How does he fucking manage it

A Change Called Federalism

Charter Change is a revision of the Constitution. It is a revamp of the present Constitution, making it more appropriate to the changing times.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution is written, conventional and rigid. A tedious and laborious process first needs to be done before the Constitution is changed. Article XVII, Sec 1 and 2 of the said Constitution provides for the process on how amendments and revisions should be made. This is through the Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members or through a Constitutional Convention. Sec. 2 of Article XVII states that, “amendments may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein.”

President Rodrigo Duterte has long expressed his desire to change the form of government in the Philippines; making it a Federal-Parliamentary form of government instead of the present Unitary-Presidential. However, according to Pulse Asia, 7 out of 10 Filipinos do not approve of this shift in the form of government. Many believe that this is unnecessary and cumbersome. The shift shall surely cause drastic effects on the nation’s economy and overall welfare.

The Good, and the Bad

The Charter Change is expected to address the economic policies of the country, especially that of Foreign Direct Investments (FDI). Currently, foreigners are only allowed to have 40% in the equity shares in corporations. It has been observed that the economy of other countries like Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand had dramatically improved when they have changed their policies regarding FDIs. It can be said that the Philippines could also achieve the same by making it possible through a Charter Change.

Still, many are hesitant to embrace this shift. Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque said that this could be only because of misinformation. Federalism offers benefits but we cannot deny the fact that it also has risks.

Some of the advantages of Federalism are: concentration of funds on a certain region, thus making this a game changer on the development of the locality. Local governments do not have to wait for funds from the national government for their projects. Also, in a federalism type of government, decentralization will help each of the regions decide for their own good according to their needs, culture and traditions. The local governments may legislate its own laws depending on what is most applicable to their people. Better solutions shall also be achieved. This will also lessen the dependence on Metro Manila for the nation’s wealth shall be distributed more evenly.

The disadvantages of Federalism on the other hand, are: It would make the nation more divisive, probably for it could promote an unhealthy competition among the Federal states and may intensify regionalism, which has been an age-old problem of the Philippines. Also, because this form of government is alien to the Philippines, some regions might have a hard time adjusting to the change, thus, there may be no balance between the developments of states. Changing into a Federal Form of government shall also cost billions. Obviously, there is still too much to consider before implementing Federalism.

Centralization is argued to reduce the inconsistencies on the distribution of the people’s funds. On the other hand, those who are advocates of decentralization would argue that centralization only aggregates the power into an imperial Manila. The growing attention to Charter Change or a shift to Federal form of government is supported by multitude of campaigns and debates in print, broadcast, or in social media.

Federalism will drastically change the distribution of funds on education. In such structure, states can keep 80% their local revenues, and 20% to the national government. The states can likewise create local laws on financial allocations for education, hence a more efficient way of budget distribution for the people.

The decentralization traits of the federal system chiefly recognize regional differences when it comes to socio political compositions in order to utilize resources. This idea sounds promising, as the current government structure is in fact centralized, and the imperial Manila receives the funds but is challenged to distribute it evenly towards various national regions, as some regions are still underdeveloped.

This might not be the case. One the criticisms points to the current inconsistencies in educational resources and infrastructures between and among the regions. This can slow down the system, and would produce more problems which might undermine the structure itself.

Alternatives to Charter Change?

One of the biggest problems in the country is corruption. The current form of government does not hinder it to pass local laws in order to fund the fight against corruption. There are technological advantages that government can look upon, which can effectively minimize corruption in the country. It will only take political will of public officials in order to make it happen, in so far as not changing the current system of government. A more effective way of fund distribution can likewise be done through heavy government spending on technology which can solve the country’s longstanding problem on corruption.

The Local Government Code of 1991, on the other hand, the tenet for local governance, can also be improved or amended in order to channel greater power to the local governments in funding their educational, agricultural, and industrial needs.

