Category: Constitution

Texas is one of the most populated states to date. As is written today, the Texas Constitution allows for a plural executive within the state of Texas. A plural executive is, “an executive branch in which power is fragmented between several elected officials because the election of statewide officeholders is independent of the election of the governor” (Champagne, pg. 271). Not just one person holds all the power to make executive rulings. These powers are distributed among 7 members of the plural executive. One of those members, the secretary of state, is appointed by the governor. All others are elected.

While a plural executive means that all powers are distributed among several members, a single executive has to mean just one, singular person holds all the power. An example would be a dictator or simply the President of the United States. Even with the President having a single executive, decisions have to be passed by the majority at lower levels. He/She does have the final say, though. That in and of itself has enough power to make or break a country depending on his/her agenda. Personally, I see and understand why Texas has opted to go with this system of government. That’s to keep one person from ruling and avoiding abuse of power.

There are those that are for and those that are against a plural executive. Those for a plural executive argue that “it limits the power of executive officials and makes them more accountable to the public” (Champagne, pg. 273). Those against it argue that “the plural executive is inefficient and does not promote good government (Champagne, pg. 273). Those are the two major arguments for and against a plural executive. I’d personally be for it.

With Texas being a predominantly Republican state, it’s no surprise that the plural executive leans more Republican than Democratic. Table 8.1, (Champagne, p.273) shows that very thing; Republicans were always the winning candidates in 2018, especially through and because of monetary contributions.

I do believe that a plural executive can lead to a more efficient and accountable, emphasis on accountable, government. Yes, there are drawbacks, but in the grand scheme of things, I think it could be beneficial. The blame or accolades aren’t just placed on a singular person, but rather a group of people. Even if Texas has a single executive, there will always be a group of people that makes things come to fruition. Similarly, if the President of the United States passed a bill, it has to go through several groups of people in order for it to take effect. I think a plural executive solely puts the onus on those particular members. It could also be efficient as long as the members of the plural executive are willing to work together. Oftentimes, if it doesn’t benefit the member, then they will likely not agree with it. However, if it benefits one party or all parties involved, it’s likely to go into effect and make a difference. Ultimately, decisions are made on behalf of the people of Texas. I also think it’s a more expedient process to have different members working on different laws at one time.

On the other hand, it can cause major complications because of the lack of togetherness and cohesion. Each department would be at each other’s necks trying to fight for what they want instead of trying to work together for a common cause.

Ultimately, I’m optimistic that, with the right people in office, they could all work together for the good of the people. Nothing is perfect and there will be arguments and fights, but overall, there’s plenty of good that can come from a plural executive.

Being that Texas has a plural executive, the powers of the governor are limited. In comparison to other states, the Texas governor’s powers are minute. The only person the governor has control over is the secretary of state, which is the only one he appoints. All others govern themselves. Although the governor is a part of the plural executive, he still has limited to no control over the other groups. Most other states are ruled by a single executive government. That also means the governor can appoint whomever he/she wants to office, much like the President. My question would be, “If Texas is a plural executive where there is shared power, why even have a governor at all?”

Works Cited

1. Champagne, A., Harpham, E.J., & Casellas, J.P. Governing Texas, 2019.

Throughout history, the concept of democracy has gone through radical transformations and changes. Democracy originated in Ancient Greece, Athenian democracy is generally considered the first reference of classical democracy. The emergence of democracy is usually related to Cleisthenes’ constitution of Athens, which came into existence in 508/7 BC. A specified description of it was given by historians as Herodotus (484?–425 BC), Thucydides (460–395 BC), Plato (428–348 BC), Aristotle (384–322 BC), and Plutarch (45–125). Its main feature was the great participation by citizens in political life and their active work in the three branches of power.

In the People’s Assembly, regular meetings were held to discuss the most important questions. Large juries responsible primarily for important political missions like evaluating the legality of actions,-particularly of the Assembly- would meet almost every day. In addition, 700 magistrates were given important powers. Almost all Athenian officials were selected for one-year terms. Moreover, they were selected from the citizenry by drawing lots. Elections were considered an attribute of oligarchy and were avoided as much as possible.[Hansen 1991].

The reasons behind introducing political elements of participation by the people were to provide social consensus and stabilize the state on one hand. Since Athens had witnessed the rule of both aristocracy and oligarchy, tyrannies both good and bad, and political confusion with disloyalty, foreign interventions. In a continuous state of war with neighbors and constant struggle for power, neither regime provided political or economic stability. Athenian leaders successively introduced elements of political participation by the people to enhance people’s consent and in an attempt to stabilize the state.

On the other hand, Athens had great lawmakers and philosophers. The laws of Solon of 594 BC became the basis of the Athenian state for centuries and together with Cleisthenes’ constitution gave the inspiration for the first Roman law of the Twelve Tables of 450 BC which became the basis of the constitution of the Roman Republic. [Twelve Tables 2012]. The Athenian intellectuals influenced political thought which made democracy also became a political ideology [Hansen 1991, pp. 73–74].

The Athenian philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, have written about politics. Aristotle even wrote about the first-ever mathematical model of social decision making with which he illustrated the rationale of democracy and distinguished it from aristocracy and oligarchy.

As mentioned Cleisthenes’ democratic constitution is considered the first step to Athens’ democracy by which democracy emerged in Athens in 508/7 BC. However, the path to democracy was not straight nor easy: The history shows gradual steps introducing democratic elements one by one.

About 100 years ago, in the 7th century BC, Athens was ruled by magistrates formed by eupatridai (‘well born’), that is, the top clans. The most important questions were discussed in the Areopagus, an aristocratic council of elders with great political, juridical, supervisory, and religious powers. All the Areopagites were archons (‘rulers’, holders of the highest magistrates; the word has the same meaning as hierarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, anarchy, etc) [Aristotle 330 BC, Athenian Constitution, 3.1].

