Montesquieu's Royal Sanction

964 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Power of the monarch

The King is a time honored emblem of leadership and guidance for the people of France. The National Assembly is taking away all his power and rights. Not only do they hold him captive in the Tuileries palace in the city of Paris but they have stripped him of everything he has ever stood for to the nation. We must give the King his distinction back; he is our monarch, our leader, and our guide through times of trouble. At the very least give him the right to a Royal Sanction, a check and balance on the National Assembly. It is the very least that the people of this Nation can do for him as he has done so much for us in his life time. The Royal Sanction is currently slated to be entered into the Constitution in Chapter III, section III. In its current state, it says that any decrees or decisions (with some exceptions) the assembly makes must be presented to the king. He then has the right to disagree and …show more content…

I shall turn your attention to the words of Montesquieu from The Spirit of the Laws. Montesquieu believes that every government ought to have the division of power into three areas: the legislative body, the executive (monarch), and the executive (judicial). He does not believe that an absolute monarchy is a good form of government in that it can lead to tyranny, but any type of power that is unlimited or uncheck can lead to tyranny and destroy the rights people to life, liberty, and property. As of this moment in time, without the royal sanction in the constitution, the power of the Assembly is unchecked, we are just asking for trouble if you ask me. Montesquieu then goes on to explain that this executive power which is one of the three mentioned earlier and is currently in place in the nation of England, should rest on the head of a king or a monarch. The king is a single person; he is better able to do some tasks than a large group of people such as the legislative

Show More
Related

  • Analysis Of When The King Took Flight

    1089 Words  | 3 Pages

    King Louis nation had a massive reaction focused on the King’s plight and return. The Reaction was not only seen in Paris alone but also on the other provinces, where a widespread phobia caused by foreign invasion led to the utter news of the King’s escape. Nevertheless, Tackett identifies the royal family plight to flee France as one of the most critical moments in the history of the French revolution. The king’s flight opens a window to the whole of the French society during the revolution. The purpose of the Kings flight was to offer freedom of action in terms of power and this was in regards to the King’s power and rule. The royal couple together with their advisers had unclear political agenda for their nation. Similarly, it is in the vent of these unclear goals factored by the Kind’s technical knowhow of not making decisive decisions that led to the stoppage of the royal family at Varennes and thereafter their return to Paris. The consequence of their return to Paris was the onset of the constant possibility of the end of the Monarch reign. On the same case, it is as a result of the royal family escape attempt and failure necessitated the integrity of the King as a constitutional monarch. On a much more political notion, The King’s hope of survival is mitigated

    Read More

  • Marbury Vs. Madison Cases In History Of The Supreme Court Case

    1117 Words  | 3 Pages

    Many operate under the principle referred to as the law of the land, which especially true of England and the Netherlands. This concept finds its basis on the ideas of the elected parliament as to their declarations of the precepts of the law as they view it. This particular reasoning evolved via the death of Charles Stuart, the king of England, upon his execution on January 30th, 1649. As a result, of the execution, England had no central ruler and the constituents of the House of Commons began the duty of transforming the government. Because the House of Lords opposed the trial of the tyrannical king, the House of Commons declared itself the ruling body negating any power the House of Lords possessed and thus, abolishing it. Consequently, the House of Commons maintained that it would become their responsibility to protect not only the liberty, but also the safe being, and the interest of the public at large, thus Parliament came into being (Lee, n.d.). Furthermore, they mandated that a single person having sole power presented a danger to the whole of the public welfare and the monarchy existence was figuratively only. Because of these acts, with the abolishment of the House of Lords and the monarchy as such, a contingency of forty-one members comprising the Council of State became the ruling authority establishing the laws of the

    Read More

  • Montesquieu's Influence On The US Constitution

    523 Words  | 2 Pages

    Well, let me start off by saying that there were only three important people that have contributed to the United States Constitution, those three are Montesquieu, Voltaire and Diderot. Each one of these people have played a huge role in today's Constitution. In my opinion out of all of these people,I think Montesquieu is the one that influence the Constitution the most. It made the Founding Fathers, write the Constitution more easily and efficiently.

