Dworkin Theory of Law as Integrity

Dworkin Theory of Law as Integrity In Laws Empire, Dworkin has distinguished three legal conceptions: conventionalism, pragmatism and law as integrity  [1]  , by criticizing conventionalism and pragmatism, Dworkin concludes that law as integrity is the most plausible and defensible. However, criticism to Dworkins argument-law as Integritycan be seen in various academic works. In this essay, first and foremost, we will briefly discuss the basic arguments of Dworkins theory of law as integrity then we will go on to criticize Dworkins theory in light of relevant legal theories. Introduction of the Theory of Law as integrity Conventionalism Pragmatism In the theory of conventionalism, legal rights can only emerge from existing law, including precedents and legislation. Conventionalism also holds the view that judges must follow the law and should make decisions only based on existing statutes and more importantly, judges must respect what convention deems binding law.  [2]   According to the theory of pragmatism, assignments of legal rights and responsibilities must be consistent with past decisions. Moreover, the pragmatist theory holds the view that adjudication is not really constrained by the law. Hence, pragmatism argues that judges should decide what decision will, according to them, be best for the community as a whole.  [3]  This means that for reasons of strategy judges must sometimes act as if they are applying pre-existing legal rights.  [4]  In the meanwhile, in accordance with pragmatist theory, to some extent, the behaviour of a court in making decision of certain case is not constrained by the existing law. These two legal theories are highly criticized by Dworkin. As Dworkin points out that assumes that judges sometimes invent law, which means that they act in an unconstrained manner. Pragmatism also assumes that judges are hardly constrained when adjudicating cases. It thus cannot account for why judges are so concerned with precedents and statutes when they decide hard cases.  [5]   Dworkin then provides a third theory of law, which he believes not only better represents what actually happens when judges decide cases but is also a morally better theory of law. Law as Integrity The concept of Law as Integrity is a key to Dworkins Constructive Interpretation of legal practice.  [6]  According to Dworkin, judges should identify legal rights and obligations on the basis that all the rights and obligations are crated by the community as integrity, and all those rights and obligations express the communitys conception of justice and fairness. In accordance with Dworkin, the only way to understand legal practice seems to be thattaking the interpretative perspectives of the participant into consider in the practice. Dworkin claims that when judges (as well as lawyers) consider which way is the best to solve a legal issue, they should not simply identify exactly what positive law is applicable in a certain case, but taking an interpretative approach to law as social practice. Dworkin emphasizes that a solution to a certain case is always sought out through a matter of interpretative practice. Dworkins perspective here is quite against that of conventionalists, the conventionalists insist that in dealing with a certain case, the judge only should identify exactly what law is applicable. Furthermore, Dworkin points out that in the debate of a certain case, different opinions and arguments are raised by lawyers, and under this circumstance, the decision of what law is applicable in the case is usually based on what opinion the law amounts to in a particular matter rather than what conventions apply. Participants in such a debate thus do not attempt to link the facts of a case with the supposedly posited law applicable but rather interpret the law in light of a general normative justification or moral point expressed in it. A participant interpreting a social practice [i.e. the law], according to that view, proposes value for the practice by describing some scheme of interest or goals or principles the practice can be taken to serve or express or exemplify.  [7]   Dworkin argues that network of political structures and decisions of his community  [8]  must always be called on by a judge when the judge goes about adjudicating. For instance, legislation and case law which must be identified in a pre-interpretative stage Then in the following stages, the judge must always question himself whether his interpretation of this network could form part of a coherent theory justifying the network as a whole. No actual judge could compose of anything approaching a full interpretation of all of his communitys law at once. But an actual judge can () allow the scope of his interpretation to fan out from the cases immediately in point to cases in the same general area or department of law, and then still farther, so far as this seems promising.  [9]  In accordance with Dworkins arguments, the interpretation of law should not only fit into the legal system but also be the best normative justification of law as such, this means that not only must the i nterpretation of the judges be consistent with the law identified at the pre-interpretative stage, but also the law must be interpreted in a way which is the best in the participants mind. Moreover, according to Dworkins theory, both the judge and any other participant should adjust his own sense of of what the practice really requires so as better to serve the justification he accepts at the interpretative stage.  [10]   We notice that, in accordance with Dworkin, morality affects the whole process of adjudication of cases. By contrast, he dose not express the view that a certain case should be adjudicated and resolved on the basis of sole considerations of justice. Dworkin claims that the moral standards should be derived form the explicit and existing legal practice and contrary to positivists, Dworkin believes that moral principles that cohere with past legal practice are valid propositions of law as well-so much so that these principles can and should go beyond what legal conventions teach us the law is.  [11]   In Dworkins theory, there are two basic elements of law, one is a retrospective element, which he calls fit, and the other is a prospective element, which he calls justification.  [12]  Furthermore, Dworkin points out that in exercising the function of these two elements, judges are required to construct a theory of law which can both fit past legal decisions and makes the law as good as possible. In doing this, the judges are required to search out legal principles which have been previously mentioned in the historical and social characteristics of the legal system and then improve the law for the future by making it more coherent  [13]  . Hence, we can say that according to Dwokins theory, in dealing with a certain case, the judge should try to interpret the law in a way which promotes the coherence of the legal system as well as possible. In other words, it is to say that an interpretationwhich is the most coherent to legal systemis much better than an interpretation-which makes the legal system less coherent. This implies that when interpretation is concerned, there exists a certain tension between what is presented by the existing positivist material and what is the best way to interpret such material from a moral point of view.  [14]   From the view of Dworkin, a judge is like an author in writing a novel, in that case a new author is bound by what another author has written in a previous chapter, but the new author will subsequently attempt to continue the novel in the best possible way.  [15]  A judge should view his or her role in a chain in law, he or she is not purely independent, but is indeed independent to some extent,He knows that other judges have decided cases that, although not exactly like his case, deal with related problems; he must think of their decisions as part of a long story he must interpret and then continue, according to his own judgement of how to make the developing story as good as it can be.  [16]  In other words, Dworkin holds the view that law is not arbitrary but rather the expression of an underlying attempt at forming and clarifying a coherent legal consciousness of society.  [17]  Hence, in interpreting certain legal text, a judge is not completely free. The judge is no t allowed to inject any personal morality into the interpretation of the legal document. More essentially, a judge is required to interpret with the purpose of establishing coherence based on the integrity of existing law. Furthermore, decision making by the judge will depend, that is, not only on his beliefs about which of these principles is superior as a matter of abstract justice but also about which should be followed, as a matter of political fairness, in a community whose members have the moral convictions his fellow citizens have.  [18]  Dworkin also explains this in more general terms: There are two possibilities. Someone might say that interpretation of a social practice means discovering the purposes or intentions of the other social participants in the practice (). Or that it means discovering the purposes of the community that houses the practice, conceived as itself having some form of mental life or group consciousness. The first of these suggestions seems more attractive because less mysterious. But it is ruled out by the internal structure of an argumentative social practice, because it is a feature of such practices that an interpretive claim is not just a claim about what other i nterpreters think. () [A] social practice creates and assumes a crucial distinction between interpreting the acts and thoughts of participants one by one, in that way, and interpreting that practice itself, that is, interpreting what they do collectively. It assumes that distinction because the claims and arguments participants make, licensed and encouraged by the practice, are about what it means, not what they mean. () [An interpreter must therefore] join the practice he proposes to understand ().  [19]   Criticism of Dworkins Legal Theory Moral to full extent According to Michael Sandel  [20]  , Dwokins legal theory begins with the principles of freedom and equality that justify the institutions of democracy and law. However, as Stephen Guise points out that the claim that democracy is just and that law is part of democracy is a claim about a moral ideal.  [21]  If we go further, that is to say, in a moral level, the world without democracy is better than a democratic world. Since in a democratic world, laws are enacted and enforced but laws may be substantively unjust. Stephen Guest criticizes that The theory of Dworkins is moral to the full extent. Interpretation is therefore is not constrained by facts even though it makes use of facts. It does not follow that his theory is subjective, because his moral views like all moral views are subject to revision, correction and, in short, reason.  [22]  Stephen Breyer says that constitutional standards keep subjective judicial decision-making in check.  [23]  In my mind, it is right, but not purely right, that is because, this statement implies that there exists some external checking fact on these judicial subjective judgments, more importantly, this statement demonstrates that judges should not formulate applicable constitutional standards. In the theory of Dworkins, interpretation is something close to the end-product of moralizing with others who are largely in agreement and who endorse true propositions of modality.  [24]  This means that the origin of Dworkins legal theory is moral pro posals concerning equality and freedom. Dworkin cannot explain the extraordinary rigidity of the U.S. Constitution, in particular the way that entrenched provisions of the Constitution conservatively constrain judges by imposing the dead hand of the past  [25]  . In Dworkins perspective, there is no categorical distinction between distinction history and substance, although there is an argument of fit, as we mentioned before, this is merely another form of argument of substance. So in Dworkins theory, there is no way of identifying historical facts about the Constitution distinct from its moral substance. The only arguments are moral arguments and as we mentioned in the first part, Dworkin expresses the idea that entrenched positions can be interpreted morally, in terms, for example, of the protection of democratic decision-making. So law is a form of moralizing that is also an integral part of democracy. If we genuinely believe in equality of respect, we naturally end up with endorsing representative democracy, which means legislative activity through delegated agency. It is not just that the legislature represents my view through legislation but, merely in its existence, it expresses my conviction that I respect others equally. Since I do, I must allow that their convictions count, too, and so I must abide by whatever the procedural outcome is of this respect I owe to others. Moral convictions and objectivity. There is a conflict in Dworkins theory, on one hand, Dworkin emphasizes objectivity in decision making, on the other hand, Dworkin put decision onto a moral basis. As Duncan Kennedy  [26]  claims that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the judges should not choose the interpretation that applies their own moral and political convictions. I personally dont see what else they could applyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Furthermore, as Waldron points out that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦These are convictions, not whims, and even where there is nothing else but ones own convictions to follow, no-one thinks that it means those convictions are rightà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ã‚  [27]  So it is rare or even impossible that a judge will not take personal moral convictions into the process of adjudication or interpretation. Unclear about Justice By holding the same view with Waldron, Smith  [28]  supposes that Dworkins idea or justice is not clear since Dworkin has argued that justice depends on recognizable principles. Furthermore, Smith questions that why should a principle of justice have to be recognizable?  [29]  For principles of justice will surely gain moral recognition if they do because they have force independent of recognition. Someone has to do the recognizing first. How to achieve ideal integrity? Susan Hurley  [30]  defends Dworkins perspective against a claim by Kenneth Kress  [31]  that Dworkin cannot provide a coherent consideration of law in circumstances where there is an intervening judicial decision between a set of facts that ground litigation and the litigation itself. Does the judge decide on the basis of the previous law, or the intervening law? Hurley concludes that if the intervening decision is right, then there is coherence, therefore, there is no problem; if it is wrong, it is a mistake, and need not count. A question may be raised here thatalthough it may have created further rights, say, to reasonable expectations being met, which will cohere with integrity? Moreover, Hurley  [32]  sees the problem in terms of overall moral coherence untrammeled by worries about descriptive facts'. So Hurley usefully broadens the picture by pointing out that coherence is determined as much by hypothetical facts, those that test the limits of principle (and which judges often use), as they are by judicial decisions. Furthermore, as we mentioned before, in Dworkins legal theory, when dealing with a particular case, a judge should interpret and apply law in light of the whole legal system, and make interpretation which is consistent with the integrity of the legal system. However, is this really applicable in practice? In accordance with Waldron  [33]  , it is a challenge to Dworkins descriptive optimism that the facts of the American legal system could make it impossible to give an overall account of American law that would remain true to integrity. But as Stephen argues that there is no such tension between facts and moral optimism as he appears to envisage. The facts are either incorporated into the argument that makes for integrity or they are discounted. There is the possibility that the American legal system has become so dysfunctional that no moral case for integrity can be made for it, but that seemingly remote possibility would not be an embarrassment for Dworkins theory.  [34]  Waldrons comments seem to imply that there are facts that determine law independently of interpretation. And so it has the general form of: Imagine a legal system where integrity might not apply; what then? Dworkins reply can only be and it is his reply that We cannot be sure, before we look, because noth ing in his legal theory requires that all legal systems display integrity  [35]  . Finally, Dworkin must allow that, by making best sense of an existing legal practice, we may still conclude that the practice failed the ideal. Take the fugitive slave Acts for instance.  [36]  What should the judges do when they are legally required to send captured slaves back to the South? In order to maintain the integrity of legal system, the judges should send those slaves back but to achieve the goal of justice, judges should set the slaves free. Hence, the outcome of the judgment represents a serious conflict between integrity and jusitice. A positivist will deal this case by distinguishing legal justice and real justice, but in Dworkins theory, this is criticized. According to Dworkins theory, the relevant ideal here is the ideal of integrity; it is through bad legal argument that one fails to meet that ideal, and it is bad because it hasnt made maximal use, in the circumstances of actual practice, what that actual ideal of integrity requires. So interpretivism produces an ideal, but it is not the outcome that would be the best in all possible worlds, which is how we ordinarily think of ideals. But maybe this doesnt particularly matter. We have the ideal solution in integrity and this differs from the ideal solution in justice. At times both fairness and efficiency require following precedents, but integrity is different, although it will serve both those values as well. Nevertheless, the ideal of integrity appears to be constrained by existing practices in a way that the ideal of justice is not. Or, by its nature, it seems, interpretation is only possible within the existing world, which suggests it is not an ideal at all. A cruder way of putting this point is that making the best sense of existing legal practices is no more than adequately characterizing equity deficits, that is to say characterizing how far these practices fall short of the ideal. If the Legal System is Wicked Obviously, a consequence of Dworkins views is that the legal system itself may not contain too many mistakes. That is because in Dworkins theory, the normative dimension feeds on the law itself, and more importantly, Dworkin emphasizes the relationship between local politics and law. As a matter of fact, Dworkins theory is constructed on the presupposition that the integrity of the legal community is in a large measure reflected in its law. So if the justification of law is to flow from societys political decisions (in the form of law), it follows that these decisions must also be justifiable as such; but this is obviously not always the case, as the examples of Apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany show. Why would we make racism the best it can be? Dworkins argument here is circular in that it presupposes, in his case, the existence of a liberal democracy  [37]   We also note that Dworkins theory does not require abandoning the history or anthropology of wicked legal systems. As we mentioned before, Dworkin holds the view that law should be treated as conventional, because that is a theory that clearly has a moral point  [38]  . There is no need to talk in terms of the Hart-Dworkin debate'  [39]  Stephen claims, especially as they barely debated these questions. The debate should instead concern the theoretical question of the identification of the conditions according to which propositions of law are true. That debate is important because it concerns, amongst other matters, our moral obligation to conform to law. And so while it is right that we move away from the Hart- Dworkin debate, it would be wrong to move from questions concerning the identification of law, because these are at the core of our moral obligations to the community.  [40]  It is true that there will be occasions when the law requires something the moral force o f which grates with a judges personal convictions. There will therefore be occasions when it may be morally right for the judge to lie where justice trumps integrity. But I dont see how any of this affects Dworkins theory unless, yet again, one supposes that some descriptive fact defeats the moral judgment. Both the systems of apartheid and Nazism contained elements of good that could be put to use through integrity. Since these systems regularly enforced equality in some spheres, and morality says that the racial classifications are wrong, then the laws promoting the immoral policies can be made out as dysfunctional, perverted, or even mistaken and, so, not creative of moral obligations. However, if there is no articulated and public structure that, as Dyzenhaus says, citizens have been encouraged to obey and treat as a source of rights and duties,  [41]  it is difficult to see what is left. Where there is such a semblance of law, of an articulate public structure of rights an d duties, citizens acquiescence forms something of a legitimizing base, which, incidentally, Fuller called the external morality of law.  [42]   What will be interpreted cannot be distinguished from the interpretation itself It is not very clear in what respect an analogy can be drawn between law and literature in that legal texts constrain judges in their interpretative activities. Some argue that legal texts themselves are texts as well and thus also must be interpreted. In other words, what is to be interpreted cannot be distinguished from the interpretation itself. There is no such thing as a text out there  [43]  , and meaning is derived from interpretation. From that point of view, a previous legal text as such does not put any constraints on its interpretation but rather on the shared understandings that live within the interpreting community. Conclusion As we have discussed throughout this essay, although Dworkin tried to provide a theory of law, which, at least in his opinion, not only better represents what actually happens when judges decide cases but is also a morally better theory of law. It seems that his work is unsuccessful. Dworkin tried to avoid the shortcomings of both conventionalist theory and pragmatist theory. In the theory of law as integrity, when comes to interpretation of law, on one hand, Dworkin expects to make the judge constrained by law by arguing that the interpretation of law should follow the step of former decisions and be coherent with the existing legal system, on the other hand, Dworkin tries to make the judge creative, and emphasizes on the moral issues in the process of interpretation. Moreover, Dworkin connects law with other social elements, such as politics and local community, and enlarged the conception of integrity. In conclusion, we see Dworkins theory of law as integrity is good in a moral level but bad in a legal level. As we have discussed in this essay, Dworkins theory of law as integrity lacks applicability, if a theory only sounds good but could not be applied in practice, this theory is not a good one. In addition, as a legal theory, Dworkins theory of law as integrity fails in the following essential aspects. Firstly, this theory made its sole concept integrity conflicted with the concept of justice under certain circumstances. Secondly, when Dworkin makes law closely related to politics, actually, more problems have been raised rather than solved.