As crimes increased due to the big gap between the rich and the poor resulting from unequal economic development, and in order to keep social order, Draco (ca. 650– 600 BC) was selected to compile Athens’ first written code of law in 621 BC.

Moreover, Aristotle mentions that Draco introduced the Citizen’s Assembly, the Council of Four Hundred—distinct from the Areopagus —which became the aristocratic prototype of Cleisthenes’ democratic Council of Five Hundred.

The importance of Draco’s laws should not be underestimated. Previously, the oral laws had been known exclusively to eupatridai who had arbitrarily explained and applied them. Now all the laws were written to become popular with all. More importantly, the aristocrats lost their legislative and juridical monopoly because the laws became obligatory for all. Thus, the rule of law was established which is the most important character of democracy.

However, enslavement for debt increased social tensions, and reducing crimes was unsuccessful. Consequently, in 594 BC Archon Solon (ca. 638–558 BC) was empowered to find a better social compromise.

The laws of Solon came into existence and remained in force until the abolishment of democracy in 322 BC by the Macedonians [Hansen 1991, pp. 30–31]. Solon terminated enslavement for debt and gave freedom to those enslaved. He continued with different political, economic, and moral reforms. The idea of the reforms was to provide different incentives for enterprising foreigners including attaining Athenian citizenship. The election became dependent on wealth instead of birth. While the highest magistrates could only be held by members of the topmost of four property classes: pentacosiomedimni—men worth 500 measures of agricultural produce; hippies—knights, worth 300–500 measures; zeugitae— owners of a yoke of oxen, worth 200–300 measures; and thetes—day laborers and in the case of archons, of the top two. Under these rules, the offices were distributed by lot and, compared to Draco’s regulations, on a larger scale, allowing a greater chance to lower ranks for participation in ruling state’s issues.

The major constitutional innovation was the way members were appointed to the Council of Four Hundred; this entirely changed its nature. Instead of selection by lot from the whole of the citizenry as in Draco’s regulation, Solon prescribed drawing a hundred members from each of the four tribes, allowing for proportional representation. In addition, under the new criteria of eligibility, the Council became rather oligarchic, although still under the aristocratic watch of the Areopagus.

Another contribution to Salon was introducing measures to increase political participation, which was seen as a moral obligation. As Aristotle illustrated, Solon introduced a special law to deal with those who didn’t participate illustrating that whoever when civil strife prevailed did not join was not to be a member of the state. [Aristotle 330 BC, Athenian Constitution, 8.5]

However, Many of the rich turned against Solon because of the cancelation of debts, and the poor were also discontent because they had wished for a complete redistribution of all property. Consequently, Solon’s social compromise failed because neither side was completely satisfied and, in spite of seen democratization, the social tensions were raised.

The following years witnessed the whole society fragmented into three fractions with different political ideologies. The first one was the party of the Men of the Coast, and they were thought mainly to aim at the middle form of the constitution. Another was the party of the Men of the Plain, who wanted the oligarchy; the third was the party of the Hillmen, which had appointed Peisistratos as its head, as he was considered to be an extreme advocate of the people. [Aristotle 330 BC, Athenian Constitution, 13.4–5]

Peisistratos ended the division in a coup, thus establishing an unconstitutionally gained tyranny in 561 BC. Peisistratos, the Tyrant of Athens, ruled until his death in 527 BC. Contrary to the known understanding, a tyrant- in the classical sense- was not necessarily an oppressive ruler, but literally meaning ‘one who takes power by force’. In that sense, Peisistratos ruled the Athenians without affecting the order of offices or changing the laws. He governed the city according to its established constitution and organized all things fairly and well’ [Herodotus 450–420 BC, Book 1, 59.6]. He was an advocate for the lower class, he faced the aristocracy, decreased their privileges, confiscated their lands, and redistributed them to the poor. Moreover, He also established a traveling court to serve local justice throughout the city-state.

He was seen as moderate more than tyrannical. He made many reforms to support the poor including organizing the public sector, he made special attention to the cultural life of Athens. Peisistratos was seen by [Aristotle 330 BC, Athenian Constitution,13.4] as ‘an extreme advocate of the people’ (in Kenyon’s translation ‘extreme democrat’). His tyranny was better, and more friendly than the previous legitimate governance.

After his death, his two sons-Hippias and Hipparchus, governed with the same style as their father. In 514 BC, two young aristocrats, Harmodius and his lover Aristogeiton, having been sexually insulted by Hipparchus, attempted a coup to overthrow the tyranny by killing both brothers. However, their attempt failed, only succeeded at killing Harmodius. After the unsuccessful coup, Hippias started greater repressions until he was taken into exile in 510 BC.

In 508/7 BC a democratic constitution was designed upon Cleisthenes’ initiative (Boedeker and Raaflaub 1998, Finley 1973). Its greatest innovation was taking power from the aristocrats and giving it to the common which marginalize the power of untrusted nobles. More importantly, Cleisthenes protected democracy from a new tyranny through a mechanism called ostracism [Aristotle 330 BC, Athenian Constitution, 22.1]

The final result is that after the rule of aristocracy and oligarchy, good and bad tyrants, and political confusion, all within about 100 years, Athens has finally come to democracy.

As for the origin of the term ‘democracy’, it existed in the 6th century BC[Hansen 1986, Hansen 1991, pp. 69–71]. However, the political system introduced by Cleisthenes was called isonomia (equality of political rights) and not democratic. The more aggressive word demokratia (rule of common people, or even of the low class) was first applied to Athens late in the 5th century by Herodotus: ‘Cleisthenes . . . who gave the Athenians. their democracy’[Herodotus 450–420 BC, Book 6, 131.1]. The most important goal of this constitution was to prevent political instability and to protect himself and the state from future tyranny. He attempted to increase the political participation of the people by dividing the state into ten tribes instead of four so that more may have the chance to be part of the government. Under Cleisthenes’ constitution, the Ekklesia (People’s Assembly) became the legislative body of Athens. It was the general meeting of all citizens —that is, males of Athenian origin over the age of 20[Anderson 1974, Hansen 1991, Hyland 1995]. Cleisthenes found a new organ of state, the Boule or Council of Five

Hundred. Its role was to set the agenda for the Assembly and to appoint collective magistrates from its members. The Council itself was administered by the Executive Committee of Fifty. The people’s courts — with large juries of 201, 501, and sometimes up to 5001 jurors- were charged primarily with political functions like judging the legality of actions. Thus, laying down the division of power into three branches.

