Free Essay

U.S Downgrade

In:

Submitted By ankitajhawar19
Words 3561
Pages 15
August 5, 2011

Research Update:

United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' On Political Risks And Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative
Primary Credit Analyst: Nikola G Swann, CFA, FRM, Toronto (1) 416-507-2582;nikola_swann@standardandpoors.com Secondary Contacts: John Chambers, CFA, New York (1) 212-438-7344;john_chambers@standardandpoors.com David T Beers, London (44) 20-7176-7101;david_beers@standardandpoors.com

Table Of Contents
Overview Rating Action Rationale Outlook Related Criteria And Research Ratings List

www.standardandpoors.com/ratingsdirect

1
883559 | 300978643

Research Update:

United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' On Political Risks And Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative
Overview
• We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the 'A-1+' short-term rating. • We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative. • The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics. • More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011. • Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon. • The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

Rating Action
On Aug. 5, 2011, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA'. The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. At the same time, Standard & Poor's affirmed its 'A-1+' short-term rating on the U.S. In addition, Standard & Poor's removed both ratings from CreditWatch, where they were placed on July 14, 2011, with negative implications. The transfer and convertibility (T&C) assessment of the U.S.--our assessment of the likelihood of official interference in the ability of U.S.-based public- and private-sector issuers to secure foreign exchange for debt service--remains 'AAA'.

Standard & Poor’s | RatingsDirect on the Global Credit Portal | August 5, 2011

2
883559 | 300978643

Research Update: United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' On Political Risks And Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative

Rationale
We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade. Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria (see "Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions ," June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal government's other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged. We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government's debt ceiling. In addition, we believe that the act provides sufficient clarity to allow us to evaluate the likely course of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few years. The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability. Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a 'AAA' rating and with 'AAA' rated sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions," June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). In our view, the difficulty in framing a consensus on fiscal policy weakens the government's ability to manage public finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to achieve more balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal stringency and private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political consensus might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe that by

www.standardandpoors.com/ratingsdirect

3
883559 | 300978643

Research Update: United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' On Political Risks And Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative

then, the government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed medium-term fiscal adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on the U.S. population's demographics and other age-related spending drivers closer at hand (see "Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely Cost Even More Green, Now," June 21, 2011). Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing. The act calls for as much as $2.4 trillion of reductions in expenditure growth over the 10 years through 2021. These cuts will be implemented in two steps: the $917 billion agreed to initially, followed by an additional $1.5 trillion that the newly formed Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is supposed to recommend by November 2011. The act contains no measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them. The act further provides that if Congress does not enact the committee's recommendations, cuts of $1.2 trillion will be implemented over the same time period. The reductions would mainly affect outlays for civilian discretionary spending, defense, and Medicare. We understand that this fall-back mechanism is designed to encourage Congress to embrace a more balanced mix of expenditure savings, as the committee might recommend. We note that in a letter to Congress on Aug. 1, 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated total budgetary savings under the act to be at least $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years relative to its baseline assumptions. In updating our own fiscal projections, with certain modifications outlined below, we have relied on the CBO's latest "Alternate Fiscal Scenario" of June 2011, updated to include the CBO assumptions contained in its Aug. 1 letter to Congress. In general, the CBO's "Alternate Fiscal Scenario" assumes a continuation of recent Congressional action overriding existing law. We view the act's measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation. However, this is within the framework of a legislative mechanism that leaves open the details of what is finally agreed to until the end of 2011, and Congress and the Administration could modify any agreement in the future. Even assuming that at least $2.1 trillion of the spending reductions the act envisages are implemented, we maintain our view that the U.S. net general government debt burden (all levels of government combined, excluding liquid financial assets) will likely continue to grow. Under our revised base case fiscal scenario--which we consider to be consistent with a 'AA+' long-term rating and a negative outlook--we now project that net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 79% in 2015 and 85% by 2021. Even the projected 2015 ratio of sovereign indebtedness is high in relation to those of peer credits and, as noted, would continue to rise under the act's revised policy settings. Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP

Standard & Poor’s | RatingsDirect on the Global Credit Portal | August 5, 2011

4
883559 | 300978643

Research Update: United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' On Political Risks And Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative

growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade. Our revised upside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to stable--retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021. Our revised downside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as being consistent with a possible further downgrade to a 'AA' long-term rating--features less-favorable macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below and also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not occur. This scenario also assumes somewhat higher nominal interest rates for U.S. Treasuries. We still believe that the role of the U.S. dollar as the key reserve currency confers a government funding advantage, one that could change only slowly over time, and that Fed policy might lean toward continued loose monetary policy at a time of fiscal tightening. Nonetheless, it is possible that interest rates could rise if investors re-price relative risks. As a result, our alternate scenario factors in a 50 basis point (bp)-75 bp rise in 10-year bond yields relative to the base and upside cases from 2013 onwards. In this scenario, we project the net public debt burden would rise from 74% of GDP in 2011 to 90% in 2015 and to 101% by 2021. Our revised scenarios also take into account the significant negative revisions to historical GDP data that the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced on July 29. From our perspective, the effect of these revisions underscores two related points when evaluating the likely debt trajectory of the U.S. government. First, the revisions show that the recent recession was deeper than previously assumed, so the GDP this year is lower than previously thought in both nominal and real terms. Consequently, the debt burden is slightly higher. Second, the revised data highlight the sub-par path of the current economic recovery when compared with rebounds following previous post-war recessions. We believe the sluggish pace of the current economic recovery could be consistent with the experiences of countries that have had financial crises in which the slow process of debt deleveraging in the private sector leads to a persistent drag on demand. As a result, our downside case scenario assumes relatively modest real trend GDP growth of 2.5% and inflation of near 1.5% annually going forward. When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with 'AAA' long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers--Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.--we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.'s net public debt is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by 2015.

www.standardandpoors.com/ratingsdirect

5
883559 | 300978643

Research Update: United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' On Political Risks And Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative

Standard & Poor's transfer T&C assessment of the U.S. remains 'AAA'. Our T&C assessment reflects our view of the likelihood of the sovereign restricting other public and private issuers' access to foreign exchange needed to meet debt service. Although in our view the credit standing of the U.S. government has deteriorated modestly, we see little indication that official interference of this kind is entering onto the policy agenda of either Congress or the Administration. Consequently, we continue to view this risk as being highly remote.

Outlook
The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction--independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners--lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'. On Monday, we will issue separate releases concerning affected ratings in the funds, government-related entities, financial institutions, insurance, public finance, and structured finance sectors.

Related Criteria And Research
• United States of America 'AAA/A-1+' Ratings Placed On CreditWatch Negative On Rising Risk Of Policy Stalemate, July 14, 2011 • U.S. Weekly Financial Notes: Soft Patch Or Quicksand?, Aug. 5, 2011 • Sovereign Government Rating Methodology And Assumptions, June 30, 2011 • 2011 Midyear Credit Outlook: Unresolved Economic And Regulatory Issues Loom Large, June 22, 2011 • Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely Cost Even More Green, Now, June 21, 2011 • United States of America 'AAA/A-1+' Rating Affirmed; Outlook Revised To Negative, April 18, 2011 • Fiscal Challenges Weighing On The 'AAA' Sovereign Credit Rating On The Government Of The United States, April 18, 2011 • A Closer Look At The Revision Of The Outlook On The U.S. Government Rating , April 18, 2011 • Banking Industry Country Risk Assessments, March 8, 2011 • Behind The Political Brinkmanship Of Raising The U.S. Debt Ceiling, Jan. 18, 2011 • U.S. Government Cost To Resolve And Relaunch Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Could Approach $700 Billion, Nov. 4, 2010 • Global Aging 2010: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Cost A Lot More Green, Oct. 25, 2010, • Après Le Déluge, The U.S. Dollar Remains The Key International Currency," March 10, 2010 • Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment: United States of America, Feb.

