Types of Speciation - Evolution Definitions

Essay on Abraham Lincoln Slavery and The End of the...

â€Å"I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.† Abraham Lincoln admired the declaration of independence and its founders. The Declaration of Independence was formed by the thirteen States of the confederacy. Represented by American liberty from each state. Twelve of these states where holders of slave. Abraham Lincoln legacy was for all men and women to be created equally. No matter what color or race you are, you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It also states America’s freedom from Great Britain. What most people get wrong is that The Declaration of Independence wasnt signed on July 4, 1776. This was the date that congress Adopted†¦show more content†¦Above ending slavery Lincoln best interest was to preserve the union. The President can hire and fire the Generals who would have engaged the Confederacys troops (primarily General Robert E.Lees forces) and so as Commander-in-Chief he and his best advisers saved the military volunteers and drafted soldiers and other troops to keep fighting on many fronts. He also kept up diplomatic pressures to keep outside countries and their trade from abetting the Confederate exports and deal-making. His moral authority is what sustained the Union Cause during dark hours of Gettysburg (July 1-2-3, 1863) and his oratorical skills are what still endear him to Americans of all kinds ! Lincoln did his best to make sure that the union won the civil war. The Northern armies won the war, and the rebellious states returned to the Union. Shortly after the war was won and the Declaration of Independence was passed Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. His assassination was on April 14 1865. he was shot in the head by a famous actor and Confederate sympathizer, John Wilkes Booth. Booth shoot Lincoln at a play at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C. he died five days after the effectively ending the American Civil War. Booth was a native from Maryland. He was born in 1838. He remained in the North during the Civil War despite his Confederate sympathies.Show MoreRelatedEssay on Abraham Lincoln - the Greatest President1069 Words   |  5 PagesAbraham Lincoln There have been forty four U.S. presidents over the past two hundred and twenty years. What president has served the best for our country? None other than Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln is the greatest president ever because he did great things such as ending slavery, getting the us through the Civil War, and helped our country a lot. The American Civil War was a war between the Southern states and the Confederate states. Abraham Lincoln was not very prepared for the war militarilyRead MoreEssay on Abraham Lincoln, A Great Leader in American History781 Words   |  4 PagesJefferson, John Adams, and James Madison. Abraham Lincoln is considered one of the most greatest president in US History. Abraham Lincoln was born on February 12,1809 in Hodgenville, Kentucky. He is known for his leadership and skills as president along with his pleasant personality. Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States, serving from March 1861 until his assassination in April 1865. Lincoln led the United States through the Civil War and accomplished many things such as EmancipationRead MoreAbraham Lincoln, Slavery and the American Civil War Essay1716 Words   |  7 Pagesinvestigation will analyze how Abraham Lincolns view on slavery reflected during and after the American Civil War from 1861 to 1865. To analyze exactl y how Lincolns position on slavery affected the war overall, this investigation looks at Lincolns moral and religious views as well as his social and political views. Two main sources were used, both dealing with events relevant to his political career and his roots in his career and other important issues including slavery. Lincoln by David Herbert DonaldRead MoreAbraham Lincoln And The Civil War Comparison Essay1108 Words   |  5 Pages Abraham Lincoln, the great president of the United States, is one of the most influential men in the history of America. He is not only the commander-in-chief of the Union army that takes the victory from the Confederacy in the Civil War but also a leader who ends up the existence of slavery and a hero of the United States of America. On the other hand, Nathan Bedford Forrest is the lieutenant general of the Confederate army during the Civil War. He is a real genius and the great leadership ofRead MoreAbraham Lincoln : Is He Really A Good President?1136 Words   |  5 PagesAbraham Lincoln: Is He Really A Good President? By the end of the Civil War, there were more than 620,000 casualties. Many believe this was thanks to Abraham Lincoln. About a month after he was elected president, many controversies started to stir in America, thus causing the Civil War began. From the mouth-dropping moment Abraham Lincoln was elected, he had been fighting for equality for all men, no matter the race. He believed. â€Å"those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.