Thomas Jefferson: Pragmatics over Doctrine
During the period 1800-1817, the Jeffersonians to a great extent compromised their political principles and essentially “out Federalized the Federalists”. While traditional Jeffersonian Republicanism advocated a strict interpretation of the Constitution and an emphasis on an agrarian economic system, the actual policies of Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were markedly different from their theoretical principles. This obvious compromise of Jeffersonian principles is evident in the Federal government’s assumption of broad-based political powers and institution of capitalistic Hamiltonian economic reforms, both of which stemmed from Jefferson and Madison’s adoption of broad constructionist policies.
Despite his many compromises however, Thomas Jefferson’s intent to dissolve the national debt was to a great extent unvarying. Jefferson and his Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin honestly feared a large federal deficit as a threat to Republicanism. To avoid this threat, the President sought to diminish the role of the federal government, and decreased the national budget. These budget cuts substantially diminished the size and resources of the American army and navy. When criticized, Jefferson defended these military cuts as being consistent with Republican policies in that a smaller U.S. Army would be seen as less of a threat to other nations and reduce the risk of provocation, resulting in the ultimate promotion of peace.
Unfortunately, the President’s consistency with Republican principles in matters of political power was not nearly as strong as his resolve to reduce the national debt. Under Jefferson and Madison, the federal government assumed political powers that the Constitution did not allot for. While prior to his presidency, Jefferson, then a strict constructionist had argued that the government should not assume any power unless specifically provided for in the Constitution, the Louisiana Purchase where America purchased a vast tract of land for $15 million, compromised these lofty ideals. In terms of the military, Thomas Jefferson had come to power vowing to reduce military size and power. Contrary to those principles, the Barbary War, where for nearly three years the American military exercised a naval blockade of the North African coast wasted millions of dollars of the people’s money and unconstitutionally violated states rights and strict constructionist principles, in their place asserting an alien un-Republican nationalism.
While the evidence found in Jefferson’s political and military dealings helps us understand how Madison and him “out Federalized the Federalists”, an examination of Jefferson’s economic policies truly proves that in the words on one historian he was the “American Sphinx”.
Thomas Jefferson's strict interpretation not only stretched on political views, but religious views as well. Creating the Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom, Jefferson gave states the right to make those decisions, and the federal government had no say in religion (1). Politically, Jefferson was of strict interpretation, yet he did through-out his presidential terms made loose interpretations of the Constitution. This was mainly shown in the purchase of Louisana. At first, Jefferson wanted only New Orleans to keep the mouth of the Mississippi out of French possesion. If that would fail, he was even willing to make an alliance with Britain. When hearing that the United States had bought all of the Louisana Territory, Jefferson soon began to fret over whether it was unconstitutional (a loose interpretation). When Jefferson first took office, he appointed a new Treasury Secretary Gallatin, and kept most of the Federalist policies laid down by Alexander Hamilton in place. All the ideas the Democratic-Republicans were against, Thomas Jefferson kept all of them except for the excise tariff. Against war, Jefferson decided to size down the army during his administration. But the pasha of Tripoli declared an outrageous amout of money by the United States, and with the United States saying no, cutdown the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consolate (4). Jefferson was forced to go against his views, and build up the army against the North African Barbary States in the First Barbary War (4). And last, but not least, Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807 not only changed from strict to loose interpretations, but changed New Englanders minds as well (1)(5).
In Chapter nine the author informs the readers about the Company Oscar Mayer. Oscar Mayer is known for its bologna foods and the popular Lunchables. Bologna is a product that is full of salt and saturated fat. Bologna was losing its appeal due to the health risks associated with it. The health risks associated with bologna is heart attacks and strokes. The Oscar Mayer Company created a low fat bologna food and marketed the Bologna product however the profit received was slipping.
A popular notion among many religious conservatives is the rejection of what is commonly referred to as the separation between church and state. They maintain the United States was founded by leaders who endorsed Christian principles as the cornerstone of American democracy, and that the First Amendment prohibition against government establishment was not intended to remove religion from public life. As a result, a number of disputes have made their way through to the courts, pitting those ready to defend the wall of separation, against those who would tear it down. Two recent cases have brought this battle to the forefront of political debate. The first involves an Alabama Supreme Court justice, who, in defiance of a Federal judge, fought the removal of a granite display of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the state courthouse. Also, a California man has challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “under God” in an upcoming Supreme Court case involving student recitation of the pledge of allegiance.