It is now that the people should be more vigilant for “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” In a political crisis like this, the country’s people need to be more involved for whatever happens now will not only shape the lives of the people of today. This has serious implications to the next generation. The nation’s future is at stake and we cannot just let change happen if it can threaten the nation. Federalism can be good, but it can also be bad for the country. It can be promising, but it may conceive more problems rather than solve them. There are alternatives to Charter Change, which only takes political will. If this alone is required in order to solve the nation’s problems, as it is on scrutinizing Federalism, then we may have realized a powerful solution which can rebuild our nation. (Photo from: cbclawmatters.blogspot.com)

References:

Advantages & Disadvantages of Federalism. Retrieved from https://bloomp.net/articles/benefits-of-federalism.htm

Federalism in the Philippines, explained. Retrieved from https://kami.com.ph/2492-federalism-philippines-explained.html#2492

Federalism in the Philippines. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_Philippines

Federalism not superior to present system of gov’t, experts say. Retrieved from https://varsitarian.net/special-reports/20171115/federalism-not-superior-to-present-system-of-govt-experts-say

Federalism to create bigger problems for PH— Sereno. Retrieved from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1013406/federalism-to-create-bigger-problems-for-ph-sereno#ixzz5MEihQZ2U

President to place shift to federalism on agenda. Retrieved from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1012209/president-to-place-shift-to-federalism-on-agenda#ixzz5MEiitWUf

Pros and cons of federalist set-up. Retrieved from http://www.manilatimes.net/pros-and-cons-of-federalist-set-up/386745/

Puno: Proposed federal charter expands meaning of human rights. Retrieved from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1012670/puno-proposed-federal-charter-expands-meaning-of-human-rights#ixzz5MEikFbSq

Sotto talks tough in defense of Senate vs constituent assembly. Retrieved from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1013621/sotto-talks-tough-in-defense-of-senate-vs-constituent-assembly#ixzz5MEiek7rD

The Impact of Federalism on Education Finance: A Comparative Analysis*. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1974.tb00752.x

Understanding Charter Change. Retrieved from http://www.bworldonline.com/understanding-charter-change/

What you need to know about Charter Change. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/193718-charter-change-explainer-philippine-constitution

Will federalism address PH woes? Pros and cons of making the shift. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/120166-federalism-pros-cons-explainer

Will Senate assert its independence in charter change, no-el issues? Retrieved from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1012808/will-senate-assert-its-independence-in-charter-change-no-el-issues#ixzz5MEilMwkb

WRITTEN BY DOROTHY RICA G. DE ASIS AND ARCH JOHN B. CAMPS

Fb challenged to present TED discuss on political advertisements

The investigative journalist who revealed the Cambridge Analytica scandal has demanded solutions from tech giants about political advertisements. In her TED discuss, Carole Cadwalladr known as on the executives of Fb and Twitter to return to the convention and talk about their position in influencing elections all over the world. Twitter boss Jack Dorsey is because of communicate later this week. TED curator Chris Anderson additionally invited Fb to deal with the convention. Alongside workers of the New York Occasions, Cadwalladr was named as a finalist for the celebrated Pulitzer Prize for journalism for her work on the Cambridge Analytica story. It concerned the invention that a tutorial on the College of Cambridge used a persona quiz to reap as much as 87 million Fb customers' particulars. A few of this was subsequently shared with the political consultancy Cambridge Analytica, which used it to focus on political promoting within the US. Cadwalladr, who writes for the Guardian and Observer, used her TED discuss to straight deal with who she known as the "gods of Silicon Valley". Most of the high executives of know-how corporations attend the TED convention in Vancouver, Canada. "We are what happens to a Western democracy when elections are disrupted by technology," mentioned Cadwalladr, referring to how voters within the Brexit referendum could have been influenced by on-line political campaigns. "Technology has been amazing but now it is a crime scene," she added. She mentioned the know-how giants had acted as "accessories to spreading lies".

'Incorrect aspect of historical past'

