Washington would see that individual communities and movements have created change for themselves, while working against others. It’s amazing what could be done if we stopped working against each other. While political parties aren’t going away, which would be to Washington’s dismay, he would suggest that the next president figure out a way to stop the two main parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, from being convinced their beliefs are the “correct” beliefs. If we cannot get rid of political parties, the best we can do is unite them. The only way to change our country is by working with each other, not against each other.
The system allows for the voices of the people to be heard through the popular vote and have elected officials make educated decisions based on the opinions of the nation’s citizens. However, the way the Electoral college is set up makes it possible for a candidate to be elected president without the majority of the popular vote (U.S. Electoral College). The combination of the controversial nature of the College and the differing opinions of U.S. citizens leads to a question being asked: Is the Electoral College damaging to the democratic system in United States, or is it a pivotal extension of our democracy? While some U.S. citizens feel that the Electoral College should be abolished, there are those who feel the system plays a key role in our Presidential election.
Both parties had America’s best interest at heart, however Hamilton and the Federalists’ ideas concerning the economy, interpretation of the Constitution, and the future of American society made them more fit for governing the United States. Hamilton’s understanding of a successful economy allowed him to make decisions that would benefit the country. As discussed in source one, Alexander Hamilton created a uniform currency and an economic plan that would assume state debts and make them federal debts. From there on, he created a national bank; in source three Hamilton states, “...[The Democratic Republicans] were determined to oppose the banking system, which would ruin the credit and honor of the Nation”, as he clearly has the nation’s best interest at heart. The Democratic Republican feared corruption, but they overlooked that their rights are protected in the Constitution and that their
Another obstacle faced would be the close relationship the president must maintain with congress, for example; the president is the commander in chief of the military, but congress has the power to declare war. However, historically presidents have initiated war without congress approval. This, either impressed the citizens or, negatively had an impact on the presidents administration. The president can also reject a bill, known as a veto. Once more, congress can override this veto with a two-thirds vote in each house.
citizen which in my case i am not a U.S. citizen. That would be a big time disqualification for me because i was born in a different country. Even though I am not a U.S citizen, I would not change that in order to become a U.S. president. I believe a person from out of state could be a good president but it would just take away the point of having an american citizen run their American Country. I do believe the role of a president should be taken seriously but the requirement could someday get modified.
He did this by committing that the military would be under civilian authority and control. He did this by including congress, and executing their orders even when he disagreed with them He did this to avoid total control, he actioned his tactics based off the decisions of the appointed officials, for the people. These orders were not inclusive just to fighting the war, but to administrative things such as paying the troops, housing them, and even selecting his officers. Washington did not have total control of his military. Washington’s resignation as the General Commander in chief, validated his recognition of civilian control over the military.
To a major extent, the political ideology of the Jeffersonian Republican party resembled that of the Anti-Federalists in the debates that occurred during the ratification of the US Constitution. Anti-Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republican party favored the people more than the elites that the Federalists and Hamiltonian Federalists party favored. The main ideology in the Anti Federalists and Jeffersonian party were to have the power and say in government be more in the people’s hands rather than having it to select few elites. The Anti-Federalists and the Jeffersonian party believed in preserving individual liberties, which can be shown during the ratification of the constitution and how the Bill of Rights made it into the constitution.
Because of this, to make it fair they made it so that the senate would have equal vote no matter what. Each state would have one vote no matter the population. This heavily favored the small states because now they would have equal votes with the bigger states. This compromise guarded against tyranny. First, this prevented bigger states from becoming powerhouses and dominating everything within Congress.
This implies that a President can voluntarily resign or be pressured to resign by the Governor General, Prime Minister and Governors, triggering another election so that the people can choose a new President. ROLES & POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT The Head of State would, in this model, perform the ceremonial duties of a national representative. Because the Governor General’s position is retained in this model, those roles and powers would not transfer to the Head of State. Instead, the Head of State would only have 1 other power, which is codified, the ability to “appoint and dismiss State Governors at the behest of the Prime Minister”
George Washington stated about politicians’ in his address, “that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue” (Washington). It does not seem wise to have citizens out of work due to differences in opinion. Washington might have been around long before these issues, however, he foreshadowed what would happen if we had different political parties. He stated, “They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests” (Washington). He knew if we were divided as a nation we would not function as one