Abstract Some political observers argue that the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary resides with the judiciary in Canada - a troubling assertion for those who feel unelected officials should not hold that kind of sway over the political process. In the view of this writer, such an argument is undoubtedly correct. With that uppermost in mind, this article looks at why it may be said that Canadian judges wield sweeping powers. From there, the paper turns to examine the arguments raised by at least one prominent Canadian academic who feels strongly that judges should use the considerable powers of their position to promote the creation of a Canada more in keeping with the notions of equality and inclusiveness that Canada allegedly stands for. The writer concludes by looking at how justices now see themselves in Canada, how the Charter entrenchment of certain rights has expanded their legislative role and what implications their prominent place in the democratic process offers for interest groups and citizens' groups. The writer maintains that the properbalance of power in a democracy should be one in which judges interpret the law rather than make it via prescriptive measures, but laments whether this will ever happen in Canada.
From the Paper "Other academics, while appearing to share Dr. Greene's view that justices should play a key role in the shaping and formulation of Canadian law, nonetheless bristle at any suggestion that Canada's judiciary has been assertive in resisting the non-democratic or authoritarian impulses of Parliament - at least in some notable cases that have sweeping implications for all Canadians. For instance, L.E. Weinrib writes in 1994 that Canada's Supreme Court justices caved in to the legislature (and possibly to public pressure, as well) when they decided to reject Sue Rodriguez's request that she be allowed to die via assisted suicide. Of especial importance - at least to Ms. Weinrib - the majority of the Supreme Court read Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as enshrining the sanctity of human life and not as an expression of an individual's right to be an autonomous decision-maker in a free society."
Abstract This paper discusses Morgenthau's feelings about how politicians and/or leaders must be viewed based on their decisions; Waltz's ideas on the ever changing outlook of the balance of power and Kissinger's ideas that history must be viewed in order to learn about countries and their ability to gain power.
From the Paper "David Hume said "It is a question, whether the idea of the balance of power be owing entirely to modern policy, or whether the phrase only has been invented in the later ages?" (Thompson & Morgenthau 1952, 105). Yet, as history has evolved it is evident that the theory of "balance of power" began to be constructed in ancient societies when there was a concern that one entity would become greater, or more prominent, than another. In early Greece, researchers contend, there is the first evidence of a concern for nations to achieve a balance of power within the world. Yet, this concern gained greater significance during the reign of Louis XIV in France, and developed further in Europe during WWI (Thompson & Morgenthau 1952, 105). "
This paper discusses the concept, history and application of ?Checks and Balances?, the system that gives constitutional controls of the separate branches of government in a way that one branch will not have more power over the others.
Abstract This paper states that, although the Federal Constitution of the United States with its ?Checks and Balances? makes it the best-known and most democratic system in the world today, most governments, even dictatorial ones, have a similar mechanism to balance the exercise of power among its branches. The author feels that the U.S. Constitution was and will be a reaction piece to events that happen to the people. This paper concludes that power must be controlled and accounted for: It is not only a right and a privilege but also, more so, a responsibility.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Checks and Balances in the Legislative Branch
The System and the People's Rights
The System and the Judiciary
A Brilliant System in Present Times
From the Paper "The system has been tested by actual situations. After the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson vetoed 20 bills (Anonymous), after which Congress overrode more than 20 bills vetoed by the President. In 1918, Congress turned down the Treaty of Versailles, which then President Woodrow Wilson worked hard for. The Treaty was to end World War I. In 1935 to 1936, Supreme Court declared that the NIRA and the AAA, New Deal programs passed by the Roosevelt Administration, were unconstitutional. Likewise, former President Ronald Regan appointed Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, but his appointment or nomination was rejected by Congress."
Abstract This paper traces the development of the three orders of power in American history. It explains that the history goes back to the founding of the nation when the idea of a balance of powers was instituted, with three theoretically co-equal branched of government, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial, each with its own area of power. The paper focuses on the executive order and how this can potentially be abused by presidents. The writer argues that the executive order has become a means by which Presidents try to create law when they cannot get Congress to act as they wish. The use of the executive order endangers the balance of powers so important in our constitutional system.
