The Evolution of the Commerce Clause Business regulation is one of the most debated features of modern politics. Regulation is commonly known to effect business ability to be competitive in both internal and external markets. The federal government’s ability to regulate business has grown out of the judicial branches’ constant manipulation of the contextual meaning of various elements of the Constitution. The progressive manipulation is a non-debatable fact, but the overall benefits, or consequences is a hotbed for argument. Progressives carrying the belief the importance of a living constitution are pinned up against Originalist who quest to preserve the original founding fathers intentions behind the text of the constitution.
1. The “classical model of politics” is where there are a number of different correct forms of government, and each form of government can devolve into a dishonest form of government, in which it can, and often times will, become corrupted. Thucydides has been called the father of the school of Political Realism, which basically is the idea that states’ main motivation is the desire for military and economic power, and not ideals and ethics. It is like power politics. Thucydides does not directly support the argument of the “classical model of politics” but his views of Political Realism sort of allude to it.
President Woodrow Wilson wrote “the he Constitution of the United States is not a mere lawyers’ document, it is a vehicle of life and its spirit is always the spirit of the age.” One must keep this fact in mind when comparing the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation. There was a vast difference in the “spirit of the age” when these documents were drafted. Coming on the heels of the Declaration of Independence and the war against England, and afraid of a dictatorship or a government that did not listen to its people, the Articles of Confederation (which will be referred to as AoC) were written it a way that gave more power to the states. The problem with this type of government was that it was too difficult to enact or enforce laws and the government could not collect enough taxes to support itself. I believe the Constitution did a better job of protecting liberties, specifically in the areas of the federal court system, representation of the people, and the levy of taxes.
The "Whig interpretation," as Butterfield calls it, sees history as a struggle between a progression of good libertarian parties and evil reactionary forces, failing to do justice to history's true complexity. The word Whig has its origins in the seventeenth century as a term of abuse against political opponents, and has become a convenient label for one historian to attach to another as a mark of scorn. In Butterfields work, he criticized historians who wrote present-minded history and, in so doing, fell with an echoing thud into traps, which superior historians must avoid. Through Butterfields five sweeping chapters, he makes three remarks that answer the question, why, despite the scolding of an entire discipline do modern historians seem to be drawn to anachronism, or as
Tony Judt argues that Stalin ruled with ‘uncompromising rigidity and confrontational tactics’, this is somewhat supported by source 8 as it highlights that the ‘personality of Stalin’ was a significant internal factor in the USSR. Stalin’s persistent drive to achieve security by creating a buffer zone meant that agreements between the two powers were difficult. However, his policy on Poland, 1945, and the Stalinisation of Eastern Europe, 1945-48, reflected a genuine desire to protect the USSR from any future Western attack. Stalin was also ‘uncompromising’ over the reparations for Germany, he was determined to strip the Soviet zone of raw materials, and this worsened relations with the West at
But just as frequent is war within a state between rival groups or communities, like the American Civil War" (Orend, 2005). In addition, war is "precisely, and ultimately, about governance" (Orend, 2005). It is a "violent way for determining who gets to say what goes on in a given territory" (Orend, 2005). Orend points out that the mere threat of war, or mutual dislike and disdain, are not necessarily indicators of war. "The conflict of arms must be actual, and not merely latent, for it to count as war" (Orend, 2005).
I had to overcome my own bias on the issue and examine objectively each aspect and implication of Fulbright’s argument. In itself, critically evaluating the argument was excruciating. Still, being able to apply the critical thinking of the lesson and examine the argument from the perspective of how it achieves the purpose of persuading an audience was rewarding. Critical Evaluation Essay: Arrogance of Power In “The Arrogance of Power” Senator J. W. Fulbright discusses his opposition to America’s tendency to involve itself in the affairs of other nations, specifically South Vietnam. He argues that great nations should refrain from direct involvement, whether politically or through military action.
8. War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or within nations, and economic sanctions are rarely effective. Therefore, we should build a system of jurisprudence based on the International Court—that the U.S. has refused to support—which would hold individuals responsible for crimes against humanity. 9. If we are to deal effectively with terrorists across the globe, we must develop a sense of empathy—I don't mean "sympathy," but rather "understanding"—to counter their attacks on us and the Western World.
It is necessary for it to be elastic. While the clause may allow, perhaps, small, technical violations of the principles of the Revolution, it is for the greater good of the Union. The clause essentially establishes that the pursuit of harmony between order and liberty is not unconstitutional. Staying completely true to Republican ideals is impossible, and will only cause greater problems, like complete anarchy. The means justify virtuous ends.
Thomas Bender, an accomplished and versatile historian at New York University, has undertaken a synthetic narrative of American history from a global perspective. By some measures, this might seem an impossible or contradictory task because it entails dissolving the solitary, progressive, and self-aggrandizing story of discovery, settlement, nation building, and international hegemony in favor of an international point of view from which the nation itself seems less in focus than the interplay of larger forces shaping development, economic change, competition among empires, and so on. Unlike modernization theory with its depiction of inevitability and a more or less singular model of success, this bird's-eye view of the nation links it to larger