Monday, May 25, 2020
In both a republic and a democracy, citizens are empowered to participate in a representational political system. They electÃ people to represent and protect their interests in how the government functions. Key Takeaways: Republic vs. Democracy Republics and democracies both provide a political system in which citizens are represented by elected officials who are sworn to protect their interests.In a pure democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected.In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen the people and must comply with a constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.The United States, while basically a republic, is best described as a Ã¢â¬Å"representative democracy.Ã¢â¬ Ã Ã In a republic, an official set of fundamental laws, like the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, prohibits the government from limiting or taking away certain Ã¢â¬Å"inalienableÃ¢â¬ rights of the people, even if that government was freely chosen by a majority of the people. In a pure democracy, the voting majority has almost limitless power over the minority.Ã The United States, like most modern nations, is neither a pure republic nor a pure democracy. Instead, it isÃ a hybrid democratic republic. The main difference between a democracy and a republic is the extent to which the people control the process of making laws under each form of government. Pure Democracy Republic Power Held By The population as a whole Individual citizens Making Laws A voting majority has almost unlimited power to make laws. Minorities have few protections from the will of the majority. The people elect representatives to make laws according to the constraints of a constitution. Ruled By The majority. Laws made by elected representatives of the people. Protection of Rights Rights can be overridden by the will of the majority. A constitution protects the rights of all people from the will of the majority. Early Examples Athenian democracy in Greece (500 BCE) The Roman Republic (509 BCE) Even when the delegates of the United States Constitutional Convention debated the question in 1787, the exact meanings of the terms republic and democracy remained unsettled. At the time, there was no term for a representative form of government created Ã¢â¬Å"by the peopleÃ¢â¬ rather than by a king. In addition, American colonists used the terms democracy and republic more or less interchangeably, as remains common today. In Britain, the absolute monarchy was giving way to a full-fledged parliamentary government. Had the Constitutional Convention been held two generations later, the framers of the U.S. Constitution, having been able to read the new constitution of Britain, might have decided that the British system with an expanded electoral system might allow America to meet its full potential for democracy. Thus, the U.S. might well have a parliament rather than a Congress today. Founding Father James Madison may have best described the difference between a democracy and a republic: Ã¢â¬Å"It [the difference] is that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person: in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, must be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.Ã¢â¬ The fact that the Founders intended that the United States should function as a representative democracy, rather than a pure democracy is illustrated in Alexander HamiltonÃ¢â¬â¢s letter of May 19, 1777, to Gouverneur Morris. Ã¢â¬Å"But a representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and not nominally by the people, will in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable.Ã¢â¬ The Concept of a Democracy In a pure democracy, all citizens who are eligible to vote take an equal part in the process of making laws that govern them. In a pure or Ã¢â¬Å"directÃ¢â¬ democracy, the citizens as a whole have the power to make all laws directly at the ballot box. Today, some U.S. states empower their citizens to make state laws through a form of direct democracy known as the ballot initiative. Put simply, in a pure democracy, the majority truly does rule and the minority has little or no power. The concept of democracy can be traced back to around 500 BCE in Athens, Greece. Athenian democracy was a true direct democracy, or Ã¢â¬Å"mobocracy,Ã¢â¬ under which the public voted on every law, with the majority having almost total control over rights and freedoms. The Concept of a Republic In a republic, the people elect representativesÃ to make the laws and an executive to enforce those laws.Ã Ã While the majority still rules in the selection of representatives, an official charter lists and protects certain inalienable rights, thus protecting the minority from the arbitrary political whims of the majority. In this sense, republics like the United States function as Ã¢â¬Å"representative democracies.