Government homework help

/in /by
 **ANSWER THIS QUESTION 250 WORDS MIN**
Discussion Questions: Putting politics aside, how should the United States best address immigration now? What about in the next five years? What about the next ten years? (Note: there should be NO discussion of political parties).
**REPLY TO EACH POST 100 WORDS MIN EACH**
1. The U.S. and Mexico border have more threats because of the location and not as many security agreements and technology use in Mexico to cross the U.S. Furthermore, Canada has proved to be working effectively in partnership with the U.S. to prevent suspected foreign terrorists from enter Norther America (DHS, 2017). After 9/11 attacks, the Secretary of the DHS signed a Smart Borders Declaration with Canada and for next five and ten years we need same agreement with Mexico. With this agreement, two nations will share same responsibilities and work closely together to expedite the secure movement of legitimate travel by using 24/7 surveillance technology including pre-emptive profiling of travelers and biometric data sharing of each travelers trying to cross the southern border. Another challenge we face with our immigration is the tensions that are growing between our governments as well as the cartels. It is a complex issue that will require careful evaluation of both strategy and desired outcomes. The smart borders will expand our ability to detect and identify individuals, prevent terrorism including other illicit activity in the U.S. and the southern border region. Five years are not enough to change our immigration issues. Yet, I hope to see better policies that can impact several things like economic, security, and humanitarian issues for the next ten years between the U.S and Mexico/Canada government. In my opinion, immigration policy has really made few changes over the past 15 years. However, for next ten years, I believe we need massive budget increase and the establishment of a lot of the Department of Homeland Security agencies for the U.S. border patrol. For the future border operations, I can see a real effort to secure our borders, especially our border with Mexico and I do not think this has much impact on economic trade with Mexico or Canada. Goods still flow across the border daily. I think it will make a significant impact on both security and humanitarian issues. Security will increase along the southern border quite a bit with both physical barriers and humanitarian efforts will also improve.
2. Each administration has addressed the issue differently since 9/11. The Bush Administration acknowledged that immigration is a large part of what makes the US the nation it is and is part of our heritage. President Bush also acknowledged that the US is a nation of laws and therefore the two ideas would have to be simultaneously upheld. President Obama took several actions to provide relief to undocumented immigrants such as the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. President Trump’s campaign and presidency have focused heavily on border enforcement and immigration discussions. Since the 2016 election, the 2,000-mile border wall has been a focus of his executive orders (Warren, 2017).  Each administration has differing viewpoints on immigration policy. However, with each implementation of a new policy, so has the tactics of migrants.   Unfortunately, five years is not long enough to make an effective change. I think the focus should be on completing the border wall. Not only the physical wall but with a focus on Smart borders. Smart borders are used in many areas of the border already to include the northern border with Canada. Lastly, I think discussions need to be opened with Mexico concerning who they allow into their country. This in turns places pressure on the US as the threat grows due to the flow of people from the south into Mexico. In ten years, I think we need to focus inward, on those illegal/undocumented persons already in the US. According to Warren & Kerwin (2017), in 2014, 42% of illegal immigration was attributed to overstays. After 2007, overstaying a temporary visa became the primary means of entering the undocumented population.

Government homework help

/in /by
Lots of people are frustrated with politics in America today.
One common complaint is that they two-party system is at fault. People making this complaint worry that, for example, political views not represented by the two parties – Republicans and Democrats – are excluded from political discourse. Or that having only two parties limits the choices available on election day, and if neither candidate is desirable, there’s no one left to choose.
But there is another view, as you’ve read. This other view is that blaming the two-party system for today’s problems is misguided. This argument says, among other things, that citizens of other countries with multi-party systems are no more satisfied with the state of their politics than Americans are with ours. We blame the two-party system, they say, because we think “the grass is always greener on the other side,” when really it’s not.
And, they argue, we don’t really have a two-party system, anyway. As recently as 1992, a third party, the Reform Party, got almost 19% of the national popular vote in a presidential election. But is this a good argument when, having earned 19% of the popular vote, the reform party got no electoral votes?
Given what you’ve read, what do you think about the two-party system? Should we do something to change it? If so, what?
Remember you need to make your “Initial Post” of at least 250 words and you need to complete

