Are supreme court justices politicians in disguise?
Are Supreme Court justices politicians in disguise? (60) The United States Supreme Court is argued to make both political and judicial decisions even though it is a judicial body. A Judicial Decision is a decision based on the law. Whether that law is right or wrong is of no concern to the judiciary because that is a political decision. A political decision is such that should the death penalty should be given for murder, whereas the judicial decision would have been whether the person was guilty of that crime. To some extent the inevitable answer is yes, the main reason being is judicial review. In the United Kingdom the powers of judicial review only extend to ultra vires, the power to say that the government has exceeded its powers given to it by law; what it cannot do is say the law is invalid. In the United States the Supreme Court can declare laws to be unconstitutional. This is because of the power as introduced by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury Vs Madison. Therefore it can strike down laws made by congress and also executive actions if it so chooses. The Supreme Court is the guardian of the constitution and, as such if it decides which laws are constitutional or not. This means it must have some political element since it is so to speak making law rather than just ruling on it (such as in Roe Vs Wade 1973). This however is not necessarily a negative thing.
Assess the Criticisms of the Various Electoral Systems Used In the UK
Assess the Criticisms of the Various Electoral Systems Used In the UK There are a number of criticisms that can be placed against the various electoral systems that are used in the UK. The criticisms themselves vary with the electoral system against which they are alleged. One of the systems in question is first past the post. Ftpt is used in general elections. Specific criticisms of this system are that the election results do not necessarily reflect the views of the electorate as a whole. This is because the number of seats does not reflect the number of votes cast for them. There have been instances where the winning party has fewer national votes than that of the opposition. One example of this having occurred is in February 1974 in which Labour won with fewer votes overall but more than their opponents. No recent Government has had 50% or more of the votes cast. Those who criticise ftpt claim that the effect of the system is to over represent the winning party. This was shown in 1983 when the conservatives, with 42.4% of the votes, had 61% of the MPs elected in parliament. In 1997, Labour gained 43.2% of the votes which was considered a landslide victory and gave them 63.6% of seats in parliament. Critics also say that the system is very harsh on small parties, under representing them within parliament. An example of this was in May 2005 when the Liberal Democrats
Consider the view that the arguments for having an electoral college to elect the President are no longer valid
Consider the view that the arguments for having an electoral college to elect the President are no longer valid The United States' constitution was created in 1787 and, whilst creating the document, the Founding Fathers' opted on a method to indirectly elect the President. The "electoral college" system was born. The Founding Fathers believed that the electorate may, in the future, be easily taken in by the showmanship of extremists and so determined that the popular votes cast would only "influence" electors and not directly elect the President. Each state would have as many electors as they have congressmen (so 2 for each Senator and then so many for however many Representatives) who would cast their ballots in early January (after the national election in November) for a candidate, having been "influenced" by the results of the election day polls. In effect, this system both undermines the integrity of the voters and is undemocratic, effectively allowing the power to fall to a small number of people. Unsurprisingly, especially in the wake of the 2000 election, there have been calls for reform with many citing the Electoral College as a "no longer valid" method of electing the leader of the country. As I have already mentioned, the original reason for introducing the Electoral College system was to prevent against dictatorship and extremism. In theory, this sounds great
According to Henry David Thoreau "that government is best which governs not at all" do you agree with him?
According to Henry David Thoreau "that government is best which governs not at all" do you agree with him? Henry David Thoreau's a controversial theorist writing against the backdrop of 19th Century America. As an advocate of individual freedoms and limited government, Thoreau's work can be seen as a rejection of the social and political inequalities, in particular the culture of slavery, rife throughout the US at this time. Thoreau believes that all individuals should have the right to follow their conscience and that when the state restricts the conscience of any group or individual, it is the responsibility of all how are aware to speak out against this. These ideas prove the framework around which Thoreau builds his utopia view of the state, in which the rights and beliefs of all members of society are upheld at all times. Whilst few would disagree with Thoreau's rejection of slavery and call for expanded social and political freedoms, it is important to emphasis the idealistic, at times illogical and ultimately unattainable nature of his theory. Thoreau proposes that governments tend towards perversion and abuse, before the expression of the will of the governed. Thoreau cites the Mexican war, 1846-1848, during which a small elite group were able, due to their political influence, to extend the slave trade to new US territories, despite popular opposition. Modern
To what extent is there a democratic deficit in the UK?
To what extent is there a democratic deficit in the UK The democratic deficit states that there is a lack of democracy in the UK and the opinions of citizens has less power than before. Some may see that there has been a huge decline in democratic deficit, the developmental perspective would argue that this is a bad thing because for democracy to be sustainable it needs to engage citizens on an active basis this expresses citizenship and values informed and tolerant exchange between people. Another reason for why the UK could suffer from democratic deficit could be because of unelected institutions such as the House of Lords, some may argue that because the members of the House of Lords are not elected they do not represent the views of the public. Also the UK voting system could also be criticised, it can be seen as undemocratic because the UK uses a voting system called ‘FPTP’ (First past the post) this results in unequal value of votes, evidence of this is shown from recent votes where it takes 115,000 votes to be elected for a liberal democrat MP whereas for a labour or conservative only 35,000 votes is needed to become elected, this disadvantages small parties. The reason for this being undemocratic is because in a true democracy all minorities should be given an equal voice. Another effect of the FPTP is that it can lead to un-proportional seats in the House of
Can the use of the First Past the Post electoral system be justified in a modern democracy?
