The Need For Constitutional Reform No government in modern times has ever been elected with such a commitment to reforming the constitution as the Labour administration that won office in May 1997. Within months of its election, Scotland and Wales were on the road to devolution. Within a year, although in a very different context, the framework had been set for a devolved, power sharing government in Northern Ireland. A year after that the process was well under way for reform of the House of Lords, eliminating, in the first instance, peers whose place in the legislature was by inheritance. In May 2000, London elected its first mayor. In early 2003, there was the affirmation of a commitment to allow English regions to choose to elect assemblies. Then in the Cabinet reshuffle of June 2003 it was signalled that the post of Lord Chancellor would be abolished and the judicial functions of the House of Lords transferred lo a Supreme Court. Above all, the government held out the promise of Britain signing up to a European constitution sometime in 2004-5, which would formally subjugate British law to European law and have many other consequences for political accountability in Britain. All in all, it would seem that the government can look back upon a programme of continuing constitutional reform that far exceeds anything accomplished by its recent predecessors and which amounts to the upholding of promises made at the time of the 1997 general election. But how far are these things achievements? How far do they keep promises made at the election, and subsequently? And, above all, how far have they led to the better governance of ... ... middle of paper ... ...more than its share of it over the years (such as the peerage reforms of 1958 and 1963, and the 1972 European Communities Act), still has to take a defined position on many of these questions, although it has announced its outright opposition to the proposed European constitution. The significance of the European proposals is that they must now take centre stage in the government's programme of constitutional reform. They will also, though, take the whole question out of the government's hands to some extent as the pace is being dictated by an external power. The government refuses to consult the electorate on them. The prospect was not included in the 2001 Labour manifesto. This pursuit of vast constitutional change without a mandate could yet derail not just the programme of reform but even the whole government.
This essay will address whether New Labour contained policies with which it wished to pursue, or was solely developed in order to win elections. It is important to realise whether a political party that held office for approximately 13 years only possessed the goal of winning elections, or promoted policies which it wished to pursue. If a party that held no substance was governing for 13 years, it would be unfair to the people. New Labour was designed to win elections, but still contained policies which it wished to pursue. To adequately defend this thesis, one must look at the re-branding steps taken by New Labour and the new policies the party was going to pursue. Through analysis, it will be shown that New Labour promoted policies in regards
Larry J. Sabato offered some good notions as to what should be revised in the Constitution. Some of his thoughts were very well thought out, and helped me think much more about how the government should be amended. I agreed with essentially every idea he presented, except holding another Constitutional Convention—that proposal doesn’t seem necessary, since most of ideas could be implemented using the “elastic clause” (which Congress so frequently uses). Some more proposals that I did not agree with were expanding the senate to 136 members to add more representation, allowing non-U.S. citizens to run for president after they have lived in the states for 20 years, expanding the Supreme Court from nine to twelve members, and finally, giving states with a higher population more Electoral College electors. Those are just some of his thoughts that I had a disagreement with, but mostly I agreed with his ideas.
The above statement is somewhat mind-boggling. It is something that a revolutionist might have coined over 200 years ago and it leaves much to the imagination. It is about as close to being treasonous as one could get without actually committing the crime. The former Vice-President Albert Gore once stated that "the constitution was a living breathing document, open to change". His statement was quite controversial and it definitely created a stir with the patriot-cult crowd. Why would anyone want to scrap the entire Constitution of the United States of America? Has someone come up with a more impressive document that better signifies what this country is all about?
The United States' Constitution is one the most heralded documents in our nation's history. It is also the most copied Constitution in the world. Many nations have taken the ideals and values from our Constitution and instilled them in their own. It is amazing to think that after 200 years, it still holds relevance to our nation's politics and procedures. However, regardless of how important this document is to our government, the operation remains time consuming and ineffective. The U.S. Constitution established an inefficient system that encourages careful deliberation between government factions representing different and sometimes competing interests.
