Construct and Support an Argument

Running Head: CONSTRUCT AND SUPPORT AN ARGUMENTConstruct and Support an Argument
November 07, 2010
Samuel L. Cunningham
Construct and Support an Argument
As you grow-up you know your parents would like to see you graduate from high school and that everyone one would like to see you go to college. Even though many people do not have the opportunity to earn their bachelor degree hopefully they at least dream of walking across the stage one day. I like many who have earned their bachelor??™s degree think to themselves should I purse my education and get my Master??™s in Business Administration (MBA) degree In the following paragraphs I will construct and support an argument on my final decision to pursue an MBA, while also considering the Jungian Personality self-assessment on how other perceive me.
Early life thoughts
In November of 2009 I graduate with my Bachelor??™s in Business Management, I already had a good paying job and felt great in my current position. I was not thinking about perusing anymore degrees I felt accomplished and overall thought there was no need for more education. I came from a family where everyone went to high school and then found decent paying jobs. On the other hand my Mother was very luck and moved up the ranks in her job and became the Vice President of Marketing. It was at that point that I thought do I really need to further my education in order to land a great career and have a nice salary to support my family While speaking to a family member prior to starting my MBA they stated ???When it comes to success in business, an MBA degree is optional. But a GSD, which is only earned by Getting Stuff Done, is required.??? (personal communication, October 23, 2010). It was at this point that I decided it was time for my Pro and Con list, contact an advisor, and do my own research because personal advice was not giving me any positive thoughts.
MBA vs. Bachelor
So I started to ask myself the following questions why would you need to go back to school Would going back to school help you further you career Do I have a personal goal or is this something I think would help me in a new career Those questions are what started my positive argument and conclusion to my final decision. Research became very important and during that time I read an article about the long term financial benefits of different education levels. The Croix (2010) website stated that the average Master??™s degree holder usually averages $11,300 more a year than bachelors degree holders. I knew that money was an incentive but it was not everything, I had personal goals that I wanted to achieve for myself and to further my career. According to MBA Alliance (2004), ” The truth is that as the world moves toward a more corporate and service-oriented economy, earning an MBA becomes an effective way of not only ensuring your employment, but also ensuring your success and marketability an ever evolving job market.??? (para. 1).
Shortly after my own research an eye-opening situation happen in my own home, my fiancee lost his job and he was out in the job market like millions of other people. The questions started resurfacing about MBA vs. Bachelor. We came to find out that the average job only required a bachelor degree, but the high paying jobs that were stable and secure require more education than a bachelor. This was the icing on the cake for my decision; I knew at that moment that I wanted to be financial stable and that I need to peruse my MBA in order to achieve my goals.
MBA and Me (Personality)
So here I go, I am going to go get my MBA one thing I needed to now think about was what did I want to get out of my MBA course and how can I use them to succeed. Since I am a supervisor and have been supervising in different career field for 11 years I wanted to know how I could better my management skills and soar into a new career.
One great learning tool I have learned from the past is to take different personality assessments and use them to your advantage. One way to help me learn how other may perceive me was by taking the Jungian 16-Type Personality assessment. This assessment not only helped me understand how others perceive me but I was able to gain the knowledge of why I do certain things and how they can affect my day-to-day life.
In this assessment I was coded as ENFP which stands for the following;
??? Dominant: Extraverted Intuition
??? Auxiliary: Introverted Feeling
??? Tertiary: Extraverted Thinking
??? Inferior: Introverted Sensing
This means that my primary mode is externally meaning I get things from my intuition and then my second mode is internal meaning how I deal or feel about things (BSM Consulting, Inc, 2010). This can explain my feeling of ???wearing my emotions on my sleeve??? and always having that gut feeling. I have learned from this assessment that perception sometime can be reality and that each person has their own personality traits. According to this assessment all our personality traits can be combined into 16 different traits. This assessment helped me understand also why my decision to go back to get my MBA felt more like a goal or an achievement driven goal than an educational choice. My personality trait states I may go through many different careers in my life due to my drive for different projects and challenges. On the other hand my emotional external intuition knew school was the best overall choice for my future.
So after research and an assessment it is clear that my MBA is about my overall goal to achieve a better life for me and my future family. Family has always played a very important role in my decisions however, work life, home life and school life can be different in many ways but when it is time to make a decision, and construct an argument supporting facts, and research will always be the best tools. The Jungian 16-Type Personality assessment was very useful because now I know why this decision was tough for me and why my family original played a role in my thought process. Overall the MBA degree is where my mind and heart felt I needed to journey on to.Reference
BSM Consulting, Inc. (2010). Portrait of an ENFP. Retrieved from
Croix, W. (2010). How a College Degree Pays for Itself: Financial Costs and Long-term Benefits. WorldWideLearn. Retrieved from
MBA Alliance. (2004). Why An MBA. Retrieved from

How Did Wwi Change the Status of Women

The change in the status of women refers to the growth of women??™s place and role in society. In this case, it connects to women in Britain, France, Russia, the United States, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Italy, and Japan. The wars effect on this demonstrates a key factor in women??™s history- looking at how historical events have impacted the role of women. In July 1914, after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in June, nations began mobilizing for the Great War. In the course of mobilization, men were sent from all involved nations to train for battle. This giant movement of men left factories empty, at which point women??™s??™ roles in society changed greatly, as they became working women, the people that would attempt to hold their country??™s industry and economy stable throughout the war. Many women and girls were given an opportunity at higher education, however these opportunities were still not presented to most women in poverty. All kinds of women, regardless of status, however, took on jobs in industry, driving, agriculture, and medicine. This allowed some lower class women to rise above the status of their parents and become workingwomen.Organizations such as the Army and Navy Nurse Corps, which was set up in the U.S in 1901, allowed the women to join the armed forces to serve as nurses. Several of those who became nurses were wounded and killed, especially those who served overseas, as they were in the thick of war whilst treating these men soldiers. A few women, specifically in Russia, signed up for the air force and were accepted as legitimate pilots. However, there were also many women that signed up for the army, air force, and navy, that were pushed to the position of nurse or driver. Many women were also sent to the army bases to prepare food, nurse, and entertain the men. Women were also encouraged to reproduce in a state of mass killings, so as to keep the population from declining too drastically. At this point, women became important; were put on postcards and postcards to send to the men and provide inspiration and reason for the men to fight and return home. Some feminist women used their importance stance at this time to start new committees and organizations to protest and rally for women??™s rights. However, after the men returned home from war, women were expected to return to the kitchen and be housewives. Specifically in Russia, the 1917 revolution lead to the emancipation of women, which allowed them rights, equality, and independence. Through the amount of new opportunities given to women throughout the duration of the Great War, and through many women??™s rights movements, women were given the somewhat equal status they have today. However, at the time of the Great War, this status was concentrated mainly in Eastern Europe, as not even suffrage was available in France until 1944, and the United States until 1920. That is not to say that women in other nations were still completely restricted, as by the time of WWII almost all nations involved had been through movements for the equality of women, and/or had granted suffrage for women- a large step in a direction for equality. The change in the status of women allowed for more participation in WWII, as although women still simply filled in for the men, in the US alone over 200,000 women actually became involved in the military during WWII. The ???Women??™s Army Auxiliary Corps???, which allowed and encouraged women to join the military was set up in the United States in 1942, soon after the bombing of Peal Harbour.

Construct an Arguement

In life have to make decisions on what we want to achieve in life, 15 years ago I received my undergraduate degree in Communication. At that time I did not even consider of going to school any further. My belief then was I would not need to continue my education. I had my undergraduate degree and the world was waiting for me to take it by storm. I decided to move to Atlanta and obtain my upper level management job that I thought was waiting. I found out the hard way, those jobs we??™re not waiting. The world is not always that easy, it something I have learned as I have grown. At the age of 22, I knew only what I had experienced at that time, which was little bit of nothing except leaving home at 18 and going off to school.
My first thought was that my degree was going to get me the job of my dreams, as I sat behind a cubicle working for a collection??™s company as an Account Manager. I just knew that what I had worked hard for all those years, this in fact, cannot be my result. I almost allowed it to be. One night I met a woman who had worked in collections for more than 10 years. She also had the same ideology as me and thought that this was short time job and her career will soon start. She said after a couple of years in collections she was stuck. I don??™t know if she ever got out or furthered her education. After that meeting I quickly took on a job as a Marketing Assistant. The pay was less but the reward was greater and there were more opportunities and into a whole new avenue. I became a hotel salesperson moving up in the 10 years to a regional director of sales. Once here it didn??™t seem important to go back to school. Nobody I knew had a Master??™s in the hotel business. Why did I need one! Then hit by the economy, laid off twice in one year. These unfortunate situations led me to go to school to receive my Master??™s.
I have always thought about and considered but was afraid to follow through on the process. It has always been a personal and a professional goal. I had to convince myself to do it. Therefore, I have decided to go back to school to receive my master??™s degree in business to achieve a personal goal and to further my career in sales and marketing.
According to the Jungian 16 type Personality self- assessment, my assessment was that I am a people- oriented, creative, and highly optimistic individual. I perceive the assessment to be true. Even when making the decision to go back to school. I have been creating relationships with my team members in order for us to work together as a team. In addition, the assessment made me realize that I am indeed having chosen the right field and it is to my best interest to go into an MBA program.
Working in management in the area of Sales and Marketing are faced with several challenges. You must be a people person and creative, I am, supported by the Personality self-assessment. When I am out dealing with customers, they have to buy into me; they have to believe in me. Sometimes I have to do something different to stand out. However, over the last few years I believed there was something missing. I think that I lacked a certain level of communication with my clients. I am interacting with and CEO??™s of major companies and believing that I was inadequate. Yes, I had my degree but I believed I needed more education. These feelings resulted in me looking back on the goals that I had set forth for myself a few years ago. I know with receiving my Master??™s that these feelings will soon disappear.
I know that I will have with many challenges as I moved forward in pursuing my education and getting my MBA. However, I know that with understanding my reasons for taking this step will ultimately better my career and achieve my personal goal that anything is can be possible. Of course, I know that I will have hard work, dedication and sacrificing to endure, I know that the joy of completing the program will be my just reward!

How Did the Democratic-Republican System Develop

The democratic-republican system was founded through a series of events that led to the writing of the Declaration of Independence and to the American revolutionary war. It was a sort of modernized version of the Monarchy system minus the ???divine right??™ and the heredity of the throne through royal blood. This system would not have been possible without the creation of the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right and the English Bill of Rights along with steps taken to create popular assemblies in order to show how capable the colonials were of governing themselves.
The Magna Carta, of 1215, was the first and main contributor to the democratic-republican system and the development of common law. The reason for this is because the Magna Carta pretty much abolished the Monarchy system by taking the ???divine power??™ away from the king. It stated several things that the king could not do, giving people freedom, but the 61st article is the most important because it bound the king to obey those laws and if he broke any he was to be reported and judged accordingly:
?????¦ that the barons, namely, my elect at their pleasure twenty five barons from the realm, who ought, with all their strength, to observe, maintain and cause to be observed, the peace and privileges which we have granted to them and confirmed by this our present charter. In such wise, namely, that if we, or our justice, or our bailiffs, or any one of our servants shall have transgressed against any one in any respect, or shall have broken some one of the articles of peace or security, and our transgression shall have been shown to four barons of the aforesaid twenty five??¦and they shall ask us to cause that error to be amended without delay??¦if our justice do not amend it within a term of forty days??¦we being abroad, to our justice: the aforesaid four barons shall refer the matter to the remainder of the twenty five barons, and??¦ with the whole land in common, shall distrain and oppress us in every way in their power??¦until amends shall have been made according to their judgment??¦???,
King John of England was forced to sign this with threat of war if he did not do so. Many clauses were later renewed throughout the Middle Ages leading us to the Petition of Right in 1628.
The Petition of Right was much like the Magna Carta only it asserted four principles: that no taxes should be levied without consent of Parliament, reaffirmation of the right of habeas corpus, no quartering and freedom from martial law. King Charles, ruler at the time, agreed to this, but kept violating it anyway. When colonization in the new world began in 1607 England did not have a way to make people follow the law so governors were appointed to each colony, but the colony??™s citizens elected popular assemblies in which the king had no say in. These assemblies consisted of free white men who owned land. The assemblies were tax funded by the colonials and they served to protect the people from the laws or simply get their way by employing ???the trick of withholding the governor??™s salary unless he yielded to their wishes.??? The assemblies also came up with new laws; of course these had to be passed through the council before they could go into effect.
In 1684 King James II centered lawmaking powers in the Dominion councils he had appointed rather than colonial assemblies, but the Dominion collapsed with the Glorious Revolution in 1689. Mary, daughter of James II, and William took over with the signing of the English Bill of Rights where the people were given ???the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petition [to be] illegal.??? And ???that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.??? This restricted the royal government in colonial affairs giving the colonials more freedom.
By 1763 the colonies and Great Britain had been drifting apart at the end of the Seven Years??™ War. This war got the British government into debt and to try and pay off this debt Parliament set a series of measure to increase taxes on the colonials through the Stamp Act and the Sugar Act enforced by tax collectors and British army. They thought it was a fair way to have colonials pay to keep the colonies under British Empire, but because Parliament did not directly represent the colonies the colonials felt that Parliament had no right to levy taxes on them, so they rebelled creating a Stamp Act Congress and finally uniting the American people. Britain was then forced to appeal the Stamp Act and passed the Declaratory Act where colonies were bound to the British laws. The Colonists rebelled again boycotting British goods with tea being among them and in ???December of 1773, roughly a hundred Bostonians, disguised as Indians, boarded the docked ship, smashed open 342 chests of tea, and dumped their contents into the Atlantic:??? The Boston Tea Party. In 1774, in response to the Boston Tea Party, Parliament passed the ???Intolerable Acts??™ where most of local assemblies were banned. This is when the first Continental Congress was held, but Parliament rejected the Continental Congress??™s petitions. Afterwards Americans were encouraged to take on new governments and adopt republican ideals by Thomas Paine, but the people were afraid of strong Britain, so on July 4th of ??™76 the Declaration of Independence was approved by the Congress announcing that they were cutting all ties with Britain; with this commitment to republican ideals the American Revolution seemed inevitable. The Americans were able to completely win their independence in 1783 with the help of France who wanted revenge on Britain and this led to the start of Republican ideals in the states.
Although the war with Britain was over there were still internal wars left to fight such as the pursuit of equality which went well, but stopped short of including slaves from the south and women throughout the colonies. A separation from the church and state was established. The Constitutional Convention ???created a permanent charter for a whole new government??? making the Constitution ???the permanent bedrock of American political values??? and in 1789 is where we find the first sign of the Democratic-Republican system when the first leader of a nation was elected through vote rather than heredity.
The struggle to a close to fair democratic-republican system was hard and long and would not have been possible if non of the stated things above wouldn??™t have happened. By abandoning English constitutionalism and creating a new republic based on the rights of the individual, the Americans introduced a new force in which they allowed republicanism to enter our world.Just a note: I got solid C on this essay so obvously it needs work. the quotes I got were from the magna carta, the petition of right and The brief American pageant textbook by kennedy cohen piehl

Constitutional Powers the Founders vs. the Progressives

Constitutional Powers:
The Founders vs. the Progressives
By Wesley Cambron
Nov. 2011 Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Thomas Paine, George Whitefield, George Mason, Benjamin Franklin and Samuel Adams; those seven names are among those vital fifty six men whom founded our great country, the United States of America. After a long, costly and intense war against not just imperial England, but at the time the world??™s main source of tyranny, for the freedom of a budding country, revolutionary and extraordinary documents were written– the Declaration of Independence, written and ratified in 1776, and the Constitution for the United States of America, created in 1787.
Both documents are drastically important, yet feverishly debated over. The Constitution is to grant the power over the nation. The question remains: to whom Even back in its conception, battle lines were drawn for a strong, powerful and central government led by the federal government and the elite privileged (those supporters were led by Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist party) and those whom wanted a limited and weak federal government in which the power is to the people and the states (those supporters were led by Patrick Henry and his Anti-Federalist party). Both sides wanted freedom; they just couldn??™t agree exactly how to obtain it.
The Framers of the Constitution were reminded how desperate the new country needed a working government in the form of Shay??™s Rebellion of 1786. Dan Shay and his neighbors revolted against the elites of the city in frustration of foreclosure. While in Paris, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter after hearing about Shay??™s Rebellion in which he wrote ???A little rebellion now and then is good thing… The tree of liberty must be refreshed time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants.??? (Davis, 1990, pg. 110) Due to the revolt, it was clear to the Framers that a national government was truly needed to protect its citizens; whether it is an act of war or protest. In the year 1796 Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (Yes, a Federalist during the creation of the Constitution), formed the Democratic Republican party in response to the Federalist??™ wish to expand the government. The Democratic Republicans, later shorted to just Republicans and then changed during Andrew Jackson??™s presidency to the Democratic Party, wanted the government to be much smaller and the freedom of the people to be maximized. Whether it was truly a political counter to the growing two party system or a personal, yet public, challenge between rivals Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton is still unknown (Davis, 1990, pg. 138).
As time progressed and the thoughts of tyranny began to dwindle, America entered a new war. Unlike the previous wars such as the War of 1812, the Spanish-Indian War or the Revolutionary War, this battle was contested between Americans and themselves. New ideas were coming to the minds of the Americans. One thing remained the same- their strength of faith. Religious interest and even excitement were seen almost everywhere, both in the old and newer parts of the country; and every such movement offered some means of studying or illustrating the development of national character. Even the promise of paradise couldn??™t stop some dissent of humanity and cry for more civil liberties.
As the Constitution returned to the central debates, a new subject emerged. Relying on the cry that ???all men are created equal??? many new Americans, forcibly from the North, wished to abolish slavery.
To abolish slavery would have changed the landscape of America in ideally every way. A key way would be the end of the South. However, the reason for their end isn??™t because a freed man is considered a full person in voting rights, it just had to do with money.
Slavery was a form of profit to the plantations that they worked for. The plantation owners didn??™t pay the slaves, so they could easily just pocket the money they would have spent on an employee. The bigger the plantation they owned, the more slaves they would need. The more slaves they own, the more product they could produce and more production meant more profit.
It??™s not a far stretch to think that the emancipation of slaves would create corporate turmoil in the South. With the addition of more industry, it would have been the financial end of the South if they have not annexed back into the Union.
Not all Southerners thought of slaves as just profit making farm machines. Some treated them with respect, much like the Confederate president Jefferson Davis. According to the Civil War fan site, www.CivilWar.Bluegrass.Net, by 1849 Daviss slave population had grown to 72. One of them later recalled, “We had good grub and good clothes and nobody worked hard.” The slave children loved Davis; upon returning from trips, he often brought them gifts. Davis treated all his slaves with paternal respect and consideration, but he showed his trust in one certain slave, Pemberton, by having him act as overseer to the other slaves. Slave problems were dealt with in-house by a slave court in which Daviss slaves made up the jury and decided the punishments. If a slave were sentenced to be whipped, Davis stepped in and commuted the sentence to extra labor or a warning.
One could wonder why Jefferson Davis, the so-called ???treasonous president of the Confederacy???, would be so fatherly to slaves. If you take in account the fact that he outlived all his sons, and eventually the Confederate States, he could see his slaves as his own children.
So the Union pressed to end slavery. Whether it is for everyone to be free and create a utopia of equal rights or simply to just win the war, they knew that slavery must end. Much like Jefferson Davis, many Southerners and a small amount of Northerners thought the slaves wouldn??™t be able to appreciate such a freedom. Many thought of what Benjamin Franklin wrote some hundred years earlier:
??? The unhappy man, who has long been treated as a brute animal, too frequently sinks beneath the common standards of the human species. The galling chains, that bind his body, do also fetter his intellectual faculties, and impair the social affections of his heart. Accustomed to move like a mere machine, by the will of a master, reflection is suspended; he has not the power of choice; and reason and conscience has but little influence over his conduct, because he is chiefly governed by the passion of fear. He is poor and friendless; perhaps worn out by extreme labor, age and disease. Under such circumstances, freedom may often prove a misfortune to himself and a prejudicial to society. (Franklin, 1987, pg. 1155) The aftermath of the Civil War was astounding. That war was the bloodiest war ever contested on American soil. The changes were that the liberties of the people were rewarded graciously. All men were now equal. However, because of the South, the post-war United States had to increase the powers of the federal government; much to the joy of the long gone Alexander Hamilton and the last remaining Federalist Party members.
Still, the power and size of the government was only starting to grow. Lincoln, with his suspension of habeas corpus, and Johnson were city mayors compared to what was just on the horizon: The Progressives. It was at the turn of the 20th Century when they came to power in the United States.
The Civil War saw bloody battles, disgusting war crimes, torn families and even the suspension of habeas corpus. The aftermath, however, was when the government expanded outside the confines of the Constitution. The Progressive Movement was mighty. In 1890, after many replacements by the government, the Native Americans got sick of being subjected to abuse. After generations of inward fighting, the remaining Native Americans called for a spiritual ritual called The Ghost Dance, a way they believed to communicate to their ancestors. Concerned that the ceremony would cause the tribes to unite, the federal government sent in local police to arrest the tribe leaders and break up the gathering (Burt, 2004, Page 30).
As a result of that busting, Chief Sitting Bull was shot and killed, sparking a huge rift in trust between the Native American people and the federal government. Why would a government send in the police to break up a peaceful ritual That breaks the First Amendment. As citizens, they had the right to peacefully assemble and a right to have their own religion. Both of those rights were violated on that eventful day. Yet when looking at the papers, the American public was led to believe that no rights were trampled on and that the Native Americans were savages who needed to be put in their place. A similar practice was done in 1930s Germany.
In just under 200 years, the young country of America has changed in every form. The landscape, ideally and literally, would be unrecognizable to the Founders. The small, rural town and commercial economy favored by Thomas Jefferson had transformed the nation to largely driven by an urban, industrial economy (Burt, 2004, page 135,).
How else did the government continue its power grab and expansion outside the Constitution They did it by breaking the laws of the Constitution– again. This time in the form of theft, or as they label it, ???taxation???: The Income Tax, or the ever popular 16th Amendment. The use of ???popular??? is meant for humor because not only was the income tax unpopular (both when it was introduced in 1866 and again in 1913), it shouldn??™t be legal. The Constitution clearly states that to ratify an amendment, three-fourths of all the states have to vote for it.
Constitutionalist run website, www.GiveMeLiberty.Org, states that the ratification required by at least 36 states — three-fourths of the 48 states then in existence — has to be identical to the amendment passed by Congress. A Constitutional historian cites federal documents affirming that for state approval to be acceptable, neither words nor punctuation can be changed. And the states may not violate their own state constitutions in ratifying the amendment.
Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment. Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax. Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, and only later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox. Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures. Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required. And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)
Take 48 states, deduct these 21, and you have proper ratification by only 27 states — less than the required 36. Even with the Supremacy Clause, the states could not reach the golden 36 states to ratify the income tax!
The Ninth Amendment gives us the right, among other rights, to property. Income is arguably property; it is yours because you earned it. Yet the federal government demands a certain percentage, plainly breaking the laws set by the Constitution. Taxation, in this case, is both theft and extortion. The government was momentarily stalled in its attempt to expand. That moment which also sparked a raging inferno of employment, revenue and innovation came at 2:30 in the morning of August 3rd, 1923. The White House website says that the moment was when Calvin Coolidge was sworn in at candlelight by his father, a public notary. The years 1923 to 1929 were commonly called the Roaring 20s. Flappers, fridges, cars and good times were all the rage during that era, and it was led by new president ???Silent Cal??? Calvin Coolidge. Although he was the strong and silent type, to the point where he won a bet during a dinner party where he spoke only two words, he regularly spoke to the American public from his radio broadcasts. He called for tax cuts four out of his six years in office, lowered the debt by $6 Billion, and the unemployment was a low 3%, these stats of course from Calvin Coolidge??™s website. Silent Cal was a strong believer in American power; he refuse to join the League of Nations or to recognize the Soviet Union.
Shortly after Coolidge left office the economy took a terrible hit, a depression. It not only hit America, but the entire world. The depression led to Hitler??™s rise in Germany, Mussolini in Italy and even Franklin Roosevelt in America. All three leaders are connected with their similar ways of leading; propaganda, creating new constitutions and even breaking previous constitutions. The New Deal called for universal health care and other ???rights??? that were not human rights, but civil goods. You can buy health insurance, college education and even a house. You cannot, however, buy life or liberty. Franklin Roosevelt held the press with an iron grip to where most Americans didn??™t have a clue about his sickness. Roosevelt also broke the taboo of three terms as president, although at the time not a solid amendment but still an honored wish from George Washington.
Sometimes, however, the government breaks the laws of the Constitution and makes it sound good. Just look in the early 1950s with McCarthyism. McCarthyism was when Congress, led by Senator Joe McCarthy, went after private and public citizens for being affiliated with the Soviet Union. They threw citizens in jail without a trial, blacklisted certain entertainers including the fan favorite Charlie Chaplin. Arthur Miller of PBS says that most entertainers remained blacklisted for life, despite how entertaining they were or if found innocent. Denial of a trial of your peers, denied earning a living and even removal of passports! The general public encouraged the crusade because it made them feel safe from the Red Scare. However, popular or not, the government broke the laws of the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin said that ???those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither???.
McCarthyism returned in a different form decades later. Under the administration of George W. Bush the federal government approved the PATRIOT ACT. It gave the federal government, as if it already didn??™t have the power to, the power to wiretap random citizens and listen in on their private conversations without a warrant. Like Joe McCarthy did with the Red Scare, Bush shielded himself with the terrorist attack on 9/11 for why he approved such a law. Many groups, partially from the left, called it racial profiling. Other groups called it what it was, infringement on the privacy of the American public! Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Atheist, it doesn??™t matter, the federal government must have a warrant to invade your privacy, no matter who says it??™s for the public safety! The federal government didn??™t stop there. The following administration, under the inexperienced Barack Obama, issued a large hit to the liberty of the American people. Obama and his New Progressive movement approved ???Obamacare???, the second attempt to nationalize health care; the first under FDR??™s administration. It forces Americans to take government controlled insurance, else they would be taxed heavily, force companies to cover their part time employees and, as Alex Jones run website www.InfoWars.Net states, in Section 163 even give the government power to look into anyone??™s personal bank account and if they earn too much, according to the government, they will be garnished! Once again the federal government adopts a mob mentality.
The government has expanded so much it is almost comical. What is not funny are the results it has produced. Over the span of 200 years and 44 presidents the Constitutional powers have not only shifted but been ignored, trampled and disrespected. Thomas Jefferson was the last president who actually ruled within the confines of the Constitution to the preverbal ???T???. Other presidents have come close but not nearly as much as Jefferson and others weren??™t even close in preserving liberty. Next year there will be a presidential election and many on the right are looking for their knight in shining armor. If they were smart the GOP would look for another Calvin Coolidge with Thomas Jefferson intelligence and Ronald Regan charisma.

How Did the Australian Government Respond to the Threat of Communism After Wwii Both in Asia and Within Australia

Australia was faced with the threat of communism, after World War II ended in 1945. This threat is known as ???The Red Menace???, the ???Red Menace??? was caused by all the conflicts in Asia and also things that were going on in Australia at the time. The Australian Government responded to the ???Red Menace in many ways, they took military action, made alliances, gave economic aid and tried banning the Communist Party in Australia.
Communism is a social organisation system where everyone in the country/community, all have common property and money is shared equally. Communism became a threat after WWII because the Soviet Union was a communist country and also one of the two ???super powers??™(the other was the United States of America),the Soviet Union started spreading communism throughout the countries that they had gained from Germany, during WWII. The United States and it??™s allies were opposed to communism so they formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), in the west of Europe while on the eastern communist Countries of Europe formed an alliance called the ???Warsaw Pact??™. The two powers formed a divide in Europe know as the ???Iron Curtain??™. Australia didn??™t see communism as a threat until China was taken into control and turned into a communist country, then Australians started to fear that it would only be a matter of time ???before the reds were on our doorsteps??™.
Australia responded to the threat of Communism in Asian by joining the Korean War in 1950,we joined it because we had a belief that it would be better to fight Communism overseas rather than wait for it to reach Australia and fight it here. The Korean War was a part of our government??™s ???Forward Defense Policy??™, military aid was sent to Korean to help our allies to fight Communism overseas. The Korean War caused by the two powers, the Soviet troop in communist north Korea and American??™s were in the south.
Another response to Communism in Asian was the ANZUS treaty was one of the most important steps that Australia took to protect Australia from the threat of Communism. The treaty was an agreement signed by the United States, New Zealand and Australia; it meant that each of the three nations involved would go to aid of the other if one was attacked, it was an agreement of aid in common defense. The reason why it was signed by Australia was because we believed that a strong ally was needed to keep Australia safe from Communism.
There was also, another defense agreement that Australia got involved with it??™s called the SEATO alliance. The SEATO alliance was signed by Britain, Thailand, Pakistan, the Philippines, France, New Zealand, Australia and the US in 1945. The alliance was started by the United States because of the increased communist activity in South East Asian in 1945, the Korean War had just ended and communist activity was spreading to France and communist guerrillas were currently active in Malaya. These made the United States feel vulnerable so they proposed an alliance with the East Asian Countries to fight ???communist aggression??™. Australia was very happy to sign this alliance because it confirmed to the US that we had their back, and it supported our ???forward defense policy??™.Australia later joined the Vietnam War, to support their role of an ally and maintain a close tie with the United States, in 1962 Prime Minister Robert Menzies began sending Australian troops to South Vietnam where Vietcong, were trying to overthrow non-communist South Vietnam. The reason why Australia felt that it was vital to support the United States in this war was because of the advice we received from Washington telling us that if we supported the United States fight north Vietnam, then when Australia needs military assistance USA would help us.
Fear of communism was another reason that lead Australia to fighting in the Vietnam War. We were afraid that if one more Asian Country fell to communism other countries as well as Australia would follow; we called this the ???Domino Theory??™. We believed that the more Asian countries that fell to communism the closer we were to being next to be under attack by communism.
As well as responding to the threat of Communism overseas Australia also took precautions within itself. In 1949 Robert Menzies promised to ban the communist party in Australia, because of increased fears of Australia falling to communism. After winning the election Prime Minister Robert Menzies introduced the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, which outlawed the Communist Party, made it forbidden for a person declared communist to hold a job in the trade union movement or in the government organization, and if you were declared you would have to prove your innocence. The bill was ruled ???unconstitutional??™ by the high court and also narrowly defeated after a referendum was held.
By 19454 most Australia??™s were aware of the threat of Communism and were quite worried, it was time for an election and the labor party was pretty confident that they were going to win the next election, Prime Minister Menzies may have felt the same, just shortly before the election they was a huge ???spy scare??™, Evdokia Petrov??™s who defected from the USSR with her husband and who worked in the labor party in government was accused of being part of a Soviet spy ring in Australia. She was dragged onto a plane by Soviet guards and was going to be sent to Moscow but a flight attendant asked her if she was happy being escorted back to the USSR, she didn??™t give a clear answer, so the flight attendant and crew radioed the awaiting ASIO officers in Darwin, and Prime Minister, Robert Menzies, decided that he could not allow her to be removed like that. When the aircraft stopped for refuelling at Darwin, she was taken by KGB men by ASIO officials, who gave her the option of joining her husband and defect to Australia. She decided to defect and join her husband. The Royal Commission continued to search for any spy rings and uncovered some evidence of espionage for the Soviet Union by some members and supporters of the Communist Party of Australia during and immediately after World War II, but no one was charged and no major spy ring was uncovered.
The Australian government responded to the threat of communism in many ways, the attempts within Australia failed but the responses in Asia must have succeeded, because we??™re not a communist country. In Asia, Australia fought in the Korean and Vietnam War made alliances with Britain, Thailand, Pakistan, the Philippines, France, New Zealand, and a very strong one with the United States.Bibliography
My book
??? Topic 1:Australia in the Vietnam War Era
??? Australia??™s Response to the threat of communism in Asia
??? Australia??™s response to the threat of communism within Australia
??? Australia??™s involvement in the Vietnam war; school certificate style question

Constitutional Powers of the Monarch Today, and Her Right to Dismiss Ministers of the Crown

Broadly, the term ???constitutional right??™ refers to a freedom or right that is granted through a constitution, to an individual or to society as a whole.
In the United Kingdom, Queen Elizabeth II is at the head of the monarchy. Through her holding this position, prerogative powers have been conferred to her through the development of the common law. Therefore, she theoretically at least, possesses a great deal of power over the constitutional conduct of the country. However, the constitutional writer Walter Bagehot identified the Monarch in 1867 as the “dignified part” rather than the “efficient part” of government; thus suggesting that today, her role in the actual running of the country is becoming obsolete.
In the present day, the prerogative powers possessed by the Sovereign means that in theory at least, she possess a host of constitutional rights which can be exercised. The constitutional rights possessed by the monarch are limited to non-partisan functions; however, they include the power to dismiss ministers of the crown, to refuse to give royal assent to legislation and to grant pardons. In the 19th century Walter Bagehot described the monarchy as ???symbolic and ceremonial??? but in possession of very little actual power; in the 21st century, this statement has even more truth.
It is still formally the case that executive power in the United Kingdom is vested in the Crown, despite the fact that this may scarcely reflect the reality of modern government. These days, there are some prerogative powers which continue to be exercised by the Monarch. Nevertheless, the decisions to exercise sovereign powers are delegated from the Monarch to ministers or offices of the crown. This fact supports the notion that although through a constitutional right, the monarch may have powers, in reality she may not be able to make use of them. For example, the Monarch does theoretically possess the power to dismiss the Prime Minister. However, in the vast majority of instances, this will simply be done by the House of Commons, through declaring a vote of no confidence in the current Prime Minister. The Queen may be the figure that reigns, but it is the Prime Minister and other ministers who rule.
In contrast to the argument above, it could be argued that to some extent, the monarch does enjoy a constitutional right to dismiss ministers of the crown. One way in which this can be done is through the monarch insisting that a general election should be carried out, against the wishes of the Prime Minister. The last known example of when a British monarch required a general election to be carried out was in 1910. Here, King George V demanded that a general election should be held, before the Liberal??™s passed their proposal, against Conservative opposition, to remove the veto of the House of Lords.
Another way in which the monarch enjoys a constitutional right to dismiss Ministers of the Crown is if the Prime Minister goes beyond the accepted principle of constitutional behaviour. The Monarch and the Prime Minister are essentially in a bilateral relationship. This is because both of them hold office, subject to some abiding by some principles of constitutional behaviour. Therefore, if in a given situation, it is clear that an individual or political party has gone beyond the accepted rules, on constitutional grounds, the Monarch would be wholly justified in personally intervening, and has within her power the ability to remove them from office.
In conclusion, it must be noted that despite some exceptions mentioned above, in practice, the Monarch does not generally have the constitutional right to dismiss minister of the crown. Despite this, one may take the view that in some circumstances, the limited powers of the Monarch provide a safeguard against potential abuses of power by the Prime Minister and Cabinet. However, one would hope that in the 21st century, there would not be the need for the Monarch to intervene, as the situation should not arise where the Prime minister and Ministers of the Crown go beyond their limits of power. Therefore, in the modern age, the need for the Monarch to provide this safeguard is reduced. Furthermore, unlike Members of the Cabinet, the Queen has not been democratically elected to her position. As such if a monarch was to make a decision such as to dismiss a Minister of the Crown or to refuse to give royal assent to legislation, it may cause a great deal of controversy as she is undemocratic.


Constitutional monarchy
Growing up in Paris it is very rare to have bigger dogs as pets because most people live in apartment buildings. Most all of the apartments in Paris are without yards so there is limited space to let dogs run freely and frequently. However it is very common for a French family to own small house dogs. When I was young my mother bought our family a small puppy, which was mainly intended for my sister. I didn??™t care for the puppy as much in the beginning seeing as it was a half Chihuahua half Pomeranian. I always had thought of Chihuahuas and Pomeranians as more of a female type of a dog that a young girl would want. However the puppy surprised me with his intelligence and friendly behavior and I soon grew to love the puppy as much as my younger sister did.
My family and I named the puppy Louis, after my grandfather who recently passed away. Louis soon became part of the family and everyone adored him very much, including myself. Every morning my mother or my sister would take Louis for a walk around the park next to where I lived. In the evenings I took the chance to take Louis for walks around the park. It was a great way to escape the day and enjoy the fresh cool air in the evenings. Many people would come up to me and ask what Louis??™s name was, and compliment me on what a ???cute??? dog he was. The elderly French women around my neighborhood especially loved Louis and would always ask to pet him, and of course I would let them. Louis was always happy to be around people, and he was extra happy when he was fed extra treats.
As the years went on my love for Louis grew very much and I realized what great dogs Chihuahuas and Pomeranians are. Due to their small size they don??™t take too much care, only attention and the occasional walk. Louis was a short haired mix so it did not shed all around the apartment like most dogs do, which my mother was very happy about. These dogs are known to be entered into dog beauty contest and are often used for commercials

