In document D it says “Those who obsess about voter turnout are perhaps the ones to whom we should pay the least attention. The less legitimate politician feel, the more they try to pass laws that build around their regimes a Potemkin facade* of citizen involvement.” This quote shows that compulsory voting is bad because they are saying don’t focus on people who always vote, focus on the people who don’t and make them vote. The document shows how governments can force their citizens to vote and that governments need to earn the support of their citizens, this document could be used to argue that requiring citizens of a democracy to vote is a violation of consent of the government is
In conclusion, Equality's true motives behind his work are much more selfish than they first appear to be. Equality strives to fulfil his own personal desire rather than contribute everything to society, and this isn't necessarily a negative thing. Selfishness and selflessness can be balanced, and this balance is crucial to a functioning
10, his views of the inevitability of factions. Madison sees factions as potentially harmful to the political process and dangerous to the progress that government can create for its citizens. Using the works of previous authors such as Lock and Montesquieu, Madison realizes that people are naturally going to strive for their own self-interest when given the liberty to do so, “There are two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” (Madison pg. 461). Therefore, despite them being somewhat alarming for a government to deal with, there is no way to rid of factions within a fair and free government.
Two Concepts of Liberty Summary of the essay: In this essay, the famous political theorist Isaiah Berlin tries to differentiate between the notions of positive liberty and negative liberty. Berlin briefly discusses the meaning of the word ‘freedom’. He says that a person is said to free when no man or body of men interferes with his activity. He makes reference to many philosophers in the essay, but there is more emphasis on the thoughts of J. S. Mill and Rousseau, the former being a firm advocate of negative liberty while the latter believes strongly in the ideals of positive liberty. Negative liberty is freedom from restraint.
Political rivals could stop plans from moving forward because they disliked the writer of those plans. Alexander Hamilton wrote, “The only enemy that the republic had to fear is the effects of political parties. It will prevent the government from achieving its goals and create disorder…”(Document 2). Alexander Hamilton wrote this document to criticize his opponents, however in this he also criticizes political parties. Also in the same letter he states, “...harmful to the principles of good government and dangerous to the union, peace and happiness of this country…” In that document he was talking about the head of the rival party.
People are naturally distrustful of an executive. If there were to be a new convention it is quite possible that the executive will be nurtured out of fear of their previous power. Furthermore, I think his argument shows a weakness wherein he seems to disregard the need for emergency powers. Levinson’s claims up to this point seem to be that through more democracy we will have a better system. However, this does not seem to be the case, the most distrusted branch of government is the one closest to the people, the congress.
They believed that a tyrannical form of government was the least likely to prevail because one person that has all of the power is more susceptible to making mistakes and abusing power. As King George did. He ruled a cruel oppressive government that enraged the people and led to the revolutionary
These zealous partisans may injure their own cause, and endanger the public tranquility by impeding a proper inquiry; the people may suspect the WHOLE to be a dangerous plan, from such COVERED and DESIGNING schemes to enforce it upon them…. The lawyers in particular, keep up an incessant declamation for its adoption; like greedy gudgeons they long to sedate their voracious stomachs with the golden bait…” this quote is straight from our anti federalist papers and gives us a better understanding of how the aristocrats really are only trying to help themselves. As a part of the anti federalist group I would like to inform you that we have decided to address the concerns about “the powers of government” by proving to the common people that the aristocrats also known as “federalists” only care about themselves and do not plan on helping the nation 's people together. When
agree that if I were alive at the end of the 19th century I would have supported the Anti-Imperialist League for the following reasons: First, imperialism is inherently antithetical to values upon which this nation was built. The United States Constitution explicitly states "...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, to whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it...". Clearly, to impose foreign rule on any population is a decidedly undemocratic act and a violation of the fundamental human rights identified by the founding fathers. Sources: Declaration of Independence www.archives/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html.
For that reason, an essential characteristic of democracy must be the people 's right to change the majority through elections. This right is the people 's "supreme authority." Therefore, the minority must have the right to strive for becoming the majority and retain all the rights required to compete fairly in elections, speech, assembly, association, because otherwise the majority would turn out to be everlasting and develop into a dictatorship. Therefore, the majority in lieu and time, ensuring the minority the right to seek to become a majority is paramount. Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike believed rule by majority a troubling enigma.
In his view, if the judiciary is inconsistent with their theory of ruling of the majority, he claims the supremacy of Court will become “illegitimate” (1971). To add, he explains that enabling the minority freedom upon the constitution may overrule the majority and will undermine the power of the judiciary. I do not agree with Bork’s statement since it only concerns the power structure in the political sphere. The foundation of law should not be interpreted based on power but, solely on the Constitution and how it is translated through fair and fundamental values that should most importantly reflect an individual’s right and
Madison talks about how the government and people are connect and the ties that bind them together, but the main goal of Federalist 51 is how to divide the government and how to keep it divided. Federalist #10 1- The one big thing is that our government is too unstable. People believe that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of the two rival parties. Also things were not decided to the right of justice they were decided to the needs of the minority party. 2- By removing its causes and controlling its effects are the two main ways, they could also by destroying the liberty and by giving every citizen the same opinion passions and interests.
2. Thoreau refers to civil disobedience as not simply a right, but as a duty merely because individuals are responsible for the actions taken by the government. The government is only what the people let it be, and it can be corrupted and abused if men allow it be. He believes men have “the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.” (942). Thoreau alleges people have the right to oppose an oppressive government, it is their duty to rebel against it.
I agree with Trudeau’s ideals of how national relationships should operate. In my view, it’s because some don’t prioritize interaction and being open with each other that our current society is plagued by a discriminative feature: stereotypes. The problem affects both our government and social society. Because of stereotypes, there are certain aspects expected from a person because of their race, beliefs, and/or culture. Stereotypes are widely known and are hard to get rid of since, some choose to be ignorant in learning the various types of people we will come to communicate with; their lack of knowledge would force them to use the information available to them, which are stereotypes.
The constitution of the United States is an insightful and revolutionary idea of how a government should be practiced in order to prevent a greedy, corrupt form of government from establishing and taking over its people. The US government is founded on the principle that it works for its people, meaning that whatever is legislated is meant only for the benefit of the American people. However, the Constitution is at this point flawed due to the fact that many of its proclamations are vague and outdated, and has to be left to interpretation as to what the framers truly intended of it. This is dangerous because it further divides the nation when Americans believe in different forms of what is constitutionally righteous, and this may start a civil