In this excerpt from Democracy in America Alexis Tocqueville expresses his sentiments about the United States democratic government. Tocqueville believes the government's nature exists in the absolute supremacy of the majority, meaning that those citizens of the United States who are of legal age control legislation passed by the government. However, the power of the majority can exceed its limits. Tocqueville believed that the United States was a land of equality, liberty, and political wisdom. He considered it be a land where the government only served as the voice of the its citizens. He compares the government of the US to that of European systems. To him, European governments were still constricted by aristocratic privilege, the people had no hand in the formation of their government, let alone, there every day lives. He held up the American system as a successful model of what aristocratic European systems would inevitably become, systems of democracy and social equality. Although he held the American democratic system in high regards, he did have his concerns about the systems shortcomings. Tocqueville feared that the virtues he honored, such as creativity, freedom, civic participation, and taste, would be endangered by "the tyranny of the majority." In the United States the majority rules, but whose their to rule the majority. Tocqueville believed that the majority, with its unlimited power, would unavoidably turn into a tyranny. He felt that the moral beliefs of the majority would interfere with the quality of the elected legislators. The idea was that in a great number of men there was more intelligence, than in one individual, thus lacking quality in legislation. Another disadvantage of the majority was that the interests of the majority always were preferred to that of the minority. Therefore, giving the minority no chance to voice concerns.
Right from the beginning of it’s creation the constitution of the United States has been a shaky document. The very basis for it being there was in fact illegal.
The scenes in creation being intellectual, the put together of constitutional democracy was very empirical. The Constitutional Convention was convened to formulate the constitution. What had to be clear was that the only way to assure a functioning constitutional democracy was the public's discussion. In philadelphia the delegates compromised. The outcome was to integrate states with large populations and states with small populations with a bicameral legislative branch. Also compromises that guaranteed say from both slave owning states and non-slave states could be listened to. The Bill of Rights
Over the years the main parties in Scotland have different position about Scottish devolution, so the success of pro-devolution forces in the 1997 referendum was thank to a cross-party support within the campaigns for Scottish self-government. During the 1997 election Scotland was promised a referendum on devolution by the Labour Party, what was carried out in 1997 four months after the general election. The process of devolution started, leading to a Scottish Parliament based in Edinburgh coming into being in 1999.
Upon the opening words of the Constitution, "We the People do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," one must ask, who are these people? While the American Constitution provided its citizens with individual rights, many members were excluded. Elite framers manipulated the idea of a constitution in order to protect their economic interests and the interests of their fellow white land and slave owning men' by restricting the voices of women, slaves, indentured servants and others. Therefore, the Constitution cannot truly be considered a "democratic document." However, because it is a live document, malleable and controllably changeable according to the interest of congress, it has enabled us to make reforms overtime. Such reforms that have greatly impacted America, making us the free, independent nation that we are today.
In 1787, The United States of America formally replaced the Articles of Confederation with a wholly new governing document, written by the delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. This document, known as the Constitution, has served as the supreme law of our land for the past 228 years. It has stood the test of time and a majority of Americans still support it today (Dougherty). The Constitution was designed in a way that allows for it to be amended, in order to address changing societal needs. Article V discusses the process by which the Constitution can be altered. This feature has enabled it to stay in effect and keep up with current times. The Constitution should not be rewritten every 19 years because it would not only weaken its importance, but it would also hurt foreign relations and continuously rewriting it would give political parties too much power.
The most significant and challenge to the traditional view of parliamentary sovereignty was Britain’s membership of the European Community in 1972. The European Communities Act 1972 brought with it the requirement that European Law be given priority over domestic courts over conflicting issues of national law. This notion was a direct affront to parliamentary sovereignty, which required that if a later statute, contradicted and earlier statute, which sought to incorporate European Law into English Law, then the later statute should impliedly repeal the earlier statute. Therefore the European Communities act imposed a substantive limit on the legislative ability of subsequent Parliaments.
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
The worries of yesterday Eventually, we will have a tyranny without a strong, trustworthy constitution. We do not want to recreate exactly what the colonists were trying to avoid and escape from, which was tyranny. Tyranny refers to when a person has a lot of power, and has a lot on their hands, having complete control, and total control. In 1787 a group of delegates from 12 of the 13 states goes together to try to better the country.
Schmitter, P. C. 2001. What is there to legitimize in the European Union… and how might this be accomplished? IHS Political Science Series: 2001, No. 75. Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna.
The Constitution is the greatest document in American history. It has pushed for progressiveness and equality. The Constitution is basically the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution was written to organize a strong national government for the American states. Before the Constitution, the nation's leaders had established a national government under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles gave independence to each state; the states lacked authority, the ability to work together, and to solve national problems. The U.S. Constitution established America's national government and fundamental laws, and guaranteed certain basic rights for its citizens using five big ideas and this shaped today's America.