Essay --

One example of government is a regime ruled by democratic ideas. A government under this type of rule has specific qualities that distinguish it as a democracy. For instance, many people can have an impact to a democracy; they can possess some power. "It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few" (Benjamin Jowett). However, when one citizen among the people stands out, it can be a positive aspect towards public service. As stated in The History of Thucydides, "when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit" (Benjamin Jowett). A citizen that is different from the rest should not be taken as beneficial towards public service, but as a gift of excellence. A democracy allows citizens to have this ability. In addition, a government under democratic rule consists of laws that create an equity among citizens. "But while the law secu res equal justice to all alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognized" (Benjamin Jowett). Conflicts and issues can occur in a society, but laws play a role in taming them. This is a reason as to how people are granted the same amount of justness and fairness among each other. Two characteristics among a democracy include having a unique citizen that is right for the public, and allowing laws to protect everyone's fair play. Another type of government is an association under absolute control. Absolutism is the idea of governing by divine right, in which the ruler can come off as believing they are superior. This idea can be the cause of persuading rulers to be better than other parties. As stated in A History of Western ... ...shed democracy ends due to Ralph not receiving enough respect from others, and lacking the ability in ruling efficiently. Ralph's formation of his democratic government goes wrong when these two characteristics lead to a formation of another society that ruins his own. In the real world, there are two forms of government: an absolute government and a democratic government. A government under absolute control does not provide citizens with proper freedom or fair rights, while a government under democratic rule does. Citizens play a role in both of these types of government. Under absolute control, they serve to the government. In a democracy, they have an equal right, just like a figure of authority. In Lord of the Flies, a character named Ralph tries to commence a democracy that consists of justice and freedom, but cannot achieve this effort due to this flaws in

Mr Know All

(for working with Lesson 2 – end) by Adele Raemer – [email  protected] co. il Lesson 2 Workpage 10 points each answer 1. Where does the story take place? In what year? 2. What does the opening paragraph tell us about the speaker and his attitude? 3. In the second paragraph the speaker says that he doesn't like Mr. Kelada. What doesn't he like about him? 4. When Mr. Kelada introduces himself to the narrator, the narrator says that he â€Å"asked if he was right in thinking my name was so and so. † Why doesn't the narrator bother to tell us his own name? 5.In the conversation that follows this introduction, the narrator is surprised to find out that Mr. Kelada is English. Why is he so surprised? Why does the writer describe his question as being asked â€Å"rather tactlessly†? 6. What impression is created by Mr. Kelada's behavior at this first meeting? 7. Where does the narrator suspect that Mr. Kelada was born? How do you know? Vocabulary work: Use the f ollowing words in a sentence to show that you understand them: (5 points for each sentence) 1. accommodation 2. berth 3. port-hole 4. gestures 5. exuberant 6. flask Extra credit question: (10 points) rite down as many words or phrases that you can find that show that the narrator was prejudiced against Mr. Kelada. Explain why they show prejudice. Lesson 3 – Mr. Know-All (for working with ECB Anthology- questions from EMT) Workpage (Answer on a separate page in complete sentences. ) 1. What is special about Mrs. Ramsay? 2. What kind of man is Mr. Ramsay? 3. Write down at least 3 things that Mr. Kelada did that annoyed the narrator. 4. Which of those could be considered cultural difference, and which were just a part of his personality that clashed with that of the narrator's? 5. Describe Mr. and Mrs.Ramsay. How do you think that author feels about them? (Find quotations to support your answer. ) Extra credit: (Answer EITHER 6 OR 7) 1. Why does the narrator call Mr. Kelada :â⠂¬ The best hated man on the ship? † (EMT p. 177; ECB p. 37 line 110) 2. Vocabulary work: Use the following words in a sentence to show that you understand them: 1. airs (EMT p. 176; ECB p. 36 line 72) 2. snub (EMT p. 177; ECB p. 37 line 99) 3. intolerable (EMT p. 177; ECB p. 37 line 113 ) 4. loquacious (EMT p. 177; ECB p. 37 line 115) 5. argumentative (EMT p. 177; ECB p. 37 line 115) Ques. 1-5 are worth 20 points eachExtra credit question is worth an additional 10 points. |Mr. Kelada sees Mrs. Ramsay's chain of pearls. | [pic] | | [pic] | | [pic] | | [pic] | | [pic] | [pic] | | [pic] | | [pic] | | [pic] | | [pic] | [pic] | | [pic] | | [pic] | | [pic] | | [pic] |Mr. Kelada says that he is mistaken. | Lesson 4 1. Using the flow chart, fill in what happens from the point when Kelada sees Mrs.Ramsay's chain of pearls, to the point when he says he is mistaken. 2. Why does Mrs. Ramsay â€Å"retire with a headache†? 3. In the last paragraph the narrator says, â €Å"At that moment I did not entirely dislike Mr. Kelada†. Has the narrator changed at all during the story? What are your feelings towards Mrs. Ramsay, Mr. Kelada and the narrator by the end of the story? 