Arizona Constitution

Arizona Constitution
Running Head: ARIZONA CONSTITUTION
The Implications of the Arizona Constitution
Name:
Institution:
Tutor:
Category:
Date:
The American constitution plays a crucial role in delegating of laws in the country and it governs all citizens. On the other hand, a state's constitution
serves a similar purpose but only under the state's jurisdiction. This constitution is the basis for other state laws including those of other sections of the
state government. This implies that all the laws outlined by this constitution affect its organization, operations and maintenance. Actions carried out
outside the constitutional boundaries are considered to be illegal. As such, the Arizona constitution has endeavored to effectively guide... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
In addition, these entities are individualized and empowered to sue others and be sued in return. This makes it simple for citizens who have qualms
with such corporations to seek the intervention of the law since they are treated as such entities under the law. As constitution directs the procedures
and requirements for the formation of corporations, it similarly warns that failure to incorporate these conditions will make corporations non viable and
their claims inadmissible in courts. Corporations are also limited by this article in their capacity to fund political actions and endeavors. Article 15 also
addresses the same issue of corporations only its concern is on public service commissions. It is in this regard that this Article establishes the Arizona
Corporation Commission (Arizona Corporation Commission, 2010). As entities formed with the sole purpose of offering necessary services to citizens,
the commissions perform the role of regulating and providing public utilities. The constitution also indicates that these corporations are under state
regulation which aids in creating accountability and effective operations in these bodies.

Finally, public education in Arizona is also another area which is strictly controlled by the Arizona constitution. This is inclusive of all types of
schools be it elementary, middle or high schools. Included in this lot are also colleges and universities. In Article 11, these schools' conduct
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Differences Between Iroquois Constitution And Us Constitution
The Iroquois and United States constitutions have very analogous ideas, but also have very distinct differences as well. The Great Law of Peace
(Iroquois constitution) dates back from the fifteenth century and were created by the Iroquois confederacy. Columbus didn't arrive in America until
1492 and even then it took them a long period of time to establish themselves in the new country. Meaning the Iroquois constitution initially came to
existence before the United States constitution came into place. When the founding fathers of America wrote the constitution they had to base their
constitution on something because of the fact that they were a new nation being born and needed a sense of guidance. So they base certain ideas from
their native country, Mother England and also borne ideas from the Iroquois constitution and as well implemented new concepts of ... Show more
In Wampum 9 it states that powers are vested in the elder brothers and younger brothers. "All the business of the Five Nations Confederate Council
shall be conducted by the combined bodies of the Confederate [Chief Statesmen]. First the question shall be passed upon by the Mohawk and Seneca
[Chief Statesmen – the Elder Brothers], and then it shall be discussed and passed by the Oneida and Cayuga [Chief Statesmen, who later added the
Tuscarora, thus the Confederacy became the Six Nations]." In contrast, Article 1 of the Legislative department–Section I. Congress states that the
powers are vested in senate and house. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of
a Senate and House of Representatives." Each of the sections from the constitution's show a resemblance in the way power is carried throughout. They
both have bodies, which control different positions in the government and therefore have a sense of similarity between powers in their

Constitution: The Purpose Of The Constitution
The purpose of the constitution is to set laws and to give the right to the people to express themselves in many ways . I agree because this is a free
country,in example,having to practice religion,free speech. But in spite of that no one is above the law. 3. A. I think his answer is descent because
people should worry moving to a society in that manner. But to how people will crowded causing every product like food, clothe, houses, to be
invaluable. B I believe not everything should be for sale to the amount of it and if it trade able or not so it can go and come. For example ancient
statues should not be bought or sold because those items are rare and not replaceable,they should be kept at museum. The benefits are there from having

The American Constitution And The Constitution
Let take a look at some of the compromises and challenges the Founding Fathers had to overcome when they set out to rewrite the American
Constitution. The government built upon the Articles of Confederation was failing and change was needed. The American Constitution would not have
been adopted without compromise over very difficult topics such as slavery, size and structure of government, taxation, elections, and governing
responsibilities. The Federal and States balance of authority and division of responsibility provided a level of comfort to the citizens concerned with
being ruled once again. Human natures mistrust of others is written into the Constitution as the "separation of powers". The birth of political parties
(Federalists and Antifederalists) highlights the two distinct different in America views of politics, small central government or a strong central
government. The Constitutional compromise, states with large populations like Virginia and South Carolina wanted the population of their states to
determine the number of representatives in congress, of course, this count would include slaves. The smaller northern states were the use of Slaves
was on the decline or not practices at all did not agree with having slaves counted for population, as the southern states wanted. If this was allowed the
Southern states would have a disproportionate number of elected representatives in congress. So as a compromise was made, the 3/5th rule. The rule
counted one slave as

Constitution
LatishaDollison HIS/115 Mr. Randy Shuler Constitution Paper University of Phoenix 3/29/15 America is glorified as a land of freedom. As a country
we have certain rights and Privileges gained simply by the fact that we are American citizens. We are also fortunate that these rights are protected
through what is called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Documents protect our truths and rights as a citizen. This wasn't always so. There
had to be a Time before the Constitution and in that time it was a verbal war between those for it an against. The people who were for the Constitution
were called Federalists. These people Understood that the Constitution that was being debated was highly important if not essential to... Show more
While these Anti–federalists had some valid points they were not well–organized or efficient in letting their views be shared to the general public. This
cost them dearly in the end. In closing, the Constitution was very essential to the make–up of our country. It determined what form of government
would be used as well as its power and the power of the people. While the Federalists did win in that all the states ratified the document, they also
compromised to the Anti–federalists and a Bill of Rights was created additionally. This pleased both sides, the Anti–federalists and Federalists alike, as
this document protected and procured a great many of the rights and privileges we enjoy today. The constitution is powerful document that was well
worth the verbal battle of many years. As it is with most things, the Constitution means more to this country because of how hard we had to fight in
many ways to obtain such a document. Content and Development 7 Points| Points Earned7/7| | Additional Comments:| All key elements of the
assignment are covered in a substantive way. * The paper discusses the following: * How the Constitution addressed the complaints in the Declaration
of

