- Based on your knowledge of the polarity of water molecules the solute molecule is most likely Which of these is most likely to involve horse trading The displacement of a turn coordinator during a coordinated turn will
What does a ruler’s legitimacy depend on?
In political science, legitimacy usually is understood as the popular acceptance and recognition by the public of the authority of a governing régime, whereby authority has political power through consent and mutual understandings, not coercion.
What is an essential feature of political activity?
little effort or significant amount of time, money, effort, and courage.
What is the term for an independent country in which people share a common culture?
An independent country in which people share a common culture is called. A nation -state. The right to exercise supreme power and authority over a region, a group, or oneself. Sovereignty.
What kind of country is more likely to have a federal system of government?
A rule of thumb is that large geographically and culturally diverse countries are more likely to have federal systems, but most countries do not. The vast majority of countries rely on a unitary system of governance, in which the central government is much more powerful than the subordinate (state) governments.
What are the sources of legitimacy?
In democracies, legitimacy is indicated by its ideals, popular consent, representativeness, elections, rule of majority, civic liberties and similar privileges available to the people.
What is the most common form of individual involvement with a political party?
The majority of Americans take get involved in the political process through donating money to a campaign. Volunteering for a political campaign is the way that most baby boomers participate in politics.
Which of these is a common feature of market economies *?
Most commonly, market economies feature government production of public goods, often as a government monopoly. But overall, market economies are characterized by decentralized economic decision making by buyers and sellers transacting everyday business.
What factors affect political participation?
There are many factors that affect political participation. Education, gender, age and family are some of them. The family factor is an important factor that the individual has been in since he was born.
Which statement S accurately describe how lobbyists interact with Congress?
Which of the following statements accurately describe how lobbyists interact with Congress? Correct: Lobbyists can often have direct input into the language that appears in legislation. Lobbyists provide information to busy members of Congress.
What are the most agreed upon characteristics of a nation?
Four essential features: Population, Territory, Sovereignty, and Government.
What is the political term for an independent group of people living in a defined territory with an organized government?
2. A community of people inhabiting a defined territory and organized under an independent government; a sovereign political state. The word “nation” is sometimes used as synonym for: Country: a geographic territory, which may or may not have an affiliation with a government or ethnic group.
Is country and nation the same?
A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, ethnicity etc. A country may be an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state, a physical territory with a government, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated people.
Which countries have a federal system of government?
Federal countries also include Austria, Belgium, Ethiopia, Germany, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela, among others. The governmental structures and political processes found in these federal systems show great variety.
What is Indian federal system?
Federalism in India refers to relationship between the Central Government and the State governments of India. Part XI of the Indian constitution specifies the distribution of legislative, administrative and executive powers between the union government and the States of India.
What is federal system of government?
Overview. Federalism is a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. Both the national government and the smaller political subdivisions have the power to make laws and both have a certain level of autonomy from each other.
Horse trading – Wikipedia
Horse and Trader in the early 1800s Horse trading, in its most literal definition, is the act of purchasing and selling horses, sometimes known as “horse dealing.” Because of the difficulties in determining the merits of a horse offered for sale, the sale of horses provided numerous opportunities for dishonesty, which led to the use of the termhorse trading (orhorsetrading) to refer to complexbargaining or other transactions, such as political vote trading, that took place in the horse trading industry.
It was assumed that horse dealers would take advantage of these chances, and as a result, people who dealt in horses developed a reputation for engaging in unethical business methods.
Origin of the phrase
With a deterioration of corporate ethics standards in the United States during the Gilded Age, activities such as horse trading came to be regarded as a natural and, in some cases, acceptable outcome of a competitive market rather than as indicators of moral depravity. “If the lying were stopped by law, the business of horse trading would come to an end, and the country taverns and groceries in the Winter season would be deprived even of the limited eventfulness that they now enjoy,” the author of an editorial in the New York Times in 1893 wrote in response to a proposed law that would make it illegal for a newspaper to falsely state its circulation figures.
It is likely that the publication of Edward Noyes Westcott’sDavid Harum in 1898, whose eponymous character views all commerce through the prism of horse trade, played a significant effect in this development.
