Paper #3 – Critical Evaluation of Hudson’s Challenges to American Democracy
In the textbook, American Democracy in Peril, William E. Hudson has written a well-thought out critique of the challenges faced by American democracy, but some of his methods and reasonings have issues. Hudson is looking for anything that he thinks might work in the American democracy. This paper will critically evaluate Hudson’s work and a few specific flaws in his proposals. Hudson is striving to make a difference, but he has not conscientiously considered the feasibility of his plans.
First, let us consider the issue of separation of powers and Hudson’s opinions about it. Hudson states in the textbook, “Americans are mistaken to equate the separation of government …show more content…
Per Hudson, the solution to this problem is to have a political alternative. The parliamentary system is a combination of the executive and legislative branches with the prime minister as the leader of the majority party. With this option, Hudson lists a few items he considers to be relevant to a parliamentary system, such as a greater accountability of the candidates and the officials by their respective political parties, as compared to American politicians. An example Hudson cites occurred in 1990 when the Conservative Party asked Margaret Thatcher to resign because they feared her leadership would result in defeat for the party. While this, indeed, is a change usually not seen in America, some of the parliamentary system features will not fit our country. For example, the vote of no confidence element in a parliamentary system could be a disaster. It will be …show more content…
Hudson’s proposals on the judiciary systems are overreactions. Hudson claims the Supreme Court is undemocratic and undermines the Congress. His solution is to eliminate the judicial review altogether and only appoint the elites. I do not agree with the amendment offered by Hudson, "Except as authorized by Congress, no court of the United States or of any individual state shall have the power to review the constitutionality of statutes by Congress or by State legislatures" (Hudson, 98). This solution, offered by Hudson, would give more powers to Congress. In most cases, the Supreme Court should have the final voice. Moreover, Supreme Court judges might not always come from privileged backgrounds, but they are almost always over-qualified for the position, and most have served as federal judges. Hudson points to a controversial case in the book, such as the one involving abortion and Texas. The was a case for the state of Texas’ Supreme Court, rather the Supreme Court of the United States. Hudson’s proposal would only overburden the Congress, which already has a lot on its plate. A separate Supreme Court forces Congress to work better and keeps the power of the Congress in
In the textbook, American Democracy in Peril, William E. Hudson has written a well-thought out critique of the challenges faced by American democracy, but some of his methods and reasonings have issues. Hudson is looking for anything that he thinks might work in the American democracy. This paper will critically evaluate Hudson’s work and a few specific flaws in his proposals. Hudson is striving to make a difference, but he has not conscientiously considered the feasibility of his plans.
First, let us consider the issue of separation of powers and Hudson’s opinions about it. Hudson states in the textbook, “Americans are mistaken to equate the separation of government …show more content…
Per Hudson, the solution to this problem is to have a political alternative. The parliamentary system is a combination of the executive and legislative branches with the prime minister as the leader of the majority party. With this option, Hudson lists a few items he considers to be relevant to a parliamentary system, such as a greater accountability of the candidates and the officials by their respective political parties, as compared to American politicians. An example Hudson cites occurred in 1990 when the Conservative Party asked Margaret Thatcher to resign because they feared her leadership would result in defeat for the party. While this, indeed, is a change usually not seen in America, some of the parliamentary system features will not fit our country. For example, the vote of no confidence element in a parliamentary system could be a disaster. It will be …show more content…
Hudson’s proposals on the judiciary systems are overreactions. Hudson claims the Supreme Court is undemocratic and undermines the Congress. His solution is to eliminate the judicial review altogether and only appoint the elites. I do not agree with the amendment offered by Hudson, "Except as authorized by Congress, no court of the United States or of any individual state shall have the power to review the constitutionality of statutes by Congress or by State legislatures" (Hudson, 98). This solution, offered by Hudson, would give more powers to Congress. In most cases, the Supreme Court should have the final voice. Moreover, Supreme Court judges might not always come from privileged backgrounds, but they are almost always over-qualified for the position, and most have served as federal judges. Hudson points to a controversial case in the book, such as the one involving abortion and Texas. The was a case for the state of Texas’ Supreme Court, rather the Supreme Court of the United States. Hudson’s proposal would only overburden the Congress, which already has a lot on its plate. A separate Supreme Court forces Congress to work better and keeps the power of the Congress in