Conformations affected political parties a great deal because they created new constituency and showed a dominance of power. The lose of the Democratic party’s hegemony caused it to find new methods of furthering its agenda. Prior to the 1960s, the Democratic party maintained control of the electorate with an overwhelming percentage.1 The New Deal produced interest from a “mass constituency” for the Democratic party because of the social programs. Many white southern democrats became republicans because of the increased number of blacks in the Democratic party. Many white union members and Catholics also left the party because they no longer thought of themselves as the working middle class. “The disorder in the party produced among other things a new attention to the staffing of the federal judiciary.”2 Because of the lose in constituency, the Democratic party no longer had control of the presidency so it needed to find other means to further its agenda. The supreme court was that other method as displayed by the Warren Court after deciding liberal opinions like Roe v. Wade. The conformations of judges became essential in this aspect to the Democrats in order to keep liberals on the court.

The Republican party wanted to gain the New Right as part of its constituency. The New Right had very conservative views and it was against the liberal agenda of the Warren Court. Nixon campaigned against the court not his opponent for the presidency to gain the New Right. Nixon said he would change the court by nominating conservative judges who would “balance” the courts. Nixon nominated conservative judges to the court like Burger who was easily accepted to the court. His second and third nominations were fought and rejected by Congress partly because of their strong conservative views. By the time of the Reagan-Bush era, nominees needed to have some quality to counteract the fact that they were conservative to receive a conformation for the liberal Congress. Ronald Reagan nominated Sandra Day O’Connor, a woman, and George Bush nominated Clarence Thomas, a black man, to ease liberal apposition. No longer does the president think who is the best person to be on the court when determining a nomination. It is a combination of political strategies to gain a partisan member to the court and to deter opposition.

The Senate became less hierarchical making Supreme Court conformations unpredictable and difficult. The Senate of the pre-1960s had a strict set of unwritten rules and pathways to power. The Senate conformed to a single mold where everyone spoke well of the other senators, no one brought attention to him or herself at a national level, everyone specialized in one field, and new senators were like children, who would not speak or be heard. In 1948, Hubert Humphrey did not maintain these standards when he was elected into the Senate and he was shunned by most senators. By the 1960’s, the Senate began to transform into an open forum of debate between all senators. Senators became generalized with knowledge in many fields, and national recognition was sought after. This change made it very difficult to for presidents when nominating a justice because, in the old Senate, the president only needed the vote of the powerful senators, “whales,” and everyone else would follow their example. Now, the senate is made up of a diverse group who do not seek conformity so “whales” are no longer the key to a conformation. This change was displayed when Lyndon B.

Johnson nominated Abe Fortas as chief justice. In 1968, Johnson got the “whales” of the Senate to support Fortas. The scenario of a changing senate and rebellious “minnow” prevented Fortas from being chief justice.

The power of the judiciary went through a tremendous transformation from nonexistent to over whelming. In the 1800s, the Supreme court had no active role in government until Marbury v Madison. This case set the precedent of giving the Supreme Court the power to declare acts void through constitutional interpretation. In the twentieth century, the court has not changed in terms of its power of deciding cases. It has on the other hand changed in terms of who is represented on the court, liberals or conservatives. Representation plays a key role in the conformations of justices and the change in difficulty of the conformations.

The parties seek power through Supreme Court conformations. “Political power in the United States is a function of constituency.”3 Democrats had an immensely large constituency. When it decreased to a less substantial size, Democrats used the Supreme Court to pursue their agenda as a means of a show of power instead of a “mass constituency.” Republicans used the Supreme Court for power by increasing its constituency through political campaigns against liberal a Supreme Court. This battle over power and the new unpredictable Senate caused Supreme Court conformations to be
vital, strategic, and difficult.

Footnotes
1 Mark Silverstein, Judicious Choices, (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1994), p. 76.
2 Ibid., p. 87.
3 Ibid., p. 34.

One of the main institutions in society in the household or family. It is here that almost all the consumption in society takes place. It is also here that almost all the labour power in society originates. The make-up of the family is not as "cut and dry" as it once was. The nuclear family is dead and what has replaced it has put all old theories about the family to the test.

One major change has been the rise of the dual-earner family. In 70% of households today there is no single breadwinner. (Burggraf, 1997:54) Women’s position in the family has been changed radically from that of one-hundred years ago. Three important issues have been raised about women’s position in the family. One is that the development of gender inequality within the family is a result of the changing economy. This being the extra accumulation of property in private households. The second issue is that capitalism being the only form of economy we are familiar with pushes for the working of every family member to create a strong economy. Lastly, the evolution of the family dispersed from economic development and instead become a more social issue. (Wilson, 1982:37)

Because the position of women in the family has been so altered from past history, projections made, even forty years ago, are increasingly wrong. Though, even with the changing structure of the family the economic labour power has not significantly increased. The role of housewife in the post-industrial age was just as important to women as today’s dual earning household. The housewife was the counter-part to the husbands role of breadwinner. It was the wife who cleaned the husbands clothes, prepared his food and provided emotional support, without which he could not fulfill his role as breadwinner. (Burggraf, 1997:174)

With the evolution of the labour market and capitalist economy with the ever increasing consumption of the family unit the homemaker was called to enter the workforce. In 1901 only 12% of Canadian women were economically active, however, in 1961 there were 29.5% economically active. (Wilson, 1982:71). This percentage has gotten exponentially bigger with time. In 1981, 54% of women with dependent children were economically active.(Purdy, 1988:203)

