Comparison Of Rahe And The Baron De Montesquieu

Republics challenged all the assumptions and principles that a monarchy ran off of which includes, kinship, war, dependency and inequality. When left alone free people's will run amuck doing what is in the best interest of them. Monarchies are the parent to the child demanding work for the general will over their own pursuits. A quote from an English jurist William Blackstone once said,

“In theory Parliament has total power. It is sovereign” were the words of Dicey in his book Law of the Constitution. A.V. Dicey was a British jurist and constitutional theorist in the 20th century who was adamant and argued extensively about the absolute nature of sovereignty of the Parliament which he derived from Coke and Blackstone. He had said “"Parliament" has

Baron de Montesquieu, a early French philosophe, rejected absolutism in favor of Britain's limited monarchy. He admired the British in that they protected themselves from tyranny by dividing themselves into three branches. He felt that separation of powers and checks and

Baron de Montesquieu sees the people as sovereign exclusively in a democracy and act through elected bodies or ministers. Since the people have the sole power to enact laws, the rules of suffrage are vital to a successful democracy. Following closely is the need for a fixed amount of active citizens in an assembly. As such, the essence of his democracy revolves around the need for love of the laws and of the country. (Montesquieu Bk. 4 Pt. 5) Likewise, frugality is important because it allows all of society to share a similar level of enjoyment and advantages that a democracy brings. When the populace look to frugality, enhanced public services are made available. Consequently, there is a law of

1. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with the British monarchy involve its straying from ideal government, the unjust placement of one individual above all others, and its hereditary aspect. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with King George III in particular are his personal transgressions against liberty. Thomas Paine, firstly views government as “but a necessary evil” (15), and therefore it should be both as limited as possible and also tied to the more positive society. The ideal form of government, thus according to Paine, is a simple republic where the elected are forced to be accountable to their electors (16). The British monarchy fails in all accounts; not only does the prescence of a monarchy at all eliminate the accountability of a republic, but the complicatedness of the British monarchy system makes it worse in this aspect than even other monarchies. Although absolute monarchies are horrid in that they give no power to the people, they are still simpler than the British monarchy; this makes issues much more difficult to handle in the British monarchy (17). The other problems that Paine has with the British monarchy apply to monarchies at large. Paine argues that the placement of one person above all others is an unnatural divide; there is no explanation for the division of people into “KINGS and SUBJECTS” (22) such as there are in other forms of division that humans live with. If it does not make sense to place one individual above all others, then such should most certainly not be law; therefore, from this logic, monarchy, which is entirely based on the principle of placing one person (and their relatives) above all others, is an invalid and unnatural form of government. Of course, some people could, arguably, have earned the admiration and respect of their peers through important action, and thus be deserving of a leadership position. In a republic, by listening to their electors, the elected earn their right to lead. However, the hereditary monarchy removes this earning of the right to lead, and Paine takes issue with that. There is no guarantee that the descendants of a good leader will also be good leaders, and therefore the government of a country should never be left to heredity (29).

Through the whole of the Letters, and the tale of the Troglodytes, Montesquieu is, in addition to philosophical questions, stumbling upon a question made clear by the theme of this week's readings: Why Government?

Some of the founding fathers have been firm believers in the ideas posed in John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government”. The one idea that can be seen quite clearly is the complete dissenting stance taken by Locke on the thought of monarchy in civil government. “Absolute monarchy,

Baron de Montesquieu ( mainly known as Montesquieu) was born around January 18, 1689 in La Brède, France, and died around February 10, 1755 in Paris, France. He was a widely read philosopher who believed that liberty was a natural right. Montesquieu’s accomplishments include introducing the idea of three different branches of government including making laws, enforcing laws, and interpreting laws. Montesquieu’s idea of the three branches of government contributed to the US Constitution as the separation of powers. Montesquieu was a writer, political philosopher, and a French lawyer.

(England) was that the power of the legislature "... is limited to the public good of the

As Montesquieu and Rousseau both bind the idea that sovereignty should be the mindset that is grasped upon when you’re born and you should use it to your highest potential. It is expressed in their own different way but in result, it is involved in the same quest that Voltaire contributes of the common good in the novel. The type of contribution that is discussed in the abuses of power in Candide. Voltaire depicts power being abused from scenes of the novel as they’re reinforced in many views from potential change, human rights, and other Enlightenment values that are portrayed in the book of Candide.

England’s lengthy history of hereditary monarchs and abusive absolutists has led to the system of constitutionalism in 17th century English government. The encouragement of these absolutism practices triggered the need to search for a new way to govern. The reigns of the Stuart monarchy led to the shift from absolutism to constitutionalism during 17th century England. After witnessing the success of Louis XIV's of France establishment of absolutism, England would soon see that James I, and his son Charles I, will fail at establishing absolutism in England and see a constitutional government established.

The constitution splits the power given to national government into three branches, which are separate from each other: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The separation of powers was based on the ideas of Montesquieu, with him ‘L’esprit de lois’ which means the spirit of the law. The executive plays the role of administrating law. The president does this in many ways , for example he; executes federal laws and programs, conducts foreign policy , commands the armed forces, negotiates treaties and other such roles. Checks and balances another main factor of the constitution comes in here, as the people get to keep a check on the president every 4 years with the presidential election, which stops any tyranny of powers. This can also be seen in another branch of government. The legislature passes law, this is done through congress. Congress is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Its roles include;

Around the same time, Americans were also influenced by the works of Charles, the Baron de Montesquieu, a French political thinker. He believed that there were three types of governments; a monarchy (ruled by a king or queen), a republic (ruled by an elected leader) and a despotism (ruled by a dictator). In his book, The Spirit of Laws ,

Government is built on the premises of the established ideas of former politicians and then the new outlooks of recent politicians. All ideas on government are based on the structure and laws of former civilizations. Thus, many politicians can have similar viewpoints on government due to basing their ideas on the same former structures. But, in contrast new government structures include a variety of variations. Therefore, Jean Domat, Montesquieu and Jean Jacques Rousseau have major differences in their outlooks on government, but they do share similar aspects.

Locke indicates that, by giving up some of one's rights, the state gains legislative power and is obliged to use this power to make laws that benefit the people, who hired it. Locke writes that, "This legislative is not only the supreme power of the common-wealth, but sacred and unalterable in the hands where the community have once placed it...over whom no body can have a power to make laws, but by their own consent, and by authority received from them." (XI 134) Rousseau argues that the state should not be able to acquire legislative power, but simply acts as an executive. He claims that the legislative power comes from the people, for the sovereign is simply the general will of everyone, in which the state should obey and enforce. Rousseau states that, "Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme control of the general will, and, as a body, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole" ( ), showing that the aggregate mind of the people, the general will, has the legislative power as "all" powers are given to it.