Politic's essay

Cześć ;)

 

Dzisiaj wyjątkowo zmęczony nadchodzącymi egzaminami i bieżącymi testami próbnymi wpadłem na pomysł wrzucenia następnego przykładowego eseju, tym razem z Polityki ;) Jest on na A, także widocznie (według Mr. Higginsa) jest co czytać xd

 

Jest to nieco inny rodzaj eseju, więc polecam się wczytać. Tak czy inaczej, każdy przedmiot i każdy rodzaj esejów ma swoje charakterystyki :)

 

Nie otrzymałem żadnych nowych pytań, więc jak macie jakieś to się nie krępujcie tylko pytajcie ;)

To what extent can, and should judges control the power of government? (40)

 

Judges are very important in the UK, because they control the law and make sure that no one is treated in an offensive way. Government is also controlled especially by the Supreme Court, established by the Constitutional Reform Act in 2005 and working since 2009. Senior judges control government in several ways. They check whether the institutions do not exceed its powers, they interpret statue law and defend people, who feel treated in a wrong way by the state’s institutions. However, many claim that judges have too much authority above government, because they are not elected and government is sovereign, since is the part of Parliament. Because of that it is right to say that judges can control government very effectively, but should not have more authority than they have already.

Judges are very effective in checking whether government does not exceed its power. The power's exceeds of government are known as “ultra vires”. The judiciary checks government’s actions and tries to determine whether government works beyond its legal power. If it works, then judges can pass laws which restrict the power of government. For instance, suspected terrorist bank assets case in 2010 ruled that government had no legal power to freeze bank assets of suspected terrorists. It showed that government acted “ultra vires” and restricted government’s anti-terrorist policy. However, government can still act above rulings of the judiciary, because there is no separation of power in the UK, so government as an integral part of legislature (Parliament) still remains sovereign and can ruled against the judiciary. Some can argue that the judiciary can work under the Human Rights Act 1998, which is a fundamental to the most of decisions of the Supreme Court. This act brought the UK into the ruling of the European Convention of Human Rights, which tries to protect the rights of all the citizens from the EU. There is growth in using the Human Rights Act in the practice by judges, who can easily use it to control the power of government. However, the decisions of the judiciary are not binding on government and they can overrule judges. Nevertheless, it is not likely that government overrules this act, because of their accountability to people, who can simply not choose them during the next election. In this way, judges are very effective in checking “ultra vires” cases of government, because they work for people, who elect government and to whom government is accountable.

The next way of controlling government is that judges interpret statue law, law which is passed by Parliament and initiated mostly by government since government has a majority in Parliament. Judges can interpret the law not in favour of government and by this way they can control its power. However, the lack of entrenched constitution makes it difficult, because government can amend constitution in a very simple way by passing another law through Parliament, which can reject the voice of judges. Nevertheless, judges still have the right to interpret this statue and they can claim that government act beyond its legal power – ultra vires. Through that, government can be easily checked by the judges.

The last important way by which the judges can control government is judicial review, which is held when a person or institution want to challenge the decision of government. Judges can hold it, when a decision offenses the Human Rights Act, common law, or whether the decision was not “ultra vires”. For instance, Belmarsh case in 2004, in which judges ruled that government and any other institution cannot imprison suspected terrorists without a trial, showed that judges can be very effective in challenging the policy of government. Judicial review’s decisions are usually accepted by government. However, government still remains sovereign and in some instances can simply ignore the ruling of the judges. Nevertheless, increasing number of judicial review cases shows that judges are very effective in checking government’s power.

Even if judges are effective in controlling government’s power it is right to say that they should not exceeds its authority above government, because of two issues. Firstly judges are appointed not elected, which means that they are not accountable to people as government is. Because of that it can be said that they have no legal power to control government, which was elected by the citizens. Some can argue that because they are not elected they are not interested in politics, but simply do their work in order to keep order in the society. By arguing in this way judges can be allowed to control government. Nevertheless, if people choose some people to represent them, they are responsible for decisions of government and judges should only obstruct legislation and decisions which can offence the civil rights and liberties.

Secondly, as it was mentioned above, government is a part of Parliament so it remains sovereign and it can easily overrule decisions of the judiciary. In this case it looks like as judges waste their time on doing something that is not important, because can be overruled. The only possibility to change that is introducing an entrench constitution which can restrict government’s and Parliament’s power and give judges possibility to check government’s power more effectively. Also, entrenched constitution would lead to greater separation of power in the UK and make control of power by the judiciary more effective, as it is seen in the USA, where the executive is elected separately from legislature and because of that each branch of power can easily check others. However, until now the UK does not possess an entrenched constitution and therefore the judiciary should not have more power as it has now, because of government, which is elected by the people and accountable to them.

