Category: Political Science

Write a 250 to 300-word paragraph that responds to the question by making an argument and supporting that argument with evidence.
Doug Ford has been the Ontario Premier since 2018, and he won re-election in 2022. The next provincial election is scheduled for 2026. If you were a political strategist or activist seeking to remove Ford from office, what would you do, and why would you choose this strategy or set of strategies?
Additional instructions:
Required Sources: Your answer must use the following Walrus article（https://thewalrus.ca/we-may-be-stuck-with-doug-ford/）.In addition to the Walrus article, your answer must draw on class material (lectures, readings, or both), to answer the question. You can use any class material you choose; the most obvious options are the readings/lectures on social movements, elections and electoral systems, and political participation. You may not use any outside sources beyond the Walrus Article. You must use at least 3 sources (including lectures, readings, and Walrus article) and no more than 5. You must have a bibliography and citations consistent with Chicago style (in-text citationsLinks to an external site.).
Thesis Statement: Your paragraph must have a thesis statement in which you respond to the question, take a clear position, and give reasons. Your thesis statement is the main argument of your paragraph. It should be one of the first few sentences. Consult the Thesis Statement handout on Quercus for more information.
Argument: The remainder of your paragraph should focus on making a persuasive argument that supports your thesis statement with evidence. Consult the Claim, Evidence, Reasoning handout on Quercus for more information.

This is a research paper targeting policies in a specific city. This is also a second part of the project therefore I will include an instruction document as well as the first part that is finished

This is a course in political theory / political philosophy, and our focus will therefore not primarily be on describing how the world is, but rather on analysing arguments about how the world should be, how society ought to be organised, and what normative standards we should bring to bear on the world around us. On successfully completing this module, you should be able to:
• State clearly the key ideas of a variety of theories of distributive justice
• Understand how they relate to each other
• Show an appreciation of their respective strengths and weaknesses.
Please draw ideas from
Principles of Justice in Justice as fairness: a restatement
by John Rawls
John Rawls Book by Catherine Audard 2007
Please read chapter 2 “Constructing the principles of justice”, pp.79-122
Rawls: a theory of justice and its critics
Book by Chandran Kukathas; Philip Pettit 1990
Please read chapter 3 “A theory of justice”, pp.36-60

This paper on article called “How Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul” by Matt Stoller. The main themes is people for and against monopolies. it is a 3 paged single space essay that requires 7 questions to be answered throughout the essay. No outside sources or quoting can be used.

Option 1: The main social insurance programs like Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment compensation are funded by a payroll tax on the earnings of individuals who may receive benefits. Do you think the social insurance programs are effective? How are social insurance programs affected by the socioeconomic and political forces? Explain your answers.
Minimum of 2 posts (1 initial & 1 follow-up)
Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source) for your Initial Post, and 1 scholarly source for your Follow-Up Post.
APA format for in-text citations and list of references

Debate whether Scalia, on the one hand, or Stevens and/or Breyer in dissent made the stronger argument about the purpose of the amendment and the constitutionality of the District of Columbia regulation.
* Address relevant precedents *Don’t just summarize the decision. Rather, use details of the D.c v Heller decision, and especially the range of views expressed by the justices in the opinion of the court and the concurring and dissenting opinions, as the basis of the discussion
Required Text: Epstein, McGuire and Walker, Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties and Justice. Eleventh Edition. 2022. Sage/CQ Press. ISBN: 978-1-5443-9125-0

