bio

Rutherford B. Hayes VS. Thomas Jefferson

History is made by people and for people. Information is not only passed by the individuals who took part the making of history but also those who felt the impact of the events. Bruce Olav in the book; Making History: A Personal Approach to Modern American History, states the various people that shaped the history of America and their contributions. Some of those featured in the book include Rutherford B. Hayes, Samuel J. Tilden, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and Herbert Spencer all who played different roles.

Passion for law

Rutherford B Hayes was born in Ohio in 1822 (center). He pursued law at Harvard law school and become a lawyer. Later in his late forties, he joined the army and was promoted to general rank. After the war, he joined politics and become a member of the Republican party, later become president (Solheim). Thomas Jefferson was born in Virginia 1743, schooled at The College of William and Mary to become a lawyer. He served as a magistrate in local government and a member of House of Burgesses and later became president for two terms under the democratic party (Monticello). He drafted the declaration of independence an American charter.

Fight against slave trade

Rutherford B. Hayes and Thomas Jefferson contributed in creating America history in various ways. Both went to law schools and became a prominent lawyer. Rutherford contributed to ending the slave trade; he becomes an antislavery advocate on his quest to white house. Jefferson signed an act that led to prohibiting the importation of slaves an act that mostly led to a reduction of the slave trade (Monticello). That action by Jefferson positioned him as one of the greatest presidents ever. They supported the ending of a slave in various ways in America a move which united people and generally led in shaping future of the nation. They symbolized unity and need to respect every human becoming a pioneer in the fight against slavery in history.

Economic growth

Both Rutherford and Jefferson become presidents in Whitehouse who aimed at economic expansion and growth (center). Rutherford designed to eliminate corruption and advocated nonpartisan reforms in civil service and maintained gold standard a way to economic recovery. Jefferson organized the purchase of Louisiana move that saw the expansion of country territory and keenly pursued trading and shipping interests (Monticello). Federal government spending was reduced by Jefferson. Thus, the national debt was minimized.  Policies set by both men set standards for government officers performances, aimed at economy stabilization and reducing misuse of public funds.

Promotion of education

The interest in education was a common goal. Jefferson founded the University of Virginia and advocated free public education (Monticello). He contributed to the planning the structures and curriculum as well as writing his books. Rutherford in his final days campaigned for equal opportunities in education for all children and was actively involved in the movement for prison reforms. In school life, they both went to university to gather knowledge in law, which they used to advocate various issues such as the antislavery. Their shared interest in education led to the development of academic institutions which improved the literacy levels in America. However, these two characters had differences which in different ways contributed to the making of history.  Rutherford was a Republican from the north While Jefferson was a Democrat from the south and they had entirely different upbringing which was later reflected in who they become.

Rutherford joined the army in his during the war and was appointed to run a post in the house of representatives with Republican group. In the military, he rose to the rank of major general and later joined politics after the war (center). Jefferson however, served as lieutenant and practiced law serving as a magistrate in local government. He was chosen to draft charter of the declaration of independence a document that stated that all men are equal in rights (Monticello). His legal expertise helped in the formulation of the charter that set rights and was actively involved in opposing the British rule. In his career as an army Rutherford, he proved loyalty to his calling as an Army when he refused to campaign an act that helped gain trust by the Republicans. His military experience helped him to govern Ohio by choosing those who best served his country, assisted eliminate political corruption and advocated reforms in civil service.

Jefferson was a shy person who feared arrest and runs away on occasions to escape British forces and used his knowledge in writing as a weapon by drafting the rights of British America. Policies set by Jefferson served as key negotiation factor in war period though many believe he was a coward because he never confronted the enemy (Monticello). Rutherford, on the other side, was a military man who faced issues and led to battles without fear (center). Notably, that in the war he got injured five times but still led the men in the battlefield. He worked hard in military gained respect both from his colleagues and got a promotion to major general a position that saw to his appointment for Republican post. They both had different ways of approaching problems; Rutherford confronted the problem while Jefferson did not but rather used his pen which proved to be a mighty weapon in drafting policies (Solheim).

Rutherford was a leader who aimed at implementing civil service reforms that favored competence rather than party loyalty. He believed that in improving government effectiveness, it was for best interest to have leaders based on their performance capabilities, not on party affiliations. Jefferson, a policy maker, advocated rights over national institutions. He drastically reduced government spending on administration and armed forces and acquired Louisiana territory (Monticello). They had a different approach to governing, Rutherford focused on reforming civil service and maintaining gold standards while Jefferson prioritized policy formulations and reduction in government spending (Solheim).

Jefferson formulated the embargo act that saw the banning of all European trade from American ports an act that affected the economy negatively (Monticello). This bill reduced the level of productivity of the ports, and its effect was directly felt in the economy. Rutherford negotiated trade agreements with the Chinese a plan that would later reduce the level of immigration to the US and also established Samoa treaty in support of East Asian trade. His military experience helped him practice fair play in ending the rivalry between Mexico and Texas. While Jefferson chose to remain neutral and banned all European trade Rutherford negotiated deals in an attempt to unite people (Monticello).

Loyalty to duty calls best illustrated by Rutherford. When he is called to campaign for his party, he chooses not to but rather condemned any military officer who would abandon such national duty (center). He proved his loyalty and strength by leading the army to war. Jefferson, on the other hand, is seen as a coward. During the revolution, he fled to Monticello to escape instead of confronting the enemy (Solheim). They both contributed to shaping America’s history by participating in different policies and strategy making.

eu history

EU History Analysis

Within the context of the European Union (EU), the increasing weight of Germany’s political influence has been a subject of discussions for many decades now. The chief contributor to such debates has been the country’s strength in the economy sector and also the role of Berlin in solving the Eurozone’s debt crisis. The stable economy has been Germany’s key instrument for sovereignty and political leadership in the EU. Having the privileged to be the largest single creditor that faces a constituency at home, the government of Germany’s decisions and the overwhelming backings gotten from the parliament were the key parameters that were indispensable in allowing the rescue operations in accepting to have a common currency. Due to the enormous economic growth, the position Germany holds in the European Union has been branded as hegemonic and much political analyses has pointed out the origin of misunderstandings with its role. In other words, Germany has taken part in towering all process that involves decision making that concerns fiscal policies but reluctant on taking part in key decisions that are sources of policy challenges. Additionally, the government of Germany has appeared as a leader who is reluctant and shy away from crucial responsibilities of the power accorded and the fear of leadership roles. This research paper concerns how Germany as a nation has implemented its instruments that concerns political leadership in the European Union as early as 1992.

Literature Review

The European Council on Foreign Relations’ (ECFR) 2015 edition outlines a different story regarding Germany’s political instruments in the EU. In the past four editions known to history, Germany has been advantageous when it comes to the rise in political leadership ranks. Currently, Berlin, which is the capital city emerged top of the leaderboard. This was done amid numerous parallel policies and serious foreign crises. Until now, the areas have not been recognized as Germany’s particular engagement corners. The perception is that German’s sovereign debt fallout and the financial crisis impacted the blow to Europe’s security and foreign policy. However, German has since run counter to this argument despite the little contradiction. Additionally, the vacuum of leadership in the EU made Germany grab the opportunity to rise to the top of the foreign policies of the EU through circumstances and not through articulations.

The security and foreign policy of Germany were not by any chance or means considered passive in 2014 but due to the instances in which the inclusion of others states had receded. W, in both of the major crises that existed by then such as those of Russia/Ukraine and Iraq/Syria, the American government has depicted the restraint of leadership at its best. In other words, the US government did lead major strikes in the Islamic states but not inputting more strategic challenges. Several EU nations participated in the war against the Islamic States but no reunion or cleavage emerged from both Old and new Europe as a result of the union to fight against the common enemy. President Obama’s government almost “became” European towards cautioning against the possibilities of being entangled in the challenging linkages that involved the disintegration of Turkey and Iran; Iraq and the bloody civil way of Syria. In this kind of Climate, diplomatic engagements were constituted by Germany in the region with Iran. Additionally, Germany was more than ready to offer support to the forces of Kurdish in Northern Iraq with firearms and other forms of war weapons and this emerged significantly than it would have been under the leadership of the United States.

A comparable example rose in the contention over Ukraine. In contrast to the Middle East, the EU’s eagerness to advance on relations with Ukraine had been a reason for discussion; the genuine focus of Russia’s activities in Ukraine was to push back the EU. German remote strategy was tested in a few ways. Firstly, Berlin’s outside arrangement had reliably supported standards and guidelines over force in global relations. Furthermore, Germany felt emphatical about guarding EU arrangement, more so than other substantial EU part states or the US. What’s more, thirdly, the German-Russian relationship had been significant for Germany in financial terms, as well as politically, as a wellspring of Berlin’s essentialness in the Western connection. With these components of its outside approach under danger, and the US remaining with Europe however not leading the pack, sorting out the EU’s reaction fell on to Germany.

The Ukraine emergency likewise uncovered the changing parameters of initiative among the significant European on-screen characters. France and the United Kingdom the other two individuals from the EU’s “Enormous Three”, have refused in standing, and thus, taking second and to the third position in that respective manner in the ECFR Scorecard. London and Paris would doubtlessly have assumed a huge part if the reaction to the emergency had included hard security instruments, in which case both would likely have been second in line on emergency reaction, after the United States. The blend of conciliatory means and financial approvals supported Germany’s administration, unequivocally as a result of the nation’s monetary weight in an exchange with Russia, the effect of its economy inside the EU and the Eurozone, and, not minimum, France’s present shortcoming in those same zones. As to Britain, London’s vague political position inside the EU, consolidated with the UK’s similarly powerless association with Russia, restricted the centrality of the Cameron government in emergency reaction.

The amendment of the strategy of Germany’s practice and the strategy on foreign policy was not necessarily mean to push Germany to ECFR’s top position in 2015 as the position was vacant by then. Needless to say, a reconsideration of the foreign policies that Germany had at hand might as well be significance should Germany opt to stay put in the lead. One of such indicators is the concerns and the resistance of other members of the EU like those from the Eastern siders that monitors the role of Germany in the war of conflict over the government of Ukraine. In 2014, the fears of tradition resurfaced on the dealings that Russia and Germany engaged in in regard to the “heads” of the nations that are in between these superpower states. In any case, the current strong union between Warsaw and Berlin were the key indicators on what kept the concerns at bay.

Should the allegations about Germany holds any truth in them, the role of Germany in the foreign policy will, in this case, be acted upon in the coming years. Other main contenders will emerge as less absent in this manner, the military contingencies will lead to the exposure of Germany’s drawbacks. Germany’s domestic support policy should not at any given moment be considered taken for granted. This remains an open question on how and whether the Government of German will be in a position of aligning to the preferences and interest of many other insignificant member states that constitute the EU. At the moment, the elites who appreciate German’s foreign policy leadership would-be tampered with several concerns that costs would in years to come be entailed by the roles. An act of committing resources for the purpose of the general goodness is automatically not an idea that is favored much by the position Germany holds in terms of political class. Notably, rising to the top has always been enabled by the numerous circumstance that it is exposed to and thus clinging there may perhaps be influenced or hindered by it.

1.1. The origin German Superiority in the EU since 1992

The impact the EU union cased Germany was the ballooning of its debt, which impacted the introduction of far-reaching structural reforms and labor markets. Due to this Germany adopted a constitutional amendment which required the balancing of the national budget, which in other words may be considered as a charm. Traditionally, Germany enjoys an export level system of recovery, which is helped by the consumption and housing booms in entire Europe. In an attempt to cure the crisis in Europe, Germany has provided a solution which seeks to advocate for the implementation of the structural reforms and the fiscal policies.

In any case, why would such implementations work for Germany? Or perhaps if it was effected for Germany, what would be the next step? The correct answer to such questions would be due to factors such as those of the economic conditionings, which are very different to all other EU states. In Europe, the fiscal austerity has since exacerbated a global phenomenon and in this case, has pushed Europe in a condition similar to that of a deflationary trap debt. In other words, when two powerful indebted states are lowering the deficits of their budget at the same time frames, the economy of both the states would automatically shrink in an attempt to increase the debt burden, which is a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The monitories agencies around the globe would recognize such dangers. In fruitless attempts, the Governor of Bank of England and his counterpart in the Bank of Japan have both engaged in measures that are unconventional in avoiding a possible trap of deflationary dept. However, the citizens of Germany found it so difficult to ascertain that the attempts made by their government would foist a wrong implemented policy in Entire Europe. Notably, the German economy does not experience a plunge in the economy. To date, the country has benefited hugely from the crisis experienced in Europe and this has helped it in lowering the exchange rates and thus helping exportation. Additionally, due to the crisis, German has since enjoyed low rates on interest and the main flights that originate from its debtor nations, which floods it with investment capitals and at the same time, the periphery must pay Germany hefty premiums on the risks so as to access the funds availed.