Government homework help

/in /by
you need to complete at least two responses (the “Final Posts”) of at least 200 words each to classmates
q1
In my opinion, the right to keep and bear arms is a vital element of the liberal order that our Founders handed down to us. They understood that those who hold political power will almost always strive to reduce the freedom of those they rule and that many of the ruled will always be tempted to trade their liberty for empty promises of security. The causes of these political phenomena are sown in man’s nature.
The U.S. Constitution, including the Second Amendment, is a device designed to frustrate the domineering tendencies of the politically ambitious. The Second Amendment also plays an important role in fostering the kind of civic virtue that resists the cowardly urge to trade liberty for an illusion of safety. Armed citizens take responsibility for their own security, thereby exhibiting and cultivating the self-reliance and vigorous spirit that are ultimately indispensable for genuine self-government.
While much has changed since the 18th century, for better and for worse, human nature has not changed. The problem is not owning a gun, but the main issue is on the person who is holding it, is he well formed? Does he know the laws about owning a gun and how to use it? The fundamental principles of our regime and the understanding of human nature on which those principles are based can still be grasped today. Once grasped, they can be defended. Such a defense, however, demands an appreciation of the right to arms that goes beyond the legalistic and narrowly political considerations that drive contemporary gun-control debates.
In some countries, guns are authorized because those countries are countries of war, so authorizing the use of guns is a way to allow people or citizens to be vigilant in case of attack, everybody is ready to defend himself until army takes control of the situation.
q2:
I am a person who comes from the country that doesn’t allow people to carry a gun. Even now I’m already an US citizen but I still keep my opinion about guns in US. I think we should have more rules about guns ownership to make everything’s safer.
What I means is gun-rights advocates and other extremists sometimes behave as if every attempt to create sane and logical regulations on guns is a fruitless, fascist assault on their freedom, but a quick look at the facts shows a chilling relationship between homicides and gun ownership that shouldn’t be so carelessly ignored. The more people that own guns in a region, the more firearm deaths that area will see.
According to a study on this very topic published in the American Journal of Public Health, “For each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%,” (Siegel 2013). This study, which looked at data from three decades for every U.S. state, strongly suggests that the more people that own guns, the more lives will be taken by guns.
Other countries that have implemented stricter gun ownership regulations than the U.S. have lower homicide rates, and this is no coincidence. Looking at the example that Japan, with its strict firearm control laws and its almost nonexistent national homicide rate, sets, it’s clear that fewer guns, not more guns, is the obvious answer (“Japan—Gun Facts, Figures and the Law”).
The Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago (2010), a case often cited by gun-rights advocates, that private citizens may own weapons for self-defense but are subject to restrictions on those weapons. Therefore, it’s not your right to build and own a nuclear or assault weapon, nor is toting a pistol in your pocket an unfettered natural right. Your right to bear arms is maintained by federal law, but it’s not as loose as you might think.
Minors can’t buy alcohol and we can’t purchase cold medicine right off the shelf because our society aims to protect citizens from drug abuse and trafficking. In the same way, we need to regulate guns even further in order to protect Americans from gun violence. It’s inaccurate to claim that unrestricted gun access and ownership is or ever was a constitutional right.
The American people should not have to live in fear every time they enter a public place, send their children to school, or sleep in their own beds at night, and this is ultimately the reason we need gun control. The time has come to let logic win and to bring common sense and compassion to the dialogue on guns.