Another facet of the economic family unit is reproduction. The goal of the family unit is to produce children, which in turn expands the labour force, which creates a larger economic base. In Canadian families the emphasis is on quality not quantity and because of this there are gaps in the unskilled labour force. It is only through immigration that the capitalist economy has been able to keep up with the demand for cheap unskilled labour. (Purdy, 1988:229)

So the value of labour power is determined outside capitalism, in non-capitalist units that maintain and reproduce labour power…families. Corporations produce wealth in the form of goods and services and a can last well beyond an individuals life span. Capitalism is a powerful institution with holds on the economy, political state and family as well. The payment of wages allows the corporations to grow and continue to produce goods and exploit workers. (Bailey, 1974:127)

Families consume. In the modern era, most families are not units of production and consumption, mainly just consumption. They do not accumulate wealth, but simply take the wage and spend it on commodities that satisfy their needs. As Karl Marx put it, "if I exchange a commodity [labour power] for money, buy a commodity for it and satisfy my need, then the act is at an end." (Smith, 1982:29) Families have a limited life span, related to the cycle of growth and decline of individual family members. The family, unless it has property, will inevitably decline to be replaced or reborn in new formations down the generations. Wages earned allow families to survive and reproduce labour power, in the form of children. It is the children that will outlive the family and become the new labour power.

Working for wages allows those with economic activity to support the non-wage-earning members of the household, young and old, caring and dependent. In the spirit of support the family acts with altruism to aid reproduction and in turn this aids the reproduction of the capitalist enterprise. (Smith, 1982: 105) Marx put it like this :

The maintenance and reproduction of the working-class is, as must ever be,

a necessary condition to the reproduction of capital. But the capitalist may safely leave its fulfillment to the labourer’s instincts of self-preservation and of propagation. (Smith, 1982:106)

If Marx is correct in his ideology then the family will be forever in the service of the controllers of the economic and political states. Already the family is related to these two institutions in a number of ways.

The economy and household/family are seperated easily in the modern era. As already stated above, the family of today is primarily a consumption unit, while the economic state is filled with units of production and consumption as well, it produces wages and employment.

Other creations of economy are; capitalist welfare programs (company housing, welfare, pension programs), corporate taxes and employer contributions. (Dickinson/Russell, 1986:13)

The families main tie to the economic state is through labour power. Jack Wayne, in his essay "The function of Social Welfare in a Capitalist Economy" writes:

The reproduction of labour power is, however, private; it generally takes place outside the jurisdiction of capital, in families and households, and is separated from the circuit of capital. The use value of labour power is, of course, of interest to the capitalist, but it is determined by processes and undertakings that occur behind ‘closed doors’. The only point of intervention available to the capitalist is the wage. (Dickinson/Russell, 1986:79)

It is the wage that ties the economic state and family together, and allows the corporations or as Marx calls them capitalists to harness the labour power for their own needs. There is only one form of labour that is not totally governed by the capitalist market and that is domestic labour.

Domestic labour is characterized by a very low level of division of labour. The same person (usually the housewife) does a range of activities which, in the social spheres are carried out by specialists. Some examples of this are catering, education and health businesses. Secondly the products of domestic labour do not have to be sold on the market for the labour to be recognized at useful. This makes domestic labour a non-market production. Lastly the labour-power is not offered on a market and therefor makes up non-waged labour

(housework is non-paid). (Gouverneur, 1983:7)

Closely tied in with the economic state is the political state. The taxes from the economic market feed the collective consumption of the government and legislation and boards from the government provide occupational health and safety standards. The government also provides a stabling influence on the changing economy.

As far as the family is concerned the State provides redistribution of transfer payments and substitute wage programs. The government also strengthens the social welfare net and provides charity and philanthropy to those in need. Labour market regulation allows the regulation of child labour laws and gives more bargaining power to families and wage earners. One major form of this is the ability to strike and discuss minimum wage legislation. (Dickinson/Russell, 1986: 17) Saskatchewan, under the first socialist government in North America the CCF, was the first to give wage-earners the right to go on strike in 1944. It took Ontario twenty years to give its provincial residents the same right.

Households and families units of ,individual consumption, use this increase in labour power to provide more taxes, if not out of the good of their hearts then for government stability, to the political state. Thus, the family unit helps balance the power struggle the government has with the ever increasing economic sphere in a symbiotic relationship.

In "The State and the Maintenance of Patriarchy: A case study of family, labour and welfare legislation in Canada", Jane Ursel writes:

An important role of the state in class societies is to ensure a balanced allocation of labour and non-labour resources between the two spheres of production and reproduction so that the system is maintained both in the long and short term….the state is the guarantor of the rules of class and the rules of patriarchy and must insure that one system does not disrupt the other. (Dickinson/Russell, 1986:154)

The government uses its control to regulate and perpetuate the status quo and the family is a part of that. However, she does not believe that the patriarchal system is all bad. She continues to write:

Patriarchy is important because the state cannot (inspite of some ill-fated attempts) legislate procreation. It must instead set up a system via family, property and marriage laws which will serve to translage social and economic requirements into compelling household imperatives. The characteristic feature of familial patriarchy is its pronatalist dynamic. This results from the nature of the interaction between class and patriarchy which creates a dterminant relation between productivity and procreation at the household level.(Dickinson/Russel, 1986:157)

The family can change these regulations as well.