How Did Ten Years of Stalins Rule Change Society in the Ussr

How did ten years of Stalin??™s rule change society in the USSR Answer with reference to the period 1928-1938.Josef Stalin??™s rule of the Soviet Union from 1928 through to 1953 is one of the most controversial periods in Russian history. Stalin??™s rule had enormous effect on society in Russia. Before Stalin came to power Russia was a backward country in turmoil just a Few years after world war one, the 1917 Bolshevik revolutions and the civil war. Russia was an agriculture country with little economic and urban development. Stalin replaced Lenin as leader of the Bolshevik party in 1927 after a struggle for power with Leon Trotsky. Trotsky believed the only way forward for the soviet union and socialism was permanent revolution in contrast Stalin argued the first task for the socialist party was to build up Russia to compete with the industrial western power??™s and for the survival of socialism. Stalin became successor to Lenin and immediately begun transforming the Russian economy with major impact on Russian society. During the ten year period between 1928 and 1938 Russia was transformed from a backward agricultural country to a major industrial power with severe impact on society. Stalin introduced five year plans in 1928 for the economic growth of Russia and strict collectivization of agriculture to feed the growing urban centres. Stalin??™s policies had severe implications on Russian society with famine, disease, terror and purges rampant throughout the period between 1928 and 1938. To develop this argument further it is important to look at the Soviet Union before Stalin??™s takeover and the contrasts between Stalin and Lenin before investigating Stalin??™s rule and his impact on the Russian society. Stalin or Josef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili [1] was a professional revolutionary who came to Lenin??™s attention well before the Bolshevik revolution??™s of 1917 Lenin described Stalin as the ???Wonderful Georgian??™ [2]. Stalin was very persuasive, arrogant, deceptive, remorse, cunning and always had a closed mind he was described by a Russian journalist ???He is about as emotional as a slab of basalt. If he has nerves, they are veins in rock??™ [3]. Stalin was not part of Lenin??™s Bolshevik revolutions of 1917 but became a very effective figure in the communist party and society after 1917. Stalin was made commissar of nationalities and was part of the first politburo along with six other members including Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Trotsky. In April 1919 Stalin was made head of workers and peasant??™s inspectorate and in April 1922 Stalin became General Secretary ???He is unquestionably a man of outstanding will and outstanding ability??™ [4]. Within a few years Stalin had become a prominent figure in Lenin??™s communist Russia and would defeat Trotsky in the struggle for power. Stalin??™s regime from 1928 onwards was similar to Lenin??™s Marxism policies. Like Stalin Lenin believed in consolidating the communist power and building the Soviet Union in his new economic plans. After a munity of Soviet sailors Lenin introduced his economic policy. However unlike Lenin Stalin??™s rule was by far more extreme and radical and effectively changed soviet society in contrast Lenin sought to rebuild Russia as it was before the Bolshevik revolution which did not involve the killings of millions of peasants and forced labour Lenin simply wanted to accommodate the agricultural class in his socialist regime. Lenin??™s rule did not involve the role of terror and the authoritarian rule of one man. Stalin defeated opposition using Lenin to legitimise his positions in ideological battles with political opponents in the struggle for power and developed a cult of personality reshaping history through the weapon of propaganda with a profound influence on public opinion. Stalin now set about consolidating his position and developing the Soviet economy with devastating effects on Soviet Society.As mentioned previously Stalin believed utterly in building up Russia as opposed to Trotsky??™s radical idea of war communism. Stalin firmly believed in building up Russia in order to resist the restoration of private capitalism. Russia was in a deteriorated state and there was a need for undertaking an industrial and technical revolution to overtake western economies in order to demonstrate the superiority of socialism and protect Russia from western capitalism in Stalin??™s own words he describes his policy in November 1928 ???In order to achieve the final victory of socialism in our country, it is necessary to catch up and surpass the advanced countries??™. [5] The ten year period between 1928 and 1938 marked a vast, extensive and a very rapid industrial expansion in Russia, new towns and cities were built. As well as the vast industrialisation there were developments in education with the literacy level in Russia rising rapidly between 1928 and 1938. The first five year plan was implemented in 1928 setting industrial targets for the industrial growth of the Soviet Union. The great industrial expansion represented Stalin??™s policy of building socialism through economic modernization and industrialisation, Stalin desperately wanted to transform Russia from economic turmoil into an industrial and military power. In 1932 Stalin in a speech conveyed the importance of economic growth for the protection of soviet Russia ???we are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten. Either we do it or they will crush us??™ [6]During the late 1920??™s and 1930??™s Russian heavy industry grew rapidly at the expense of consumer goods as implemented in the first famous five year plan. Steel and iron manufacturing soared and there was great demand for raw materials and fuel. Likewise roads and great hydroelectric dams were constructed across rivers to produce power for the new factories and towns. It is important to look at the development of industrial activity and the great advances made by the Russian economy in the context of time. In 1929 all western economies experienced the great depression with severe economic implications and shortages in food. Indeed it was out of the ashes of the great depression it can be argued that fascist leaders like Hitler emerged due to the political space which the great depression created in Germany. As the economies of western capitalism were in turmoil Stalin??™s socialist economy was expanding and transforming into a great industrial power indeed the first great five year plan was completed in four years in 1932 and resembled how far the soviet economy had advanced. Like the Russian economy Stalin??™s first five year plan had a profound impact on soviet society. For the advancement of the Russian economy and growth of industry it was necessary for the soviet government to transform agriculture to meet the needs for the growing demand of food. In 1929 Stalin introduced collectivization which aimed at brining millions of peasants together into co-operative farms.From the beginning of 1928 millions of unskilled peasants from the country side poured into soviet towns and cities to work as labourers in factories and construction of buildings. These poorly paid peasants lived in overcrowded tenements where disease and starvation were rampant. Most of these peasants migrated from agricultural lands as a result of another radical policy of Stalin??™s rule collectivization. During Lenin??™s new economic policy only one percent of peasant farms were in collective farms by 1932 at the end of the first five year plan sixty percent of all peasant farms were involved in collectivization. At the onset in 1929 there was widespread opposition of collectivization by the soviet peasants. They stood up firmly to Stalin by slaughtering their cattle and destroying their grain however Stalin met this opposition vigorously by letting the peasants starve and sending the kulaks or rich peasants to harsh labour camps which were described by as ???Auzwtich without the ovens??