guestion 2

timer Asked: Jun 3rd, 2014

Question description

Background to the Question

As I believe we have already noted previously, that United States Constitution was adopted at a time when government itself was seen as a problem – a threat to individual liberty. Hence the United States Constitution was written as, and largely remains, a marginal safeguard system against hasty majority action. Under its separation of powers system, the President is elected by a different system, for a different term, and by a different electorate than either of the houses in the Legislature. The Congress itself is divided into two houses, each of which is also elected by a different electorate (state-wide versus Congressional district) and for a different term. Originally the Senate (chosen by state legislatures, not direct election) was also elected by a different system than the House. And, of course, there are also the federal courts, each of which can declare unconstitutional laws passed by the Congress or state legislatures, and decisions of state courts. And judges hold their position for life

Add to this the federal system which divides the totality of government power between the states and the federal government, the checks and balance system designed to preserve the essence of the separation of powers system, and the Bill of Rights and its application to the states via the 14th Amendment, and you have a system well designed to protect the people from the Government.

By contrast, the British political system is unitary and parliamentary. There is no federal division of power and the legislative and executive branches are fused together in the Parliament to make policy making easier. There is a Bill of Rights, but every part of it can be rescinded by a simple parliamentary majority. In fact, before the United Kingdom joined the European Community, and subjected itself to the supremacy of the EC in a very narrow area of policy making, there was nothing that Parliament could not legally do. More precisely, there was nothing that a majority in the House of Commons could not do, because the House of Lords for most of the 20th century could only delay the passage of legislation, not prevent it.

The Question:

Should the British people be (more) worried about their rights being violated than Americans? If not, why not? If so, why?

You may refer to whatever sources your choose in answering.

Studypool has helped 1,244,100 students
flag Report DMCA
Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors