Leslie Zepeda
5/14/2014
Political Science 101
Corruption
The principle of separation of powers where the executive, legislative, and judicial functions of government are separated into independent bodies, is the key elment of governinence in democratic nations. Seperation of powers requires multiple individuals to initiate, propose, or run the agenda, and it is also designed to protect the government form political tyranny. However, although separation of powers is a key element in democratic nations, it does not prevent the misuse of power. The constitutional design that does prevent the misuse of power ids is known as checks and balances. Check and balances empower the separate actors to evade or sieze the actions of other actors. This is often done with the practice of judicial review, vetoes, or regulatory oversight who strive to ensure all political power is used accordingly. Although the constitutional design of government has been practiced for centuries, the abuse of political power remains an issue in many counties includes developed democracies. The corruption is done in a variety of ways such as covering the spectrum form enacting legislation for thje benefit of smaller groups of supporters or voters to more direct corruption as receiving payments for political favors. Many individuals who reside in democratic nations believe separation of powers combined with checks and balances ensure the government remains fair and incurropt. However, this belief is very difficult to prove because of the issue in defining an operatonal measure of checks and balances for a cross-country seeting, and missing counterfactuals in the seperatoin of powers. In this paper I will show recent work in poilitical agency withj data on corru...
... middle of paper ...
...means the Court cannot issue advisory opinions on legislation. In addition, a party bringing suit must have standing (a direct stake in the outcome) in order to challenge a statute.
The most important rule of judicial restraint is that statutes are presumptively valid, which means that judges assume legislators did not intend to violate the Constitution. It follows that the Burden of Proof is on the party that raises the issue of unconstitutionality. In addition, if a court can construe a disputed statute in a manner that allows it to remain intact without tampering with the meaning of the words or if a court can decide a case on nonconstitutional grounds, these courses are to be preferred. Finally, a court will not sit in judgment of the motives or wisdom of legislators, nor will it hold a statute invalid merely because it is deemed to be unwise or undemocratic.
...ice it when the said sources contain no clear information regarding the topic at hand. In situations like these, the Supreme Court is essentially free to do whatever it wishes, and often exercises judicial activism. Thus, there is a disconnect that exists between the theoretical practice of judicial review, which is reasonable and justifiable, and the actual practice of judicial review that is often used in the Supreme Court, which may potentially allow the Judiciary to surpass the powers granted to it in the Constitution and as stated by Hamilton in Federalist 78. There are two main sides to the debate about how Justices should approach judicial review: the strict constructionists, who advocate for strict adherence to the text of the Constitution when deciding a case, and the loose constructionists, who advocate for more freedom for the judges when deciding a case.
Judicial Restraint- judges should decide cases on the basis of the original intent of those who wrote the Constitution
Dictatorship, in its diverse forms, has remained a norm in human systems of government since time immemorial. Whether manifested as the absolute monarchs of yore or the recent communist and fascist dictators of the 20th century, conventionally, dictators became oppressive and incapable of governing due to the corrupting influence of power, and most met their ends at the hands of the angry masses, such as the famous execution of King Louis XVI of France. The play Macbeth by William Shakespeare and the biography of recently deceased Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi both show the damaging nature of unbridled ambition and power. The former is the story of the tragic-hero Macbeth, once a celebrated soldier, who was driven to regicide to hasten a prophecy that hailed him as King of Scotland after the death of the present king. As king, Macbeth’s sanity rapidly deteriorated, and his tyranny and bloodthirsty ambition to eliminate political rivals led many Scots to revolt against and eventually kill him. The latter account shows how a military officer of humble origins overthrew the inefficient monarchy for social good. However, once he became leader, his unchecked power led to economic corruption, political censorship, sponsorship of terrorism, and finally his own death by rebels. Macbeth and Qaddafi may have replaced their respective monarchs for different reasons, but once in power, their absolute authority led them to oppress their countrymen, which caused large-scale revolts that eventually led to the dictators’ downfall. Regardless of the real or fictional nature of these two rulers and their respective eras, it is clearly established through their biographies that desire for power and unquestionable authority is a destructive...
These passages present a discussion about arguments concerning the Supreme Court's power. This is an important debate for America since the Supreme Court can alter the principles that by which we live by. The two positions argue whether or not the judiciary has too much power. Both viewpoints have valid claims warranting consideration; for example, evidence indicates that the judiciary has little power to implement their decisions. In contrast, opposing evidence suggests that despite this point, they still practice judicial review. While both sides of the issue have valid points, the claim that the judiciary has too much power is the strongest position, the position supported by a preponderance of the evidence cited in the passages. The most convincing and forceful reasons in support of this position are that
There have been many complaints and theories of how the Supreme Court has a tendency to act as a "supra-legislature" (Woll 153). It is proposed that the Supreme Court takes the
The principle of the separation of powers is that, in order to prevent oppressive government, the three powers of government should be held by separate bodies—the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary—which can act as checks and balances on each other. (Locke, 1690) Australia’s system of separation of powers (SOP) is a hybrid of the UK Westminster system of government and the American federal and constitutional features of government. This system of government was chosen because they provide essential philosophical and theoretical bases for which separation is essential and although this system incorporates the best aspects of the UK and US systems, many crossovers have been incorporated as a result. Consequently this shows vulnerability in the Australian federal and state system exposing it to exploitation, and mistreatment.