™. Indeed slavery was rampant during 1928 and 1938 where slave labourers were forced to work in harsh conditions in wastelands and mountains in the process of industrialisation. Stalin??™s soviet economy was advancing rapidly by the end of the first five year plan while western capitalism was struggling however Stalin??™s rule up to 1932 proved very costly for society in the Soviet Union.By the beginning of 1928 peasant interests stood in path of Stalin??™s advancement in Socialism and industrialisation of the Soviet economy. Rural and agricultural life in Russia was based on the family unit for the production of grain and livestock. This system of agriculture was totally inefficient to produce enough grain for the growing towns. During 1927 and 1928 there were two very poor harvests and Stalin urged party leaders to achieve grain procurement targets, Stalin himself visited Siberia to force the procurement of grain. Stalin set about forced collectivization of agriculture with severe implications on soviet society. Stalin??™s coercive policy on the peasant problem was strict and resembled war communism of the countryside Stalin divided the peasants into class groupings Kulack??™s or rich peasants seredniaks middle peasants and finally bedniaks for poor peasants [7] this policy was knows as the ???ural- siberan method??™ its aim was to destroy the economic power of the rich peseanttry known as dekulakization. colonization of mass peasantry was launched in autumn of 1929 Stalin called for the confisication of kulack property and were forced into labour camps. Stalin applied brute force against peasants with military detachments and requisition squads enforcing the millions of peasants into collective state owned farms.Stalin??™s policies were extremely radical he firmly believed in the elimination of the capitalism system of kulacks ???Today we have an adequate material base for us to strike at the kulacks??¦. To eliminate them as a class and to replace their output with the output of the collective farms and state farms??™ collevicisation of soviet agriculture had great impact on the advancement of the Russian economy into an industrial superpower with adequate supply of grain for the industrial workers in the towns and cities. Likewise collectivisation led to the migration of millions of peasants to urban areas to work on Stalin??™s five year plans. Like the impact of collective state owned farms on the economy colonization had extreme impact on soviet society. Five to six million kulack peasants were exiled to labour camps or perished in vast soviet wasteland. Likewise millions of peasants died of starvation and disease in the early 1930??™s during the early stages of collevicisation there was extreme peasant unrest to Stailin??™s policy, livestock was slaughtered and crops burned and destroyed as peasants openly opposed government ownership of land as a result millions perished of mass starvation as Stalin resisted opposition and terrorised and forced the remaining peasants into the collective farms. Between 1929 and 1930 the collective and state farms rose from two million peasants in 1929 to fifteen million in 1930 by 1936 ninety percent of all peasant households had been collectivised. Collevisitation was one of the most controversial events in Russian history with severe hardship on Russian society it has being described as ??? harvest of sorrow for Russian land??™ [8] like colonization Stalin??™s rule brought with it a reign of terror in the mid to late 1930??™s which changed soviet society.Terror was a central feature of stalins rule between 1928 and 1953 as conveyed with the forced collecvisation of land and the elimination of kulacks. In the mid thirties when stalin had transformed Russia into a powerful industrial state with the first five year plans and the agricultural economy was metting yields and quotas and all opposition to stalin was eliminated, stalin had created an authortirian dictatorship and his power seemed secured. However stalin plunged the entire soviety society into a period of terror sheer pain and paronia. All of Russian society were in danger of stalins terror from the porrest peseant to the most influential communist party leader. Sergie Kirov was assisanted by a communist by the name of leonid Nikolayev [9] it is argued stalin planned the murder as kirov was leader of the communist party of Leningrad and was it was speculated at the 17th party congress that kirov was a good candidate as alternative to stalin as leader of the communist party [10]. The kirov murder was significant as it began a period of unconditional terror on Russian society. Stalin became paranoid and insecure and saw his position under threat and nobody in society was safe. Stalin used the kirov assassination as a means of legitimising the introduction of terror.Stalin introduced a law after the kirov murder which gave the communist government and nkvd police legal power to implement terror at will to eliminate enemies of communism, no level in society was save everyone was suspect to stalins reign of terror in the closing stages of the 1930??™s. the communist party and police were victctim of stalins terror which made it so distinctive. Millions of soviet civilians went into force labour and no more than seven hundred thousand were executed as a result of stalins terror. Stalins reign of terror involved large scale purges of the communist party, government officials, red army leadership, nkvd ploice and the repression and persecution of pesants and civilians. the most radical legacy of the great terror was the show trials and purges of stalins so called enemies between 1936 and 1938. the first trial involved former communist and politburo leaders Zinoviev and kamenev. The victivs of the purges and show trials were forced to sonfess to crimes against Russian society and plotting to assist the exiled troskey in the assisanation of stalin, despite no evidence and legal representation the accused confessed and were immediately shot. In 1937 the second great show trial involved similar confessions before the great show trial of march 1938 of 21 including fromer communist leaders Bukjarin and rykov and most alarming of all the former NKVD chief Genrikh Yagoda who had originally set up the trial of 1936 this conveyed the radical nature of stalins terror nobody in society was safe.Stalins rule fron 1928 to 1938 radically transformed Russian from a backward country ecaugested from revolutions and civil war to a leading industrial power conveying the sheer strength of stalins socialist regeme in Russia, stalins soviet union was able to resist german invasion in operation barbossa and it can be argued the industrial revolution in Russia played an important role in the german defeat. After world war two stalins Russia was victorious in the war and became the second largest industrial power in the world after North America. Despite the advancement of Russia in education, industrialisation and agricultural in striking contrast stalins leadership between 1928 and 1938 had enormous negative impacts on chaping society in the soviet union. Immediately when stalin came to powere after the struggle for powere he set about building up Russian with the industrialisation in the five year plans and collevisation of agriculture. Stalin implemented these polices with terror and forcible pressure on pesants and industrial workers. Likewise in the concluding years up until 1938 stalins reign of terror as he consoliated power shaped society as millions were executed and displaced to labour camp. The Russian army took along time to moblise in the early years of world war two as result of stalins radical purge on the the army and party leadership. Like 1928 despite the advancement of the soviet union in education,industry and economy society was again in an exaugested state millions had died of starvation, millions were forced into labour camps and industrialisation of the five year plans and millions lived in overcrowded and disease ridden tenements in the cities and towns. Overall stalins rule between 1928 and 1938 was ruthless and had far reaching and devastating consequences on society in the Soviet union.