Standard & Poor’s | RatingsDirect on the Global Credit Portal | August 5, 2011

6
883559 | 300978643

Research Update: United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' On Political Risks And Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative

1, 2010

Ratings List
Rating Lowered To From United States of America (Unsolicited Ratings) Federal Reserve System (Unsolicited Ratings) Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Unsolicited Ratings) Sovereign Credit Rating AA+/Negative/A-1+ AAA/Watch Neg/A-1+

This unsolicited rating(s) was initiated by Standard & Poor's. It may be based solely on publicly available information and may or may not involve the participation of the issuer. Standard & Poor's has used information from sources believed to be reliable based on standards established in our Credit Ratings Information and Data Policy but does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of any information used. Complete ratings information is available to subscribers of RatingsDirect on the Global Credit Portal at www.globalcreditportal.com. All ratings affected by this rating action can be found on Standard & Poor's public Web site at www.standardandpoors.com. Use the Ratings search box located in the left column.

www.standardandpoors.com/ratingsdirect

7
883559 | 300978643

Copyright © 2011 by Standard & Poors Financial Services LLC (S&P), a subsidiary of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of S&P. The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P, its affiliates, and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions, regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an "as is" basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT'S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Credit-related analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact or recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P's opinions and analyses do not address the suitability of any security. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process. S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain credit-related analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.

Standard & Poor’s | RatingsDirect on the Global Credit Portal | August 5, 2011

8
883559 | 300978643

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Business

...America contains many people with different attributes, with bilingualism being in the middle of one of the conflicts America has; what should America’s native language be? Most Americans feel it should be English while other feels it should not be determined because of the diversity America has. Either way it presents both a positive and a negative insight and depends on the person. Bilingualism seems to be becoming a necessity because of how many people comet to the United States every minute, hour, and day, which presents a time to change and adapt to meet the needs of those coming to the freedom country. While there are people that feel the people coming to the country should learn the countries ways and while not change. Either way both sides of the conflict have great points, so who is right? Researching the internet they is much information to support both sides some negative some positive. One website states the positives that could come from a country that is bilingual, stating that it well benefits business, education, and possibly the economy. This can create an all-around country. Another site that is the opposite in a summary has a negative view. This site presents that having bilingualism in schools can affect the students, which can present issues such as heavy homework loads; students are more than likely to drop out of school because of the work load. The site goes further into detail regarding the issues. The second site that also presented a negative...

Words: 359 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Ethical Dilemma

...IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF Illinois Justin King, Plaintiff vs. Anheuser-Busch, Defendant Civil Action No. 12345 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, Plaintiff hereby submits the following Interrogatories to Defendant. Plaintiff requests that Defendant serve its answers, in writing and under oath, to the undersigned counsel for Plaintiff at 262 Millers Ridge, Lebanon Junction, Kentucky 40150, within 30 days of service of these Interrogatories. For the purpose of these Interrogatories only, Plaintiff has used the definitions set forth below. Interrogatories 1. State your company's annual/monthly/quarterly maintenance records/requirements for all of your trucks. 2. State your company's policies as far as far as length of time that a driver can be on the road. Can you provide a copy of the drivers log? 3. State your companies accident reports and insurance policies and procedures in regards to your trucks that are on the road delivering daily. 4. State any conversations that you had with police officers about the accident, including: a. The date, time, and place of each conversation. b. What your driver stated to each officer/paramedic, attending physicians, if you cannot remember the exact words, state them as you remember. c. What each officer/attending physicians recited or said to you verbatim or what you remember. 5. State all of...

