Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
When the Founding Fathers drafted the Declaration of Independence, it was written to protect the new republic from absolute power. Whereas it is being called as the British Monarchy. Furthermore, the Great Compromise allowed states to have an equal voice in the Senate while populous states had a greater presence in the House of Representatives. The Congress who had truly the right to have the power to declare war, had several presidents mobilizing the military forces without Congress declaring war. Both branches of Congress had passed its bills and the President asserts new laws that are executed faithfully if not vetoing them. In addition, the President appoints federal officials who are judges and cabinet members. Where many of these positions are confirmed by the Senate. Our founding fathers importantly knew it was to equally represent our people including the circumstances. With the constitutional framers, concerns were given out that one of the branches, especially the president, would overpower, not as limited but as the other branches.
Though our democracy as a whole becoming a tyranny of the majority. Solving problems and disagreements within governments creates two parts of the legislative branch: limits on governments by grants, checks, and balances, and denial of powers. The framers of the Constitution had concerns that the president would have unchecked power. Desired to have strong leadership without no opportunity for tyranny. The goal was to share policy-making decisions with others. Including, framers debating how the president would be chosen and elected independently of the legislative branch making sure the presidency had checked in place to control power. Expresses the majority the goal of a balanced and strong system that is possible with the creation of checks and balances limiting them to hold too much power against others. The compromise that was reached was the President was able to give limitations to their stature, therefore, there would not be any major power for anyone but to split equally.
Two basic motivations are fear of death and seeking power. The social contract of every man respecting each other own endeavors, in which an agreement between each individual protects them from these fears. Continues due to mankind’s nature. Every man is naturally selfish and is always in pursuit of power, even when a social contract is formed it is broken due to mankind’s ill intentions. There is innate evil in this state of nature because mankind will always be seeking something that can benefit themselves. A social contract is an agreement between individuals within a society to benefit their society, each other, and their freedoms. A social contract places boundaries: laws, rules, and equality for the rest of the individuals because it is a contract that is supposed to better society as a whole and not just the individuals. Places several constructs on those individuals within the society. The tradeoffs are significant in choosing either life in society or the state of nature. If you choose life in the state of nature you are free from society and free to pursue your own liberties regardless of laws, or other individuals getting in the way. In a society, you must abide by the law, and promote equality to better the society.
I truly feel that today our government needs to step in and regulate things that states have allowed to get out of hand and visa versa. Knowing that each state has its own set of problems having separate laws, and emergency implements differ from state to state. Some states have hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, cand rime, therefore one cannot truly be one blueprint plan for all states. Separating certain areas necessarily however can still achieve the same goals of order, freedom, and equality. For instance, the federal government needs to step in and regulate some of the control the Mormon church has over the Utah state government. Having spent several years living there as a non-Mormon you see the abuse that religion can apply to a population to gain control. Other times I think that it’s beneficial for the states to have their power, for instance, California has the fruit and vegetable checks coming in and out of the state to protect the environment here and I appreciate the power the state has to exercise in achieving those stands and protecting our unique ecological system.
Considering the two procedural models of American democracy we had discussed in class. The procedural model of democracy is reflected when interest groups get together and express their ideas referring to problems that our democracy is facing with solutions. The majoritarian procedural model of democracy relies on high voter turnout because it is a quantifiable way of understanding how responsive government policy is. The procedural model of democracy has a view of democracy embodied in the decision-making process. This model involves universal participation, political equality, majority rule, and responsiveness. If people are not turning out to vote then our democratic health is suffering. When people don’t vote, then a principle of procedural democracy majority rule is not being followed. Consequently, people are not being represented in the decision-making process. Media serves both majoritarian and pluralist models of democracy by improving the quality of available information. The Majoritarian procedural view relies not only on the premise of an informed populace but an active one. The Pluralist procedural view, which is usually more realistic provides that people are less directly active than they ought to be according to the Majoritarian ideal and, the Pluralist model provides for alternate ways of “being he, ard” and “being represented” in a huge representative democracy like ours. According to our lecture notes, unconventional participation is defined as a relatively uncommon political behavior that challenges or defies established institutions and dominant norms. Some types of unconventional participation are boycotts and terrorism. In my perspective they are viewed the same in some ways, however also have some different meanings as of today, I just quite do not understand how to state their differences. To define a voter turnout: the percentage of eligible voters who vote in a given election. It is important because it helps who will win. From my understanding, the Pluralist procedural view relies upon a high voter turnout because it provides for alternate ways of ‘being heard’ and ‘being represented’ in a huge representative democracy like ours. The reality is that the more you spend and the more you can campaign, the more you get the word out about yourself. People should be able to contribute to a campaign that they believe in and how much they spend should be up to them and how much they can afford. In today’s media, we only talk about the bad things about politics about what is wrong instead of giving solutions that can become reality. They only talk about one solution instead of a compromise. I believe that they do line up with privately owned media because they only talk about what their side wants to hear. They don’t give all the sides and if they do talk about the other side they do not correctly inform the people.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.