Classical Philosophers Essay -- essays research papers

Classical Philosophy The golden age of Greece was an age of thinking, of knowledge, and of the arts. Some of the greatest minds of any time projected their ideas upon the masses. They were called philosophers. These were men whose minds developed some of the most abstract and revolutionary ideas of the time. Some of them were put to death for their ideas and their beliefs and became martyrs for their cause. During this age, three philosophers in particular stood out from the rest. Socrates Socrates was the first of the three great philosophers. Before devoting his life to his teachings and philosophies, he was a stonemason and also served as a soldier of some distinction during the Peloponnesian war. He never wrote any of his teachings down, and he preferred to speak about his beliefs and philosophies. He also involved himself with the political workings of Athens. He spent most of his life in discussion with young aristocratic men, unrelentingly questioning their blind confidence in popular opinion, but he never offered them any outlined abstract teaching. He merely conversed and questioned their beliefs. Also, unlike other Sophists of the time, he refused to accept pay for his teachings. Because he had no texts written by himself on his beliefs, we turn to his followers for information on his beliefs. Plato documents many of Socrates’ conversations with the youth of Athens in his book, Plato’s Republic. In 405 BC Socrates was convicted (wrongly I might add) of corrupting the youth of Athens, interfering with the religion of the city, and for his intervention into politics. There is a text called `Apology’, which documents his unsuccessful defense speech before the Athenian jury. In 399 BC, surrounded by friends and disciples, he drank hemlock (a poison made from the plant with the same name) and died gracefully. Socrates’ beliefs were not only revolutionary, but also controversial. He spoke with disdain about the gods, and refuted the notion that ‘good’ is doing whatever pleases them. Many texts document his beliefs and morals. Most informative of these are in Plato’s Republic. The best known out of all of his ideas were ideas about virtue, and doing what is right and good. Plato Plato was the next great philosopher, chronologically. It should be noted that Plato’s real name was Aristocles, and that Plato was a nickname, roughly translated to mean... ...e city. Here he started his own academy, known as the Lyceum, and here he began to teach Alexander. (Note: This is where the chain ended. Alexander did not become a philosopher, and did not teach anyone else) Not long after Aristotle returned to Athens, the Athenian people revolted against Macedonian rule. Due to his political position (some would describe it as betrayal) and to avoid being executed, he fled to the island of Euboea, where he died soon afterwards.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Aristotle’s works were modern for the time. He had distinguished dolphins and whales from fish, created a classification system quite similar to the one in place today, and formed many astronomical ideas, which were not far from the truth. It should also be noted that in medieval times, he gained a great many followers after some of his preserved works were found, and the disciples of the late philosopher generally believed his works as absolute truth.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  These philosophers made a great impact, even thousands of years after their lives. We still look to their works for answers, and there are systems they themselves created that are still being put into use today. Classical Philosophers Essay -- essays research papers Classical Philosophy The golden age of Greece was an age of thinking, of knowledge, and of the arts. Some of the greatest minds of any time projected their ideas upon the masses. They were called philosophers. These were men whose minds developed some of the most abstract and revolutionary ideas of the time. Some of them were put to death for their ideas and their beliefs and became martyrs for their cause. During this age, three philosophers in particular stood out from the rest. Socrates Socrates was the first of the three great philosophers. Before devoting his life to his teachings and philosophies, he was a stonemason and also served as a soldier of some distinction during the Peloponnesian war. He never wrote any of his teachings down, and he preferred to speak about his beliefs and philosophies. He also involved himself with the political workings of Athens. He spent most of his life in discussion with young aristocratic men, unrelentingly questioning their blind confidence in popular opinion, but he never offered them any outlined abstract teaching. He merely conversed and questioned their beliefs. Also, unlike other Sophists of the time, he refused to accept pay for his teachings. Because he had no texts written by himself on his beliefs, we turn to his followers for information on his beliefs. Plato documents many of Socrates’ conversations with the youth of Athens in his book, Plato’s Republic. In 405 BC Socrates was convicted (wrongly I might add) of corrupting the youth of Athens, interfering with the religion of the city, and for his intervention into politics. There is a text called `Apology’, which documents his unsuccessful defense speech before the Athenian jury. In 399 BC, surrounded by friends and disciples, he drank hemlock (a poison made from the plant with the same name) and died gracefully. Socrates’ beliefs were not only revolutionary, but also controversial. He spoke with disdain about the gods, and refuted the notion that ‘good’ is doing whatever pleases them. Many texts document his beliefs and morals. Most informative of these are in Plato’s Republic. The best known out of all of his ideas were ideas about virtue, and doing what is right and good. Plato Plato was the next great philosopher, chronologically. It should be noted that Plato’s real name was Aristocles, and that Plato was a nickname, roughly translated to mean... ...e city. Here he started his own academy, known as the Lyceum, and here he began to teach Alexander. (Note: This is where the chain ended. Alexander did not become a philosopher, and did not teach anyone else) Not long after Aristotle returned to Athens, the Athenian people revolted against Macedonian rule. Due to his political position (some would describe it as betrayal) and to avoid being executed, he fled to the island of Euboea, where he died soon afterwards.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Aristotle’s works were modern for the time. He had distinguished dolphins and whales from fish, created a classification system quite similar to the one in place today, and formed many astronomical ideas, which were not far from the truth. It should also be noted that in medieval times, he gained a great many followers after some of his preserved works were found, and the disciples of the late philosopher generally believed his works as absolute truth.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  These philosophers made a great impact, even thousands of years after their lives. We still look to their works for answers, and there are systems they themselves created that are still being put into use today.