    Read More

  • French Absolutism and the French Revolution

    2294 Words  | 5 Pages

    of each king. It is very ironic that after years of fighting for a democracy, the Fench

    Read More

  • French Revolution Dbq

    1293 Words  | 3 Pages

    Beginning in mid-1789, and lasting until late-1799, the French Revolution vastly changed the nation of France throughout its ten years. From the storming of the Bastille, the ousting of the royal family, the Reign of Terror, and all the way to the Napoleonic period, France changed vastly during this time. But, for the better part of the last 200 years, the effects that the French Revolution had on the nation, have been vigorously debated by historian and other experts. Aspects of debate have focused around how much change the revolution really caused, and the type of change, as well as whether the changes that it brought about should be looked at as positive or negative. Furthermore, many debate whether the Revolutions excesses and shortcomings can be justified by the gains that the revolution brought throughout the country.

    Read More

  • King Louis XIV: A Disastrous Ruler

    886 Words  | 2 Pages

    King Louis XIV's 72 year reign was incredibly influential in shaping French history. King Louis XIV’s childhood was traumatic because of “La Fronde” which was a noble rebellion against the monarchy. This experience taught King Louis XIV to distrust the nobles. It was for this reason that he eventually excluded nobility from the council and surrounded himself with loyal ministers whom he could control. He also separated the aristocracy from the people of France by moving the court to the Palace of Versailles. One of the most notable of King Louis XIV’s decisions was that he refused to appoint another Prime Minister after the death of Prime Minister Mazarin. Every decision, from the declaration of war to the approval of a passport, went through him personally. During his reign as king, France participated in several wars including the War of Devolution, in Anglo-Dutch War, and the War of the Spanish Succession. Another major action he took was the proclamation of the Edict of Fontainebleau, which revoked the Edict of Nantes, imposing religious uniformity through Catholi...

    Read More

  • Manipulative Systems: Illusions of Freedom

    1411 Words  | 3 Pages

    His system of three branches substantially influenced the United States’ government as we know it today as he seeked to modify the system by assigning different roles to the three different branches with an equivalence of powers; furthermore, his system managed to maintain law and order, liberty of the public, and the property of the individuals without creating violence and corruption with the government. Each of the branches also has it’s own job of casting votes, making laws, and ensuring that these laws are constitutional and beneficial to it’s citizens; as stated by Rousseau: “The conjuring tricks of our political theorists are very like that; they first dismember the Body politic by an illusion worthy of a fair, and then join it together again we know not how”. He points out that Montesquieu’s ideas are just an illusion that lures people into thinking that the branches are separated but is actually branches separated as one whole system; despite Rousseau’s accuracy and attempt to denigrate Montesquieu’s theory, this manipulative system didn’t cause corruptions, oppress

    Read More

  • A Brief Summary of the Nicaraguan Revolution

    1926 Words  | 4 Pages

    Each social class in France has its own reasons for wanting a change in government. The aristocracy was upset by the king’s power, while the Bourgeoisie was upset by the privileges of the aristocracy. The peasants and urban workers were upset by their burdensome existence. The rigid, unjust social structure meant that citizens were looking for change because “all social classes.had become uncomfortable and unhappy with the status quo.” (Nardo, 13)

    Read More

  • Louis XIV, An Absolute Absolutism

    1541 Words  | 4 Pages

    In order to fully answer this question and decide whether or not Louis XIV was in fact an absolute monarch, it is vital first to define absolutism and gain a greater understanding of the idea of ‘absolute monarchy’. Duran states that “etymologically, the term absolutism denotes a form of power which is unrestrained; more specifically it implies that no external agency can suspend or delay the action of the sovereign power”. In a similar vein, Kossman said that absolutism “was and is considered to be a historical phenomenon connected with the aggrandisement and the cen...