As a political term
Horse dealing has evolved to relate explicitly to the trading of political votes as a result of a further evolution of its meaning. This is currently the most often used sense of the phrase, with the earlier term, logrolling, being mostly replaced. “Cow dealing” is a term used in certain languages to refer to political negotiating (German: Kuhhandel, Swedish: Kohandel, Finnish: Lehmänkauppa). In Sweden, the agreement reached in May 1933 between the Swedish Social Democratic Party and the Swedish Farmers’ League is referred to as “the May 1933 Agreement.”
See also
- Aaya Ram Gaya Ram
- Aisle (a political phrase)
- Aaya Ram Gaya Ram Voting with one’s conscience
- Crossing the floor
- Keeping the bastards honest
- Switching from one political party to another
- Through the union of the radical left and right, transformism may be achieved, as can a flexible centrist coalition administration. “Defying the whip” is a term used in British politics to refer to voting against the party’s line while doing so.
References
The meaning of horse trade in the Wiktionary dictionary.
Libya’s politics are broken but war not seen as inevitable
A FILE PHOTO shows Libyan Prime Minister Abdulhamid al-Dbeibah speaking after filing his nomination papers for the next presidential election at the electoral commission’s offices in Tripoli on November 21, 2021. Reuters/Hazem Ahmed/File Photo/File Photo Reuters/Hazem Ahmed/File Photo/File Photo
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
TUNIS, Tunisia, February 9 (Reuters) – Libya’s political squabbling is becoming more intense as the parliament prepares to name a new prime minister despite the incumbent’s unwillingness to stand down, further damaging an already shaky United Nations-backed peace process in the North African country. The maneuvering follows the failure of a scheduled election that had been the centerpiece of the peace effort in December, with various factions now battling for control of the government and the direction the country would go next.
In all likelihood, the administrative divide between two parallel administrations with headquarters in separate locations that existed from 2014 until the formation of a temporary unity government a year ago would be reinstated.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
In spite of the fact that Libyans had hoped that the United Nations-backed process would result in the first opportunity to elect new leaders in eight years, they are submitting themselves to yet another delayed transition governed by the same set of power brokers. “Libya will be in a state of uncertainty once more, this time without even a defined procedure for moving forward. On both sides, there is an unmistakable desire to acquire or maintain power, which is all far too evident “Wolfram Lacher, of the German think tank SWP, expressed his views.
- Although the parliament has appointed a new prime minister, it is unclear if this will result in a rapid return to the warfare that has raged throughout Libya for most of the previous decade and destroyed entire sections of Libyan towns.
- Despite the fact that it looks unlikely that the fighting between western parties and the eastern-based Libyan National Army (LNA) under Khalifa Haftar would resume for the time being, analysts say the possibility of internal fights inside each of those camps is increasing.
- ARMED FORCES ARE THE ARMED FORCES When it comes to spending money on social and infrastructure projects, Tripoli’s Prime Minister Abdulhamid al-Dbeibah of the Government of National Unity (GNU) has advocated for a populist approach during his first year in office.
- Fathi Bashagha, a longtime foe of the eastern camp who served as interior minister in the previous Tripoli government, appears to be on the verge of being named prime minister by the eastern-based parliament, which was aligned to Haftar during the conflict.
- They are both from the central coastal city of Misrata, which is home to armed factions that are among the most powerful in Tripoli and are continuously looking to increase their influence and earnings.
- However, it appears that political leaders from across party lines, as well as the foreign powers that have backed them, are unlikely to openly pursue violent conflict at this time.
They appear to be more prone to pursue their goal for continuous power in other ways, such as by exerting pressure on the state-owned oil business or by engaging in backstage squabbling with other politicians.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Angus McDowall contributed reporting, and Angus MacSwan edited the piece. The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles serve as our benchmarks.
A new Supreme Court case could gut the government’s power to fight climate change
The lawsuit that would make Neil Gorsuch’s fantasy come true might end up being the Earth’s nightmare. The emissions and steam from a coal-fired power plant in Winfield, West Virginia, in 2018 will be released by November 3, 2021, 10:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). Photograph courtesy of Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg via Getty Images It was announced late last week by the Supreme Court that it will hear four cases that are very similar to each other. These cases, which are likely to be consolidated under the name West Virginia v.
