Get help from the best in academic writing.

Political Issues College Essay

The Articles of Confederation The Articles of Confederation (also known as the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union) was the first constitutional document of the United States, adopted in 1777. However, all thirteen states ratified those Articles only in 1781. According to the Articles of Confederation, each state had the right to retain its freedom and independence. One representative from each state was chosen to create a committee, the Congress that would be responsible for army, navy, foreign relations, and declarations of war/peace. However, the Congress had no right to gather taxes and control the commerce between the states. Also, the Congress could not adopt laws. Such shortcomings were one of the first reasons for discontents between the members of the Congress. In spite of the fact that the Articles of Confederations defined the Congress as a national legislature, the states governments had more power.

There was a burning need for the government that would be stronger. The weakness of the republic government and its limited powers led to one more Constitutional Convention that took place in 1787, The Congress suggested revising the Articles of Confederation. First, it was suggested to make several amendments to improve the Articles of Confederation. However, the delegates realized that it would not be enough, and they started to create a new constitutional document. Today, it is known as the Constitution of the United States of America. It was signed by 39 representatives (42 were present) on September 17, 1787. On May 29, 1790, the last delegate, Rhode Island, ratified the Constitution. This document strengthened the government by providing a new system, the major purpose of which was to find a kind of balance between the federal government, each state, and people.

The Theories of Nullification and Secession The theory of nullification is a legal theory according to which any U. S. State has the right to invalidate any federal law. This theory allows the U. S. State, as a sovereign Union, to nullify any law, if the state finds some law unconstitutional. According to this theory, States are the last and the most important branch that may interpret the actions of the government. Another theory that underlines the sovereignty of each U. S. State is the theory of secession.

According to this very theory, the state has the right to terminate its membership within the Union. In 1799, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions asserted the correctness of the nullification theory according to the Constitution of the United States of America. The actions of john C. Calhoun reinforced the ideas of these two theories. However, not every political figure was for the theories of nullification and secession. For example, President Jackson argued against the right of nullification and secession and asked the U. S. Senate to provide him with the right to use arm forces in order to execute federal laws. It was the period when a force bill was introduced.

However, that step caused numerous misunderstandings from several states. The election of Abraham Lincoln played a very important role for the development of the theory of nullification and the theory of secession. During Lincoln’s first inaugural, he proclaimed against the right of nullification and referred to Jackson’s Proclamation Regarding Nullification. In 1861, the attempt to achieve the secession by means of force of arms was failed. The consequence of that attempt is also known as the American Civil War. In 2008, one American politician, John Zogby, was not afraid to mention that more than 70% of Americans knew that even if each U. S. State had the right to nullify federal laws, it was not able to become an independent state and go against the Congress.

Terrorists and the Left and Right: Definitions

Nursing Assignment Help Terrorism is one of the burning problems in the United States. After the events of September 11, 2001, many writers try to analyze, investigate, and classify the sources, reasons, and consequences of terrorism. “Defining terrorism is a difficult but not impossible task.” (Simonsen and Spindlove, 2006) Scientists offer lots of captivating ideas, which define terrorism mostly like one of the styles of violence aiming to change people’s attitude and behavior to a certain problem. Usually, terrorism is not collective but small groups’ activities. There is no clear explanation why people are engaged into terrorism. Like in politics, the idea to use terrorism is usually caused by some psychological considerations. The major point about terrorism is that it is not a spontaneous act of violence. It is always deliberate and systematic. It is also necessary to distinguish two types of terrorism: from the left and from the right. If left-wing terrorism is characterized by perfectly planned attacks, right-wing terrorism is considered to be more indiscriminating.

With time, it becomes more difficult to present a clear definition of terrorism from the left and terrorism from the right. “Terrorist groups of the extreme “left” have often become aggressively nationalistic, whereas those of the far right are second to none with their ardent anticapitalism and anti-Americanism.” (Laqueur, 2003) However, the number of deaths caused by both terroristic attacks from the left and from the right is almost the same.

Right-wing terrorism is also called neo-fascist terrorism has nothing in common with liberal democracy. The major purpose of this type of terrorism is to create a kind of fascist state. The reasons of their attacks may be quite different: religious, political, or even social issues. One of the examples of terrorism from the right was killing abortion doctors and the destruction of numerous abortion clinics. Even if all these attacks were spontaneous, the consequences are rather terrifying.

Left-wing terrorism aims at destroying all the signs of capitalistic society and creating a communist state. Terrorism from the left may be also called eco-terrorism grounded on some moral principles. As it has been already mentioned above, left-wing terrorism is more planned and purposeful. The representatives of such type of terrorism create separate groups, set concrete objectives, develop reliable plans, and try to achieve the purposes using all possible methods. The problem is that time goes by, and it is not that easy to find devoted and faithful member in order to trust them such a serious business.

In comparison to right-wing terrorism, where the base of operations is concentrated on rural areas in different camps, left-wing terroristic representatives prefer urban areas and organize all work within safehouses. (Smith 1994) While terrorism from the left struggle for some political principles, the representatives of terrorism from the right fight for their religious beliefs. These are the main differences between terrorism from the left and terrorism from the right.

Analyzing both left- and right-wing terroristic groups, it is necessary to admit that the major differences lie in their ideologies and ways of planning and arranging attacks. It is impossible to say the activities of which group are more severe and which can be justified. The tactics of any terroristic groups have their own grounds. The question is not about the preferences, the point is to analyze why both right- and left-wing groups appear and what may prevent the destructions caused by their activities.

Reference List Simonsen, C. E. and Spindlove, J. R. (2006). Terrorism Today: The Past, the Players, the Future. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More Laqueur, W. (2003). No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty-first Century. Continuum International Publishing Group.

Smith, B. L. (1994). Terrorism in America: Pipe Bombs and Pipe Dreams. SUNY Press.

[casanovaaggrev]