Question

Assignment: For this paper, your task is to provide an assessment of the U.S. political system by discussing the foundational characteristics of the system established by the Constitution. Your paper should also discuss the role of key government institutions (executive, legislative, judiciary) in that system. Make sure to address how power is distributed across the various institutions in the U.S. political system. Introduction and conclusion is a must.

Answer 1

Answer :

• The US government is based on ideas of limited government, including natural rights, popular sovereignty, republicanism, and social contract.

• Limited government is the belief that the government should have certain restrictions in order to protect the individual rights and civil liberties of citizens.

Introduction :

In 1776, the Second Continental Congress  issued the Declaration of Independence, stating their specific grievances with the British monarchy and why they were going to create a separate government. After the colonies separated from the British monarchy and formed the United States of America, they had to answer some crucial questions:

• If not a monarchy, what type of government was the United States going to have?
• What kind of government was going to protect the people without violating their individual liberties?

decided to create a limited government based on ideas of natural rights, popular sovereignty, republicanism, and the social contract. We can see some of these ideas pop up in the foundational documents of the United States, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. But what are these democratic ideas and why has the United States continued to hold onto them for more than 250 years? This article describes each of these democratic ideas and explains why the Framers used them as a basis for government.

Limited government : After the colonies decided to separate from the British monarchy, the Framers had to develop a system of government that would gain the support of all of the Patriots. They agreed on a system of limited government. Limited government is a political system in which there are certain restrictions placed on the government to protect individual rights and liberties. This decision to create a limited government was a deliberate departure from the British monarchy, which the Framers felt violated their rights. They intentionally created a limited government that would have to abide by a set of rules designed by the people of the country. Now that the Framers had a plan for the type of government they were going to have, they had to decide a few things:

• What are the roles and responsibilities of this government?
• How will the government respond to the will of the people?

To answer these questions, the Framers turned to political philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, whose ideas about what makes a government successful inspired the current system of government in the United States today.

Natural rights : The main argument in the Declaration of Independence was that the British monarchy violated the natural rights of the American people. Natural rights, sometimes called unalienable rights, are rights the Framers believed all people are born with and can never give up. The Founders argued that the government’s central purpose should be to protect and uphold these rights. John Locke, an Enlightenment philosopher, described natural rights as the rights to one’s own “life, liberty, and property.” His work inspired Thomas Jefferson, the main author of the Declaration of Independence, who described unalienable rights as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Having defined these natural rights, the Founders of the United States then had to answer the question: “How do we make sure society safeguards natural rights without giving the government too much power?”

Social contract : For the government to protect the natural rights of American citizens, people would have to see the government as an authority they must respect. They would enter into a social contract with each other, meaning that American society as a whole would agree to give up some freedoms to be protected by the federal government. Thomas Hobbes, an English political philosopher, theorized that the social contract was the foundation of government. If the people did not give up some freedoms, then the government would have no way to rule over them. For instance, you can’t just walk into someone’s house if the door is open and claim that the house is now yours. That is a freedom that you give up so the government can protect you from someone else doing the same thing to you. However, by ensuring that the government was limited, the Founders created a system that protected the freedoms granted to the people. Still, the Founders  were concerned about a strong central government turning into a tyrannical monarchy again. They faced yet another question: how do the people ensure that the government does not get too powerful and start restricting all of their freedoms?

Popular sovereignty: The Founders believed that the United States should be founded on the principle of popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty is the idea that the government’s power comes from the will of the people or the “consent of the governed.” If the government started to violate the will of the people, Americans would have the right to change that. This idea is the main argument within the Declaration of Independence, which claimed that the British monarchy had become too powerful and was not listening to the needs and desires of the colonists, who therefore had the right to rebel. In the United States, we see popular sovereignty at a smaller level in most elections when the power of the government shifts from one political party to another. When control of the government shifts from one party to another, it shows that the will of the people has also changed. Changes in leadership gives us insight into what the people want from their government. Political parties play a vital role in American politics, as they represent the opinions and needs of the people to the government.

Republicanism: Leading up to the Revolutionary War, a famous phrase was “No taxation without representation!” To feel like their wants and needs were being heard by the government, the colonists wanted direct representation, but the British were unwilling to grant that to the colonies. Keeping that in mind, the Founders wanted to make sure that they were creating a political system that represented the people. But how do the people get the government to listen to their will?