The Constitution Of The United Kingdom
The present constitution in the United Kingdom is unwritten. There has been much dispute as to whether or not a written constitution, as implemented
by many other countries such as France and the United States of America, should also be adopted by the United Kingdom. The working mechanism of
government is conditioned by a system of procedures, which regulate on one level of the principle organs of the state, whilst others govern the conduct
of official business. Amid these usages are ones that have the position of a convention. Lord Wilson describes these conventions as '...political
principles which regulate relations between the different parts of our constitution and the exercise of power but which do not have legal force.' Since
they do not have legal force, certain questions emerge, such as whether constitutional conventions should be codified, and whether their unclassified
nature would permit such alteration. This essay will consider the arguments of the codification of constitutional conventions if a written constitution
were to be implemented by the United Kingdom. Reasons proposing and opposing codifying conventions will be considered, specifically focusing on
these foremost resolutions: legally enforcing codified conventions, allowing codified conventions to be regarded as non–legal rules, specify a selection
of conventions to be codified, or quite simply leave them as they are, uncodified. This analysis will outline the varied views on codifying conventions

Disadvantages Of The Us Constitution
The UK constitution sets out the powers and limitations of the government, as well as the rights of citizens, it is not fully codified and is generally
based on conventions. This is in stark contrast to other constitutions, most notably America's, which is fully codified and available to all citizens.
There are benefits to the U.K constitution, mostly regarding it's flexibility. As it is unwritten (or uncodified), it can react quickly to reflect social change
without the need for worrying about whether something is 'Constitutional' – the integration of the European Convention on Human Rights via the
Human Rights Act 1998, as passed under the Blair government, serves to be a good example of this, but the Constitution's flexibility is also a point of
criticism, as this means that no law is entrenched and those rights are therefore potentially at stake – this leads to many liberal arguments that the
constitution should become codified to ensure the citizen's rights are completely protected, and not reliant on the government of the day's whim.
The current UK constitution has also seen multiple years of stable, if not strong and decisive government, most recently including a Conservative
/Liberal Democrat coalition in 2010, demonstrating that it is, in ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The constitution relies heavily on a multitude of unwritten conventions, such as individual ministerial responsibility – stating that the ministers are
responsible for policy and should resign if there are any failures, the Salisbury Convention –stating that the House of Lords cannot reject a proposal
which was contained within the winning party's previous manifesto, and the collective responsibility of Cabinet – the presence of these alone making it
hard to codify the constitution, as the conventions can be easily broken. (which can either be a benefit or a detriment, as it allows for greater

Constitution Dbq
When the America was given their independence from the Great Britain, Americans have created a government that were distinct from the previous
governments. The writers of the Constitution were worried about Tyranny, since The Articles of Confederation had numerous weaknesses. It gave too
much power to the King and the King had the absolute power, tyranny: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator. The meeting
that the writers of the Constitutions, delegates, were called the Constitutional Convention. The Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania on May of 1787, at the State House. All proceeding was kept secret until the delegates had presented an outcome; which was the
Constitution. The Constitution ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Checks and balances make sures that no one branch of government becomes too powerful, each branch has some control over the actions of the other
branches. In document C, the powers that the legislative branch has over the executive branch is that the legislative can override the president's veto
(kills a bill). The power over judicial is that the legislature can propose constitutional amendments. The checks the executive branch has over the
legislative and judicial branches that are stated in document C are that the executive branch can call special session of Congress and can grant
reprieves and pardons in judicial branch.According to the document C, the judicial branch has a check over the legislative and executive branches.
Over legislative, the judicial branch can declare laws unconstitutional and over executive, the judicial branch can declare (rule) that law or executive act
/ orders are unconstitutional.Checks and balances guards tyranny and protects the US Constitution by making each branch check on other two
branches. Checking each other will prevent one from becoming too powerful and will limit their

U.s. Constitution And The Constitution
When the U.S. constitution was first signed 1776, it established a system of checks and balances, and a distinct separation of powers amongst the
three branches of government. But, even with this system of checks and balances in place, it is evident that the 3 branches are not equal, and that
congress is significantly more powerful than both the executive and judicial branches of government. Ultimately, the U.S. congress is the strongest
branch of government because of its vast amount of enumerated powers including the elastic clause, which allows congress to pass all necessary and
proper laws to carry out its enumerated powers, and due to judicial and executive branches' limited ability to check congress's power. In article 1,
section 8 of the constitution; it establishes congress's enumerated powers. Just from this list of powers alone it is clear that the Framers intended for
the legislative branch of government to be the most energetic and most powerful. Congress has the power to make laws, spend and raise money
without the approval of the other branches of government, and to even declare war. Amongst these powers, congress also has many others, but these
are just the main enumerated powers that congress has. Now, what makes congress so powerful in addition to its vast amount of enumerated powers is
the fact that the other branches of government have relatively little power in checking the legislative branch and its powers. For example, under the
power to make laws, the

U.s. Constitution And The Constitution
The U.S. Constitution, as adopted by the Philadelphia Convention on September 17, 1787, sets out three distinct branches of national government and
provides powers to each that serve as a check on the others. The branches include the executive branch: the president, the legislative branch: congress
and the judicial branch: the Supreme Court. The Constitution is referred to as a living document because it is open to constant change. Additionally,
the Constitution is open to constant interpretation by the Supreme Court. When the document was written over 200 years ago, abortion and automatic
weapons were not issues, but the Constitution can be interpreted to protect or restrict rights on an assortment of issues. Article 5 of the United... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The first ten amendments to the Constitution, called the Bill of Rights, were ratified as a group by December 15, 1791(Bianco, 2013). Within the Bill
of Rights only three amendments stand out in today world. Amendment One states that each citizen has the right to the freedom of religion, speech,
and press and is allowed to assemble and petition the government (Bianco, 2013). While we all have the right of the freedom of religion we at the
same token have taken religious freedoms a bit too far at times. We have removed it from schools, yet we allow religious rights to those that are
terrorizing our country. The second amendment states that everyone has the right to have a gun (for lawful purposes) and the right to form as a militia
(Bianco, 2013). While this amendment is good for law abiding citizens the argument remains for those that obtain guns illegally or possess weapons
that should not be possessed by an ordinary person. Gun advocates debate that many of the issues with guns in America are not those of law abiding
citizens but of those obtained illegally or in possession of those that should not have them. Amendment nine states that citizens hold rights that are not
stated in the Constitution, and that those not stated have the right to be protected (Bianco, 2013). In other means the Bill of Rights state that the
government can 't violate every liberty not specifically outlined in the constitution examples could include Equal