The outcome is not due to some hidden agendas or plots but consequences that are unintended due to unplanned misfortunes. In this case, the German politicians since 1992, have begun to pinpoint the merits that their government has achieved, a factor that has since influenced their decisions regarding key foreign policies. Therefore, the key role of the austerity policy has since pushed EU to depressions, which is a factor which lies within the choices made by Germany. As tie elapses, there are underground factors that are on the rise to put blames on Germany its policies that are implemented against Europe in the past one decade. However, Germany has denied the allegations and has felt as If it is wrongfully blamed. The strategy is indeed a history of great significance. Comparing the central tragedies in Greek, the sheer misunderstanding and misconceptions trigger fateful consequences that are unintended.

Experts allude to the fact that had Germany has been willing from the very first time since the beginning crisis in Greek to issue the credit facilities that were offered final stages of the crisis, the government of Greece could have been rescued from the misfortunes. In other words, the efforts that the EU provided was petite and was thus unnecessary when it came to avoiding the financial collapse in Greece and again, was not sufficient to reverse the situations. The same unfortunate events took place when the crisis had to spread to other nations. At every single stage of the crisis, solutions would have been provided if the sovereign state of Germany was more than ready or willing to focus ahead of the curve and help much more rather than doing the unnecessary.

The challenge was triggered by an error in the European clearing system referred to as “TARGET 2). In a distinct way, which is different to that of the “settled annually” Federal Reserve, TARGET2 has always accumulated the system imbalances between all the federal and private banks in the Eurozone. However, this condition did not impact any significance so long as the market of the interbank was functioning efficiently. However, the marketing system of the interbank has never been operating efficiently since the beginning of 2007 and also the beginning of the 2008 summer. Additionally, there has also been an extreme increase in the overall flights originating from countries that were considered much weaker. For instance, when a Spanish or a Greek client initiated a transfer at his Spanish or Greek bank to that of the Dutch, the Bank of Dutch would automatically end up with the TRAGET2 credit, which is then offset by the TARGET2 claims directed towards the Spanish or Green Bank. The claims have since been on exponential growths. For instance, by the end of July 2015, the bank of Bundes had claimed close to €727 billion; a figured blamed on the central banks of the two countries.

The bank of Bundes has been advised and become aware of the real dangers involved and in this case, the German government has also been alerted regarding the matter. Additionally, the Bundes bank has indicated its intentions of limiting the losses sustained should any break up occur. This approach may be described as a hope that will be self-fulfilled. In other words, if a central bank in any country opts to start being on guard against a possible break up, every other affiliate banks must follow the suit. The crisis has since gone very deeper and this has affected many countries within the EU, but all the benefit is to Germany. Due to this circumstance, tension has emerged in the corresponding financial markets to higher levels as indicated in the lower historical years on the Government of Germany’s bonds. In this case, the real economy of the EU has been in decline as Germany progresses well, a condition that means the divergences would even get much wider in the years to come. This would mean much political advantage to the sovereignty of Germany since the social dynamics, and the politics of the EU will automatically operate towards disintegration. A recently expressed in the election results the public opinions of the Dutch is hugely opposed to the austerity, and the trending system is most likely expected to grow until the reversal of the policy is reached.

1.2. The Solution

The sovereignty of Germany must put forth a decision on whether to leave the euro or opt to be a benevolent hegemon. The second alternative would by far be the best decision ever should it choose to put it into consideration. However, the question that arises is what is entailed. As simple as it may sound, there must be two new objectives that vary with the present policy. This would include;

  • The establishment of less or more playing grounds between the creditor and the debtor states. This implies the ability to refinance the debt of their government or less or more equal terms.
  • An aim of normal growth (5%) so that Europe can find its ways out of the excessive budget of debts. This is aimed at necessitating higher standards of inflation compared to that of the bank of the Bunde, which is predicted to countenance. This may also require a constitutional change in the German Federal system and treaty.

The political choices are taken in the following year or so will decide the eventual fate of the European Union. The strides taken by the ECB on September 6 could be a prelude to the making of a two-level Europe; on the other hand, they could prompt the arrangement of a nearer political union in which Germany acknowledges the commitments that its administration position carries with it.

