It established a weak central government with strong individual state governments. Because of this the federal government was too weak to maintain control over all the colonies, which led to many problems amongst the states. It left the country without a political leader such as a president. It also left the country no way to pay off the war debts from the previous years and it was lacking a tax
World order is defined under the Uniter Nations Charter as the “maintenance of international peace and security”. It generally refers to a system of internationally set arrangements preserving global political stability. The notion of world order is important as it promotes peace and resolves conflicts between and within nations. As numerous conflicts arise, whether it may involve social, political, moral or religious differences, world order is present to stimulate peace and security as well as promote economic stability and social progress for all nations. International law, international systems as well as principles currently exist to aim to resolve disputes, however the compliance predominantly relies on the discretion of state sovereignty and jus cogens, which both act as barriers in achieving world order.
In order for the EU to achieve bringing Europe together after World War 2 they would need to expand. Its original and early members included, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Germany. Early member states included the UK. The advantages for the states to include post communist states would help democracy thrive after being under communist leadership. Enlarging the EU would bring democratic institutions, protect human rights, and would end the divisions in Europe which would benefit the member stated who would be bringing peace to the region.
This is very important in their job as they will only look for views to help the country, even if those are unpopular. Whereas if there was an elected second chamber their views would always be held accountable, but more importantly then some of their revisions may not be what is best for the country, but what the populous believe to be important, which removes the whole objectivity of the revising chamber. This issue could have been questioned under many unpopular parliamentary decisions such as with the Iraq War in 2003, where many of the voters would likely be against it as seen by the many demonstrations, whereas an expert in the Military in House of Lords may believe that it is possible to win the war, however at the next vote his skills would likely be lost when he wouldn’t be re-elected. A wholly elected upper chamber would also pose several problems in regards to the Lords’ expertise. As at the moment, the upper chamber is comprised of experts in their fields leading to high quality debates, if not higher than in the Commons.
They get involved with their own desires for career success, as well as their desires for positive outcomes for their own countries. Doing poorly and conceding often requires that negotiators not be embarrassed; that is, that they "save face" for themselves personally and for their governments at home. Let's start this discussion with the famous leaders mentioned so far in the course: In the Week 6 readings you see their own need to "save face" for themselves and their countries. What are some of the great examples shown so far of "saving face" on the part of diplomats? What does "saving face" mean in diplomatic
Our founding fathers fought for a separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to avoid conflict and rise of power in one or more branches. In that aspect I believe the government works in a constructive manner to ensure equality between the branches, however, in the matter of working in a constructive manner for the good of the people is less certain. This country is facing an economic crisis and there are members of both parties that would tell the general public they would like the war in Afghanistan and Iraq to come to an end when in reality an economic recovery is the last thing they want to happen in a foreign country. The Republican Party, for example, would have liked to see a higher unemployment rate towards the end of 2012 in hopes of decreasing the chances of the President’s re-election. Higher unemployment rates lead to a more devastating economic crisis resulting in the failure to re-elect a democratic President or more precisely, our current President.
It's very important for us to take care of our own, without helping those who are in need here, we are doing a disservice to our own people. I would argue that our society would have the ability to do both. We don't need to be the policemen of all of the world's problems, but we do need to make sure we are making the world a better place. All politicians campaign on the notion that we are using our military, power, and wealth to create a better place for all and what better way to let this be shown then by helping those who are less fortunate in foreign countries. I feel our government and fellow citizens can do much more to help.
Do we still need to be alert in our pursuit of a more reasonable society? Well the supposedly civilian government has introduced reforms aiming for increased democratization and development, but the challenges are huge in a country characterized by serious and extensive human rights abuses. The international community has welcomed the changes and suspended most supports. Ongoing conflicts, weak institutions and corruption add to the risks. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial agreement and a color-blind society.
Some federal programs have become so complicated and wasteful that perhaps the states should just let them die. Isabel Sawhill asserted that the two most significant recent changes in U.S. intergovernmental relations have been the enactment of a long-term plan for eventual reduction in federal aid to state and local governments and the substitution of block grants for matching grants. The potentially adverse ramiﬁcations of aid reduction have yet to surface because the strong economy has shrunk welfare caseloads and TANF offers states generous short-term increases in assistance relative to what they would receive under the old AFDC program. However, states would probably lower their levels of welfare beneﬁts if the economy fell into recession, the incidence of single-parent families and poverty among children continued to rise, and the long-run caps on
Although Clinton’s scandal was unprofessional, it was not a great enough cause for impeachment. Both cases have affected the government; Johnson’s trial have caused a closer speculation by our government to review bills and acts before they are passed so an unconstitutional act will not be passed again; Clinton’s trial may have expressed that the President’s private life may not affect how he performs his presidential duties. The impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton have similarities and differences, but both have had a positive effect of the United States