Theu.s. Constitution And The Constitution
The U.S Constitution is one of the most, if not the most, important documents ever written in political history. The constitution established America's
national government and provided the fundamental framework for the present and future legal parameters by which the american people would be
governed by. The Constitution was officially signed September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia during a constitutional convention. In order for the constitution
to actually be an official document, it had to have been ratified meaning that at least nine of the thirteen states present had to approve this document. It
was easy for the first seven voters to make their decisions who were pro–constitution (federalists), but nevertheless, there were people, anti–federalists,
who did not support the constitution. Although they did not want the Articles of Confederation in place, neither did they want to ratify the constitution
because they opposed of having a strong central government. The ratification of the constitution changed the face of the United States and set forth a
model for future documents to come. Federalists fought very hard against their opposing party. Why was it so important to the federalist to get this
constitution ratified? The constitution not only meant something to the federalists, but without this ratification, it could have led to secession, and this
ratification was needed to make improvements to the government. What exactly did the constitution mean for the federalists? The

Texas Constitution Vs Us Constitution Essay
The Texas Constitution and the United States Constitution have many similarities and differences. For example, they both have a Bill of Rights and
both work hard to be sure to protect the rights of their citizens. They both deal with the privacy of their citizens but the Texas constitution is very
verbose while the U.S. Constitution is very brief and to the point. The Texas Constitution also outlines strict laws regarding the states spending
requirements.
Both the Texas and the U.S. Constitution have a Bill of Rights, checks and balances, and have divided government via lower and higher powers. The
U.S. Constitution was created to give the government power, in contrast the Texas constitution made sure that the main government does not have too
much power over the Texas citizens. The founding fathers of the Texas constitution were wary of the government wielding too much power so they
wanted to be careful to protect themselves. A similaritiy between the U.S. and Texas Constitutions include the fact that both have a Bill of Rights that
protects the basic rights of the citizens. Such as how the Texas Constitution states that no one can be imprisoned for his or her debts. (Texas Article 1
Sec. 18) However, in the U.S. Constitution if someone commits suicide they cannot pass their inheritance down to their descendants. (Article 1 Sec. 21)
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
"The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from all unreasonable seizures or searches." In the U.S. Constitution,
Bill of Rights Article IV it states the right to privacy as follows, " The right of the people to be secure in their persons houses, papers and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searches, and the persons or things to be

Arguments Against Codified Constitution
UK is one of the only three regions which establish an uncodified constitution, which means its content is not written in a single document called the
constitution. However, it has long been criticized that the constitution is ambiguous and uncertain. The main criteria of deciding to choose a codified
or uncodified constitution is that which one would make the British constitution more effective. In this essay, I will focus on the constitution convention
part and royal prerogative power part and discuss the arguments of for and against.
On the one hand, the biggest prominent argument why adopting a codifying constitution is that it would make rules clear and easily accessible. Take
the Ministerial Code as an example, it is a set of codified ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Although the codified constitution would allow for neutral interpretation by the Supreme Court, preferences and values may unavoidable affect their
judgment. Another problem is the coordination of the current principle of parliamentary supremacy and the codified constitution. In the current
system, the parliament is supreme. However, if a codified constitution is introduced, the parliamentary supremacy state will be challenged since the
parliament is bound by the Supreme Court. The problem is that codified constitution allowing unelected judges to overrule a law which has been
passed by the elected politicians is unavoidably 'undemocratic'. Besides, the composition of the supreme courts are lack

The Constitution Of The Texas Constitution
Bigger is not always better, in the case of the Texas Constitution having the second longest state Constitution and the fourth most amended Constitution
in the United States, makes it a difficult and complicated document. The Texas Constitution has been rewritten a total of six times since becoming
independent from Mexico. The most recent being the Constitution of 1876, which is excessively detailed and exact due to the framers fear of a strong
state government. The framers of the constitution placed strategically in the body of the Constitution rules restricting the government's power. Making
it inconvenient and difficult to reform the current Texas Constitution.
There are four key functions of a Constitution. One function is stating the source of power and authority for legitimate state political institutions. Also
in a state Constitution is the delegation of power, which explains how powers are granted and used by institutions and individuals. Another function is
to prevent the concentration of political power, by supplying political mechanism such as checks and balances. Lastly, a Constitution explains the limits
of political power.
The general basic of a state constitution is somewhat reflected in the current Texas Constitution. The framers of the Constitution of 1876 called for a
strong popular control of the state government, public officials would be elected by the people. When it comes to the limits of political power the
Texas Constitution passionately limits the

Framers Of The Constitution
Just because something has been in practice for a long time doesn't necessarily mean it's right. The Constitution was signed in 1787, and it is still in
practice today, with the addition of some amendments of course. This document created the government that now is in charge of America today, but
that doesn't necessarily mean it created the best form of government for this country. The Framers of our Constitution could not have anticipated such
major technological and social changes to the country, changes that make some of the ideas in our Constitution obsolete and ineffective. America was a
test–run in the creation of a democratic republic, and it seems as if that republic is slowly failing. The political and social climate of this country ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The needs of rural Wyoming differ from urban New York, and yet the federal government is meant to represent both. It's extremely difficult to run a
country that's so divided and has become so large. The government is too ineffective in running this country, and modern political problems probably
won't efficiently be resolved under such climate.
It could be argued that while each state has different needs, it is more important to address the country as a whole, especially some states have beliefs
that may be too extreme for practice. Though the question is not whether each state as
2018 is an interesting time in history. Our debt is increasing, totalling over $21 trillion, mass shootings seem to have become the "norm," and race
issues are resurfacing. Many people feel like the government isn't doing things to fix these, but how can they? With the extreme division between the
two political parties and the fact that each state has different views, it seems nearly impossible to get things done. The government probably won't be
able to come up with some viable solution anytime soon––one that seems to address all sides––, thus making the government