4. Why did Mr. Kelada decide to protect Mrs. Ramsay? What does this tell us about him? 5. What is Mrs. Ramsay's reaction at the end of the story? Why is the name on the envelope written in â€Å"block letters†? How does this make you react to Mrs.Ramsay? Extra credit question (10 points) 6. What do cultured and real pearls symbolize in the story? Lesson 5 1. Look for and list the cultural differences between the narrator, Mr. Ramsay and Mr. Kelada. 2. Discuss cultural differences between you, as Israelis, and those seen in the characters. With whom do you feel closest? Why? 3. Why is the story told in the first person? What effect does it have on us, the readers? 4. The following are very British expressions. Find them in the text, and think of another way to say the same thing (in English). jolly glad – (EMT p. 175; ECB p. 35) ather – (EMT p. 175 ; ECB p. 35) chap – (EMT p. 177, ECB p. 38 ) fetch – (EMT p. 178 , ECB p. 38) rot – (EMT p. 179 , ECB p. 40) had been caught out – (EMT p. 180, ECB p. 41) retire – (EMT p. 180, ECB p. 41) 5. Find examples of sarcasm in the story. Final Assessment (Individual work) Choose ONE of the following 4 questions, and record your answer on a tape. Your answer must cover all of the aspects of the question, and show that you understood the story. It must last between 3 and 5 minutes. 1. Pretend that you are Mr. Kelada, and tell the story to your friend in Japan (from your – Mr.Kelada's – point of view). 2. Answer the following questions orally: a. Why is the story told in the first person, and why aren't we told the narrator's name? b. Why did the narrator decide that he disliked Mr. Kelada even before he met him? What does this tell you about him? Do you think the writer was trying to say something about the British, in general? 3. Describe the 3 different stereotypes that the writer shows in this story. 4. Mr. Kelada / Mrs. Ramsay Why did Mr. Kelada decide to protect Mrs. Ramsay? What does this tell about him? What does Mrs. Ramsay do in return?What do you think about her reaction? Criteria for grade (according to oral bag. scales): show familiarity with the characters and the story discuss the questions fluently discuss the questions with a minimum of grammatical mistakes remain within the given time (1 1/2 – 3 minutes) Evaluation page for group work (Mr. Know All final activity) Name of group observer:__________________ Names of group members: ___________________________________________________________ If the answer is YES – put a check in the box. If it is NO – leave the box empty. In some cases, there may be more than one YES answer. I.Evaluation for answering the questions: 1. My group read, understoo d and followed the instructions. [ ] 2. My group decided together who would answer next- there was no real leader. [ ] 3. One person from my group decided to take charge (be the leader) , and organize the turns. [ ] 4. My group decided together on a leader, who organized the turns. [ ] 5. My group worked more efficiently / the same / less efficiently than they did in the first activity. Explain______________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ II.Evaluation for group discussion My group†¦ 1. . †¦ discussed the question in an organized manner, taking turns. [ ] 2. †¦ discussed the question in an unorganized manner – each person spoke when they felt that had something to say. [ ] 3. †¦ discussed the question in Hebrew. [ ] 4. †¦ discussed the question in English. [ ] 5. How did the group decide who would be the secretary [ ] ___________________________________________________ III. My group discussed the following questions: #1. Thoroughly / Superficially / Didn't have enough time #2.Thoroughly / Superficially / Didn't have enough time #3. Thoroughly / Superficially / Didn't have enough time #4. Thoroughly / Superficially / Didn't have enough time #5. Thoroughly / Superficially / Didn't have enough time IV. Summary: yes no Do you feel that your group worked in an efficient manner? ? ? How could they have been more efficient? _______________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Do you think they did this activity more efficiently than they did the first time? yes no ? Explain. ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ V. Your opinion I li ked / didn't like being the group evaluator. Why_______________________________________________________ I learned something / nothing about working in groups by being the evaluator. Please write anything else that you have to say here :

Constitutional Treaties in European law - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 6 Words: 1835 Downloads: 8 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Analytical essay Did you like this example? Brief : 214212 Delivery Date : 1/12/08 Title: In the absence of a primacy clause in a Constitutional Treaty, the supremacy of European law will always remain precariously balanced. Discuss. ANSWER Introduction This paper discusses the assertion that the supremacy of European Union law is à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"precariously balancedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ and that it requires reinforcement and underpinning in the shape of an explicit primacy clause embedded in a new Constitutional Treaty. Case law and the development of the European Union is considered before firm conclusions are drawn on the basis of the analysis presented. The supremacy of EC law It is abundantly clear that the EU needs a supremacy principle. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Constitutional Treaties in European law" essay for you Create order The European Union of 2008 is a complex political and economic partnership of 27 democratic states held together by a constellation of laws, derived largely from the Treaty of Rome[1] and successive Treaties, and supplemented by a mass of regulation and European Court of Justice case law[2]. If the EU legal system was subject to variation and compromise at the hands of 27 widely diverse national legal systems the entire EU project would rapidly and quite dramatically falter and fail. Largely as a consequence of political pragmatism, no explicit primacy principle is embedded in the Treaty of Rome. However, the European Court of Justice is charged with the responsibility to maintain and advance the efficiency, power and integrity of EC law and it has done so at every opportunity when the question of a conflict between EC and national law has arisen. The first express declaration of the sovereignty of EC law was delivered in the foundation case C26/62 Van Gend en Loos[3]. Here the European Court famously ruled: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“the Community constitutes a new legal order in international law, for whose benefit the States have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  This ruling provided the bedrock for the judgment in C6/64 Costa v ENEL[4], in which Italian law came into direct conflict with EEC law. Drawing on Van Gend en Loos jurisprudence the Court of Justice declared: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“The reception, within the laws of each member state, of provisions having a Community source, and more particularly of the terms and of the spirit of the Treaty, has as a corollary the impossibility, for the member state, to give preference to a unilateral and subsequent measure against a legal order accepted by them on the basis of reciprocityà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  The power and quality of the supremacy principle was relatively soon thereafter put to a sterner test. That test came in the form of the case C11/70 Internationale Handelsg esellschaft mbH v Einfuhrund Vorratsstellle fur Getreide und Futtermittel[5], which concerned a conflict between EEC law and a German constitutional law, which is typically conceptualised as the very highest possible form of national law. Despite the fact that the Court of Justice was faced not with some mundane domestic regulation but with the ultimate source of national law, it nonetheless delivered a forthright and unequivocal ruling in the following terms: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“the law born from the Treaty cannot have the courts opposing to it rules of national law of any nature whateverà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ the validity of a Community instrument or its effect within a member state cannot be affected by allegations that it strikes at either the fundamental rights as formulated in that Stateà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s constitution or the principles of a national constitutional structure.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  It is submitted that the case Internationale Handelsgesellschaft prompted the Court of Ju stice to underscore the reality of EC law supremacy in the clearest possible fashion. The message was straightforward: if even constitutional law was found subordinate to EC law, no form of national law could possibly challenge its supremacy. That said, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft was by no means the end of the story. By the mid 1970s the UK had acceded to membership of the EEC and the new member stateà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s senior courts struggled with the concept that the old order to which they had been so long accustomed had so dramatically changed. The supremacy principle was questioned and misapplied in cases such as H.P. Bulmer Ltd v J. Bollinger SA (1974)[6] and again in Felixstowe Dock Railway Co v British Transport Docks Board (1976)[7]. This period of judicial reticence and confusion, which was by no means confined to the UK courts (see inter alia, SpA Fragd v Amministrazione delle Finanze[8] and Semoules[9]), is perhaps understandable, given the long tradition of the supremacy of national legal structures. However, definitive rulings such as case C106/77 Simmenthal SpA (No.2)[10] allowed the Court of Justice to reinforce and underline EC law supremacy with statements such as the following: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“a national court which is called upon to apply provisions of Community law is under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing to apply any conflicting provision of national legislation, even if adopted subsequently, and it is not necessary for the court to request or await the prior setting aside of such provision by legislative or other constitutional means.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  All around the EEC the member states gradually fell into line and accepted the subordination of their national legal systems. In the UK it was perhaps the very well known Factortame case, on quota-hopping by Spanish fishermen in the late 1980s, that unequivocally drove the point home in the British consciousness: C213/89 R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd [11]. Since the ratification of the Treaty on European Union[12], which is popularly known as the Maastricht Treaty, in 1992, there have been few if any serious challenges to the supremacy of EC law over national law and certainly no successful challenges or even minor incursions on the basic principle. Indeed the principle has been developed and extended in a number of directions including by means of the punitive doctrine of state liability, which operates to render states liable to compensate citizens financially for national legal provisions that conflict with EC law: C-6 9/90 Francovich[13] and C-46/93 C-48/93 Brasserie du Pƒ ªcheur and Factortame III[14]. Is a primacy clause needed? With a view to the above analysis, this commentator concludes that the supremacy rule of EC law is not, as the