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.
Right now a debate is occurring about whether not we should ratify the Constitution. This is an important moment in our country's history because this is the moment where we could unify and become a government or we could disapprove of the Constitution and have troubles between the country. The Articles of Confederation were not very credible because it gave the states too much power; which were too weak. The debts were not getting payed and the country was in great trouble. The Constitution would let the power will lie with the wealthy men, and not give the power to the states to raise money to pay off debt; the country will still remain in debt if we ratify the 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.
Banning the use of firearms would only cause more destruction,more havoc, and make guns distributed illegally isn’t that against the point? The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, this was made after the American Revolution as a right that could not be taken away. The right to bear arms comes from the fact that all men and women should be able to defend themselves from threats. Some people do think guns are unnecessary and that now we are more civilized than before and that guns just cause destruction while
The US constitution has a set of amendments that cannot, under any circumstances, be taken away from an American citizen. In the US, the 1st amendment, the freedom of speech, means that one is entitled the right to speak their mind. This is a prime example of how states have in fact create a set of Human Rights that are undeniable to all its
In 1791, the US Constitution’s First Amendment was adopted and made sure Congress couldn’t pass any laws against religion. So this means anyone has the right to practice any religion as well as change to another religion without any problems. We as people should know
Albert Venn Dicey stated that “The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this: namely that parliament […] has under the English constitution the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having the right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament. […] The principle of parliamentary sovereignty may, looked at from its positive side, be thus described: Any Act of Parliament, or any part of an Act of Parliament, which makes new law, or repeals or modifies an existing law, will be obeyed by the courts. The same principle, looked at from its negative side, may be thus stated: There is no person or body of persons who can, under the English constitution, make rules which override or derogate from an Act of Parliament, or
The fact that most criminals who have been sentenced to death appeal for life imprisonment, itself shows that they fear death more than life in prison”. As long as the criminal is still alive, they are still capable of killing or hurting someone . Putting a criminal in prison makes the government look more sympathetic towards the criminal than the victim. The government needs to send out a strong message that they will not tolerate such crimes and they won't let them get away with it, prison time is enough to stop most people, but for some people a stronger reason is needed. Having a functional death penalty law will help protect the public from society’s worst
A government with more control will be disastrous because the people would have their rights stripped away from the citizens of the the United States. The government cannot infringe on the rights given in the constitution. The 1st amendment is “The freedom of speech, The freedom of religion, and The freedom of expression”. The people are given the right to fly whatever flag they want to fly whether it the gay flag, confederate flag, or any flag. The 2nd amendment is “The right to bear arms”.
In the First Amendment of the Constitution is the principal article in the Bill of Rights, it restricts Congress from meddling with the freedom of religion, speech and press, and assembly and petition. The First Amendment should have limits to how far the freedom is taken. Freedom of religion has became a issue in the world today, we see in today’s society's how our views have changed on certain religions. Freedom of speech and press gives everyone the right to say what they want as long as it doesn’t cause individuals to feel uncomfortable because of invasion in their privacy. Freedom of assembly and petition gives every individual the privilege to be anywhere at any time as long as it doesn’t cause violence on public property.
When Dahl first begins the book, on the very first page, he talks about a key point everyone should know. The democratic form of government would not have worked, so a republic form of government was much needed. The whole ideal of the the Democratic Party is that that do care about how much money someone has, religion they follow, and arms. The often tend to help minorities, as well as groups that that are unpopular. Republicans on the other hand focus more on helping defensive issues, gaining profit, bringing more money for military, and fully support the police force.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” -Bill of Rights. The government is not allowed to violate human rights. What is a connection to a current event (within the last 20 years) that has clear similarities to this?
The Ninth Amendment states, " The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. " This part of the Bill of Rights protected Roe 's right to privacy. While the 14th Amendment due process clause says, "No state shall... Deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." That simply means that no state can deny to any person any right that is " basic or essential to the American concept of ordered Liberty. " The Supreme Court chose to base their decision on the 14th
However, even with the all the “freedom” and “liberty for all” sentiments, it does exclude a huge portion of the population. We are still dealing with the ramifications of exclusion to this days, even 240 years later. And by our own government enabling the same tyrannical oppression where people are not able to get the equal rights they deserve we are making this document invalid and not upholding the better fundamentals that the founding fathers