A two-level Eurozone would, in the long run, wreck the European Union because the disappointed would eventually pull back from it. On the off chance that a political union is not feasible, the following best thing would be a systematic detachment in the middle of lender and account holder nations. On the off chance that the individuals from the euro can’t live respectively without pushing their union into an enduring dejection, they would be in an ideal situation isolating by universal assent.

In an agreeable separation of the euro, it is important an extraordinary arrangement which party leaves since all the gathered obligations are designated in a typical cash. If a borrower nation leaves, its obligation increments in quality in agreement with the devaluation of its cash. The country concerned could get to be aggressive, yet it is compelled to default on its obligation, and that would bring about endless money related interruptions. The standard business sector and the European Union might have the capacity to adapt to the default of a little nation, for example, Greece, particularly when it is so broadly foreseen. However, it couldn’t survive the take-off of a bigger nation like Spain or Italy. Indeed, even a Greek default may demonstrate lethal. It would empower capital flight and encourage budgetary markets to mount hold up under attacks against different nations, so the euro may well separate as the Exchange Rate Mechanism did in 1992.

By complexity, if Germany somehow happened to exit and left the ordinary coin in the hands of the indebted nations, the euro would fall, and the collected obligation would deteriorate by the cash. Essentially all the current unmanageable issues would break down. The indebted person nations would recapture intensity; their bond would decrease in genuine terms and, with the ECB in their control, the danger of default would dissipate. Without Germany, the euro region would have no trouble in completing the U-turn for which it would somehow or another need Chancellor Merkel’s assent.

To be particular, the contracted euro range could build up its particular monetary power and actualize its own unique Debt Reduction Fund along with the lines I should portray underneath. For sure, the contracted euro range could go much further and change over the whole obligation of part countries into Eurobonds, not just the abundance more than 60 percent of GDP. At the point when the conversion scale on the contracted euro balanced out, danger premiums on Eurobonds would tumble to levels similar to those connected to bonds issued in other unreservedly coasting coinage, for example, the British pound or Japanese yen. This may sound inconceivable; however, that is simply because the misinterpretations that have created the emergency are so generally accepted. It might come as an amazement, yet the Eurozone, even without Germany, would score better on standard pointers of monetary dissolvability than Japan, Britain, or America.

A German way out would be a troublesome however a reasonable onetime occasion, rather than the glamorous and extended domino impact of one indebted person nation after another being constrained out of the euro by hypothesis and capital flight. There would be no substantial claims from oppressed investors. Indeed, even the land issues would turn out to be more reasonable. With a critical conversion scale differential, Germans would rush to purchase Spanish and Irish land. After the underlying disturbances, the eurozone would swing from wretchedness to development.

2.1. The Role of Germany in the EU

The 2015 crisis in the EU confirmed the position Germany holds in the EU. For instance, the initiatives that Berlin had with France regarding the war that took place in the Eastern parts of Ukraine intended to secure Germany’s preferences of a solution that is negotiated instead of arming those involved in the war. Any form of breakdown may have resulted in the breakdown of the opportunities that EU had over sanctions that were directed towards Russia. Additionally, this could have also lead to a weaker EU, which in other words would have disintegrated Ukraine and thus, the Russian nationalism would have benefited a lot. Secondly, the bitter war over the financial packages for Greece saw Germany hold its grounds regarding additional funding and the available structural reforms. Berlin mounted much pressure and successfully came up with a solution otherwise, the Eurozone would have disintegrated and lost Greece as its member state. The final thing is that the decision Germany had regarding the acceptance of a vast number of refugees’ who transversed through the southern member states avoided or saved the EU from imminent collapse of its migration scheme.

Germany then forced a burden-sharing system on the remnant member state to enhance the consolidation process. This is the crisis that confirmed Germany’s towering roles in the politics of the EU. Germany has again issued numerous calls for consolidation but with minimal effects. Other than the strong backing the government receives from Vienna and Stockholm, the city of Merkel stands solo as an agreement to implement the agreed scheme of relocation appears to be collapsing. Neither of the crisis mentioned above has been solved amicably, but each of the issues has been coordinated by the choices and actions of the political leaders of Germany.  The leadership system of Berlin has appeared to be more of unilateral in the events of the crisis. Against this foundation, the German perspective of the EU and its accomplices is of extraordinary significance. What does a class in German politics consider about a possible cooperation worth other state members of the EU? How the policy of the elites in Germany does consider its duty or role to the other majority member states and lastly, what would be the German view possibilities of forming coalitions with other interested countries?

