Comment
Hi Thearin this is Somnea and I write one comment from your paper
And I choose one part from your paper which talks about check and balance and in this part you said it is the first weakness point of Madison theory that the executive is constitutionally allowed to appoint judges of the Supreme Court which created the unfairness to the court and the president will used or choose their people to work in the court while President is the master which court is the servant and I totally agree to your idea, but according to my understanding on his theories I thought he just try to help or prevent the conflict in his political policy and the idea that of executive this is the way that the executive should have and using their power and absolutely he belief that in natural people will choose a people that they believe, their partner, and people who trust them to work with because it is the good way that make people could have good relationships, good interdependence, power sharing with out conflict and especially I thought that he must belief if the president has power to appoint judges so as he was a president at that time he may could easy to get along with their members with have good interdependence and there will not have any conflict during he holding power. All of these are his purpose of check and balance and it may not same as in reality but I believe that he did not want it injustices anymore and he might just want everybody have good interdependence so they will could develop their works.
And I choose one part from your paper which talks about check and balance and in this part you said it is the first weakness point of Madison theory that the executive is constitutionally allowed to appoint judges of the Supreme Court which created the unfairness to the court and the president will used or choose their people to work in the court while President is the master which court is the servant and I totally agree to your idea, but according to my understanding on his theories I thought he just try to help or prevent the conflict in his political policy and the idea that of executive this is the way that the executive should have and using their power and absolutely he belief that in natural people will choose a people that they believe, their partner, and people who trust them to work with because it is the good way that make people could have good relationships, good interdependence, power sharing with out conflict and especially I thought that he must belief if the president has power to appoint judges so as he was a president at that time he may could easy to get along with their members with have good interdependence and there will not have any conflict during he holding power. All of these are his purpose of check and balance and it may not same as in reality but I believe that he did not want it injustices anymore and he might just want everybody have good interdependence so they will could develop their works.
posted by somnea at
6:03 PM
1 Comments:
Name: Te Borada
ID: 05672
Subject: Democracy, Communism and Fascism
Professor: Stan Starygin
Review and Comment about Somea Assignment
Understanding of "Check and Balance" or "Separation of Power" in Democracy
First of all, I feel really uncomfortable with your phrase "Check and Balance" Vs "Separation of Power". The abbreviation "Vs" means versus equals against. It would rather be used the preposition "or" because the phrase "Check and Balance" means the same as the phrase "Separation of Power".
I agree with most of your part in your topic and some parts are very logic; however, some parts I partly disagree. Such as, you said that the absence of the separation of power is the cause of the world war and each country tries to compete each other for power. I do not believe that most countries in the world fought each other for power because they do not use the check and balance system. I think that it is the nature like John Lock and Thomas Hope said that human born with the aggressive and selfish behavior, so they fought each other because of their ambitions and they want to feel full their desire. It is not related to the check and balance system, but if it is relevant, it has less relevance. For instance, can you guarantee that the country that uses the check and balance does not want to make war at all? The response is No. In the real case, such as the USA now follows the separation of power system, but it still wants to fight war and dominates other weak countries such as the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. The check and balance system did nothing with those war. I think that the cause for those wars is the resources and power.
I believe that the check and balance system is very good like you mention in your topic, but it is a system which is very workable in the internal situation not for the whole world. I mean it is very helpful for organizing the individual country. Moreover, it is a system that can help each country to manage and control its country very well and more efficiently. When one country does not apply the check and balance system, they still cam control and manage their own country, but it is very efficiently because they do not use all of their resources. They do not share power to the other who works for them. They hold the power alone, so they have to get responsible alone too. We compare simply that when one work is done by many specialized people and by only one person, which one is better? The answer is a group of specialized people because they have less responsibility than one person.
In short, I believe that check and balance system does not cause the world war like you have mentioned in your topic, but I agree that it is a system that can bring one country or nation up rapidly.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home