Analyze and discuss the significance of the differences between Absolutism and Constitutionalism?
336311
Constitutionalism is the limitation of government by law. It usually involves a sort of checks and balances system.  Most western democracies fall into this category. \n\nAbsolutism by contrast would mean all political power would be placed in the hands of a single individual or "branch" (usually with one person or an executive council in ultimate control).  China could be put in this category (kinda), also many privately held companies if you wish to extend the meanings to the business world.\n\nAs far as significant differences, constitutional systems are more resistant to corruption and absolutist systems are more effective at taking decisive action. An example of this would be the rule of law constitutional systems have managed to maintain for years but at the expense of a system that sometimes allows for lame duck congresses that can’t agree on anything.\n\nThe terms autocratic and democratic are usually used in lieu of absolutist and constitutional respectively (despite the fact that they aren’t as precise as the terms you used).  I assume this is why some people were confused as to your meaning.\n\nHope that helps.\nRegards,\n\nArmus
360141
The two are the individual rights thesis and the state's rights thesis. The first says that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual's right to bear arms, while the latter argues that it guarantees only a state's right to maintain a militia and bear arms in so doing.
1001919
There ia an abyssal difference between liberty (freedom) and license (anarchy).\n\nThe former is highly desirable because it allows an individual to make their own choices in life according to their own free will and the dictates of their (hopefully) well-formed consciences.\n\nThe latter is an excuse for trampling over everything and everyone in order to prove to oneself that one is a powerful being indeed. Sad, really.\n\nFreedom without responsiblity is anarchy. Period! Human nature being what it is, ie fallen, it could hardly be otherwise.
295391
Nationalism:\nThe belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals. \n\nLiberalism:\n\nA political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
796257
What exactly did you want to know?\n\nFor instance, do you want to know about the debates leading to ratification ... check here http://www.constitution.org/elliot.htm\n\nThis site gives a little more general information: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/ac001/lawpres.html\n\nGood luck with your homework.
748332
Democratic. In a republic you have very little say in the laws that are passed and repealed, and the only things you basically vote on are the representatives. A federal government takes power away from the states and by extension the people, and as such is an unwanted unitary force. A democratic government means that the people vote on passing, amending, and repealing laws. For an example of the one true democracy on this planet, take a look at Switzerland.
278466
To interpret the law and its constitutionality
1124869
I really liked how Steven Colbert defined the differences between Republican movement for small government and Democrat movement for big government, in terms of Christian values.\n\nsmall government (Republican) -- use the name of Jesus alot in speeches, seek to control private life while avoiding control over community services\n\nbig government (Democrat) -- heal the sick (Medicaid/Medicare), care for the poor (Social Security, vocational training, and welfare programs), sit with and seek to guide sinners (e.g. prison programs, etc.), suffer the children to come unto you (child welfare and education), seek to control community services while avoiding control of private life\n\nHmmm... so who's acting more Christian?
471441
anticonstitutionalism
971132
haha im in advanced history \nfederalist favored the constitution\nbasicaly they were the first political party  \nso  c\nbecause they wanted a new constitution
463887
There is no inherent difference between the two.  They are not mutually exclusive.\n\nParliamentary democracies are, basically, those in which the head of government is the leader of the party, or coalition of parties, that holds a majority in at least one chamber of the legistlative branch.  This is different from the US-style "Presidential" democracy, in which the head of government is the chief of the executive branch.\n\nA federal democracy is a democratic form of federation; the democratic part simply indicates that ultimate decision-making power is given to the people.  A federation is a central government that permits some amount of sovereignty and decision-making power in subordinate governmental bodies within the federation.  A familiar example might be the US States, which retain significant authority although they are subordinate to the federal United States Government.\n\nIndia is both a federal democracy and a parliamentary democracy.  That proves there is a distinction but not a difference between the two.
215336
One of the most major differences (speaking more officially/ideologically, and leaving out de facto differences which are obvious enough today) is with respect to what the role of the state, and in particular the relationship of the state to individual liberty, should be. In general, republicans want as little government 'interference' as possible, and tend to be anti-taxation (to take one obvious example), on the grounds that 'It's my money and I should be free to do what I want with it; I know how to spend it better than the government does.' Democrats, on the other hand, tend to be more open to a system in which we all pay in, in the form of taxes, to fund social services like health care, education, and welfare.\n\nIf it clarifies things for you (or perhaps simply as a suggestion for further reading), I'd say that Robert Nozick, a libertarian, is a very good example of republican-style thought, whereas John Rawls would be much more of a democratic-style thinker -- major contrast between the two of them.
842269
The Preamble is the introduction to the US Constitution.\n\nAs an intro, it lists the specific goals that the Constitution meets.\nThere are six of them.\nOne other very important principle is also mentioned in the Preamble - popular sovereignty. (the people rule)\nThe words ..We The People..  emphasize the Framers' belief that government  ultimately should be in the hands of the people. \nThey built on John Locke's idea that legitimate government exists because of the ...consent of the governed....
1157551
I think the main difference centers on two issues abortion and gay marriange (aka homesexual rights).  From there I think it branches out into legislations and morality.  Can a man who beleives stem cell research is bad and traditional values good enter into a war under false pretenses ?  I think we gravitate to what makes sense to us a man who refuses to let his religion interfere in legislation some believe can't be trusted.  I agree with Ann Coulter it boils down a relgious belief but both sides have their extreme representives the self-proclaimed Joan of Arcs and Buddah's.  All politics is faith based it's just a matter of where one invests his faith.  The problem with defining them comes when one side defines the other based on contrary views but that's politics.  I think at the end of the day because we can't agree on a few issues we choose to debate them all.
284952
the difference in attitude between the colonists (who wanted their independence) and the parliament/king of england.\n\nalso the belief of indirect representation, which basically means that parliament thought that they could rule the colonies indirectly from overseas, but colonists believed in direct representation
909497
I spent a lot of time on this answer, so I do hope you'll read it.\n\nDisclaimer: I come down firmly in the liberal camp.\n\nThe major differences, in my mind, are in 1) how government should give economic assistance, 2) where the focus ought to be in terms of social issues, and 3) whether ideology or reality ought to ruel.\n\n1) Economics\nConservatives believe that the government is a necessary evil, and that any enforcement of the "social contract" through taxes, "entitlement programs," and business regulation ought to be minimal. They believe a freer market is a better market.\nLiberals believe that the government is the mechanism by which the people of a country achieve their vision of a fair playing field. They believe that government should regulate business and help the less fortunate get a foothold, and they believe that taxes are necessary to allow public works to go forward. They believe a fairer market is a better market.\n\n2) Social issues\nConservatives look to the past and to tradition to determine what is moral. They balk at change and feel that the country has a duty to prevent the degeneration of morals. They want to spend time on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and decency in the media. Many of them interpret the words of the Founding Fathers to mean the Founders were staunch Christians who believed the country should have  Christian values.\nLiberals look at the world through a prism of social justice. They feel that the relevant question is "Who is helped or hurt by this?" and bristle at "It's always been this way" as an excuse for an unsustainable argument. Many of them interpret the words of the Founding Fathers to mean the Founders were deists who believed the country should base itself on nondenominational, social-justice values. They want to spend time on issues such as equal rights, poverty, and peace.\n\n3) Ideology\nThis distinction is a tad fuzzier than others, but it's worth mentioning.\nFor the most part, conservatives lean on morality to make distinctions about policy. Certain concepts are morally right and therefore policies based on those concepts are untouchable. Thus, opposing policies must necessarily be not just wrong, but evil. (This is how you come to the conclusion that having liberals in power would lead to chaos in destruction - not because you have judged the policy proposals by liberals ineffective, but because they are not in line with the conservatives' proposals and must therefore have the opposite effect.)\nLiberals draw from the social-justice template and are interested in what has been proven to be effective or ineffective. They are interested in empirical proof rather than statements of ideology, and believe that opposing policy proposals are not necessarily evil. However, liberals do see as evil the compromising of those basic social-justice principals, and thus the rescinding of habeas corpus, the use of so-called alternative interrogation techniques, and the launching of military action without a UN resolution are highly offensive.\n\nI hope this helped you understand our side. Please feel free to correct me if  you feel I've misrepresented you.
977040
Both refer to philosophical positions, but are usually applied to political movements that embody those philosophies.\n\nLiberals favor growth, change, flexibility. They tend to be more dynamic and driven, but often less organized. In the political arena, liberals favor progressive reform and the protection of civil liberties.\n\nConservatives favor tradition, conformity, and slow (if any) change. They tend to be more organized, but occasionally stagnant. In politics, this can be split between those who seek minimal government interference with minimal government social programs, and those who want heavy government regulation to ensure national conformity.