However, the membership of these bodies was by selection and not election. One of the reasons for selection by lot instead of the election was the belief that elections only provide suitable results if voters share some common values, like civil virtue in the case of the aristocracy. Only some positions were by-elections like the election of military generals.

Ostracism is one of the best means introduced by this constitution aimed at preventing a new tyranny or a fraction of the state. It aimed to punish unpopular politicians, and disturbers of the peace, for ten years, however without loss of status or property.

Anuj Garg v. hotel association of India and others is one of the most celebrated cases in Indian history. This case was the first one to adopt ‘the strict scrutiny test’ in the case of sex discrimination claims. As per the pre-constitutional Punjab excise act, under section 30, any person below the age of 25 and ‘any’ woman is prohibited to be employed in the premises where liquor or any intoxicating substance is served. This judgment was passed by Delhi high court as constitutional in 2006. Various hotel associations challenged this judgment and regarded it to be in violation of the fundamental rights of equality and freedom provided by articles 14, 15, and 19(1)(g) (Anuj Garg & Ors vs Hotel Association Of India & Ors, 2007). the law may not provide any individual to trade in liquor as a fundamental right, but it can also not take away the right to seek employment in places that have proper licenses for the liquor trade.

Article 14 gives equality before the law. It disallows states to promote inequality in any terms, on any basis within the territories of India. However, the judgment passes by the high court treats women unequally in the first sentence itself. Article 15 gives protection against discrimination based on religion, caste, sex, or place of birth. Anuj Garg v. hotel association was an evident example of discrimination as per sex. Article 19(1)(g) gives freedom to work and select any occupation (Constitution of India,1950). The court cannot hold back employment opportunities from any citizen, provided the citizen is ready to work for it wholeheartedly. Since the act was pre-constitutional, it can be argued that the law was made to protect women from harassment and other sexual pretenses. However, in other words, it is just the objectification and stereotyping of women as sexual objects that by merely their presence in such premises, they are invoking the desire of being harassed. Even if it was acceptable in that era that women are homemakers and are not needed to work or go out, times have changed now. The same rules do not apply. Prohibition of women to work is just like caging them sugarcoated with the false pretense of their safety. However, it goes unnoticed that sometimes, women are also not safe in their house if the man is drunk!

Coming back to the case, the Supreme Court applied the famous ‘strict scrutiny’ on the state. Any judgment passed by the state which violates fundamental rights will be the state’s burden of proof and will be scrutinized and the judgment passed till then will remain to be unconstitutional. Strict scrutiny requires that the law should have a compelling purpose for it to be constitutional. The state, in this case, needs to provide valid reasonings and arguments as to why they are prohibiting the employment of women and why their judgment should stand unharmed. The first reason which state produced was of ‘Parens Patriae’ or parent of the country (Anuj Garg & Ors vs Hotel Association Of India & Ors, 2007). The state argued that they are acting like a parent and are just protecting their people, especially women. One can use this power in cases of necessity. People who wish to get employed are mature enough to discern properly. They know what they are getting into, what they can expect, and how they must conduct themselves during the crisis, if any. It is their choice and the state shall have no say in it. The supreme court rejected this reasoning and asked for more proof.

Anuj Garg’s case saw many irrational arguments which were not supported by facts. The Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, the case cited in Anuj Garg does not fall in accordance with the strict scrutiny as stated by the supreme court in Anuj Garg. In Githa Hariharan, the father is given the legal guardianship of the minor and after him, the mother is the guardian. This case is also a nice example where the court fails to notice the sex discrimination which takes place even after the justifications that after means in the absence of the father and not the death. In Githa Hariharan, the judgment is presumed to be constitutional until proven otherwise (Ms. Githa Hariharan & Anr vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr, 1999). If the court had known what exactly it wanted to do, it would not use the Hariharan case to promote its point. There was a clear contradiction between what the court said and how it was backed up. In another case of Air India v Nargesh Meerza, the court agreed to regulations 46 and 47 of Air India employee services regulation. According to which retirement age of female stewards is 35 and there are restrictions on her marriage and pregnancy. The court agreed that it was discriminating however, the idea of marriage was constitutional. (Air India Etc. Etc vs Nergesh Meerza & Ors. , 1981). It was only women’s duty for family planning and was not applicable to the male stewards. Keeping in mind the cases used to describe Anuj Garg, I feel whether the court fully applied strict scrutiny or not. Strict scrutiny required the law to be narrowly tailored and is supposed to be least restrictive to attain the objective. I do not think the state was able to fully do so. It may happen that the court meant ‘strict scrutiny’ as strict inspection and surveillance only and did not refer to it as ‘strict scrutiny’ as referred to in the doctrine.

The case also raised how section 30 of the act is just stereotypical in terms of sexual roles. Both genders are treated unequally. Whether it was Air India v Nargesh Meerza, Githa Hariharan v Reserve Bank of India, or Anuj Garg v hotel associations, gender injustice prevailed during the whole course. It is acceptable that the concept of equality among genders was not considered and required during the pre-constitutional times, however, times have changed now.

The court brought in the dimension of the ‘anti-stereotyping principle’ which was borrowed from Americans just like the strict scrutiny test (Bhatia, 2014). To support this argument, the court referred to two cases, Frontiero v. Richardson and US v. Virginia.