From the Paper "Critics point out that there has been a growth in presidential rule through executive orders and national emergencies. The Constitution defines presidential powers very generally, and so it does not define or directly limit the power of a president to rule by executive order: "The issue is especially acute when presidents use executive orders to legislate, for then they usurp the powers of Congress or the states, raising fundamental concerns about the separation and division of powers" (Liberty Study Committee). "
This paper discusses Benjamin Barber's views on "thin democracy" and "strong democracy" as expresses in his book "Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age".
Abstract This paper explains that Benjamin Barber in his book "Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age" defines 'thin democracy" as a democracy in which leaders are elected but they are left to their own devices concerning the majority of issues; people have the powers, which democracy provides, but the demonstration of these powers is primarily manifested in the form of elections. The author points out that Barber is convincing in making his point that "thin democracy" has a tendency to strip citizens of their sense of purpose as manifested by the voter participation rate stagnating in the U.S. at about half of those eligible. The paper stress that Barber loves the thought of a "strong democracy" in which it is not the leaders who make a democracy great but rather an active, informed citizenry.
From the Paper ""Thin democracy" takes the stance that average citizens are not interested in political matters and are not capable or adequate enough to directly participate in the political process themselves, beyond electing officials. Benjamin Barber feels that the United States democracy is thin and poorly represents the entire population at large. Significant portions of citizens are unable to vote due to restrictions or simply choose to be complacent and abstain from voting. Citizens under the age of eighteen are restricted from voting, as are prisoners, and persons living within the borders who are not nationalized. Citizens who are active in a thin democracy mainly participate in it by electing persons and then monitoring their political decisions (if they choose to do so), allowing the elected (those seen by the majority to have the most expertise and capability to discern what best represents the will of the majority) to do the actual work."
Abstract This paper sheds light on the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances in the US system of government that regulates the powers of the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The paper also discusses the concerns that the failure by the Supreme Court or Congress to interfere with the executive's actions in the current Iraq war may be resulting in the abrogation of constitutional protections. Furthermore, the paper shows how the system of checks and balances was established to safeguard against encroachment by one branch onto another and to ensure that no member of the executive or legislative branch is placed beyond the scope of the law during the course of his or her time in office.
From the Paper "Congress fulfills the legislative role, and is the only body that can make federal laws. Moreover, Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to any other governmental body. However, Congress can delegate some of its lesser powers to other governmental branches. In addition, Congress retains some control over the executive and judicial branches through the power of impeachment. The President fulfills the executive role, and is in charge of executive officers who ensure that the nation's laws are enforced. However, presidential power only extends to executive agencies, not quasi-judicial or legislative agencies. The executive branch exercises some control over the judiciary because it nominates judicial appointees. In addition, the executive branch exercises some control over the legislative branch because of the power of the Presidential veto. The judicial power is given to the Supreme Court and the lower courts. The judicial power is only exercised by constitutional courts; though Congress can establish legislative courts to determine issues of public rights, those courts cannot exercise judicial power."
Abstract This paper explains that the idea of democracy, when it is over-simplified to mean "majority rule", is the idea, which Tocqueville, Mills, and Godkin watched become corrupt as America matured. This paper explains Alexis de Tocqueville, one of the first to write prolifically about the American experiment, knew that a pure democracy was no guarantee of continued freedom. The author points out that Godkin, writing at the time of the Civil War, watched powerful individuals rise to leadership by influencing public opinion or gaining political power for themselves.
From the Paper "America was a wonderful experiment in freedom and democracy, which had never before been attempted by any nation. Nations either tried to give power to the people in order to prevent monarchies from rising to despotic power, or they allowed monarchs, despots and other sole figure heads to rise to power. In the case of allowing the people to rule, Europe and European's had learned many times that unbridled power in the hands of the people was no more just than the rule of despots. Mobs could become just as dictatorial as individual monarchs who sat upon golden thrones. Until America came into existence, nations could only expect to exist for a short time before political turmoil would create change of government, and the nation would start over again."
