Realize that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and other Founders were very well-read in political theory at the time. They saw democracy as a vast improvement over British Monarchy, but had reservations. They did not believe there should be divisive political parties, hypocritically. They did not believe every man was entitled to a vote. They wanted to to build a nation with authority in "...the Republic, for which it stands...", not mob rule. They tended to trust legislatures, which had worked so well in the American Colonies for over a hundred years, as being superior to pure democracy or a near dictatorship.
They chose a loose Legislature as the chosen form of government under the Articles of Confederation. With the Constitution, they chose a mix of Authoritarian, Oligarchical, and Republican forms of government in the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches, respectively. This design was to prevent a majority of political power. They DID NOT INCLUDE DEMOCRACY because they saw it led to a rule by the majority, among other problems:
The will of the majority will not represent itself well. In a democracy (not an elected republic) the majority will more than likely be effectively lied to, intimidated, abstain or defer to a will that is not theirs. If 1,000 people are free to democratically express their will with, say, small clay disks, then that is a vote. Take for example the vote of Spartans, in the first large democracy, deciding whether to dispatch gifts to Dalmatia. Most citizens are of the opinion "No, don't send anything" while a minority wish to "Send something." The implications and details involved in the decision are huge, but most Spartans would not even think of them. (Sparta was militaristic, isolationist, and rustic to a fault.) Just as one oligarchy or individual cannot know what is best, the majority of a large group cannot decide by vote what is best either. The prime example is criminal behavior. With so many laws most citizens agree to, there will always be a small minority who disagree strongly enough to act them out. The larger minorities may not break laws, but become disenfranchised to the point that they lose respect for other individuals in the democracy. This lack of respect can lead to everything from an angry letter, petitions, protest, or rarely in democracies -civil war. Majority rule makes the minority the ruled in a lawful society. So the will of the majority may or should not make laws too harsh. The will of the majority should not take away the minority's right to debate and vote. The will of the majority should not decide to details: if a gift were decided on it would require some citizens to remain quiet or else debate for hours over how something will be given. The majority should also not elect unrepresentative Representatives, in a real democracy. Here are two Youtubes on modern manipulation of the majority's will: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24vvozhcsJY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnYZVNVqBgU
There was an idea of natural rights, those rights that existed in the state of nature and that preceded any government.
The difference between the classical view of democracy and the modern human nature view is that the classical view is limited to election by the majority while the latter also touches of human rights as well.
Historians have differed over the nature of Jacksonian Democracy because they have different interpretations of the Jacksonian Democracy views, beliefs, and standpoints.
The Founding Fathers of the United States of America did not have very much faith in human nature, humans are inherently evil and will always take and grab power. Also humans are inherently stupid and don't pay any attention into politics, and were very uneducated and not in any position to vote towards the right way to rule a country. Thus the founding fathers put checks and balances on both the government officials, who would grab more power as well as upon citizens who are stupid. they did not want stupid common man running government, they were far too untrusting of human nature. thus they set up things like the electoral college, a group of people who would be educated and research the candidates and then select the correct path or candidate to vote for.
explain how civil liberties affect the nature of democracy and the scope of government in the United States.
Absolutely not. A large number of the Founding Fathers were atheists or Deists. Few were devoutly religious. The American revolution was motivated by a complicated mix of political factors, almost all of which were secular in nature.
Basic nature is the name of the characteristics that are shared by the majority of humans.
Barry Holden has written: 'The nature of democracy' -- subject(s): Democracy
They didn't. But by propounding a philosophy of government which asserted the equality of all men and the absolute right of all men, by nature as a gift of God, to certain liberties they laid the foundation for future generations to abolish it. Michael Montagne
The majority of the crust is oceanic crust, basaltic in nature.
Too late, Australia is a democracy. however As a result of Australia being a democracy one can change the nature of the way the democracy operates through the use of referendums directly to the people.
Supposedly, although it by nature retains a lot of aspects of theocracy.
living democracy book??
They have nothing in common. Christianity is a religious idea while democracy is a form of government. A democracy needs to be secular in nature because it needs to allow for the freedom of religion from all sources.
No. Religion didn't play a role because the founding fathers had seen the results of religion in the relationship to government and the abuses that came with it. They wanted to insure that there was no state religion and that the laws were secular in nature to make sure all people were treated equally under the law. Most of the founding fathers were also repeatedly refused to be swayed by religious opinion, but directly challenged the right of the church to interfere with secular matters. The belief that the US was founded as a Christian nation is held by those who think it is in danger of coming under the influence of non-Christians. In fact, it never was a Christian nation except in the most literal sense that most of the people who came were Christians. Not one word is said about Christianity in the Constitution nor is it in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration refers only to " nature's God."