In the case of Frontiero, court demanded the evidence from women about the dependency of their spouse to avail benefits, but no such evidence was asked from males. The court here stereotyped the women as being the homemakers and men to be the bread earners. The court had to strike down the law to protect the laws provided by the American constitution (Frontiero v. Richardson, 1973).

Other cases prohibited the admission of females to the Virginia Military Institute in terms of differences in the training of men and women to produce citizen soldiers. They argued that both sexes needed different environments to practice. The court struck down this as unconstitutional and said that there are no fixed notions of roles and abilities where men and women are concerned (United States v. Virginia, 1996).

According to me, this case not only violates Articles 14,15, and 19 but also violates Article 21. By objectifying, it violates the right to reputation, the right to dignity, and the right to personal liberty. The state shall not take any decision which violated the golden triangle of the constitution (Constitution of India,1950). Anuj Garg’s case also showed some of the stereotypical ideas of the masses as to how a woman should not be employed at the locations where liquor is served. They are being projected as sex symbol and the one who invokes discrimination and unjust behavior by just being in the same room with a man. This act simply disdains a woman’s dignity.

In the name of protection, legislation has ended up victimizing the subject. In a progressive democratic society, such legislation may hinder the growth of the nation. The state cannot ban the employment of anyone in any place presuming the worst of the scenarios. If women’s safety is the major issue over here, the state shall make laws that protect them, not cage them and stop them from pursuing what they wish. In the following case, determined hours could have worked. Hotels could have created some protection policies which can provide a safe work environment. Pickup and drop facilities could have been more reasonable instead of a complete ban.

There are ways in which the state can protect its people. Depriving them of something just to protect them and the violation of other laws will never be a solution. The supreme court later gave the judgment which dismissed the appeal and wanted states to promote equality. However, absolute equality can be questioned and regulated as per changing times through the help of properly laid guidelines. Finally, an illegitimate and arbitrary judgment was thus proved to be unconstitutional.

This essay will analyze Judith Butler’s theory of ‘Performative Acts and Gender Constitution’ in Caryl Churchill’s play, ​Cloud 9. The essay will analyze Churchill’s use of gender swapping her character of Betty, the forced female role placed upon her, and her sexual liberation in Act Two as a way to criticize gender behavior and norms.

Judith Butler in ‘Performative Acts and Gender Constitution’ says that gender is not biological, but is socially and culturally constructed, and thus gender-based codes and identities can be changed. Butler states that gender is a ‘stylized repetition of acts’ that regulates heterosexual identity which she calls a ‘performative accomplishment’ (519). Individuals who do not perform these gender-assigned behaviors or movements will be punished by society through exclusion. When analyzed, these acts do not appear to be coherent but sometimes random. For Butler, seeing gender as a performance gives more of an opportunity to critique gender and to find those incoherent acts as a way to possibly subvert gender (Butler, 1988).

In ​Cloud Nine, ​the character of Betty in Act One is played by a man. Churchill uses this technique of a man playing the character of Betty to show how to separate the female gender from the female body and thus is able to critique socially constructed gender roles. Betty is introduced by Clive as ‘My wife is all I dreamt a wife should be, And everything she is she owes to me’ (Churchill, 3-4) and Betty’s first opening lines are ‘I live for Clive. The whole aim of my life is to be what he looks for in a wife. I am a man’s creation as you see, and what men want is what I want to be. And what men want is what I want to be’ (Churchill, 4).

Immediately, Betty is introduced as an inferior and submissive character to that her husband, Clive, the dominant patriarchal figure of the house. Betty is the perfect embodiment of the Victorian woman, whose main duty is to be a wife, dutiful and submissive. Her complete reliance and devotion to her husband are clearly seen in her use of language when she expresses that she ‘live[s] for Clive’ (Churchill, 4).

The first introduction Clive gives to Betty shows the dominant patriarchal nature of society when it comes to gender, which ‘encourages men to accept the male privilege and perpetuate women’s oppression’ (Johnson, 19). When he states that ‘everything she is she owes to me’, is an example of the power and dominance men exert over women to keep them in an oppressed role. Having a male actor play the role of Betty, ‘makes gender visible by separating feminine gender from the female body’ (Kritzer, 113).​ ​And it clearly shows the disconnect between Betty as a biological female and the traditional female behavior portrayed by the character.

Butler states that gender is not biological, but is a culturally constructed ‘stylized repetition of acts’ (519).​ ​Because of Clive’s oppression, Betty no longer values herself and is played by a man in Act One as it shows her overwhelming need to be what men want her to be. Churchill also uses the fact that Betty is played by a man to show how ridiculous the forced submissive role women have is. It forces us to recognize that female identity is culturally constructed and completely separate from the female body. To ‘be a man’s creation’ means to conform to masculine expectations not by mimicking the misogynist or murdering the feminine, but by leaving nothing to the woman except the name and the clothes’ (Herrmann, 311).

Churchill’s use of a man playing a female also challenges the understanding of gender and highlights the difference between gender and ‘gender performance’. To Clive, Betty is the perfect wife and ideal woman, ‘My Wife is all I dreamt a wife should be’ (3), ​but Betty isn’t physically a woman. Clive also believes he is accountable for creating the perfect wife and woman. ‘And everything she is she owes to me’ (4).​ ​This implies that Clive changed who Betty is, meaning that the ideal of femininity is malleable and is based on what is perceived to be feminine. This is an example of Butler’s theory of ‘gender performance’ as Betty’s feminity is very much a product of the time she is living in and her gender is therefore culturally constructed. Clive stating that he created who Betty is, means that gender is malleable, thus these gender-based codes can be changed. Butler believes that gender is not a stable identity, but is linked to the historical context of that time and what is perceived to be ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’. Certain repetitive ‘bodily movements’ create the illusion of gender but have no connection to us internally or bodily (Butler, 519). As Reinelt states, Churchill ‘challenges notions of fixed identity and normative sexual identifications’ (28). Betty being seen as the ideal wife but being played by a man, shows the disconnect between gender and the body and that gender is just a ‘constructed identity’ that is performed so that we are accepted by society (Butler, 520).

