Compare The Highwayman And Annabel Lee - 787 Words

William Shakespeare once wrote, â€Å"the course of true love never did run smooth.† Shakespeare’s philosophy, extracted from A Midsummer Night’s Dream, appropriately pertains to the storylines of Edgar Allen Poe’s â€Å"Annabel Lee† and Alfred Noyes â€Å"The Highwayman†. Within Poe’s â€Å"Annabel Lee†, the narrator depicts of the true love that he and his â€Å"Annabel Lee† harbored but it evokes resentful angels to pursue and murder his lover. As within Noyes’ â€Å"The Highwayman†, the narrator portrays of a love so pure between the highwayman and Bess, the landlord’s daughter, in which Bess willingly sacrifices her life in hopes of saving the highwayman from being killed but unfortunately, leaves both lovers dead. Both Poe and Noyes managed to exercise certain†¦show more content†¦Since â€Å"Annabel Lee† and â€Å"The Highwayman† are both narrative poems, the speakers of each story influence certain features of the plots. The narrator of â€Å"Annabel Lee† is also the affected lover who is recalling the catastrophic incident that is his lover’s death. Since he is actually a part of the storyline, he conveys the plot the way he had experienced it as it began â€Å"with a love that was more than love† but progressed onward to the â€Å"killing [of his] Annabel Lee†. The passionate narrating establishes his reliability as a narrator as the audience can truly sense his pain. However, the narrator of â€Å"The Highwayman† is not involved with any aspect of the storyline and, therefore, tells the story from a bystander point of view. Even though the narrator is not directly impacted by the events, they are still able to captivate the audience by utilizing lifelike elements, such as the â€Å"tlot-tlot; tlot-tlot† of the horse, to institute their trustworthiness as a narrator. Therefore, both narrators within â₠¬Å"Annabel Lee† and â€Å"The Highwayman† add different elements of persuasion to their narratives to establish an authentic storyline. The utilization of symbolism within both poems enables the narrators to indicate what drives their stories: love. Both Poe and Noyes employ the symbols of â€Å"moon† and â€Å"moonlight† within their poems as they each signify a different aspect in their characters’ relationships. The narrator of â€Å"Annabel Lee†Show MoreRelatedThe Basic Set Up Of Poetry1445 Words   |  6 Pagesan extended metaphor poem of their own. I had them to pick an object (train) and a live object (horse) that they could compare it to and create an extended metaphor poem. They did not name either objects in their poems and the class had to guess what the objects were. Lesson 6 I opened this lesson by defining narrative poetry. We used â€Å"popcorn reading† to read the â€Å"Highwayman†. To determine if this poem was a narrative poem or not I had the students to complete a plot chart while we were reading

What Is Judicial Activism Definition and Examples

Judicial activism  describes how a judge approaches or is perceived to approach, judicial review. The term refers to scenarios in which  a judge issues a ruling that overlooks legal precedents or past constitutional interpretations in favor of supporting a particular political view. Key Takeaways: Judicial Activism The term judicial activism was coined by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in 1947.Judicial activism is  a ruling issued by a judge that overlooks legal precedents or past constitutional interpretations to support a political view.The term may be used to describe a judges actual  or  perceived approach to judicial review. Coined by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in 1947, the term judicial activism carries multiple definitions.  Some argue that a judge is a judicial activist simply by overturning a prior decision. Others counter that  the primary function of the court is to re-interpret elements of the Constitution and  assess the constitutionality of laws, and therefore such actions could not be called judicial activism at all. As a result, the term â€Å"judicial activism† relies heavily on how someone interprets the Constitution, as well as someone’s opinion on the role of the Supreme Court in the separation of powers. Origins of the Term In a 1947 Fortune magazine article, Schlesinger organized the sitting Supreme Court justices into two categories: proponents of judicial activism and proponents of judicial restraint. The â€Å"judicial activists† on the bench believed that politics play a role in every legal decision.  