I believe that Australia should not become a republic. I think that there would be no point in becoming a republic, because we live without the intervention of the Queen at the moment, so becoming a republic would achieve nothing. If we were to become a republic, we would lose the support of England in times of war, famine or other disaster. I think that becoming a republic would achieve nothing, lose our links with England and waste the parliament's time when they should be concerned with more important issues.If we were to become a republic, the governor general would be replaced by a president who would have the same powers and responsibilities as our Governor General, so only the name and the person holding the position would change, wasting important parliament time and achieving absolutely nothing.
At the present time, there is nothing wrong with the constitution, and if there was anything wrong with it, it could be changed by referendum, once again proving that becoming a republic is pointless. Currently, we are not tied down at all by the monarchy, and although the Queen does have the power to intervene in the running of our country, she doesn't out of tradition, and therefore, probably never will, bound by the tradition. If we become a republic, we would lose valuable ties with England and perhaps part of our heritage that goes with it. England can support us through many unfortunate events that we may face and England, being on the other side of the world may not, putting them in a position to offer us financial, military or other support.
If we were to become a republic would we forget that the English were the first people to colonise our country, and instead of learning about the colonisation of our country, learn about the way in which we broke free from England and the monarchy? We owe our existence in Australia to the English and we are treated very well by them - they let us manage our own affairs and don't interrupt in the running of the country, while still offering their support if we should ever need it, and if we were to break free from this "tight rein" by the monarchy, would they still offer their support when we needed it?Becoming a republic would achieve nothing and we would lose our valuable ties with England and the monarchy.
You little tyrant king george off with your head.Since the Americans had a bad experience with one person having too much power they made a constitution that guarded against tyranny by, dividing power, making the branches able to check or limit each other, and dividing power between big and little states.
There could be arguments supporting it and arguments going against it. As a result, the citizens of the UK saw a codified constitution as a necessity at that moment. However, there are many advantages of an uncodified constitution. The biggest advantage is the idea of flexibility. As societies are changing, and societal norms take new forms, it is very important for the constitution of countries to adapt to that quickly, as a country’s constitution should be in the best interest for its citizens.
For many years, the question of how adaptable and flexible the constitution is in Australia has been widely debated. As of now the atmosphere of verbal confrontation on protected change, has restored enthusiasm toward the issue in exploring whether the constitution is versatile and adaptable in meeting the needs of the nation following 100 years in being embraced.
However, for Australia to become a republic, the points stated alone would be insufficient to undertake the move from a monarchy. For these changes to be instigated we need to ask, “Why?” How would a republican Australia be of benefit to the country, if at all? It is apparent that the most logical and coherent argument against Australia becoming a republic is that our system of government in place currently is completely fine. Queen Elizabeth, as Head of State, does not interfere with policies or laws from being implemented, nor is the advancement and development in our country hindered by the Queen. Furthermore, there are many more serious issues which must be dealt with in Australia, such as better conditions for refugees, taking assertive action in combating domestic violence and treating all citizens here like they are proper human beings. If these matters cannot be dealt with first, then how can Australians be asked to address other comparatively minor issues such as electing who our Head of State becomes? Australia would also be stripped of certain aspects such as the Queen’s Birthday Long Weekend, which I would be correct in assuming that no one would want to lose a day off. Hence, unless the benefits of a republic conclusively determine that our country would be in an enhanced position to the current monarchy, there seems no fit
The strict constitutionalist within me would not be in agreement with abandoning our constitution under any circumstances. If we were to abandon this document, we return to the same situation that we were in during 1776. There would be nothing that would bind the states together. Not having a constitution almost caused us to lose the revolutionary war. During the decade that we were without the constitution, many events occurred such as Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts, British contempt for treaties, Indian depredations, and Spanish movements on the western and southern borders. All of these combined to demonstrate how vulnerable the United States really were. Our first President, George Washington was quoted as saying " I confess to you candidly, I can foresee no evil greater than disunion".