In the introduction, Betty also claims to be ‘man’s creation’ (4). In this play, feminity is defined by patriarchal ideology. ‘The women in the Victorian era were traditional and their world consisted of their husbands. They had to behave as their husband liked’ (​Şiklar, 347). ​The character of Betty is restricted to her traditional feminine role of being a mother and a wife. ‘You’re a mother. And a daughter. And a wife’ (31). The success of a woman in the Victorian Era was defined by their marriage, ‘You are looking very pretty tonight. You were such a success as a young girl. You have made a most fortunate marriage’ (14). Betty eventually reveals that she is unhappy and bored in this traditional feminine role and uses love to escape the monotony of marriage and motherhood. She admits her love for Harry and her desire to run away with him but is fearful of the repercussions if she is shown to be an unfaithful wife and leaves Clive.

In ‘Performative Acts and Gender Constitution’, Butler speaks about the punishment faced by society if one does not perform their gender correctly (522). In Cloud Nine, when Clive discovers Betty’s feelings for Harry, he condemns her and all women who break out of their assigned gender roles.

‘Women can be treacherous and evil. They are darker and more dangerous than men. The family protects us from that; you can protect me from that… If I shot you, every British man and woman would applaud me. But no. It was a moment of passion such as women are too weak to resist. We must resist this dark female lust, Betty, or it will swallow us up (44).

Even Betty herself feels compelled to punish herself for her actions when confronted by Clive. ‘​There is something so wicked in me Clive’ (44).​ ​Clive connects the desire Betty feels towards Harry as something ‘dark’ and evil and thus being beyond her control. He tells Betty that they both must work together to help her resist these ‘dark’ desires. By Clive convincing Betty that her female lust is caused by an evil force, and is therefore out of her control, it takes away any of her free will. Betty following and accepting her desire for Harry was a sign of her exerting her free will outside of the restrictions of the forced traditional female role and regaining her identity. To Clive, this was a sign of his lack of masculine power over Betty and in order to regain control, and force Betty back into her assigned female role, he demonizes female lust. He also tells Betty that if she is weak and succumbs to her ‘dark’ female desires, it is his obligation as the dominant patriarchal figure to force her to leave the family. Even Harry, who also has feelings for Betty, rejects her advances as he believes her sole role is that of a faithful wife to Clive, which cannot be changed. The threatened forced exclusion from society and the demonization of her actions is an examples of the punishment received by individuals who do not conform to their assigned gender roles.

In Act Two, the act of Betty leaving Clive to live independently is the start of her sexual liberation and awakening to herself as an individual, free from the patriarchal gender constraints forced on women. For this reason, Betty is played by a woman in the second act because ‘she becomes real to herself’ (Churchill, 1996, 246). According to Butler, ‘​to be a woman is to have become a woman, to compel the body to conform to a historical idea of ‘woman’, to induce the body to become a cultural sign, to materialize oneself in obedience to a historically delimited possibility, and to do this as a sustained and repeated corporeal project” (522). By Betty being finally free of Clive in Act Two, she is no longer constrained by traditional patriarchal views and can explore her sexual identity and desires. Whereas in Act One, she was forced to suppress them as they were seen as something outside of her assigned gender role. Throughout Act One, Betty was devoid of any individual power or freedom and is ‘made to submit to Clive’s patriarchal values, as a result of which she attributes secondary importance to her individuality and desires’ (Yilmaz, 66).

‘One night in bed in my flat I was so frightened I started touching myself. […] and I felt myself gathering together more and more and I felt angry with Clive and angry with my mother and I went on and on defying them… Afterward, I thought I’d betrayed Clive. My mother would kill me. But I felt triumphant because I was a separate person from them. And I cried because I didn’t want to be. But I don’t cry about it anymore (316). In this scene Betty finally realizes the importance of her own sexual desires, thus realizing the importance of her own individuality outside of the forced patriarchal oppressed role of the feminine. She begins to value her own identity as separate from any other individual, ‘ I was a separate person from them’ (105), without feeling any guilt or punishment for doing so, as she would have in Act One if she were still with Clive. Betty is finally being true to who she is, which is why Betty from Act One and Betty from Act Two embrace one another, as it is a reconciliation with her past self. Churchill uses Betty’s discovery of her own identity, separate from any other person as a way to critique ‘gender performance’. Betty in Act Two subverts traditional patriarchal norms of gender which forces the audience to confront the reality that these roles and performances are not fixed, and just as they were constructed, they can be deconstructed in a subversive way to challenge the dominant patriarchal ideology that creates these expected behaviors. Kritzer similarly states that the two Bettys embracing ‘breaks apart the unitary patriarchal construction of woman and creates an empowering moment of theatrical doubleness for women audience members (27).

As Butler states, gender is established through the repetition of certain acts, which have no connection to our identity, but are solely a creation of the society around us. Butler believes that the key to gender transformation is to subvert these forced gender acts, which we see Betty do in Act Two by giving into her sexual desires and valuing her own identity separate from everyone else.

Judith Butler’s theory of ‘Performative Acts and Gender Constitutions’ can be clearly seen in Caryl Churchill’s play, ​Cloud Nine, ​particularly through the character of Betty. Through theatrical strategies, such as Betty being played by a man in Act One, Churchill shows the audience that gender is just a construct based on the dominant patriarchal and historical views of the society at that time and thus gender can be deconstructed to subvert these dominant ideologies. Churchill wants to abandon the simplistic roles of gender and their associated ‘bodily gestures’, that create the illusion of gender, and to adopt a more complex view of gender identity and sex.

