- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jun 03, 2016 12:37 pm
#26075
Passage Discussion
Paragraph One:
The author opens this passage by presenting the “paradox of omnipotence,” asking whether it is possible for a sovereign to have unlimited legal power. If so, the author provides, it would be possible to give up all or part of such power, and in so doing to contradict the original assumption of unlimited power.
Paragraph Two:
Sovereigns’ omnipotence can be problematic, as noted by social scientists such as North and Weingast, who discuss the issue as it presented itself in 17th and 18th century England and France.
Paragraph Three:
North and Weingast note that sovereigns can serve their own best interest with certain commitments, such as a commitment to pay one’s debts in spite of the prerogative of the omnipotent sovereign to refuse to pay. To continue to get favorable terms, sovereigns are better served by letting it be known that they pay their debts.
Paragraph Four:
Here the author presents an example of the hazard when sovereigns fail to heed the advice provided in the previous paragraph. Early in the 17th century, English and French monarchs developed a reputation for repudiating debts, and in response they were offered less favorable terms (higher interest).
Paragraph Five:
North and Weingast assert that during the Glorious Revolution of 1688, when Parliament took over financial control of the crown’s wealth, the inability to repudiate debt brought with it a greater ability to borrow at more favorable terms.
Paragraph Six:
As a result of the type of perspective presented by North and Weingast, many now recognize the benefit sovereigns enjoy when they limit their power. The author also points out, however, that such constitutional amendments are not always entirely successful, as when the previously mentioned Glorious Revolution simply shifted the problems of omnipotence from the Crown to Parliament; the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, a “pillar of England’s unwritten constitution,” provides that parliament does not entirely control the extent of its own power.
VIEWSTAMP Analysis:
The Viewpoints presented in this passage are those of the author, and of North and Weingast.
The Structure of the passage is as follows:
The Main Point of the passage is that omnipotence can be problematic for sovereigns, and while the issue can be addressed with constitutional amendments, history shows that this is not necessarily a perfect solution.
Paragraph One:
The author opens this passage by presenting the “paradox of omnipotence,” asking whether it is possible for a sovereign to have unlimited legal power. If so, the author provides, it would be possible to give up all or part of such power, and in so doing to contradict the original assumption of unlimited power.
Paragraph Two:
Sovereigns’ omnipotence can be problematic, as noted by social scientists such as North and Weingast, who discuss the issue as it presented itself in 17th and 18th century England and France.
Paragraph Three:
North and Weingast note that sovereigns can serve their own best interest with certain commitments, such as a commitment to pay one’s debts in spite of the prerogative of the omnipotent sovereign to refuse to pay. To continue to get favorable terms, sovereigns are better served by letting it be known that they pay their debts.
Paragraph Four:
Here the author presents an example of the hazard when sovereigns fail to heed the advice provided in the previous paragraph. Early in the 17th century, English and French monarchs developed a reputation for repudiating debts, and in response they were offered less favorable terms (higher interest).
Paragraph Five:
North and Weingast assert that during the Glorious Revolution of 1688, when Parliament took over financial control of the crown’s wealth, the inability to repudiate debt brought with it a greater ability to borrow at more favorable terms.
Paragraph Six:
As a result of the type of perspective presented by North and Weingast, many now recognize the benefit sovereigns enjoy when they limit their power. The author also points out, however, that such constitutional amendments are not always entirely successful, as when the previously mentioned Glorious Revolution simply shifted the problems of omnipotence from the Crown to Parliament; the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, a “pillar of England’s unwritten constitution,” provides that parliament does not entirely control the extent of its own power.
VIEWSTAMP Analysis:
The Viewpoints presented in this passage are those of the author, and of North and Weingast.
The Structure of the passage is as follows:
- Paragraph 1: Present the central issue of the Paradox of Omnipotence.
Paragraph 2: State that omnipotence can be problematic, as noted by North and Weingast.
Paragraph 3: Note North and Weingast’s point that sovereigns can serve their own best interest, getting good terms by honoring their commitments.
Paragraph 4: Provide specific examples of the costs of irresponsible repudiation.
Paragraph 5: Introduce the Glorious Revolution of 1688, under which, according to North and Weingast, Parliament solved the problems of the Crown’s credit by taking control of the Royal purse strings.
Paragraph 6: Add the qualification that, while constitutional amendments can address the problems of an omnipotent sovereign, the problem is not entirely solved, but rather shifted from the Crown to Parliament.
The Main Point of the passage is that omnipotence can be problematic for sovereigns, and while the issue can be addressed with constitutional amendments, history shows that this is not necessarily a perfect solution.