Obesity and Government Control

Obesity and Government Control In today’s society there are many Americans who are either overweight or obese and have diabetes. David Zinczenko in â€Å"Don’t Blame the Eater† argues that fast food companies ate to be blamed for the obesity that is now very common in the US. Radley Balko argues in â€Å"What You Eat is Your Business† that the government is responsible for the obesity epidemic that the US is found in today. The government should have some in not all control or regulations on what the people of the country decide to eat.With no control the US is headed for a nation of overweight, obese, diabetic, and unhealthy people. Before the early 1990’s, diabetes found in children were usually because of genetic disorders and around five percent of the children were obsess or had Type Two diabetes. According to the National Institute of Health, about thirty percent of the children population has Type Two diabetes. Because of the increase in the amount of people who are being diagnosed with diabetes, the amount of money spent on health care costs is a surprising one hundred billion a year.Since 1969 that has been a dramatic increase of about ninety-seven billion. (Zinczenko) Zinczenko argues that many fast food restaurants don’t give information on the calorie count their food contains. Unlike grocery items, there aren’t many fast food companies that provide their clients with the calorie information on their food labels. By not giving out this important information, consumers aren’t aware of the unhealthy consumptions.Although this is a good point, we as humans are smart enough to know that if we walk into a fast food restaurant, the food we buy isn’t going to be the healthiest and that if we eat this type of food twice a day every day or even every other day, we will eventually put on a great amount of weight and make our body vulnerable to health risks such as diabetes. The government should m ake it a law for restaurants such a McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s put exactly how many calories each thing on their menu has.The fast food industry doesn’t only target adult but also children by selling kids meals that come with a toy from that popular movie every child wants or has watched or that popular toy company. This is how they attract kids but in return for the money, they give kids that delicious but unhealthy burger with a toy that usually ends up lost or in the garbage after a few days or even hours. Instead of giving a side of fries and soda, what they should do is give kids a daily fruit serving with he choice of either orange or apple juice. There should be a regulation on the amount of calories children can consume at these restaurants. These children are the future of the country and if they grow up having horrible eating habits, how this country going to get anywhere with people who aren’t able to do a certain job because of their health problems? The government should put very tight restrictions on how the fast food industry carries itself when it comes to selling food that isn’t healthy.According to Zinczenko, â€Å"prepared foods aren’t covered under Food and Drug Administration labeling laws. † (Zinczenko 393) This is one very important thing that the government should definitely change. People need to be informed with the amount of calorie intake that delicious Whopper has. If the person sees how many calories they are eating they may second guess about eating fast food four times a week. Changing this regulation can make a difference on someone’s life.Balko states that, â€Å"state legislatures and school boards across the country have begun banning snacks and soda from school campuses and vending machines,† (Balko 396) and that this is not the way to combat obesity. By the government banning the unhealthy foods we eat, they are taking responsibility on our health car e and wellness, instead of us worrying and taking care of ourselves. Although Balko makes a good point, right now the government had no control on our food consumption choices and we are still making horrible health choices.If the government takes control on the food we can and can’t eat, we soon will accustom ourselves to pick a fresh apple over some deep fried onion rings. Pretty soon the US will find itself in a society where the amount of people who are diabetic and obese isn’t sky rocketing. Like everything, there is always going to be those people who don’t agree with the government telling us what to eat and what not to eat. The way I see it right now, in this specific time in life, I would agree with the government helping us out.A little push won’t hurt and in the long run it can make a huge difference on our own health and for the health of those we care most, them being our children, parents, family, and friends. Works Cited Graff, Gerald, and Cathy Birkenstein. â€Å"Don't Blame the Eater. † They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. 391-94. Print. Graff, Gerald, and Cathy Birkenstein. â€Å"What You Eat Is Your Business. † They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. 395-99. Print

More Hyphenation of Phrasal Adjectives

More Hyphenation of Phrasal Adjectives More Hyphenation of Phrasal Adjectives More Hyphenation of Phrasal Adjectives By Mark Nichol Three types of phrasal adjectives are treated according to the same basic rules, as shown in the following (erroneous) examples, which are discussed and revised below each sentence. First, a definition: A phrasal adjective is a phrase consisting of two or more words that, when combined, constitute a single expression of modification of a noun. Phrasal adjectives are usually hyphenated when they precede a noun but left open when they follow one. 1. Embracing change is the only viable alternative to becoming a victim of the never ending cycle and escalating speed of innovation. The words never and ending team up to serve as a synonym for endless. Because they precede cycle, they are hyphenated to communicate their interrelationship as modifying elements: â€Å"Embracing change is the only viable alternative to becoming a victim of the never-ending cycle and escalating speed of innovation.† 2. The researchers highlighted the follow the herd mentality the students exhibited. A phrasal adjective can also consist of more than two words, as in this verb-article-noun idiom, which modifies mentality: â€Å"The researchers highlighted the follow-the-herd mentality the students exhibited.