Nevertheless, protecting the rights of the people was the most important concern of America, which affected the choices of the nation. One view Americans had of the Constitution was that it would unify the nation. The Constitution proposed a strong federal government and that these people believed would protect the affairs of the nation, while still granting some power to state government. The people for this option also agreed with the system of government that the Constitution formed, which was a number of branches that used checks and balances to protect the government and the citizen from being controlled by one person. These officials would be “leaders of wisdom, experience, justice, and virtue” and would only be able to serve limited terms.
Hobbes, on the other hand, writes that the sovereign should have as much authority as possible to govern as needed. Nevertheless, Hobbes just as Locke belie... ... middle of paper ... ... to be than just this. Mill has the right idea of balancing freedom and limits but that is not enough. Hobbes, on the other hand proposes a well though out government. However, the fact that he believes that in order for government to work it needs to be huge makes me think of a monarchy right away.
The original establishment of the idea of state and sovereignty developed over the concept of a government having an overarching political power over its territory. Security is one of the major missions that every state strives to achieve. Creveld specifically claims that the primary mission of the state is to fight and defend because those that fails are “doomed to disappear.” This is because nothing would matter if it did not exist. The Unite States’ spending in military sho... ... middle of paper ... ...t is just under the assumption that states should cooperate in order to keep international peace. () Works Cited Branstetter, Lee.
The framers of the Constitution decided upon a Federal System of government. With the opposing parties the Federalists wanted to uphold the ideals of a strong central government, and the Anti-Federalists wanting the majority of the power remaining at the state level. This suggests that a compromise was made in order to save the newly developing country. The federal system provided the best and possibly the only solution. This system allowed for a national government to exist alongside state governments.
China government not only needs a democracy maintain its influence but also to sustain its enormous economy performance which rests on the process of courts and the rule of law. Realism One of the core realist assumptions is that every state is accountable for the survival and welfare of the nation. The idea of states depending on other states or institutions is not recognised from a realist view. In an anarchical system, self –help is necessarily the principle of action. In the course of providing security for one’s own state, other states in question will automatically be fuelling the insecurity of other states which can cause a security dilemma.
Statism is an idea that the state is an accurate representative of the will of its people.  The state is sovereign and therefore is able to govern itself as it wants. With this sovereignty that state is able to institute security. After a state has established security it is then able to continue with a communal culture. In international relationships however sovereignty does not supply security therefore a state must vie with its neighboring states to accomplish it.
(Waluchow, Wil, Ch. 2) A codified constitution is based on a single authoritative document, thus the document in itself is authoritative to all political institutions and statute laws, and therefore it serves as a higher law. The status of the codified constitution is secured through different entrenchment procedures, which makes it hard for the political institutions to amend or abolish it. At last if a codified constitution is authoritative, then it requires someone to enforce and police it, so that political bodies is subject to its authority. This is where supreme courts or constitutional courts become interesting, as they play this guardian factor in a democratic
The answer isn’t always straightforward, but the short version is that federalism is crucial to democracy. That is, placing limits on the authority of the central government as to prevent tyranny. If this limitation comes at the behest of investing some degree of authority into separate subnational units, the main conundrum we then face is how powerful should these states be? Does it matter whether the constitution outlines their authorities or not? I argue that the specification of powers is indeed important because at the crux of federalism the main behavioral determinant is to whom are the subnational governments are responsible.
A polity is, “a mixture of oligarchy and democracy” (1293b33). Creating a polity shows how the two different systems are working together and a partnership is all about working together to achieve a better cause then what would have resulted if one had been operating alone. Instead, the two different systems are combined based on their best characteristics, which creates a new and stable system that benefits a larger number of people. A polity provides all members to have their ideas heard; mixing the regimes makes the line dividing the different classes much less pronounced. In a polity, “they all do participate and govern” (1293a4-5).
When we first viewed the ancient theorists, both Plato and Aristotle supported a form of aristocracy where the preeminent members of a state would rule. Because they were the most knowledgeable, wise, and virtuous, they would know what is best for a state and its citizens. But human nature has convinced us that without properly limiting its power, a government has the power to rule arbitrarily, succumb to corruption, and introduce great inequalities. Tocqueville, however, argues that the development of equality in the world has fundamentally changed our worries about government and that democracy has become the new standard. But because of the alluring nature of democracy, it’s extremely easy for people to overindulge, so we must be cautious and mindful of the spread of democracy.