"Imperial in foreign affairs, imperilled in others". How accurate is this view of Presidential power?
"Imperial in foreign affairs, imperilled in others". How accurate is this view of Presidential power? I would agree with the view that the President of the United States is imperial in foreign affairs, yet imperilled in others, especially those domestic. The imperilled presidency is a concept put forward by Gerald Ford, who suggested that far from being too powerful, the President is in a constant power struggle. This is because the power of the president is severely constricted by, among other things, a lack of public trust and a dependence on Congress and the Supreme Court in order to pass legislation, especially following the shift in power between the executive and the legislature following the events of Watergate and Vietnam in the 1970s. I think that the Presidency is imperilled in domestic affairs because he must rely on Congress to pass any bills proposed by him. This is because the balance of powers outlined in the Constitution prevents the executive from being part of the legislature, unlike in the UK. This means that the President, I think, has very little power other than, as Richard Neustadt claims, the power to persuade. I think this is typified by the discrepancy between the power of JFK and Lyndon Johnson. This was characterised by Kennedy failing to pass a great deal of his proposed civil rights legislation due to opposition from Southern Democrat
"India was granted independence in 1947 because of Gandhi's policy of non-cooperation." How far do you agree with this statement?
"India was granted independence in 1947 because of Gandhi's policy of non-cooperation." How far do you agree with this statement? In 1947 India was granted with its independence from the British Empire that had ruled over India since the 19th century. The campaign for independence began with the formation of the Indian National Congress party in 1885, the congress was a party for Indians to play a part in the running of the country. However, in 1914 World War 1 broke out and Indian people supported Britain and the Empire, sending food, materials and money. In exchange for their support during the war Congress demanded the British fix a date for India to become self-governing. This was agreed by the British but no date was actually set. In 1920 Gandhi persuaded Congress to vote for the first time for self-rule (self-government and self-control). Gandhi changed Congress by making it appeal to a wider population instead of just the wealthy. He also started most of the major campaigns against the British. Perhaps the most famous of these were the protests against the British control of salt and cloth imports from England that that led to them making their own cotton and salt. Gandhi's policy of non-cooperation (civil disobedience) and peaceful protest was the major strength of his protest movement and popularity. It contrasted with those who previously wanted a violent
"Loser takes all - it must be time to abolish the Electoral College". Discuss.
c) "Loser takes all - it must be time to abolish the Electoral College". Discuss. The outcome of the 2000 American election, in which the electoral college produced a result that was inconsistent with the popular vote, led to many calls for the reform, and even the abolition of this institution and the introduction of some form of direct popular election of the President. A mass of protestors dissented against the electoral college, branding it as a "dinosaur that should be retired to a museum" (Senator Richard J. Durbin). Polls taken in the two months after the 2000 election seemingly indicated that Americans largely supported abolishing the Electoral College in favour of a system of direct popular election of the president. Even without the salience of the 2000 election, finding such poll results would not have been surprising. Outcries to the Electoral College is nothing new - Gallup public opinion polls since the 1940s show that majorities of the public have consistently favoured reform. (Newport 2001). Indeed, there have been more attempts to reform the Electoral College than any other part of the Constitution, and aspiring reformers range from across the political spectrum, including Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. In 1969, the House passed a measure to replace the electoral college by a nationwide popular vote, however, was defeated in Senate. The Electoral
In What Way Does the Biological Constitution of a Living Organism Determine, Influence or Limit its Perception
In What Way Does the Biological Constitution of a Living Organism Determine, Influence or Limit its Perception? There are an uncountable number of living things, most of which are not discovered yet. Human, is known to be the most intelligent, most developed and most social of all. What's more, we say that human has the most ability to perceive things in the correct way, because he is the most biologically-developed living thing. By the way, does the biological constitution really affect perception? We, human beings, can differentiate colours whereas a dog cannot. It doesn't matter for a dog if it had a green or brown collar with same design. A second example can be given about the elephants. Because of some hormones they have, they have a sociological life and system. They select a leader and do what it wants and walk behind it. So, an elephant finds a lonely life useless. But a snake, which lives individually, finds the herd life useless and difficult. Another example can be given about the owls. They can see very well and their absolute threshold for seeing is very high at night. Plus, it's sound can be heard by other owls from far away. So it perceives the night as a normal time of day, but we, humans, find the darkness dangerous. Furthermore, human and most of other animals can understand if they're hungry or not - but the fish cannot. Because their nerves about the
"A written constitution, rather than gradual reform, is now essential for the UK to claim to be a modern democracy."
"A written constitution, rather than gradual reform, is now essential for the UK to claim to be a modern democracy." This essay will look at how a written constitution, according to some, would make Britain a modern democracy and it is therefore essential that the meaning of this phrase is fully understood before it can be explored in sufficient depth. A written constitution would outline the structures and powers of government in broad terms and the relationship between the different parts of government and citizens. Gradual reform, on the other hand, has no written record of the powers of government or a clear relationship between government and citizens; however, these are determined by laws that evolve with the current views and morals of Britain. A modern democracy can be interpreted differently by people and that is a fundamental reason for this conflict of interest. Some people, such as the Liberal Democrats, believe that the constitution would make Britain a 'modern democracy' because the basic principles of Britain would be defined and that there would be no loop holes in the law as to how the government can enforce new proposals. However, some political parties, such Labour and the Conservatives, believe that gradual reform is more effective as laws can be easily enforced that meet the needs of society and that a written constitution would be difficult to edit and
"An admirable and enlightened example of international co-operation.' Does the congress System (1815-25) deserve to be so described?
