The Pros And Cons Of The Constitution Of Nepal

The Constitutional Republic by definition is “a state wherever the officers square measure elective as representatives of the folks, and should govern in line with existing constitutional law that limits the government’s power over citizens”.

The Canadian constitution is one founded on the idea of responsible government. This is a principle that is meant to hold the state. However, many have since struggled with understanding how the Monarch of Britain fits into this form of governance. Some say the monarch is meant to be the representation of the state, and the figurehead we need to keep our government in check. Others point out that the Monarch is an unelected official incompatible with the ideas of responsible government and democracy, for that matter. Scholars seem evenly split between both camps. A question must be proposed about these opinion however, is the Monarchy harmful enough to Canadian society to spend the time, money, and effort to overhaul our constitution? It shouldn’t have to be stated but abolishing the monarchy is no easy task, so to even undertake this measure, we as a society must be absolutely sure of the decision and the consequences Advocates of monarchy are expressing their support for the institution on nostalgic grounds,

“Representatives… shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” - Article I Section 2

In the video “Into Nepal – A Journey through the Kathmandu Valley,” there were many concepts that were easily recognizable due to the information that was given during the first semester of the AP Human Geography course.

After the American Revolution, the US was in deep trouble. The Articles of Confederation had failed, and the nation needed a new form of government. The first option was using the Constitution. The Constitution provided a quick solution for the nation. It gave the national government the power to act in place of the people (i.e. the government would be representing the people). America would be a democracy. The people would be able to elect leaders into the government who are smart, strong, and will best represent what the people want. This democratic form of government has proven to work within individual states, so it will work to govern the nation as a whole. Also, the Constitution will not allow a monarch to form. Laws will consistently be enforced, which also means that everybody will be paying fair taxes. People's natural rights are provided and protected in the preamble of the Constitution, and the constitution will unite us as one large nation which will be stronger. Despite all of these strong aspects of the constitution, many people were concerned about having one government rule over so much land, and because of the crisis that the United States was in, the constitution had been rushed, and there were many little parts that had been overlooked when it was made. Another viewpoint said that a bill of rights had to be added to the constitution. This side believed that the constitution should be revised carefully and thoroughly before it is used to govern America.

1. Congress (has taken the name “The People's Assembly”). This assembly consists of one year elected politicians based on population (one seat for every one million residents) in the right side (546 seats). On the left side of the building, each province gets a set of twenty-five three year seats to balance out the power (100 total seats). There is no limit on how many times one can serve in the Assembly. The assembly has the ability to impeach Freedom Judges and approves the Free Court judge nominations. The assembly also controls the government's budget, can impeach the president, and can override the president's vetoes with a ⅔

The legislature will be a senate composed of one hundred elected senators; four from each of the twenty-five districts across the state. Each district will elect one new senator

should represent the lower house base on population. The key factor of representation would be

A Commentary of “A Documentation of the Constitution Convention From the Eyes of Cotesworth Mifflin” as Told From the Eyes of Sasmit Rahman.

Although the contents of the Somewhereland constitution are generally well-structured, there are several clauses that will cause us some grief down the road, E.G. “everybody feels that they have somebody that represents them.” This clause is an obvious blunder, simply because it is impossible for every person to feel that somebody represents them adequately. The balance of democracy is essential to national longevity, and it would be easily achieved if the upper house elections clause was passed. The state, not the populace, should choose its upper members. The parliament should reflect the people, but an upper section of parliament should be chosen by those with understanding and specialized education. This system does not denigrate the intelligence of citizens, but acknowledges that not every citizen has spent his/her entire life studying government and law. That lack of balance within our parliament may lead to future corruption and political instability.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may

The lower house should be somewhat like the U.S. House of Representatives, but larger, with the recommended 650 members. Just like in the House of Representatives, the lower house will be more representative of the population of Oz than the upper house. Votes will run through this lower house on a majority (2/3) basis, so radical groups such as the fundamental Unitarists, the Arjiki peoples, or members of the polarizing Munchkinlander Militia do not prevent the legislative process from being properly carried through. The upper house will be more selective, being less powerful and less representative of the population at large, and will thusly work as a check for the rulings of the lower house. While the lower house will be elected by the citizens of Oz, the upper house will consist of more selective and elite members of society that are chosen from each region of the nation (Dickovick and Eastwood 2015: 202). This will ensure that the will of the people that is being passed on from the lower house, actually acts in the constituents’ best

There is a dispute between people who are against the codified constitution and those who are arguing for it during the last two centuries. People who believe that a codified constitution is more suitable for democratic countries have strong points. For example, Heywood (2013) notifies that a codified constitution entrenches major constitutional principles and protects individual liberty. On the other hand, a codified constitution can be considered more rigid and can make it much difficult for the government and society to deem and balance new reality if the circumstances change. This essay is not going to discuss the strength and drawbacks of a codified constitution, but it is going to analyze how both codified and uncodified constitution deal with developed conflicts and unexpected circumstances. Moreover, this essay will examine examples from history and constitutions of such countries as China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Israel. My conclusion will be that it does not matter if the state has a codified or uncodified constitution, because the most important fact is that any constitution should be flexible enough to reflect political realities and respond on changed political circumstances.

In Article 44, the legislative authority of the Federation shall be vested in a Parliament, which shall consist of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and two Majlis (Houses of Parliament) to be known as the Dewan Negara (Senate) and the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives).

Good health is a form of wealth for a person, an important indicator of human well-being. The newly formed constitution of Nepal (2015) has stressed the right to healthcare as a fundamental right of the citizens. Thus, access to health care is now protected as a constitutional right for all.