Government homework help

/in /by
you need to complete at least two responses “the “Final Posts”) of at least 200 words each to classmates by the dates shown in the course schedule.
Q1/ In my opinion, constitutions, in short, are frameworks for making politics possible. The text of a written constitution contains different kinds of legal norms that create the basic framework. These norms include rules, standards and principles. Rules and standards exist along a continuum. Rules are norms that don’t require very much practical reasoning to apply.
Like standards, principles may also have abstract and vague terms; the difference is that when principles apply to a situation, they do not always apply conclusively, but may be balanced against other considerations.
A constitution contains a mixture of these different kinds of norms. They serve different functions. For some purposes, rules are better than standards or principles. Otherwise presidents would tempted to try to stay in power forever, and this might undermine democracy. But some constitutional goals cannot easily be achieved through rules. That is why human rights provisions in constitutions are usually expressed in terms of standards and principles. These are open-ended, abstract, or vague terms that necessarily require construction and implementation by later participants in the system.
Constitutions use rules, standards, and principles and to channel and police government action, to establish rules of succession to power, to create institutions that perform government functions, to divide powers among different actors and branches, and to set institutions in competition with each other in order to diffuse and check concentrations of power. Because constitutions not only use rules but also standards and principles – and because they are sometimes silent on certain questions – they are elaborate systems of constraint and delegation to the future.
I believe that we must be faithful to the original meaning in the sense of the original semantic and communicative content of the words. But it does not follow that we must apply the constitution’s words in the same way that they would have been applied by the people who wrote them. Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws. These words have pretty much the same semantic meaning as they did in 1868. But the people who wrote them did not expect that the words would require modern notions of sex equality. In applying the Equal Protection Clause today, we are bound only by the original meanings of the words – which in this case is the same as the contemporary meaning – and not the original expected application.
Because a constitution is a framework, it must be built out over time, and different generations must participate in that project. As each generation gets involved, change inevitably occurs. Moreover, many different people and groups in society participate in the construction of the constitution– not only judges and lawyers, or politicians, but also members of civil society and ordinary individuals.
These groups participate in official ways: for example, by creating laws and judicial doctrines. They also participate in unofficial ways: for example, through social influence, political organization, and cultural change. To understand constitutional development, we must take account of both the official and the unofficial contributions to constitutional construction.
Q2:
Anyone approaching the topic of constitutional interpretation inevitably encounters the question of whether it has some specific trait that distinguishes it from other objects or forms of legal interpretation. Whatever the theory of legal interpretation to which one adheres, whether one regards it as a function of knowledge or as a function of the will, one necessarily presupposes that the constitutional interpretation is a species of the genus “ legal interpretation ”and one seeks to distinguish it from other species of the same genus, the interpretation of laws, that of international treaties, administrative acts, or contracts of private law.  But, if the question is always the same, the type of answer one gives depends in part on the theory of interpretation on which one relies.
Thus, those who believe that interpretation is a function of knowledge are obviously tempted to seek the specificity of constitutional interpretation in the specificity of its object. As the constitution is not a text like any other, constitutional interpretation is different from the interpretation of laws or treaties. In this regard, theorists who adhere to an intermediate or mixed theory agree with the proponents of interpretation-knowledge theory. According to the intermediate theory, in fact, interpretation is an act of will by which the authentic interpreter chooses within a frame among several possible meanings, while the determination of the frame would result from an act of knowledge.
Americans constitutional theory presents an opposition between, on the one hand, the arguments in favor of a living constitution capable of adapting to change, and, on the other, the demand to restore the original meaning of the constitution. these two positions stem from a common observation: the recognition of the disappearance of the world which produced the old constitution. This experience of constitutional modernity gives rise to equal and opposite tendencies: the need to cling to the past, its symbols, and its concrete manifestations on the one hand and, on the other hand, the need to transcend the past through adaptation  pragmatic to a world that is no longer the same.