2.2. The Most Influential Member State in the EU

Shockingly, Germany considers itself as the most cognizant and influential member state within the EU. The findings applied the quantitative data collection techniques to identify the member state that is most contacted within the EU. Surprisingly, Germany emerged as the member state that is most contacted regarding issues related to “decisions’ within the EU. In other words, the data indicated that no another country was reached most frequently than Germany.

Germans consider themselves in good company when they affirm their stand and belief of being the most superior and influential member state within the EU. The manner in which Germany as a member state within the EU considers itself is typically self-critical. According to the findings, most of the correspondents contacted ranked Germany as the most influential and powerful member state within the Union. However, despite Germany being placed the top on defense and foreign policy rules, the Dutch participants taking part in the analysis ranked France in top position. Additionally, the graph indicates the ranking in EU of the most superior member states based on the impact on the CSDP, influence and differentiating the response of German from all other potential member states.

Figure 1: The influential Rankings in the EU

The respondent from Germany ranks the Netherlands based on the affluent and less influential member states. Therefore, to the other member states, the progress of the Eurozone states are considered to have gained the largest influence in the matters pertaining to the affairs of the EU policy in the past decades. In this case, the samples of Germany bears less significant from other assessments that incorporate the other potential member states.

A specified German consideration features in the interrogations concerning the preferences for interaction patterns. In any case, when investigation which of the member states shares the vast interest of Germany and the related choices in matters of the policy of the EU, the community policy of Berlin ranks Netherlands top over other potential member states. After the Netherlands comes Finland, Austria, Poland and France. However, the data does not provide a clear distinction when it comes to the question on which member state Germany will contact first. In this case, France has been placed ahead of all other member states above any other and followed closely by Poland and the UK. London, in this instance, appears and emerges much stronger than Rome or The Hague.

2.3. Staying In the EU without Causing Destruction

Outside weight could do it. With François Hollander as the new president, France is the conspicuous possibility to advocate an options approach for Europe. By shaping a typical front with Italy and Spain, France could introduce a financially believable and politically engaging system that would spare the necessary market and recover the European Union as the optimistic vision that terminated individuals’ creative energy. The primary front could then present Germany with the decision: lead or leave. The target would not be to prohibit Germany, but rather to change its arrangement position profoundly.

Tragically, France is not in a stable position to frame an assembled front with Italy and Spain notwithstanding decided resistance from Germany. Chancellor Merkel is a solid pioneer as well as a talented government official who knows how to keep enemies separated. France is especially defenseless in light of the fact that it has done not as much as Italy or Spain to achieve financial union and auxiliary changes. The moderately okay premium that French government securities as of now appreciate is expected completely to France’s close relationship with Germany.  Asian national banks have been purchasing French securities, especially as German Bunds have begun offering at negative yields. Should France associate itself too intimately with Italy and Spain, it would be judged by the same measuring stick and the danger premium on its bonds may ascend to comparative levels.

As a matter of fact, the upsides of being in a comparable situation with Germany are at risk to end up deceptive once a drawn-out despondency plummets upon Europe. As the shortcoming line in the middle of Germany and France turns out to be more evident, budgetary markets are at risk to rename France with Italy and Spain regardless of whether it stays loyal to Germany. So France’s genuine decision is, from one viewpoint, between breaking with Germany to spare Europe and restore development or, on the other, professing to be on the hard coin vessel temporarily, just to be tossed over the edge later. Taking the side of the account holder nations and testing the strategy of severity would permit France to continue the position of administration it held amid Mitterrand’s government. That would be a more stately position than being a traveler with Germany in the driver’s seat. Still, it would take extraordinary fearlessness for France to go separate ways from Germany in the short run.

Italy and Spain have different shortcomings. Italy has demonstrated itself unequipped for keeping up excellent administration all alone. Its present obligation issues were collected before it joined the euro; as a part, it had a superior record of essential spending plan surplus than Germany notwithstanding amid a significant proportion of the time when Berlusconi was in force. Be that as it may, Italy appears to require an outside power to free itself of awful administration. That is the thing that has made Italians so eager about the European Union. Spain is much more beneficial politically. However, the present government has gotten to be dreadfully subservient to Germany for its own particular great. In addition, the diminishment in danger premiums as a consequence of the ECB’s bond buys will be sufficiently critical to evacuate the impetus to oppose German mastery.