This week’s discussion board focuses on District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the first case to examine the Second Amendment in detail and how the amendment relates to the public policy debate concerning gun rights and gun control. Justice Scalia’s opinion of the court and Justice Stevens’ dissent in this 5-4 decision each examines the Second Amendment and come to very different conclusions about the amendment’s history and how its relatively brief language should be interpreted.
debate whether Scalia, on the one hand, or Stevens and/or Breyer in dissent made the stronger argument about the purpose of the amendment and the constitutionality of the District of Columbia regulation. Don’t just summarize the case. Instead, your comments should be your evaluation of the arguments presented in the opinions. Also, your comments should not simply be your own personal views on gun rights and gun control. Instead, focus on the case itself and relate your comments to the assigned reading in the Epstein and Walker text book. The book provides background to the debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment and particularly the distinction between the collective and individual rights interpretation of the amendment.
Your comments should also include details from the oral argument before the Supreme Court in the Heller case. Pay attention first to Walter Dellinger’s argument that opens the session on behalf of the District of Columbia in support of the challenged gun regulation. Later, Alan Gura argues on behalf of Heller who challenged the constitutionality of the regulation. At one point Justice Breyer asks whether the District of Columbia had a reasonable public policy concern when the legislation was first introduced in 1976. Their exchange of views should be helpful in framing the debate about gun rights raised by the case. Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion in the Heller case also raises a number of points in rebuttal to Scalia’s opinion of the court.

Reading Assignment 10
Chapter 10 (Peacemaking Criminology) https://books.google.com.bz/books?id=slp2AwAAQBAJ&…
Deliverable Length: 3-4 pages
Answer any two questions (10 points each):
1. Summarize the cultural and historical background for peacemaking in criminology as found in the perspectives of Mahatma Gandhi, Jane Addams, and Martin Luther King, Jr. What is the significance of nonviolent protest, especially for Gandhi and King?
2. Outline the assumptions about society and people as found in peacemaking criminology. Include any two of the following: micro- vs. macro-level; subjective vs. objective perspectives; passive vs. free-willed agency; conflict vs. consensus in social structure.
3. Compare the work of Richard Quinney in spiritual/religious tradition to that of Harold Pepinsky in the critical tradition. Do you think it is possible to combine the two for a more complete peacemaking perspective-why or why not?
The following content is partner provided

Reading Assignment 7
Chapter 7 (Chicago School 2: Interactionist/Labeling)
Deliverable Length: 3-4 pages
Answer any two questions (10 points each):
1. Define Frank Tannenbaum’s concept of “the dramatization of evil.” Include a discussion of tagging and societal reaction as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
2. Distinguish between Edwin Lemert’s concepts of primary and secondary deviance.
3. Construct a interactionist definition of deviance using the concepts of master status (Becker) and stigma(tization) (Goffman). Include a specific example of behavior situation labeled.

Reading Assignment 8
Chapter 8 (Conflict/Radical/Marxist Theory) https://books.google.com.bz/books?id=slp2AwAAQBAJ&…
Deliverable Length: 3-4 pages
Answer any two questions (10 points each):
1. Discuss the work of W. E. B. Dubois as contributing to conflict criminology, especially the Philadelphia research study. Why do you think DuBois has been large ignored by mainstream criminologists?
2.Marxist thought focuses on class conflict in capitalism as contributing to criminal labels in society. What are the two main classes in conflict according to Marx, and how does the criminal law favor one group over the other in the justice system?
3. Explain how Sutherland’s (1940) concept of white collar crime is “a forerunner of current conflict theory” according to the text. How does the concept of radical criminology (Reiman and Headlee) further highlight white collar crime as abuse of power?

Reading Assignment 9
Chapter 9 (Feminist Criminology) https://books.google.com.bz/books?id=slp2AwAAQBAJ&…
Deliverable Length: 3-4 pages
Answer any two questions (10 points each):
1. In the history of feminist criminology, distinguish among the following: liberal feminists; Marxist feminists; radical feminists. How have these three overwhelmingly “white” feminisms gradually joined with that of women of color to analyze the triple oppression of race, class, and gender?
2. Discuss how negative stereotypes of race/ethnicity, class, and gender are reflected in the criminal justice system. How can racism in the system be reduced or at least combated?
3. Although crime rates make clear that most violence in society is committed by males, over the last three decades female participation in such acts has measurably increased. Use a feminist argument to explain this increase.