Framers Of Constitution
George Washington said, "I do not expect the Constitution to last for more than 20 years" (Gilder Lehrman). Today, we have oldest written
constitution in the world. It has been able to endure because it is flexible and it stresses liberty and equality to the American people. The book states,
"It has endured for more than two centuries as the framework of government because it has changed over time" (Overview). Thomas Jefferson, based
on his notion that "the world belongs to the living" was technically right. We are the living and our Constitution is basically the same as it was when he
made that statement.
The framers of the Constitution established the all–encompassing structure of government in order to serve and protect the people. If,

The Constitution And The Texas Constitution
A constitution is an accumulation of principles and rules that establishes the character of a government. Additionally, by showing the authority each
part of the government holds, it is describing the organization and regulation of the government and how a society must conform. The Texas
constitution has been reformed on multiple occasions and is troublesome to amend due to it being highly restrictive and detailed. The process on how
to amend the Texas constitution, the attempts and failure of the constitutional reform in the 1970's and why Texas should adopt an easily accessible
and flexible constitution are the primary focal points that will be addressed throughout this essay. Texas, amongst many of the state constitutions, has
had a great deal of proposals to amend the state constitution. Reminiscing back to 1876 when the Texas constitution was adopted, there have been six
hundred and sixty six prospective proposals to amending the constitution. However, of the six hundred and sixty six proposals, four hundred and eighty
four have been ratified leaving the remaining few defeated by the Texas voters. Furthermore amending the Texas constitution, according to Article 17 of
the Texas constitution involves applying a two–step process. The process starts off by obtaining a two thirds vote from each house in the legislature
and a majority vote by the voters. The two thirds vote consists of having one hundred members from the House of Representatives and twenty one from
the

Compare And Contrast Texas Constitution And Us Constitution
The word constitution means fundamental law, law determining the fundamental political principles of a government. The U.S Constitution is the
fundamental law for the United States, which means the Texas Constitution the fundamental law for the state of Texas. Most constitutions for the states
are back up by the U.S Constitution, which means the two constitutions have similarities and differences.
First, Texas constitution was written in 1827 and was rewritten six times until the Texas constitution of 1876 was passed down. There are many
similarities and differences when comparing and contrasting the constitutions of Texas and New York constitutions. Examining the characteristics of
the constitutions can help identify the similarities and differences between them. Texas included a provision in its present constitution, adopted that
judicial candidates run on partisan ballots, Texas election law ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The government is not above the law, and the power is divided to laws, administered by another, and an independent judiciary ensures that the laws are
legitimate, and manga fairly. The rights of individuals are determined by legal rules better than the arbitrary actions of the government, and no
punishment can be done by anyone unless a court decides there has been a breach of law.
Addition, the Texas constitution and New York constitution have similarities and difference. One of the main similarities is the Bill of Right. This is
a formal summary of the rights and liberties considered essential to a people or group of people. The individual rights provide a variety of restraints
on political power to protect people against unwarranted intrusion and abuses. Both talk about suffrage tax and revenue along with general provisions
and modes of amending the

China's Constitution Case
1.When was the latest Constitution written? What does this say about the countries' rule of law?
The United Kingdom's constitution was written in 1215 and was last revised in 2013. This shows that the rule of law has remain relatively consistent
besides being updated to keep up with the times. China's constitution was adopted in 1982 and revised in 2004, which shows that China's current rule
of law is a little bit more modernized.
2.Are the three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) mentioned in the document?
Yes, the United Kingdom mentions its parliament, three judicial systems in its different regions (Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England/Wales) and
also outlines the powers of its monarch such as the ability to dismiss ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
What types of rights are protected by the different constitutions? (political, economic, or/and social)
In the United Kingdom's constitution, the people are given rights such as the right to life, thought, religion, and expression. The citizens of the People's
Republic of China are allowed freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, precession, demonstration and religious belief.
4.Out of the two constitutions you looked at, which provided the greatest amount of protection?
The United Kingdom's constitution provided more protection because in China, the central governing party is the Communist Party and although
power is given to the National People's Congress to make decisions, most of those members belong to the founding Communist Party.
5.What do you think is missing from the two documents?
The People's Republic of China's constitution does declare it a socialist state and gives power to the National People's Congress, but is missing the fact
that all power is given to the Communist Party. The constitution of the United Kingdom is missing a single document to represent the constitution
because it is made up of so many different documents.
6.What is unique about your documents? Anything written in it that we do not have in our

Rule of Law in the Constitution
Introduction A 'free society' is a system of interaction between humans wherein every person can participate in a civilised manner and without
discrimination. In Australia, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp) is the primary source by which society operates as an
essentially free society. This paper seeks to establish that the functioning of such a society is dependent upon the existence of a legal framework
supporting the rule of law, which is ultimately, an ideology. Analogically, the circumstances in which the application of the rule of law has either
created a free society or undermined it will be explored and its purposes thus inferred to construct a definition of the 'rule of law' reflecting
contemporary... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In asserting its judicial independence, the High Court in Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth stated it was 'the ultimate decision–maker in all matters
where there is a contest.' Zywicki suggests that as long as the court follows precedent and thereby gives individuals more certainty of knowledge over
the rights they possess, 'social coordination and economic wealth' will increase. The courts would not be relying on its discretion, but rules which will
apply equally in the future. Thus, refining Dicey's definition, Zywicki views 'rule–based decision making' as a basic concept of the rule of law.
Contrarily, Sykes suggests discretion may be a 'matter of necessary efficiency' which is more valuable than strictly adhering to the rule of law. The
rule of law, then, does not encapsulate the absolute value of society. Sykes refers to police discretionary power; however, this concept of balancing
the rule of law against other values may be extended to situations wherein exceptions and defences in law apply to certain groups. Consider the
conferral of legal privilege and the requirement of confidentiality on legal practitioners in criminal law– whereas equality before the law operates in
favour of the client, the law of legal privilege applies only to legal practitioners. As Sykes emphasises, 'it would be unjust if the law failed to account
for social difference and disadvantage...' Zywicki would concur and modifies the