    Read More

  • Louis XIV: An Absolute Monarch

    931 Words  | 2 Pages

    Louis XIV exemplified absolutism, and his ruling set the example for other monarchs throughout Europe. The aims for absolute monarchy was to provide ‘stability, prosperity, and order’ for your territories (458). The way Louis XIV set forth to accomplish this was to claim complete sovereignty to make laws, sanction justice, declare wars, and implement taxes on its subjects. This was all done without the approval of any government or Parliament, as monarchs were to govern ‘by divine right, just as fathers ruled their households’ (458). In Bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet’s Politics Drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture, he described that absolution was one of the four characteristics imperative to royal authority, “Without this absolute authority, he can do neither good nor suppress evil; his power must be such that no one can hope to escape him” (460). This was epitomized when Louis XIV sought to control the legal system as well as the funding of the financial resources through a centralized bureaucracy for the monarchy. The church was also brought under control, and Louis sought to do away with all other religions by revoking the Edict of Nantes. Political power was given to noblemen, who were seen as ...

    Read More

  • Enlighenment

    692 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...tarted losing the power. This was his idea on how to split up the power. Montesquieu says “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty…” He is saying that if two branches are joined people can’t all have liberty. Although Montesquieu ideas were really important, someone would have came up with something. Whereas, Locke’s ideas were needed then to help the Declaration and the Constitution be where they are today.

    Read More

  • Justification of French Revolution

    1757 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...wn the monarchy because “World History,” states that, “Louis was well-intentioned and sincerely wanted to improve the lives of the common people.” (Beck Roger, Black Linda, Krieger, Larry, Naylor Phillip, Shabaka Dahia, 653) However, King Louis XVI lacked the conviction and initiative to carry out any of his plans to truly improve the lives of the French citizens. Proof of this was that the French citizens were desperate enough to riot the streets of France and storm the prison of Bastille. After all that has been said, it is clear that the citizens were indeed justified to overthrow the monarch.

    Read More

  • The Absolute Monarchy Of France In The 17th Century

    731 Words  | 2 Pages

    An Analysis of the Absolute Monarchy of France in the 17th Century This historical study will define the absolute monarchy as it was defied through the French government in the 17th century. The term ‘absolute” is defined I the monarchy through the absolute control over the people through the king and the royal family. All matters of civic, financial, and political governance was controlled through the king’s sole power as the monarchical ruler of the French people. In France, Louis XIII is an important example of the absolute monarchy, which controlled all facts of military and economic power through a single ruler. Udder Louis XIII’s reign, the consolidation of power away from the Edicts of Nantes to dominant local politics and sovereignty

    Read More

  • The French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution

    1293 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...n after National assembly created liberal parliamentary system and rebelled against Monarch rule by passing the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. The National Assembly made governmental reforms forcing Constitutional Monarchy in France. The Constitutional Monarchy was represented by electorates. The legislative Assembly promoted liberty, equality, secularism, freedom of thought and replaced Constitutional Monarchy by Republic. It also declared war against Austria and Prussia in 1792. The government organised Terror of Regime to eliminate enemies of regime. The radical Jacobins won over the moderate Girondins. The Terror of Regime ended with the execution of Jacobin leader Robespierre in 1794. The executive directors governed from 1795 to 1799 under the Directory Rule. In 1799, Napoleon overthrows the Directory Rule and France fell back to Monarch Rule.

    Read More

  • The Royal Prerogative

    2051 Words  | 5 Pages

    The royal prerogative is a source of constitutional law; it is derived from common law powers that have been handed down from the monarchy to the executive. The significance of the prerogative in constitutional law is that it provides the executive with considerable power to act without following ‘normal’ parliamentary procedures. As Dicey explained, the prerogative is ‘every act which the executive government can lawfully do without the authority of an Act of parliament’.

    Read More

More about Montesquieu's Royal Sanction

Open Document