Without the power of the constitution, each state would make their own regulations regarding how laws should be seen and approached. This also mean that each state would have to make their own money, which we all know that money is the cause of all evil. Without a constitution, each state would also have to set up systems for patents, copyrights, piracy, and declaring war on other states. Simply, without the constitution, the United States as we know it to be today would not exist. Our country would become weak and eventually fall short to many bad rules and laws.
... The loyalty that we had to the British crown has in some senses faded, and become more of a celebrity fad that people follow for entertainment.
America was well-situated to break with the monarchy for a number of reasons. One was that the distance limited Britain’s capacity to govern the colonies. Another reason was that for more than a century, Americans had already been responsible for managing their own domestic affairs, including taxation and electing their own leaders.
The term Euthanasia is derived from the Greek roots, taking the words ‘eu’, meaning good or well, and ‘thanatos’, meaning death, to create the term “good death ”. (Definition of Euthanasia . 2011) The term ‘Euthanasia’ is not defined specifically within Australian Legislation, however the generalised definition states that Euthanasia is intentionally taking another person’s life by the means of a direct action or depriving a person of the medical care needed to preserve life. (Euthanasia: What Does It Really Mean? Date Unknown). Linda Jackson (2005) continues to add that Euthanasia can then be further separated into four specified categories: Passive voluntary euthanasia, active voluntary euthanasia, passive involuntary euthanasia and active involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary Euthanasia will be the specified area that will be focused on within this assignment.
There is a fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic as it concerned the political entitlement of the citizenry. The citizens of a republic do not participate directly with governmental affairs. The citizens of a republic can however have a say in who does participate. The Roman republic has two prefect systems to prevent dictatorship which didn’t work.
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.
A constitution is the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation is governed. Our founding fathers created the US Constitution to set specific standards for our country. We must ask ourselves why our founding fathers created the Constitution in the first place. America revolted against the British due to their monarchy form of government. After the American Revolution, each of the original 13 colonies operated under its own rules of government. Most states were against any form of centralized rule from the government. They feared that what happened in England would happen again. They decided to write the Articles of Confederation, which was ratified in 1781. It was not effective and it led to many problems. The central government could not regulate commerce between states, deal with foreign governments or settle disputes. The country was falling apart at its seams. The central government could not provide assistance to the state because there wasn’t a central army. When they realized that the Articles of Confederation was not up to par, they held a convention, known as the Constitutional Convention of 1787. As a result of t...
Do you look at the Australian flag with pride? Well, the Australian flag has many people split on changing the flag. I feel as though many don’t have the connection to the flag. It doesn’t tell the story of the nation. Our flag is what brings us Australians together, it needs to represent our country with pride, but the current flag doesn’t do our country any justice. The current flag doesn’t represent any of our indigenous culture, the true custodians of this land. As well as that, have you ever confused the Australian flag with the New Zealand flag? This is another issue, many get confused as they are almost identical. Another issue it that the current flag doesn’t reflect our sporting colours, as we play in green and gold but these colours aren’t demonstrated on the flag. These key reasons are why the Australian Flag needs to be changed.
In 1603 the Scottish and English monarchies were united and at the beginning of the eighteenth century, the monarchy of the United Kingdom was deprived of the decision-making privilege they once had. For the purpose of this essay, I intend to examine the many different arguments both for and against the British monarchy being abolished. Proponents argue strongly that the monarchy symbolises all that is British throughout Britain and the Commonwealth Realms. However, contrary to this, the monarchy receives exorbitant financial aid from the British taxpayers to maintain the monarchy. Does the monarchy have a place in the twenty first century?
The most general type of republic is parliamentary system, often called parliamentary democracy. A parliamentary system is a type of republic, where the power of parliament exceeds the power of president. Although, president reserves some key competences. Generally, the members of government are also members of parliament, and accountable to Parliament. If the government doesn't get the vote of confidence, it can be dismissed by the Parliament or achieves the appointment of new elections to government. Such republics often have proportional electoral systems. The voters vote for parties rather than candidates. In th...