Overall, judges are very effective in checking government’s power, because they can use their power to rule against “ultra vires” of government, they interpret statue law and they do not have to interpret it in favour of government. They can also hold judicial review in order to ensure that the citizens can challenge the decisions of government. However, the judiciary should not involve more in the process of checking government’s power because judges are not elected and cannot rule against government which is elected by the people, accountable to them and should rule in order to improve their lives. What is more, government as taken from Parliament is still sovereign and can rule against the judges.

 

 

 

Wszelkie prawa autorskie zastrzeżone i prawnie chronione. Kopiowanie materiałów w części lub w całości możliwy tylko za zgodą autora. Cytowanie oraz wykorzystywanie fragmentów dozwolone tylko za podaniem źródła. Copyright by Wojciech Zych

The Next Essay & Answers ;)

Cześć ;D

Wybaczcie, że się tyle nie odzywałem ale testy za trzy tygodnie i trzeba się do nich porządnie przygotować, co wyklucza częstą obecność na blogu. Niemniej jednak mam dzisiaj kilka pytanek, na które trzeba odpowiedzieć.

"Strasznie się cieszę, że wtedy Ci się udało! Ja dopiero w tym roku mam okazję wyjechać.. Po przeczytaniu tego posta zaczynam się troszkę bać. Ten eseay wygląda przerażająco. Jest świetny, ale nie wyobrażam sobie, abym ja miała coś takiego napisać. Pozdrawiam, koleżanka z rozmów kwalifikacyjnych 2012!"


Cześć ;D
Ja też się cieszę, że się Ci udało :D Nie masz się czego bać, to wszystko przychodzi z czasem :) Ważna jest praktyka i uczenie się na błędach ;) pamiętaj, trening czyni mistrza ;)

Pozdrawiam :)


Chcę poczytać resztę esejów :) 

Spoko, spoko, będę dodawał, bo akurat coraz lepiej mi idzie :D

Pozdrawiam ;)


"Cześć! A jeśli kończę 16 lat w październiku i 1 września będę miała 15 lat i 10 miesięcy to na ten właśnie rok nie mogę złożyć podania?"

Cześć,

Hmmm.... wydaje mi się, że niestety nie.... w regulaminie jest jasno powiedziane, że musi być skończone lat 16... napisz do mnie na e-mail vonzych@interia.pl, a ja Ci podam adres e mail Pana Rafała, koordynatora projektu, który Ci to wyklaruje, bo ja nie jestem pewien. Ale nie łam się! Masz okazję jeszcze za rok :)

Pozdrawiam :)

--

Pozwólcie, że dzisiaj opublikuję esej z historii, który zebrał również bardzo wysoką notę z przełomu A/A*. Jestem dumny, gdyż to mój pierwszy taki esej z historii. jest tam kilka błędów, których nie chce się mi i nie mam czasu poprawić, więc nie zwracajcie na nie uwagi ;)

Miłego czytania o wojnie w Wietnamie :D

Why did the US lose the Vietnam War?

The most important reason for the US losing Vietnam War were military strengths and tactics of Viet Cong, because their guerrilla warfare was very effective since they caused many deaths and the low morale of the US troops. The US military mistakes were also important reason, which was caused by the guerrilla tactics. These mistakes and failures led to the opposition from Congress, which was also important reason of the US losing the Vietnam War.

Military strengths and tactics of Viet Cong were the most important reason for the US losing the Vietnam War, because it had huge impact on the US morale, deaths and the relations with South Vietnamese, which in consequence caused their failure. Viet Cong used tactics called guerrilla warfare, which means that they did not involve themselves in the full scale war, but tried to fight with the US by launching small-scale attacks, using tunnels, traps and secret attacks. These tactics were very effective, since caused death of 22,000 Americans by 1967. They had impact on the US relations with Vietnamese, which drastically deteriorated, since Viet Cong was blending with South Vietnamese villagers, which meant that the US soldiers were very often killing innocent civilians instead of Viet Cong troops. In 1967 only 35% of South Vietnamese supported the USA. These tactics were abandoned for the battle at La Drang, where  Viet Cong was defeated and 3561 Vietnamese died in comparison to 305 Americans. Guerrilla Tactics caused also a huge number of deaths for Vietcong. However, after the battle at La Drang, Viet Cong returned to guerrilla tactics which were effective and lead death of 14,000 Americans in 1968. What is more, North Vietnam, which supplied the most of soldiers for Viet Cong was autocratic, which meant that the deaths were not a problem, since the public opinion was not informed about them. Guerrilla tactics of Viet Cong ensured that the tactics of the US army were ineffective and full of mistakes.