In the voice of a judicial activist, Schlesinger wrote: A wise judge knows that political choice is inevitable; he makes no false pretense of objectivity and consciously exercises the judicial power with an eye to social results. According to Schlesinger, a judicial activist views the law as malleable and believes that law is meant to do the greatest possible social good. Schlesinger famously did not take an opinion on whether judicial activism is positive or negative. In the years following Schlesinger’s article, judicial activist was often used as a negative term. Both sides of the political aisle used it to express outrage at rulings that did not find in favor of their political aspirations. Judges could be accused of â€Å"judicial activism† for even slight deviations from the accepted legal norm. Forms of Judicial Activism Keenan D. Kmiec chronicled the evolution of the term in a 2004 issue of the California Law Review. According to Kmiec, charges of â€Å"judicial activism† can be levied against a judge for a variety of reasons. A judge might have ignored precedent, struck down a law introduced by Congress, departed from the model another judge used for a finding in a similar case, or written a judgment with ulterior motives to achieve a certain social goal. The fact that judicial activism does not have a single definition makes it difficult to point to certain cases that demonstrate a judge ruling as a judicial activist. The amount of cases displaying acts of judicial re-interpretation broadens and narrows depending on how â€Å"re-interpretation† is defined. However, there are a few cases, and a few benches, that are generally agreed upon as examples of judicial activism. The Warren Court was the first Supreme Court bench to be called a â€Å"judicial activist† for its decisions. While Chief Justice Earl Warren presided over the court between 1953 and 1969, the court handed down some of the most famous legal decisions in U.S. history, including  Brown v. Board of Education, Gideon v. Wainwright, Engel v. Vitale, and Miranda v. Arizona. The Warren Court penned decisions that championed liberal policies that had a large impact on the country in the 1950s and 1960s. Examples of Judicial Activism Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is one of the most popular examples of judicial activism to come out of the Warren Court. Justice Warren delivered the majority opinion, which found that segregated schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling effectively struck down segregation, finding that separating students by race created inherently unequal learning environments. This is an example of judicial activism because the ruling overturned Plessy v. Ferguson in which the Court had reasoned that facilities could be segregated as long as they were equal. A court does not have to overturn a case for it to be labeled activist. When a court strikes down a law, exercising the powers given to the court system through the separation of powers, the decision may be viewed as activist. In Lochner v. New York (1905), Joseph Lochner, the owner of a bakeshop, sued the state of New York for finding him in violation of the Bakeshop Act, a state law. The Act limited bakers to working less than 60 hours per week and the state fined Lochner twice for allowing one of his workers to spend over 60 hours in the shop. The Supreme Court ruled that the Bakeshop Act violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it infringed on an individuals freedom of contract. By invalidating a New York law and interfering with the legislature, the Court favored an activist approach.   Activist and liberal are not synonymous. In the 2000 presidential election, Democratic candidate Al Gore contested the results of more than 9,000 ballots in Florida that did not mark either Gore or Republican candidate George W. Bush. Floridas Supreme Court issued a recount, but Dick Cheney, Bushs running mate, called for the Supreme Court to review the recount. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court ruled that Floridas recount was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because the state failed to institute a uniform procedure for the recount and handled each ballot differently.  The Court also ruled that under Article III of the Constitution, Florida did not have time to develop a procedure for a separate, proper recount. The Court intervened in a state decision that affected the nation, taking an activist approach, even though it meant a conservative candidate won the 2000 presidential election. Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint Judicial restraint is considered the antonym of judicial activism. Judges who practice judicial restraint hand down rulings that strictly adhere to the â€Å"original intent† of the Constitution. Their decisions also draw from stare decisis, which means they rule based on precedents set by previous courts. When a judge favoring judicial restraint approaches the question of whether a law is constitutional, they tend to side with the government unless the unconstitutionality of the law is extremely clear. Examples of cases where the Supreme Court favored judicial restraint include Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematsu v.  