The only way to change our country is by working with each other, not against each other. With some Americans refusing to stay open minded to the beliefs of the opposite political party, our country will get nowhere. As one of our country’s Founding Fathers, Washington would not approve of this, and demand the next president change this. If George Washington was still alive today, he would be able to give the next president advice to transform our country. Someone with the unbiased mindset toward the two main political parties would be a much needed perspective for the next president.
Ernie Law Zink 3° US History 15 September 2016 DBQ Essay When the delegates met in 1787 they aimed to fix the national government. The previous governmental charter, the Articles of Confederation, failed because it was just too weak and wasn’t getting the job done. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no court system, no chief executive, and there was no particular way for the central government to force states to pay their taxes. By creating the Constitution, it would build a stronger central government and would be able to hold the nation together. The Constitution protected the people from tyranny by federalism, checks and balances, and equal power between the Senate and House of Representatives.
Additionally, Brennan Center, a non-partisan law institute that focuses on issues of democracy, found that allowing felons to vote would lead to an expansion of democracy (Bernd 5). The United States prides itself on the principle that it serves as the model democracy for the world around it, but those who plead for the enfranchisement of felons do not see this principle being upheld. Instead, they see the United States directly discouraging participation in government and democratic ideals by ignoring millions of American citizens’ opinions on political and governmental decisions. Furthermore, this reduction of American democracy warrants a reduction in the rights of American citizens
Before that, it was simply a collection of 6 British colonies. They partly self-governed but they were under the law-making power of the British Parliament. Many people had wanted Australia to maintain the British heritage which means only white people can be allowed into Australia, creating the ‘White Policy’. Because of this, non-Australians could not help in the war, no matter how much they wanted to. Australians attitude towards war changed because it was not what they had in mind.
An opposing piece to this, entitled ‘Advance Australia, fair!’ by Tristan Fairchild was published. In his piece, Fairchild uses his experience as a cultural liaison supervisor to persuade his audience that changing the date of Australia day can only be a good thing. Fairchild employed a authoritative and passionate tone to reason that celebrating a day that is viewed as an invasion is un-Australian and that we should rather be celebrating a rich and extensive culture. Joined to this article was a picture of an Aboriginal flag being raised, rather than the British flag, at Botany Bay by James Cook. Fairchild opened his piece with a play on the wording of the national anthem, using ‘Advance Australia, fair!’ to highlight the irony of how Australians were acting in a manner distinctly unfair to Indigenous Australians.
If the flag changed it would become very confusing not only for people in Australia but also for people visiting Australia and other people around the world. As stated from Flags Australia, “The current flag is already well known internationally and it its distinctive and attractive design is effective in promoting Australian identity overseas.” This shows that if it was changed no one would recognise it as we are all comfortable with the current flag. Do you have $25 million to spare? Changing the flag would be very
The Declaration of Independence reads “We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation...we declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown…” (Par 5.) Jefferson explains how after all the abuses, the people of the colonies have had enough and they are now declaring the separation from Britain. The people of these states are free and have their independence, and there will no longer be any form of allegiance to the British. This is also meaning that the people are standing together and they know that war will be upon them. But they still stand strong knowing that they are outmanned and outgunned by the
These individuals have experienced a considerable measure just to sail to Australia, some have even put in all they have,examples of this are such things as, cash, house, furniture, apparel etc.Some of this individuals needed to surrender such resources just to get out from their nation. On the off chance that they will do such things, that clearly implies the issue might be considerably more genuine than we might suspect, most likely they don 't have a decision and do this or presumably not, in any case, we can 't simply remain by and let this individual battle for their essential freedom.If we need to see a change, the Australian government need to manage this issue in like manner and attempt to search for an answer this issue would advantage us as well as advantage them as
This poses a large problem, because corrupt or self-interested leaders in post-conflict societies can do next to nothing to alleviate the suffering of the nation’s citizens, and claim that what they are doing is their own take on reconciliation. Without clear definitional boundaries, the concept of reconciliation can be adapted to fit any process that suits the political elite. In Schaap’s own study, he found that there were at least three conceptions of reconciliation that emerged regarding the Australian reconciliation process in the 1990s. Reconciliation in the Australian case went from being about achieving distributive justice and equity on the one hand, to requiring an official apology and economic reparations on the other. Thus, the actual methods and outcomes of the reconciliation process will ultimately depend on who is in charge, what their intentions are, and who they strive to
Surrogacy is an ongoing issue within Australia, as people are seeking alternative methods at an international scale to find loopholes in the Australian Legal System. Commercial surrogacy is illegal in Australia, yet legal in other international countries, legal ramifications arise when Australians travel beyond the borders to seek surrogacy arrangements. This reveals the on going dispute on why in a recent article the Chief Justice of the Family court referred to surrogacy arrangements in Australia as a “ticking time bomb.” “Surrogacy is a form of of assisted reproductive technology, where a woman offers to carry a baby through pregnancy on behalf of another person or couple and then return the baby to the intended parents, once it’s born”,