He didn’t think he needed to ask Express the moral problem so that everyone will believe that his or her moral concerns have been recognized and included. * This is a moral problem because his actions of using company funds for personal use wasn’t economically efficient productive system, it didn’t produce more of the products that people most want an less use of the resources people least value, which is a definite value to society. In addition to this, his actions wasn’t informed to everyone. * Effective use of resources, What are the economic benefits? * What are the legal requirements?
“The judge determines the law when, while the jury is responsible for finding facts of the case in most common law jurisdiction”. Is the American jury system still a good idea? Is a good question to ask and in my personal opinion I do not believe it is. The reason why is based on documents B, C, D provides why I feel strong about my opinion. To begin with, the word “sacred crow” is something that is well respected and people do not want criticized.
It is very obvious from the way Hamilton Spoke in Federalist no. 78 that he didn’t take a care for the judicial system because it doesn’t affect what he is most concerned with, which is the wealth of society. In all actuality I think the Federalist Founders would be surprised by the judicial system if they could see it present day 2012. I think the Founders would be very shocked at how the Supreme Court creates the standard procedure for everyone else in the United States. 1788 which was the year that Hamilton wrote Federalist no.
Law & Popular Culture Can the Lex Populi increase access to the Legal System? There exists much argument in the legal profession that the Lex Populi, or law in popular culture, serves no purpose other then that of entertainment. Modern depictions of lawyers, the courtroom, judges and the legal system are criticised because they have little substantial value and are an inaccurate portrayal of the law in action. This paper considers that argument and examines the way in which law in popular culture can have a positive effect on increasing the lay man’s access to the legal system. Discussion centres around concepts of the lawyer as a translator, how the Lex Populi diminishes the value of the legal system because of its inaccuracies, the positives of law being depicted in popular culture and the role of the media and its influence on access to the legal system.
It would appear that in the eyes of Zinn, President Clinton left behind nothing but complications and a feeling of uneasiness for the next president to pick up. My reactions to these recent chapters are not very diverse. I am no longer surprised by the sheer amount of opinion that is put into this text. While I do not think badly of our past presidents, it is getting harder to separate my beliefs with Zinn’s “people’s perspective” since I have been immersed in his chapters for a long time. I can acknowledge an opinion, especially if it is an informed one, however, I must say my reaction to this chapter is one of slight disgust at the lack of respect Zinn shows for a previous president.
Alfieri tells us that there is a clear system of justice in America, as opposed to Italy. ‘Now we are civilised, quite American.’ He suggests that it is no longer necessary to take the law into your own hands, like people in Italy did and still do at this time. ‘I no longer keep a pistol in my filing cabinet.’ Significantly, he tells us that in the past people in America have done exactly this e.g. ‘Many have been justly shot by unjust men.’ This introduces the idea that the written law has not always worked and that ‘settling for half’ is perhaps not always accepted by the people of Red Hook. Miller uses Alfieri as narrator to introduce this idea to us; it is key to understanding the actions of both Eddie and Marco later in the play.
In section two of the Katha the whole tone seems to change. It no longer is Notknown asking questions of Father Death, but the other way around. Father Death starts out by talking about the difference between bliss and desire and what I found interesting is that he calls them opposites. It makes sense after reading the paragraph by Father Death, however without thinking about it in exactly that way it seems impossible at first that you can’t reach a state of bliss if you desire things. He described desire as blind ignorance, and bliss and insight which is true since most of what people desire at least here in America, are money and possessions which of course are both temporary.
The amount of power government has and the role it plays for a nation has been a long debate, in not just America’s past, but in nearly every organized country. Since our Founding Fathers, there have been those that have tried to reduce and keep at bay government intervention and spending, but with little success. In an interview on Uncommon Knowledge, Mr. Peter Robinson spoke with journalist John Stossel discussing his book No They Can’t: Why Government’s Fail….But Individuals Succeed. They converse a variety of economic issues covering these main points (1) the responsibilities of government, (2) the responsibilities of individuals, (3) the responsibilities of businesses and the market, and last (4) the responsibilities of you, me, and all Americans. The opening quote from Stossel’s book for the segment states that man’s natural instinct is to blame the government and ask for it to do something, often making the problem worse.
Most people really do not know the whole Constitution and it’s entirely but if they did there would be many things they would think is constitional and do not need to be changed. Madison believed to cure the problem remove the cause or control it. We have been using this all this time so obviously it is under control. Now if we decide to make a new one it is not going to make many people happy. It’s possible it will cause many problems and possibly another recession.
According to Dan Merica in an article on CNN.com, “During the 1995-1996 shutdowns, the House speaker and the president, despite their political differences, were more willing to negotiate on policy issues...That is not the case with President Barack Obama and Speaker John Boehner, whose relationship has been sullied by a number of difficult negotiations and failed deals on the budget and spending.” There has always and will always be disagreements in the government about the budget and spending among other things, but in this Obama era, the disagreements are more severe in regards to decision making. I can only speculate as to why these disagreements are as strong and as frequent as they are when it comes to President Obama. The government shutdown was getting to the point where the repercussions of not agreeing was becoming more and more real in the eyes of federal workers. According to Michelle Singletary in an article in The Washington Post, “The shutdown has affected more than 800,000 federal government employees. Employees designated as essential are not eligible for unemployment benefits.” The shutdown affected the government, citizens receiving government assistance and much more.