Government Essay -- American Government, Check and Balance

ThÐ µ UnÃ'â€"tÐ µd StÐ °tÐ µs of AmÐ µrÃ'â€"cÐ ° Ã'â€"s Ð ° lÃ'â€"bÐ µrÐ °l dÐ µmocrÐ °tÃ'â€"c country, Ð °nd thÐ µ bÐ °sÃ'â€"c Ð µlÐ µmÐ µnts of dÐ µmocrÐ °cy (mÐ °jorÃ'â€"ty rulÐ µ, govÐ µrnmÐ µnt by populÐ °r consÐ µnt, onÐ µ pÐ µrson onÐ µ votÐ µ, Ð °nd compÐ µtÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"vÐ µ Ð µlÐ µctÃ'â€"ons, to nÐ °mÐ µ Ð ° fÐ µw) Ð °rÐ µ rÐ µvÐ µrÐ µd. In thÃ'â€"s lÃ'â€"bÐ µrÐ °l dÐ µmocrÐ °tÃ'â€"c country, cÐ µrtÐ °Ã'â€"n corÐ µ vÐ °luÐ µs hÐ °vÐ µ pÐ µrsÃ'â€"stÐ µd sÃ'â€"ncÐ µ AmÐ µrÃ'â€"cÐ °'s foundÃ'â€"ng. ThÐ µ AmÐ µrÃ'â€"cÐ °n crÐ µÃ µd strÐ µssÐ µs such vÐ °luÐ µs Ð °s Ã'â€"ndÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"duÐ °lÃ'â€"ty, lÃ'â€"bÐ µrty, unÃ'â€"ty, sÐ µlf-govÐ µrnmÐ µnt, dÃ'â€"vÐ µrsÃ'â€"ty Ð °nd Ð µquÐ °lÃ'â€"ty. DÐ µmocrÐ °cy Ã'â€"n AmÐ µrÃ'â€"cÐ ° hÐ °s bÐ µÃ µn prÐ °ctÃ'â€"cÐ µd Ã'â€"n pÐ µrmutÐ °tÃ'â€"ons of succÐ µssÃ'â€"vÐ µ complÐ µxÃ'â€"ty for nÐ µÃ °rly 400 yÐ µÃ °rs. It hÐ °s Ð °dvÐ °ncÐ µd from Ã'â€"ts orÃ'â€"gÃ'â€"ns wÃ'â€"thÃ'â€"n Ð ° pÐ °rtÃ'â€"culÐ °r frÐ °mÐ µwork of countÐ µrvÐ °Ã'â€"lÃ'â€"ng Ð µconomÃ'â€"c, polÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"cÐ °l, Ð °nd socÃ'â€"Ð °l forcÐ µs thÐ °t prÃ'â€"zÐ µd Ã'â€"ndÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"duÐ °ls Ð °nd thÐ µÃ'â€"r dÐ µsÃ'â€"rÐ µ for Ð ° lÃ'â€"fÐ µ Ã'â€"n pursuÃ'â€"t of thÐ µÃ'â€"r own Ã'â€"ntÐ µrÐ µsts. It should comÐ µ Ð °s no surprÃ'â€"sÐ µ thÐ µ orÃ'â€"gÃ'â€"nÐ °l prÃ'â€"ncÃ'â€"plÐ µs sÐ µrvÐ µ Ð °s thÐ µ foundÐ °tÃ'â€"on for thÐ µ dÐ µmocrÐ °cy Ã'â€"n thÐ µ UnÃ'â€"tÐ µd StÐ °tÐ µs of thÐ µ 21st cÐ µntury. So, to undÐ µrstÐ °nd dÐ µmocrÐ °cy todÐ °y, Ã'â€"t Ã'â€"s nÐ µcÐ µssÐ °ry to rÐ µcÐ °ll Ð °nd Ð °nÐ °lyzÐ µ thÐ µ orÃ'â€"gÃ'â€"ns, cÃ'â€"rcumstÐ °ncÐ µ, Ð °nd prÃ'â€"ncÃ'â€"plÐ µ s from whÃ'â€"ch AmÐ µrÃ'â€"cÐ °n cÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"l socÃ'â€"Ð µty Ð °rosÐ µ on thÐ µ North AmÐ µrÃ'â€"cÐ °n contÃ'â€"nÐ µnt. Although thÐ µ wÐ µll-known hÃ'â€"storÃ'â€"Ð °n RÃ'â€"chÐ °rd HofstÐ °dtÐ µr offÐ µrÐ µd Ð °n Ã'â€"nfluÐ µntÃ'â€"Ð °l crÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"cÃ'â€"sm of thÐ µ AmÐ µrÃ'â€"cÐ °n polÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"cÐ °l trÐ °dÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"on Ð °s much morÐ µ nuÐ °ncÐ µd Ã'â€"n thÐ µ dÐ µvÐ µlopmÐ µnt of U.S. Ð µconomÃ'â€"c, polÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"cÐ °l, Ð °nd socÃ'â€"Ð °l structurÐ µs by thÐ µ nÐ °tÃ'â€"on's Ã'â€"mportÐ °nt lÐ µÃ °dÐ µrs Ð °nd polÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"cÐ °l fÃ'â€"gurÐ µs, thÐ µ trÐ °dÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"on offÐ µrs Ð ° usÐ µful lÐ µns through whÃ'â€"ch to undÐ µrstÐ °nd thÐ µ roots of dÐ µmocrÐ °cy Ã'â€"n thÃ'â€"s country. For onÐ µ, thÐ µ trÐ °dÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"on Ð °ssÃ'â€"gns to Ã'â€"ts publÃ'â€"c Ð °nd prÃ'â€"vÐ °tÐ µ Ã'â€"nstÃ'â€"tutÃ'â€"ons, busÃ'â€"nÐ µss Ð °ctÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"ty, Ð °nd thÐ µ nÐ °turÐ µ Ð °nd structurÐ µ of our fÐ °mÃ'â€"lÃ'â€"Ð µs Ð °n Ã'â€"mportÐ °nt rolÐ µ Ã'â€"n prÐ µsÐ µrvÃ'â€"ng thÐ µ lÃ'â€"bÐ µrty to Ð °ccumulÐ °tÐ µ wÐ µÃ °lth. An Ã'â €"mportÐ °nt mÐ µchÐ °nÃ'â€"sm to stÃ'â€"mulÐ °tÐ µ Ð °nd prÐ µsÐ µrvÐ µ thÃ'â€"s lÃ'â€"bÐ µrty Ã'â€"s thÐ µ tÐ µnsÃ'â€"on bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn govÐ µrnmÐ µnt, busÃ'â€"nÐ µss, Nonpr... ... Ð µxÃ'â€"stÐ µd Ð °nd pÐ µrsÃ'â€"stÐ µd Ã'â€"n thÐ µ UnÃ'â€"tÐ µd StÐ °tÐ µs, Ð °lthough thÐ µy hÐ °vÐ µ nÐ µvÐ µr domÃ'â€"nÐ °tÐ µd AmÐ µrÃ'â€"cÐ °n polÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"cÐ °l thought. HowÐ µvÐ µr, Ð ° lÐ °ck of polÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"cÐ °l domÃ'â€"nÐ °tÃ'â€"on doÐ µs not mÐ µÃ °n thÐ °t thÐ µsÐ µ Ã'â€"dÐ µologÃ'â€"Ð µs hÐ °vÐ µ not hÐ °d Ð °n Ð µffÐ µct on AmÐ µrÃ'â€"cÐ °n polÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"cÐ °l thought. ThÐ µ AmÐ µrÃ'â€"cÐ °n pÐ °rty systÐ µm Ã'â€"s Ð ° two-pÐ °rty domÃ'â€"nÐ °tÐ µd systÐ µm, Ð °nd thÃ'â€"s mÐ µÃ °ns thÐ °t only two polÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"cÐ °l pÐ °rtÃ'â€"Ð µs hÐ °vÐ µ Ð ° rÐ µÃ °l chÐ °ncÐ µ of domÃ'â€"nÐ °tÃ'â€"ng Ð µÃ'â€"thÐ µr thÐ µ HousÐ µ of RÐ µprÐ µsÐ µntÐ °tÃ'â€"vÐ µs or thÐ µ SÐ µnÐ °tÐ µ, or of hÐ °vÃ'â€"ng thÐ µÃ'â€"r nomÃ'â€"nÐ µÃ µ Ð µlÐ µctÐ µd prÐ µsÃ'â€"dÐ µnt. ExcÐ µpt for Ð ° brÃ'â€"Ð µf pÐ µrÃ'â€"od known Ð °s thÐ µ ErÐ ° of Good FÐ µÃ µlÃ'â€"ng (1820–24), thÐ µrÐ µ hÐ °vÐ µ Ð °lwÐ °ys bÐ µÃ µn two domÃ'â€"nÐ °nt pÐ °rtÃ'â€"Ð µs Ã'â€"n AmÐ µrÃ'â€"cÐ °, Ð °lthough Ã'â€"t hÐ °s not Ð °lwÐ °ys bÐ µÃ µn thÐ µ sÐ °mÐ µ two pÐ °rtÃ'â€"Ð µs. SÃ'â€"ncÐ µ thÐ µ CÃ'â€"vÃ'â€"l WÐ °r, pÐ °rty polÃ'â€"tÃ'â€"cs Ã'â€"n AmÐ µrÃ'â€"cÐ ° hÐ °vÐ µ bÐ µÃ µn domÃ'â€"nÐ °tÐ µd by thÐ µ DÐ µmocrÐ °ts Ð °nd thÐ µ RÐ µpublÃ'â€"cÐ °ns (Ð °nd Ð °lthough thÐ µsÐ µ two pÐ °r tÃ'â€"Ð µs hÐ °vÐ µ pÐ µrsÃ'â€"stÐ µd, thÐ µy hÐ °vÐ µ both Ð °ltÐ µrÐ µd Ã'â€"n thÐ µÃ'â€"r Ã'â€"dÐ µologÃ'â€"Ð µs).

