American Constitution of 1787 and pluralism Essay

American Constitution of 1787 and pluralism - Essay Example The constitution took effect on March 4, 1789. The delegation intended to amend the Article of Confederation and set up a new scheme of government. Through intensive debates, the delegation came up with a brilliant federal organization that had a complicated system of checks and balances. They came up with a bicameral legislature that had equal representation in the upper house as well as a relative representation in the lower house. Thus, the main outcome of the convention was a federal government that worked through a constitution that ensured that freedom equality and order prevailed in the country. The American constitution of 1787 promotes the application of pluralism in the USA thus giving the citizen power to govern their nation. Pre constitution America In the 1970s USA did not exist but there were just thirteen colonies under the Great Britain. In the 1970s, not everyone in the United States of America had the same opportunities. Blacks, women, Native Americans, and poor men had no voting rights and could not hold any elective posts. The British colonies in North America adopted their form of governance even after independence. The early leaders of Americas believed that everyone had basic rights that they referred to as natural rights. The natural rights included the right to liberty, life, and property. The founding fathers believed that the only way to ensure that everyone got their basic rights was to form a government that operates under certain laws. The founding fathers studied governments in the history. Most of their interest was in the Roman Republic, a government that existed about 2000 years before the USA was founded. This must have really influenced the drafting of the American constitution of 1787 states (Guide and Reader for American Government and Politics in the New Millennium 187). Rights and freedoms The fact that the authors of the 1787 constitution valued freedom in regards to the pursuit of freedom to own property and contentment , represented 12 of 13 states, and knew the importance of order is an indication that they would create a pluralist democracy. All fifty-five states delegates who went to Philadelphia to make the constitution believed that the people had to have economic and religious freedom in which they can express their opinions to make the USA a better place to live. Moreover, they had the understanding that ownership of property was an individual right and neither the state government nor the federal governments could deny the people such rights. â€Å"Their vision was that individuals would be to define their interests in terms of the national government and strengthen it† (American Government and Politics in the New Millennium 56). The authors of the constitution â€Å"realized that without a strong national government, the U.S. would implode because of the failure of the state governments to cooperate and look beyond their parochial interests† (states Guide and Reader for Amer ican Government and Politics in the New Millennium 54) Branches of the government Federalism advocates that the constitution made a pluralist democracy by creating separate levels of government so that the laws made by the officials would represent many interests from diverse states. Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances create a pluralist democracy through purposely making four institutions of government that are chosen in a staggered selection so that they would not be loyal not only within themselves but certainly not to others. The constitution purposely separated the national government into three parts- executive, judicial, legislative- and provided them with shared powers. Madison realized that â€Å"Besides separating the government into t

Assignment about ethics 2 Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

About ethics 2 - Assignment Example Julie arrived late in an ice storm but managed to get to the offices of Wal-Mart headquarters where Wright started grilling her regarding the agency review process. He asked her how she had picked DraftFCB as the agency which would take Wal-Mart on the amount of 1 billion dollars per year account. Julie had interviewed about 30 agencies before settling on the Draft. The questions that the president of the company asked her were based on whether she had allowed any of the agencies to pay for her dinner while she was talking to them. he also asked her of whether she had agreed to be carried in one of the cars that belonged to those agencies (Salmon, 2012). Four days after the interview had taken place, Juulie Roehm was fired because she had violated the strict ethcs policy that had been set for all Wal-Mart’s employees. As Wal-Mart expert stated, â€Å"Wal-Mart had a kind of unbending almost obsessive adherence to even the trivialist elements of an ethical code. They are a brut al competitor and everybody acknowledged that. However, Wal-Mart was also the company that wouldn’t take a dinner from you, that wouldn’t let you provide a soda if you went to meet them to talk about business, where they wouldn’t join trade associations for many, many years because they didn’t want to pay dues and have a conflict of interest† (Salmon, 2012). It is well known that Castro-Wright, who was the president, was responsible for the corruption scandal that happened in Walmex. This brought up an important question. Did the corruption that occurred in one of Wal-Mart’s chains occur irrespective of Wal-Marts strict ethics code? The point of contention here is that Wal-Mart left essentially nothing to the discretion of its employees showing that is did not trust any employee to do the right thing or make the right decision. Wal-Mart had codified everything in the form of rules and instructed that all employees follow these rules to the la tter. This issue resulted in a detrimental effect that can be seen in Roehm’s situation just for the fact that she agreed to take a soda (Salmon, 2012). On top of that, the senior executives of Wal-Mart were expected to have high levels of discretion when it came to ensuring that those rules were strictly implemented. Therefore, for a person like Roehm who failed to reach that level of discretion was easily fired. On the other hand, when it came to investigations of the conduct of the company’s president it was easy to give the roles of the investigation to one of his loyal subordinates who did what the president expected him to do and burry the case. Accepting dinner is not in any way illegal. However, engaging in sham investigations is illegal. In Wal-Mart, the allegations of the corrupt deals that happened at the Mexican chain, Walmex, ought to have been taken more seriously than what Roehm did. However, the executives at Wal-Mart saw the world in black and white an d failed to differentiate between unethical behavior and an illegal conduct. As a result, Wal-Mart executives were liable for criminal charges. This issue presents a conflict of int