References:

1. Butler, Judith. ‘Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.’ ​Theatre Journal, ​The Johns Hopkins University Press,​ ​Vol. 40, No. 4, 1988, pp. 519-531. ​JSTOR, ​http://www.jstor.org/stable/3207893. Accessed: 20 April 2019.
2. Churchill, Caryl. ​Plays. 1st ed., Methuen Drama, 1996.
3. Churchill, Caryl. ​Cloud 9​. 1st ed., Routledge, 1988.
4. Johnson, Allan G. ​The Gender Knot. 3rd ed., Temple University Press, 2014.
5. Herrmann, Anne. ‘Travesty And Transgression: Transvestism In Shakespeare, Brecht, And Churchill’. ​Theatre Journal, vol 41, no. 2, 1989. ​JSTOR​, doi:10.2307/3207855. Accessed 25 Apr 2019.
6. Kritzer, Amelia Howe. ‘The Plays Of Caryl Churchill: Theatre Of Empowerment’. ​Theatre Journal, vol 45, no. 3, 1993. ​JSTOR​, doi:10.2307/3208371. Accessed 25 Apr 2019.
7. Reinelt, Janelle. “On Feminist and Sexual Politics.” ​The Cambridge Companion to Caryl Churchill, edited by Elaine Aston and Elin Diamond, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009, pp. 18–35. Cambridge Companions to Literature.
8. Şiklar, Ece. ‘A Study Of Epic Theatre In Caryl Churchill’S Cloud Nine’. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL STUDIES, vol 4, no.
9. 3, 2017. doi:2356-5926. Accessed 25 Apr 2019.
10. Yilmaz, Neslihan. ‘Gender Politics and Feminism in Caryl Churchill’s Cloud Nine.’ Department of English and German, ​University of Barcelona, 2011, ​Semantic Scholar, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/91ac/f505689a3051219d7bde23607bf72789c846.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2019.
11. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/91ac/f505689a3051219d7bde23607bf72789c846.pdf

Having a constitution is the foundation for almost all nations in the world; a constitution in principle is a set of rules that establish the construction of the country and the way in which it operates.

In a world that is ever-changing, is having a written set of laws to be followed prevalent in modern society, or should have a codified constitution, or should we stick with the current precedent that has held up over almost 800 years? From the beginning when the Magna Carter was formed until even recently when the EU Human Rights Act was added… the uncodified Constitution is tried and trusted. The statement by Stanton and Prescott in their book Public Law means to show that should not adopt codification based on the idea that it can be easily adjusted through the current process. In comparison to other counties around the world, the constitution of Wales cannot be found in a singular document, instead, it has been made up through a variety of both legal and non-legal sources. When you look at countries such as the United States in which it is their founding document written in the 18th Century governs their entire basis of law and even though it has been done as such, there could be the argument that by doing so having a codified constitution does not always make the law clear.

The idea behind having an uncodified constitution is that there is no single document that explains how we are governed. Parliament and judges for example make rules which are binding and in effect Law throughout has been written in such a way that to have them down on a single piece of documentation would not be conducive to a productive and law-abiding society. and Wales is a common law jurisdiction which is quicker and more responsive than parliamentary law, ‘the whole of the common law is judge-made and only by a judicial change in the law is common law kept relevant in a changing world’, which is to say that with the fact that cases are indeed considered sources of law, judges have the ability to make a substantial influence over the development of the law that is dictated, however, they don’t make or change the law, instead they just declare it.

There are benefits to having a codified constitution; one argument that could be had in favor of codifying the constitution is that it would collate all the rules into a singular set of documents, at the moment ‘the absence of a written constitution mean that does not have a single, written document that has a higher legal status over other laws and rules. Because of this, the Constitution comprises a number of sources which makes it less accessible, transparent and intelligible.

Not having a codified constitution provides the flexibility to adapt and solve issues as they arrive, to amend the process we currently have in place in order to adapt to societal changes is probably easier, ‘with an unwritten constitution it is the constitution which is subject to the government; the government can choose to alter it or interpret it in ways that suit itself’. The fact that in being uncodified it would only require a simple majority of Government rather than if the constitution were to be codified where it would then require a supermajority in which it would require more than two-thirds of the votes required.

The Articles of Confederation was an agreement made between the colonies and was also the first framework of government for the United States. This was used from 1781 to 1788 but was later replaced by the Constitution (518). Many people like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton believed Americans were wasting the independence they were given and that the country would only achieve greatness with enhanced national authority. Groups like nationalists, bondholders, urban artisans looking for tariff protection, merchants that wanted access to British markets, and people who wanted to maintain property rights all supported the need for a stronger national government. An event that further strengthened this belief was the Shays Rebellion. In 1786 delegates from six different states gathered together in Annapolis, Maryland to discuss better ways of regulating interstate and international commerce. After this meeting, another was proposed to talk about the Articles of Confederation and how it could be improved. In May 1787, the delegates of the states apart from Rhode Island came to the conclusion that the best course of action would be to scrap the Articles of Confederation altogether and draft a new constitution (517).

While the Constitution was being written there were many contrasting opinions over the proper balance of power between the federal and state governments and among the interests of large and small states. The most significant compromises for these differences were that there would be a two-house Congress with a Senate that had two members from every state, and a House of Representatives that would be assigned according to the population. The senators would be elected by the state legislatures and would serve six-year terms, and the representatives would be appointed every two years directly by the people. These compromises were especially significant because they did not allow bigger states to completely dominate the government and they allowed the colonists to feel like they had a say in the government since they were able to elect representatives (522).

Some of the critical arguments opposing the Constitution were produced by Antifederalists. Antifederalists saw the Constitution as something that would solely limit the rights of the states and liberty of the people (543). They stated that the Constitution would shift the balance between liberty and power. It would heavily favor the side of power because of how centered it was around a strong national government, they really did not like this seeing as they believed their liberty came from the limited nature of their current government. Another argument was that the Constitution might enact a law for abolition and was too protective of slaves (536). As a way of resolving some of the issues that the Antifederalists had, the Bill of Rights was created to help include several of the entitlements that the opposers felt the Constitution lacked. It includes the first ten amendments of the Constitution and was a reassurance that the individual rights of a person would not be infringed upon by the federal government (543). It offered a direct definition of unalienable rights and affected the meaning of liberty for Americans (539).

