Category: Political Science

1. You need to read both the articles and your paper must demonstrate your engagement with arguments presented in both the articles. 2. Identify the Research questions and problem that the authors are trying to raise. As you read each article focus on how the author are identifying the problem and framing research questions. What is the problem that the author is trying to raise in this article? How is this problem, research question significant, relevant? Contextualize the problem with the help of both the articles. 3. You must then try to identify each and every key argument that the authors are making with regard to the question that has raised. Every paragraph usually contains a separate argument so read and identify carefully. There is a difference between an argument and an example. An example only illustrates the argument. You need to be able to identify the arguments made by both the scholars. You also need to be able to put these scholars in conversation with each other to identify similarities and differences in their approaches and arguments. 4. Only after reading and demonstrating your comprehension and engagements with both the articles can you also articulate a critique and a position on this particular problems. 5. Your paper must not only provide a clear and comprehensive summary integrating ideas from both the articles identifying the research question, problem and key arguments in your own words but also demonstrate some grasp of the possibilities and limits of diplomacy in International Relations. 6. No quotations and instead focus on paraphrasing (writing and expressing the arguments in your own words for clarity of expression.) 7. You will be assessed in terms of your comprehension, content, clarity of expression, organization, critical insights and analysis. 8. This assignment should not exceed 1800 words. It should be typed and have a cover page with your name, student number, date, course number and title, page numbers.

Instructions: Anthony Lucero, you must write an essay (1000 words minimum) in which you address the following two questions or topics: The fundamental values that inform how our democratic government is legitimated and organized are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution of the United States. Identify and discuss the basic ideals and principles of American democracy and how they are applied in our republican form of government. Those ideals and principles are discussed in the first and second chapters of your textbook. You can also visit the following websites to read the original document in which these fundamental values were first stated and how they were later incorporated in the American Constitution: http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript Identify the most important Supreme Court cases and executive actions and their impact on law and on our society. The history of the United States has been marked by the progressive expansion of voting rights and the protection of its citizens through legislation and Supreme Court decisions. At the same time, executive orders, particularly in periods of crisis led to the violation of individual rights. Throughout this module, these issues are covered. In chapters 3 and 4 you will find the information you need to answer this question. You are also encouraged to visit the following websites for further details. Supreme Court LandmarksLinks to an external site. 15 Supreme Court Cases that Changed AmericaLinks to an external site. Executive Orders – The American Presidency ProjectLinks to an external site. NAACP was instrumental in the landmark case of Brown v Board of Education. Visit the website to find information on the case that led to desegregation. NAACP Website (Brown v Board of Education)Links to an external site. Instructions for Writing Your Essay: All essays must be written using proper English grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Points will be deducted for grammatical, punctuation, syntax, capitalization, etc. errors. Essays are automatically submitted to Turnitin. Work that Turnitin identifies as having more than a 10% rate of similarity (plagiarism) after quoted material and small matches (10 words or less) are excluded will not be read and will receive a grade of 0.

state’s (Ohio) constitution vs bill of rights. instructions are listed on the file attached. thank u!

state’s (Ohio) constitution vs bill of rights. instructions are listed on the file attached. thank u!

NO AI USE. NO PLAGIARISM. Cite your work, work cited page. Between 600 – 800 word count. There will be an AI checker. Answer each question asked. Please Let me know if you need me to clear anything up. Do not hesitate to ask.
Write a 5 Paragraph Essay on whether you believe that complete disarmament is feasible and desirable or If you believe that arms control is feasible and desirable.
Write either about Complete Disarmament or about Arms Control, using historical facts to support your argument. Have nuclear weapons rendered war unthinkable? Should the world ban the possession and use of nuclear weapons, or should it agree to limit and control the inevitable spread of these weapons?

Read, watch, or listen to each of the following ancillary materials (there are 5 items).
Write an abstract for each of the ancillary items. Put them all into a single Word or pdf document

Module 2 Discussion Prompts:
Again, these prompts are simply meant to get the discussion started; you may raise any issues relevant to the topic.
-1- Why do you think people join together to form governments?
-2- What is ‘Social Contract Theory’ and, absent government, do you think people would be basically hostile and competitive or benign and cooperative?
-3- When, if ever, is political revolution justified?
-4- Are there contemporary issues/debates in the U.S. where you can apply the ‘Harm Principle’?

