does the decloration of independence holds that man are primary and governments are secondary?
471295
It is wrong for you to seek others to do your homework for you.
1054940
BEFORE IT WAS A KING'S RULE---U KNOW TERRITORY AND STUFF--THE WORD GOVERNMENT ARISES ONLY WHEN THE PEOPLE HAVE A SAY IN SOMETHING HEARD OF DEMOCRACY THAT IS WHAT WE R HAVING NOW
143485
Because, often, the people need it. Is there a government called "centralization". No offense, but it is called a unitary gov't.
873204
To answer this question, we must delve into the debate as to whether a government is REFLECTIVE of the character of the people governed, or whether it is DIRECTIVE, by which I mean that the government of a people sets its course.  Personally, I tend to believe that the government of a nation is reflective of those governed...at least it eventually gets that way.  While charismatic leaders in government DO affect the mindset of the people, lasting changes don't occur JUST because governments change.  \n\nAs evidence of this notion, look at what just happened in Afghanistan.  The U.S. took out the oppressive regime with had oppressed its people...so they turned right around and established another government: one that executes people for converting from Islam to Christianity.  So did we really help those people? \n\nLook at what happens here in the United States when one of our elected officials takes bribes, involves himself with corruption, or commits adultery.  The word of his indisretions hits the newspapers, a hue an cry is raised, and people start calling for official impeachment.  Often, crooked government officials end up in jail.  That's because at its core, the American people as a whole simply don't tolerate certain things.  True, not EVERYONE feels that way, but enough do that we have an influential trend in our country that hinders such corruption.\n\nNow compare that to the government of nations where government officials (and even cops) take bribes, the poor are exploited by the wealthy, and graft and corruption in government are practically expected.  Those things go on because, at its core, the people of that nation tolerate those things...otherwise, there'd eventually be decisive changes.\n\nSo to answer your question, no, I don't think a change in government is the answer (at least not by itself).  The hearts and minds of a nation are changed by moral trends, awareness movements, religious revivals, and sound thinking authors.  As new generations are encouraged to adopt values rooted in time-honored principles, changes occur, and the governement begins to adopt the emerging philosphy of the nation.  This brings lasting changes.\n\nTroy Fullerton\nPauls Valley, OK
196854
Unitary government has the powers of state concentrated in one body politic.  Parliamentary government is similar to our federalist government here in America, in that there are two houses with different bases of representation (one based on population, and one based on district or land area).
800335
Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint. -- Alexander Hamilton\n\nShays’ Rebellion had a lot to do with changing their minds.  Without a stronger “Union” they (United States) had little power to put down the uprising.\n\nOn the other hand, Confederations are very weak forms of government.  To put things into perspective, many confederations have been tried throughout world history, but none survive today.  The main reason is because states maintained their full sovereignty. Since they were all individual nations, there was little motivation for allegiance to each other.  This is especially true when it came to commerce among the states.  Also the articles were very limited when it came to what they regulated, and had definitive language that would prove to be obsolete over the years.  The Founders wanted something that would last.
3205
Ron's answer is right on: the government has a monopoly on legalized force. This is a libertarian perspective, and libertarianism is recognized as the best system of government yet devised.
820830
Sort of what it implies. Home rule. Rule by the local governments. What it originated more from was the Irish wanting more control over themselves instead of being ruled by the British. So now it implies semi-autonomy for almost any country or region controlled by someone else. Usually it is seen by the country being controlled as a step to full independence, but not necessarily so.\nCheck out these sites for more info:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_rule\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Rule_Act_1914
643070
No. Democracy will tear apart a nation when the people figure out how to vote money for themselves, thus making government top heavy.  This is the main reason our founders set us up as a Federal Republic, to keep power evenly divided so that no one group had too much power
290147
It is my belief that the concept of "Division of Church and State" has been incorrectly interpreted and applied for many years. The founding fathers intended this separation to prevent things like a church being a branch of government (like the Supreme Court) which would have a final verdict on any law.
809090
The USA is not a democracy we are a Republic.\nThis is a Republic\nOur Nation, The United States of America, is a REPUBLIC UNDER LAW not a democracy which was anathema to our founding fathers. The Constitution is the law, not popular opinion. \n\nA democracy is basically a 'majority rules' form of government, which is great for those who are part and parcel of the 'majority' but has the ability to deprive the minority of life, liberty and property. They can do this because all laws are determined by majority opinion which has no higher authority to answer to. A republic, on the other hand, is governed by law which cannot be changed by just any whim of the majority. \n\nOur nation is made of 50 states each with it's own Republican form of government [a prerequisite to statehood] and governed by it's own constitution.  In order to function as a whole, the states needed some form of federal government to handle matters which were beyond the scope of any one state's government; thus was born the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution granted clearly defined and limited powers to the Federal government in the areas of national defense, international affairs, interstate commerce and little else; the rest was left up to the individual states just as it was for the previous 150 years under their Charters from Great Britain [it was the usurpation and misuse of those powers by the King of Great Britain that eventually resulted in the war for independence]. \n\nThe Declaration of Independence says that God, our creator, has given us "certain unalienable rights" among which are "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The Constitution gives teeth to the Declaration by providing a permanent [they hoped] rule of law which would extend these blessings to many generations of our posterity. \n\nLiberty is precious, many have died for it. Obviously in any society liberty must be limited to prevent one person's liberty from encroaching upon the liberty of another, thus the need for governments [in our case the Constitution]. When one person uses their liberty to deprive another person of his or her life, liberty or property; it is the job of government [state government under the Constitution] to mete out justice which may require a loss of liberty, property and possibly life for the offender as he or she is forced to make restitution. \n\nThe founding fathers knew very well that men are easily corrupted when given too much power as any reading of James Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention will make very clear. In light of this they went to great pains to assure that our new federal government would stand the test of time without degenerating into tyranny of which they were sorely afraid. All states were given equal representation in the Senate regardless of population and the government was divided into three branches: executive, judicial and legislative with a design to provide checks and balances on each other so no one of them would get out of hand. It has indeed stood the test of time and, if fact, has become the model for many other constitutions worldwide.
139395
Yes I do, and so did the founding fathers.  It's all a part of our separation of powers in the US Government.
993116
In theory it is, but in practice, it doesn't work that way. The government has become self-serving. One might argue that the government looks at the bigger picture and therefore can not make decisions based on what the people want. Also, at times, the government only knows what the people with the largest influence and the biggest wallets wants.
8085
The government is made of individual people, so it's individual people of course.
196160
Yes, it is.  (It's also a republic, capitalist, etc.)  It's not a "direct" democracy in the sense of submitting everything to a direct vote of the people, but the people do have ultimate power.  As a practical matter, the people frequently don't exercise the power they have -- they often don't bother voting, or don't educate themselves on issues -- but the power is there if they choose.
587238
Well it would depend on the Constitution of the particular country.  But as an example the United States and Great Britain both have bi-cameral legistative systems.
5317
2 words buddy, John Locke. If you talk about Locke, and "The Rights of Man" you should be OK. Use Wikipedia, and look up his Second Treatise on Government.