The Framers believed that the best form of government is one in which elected leaders represent the interests of the people. This is known as republicanism. The Framers wanted the will of the people to be reflected in the daily decisions of government and to prevent a tyrannical government from rising. By creating a system of government in which the people elected their leaders, the Framers believed that there was less of a chance of a government that would hold onto power and refuse to give it up. Despite the Framers' desire to create a representative government, they extended the privilege of voting only to a small portion of US citizens: white, landowning men. It took nearly 200 years to extend voting rights to all people in the United States, meaning that not every person’s needs and wants were heard or represented in government for a lot of American history.

At a time of growing stress on democracy around the world, Americans generally agree on democratic ideals and values that are important for the United States. But for the most part, they see the country falling well short in living up to these ideals, according to a new study of opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of key aspects of American democracy and the political system. The public’s criticisms of the political system run the gamut, from a failure to hold elected officials accountable to a lack of transparency in government. And just a third say the phrase “people agree on basic facts even if they disagree politically” describes this country well today. The perceived shortcomings encompass some of the core elements of American democracy. An overwhelming share of the public (84%) says it is very important that “the rights and freedoms of all people are respected.” Yet just 47% say this describes the country very or somewhat well; slightly more (53%) say it does not. Despite these criticisms, most Americans say democracy is working well in the United States – though relatively few say it is working very well. At the same time, there is broad support for making sweeping changes to the political system: 61% say “significant changes” are needed in the fundamental “design and structure” of American government to make it work for current times. The public sends mixed signals about how the American political system should be changed, and no proposals attract bipartisan support. Yet in views of how many of the specific aspects of the political system are working, both Republicans and Democrats express dissatisfaction. To be sure, there are some positives. A sizable majority of Americans (74%) say the military leadership in the U.S. does not publicly support one party over another, and nearly as many (73%) say the phrase “people are free to peacefully protest” describes this country very or somewhat well.

In general, however, there is a striking mismatch between the public’s goals for American democracy and its views of whether they are being fulfilled. On 23 specific measures assessing democracy, the political system and elections in the United States – each widely regarded by the public as very important – there are only eight on which majorities say the country is doing even somewhat well. The new survey of the public’s views of democracy and the political system by Pew Research Center was conducted online Jan. 29-Feb. 13 among 4,656 adults. It was supplemented by a survey conducted March 7-14 among 1,466 adults on landlines and cellphones.

Among the major findings:

Mixed views of structural changes in the political system. The surveys examine several possible changes to representative democracy in the United States. Most Americans reject the idea of amending the Constitution to give states with larger populations more seats in the U.S. Senate, and there is little support for expanding the size of the House of Representatives. As in the past, however, a majority (55%) supports changing the way presidents are elected so that the candidate who receives the most total votes nationwide – rather than a majority in the Electoral College – wins the presidency.

A majority says Trump lacks respect for democratic institutions. Fewer than half of Americans (45%) say Donald Trump has a great deal or fair amount of respect for the country’s democratic institutions and traditions, while 54% say he has not too much respect or no respect. These views are deeply split along partisan and ideological lines. Most conservative Republicans (55%) say Trump has a “great deal” of respect for democratic institutions; most liberal Democrats (60%) say he has no respect “at all” for these traditions and institutions.

Government and politics seen as working better locally than nationally. Far more Americans have a favorable opinion of their local government (67%) than of the federal government (35%). In addition, there is substantial satisfaction with the quality of candidates running for Congress and local elections in recent elections. That stands in contrast with views of the recent presidential candidates; just 41% say the quality of presidential candidates in recent elections has been good.

Few say tone of political debate is ‘respectful.’ Just a quarter of Americans say “the tone of debate among political leaders is respectful” is a statement that describes the country well. However, the public is more divided in general views about tone and discourse: 55% say too many people are “easily offended” over the language others use; 45% say people need to be more careful in using language “to avoid offending” others.

Cynicism about money and politics. Most Americans think that those who donate a lot of money to elected officials have more political influence than others. An overwhelming majority (77%) supports limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations can spend on political campaigns and issues. And nearly two-thirds of Americans (65%) say new laws could be effective in reducing the role of money in politics.

Conclusion :

• The Framers of the US Constitution structured the government so that the three branches have separate powers. The branches must both cooperate and compete to enact policy.

• Each of the branches has the power to check the other two, which ensures that no one branch can become too powerful and that government as a whole is constrained.

• This structure ensures that the people’s will is represented by allowing citizens multiple access points to influence public policy, and permitting the removal of officials who abuse their power.