Government homework help

/in /by
you need to complete at least two responses (the “Final Posts”) of at least 200 words each to classmates
q1
In my opinion, the right to keep and bear arms is a vital element of the liberal order that our Founders handed down to us. They understood that those who hold political power will almost always strive to reduce the freedom of those they rule and that many of the ruled will always be tempted to trade their liberty for empty promises of security. The causes of these political phenomena are sown in man’s nature.
The U.S. Constitution, including the Second Amendment, is a device designed to frustrate the domineering tendencies of the politically ambitious. The Second Amendment also plays an important role in fostering the kind of civic virtue that resists the cowardly urge to trade liberty for an illusion of safety. Armed citizens take responsibility for their own security, thereby exhibiting and cultivating the self-reliance and vigorous spirit that are ultimately indispensable for genuine self-government.
While much has changed since the 18th century, for better and for worse, human nature has not changed. The problem is not owning a gun, but the main issue is on the person who is holding it, is he well formed? Does he know the laws about owning a gun and how to use it? The fundamental principles of our regime and the understanding of human nature on which those principles are based can still be grasped today. Once grasped, they can be defended. Such a defense, however, demands an appreciation of the right to arms that goes beyond the legalistic and narrowly political considerations that drive contemporary gun-control debates.
In some countries, guns are authorized because those countries are countries of war, so authorizing the use of guns is a way to allow people or citizens to be vigilant in case of attack, everybody is ready to defend himself until army takes control of the situation.
q2:
I am a person who comes from the country that doesn’t allow people to carry a gun. Even now I’m already an US citizen but I still keep my opinion about guns in US. I think we should have more rules about guns ownership to make everything’s safer.
What I means is gun-rights advocates and other extremists sometimes behave as if every attempt to create sane and logical regulations on guns is a fruitless, fascist assault on their freedom, but a quick look at the facts shows a chilling relationship between homicides and gun ownership that shouldn’t be so carelessly ignored. The more people that own guns in a region, the more firearm deaths that area will see.
According to a study on this very topic published in the American Journal of Public Health, “For each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%,” (Siegel 2013). This study, which looked at data from three decades for every U.S. state, strongly suggests that the more people that own guns, the more lives will be taken by guns.
Other countries that have implemented stricter gun ownership regulations than the U.S. have lower homicide rates, and this is no coincidence. Looking at the example that Japan, with its strict firearm control laws and its almost nonexistent national homicide rate, sets, it’s clear that fewer guns, not more guns, is the obvious answer (“Japan—Gun Facts, Figures and the Law”).
The Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago (2010), a case often cited by gun-rights advocates, that private citizens may own weapons for self-defense but are subject to restrictions on those weapons. Therefore, it’s not your right to build and own a nuclear or assault weapon, nor is toting a pistol in your pocket an unfettered natural right. Your right to bear arms is maintained by federal law, but it’s not as loose as you might think.
Minors can’t buy alcohol and we can’t purchase cold medicine right off the shelf because our society aims to protect citizens from drug abuse and trafficking. In the same way, we need to regulate guns even further in order to protect Americans from gun violence. It’s inaccurate to claim that unrestricted gun access and ownership is or ever was a constitutional right.
The American people should not have to live in fear every time they enter a public place, send their children to school, or sleep in their own beds at night, and this is ultimately the reason we need gun control. The time has come to let logic win and to bring common sense and compassion to the dialogue on guns.