According to what has been discussed so far the definition of a family would be a non-capitalist unit in which the maintenance and reproduction of labour power takes place. (Bailey, 1974: 34) The Websters Dictionary describes a family as "a group of related things or people". (1990) However, the Canadian government defines the family as "now-married couple (with or without never-married sons and/or daughters of either or both spouses), a couple living common law (again with or without never-married sons and/or daughters of either or both partners) or a lone parent of any marital status, with at least one never-married son or daughter living in the same dwelling. (Statistics Canada, 1994:10)

Because the governments definition of family lets several groups that may still be considered families "slip through the cracks", this gives bargaining power to the family unit yet again to change government regulation. The Canadian government still does not recognize same sex couples, three generations living in the same household and individuals living apart from spouses and children. In 1991, 424,950 individuals aged 18-25 lived with non-relatives, in institutions, or by themselves. This represents over 20% of the age group. (Statistics Canada, 1994:19)

One aspect of the political sphere that the family continually challenges is gender equality. Starting with the latter part of the nineteenth century where waves of feminist protest

began throughout the western world. Women organized in groups starting at the family level and gaining support from other women’s groups. One of the first cases early feminists argued before the government was their collective right to vote. As early as 1916 in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba women were given the right to vote, this increased the families power with swaying the political sphere…it essentially doubled it. (Wilson. 1982:119)

The women’s movement appeared to lose its momentum after women gained the right to vote. But although women’s groups were no longer held together by a single goal. They continued to fight for women’s rights on several fronts. The YWCA and Canadian Business and Professional Women remained active in support of women’s issues. However, it wasn’t until the 1960’s that the movement regained its previous strength. (Wilson, 1982:125)

Women in families are not the only ones who have argued with the political sphere and won some political rights. Some Gay families or same-sex couples have won the right to adopt children and in some American states get married.

The Modern family depends heavily on the all the institutions of society for support. Where in the past the family was independent, now it needs the bonds created through long access to each sphere either political or economic. The labour power generated by the family unit gives it he bargaining power to compete head to head with the ever growing and dominant labour market and government bureaucracy.

But because the family is the smallest group and is based on individual consumption it can seem over-taxed when dealing with mighty corporations and large political states. However, in the global market-place the power lies in the hands of those that control the labour and the consumption. Currently, the family institution relies on the economy and political state, but as the bargaining for labour power continues the family is emerging as the dominant force. As new evolutions of families are being allowed to participate in our culture, more power will create more labour and more reproduction. It is a basic fact that history repeats itself, maybe the family will gain the dominant role it had before the industrial revolution and mercantilism.

Bibliography
 

Bailey, Reed J. The New State: Capital Family. Oxford. Oxford Press Ltd. 1974

Burggraf, Shirley P, Ph.D. The Feminine Economy and Economic Man: Reviving the Role of Family in the Post-Industrial Age. Addison-Wesley Publishing, New York. 1997

Dickinson, James and Russell, Bob. Family, Economy and State: The social Reproduction Process Under Capitalism. St. Martin’s Press, New York. 1986

Gouverneur, Jacques. Contemporary Capitalism and Marxist Economics. Martin Robertson, Oxford. 1983

Purdy, David. Social Power and the Labour Market: A Radical Approach to Labour Economics. Macmillan Education, England. 1988

Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. Power and the Division of Labour. Polity Press, Worcester. 1986

Smith, Ciaphus. Marx, Capitalism and the Family:Production and the reproduction of labour power. Masters Press, London. 1982

Statistics Canada. Canadian 1991 Census Results Statistics Canada, Toronto, 1994

Wilson, S.J. Women The Family and the Economy. McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd. Toronto. 1982

Following the many peasant uprisings in Europe and more specifically, the French Revolution, Karl Marx entered the world of European politics. Collectively, Marx, Ludwig Feuerbach, and Friedrich Engels left an impressive mark on this world. Marx and Engels are commonly recognized for their book, The Communist Manifesto, but Feuerbach is often forgotten. Although Feuerbach didn’t participate in communal experiments or political action, he was very active in the advocation of education for the working class. Feuerbach did disagree with Marx on a few points, and most notably, religion. Feuerbach was for atheist education where as Marx saw religion as a necessary component to the proletarian lifestyle. He viewed it as an assisting force in man’s self-consciousness.

Both Marx and Feuerbach were powerful spokesmen of the proletariat. They both knew that labor was an indispensable factor of production as Robert Owen did in the early 19th century. Throughout the class struggles of the late 20th century, Marx stood by the proletariat. He argued that the providers of a nation, the working class, should be treated fairly, democratically. This lead to the development of the Paris Commune in 1871. It was said by Marxian Communist’s to be the first attempt to establish a democratic workers’ state. Unfortunately, the commune ended with tens of thousands of men and women being executed or deported.

In the years that followed the failed Paris Commune, a rivalry grew between Marx and his followers and those of Mikhail Bakunin, a founder of modern anarchism. A wave of anti-communist thought swept over Europe. The Communist Party adopted the name of the Social-Democratic Party to escape the stigma that went along with communism.

