The Decrayal Consequences Of The Republics And Constitutional Reforms

As a great man once said "Love thy neighbor as thyself”, as easy as that may sound, it was very difficult for the French- English Canadian to get along and love each other instead of hate. The relationship between the English and French Canadians was very tense in the 20th century. This power struggle led to the separation of two large populations In Canada and created conflicts within the country. The many debates which were not solved between the two sides had a great impact on French- English relations. Throughout the years, their relationship was and still is very rocky. There are many reasons which explain why they have such strong hatred towards each other, but the most common ones were; biculturalism, belief/politics, and most importantly bilingualism.

The major reason why the Americans were not justified for war with Mexico was because of their decision to try to annex to the United States. In Document C, it shows us Mexico’s thoughts on the Annexation. Jesus Velasco-Marquez says,” The Annexation of Texas to the United States was inadmissible for both legal and security reasons.” Mexico saw Texas’s action to join the United States as a real big threat. Nobody would want a very powerful and strong country right on their border.

During the period between 1860 and 1877, many major changes occurred in America. There were many constitutional developments in this time period, which include the Emancipation Proclamation, the Civil War, and newly added Amendments. There were also many social developments included the Ku Klux Klan and voting of black people. Some of these developments were a revolution, which is a forcible overthrow of the government or social order in favor of a new system, and some were not.

It started back in the early days of 1787 where ideas of the best government for the current and future of this country. Its something our four fathers had to think about after only a short time being a nation after the Revolution. The Revolution was a lesson that there needs to be a government where the people have more say. This question has been asked before and much like our four fathers the best thing to do is write about it. Write about what is better, whether that be a Republican government or a Democratic government. Through the source of James Madison’s Federalist paper ten, the following question will be answered. Comparing and Contrasting both governments and explaining the side of each. However, like Madison and his Federalist

How did Madison respond to the idea that he was the “Father” of the Constitution? What do you think? Is he deserving of the title? Why or why not?

They both gained independence from Yugoslavia, following ethnicity disputes. They neighbor one another with roughly the same population. Both states have similar climates and terrains, with the same geographical location. However, they have a stark contrast in the way their political systems function. In relation to freedom in the country Croatia is considered free and scored 87*. While Bosnia and Herzegovina is only partly-free and received a score of 57*. Croatia scored a 1** for political rights, a 2** in civil liberties, and a freedom rating of 1.5**. Bosnia and Herzegovina received a 4** for political rights, a 3** for civil liberties, and a freedom rating of 3.5**. Croatia was ranked 50/168*** and received a score of 51/100*** for corruption perception. Bosnia and Herzegovina ranked 76//168*** and received a score of 38/100*** also for corruption perception. Croatia’s GDP per capita is about $21,635.10 USD, while Bosnia and Herzegovina’s GDP is roughly $10,426.90 USD. These differences illustrate the effects of an effective political system, while comparing two similar

America is an incredibly vast, diverse country, and has been this way for hundreds of years. The sheer size of America, even when it was only composed of thirteen states with a total population of nearly three million people (Brutus, essay 1, p. 64), concerned many Americans in the 1780s, due to this inquiry: was America simply too large for a republican style government to work? Many anti-federalists claimed that republics could only work on a small scale, while the federalists believed that having a large republic was the only way to go and would be beneficial to the public good. Before this time, history furnished no examples of a well-functioning republic as big as America, so the federalists and anti federalists were stepping into a completely new untouched territory.

1. James Madison argued that a large republic is more conducive to liberty in comparison to a small one mainly due to the fact that a large republic offers more unity. As such, it would be easier to guard citizens against any violations on the liberties of each individual. Additionally, a large society ensures diversity in opinion from people of different cultural backgrounds, thereby ensuring proper self-governance. According to Madison, a united country would be the best way to improve equality and ensure that all individuals are protected regardless of their race, ethnicity or minority status. In a large republic, there are larger groups of individuals from different backgrounds who offer significant representation to all communities in the republic. Therefore, it is easier to understand different perspectives thereby ensuring that people’s liberties are upheld and that the minority groups are not oppressed.

concentrated national power at a cost of citizen empowerment and civic participation. Mr. Hart indicates Thomas Jefferson warned of federal consolidation and concentrated national power. The ward was " the appropriate forum for direct citizen engagement in public schools, human welfare and relief, and constabulary and judicial systems, among other functions" (pg. 8).

In the no so far off past, occupants in a couple of states expected to pay a charge to vote in a national choice. This charge was known as a poll tax. On January 23, 1964, the United States supported the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, denying any study charge in decisions for government powers.(“The 24th Amendment Ended the Poll Tax,” n.d.)

The major domestic challenges to the new independent states were the deterioration of housing markets and balance sheets. Yugoslavia was formally a national state; prior to its collapse the Yugoslavian nation consisted of Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia. Yugoslavia broke apart and slide into civil war because of economic collapse, the deterioration of the culture, and the split of the nation’s religions. The West responded by recognizing the independence of different regions after Yugoslavia’s collapse. They also used NATO to stop invasions of these countries by their

Crimson Syndicate HQ, Hiigara North -- Not even two months after the inauguration of Chief of State Orion Chran, the light is falling upon the New Republic’s devious dealings; this time, the citizens are not turning a blind eye. The unrest is growing within the failing government and many notable and established citizens are calling the government out on their corruption, saying enough is enough.

Nationalism inspires a pride within a group of people that ignites change and strengthens unity. It is what keeps heritages and cultures of nations alive. But what happens when the people advocating Nationalism are trapped within a nation in which they do not desire to be? The Pan-Slavic movement in Eastern Europe in the early 20th Century created a tension between Austria-Hungary and Serbia that culminated in

One of the youngest nations of Europe, Yugoslavia was created after World War I as a homeland for several different rival ethnic groups. The country was put together mostly from remnants of the collapsed Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary. Demands for self-determination by Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, and others were ignored. Yugoslavia thus became an uneasy association of peoples conditioned by centuries of ethnic and religious hatreds. World War II aggravated these rivalries, but Communist dictatorship after the war controlled them for 45 years. When the Communist system failed, the old rivalries reasserted themselves; and in the early 1990s the nation was rent by secessionist movements and civil war. Within several years these conflicts

Michael Ignatieff provides a similar account for the ability of a leader in suppressing or influencing the extremity ethnic nationalism. He does this through referencing the age old rivalry between the the Serbians and Croatians who were once considered one ethnic group called Yugoslavia. Ignatieff states that “Without Tito, they became little more than a corrupt network of ethnic patronage” (Ignatieff, 1994). The author is making the observation that Tito as a leader possessed the ability to bring both ethnic groups together thereby suppressing the hold of ethnic nationalism between the two. Tito was able to achieve this through a precise and effective method. He promoted unity