Should the primary system be reformed?
Should the primary system be reformed? On the surface, the primary system seems to combine the best of all worlds. It has brought about the decline of the "smoke-filled-room", with ordinary citizens selecting the Presidential nominees - and yet it allows both of the major parties to retain their identity with separate ballots. Mirroring the Electoral College system allows for states to retain their own identity, while scheduling stops larger states from dominating. However, the democratic credentials of the primary system can easily be disputed when statistical evidence is brought into play. In New York, only 18.3% of potential voters turned-out for the 2008 primaries; this compares unfavourably to the 50% that voted in the national election of 200B. High levels of political disengagement abound. Moreover, prohibitive state-party rules, regarding closed primaries and caucuses, often restrict voting rights to those registered with the two major parties. The combined result of this is that, invariably, nominees are elected not by the American people at large, but rather by a smaller sub-section of the population - those with political interest. Of course, it could be argued that this not an altogether undesirable outcome. In effect, caucus goers and party-affiliates are able to vet the candidates for a wider electorate that is less likely to be educated on the issues. As a
McCulloch v. Maryland and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Joanna Rodriguez September 29, 2003 Period 3 McCulloch v. Maryland and the Necessary and Proper Clause The United States was a newly independent country in 1791 still recovering from the effects of the dominion of Great Britain during its years as a colony. The government leaders were still unsure if a strong federal government was the best option for the country. Many of them such as Thomas Jefferson, who the Secretary of State at the time felt that a limited government was the best option because it did not centralize all the powers into the national government. Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton proposed a charter to Congress that would create a national bank. Jefferson with his ideas of a limited government was against this charter because it would give the federal government too much power. He debated Hamilton by saying that no where in the Constitution did it state that the national government had the power to create a national bank and that the government had only the explicit powers the Constitution gave it. Hamilton then stated that the national government had all the powers the Constitution did not deny them and that the necessary and proper clause in Article one and section eight of the Constitution gave it the right to create all the laws necessary to carry out the Constitution. With the support of President George Washington, congress passed the
Lowering the Legal Drinking Age In New York State
Lowering the legal drinking age In New York State the legal age to purchase and publicly consume alcohol is twenty-one. Many laws at the state and federal level require that people be only eighteen to do certain things. For example, when someone who is eighteen is accused of a crime they are tried in a court of law as an adult. However, when it comes to purchasing alcohol, eighteen doesn't cut it. In many European countries there is no legal drinking age. In most of these countries there is less alcoholism and abuse of alcoholic substances than in the United States. The legal drinking age should be lowered to eighteen. One reason to lower the drinking age is to keep laws fair and consistent in our state. To drive after nine o'clock in New York a licensed driver must be eighteen - years - old. One must be eighteen to enter a bar or nightclub, or to tend a bar, according to state laws. If someone wants to purchase "adult" material or enter an "adult" club in New York that person must be eighteen. Lastly, to purchase cigarettes (a more addictive and physically dangerous drug) a person in New York needs only to be eighteen years old. In the United States all eighteen-year-old men are required by law to sign up for the draft. If the U.S. were to become involved in a war, any or all of these men could be forced to fight in it. Our federal government feels it is okay
Federalism vs. Devolution
ÐÏࡱá > þÿ þÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿýÿÿÿþÿÿÿþÿÿÿ
What are the advantages and disadvantages of an unwritten constitution in the UK?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of an unwritten constitution in the UK? The UK has an unwritten constitution unlike the U.S.A. Instead Britain's laws, policies and codes are developed through statutes, common law, convention and more recently E.U law. It is misleading to call the British constitution unwritten; a more precise form of classification would be un-codified. This means that the British constitution has no single document, which states principles and rules of a state. However, The British constitution clearly sets out how political power is allocated and where it is legally located. The British constitution is still visible and it defines composition and powers of the main offices and institutions of the state. Fundamentally it 'regulates the relationships between the state and the citizen.' Bill Coxhall, 1998) Britain can be distinguished between those countries which incorporate their major constitutional rules into a single document. Britain is one of few countries which do not have a codified constitution. The advantage of not having written or codified is that laws and policies are evolutionary and can be easily amended. An example of this is the in-corporation of E.U laws into UK laws. Since parliament passed the European communities Act in 1972 Britain has accepted the superiority of European law. The House of Lords has judged certain English
Electoral Reform Analysis.
Erin Johnston Project #2 Electoral Reform Analysis 2-27-03 Professor Brake M-W 5-6:15 Electoral Reform Analysis After all the turmoil that the 2000 presidential election created, there was some organization done by the Constitution Project to the election reform that was to promote bipartisan consensus on badly needed reforms. For weeks after the November 7, 2000 election, our nation was dealing with the drama of the Florida recount. All of the extraordinary events, the very intense media and the public scrutiny of the whole process caused many Americans to wonder and ask different questions concerning their votes. Some wondered if their vote was counted or if there was any way to improve the accuracy and integrity of elections. There were sweeping electoral reforms passed by the U.S. Congress and the State Government of Florida to make sure that what happened in the 2000 election would never happen again. In October of 2002, Congress passed H.R. 3295, which is called, "Help America Vote Act," which was intended to address the problems revealed in the 2000 presidential election. Taking the task of implementation are state and local election officials, voting rights advocates, state law makers and others. This bill paves the way for significant improvements in our electoral system. The law establishes federal standards for voting systems and election administration, it
Why is it so difficult to remove a President through impeachment?