When attention shifted from Marx to the development of a Communist state in Russia, leaders like Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky and later, Joseph Stalin lead the Soviet Union into the 20th century and through two world wars. And as the economic situation worsened in China, the U.S.S.R. came to their aid and soon, a Communist party was established with Mao Tse-tung at the helm. The process continued. Next, Cambodia, under the power of the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge, experimented with Communism until they were invaded by Vietnam in 1978 which resulted in a short war between Vietnam and China. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union went through more changes and by the 1980’s, a new leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, was in control. He introduced many new reforms which attempted to modernize and liberalize the system rather than destroy it. But by 1991 the Soviet Union was dissolved. Communism had failed.

Today, Communism is hardly anything but a footnote in history. It is no longer a “threat” to the United States as it once was during the Cold War. China is one of the last countries of any significance to be under the reign of Communism, and yet several reforms have modernized the country even further. The future of Communism is an uncertain one. And a comeback in the 21st century is unlikely, according to most.3 So what will come of Communism, no one is sure.

The spread of Communism was one that passed through time as well as boundaries. Through thousands of years and thousands of miles, Communism has survived. It was a journey traveled by many, but only a few have survived. The survivors: Plato, Socrates, Babeuf, Fourier, Owen, Blanc, Hegel, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and all of the others that line the pages of history books. They are those who were able to advance a system that was destined to fail. So were their efforts done in vain? Of course not. It was all done with the intent of finding the perfect system. Is it likely that we will find that system? Of course not.

The Estates-General convened at Versailles in May 1789. The nobility and clergy immediately challenged the procedure for voting proposed by the commoners, or third estate. After a six-week deadlock, the third estate proclaimed itself a National Assembly with sole power to legislate taxation. The assembly then announced its intentions to draft a constitution. Some representatives of the nobility and clergy joined forces with the assembly, which soon renamed itself the National Constituent Assembly.
 
When Louis, reacting to pressure from the queen and others, concentrated loyal regiments in Paris and Versailles, the people of Paris reacted with open insurrection, storming the Bastille prison on July 14. The Parisian middle class, or bourgeoisie, fearful that the lower classes would seize power, hastily established a local provisional government and organized a people’s militia, a pattern soon repeated throughout the nation. In October, as the Constituent Assembly proceeded to draft a constitution, a large body of Parisians marched on Versailles. Louis and his family then moved to Paris, where the court and the assembly became increasingly subject to pressures from the citizens of Paris.
 
The first draft of the constitution received the king’s approval in July 1790. By the terms of the document, the provinces were reorganized, hereditary titles were outlawed, trial by jury was ordained, and restrictions were placed on the power of the Roman Catholic church. Property qualifications for the vote, however, confined the electorate to the middle and upper classes. During the 15-month interval before the completion of the final draft, a trend toward radicalism developed among the disfranchised section of the population. This process accelerated in June 1791, when the royal family was apprehended while attempting to flee France.

The revolutionaries of Paris demanded that the king be deposed, but moderates in the Constituent Assembly reinstated the king, hoping to stem radicalism and prevent foreign intervention. The Constituent Assembly was dissolved, and the new Legislative Assembly, which met in October, was divided into three groups: a majority without well-defined political opinions; the supporters of a constitutional monarchy; and a Republican faction, composed mainly of Girondins, who advocated a federal republic, and Montagnards, consisting of Jacobins and Cordeliers, who favored establishment of a highly centralized republic. The Girondins soon emerged as the most powerful party.
 
In April 1792 the Legislative Assembly declared war on the Austrian part of the Holy Roman Empire. Austrian armies then invaded France. When Sardinia and Prussia joined the war in July, the assembly declared a national emergency. In August insurgents stormed the royal residence at the Tuileries. Louis and his family took refuge with the assembly, which promptly placed him in confinement. Simultaneously, Montagnards under the leadership of Georges Jacques Danton took control of the Paris government. They swiftly achieved control of the Legislative Assembly and called for the creation of a new constitutional convention.
 
In September a French army checked the Prussian advance at Valmy. Thereafter, French armies assumed the offensive, successfully capturing enemy territory. The newly elected National Convention abolished the monarchy and, in the first major test of strength, a majority approved the Montagnard proposal that Louis be brought to trial for treason. The convention found the monarch guilty and sent Louis to the guillotine in January 1793.
 
After the king’s execution, the Girondins began to lose influence. Military reverses occurred after war was declared against Great Britain, the United Netherlands, and Spain. In March the convention voted to conscript 300,000 men, and peasants in the Vendée region rebelled. Civil war spread to neighboring areas, and a military loss to the Austrians resulted in the defection of the leader of the French army.
 
In April the convention established the Committee of Public Safety as the executive office of the republic. After a Parisian mob forced the arrest of many Girondin delegates, the radical faction assumed control of the revolution. Leadership of the Committee of Public Safety passed to Jacobin leader Maximilien Robespierre, who instituted extreme policies to crush counterrevolutionary activity. From April 1793 to July 1794, the committee presided over an extremely violent period that became known as the Reign of Terror.
 
