According to the Founding Fathers, the office of the president was designed to care for the public interest as a whole. Is the office of the president designed to care for the public interest as a whole? Or was it just supposes to be there to let the people think they have a say in government when they really do not? Yes, the office of the president was designed to care for the public interest, but it does not care for the public interest, it mostly supports candidates and political parties. The people of the government are entitled to rights in this society, but we ask ourselves many times are these rights practiced by the government. Well I make the conclusion that they are but in a limited way. We have the idea of primaries and caucuses. These are the two different ways to earn delegates for the national convention. In these groups there is one person representing a state. That person is probably someone that is generally for one side of the state and most likely the part that is wealthy and that he or she is actively involved in. This is bias because not everyone will have a say in what is going one in there state. This hinders public interest and shows that only some people care. Yes, the caucus has precincts but who shows up to those precincts and who most decisions are in favor of. Primaries do something called Proportional Representation and a win takes all. So if one group decisions to persuade others to go for a specific group, that group will win and that is totally lack of public interest because individuals are not making independent choices, their choices are based on others pumping them. This brings us to the national convention where candidates are nominated. These candidates are not directly voted in by people th... ... middle of paper ... ...as it just supposes to be there to let the people think they have a say in government when they really do not? Yes, the office of the president was designed to care for the public interest, but it does not care for the public interest, it mostly supports candidates and political parties. Primaries and caucuses demonstrate complete control of self governed and this is a selective set of group. These representatives are not opening up certain decisions for most of the people which limit public interest. In the National Convention the candidates win by majority of state and based on the amount of votes. Super PACs, soft money, and Buckley v. Valeo are just some of this many proofs that the original intentions of the founding fathers were not met.
The United States is a privileged country with freedoms and opportunities many countries strive to achieve. People come into the United States in hopes to obtain these rights and make a better life for themselves; they strive to achieve “The American Dream.” Citizens are given the chance to vote, speak their mind, and live according to their desires without prejudice. However, the same government that promises hope has flaws that frustrate the American people; the Electoral College is one topic of debate. Many feel this system is a safe way to regulate who leads the country, while others feel that issues should be left to popular vote.
The U.S government has operated for about 200 years on the basis of Constitution written in 1787 and since then, there have been several debates as to whether the framing of this document was an elitist or democratic process. The framers, collectively were an elite, but the reason for why they wrote the Constitution is not fully known. John P. Roche suggests the Constitution was written upon the idea to establish an effective and controlled national government that would overcome the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and not so much to limit the power of popular majorities and protect their own property interests.
The Constitution of the United States explicates the enumerated powers that the people have granted to their public administration. A narrow interpretation of the Constitution would mean denying the government the powers granted to them to keep order, equality, and fairness. An expanded interpretation would “extend words beyond their natural and obvious import, and we might question the application of the term…” (244). It is the government’s responsibility to exercise powers that cannot be exercised by its governed people. There are no guidelines in the Constitution’s composition that discloses how to interpret the language; therefore, it is in the hands of three federal branches of government to decipher the Constitutions meaning.
Like the previous argument, this one can be countered with Federalist No. 51. “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” The government is a creation of the people and the only power is derived from the masses. Without the faith of the people, both the government and union could fall to ruin. The checks and balances system allows the government to regulate itself against encroachment and the creation of such factions described in Federal Farmer 3. While each branch is accountable to each other, should a faction be created within the government with ill intent, they will be held accountable to the people. If those that act against the will of the masses are not removed from office, the government will have to answer to the people, their main source of power. Ambition will counter ambition.
...framers wrote the Constitution to benefit themselves, it is irrelevant because it hasn't failed yet, and it has kept this country together for a long time and will continue to do so. However, the Constitution works very slowly and inefficiently at the cost of the American people. However, the fact that our government moves slowly is only a minor problem in the grand scheme of the world.