Hitler Slept Late: And Other Blunders That Cost Him the War

For those who subscribe to the theory that Hitler quite literally lost World War II through his own actions, or even inactions, will discover from the beginning some substantial flaws in the very composition of Hitler’s plan of the domination of other nations.While many sources- including the introduction of this research- glibly state that Hitler was seeking to take over the world, the practical reality of such a goal is that it could not happen at the hands of any army that has ever picked up a weapon.With this simple, indisputable fact in mind, the point comes to the forefront that Hitler lacked a strategic focus in his plans of domination.   Hitler himself surely envisioned a scenario whereby he controlled the entire planet and placed everyone under Nazi rule, but realistically, beyond the nations of Europe which Hitler occupied, he simply could not have maintained any sense of control over, for example, Asia, the British Empire, and the like, not to mention North Americ a.Any type of hold that he would have on these additional territories would likely be short-lived, for Germany itself was a nation that was recovering from the brink of economic, military and political disaster when Hitler came to power and began his quest to overtake the rest of â€Å"the world†.Another key factor that supports the sheer impossibility of Hitler’s occupation and domination of the world, at the time of World War II, lay in the form of the Empire of Japan.  It cannot be forgotten that one of the key reasons that Japan attacked the United States military installations at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, which was not part of the US at that time, was in retaliation for increased American involvement in the Philippines and other lands which Japan considered as their own.Judging from the challenge that Japan threw at what was then the most powerful military machine in the world- the American military machine- it is highly probable, if not definite, that Japan eventua lly would have gone to war with Germany if Hitler had enjoyed any substantial level of success in World War II, for Hitler most certainly would have turned against Japan in a quest for total control of every nation of the world.Perhaps, World War III would have come out of such a conflict, or perhaps the two powers would have literally destroyed each other, creating yet another power vacuum in the world stage.   While all of this is theoretical, an important point is to be derived from the theory- Hitler’s grand plan, because of its lack of focus and resources, in hindsight appears to have been doomed from the start.Hitler as His Own Worst EnemyIn April of 1945, as Hitler cowered in his underground bunker, occasionally enveloped in darkness as the bombs of his enemies knocked out the artificial power generators which gave Hitler a lifeline to the outside world, the thought surely must have occurred to him that he was to blame for much of what had come to pass.  The theory that Hitler may have been his own worst enemy is actually a fact, based upon research into writings that look into the psyche and personality of Hitler, as well as his leadership skills.A fact that cannot be ignored is that by the mid 1930s, Hitler had already begun to lose some grip on the power that he held over the German people; this is proven by his defeats in the mid 1930s at the hands of the Poles and Czechs when he attempted to occupy the Rhineland (Duffy).   It would not be until 1939 that Hitler would occupy Poland, and even in that, the seeds of his eventual demise were planted.The reason for this can be found in a treaty which Hitler signed with Stalin of Russia, agreeing to share control of Poland with the Russians.   Once Hitler took over Poland in 1939, he essentially pushed the Russians out of the picture, claimed all of Poland for Germany, and basically lit the fuse that began the process leading to a total European war some 2 years later (Duffy).The negligence of the treaty with Russia on the part of Hitler not only makes the point that he was in fact his own worst enemy, but also presents another fascinating â€Å"what if†, which have become so popular among historians of late.The â€Å"what if† concerns a possible outcome if Hitler had chosen to listen to others who counseled him to honor the treaty with Russia and share occupation of Poland.   For the cost of a relatively small nation like Poland, Hitler would have gained, or retained to be more precise, the favor of Stalin and the Russian army, also a major military force to be reckoned with in the 1940s.Therefore, if Russia were on the side of Germany once World War II came into full swing, it is a strong possibility that Hitler would have had the powerful ally that he so desperately needed in order to swing the outcome of the war to his favor.   At the very least, it can be theorized; Hitler would not have found himself hiding underground from the explosions of Ru ssian bombs and the bullets fired by Russian soldiers.Earlier, it was eluded that Hitler, as part of being his own worst enemy, neglected in many cases to heed the advice of his staff, such as in the case of the occupation of Poland and the subsequent entanglements with Russia.Hitler in fact had a second chance to avert war after his occupation of Poland, when he was given a deadline by Britain and the United States to vacate Poland or face possible military intervention.   