Political Theory

Exactly as it has always been, and I quote from the dictionary explanation "A political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)".

You can see such governments and organizations all over the world.

Judicial independence is when a separation of the powers exists between the judicial branch of government and legislative and executive branches of government. The executive and legislative branches are unable to control or influence judges' decisions in any way and cannot have an impact upon their decisions or threaten to sack them if they make the 'wrong' decision. This should not be confused with judicial neutrality, which is when no member of government or the public is able to put pressure on judges to come to a decision which they would not normally reach, or otherwise upset the judge so that he/she cannot make up their minds with complete impartiality.

Socialists - today mostly called social-democrats - never were against private property as such. They only protested (especially in the early 20th century) against the sometimes very unequal way in which wealth in some countries was divided and against the lack of care for people who could not provide for themselves - the lack of social security, basically.

Even the Communists were not against private property as such, but they had a habit of taking away property from people who were considered 'capitalists'.

The 'ideal' of a community where no-one had any property so that all property was communal and where people were given an income according to their needs, where a larger income was almost excusively based on a family being larger of members needing special care, was never put into practice anywhere. Only North Korea comes close but of course the ruling elites there have no lack of property, income and perks.

Generally it is the change from the low democracy of 1832 to the universial suffrage of 1928.

The image of Lady Justice with a blindfold over her eyes represents the theory of "blind justice;" i.e. that nothing, such as money, influence, fame, etc., should influence a correct judgment. Symbolically, if whomever is deciding your fate can't see you because they're blindfolded, in this case Lady Justice, then they have no choice but to base their decision strictly on facts and thus cast judgment objectively. This theory is wrong. The blindfold is a latecomer and means what anybody wants it to mean. For millennia there was no blindfold. You must consider all the equipment depicted in the lady's surrounding such as the scales, the rumpled clothes, and especially the sword including her seated position on planet earth. I say there should be no blindfold since from the beginning she weighed the evidence with wide open eyes to then use her sword to draw quarts of blood equal to what the culprit drained from the victim so she could enforce the 2nd half of Newton's 3rd law of motion. Remember she is enforcing that law thousands of years before Newton's abstraction of 1687. It was always there but waiting on him to express it in obedience to Occam's Razor of 1350 AD. But you must know that even prior which in the year 0032 AD another man stated at Mathew 2:7 "with what measure ye mete(2nd Law), it shall be measured to you again (3rd Law)." This statement is the first available prestatement of Newton's science of 1687. Here still by statue of prior depiction was art prestating Newton's words still to come. The earliest such statue was about 700 B.C. and was done to impress the universe of onlookers that what the statue depicted was the goal of proceedings taking place as the public watched the head of the clan administer public justice by inflicting equal harm on the designated culprit. Any questions? Kyle Ballard on 12-13-14

the answer is definitely 8

This is a defunct question. Going by the theory of each, both elect leaders and both should be fair. However in practice communistic states turn out to be more like dictatorships.

What the question should be is comparing Communism with Capitalism. Again, in theory Communism is fair, whereas Capitalism is rich people controlling society and paying workers, the workers then spending the money on the products the company owners manufacture. But Communism in practice is rarely fair, with no-one getting enough save a few in the leaders favor, and the leader themselves.

1 To make the Federal goverment small and to reduce spending 2. To promote family values and patriotic views 3. Helping businesses by decreacing goverment control and reducing taxes 4. to make the national defense stronger.

There are two ways to change the Constitution of the United States, formally and informally.

There are several ways to informally change the Constitution. One example is Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. It is known as the "elastic clause" because it "stretches" the power of Congress. This gives Congress the power to pass laws considered "necessary and proper" for carrying out the other powers of Congress. The development of political parties, political custom, and tradition are also informal ways to change the Constitution. For example, the Constitution says nothing about the President's Cabinet to help him/her make decisions. This was begun by Washington and developed over the years by presidents who felt they needed special advisors for various subjects.