The government is pacifying the general public to make them feel as if they are in control. It keeps the power out of the incompetent and inferior hands of the public. A major flaw in the electoral college is the possible creation “Faithless Electors” or members of the electoral college who vote against the popular vote. Christopher M. Duncan’s The Voice Of The Faithless he states “No constitutional or legal provision requires those electors to follow the popular will, so the thinking went that if a dangerous or a radical candidate somehow managed to win a majority of the vote, his election could be thwarted (that is, checked and balanced) by the members of the Electoral College, who could vote for another candidate of their own choosing.”. (Duncan, par. 3) This would devastate democracy. It would create mayhem. Imagine going through the many long and trying months of an election, and just to have that all explode into flames by those few Faithless
George Mason explains that when a man has power, he does not use that power with discernment. Once that power is in his hands, he will only crave for more. The nature of power to man is to utilize that power and gain more and more. Mankind are selfish and will only focus on their interests first and forget about the interests of people. A man will do whatever it takes to gain that power. Power is like an addiction, once you acquire a little bit of it, you will only want more. In summarization, man is currently power-hungry and has been power hungry from the beginning of time and will continue to be power-hungry till the end of ages. For this a government is needed and a constitution that all people will be able to comply with and this is the biggest safeguard. Everyone, regardless of their position will have to follow the constitution. The constitution keeps everything fair and is a good safeguard because with this no one will be oppressed and no one will be able to get too powerful either, so it's balanced and fair to everyone. Today this system is valid, because in the current news you can see that people are still very power-hungry and
The legislative, executive, and judicial branches represent the constitutional infrastructure foreseen by the Founding Fathers for our nation 's governing body. Together, they work to maintain a system of lawmaking and administration based on checks and balances, and separation of powers intended to make certain that no individual or embodiment of government ever becomes too controlling. America is governed by a democratic government or a democracy which is a government by the people, in which the power is established in the people themselves. The people then elect representatives who carry out their power in a free electoral system. The United States government’s basic claim is to serve the people and only through a combined effort can we
Between 1787 and 1791 the Framers of the US Constitution established a system of government upon principles that had been discussed and partially implemented in many countries over the course of several centuries, but never before in such a pure and complete design, which we call a constitutional republic. Since then, the design has often been imitated, but important principles have often been ignored in those imitations, with the result that their governments fall short of being true republics or truly constitutional. The Framers of the Constitution tried very hard to design a system that would not allow any one person or group within the government to gain too much power. Personally, I think they succeeded. In order to guard against what one of the Founding Fathers called an "excess of democracy," the Constitution was built with many ways to limit the government's power. Among these methods were separating the three branches, splitting the legislature so laws are carefully considered, and requiring members of Congress to meet certain criteria to qualify for office. The Founders did leave a few problems along with their system.
In America, political candidates go against one another in a process known as an election in which citizens vote for the next person who "best" fits the position. In addition, there are various amounts of debates on whether a citizen should be compelled to vote. Although some argue if citizens should be required by law to vote, there are exceeding an amount of disadvantages.
While relationship between the legislative, executive and judiciary largely remained the same, the public perception of President’s place in system has changed (Jeffrey Tulis, 1990). In the twentieth century, a strong executive emerged and was institutionalized in American national politics. Even though the framers anticipated that Congress would be the predominant branch of government, contemporary presidents wield formidable formal and informal resources of governance. As a result, the public expectations of presidents have grown and created a gap between expectations and formal powers. In an attempt to explain presidential power and its limits, four major often conflicting theories of presidential power has emerged in the last four decades.
The United States government is designed with checks and balances to ensure that no one branch can become more powerful than another. Though this may be the case, it is still possible that one branch of the our government can still be more powerful than the others. The equality of power in our government has constantly changed over the course of the life of the United States. Although these changes have occurred, we still have not made all of the branches equal and the inequality has been due to meet the demands of the time. For example, in 1938 our country was facing a depression and nothing was getting done. So, Roosevelt took it upon himself to give the Executive branch more power, to then in turn, help the country creep back out of the hole it had dug itself. After the country didn’t need the reform bills and the size of the government that Roosevelt had put it, things were then downsized and put into a more stable equilibrium. Though there were attempts to make everything equal, the Legislative Branch now holds the majority of the power, and is the most powerful branch that our government has.
The beginning of the Constitution provides a basis for one to question the righteousness of the Framers intentions. The Constitution starts by saying, “ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This was not a true statement. That phrase excluded black people, women, and men who lacked wealth. Government under the British did the same thing; all the power was made accessible to only the rich. The American Revolution was aimed at acquiring equal and fair representation in government for everyone. Next, the Constitution established a Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was a group of selected people who would make major legal decisions for the country. These people were not elected or chosen by the people, they were chosen by the government. This placed a form of power over the people of the United States that had been held by King George. The Supreme Court had the power to ma...
Being that here are people against a bigger government it doesn’t mean that certain services that are given to the citizens aren’t beneficial to all American. As for the constitution role in the distribution of political power. When it comes down to who needs what it is very complicated to see what branch has the responsibility either the state or the federal government. In recent years there has been natural disasters that have destroyed communities and hurt the citizens during Hurricane Katrina the United States saw the way the both governments didn’t communicate with one another leaving a the city of New Orleans to fend for itself. Seeing that in Article 5 of the constitution both the state and federal must care for its citizens. I believe that it was very important in the first decade because after being in a recession in 2008 we saw the decrease of jobs and an increase in unemployment creating uncertainty within the country. Its was important for everyone to work together and like before we looked for help within the federal
The Separation of Powers was important to our Founders because the mistreatment of the power that the colonists gave to their leader was evident. The colonists preferred to avoid a similar occurrence in their new country, where they felt that their leaders were violating their rights. In one of James Madison’s Federalist Papers, it states that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, judiciary, in the hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny…(L)iberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and