The Constitution: The Creation Of The Constitution
When reviewing the creation of the Constitution, one would find that its creation was not a foregone conclusion. Prior to the Constitution, the
Founding Fathers developed the Articles of Confederation as a general outline of organizing the government and its powers. As time went on, political
leaders faced issues that involved amending the Articles of Confederation. After editing the document to protect the Americans' rights, the leaders
needed the support of the states, which all had different ideas. To start off, "states convened special conventions comprised of popularly elected
representatives to vote on ratification" (Lecture 5). "A fierce public battle ensued, producing hundreds of pamphlets and newspaper articles and spirited
campaigns

Compare And Contrast Iroquois Constitution And Us...
Comparison and Contrast of the Iroquois and United States Constitution Each constitution has its own laws and rules, constitutions have been around
for years. Every government needs a constitution to survive, or it would be chaos. No one would have rules or laws to follow, which would be
madness. Even though the Iroquois Constitution helped build the United States (U.S.) Constitution, it does not mean that they are identical. Both of
these constitutions have some alikes and differences. The Iroquois Constitution is written in a very informally way. It has a relaxing and friendly
mood, and talks about keeping peace between the five Native American tribes. The U.S. Constitution is written in a very formally way. This
constitution is very ceremonial, all this constitution talks about is laws, rules, and the establishment of rights. The... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The Iroquois Constitution explains how the Native Americans want to keep peace, spread peace, and how they want more tribes. The U.S. Constitution
and Iroquois Constitution have very different types of structures. The U.S. Constitution states, "Each house may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,
punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and with the Concurrence of two, expel a Member" (Madison, Section). This constitution has a very
sincere, businesslike tone, and is written out like a contract. This constitution is wrote in headings, articles, and sections. The U.S. Constitution is all
about business and making sure everyone is following their rules. The U.S. Constitution does not have as much peace in it like the Iroquois
Constitution does. The Iroquois Constitution says, "... see the council fire of the Great Peace" (Dekanawidah, 25). This constitution has a very hopeful,
severe tone, and is written out like a narrative, oral tradition

Living Constitution
Is it reasonable to believe that the United States of America should be governed by a document that was written 220 years ago? Is it also reasonable to
believe that the same society that was over two century ago is the same one today? By definition, a Living Constitution is one that evolves, changes
over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended. (Strauss) Through the origins of the Constitution, the history on why the
Constitution was written, and the different court cases that has transpired and lead to amendments being added to it will show why the Constitution is
considered a living document.
One of the main influences that our Constitution is based off is the English Common Law. It originated in the Middle ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Constitution, was made for the betterment of particular people who had the power and means to make national changes. One example of why the
document is a living constitution is the thirteenth amendment. "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof
the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." (United) This amendment ended
slavery in United States which was not originally part of the founders' forethought. With the semi–flexibility of the Constitution, enslaved black people
were set free from the chains that bound them physically, but not the chains that bound them mentally. Through the monumental court case "Plessy v.
Ferguson" of 1896 initiated the establishment of the fourteenth amendment which upheld state racial segregation laws for public facilities under the
doctrine of "separate but equal." However this doctrine did not stand for long thus, "on May 31, 1955, Warren read the Court's unanimous decision,
instructing the states to begin desegregation plans "with all deliberate speed."(Documents) Without the document having the ability to be tweaked, life
for black people in America would be even worse than it already

Confirmation Of Constitution
Confirmation of a constitution is a strong move that makes the drafted document the law of the specified land. It should be supported by majority
parties involved. As an editor of the New York newspaper, I do not support the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788 because it tends to
conquer and violate some necessary procedures. I believe reasons such as defects in the post–revolution War articles of confederation and lack of
central authority over foreign and domestic commerce that lead to the drafting of the document was not substantial enough initiate the documentation
of the constitution. The material happens to lack fare terms that apply to all the parties, therefore, could not be signed or ratified into law. The document

Differences Between Iroquois Constitution And Us Constitution
Constitutions have been around for many years. The first ones on record go back as far as the fifteenth century. There are many uses for them, though
often enough are used to outline laws and basic rights of the people under that government. Two very different, yet very alike constitutions are the
Iroquois and the United States Constitutions. They have many differences, but just as many similarities. Often constitutions follow along the same
lines, but the Iroquois and U.S. Constitutions were made quite differently. The cause of many differences is that they were made in different centuries.
Things had changed during the time between these two constitutions. The Iroquois Constitution was made some time between the fifteenth and sixteenth
century, while the U.S. Constitution was made September 17 in 1787. Not only is this the cause of many differences, but in my opinion it is the
biggest difference. Another difference is how they were written. The Iroquois Constitution was written in first person throughout the entire document.
Meaning the writer of this constitution often uses "I", "I am Dekanawidah and with the Five Nations confederate lords I plant the Tree of the Great
Peace." (24). While on the other hand the United States Constitution was written third person. "All legislative Powers herein shall be vested in a
Congress of the United ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
One thing they have in common is authority; each of the documents contain authority as some point or another. Though the U.S. Constitution has a bit
more than the Iroquois. "There shall you sit and watch the council fire of the confederacy of the Five Nations..." (24). The Constitutions proclaims, "No
Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." (archives.gov, The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription). The United States
Constitution contains many other statement like this one; and some with even more

Compare And Contrast Nevada Constitution And Us Constitution
Constitutions are ordinances set forth by a legislative body to establish the foundations of a government. The United States of America wrote their
constitution to set the rules in place for the branches of government, their separate powers, and the limitations of the federal government. Since the
United States operates under a federalist government, each state is responsible for establishing their own governments. There arise the states'
constitutions. There are inevitable differences between the content of a constitution of a state versus that of the federal government. In this essay, we
will be comparing the constitution of the state of Nevada and that of the United States of America. There are differences in the branches of government,
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Constitution are called the Bill of Rights, they outlined the civil liberties as a citizen of the United States. Civil liberties are the restrictions of
powers the government has on the citizens. For example, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, no government established religion, and the right
to a jury trial are all examples of liberties the government cannot deny its citizens. According to the Supreme Court case Barron v. Baltimore in 1833,
none of the provisions in the Bill of Rights applied to the states, they only applied to the federal government and their restrictions (Bowers 43).
However, the authors of Nevada's 1864 constitution included their own Bill of Rights named the Declaration of Rights. The Declaration of Rights
included all of the same principles that the Bill of Rights did such as the ones listed above. There are two significant differences between the two sets of
amendments. For one, the Nevada constitution requires compensation before the government can seize private property, the U.S. constitution does not
have the same requirement. Second, civil cases in Nevada only require a three–fourths vote to make a decision, federal civil cases require a unanimous
decision. However, in criminal cases, both Nevada and the federal government require a unanimous