She challenged Fb boss Mark Zuckerberg to return to TED and criticised his refusal to deal with the UK parliamentary committee tasked with investigating Fb's position within the Brexit referendum. The Digital, Tradition, Media and Sport Committee has prompt that the federal government makes main modifications in electoral legislation to make sure future on-line campaigns are extra clear. Cadwalladr mentioned that there have been nonetheless questions for Fb to reply. "The whole referendum took place on Facebook and we have no idea who saw what ads, who placed them and what money was spent," she mentioned. "Facebook is on the wrong side of history in refusing to give answers," she added. The BBC requested Fb for its response but it surely has not replied. The social community has modified its guidelines round political advertisements within the UK, asking anybody inserting them to confirm their identification and placement, and show who's paying for the advert. Individuals shopping for the advertisements should present their identification by submitting ID, which will likely be verified by a 3rd celebration. They need to additionally display that they've a UK deal with. After Cadwalladr's discuss, TED curator Mr Anderson promised to "hold a space" on the convention for Fb executives, a few of whom he mentioned "were watching". A problem like this has been met earlier than. In 2014, former Nationwide Safety Company (NSA) employee Edward Snowden was a shock visitor at TED, showing by telerobot from an undisclosed location in Russia. After his discuss, a consultant of the NSA additionally made an unscheduled look on the convention, providing to be extra clear about its surveillance work in future. Read the full article

UAE Journey Towards Creating Opportunities For Diverse Leadership exemplary: Egon Zehnder’s Jill Ader

Egon Zehnder, a well-known leadership advisory and C-Suite recruitment specialist, has spent the best part of 20 years studying diversity in leadership across global corporations and recently released its Global Board Diversity Tracker. The tracker studies company boards across the world (including the UAE and Saudi Arabia) to weigh up the growth (or lack of) in ensuring that more females are included on boards or leadership positions.

According to the latest Global Diversity Tracker, globally, just 5.6 per cent of all board seats are held by women in leadership roles and the percentage of women in the boardroom stood at just 20.4 per cent. Meanwhile, Egon Zehnder found that the Middle East is further behind with only 1 per cent of board seats held by women in Saudi Arabia and 3.1 per cent in the UAE.

BusinessLiveMe speaks to Jill Ader, Chairwoman of Egon Zehnder, on diversity at leadership and board levels and spurring more female leadership recruitment as well as increasing equity returns for companies.

Over the years of your data collection and analysis on diversity in the boardroom, is there a trend towards an improving situation, or have there been variables/stagnation/decline observed that you think are roadblocks to overall progress? “There is good news in terms of the longer-term trends that we have observed internationally. Ever since we started tracking board diversity in 2004, we have seen significant growth in the general presence of women and international directors on corporate boards. Overall, 20.4 per cent of all directors in the 44 countries we studied are women – up from 13.6 per cent six years ago. In Western Europe, board positions held by women have risen from 15.6 per cent to 29.0 per cent over the same time period. “This is an encouraging development and, albeit slow, shows the increased importance that chairpeople, shareholders and society places on having diverse views represented on the top levels of the most important organizations. However, much more progress needs to be seen. We have classified the 44 countries we surveyed into three groups: Champions, Slow Movers, and Underachievers. Among the countries included in our Underachievers category, we have included Argentina, Chile, Hungary, and Japan where less than 55 per cent of boards of directors have at least one woman, and less than 10 per cent have two or more. But even in these countries, some companies are leading the way with new practices and differentiated results.”

How does the Middle East compare in this regard? “Compared to Western Europe, the Middle East is far behind. Unfortunately, both the UAE and Saudi Arabia also fall into our Underachievers category when it comes to gender diversity. In fact, our latest Global Diversity Tracker study found that the UAE and Saudi Arabia stand as countries with the lowest percentage of women in the boardroom, with the UAE averaging 3.1 per cent and Saudi Arabia averaging only 1 per cent. Meanwhile, across the MENA region, only 15 per cent of boards are made up of female directors. While these figures aren’t encouraging there is hope based on initiatives and long-term strategies being implemented in the UAE and Saudi Arabia, helping to spur on evolution in terms of gender diversity in terms of the policy, parliamentary representation and influencing corporate behaviour.”

Jill Ader, Chairwoman of Egon Zehnder

What advantages does a diverse board provide to a company? “In a region driven by family businesses and government-owned commercial entities, organizations in the Middle East are realizing that the only way to compete in a world of ever-increasing speed of change is to have an effective, creative and agile board of directors that can flexibly change course and provide guidance to match the ambitions of the countries’ leadership, their shareholders and societies at large. “By carrying out diversification initiatives, the current board composition can effectively address the shortage of qualified board members in the region today. “Diversification initiatives allow companies to tap into an underleveraged pool of skill sets that will benefit the region through the representation of different parts of society, backgrounds, viewpoints, and capabilities at board level. Such initiatives have proven to drastically improve effectiveness and efficiency through a range of voices that allow for broader perspective at the board level. “The tangible bottom-line impact of board diversity on a company’s financial performance has been studied by Egon Zehnder and others. According to MSCI, companies with at least three women on the board experienced a median increase in return on equity of 10 percentage points and earnings per share of 37 per cent within 5 years. This is a significant financial gain which is left out by companies taking a more narrow view on board composition and succession planning.