"An admirable and enlightened example of international co-operation.' Does the congress System (1815-25) deserve to be so described? When the Napoleonic Wars came to the end, the European countries held the Congress of Vienna to settle down the problems. After that, the European powers decided to hold conferences in the coming years to maintain the peace of Europe and solve the problems by talking, discussing, but not by wars. These congresses, which included Congress of Vienna (1814-15), Congress of Aix-la Chapelle (1818), Congress of Troppau (1820), Congress of Laibach (1821), and Congress of Verona (1822), formed the Congress System, which can be also called Metternich System or the Concert of Europe. This essay is going to have a look that if the Congress System is an admirable and enlightened example of international co-operation. First of all, the definition of admirable and enlightened should be stated. Admirable means excellent, and deserves others to respect with pleasure and satisfaction. Enlightened means free from prejudice, ignorance. Based on these definitions, the Congress system should be admired if it had reached its aims, which were maintain the peace of Europe and solving the problems by discussing and without war, unless the latter was a necessary and unavoidable. The Metternich System was an enlightened one if it was a new system which is better than the
"An emphasis upon the differences between the UK and US constitutions neglects their more fundamental similarities" Discuss
"An emphasis upon the differences between the UK and US constitutions neglects their more fundamental similarities" Discuss The question requires us to see the difference between the UK and US constitutions of the political systems and then analyse whether there is actually a difference between the two. Constitution specifies the powers of the state and the institutions or offices, which have and excise state power. "A state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory" (Max Weber). There are two types of constitutions negative constitutions which goes beyond principles that are beyond people's wishes this is common in the US constitution. Whereas the positive constitution is an example of the British constitutions constructed so that public wishes are kept. In the conclusion After the independence the American leaders had to create a new national congress and known as the Constitutional Convention of 1787 however they had a starting point of using the British constitutional system .The differences between US and UK constitutions is that the US constitution is codified meaning that it is written, federal constitution which means authority of American government shared between Washington and the other states. Which operates according to the principles of federalism and separated institutions
"Compare the successes and failures of Castlereagh and Canning's Foreign Policies"
"Compare the successes and failures of Castlereagh and Canning's Foreign Policies" The Tory Foreign affairs between 1814 and 1830 was dominated by Lord Castlereagh, foreign secretary between 1814 and 1822 and his successor George Canning, who occupied the same post between 1822 and 1827. During this period, both Castlereagh and Canning were faced with various international problems and I am going to explore their successes and failures with issues they confronted. Initially, I shall examine the achievements and failures of Lord Castlereagh and then moving onto Canning's era, which I shall compare with the previous period of 1814 to 1822. Lord Castlereagh knew that for him to be a successful Foreign Secretary, he needed to settle some outstanding issues. Thus, his policies included an appropriate settlement for France, balancing of territorial interests of major powers and the formation of a system of regular consultation to deal with disputes between them. The first thing that Castlereagh dealt with was France. He knew that France was potentially the greatest of all European powers with enough manpower to undertake renewed conquests. Therefore, he restored the Bourbon monarchy in France and the country had to pay an indemnity as well as support an army occupation in. The French frontiers were pulled back to those of 1790 and states on either side of France were
Gay couples, same sex marriage and Christian beliefs.
Russell 1 Russell, Maia English 131 BE 1/3/03 2.3 Assignment Today, many gay couples are denied the right to have same sex marriage. As a result gay people are faced with civil rights issues that have nothing whatever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are excluded from the state constitutional rights that only legal married couples can enjoy. Ever since Vermont and Hawaii made it clear that gay marriages are legal inside their states, many gay couples have eloped into one of these states to get married. Since then, many gay activists are working towards legalizing gay marriage in several states. Many politicians along with the older generations of American who were taught that homosexuality is a sin, feel that same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. They came up with the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to banned same sex marriage. The FMA clearly states, "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups" (Bork 1). There shouldn't be a constitutional definition of marriage. If we are to be a country that claims to protect citizens' basic human rights then no form of government should
Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are both potential presidential candidates representing the views of the Democratic Party. The diversity of both these candidates combined with the controversial issues encircling the election make this one of the most cruc
Michael Gillott February 13, 2008 Poli 361 Narrative Paper America is a country of contradiction. The innovative and modern in its western culture fails to coincide with the traditional and steady election process and mentality of the American majority. Through 216 years as a recognized nation and numerous strides in racial and ethnic equality, not one commander-in-chief has emerged as a shift from the conventional white-male standard; until now. Two candidates, one of them a woman, one a black male, and both democrats, are challenging both terms, white and male, in the 2008 election. Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are both potential presidential candidates representing the views of the Democratic Party. The diversity of both these candidates combined with the controversial issues encircling the election make this one of the most crucial ballots of our time. With both already straying from the norm, it is safe to say that the more conservative candidate out of the two will end up taking the democratic candidacy. Although Obama's campaign and ideals hold the support of both the youth and black community, Hilary Clinton's more orthodox policies and structure makes her a more likely choice, for conservatives, in the 2008 election. While Obama fronts a neo-political campaign and a popular newness, his ideals may be too turbulent and divergent from the traditions of the