Workplaces must keep suitable and accurate records required by the regulations of RIDDOR; these records help to identify patterns in accidents and injuries and will help when risk assessments are carried out. Personal records of employees must also be kept, but must be kept confidential in order to comply with the Data Protection Act. In the event of work-related claims workplaces may also insure they keep all their records and information as insurance company will want to see these records.
...th of these ideas were significant, they did not truly change how the nation operated as a whole. For all his talk, Jefferson did little to change the Federalist policies established by his predecessors and ultimately ended up embracing many of them. Yes, the election represented change, but was the election was really the “Revolution of 1800”, as claimed by some? Perhaps the greatest proof against this idea is that the national government has more or less existed in the same form since it was established by the Constitution.
...ter the country as a whole. John Randolph, a Democratic Republican of the time even suggested that the Jeffersonian Republicans were taking on the old Federalism principles during Madison’s term. Document F explains how, “this government created and gave power to Congress to regulate commerce…not to lay a duty but with a steady eye to revenue…”
The greater part of the country’s problems were rooted in economic interests. Citizens were not repaid for their contributions to the war and foreign countries were hesitant to loan money to a country that couldn’t honor its existing debts. The federal treasury relied on the generosity of the states and thus remained essentially empty. Congress attempted to sell land and levy a small import tax to raise funds, but dealt with little interest and a firm refusal from the states, respectively. Furthermore, between those states was a constantly fluctuating exchange rate for each state’s individual currency and steep taxes, both showcasing the firm grasp the states had on their singular, unique identities. The cohesion from the common enemy during the Revolutionary War had long since worn
With more than 1.3 billion people, China has to think about a solution and find ways to deal with its population explosion. In order to have control over population, in 1970, a policy named China’s One Child Policy was introduced. Mingliang argues that, “China, through the one-child policy, has instituted the most aggressive, comprehensive population policy in the world” (1). This policy limits all families in the Republic of China to have only one child, regardless of the sex: however, within this policy there are some exceptions. It is possible to have two children only if the first child is born with a disability, if parents work in a high risk job, if the couple lives in villages, or if the family is a non- Han, otherwise you are allowed to have only one child. In China, if a family denies this policy, it is penalized by the government. According to Bluett, “these families are slapped with heavy fines and raised taxes and they no longer received free health care because defying the One Child Policy is considered a criminal act” (2). This policy is still effective today, and it has changed the life of the Chinese people in so many ways. China’s one child policy should change because with the implementation of this policy, China has faced a significant gender imbalance, as well as violating basic human rights. Consequently, this policy also has its positive side effects, such as reducing poverty and pushing the government to do something more about women’s rights.
Wills, G. (Ed.). (1982). Introduction. The Federalist papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. (pp. vii – xxiv). New York: Bantam.
In the governments view the policy was remarkable, but little do they know how many families the law has damaged. Decreasing the number of babies being born impacts the traditional family structure. “On the township roads, there are slogans written on flamboyant red banners, telling peop...
...s as well as access to training programs and manuals; Induction to EHS for all new employees; Regular testing and certifications for all employees; Setting strict rules and compliance to safety regulations followed with consistent consequences to ensure that all employees understand their accountability when incidents occur.
Ensuring the health and safety of employees is of primary importance to the Organization. Organization is committed to maintaining safe facilities, sponsoring appropriate training programs, and providing necessary safety equipment. In addition, Administration and staff shall cooperatively develop appropriate procedures and regulations for ensuring employees' health and safety, with special emphasis on the handling of potentially hazardous equipment or substances and for investigating and reporting any accidents and mishaps. All newly employed staff shall be required to comply with the physical examination. Every employee must provide annually, at a minimum, an updated health history of current health problems.
A candidly of risk occurs in every organisation. Governance principals and the occupational health and safety urge that the organisations take reasonable measures to hinder loss, charge or rage to the organisational and all stakeholders/management. Injury and accidents can even happen ultimately with stringent OHS and the fact that an accident when occurs, does not mean that someone is liable if all responsible steps for prevention or minimisation has been taken.
Where used cleaning cloths, pot scrubs etc. shall be cleaned and sanitised or they shall be disposed of after use in order to ensure that they are not a source of contamination. (Unsure)