Conclusion

Considering the unions and coalitions that exists between the member states in the EU, the view on Germany is more determinant and pronounced in regard to the general assessment. Just like another potential member of the member state of the political classes in the EU Germany is considered to experience high political voltage and union in the coming years. From the quantitative research mentioned earlier, close to over 67% of the respondents from Germany believes that building consensus in groups is more important than coming up with a conclusion or mankind decisions considering the 28 member states that are currently in the EU. Additionally, Germany considers coalitions to be more of permanent but bears informal infrastructures whether in cross-cutting or issue specifically.

The crusade to change German states of mind will along these lines need to take a different structure from the intergovernmental transactions that are at present choosing approach. European common society, the business group, and the overall population need to assemble and get to be locked in. At present, general society in numerous Eurozone nations is bothered, befuddled, and furious. This discovers expression of xenophobia, hostile to European dispositions, and radical political developments. The inert ace European notions, which presently have no outlet, should be stimulated with a specific end goal to spare the European Union. Such a development would experience a thoughtful reaction in Germany, where the expansive dominant part is still ace European yet under the spell of false financial and fiscal teachings.

As of now, the German economy is doing generally well and the political circumstance is likewise moderately steady; the emergency is just a far-off clamor originating from abroad. Just something stunning would shake Germany out of its assumptions and drive it to confront the results of its present approaches. That is the thing that a development offering a workable distinct option for German mastery could finish. So, the present circumstance resembles a bad dream that can be gotten away just by awakening Germany and making it mindful of the misguided judgments that are at present directing its approaches. We can trust Germany, when put to the decision, will practice kind authority as opposed to enduring the misfortunes associated with leaving the euro.

Roles of the executive and judiciary on the act

The Executive as a branch of the government plays an imperative role in ensuring that the health law is enacted. First, the president has to sign the legislation into a bill as that is the only assurance that the act would be implemented. The president could either use the veto powers in the congress or even the powers to issue executive orders. With these two powers, the president can see the act signed into law and thus enact among the citizens of the United States. Also, the president could issue orders or rather regulations that would see his administrators at the executive level ensure that the requirements of the act are provided in all the health organizations within the country. It is right to argue that the president being the head of the executive has the powers of signing bills and acts into laws and this he can do even without support from the Congress since he has the veto powers. This implies that the president is capable of having the act implemented in the company by first signing it into law. If the Act is being opposed by some of the members of the Congress yet he sees or rather deems it to be of great significance, then he may sign it into law even without considering the senators and representatives’ choice. This is the primary role that the executive would play in ensuring that the law is implemented.

Role of the judiciary on the Act

The supreme court in the United States has a caseload that is appellate, and they’re its decision cannot be appealed by any organization. It may, however, consider appeals that are filed with higher state courts or even the appellate courts at the federal level. The ACA looks forward to addressing the issue of lack of health care insurance among millions of Americans. These Americans that are short of the health care insurance are active participants in the health market in the United States and thus consume the health care services that they do not pay for. The ACA is seen to contain a minimum coverage provision and this it does through the amendment of a tax code as well as provision of individual mandate which presupposes that by 2014 a penalty would be issued to people that fail to purchase and maintain a minimum level of health insurance yet they are nonexempt individuals. The act also called for an expansion of the services offered by the Medicaid and this was to realize the states have to accept to receive the funds from the federal government for Medicaid and an employer mandate to get the health coverage for the employees.

It was not long after the ACA was passed at the congress that Florida and 12 other states took part in bringing in actions in the United States district court for the northern communities of Florida. They were looking for a declaration that would see the ACA deemed as unconstitutional based on some reasons that they had to present to the court (Owen 58). Surprisingly, thirteen other states joined Florida and the twelve other states and later, the national federation of independent businesses and the individual plaintiffs also came in to accede to the revolt. The district court had to do something since the ruling on this matter would determine the extents with which the act was being implemented in the country (Owen 58). First, it demanded to know if the plaintiffs were in possession of standings to bring in the law suits. From such a question during the trial, the court determined that brown had a standing and such was so because she did not have health insurance and had to come up with financial arrangements to ensure compliance with the provision (Owen 58). This made her eligible to challenge the minimum coverage that was to take effect as from 2014. Also, the court made a decision that Idaho and Utah each had standings and this was so because each of the states that they presented had statutes which presupposed that their residents ought to be exempted from the provision of minimum coverage (Owen 58). The legislature, could instead of scrapping it away, make the law more accommodative by listening to the complaints’’ view of the law and then reforming or rather amending it in such a way that it conforms to accommodate everyone. That way, there would be very few people complaining about the act. Therefore, we can assert that the main role of the Supreme Court and the judiciary at large is to ensure that the act is put in such a way that it accommodates everyone in the society without having to be biased.

