Rational Actor Model Essay

Does the Congress of the United States have the power, under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution; have the authority to constitute a national bank even though that power is not explicitly enumerated within the Constitution? Did Article VI’s National Supremacy Clause forbid State taxes on federal doings or was the Maryland tax law statutory?

When looking up the definition of a government it says, “the governing body of a nation, state, or community”(dictionary.com). This helps to understand it a bit more, but what is the purpose of a government. Government has many purposes that keep its people safe and protected, this includes to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. There are so many ways that the government is use and there are so many sub categories and even those have categories. So when one is faced with a question like this there any number of responses, and but the main purpose of a

The United States government system is very interesting and complexly designed. The state and federal government is a mirror of each other when it comes to the generics of the executive branch, legislative branch, and judicial branch, however, internally the state government has major differences on how the branches are conducted. Throughout this paper we will discuss the greatest difference between state and federal, which is the state cannot change or remove laws passed by the federal government but they could change how they execute the federal laws to their liking as long as it is constitutional.

I am here by writing this essay to explain, how these organizations in the United States such as the MADD, LULAC, and NAACP can educate and help our fellow citizens of America change laws that might well need to be changed. As well as explaining the common interest these groups are concerned with.

The structure of our American Government was founded in the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution was written to be the “supreme law of the land,” and produces a democratic republic, where citizens govern themselves (Our American Government, n.d). The purpose of our government, is to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” (Our American Government, n.d.). For our country to accomplish this purpose our Founding Fathers created three principles, “inherent rights, self-government, and separation of powers” (Our American Government, n.d.). The government was developed to ensure order in society and protect its citizens, but with all systems, there is strengths and weakness, let’s examine those strengths and weakness. Let’s first look at the strength and weakness of the U.S. Constitution.

Foreign policy decision-makers are not omnipotent enlightened individuals who can calmly evaluate all available information, assign relative values, and reflectively consider options. Instead, foreign policy is determined by individuals, as a collective, attempting to comprehend a bewildering array of information sources while influenced by personal emotion, relationships, and a subjective understanding of history. Theory, henceforth, is simplification of reality predisposed to emphases certain facts while degrading others. In explaining the reasons for Australia’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, neoclassical realism and constructivism will be applied in deepening the rationale exploration. The systemic, national, and individual facets of this decision are examined supported discussing surrounding social rules, identity, perceptions, and the US-Australian alliance. Neoclassical realism combined structural realist theories with a deep unit-specific analysis to inform understandings of foreign policy where it is assumed states seek increases in relative power. Constructivism, however, is as social science allows for analysists to drill down into relationships and individuals to determine the its socially formatted nature.

The structure of our American Government, was founded in the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution was written to be the “supreme law of the land”, and creates a federal democratic republic, where citizens govern themselves (Our American Governement, n.d). The purpose of our government, is to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” (Our American Government, n.d.). For our country to achieve this purpose our Founding Fathers created three main principles, “inherent rights, self-government, and separation of powers” (Our American Government, n.d.). Government was developed to ensure order in society and protect its citizens, but with all systems there are strengths and weakness, let’s examine those strengths and weakness. Let’s first look at the strength and weakness of the U.S. Constitution.

When one thinks of Iraq war, the two key players are perceived to be George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein. As leaders of the opposing sides, they are also perceived as the decision makers. In the individual and sub group levels of analysis, toppling of the Hussein’s regime in Iraq was a success. This success

Every country differs in their preference of political system to govern their countries. For democratic countries, two possible choices of governing are the presidential system and the parliamentary system. Since both the presidential and the parliamentary systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, many scholars have examined these two forms of government, and debate on which political system is more successful in governance. In this paper, I will first provide a detailed analysis of both the parliamentary and the presidential system. I will also evaluate each system’s strengths and weaknesses, addressing any differences as well as any commonalities. Finally, I will conclude by using historical examples to analyze and support the

In 2003, President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell launched an invasion of the nation of Iraq. United States Secretary of State Colin Powell outlined the reasons Iraq posed a threat to international security in a speech he gave at the United Nations. Iraq’s nuclear weapons program concerned the Bush administration. Fearing Iraq might use this program to act aggressively in the region, and wanting to secure oil supplies and a friendly regime, the administration pursued a plan of action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power (FLS 2016, 43). A constant secure supply of oil stood as a cornerstone of the military-industrial complex thriving in the United States and a friendly regime in such an oil rich country remained an important objective of President Bush. This directly conflicted with the desire of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq to remain in power.

Complex and interrelated concerns led United States (US) decision-makers to undertake the 2003 invasion, and subsequent occupation, of Iraq by United States military forces. Preceding the invasion, justifications provided by the Bush administration centered around practical considerations for disrupting terrorist groups, eliminating any weapons of mass destruction threat posed by the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and the long-term prospect of establishing an example of democracy within the Middle East. However, during the early phases of the occupation, when it became clear that purported links between terrorist organizations and Iraq’s leader reflected questionable intelligence analysis, US leaders brought to the fore arguments regarding the spread of

In August of 2002, the Bush administration’s position about Iraq had changed significantly. Prior to this point, the United States and other western countries had been arming Iraq with weapons of every type. The fact the United States and other countries had been arming Iraq with weapons, shows how little they considered Iraq to be a threat. This quickly changed. A debate on invading Iraq, held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, created

In this paper, I intend to analyze Iraq war of 2003 from Realist and Marxist/ Critical perspectives. I intend to draw a conclusion as to which theoretical framework, in my opinion, is more suitable and provides for a rational understanding of the Iraq War. While drawing comparative analysis of two competing approaches, I do not intend to dismiss one theory in entirety in favour of another. However, I do intend to weigh on a golden balance, lacunas of both theories in order to conclude as to which theory in the end provides or intends to provide a watertight analysis of the Iraq war.

In “Political Representation,” Shapiro et al. (2009) say that “political representation lies at the core of modern politics.” Representation is usually linked to the concept of democracy (Shapiro et al. 2009). The concept of representation is explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution (U.S. Const. art. I, § 1, 2). However, the meaning and appropriate form of “representation” have been debated by political theorists and philosophers for centuries. The definition of representation one chooses to use is influenced by the form of representation one finds most appropriate. Given the different forms of representation, legislators can be responsive in different ways. Representation also operates at two different levels – the national and local

Government! You can't live with it! You can't live without it! It is the "common cold" that everyone dreads. The American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition defines government as, "The exercise of authority in a political unit in order to control and administer public policy." Webster's Desk Dictionary of the English Language defines government as, "The political direction and control exercised over a nation, state, community, etc." The common individual might define government as the root of all evil. The thing about government is that no one stops to think about how government came about.