Constitution
Sample Constitution Article 1: Name The name of the organization shall be __________, hereinafter referred to as __________. Article 2: Mission
This section outlines why the club exists. This is where the mandate of the club is introduced detailing what purpose the club shall serve. Article 3:
Membership This section describes who can be a member of the club. It is the clause of the Club Committee looks at to determine whether the club is
limited or unlimited. There are two mandatory clauses for this section. The first shall state that at all times your club will have a minimum of 20
members, 2/3 of which are active members of the Students' Union. The second shall state that your club will collect a minimum $1.00 membership...
Most successful clubs implement some form of Executive transition program. In order to be most effective, club Executive terms should provide at
least one month of overlap so that the new Executive has the opportunity to work closely with the outgoing Executive in order to understand the
roles and responsibilities of their respective leadership positions. Example: A. During the period from the end of the second week of April until the
first day of May, when the new Executive will assume office, it is the responsibility of the departing Executive to orient the newly elected executive
officers to their jobs. This includes teaching the incoming executive about club and Students' Union policies and procedures, transitioning
custodianship of club records and materials (including office and mailbox keys, locker combinations and all passwords to all club email accounts),
and preparing the new Executive to be effective in their roles for the next year's work. B. It is the responsibility of the departing President to ensure
that all club requirements to the Students' Union, including submission of a complete annual report and the removal of all club records and materials
from the club office and locker, have been fulfilled before the incoming Executive

A Written Constitution: Written And Unwritten Constitution
A constitution is set of rules which seek to establish the duties, powers and functions of various institutions of government, it regulate the relationship
between and among the institutions and define the relationship between the state and the individual. There are many different types of constitutions.
Constitutions can be written or unwritten, unitary or federal and seen as rigid and flexible the most common way of comparing constitutions however
is written and unwritten. For example the USA is an example of a written constitution while the UK is an example of an unwritten constitution.Written
and Unwritten constitution A written constitution is a single document within which there are... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
A bill of right is a document which specifies the and freedom of the individuals and so defines the legal extent of liberty. Disadvantages of the UK
adopting a written constitution There are also many argument against the UK adopting a written constitution. One of the disadvantages of the written
constitution is that it is considered rigid. Higher laws are more difficult to change than the statute law. And it is also easier and faster to introduce an act
of parliament than to go for the amendment of constitution. Due to the rigidity and inflexibility of the written constitution it is harder to remain
relevant and up to date because written constitution are not easily changed and there for find it difficult to changing political and social circumstances.
The flexibility of a constitution is a very important and useful tool in the modern and evolutional environment and this is a weak point of the written
constitution and a major downside to it. Another disadvantages against the UK adopting the written constitution is judicial tyranny and the democratic
rule in the UK. The UK has a record of a long period of

The Australian Constitution
"The Australian Constitution was drafted at a series of constitutional conventions held in the 1890s. It was passed by the British Parliament as part of
the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 and took effect on 1 January 1901. The Constitution is the legal framework for how Australia
is governed and it can only be changed by referendum."
"A constitution is a set of rules by which a country or state is run."
Some countries have unwritten constitutions which means there is no formal constitution written in one particular document. Their constitutional rules
are derived from a number of sources. Britain sources its constitution from a number of important statutes, or laws, as well as principles decided in
legal cases and conventions. New Zealand and Israel are two other countries that do not have formal written constitutions.
Other countries have formal written constitutions in which the structure of government is defined and the respective powers of the nation and the
states are written in one single document. These systems may also include unwritten conventions and constitutional law, which can inform how the
constitution is interpreted. Australia, India and the United States are examples of countries with a written constitution.
Some constitutions may be amended without any special procedure. The documents that make up the New Zealand Constitution may be amended
simply by a majority vote of its Parliament. In other countries a special procedure must be followed

Theu.s. Constitution Vs. The Constitution
The U.S Constitution was written by James Madison and was ratified on July 21, 1788. Ever since people had trouble determining how it should be
interpreted. When judges interpret the constitution, they are interpreting new facts to an established law that has been given meaning and has a
historical background. Many people argue that it should be read how it was written who are known as Originalists. Then there are people who believe
that the Constitution evolves as society does and they are known as Living Constitutionalists. Also, some feel that the goal is not do determine whether
the constitution should be determined originally or as a living document, but to give meaning on the basis of facts. In my paper I will discuss
arguments on how the Constitution should be read, whether it be from the Originalists or the Living Constitutionalist's point of view, and why Living
Constitutionalism is better. As society evolves, there are new and more difficult problems that occur, and they cannot be solved by reading the exact
text of the Constitution which makes Living Constitutionalism better. According to Meese "Their intention was to write a document not just for their
times, but for posterity." (Meese 15) Living Constitutionalists might say this is a very bold statement. This quote basically means that the Framers were
trying to create a document that would address future and present problems. A common question that is asked is what did the Framers mean and want
for the

Comparing American Constitution With The Roman Constitution
In order to compare the American Constitution with the supposed Roman Constitution, context is vital as to how a constitution is defined. Thus as
demarcated by the historian Benjamin Straumann, :
"I propose the following criteria for a working concept of constitutionality in the late Republic: a) entrenchment, i.e., rules that are considered more
entrenched... b) political importance, i.e., rules that are of great importance in that they govern the institutions through which political power is
exercised; c) normative importance, i.e. rules that betray the political system's and its protagonists' underlying political theory; and d) that the rules in
question are assigned a juridical quality, that is to say, they are part of recognizably legal arguments" (Straumann pg. 18).... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
This is opposed to Straumann's definition of a modern constitution: "Here it would seem that features of modern–day constitutions such as writtenness,
judicial review, and the guarantee of certain individual rights serve as the defining, if implicit, features of a real constitutional order" (Straumann pg.
33). Since the Roman Constitution had continually grown out of precedents, it was more like the British common law system than the statutory law
system of the United States, even though the American Constitution's evolution throughout the years has seen a number of amendments. What defines
a constitution for the United States as opposed to Rome seems to lie in the fact that one is written and codified, where as the other is an amalgamation
of laws unofficially put together (Straumann pg.17). Nonetheless, the Roman constitution has indubitably shaped American politics; features shared by
both the Roman and American Constitution include: checks and balances, the