How can/should a company shift its boardroom culture to be more inclusive towards women? “A challenge today is that most companies, specifically government-owned companies, recruit directors from an internal network, mostly from the national pools. This is a true pipeline problem and limits the opportunities for diversification. Therefore, companies need to first identify the core competencies required for an effective board and then identify the gaps that they need to fill. This will then open up the conversation on increasing board composition and diversity. Having board members that come from a different professional background will only strengthen the thinking rigour and debate, and contribution of the board.

Is there a company or country that can be used as an example in achieving the successful creation/adoption of a balanced and inclusive boardroom? “To help transform boardrooms across the world and in the Middle East requires introspection and bold leadership – leadership that understands that diverse boardrooms reflect the broad perspectives that are shaping a world characterised by disruption to traditional business practices. “A case in point is the United Arab Emirates and parliamentary gender diversity. Despite the slow progress of the private sector in the UAE, the country’s government has been exemplary in the journey towards creating opportunities for diverse leadership. For example, the first female leader of a national assembly in the UAE and the Arab world, Chairperson and Speaker of the Federal National Council (FNC), Dr Amal Al Qubaisi in 2015 has helped to spearhead a change in perceptions about the role women will play in the future of the country. Additionally, President His Highness Shaikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan issued a 2019 directive to increase the representation of women in the Federal National Council from 22.5 per cent to 50 per cent has placed the UAE among leading countries in terms of equality in parliamentary representation. We hope the knock-on effect will be that the private sector in the country takes inspiration from the diversity the UAE Government has implemented to ensure it is one of the most progressive parliaments in the Middle East. “The same humility and introspection required to create flexible boards is critical for the private sector with one leading example being Unilever. Under the ten-year leadership of CEO Paul Polman, Unilever has grown the number of women in management positions to 48 per cent of its total, with five of 13 directors being female.

Where policy has helped improve the situation in some countries, how can governments in this region ensure there is a diverse representation at the leadership level? “As mentioned above, the UAE has led by example so much so that under the directives of Her Highness Sheikha Manal bint Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the ‘Women on Boards’ initiative was launched by Dubai Women Establishment (DWE) in 2012, making the UAE the first country in the Middle East, and the second in the world, to launch an initiative as such. With its dual objectives to increase the representation of women on boards of directors in local entities across the public and private sectors and to increase women’s representation on boards of directors to 20% by 2020, DWE is an example of how regional government bodies can help to influence and inspire the public and private sector. “Additionally, for the public and private sector, a focus on diversity and inclusion has to be a core part of a company’s strategy and has to come directly from the top. Companies should start setting measurable goals, pick for potential, diversify the pipeline of talent, train/plan for board successions and professionalize the recruitment process. “Our experience shows that meaningful change in boardroom diversity is achievable — if it becomes a core element of a company’s overall strategy. For example:

Make Leadership Accountable: A focus on diversity and inclusion has to be a core part of a company’s strategy and has to come directly from the top.

Raise Your Ambitions: Focus on Three. Hiring a female director simply as a token is a mistake that will not improve the effectiveness of your board. True diversity replaces groupthink with healthy debate, which leads to greater innovation and better results.

Set Measurable Goals: Opinions on whether to impose a diversity quota on boards vary widely. Yet the evidence is clear, setting hard targets and creating accountability around diversity is one of the only actions that has truly moved the needle. Certain countries have imposed mandatory quotas.

Pick for Potential: Boards need a new definition of board-ready. It is conventional wisdom to fill the boardroom with C-suite executives with decades and decades of senior management experience. Our own research and global client experience have found that executives with certain leadership attributes can deliver enormous positive impact, even in business situations or industries in which they have no prior experience. We call these traits, which include curiosity, engagement, insight, and determination, Executive Potential. Betting on potential expands the talent pool automatically and contributes to boardroom success.