During this time, foreign powers resumed the offensive on all fronts. Under a new conscription decree, about 750,000 French soldiers were organized, equipped, and rushed to the fronts. The committee also struck violently at internal opposition. Thousands were sent to the guillotine. The tide of battle against the allied coalition turned in favor of France, and by the end of the year, the invaders had been driven back and the Committee of Public Safety had crushed insurrections of Royalists and Girondins. Robespierre then moved against Danton, who was beheaded along with his principal colleagues in April 1794. This move alienated large numbers of Robespierre’s supporters, many of whom now feared for their own lives. In July Robespierre and some of his followers were seized and beheaded by a group called the Thermidoreans. The French armies, undamaged by these events on the home front, inflicted a series of reversals on their enemies that resulted in the disintegration of the anti-French coalition, leaving Great Britain, Sardinia, and Austria as the sole remaining contenders.
 
In November 1795 a new constitution took effect, placing executive authority in a five-member Directory. Over the next few years the body was plagued by constant rivalries for power, successive coups d’etat, and ineffectual administration. In an attempt to divert attention from financial and political problems, the Directory also launched the Napoleonic Wars. A 1799 coup d’état toppled the Directory and General Napoleon Bonaparte (later Napoleon I) assumed dictatorial powers, ending the period of the French Revolution.
 
The French Revolution abolished absolute monarchy, feudal privileges, and serfdom; dissolved the large estates; and established equal liability to taxation. The revolution also began reforms in the fields of education, law, and the separation of church and state. The more intangible results of the revolution were embodied in its ideals, “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” which became the platform of liberal, democratic reforms in France and Europe in the 19th century.

Jean Domat and Jacques Benique Bossuet were adamant supporters of the idea of an absolutist government. Both men felt that in order for a country to survive one person must rule it and that person was in charge of all. Anyone who resided in that country was to follow the laws set forth by the king and not question his authority. “…It is the universal obligation of all subjects in all cases to obey the ruler’s orders without assuming the liberty of judging them.”  By remaining under one ruler, the country would have the best known defense against division among the people and would ensure the survival of the country.
 
Absolutist Monarchy, according to Bossuet, was “the most natural.most enduring…strongest form of government.”  Bossuet argues that the people should not change what God has created and furthermore, since the government, which has been in place for hundreds of years, needed no adjustments, there was no reason to change or alter the political structure.

Domat and Bossuet’s ideas and theories held strong, as France remained an Absolutist monarchy, for the time. The English Monarchy was not as successful for the will of the people triumphed over tradition and a new style of government was born.
 England’s Monarchy was being threatened by the development of new institutions (common law, Magna Carta, and the Parliament). The Monarchy’s reaction to the new institutions and the cruel treatment of its subjects resulted in Parliament’s creation of the Petition of Rights. The king, unwilling to consent, dissolved the Parliament (which would not meet again until 1640), gaining complete control over England. When Parliament did reconvene, a civil war ensued between those who wanted to reduce the royal authority and those who supported it. The end result was the beheading of Charles I allowing Oliver Cromwell and the Parliament to rule over England.

After Cromwell’s death, the Parliament realized that England needed a new leader and invited Charles II back from exile to rule over England. Charles II never reinstated the Absolutist Monarchy that his father had tried to keep, yet worked with Parliament to run the country. After his death, James II became the new King and when he tried to reinstate the absolutist Monarchy; Parliament removed him as King of England. From then on, Parliament would rule over England, deciding on its laws and creating the Bill of Rights, reducing the Monarchy to a symbol of what had been, giving them no power over the English subjects.

John Locke’s writing, Second Treatise on Government, is one of the western world’s foundational expressions of liberalism. Locke supports the idea of abolishing the Absolutist government and making way for a government that would consist of several men creating laws for the common good of the countries subjects. “Political Power is that power, which every man having in the state of nature, has given up into the hands of the society, and therein to the governors, whom the society hath set over itself, with this express tacit trust, that it shall be employed for their good.”

In Early Modern Europe, France and England started out with the same system of government: an Absolutist Monarchy. As tensions grew with the people and the monarchy in England, the Monarchy would give way to the Parliament, establishing, in theory, that all of England’s subjects were created equally and were to be treated equally. The French government would remain with their form of government, for awhile longer believing that they would only remain a united country if one person governed them.

France and England both strived to keep their countries united each taking a different approach. France was unable to unite the lower classes as its government catered to the aristocracy and shunned those of a lower class. England, however, was able to break away from the class distinctions with the creation of the Parliament and create laws that were somewhat more equal to all English subjects, regardless of their class distinctions.

In the end, England’s reformation from a Monarchy to a Parliament would pave the way for other countries to follow in their footsteps. While France tried hard to remain with its traditional ways of an Absolutist government, England’s success in a collective governing board would eventually lead the French to believe that they could be a successful government without having the Monarchy rule.

The French Revolution brought about great changes in the society and government of France. The revolution, which lasted from 1789 to 1799, also had far-reaching effects on the rest of Europe. “It introduced democratic ideals to France but did not make the nation a democracy. However, it ended supreme rule by French kings and strengthened the middle class.” (Durant, 12) After the revolution began, no European kings, nobles, or other members of the aristocracy could take their powers for granted or ignore the ideals of liberty and equality.

The revolution began with a government financial crisis but quickly became a movement of reform and violent change. In one of the early events, a crowd in Paris captured the Bastille, a royal fortress and hated symbol of oppression. A series of elected legislatures then took control of the government. King Louis XVI and his wife, Marie Antoinette, were executed. Thousands of others met the same fate in a period known as the Reign of Terror. The revolution ended when Napoleon Bonaparte, a French general, took over the government.