>Government homework help

/in /by
you need to complete at least two responses “the “Final Posts”) of at least 200 words each to classmates by the dates shown in the course schedule.
Q1/ In my opinion, constitutions, in short, are frameworks for making politics possible. The text of a written constitution contains different kinds of legal norms that create the basic framework. These norms include rules, standards and principles. Rules and standards exist along a continuum. Rules are norms that don’t require very much practical reasoning to apply.
Like standards, principles may also have abstract and vague terms; the difference is that when principles apply to a situation, they do not always apply conclusively, but may be balanced against other considerations.
A constitution contains a mixture of these different kinds of norms. They serve different functions. For some purposes, rules are better than standards or principles. Otherwise presidents would tempted to try to stay in power forever, and this might undermine democracy. But some constitutional goals cannot easily be achieved through rules. That is why human rights provisions in constitutions are usually expressed in terms of standards and principles. These are open-ended, abstract, or vague terms that necessarily require construction and implementation by later participants in the system.
Constitutions use rules, standards, and principles and to channel and police government action, to establish rules of succession to power, to create institutions that perform government functions, to divide powers among different actors and branches, and to set institutions in competition with each other in order to diffuse and check concentrations of power. Because constitutions not only use rules but also standards and principles – and because they are sometimes silent on certain questions – they are elaborate systems of constraint and delegation to the future.
I believe that we must be faithful to the original meaning in the sense of the original semantic and communicative content of the words. But it does not follow that we must apply the constitution’s words in the same way that they would have been applied by the people who wrote them. Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws. These words have pretty much the same semantic meaning as they did in 1868. But the people who wrote them did not expect that the words would require modern notions of sex equality. In applying the Equal Protection Clause today, we are bound only by the original meanings of the words – which in this case is the same as the contemporary meaning – and not the original expected application.
Because a constitution is a framework, it must be built out over time, and different generations must participate in that project. As each generation gets involved, change inevitably occurs. Moreover, many different people and groups in society participate in the construction of the constitution– not only judges and lawyers, or politicians, but also members of civil society and ordinary individuals.
These groups participate in official ways: for example, by creating laws and judicial doctrines. They also participate in unofficial ways: for example, through social influence, political organization, and cultural change. To understand constitutional development, we must take account of both the official and the unofficial contributions to constitutional construction.
Q2:
Anyone approaching the topic of constitutional interpretation inevitably encounters the question of whether it has some specific trait that distinguishes it from other objects or forms of legal interpretation. Whatever the theory of legal interpretation to which one adheres, whether one regards it as a function of knowledge or as a function of the will, one necessarily presupposes that the constitutional interpretation is a species of the genus “ legal interpretation ”and one seeks to distinguish it from other species of the same genus, the interpretation of laws, that of international treaties, administrative acts, or contracts of private law.  But, if the question is always the same, the type of answer one gives depends in part on the theory of interpretation on which one relies.
Thus, those who believe that interpretation is a function of knowledge are obviously tempted to seek the specificity of constitutional interpretation in the specificity of its object. As the constitution is not a text like any other, constitutional interpretation is different from the interpretation of laws or treaties. In this regard, theorists who adhere to an intermediate or mixed theory agree with the proponents of interpretation-knowledge theory. According to the intermediate theory, in fact, interpretation is an act of will by which the authentic interpreter chooses within a frame among several possible meanings, while the determination of the frame would result from an act of knowledge.
Americans constitutional theory presents an opposition between, on the one hand, the arguments in favor of a living constitution capable of adapting to change, and, on the other, the demand to restore the original meaning of the constitution. these two positions stem from a common observation: the recognition of the disappearance of the world which produced the old constitution. This experience of constitutional modernity gives rise to equal and opposite tendencies: the need to cling to the past, its symbols, and its concrete manifestations on the one hand and, on the other hand, the need to transcend the past through adaptation  pragmatic to a world that is no longer the same.

Government homework help

/in /by
Lots of people are frustrated with politics in America today.
One common complaint is that they two-party system is at fault. People making this complaint worry that, for example, political views not represented by the two parties – Republicans and Democrats – are excluded from political discourse. Or that having only two parties limits the choices available on election day, and if neither candidate is desirable, there’s no one left to choose.
But there is another view, as you’ve read. This other view is that blaming the two-party system for today’s problems is misguided. This argument says, among other things, that citizens of other countries with multi-party systems are no more satisfied with the state of their politics than Americans are with ours. We blame the two-party system, they say, because we think “the grass is always greener on the other side,” when really it’s not.
And, they argue, we don’t really have a two-party system, anyway. As recently as 1992, a third party, the Reform Party, got almost 19% of the national popular vote in a presidential election. But is this a good argument when, having earned 19% of the popular vote, the reform party got no electoral votes?
Given what you’ve read, what do you think about the two-party system? Should we do something to change it? If so, what?
Remember you need to make your “Initial Post” of at least 250 words and you need to complete

Government homework help

/in /by

Respond to the following in a minimum of 175 words:
After completing this week’s required learning activities, we found that each organization consists of members who play different roles in creating a solid base in organizational decision-making, this is the stakeholder power base. This encompasses a unique role of individuals, such as the president, management, supervisors, and so forth. They create policies that act in the organization’s best interest. To ensure that each role is part of the decision-making process, they must bond together in hopes of forming a consensus about various decisions that must be made. What stakeholders are part of your organization, or an organization you are familiar with, stakeholder power base? Do the members vary based on the task? What are the unique roles the stakeholders play in the decision-making process?
I work for the University of Kansas. If we do not have stakeholders you can use another company.