The Constitution Of The Italian Republic
Italian Law in 20th century: The distinctive features of The Constitution of the Italian Republic
Outline
Main features of Italian Constitution, highlighting aspects of laws governing regions and implementation of democracy
Historical background
Constitutional institutions in Italy have over 150 years of history
Through those 1,5 centuries the country have seen frequent changes in regimes such as constitutional monarchy to totalitarian fascist dictatorship and
to constitutional democracy after 1946
First constitution, statuto Albertino, was written in 1848 and remained the basic law of united Italy for a century until the rejection of Italian monarchy
after WW2
Constitutional Assembly initiated a return to democratic state by overseeing the drafting of the new constitution which came into force in 1948 and is
considered the first republican constitution
'Revolutionary' democratic
It was recognized that Italian Constitution is one of the most democratic constitutions, formulated in post WW2 Europe
Democracy of it is supported by dedication to rights of individuals, introduction of various political parties and parliamentarism
EG Arts. 35–47 state that the state is responsible for elimination of economic and social obstacles that hinder freedom and equality of citizens and
holds them from participation in political, economic and social life of the country
Sources of law
Italian legal system rests first and foremost upon The Constitution which is one of the

Constitution
Facts This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, raising a question of public importance involving the interpretation of Articles 74
(pari materia to Article 163) and 156 of the Constitution, has been referred to this six–judge Constitution Bench. On August 7th, 2014, President
Pranab Mukherjee issued a Presidential order removing Mizoram Governor Kamla Beniwal with barely four months left of her tenure. Ms. Beniwal,
who had crossed swords with PM Narendra Modi as Gujarat governor, was only recently transferred to Mizoram. According to Ms. Beniwal, she was
transferred after a nudge from home secretary Anil Goswami to quit did not elicit the desired response from her. The Government has stated that the
decision to... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It is requested that these orders may be conveyed to the officer concerned under intimation to the Government." By an order dated 15 December,
1969 the services of the appellant Ishwar Chand Agarwal were terminated. The order was as follows: "On the recommendation of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to dispense with the services of Shri Ishwar Chand Agarwal, P.C.S. (Judicial Branch), with
immediate effect, under Rule 7(3) in Part D' of the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, as amended from time to time". The appellants
contend that the Governor as the Constitutional or the formal head of the State can exercise powers and functions of appointment and removal of
members of the
Subordinate Judicial Service only personally. The State contends that the Governor exercises powers of appointment and removal conferred on him by
or under the Constitution like execute powers of the State Government only on the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers and not personally.
The appellants rely on the decision of this Court in Sardari Lal v. union of India & Ors. (1971)3 S.C.R. 461 where it has been held that where the
President or the Governor, as the case may be, if satisfied, makes an order under Article 311(2) proviso(c) that in the interest of thesecurity of the State
it is not expedient to hold an enquiry

Analysis Of The Constitution And The Constitution
Dahl and the Constitution James Madison and the rest of the Founders of the Constitution undeniably founded a government that has withstood the test
of time. The question that Robert Dahl poses in How Democratic Is the American Constitution? is whether this form of government and specifically the
Constitution is as democratic as it should be and focuses on the Constitution's shortcomings. Dahl argues that the constitution is much less democratic
than it ought to be. Madison, on the other hand, had doubts about the effectiveness and practicality of a purely democratic form of government and
fought for a republic with checks on power. I believe that the Constitution should be evaluated according to how it serves the American population
today. Americans are raised through public schooling and popular culture to view the Constitution as nearly infallible and those that wrote it as
inspired. However, it is clearly not a perfect document. After the bill of rights there has come about seventeen additional amendments, or small changes
by definition, to the original document. It intentionally contained no mention of one of the most egregious aspects of American history – slavery.
Despite all of these things, I agree with Madison that the Constitution needed to limit democracy in order to provide a strong enough national
government that would not endanger personal liberty. Society has changed quite a bit since the original crafting of the Constitution in 1787 which has
prompted

The Us Constitution
Provide the class with the details of the project (location, acres restored, methods used, species benefited if available, etc.). Be sure to integrate what
you find with what you are learning in your text and other readings and supplement it with additional research.
ALSO, as September 17th is Constitution Day, I want you to reflect on this and comment on it in your forums for this week. The preamble of the US
Constitution directs the Federal Government to "promote the general welfare"...."secure the blessings of liberty". ..and protect "ourselves and our
posterity". When thinking about our obligation to protect the environment (e.g., plants, animals, habitat, ecosystem services), can a case be made that
we are constitutionally bound to do so based on the quotes I gave you? What do you think? If so, how does that play into our responsibility to conserve
and restore the environment? If not, why not?"
For this week's forum, after searching for "wetlands restoration," I found a local wetlands restoration project that was completed in November 2011
and encompassed an area of 150 acres. The San Dieguito Wetland Restoration Project included the coastal area of San Dieguito Lagoon and the San
Dieguito River Park – estuarine and riverine wetland systems, respectively – which serve an important role in the local ecology. They provide a stop
for birds along the Pacific Flyway, nesting and foraging areas for endangered species and serve as a fish hatchery.
The basis for this

