The only way to change our country is by working with each other, not against each other. With some Americans refusing to stay open minded to the beliefs of the opposite political party, our country will get nowhere. As one of our country’s Founding Fathers, Washington would not approve of this, and demand the next president change this. If George Washington was still alive today, he would be able to give the next president advice to transform our country. Someone with the unbiased mindset toward the two main political parties would be a much needed perspective for the next president.
In Federalist Paper number one Alexander Hamilton states, “History will teach us…” He conveys what he is trying to say using words like despotism, emolument, obsequious, and demagogues. In an excerpt Hamilton says, “...their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.” In other words some of the people supporting the constitution are only doing it because they think it will increase their economical and political status and that it is hard to separate those people from the ones who actually believe in the constitution. It’s hard to separate them because they
If the state does not fulfill its duty to the people, if it violates the freedom of the people, the people have the right to fight against the state. Locke is often referred to among the main theorists of the democratic polity. His ideal - British constitutional monarchy, in which embodied the balance of interests of the individual and the state is the king, the House of Lords and the House of
The writers used pseudonyms to prevent people from judging the arguments based on the writer’s reputation. 13. What philosophical ideas guided the Anti-Federalists’ opposition to a stronger national government? How did those ideas lead them toward specific objections to the Constitution? The Anti-Federalists thought that one specific set of rules for the whole population would not fully represent everyone’s rights.
In another words his religion is far from pure intellectual and what is very crystal clear is that for him religion is not institutional but individual. Philosophy Philosophical aspects are the integral parts of the transcendentalism for sure and excluding Emerson from this idea is not fair for both side either for transcendentalism or Emerson. People of his time had a kind of pure spiritual believes and Emerson specifically wanted to find a philosophical foundation in which people can feel the presence of the divine elements in their soul. In this respect he attempts to make a comparison between the ideal and the real. He was interested mostly in philosophical system in a way that intuition is at its origin and the moral conclusion is at the end.
Also, Realism ideas believe that state would act according to their own ideas and needs when Liberalism believes that state would act according to citizens ideas and needs. Realism believes in conflicts, aggression, militaristic expansions and Liberalism believes in measuring of power trough countries economy, in the cooperation and peace, in the nation/people`s rights and in ideas of political and nations/peoples freedom. Also, Realism believes that United Nation is pointless because organization cant keeps another state what it wants for example: (Russian annexation of Crimea and Russian occupation in Georgia) but actually Liberalism believes that United Nations can`t force states to obey the organization, but Liberals think that UN is still important in our reality. Liberalism just believes that international organizations like United Nations, give states the ways in which to cooperate with each other and to gain one another's trust. Also Realists argue that all states have same interests and all countries are interested in increasing
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
Hello Thomas, good question. While I do not believe that an absolute monarchy or some other totalitarian government is necessary for the running of the state. I do believe that both Hobbes and Machiavelli had a point to promoting a more centralized state, in an effort to be able to field national armies. If you look at the medieval ages, power was extremely decentralized. This created a system were there were many different centres of power in one country, all who had armies to fight for their interest.
The American revolution was successful because it had the plan to reform government. It was driven by the idea of a new form of government rather than meeting the needs of the poor. Arendt discusses the American revolution and the difference of liberties and freedoms when she writes, “All these liberties, to which we might add our own claims to be free from want and fear, are of course essentially negative; they are the results of liberation but they are by no means the actual content of freedom, which…is participation in public affairs” (Arendt 22). She argues that participation is public affairs is the epitome of freedom. Individuals must partake in politics in order to be free.
- Utopia Online Library," n.d.) Conservatism has different versions, because there is no agreement between politicians. Conservative people usually defends what they oppose and the best information they have about is for oppose, but when it comes to what they are for, it is a blank space, they forget about their actual purpose while understanding the oppose. Therefore, a fixed system of ideas wouldn’t be enough the describe conservatism, so it is hard to tie down conservatism with any kind of fixed systems. The idea was first established after the French Revolution against liberalism, for the ones who were frightened by the violence of the revolution. It was mainly resisting the pressures of other ideologies such as liberalism, socialism and nationalism, because conservatism was more traditional comparing to these ideologies.
Well, in the second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence, it states: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,” but, this doesn’t mean that we can just revolt. There has to be a logical reason, and just not agreeing with the president does not call for a revolution. Even our founding fathers knew that when they wrote this historical document. I think that although people don’t always agree with the president, it doesn’t mean that they have the right to call for revolution, and it certainly doesn’t give them the right to hurt those who support him. But, those who do support him, need to work on explaining it to those who don’t and they have to learn not to hurt those who support Clinton.
This document was directed towards the Federalist by the antifederalist to explain a possible problem of the checks and balances system, after the drafting of the constitution and awaiting approval. The Anti Federalists didn’t want what we have now,they didn’t want the federal government to have and influence over citizens’ lives, they didn’t want the govt to in any way resemble a monarchy because they had just escaped from the corrupt monarchy. They believed that if the power in the country occupied in the people of the various states, then their vision would have a chance of success. Likewise, the Anti Federalist thought there was no bill of rights, so they disliked the constitution. Every constitution should have one for the people, and the government shouldn’t refuse to give on, as shown on Document E. The Letter to James Madison, Objections to the Constitution was written by Thomas Jefferson to explain what he disliked about the constitution to one of the writings, after the constitution was drafted and were awaiting ratification.
While the federalist and anti-federalist had opposing views in a functioning government system, some crucial points were agreed upon. They both knew in order for the United States to succeed as a new country, they needed better stability and a sense of unity between the colonies. The Articles of Confederation, on both sides, were thought of as a weak system of governmental control. A central government appealed to both sides, but as to how much power it would possess was still at a still point. Federalist wanted a strong central government, whereas anti-federalists were afraid of it seeming too much like the British monarchy.
After America’s fight for freedom and the brief period of time when there was no human being ruling over them, the Framers saw this as their chance to reinvent the country. However, the Framers viewed people as “an atom of self-interest”, meaning that they only care about their personal success and necessities. This became difficult during the secretive meetings of the Constitutional Convention, as they were trying to start forming what would be the Constitution. It became clearer that “this distrust in man was a first and foremost concern”. At the time, the Framers believed that men “of affairs, merchants, lawyers, planter-businessmen, speculators, investors (essentially middle and lower-class citizens) were evil, selfish, contentious.” The