The Constitution did not establish a just government. The Constitution was built on a one-sided view of everything and not everyone got the right input they needed to make sure everyone had equal rights from this document.

The Constitution was made from a biased point of view, it was heavily democratically made and that was not so good for many individuals because not everyone’s values and beliefs were put into this so it was made equal. For example, James Madison in source b states “ Mr. Mason, admitted that we had been too democratic, but was afraid we should incautiously run into the other opposite.” This shows that while writing this document there was more of one view put into it than another and that can cause problems because not everyone’s point of view of life is the same as others and that can affect people in a negative way. For a paper to be created that all have to follow and it to be totally one-sided is not right at all, it will cause problems and not help people, but actually make life worse for them. For example, the framers said “ The migration or importation of such persons shall not be prohibited by the congress” meaning that there can be migration of people and importation of people and that the Congress can do nothing about it.

They also said, “ No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws therefore, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” This statement right here enables slavery even though not stated directly it has the implication that if a slave runs away the owner can claim them and bring them back because as a slave they were taken to do work and this is not right to make them go back because then they are not being treated fairly. The Constitution was allowing slavery to continue even though they did not allow it directly in the Constitution they also didn’t prevent it or make it illegal but helped it by saying they can claim a person who owes work.

The government was structured so that the government was equally split, but in some cases, it can affect the government badly. For example “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approves he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his

Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.” this shows that if a needed bill is going through the checking system and we have a president that thinks it won’t uphold to his personal agenda then he can deny it so it can not be passed as a law.

In conclusion, the Constitution did not set up the government as a just government it was totally one-sided and that didn’t help the slaves and enabled slavery to continue, and the powers of the government could be corrupt.

Introduction:

The Magna Carta, signed in 1215, is a historic document that laid the foundation for modern constitutional law and governance. It played a crucial role in shaping the development of democratic principles and the protection of individual rights. This essay will explore the significant influence of the Magna Carta on the drafting and content of the United States Constitution, highlighting key provisions that were inspired by this landmark document.

Protection of Individual Rights:

One of the most significant ways in which the Magna Carta influenced the Constitution was in the protection of individual rights. The Magna Carta introduced the concept that even the King was subject to the rule of law and established the principle that no one is above the law. This idea was fundamental in shaping the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which guarantees essential liberties such as freedom of speech, religion, and due process. The Magna Carta’s influence can be seen in the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination and the right to a fair trial.

Limitation of Government Power:

The Magna Carta set a precedent for limiting the power of the monarch and ensuring that government operates within defined boundaries. It introduced the principle that rulers should govern according to established laws and procedures. This principle is reflected in the Constitution through its system of checks and balances, separation of powers, and the concept of limited government. The Magna Carta’s influence can be seen in the Constitution’s distribution of power among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, preventing any one branch from becoming too powerful.

Due Process and Habeas Corpus:

The Magna Carta laid the groundwork for the concept of due process of law and the protection of individual liberties. It established that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the lawful judgment of their peers. This principle is echoed in the Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which guarantee due process rights and protect against unjust imprisonment. Additionally, the Magna Carta’s provision for habeas corpus, ensuring that individuals cannot be held indefinitely without trial, influenced the Constitution’s protection of this fundamental right.

Influence on Legal and Judicial System:

The Magna Carta’s impact on the legal and judicial system is evident in the Constitution’s establishment of an independent judiciary and the right to a fair trial. The principle of a fair and impartial trial, as enshrined in the Magna Carta, is reflected in the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. The Magna Carta also contributed to the development of the common law tradition, which influenced the legal system of the United States.

Conclusion:

The Magna Carta’s profound influence on the United States Constitution cannot be overstated. It provided the groundwork for the protection of individual rights, the limitation of government power, and the establishment of principles that are fundamental to democratic governance. The Constitution draws heavily upon the Magna Carta’s principles of due process, habeas corpus, and the rule of law. By incorporating these fundamental concepts, the Constitution ensured that the rights and freedoms of individuals would be safeguarded in the American system of government. The Magna Carta’s enduring legacy is a testament to its role in shaping the constitutional framework that has guided the United States for centuries.

Introduction:

The United States Constitution, ratified in 1788, serves as the cornerstone of American democracy and has shaped the nation’s governance for over two centuries. While the Constitution has undeniably played a vital role in establishing a stable and functioning government, it is not without its strengths and weaknesses. This critical essay aims to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the Constitution, exploring its enduring principles, but also recognizing areas where it may fall short in addressing contemporary challenges.

Body:

Strengths of the Constitution:

1. Flexibility and Adaptability: One of the Constitution’s greatest strengths is its ability to adapt to changing times and circumstances. The framers of the Constitution designed it to be a living document, providing a framework that can be interpreted and applied to the evolving needs of the nation. The amendment process allows for the incorporation of new ideas and values, ensuring the Constitution remains relevant in modern society.
2. Separation of Powers: The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, dividing power among the three branches of government: the executive, legislative, and judicial. This separation of powers prevents any one branch from becoming too dominant and helps maintain a balance of power, ensuring accountability and protecting against abuses of authority.
3. Protection of Individual Rights: The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, guarantees fundamental rights and liberties for all citizens. These rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, provide a crucial safeguard against government infringement on individual freedoms. The Constitution’s emphasis on protecting civil liberties remains a cornerstone of American democracy.