† 3. For New York Stock Exchange-listed organizations, the audit committee charter must include the committee’s duties and responsibilities. When a proper noun consisting of more than one word is linked with another word to form a phrasal adjective, an en dash is employed as a â€Å"superhyphen† to indicate that despite the number of words in the phrasal adjective, it consists of only two elements- the proper noun and the adjective listed: â€Å"For New York Stock Exchange–listed organizations, the audit committee charter must include the committee’s duties and responsibilities.† The original treatment mistakenly implies that the phrasal adjective is Exchange-listed, and that the three preceding words are unrelated, and the alternative â€Å"For New-York-Stock-Exchange-listed† is unwieldy and suggests that the elements of the proper noun are discrete. However, a better solution is to relax the sentence as shown here: â€Å"For organizations listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the audit committee charter must include the committee’s duties and responsibilities.† Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Grammar category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:30 Religious Terms You Should KnowDoes "Mr" Take a Period?The Difference Between "Shade" and "Shadow"

Active Transport Essays - Cellular Respiration, Metabolism

Active Transport Essays - Cellular Respiration, Metabolism Active Transport Since the cell membrane is somewhat permeable to sodium ions, simple diffusion would result in a net movement of sodium ions into the cell, until the concentrations on the two sides of the membrane became equal. Sodium actually does diffuse into the cell rather freely, but as fast as it does so, the cell actively pumps it out again, against the concentration difference. The mechanism by which the cell pumps the sodium ions out is called active transport. Active transport requires the expenditure of energy for the work done by the cell in moving molecules against a concentration gradient. Active transport enables a cell to maintain a lower concentration of sodium inside the cell, and also enables a cell to accumulate certain nutrient inside the cell at concentrations much higher than the extracellular concentrations. The exact mechanism of active transport is not known. It has been proposed that a carrier molecule is involved, which reacts chemically with the molecule that is to be actively transported. This forms a compound which is soluble in the lipid portion of the membrane and the carrier compound then moves through the membrane against the concentration gradient to the other side. The transported molecule is then released, and the carrier molecule diffuses back to the other side of the membrane where it picks up another molecule. This process requires energy, since work must done in transporting the molecule against a diffusion gradient. The energy is supplied in the form of ATP. The carrier molecules are thought to be integral proteins; proteins which span the plasma membrane. These proteins are specific for the molecules they transport. Chemiosmosis Populating the inner membrane of the mitochondrion are many copies of a protein complex called an ATP synthase, the enzyme that actually makes ATP! It works like an ion pump running in reverse. In the reverse of that process, an ATP synthase uses the energy of an existing ion gradient to power ATP synthesis. The ion gradient that drives oxidative phosphorylation is a proton (hydrogen ion) gradient; that is, the power source for the ATP syntheses is a difference in the concentration of H+ on opposite sides of the inner mitochondrial membrane. We can also think of this gradient as a difference in pH, since pH is a measure of H+ concentration. The function of the electron transport chain is to generate and maintain an H+ gradient. The chain is an energy converter that uses the exergonic flow of electrons to pump H+ across the membrane, from the matrix into the intermembrane space. The H+ leak back across the membrane, diffusing down its gradient. But the ATP synthases are the only patches of the membrane that are freely permeable to H+. The ions pass through a channel in an ATP synthase, and the complex of proteins functions as a mill that harnesses the exergonic flow of H ' to drive the phosphorylation of ATP Thus, an H+ gradient couples the redox reactions of the electron transport chain to ATP synthesis. This coupling mechanism for oxidative phosphorylation is called chemiosmosis, a term that highlights the relationship between chemical reactions and transport across the membrane. We have previously used the word osmosis in discussing water transport, but here the word refers to the pushing of H+ across a membra! ne. Certain members of the electron transport chain must accept and release protons (H+) along with electrons, while other carriers transport only electrons. Therefore, at certain steps along the chain, electron transfers cause H+ to be taken up and released back into he surrounding solution. The electron carriers are spatially arranged in the membrane in such a way that H+ is accepted from the mitochondrial matrix and deposited - the intermembrane space. The H+ gradient that results is referred to as a proton-motive force, emphasizing the capacity of the gradient to perform work. The force drives H+ back across the membrane through the specific H+ channels provided by ATP synthase complexes. How the ATP synthase uses the downhill H+ current to attach inorganic phosphate to ADP is not yet known. The hydrogen ions may participate directly in the reaction, or they may induce a conformation change of the ATP synthase that

Investment Banking - Exit Strategy or a Living Will Dissertation