Constitution Vs Constitution
Aurora Manning
Ms. Crouse
US Government
10/24/16
The Constitution
The American Constitution serve and protect American citizens. The Articles of Confederation were the first step of writing the constitution. The
Articles of Confederation were an agreement between the original colonies. "It bound the thirteen original states together in a "firm league of
friendship" from 1781 until the U.S. Constitution was implemented in 1789 (Siemers, David J. "Articles of Confederation")." Although the The Articles
are not in effect, they are in parts of the constitution. "Nevertheless, the determinations of the courts convened under the Articles were considered valid
even after the Constitution was adopted. Several of the Constitution's clauses were adapted ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
"The Constitutional Convention was scheduled to begin on May 14, 1787, but only delegations from Virginia and Pennsylvania were present on that
date. By May 25, however, twenty–nine delegates from seven states–a majority–– had arrived, and the most famous convention in United States history
got under way (Tullai, Martin D. "The Constitutional Convention")." Not everyone one attended the convention. "Of the seventy–four delegates chosen
to attend, fifty–five came. (The full complement of fifty–five was not reached until August 6, when John Francis Mercer of Massachusetts arrived.) The
average daily attendance was thirty. On opening day, twenty–nine people were present. Thirty–nine would ultimately sign. More accurately, thirty–nine
names appear on the document (Tullai, Martin D. "The Constitutional Convention")." Some of the famous people who attended the Convention were
Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton.
The farmers hand some key points that they made sure they were in the Constitution. " Most important, the framers thought they were creating a
government with specific, limited powers. It could do only what the Constitution allowed it to do, and nowhere in that document was there permission
to infringe upon freedom of speech or the press, or to impose cruel and unusual punishments.

Ratifying The Constitution
In this lesson, we are continue learning about the new Constitution. In the summer of 1787, the 13 states discuss the problem under the Articles of
Confederation. They decide it will be easy to write a new document then fix it. James Madison was in charge of the assembling the various parts of the
new constitution. He didn't write it, he just edited it. He took 55 delegate ideas, and turned it into a cohesive document. Madison is known as the
"father of the Constitution". The convention lasted 3 months, and the nation were furious about the new constitution. Madison had to make a taught
choices on what to put in the constitution. At the end, the document was filled with short, vague, and subject to interpretation (page 40). In September
1787, Madison finished and sent... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Madison add the bill of rights in the Constitution but in the form of amendments. However, everyone didn't agree, 9 of the 13 states ratified it. The
ratification battle was so intense, they wrote the Federalist Paper. The Federalist Paper was wrote by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John
Jay. They was known as the "founding father". I didn't know the Federalist Paper is considered a masterpieces in the field of political science. In
1789, 9 states had ratified the Constitution, this went in effect to replace the Articles of Confederation. The government form a system called checks
and balances. The checks and balances were break down in 3 branch. The Legislative branch have two house, the senate would have equal
representation (2 vote), and the House of Representation would have representation within the population. The executive branch is made up by the
president, vice president, and the advisors from the president. The executive branch enforce the laws passed by congress. The executive branch have
the power to veto laws by congress. However, congress have the power declare

The Constitution And The American Constitution
When our founding fathers decided to separate from England, it was understood that they would have to form their own government. Their first official
form of government failed, but they learned from their mistakes and promptly followed up by making quite possibly the most successful constitution
ever in 1776. To ensure that American citizens would enjoy their new freedom, our founders kept in mind what John Locke had said in his An Essay
Concerning Human Understanding "life, liberty, and property," by coining "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" into the final draft of the
constitution. The constitution is important because it "exists to protect the rights of all citizens, and has no legitimate power to deprive any citizen or...
Compared to the United States' 4,543 worded constitution, Texas' constitution has nearly twenty times more words (87,000) (Collier). The national
constitution has never been replaced; however, it has been amended twenty–seven times. Texas's constitution has been replaced a total number of 5
times due to how detailed it is. Depending on the era, a constitution may have certain rules which as time progresses become more hurtful to its
constituents. Only a century ago, women and people of color had little to no rights as a human being. It took America, "Land of the free", a little
more than a century to allow women to vote. It is obvious that the ability to amend a constitution is a valuable one. The issue in Texas is that it has
had a unique history and vast spread of land; therefore, it's constitution is quite detailed. Texas was once its own republic, it was one of the later states
to be admitted to the United States, and that it occupies so much land that counties within its lines often differ drastically. Texas' first constitution was
made in 1836, when it stood as a country, there were no lower units of government, free African American people must have had permission by the
Texas legislature to reside in the state, priests could not hold office (corruption in Mexico), slavery was legalized, and slaves could not be freed
without permission from the legislature. Those

The Constitution Of Nepal 2015
Imagine how would you feel if you waited for something for decades but, when it arrived, some of your brothers and sisters did not like it.Excitement
and frustration simultaneously.
That is the predicament which the Nepali people have been feeling today. The people waited for 65 years for a constitution written by their elected
representatives. Such a charter –– Constitution of Nepal 2015 –– has been finally promulgated today, on 20 September. Most people seem happy but
some are clearly agitated.
The country had waited for this day since 1950. At the time of removing Rana oligarchy, King Tribhuvan had promised to call elections for a
constituent assembly to draft a new constitution. But that did not transpire. Kings gifted the statute ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The second assembly, elected in 2013, has been able to sort out the issue providing for seven states, though not to everyone 's liking.
Five things put pressure on Nepali leaders to deliver the constitution this time around. First, the Nepali Congress Party and the Communist Party of
Nepal (UML), which preferred a few multi–ethnic states, secured nearly two–thirds majority in the assembly and formed a coalition government with
smaller parties, enhacing their strength further. Thus they had the number and confidence to sail the charter to the finish line.
Second, bothPrime Minister Sushil Koirala and UML leader KP Oli were personally men in a hurry. The ailing Koirala wanted to promulgate the
statute on his watch. The ailing Oli wanted to become premier before his health marred his ambition. Therefore, Koirala and Oli promised support to
each other to realize their respective ambitions, as quickly as possible.
Third, the devastating chain quakes and aftershocks in April and May this year –– they killed nearly 10,000 people, destroyed nearly 7 billion rupees
worth of property and affected one–third of the country 's population –– spurred the coalition to accelerate the pace. It became absurd for them to
quibble over the fine prints of the charter at a time when the people and country cried for relief and reconstruction in the wake of the natural calamity.
Fourth, the Maoist leader

Arizona Constitution

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Patty Joseph

More from Patty Joseph (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Arizona Constitution