Ã¢â¬ In the U.S.,Ã senators and representatives are the elected lawmakers, the presidentÃ is the elected executive, and the Constitution is the official charter. Perhaps as a natural outgrowth of Athenian democracy, the first documented representative democracy appeared around 509 BCE in the form of the Roman Republic. While the Roman RepublicÃ¢â¬â¢s constitution was mostly unwritten and enforced by custom, it outlined a system of checks and balances between the different branches of government. This concept of separate governmental powers remains a feature of almost all modern republics. Is the United States a Republic or a Democracy? The following statement is often used to define the United States system of government: The United States is a republic, not a democracy.Ã¢â¬ This statement suggests that the concepts and characteristics of republics and democracies can never coexist in a single form of government. However, this is rarely the case. As in the United States, most republics function as blended Ã¢â¬Å"representational democraciesÃ¢â¬ featuring a democracyÃ¢â¬â¢s political powers of the majority tempered by a republicÃ¢â¬â¢s system of checks and balances enforced by a constitution that protects the minority from the majority. To say that the United States is strictly a democracy suggests that the minority is completely unprotected from the will of the majority, which is not correct. Republics and Constitutions As a republicÃ¢â¬â¢s most unique feature, a constitution enables it to protect the minority from the majority by interpreting and, if necessary, overturning laws made by the elected representatives of the people. In the United States, the Constitution assigns this function to the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. For example, in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared all state laws establishing separate racially segregated public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional.Ã Ã In its 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling, the Supreme Court overturned all remaining state laws banning interracial marriages and relationships. More recently, in the controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that federal election laws prohibiting corporations from contributing to political campaigns violated the corporationsÃ¢â¬â¢ constitutional rights of free speech under the First Amendment. The constitutionally-granted power of the judicial branch to overturn laws made by the legislative branch illustrates the unique ability of a republicÃ¢â¬â¢s rule of law to protect the minority from a pure democracyÃ¢â¬â¢s rule of the masses. References Definition of Republic. Dictionary.com. Ã¢â¬Å"a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.Ã¢â¬ Definition of Democracy. Dictionary.com. Ã¢â¬Å"government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.Ã¢â¬ Woodburn, James Albert. Ã¢â¬Å"The American Republic and Its Government: An Analysis of the Government of the United States.Ã¢â¬ G. P. Putnam, 1903Peacock, Anthony Arthur (2010-01-01). Ã¢â¬Å"Freedom and the Rule of Law.Ã¢â¬ Rowman Littlefield. ISBN 9780739136188.Founders Online. Ã¢â¬Å"From Alexander Hamilton to Gouverneur Morris.Ã¢â¬ 19 May 1777.
Friday, May 15, 2020
In addition to the biological and environmental factors affecting child development, their age is the manner in which questions of the study are posed. The exact nature of questions as they are presented to a child may have an effect on how that child perceives the physical phenomenon and how they are then able to apply conceptual ideas to explain that phenomenon. One of the most basic divisions on how questions are posed to study participants is whether the question is open ended or close ended. Either type of question has its advantages and disadvantages and may have an effect on how the child s responses are formulated and rated. While one might anticipate that open-ended questions would allow the child the greatest leeway in their answers and offer the greatest insight into the participant s level of scientific consistency, this is not always the case. For example, a recently composed questionnaire was created that contained 40 open ended questions. This survey was easy to create and implement, but experienced difficulties once the participants had completed it. In particular, the respondents provided a large amount of extraneous information that was difficult and time-consuming for the researchers to sift through and the responses themselves were often difficult to quantify for comparison (Henning, 2009). We will write a custom essay sample on Specifics of Childrens' Understanding of the Earth or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now These issues illustrate how, while they allow participants greater leeway in providing information to the facilitator, open-ended questions can prove problematic in analysis and quantification once the data has been collected, problematic for scientific research. In turn, forced-choice or close ended questions are nearly the opposite of open ended questions in their advantages and disadvantages. The first significant difference is that these questions can be more difficult and time consuming to write than their open ended cousins. Care must be given to the selection of choices offered by each question, specifically to not clutter the selection with highly unlikely options, to arrange the choices in an appropriate manner that does not unduly influence the selection process, and to include all commonly selected choices as options.
