In spite of this, not everyone was happy about the new Constitution. This broke people up into two groups: Anti-Federalists and Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were those in favor of strong states’ rights. They disliked the Constitution because they believed that there was a chance that Constitution would destroy the freedoms the colonies fought for. 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.
During this period, the Anti-Federalists felt as though the aristocrats had no particular opinion about our future government, which alarmed the group. Because they saw aristocrats as overpowering the opinions of those who are not as noble. The writer states that he would rather be a free citizen of the Republic of Massachusetts than succumb to a great American Empire. The Federalist goes on to say that unless there is some security of the people 's liberties, the new Constitution will not be successful. The writer had full faith in the citizens of the United States to decide what was best for the future of the
Self-interested people would necessarily try to take control over anyone else’s power in order to enlarge their power or at least to prevent others from robbing them the power they already have . Divided powers necessarily end in clashes between the different branches of government and can even turn into a civil war . Because of the nature of man, the disagreements among those who hold power cannot be resolved peacefully. According to Hobbes, it fosters conflict between elites, who mobilizes the people to fight behalf, and it may turn into civil war. In Behemot, Hobbes shows that war issued from the constitutional struggle between Parliament and the King .
The Anti-Federalist believed that the Constitution granted too much power to the federal courts and took power from the states, depriving citizens of liberties. The Federalist believed that "The smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens" (Federalist Papers, No. 10). The Anti-Federalist wanted a national representation large enough to secure a substantial representation of the middle class, but not a very large one.
A separation of the three branches of government safeguarded that one person could not have so much control in governance. Particularly, as too much power in the wrong hands can be detrimental, and separating the branches of government, guarantees that no one branch becomes too powerful, because one of the other two branches have the ability to over-ride another branch. This is crucial in a government, as the potential for freedom of the citizenry to be eroded is high, if one person held all the power. Likewise, the rights and freedoms of a country’s citizens are imperative within a government. In early monarchies, such as those in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, monarchs cared very little about the
This argument convinced the judge and the law was considered unconstitutional. Not only did this case violate the first amendment but also the fourteenth amendment. That amendment states that a state cannot enforce a law that should take away the privileges of the citizens of the United States. It also mentions that a state should not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without the due processing of law. Especially with the DiCenso case though complete separation was impossible.
Either way, as proven by history, government censorship is necessary; however, the limitation to its censoring power must be clear and a system to prevent the possible abuse of this power is crucial. Overall, censorship should exist only for speeches that contained clear and dangerous intent and information published by media that contained a true threat to national security. The word censorship is usually comprised of a negative connotation and many are opposed to this idea. In fact, many Americans believe the First Amendment will protect almost all censorship. For example, according to Harris Poll, 84% of American believe the
Nowadays, democracy is unfortunately seen as inevitable; in other words, it is the political system no one dares to question and even less making it publicly. According to several experts, this is an unfortunate fact for two main reasons. First, this practice limits our imagination. When considering other alternatives is almost forbidden, we do not think about them, and what is worst, we will not see or find them even if they are right in front of our eyes. Second, because even if democracy can be considered as the best political system, to become it in a dead dogma and not see it just an option will weaken it.
In the Authoritarian style of government on the other hand, has many benefits, advantages and like any other type of government, has its own disadvantages and weaknesses. I remember in our previous discussions, we talked about Hobbes’ state of nature which states that a person is naturally selfish and that without a government, there would be total chaos so in result, man agrees to be a part of a government. In this sense, man would agree to be under that government and would agree to be served. It is not assured that there would not be chaos if one joins a government but through this form of government, war would be lessened – and it could be render void. Under this type of government, there are benefits and advantages as well as restrictions.
Lack of participation from citizens can lead to the abuse of power as there could be no transparency and accountability local government officers if citizens are absent and do not challenge the government in place. Nevertheless it must be highlighted that public participation does not only make government open and responsible but it also forces government to act on its promises. These are the promises that they make on their party manifestos, also the promises that they make to the general public when they seeking votes because it cannot be contended that the majority of citizens in developing states, do not even read political party manifestos. Abbot (1996:68) states that different methods of public participation exist, hence below will be a list together with an explanation of ways in which the public can participate: Vote in Elections: In South Africa, this is the most common form of participation. Voting is not only popular at national level but at provincial and as well at local government.