At the beginning of the revolution, events seemed minor and proceeded in a logical fashion. One of the reasons the revolution originated was the discontent among the lower and middle classes in France. By law, society was divided in to three groups called estates. The first estate was made of up clergy, nobles comprised the second and the rest of the citizens, the third estate.

The third estate resented certain advantages of the first two estates. The clergy and nobles did not have to pay most taxes. The third estate, especially the peasants, had to provide almost all the country’s tax revenue. Many members of the middle class were also worried by their social status. They were among the most important people in French society but were not recognized as such because they belonged to the third estate.

“Financial crisis developed because the nation had gone deeply into debt to finance the Seven Years War (1756-1763) and the Revolutionary War (1775-1783).” (Durant, 22) The Parliament of Paris insisted that King Louis XVI could borrow more money or raise taxes only by calling a meeting of the States-General. The States-General was made up of representatives of the three estates, and had last met in 1614. Unwillingly, the king called the meeting.

The States-General opened on May 5, 1789, at Versailles. The first two estates wanted each estate to take up matters and vote on them separately by estate. The third estate had has many representatives as the other two combined. It insisted that all the estates be merged into one national assembly and that each representative had one vote. The third estate also wanted the States-General to write a constitution.

The king and the first two estates refused the demands of the third estate. In June 1789, the representatives of the third estate declared themselves the National Assembly of France. Louis the XVI them allowed the three estates to join together as the National Assembly. But he began to gather troops around Paris to break up the Assembly.

Meanwhile, the masses of France also took action. On July 14, 1789, a huge crowd of Parisians rushed to the Bastille. They believed they would find arms and ammunition there for use in defending themselves against the king’s army. The people captured the Bastille and began to tear it down. Massive peasant uprisings were also occurring in the countryside.
 The king’s removal led to a new stage in the revolution. The first stage had been a liberal middle-class reform movement based on a constitutional monarchy. The second stage was organized around principles of democracy. The National Convention opened on September 21, 1792, and declared France a republic.

“Louis XVI was placed on trial for betraying the country. The National Convention found him guilty of treason , and a slim majority voted for the death-penalty. The king was beheaded on the guillotine on January 21, 1793. The revolution gradually grew more radical-that is more open to extreme and violent change. Radical leaders came into prominence. In the Convention, they were known as the mountain because they sat on the high benches at the rear of the hall during meetings. Leaders of the Mountain were Maximilien Robespierre, Georges Jacques Danton, and Jean Paul Marat. The Mountain dominated a powerful political club called the Jacobin Club.

“Growing disputes between the Mountain and the Gironde led to a struggle for power, and the Mountain won. In June 1793, the Convention arrested the leading Girondists. In turn, the Girondists’ supporters rebelled against the Convention. One of these supporters assassinated Marat in July 1793.” (Woloch, 526)

This was the most horrific period of the revolution. The Convention’s leaders included Robespierre, Lazare Carnot, and Bertrand Barere. The Convention declared a policy of terror against rebels, supporters of the king, and anyone else who publicly disagreed with official policy. “In time, hundreds of thousands of suspects filled the nation’s jails. Courts handed down about 18,000 death sentences in what was called the Reign of Terror. Paris became accustomed to the rattle of two-wheeled carts called tumbrels as they carried people to the guillotine.” (Woloch, 526)

In time, the radicals began to struggle for power among themselves. Robespierre succeeded in having Danton and other former leaders executed. Many people in France wanted to end the Reign of Terror, the Jacobin dictatorship, and the democratic revolution. Robespierre’s enemies in the Convention finally attacked him as a tyrant on July 29, 1794. He was executed the next day. The Reign of Terror ended with Robespierre’s death.

“The Convention, which had adopted a democratic constitution in 1793, replaced that document with a new one in 1795. The government formed under this new constitution was called the Directory. France was still a republic, but once again only citizens who paid a certain amount of taxes could vote.” (Woloch, 527)

The Directory began meeting in October 1795. In October 1799, a number of political leaders plotted to overthrow the Directory. They needed military support and turned to Napoleon Bonaparte, a French general who had become a hero during a military campaign in Italy in 1796 and 1797. Bonaparte seized control of the government on November 9, 1799, ending the revolution. Napoleon would restore order to the French people with such great achievements as his Code Napoleon.

I will first be speaking about the Legislative department and will cover both the House of Representatives and also the Senate. In the House the term for a representative is now set at two years and that individual can serve up to a maximum of eight years in that chamber. In the Senate the term for an individual is a four-year term and the maximum they can serve is eight years also for a combined total of sixteen years in both chambers. The terms and limits for both chambers should remain the same due to the fact that one member cannot gain too much influence in their position. Both terms are the same as the national level and these terms have always worked. Because these representatives are on the state level they should not be allowed to serve any more than eight years in each chamber with a total of Sixteen in both chambers. This maximum service of sixteen is ideal so no one member can gain too much influence in their position. They are either forced to go elsewhere or to run for the national level and service our state to further their career.

As for qualifications, a House member is to be at least 24 years of age, have been a registered voter for two years, and a resident of the state for one year. Having the age limit set at 24 is ideal because it is the lowest adult age for an individual to start a brilliant career. The qualification for being a registered voter for two years should be raised to three because someone of this stature should have just a bit more of experience in elections and voting. As for being a resident for, the standard should be raised from one year to three years because one should have more background in they state he is serving than just one year. The people should feel like he or she is more involved in the state for more than just one year; someone could just move here for a year from another state just to get this position and not really have the longtime residents’ best interests at heart. All the qualifications for the Senate should be the same as the House except for the age, which should stay at 30 because this position is a little more prestigious, and should have a higher age limit.