Diversify the Pipeline: CEOs must be intentional about developing diverse succession pipelines all the way up to the C-suite. They must create inclusive cultures where women and other groups can thrive and therefore can be retained long enough to be considered for succession to the C-suite and board positions. Companies must also make sure that as women reach the upper levels of management — a time when many women stall — they are supported and developed by mentors and peers alike

Train the Board for Success: It is not enough to simply add fresh faces to a board. Chairs and current directors must also support the integration of new directors after their appointment, both by teaching them the norms of the board and by allowing for the norms of the board to change.

Professionalise Your Recruiting Process: A recent survey of large U.S. boards showed that 46 per cent of organizations with board succession plans said they had no specific process for bringing in diverse candidates. What this means is that recruitment for diversity is often done in a haphazard and unintentional way. Directors must hold themselves and their recruiters accountable for reviewing diverse candidate slates. Diversity must be built into the nomination process at every stage — from briefing to interviewing to selection.

“For all of the frustrations around the pace of change, there are reasons to be hopeful. At Egon Zehnder, we focus entirely on senior executives and board members, helping place them in companies but also helping to develop them as leaders.”

  The post UAE Journey Towards Creating Opportunities For Diverse Leadership exemplary: Egon Zehnder’s Jill Ader appeared first on Businessliveme.com.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2Q7FZbO via IFTTT

Essay代写：The value orientation of the house of lords

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文- The value orientation of the house of lords，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了贵族院的价值定位。贵族院又称上议院，是英国议会的重要组成部分之一。作为重要的国家机构，其曾经在议会与英王的权力斗争过程中扮演过关键性的领导角色，并曾在相当漫长的一段时间内集立法、司法、行政等重要的国家权力于一身。现代的英国宪法体系下，贵族院的作用被精确地定位为对平民院的补充而非破坏，它是修正的和慎思的议院，不得挑战平民院的突出地位，它并不是平民院的简单重复者和对手。

​The bourgeois revolution took place in England during the reign of Stuart. After the "glorious revolution" in 1688, the elected common people's court became the core institution of British politics. Since then, the power of the king of England was gradually weakened and became a "virtual monarch". And the power of the house of lords began to gradually transfer to the civilian court. The parliament act of 1832 removed the power of the house of lords to nominate members of the house of Commons. The parliament act of 1911 further stipulated that all financial bills passed by the house of Commons could be sent to the king of England for approval and publication even if they could not be passed by the house of lords. The house of lords could veto non-fiscal bills only twice, and the 1949 act of parliament shortened the period to one year. At this point, the financial and legislative and other major state affairs of power to the full civilian court. In respect of judicial power, The Scotland in 1689, The Scottish The Claim of Right to establish The appellate jurisdiction of civil cases, Scottish parliament in 1707, according to The act of united England and Scotland, The Scottish parliament and The power into lords of appeal case jurisdiction, from then on, emblazoned with The Supreme Court to enable The system has been in use today. In the 1870s, the British government tried several times to abolish the jurisdiction of the house of lords and set up a court of final appeal, but failed. By 1876, the jurisdiction of appeal law officially confirmed the jurisdiction of the house of lords.

Since 2003, the Blair government has been considering a series of reforms to the house of lords, including the 2005 constitutional reform act. On June 12, 2003, Blair announced that Lord ChancellorIrvine would retire and that Lord Falconer would serve as chancellor for a transitional period.

On October 1st, 2009, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was formally established, which abolished the judicial function of the house of lords for several centuries. At the same time, the hereditary aristocracy, as one of the traditional members of the court, was also removed from all seats in the court.

The above historical changes outline the development trajectory of the house of lords and the parliamentary politics it represents. Parliamentary politics from beginning until the end of the "glorious revolution" during this period, if the idea can be called the first house and the house of Commons is called the second chamber, then start from the middle of the nineteenth century, great changes have taken place in the relationship between the two, the former by the first house fell for the second chamber, the latter the contrary; The parliament act of 1911 fixed the changed power relationship between the two houses in a statutory form. Although the ACTS of parliament of 1832, 1911 and 1949 gradually weakened the power of the house of lords, they changed only the exercise of legislative power, and the judicial power that had lasted for centuries was not abolished.