Investment Banking - Exit Strategy or a Living Will - Dissertation Example Financial and banking institutions play a fundamental role in determining economic growth and development globally. Given their importance to the public and other arms of the government, financial institutions are strongly regulated and controlled. The central government through its legal bodies establishes sound financial legislations aimed at monitoring, controlling, and regulating financial institutions and the banking sector. Financial experts following the Asian global meltdown of 1997 later criticized the Asian miracle that was embraced for its success in Asian. This financial crisis spilt over to other parts of the world leading to global financial failures. In less than a decade after such financial disaster, the world experience one of the worst financial crises whose magnitude is estimated to that of the great depression of the 1930s. This research paper seeks to discuss the chronological events of the Asian and global financial crisis, bankruptcy legislations, the moral ha zard, insolvency, resolutions, and institutional frameworks designed by the legal team to restore sanity in the global financial sector. In addition, this paper evaluates the exit strategy adopted by the investment financial institutions. ... conomic prospects of creditors in a debt bound firm 18 2.5 Case law and obligations owed to creditors 19 CHAPTER THREE 21 3.0 Corporate laws and economics 22 3.1 Regulatory styles 27 3.2 Moral hazards and great failures 27 CHAPTER FOUR 4.0 The TURNER/ VICKERS PROPOSAL 30 4.1 Policy objectives 30 4.2 Defaults of the report 31 4.3 Legal and economic thoughts 33 4.4 The cost of ring-fencing 34 4.5.0. Defects of ICB report on corporate and retail banking 39 4.5.1. Competition in retail banking 39 4.6.0. Non-ring fenced residuals 40 4.6.1. Banking outside the EEA 40 4.6.2. The concept of separation 42 4.6.3. Cost of investment banking in the UK 43 4.7 The rationale of the dimensions in banking 44 4.8 Alternative approach to banking 45 CHAPTER FIVE 5.0. Analysis and discussions 45 5.1.0. THE LIVING WILL IN INVESTMENT BANKING 46 5.1.1. Concepts and descriptions 46 5.1.2. The Funeral plan of the US 46 5.2 Effects of the living will 48 5.3 The mild and strong variants 49 5.4 The EU framework for crisis management in the financial sector 53 5.5 Economic performance in Europe 54 CHAPTER SIX 6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATION 56 BIBLIOGRAPPHY 58 APPENDIX AND CASE TABLES 69 CHAPTER 1 1.0. Introduction Banking systems are shaped by financial stability arrangements. As the European Union ponders reforms towards its financial arrangements, it is in the course of determining which type of financial system it will have in the future. The financial crisis has brought the long-building tension between progressively more transitional financial institutions and national financial stability arrangements to a breaking point. The European Union now needs to select how to eliminate that tension that will eventually shape its economic and financial future. 1.1. The Crisis The European financial

Welfare Distrubution in the United States of America Research Paper

Welfare Distrubution in the United States of America - Research Paper Example Education, health or certain other forms of insurance may reduce economic uncertainty. Education and health augment the value of an individual, thus making the population more capable to deal with the economic uncertainty caused by various factors, including the prevailing market conditions. Population may also become more secured through the insurances in health and social issues which precisely cut down the financial costs of uncertainty. (Garfinkel, Rainwater & Smeeding, 2). The welfare state in the United States of America is considered as an â€Å"under achiever†.  It can be acknowledged from the past data that the social programs initiated by the USA came into exercise much later than several other nations. Currently several important parts of the American welfare state can be considered as inadequately developed, or many essential measures are missing in the system. The United States seems to make lesser expenditure on social programs in comparison to many other democ racies. Also, the rates of poverty and inequality are much higher in the United States (Howard, 1).  The United States can be recognized as a territory of prospects or opportunities.   However, that also does not imply equality. Nathan Glazer, a professor of sociology and education at the Harvard University, in his argument, commented on United States as the most imbalanced amongst other inexpensively developed countries.   According to statistical data, it can be realized that the United States in comparison to other countries like Europe, redistributes considerably less social benefits.   Such less redistribution are the consequences of greater inequality in income obtained before tax and an indistinct income distribution in the United States. Although the United States is conventional in its political principles, yet it can often be recognized with moderate courses of action in welfare, thus the country clearly representing uniqueness and nonjudgmental processes. (Brunson ).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  This report is mainly prepared to focus on providing arguments against the distribution of welfare in the United States. There are many views in support of the welfare system in the USA, which reflect that the welfare system in the USA increases economic growth, productivity, and efficiency of the country. (Garfinkel, Rainwater & Smeeding, 1). However this report would bring out certain aspects, which would clearly indicate that the welfare distribution in the United States of America has many negative impacts as well, which are backed by evidences and arguments. The studies and researches previously done on the concerned topic would be taken into consideration and other sources on the welfare distribution in the USA and its effects as provided by different authors would be utilized as sources. The report would bring out the impacts of the present system of welfare distribution prevailing in the United States, thereby providing arguments against the system , and reflecting upon the negative effects of the current system.    Arguments against the Welfare Distribution in the USA:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The government of the United States strictly lacks a widespread and productive welfare system.   On the other hand, the alternative governmental programs seem to be better than the welfare system to a greater extent.     For instance, in the year 1999, a family of three had received remunerations of $164 per month from the welfare services, while the allowance for food stamp for the same family was at $329 per month. Thus, it was economically more rational to take food stamps provided by the alternative government measures instead of receiving welfare benefits.   In the present scenario, food stamps and government housing are