Usurpation in Richard II, As You Like It, Midsummer Night's Dream, and Romeo and Juliet
In both As You Like It and Richard II, the concept of usurpation is illustrated in a political sense by a character substituting himself as ruler. However, Shakespeare employs usurpation in other contexts with characters of all different social positions. These two plays, A Midsummer Night's Dream, and Romeo and Juliet feature several kinds of usurpation, which are significant to characterization and plot development.
The first instance of usurpation in A Midsummer Night's Dream is Demetrius saying "Yield/Thy crazed title to my certain right" (I.i.91-2). Essentially he is telling Lysander to give up his pursuit of Hermia, although Demetrius is not in a position to command Lysander. This sets the two characters against each other, and adds to the play's central conflict of whom Hermia will marry. Another kind of usurpation is shown by Egeus choosing Hermia's husband: he denies her the right to choose her husband based on love. Furthermore, Egeus endangers Hermia’s life, as Theseus declares she must marry Demetrius or die. This combination starts the plot action, causing Lysander and Hermia to flee Athens.
Lysander, Hermia, Demetrius, and Helena occupying the forest exemplifies a third type, which places them in dream-like circumstances. Here, Lysander and Demetrius are forced out of character under the influence of Oberon's pansy juice. Both men fall in love with Helena, but only Lysander is given the antidote to Oberon's pansy juice: Demetrius remains in love with Helena and ultimately marries her. Thus going into the forest drastically affects Demetrius' character, as he no longer seeks to marry Hermia.
A fourth kind of usurpation involves using or agreeing upon things. Oberon employing Puck, a puccha, is an example of this. Although Oberon intends only to trick Titania, Puck's mischief dictates both the personality and the actions of several characters, most notably Titania, who falls temporarily in love with Bottom, and Demetrius, who falls and remains in love with Helena.
The kind of usurpation most present in Romeo and Juliet is the encroachment or impeding of another's rights. The first example is Capulet promising Juliet to Paris. As in A Midsummer Night's Dream, the father’s wishes contrast with the daughter’s, causing the daughter character to attempt to flee her family in hopes of escaping her arranged marriage and living with her lover. Although breaking tradition and even law by defying their fathers, these characters define themselves by choosing their husbands: they are not simply property to be sold off (with respect to the tradition of dowry).
Kenneth Vogel’s Big Money explores the invasion of money into our political system. In the novel, Vogel explains one of the most important important events that is currently happening in today’s elections: donors. This, according to Vogel, has been brought on by a ruling in the case Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission. The result of this case destroyed finance restrictions, giving Corporations and Unions the same laws of freedom of speech as individual Americans. The novel opens in February of 2012 where Vogel sneaks into a donor banquet. As our current president, Barack Obama, gives his speech, Vogel makes a note of the President’s words. In particular, Vogel focuses on one line “You now have the potential
In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court, in the spirit of free speech absolutism, issued its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, marking a radical shift in campaign finance law. This ruling—or what some rightfully deem a display of judicial activism on the part of the Roberts Court and what President Obama warned would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in…elections” —effectively and surreptitiously overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, struck down the corporate spending limits imposed by Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and extended free speech rights to corporations. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical overview of campaign finance law in the United States, outline the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, and to examine the post-Citizens United political landscape.
The Federal Election Campaign Act, despite being backed by 75 percent of House Republicans, and 41 percent of Senate Republicans, caused immense controversy in Washington. Senator James Buckley sued the secretary of the senate Frances Valeo on the Constitutionality of FECA. In the end, the court upheld the law's contribution limits, presidential public financing program, and disclosure provisions. But they removed limits on spending, including independent expenditures, which is money spent by individuals or outside groups independent of campaigns. This shaped most major campaign financing rulings, including Citizen’s United.