Britain does not have a written constitutional code. The British constitution can be considered "unwritten constitution". Bagehot described the British constitution in his famous book the British constitution as follows: "the constitution of the United States was written by a conference; The British constitution has been built up over centuries. And the history of the house of lords is a reflection of that description. Through the observation of the early English legal history, it can be found that the nobles played a very important role in that period, which can be summarized as the following aspects: they were often the authors of many key and important legal documents, such as the famous magna carta and the petition of rights; They are often the advocates of major political and legal movements, which is closely related to this point. Since the magna carta, the practice of the exercise of judicial power by nobles has been preserved and developed in the course of centuries.

The aristocracy is a symbol of status and status. In terms of the traditional distinction of social status, they are above the common people and below the king. Since Britain does not have the concept of nation in the modern sense in law, only the king is the symbol of national power. Therefore, in a country with great respect for tradition, the king can arouse people's great reverence. An important function of the aristocracy, traditionally an important political institution in England, is that its very existence "calls to mind a subservient consciousness of the soul of the vulgar, the frivolous, and the petty majority, who neither appreciate nor are aware of anything else." It also prevents a kind of "pure" money domination. The important factor that makes the aristocracy produce the above functions can be summarized as a common human nature, which is the envy of wealth. Everything in terms of money - "a simple love of the gold itself" - is the standard of daily life for many ordinary people. But aristocracy, to a large extent, formed a "sense of admiration for money" to ease and even resist. In British society, because of the establishment of the aristocracy, "pure and simple" money is by no means a symbol of nobility. Money is overwhelmed by the overwhelming authority of a different spiritual force. In this case, the society has two kinds of idol worship, the first is the worship of pure money, and the other is from the noble worship spirit of the aristocratic system of worship. And once the two exist at the same time, it will certainly make people choose between them, or the competition between the two kinds of worship.

Generally speaking, the name of aristocracy almost means something hereditary, a kind of identity and a symbol of noble spirit, and it has formed a certain social style over time. The wealth of money is merely an adjunct to a man, not to the man himself, so that if people worship only the wealth of money itself, then they worship only the adjunct to the man, but if they worship nobility, then they worship the extraordinary virtue of the man.

The house of lords is a collection of elite members of society that makes it another institution of state besides the king of England that inspires a sense of reverence. At the same time, the efficiency of the house of lords is quite high compared with that of the house of Commons. Some people even claim that the house of lords only needs one night to complete the work that the house of lords takes a week to complete. Although through the long history of the wash and make today's house of lords compared to the history of the "faded" many, but it still plays an important role in the British constitution in the "honor" part. With the development of parliamentary politics, the spirit of "honor" is integrated into the blood of the British constitution and becomes an important spirit in the British constitution.

Before the "glorious revolution", the role of the civilian court was not taken seriously. With the modernization of society, the role of the civilian court was gradually taken seriously. The house of lords, on the other hand, was full of honor and power before the fall of the aristocracy. After the decline of the aristocracy, most of the functions of effectiveness were transferred to the plebeian court, while the noble house maintained its functions of honor. As an important political institution, it was always respected by the British people.

If, in the middle ages and before, there was a conflict of power between the house of lords, the house of Commons, and the king of England, the conflict was more likely to exist between the house of lords and the house of lords. Since the glorious revolution, power conflicts tend to exist between the former two. In the first period, the power of the royal family was gradually weakened in the struggle, and then transferred to itself. In the later period, the active party of this power transfer was replaced by the commoner's court, while the passive party was the noble court. That is to say, the changing history of the constitutional power of the aristocracy is not in accordance with the veneration it has received, which has become a contradiction in the spirit of the British constitution. The British have been trying to solve this contradiction with a constitutional attitude: trying to find the method they need to solve this contradiction from the function of political institutions and the history of political thoughts, instead of resorting to pure legal theories.

In any case, the crucial question at the heart of the reform is how to define the role of the house of lords in modern British politics. Take an examination of the history of many classics of law, it is not difficult to find that all the time since there is such a theory -- it thought, idea ought to be, and in fact is also a and the house of Commons in parliament coordination institution, a Commons equal institutions, and the house of Commons on behalf of the king of domestic branch the general populace role, noble lords also represents the kingdom branch; According to the conventions and principles of the British constitution, the two branches should have the same authority and power. The above theory can be understood as a "balanced" bicameral constitutional theory, that is, both houses of parliament should be "equal". To what extent is this theory feasible? I have this objection, that the house of lords and the house of Commons are of entirely different natures, and that, if given equal powers, either of them, under normal political circumstances, can prevent any legislation which it itself does not think fit. If so, much of the legislature, which is necessary for many countries, will fail because of a row between the two Chambers. Historically, with the "glorious revolution" as the boundary line, in the period before this, the house of lords was over the civilian court, and even guided the civilian court to a large extent. After that, the relationship between the two houses shifted -- the Commons was superior to the house of lords. Therefore, compared with the bicameral parliamentary political system in feudal times, what was established after the "glorious revolution" was a new type of bicameral political system. Facing this change, the specific positioning of the two houses must be re-examined. It should be said that the change of the old and new bicameral politics could be attributed to the change of the power balance between different social classes in Britain at that time. The process of modernization actually led to the change of power between the masses and the aristocracy. The former gradually mastered the dominant power of the state, while the latter gradually declined. Such a contrast is reflected in the national political system is an important carrier of the two forces - the house of lords and the house of Commons to re-examine the positioning. If the will of the people is to be maximized rather than to be followed by the aristocracy, the balance of power will inevitably swing in the direction of the Commons. However, the house of lords and the aristocracy are important symbols of the whole British culture, and completely negating their functions runs counter to the spirit of the whole constitutional convention. How to solve this paradox in reality? The parliamentary laws of 1911 and 1949 provided a way to position the house of lords as a revisionist and advisory house in the context of the dominance of the Commons. The important consideration and unique function of this position is that the house of lords, as the amendment court of the people's court, can bring less partisan opinions to the legislative process compared with the excessive party disputes involved in the proceedings of the people's court, and can have sufficient time to conduct a long investigation of the government work. In terms of the current personnel composition of the house of lords, it has a lot of professional knowledge, but these are advantages that the house of lords does not have. The house of lords can use this advantage to put forward its own unique perspective on the government work, instead of simply repeating the legislative work of the house of lords. In addition, compared with the civilian court, the court is in a relatively detached position and will not be disturbed by too many unnecessary party factors. At the same time, it does not have the problem of bearing responsibilities to the constituency, so it is extremely important to maintain the stability of the government.

In addition to legislation and the day-to-day work of government, the highest judicial power of the house of lords, which has lasted for centuries, is also an important factor in the above contradiction. Until 2005 there were two supreme courts in Britain, and although the professional and personal conduct of British judges has long been praised, the flaws of such a system are obvious. First, there are serious problems with the existence of the two supreme courts: "one committee can decide that a person has no problem with money, and the other committee can decide that he has a problem with land." Of course, the two judicial organs will not try the same case, because their respective jurisdiction is not the same, but the judicial opinions caused by legal issues of the same nature involved in the trial process may produce substantive conflicts, which is not necessarily a more beneficial approach for the unification of the judiciary of a country. Second, the judiciary committee of the house of lords is not an independent judiciary in the true sense of the word -- it is itself a constituent part of parliament, a court "hidden under the gun of parliament" in bagehot's words; Although the noble qualities of British judges are commended, the defects of this structure are still in conflict with the modern constitutional concept of judicial independence.

To sum up the above discussion, the author believes that under the modern British constitutional system, the role of the house of lords is precisely positioned as a supplement to, rather than a disruption to, the house of Commons. It is a revised and deliberative house, and must not challenge the prominent position of the house of Commons. Even the "second court" has its unique status and function. It may be a less prominent institution, but it is an institution for people to look up to, a manifestation of the spirit of reverence.

想要了解更多英国留学资讯或者需要英国代写，请关注51Due英国论文代写平台，51Due是一家专业的论文代写机构，专业辅导海外留学生的英文论文写作，主要业务有essay代写、paper代写、assignment代写。在这里，51Due致力于为留学生朋友提供高效优质的留学教育辅导服务，为广大留学生提升写作水平，帮助他们达成学业目标。如果您有essay代写需求，可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。