Download file to see previous pages...
The analysis of law by the Supreme Court can be understood as destructive or proactive depending on an individual’s beliefs and opinion. However, individual beliefs and opinion are not the primary focus of the judicial system. In this perspective, political struggles emerge with opposing and proposing sentiments (Stone 78). Some citizens and scholars understand the importance of judicial activism while others argue against it.
Judicial activism inclines to contradict the essence of democracy. Many judges oppose various clauses in the constitution and consider it wise to alter those clauses to make them conform to their personal or group beliefs. However, constitution demonstrates democracy, which all individuals should apprehend for the best interest of the public (Jordan 56). The constitution is a living representative of the opinion and beliefs of the majority in the United State. People elect senators and representatives who alter and add to the constitution to make it speak for people. To this end, if the constitution is not apprehend as a structure of justice, then the structure of justice will be left in the hands of individuals, therefore contradicting the fundamental nature of democracy-rule of citizens (Reitz 67).
Individuals that advocate for judicial restraint argue that judicial activism may increase the likelihood of the United State been coerced into a state of anarchy. The concept invalidates the purpose of the rule of law, which is to eradicate the sense of injustice and reality of injustice. Judicial activism slows the process of trials and increases the uncertainty and victims may not understand it as objectively just. It reduces the chances of a peaceful process of settlement of disputes and temptation to violent on individuals in attempting to obtain justice emerges. Violent self-help brings about vigilantism and finally anarchy.
Supreme Court judges not only interpret the constitution to suit their personal interest but also make
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
The word “democracy” may categorically be considered a universal word just like the word “love” which is used in different contexts. To cite some examples, “Mussolini claimed that his Italian Facism is a realization of a “true democracy”; Nazis, speaking through Herr Goebbels, presented the National socialist state as the “most ennobled form of a modern democratic state and finally, not to forget Stalin announced that the Soviet Constitution of 1936 is the only constitution democratic to the limit” (Lewis, p.467 ).
In America, democracy comes from status Vivendi where the people are more superior to the government while in Russia democracy stems from the understanding that people identify with both the government and its sovereignty. In America, democracy helps the citizens constantly analyze the reaction of the government towards its people.
Robert Dahl, arguably the most influential American political scientist of the 20th century reckons that democracy is a utopian concept that is not found anywhere in contemporary geo-politics. In its stead, leading industrial societies of the world, including the United States have a ‘Plutocracy’, where power is shared and wielded by various major public institutions.
Now they can leave home and be independent. These new independents may apply for a job and do what they had long wanted to do and buy what they had wanted to buy because their parents forbade them not to do or buy before.
Democracy can also be defined as the right to vote in any organization.
Seeking to address the linkages between poverty and political instability, this essay will explore the relationship between these two diverse, although seemingly interdependent phenomena. Does poverty breed political instability? Are poor
And does economic development affect the emergence and survival of political regimes?
The two research questions are connected as to be able to determine how political regimes affect economic development, one
Liberal democracy is intrinsically valuable to a society. This paper will not disapprove Sen arguments; the researcher will discuss, in light of experiences in non-democratic countries such as China, and South Korea, that Sen’s ideology of liberal democracy fostering development is misleading.
The free market economy can better flourish in a democratic society.
Adek Laothamatas espoused economic development influenced the establishment, retention, or removal of a democratic government (Laothiamatas, 1997). In
According to the paper a real democratic leadership enacts laws that promote sharing of economic resources to the grassroots levels rather than harboring wealth in the hands of a few individuals. Regional development should get support from national governments or federal state without any discrimination whatsoever. Social development is a crucial tool for democratic nations. Freedom of expression and liberty promotes cultural diversity.
5 Pages(1250 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Democracy and development-xz for FREE!