United  States. In Korematsu, the court upheld race-based discrimination, refusing to interfere with legislative decisions unless they explicitly violated the Constitution. Procedurally, judges practice the principle of restraint by choosing not to take on cases that require constitutional review unless absolutely necessary. Judicial restraint urges judges to consider only cases where parties can prove that a legal judgment is the only means of solving a dispute. Restraint is not exclusive to politically conservative judges. Restraint was favored by the liberals during the New Deal era because they didn’t want their progressive legislation overturned. Procedural Activism Related to judicial activism, procedural activism refers to a scenario in which a judges ruling  addresses a legal question beyond the scope of the legal matters at hand. One of the most famous examples of procedural activism is Scott v. Sandford. The plaintiff, Dred Scott, was a slave in Missouri who sued his master for freedom. Scott based his claim to freedom on the fact that he had spent 10 years in a non-slave state, Illinois. Justice Roger Taney delivered the opinion on behalf of the court. Taney wrote that the court did not have jurisdiction over Scott’s case under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Scott’s status as a slave meant that he was not formally a citizen of the United States and could not sue in federal court. Despite ruling that the court did not have jurisdiction, Taney continued to rule on other matters within the Dred  Scott case. The majority opinion found the Missouri Compromise itself to be unconstitutional and ruled that Congress could not free slaves in the Northern states. Dred Scott stands as a prominent example of procedural activism because Taney answered the principal question and then ruled on separate, tangential matters to further his own agenda of keeping slavery as an institution in the United States. Sources Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Introduction to Judicial Activism: Opposing Viewpoints.  Judicial Activism, edited by Noah Berlatsky, Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints.  Opposing Viewpoints in Context.Judicial Activism.  Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2015.  Opposing Viewpoints in Context.Kmiec, Keenan D. â€Å"The Origin and Current Meanings of Judicial Activism.†Ã‚  California Law Review, vol. 92, no. 5, 2004, pp. 1441–1478., doi:10.2307/3481421.Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).Roosevelt, Kermit. â€Å"Judicial Activism.†Ã‚  Encyclopà ¦dia Britannica, Encyclopà ¦dia Britannica, Inc., 1 Oct. 2013.Roosevelt, Kermit. â€Å"Judicial Restraint.†Ã‚  Encyclopà ¦dia Britannica, Encyclopà ¦dia Britannica, Inc., 30 Apr. 2010.Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).Roosevelt, Kermit.  The Myth of Judicial Activism: Making Sense of Supreme Court Decisions. Yale Uni versity Press, 2008.

The Political Arena Free Essays

A boiling hot international issue nowadays is the upcoming elections in the Philippines which will be conducted on May 10, 2010. The election itself is controversial enough because this time, there are ten presidential candidates, but what is really different about this election is that this is the first time that they will be having the automated elections. The Senate Bill No. We will write a custom essay sample on The Political Arena or any similar topic only for you Order Now 2231 states that the automated election system must be used to ensure transparency, accuracy and credibility. As the elections are drawing nearer, more and more intrigues are appearing. One, and perhaps the most worthy of worry, is the failure of the PCOS machines.2 Just five days before the elections, the testing of the machines produced wrong results. In the mock elections, there were five votes for a certain candidate, and five votes for another candidate. These ten votes were all counted for different candidates. Whether the makers of the machine and the administration, headed by the current president who has been accused of cheating in the last elections, are conniving for this, it remains a mystery. People are worried that there might be a failure of elections, and when this happens, the current president stays the president. It has been suggested to have a parallel counting, meaning that aside from the automated counting, there will also be manual counting. This proposal was rejected by the Commission on Elections. In the Philippines, there are many different groups and religions. Recently, they have announced their support statements. The Iglesia ni Cristo group announced that they will be supporting Senator â€Å"Noynoy† Aquino, the son of the late President Cory Aquino (their first woman president).3 Senator Aquino made a statement saying that the Commission on Elections indeed denied their proposal because it might open more venues for frauds and protests.4 The media, being the primary source for most people, definitely plays a big role in this event. They continue to publish survey results, which almost always show that there are only two presidential candidates who are in a battle for the spot. Again, these surveys only show the majority votes in a certain area, but for some reason, they have the power to manipulate the voters. Some voters will change their votes because their first choice does not show good results in the surveys posted by the media. The media also consistently gives updates on the failure of the PCOS machines. Last April 29, 2010, there was an article saying that the Office of the President also stood