He says, “Absolute arbitrary power [is] governing without settled standing laws” (Locke 137). Not only is Locke putting forth an outline of a limited government, but he is also explaining why things need to be carried out in a certain way — in this case why clear, mandated statutes are
James Madison begins his famous federalist paper by explaining that the purpose of this essay is to help the readers understand how the structure of the proposed government makes liberty possible. Each branch should be, for the most part, in Madison's opinion, independent. To assure such independence, no one branch should have too much power in selecting members of the other two branches. If this principle were strictly followed, it would mean that the citizens should select the president, the legislators, and the judges. But, the framers recognized certain practical difficulties in making every office elective.
The powers given to the national government under the Constitution would be few in number and their purpose would be specifically defined so that those powers could not be overstepped. At the same time, the powers of the state governments are abundant and not specifically defined, clearly swaying the balance of power towards the states. Federalist paper 46 is essentially an extension of the points made in 45. It say... ... middle of paper ... ...nt that that person receives. This is one more way that the national government has allowed the states to gain more power.
In an absolute government, the people are not in a position to question the government on their decisions. Moreover the corruption in those governments can run a muck if not checked. In order to circumvent this Locke suggests creating separate powers to both pass and enforce the law. Locke was one of the first political philosophers to separate powers of the government, which was in direct difference from the absolute monarchies he was living under. According to John Locke the government should consist of a legislative branch and an executive branch (Locke 1681, 335-37).
(Rousseau 39) and therefore must enter into a government that controls them. However, this control is in the form of direct participation in democracy where people have the ability to address their opinions, and thus sovereignty is in the control of the people. Unlike Rousseau, Locke believed firmly in the fact that government should be split up into a legislative branch and a ruling branch, with the legislative branch being appointed as representatives of the people. He contends that people give up the power of their own rule to enter into a more powerful organization that protects life, liberties, property, and fortunes. The two differ significantlyin that Rousseau wanted a direct or absolute form of democracy controlled by the people, while Locke prefered an elected, representative democr... ... middle of paper ... ... for example, people who have radical beliefs, will be denied these beliefs and forced to supportthe viewpoint of the general will.
In this case, should government be able to use its authority in any way it pleases as Hobbes argues or should there be a limit placed on governmental power as argued by Locke and Mill? I believe that a powerful government can exist and provide its citizens with the necessary security while being limited. There is no need for government to be large in order to achieve this. Although both Locke and Mill have a just understanding of what the limits of government should be, I find Locke’s understanding more persuasive. Locke writes that while government should restrict our freedom in order for us to avoid returning to the state of nature , the amount of restriction should be limited.
The purpose of government is to protect the fundamental rights of life, liberty, health and property, but differences in opinions as to what these rights could mean may create a conflict within society itself. As John C. Calhoun suggests, man is driven by his individual impulses, where his needs and desires are more important to him than the needs and desires of others in the community. It is for this reason that a government must be established so that it protects all people who have differing ideas from being oppressed by the opinion of one group or ruler. The question then occurs as to how government can protect the fundamental rights without oppressing the people or abusing its power. James Madison and John C. Calhoun both came up with very similar solutions to this problem; however, both ideas create new problems with society as their ideas are based on the perfect society, rather than the actual society.
The social contract theory was a political foundation that underlined the distinct forms of government. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke mention the formation of governments, the main key to form a successful government is through consent such as voting, joining a military, or allow to be ruled by a sovereign. The contrasting ideologies by both theorists differ in human nature, Hobbes believed that man is not a social animal while John Locke opposed to this idea and stated that by nature man was a social animal. The distinction that both portrayed in the role of the government in a man 's life and the perspective on the state of nature were argued in the following texts, Leviathan and Second Treatise of Government. Society consents to a government
III) Defined, Locke’s political power is the ability to uphold a constitution. Locke’s reasoning for the creation of a government arises in the need to protect life, liberty and justice. Locke concludes that “the reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they choose and authorize a legislative,” but adds that the citizens “have a right to resume their original liberty … by the establishment of a new legislative” (Locke, Sec. CCXXI) when those rights are threatened. The protection of life, liberty and justice then becomes the reason for a “new legislative.” The value Locke places on property is only furthered in his discussion of the will of the populace.
A constitution is often defined as the main body of rules either written or unwritten, which describes the government and its method of operation. Besides a constitution just being a set of rules which governs an organisation, it goes into much deeper depth. According to Thomas Paine, he reveals that a constitution is something that is pre-existing to a government, giving legitimacy and defining powers under which a government may act. Due to Britain’s unwritten constitution, there was a sense of ambiguity in the word and whether if there was a constitution at all. Ironically, United Kingdom was once described as ‘the mother country or modern constitutionalism’.