Can the use of the First Past the Post electoral system be justified in a modern democracy? [50] The 'first past the post' electoral system is a simple majority system whereby the country is divided into single member constituencies and voters select a single candidate who only requires a simple plurality of votes to win the election. It is extremely difficult to define a modern democracy, but the core ideas would be that it allows the people to govern (in most cases through elected officials) and fair and equal representation for all. Thus, for the FPTP system to be justified it must meet this criteria, and whilst it does usually fulfil it's role of creating strong, single party government it unquestionably fails in encouraging participation and providing equal representation and therefore it is hard to justify. One of the main reasons why it can be seen as justified is the fact that it provides strong and single party government. The United Kingdom has always employed a first past the post system and for this reason there has only been six coalition governments in its history and only two since 1940. These consistently single party governments for many have been vital in allowing laws to be passed and that with a coalition government, very little would be able to passed. The theoretical argument is that single party government leads to strong government and this is what
To what extent does the prime minister control the cabinet?
To what extent does the prime minister control the cabinet? The extent to way in which the prime minister controls cabinet varies, and can vary greatly, as Prime ministers have great amounts of scope in which they can manage and control the cabinet and the system surrounding it. The cabinet itself refers to the collective decision making process in British Politics. Cabinet fuses executive and legislative branches of government, as its members head government departments but are also drawn from Parliament and is the senior executive organ - which controls policy-making process and makes all major government decisions. Collective collegiality adds strength to the government as a whole and makes the governing party in parliament more united and therefore stronger. One of the key aspects of control over the cabinet stems from collective collegiality. The main reasons for the control the Prime Minister has over Cabinet are due to the powers he/she has over the Cabinet itself. The first is that the Prime Minister chairs cabinet meetings, and manages the agendas, as well as summing up the decisions at the end. This means that the PM has a great deal of control over the meetings, and can direct them in a course that suits what the PM wants. Combine this with the fact that the Prime Minister convenes cabinet meetings and decides when they are called and sets their length - it
Why are US presidential elections so long ?
Why is the US Presidential election such a long process (15m) The process of electing a president of the United States is certainly a long one. The formal process takes nearly a year but in reality starts before it's even begun. The first point to make is that of the importance of the campaign trail. Presidential elections take place in November but before this a significant countrywide election campaign is launched. The Presidential election specifically is as much about character and personality as it is politics, and so it is seen as vital that the chosen candidate of each party effectively "tours" the country fist hand to deliver their message in person. Naturally, The US having 50 states can make this process a long one, but not only does it add a personal aspect to each of the states votes, but also can act as a good test of stamina. The job of president can be long, gruelling and both physically and mentally demanding and the campaign trail can act as a final test before people cast their votes. For example in 2008 Barack Obama showed himself to not only be more in touch with the modern electorate but also to have more of a physical resilience for such as job, especially compared to 74 year old John McCain, who many commented looked especially tired and stressed throughout the final weeks of the campaign, not a good sign for a potential president. Before the final
To what extent does Parliament hold the executive to account?
Roz Cresswell To what extent does the parliament hold the executive to account? Parliament does not govern, but its role is to check or constrain the government of the day. Many therefore argue that parliament's most important function is to 'call the government to account'', there by forcing the members to explain their actions and justify their policies. There are three groups within the UK parliament, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the Monarchy. The HoC consists of 646 MP's and each MP is elected in a local constituency to gain a seat in parliament. The House of Lords consists of 721 peers, there are approximately 600 life peers where as there are only 92 hereditary peers. The Lords spiritual are the second smallest group of the Lords. They are bishops and archbishops of the Church of England, and now only 26 remain. Law lords are the final group to make up the House of Lords. There are only 12 of these, and they focus on judicial work, which is carried out through the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. The final group that can hold the government to account is the monarchy. The monarch is often ignored as part of parliament, which is understandable as the Queen is normally entirely ceremonial and symbolic. As a non-executive head of state, the monarchy symbolizes the authority of the crown. Parliament holds the government to account by scrutinising
Do We Have a Cabinet Government or Prime Ministerial Government?
DO WE HAVE CABINET GOVERNMENT OR PRIME MINISTERIAL GOVERNMENT? In society today people think that the most powerful person in the British government system is the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. However, to what extent does he have power and authority? The Prime Minister doesn't govern the country alone; the Cabinet as a whole discuss most matters. You could then say that we have Cabinet government- they do supposedly collectively make decisions on matters! The position however of power in one government may differ from that of another, Margaret Thatcher for example rarely used Cabinet at all, John Major on the other hand used it regularly and considered there opinions vital in the decision making process. But what type of government do we have at present and why? Cabinet government can operate in a number of ways, depending on the approach of the particular Prime Minister, the complexion of government, the nature of the policy issues under consideration and the prevailing political circumstances. The traditional view is that the Cabinet is the seat of power in terms of policy initiation and decision-making. Cabinet doesn't just decide all-important issues; it also controls government policy as a whole. Walter Bagehot regarded the Cabinet "as the crucial institution of government" describing it as the "efficient secret". The assumption behind the traditional view is that Cabinet