Another important reason for the US lost in Vietnam War were the US military weaknesses and mistakes, which showed that the US were not winning the war and speeded their defeat. The USA did not use tactics which allowed them to defeat Viet Cong and effectively fight against Guerrilla warfare. General Westmoreland’s tactics “search and destroy” did not work, because the assumption was that the death rate of the Vietnamese should show that the US were winning the war. Even if the death rate was proportionally high, before 1967 the US lost 40% of the territory in South Vietnam. Also the air operations, such as Ranch Hand, which should have caused the defeat of Viet Cong were not effective enough, since Ho Chi Minh Trial, which fed Viet Cong, was not destroyed. The US were using napalm and defoliations which were destructive more for the environment, than for Viet Cong, since Vietnamese were using under-ground tunnels. Napalm also killed many civilians and because of that the relations between South Vietnamese and the US deteriorated – in 1967 only 35% supported the US. The important mistake was also draft of young soldiers, which were not willing to fight, since they did not choose to do it and in consequence demotivation increased. The battle at Ap Back in January 1963 showed that the money and training for the ARVN were useless, since the ARVN was defeated by minor Viet Cong forces. The initiatives of Johnson such as Phoenix programme and “clean and hold” tactic were more effective, since the Phoenix programme led to the death of 20,000 Viet Cong’s personnel and officers and “clean and hold” tactic allowed the US to restore 50% of the South Vietnam territory. Nevertheless, the public opinion did not agree with the tactics, since they were mimicking of the tactics of Vietnamese and what is more important, the USA had already decided to withdraw the troops, so the new tactics were useless without soldiers who can used them. The US military failures and mistakes started to cause the opposition from the Congress.

The opposition from the Congress was also an important reason for the US lost in the Vietnam War, because it stopped all attempts for further escalation and the possibility to rescue the situation in Vietnam. The growing opposition form senators showed that the Congress was no longer in favour of the war. Two main figures were George Kennan, who wrote a long telegram to Truman in 1946 explaining the threat from the Soviet Union and William Fulbright who proposed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which allowed the President to escalate the war. Both changed their minds and started to criticise the war. Together with them 12 senators started to speak openly against the war. From January to April 1971 the Congress passed 17 laws which make impossible further attempts to escalate the war. What is more, The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was repealed in January 1971 so the President was no longer able to do whatever he wanted in Vietnam. Further embarrassment of the government brought the publication of Pentagon Papers commissioned by Robert McNamara, the secretary of defence under Kennedy and Johnson, which showed a degree of lying to the public by the presidents about the Vietnam War.

The most important reason for the US lost in the Vietnam War was the Viet Cong tactics, such as guerrilla warfare, which made almost impossible the victory over the Viet Cong and led to the failures and mistakes of the US military strategies, which caused the opposition from the Congress. Hence, the Viet Cong tactics – guerrilla warfare - were the most important reason, since it was the first cause of the US failure in the Vietnam War.

 

Wszelkie prawa autorskie zastrzeżone i prawnie chronione. Kopiowanie materiałów w części lub w całości możliwy tylko za zgodą autora. Cytowanie oraz wykorzystywanie fragmentów dozwolone tylko za podaniem źródła. Copyright by Wojciech Zych

         

Esej :D

Cześć ;)

Dzisiaj dla odmiany opublikuję coś ciekawego xd

Dostajecie ode mnie pierwszy esej, który mogę opublikować, bo uważam go za majstersztyk, za który dostałem prawie maximum punktów :D Opisuję tu swoje poglądy, oczywiście oparte na rozmyśleniach mądrych ludzi, na temat Bożych intencji w tworzeniu świata :D Nie jest to oczywiście perfekcja, ale nadaje się do publikacji xd

Mam nadzieję, że to da Wam mniej więcej zarys tego, z czym borykam się praktycznie codziennie :) Jeżli chcecie eseje z innych przedmiotów - proszę piszcie, chętnie się podzielę :D

Miłego czytania :)

Explain what is meant by saying that the world was created according to God’s intentions.

To begin with, it is important to understand what it means that God had intention to create the world. Christian perspective on the creation of world is that God had intention to create this world, which means that he did not create the world without a “deep thought” about everything, but he had a perfect plan. This is proofed by many sources of Christian knowledge and observation such as the teachings of Thomas Aquinas’s Natural Law, existence of conscience, human’s stewardship, the Bible itself, Eudaimonia and Divine Command theory. They all agree that the world was created according to God’s intentions, but have different explanations why God’s intensions are observed.

