However, this is merely a procedural, legalistic definition, miscibility table many say, and (as th

Check normative power poses serious problems. I did not like many people would deny that such a thing is necessary, the question is, on what basis and to exercise this control. This also raises the question of legitimate domination as well.
The democratic system is based on the imagination that people are capable of collective self-government. miscibility table The view is nowadays accepted that this is exercised through control of the "people" elected representatives. Thus, based on the legitimacy of the mandate: Because miscibility table the people miscibility table in a democracy the legislature (this expresses the doctrine of popular sovereignty), so that the legislative miscibility table right to delegate representatives and decide cycle again, the deputies were consistent with the expectations miscibility table of citizens.
However, this is merely a procedural, legalistic definition, miscibility table many say, and (as the szuverén.hu puts it) "supplement needs. May seem self-evident at this point to refer to tradition and charisma, and indeed, the ordinary hierarchical relationships often legitimize these resources. Nevertheless, miscibility table such as it rationally can not be disputed, potentially the potential miscibility table possibility of oppression and therefore miscibility table considered to be of concern to the justice point of view. "But what are the" justice perspective ", and why the" rational disputes over "the condition to which the normative constraints must comply with?
Because of the tradition includes highly inconsistent, and many non-rational elements, therefore, are considered "arbitrary" as opposed to rationality, which makes this assumption, it is not. The essence of the hypothesis is that there are rationally evident principles which precede political or other discussions - these are standards that have their own, norm-we were there due to their authority, and any rational being understands rationality. But if this is so, then this does not need to remind miscibility table anyone (and no force), as is evident principles.
Otherwise, it must be said that the members of the legislature are corrupt, morally and intellectually deteriorated - which is certainly true - as opposed to those "civilians" who "in the name and they are in compliance with universal human rights, criticized a provision." Which in turn have been highly problematic assumption, unless we believe that these civilians "are miscibility table kneaded special material" or have special knowledge, such as the Puritans, or a vanguard. If the lawyers, politicians, etc.. necessarily be wrong, why not tévedhetnének civilian representative for human rights? And from this it follows that the rational self-evident principles is not evident.
The same applies to the "principles of justice" is. Else to think about justice in a Platonist, a Catholic and a follower Rawls. The képzetről would give up sin, but by pushing aside the question of whether those who do not accept the ignorant and / or immoral, problem avoidance. A private Catholic religious orders of the same moral universe is recognized as the human rights activist views did not necessarily have access to each other, even in most cases these are sharply opposed. The democrat say that the Church does not have any authority to enforce their own justice miscibility table aspects of democratic politics. But rationally self-evident, like justice or human rights principles have trouble believing in, as well as civilians or not authorized, as the Catholic Church or is the same as the "participatory legitimacy" and that applies to everyone or no one. This is much of the content will come back arguments that only the "universal human rights" flag of this right can one live participative - which the Catholic Church is clearly not satisfied.
Thus, the legitimacy miscibility table of participative, who recognizes these rationally self-evident, universal miscibility table and universal human rights and recognizes this right and "even a single citizen can live with it, and when it does, it will automatically represent the entire community, as it defends its freedom." This is the only citizen - who, of course, the above requirements are met - such as Rousseau's lawgiver.
Of course, some human rights, fundamental rights passages contain all the modern constitution. Therefore, in some ways has been the question is, why is this even a problem? Multi-institution preserves that these principles are enforced in practice - because the devil is in the detail, easier to declare a human right (also not rationally evident that the declared rights) as the face of practical conditions to enforce it. Of course, also the question of whether the designated institutions, how long they can go: Oakeshott, according to "dworkini judge 'is to usurp the legislative office (which is counter to the" checks and balances "and" powers separation "for dogma as well) .
The practice and the rational, equitable, etc.. conflict between the principles miscibility table ny