Today, in this world, democracy is probably defined as a more advanced political form because people get power, people are satisfied and society is made of them. Democracy, a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held freeelections(Merriam-Webster, 2015). Democracy is existing many countries in this world and many countries are promoting democracy to other non-democracy countries. Although democracy could be the best political solution but democracy is not the best political solution for all the countries, democracy does not fit every county because of diversity, erosion of democracy blinds people’s minds to
This is due to the inalienable nature of rights that Americans believed they were born with, such as the right to property. Due to this, the Federalist movement could not be argued to pursue a liberal agenda as their aim was to remove the dominance of state sovereignty and instead, install an elected national government. I would argue that it is a stretch to suggest that the Federalists feared the power of the state legislators, but rather they chose to not underestimate its role. The creation of political conventions where the common man voted, sought to sidestep any potential resistance that the states could have applied. By choosing to create an entirely new political structure in the form of the national conventions, the Republicans were being proactive in their strategy of eliminating the opposition, rather than reacting to their fear of the state legislators.
While on the other corner of the ring, the Federalists believed that the newly founded country would run best if the national government was strong and powerful and in effect if the Constitution was loosely interpreted. This started a series of issues between the two opposing sides with the Federalists pretty much winning every issue. From the issue of funding the war debt, whether a bank of America should be created, to the Alien and Sedition Act; the two sides did not see eye to eye. However, when Jefferson became president, it could be argued that the same abuse of power that he criticized the Federalists to have done could be argued against his own presidency. It is more than fair to say that Jefferson was a hypocrite not only from a Federalist standpoint but also from the
Since the leader has all the power to himself, people then resign their general will to the government. Corruption could be lessened – or better yet, eliminated – since the power is limited when it comes to those who are in a lower position. Also, processing laws are implemented faster and easier unlike the process they do in democracy wherein two or three branches have to discuss it which then takes months and even worse – years. In this type of government, protection of the people is assured wherein laws that would be better for the common good are implemented. The only problem that would be bad for this is if the dictator seated is an extreme leader who would see violence as the best way to bring peace and stability to the country.
Qutb believed in a vanguard elite that would decide how the self-interested masses would live as they realised the general will of the masses thereby constraining the effect of individualism as less freedom given to decide their own affairs thus promoting a sense of cohesion and unity within the society. On the other hand, Strauss saw the role of the elites in promoting myths to regain control of society. He believed that the elite were to sell the public on the myth of a nation or religion even if they choose to ignore such beliefs themselves. This would have the same effect of curtailing individualism but in a different manner than Qutb’s brotherhood. Another key difference between the two lies in the approach they took to advancing their agenda.
Anti-Federalists and Jeffersonians both believed in strict interpretation of the constitution. The parties wanted the government to have a weak executive, so that the Judiciary branch was stronger. Most of the parties members are very similar in the fact that they all come from very similar backgrounds. The Anti-Federalist party during the ratification of the US Constitution would ultimately evolve into the Jeffersonian Republican party. Many of the Anti-Federalists views and ideas would carry over to this new party.
Before deciding on the legislative branch, Madison pushed for the federal courts to be the triers. Madison believed impeachment in the senate made the president dependent on the legislative branch when it should be independent (U.S. Senate). However, compared to Madison, Hamilton believed the judicial branch was too small to hold such an important trial. In addition, allowing the Supreme Court to oversee impeachment would skew the process because some of the justices could have been appointed by the sitting President. If they were appointed by the sitting president, they would most likely favor the president which would negatively impact the process.
The Convention devised ratification through state legislatures to make it more likely for the Federalists to win. Otherwise, state legislatures would vote against the Constitution because they wouldn’t want to lose their power. 12. Why did many of the writers in the debates over the Constitution use pseudonyms? The writers used pseudonyms to prevent people from judging the arguments based on the writer’s reputation.
The Federalist party was comprised of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, George Washington, Charles C. Pinckney, DeWitt Clinton and Rufus King the paramount objective set by federalist Members was a fiscally sound and nationalistic government which promoted the system of checks and balances laid out in the US Constitution for the three branches of government. The federalist Party can be perceived as elitist, and its leaders scorned democracy, widespread suffrage, and open elections, however, the acceptance of these notions didn’t escape Ramifications as they lost the support of the general population due to their favoritism of the exclusive class group. The Federalists despite their invalidation etched a lasting legacy in America politics in the form of a strong federal government with a sound financial base and they decisively shaped Supreme Court policy for another three decades through the person of Chief Justice John
Federalism is restricted that governments decide to take care of the issue of administering substantial populaces and different societies. Federalism lives up to expectations by separating its power and responsibility, instead of a unitary government, in which the focal government controls everything. The Anti-Federalists contradicted the US 's ratification Constitution; however they never composed effectively over each of the thirteen states, thus needed to battle the ratification at each state tradition. Their awesome achievement was in driving the first Congress under the new Constitution to set up a bill of rights to guarantee the freedoms the Anti-Federalists felt the Constitution disregarded. I support the Federalism in light of the fact