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. I believe the people should have the right to speak up for what they believe in as well as have the right to go against government if and when they feel the laws being imposed by government are not moral. However, if we were to subdue to Hobbes form of government we give up any right whatsoever to disagree with the sovereign. Therefore, Locke’s governmental proposal is a balance between that of Hobbes’s and Mill’s. After all, when a man steps out of the State of Nature it is not to create absolute monarchy, as Hobbes believe but to create o form of civil government.
An amendment to the constitution eradicating federal mandates would make lead the country to be more democratic by once again placing the majority of the say in the hands of the people and therefore, with the state legislatures. The federal government takes away the state 's right to decide for themselves on any matter when it uses underhanded tactics to ensure a desired outcome. It would be undemocratic to allow the federal government to continue doing so because it would further oppress the nation’s citizens. While some may say that giving the states more power is a false sense of democracy since it only entails transferring power from the federal to state government the state is more likely to have the vested interest of the people and hold true to it.
Shays Rebellion is a prime example of something that could have been prevented by a centralized government. Shay and his band of ruffians, although maybe a... ... middle of paper ... ...ur time, to unite as a nation, we must overlook our narrow minded political ideals ingrained in us by our European heritage. It is now, or never. My final point, concerns the men that are working on and creating this new government. These were the men that led us to victory over the mighty British army.
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove.
Our country has changed significantly since the Constitution was first published. Changes such as abolishing slavery, suffrage for women and minorities, and changing the voting age to 18. The Framers of the Constitution could not possibly predict the future of our country at the time. Everything in our government is based on the Constitution and with a changing country the document that governs us should be changed as well. I’m an advocate of the democratic and efficiency critique and that is why I believe the United States should change its Constitution because it gives too much power to the central government, it allows for winner take-all elections, and fails to take adequate responsibility.
But how can they make sure that the sovereign is impartial to everyone? And more importantly, what are the people to do if the Sovereign begins to abuse its power to establish a new state where no one is safe from those who are there to protect them? At the polar o... ... middle of paper ... ...ke’s theories would later be used to justify a reason for dramatic change. During the glorious revolution the Whigs rallied behind the theory set out by Locke in his Two Treatise of Government. The main reason was that it gave a clear theory as to why a state should be allowed to overthrow a monarchy if they abuse their power.
In the even of this there would be certain upheavals in the current balance of governmental powers, specifically in regard to the judiciary. I believe that if New Zealand was to adopt a supreme constitution the judiciary would gain increased power as a consequence of their ability to interpret legislation, power that will not be acquired by the executive or legislature. In countries such as the United States of America (USA) the constitution is a supreme law that overrides all other legislation. It is also entrenched meaning that a public referendum or parliamentary majority of 75% or higher is required to alter it. In addition, any lawsuit that their Parliament wishes to pass, must comply with the constitution.
They were now going to take on an even greater task then fighting the British: establishing a system of government that would be fair and that would be accepted throughout all of America. One thing the founding fathers knew they had to do was establish a document that would unite the states under one system of laws, so they would be a single country. The Articles of Confederation were too weak and could not meet the demands the country as whole needed, so they drafted a new constitution. This new constitution was a brilliant document that expressed how there is no true sovereign power because the power ultimately lies in the people. This document, created in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, was to become the foundation for our country and is still the chief document that the America of today follows.
The Possibilities of a Strict Interpretation of the Constitution The Supreme Court ruling on McCulloch vs. Maryland dramatically impacted the United States. The life of every American would have been more dependent on the States rather than the United States. The emphasis of power would focus on the sovereignty of the local, or State, branches of the government. This is the exact opposite of our currently domineering federal government. The United States would have become a totally different nation if the doctrine of strict constructionism had been followed.
We can only guess who different the United States would be now. If there was no bill of rights, it is possible that the freedoms that we see today in the ammendants would be limited or even not exist if the government felt threaten. The government would possibly expand its power and “for the greater good of the american people” would limit our rights. All we have to see how that would work out, is look countries who have strong national government, and see how they taken their peoples freedom ( india, Venezuela, mexico, Pakistan). Countries like these shows us why the push for the bill of rights was so impoartant and how it impacts are lives on a daily basis.