Wednesday, May 6, 2020
In Greece, homosexuality became common within their culture; which with this socially accepted involvement, some could say, provided the groundwork for the child molestation act of pederasty. It appears the GreekÃ¢â¬â¢s institutionalized sodomy to a new level for children that involved predominantly upper-class men in the 7th century B.C.; shamefully, boosted with pride concerning this Ã¢â¬Ëtraining system as their civil duty.Ã¢â¬â¢ They professed to be giving needed guidance to young boys (eromenos); who became effectively courted by older men (the erastes or Ã¢â¬ËloverÃ¢â¬â¢). The Greeks became flamboyant with their exploitation of adolescents and cunningly gave personal attention to young boys to produce sexual cooperation. Distinctly, there existed a real challenge between Greek homosexuals, involving who would become the Ã¢â¬Ëdominating partner;Ã¢â¬â¢ (which transpires as an extreme shame if you were the lesser); therefore, an infinite number of repugnant circu mstances arose, while using childrenÃ¢â¬â¢s passiveness to conceal the menÃ¢â¬â¢s perverted actions. Although, people exalt ancient philosophers for their intelligence and wisdom; perversely Plato proudly declares, Ã¢â¬Å"Pederasty, philosophy, and nude sports as the three things that set the Hellenes (Greeks) apart from the barbariansÃ¢â¬ (Symposium, 182b). Suitably, being compared to barbarians speaks for itself. Plato explains pederasty two years before his death, stating, Ã¢â¬Å"Ã¢â¬ ¦man is far more beautiful, more excellent, nearer to perfection than woman;Ã¢â¬ Show MoreRelatedThe Child Molestation Act Of Pederasty975 Words Ã |Ã 4 Pages In the earliest of time in Greece, homosexuality became common within the civilization; which with this socially accepted involvement, some could say, provided the groundwork for the child molestation act of pederasty. Conversely, it appears the GreekÃ¢â¬â¢s institutionalized sodomy to a new level for children that involved predominantly upper-class men in the 7th century B.C.; shamefully, boosted with pride concerning this Ã¢â¬Ëtraining system as their civil duty.Ã¢â¬â¢ They professed to be giving needed
Tuesday, May 5, 2020
Journey: Trial By Fire Journey was started in 1973. Their lead singers name was Steve Perry. He has a soft calm voice in the album Ã¢â¬Å"Trial By Fire.Ã¢â¬ The album is a 16 song track of romance. Every song on this album was about being in love. The band originates from San Francisco, California. They have an upbeat rhythm to their songs so it is easy to dance to. The album is a blast in the past with Neal Schons excellent guitarist talent in the song Ã¢â¬Å"One MoreÃ¢â¬ . I think the album is very bland and most of the songs sound the same. But the album cover did interest me a lot. i like how it makes no sense and does not connect with any of the song names or lyrics. And i like how they use space themes for most of their album covers. We will write a custom essay sample on Trial By Fire by Journey or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page They are different from the rest by not putting their band picture on any of their album covers. I donÃ¢â¬â¢t normally like love songs but this album was okay for me.
Sunday, April 12, 2020
The Rights Of Punishment Wake Up Call Is this a hellish nightmare that I have to awaken from? Caged and confined, thinking and pondering, I wonder what human is this that he should be subjected to imprisonment that neither improves nor corrects his soul? Is there no compassion for restoring a man to contribute to this nation? Or does the dark side of humanity see offenders of the law as utter undesirables unworthy of aid and therapy? Society, I have been tried and sentenced. Serving time for violating the law is not supposed to be a picnic. But demoralizing and dehumanizing a man to the dust of the ground does not correct behavior that got him incarcerated in the first place. This only fuels the fire, a fire which, if not handled properly, will in time burn everything in its path. Now who is the real criminal? Cell 52514 Block 2-229 Crescent City Penitentiary Everyday, the American prison system becomes more crowded and over-burdened. Prison bed space cannot keep up with the prison population. While presidents and governors call for a ?tough stance? on crime, the infrastructure is inadequate to contain all offenders. However, even if there were enough room to fit every individual that commits a criminal act, would this be the best move for the community and the offender? Placing an individual into a prison removes them from the general population, thus making the society they live in safer. But, separating individuals in a community does indirectly injure the community as a whole. These individuals obviously are no longer contributing to the local economy, but on a basic level, their absence places a hole into a community. Offenders have been shaped by the values and practices of their community. So, even though an individual may have acted in a way that is unacceptable to their community, that person is still the product of his community . Therefore, communities must hold some of the burden for making people into who they are. So, prisons must do more then just contain offenders. A responsible society must make the effort to rehabilitate these individuals and make strides to re-connect them with the community. As Bill McKibben says, ?Isn't it time to focus harder on substantive problems, such as how do we build a society that doesn't destroy the planet by its greed, and doesn't ignore the weak and the poor (McKibben, p. 720).? Much attention has been given to issues of big business versus the environment. People can sympathize with this cause. Though it may not be as glamorous, it is just as important that society's addresses the needs of the less fortunate. Even though criminals who commit the most heinous crimes receive the majority of public attention, most offenders are not intrinsically evil or irreversible. Often they are weak individuals who may not have received the best upbringing or have instilled in them a set of values incompatible with the community. McKibben feels that it is important not to ignore these unfortunate individuals, and give them an opportunity to re-engage with society in a mutually acceptable way. Therefore, prisons need to train offenders to exist