Moving on to whether the Legislature should be kept as bicameral or changed to a unicameral legislature. The Legislature should be kept bicameral because having two houses is the most efficient way for the Legislature to work. By having two houses, we spread the power and duties and if a certain party rules one chamber, they might be able to do as they please with laws and bills. This duel-chambered policy is ideal for a system of checks and balances within the Legislative department.

The House and the Senate meet in early January until mid May each year for their session. While they are in session, each member receives ten dollars a day on top of the annual salary of ,080.20. The session length is satisfactory enough do discuss what needs to be discussed for the state at that time. As for the salary of the members of congress, many of the representatives have other jobs besides being a representative for their area. After all, they do not even meet for a full half-year. Therefore, their salaries should remain the same.

The governor and five SEO’s head up the Executive department. The governor is required to be 30 years of age, been a citizen for fifteen years, and have been a resident of the state for a total of ten years that do not have to be consecutive. The qualifications of the governor should be kept where they are because they only seem logical to have a governor’s age at 30 because that is about mid life and because this is a prestigious position the residency and the citizenship should be greatly increased from that of a senator. The governor’s duties are commander in chief of the National Guard just as the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces for the United States. His duties are just as the President’s are for the country, he appoints his own staff, department heads, and can appoint certain judges. However; the governor cannot introduce a bill, this should be changed so that if the governor does have an idea for a bill, he can propose it to one of the chambers and they can take it from there, regardless, the bill still has to go through the same channels of both houses in becoming a bill.

In addition to the governor, he has five other elected officials that head the state with him, which are: the Lt. Governor, State Auditor, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the State Treasurer. All five of these offices serve a four-year term and have no term limits on what they can serve. Limits should be placed on how many terms each office should serve, and that limit should be three terms for a total of 12 years in that elected office. If one individual is in an office too long, they could take advantage of their office and use it unlawfully. We should place the same restrictions that are on our U.S. President and Vice President and apply them to our state officials. Certain individuals could gain too much influence and control a certain area of the state.

The Lt. Governor presides over the Senate which is rightfully so because the VP of the U.S. also is the presiding officer of the Senate on the national level. The Lt. Governor also can create additional tasks for himself, which is a good idea because he should find more duties to get more involved in the government.

The State Auditor is the only SEO that is elected at a different time than all the others and he audits all state agencies and can audit local government units upon request. The State Auditor’s duties are few but important and they should remain the same because he has a specific task that takes time and effort.

The Secretary of State coordinates elections, keeps records, and oversees the maintenance of libraries. These roles for the Secretary should also remain the same. He also has specific duties towards the state that takes careful planning and hard work and this position should not require any more activity.

The Attorney General must donate his or her full time to the office and is not allowed to involve them in a private practice and is liked to have a law degree. Being the most important office in the government the Attorney General is required to issue legal opinions to all statewide executive officials. Though the opinions of the Attorney General do not have the force of law, his opinion is highly regarded just because of the position that he is in. The attorney General defends state law when challenged on the federal constitutional grounds. This office also protects monopolies from forming and enforces the Consumer Protection Act. The Attorney General’s office should not be taken lightly because they have a great deal of power and responsibility. This position should stay a full time position due to the duties that have to be preformed. However, the requirements for the office should change. Because this office is so highly decorated the person running should at least be 28 years of age, have been a citizen for ten years, and a resident of the state for at least five years. He or she should also be required to have a law degree due to the fact that he is required to serve the state in legal matters. This position should not be taken lightly, the Attorney General is a powerful man that can powerful influences on the people and on other offices.

The State Treasurer handles the budget for Missouri and being that is his function, that should be his only function. Dealing with the state budget takes careful planning in how the money should and will be spent. They must also keep records of all the money that has been spent and how. This is a great responsibility and this should be the only one.

The Missouri Judicial branch is headed by the Supreme Court then the Court of Appeals. Next are the Circuit Courts with 45 circuits in each county and then below that are the circuit, juvenile, associate, probate, and municipal divisions of courts. Trial and circuit courts use partisan selections, which allows the people to vote on a judge who is geographically close. The Appellate uses the Missouri plan that eliminates partisan politics, promotes independence, and is more competitive. In criminal cases charges can be filed either by the prosecutor or by a grand jury. Both of these plans should be kept the same because we use the prosecutor indictment mainly, but it is good to have a second form. The terms and qualifications for municipal judges are to be between 21 and seventy, and must not be a term less than two years. For associate judges, they are elected for four-year terms and must be at least 25 years of age. Circuit judges are popularly elected and serve six-year terms and must be at least 30 years of age. Appellate and Supreme Court judges are selected for 12-year terms. These qualifications and they can get re-elected into their spot if that time comes. All the judges should be elected except for that of the Missouri Supreme Court. Because this is such a prestigious position to have they should be appointed for life just as on the national level.
The Missouri government is financed through general revenue, through federal funds, and through some other small funds such as the taxing on cigarette’s, gambling, liquor, and the lottery. These taxes and sources of revenue income should be kept as they are. We may even reduce the tax on some of the small taxes since the income for the state this past year exceeded the Hancock Amendment.