† WhenRead MoreAfrican Slavery And Slavery Case Study1198 Words   |  5 Pagesexpansion of cotton-based plantations and slavery, what role did African Americans play in undermining slavery? There are a couple of rules that African-American played and undermining slavery. For example, African Americans that did not want to work would often break the tools that they have to work with. Another example of African-Americans undermining slavery would be them working very slow. There are some bigger ways to African-Americans undermine slavery. those ways are them running away fromRead MoreAbraham Lincoln And The Civil War956 Words   |  4 Pages Out of the first sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln was the first president who created foundation about ending slaves in America via his Emancipation of Proclamation. Lincoln was also a strong supporter for Homestead Act and The Pacific Railway Act, which became an essential law for American economics. Furthermore, 13th Amendment was Lincoln top priority in legislation after he was reelected as the President. President Abraham Lincoln truly became one of the greatest presidents via these achievementsRead MoreThe Declaration Of The United States1346 Words   |  6 PagesColonists revolted against England in a sequence of deliberate acts, such as the Tea Act and the Stamp Act, mainly involving unnecessary taxation of Colonists. Rising tensions eventually resulted in a Revolutionary War between England and the Colonies; The Thirteen Colonies won the war. It was the Treaty of Paris (1783) that finally ended all ties with Britain; America would claim its identity as its own. The Declaration of Independence (1776), written by only educated white men – ThomasRead MoreEssay Abraham Lincoln1426 Words   |  6 Pages As the 16th president, Abraham Lincoln was known to be the greatest American President. He guided his country through one of the most catastrophic experiences in its history, the Civil War. He was a very unique president, being the first president to have a beard, being the tallest president standing at 6’4 and also being the first to be assassinated. Abe Lincoln accomplished many things in the 4 year term he had served before being assassinated. With his intelligence and hard work, he madeRead MoreThe Views On Lincoln s Presidency1738 Words   |  7 Pagesseveral historians’ texts regarding Lincoln’s opinions and policies toward slavery, and the unification of a nation as a whole, I distinguished that several authors have contending visions of Lincoln’s actions during his presidency. Some authors (Dirck, Guelzo, Striner) portray Lincoln as the great emancipator in depicting him as a crusader whose main purpose during the Civil War was only to accomp lish the abolishment of slavery. In contrast, some authors (Escott, Gates, Foner, and McPherson) maintain

Law in Context Gratwick v Johnson

Question: Discuss about the Law in Context Gratwick v Johnson. Answer: The supreme law in Australia is its constitution through which the Commonwealth government operates[1]. Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, is relevant till date and dictates the commerce, intercourse and trade between the States[2]. This section states that such commerce, intercourse and trade taking place between the States should be free absolutely, irrespective of the fact that it is carried on by means of ocean navigation or internal carriage[3]. A number of landmark rulings have been passed which relate to this very section of the Australian Constitution. In the following parts, one of such rulings of Gratwick v Johnson[4] has been analyzed. The rationale behind analyzing this case is to understand the reasons for this particular verdict. This would help in drawing the conclusion regarding how different or similar, the decision taken in 1945 would be, in the present context. As per Australian Constitutions section 92, when a uniform duty of customs is imposed upon a transaction, the intercourse, trade and commerce, than such a transaction occurring between the states, has to be free in absolute. Starke J in Gratwick v Johnson stated that the individuals living in Australia were free to pass from and to amongst the state with any restrictions, hindrances or burden. This section has been the cornerstone of major jurisprudence of the constitution of Australia, and at the same time, has been quite complex[5]. In Gratwick v Johnson, the Australian High Court observed that intercourse in this section, was the ability to pass from and to, within the states, without any obstruction or barriers. In this case, Dulcie Johnson, the respondent, was charged with the contravention of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Orders[6] provision, which was drawn under the National Security (Land Transport) Regulations, Statutory Rules 1944 No. 49[7]. These rules were made under the National Security Act 1939-1943[8]. It was charged that the respondent travelled through rail even when the Order specifically provided that no individual could travel by rail, without explicit permission, between a State in Commonwealth to some other State. It was clearly established that Johnson had travelled without a permit, from New South Wales to Western Australia, in order to visit her fianc. This charge was dismissed due to the infringement the Order as per the Constitutions section 92[9]. While giving this decision, the judges considered the liberty of the individuals in context of the interest of the state, in terms of security. It was the responsibility of the Governor-General to make such regulations, which were necessary for making the requisite regulations for securing the defense of the Commonwealth, along with the territories of Commonwealth, for the public safety. This had to be done for prescribing the required matter, as convenient or necessary, for effectual prosecution of any war, in which His Majesty may be engaged. This power was provided through section 5 of the National Security Act 1939-1943[10]. The Regulations drafted under this act, through Regulation 4 provided that the objective of these was to protect the interest of defense and the control of rail and road transport by the Commonwealth, for the purpose as is specified[11]. The Regulations 7 and 8 provided similar powers to different authorities[12]. While making the appeal, the maxim of salus populi was also quoted by the counsel for appellant. This maxim could abrogate the law which belongs to the world of revolution and war; however, it could not do the same for law. This condition was not present in the Australian circumstances; hence, this maxim was not applicable. Rejecting this maxim, the Court proceeded towards the challenge of the Order being inconsistent with the Constitutions section 92. Section 92 provided that the individuals had the freedom