What Is The Difference Between Republican And Democrat

At first look, it is easy.

People living in Southern states of the USA are mostly habitants of rural area. Their economy depends on farming. They are conservative and therefore support the Republicans, the center-right party.

People living in Northern states of the USA are mostly habitants of urban area. Their economy depends on industry and services. They are liberal and therefore support the Democrats, the center-left party.

But things get complicated when you analyse the "beginning".

The American Civil War was between North and South. Northern states were supporting abolition of slavery, while the Southern states were wanted to keep on with slavery. And the surprising fact is that Northern states were Republican and the Southern states were Democrats!

This is not an easy phonemenon to explain, but with my limited knowledge of constitutional law, I will try:

In the years of the American Civil War, southern states were older settlements with much higher urbanization, thanks to dominating role of agriculture of the time. On the other hand, the northern states were relatively new settlements, where industry was not much advanced and civilization was new. This is why southern states were liberal and therefore supported the democrats, while northern states were conservative and supported the republicans.

When it comes to slavery;

According to the initial constitution, the states were represented in the house in proportion with the number of registered slaves. The total population of the country was not under record at the beginning, but the number of slaves were registered, so it was a ready data.

Northern states were also developing but industry needed workers, not slaves. So the difference in number of slaves between the southern and northern states would not get smaller, but might even get bigger by the time. This is why southern states (though they were the convervative republicans of the time) demanded abolition of slavery and the southern states (though they were urban liberals) insisted on keeping the slavery.

After the civil war, the slavery was abolished. The states were represented in the house in proportion with their population. By the time the northern states became the symbol of urban approaches such as liberalism, while southern states, keeping on their large farms became the symbol of conservative approaches and known supporters of the republicans.

What Is The Difference Between Legal And Ethical

Legal means anything allowed by laws, regardless of the morality.

Ethics in general means anything allowed by morality, regardless of the legislation.

However, where laws observe the morality, an ethical conduct is also a legal conduct.

Ethics in a particular profession means the right way of conduct according to the peculiar morality of that profession.

Violation of laws is punished by the state, i.e. fine, imprisonment etc.
However, punishment for violation of ethics is often limited to negative reaction of the concerning people.

It is so until the rules of ethics get codified and become effective as a law.

What Is the Difference Between Business And Economy

Economy is the art of saving money. This is apparent in its ethymology from the Greek language:

Oikonomia means "household management"

Whereas, business is the art of making money. This is what "businesspersons" are busy about. Business is an initiative by which the entreprenour aims making profit.

This is why you save your money flying in economy class with lower services, while you may make more money flying in business class with the chance to meet wealthier passengers. The risk taken in the second choice is called venture.

What Is The Difference Between Property and Assets

Property is a legal term, while assets is an accounting term.

Only persons (individuals or corporate persons) can have "property".

But a business, a store, an undertaking etc. may have "assets", regardless of having personality in terms of law. It may have its corporate personality or just be a part or a branch of a "person". In either case, it has its own assets, but it may be incapable of having "property".

Secondly, in daily language the word "property" first refers to "real property" and therefore sounds even more different than "assets". However, "personal property" and "intellectual property" are also included in the term "property" in technical view of the law.

So, the most remarkable difference between the two terms is the "owner", not the content.

All That We Need In The Constitution Is Right There In The Text

My essay on sufficiency of written constitution, written for online course

Constitutional Law
by Akhil Reed Amar

    My task was as follows:

    "All that we need in the Constitution is right there in the text." Attack or defend this statement with at least three distinct arguments, using specific examples to illustrate your points.

      My essay:

      I don't agree the suggestion "All that we need in the Constitution is right there in the text". It is too dogmatic, shortsighted and incoherent, because a constitution must be much more than what is written in the text so that it can overcome every challenge that may arise by time, by unexpected occasions and by any interpretation that was not contemplated by its authors.

      Constitution's Spirit Against Text

      A written constitution reflects the idea behind foundation of a state. But that reflection is not the idea itself; the written constitution is only tangible appearance, an outcome of the idea. As in United Kingdom, a country can be governed by an unwritten constitution, whereas there are many unconstitutional countries that have written so-called constitutions just for show. Therefore, the written constitution must be used as a means of proof, commitment and record with regard to the founding spirit but must not be and cannot used for turning its underlying spirit into a fixed document of letters.

      In particular, the US constitution is not considered an intellectual product of particular person or persons.[1] Though it is attributed to Thomas Jefferson, he admits that he only penned the independence declaration, a fundamental constitutional instrument, the declaration itself was in the air among the minds of the people that gather to found the USA. Therefore, US Constitution must be considered the common approach for political and civil matters, which was embodied for the purpose of popular dissemination, not textual limitation.

      A Constitution For Future Challenges

      Even there could be a way to perfectly transfer the ideas into letters, that would be a conveyance of that time only. That would cause great lack in responding to the coming challenges in several aspects.

      Considering the fact that the technology got advanced in last 200 hundred years more than the total of the ages before, one can see it is highly critical for the Constitution to be able to adapt to every new development in science. Does the constitution's text really able to handle the matters of broadcast, internet, electronic voting, cyber battles, Wikileaks etc? Right to make propaganda through web, might not be inferred from the constitution if the constitional freedom of expression was handled literally. For example, the frequency of the election has changed by the time, owing to the advancement in the means of transportation and communication.[2]

      Aside from the technology, many manners of social life has also tremendously changed since adoption of the Constitution; not only in national but also international level. Much before now, people were fighting duels, killing each other on personal, sometimes unimportant matters of honor -in their sense of dignity of that time. Or KKK could freely conduct great rallies on streets, defending their rights. Not only the technological tools but also social acceptances are advanced, mostly in liberal way, by time. This is why a paper, formed of constant propositions cannot be used as a recipe to solve every social problem. Otherwise, the right to information and even free press could not be derived from the constitutional provisions concerning the freedom of speech.[3] Freedom of getting information from the government, without giving any reasoning was something that perhaps could not be imagined during the times the constiution's words were shaped. Today it is possible by handling today's social needs through the constitutional mentality, not the text itself.

      Power of Amendment Presuming Imperfect Nature of Text

      Though there are several checks, the legislative body's power to amend[4] the constitution itself implies that what is written in the Constitution may be wrong; it may not be the true Constitution, but a text that misinterprets the standpoint that constituted the USA. Therefore 'all we need in the constitution' is not the text itself, but the political will that had led to the written constitution and new interpretations of or constructions from that political will is what makes the later amendments legitimate.


      [1] This is why it begins with the wording "We, the people" and as Mr. Amar mention in the first lecture, the noun "we" does not refer to the undersigners; it refers to the people of the USA.

      [2] Mr. Amar in the early lectures had stated that the House elections were held less frequently in the first years, because it took time to make elections and send the elected person to the capital city. It was a common practice of that time as a result the level of the technology by then.

      [3] In Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 15–16 (1978) decision, Supreme Court Justice Steven's dissenting opinion later allowed the right to obtain information from government by wide interpretation of freedom of expression for the press. Mr. Amar made reference to this case in his lecture on Supreme Court's contribution to the constitutional law.

      [4] Though the 'amendments' are the supplements to the Constitution, I here refer both to those additions to the Constitution and also the modification on the original deed.
      Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...