential aspect of a good government is to guarantee these rights. More importantly a good government is solely based on the consent of the people, who are entirely the most powerful source of the government’s authority. If the government started to constantly violate the rights of the nation then the people had the right to overthrow it, according to the theory of good government. Thirdly according to this document a list of complaints against King George III, that was singled out to represent the actions of the British government, was created. Those complaints were clear examples of movements that were against the ideas presented by the theory of good government.
Britain viewed themselves superior to the United States and the American citizens were forced to accept and obey the British colonial rule. It was of great significance for Henry to persuade the colonists with his speech in order for them to take action against Britain and the British rule and that nothing they have done has worked so far. Henry’s speech contains logos by providing logical reasoning as to why we should fight Britain and take back our freedom. He uses logos when he says “What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.
Freedom of assembly and petition gives every individual the privilege to be anywhere at any time as long as it doesn’t cause violence on public property. All people have the right to practice the freedom but it shouldn’t lead to more problems. Freedom of religion is a major issue in our country today that has became a threat. Two clauses under freedom of religion, “establishment” and “free exercise” isn’t under the freedom until Thomas Jefferson was a president. Some court cases that address the freedom of religion had to deal with
Every state are free to make their own laws based on the Belief and support of its citizens and if an outsider wishes to reside in that state then he/she must be willing to comply with the rules set by that new state. However if one wants to challenge the state then they should challenge the law. Yes they are unjust people who uses the law in their favor and make their views seem justified but if one was to prove that he/she did not violate the laws of the states and use the laws in a just manner that supports his/her claim and prove their innocence then he/she should be set free. Everyone must follow the law because without laws society can't co-exist in peace. Because the law bind us together and keep us in check.