to travel between the States as and when they please. The Order however stated that individuals were barred from travelling between the States, unless and until, the individuals had the permission of an officer of the Commonwealth. Through this Order, it becomes explicit to take the official permission so as to make transit, as well as, access for individuals between the States. Hence, the Order enforces a barrier on such access and transit, which is different from other travel, just because it takes place between states. Hence, the order was a direct negation of the quoted section of constitution and was directed against the intercourse[13]. During the proceedings of this case, Starke J. held that if the Order was continued or was allowed to prevail of section 92, it would mean that no person could travel by a commercial vehicle or through rail without a permit, inter-state. It was also contended that the constitutional power to make the law had to be respected. But, Starke J. highlighted that the constitutional powers were subject to the constitution; hence, it could not go beyond what was covered in the constitution. He stated that it was immaterial that the purpose of this legislation was the safety of the public and the defense of the Commonwealth, as it beat the purpose of the rights which were protected, as well as, guaranteed through the provisions of section 92 of the Australian Constitution[14]. In the views of Dixon J. it was a long shot to suggest that the imperative demands of national safety make it necessary to impose a general restriction over the operation of travelling to any part of the continent, without a specific permission in this regard, through the public conveyance, just because the journey starts from one state and ends in another. He acknowledged the necessity of such impositions in case of law, but also stated that section 92 did not relate to such consequences which were factual in nature and which ensued from definite conduct of war[15]. He stated that such things are done under the governments authority but was not opposed to this section. McTiernan J. highlighted that clause 3 (a) of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order restrained the freedom of intercourse between the states[16]. As view of the chair was unified in this matter, the appeal was dismissed in interest of section 92[17]. The considerations undertaken by the bench of judges of the High Court of Australia, struck a unique balance between the liberty which was available to the individuals, and the interest of the state. In order to provide the individuals, the freedom to carry on their businesses, in form of intercourse, trade and commerce, this decision was given. Moreover, the decision also balanced the national security and interest of the state, as it recognized that there was no war situation, and hence, a restriction through the Order was not deemed to be necessary[18]. But, the circumstances have changed from the time the decision of Gratwick v Johnson was given in 1945. Along with this, there have been a number of new cases, which have presented a different precedent for such cases. The prime example of such cases is the case of Cole v Whitfield[19]. The High Court in this case stated that the decision of Gratwick v Johnson did not infer that each and every form of intercourse had to be left without regulations or restrictions, so as to suit the guarantee of freedom. Hence, even though the private movement across the border could not be impeded in general, it would still be legitimate to restrict certain aspects of it; for instance, the use of highway by a pedestrian for crossing, or for authorizing the arrest of an offender belonging to one state, at such a time when the person was moving to another state[20]. In Cole v Whitfield, it was held that the interstate trade was not absolutely free and was replaced with the economic idea of free trade[2 1]. And so, with Cole v Whitfield, the view given in Gratwick v Johnson has changed[22]. Mason CJ in Cunliffe and Another v. The Commonwealth of Australia[23] provided that the guarantee provided in section 92 was not absolute. So, a law which imposes a restriction or burden over movement across the border is invalid. However, a law which presents a restriction on interstate intercourse or an incident burden on the same, during the course of regulation the particular matter, would not fail where the restriction or burden was held to be reasonable. Furthermore, it was important for fulfilling the objective of preserving an order in the society, through a system the democracy and of representative government. This was in addition to such a restriction or such a burden, which was not disproportionate to an end. Hence, it comes down to weighing the competing interest of the public[24]. A notion has been presented that the right to freedom of movement is generally implied through the constitution. Murphy J in Miller v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd[25] implied this that the freedom of movement amid the states was implied in the Constitution, whether it was in or between any parts of the Commonwealth. Though, the same view has been disregarded by Professors David Hume and George Williams stating that it lacks the clarity on textual basis relating to the freedom and the incidents which are covered under the constitutionally prescribed system of federalism, which could support[26]. Further, they also believed that Constitutions federalism was not proposed to shield the individuals. In the present age, though there may not be an immediate war, but the situations like ISIS poses a threat on any national security. And so, for safeguarding the security of the nationals of Australia, a change from this decision may be undertaken However, there are certain things, which could lead to the repetition of the view adopted under Gratwick v Johnson in 1945, at the present time. In 1945, the country was not facing any war issue, as