statement under review infers, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"precariously balancedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢. The Court of Justice h as long proved itself diligent and determined in assiduously maintaining the principle that, in the event of conflict, EC law prevails in all its many forms over all species of the national laws of the member states, no matter how lofty those national laws might be in a domestic context. The member states themselves, and the courts of those states, have also long since (after a period of reluctance and scepticism during the 1970s and 1980s) acknowledged the primacy of EC law and the importance of that concession as a part of the price paid for EU membership. It is submitted that ironically, and in particular given the current socio-political climate in the EU, any move to insert an explicit primacy clause into a new Constitutional Treaty is more likely to damage the delicately forged supremacy principle than it is to reinforce it. Even attempts to ratify à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"softà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ Constitutional Treaties that skate around the concept of primacy have twice failed, quite spectacularly, in recent years. The draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was, after all, rejected by France in May 2005 by a national referendum by a 54.68 per cent majority, and by the Netherlands a few days later by a 61.6 per cent majority. Thereafter, the draft Lisbon Treaty, which was to all intents and purposes almost identical in substantive terms to its predecessor, was thrown out by the Irish by a referendum held on June 12 2008. Any attempt to hammer primacy home in the foreseeable future would prove a focus for anti-EU, anti-integrationist and anti-federalist sentiments in any member state brave enough or compelled by its own constitution to hold a national referendum on the question of adoption. In the United Kingdom, the current Prime Minister Gordon Brown is committed to a political promise given originally by ex-PM Tony Blair to allow a referendum on any matter deepening in substantial constitutional terms the relationship between the UK and the EU. If the UK population ever gets a chance to vote on such a proposal all the indications are that an emphatic No will be the result, and this is but one state among many where potential problems might arise. There is of course always the possibility that a two-tier Europe could emerge and that a primacy clause could be adopted by those member states most strongly supportive of further and deeper EU integration. Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg, is among several EU leaders who have proposed this[15]. However, it is as well to bear in mind that the three states that have actually rejected a Constitutional Treaty France, the Netherlands and Ireland would all be placed on a list of those states most enthusiastic about the EU project. Given the complexity, financial and legal logistics and political sensitivities involved it is submitted that this option remains a distant and remote possibility. In conclusion, it is argued that from the perspective of EU advanceme nt and stability, it is far better to let sleeping dogs lie for the time being. It may be that the time will come when the integrationist agenda can be furthered by the establishment of an explicit primacy clause, but that time is not now. As things stand, the EU should concentrate on reinforcing and entrenching its previous gains and successes in regards to supremacy. In 2008 the basic supremacy principle enshrined in ECJ case law is universally recognised and accepted. Those committed to a federal future would be well advised to avoid interference in that status quo. The fact is, so far the supremacy principle as maintained by the ECJ has worked remarkably well and it is now stabilised within the legal systems of the EU and its member states. To rehearse a well-worn truth: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"if it ainà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t broke, donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t fix it.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ THE END WORD COUNT FOR TEXT OF ANSWER ONLY : 1630 Question, footnotes and bibliography not included. BIBLIOGRAPHY Case law as footnoted Consolidated Version of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, Official Journal of the European Union, C321 E/37 (29.12.06) Craig P., and De Burca G., EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials, (2007) Oxford University Press Europa: Gateway to the European Union: https://europa.eu.int/index_en.htm. Kent P., Law of the European Union, (2001) Longman Steiner J. et al, EU Law, (2006) Oxford University Press Weatherill S., Cases and Materials on EU Law, (2004) Oxford University Press 1 Footnotes [1] Consolidated Version of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, Official Journal of the European Union, C321 E/37 (29.12.06). [2] Note also the contribution of the Court of First Instance, which is growing in significance. [3] (1963) CMLR 105. [4] (1964) ECR 585. [5] (1970) ECR 1125. [6] (1974) Ch 401. [7] (1976) 2 CMLR 655. [8] Italian Constitutional Court, Dec 232 of 21 April 1989 (1989) 72 RDI. [9] Conseil Dà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢Etat (supreme French administrative court) [1970] CMLR 395. [10] (1978) ECR 629. [11] (1991) 1 AC 603. [12] A full text online version is available at: https://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/EU_treaty.html#0001000001. [13] [1991] ECR I-5357. [14] [1996] ECR I-1029. [15] For a useful overview see: https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6901353.stm.