In the nature the majority of chemical elements are found as compounds.
Majority of the enzymes are proteins while few of them are RNA
Many, not all, of Founding Fathers were active in their religion. One notable exception, George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian.As with human nature there was a wide variety of views. James Madison wrote: "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."Some even placed God before anything. But they did NOT found this nation based on any religious dogma, much less based on one religion, and some felt there should be a firm separation of the state and all religions.
There is no teaching of Christianity in democracy. Democracy is secular in nature and no religion is more powerful over another religion. All people are allowed to worship as they please without government intervention. Christianity is a philosophy and an religion that is far older than democracy.
They ruined the land they worked on, were mostly slave driven, and halted the founding of new cities.
A desire for efficient government. Democracy, by its nature, is slow to get things done. This can be a good thing or bad, depending on the circumstances, but it is never efficient.
A transitional democracy is a country that is reletively democratic but shows incomplete signs of democratic consolodations. They fall midway between an established democracy and non-democracy. Countries of this nature include, Mexico, Chile, Turkey, and many African countries.
The era which brought into being the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is often referred to as the "New Enlightenment" because it so realized and reflected the values and beliefs of the European Englightenement or Age of Reason as it is alternately called. There are two things that can be said without equivocation about the men who declared our land's independence from England, who breathed life into a new nation, who shaped and formed its constition. The first is that they were the heirs of this Age of Reason, they were rational men who created a rational system of government which allowed for the free and unfettered development of what they perceived to be a rational economic system. There are those who might argue to the contrary,who would have us believe that they were Christians who sought to establish a Christian state based on faith in the Bible. But the fact of the matter is that our Founding Fathers did not turn to the Bible but rather to the great works of Englightenment philosophy when the time came for them to write the constitution. They turned to Hobbes who in his Leviathan argued that man in the state of nature existed in a "war of all against all." This view of man as constantly in a state of struggle with his fellows is balanced by a view of him as an essentially rational creature, for this war of all against all is brought to an end by the rational judgment of the men who war against each other. They elect one from amongst them to stand above them and be their sovereign, whose task it is to ensure that the war of all against all is held within acceptable limits and constraints. Human beings thus, as a rational act, elect their ruler. This view of man as both rational and competitive is conjoined with Locke's view of man as a creature possessed of certain natural and inherent rights which it is the duty of government to ensure. In addition to the thought of Hobbes and Locke the Founding Father's were influenced as well by the writings of Adam Smith, who believed that there was an invisible hand guiding the economic development of society which was best left to function independently. At the core of his belief as well, was the view of man as an essentially rational creature who was able to identify and pursue his needs. We might add to the list other Enlightenemnt thinkers such as Rousseau and Diderot, but suffice it to say the ideas of these men are reflected in the thoughts of our founding fathers and in the doctuments which they wrote. The statement "We hold these truths to be self evident...." implies that man is able to grasp truths, and beyond this, that all men are equally rational and thus equally able to pursue live their lives, pursue their happinesses, and live freely. The heart that beats in the body of democracy is reason, for only beings who are inherently free and rational are able to live in a democracy...or rather, democracy is a system of governemtn which was created to correspond to human nature, which is inherently free and rationa. Freedom without rationality gives us terror, anarchy and fear. Reason without freedom leads, as our founding father's demonstrated, to rebellion and revolution. But democracy is the raimement of a free and rational people. This is the primary influence which the Enlightenment had on our founding fathers. The second thing that can be said of the men who shaped our nation, is that they did so without and doubt as to their right to do so. They were by and large educated men, mostly lawyers, they were men who had led and governed this nation before it was a nation, they were the economic and political and educational elite of this country. As such they established a nation which best suited their political and economic and personal class interests. In this way too they reflected Enlightenement values in the sense that the Enlightenement was a turning away from the values and social and political structures of a feudal and aristocratic society. The thinkers of the Enlightenment were the spokesmen of a new and rising class, a class of educated and wealthy merchants and businessmen. It was this class as well, to which the majority of our founding fathers belonged and whose interests they upheld and spoke for (See James Beard's work on the economic foundations of the Constitution. In conclusion, both philosophically and actually, the founding fathers were representative of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. While it maybe said that our Founding Fathers "did not turn to the Bible," they were influenced by its contents. Refer to Thanksgiving Proclaimation.