a result of which, the Order was held to be invalid. In the present times too, Australia is not facing any war like situation or a war per se, and so, there is no need for deviation from the established norms, as long as the situation remains the same. The national interest has to be always kept in mind, as it impacts the general public directly. But at the same it, it is also vital that the individuals have the liberty, independence and autonomy to move between the states. A point here can also be made in support of Gratwick v Johnson, that for promoting trade, section 92 is again important. This not only helps the public in growing their trade or commerce, but also helps the government in increasing their revenues. These revenues in turn are applied towards the national safety, which de note the interest of the state. And so, even though which changed times, Gratwick v Johnson remains to be a vital element in the freedom of inter-state movement. Based on the circumstances present today, the decision of Gratwick v Johnson would be modified keeping in mind the decision taken in Cole v Whitfield and Cunliffe and Another v The Commonwealth of Australia. These case laws form the base for the decisions to be taken in the present times. And as per the rulings in these cases laws, the decision of Gratwick v Johnson would not apply one hundred percent, but it still presents the base for the intercourse being free from any restrictions, hindrances and burden in terms of Section 92. So, the laws may be passed which dictate that the duty is applicable for inter-state dealing or movements, but a restriction, without a strict base, could not be imposed as it would breach the constitutional provisions. To sum up the entire decision, the 1945 decision was taken in the circumstances that were present at that time. Since 1945, a lot has changed. And so, in the given circumstances, the decision given in Gratwick v Johnson would be modified due to the changes in the situation which was present in 1945, to the present day, not only in the legislations, but also in the business environment as a whole. This, along with the ruling given in Gratwick v Johnson, has resulted in imposition of duties and has removed the absoluteness of the trade. So, in order to strike a balance between the current interest of the state, and liberty, which is provided to the individuals of the state, the 1945 decision would be modified. Bibliography Articles/ Books/ Reports Harris B, A New Constitution for Australia (Routledge, 2013) Puig GV, and Twigg-Flesner C, Boundaries of Commercial and Trade Law, Issue 1 (Selleir European Law Publishers, 2011) Cases Cole v Whitfield (1988) 165 CLR 360; [1988] HCA 18 Cunliffe and Another v. The Commonwealth of Australia (1994) 182 CLR 272 Gratwick v Johnson (1945) 70 CLR 1 Miller v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 60 Legislations Constitution of Australia National Security (Land Transport) Regulations, Statutory Rules 1944 No. 49 National Security Act 1939-1943 Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order Other Australasian Legal Information Institute, Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act - Sect 92 (2017) https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s92.html Australasian Legal Information Institute, Gratwick v Johnson [1945] HCA 7; (1945) 70 CLR 1 (30 May 1945) (2017) https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1945/7.html Australian Law Reform Commission, 5. Freedom of Movement (2017) https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/protections-statutory-encroachment-1 Parliamentary Education Office, The Australian Constitution (2017) https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/closer-look/the-australian-constitution.html

Mas and Airasia Collaboration free essay sample

Last August, MAS major shareholder Khazanah Nasional Bhd agreed to swap shares with AirAsias major shareholder, Tune Air Sdn Bhd, which saw Khazanah getting a 10% stake in AirAsia and Tune Air a 20. 5% stake in MAS. Khazanah also agreed to acquire a 10% stake in AirAsia X, AirAsias long-haul budget affiliate. A collaborative agreement was also signed that aims to realise savings and increase revenue in the areas of aircraft purchasing, engineering, ground support services, cargo services, catering and training among the three airlines. Today, some aviation experts and analysts believe that the deal was nothing more than an exercise that wowed. The plan has been, since the first days of the share swap, to sell off the crown jewels including its self-supporting engineering and air cargo units. It is the only way to save the organisation, but its questionable if there will be a freestanding MAS in the end. We will write a custom essay sample on Mas and Airasia Collaboration or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page And if they can only sell things that are solid moneymakers, what are they left with after its restructuring is complete? an analyst asked. A stripped-down MAS will also face pressures from many different sources. Whats the way forward? One way is to redo everything. Hire professionals from a neutral third party who have proven success in running an airline. And the person can be a foreigner. Why not? One good example is Carlos Ghosn, who became CEO of Japans Nissan Motor Co Ltd and successfully turned around the loss-making firm, said the airline executive. The 46-year-old Brazilian had also previously worked in turnaround situations at Renault in France and at Michelins US operations. Still, it may be too late to scrap the share swap. There is already too much integration between MAS and AirAsia. For example, there are former AirAsia personnel who now hold key positions in MAS, said the airline expert. Thus, merging the two airlines may be the only way forward or MAS will keep losing money. This means one full-service airline and one low-cost airline under one company, much like MAS and Firefly.