Political science

Please read one of the following Supreme Court decisions (you will need to look them up online): Lawrence v Texas (2003), Gonzales v Raich (2005), Kelo v New London (2005), King v Burwell (2015) or Obergefell v Hodges (2015); then given what you have read about federalism in chapter 3 explain briefly in a two-page essay whether you believe the case was correctly decided based upon your understanding of federalism. Strong essays will engage in legal reasoning in the case. Please do not editorialize over policy or provide an opinion piece applying your personal morals. It is quite possible that you may be in support of gay marriage morally and find the legal reasoning applied by the dissenters valid in regard to how they apply the principles of federalism. Or vice versa. In addition, I may be in favor of universal healthcare but find that the legal reasoning applied in King v Burwell to be incorrect or vice versa.

The critical analysis questions are designed to stimulate thought, clarify concepts, explore course materials in detail, and to examine the course concepts from a new or different perspective. Responses should be 500-800 words in total. Questions. What are the key characteristics of hegemony according to Gramsci? Who are the organic intellectuals, and what are organic ideologies? How do these ideologies relate to the creation of common sense? In what ways does Gramsci’s conception of power differ from Althusser’s?

One key criticism of global civil society is that it is not representative. What do critics mean when they suggest this? Do you agree or disagree with this claim? Why?

In an essay of 4 to 6 pages (1,000 to 1,500 words), please answer the following prompt. I expect you to write your essay based on the assigned readings, on class forums, and on lectures and other video materials presented on the web site. I do not expect you to supplement these sources with outside research. Please cite forum posts by the author’s name and the date of the post. The president has constitutional, institutional, and political sources of power. Of these, the institutional powers are arguably the strongest. In an essay, analyze the institutional powers of the presidency and assess how Presidents in the 20th Century were able to use their institutional and political resources to challenge what had historically been Congressional dominance of U.S. national politics. In your opinion, based on the evidence that you have presented, what is the likely future balance of power between Presidents and Congress? Why? —————————————————————————————————————————————— Above is the assignment description by the professor, as you write the essay, you can ignore the required citation of the discussion forum. Citations should be found from the Book and the lecture captions that I extracted from the lecture videos. Make sure it’s original work.

Should House of Commons MPs have term limits in Canada?

2 full pages (approximately 1 page for each question); not including Title Page & References Page Technical Requirements: Title Page (See Announcements) Page #’s (See Announcements) Title restated at top of p. 2 in bold letters References Page with sources listed alphabetically Hanging Indent for your references (See Announcements) Each source must be analyzed & properly referenced in-text See Announcements for specific instructions on each technical requirement Double-spacing You can use headings to signify which question you are addressing, but please do not repeat the paper questions in your essay Source Requirements 2 chapters from the class text (from the text chapters that you are analyzing); no additional sourcing is required All papers will be run through SafeAssign, so never copy directly from a source, and never copy from another student’s paper; it always shows! the Two questions Q 1  What does it mean when someone says that we are living in the Anthropocene era? Do you personally agree with this? Q2 Should citizens be wary of attempts by their own government to monitor personal behaviour? What if the government was trying to monitor behaviour in order to fight COVID-19?

What is the major issue being discussed? What are the different solutions offered, or what do the various sides say about the issue (there should be at least 2 sides or options)? What position do you advocate and why? At what level of the government will this occur (state or federal)? In what branches (i.e., a law by Congress, Court action, etc.) Are there any drawbacks to your decision?

Counter-Geographies of Globalization and the Feminization of Survival. Each student is required to submit a Critical Reading Review as a course requirement. These “critical reviews” should be 5-6 pages in length (12-point font double spaced). Please do not exceed the 6-page limit. You should briefly summarize the author’s arguments and then assess the reading. Like any essay, a reading review needs to have a thesis which you will argue or defend, using evidence from the text. However, the thesis of your review should not focus on whether you agree with the thesis of the author whom you are reviewing. Rather it needs to be your assessment of the text: how effective and persuasive it is, and how relevant it is to the topic. You are not required to do any outside research for the Critical Review, although you may find that it helps you to situate the work under review within a broader literature. You can also draw on course readings to help provide context or illustrate your points. However, research is not necessary to do well and should be minimized. The article you are reviewing should be at the top of the first page of the review, not in a bibliography. Citations and a bibliography are required if you use any other sources, and you must document direct quotes/ideas taken from the piece under review.

Paper Topic: Please analyze a current event relevant to political science using class themes and the Edwards textbook. The topic that you choose must be political in nature and the analysis provided must define the situation and explain its political implications.

Discuss how a bill becomes a law. This discussion should include Introduction of the bill into the House/Senate. Referral to the committee (both types, sequential and simultaneous) Committee Hearings, Committee Mark-up, Discharge from Committee. Debate and amendment on the floor (subject to Rules in the House, a filibuster in the Senate), Floor Vote, Referral to the other chamber (from House to Senate, or vice-versa), Referral to committee in the other chamber. Committee Hearings, Committee Mark-up, Discharge from Committee. Debate and amendment on the floor (subject to Rules in the House, a filibuster in the Senate), Floor Vote, Conference Committee action (if necessary), Presidential signature or Veto, Reconsideration (if vetoed) videos to watch for help