Allow me to explain what I mean by that outlandish remark.
Despite the fact that the plan was never put into action, it still lives in a zombie-like manner.
Despite the fact that Obama’s plan is no longer likely to be implemented, the petitioners in the West Virginiacase — red states, energy companies, and coal mine owners — are battling to have the Supreme Court rule that the federal Clean Air Act does not authorize Obama’s plan to reduce carbon emissions.
However, this is only the tip of the iceberg.
This idea would not only deprive the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of much of its authority in the battle against climate change, but it also has the potential to impair Congress’ capacity to safeguard the environment efficiently.
The most aggressive arguments against the Clean Power Plan would not only apply to environmental regulations, but they would also have the potential to fundamentally alter the structure of the United States government, removing the government’s ability to regulate issues as diverse as workplace safety, environmental protection, access to birth control, overtime pay, and vaccination, among others.
Many of them would be permanently repealed, and re-enactment of any of these laws would need passage of legislation via a Congress that was deeply divided.
Even before this case was filed, a majority of the Supreme Court voiced support for Gorsuch’s plans to curtail the authority of federal agencies, which is a strong indication that the West Virginia petitioners would likely succeed on at least part of their arguments.
Fasten your seatbelts. We must do so because the United States will be a very different nation if the Court’s right wing wins its case in West Virginia.
TheWest Virginialitigation seeks to permanently entrench Trumpian environmental policy
The contradiction at the heart of the West Virginiacase is between President Barack Obama’s environmental policy and the policies pursued by his successor, former President Donald Trump. It is the goal of the red states, electric industries, and mining interests that are bringing this action to have Trump’s policies entrenched for the foreseeable future. According to the Clean Air Act, some power plans must utilize the “best method of emission reduction” that can be achieved with available technology while also taking into consideration considerations such as cost and environmental impact.
In 2018, a worker in a turbine room at the coal-fired power plant in Winfield, West Virginia, worked on a coal-fired power plant.
It is the EPA’s responsibility to examine evolving technologies, assess when a new breakthrough should be implemented by power plants, and to require those facilities to use that technology through the issuance of legally enforceable rules.
However, power plants that utilize alternative ways are normally only permitted to do so if they are able to achieve the same levels of emission reduction as would be accomplished using the EPA’s procedures.) A major component of the Clean Power Plan was a requirement for coal-fired power stations to install technologies that would improve their efficiency during combustion.
- The petitioners from West Virginia argue that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot mandate such a change.
- In 2016, only a few days before Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to temporarily deny Republican appointees a majority on the court, thereby putting an end to the Clean Power Plan.
- In 2019, the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a new policy, euphemistically dubbed as the “Affordable Clean Energy” (ACE) rule, which replaced the Clean Power Plan with far weaker regulations.
- The Environmental Protection Agency anticipated that the ACE Rule would cut carbon dioxide emissions by less than 1 percent from baseline emission forecasts by 2035, according to a judgment by a federal appeals court that struck down these regulations.
- The Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency admitted that its proposed technologies might result in more emissions because they would lower the cost of producing electricity from coal.
EPA’s powers will very certainly be significantly curtailed as a result of such a judgment, making it extremely difficult for the Biden administration — or any future government — to reverse Trump’s actions.
How federal agencies shape policy
The Clean Air Act was based on a style of governance that is common in federal law: delegated authority. Congress establishes a broad policy — in this example, that power plants must employ the “best system of pollution reduction” — and then delegated to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the responsibility of putting that policy into effect through a series of legally enforceable rules. An enormous number of federal legislation are built around this foundation. Health insurers are required to provide certain preventive treatments, such as birth control, many vaccinations, and cancer screenings, at no additional cost to patients under the Affordable Care Act, and the Department of Health and Human Services is tasked with determining which treatments should be included on this list.
- This type of administration, in which a democratically elected legislature establishes broad policy and then delegated implementation to a federal agency, is preferable for a number of reasons.
- Every time environmental authorities wanted power plants to install new equipment, a new act of Congress would be necessary.
- Delegating authority to agencies also guarantees that judgments are made by persons who are well-versed in the subject matter.
- Even if Congress had the opportunity to vote on such a choice, the vast majority of members of Congress have no knowledge of biology, chemistry, or medical science.