Why is it so difficult to remove a President through impeachment? Public opinion, media, majority party, support. Both houses. When looking at why it is difficult to remove a president through impeachment there are a number of important to factors take into consideration. Perhaps the most important influence is that of the media. The media in the USA has a far more important role in politics due to the open and transparent government system. As such the media plays a vital role in the success of an attempt at impeachment. This was most evident in the case of Clinton. Whilst the republican party attempted to remove him from office the media did not back them instead they seemed to portray the president as an almost innocent party in the affair! Clinton also managed to use the media to his advantage most obviously with his spin team and a such this good relationship made an attempt at impeachment very hard. Another important factor when examing why it is so hard to remove a president through impeachment is that of public opinion. It is the public after all that elect both their senators representatives and indeed the president. If the public do not fully support an impeachment attempt it is very unlikely to be of any success. In the case of Clinton the public widely saw the impeachment as a Republican witch hunt that dragged on and became quite a boring and laborious affair.
"Merely a 'bargainer in chief'." Is this a fair assessment of the American president?
"Merely a 'bargainer in chief'." Is this a fair assessment of the American president? "The power of the president is the power to persuade", said Richard Nuestadt. Bill Clinton is a recent example, not America's best ever policy maker, a weak first term and a sex scandal would have signaled the end for most, but 'Slick Willie's' ability to talk his way into and out of a situation have ensured he be remembered as one of the USA's most successful presidents of all time. But if a president doesn't have persuasive powers, are they destined for failure? Is the president 'merely bargainer in chief' or can he or she be an effective president with minimal oratol skills? Due to stringent checks and balances on presidential power (laid down in the constitution by the founding fathers in 1789) the presidents powers are restricted in certain areas of his decision making. With people there to question the presidents every move and with seperation of powers far more apparent in the US than in other countries like the UK, the 'power to persuade' is more important than ever. All areas of America are increasingly scrutinizing the presidents actions (such as Bush's recent plea for $89 billion to fund the war on Iraq) and his ability to persuade the legislative (as Bush did in this case), other branches of government and more importantly the American people and media is now a necessity
Why did opposition to Apartheid Grow during the 1950s And 1960s in South Africa?
Why did opposition to Apartheid Grow during the 1950s And 1960s in South Africa? Opposition to Apartheid started to grow in the 1950s and 1960s because of a number of people standing up and making their voices heard. This included people such as Albert Lutuli, Walter Sisulu and Nelson Mandela. All done their part in making people go against Apartheid. Albert Lutuli was a teacher from Zimbabwe. In 1945 he joined the ANC in 1945 and 7 years later in 1952 he was elected the president of the ANC. In December 1952 Lutuli supported the proposal to hold a Congress of the people. At this Congress delegates would decide the sort of country they wanted the new South Africa to be. The ANC worked closely with the likes of Indians, Coloured and a small group of white supporters to plan the meeting. The Congress was held in Kliptown on 26th June 1955. Despite the police blocking the roads, nearly 3000 people were there to attend the Congress and to listen to the Freedom charter. The Freedom charter was then read in English, Sesotho and Xhosa. The Freedom Charter became the most important document in South African history. In the Charter it demanded a non-racial South Africa with political rights for everyone no matter what race or colour skin they were. In 1956 Lutuli was arrested and charged with High Treason. In 1957 he was released. After a couple of years in 1961 Lutuli was
Examine the aims and principles of the European Powers who took part in the peacemaking 184-15 - The Congress of Vienna
Bagmanov Artur 16/01/03 Examine the aims and principles of the European Powers who took part in the peacemaking 184-15. The peacemaking of 1814-15, also known as The Congress of Vienna, was considered to be a tool which sharpened Europe. Five major powers present at the congress were: Austria, Prussia, Russia, Great Britain, and France. This time, France was to blame, and all the others to decide its fate. From the beginning, the five powers proposed very different aims and objectives, however there was common ambition in certain areas. It is important to point out, that the outcome of Vienna congress was mainly affected by common ambitions, which allowed the conference to achieve beneficial results for all Europe. The Great Powers had three main objectives, which they hoped to achieve through this congress. Surely all of them hoped that France would have been excluded from participating in their decisions. Their first objective was, the restoration and conservation of the European balance of power. Especially Great Britain was obsessed with preventing the French from further expansion and aggression. Their excuse for being so worried about French expansion, was to give Europe a period of peace to allow economic development and growth of trade between other Great Powers. In fact all of the Great Powers were intending to limit French power, but each of them had their