Weaknesses of the Constitution:

1. Ambiguity and Interpretation: The language of the Constitution can be vague and open to interpretation, leading to differing viewpoints on its meaning and application. This ambiguity has given rise to ongoing debates and legal controversies, as different interpretations of constitutional provisions can lead to conflicting decisions and outcomes.
2. Lack of Inclusivity: One of the notable weaknesses of the Constitution is its initial exclusion of certain groups, such as women, African Americans, and Native Americans, from enjoying the full rights and protections it guarantees. The Constitution’s original framework failed to address the rights and equality of these marginalized communities, resulting in long-standing struggles for civil rights and social justice.
3. Resistance to Change: While the Constitution’s flexibility is a strength, it can also be a weakness when there is resistance to necessary change. The amendment process, requiring a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states, can be a lengthy and challenging process. This can impede the timely implementation of reforms and hinder the Constitution’s ability to address pressing societal issues.

Conclusion:

The United States Constitution has endured as a remarkable foundation for the American democratic system. Its strengths, including flexibility, separation of powers, and protection of individual rights, have helped ensure stability and the preservation of democratic principles. However, it is essential to recognize the weaknesses inherent in the Constitution, such as ambiguity, exclusivity, and resistance to change. By critically examining these weaknesses, we can strive to address them and work towards a more inclusive, responsive, and just society.

It is crucial to approach the Constitution with a mindset that recognizes its achievements while acknowledging the need for continuous evaluation and improvement. By embracing the spirit of critical analysis, we can ensure that the Constitution remains a living document, capable of reflecting the values and aspirations of an ever-evolving society.

Yathrib or Medina was a place where there were conflicts among pagan and Jewish tribes for hundreds of years. Due to distinction in ideologies and disagreements, it resulted in massacres and battles such as ‘Battle-of-Bu’ath’ between clans. This was perceptible to all the clans of Medina, that the hatred and bloodshed will be endless, until a superior authority intervenes. Upon the agreement of 12 clans of Yathrib, Prophet Muhammad- The founder of Islam and leader, who was known for his righteousness and moral decisions, was invited to Medina from Mecca, with a motive to bring harmony between communities. Upon Muhammad’s Hijrah to Medina, in 622 C.E, he drafted ‘Dustūr-al-Madīnah’ or ‘The Constitution of Medina’. The document outlines a series of agreements and principles set for the believers and Muslims of Quraysh and other religious communities of Yathrib. The Charter provokes a pluralistic approach by Prophet, as he instructs responsibilities to Muslims and Jews of Medina, in order to bring them as ‘Umma-Wahida’ (one community).

The constitution comprises 47 clauses, and in the first segment of clauses, Muhammad addresses the believers of Allah, guiding them with his moral ideologies. While, the second segment of clauses are agreements set between Muslims and Jews that focus in resolving communal distress. The document commence by declaring the people of Medina and Muhammad’s followers from Mecca as “one-community (umma)” (clause-2), which evokes the message of companionship and unity, in the beginning of the constitution. In the Charter, Muhammad, while addressing the 8 significant tribes of medina, announces that each group is accountable for any offense committed by any of its members and also instructs to secure the rights of the prisoners, “every section shall redeem its prisoners with kindness and justice” (clauses 3-11), which exhibits prophet’s concern towards rights and justice of every being. Additionally, in clause 12.a), Muhammad states “Believers shall not leave anyone destitute among them by not paying bloodwit”, where he enlightens the believers to support debtors and deprived ones in the community, while guiding them to adapt the qualities of kindness and assistance. Moreover, the charter directs the believers to unite against rebellious ones and against every person who attempts to attain anything by force, “who seeks to spread injustice”, is culpable of sin, spreading hatred among believers (clause-13). While, prophet warns believers to not betray or kill each other for the sake of non-believers and reminded them that under god’s protection all believers are brothers and must protect one another with ethics and integrity (clauses 14-15).

Furthermore, the constitution in the second segment focuses on addressing inhabitants of Medina. The constitution enlightens several ethnic and cultural characteristics of Jews and attempts to bring in harmony and justice among the inhabitants Jews of Medina and emigrant Muslims of Mecca. Additionally, the constitution seeks to abolish the belief that Jews are superior community in Medina. As evident in clauses 24-31, the charter addressing the Jews of 8 clans of Medina, declares that Jews are part of umma along with the believers, “The Jews have their religion and Muslims have theirs” but both possess equal rights and respect. Later, constitution highlights the significance of loyalty and faithfulness towards each other and informs that Jews and Muslims must unite and shall mutually handle the action against anyone who attacks the followers of this charter, but ‘Jews and Muslims must bear their own expenses’ (Clause-37). This highlights Muhammad’s approach towards maintaining companionable relations between both communities. However, the clause-36 outlines regulation for Muslims that “None of them shall go out to war save permission of Muhammad”, which discloses the authority and responsibility of Muhammad as the leader for Muslims. Moreover, the further clauses impose regulations regarding security in Medina. The charter discusses that a woman should be protected only with the consent of her family, however the people of Medina were instructed not to provide any protection to Quraysh people or anyone who help them. This suggests the significance of protection in Medina, during 7th century. Likewise, in the clause-47, Prophet concludes that the one who is sinless and deserved ones must have protection whether he goes for fight or in stays in Medina, while god is the protector of pure hearted ones and Muhammad is his messenger.

The Constitution of Medina emphasized regulations ranging from resolving the disagreement between Jewish tribes to building a sense of fairness and unity among the inhabitants and migrants. Yet, author “Aaron Hughes” writes in his book ‘Muslim Identities’, that “It became increasingly clear to Muhammad…that some Jews of Medina would never accept his message” (Hughes-52), which could be because Muhammad was an Islamic prophet and some Jews may not desire him to be supremacy. However, Muhammad, as an authority attempted to create conviction between the people and eliminated religious differences by allowing every individual to practice their faith, establishing a pluralistic and optimistic mindset in Medina. With the constitution, Medina was anticipated to have communal harmony between Muslims and Jews, both living as umma and protecting each other.