In the United Kingdom the electoral system is free and fair. There is a secret ballot and universal suffrage of 18 plus. There is arguably a choice of parties and the outcome is always respected, there are not many referendums but the ones that they have are on constitutional matters, e.g. 1997 Referendum on whether Scotland should have its own parliament. In the UK there is a high degree of civil liberties, we have a relatively free society, we have free speech, assembly, property, conscience/religion, equal opportunities and social freedom like abortion. The UK is a signatory to the European convention of Human Rights; this is an organisation that protects the civil liberties of all its members’ citizens. Recently the Blair government has tried to incorporate this into UK law so that it can be upheld in British courts. There have been a lot of laws, which encourage equal opportunities. E.g. In 1965,1968 and 1976 race relation laws were introduced. In 1975 the sex discrimination act was introduced. In 1970 the equal pay act was introduced, in theory this meant that men and women should earn the same amount for the same job. The judiciary is kept separate of the government; this is to avoid decisions being made to please the government. There is trial by jury and the hypothesis that someone is innocent until proven guilty, there is usually legal representation. To avoid any unfair treatment, the police can only detain you for 24 hours without charging you. The judges are chosen and promoted on merit and experience. The government is relatively open; the opposition has the right to scrutinise the government. The leader of the opposition is paid a state salary and given five questions a Prime Minister’s question time. The media also expose government secrets. E.g. 1993 arms to Iraq and 1994 cash for questions. The government is accountable to the public because the public has elected them. If the government loses a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, and then a general election is held, this is because the House of Commons are a representation of the public. This has happened in 1979. All the press and media are free and can broadcast anything, except the BBC that is state controlled. Despite this, the BBC and all other terrestrial channels offer unbiased coverage especially at general elections where each major political party is given the same amount of time for party political broadcasts. The media and press are on the whole allowed to cover whatever story they want to. E.g. 1998 the coverage of Ron Davies and his alleged homosexual and drug taking activity. The UK has an uncodified constitution, this means the constitution is not written in one single source. This allows the constitution to change according to two things, Acts of Parliament. As these are passed, it is incorporated into the constitution. The other way the constitution is fabricated is by convention (tradition). E.g. the House of Lords doesn’t delay any bills that are in the manifesto of the government.

However there is no fixed date for elections, the government sets the date of the next general election, but it has to be within five years of the last one. The choice of parties is now becoming close; they all have similar policies. The number of votes cast is not equal to seats in the House of Commons. E.g. 1997 general elections Labour received 43% of the votes, which was equal to 62% of the seats in the House of Commons. The Conservatives received 31% of the votes and 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. The Liberal Democrats received 17% of the votes but only 6% of the seats in the House of Commons. There is now demand for electoral reform from a first-past-the-post system to proportional representation; this is when votes are proportional to seats. In the UK, referendums are very rare, they are used to help decide on controversial decisions or when the government don’t want to make a decision because the might lose public support. There has only been one all UK referendum, in 1975 which was to decide whether they wanted to remain members of the European Union. Not all the civil liberties have been upheld. In 1984 the Conservative Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher banned Trade Unions at the Government Central Head Quarters. This is neglecting the right of assembly. Although The UK has introduced equal opportunities laws, there is still evidence that there is discrimination. There is evidence that there is a higher rate of unemployment between the ethnic minorities. Ethnic minorities also receive poorer standards of education and housing. There has been and still is racism in the police force. E.g. in 1992, a gang beat up Steven Lawrence, but the police investigated into his background and searched his house for drugs instead of trying to find the people who assaulted him. Women are more likely to be employed as temps or part time. If they do obtain a full time job, they usually earn only 80% of male earnings for the same job. Recently there have been many complaints that the judiciary in the UK is unrepresentative of society. Most judges are middle class, white males who are 60 years old or more. This suggests that they are out of touch with society and may even be biased towards people like him. There was a study in 1989, which proved that women and people from the ethnic minorities receive longer sentences for committing the same crime as a white male. The fact that the UK constitution is not written in one place makes it very hard to define certain things. E.g. it is unclear exactly what the powers of the Prime Minister are.

In conclusion, from the statements above I think the UK is about 80-85% towards being a total liberal democracy. It offers all of the features of a liberal democracy, but it doesn’t offer these to their full extent. To make the UK a little bit closer to becoming a totally liberal democracy, there have been cries that it needs to reform the electoral system from a first-past-the-post system, to one of proportional representation. However this will make it nearly impossible to elect one party as the government, coalitions will have to be made and then each party will block each other’s ideas. The UK also needs to have a set date for the general elections, like the USA. It would also make the UK more of a liberal democracy if the constitution is written and clear to define the powers of the relevant people or institutions. To stop the unrepresentative judiciary, I think positive discrimination should be introduced to appoint more women and judges from ethnic minorities. The main political parties have three different views on liberal democracy. The Liberal Democrats are all for having a liberal democracy. They want electoral reform, a federal Britain where the government will have limited power; they also want positive discrimination in the judiciary. Labour is in the middle between having a liberal democracy or not. They know that some reform is needed, they are currently contemplating how to reform the electoral system, and they are also for devolution of power, limiting the power of the government. The Conservative Party is against a liberal democracy, they are totally happy with the current state of affairs in the UK.