Federal And Serve A Population

In the event that the government turns out to be tyrannical, the people have the power and the right to overthrow it and bring appropriate changes for the good of all. However, this change has to be instituted rationally (Riley, 1990).

Each state has their own specific unique laws established individually for their state. In conjunction with those laws that exist over the people in their specific state there are also federal laws that govern the states as well as the people who live in them. These laws that govern the people are known as state laws and federal laws. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States. “It creates a federal system of government in which power is shared between the federal government and the state governments. Due to federalism, both the federal government and each of the state governments have their own court systems (Comparing

If citizens allow the government to have more control, then society should fear the government will have too much power. Citizens should be able to have privacy and freedoms, in order to not let the government control their lives. If no one stands up for their freedoms, soon the freedoms will be easily taken

It was written that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it”(Document D). In other words, citizens cannot be arrested or punished in any way if they chose to express their feelings against the government. The right to alter government is ideal, this is because it gives the citizens in the country a voice in order to direct their concerns toward building a better government. Throughout history this can help change and shape a government to become prosperous or successful. A great example in history of this can be shown as the famous Boston Tea Party.

As a society, we often feel we are free. But are we? What is this freedom we think we have? Gardner shows us that the government's main objective is to "satisfy the greed of the majority, the rest will do you no harm. That's it. You've still got your fiction of consent (Gardner, 118)". And if things go wrong, the government's immediate reaction is to use force to gain their objective.

In order to gain unalienable rights, consent of the governed, and the right to alter or abolish government in a nation, first there must be equality. Everyone needs to be seen as equals. The unalienable rights would not apply to everyone unless everyone was seen as equals. The government would not need consent of the people if the rulers did not see their citizens as equals to them and as people that deserved to be heard. If the people were inferior to the government , when something bad would happen or if the government needed some serious changes, the people would not do anything about it and would just have to keep living under the corruption.

“the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances,” (Stone, Geoffrey). This shows that the government knows the population will try and obstruct, or hinder their progress. That if the citizens are allowed to change everything, that everything would constantly be delayed. In the United States, this is not the case. Over many years, the government has implemented ways that require a majority to get things changed. That way small groups of people can voice their opinions without bringing the government to a halt with changes. If anything, these changes help the government, and show officials were the problems are. They allow the government to see and understand people’s frustrations and work to fix them. In that way, the American government has remained strong, but yet flexible and susceptible to change at the same time.

There exists a fine line between the degree of responsibility a government has for its citizens, and the control it assumes to ensure the proliferation of its power. While freedom may be a traditional American value, how it is defined is a question that has long been a source of debate. Furthermore, when an institution follows a course of action that becomes detrimental to society, what responsibility, if any, do the citizens have to show their dissent, and what form should that dissent take?

Government is an administration defined by the Constitution, but is also a constantly adjusting foundation by the efforts of its citizens. By Litherland (2014), government is defined as policies set in order to lead a body of people (p. 395). Over the span of time, the idea of government has been stretched, changed, and applied to various communities throughout both the nation and the world. Whether it was back in the eighteenth century, current, or in the very near future—government has existed and will continue to exist for its people and the nation it has built its foundation upon. With the use of multiple authors, those of: “Difference between Direct and Representative Democracy” (n.d.), “Federalism - Dividing Power between States and the

The theory of tacit consent basically states that if a person receives and accepts the advantages under the government rule, he or she has tacitly consented to carry the obligations imposed by the government under which they live (Locke, 1952, 52). Locke's theory has been widely disputed for many reasons including Hannah Pitkin's view that residence is not normally a sign of tacit consent (Tuckness 2016) and John Simmons' view that tacit consent needs more framework in order to allow legitimate government (2008, 277). Both of them argues that tacit consent itself is not sufficient enough to make impactful voices to be heard in the government. In fact, Pitkin and Simmons state that more concrete governmental procedures need to be added onto the theory of tacit consent. In this paper, I will consider the two arguments that explains why Locke's theory of consent still fails to save the idea of

The conflict between the balance of security and freedom within a society has been an enduring debate since civilization’s inception. Historically, many groups have had wildly differing opinions on the value of individual freedoms compared to the security of the collective. The source’s position is a theory on this balance. The author argues the adversity created from upholding civil liberties within a democracy threatens the security of the state, and that a strong leader with absolute rule would better serve the preservation of the state. This view strongly lines up with the ideological views of Thomas Hobbes, reflecting Hobbes idea of a “Leviathan”, a strong totalitarian leader serving as the most viable option for leadership. This idea

For all of history there has existed the struggle between the strong and the weak. The establishment of government gives the power to a particular group to decide the amount of freedom the majority is allowed, however, though not ideal it provides necessary order. The benefits of security that limitations on freedom provides must be balanced with the individual's pursuit of happiness for citizens to be content. To prevent the governed majority from destabilizing the rulers and seeking power, the government will oppress political and personal freedom of thought. In result, the majority will live under the illusion of contentment and not wish to revolt; those enlightened to the idea that the government should be ruled by the governed, would associate happiness only with ignorance and consequently seek freedom.

As a result of looking through Thomas Hobbes’ view on monarchy and John Locke’s view on democracy, both perspectives provide a vast amount of information of an ideal government. In Locke’s book, Second Treatise of Government, chapter 11 is devoted to legislative power, which Locke identifies as the most important part of the government. Locke provides rules for this legislative power. The first is the preservation of society. No one can challenge the power of the legislative body, or pass laws of their own. This power is invested in the body of the majority. In this chapter, he brings up a constant

However, a regime is no longer democratic the moment it violates at least one of the norms that make elections democratic, hence the name electoral authoritarianism. Furthermore, there are intrinsic powers of representative institutions in driving the dynamic of stability and change in such regimes. Thus, there is motivation for rulers to manipulate them and gain electoral legitimacy without bearing the risks of democratic uncertainty. The manipulative tactics used by authoritarians to repress are assumed to render electoral authoritarian regimes more resilient. The article also assumes the manipulation of representative institutions to create imperfectly informed citizens are identified as more authoritarian than

Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they