Journalism proved to be a valuable tool in the fight to reveal the hidden secrets of Watergate. One newspaper in particular, “The Washington Post,” dug up important and necessary dirt on the those involved in Watergate. Two young journalists working for “The Washington Post,” Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, were assigned to the Watergate case (Kilian 28). The efforts of these two men provided a significant lead into the investigation of the scandal. The two spent much of their time working on the cases and were able to discover a money link between the burglars and the Nixon reelection committee (Kilian 28). They also interviewed members of Nixon’s reelection committee that wanted to talk.
The United States Constitution is set forth in broad terms and grants the Supreme Court the power overturn laws they decide are unlawful or unconstitutional. In 1803 the Supreme Court established its power to declare laws unconstitutional in the Marbury v. Madison which achieved the system of checks and balances. With this power the judges have the last word of authority among all three branches of the federal government, they can set boundaries to their own authority as well. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx)
Death and decay often convey corruption within a story. The use of this particular imagery allows one to make a connection between the natural world and the nature of people. Throughout Hamlet, a play, set in Denmark, which was written in the early seventeenth century by William Shakespeare, there are several instances where one sees decay depicting corruption. Though this play is filled with massive images of decaying nature, it is also filled with images of nature in its beautiful state. Because Hamlet portrays decaying and developing nature, it shows one that it is possible to maintain a sense of self in a world that strives on corruption.
...ral and political notions. While this tendency of the Court is deplorable, the truth is inescapable that the cases allowing for many of our most basic rights cannot be justified simply by reference to the Constitution. Hence, the Court has invoked the generality of the Constitution to define and defend vested rights and general principles of democratic society. To conclude, without the ability to move beyond the explicit text of the Constitution, a great number of crucial decisions in U.S. history must be overturned. The simple fact is that the interpretive model cannot allow for the justification of many of our most sacred rights. While criticisms as to the justification of the power of the Court to discern the values of contemporary society are legitimate, history as well as the citizens of this society have long declared the non-interpretive model superior.
Authority in a society is a necessary evil which when unfettered, results in the abuse of power. Power has long been considered a corrupting and a disrupting force in function and in influence. Underlying motives and greed fuel those who seek to gain and or abuse this power. The Crucible examines this twisted force as it corrupts societies’ clergy, blinds its justices, and empowers those who seek to abuse it. Arthur Miller shows how power can be a corrupting influence and how it can blind the judgment of authoritative figures.
Over the last few years, the issue of corruption--the abuse of public office for private gain--has attracted renewed interest, both among academics and policymakers. There are a number of reasons why this topic has come under recent inspection. Corruption scandals have toppled governments in both major industrial countries and developing countries. In the transition countries, the shift from command economies to free market economies has created massive opportunities for the appropriation of rents, excessive profits, and has often been accompanied by a change from a well-organized system of corruption to a more chaotic and deleterious one. With the end of the cold war, donor countries have placed less emphasis on political considerations in allocating foreign aid among developing countries and have paid more attention to cases in which aid funds have been misused and have not reached the poor. And slow economic growth has persisted in many countries with malfunctioning institutions. This renewed interest has led to a new flurry of empirical research on the causes and consequences of corruption.
Corruption and Globalisation - Both of them have been so pervasive in recent years. According to a BBC survey, corruption ranked as the second biggest problem people concern in the world and globalisation ranked first. Are there any links between the two? To what extend they are related to each other? And what effect do they have?
Some people said that corruption is rampant in all governments, So that it is not unknown to any ethnic group, region and continent. It cuts across faiths, political systems, religious Denominations and affects both young and old people. Fraud can be found in public and authoritarian rule;...
The existence of bribery and unethical behavior is rampant in the world market and may not change overnight. The question of bribery has been distilled in business literature as a question of ethics. In this situation at the airport with the customs officer, it is important to distinguish between business ethics and personal ethics. In a business ethics situation, the Foreign Corruption Practices Act would prohibit offering any bribe to the custom office – for example to free a shipment of goods that was lost in red tape (Pitman & Sanford, 2006). Most companies also have policies against bribery as well. In this situation, however the main issue at hand is that of personal ethics. When in a situation where your company is unknown and there is no business being conducted, normal business ethics and laws (including FCPA) do not apply only personal ethical standards.