with the rest of society. In the book, C-Unit, the authors suggest that prisons fulfill a certain role. The modern prison is asked to perform three tasks: (1) to make explicit in action that the community will not tolerate certain destructive behaviors; (2) to protect the community, for at least temporary periods of time; and (3) to prepare such persons to be responsible members of the community when they are released from prison. (Studt, Messinger and Thomas, p. 3) By containing prisoners within the confines of a jail, they are removed from the community at large, thus protecting the community. In addition, by making this prison stay punishment, inmates, for the most part, realize that they acted in a way that was unacceptable. Preparing individuals for re-integration into society is where the role of a prison becomes complex. A prison stay is unlikely to reform any criminal if it only means that they are separated from the community and there is no drive to change. The first change that needs to be addressed is on the value system of an inmate. Without this, it is only superficial to urge
Tuesday, March 10, 2020
buy custom The WorldÃ¢â¬â¢s Gun Control essay The worlds gun control lobbyists promote the theory enthusiastically, namely the International Network for Small Arms (IANSA), a network, which regional and national gun control lobbyists belong. IANSAs director, on behalf of the group, endorsed the prohibition of firearm for self-defense possession. IANSA works toward the overall confiscation of non-governmentally firearms, with an exception for low-power rifles and single-shot guns owned by hunters. Amnesty International also works closely with IANSA together with Oxfam, with the three forming a lobbying group referred to as Control Arms. The IANSA in collaboration with the United Nations, work in collaboration to support a common agenda. This has had a radical effect on the right to defend one-self (Shute Hurley 38). The right to defend one-self in English law is generally a complete defense of all levels of assault. Charles argues that it can be of use in mitigating liability from situations of murder to manslaughter (213). This is in the case where a police officer or a soldier acting in his duty uses a stronger degree of force than expected or necessary for self-defense. Therefore, self-defense is discernible from provocation that only applies in mitigating what would otherwise change from murder to manslaughter (Todd 145). Scott says that because of the defense completeness, Self-defense in interpretation is relatively conservative as a way to avoid the creation of a standard of justification (134-143). The more level of forgiving a defense is the superior the incentive for a defendant to; relatively exploit it when making plans for the use of violence or in the attempt of explaining matters after the self-defense event (Scott 134-143). Therefore, even if the jury in cases of self-defense is entitled to take account of the actual physical characteristics of the respective defendant, the corrected evidence has little value in making decisions whether excessive force was of use in such an event (Robertson John 76-79). The law states, "A defendant has a right to use reasonable force in the event of protecting himself, as well as others for whom he holds responsibility as well as his property but the force must be reasonable." In the right to defend one-self, there is a controversy of what force is exactly reasonable as stipulated in the law. Opinions differ, and many scholars and organizations have different perspectives on the issue of reasonable force. The question underlying this is what the reasonable amount of force would be (Shute Hurley 38). However, in all cases, the respective defendant does not truly have the right of deciding how much force is so-called reasonable because it would be a norm for the defendant in maintaining the reasonable force (Forsythe 18-27). This would also contradict the isue of guiltiness because situations vary as explained in the earlier discussion, in this paper. Some situations do not even warrant any use of force and therefore, the defendants would use the concept of reasonable force to while away their guilt (David Joanne 43178). The jury, as members of the general community, should be the ones to decide the level or degree of reasonable force depending on the circ umstances that the defendants were at the time when they executed the right to defend one-self (Michael 156). Robertson John also argues that it is pertinent that the respective defendant was under pressure in situations of attack, and the imminent attack would not give him time act rational or make considerations of the amount of force used (76-79). Therefore, in executing a judgment on the right to defend one-self the test should balance the standard of a pertinent reasonable person through the attribution of some of the relative, subjective knowledge of the respective defendant, with an inclusion of their beliefs about the specific circumstances (Shute Hurley 38). However, even permitting for mistakes made in the event of crisis, the degree of force must also be proportionate as well as reasonable given the interests protected as well as the harm likely to occur by use of such force (Charles 213). The classic test on the right to defend one-self comes from the Jamaican Palmer v The Queen case, on appeal presented to the Privy Council in the year 1971. It espouses, "The defense in the event of self-defense is that which can be or will be understood readily by any jury. It is a type of a straightforward conception. Generally, it involves no particular form of abstruse legal thought. The defense only requires common sense for its understanding (Shute Hurley 38). The same is both convenient sense and reputable law that an attacked man may reiterate by defending himself (Forsythe 18-27). It is both convenient sense and reputable law that the man may do it, but may do, what is only and reasonably necessary. However, everything will be dependent upon the particular circumstances and facts (Todd 145). It may, in particular cases be, clearly possible and sensible to take candid avoiding action. There are attacks that may be dangerous and serious while others may not (Michael 156). If there were relatively some minor attack in the event, it would not be reasonable