Government homework help

/in /by

**ANSWER THE DISCUSSION QUESTION 250 WORDS MIN**
Discussion Questions: How should the United States government deal with the heightened concern about homegrown violent extremism and the growing concern for the preservation of civil liberties? What are the political and constitutional consequences of counter-terrorism? Lastly, how do we assess the tradeoffs between freedom and security?
***REPLY TO EACH POST 100 WORDS MIN EACH***
1. The United States government will always have to face the homegrown violent extremist because with the internet alone people are able to research just about anything and find their answers. The civil liberties are being violated because you have FBI and CIA looking into what people on doing on the webs. I personally believe that you gave up the right when you decided to goggle whatever it is you’re looking up. It’s also like social media site take Facebook for example people are willing to give up their rights so they can be on Facebook and be able to look or post whatever they want. But just like ever website the owner of that site has a right to delete what they don’t want on it as well. So why can’t the FBI/CIA look into and potentially stop a homegrown extremist from attacking the nation or even just attacking schools, churches, and retail stores like the mall or Wal-Mart. All these locations have had attacks from violent extremist when if they were being watched or monitored those attacks could have been stopped or at least less death could have occurred. From a political and constitutional stand point, consequences of counter-terrorism can vary.  I political stand is to protect and preserve the freedom for the people. Protecting one’s Constitutional rights depends on what the politician’s plans on policies and procedures that could begin to take away those civil rights that were granted and give people the sense of freedom that the nation is built on. Policies and procedures can change everything take the mask wearing and social distancing for Covid-19, you have the people that are okay with it all and are following the rules but then you have the ones that have been protesting or fighting people over the fact that they don’t want to wear a mask. To me personally it’s simple to wear a mask but to others it’s a reason of rights being taken away by mandating it. Working for the military and DHS I personally don’t see freedom and security as a tradeoff. If agencies do their jobs correctly and protect the United States and National Security then freedom wouldn’t be at stake. I believe in freedom but the security measures in place are to help protect that freedom, without the security measures the nation would be under attack like 9/11 or worse.
2. The internal terrorist threat in the United States is operational and complicated, with continuing threats from extreme left- and right-wing extremist groups and radicalization and recruitment efforts by international terrorist groups. Since Sept/11, our nation’s entire security measures and agencies have been revamped and stricter in all levels of government. The intelligence community is significantly restricted in its ability to monitor or participate in domestic political groups secretly. The FBI is this nation’s domestic intelligence agency accountable for managing domestic terrorism, but the FBI does not report to the ODNI. I think the ODNI and the FBI should cooperate, and it may help fill in the gap where one organization cannot. The all around structure of government, by circumscribing coercive activities that might occur within the United States, protects the liberty of citizens in the United States, including foreign persons who are not lawful permanent residents. Take this for example, the military is hemmed in by strict legal rules that significantly reduce its authority to operate domestically and help preserve liberty at home. Many of the political drawbacks of counterterrorism efforts are inadvertent or unimportant. However, some pessimistic spectators might question that governments, predominantly officials of the executive branch, influence the danger of terrorism to magnify their dominances. Many provisions of the Patriot Act were set to conclude at the end of 2005 and, despite opposition from across the political spread and more than 400 state and community resolutions expressing concern about the Patriot Act, Congress reauthorized the law without reforming its most flawed provisions to bring these extraordinary powers back in line with the Constitution. The civil rights and civil liberties of all American citizens, including Arab Americans, African Americans ,Muslim Americans, and Americans from South Asia, must be protected. Every effort must be taken to preserve their safety. This announcement possibly bestows a worry between national security and the individual liberty of American citizens. It could be contended that the apparent mention to Americans of Arab, Muslim, and South Asian descent exemplifies that their security and civil liberties are under threat, not only from terrorists but possibly from fellow citizens and even the government elected to defend them.