Role of structure of the government with regards to the affordable care act

The affordable care act is commonly referred to as the Obama care in the United States and its abbreviation ACA uses to refer to it most of the times. It is one a health care program that could best be described as a statute enacted by the 11th United States Congress and signed into law by the former president Barrack Obama. The act was signed into law on the 23rd of March 2010 and since then; it has been seen to be helping individuals in the United States get access to better health care facilities at a cost that is lower as compared to other medical acts and programs. The term Obama care came from individuals who argued that Obama signed the bill into law to gain him some political mileage. However, he and his supporters helped their counterparts understand the fact that the scheme was developed to help the less fortunate in the society get access to the medical facilities thus reduce mortality rate caused due to inadequate hospital facilities. In conjunction with the health care and education reconciliation act amendment, the program has been seen to offer the American citizens as well as the health care system with a more relevant health regulatory program as it covers wider aspects of health care as compared to Medicare and Medicaid which is what the Americans were used to before the introduction of the Obama care. Major provisions within the ACA were realized in 2014 and studies have proven that by 2016, the number of individuals that were not yet registered or rather subscribed to this program decreased by more than a half. This is a clear or rather evident implication that the concept of Obama care was well accepted by the citizens of the United States of America. One of the major reasons that have seen the Obama care get more people subscribing to its services is the fact that it caused an expansion of the Medicaid eligibility and also influenced some changes within the health care insurance markets and the companies involved. Some of the changes that are tagged along with the introduction of the Obama care include the idea of insurers being made to accept all the applicants who apply for these services. This was not the case before, and one had to qualify in a bid to get the medical coverage. Also, it led to the insurers being forced to charge the same prices. Such a move saw most people subscribe to health insurance services and the equity in rates being charged was done regardless of age or economic or even financial status of an individual. Additionally, to cover some of the challenges that would be associated with such changes being introduced, it was mandated that each person purchase an insurance cover and the insurers were made to cover some of the essential health benefits. The federal government, in a bid to stretch their helping hand to the households between the 100%-400% of the poverty line, provides insurance premium subsidies.

Basic Structure of the National Government – Part 1

Most of the governments around the world have been seen to be comprised of three main branches or rather parts namely the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The federal government is nothing short of this as it is also formed or rather comprises of the three branches aforementioned. All the three divisions have their different functions, and they work together, though independently, to ensure that the activities of the nation are conducted in the best way possible. This paper seeks to discuss the three branches of the government as well as their functions in ensuring the smooth running of the country.

Executive

In the United States of America, the president, in conjunction with other administrators in the government is concerned with the governing of this particular branch of the government. The president is usually voted into office by the American citizens who are of age 18 years and above. Once elected in his position, one of the responsibilities that he is deemed with is the enforcement of the laws that are passed in the congress. It is worth noting that the president may gain more votes all over the nation during an election but would still fail to win the race, and this may be so due to the powers of the people in the Electoral College who are the primary determinants of the winner in any given election.

Legislative

In the United States, the legislative branch of the government is also referred to as the congress. It is deemed with the responsibility of law making. The congress is usually divided into two main parts, and these are the senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate comprises of 100 members each state having two representatives. The house of representatives, on the other hand, has 435 representatives. The function of the representatives is to discuss and thus determine whether the bills passed should be made into laws. One factor that is used in the determination of representative each state gets is the population of the state. It is for this reason that we have some states having up to 40 representatives in the House of Representatives whereas other have only two. Both the House of Representatives as well as the senates are elective posts, and this means that voters elect them from their respective states.

Judicial

The judiciary is the final branch of the government ad is one that is very crucial. It comprises the Supreme Court and nine justices. In the judiciary, there are individual judges whose primary duty is to interpret the law using the Constitution. Such judges are responsible for the hearing of cases that have issues relating to the Constitution only. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. The federal judicial system also has lower courts each located in the states, and they are deemed with the responsibility of hearing the cases that are related to one way or the other with the federal government. The Washington DC state hosts the headquarters of the federal governments in the United States.