Constitution Party

The Constitution Party

The Constitution Party
Originally founded as the U.S. Taxpayers Party (USTP) in 1991 by Harvard graduate and Massachusetts native Howard Phillips, the party??™s name was changed to The Constitution Party in 1999. One of the functions of political parties is to simply the choice in candidates. In this particular party??™s case, they project the foundation ???We declare the platform of the Constitution Party to be predicated on the principles of THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers.??? (“The constitution party,” 2012) This third party focuses on securing unalienable rights, those that have been endowed by the creator. Additionally they view any denial of these rights as a compromise of liberty.
Although no third party candidate has ever won the presidential election, candidates still enter the race as a Constitution Party representative with a purpose other than that of achieving electoral votes. The choice to run outside of the two primary parties, Republican and Democrat, can stem from moral and ideological differences with these two parties. An example is Pat Buchanan??™s 1996 presidential campaign, he was a steadfast Republican however when his party??™s nominee Bob Dole conveyed that he might select a pro-choice running mate, Buchanan threatened to abandon the Republican Party and run on the Constitution party platform. It was noted that ???Buchanan would like to remain in the Republican Party, the GOP leaderships intense hostility toward him, in combination with what he sees as Doles recent leftward drift, may drive him out. Buchanan may be barred from speaking at the Republican convention in San Diego.??? (1996). Human Events, 52(27), 4.This party??™s premise is deeply rooted in religion. And while many of the organization??™s beliefs are in line with that of the conservative GOP, there have been instances when the Republicans were unable to codify religious and political values with a nominee and running mate. Seemingly when this occurs, a person chooses to run as a Constitution Party candidate. This third party does not waiver in its efforts to convince voters that divinity is the reason for American success, not because of an individual leader or government. Constitution Party National Committee Chairman Jim Clymer stated ???Christians must vote their values and leave the results to God. Our country was founded on Biblical principles that are why it was so blessed. Without returning to Gods law, we cannot expect America to change for the better.” (Tashman)
The American two party system affords constituents the luxury of simplified choices. Third parties exist to enable voters to voice specific issues that are hopefully adopted by the Republicans or Democrats. The Constitution Party has not a single representative in Congress; however, its influence on the right wing conservatives remains formidable today. . References
U.S. Taxpayers Party may be on ballot in more than 40 states. (1996). Human Events, 52(27), 4.
The constitution party. (2012). Retrieved from
Tashman, B. Harvey calls repeal of don. Retrieved from