Make out a case against the adoption of a codified constitution for the UK The UK constitution has been around for over 300 years, and is renowned around the world for its efficiency, however, in recent years, politics has taken a change, that most would say is for the better. These changes leave the UK’s constitution looking rather dated in comparison, and some critics say that it is time for a drastic change in our constitution, however is this drastic change really needed for a system that’s worked well for so long already? The UK constitution is uncodified, meaning that it is not written down in one continuous document. While there are those who say this leaves the people in a haze about their rights, it allows for swift changes to anything that needs done, this is immensely helpful for times of crisis, when the public look to government to quickly make decisions. If the constitution was codified, it would become entrenched, meaning that for it to be changed, a long arduous process would have to be taken.
It was clear from that point onwards that things were going to get difficult. Many people were therefore skeptical of the future, war seemed inevitable. But the new age of conflict did not emerge abruptly, but barely showed itself at all, and managed to slip into the guise of a global intelligence operation. While it may have been easy to see the whole era as a simple toying between each side, barely a war at all, it still remains clear that this was not a game, but simply a much cleverer alternative to all out warfare. A definite vein of competition between both factions ingrained itself into the very political structure of the powers involved, Soviet Russia and America.
The CIA The CIA is the unsung hero of our nation. They are the force that, since the 1950’s, has worked silently to keep our nation safe. Seldom are their efforts visible to the public eye, yet they alter and influence the course of the United States on a daily basis. This constantly overlooked faction of the government is heavily criticized and underappreciated. The lengths they go to in order to keep our country safe are obscured by popular opinion and a general lack of understanding surrounding the topic.
When people think of the Civil War, they think about the causes of the war. They think about the battles, the leaders from each side, the outcomes of each event, and the new agreements that had been settled on after the war. However, many people don’t realize and take into consideration the significant amount of new advancements that were made in this period of time. Inventors and military men developed new types of weapons, such as the repeating rifle and the submarine, which forever changed the way that wars were fought. These technological innovations had a major impact on the way people fought the Civil War.
War is bad, and that’s a given. Now that doesn’t mean that war is always unnecessary, sometimes it can be justified. For instance, where would we be if the United States never fought for Independence during the Revolutionary War? What if the United States never stepped in and ended Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich? These past wars were indisputably necessary; however, was the Vietnam War worth it?
Back when the “Duck and Cover” film came out the government was limited to what they could do to prevent a nuclear war. They were limited on what systems they had that would help notify when a nuclear war was about to take place. Now technology is so advanced that we would be aware of things like that and are a lot more conscious of any upcoming attacks. I’m not saying it’s impossible for terrorism to happen, but I am saying that we have a lot of highly updated technology that helps us feel safer in case of any terrorism attacks that were to occur, unlike decades
June 6, 2013 Gun Control Although the matter of gun control and the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is very well known and provokes large amounts of controversy, it is to note that there is fairly limited academic literature about public opinion about the subject. Some of the reference material is older, but it is important to note that gun control perspectives have barely changed over time. The two sides constantly struggle to find common ground in the legislation that is approved across the country, for example the “conservative” supporters of gun control base their opinions on the right to bear arms express in the Second Amendment, while the more “liberal” parties challenge those rights on the basis of historical and cultural changes to the country’s culture. Events as the recent school mass shootings in Connecticut, have served as a reignited factor in this disputes, with both sides arguing on the legality of ownership, type and access of these guns to the general population. The resulting arguments have conclude that the majority of public opinion have constantly held the dual position of accepting some form of gun control and/or registration, which limits access to firearms while simultaneously rejecting a complete ban or severe restrictions on gun possession.
All of the events throughout history we have done in America makes it unique. Despite America being noted of the uniqueness, America had been exceptional before, but where America is standing now is not how it used to be. People from different countries sees America as an opportunity as they see its freedom and wanting to migrate over here. Reasons as to why they see America as a second chance was because the government had let Americans do whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t disrupt the government. They cannot give a helping hand to assist each of the citizens, because the government only have to do their own duties by protecting the people from the casualties of disasters and
There is not enough national interest in such actions for the United States to sacrifice the American lives. The Afghanistan might have been seen as a country opened for a democracy, but as the attacks from 11 September showed, the American view of the spread of democracy is not viewed by the affected nations in the same light. Probably because these interventions had not yet ended by the time Kirkpatrick finished her book, she focused only briefly on these issues. She did nevertheless consider the US involvement as potentially unsuccessful. In the case of Afghanistan, there would be a point of trying to institute a democratic regime if it was right after the won Afghan war from 1980’s.
(Thanks to Howard Zinn's A People’s History of the United States [2] for inspiration.) Unfortunately the vast majority of Americans are either unaware of these harmful practices or have been misled about their necessity. These are some clear examples of why we should not trust the military rhetoric: •At the top of the list, of course, is the war in Vietnam, where we fought to free people who didn’t want to be freed, much less killed, and against a country which had little chance of threatening us. •But besides that, instead of responding with outrage, we’ve bowed to our own self-interest and supplied actual money and military manpower to torturous regimes and murderers of their own citizens in such countries as the Philippines (in 1980), Nicaragua (early 80’s), El Salvador (80’s), East Timor (90’s and earlier), and Colombia (now). •For dubious or even manufactured reasons, we’ve invaded Cuba (Bay of Pigs, 1961) and Grenada (1983).