The current use of soft money in the US Governmental elections is phenomenal. The majority of candidates funding comes from soft money donations. Congress has attempted to close these funding loop holes; however they have had little success. Soft money violates standards set by congress by utilizing the loop hole found in the Federal Election Commission’s laws of Federal Campaigns. This practice of campaign funding should be eliminated from all governmental elections.
Tyler, Royall. The tale of Genji: abridged. Abridged ed. New York, N.Y.: Penguin Books, 2006. Print.
Eliminating Soft Money Contributions to Provide Equal Opportunity for all Candidates to Run Similar Campaigns
Campaign finance reform has a broad history in America. In particular, campaign finance has developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, the history of campaign finance in regards to individuals must be examined. At the crux of these campaign finance laws is the balancing of two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in upholding these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision of Citizens United v. FEC.
Shikibu, Murasaki. The Tale of Genji: The Broom Tree. Tyler, Royall. Published by the Penguin Group: New York. 2006.
In conclusion, Genji Monogatari contains various aspects of the culture and society in Heian era to provide with information of the time, including social values, religious beliefs, customs, events, clothing, housing, etc. This paper focused on the femininity and manliness which the Heian aristocrats saw and discovered that some human traits have remained as virtue and others have turned into vice throughout the past 1,000 years; women were expected to be patient, generous, reserved, reliable, not jealous, loyal, educated, and physically attractive; men were desired if they were sensitive, aesthetically creative, musical, caring, romantic, and physically attractive.
In order to analyze how gender ideals in the Heian society were formulated and how they were expressed in the Genji Monogatari, it is necessary to have an understanding of the Chinese society from which they were derived. The Chinese works often alluded to in the Genji Monogatari are primarily from the Tang dynasty period of China(618-907AD), which formed the basis of the flourishing of Japanese culture during the Heian period.3 Therefore an analysis of Heian gender ideals must begin from the Tang dynasty court-life culture.
Soft money, by definition, are the 'non federal' funds which are raised, and spent, outside of Federal Election Campaign Act's borders. Campaign finance reform evolved in order to restrict and regulate the campaign funds, but the soft money loophole allows committees to establish a separate bank account for 'nonfederal' activities, which is not monitored by FECA...
Along with the contradicting ideas, this article identifies contradicting figures such as Washington, Madison, and Jefferson. These men were firm believers in freedom and equality but yet they possessed slaves. This example supports Morgan’s thesis because it is a perfect example of the
The issue of campaign financing has been discussed for a long time. Running for office especially a higher office is not a cheap event. Candidates must spend much for hiring staff, renting office space, buying ads etc. Where does the money come from? It cannot officially come from corporations or national banks because that has been forbidden since 1907 by Congress. So if the candidate is not extremely rich himself the funding must come from donations from individuals, party committees, and PACs. PACs are political action committees, which raise funds from different sources and can be set up by corporations, labor unions or other organizations. In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires full disclosure of any federal campaign contributions and expenditures and limits contributions to all federal candidates and political committees influencing federal elections. In 1976 the case Buckley v. Valeo upheld the contribution limits as a measure against bribery. But the Court did not rule against limits on independent expenditures, support which is not coordinated with the candidate. In the newest development, the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling from April 2014 the supreme court struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined. Striking down the restrictions on campaign funding creates a shift in influence and power in politics and therefore endangers democracy. Unlimited campaign funding increases the influence of few rich people on election and politics. On the other side it diminishes the influence of the majority, ordinary (poor) people, the people.
The time period and setting in which this play is written causes the characters to crave control that affects the fate of others. Shakespeare writes this play during the time period of the mid-1500s to the early 1600s. The hierarchy of power during this time favors men more than women. Similarly, women are strictly valued as property rather than equal counterparts to men. England’s societal pyramid during this time period is evident in A Midsummer’s Night Dream as Egeus threatens to end his daughter’s life unless she complies with his wishes to marry a man she does not love:
Tyler, Royall, ed. The Tale of Genji: Abridged. New York: Penguin Group, 2006. 18, 24,