The Amendment process is the formal way to change the Constitution. An amendment may be proposed by two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or by a convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. Ratification of an amendment takes three-fourths of the states to approve.

Studying and understanding fascism is one way to avoid it occurring. Currently fascist States do exist in today's world. The politics of fascism are often disguised as "nationalism". As such they flourish under that tag, and allow leaders to gain power over key industries, formulate expansionist foreign policies and are in a position to reduce the power of other political parties within such a nation. There is little to be done by other nations, however, within a nation just described, the citizens can help themselves by seeing the political field as it stands and work with each other to prevent fascist dictatorships disguised as "nationalist leaders" who simply have too much unchallenged power.

Their territory was too large to govern by democracy

Parliament is organized by MP'S, Lords, and oh i don't know any more

Communists are members of a political and social group with a political and social thought for the welfare of the labor.They are anti capitalists and believe in socio-economic equality where the state looks after the welfare of the people.

voter apathy is a lack of caring amongst eligible voters. That is, it is often used to explain a poor turn out for elections / voting.

Communism is were everyone is paid the same wages for the hours they work. The dissadvantages are that people may feel they need a bigger reward for their working hours than others. The countries that currently have communism as there government are:Laos China Cuba North Korea Wietnam.

This answer does not purport to be either a correct answer or a complete one as I'm not an expert in matters legal.

However, from the little bit of research I've done the following points appear to emerge:

1. A party to a legal dispute has a right of appeal to a higher judicial body in case he feels justice is not done to him in a lower court.

2. There is a period of limitation before the expiry of which such appeal has to be made.

3. This period of limitation appears to start running from the date when the aggrieved party comes to know that he is hurt by the lower court's verdict.

4. Now, what are the circumstances that determine the commencement of the time limit (for the period of limitation)?

5. The 'discovery rule' adumbrates that the time starts when the aggrieved party 'discovers' that he is hurt by the lower court's verdict.

6. The 'discovery rule' appears to get influenced by what the intending appellant learns or fails to learn the position of law in respect of his grievance from his advocate.

6. The relationship that exists between the litigant and the advocate is known as 'fiduciary relationship.

7. The nub of the issue is that the 'discovery rule' is dependent on this fiduciary relationship between the litigant and his advocate and the period of limitation is affected by such relationship.

The 1993 constitution declares Russia a democratic, federative, law-based state with a republican form of government. State power is divided among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

I think the majority of people are scared and feel like they are being ripped off. I guess everyone should just take a look at who is directly influencing their lives and for about 80% of the population the presence of unions at the very least forces employers to be competative enough to keep people from asking for more. I believe in the republican ideals but trickle down is a convenient load of trash and if you look at the wealth distribution and peoples income levels i dont see how crushing people that make between the poverty line and 100K is going to help anything for most americans

When you are asked what differentiates you from other candidates think about what makes you unique. List special skills and strengths that you have.

Yes, of course because democracy is from the people, by the people and for the people. the other way is that by the lead of the political parties and by the ladies finger and the tomato of the life if the they both mix with each other then one of the brinjal juice will form this is life and this is the worst answer i ever had

describe what was the athenian democracy like? == ==

This depends on what powers the monarch retains. If the monarch is an absolutist, monarchy will be in opposition to democracy. However, numerous monarchies are constitutional monarchies where the monarch has ceded some or most of his power to democratically elected institutions.

Democracy is by far the most challenging form of government - both for politicians and for the people. The term democracycomes from the Greek language and means "rule by the (simple) people". The so-called "democracies" in classical antiquity (Athens and Rome) represent precursors of modern democracies. Like modern democracy, they were created as a reaction to a concentration and abuse of power by the rulers. Yet the theory of modern democracy was not formulated until the Age of Enlightment (17th/18th centuries), when philosophers defined the essential elements of democracy: separation of powers, basic civil rights / human rights, religious liberty and separation of church and state.