Hitler was counseled on the advantages of less involvement in Poland, yet even in the face of many consequences and few tangible benefits to be gained, he still stood on the insistence that he was right and that his approach to the issue of Poland was in fact the best course of action.What can be said of a man who has a great deal of responsibility, the potential to change the course of world history, and will not seek the advice, or heed the advice, of others?This is indicative, many would argue, of serious pe rsonality flaws, and this is something that is hard to argue.   Perhaps one of the most shocking, almost to the point of being funny reasons that Hitler likely defeated himself is the fact that during the most pivotal moments of World War II, he slept- literally.Hitler Slept LateThe title of the book which formed the thesis for this research actually has its basis in fact-Hitler did sleep late.   While this in itself does not sound like much to discuss, it is when the fact that Hitler slept late is placed in the context of some of the most important, pivotal moments in the German war effort.The most glaring of these exists in the June 6, 1944 Allied invasion of the beaches of Normandy- D-Day, as it has come to be known.   On that day, as the German war machine sustained major damage, Hitler was nowhere to be found, as he had given explicit orders that he needed sleep and not to disturb him.Additionally, once Hitler awoke and was told of the situation, accounts say that he was more concerned with entertaining visiting dignitaries than he was in responding to the attack; all of this occurred in the midst of additional information which indicates that Hitler knew the attacks were coming, and did very little to prepare for them or to respond once they came (Duffy).ConclusionThe analysis of Hitler’s actions, inactions, attitude and skills make a compelling case for the defeat of Hitler by no other than Hitler himself.   The old adage of those who do not learn from history being condemned to repeat it is highly fitting when one looks at Adolf Hitler; for he had at his disposal experienced leaders and resources, but he chose to, ultimately, defeat him.While it is impossible to know what would have happened if Hitler triumphed, we now know, in conclusion, what happened because he did not.Works CitedDuffy, James P. Hitler Slept Late: And Other Blunders That Cost Him the War. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1991.

NAFTA Not for America Essay - 1346 Words

America’s economy is flat lining. We are bleeding jobs and hemorrhaging revenue. One out of every seven citizens is on financial life support and our government needs to do something stat. One of the first steps in the road to recovery is repealing the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, because it is dangerous to our economic stability and future. NAFTA took effect on January 1, 1994 with the culmination of all quota and tariff repeals on January 1, 2008. This agreement was designed to expand trade between Canada, Mexico, and the United States by reducing restrictions imposed by tariffs and encouraging foreign direct investment in the developing economies. Some of the goals have been achieved since NAFTA’s†¦show more content†¦Now, many of these banking groups are owned by foreign investors, despite attempted safeguards. This ownership has provided investors leverage and influence over the actions of the government because the government ow es an exorbitant amount to these banks (Daniel Lederman). The same argument can be made about the United States’ government. This influence can be seen across the board as many decisions now seem to favor only a select few, forgetting about the ramifications for the many. Arguably the most notable change has been in terms of lost employment for Americans. Between 1994 and 2002, 897,000 American jobs were outsourced to Mexico (Hufbauer and Schott). This was 400,000 more jobs than the highest projected estimates. This outsourcing disproportionately affects our least educated members of the workforce who hold make up 43 percent of our jobs. 53 percent of the members of this demographic have been displaced. However, the effects are harder felt in some states such as North Carolina and Arkansas where 80 percent of blue collar workers have been affected in one manner or another (Hufbauer and Schott). As jobs are funneled out of America into less regulated Mexico, the jobs th at do remain pay less. Average weekly wages dropped from $800 to $683 which added up to $7.6 billion in outsourced wages in 2004. The jobs that are outsourced pay Mexicans a significant amount less than their American counterparts, approximately 87%Show MoreRelated A Discussion of the Negative Impact of NAFTA on North America2932 Words   |  12 Pagesof the Negative Impact of NAFTA on North America The North American Free Trade Agreement was passed in November of 1993 and went into effect on January 1, 1994. The agreement aimed to eliminate tariffs between Canada, Mexico and the United States, leading to the eventual creation of free trade among these three countries by the year 2008. Supporters of NAFTA billed the agreement as a wonderful opportunity to create jobs, stimulate competition, and free North America from harsh