(A)
Define rule of law.
(B)
Explain two examples of the role that the constitution plays in
the Mexican political system to guarantee a rule of law.
(C)
Explain two features of the political system in
the UK that serve to guarantee rule of law without a constitution.
See pp. 43, 57-60, and 130-133 in What You Need to
Know
2 comments:
From Colorado comes this response:
Rule of Law is when written law is what rules a country. The laws written in a constitution or other written document are used to decide right and wrong instead of a monarch.
In the Mexican political system, the rule of law from the
Constitution requires the president to be limited to one 6 year term and for the senate to have 6 year terms as well. This way, no one leader can dictate the country.
In Great Britain, the political system requires a prime minister and a monarchy. This guarantees rule of law without a constitution because neither one can assume complete power, so they must have a common law to rule the country with.
=========================
This is a 6-point question (2 points for each of the 3 parts).
The first part of this response is basically accurate about the importance of written law, however the description is vague. And setting up a monarch as the alternative to rule of law is overly simplistic.
This part of the response earns 1 of 2 possible points.
The examples from Mexico are really two parts of one example. And if it's true that this prevents "one leader" from dictatorship, more explanation is necessary. The question asks for more than just identification, it asks for explanations.
This part of the response earns no points.
For part C, my rubric says that acceptable examples include a long history of successful government, widely shared political values, high rates of political participation, and fair and freely contested elections.
This response refers to none of those but to a supposed sharing of political power between a prime minister and a monarch. Even if there were an explanation, that's a pretty dramatic misunderstanding of the British system and the role of the monarch.
This part of the response earns no points.
Overall, this response earns 1 of 6 possible points.
And again a response from Colorado:
"A. Rule of law is the system of society in which people are held to standards that are established by a set of laws. Breaking these laws can lead to many forms of punishment in order to hold people accountable for their actions.
"B. The Mexican constitution guarantees rule of law by establishing a court system in which violators can be tried, but also provides the set of laws to which society is held responsible for upholding.
"C. The establishment of national court system and the long-established political and judicial tradition guarantee the use of rule of law within the UK even without a constitution."
==========================
Part A is a good definition. It would be better if it made clear that actions of government were held to standards of a set of laws as well as people.
That earns 2 points.
Part B earns 1 of 2 possible points by identifying a court system to help enforce the law. The constitution does not provide a set a laws, the legislature does that. The constitution does provide a framework within which those laws can be legitimately made.
Part C earns 2 of 2 possible points. The British court system and the strength of the judicial tradition are both reasons why rule of law prevails there without a constitution.
This response earns 5 of 6 possbile points. Well done.
Post a Comment