Please select one song and respond to the prompt attached below in paragraph form. You may use the prompt itself, insert your response, and reupload here, or you may write it in a separate document. Please be sure to upload your response as a word document in the space provided for the assignment and not as a “comment” to the assignment.
Consider one of the songs discussed in class this week. Listen to it, reflect on it, and consider the role that it played in its unique political moment. How is this song used in the service of Power (whether the state or some other locus of power)? Is it used instead to resist Power? Is it a song that began as a vehicle for protest and then was later coopted by the Power? How so? Which of our philosophers’ ideas about power and resistance (and violence) speaks most directly to that dynamic in the song you have chosen?

Songs for the week:

– Neil Young – “Rockin’ in the Free World” (1989)
– Bruce Springsteen – “Born in the U.S.A.” (1984)
– The Chieftains (feat. Sinéad O’Connor) – “The Foggy Dew” (1995)
– Nine Inch Nails – “Somewhat Damaged” (1999)
– Los Fabulosos Cadillacs – “Matador” (1993)
– The Clash – “Washington Bullets” (1980)
– Rubén Blades – “Desapariciones” (1984)
– The Clash – “Rock the Casbah” (1983)
– Sonic Youth – “Teenage Riot” (1988)

Philosophers (and their concepts) discussed:

– Antonio Gramsci: Cultural Hegemony
– Joseph Nye: Hard and Soft power
– Slavoj Žižek: Objective vs. Subjective Violence (and “Symbolic” Violence)
– Jacques Attali: Music as “Organized Chaos”, Noise as “Simulacrum of Murder”
– Bennett Capers: Pacifying Effect of Music
– T.V. Reed: Punk’s raison d’être
– Michel Foucault: Power and Resistance; the Panopticon
– Byung-Chul Han: Capitalism and “Smart Power”; Social Media as Digital Panoptica

Employment Division v. Smith, is a virtual mini-course about certain aspects of democratic theory that often arise in constitutional law and politics. Employment Division and other free exercise decisions illustrate some of the alternative tests the Supreme Court has developed for determining how to balance the rights of religious minorities against the interests of the government (and the majority) when restrictions are imposed on religious practices. For example, note the difference between the compelling state interest test used in Sherbert v. Verner and the test used in Scalia’s opinion of the court in Employment Division. Similarly, note how the Court justified the Sunday closing laws in the earlier decision in Braunfeld v. Brown, a case discussed in your text book.
Scalia’s opinion of the court in Employment Division raises several complex ideas about democracy and constitutional interpretation. He writes, for example, that to apply the compelling state interest test from Sherbert v. Verner in this context “…would be courting anarchy….” Consider what Scalia is suggesting by using the word “anarchy”. Scalia also argues that leaving the “accommodation” of interests at stake in this case to the “political process” will place certain religious groups at a “disadvantage” but this is a trade-off he’s willing to accept.
What’s the disadvantage he’s referring to and is he correct about this? Should we accept such disadvantages? Debates about these dilemmas inherent in democratic governance have a long history in constitutional law and go back at least to the concerns of some of the Founders who wrote the Constitution and and who were concerned about protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Ideas relating to this problem are found in the Epstein, McGuire and Walker text book on pp. 93-94; 196, and 557 in their discussion about “Footnote 4” in the Supreme Court decision United States v. Carolene Products.
Use this discussion board forum to present your views on whether you think Justice Scalia’s opinion of the court or the dissent written by Justice Blackmun made the stronger argument in the case. Or, do you think that Justice O’Connor presented the stronger argument? Although a brief summary of the case should be included your emphasis should be on which justice you think addressed the issue in the Smith case the best. The central problem reduces to whether in this case a religious minority should be able to claim an exemption from otherwise valid law, as in Wisconsin v. Yoder and Sherbert v. Verner, among other cases.
what is “religion” in this context? How is it to be defined? In other words, what kinds of activities constitute the “religion” within the meaning of the First Amendment and thus trigger its protection? Likewise, the First Amendment prohibits the abridgement of freedom of speech. But again, what constitutes “speech”? And, can speech however we define it, be curtailed under any circumstances even though the prohibition in the First Amendment against “infringement” appears to be absolute when the words say “Congress can make no law….”?
Required book: 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

Read, watch, or listen to each of the following ancillary materials (there are 5 items).
Write an abstract for each of the ancillary items. Put them all into a single Word or pdf document