Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Which of these is not a function of the constitution?
Options
It gives a guarantee of the rights of the citizen.
It marks out different spheres of power for different branches of government.
It ensures that good people come to power.
It gives expression to some shared values.
Solution
It ensures that good people come to power.
The Constitution is responsible for the framework of distribution of power and not for the personal integrity of the people who occupy the positions of power.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
State whether the following statement about a constitution is True or False.
Constitutions are written documents about formation and power of the government.
State whether the following statement about a constitution is True or False.
A constitution gives its citizens a new identity.
State whether the following statement about a constitution is True or False.
Constitutions exist and are required only in democratic countries.
State whether the following statement about a constitution is True or False.
Constitution is a legal document that does not deal with ideals and values.
State whether the following inferences about the making of the Indian Constitution is Correct or Incorrect. Give reasons to support your answer.
Constitution making did not involve any major decision since there was a general consensus among the leaders at that time about its basic framework.
State whether the following inferences about the making of the Indian Constitution is Correct or Incorrect. Give reasons to support your answer.
There was little originality in the Constitution, for much of it was borrowed from other countries.
Give two examples to support the following conclusion about the Indian Constitution:
The Constitution was made by credible leaders who commanded peoples’ respect.
Give two examples to support the following conclusion about the Indian Constitution:
The Constitution has distributed power in such a way as to make it difficult to subvert it.
Give two examples to support the following conclusion about the Indian Constitution:
The Constitution is the locus of people’s hopes and aspirations.
Why is it necessary for a constitution to place limitations on the rulers? Can there be a constitution that gives no power at all to the citizens?
The Japanese Constitution was made when the US occupation army was still in control of Japan after its defeat in the Second World War. The Japanese constitution could not have had any provision that the US government did not like. Do you see any problem in this way of making the constitution? In which way was the Indian experience different from this?
Rajat asked his teacher this question: “The constitution is a fifty year old and therefore outdated book. No one took my consent for implementing it. It is written in such tough language that I cannot understand it. Tell me why should I obey this document?” If you were the teacher, how would you answer Rajat?
In a discussion on the experience of the working of our Constitution, three speakers took three different positions:
a. Harbans: The Indian Constitution has succeeded in giving us a framework of democratic government.
b.Neha: The Constitution made solemn promises of ensuring liberty, equality and fraternity. Since this has not happened, the Constitution has failed.
c. Nazima: The Constitution has not failed us. We have failed the Constitution.
Do you agree with any of these positions? If yes, why? If not, what is your own position?
