Bernie Bartolome October 22, 2012 A New Nation After much consideration and evaluation between the British and the Colonists, I remain my stance that the Colonists have the more reasonable and convincing position during the intolerable acts of tyranny from the British. With this, I have five arguments to support my opinion. My arguments follow: the Colonists had no representative in Parliament, they had not been under the English influence for generations, they wanted control over the affairs that the Colonists started, and the British enforced irrational taxes upon them. Through this justification, I understand the Colonists’ dispute toward the British through the American Revolution. Each of my arguments revolves around the idea that the British were unfair towards their treatment of the colonists, which compels me to justify the Colonists quarrel against the British.
The Constitution changed the structure of power of the government from that which existed within the British system. Two ways this can be proven is that the Constitution separated the powers of the government into three branches. Also, the British system does not have a written constitution, only a collection of parliaments. One feature of the American constitution is the strict separation of the powers of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The British political system has no such formal separation of the powers.
But there are other courses of the break out of the armed conflict not just polices of the British Government that are the colonies as not all of the polices where unreasonable. The reaction of the Americans to the British was also could be a reason for the outbreak. Also some events affected the break out too. In 1763 Britain started introducing some rigorous policy’s, that where made change in the colonies and this was change that the colonies didn’t really want... This was because for year they where use to being on their own and Britain taking no interest in what they do.
The UK has a unitary constitution, where all power and authority resides in Parliament. They can make or unmake any law but cannot bind future parliaments. Although the increased use of referendums and membership of the EU may lead people to argue that Parliamentary sovereignty is being diminished. The rule of law is also a key part of the UK constitution, it’s based on the principle that no one is above the law and no one can be punished without a trial. It underlies the UK constitutions and limits the government.
SEC failed at this due to the fact that their product will not operate above 130 degrees F, and that the requirements would not be able to be met without different materials (The Orion Shield Project, 2003). Due to this issue alone, it caused problems with the project, delaying the timeline for completion, increased the amount of resources used and not committing to the stakeholders. Not only did they fail to meet the temperature standard, they also failed to meet the life span expectation. Mr. Allison is responsible for overcoming these technical objectives as project manager of The Orion Shield Project. Ethical Issue: Before even beginning the project, Mr. Allison couldn’t keep his commitment in regards to meeting the temperature requirement.
''The UK constitution is not fit for purpose'' The bulk of liberal democracies in the world are ones of which have a constitution known as codified. The UK does not have a codified constitution or an entrenched constitution. This puts the UK in a small group of liberal democracies to not have a codified system along side with Israel, Saudi Arabia and New Zealand. Instead the UK has a constitution that contains a variety of written and unwritten sources which lays out the laws, rules and conventions of how the UK is to be governed whilst protecting the rights of the citizens. It is a common question amongst political scientists as to whether the UK constitution is fit for purpose.
Sovereignty is in essence ultimate and unchallengeable power, the location of sovereignty in the UK in recent years has changed from one single power and devolved into many unions, treaties and nations within the UK and EU. Parliament is the only body that can make law in the UK. No other authority can overrule or change the laws which the parliament has made. This, then gives the statute law more power and priority over the other sources of the constitutions. This then allows the parliament to change or repeal any law it wants and is also not bounded by the laws made by the previous parliaments.
Though it was made illegal to sell prescription drugs through the Ryan Haight act, which explicitly prohibit the on-line sale of these drugs without at least one in person doctor’s office visit, the problem is still rampant. It is extremely difficult to crack down on the online pharmacies because many are based/located overseas where the United States have no jurisdiction. This is clearly unethical to sell a drug to a patient without a prescription, so why do these e-Pharma companies do it. It is most definitely an outcome based approach on ethics. There is a lot of money to be made in the online prescription industry.
On the face of it, the containment of demonstrators would appear to be a clear breach of Art 5, however the courts have now focused on the exceptional circumstances in which the state will have lawful justification to employ the tactic. Until the convention was received into domestic law, domestic law continued to afford virtually no recognition to rights to meet or march. Now under Section 6 of HRA, those seeking to exercise rights of protest and assembly can rely on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention and any other relevant right, against public authorities, in particular the police. The Court has repeatedly asserted that freedom of expression, ‘’constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society’’ that exceptions to it ‘’must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions, convincingly established.’’1 However the Commission has been readily satisfied that decisions of the national authorities to adopt quite far reaching measures, including complete bans in order to prevent disorder are within their margin of appriation.2 The court has also found ‘’the margin of appreciation’’ extends in particular to the choice of the reasonable and appropriate means to be used by the authority to ensure that lawful manifestations take place peacefully.3 When looking at lawful manifestations they must bear in mind the common law doctrine of breach of the peace. The leading case is Howell4 in which it
In particular, Section 2, freedom of expression, does not state specifically the degree to which it can be used. Meanwhile, it is mentioned in Section 15 (1) that every citizen has the right to equal protection from discrimination before and under the law; Zundel violates this section of the Charter since he was allowed to publish a book based on his personal prejudice and attack on an identifiable group. Similarly, Keegstra, an Alberta high school teacher, denied the existence of the Holocaust and promoted his ideas to the classroom; but unlike Zundel, he was denied his freedom of expression even though Zundel was just as discriminatory towards the Jews. This is an example of the inconsistencies with a liberal view of the Charter- Section 2 most notably- and so, with a more conservative view, certain limits would be placed on the individual's rights to eliminate ambiguity, confusion, and contradictions in the law as much as possible; this in turn will give people a clearer understanding as to how far they can use these rights to defend themselves so that there is no abuse of rights. Not only that, but similar cases will also be treated equally.