Abstract This paper explains that popular sovereignty, the primary foundation of democracy, has several weaknesses because, although it would be nice to believe that all humans are equally capable and willing to base all political decisions on a careful process of reasoning, this is often the exception to behavior rather than the rule. The author points out that, if apathetic sentiments towards politics begin to run through the population, the results are just as damaging; votes with little thought behind them can create decisions that don't reflect the interests of the majority of the population. The paper relates that, ultimately, the balance of democracy's strengths over its weaknesses in practice is a very precarious one; it is in the hands of the population to safeguard and fortify this structure.
From the Paper "The debate that democracies encourage has the potential to backfire if it serves to further wedge the society apart. Under certain conditions, political parties and factions are evidence of this problem. This struggle for influence and power can accelerate conflict within the society. Thomas Hobbes recognized the inherent tendency of man to separate and struggle against each other in a continuous battle for power. Such a state of war can only be avoided through an unquestioned strength of law. The population must therefore "conferre al their power and strength upon one Man...that may reduce all their wills unto one Will" contribute to the disintegration of society into civil war."
Abstract This is an opinion paper which argues that the impact of the American media has politicized a pluralist democracy among the majority by creating a marginalized society, leaving the corporations, including the media, and the American politicians at the top of the pinnacle concerning political decisions and elite power.
From the Paper "This bacama avidantly claar whan Richard Barlin, tha prasidant and chiaf axacutiva officar of tha Haarst Corporation in Naw York, askad Prasidant Richard Nixon to grant him immunity from tha antimonopoly law that had in pravious yaars sant othar corporata axacutivas to jail. Tha Haarst Corporation "ownad nina nawspapars, tan broadcasting stations, twanty-six magazinas, and a book publishing housa" (Adalstain). Nixon knaw that if ha did not axampt Barlin from tha law, his actions would ba ramambarad, coma tha naxt alaction. This illustratas that tha govarnmant naads tha madia mora than tha madia naads tha govarnmant dua to tha fact tha madia has tha ability to shapa and form political discoursa. It is also capabla of disrupting tha astablishad paradigm, tharafora thraataning thair dominant status."
Examining the reasons for one party being in power in Russia for several terms, despite the economic depression that has existed since the fall of Communism and the installment of democracy.
Abstract This paper examines the factors that have contributed to the election of the same political party in Russia since the fall of Communism. Russia has been in an economic depression since the fall of the Soviet Union, yet the same party is re-elected through democratic vote. The reasons for this puzzling outcome are discussed in this paper and identified as using democracy to purge the conservative communists of their rank, old elites regaining state control and loyalty of those counting the votes. Each factor is discussed in great detail along with its contribution and impact on the electoral outcome. This paper is ideal for anyone, from a Russian politics expert to a curious novice.
From the Paper "Mikhail Gorbachev, along with the Soviet leaders was the first to introduce semi competitive elections into the USSR and then later Russia. Although elections are a focal point of a democracy, they were not initiated by Gorbachev for this use. "The goal of these elections was to purge the conservative ranks of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) from their positions of power within state structures as a way to liberate these state institutions and thereby make them available as instruments by executing Gorbachev's economic reforms" (McFaul and Petrov, 24). The existing powers of the Soviet Union at the time of the introduction of democracy were all communists, who held high political ranks. In order for Gorbachev to implement his reformation of the economy, these political figures needed to be removed from their ranks, otherwise there would be great opposition to the changes planned. When these leaders were removed, the state organizations were free from communist control and could be used in any way that Gorbachev desired."
Abstract Modern organizations, particularly the state and corporate conglomerations, represent the historically unprecedented concentrations of power. This paper is about how people living in a supposed free society ended up legitimizing and giving approval to their own oppression and domination. Weber predicted that corporate power would help facilitate this development. Chomsky demonstrated how the particulars work in connection to the mass media. In a nutshell, this is about the issue of capitalism. Producers and advertisers have an interest in reinforcing certain ideologies, because, in their world, minorities, women and the poor should be relegated to certain spheres. This is, therefore, a political battle -- it is a class war. Economic elites retain their power by shaping and moulding social reality through the means of mass media.
