More handpicked essays just for you.
Politics, law and morality
Social change that shifts the terms of law
Social change that shifts the terms of law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Politics, law and morality
.In Gearty’s perspective, politics will always be threatened by the legalism of human rights. This internalisation of rights into the legal system have allowed and exaggerated the flawed dichotomy within politics and law. This has allowed politics to become a censored voice, no longer representing activism and civil engagement as it becomes filtered through the legal system and the rule of law. Gearty views this as dangerous as it can lead to politicians to take actions based which lobbyist they are aligned with instead criticising developments of this kind. Gearty points out that a “particular unfortunate consequence of the legalisation of what are effectively political decisions is that the dressing up of them in constitutional or “human
Stephen Skowronek writes about political time and how one can determine the legacy president will leave behind at the time their presidency is done. The president has immense powers when he comes to office but the challenges they each face vary depending on the time they take office. Skowronek analyzes and demonstrates that the most essential factor for a president to attempt to legitimize his actions and orders will be the actions of the president before him. According to the actions of George W. Bush is how we can determine where Barack Obama falls under and following the chain the next president. If Hillary Clinton were to win the 2016 election she would fall under the politics of articulation and Barack Obama would fall under the politics
When discussing the new science of politics laid out in the Federalist papers, it is imperative to understand that proponents of the Constitution had various reasons for writing these papers, not the least of which was convincing critics that a strong central government that would not oppress but actually protect individual freedoms as well as encouraging the state of New York to agree to ratify the Constitution.
...erty and Human Rights? Ethics & International Affairs, Volume 19, No. 1 Spring 2013. Web 14 April 2014
Refuting in a few pages most of the recent human rights historiography, Moyn contends that modern human rights discourses exploded as late as in 1970s as opposed to the eighteenth century as argued by Hunt and early periods as many historians have said. Indeed, Moyn makes an important distinction between natural rights, which is what he believed the enlightenment project was concerned with and modern human rights. Moyn understands natural rights to be deeply bound to a state-structure power (Moyn, 20) and these were the rights the American, the French and even the insurgents in Saint-Domingue were defending. Natural rights had to do with rights which were guaranteed by a state thus were closely linked to the question of citizenships. Human rights, as it is today understood by various international lawyers and the general public transcend the state. Today’s human rights are (in theory) truly self-evident because they are possessed by all humans, everywhere irrespective of any other variables and exist (again in theory) beyond the state (Moyn, 27). This new understanding of rights came about in the 1970s when figures such as U.S. president Jimmy Carter made use of them in a political platform (Moyn, 154). In this sense, as other world “utopias” had failed by the 1970s, human rights appeared to be the “last hope” of humanity for a better
In his essay “Anarchical Fallacies,” Jeremy Bentham argues that “Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible [i.e. inalienable] rights, rhetorical nonsense,—nonsense upon stilts” Bentham supports his conclusion that not only that these ideas are meaningless, but are also quite dangerous and that natural law is simply nonsense by stating the following reasons:
There are thousands of years of history that have taken place. History is not like art(less subjective), but there is still plenty of room for speculation, criticism, and debate among historians, professors, as well as average citizens. However, not all these moments are documented, or done successfully specifically. Some of these moments end up becoming movies, books, or even historical fiction novels, but what about those fundamental moments that aren’t readily documented? In the book The Birth of Modern Politics Lynn Hudson Parsons claims that the 1828 election was momentous in the history of both political history, as well as our nation. Parsons not only discusses the behind the scenes of the first public election of 1828, but the pivotal events in Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams’ lives leading up to the election as well. Parsons succeeds in proving her thesis that the 1828 election was crucial to American politics as we know it today, as well as provoking evidence from various sources with her own logic and opinions as well.
- It takes the traditions of that time and only changes them gradually and not very
...has so much power. The findings of this research could be used by campaigners in an attempt to swing an election in their favour, creating an unfair bias in parliament and denigrating the ideals of democracy.
Under the declaration’s conception of rights, rights are absolute and inflexible. To Burke, this inflexibility was a problem because it did not allow room for potential compromise and changes (Burke 104). The authors of the declaration believed that rights should function as fixed rules that dictate how government should act. But, in reality, it is not possible for these sets of rights to easily determine the correct course of action at all times. Often times the application of rights will need to depend on the situation and circumstance. By declaring rights before hand, the authors of the declaration are limiting the flexibility of rights, such as in the case of extreme
The issue of explaining human rights comes from the political conceptions of human rights. The political stance is
On one hand, political constitutionalists argue that parliamentary sovereignty is the underlying principle in the British constitution as power and law making are bo...
Frank J. Goodnow’s “Politics and Administration,” infers that politics and administration cannot be divided and are in need of each other to function. However, politics are superior to administration. Goodnow’s further analyzes and identifies three forms of authorities that enforce and implements states will. The first responsibility of authority is to respect the right of the people when conflicts ascend between either private or public matters. The second is judicial authorities also referred to as executive authorities that ensure the needs and policies of the state are executed. The third authority also referred to as “administrative authorities,” focuses on the mechanical, scientific and business authorities pertaining to the government.
One of the most influential and celebrated scholars of British consistutional law , Professor A.V Dicey, once declared parliamentary soverignity as “the dominant feature of our political insitutions” . This inital account of parliamentray soverginity involved two fundamental components, fistly :that the Queen-in-Parliament the “right to make or unmake any law whatever” and that secondly “no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.” . However this Diceyian notion though an established principle of our constitution now lies uneasy amongst a myriad of contemporary challenges such as our membership of the European Union, the Human Rights Act and a spread of law making authority known as ‘Devolution’. In this essay I shall set out to assess the impact of each of these challenges upon the immutability of the traditional concept of parliamentary sovereignty in the British constitution.
In her article ‘From Citizenship to Human Rights: The Stakes for Democracy’ Tambakaki notes that apart from playing a political role, human rights are in principal moral and legal rights. Like moral norms they refer to every creature that bears a human face while as legal norms they protect individual persons in a particular legal community (pp9).
Charney, E., (1999) Cultural Interpretation and Universal Human Rights: A Response to Daniel A. Bell. Political Theory. 27 (6), 84. [online] Available from: [Accessed 28 February 2011]