Progressive Discipline Policy - Single Disciplinary Process
Purpose. ...
Step 1: Counseling and verbal warning. ...
Step 2: Written warning. ...
Step 3: Suspension and final written warning. ...
Step 4: Recommendation for termination of employment. ...
Appeals Process. ...
Performance and Conduct Issues Not Subject to Progressive Discipline.
Answer:
There are three basic modes of constitutional interpretation: strict construction, aspirationalism, and textualism. The strict construction approach seeks to apply the Constitution according to what it says explicitly rather than based on desirable social consequences; the aspirational approach applies the Constitution based on societal standards regardless of whether it contradicts what it says, and the textualist approach looks only at the text of laws regardless of their effect on society.
The literal interpretation assumes that the US Constitution was set in stone by an all-knowing entity. If this is true, then what use are the amendments if one had already decided the outcome of every single dispute ever framed under them? The idea of being open to interpretation is so that new issues can be solved using old principles. Yes, some people may choose to "go rogue" with these principles come up, but I side with keeping my own freedoms limited for greater freedoms for others. And finally, aspirationalism takes into account that America's founding fathers wanted aspirations, not just laws. They would have understood that sometimes even they couldn't agree on moral solutions, and they knew times change over time.
I prefer strict aspirational because it takes into account social progress. The Constitution is meant to be a living document that isn't static, and the Constitution was written in a time when slavery, women's suffrage and segregation were still acceptable. The Constitution needs to evolve with society and make sense in modern times - interpretations.
The Constitution was written at a time when slavery was legal in America - aspirationalism would have been impossible back then. The Constitution works on interpretation - if it didn't, we wouldn't need it. Over time, we've developed aspirationalism to be able to interpret the Constitution more fairly. It's not what the Constitution says, it's how well society can agree to interpret that.
Explanation:
The modes of constitutional interpretation are two of the most popular ways in which constitutional law is interpreted. An aspirationalist judge would favor arguments that all legislation should follow the “original intent” of the constitution while strict constructionists follows the literal text of the constitution.
Answer: In the post 9/11 environment society has been consumed by the question of whether torture is acceptable under extreme circumstances. The “ticking bomb” metaphor was regularly employed by various figures in the US as an argument to justify the use of torture in interrogations during the term of the Bush Administration. It is an argument that has been used to justify torture in a set of very extreme and detailed circumstances. This paper will argue that the “ticking bomb” metaphor does not provide a convincing argument to justify the use of torture under extreme circumstances. First, definitions of torture and the “ticking bomb” metaphor will be provided. Second, this essay will discuss the use of torture by the US in the War on Terror. Third, the arguments for the use of torture under extreme circumstances, and the flaws of allowing torture under extreme circumstances will be addressed.
Explanation:
any act by which severe pain suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity (United Nations 1997).
Torture is prohibited in any circumstance under a variety of international laws, conventions, and norms. It is spelt out in not only the UN Convention against Torture, but also the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the law of armed conflicts, and the Geneva Conventions (Ip 2009: 36). The prohibition of torture is further enshrined in domestic laws of many of the countries who have ratified these treaties. However, the “ticking bomb” metaphor is used to justify torture in certain extreme situations. The concept of the “ticking bomb” was first conceptualised in a fiction novel written by Jean Larteguy in 1960 (Kovarovic 2010: 254). It describes a scenario whereby the torture of a suspect is considered necessary to obtain information to prevent a future catastrophic event from occurring (Kovarovic 2010: 254). The scenario is usually described as one where terrorists have planned an attack that is going to occur very soon and a large number of people will be killed unless the authorities obtain critical information from the source they have captured (Ip 2009: 40). It is essentially torture that has been sanctioned by the state in exceptional circumstances (Bufacchi and Arrigo 2006: 354). Torture is still considered to be wrong in these circumstances, but it is viewed as a necessary or lesser evil (Ip 2009: 40). Proponents of the “ticking bomb” scenario argue that “torture may be wrong…but mass murder is worse, so the lesser evil must be tolerated to prevent the greater one” (Roth 2005: 197).
Answer:
What is the question here?
Explanation:
