Unit 1 Mastery Project
1. What is the purpose of government?
The purpose of government, according to the Constitution, is to help ensure unity, domestic tranquility, defense of the country, justice, and securing liberty for all. More than that though, the purpose of government is to ensure the overall health of the country it rules, including economic and political health, as well as the health of the general populous in there areas.
2. What was the founders’ view of the purpose of government and the role of the citizen in the American Republic?
The founders' most likely believed that the role of government was only to ensure the rights of the general populous, and to enforce the will of the people it protects. They thought that the government was only there to serve te people, not to control or subjugate them. The role of the citizen according to the founders was that each citizen should take an active role in shaping the politics of the government. However, a citizen must also follow the rules that the government has passed.
3. Are these views still relevant at the close of the millennium?
Of course they are still relevant. Our government is in place only to protect us and to help us interact as a nation with other nations and economical beings. While it has certainly grown in powers and in ability to protect it is still based on these views and principles. Also, I believe that a citizen's role hasn't changed much in all this time, as it is still vital for us to participate in the elections by voting and to follow the all the laws of our government.
4. How does the Constitution underpin U.S. government?
The Constitution underpins the U.S. government in that it essentially spells out what every department of the government is allowed to do, and also gives current government officials something that they can refer and adhere to. Without the Constitution, our government would have no limitations, but also no right to do anything either. The Constitution doesn't jus underpin the government, it is the very justification and reason for it's being.
5. Why was the concept of "checks and balances" a novel idea in the 18th century versus today?
No one had ever attempted to use checks and balances before in the way the Founding Fathers did before. It was a strange untested idea that a Renaissance philosopher partially thought up, but no one had ever put it into practice before, so it was a very new, strange concept. However, now it has been successfully used for over 200 years and has credibility so it doesn't seem like a strange or novel idea at all in this day and age.
6. How does Madison’s concept of checks and balances challenge popular understanding of Montesquieu’s theory of separation of powers?
Montesquieu's theory of separation of powers was challenged by Madison's concept of checks and balances because Madison thought that each branch of the government should be able to check each other to protect against any one branch getting too powerful. However, Montesquieu thought that each branch should be totally separate and self sufficient; no branch should have any control over another. So, Madison's idea challenged how far Montesquieu's separation of powers went.
7. Define the following concepts: democratic theory, republicanism, pluralist theory, majoritarianism, and the elitist theory.
Democratic theory is the governmental idea that the people of a society should rule and make all the decisions together. It's based on the concept that "people should govern themselves". Republicanism is the idea that a government should be run by the people, but indirectly. The people select individuals to represent them in politics, and these representatives then make political decisions for the people, based on what the people want. Majoritarianism and pluralist theory are both different types of democracy; majoritarianism is based on representative democracy in the way that all people should have the right to vote on the representatives and everyone should be more politically involved. Pluralist theory is based on the idea that interest groups, rather than the average citizen, should have the influence over the government. Lastly, the elitist theory asserts that only a small group of people in a society actually influence the political decisions of a country, such as the rich or the economically powerful controlling government.
8. Why did the Anti-Federalists fear the new governmental system?
They feared the new government system because they felt it gave far too much power to the federal government, and endangered the individual powers of the states. Also, they were afraid the new government would become power-hungry and the U.S. would become a tyranny.
9. Does this new federal system strengthen or weaken the concept of separation of powers? Why or why not?
The new federal system strengthened the concept of separations of powers in one way, but weakened it in another. While the new federal system certainly used and promoted the idea of separation of powers, the idea had been changed from what Montesquieu originally had in mind. So the success of the new government certainly showed that the concept of separation of powers could work ,but would work best if it was adjusted and refined, not used as it was.
10. What are the powers of state and local governments in an era of “new federalism” and devolution?
The powers of local and state governments have grown recently due to devolution; the federal government transferring new powers over to the state governments to help make the federal government's job easier. In this new "era" states have more autonomy in how they use federal grants awarded them, as well as how they run elections and how the state chooses to run it's own government.
11. What influence should the federal government have over state and local issues such as education, affirmative action, abortion, and the environment?
The federal government should have fairly little interest or influence over these points. It is the job and the right of average citizens to choose whether these things will be legal or illegal in their state, or what will be done about them. There is no need or desire for the federal government to step in and make all laws about these things uniform. Each state is different, unique, and needs in these issues, so it should be the states' business to decide on laws to improve their state in these areas.
The purpose of government, according to the Constitution, is to help ensure unity, domestic tranquility, defense of the country, justice, and securing liberty for all. More than that though, the purpose of government is to ensure the overall health of the country it rules, including economic and political health, as well as the health of the general populous in there areas.
2. What was the founders’ view of the purpose of government and the role of the citizen in the American Republic?
The founders' most likely believed that the role of government was only to ensure the rights of the general populous, and to enforce the will of the people it protects. They thought that the government was only there to serve te people, not to control or subjugate them. The role of the citizen according to the founders was that each citizen should take an active role in shaping the politics of the government. However, a citizen must also follow the rules that the government has passed.
3. Are these views still relevant at the close of the millennium?
Of course they are still relevant. Our government is in place only to protect us and to help us interact as a nation with other nations and economical beings. While it has certainly grown in powers and in ability to protect it is still based on these views and principles. Also, I believe that a citizen's role hasn't changed much in all this time, as it is still vital for us to participate in the elections by voting and to follow the all the laws of our government.
4. How does the Constitution underpin U.S. government?
The Constitution underpins the U.S. government in that it essentially spells out what every department of the government is allowed to do, and also gives current government officials something that they can refer and adhere to. Without the Constitution, our government would have no limitations, but also no right to do anything either. The Constitution doesn't jus underpin the government, it is the very justification and reason for it's being.
5. Why was the concept of "checks and balances" a novel idea in the 18th century versus today?
No one had ever attempted to use checks and balances before in the way the Founding Fathers did before. It was a strange untested idea that a Renaissance philosopher partially thought up, but no one had ever put it into practice before, so it was a very new, strange concept. However, now it has been successfully used for over 200 years and has credibility so it doesn't seem like a strange or novel idea at all in this day and age.
6. How does Madison’s concept of checks and balances challenge popular understanding of Montesquieu’s theory of separation of powers?
Montesquieu's theory of separation of powers was challenged by Madison's concept of checks and balances because Madison thought that each branch of the government should be able to check each other to protect against any one branch getting too powerful. However, Montesquieu thought that each branch should be totally separate and self sufficient; no branch should have any control over another. So, Madison's idea challenged how far Montesquieu's separation of powers went.
7. Define the following concepts: democratic theory, republicanism, pluralist theory, majoritarianism, and the elitist theory.
Democratic theory is the governmental idea that the people of a society should rule and make all the decisions together. It's based on the concept that "people should govern themselves". Republicanism is the idea that a government should be run by the people, but indirectly. The people select individuals to represent them in politics, and these representatives then make political decisions for the people, based on what the people want. Majoritarianism and pluralist theory are both different types of democracy; majoritarianism is based on representative democracy in the way that all people should have the right to vote on the representatives and everyone should be more politically involved. Pluralist theory is based on the idea that interest groups, rather than the average citizen, should have the influence over the government. Lastly, the elitist theory asserts that only a small group of people in a society actually influence the political decisions of a country, such as the rich or the economically powerful controlling government.
8. Why did the Anti-Federalists fear the new governmental system?
They feared the new government system because they felt it gave far too much power to the federal government, and endangered the individual powers of the states. Also, they were afraid the new government would become power-hungry and the U.S. would become a tyranny.
9. Does this new federal system strengthen or weaken the concept of separation of powers? Why or why not?
The new federal system strengthened the concept of separations of powers in one way, but weakened it in another. While the new federal system certainly used and promoted the idea of separation of powers, the idea had been changed from what Montesquieu originally had in mind. So the success of the new government certainly showed that the concept of separation of powers could work ,but would work best if it was adjusted and refined, not used as it was.
10. What are the powers of state and local governments in an era of “new federalism” and devolution?
The powers of local and state governments have grown recently due to devolution; the federal government transferring new powers over to the state governments to help make the federal government's job easier. In this new "era" states have more autonomy in how they use federal grants awarded them, as well as how they run elections and how the state chooses to run it's own government.
11. What influence should the federal government have over state and local issues such as education, affirmative action, abortion, and the environment?
The federal government should have fairly little interest or influence over these points. It is the job and the right of average citizens to choose whether these things will be legal or illegal in their state, or what will be done about them. There is no need or desire for the federal government to step in and make all laws about these things uniform. Each state is different, unique, and needs in these issues, so it should be the states' business to decide on laws to improve their state in these areas.