Political Theory

dambel ndi ko alam mga boplogz ! paturo kayo sa mga teacher nio wag niyong itanong saken , hahahahahah :D

Albert Venn Dicey, born in 1835, was an English academic lawyer. He studied jurisprudence at Balliol College, Oxford, and took up a fellowship there after graduating. IN 1882, he was made Vinerian Professor of English law at the university, having largely taught and researched in tort and developing public law (since the Vinerian professorship was, at the time, the only common-law chair at Oxford, Dicey would have been responsible for all those areas which were not Roman or canon law, e.g. land, contract, equity). Three years later, in 1885, Dicey published a book that law students still refer to: An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, which is one of the most important classic accounts of English law. Not only does it conceptualise the ideas of the sovereignty of Parliament (or, in Dicey's words: "Parliament, in the mouth of a lawyer, means the Queen, the House of Lords and the House of Commons... Parliament may make any law whatsoever, and no body or institution is recoginsed by the law of England has having a right to set aside or override the legislation of Parliament") and the rule of law, but he also made constitutional law an academically taught subject. His views on parliamentary sovereignty generally hold sway still today (although in light of Britain's accession to the EEC/EU, of the Human Rights Act 1998 and of Thoburn v Sunderland City Council 2002, where Laws LJ held that implied repeal of so-called 'constitutional statutes' was precluded, this must be heavily qualified), but his idea of the rule of law is generally seen as inadequate nowadays. However, it was cited in as recent a case as Pierson in 1998. Dicey, though a libertarian monarchist, never found favour with governments. He because exceedingly political (his Law of the Constitution was already quite polemical and nationalist in tone), loudly campaigning against home rule for Ireland. Unusually for a former Vinerian Professor, Dicey was never offered a knighthood. Dicey left Oxford in the early 20th century to take up a professorial post at the newly-founded London School of Economics and Political Science. He died in 1922.

Without proper regard for evidence, U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy is infamous for his practice of making accusations of subversion or treason during a period known as the Second Red Scare, from about 1947 - 1956. So we call that practice "McCarthyism".

No, quite the opposite. Read his words to see he didn't.

neither. The US is NOT a Democracy, but a representative Republic. In a Democracy the minority is not protected from the majority. This is often illustrated with the metaphor that a democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. The laws in the US are created by the congress, approved by the President, and validated to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in a delicate system of checks and balances.

He should be inleached only if George W Bush should is arrested tried as a war criminal. The Iraq war was brought on by fabricated and false information. The bush administration parlayed Anti-Arab sentiments to rally congress into an illegal war with an Arab nation that had nothing to do with 9-11.

Obama is working through NATO just like every other nation that is part of NATO and the United Nations are doing. This is a humanitarian crisis in Libya where the leader is a war criminal and dictator similar to "you know who"

Yes, he should be.As of this writing (June 8th) he is now in the final days he can mount any serious defense of the Libyan War.After the days are gone, he has no basis to defend this mission.Thus, it becomes an Illegal act by the President.If he does no withdraw, or get approval by Congress, then he deserves to be arrested for violating Presidential Power.

Red scare

heightened suspicion of Communists and other radicals, and the fear of widespread infiltration of Communists in U.S. government.

In what has become known as Communism there is one political party that has absolute sway over all decisions made. there is no accountability to the the public. In the system that is used by European country's there is an understanding that the people of a country won it and should be able to benefit from its success after all they are expected to look after it's security in times of war and peace. Keeping this in mind the wealth that is generated within one of these country's has to contribute to the well being of the people of the country not just the power and wealth of those that have managed to organise this wealth using the country's infrastructure. this is overseen by a democratic system where the leadership and laws of the country can swing this way or that as the people see fit not just as the political masers see fit. The average health and life span of the people in these country's is better then in country's that do not use this system so there must be something to it.

A republic means that the people retain control of the government (ie: no monarch). Democracy fits in when choosing the representative to the government. The U.S. is a representative republic whose representatives are elected democratically.

There is nothing 'wrong' with Communism. The thing is that most Westerners get the misconception that Communism is bad. This is because during the Cold War in an effort to get support against the USSR and Communism the US used wildly incorrect propaganda which made most people think Communism=Tyranny, which isn't the case. Take it from me, I lived in the Soviet Union, visited Cuba and China, and I wasn't oppressed, nor did I ever see anyone around me be a victim of 'tyranny'. Its all propaganda.

Basically this.....

There have been tyrants in capitalism. South American countries and South Eastern Asian countries (who are still all LECDs), Africa and Middle East have non-democratic capitalism.

"Facts on the ground"-Clinton

1) 1930s fascism as a response to economic crises

2) soviet style "communism" and its equivalence to killing the ideals of socialist democratic harmony (an idea shared by many nations today... denmark, sweden, even canada... as well as the provisional government of Russia in 1917)

3) hypocrisy by nations such as France, England and the United States of America... whom overthrew most of the world's governments... even those few democratically elected (Chile 1970s.. for example) ... but in essence furthering instability and a lack of fostering democracy

and 4) how these countries stifled their own democratic mechanisms.... Johnson in USA in the 1960s and Nixon in the 70s and Reagen in the 80s and well... W.Bush in 2001 if that counts.

the list goes on.

I do not know, in fact my opinion is war is no way to get to piece, it is stupid, and wrong. People need to get over them selfs and grow up:)

For Philosophers to rule and be 'guardians' of everyone else, as poor people shouldn't get to vote and make decisions.

There were several totalitarian government takeovers in the 20s and 30s leading up to WW2. Mussolini established the Fascist party in Italy and forcibly took over there. Hitler forced his way into German government. Stalin, despite Lenin's pleas to keep him out of power, took control of the USSR. And Tojo forced his way into power in Japan through a military coup.

These 4 were power hungry and land hungry and most definitely totalitarian dictators. Since these 4 were the cause of WW2 i would say that is why totalitarianism is a cause of World War 2

Democrate

Read the first 10 amendments to the constitution and you will find your answer.

Decisions are made by the people instead of representatives.

China, Nigeria, Sudan, Vietnam and Iran.

I don know...dats y i ask

Communism: a classless stateless society based on production for use and democratic control. Clearly it does not exist in Asia or anywhere else. North Korea is state capitalist, China is a mix of state and private capitalism.

The duration of Ordinary Fascism is 3.5 hours.

Concurrent majority in democratic theory describes the idea that, as opposed to needing majorities to pass laws in society, one should seek majorities from key interest groups in society (e.g.) minorities, other levels of government, et al.).

(in the US) Under the US form of government the three branches are "equal" in their inter-action with one another, which is what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution. Anything else would not be a 'representative' form of government.