to allow some action of retaliation that was wholly over the proportion of the respective situation (David Joanne 43178). If an attack is severe and serious putting someone in instantaneous peril then direct defensive action might be relatively necessary (Shute Hurley 38). If the situation is one of predicament for someone in danger, he may have to literally, avert the danger through some instant reaction. When the attack is over and noo peril remains, then it is expected that the force employment ceases, and the introduction of revenge or even some form of punishment done through either paying off or pure aggression (Charles 213). There may not be any link with an inevitability of defense particularly when a jury thinks that in the situation of unexpected anguish an individual attacked only did what he instincti vely and honestly thought as necessary as the most potent evidence only reasonable as a defensive action" (Scott 134-143). Robertson John argues that the right to defend one-self is also dependent on the intent or the reason for holding the weapon (76-79). He gives an example in explaining the right to defend one-self. He illustrates that in R v Lindsay (2005), the defendant who was said to pick up a sword in defending himself after an attack in his home by masked intruders armed with handguns, cut and killed one of the attackers. He slashed him repeatedly using a sword in self-defense. The prosecution case read that, although he initially had acted in self-defense, he lost self-control and in the process demonstrating a clear intent of killing the armed intruder because, he slashed continuously (Forsythe 18-27). In fact, he was himself a cannabis dealer keeping the sword available in defending him against fellow drug dealers. The Court of Appeal did confirm an eight-year term for him to serve imprisonment (Shute Hurley 38). In a non-criminal context, this would not be the expectation for the case of o rdinary householders "going too far" to defend themselves against armed robbers (Todd 145). They would receive a self-defense probe because of the intention of their act as well as the possession of the weapon (David Joanne 43178). In explaining the right to defend one-self, the most astonishing claim is the Frey report, that there is no right of humans of self-defense. The reports states, No international right of human of self-defense is set forth expressly in the sources of international law including customary law, treaties, or general principles (David Joanne 43178). While the human right to life is evident in practically every foremost human rights treaty internationally, the right to defend one-self is expressly recognized only in one, that is, Protection of Human Rights Convention and Fundamental Freedoms (European Human Rights Convention) (Michael 156). In conclusion, the right to defend one-self is extremely wide and covered by many scholars but the international law has still not appropriately mandated the use of defense especially use of restrictive gun control. The issue is also wide as it covers key areas in self-defense including others and own property. There is therefore, need for specialty in each subject and a cardinal in each subject individually covered to cover the issue subjectively. Buy custom The WorldÃ¢â¬â¢s Gun Control essay
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Small-Business Idea Paper - Assignment Example Advantages and Disadvantages of Four Different Forms of Business Organizations There are fundamentally four types of business forms currently practiced by entrepreneurs, such as sole proprietorship, partnership, C-Corporation, and S-Corporation. However, with due consideration to their practical implementation, various advantages and disadvantages can be identified which are elaborated in the further discussion. Sole Proprietorship Majority of the businesses observed in the locality are of this kind. The most significant advantages served by this form of business are the minimum obligation of legal implications. To be elaborated, The profits accrued from the business is entirely receivable to the proprietor Unhindered employment of capital in the business The proprietor possesses exclusive control on the business Tax rebates and exclusion from capital gains are served to the proprietor Apart from these advantages, a sole proprietorship concern also require facing disadvantages as fol lows, In this case, the proprietor is liable for any loss or repayment of debt incurred from the business Transfer of proprietorship is subjected to a wide number of legal obligations (Pride, Hughes, & Kapoor, 2011) Partnership Partnership concerns are quite different from the forms of sole proprietorship. It is in this context that this form possesses significant advantages as well as disadvantages in its ultimate implications. These are as follows, Advantages: Partnership firms have no formal requirements for its creation or running the business The partners engaged in the firm are only liable to pay individual taxes and also enjoys distributed liability of any debt and/or loss incurred by the concern Disadvantages: Termination of partnership is subjected to various legal requirement As the concern is not termed as a legal entity, debts and losses incurred by the firms are to be repaid by the partners (Gitman & McDaniel, 2008) C-Corporation Similar to the aforementioned two busine ss forms, this form also possesses significant advantages along with few disadvantages which are as follows, Advantages: Limited liability of the owners as subjected to their investments to the business Gathering a significant amount of capital is uncomplicated in this form Number of owners or shareholders can be unlimited Disadvantages: Operational structure is quite complex Significant influence of legal barriers can be witnessed Rights and power of control in the firm is determined according to the investment considered by the shareholders (Barringer & Ireland, 2009) S-Corporation It has been widely termed that S-Corporations possess missed advantages and disadvantages of partnership firms and other forms of regular businesses. However, the most apparent advantages and disadvantages of S-Corporation are as follows, Advantages: The owners are required to disburse either corporate tax or individual tax only Constructive rules for employment tax with