behind the decision of the COMELEC, and this made the citizens wonder more if there is indeed a connection between the two groups.5 There have been legal actions already, as the mentioned resolutions of the Senate to the COMELEC, but all have been denied. The reason behind this is most probably the connivance of the administration, the COMELEC, and the producers of the PCOS machines. For me, this is an important issue even though it is happening in a different country. This shows us the dirty game of politics, and if it is happening in the Philippines, it can happen to any other country, as long as there are corrupt and power-hungry officials. If their elections push through without failure, we will get to see a new era in the Philippines, but if there is a failure of elections, who knows what can happen to their country? Choosing the next leaders of a country should not be taken lightly, and amidst the issues happening in their country, there are people still hoping for the best results. Works Cited Senate of the Republic of the Philippines, 13th Congress, Senate Bill No. 2231, Automated Election System, filed March 15, 2006. Noynoy Aquino. http://www.noynoy.ph/v3/index.php. Senate of the Philippines Press Release May 4, 2010. COMELEC Rejects Parallel Manual Count, April 29 2010, Manila Bulletin.    How to cite The Political Arena, Papers

Privatization In Russia Essay Paper Example For Students

Privatization In Russia Essay Paper For some, the privatization of Russian industry has been one of the great success stories of Russias painful economic transition: quick, firm and radical action was taken to shift the great bulk of Russian industry out of state hands, thereby laying the basis for a radical restructuring of enterprises and improvements in their performance. Others see privatization as a best a failure, at worst a catastrophe. Not surprisingly those opposed to the market and economic reform as a whole share this view. But many commentators who see themselves as supporters of reform find plenty in Russian privatization to criticize: the process led to the transfer of ownership to inappropriate people and as a consequence no beneficial restructuring of enterprises or the economy can be expected. While this paper will attempt to cover the three key facets of privatization: that enterprises be transferred to private ownership; that the new owners be able de jure and de facto to exercise ownership rights; and, finally and ultimately most importantly, that the new owners exercise their ownership rights in such a way as to bring about improvements in enterprise performance. The key issues to be surveyed, therefore, are: who as a result of privatization obtained ownership of Russian industrial assets, and are they appropriate owners; can new owners, particularly if they are appropriate owners, exercise their owne rship rights; and has privatization led to improvements in enterprise performance? The paper will deal with privatization only within the industrial sector; thereby ignoring the highly controversial privatizations of the last twelve months or so in the energy and utility sectors. Who are the new owners?Global data showing about 70% of GNP being produced in the private sector reflects the high levels of privatization of industrial enterprises, with the great bulk of enterprises having been privatized by mid-1994. However privatization does not necessarily mean the complete removal of the state from an equity involvement in enterprises. State ownership. The state retains shareholdings in a significant number of privatized enterprises on the basis of government decrees declaring the strategic significance for national security of the enterprise. Shareholdings range from 20 to 51 per cent or a Golden Share (a single share giving veto rights over certain strategic issues of corporate development) retained by the state for up to three years. In late 1997 the state had shareholdings in 2900 enterprises. The shareholding consisted of a Golden Share in 1351 cases, of over 50% of shares in 128, of 25-50%, in 1037, of 20-25% in 228, and less than 20% in 303 of cases. By far the largest numbers of state holdings are in the energy sector (860). Not surprisingly the defense industry sector has a significant number (260). The rest are scattered across the economy. This is a not insignificant state equity interest in Russian industry. There appears to be no particular trend towards either the strengthening or weakening of the states holdings, primarily because there are very differing views within government over which direction any trend should take. There is a continuing dribble of disposals, but decrees extending the period for which the state can retain parcels of shares in particular enterprises are also not rare. The number of enterprises deemed to require a strategic state interest increased from the original 2700 set in the governments 1995 decree, to over 3200 in early 1997, but had declined to 2900 by the end of 1997. It seems likely that a rump state presence will remain for some time to come, but not at a level that represents the basis for a significant