The author of the first perspective is Thomas Aquinas. His theory of Natural Law states that humans were created for reason and morality. God had an intention to create humans with a common nature and God-given reason tells us what is good for that nature and what is not. Good things have to be done in order to achieve the purposes of human life which are Worshiping God, Ordered Society, Reproduction, Learning and Defending Innocent. Because humans have the purposes in their lives it is likely that God’s intention was to create them reasonable. Moreover, there is the final end available for all human beings – fellowship with God which is often called Eudaimonia. According to Aquinas, God created world intentionally and gave us a chance to achieve the highest goodness through the reason. 

The second perspective is that humans can know God’s intensions through the conscience. Two major Christian thinkers, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, had been studying the existence of conscience. St. Augustine claimed that the conscience is an innate knowledge of God’s laws, which means that the “God’s voice” inside humans was given by God in order to know his laws and to obey them. However, Aquinas had different view about the conscience and according to him, the conscience is the “power of reason”, which means that this is a device which lead to distinguishing right from wrong actions. By this, Aquinas disagreed with St. Augustine, because for Aquinas the conscience was not an inner knowledge of right and wrong. People usually tend towards good and away from evil and  the conscience is reason making right decisions. However, both theories do not notice that the conscience is subjective and humans can make different decisions, even in the same circumstances. Nevertheless, even if this is subjective, this is still a proof of God’s intentions, because he gave us this ability and both theories do not contradict themselves, because they are description of the same ability.

The third perspective is the Bible, because the teaching of the Old Testament and the New Testament require people to be moral beings. The teaching of the Bible also suggests that God intends humans to reach the Kingdom of God. It does not matter whether humans accept the Bible literally or just figuratively, God’s intensions are still visible within it. Some can argue that everything depends on the nature and truth of scripture, but Christians believe that the Bible is “the word of God” and it was written under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and therefore it is true.

The fourth perspective is that God intended humans to be stewards of all creation. There is an important debate about Genesis’ aetiological myth – the myth about creation, where God gave humans “dominion” over all creatures and there is a question whether this means “power over” or “stewardship”. This apparently nothing meaning difference is crucial, because the different interpretations mean that the God’s intentions are being ignored by many. For instance, people who experiment on animals in order to improve the quality of medicine. If God gave us dominion, then we could use animals to our own aims, but if God gave us stewardship, we could not do it, because our duty was to take care of them, not to kill and use them for our own aims. However, either “dominion” or “stewardship” are the proofs of God’s intensions.

The fifth perspective is that the point of life is to live and be happy. Happiness is seen by many as the consequence of leading a good life according to the God’s intentions. Because of this claim we can know those intensions accurately. But there is a question, whether it is right to seek happiness at the expense of vivisection – the animal experimentation. This is closely related to the issue of “dominion” and “stewardship”. People often use animals to improve medicine and in consequence many of them have to die. This is an example of misunderstanding of the God’s intensions, because if humans have to be stewards, they could not use non-humans in such cruel way in order to gain benefits. Nevertheless, the God’s intentions are proofed by the point of life to live and be happy.

The sixth perspective is that God intends humans to have the ultimate purpose of life which is called eudaimonia an means the ultimate union with God and happiness in God’s presence. The teaching of Jesus in the New Testament is the point that after death humans will be able to resurrect, because Jesus was an atonement for human sin. However, there are different views about resurrection. The Catholic Church outlines the importance of heaven, whether some other fractions argue for the “Eden” on the earth. There are also different teachings in Buddhism and in Hinduism. They states that humans want to avoid resurrection through burning off karma. Nevertheless, the belief in resurrection is still popular even outside Christianity and is a proof of the God’s intentions.

There are some different teachings about the creation of world according to the God’s intensions in Christianity. However, they give different sources of this knowledge. Aquinas argues that reason and morality are the proofs, while St. Augustine considers the conscience as this proof. Almost obvious example of God’s intensions is the Bible and particularly the aetiological myth of Genesis with the theory of “stewardship”. Some also argue that the proof of God’s intensions is a prospect of happiness and especially the happiness in the God’s presence – eudaimonia.

 

Wszelkie prawa autorskie zastrzeżone i prawnie chronione. Kopiowanie materiałów w części lub w całości możliwy tylko za zgodą autora. Cytowanie oraz wykorzystywanie fragmentów dozwolone tylko za podaniem źródła. Copyright by Wojciech Zych