and often unfairRead More Environmental Implications of NAFTA on North America Essay1972 Words   |  8 PagesEnvironmental Implications of NAFTA on North America Introduction Prior to 1994, trade and the environment were two entirely separate issues. There were no environmental regulations found in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) or in the Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Upon the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) environmental concerns of North America as a whole were for the first time provided within a side agreement to the NAFTA. Finally there is a tradeRead MoreNafta And Theu.s. North American Free Trade Agreement1063 Words   |  5 PagesIntroduction The formation of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) has brought many advantages among the nations of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Since its inception in 1994, it is difficult to see the great effect NAFTA has economically whether it is good or bad due to currency fluctuations, and economic growth (Villarreal Fergusson, 2014). This is why the paper will go into the advantages that NAFTA has brought to the countries mentioned above. The advantages that will be discussedRead MoreHistory Of The North American Free Trade Agreement Essay1055 Words   |  5 PagesThe NAFTA Controversy The purpose of this document is to explore the history of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the effects NAFTA has had on Canada, the United States of America (specifically American labor and job market) and Mexico. It will also delve into the current state of NAFTA, the advantages and disadvantages to American economy and what the future holds for this historic trade agreement. NAFTA has effected many parts of the world and not just the three countries whoRead MoreThe North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)1345 Words   |  6 PagesTrade Agreement (NAFTA), came into effect on January 1, 1994, creating the largest free trade region in the world, generating economic growth and helping to raise the standard of living for the people of all three countries participating. By strengthening the rules and procedures governing trade and investment, the NAFTA has shown to be a great base for adding to Canada’s prosperity and has set a valuable example of the benefi ts of trade liberalization for the rest of the world. NAFTA was designed withRead MoreChanging Political Events : Mexico, Canada And The United States966 Words   |  4 PagesEVOLVING REGINAL POLITICAL EVENTS : Before NAFTA, Canada and the United States were produced economies with solid customs of liberal political and financial arrangements, while Mexico had not one or the other. After World War II, Mexico occupied with protectionism and import-substitution, instead of fare headed development. Mexico s approaches were proposed to make freedom from American authority and energize local industrialization through state and corporatist strategies. These strategies reverseRead MoreEssay on Who Did NAFTA Benefit The Most?896 Words   |  4 Pagesreferred to as NAFTA, it came into effect on the first day of 1994. Covering 450 million of population and reaching $17 trillion in combined GDP, NAFTA proudly ranks the first among the world’s free trade agreements (USTR). It is usually seen as a remarkable success for the countless benefits it brings to its members. Some of NAFTA’s main advantages are promoting closer relationships, eliminating trade barriers, and increasing market oppo rtunities. However, as the first proposer of NAFTA, the UnitedRead MoreThe North American Free Trade Agreement1036 Words   |  5 Pagesreferred to as NAFTA produced results on January 1, 1994. A trade agreement was made between each of the three of nations of North America. The United States, Canada, and Mexico. The Canadian Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, the Mexican President, Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and previous U.S. President George H. Shrub initiated the agreement. Connections between the nations were at that point on great terms, particularly between The United States and Canada. Five years before NAFTA became effectiveRead MoreHas the North American Free Trade Agreement Supported Cohesion?815 Words   |  3 PagesThe North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was created with the intentions of making North America as a whole a more competitive player in the global marketplace. The North American countries (Canada, America, and Mexico) all share the same hope that NAFTA will be a strong outlet in supporting economic activity and promoting social cohesion between one another. Has NAFTA done this thus far? Most Americans would probably say that it has not because in their eyes free trade is the reason for moreRead MoreWho Did NAFTA Benefit the Most?920 Words   |  4 Pagestrilateral trade ― the North American Free Trade Agreement (Scaliger). Commonly referred to as NAFTA, it came into effect on the first day of 1994. Covering 450 million people and reaching $17 trillion in combined GDP, NAFTA proudly ranks the first among the world’s free trade agreements (USTR). It is usually seen as a remarkable success for the countless benefits it brings to the member countries. The goal of NAFTA was to promote closer trade relationships, eliminate trade barriers, and increase market