rolling back of privatization. Majority workforce shareholdings are seen as leading to two possible outcomes: collective ownership, in which the enterprise is owned and managed in a collective way by a workforce with common interests; or management ownership, in which management in various ways gains de facto if not de jure ownership rights over workforce shares and thereby gains effective ownership of the enterprise. Collective ownership derives either from a natural alliance between managers and rank-and-file employees, probably based on Soviet traditions of paternalism and the social contract, or from the need of managers to pander to workers who control a majority of voting rights at shareholder meetings. Although some observers might find a collective ownership outcome desirable, on the grounds that it provides for workplace democracy and high-incentive work habits, reform-oriented commentators generally find it a form of ownership likely to lead to the maintenance of excessively high levels of underemployed staff and an over concentration on consumption at the expense of investment. The management ownership outcome derives from the ability of management to totally dominate divided, demoralized or indifferent rank-and-file employees. The argument that they do so by bribing employees with promises of secure employment and the maintenance of social welfare provisions is essentially the same as that presented in the previous paragraph on collective ownership. Korean War Essay Thesis The Law clearly responds to most of the abuses of shareholders rights, which littered the initial years of post-communist corporate governance. A summary of the legislation, especially the clauses most related to the protection of shareholders rights follows. Some of the examples of management behavior outlined above make it clear how important the rules on notification of meetings and quorums are. Regulations on notification are contained in Article 52. It is not essential that shareholders be informed directly and personally of shareholders meeting, although if a simple advertisement is to suffice the publication in which it is to appear must be specified in the Articles of Association. For larger AOs at least 30 days notice must be given of a meeting, with the Law containing a considerable degree of specification of the information that must be included in the notification. The board of directors of an AO with over 1,000 shareholders must have at least seven members; nine members are required for AOs with over 10,000 shareholders. Members of the management committee must be in a minority on the board, and the general director cannot simultaneously chair the board (Art. 66). Although the Law makes no provisions for the representation of minority shareholders on boards of directors, the requirement that cumulative voting be used in elections to boards is presumably designed to provide some protection (Art.59). The Federal Commission on the Capital Market reports an increase in outsider representation on boards since the first half of 1994, but also those outsiders are still underrepresented. One would be unwise to underestimate the ingenuity of Russian managers in finding ways around the Law, or their willingness to simply disobey it.61 Nevertheless the most obvious sources of abuse of shareholders rights have been dealt with. The fact that the Law one passed after all by a communist-dominated parliament has a pro-shareholder orientation is in itself worthy of note. As Dmitrii Vasilev, the head of the Federal Commission on the Capital Market, put it after the passage of the Law: As a result, we can say most violations of shareholders rights are now illegal in RussiaConclusionI am prepared nevertheless to venture, albeit tentatively, that the score card is not obviously against privatization. The suggestion that the designers of privatization were somehow conned into handing ownership over to managers does not stand up. The indications are that they knew what they were doing and judged that outside owners would eventually assert themselves. Gradually they are doing so, and gradually they are improving their ability to exercise and enforce their ownership rights. Sometimes they are doing so in ways that are no less reprehensible than the methods of the manager-owners. There are also reasons to be concerned about the long-term consequences of the sort of bank-dominated and highly integrated ownership that many of the outsiders have brought. The best that can be said at this stage is that all modern economies have at their peak a corporate sector dominated by large integrated institutions. Clearly the private sector, and thereby privatization, has to bear some responsibility for an economy in which it has a 70% share but which is unable to provide in anything like adequate proportions growth or welfare. But in this there are other factors also at work. Indeed there are some small indications, at both macro- and micro-levels, of a positive correlation between private ownership and good performance. With time that correlation could well become stronger and more evident. Business