Tags: POLITICAL SCIENCE / STUDIES IN DEMOCRACY, LIBERALISM, corporate power
Abstract This paper discusses Socrates' view of democracy and the democratic man as related in Book 8 of Plato's "Republic." In particular, the paper attempts to ascertain what specific problems Socrates has with democracy and democratic man. The paper then relates Socrates' criticisms - both those that the writer agrees with and those that he does not - to the state of affairs within the United States.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Criticisms of Democracy and Democratic Man
Freedom in Democracy Equality in Democracy Freedom and Equality in Democratic Man
Afterthought: The Democratic Ruler(s)
Conclusion
From the Paper "Although it is clear that Socrates holds an uncomplimentary view of democracy, to say the least, it is equally clear to me that, conversely, in today's world democracy is largely respected and admired; countries strive to be "democratic" because of the positive connotations attached to the concept. What I have difficulty understanding is not the fact that countries today manipulate the definition of democracy to fit their own agenda, but rather why the concept, democracy, was chosen as the emulative term. Why isn't "socialism" seen as the "good" form of government? After all, in our country we are lacking a lot of the basic qualities that are supposedly essential to democracy. Yet at the same time the U.S. is arguably the most powerful, most economically well-off country in the world. There are many more questions like these that need to be explored, and I hope that throughout the course of this essay, through an examination of Plato's thought in the Republic, I have shed some light on some of the possible answers."
Abstract The paper explains that the separation of powers doctrine of the US Constitution was intended to reduce the likelihood of tyrannical corruption of governmental power. The paper then looks at the "Morrison v. Olson" case that arose during the Reagan administration regarding whether the establishment of an independent counsel violated the fundamental principle of checks and balances.
Outline:
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)
From the Paper "Separation of Powers is a doctrine enumerated by the United States Constitution that is a fundamental part of the structure of the U.S. government. However, in principle, it is a concept that long predated the American Revolution, or for that matter, the British Royal Crown whose oligarch icy inspired the formation of a democratic republic in the
New World. In fact, separation of governmental powers can be traced to ancient Rome (Friedman, 2005)."
This research paper discusses how and why power was distributed among various groups under the Federal Constitution of 1787 and whether the system the framers created was just or unjust.
Abstract This paper questions whether the original Constitution created a representative democracy based on elections, a pluralist democracy based on factions, some form of elite system based on rule by a handful, or hyperpluralism with a weak central government dominated by factions (or state) interests. It discusses this issue then asks whether the system created was a just one.
From the Paper "The system created by the Constitution created a republican form of government in which existing propertied elites were the dominant influence in the late 1700s but which was structured in such a way as to permit the development of a much broader pluralist democracy over time. The truth of this statement can be seen in the experience of the late 1700s, the composition and philosophy of the framers and the specific institutions they created.
The experience of the American Revolution united most Americans in opposition to tyranny imposed from abroad which translated into a broadly shared distrust of a strong central government. Under the Articles of Confederation, power was concentrated in separate state legislatures leaving insufficient scope for the functioning of an effective national government. The leaders of the movement to correct the resulting imbalance which had manifested itself in inadequate state contributions to permit retirement of the Revolutionary war debt, inflation, interstate trade disputes and civil disorders such as Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts in 1786 came from the creditor class among which, according to Stewart et al, "a sense of nationalism began to emerge" (American 53)."
Abstract The paper examines the real meaning of Pericles' famous funeral oration during which he praised not only Athens' fallen heroes, but the democratic government of the city state. The paper explains that the Athenian democracy was what it claimed to be - a government of and by the people. Not only were all citizens given equal chances to participate in the chief organs of government, they were also allowed the opportunity to pass judgment on one another. The paper points out, however, that those in charge of this business were not free to act as they pleased. The paper shows how those who climbed to greater power, wealth, or influence than their fellow citizens were quickly suspected of subverting the entire system.
From the Paper "In his oration, Pericles compared the governmental system of Athens to that of its bitter rival, Sparta. Though obviously favoring Athenian forms, it is less clear what Pericles considered to lay at the core of Athenian superiority. Athens was a democracy, and Sparta an oligarchy, but precisely what was the Athenian democracy? Was Pericles saying that his city state was a pure democracy - ruled directly by its citizens - or was he saying that it was superior to Sparta, and other oligarchies, because it employed democratic principles along with other useful, even oligarchic, methods of government?"