- When it comes to approving a new drug, scientists at the Food and Drug Administration should make the decision, not legislators who might be concerned that the drug’s manufacturer is based in Arizona and that they need to curry favor with Sen.
Nonetheless, a majority of the Supreme Court is strongly opposed to the idea that federal agencies should be given the authority to set policy, and at least five justices have indicated that they want to revive a constitutional doctrine known as ” nondelegation,” which has been largely dormant for decades.
Nondelegation, explained
The Clean Air Act was based on a style of governance that is common in federal law: consensus decision-making. The federal government establishes a broad policy — such as the requirement that electricity generators utilize “the most cost-effective system of emission reduction” — and then delegated responsibility for putting that policy into effect to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through a set of legally binding rules. This type of organization is used by hundreds of federal laws.
- In order to keep up with inflation, the Department of Labor may decide to change the wage level that determines whether employees are eligible for overtime compensation.
- Congress, for starters, is a shambles of incompetence.
- It also guarantees that choices are taken by individuals who understand what they are doing by delegating authority to agencies.
- The majority of members of Congress do not have a working knowledge of biology, chemistry, or medicine, even if they had the opportunity to vote on such a matter.
- Rather than lawmakers who might be concerned about the fact that the drug’s manufacturer is located in Arizona and that they need to bribe Sen.
While the majority of the Supreme Court is strongly opposed to the idea that federal agencies should be given the authority to set policy, at least five justices have indicated that they would like to revive a constitutional doctrine known as ” nondelegation,” which has been largely dormant since the Civil War.
A more moderate approach that still isn’t especially moderate
As part of the West Virginia v. EPA case, which was also heard by the DC Circuit Court in 2016, when Obama was still president and Kavanaugh was still a lower court judge, the DC Circuit Court heard another appeal regarding the Clean Power Plan, which was also heard by the DC Circuit Court in 2016. At the time, Gorsuch was still still serving as a lower court judge, and the nondelegation doctrine was still merely a reactionary theory floated around at Federalist Society conferences, according to Gorsuch.
- A concept known as the big questions doctrine served as the foundation for most of his arguments.
- BrownWilliamson Tobacco, which was decided in 1992.
- The FDA is given extensive jurisdiction under federal law to regulate pharmaceuticals and equipment used to administer drugs, but a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court in BrownWilliamson determined that this authority does not extend to tobacco products.
- there may be cause to hesitate before establishing that Congress intended” to cede authority to a federal agency, according to the opinion.
Furthermore, Congress had previously “rejected plans to delegate authority over cigarettes to the Food and Drug Administration.” As a result, the Court found that the federal legislation authorizing the FDA to regulate pharmaceuticals should not be construed in such a way that it allows the FDA to target nicotine as a prohibited substance.
EPA enlarged the major questions doctrine (2014).
Scalia argued for the Court in Utility Air that “we expect Congress to speak plainly if it desires to entrust to an agency choices of immense ‘economic and political consequence.'” In other words, the Court put a new constraint on the legislative branch.
It was unclear how much accuracy was required.
On balance, the major issues theory is weaker than the nondelegation doctrine in a number of respects.
Because the concept of nondelegation asserts that Congress’s authority to transfer power is limited by the Constitution, it is conceivable that judges who adhere to this doctrine would invalidate some delegates, no matter how well Congress worded a statute.
Following the decision in BrownWilliamson, for example, Congress passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, which specifically granted the FDA the authority that had previously been denied it by the Supreme Court in 2000.
However, the idea of significant issues suffers from many of the same flaws as the doctrine of nondelegation.
Furthermore, it altered the norms controlling statutory drafting decades after many significant laws had been passed.
It is simply unreasonable to expect Congress to adhere to a rule of statutory interpretation that was developed decades after a legislation was enacted.
Furthermore, while these doctrines would theoretically allow Congress to restore at least some of the old laws by introducing new ones that meet with the new norms, the filibuster all but assures that no bill will become law as a result.
The federal government may soon find itself with its hands tied behind its back in the fight against climate change. And, if the Supreme Court decides to reinvigorate these theories, a slew of other laws might be thrown out with the bathwater.