He also argues that by providing room for debate after epideictic dialogue, such as in Newtown, societies can advance with reason-based action on major issues. Some theoretical concepts Frank used in conducting these arguments are concepts of restrictive speeches which offer thoughtful reflection and persuasive speeches which lead to taking effective action. Frank supports his initial argument by analyzing the Tucson and Newtown eulogies. The speech Obama gave in Tucson avoided debate on gun control. Obama mentioned that changes might need to take place but her did not emphasize on what.
Over the past three decades, the United States federal government has been attempting to use legislation for health care reform in an effort to control rising costs and to expand insurance coverage for all Americans. There were several heated debates and failures along the way, with the ultimate overhaul expansion of health care that took place during the 111th Congress culminating in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), or as known to the general public as Obamacare. The ACA is a 2,400-page bill that was passed along party lines and signed in to law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. The bill encompasses several facets of various government agencies including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of Health and
Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists that believe that even though they reside in the United States that they are separate from the country. They do not believe that the government has any control or authority over them. Sovereign citizens believe that the government has no right to tax them, issue licenses, or do many of the other things that the average American citizen has accepted as the roles of government. Sovereign citizens have been known to commit murder or threaten harm of judges, law enforcement and government officials. Some groups or individuals use their sovereign claims in an attempt to avoid legal trouble and circumvent common traffic laws.
Medina, Jr. represented Life magazine. Medina asserted that the privacy law in New York was unconstitutional because it is too broad and corrective. Medina also argued that the prior ruling in the case was unsuitable because the jury was allowed to conclude liability of Life based on the inaccuracy of the article, while neglecting to take into account whether or not the act by the magazine was reckless or willful. Nixon argued that a fictional account is not newsworthy and the privacy law does not impact freedom of the press. He put forth that the “fictionalization” aspect of privacy law did not harm freedom of expression.
Anne Applebaum states “The really interesting question is not whether torture works but why so many people in our society want to believe it works.” Applebaum is against the use of torture as she questions its effectiveness. America has operated under the false pretense that torture is a viable option for obtaining information. She argues that torture damages the country’s image and does little to acquire useful intelligence. Torture is merely a way for officers to take their anger and frustration out on detainees. It is not an effective way to gain information, as Col. Stuart Herrington states, “Nine out of ten people can be persuaded to talk with no stress methods.” Col. Herrington is a counter intelligence officer that directed interrogations
The author does not signify whatsoever why the high-five does not mean “job well-done”. He gives another argument that each and every person uses the word “suck”, which is a broad claim. However, in his following paragraph, he does not reason why all people use “suckiness”, but rather gives two examples of political leaders who do use it. This is a weak inductive argument, as he assumes that if the famous political leaders use this word, then so does the average person. Here the author should have probably listed a psychological reason that explains why humans react either positively or negatively.
The claims they assert have no factual basis or cause. Most of the claims made by gun control advocates can be proven wrong by statistical information. The statistical information used by gun control supporters to boost numbers were falsified somewhat to begin with. The argument of gun control comes from a false basis, has no real evidence suggesting gun control would solve crime rate issues, and infringes on the 2nd amendment right ,therefore,lies unconstitutional. Citations Chavez, Nicole, CNN.
The Affordable Care Act is also called Obamacare. It is also called Obamacare because it passed under the administration of Barack Obama. The ACA speaks for the most significant reform of the health care system since Medicare and Medicaid. Obama’s goal of the ACA was to reduce the amount of Americans that did not have insurance. He also wanted to reduce the overall cost of health care visits.
Many will name different and more political reasons as to what the causes of “congressional gridlocking” is. My answer isn’t as political. I believe that one of the reasons for inaction is that congress is too stubborn. I believe that the government should learn to evolve and create new rules or balances to help pass laws to fix demanding issues. A more political solution or way to put it, I guess, is to use an example I found during my research.
On March 23, 2010, the former President signed a law called the Affordable Health Care Act, also known to everyone as ObamaCare. The Affordable Care Act didn’t happen until January 1, 2014. The goal for the Affordable Health Care Act was: expanding coverage, hold insurance companies accountable, lower health care costs, guarantee more choices, and enhance the quality of care for all Americans. Medicaid is a jointly funded, Federal-State health insurance program for low-income and needy people. It also covers children who are disabled and other people who are eligible to receive federally assisted income maintenance payments.
In our time, the appellation of "least dangerous branch" to describe the federal judiciary seems rather far-fetched in light of twentieth-century history. While Hamilton made some compelling arguments about the virtues of an independent judiciary, he did not perceive the judicial tyranny that looms over us today. On the hand, Thomas Jefferson and George Mason were very weary of an overactive judiciary and they offered prophetic insight that has bore bitter fruit. George Mason warned that if unchecked the federal judiciary would destroy the state judiciaries, and encroach upon their jurisdictions. In his twilight years, Jefferson remarked that the "federal judiciary" was an object of "fear"