Words: 319 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

The Only One

...Corrinn Berge “Crazy Laws” Outline I. “Crazy laws” that exist in the United States and why they were created. Introduction: Stupid laws are created because of stupid people. 1. Show a well-known picture of Casey Anthony. 2. Bringing up Casey and Caylee Anthony because it is such a well-known case and is so recent. This case really touched the hearts of people in the US. 3. Point out how this story really hurt my heart, and how hard it is to accept that we have to make laws to monitor parenting. 4. Explain how because of “stupid” people there must be “stupid” or “crazy” laws to govern these people and how they are generally directly responsible for these laws. A. States create their own laws based on the Constitution. 1. All laws must coincide with the US Constitution. 2. Almost all states in the US have their laws based off the common law of England, but have all modified them greatly since established. a. The amount of time passed has lead to many changes, which is why states generally do not have the same laws. b. Example: Drinking and driving laws throughout the US. (1) Colorado – First offense misdemeanor, 3 months suspension of license, fined from $300 - $1500, jail from 3-365 days, and generally required to get ignition interlock system. (2) Mississippi – Driver’s license suspension for 90 days, fines from $250 - $1000, up to 48 hours in jail, counseling may be ordered. B. Some...

Words: 469 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Tag Form

...Exhibit E MILITARY INSURANCE EXEMPTION INFORMATION The exemption 1. for providing proof of Florida insurance applies in the following circumstances: The military member or spouse is an owner, co-owner or registrant. or 2. The military member is a Florida resident stationed outside Florida. All of the following is required: 1. An out-of-state mailing address (which will be shown on the Florida Vehicle Registration Certificate) for the military member. The military member's Florida address of residence, which will be shown in the DMV database. 2. 3. A copy of the military orders. or, An affidavit from the military member's commanding military orders and the date of assignment. officer that confirms the member's 4. An affidavit stating the vehicle is being maintained in the member's state of military assignment and will not be driven in the state of Florida, except in a transient visitor status (see sample below). AFFIDAVIT I, (Name of Military Member or Spouse) certify that my vehicle is maintained in the , where I am on military orders and will not be driven in the state state of of I Florida, except in a transient visitor status. I also declare that I have: Property Damage Liability, currently in effect with: (Policy Number / Binder Number) I D Personal Injury Protection (Insurance Company Name / Agent) o on the following described motor vehicle (Year) (Make) (Vehicle Identification Number) UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY...

Words: 278 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Swot Analysis

...State of Confusion Law/415 October 17, 2011 State of Confusion The state of Confusion is enforcing a law ordering trucks and towing trailers using their roadways to use a B-type truck hitch. The B-type hitch the state is implying about is the only maker in the state of Confusion. The dispute this cause for Tanya Trucker is the effect of this law passing and requiring her drivers to stop in Confusion and obtain the installation of the B-type hitch or drive completely around the vicinity. The information presented will explain the jurisdiction, of which court Tanya Trucker will be able to file an appeal, what arrangement of the United States Constitution will apply to the U.S. Court to decide the statutes grounds, also whether the Confusion statute is constitutional, and to see if Tanya is destined to prevail on her lawsuit. Court Jurisdiction Tanya lives in the state of Denial and is placing an appeal against the state of Confusion. The federal government has the right to attest safety obligations for vehicles, which also include trucks. For the simple fact that Tanya proceed with the federally direct rules and obligations, Tanya’s business can now have permission to travel on the interstate in the state of Confusion. Tanya Trucker could file a claim in a federal court based on an unconstitutional restraint on trade or violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Commerce Clause, Article I Section 8 Clause 3 of the Constitution of the...

Words: 699 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Freedom of Religion

...Bracken Ostler Business Law Paper #1 Mark Holland Freedom of Religion Freedom of religion is an essential part of the Constitution of the United States and is included in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Freedom of religion involves two important components. The first is the prohibition on the “establishment of religion” by government- the separation of Church and State; and the second, ensures that the government allows for the practice of religion (Marroquin). Many important cases throughout history have also helped to further refine the limits of freedom of religion as laid out in the Constitution. This paper will discuss why freedom of religion was chosen as part of the Constitution. It will also provide the current law pertaining to this important part of the First Amendment. In the original Constitution, religion makes only one direct and obvious appearance that seems to point to a desire of religious freedom. That appearance is in Article 6, at the end of the third clause and states: “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” (Mount) This is a statement that is simple and straightforward and applies to all offices in the entire United States, both state and federal. The framers of the Constitution thought that they had constructed a complete and comprehensive document. Many people disagreed. One of the big disagreements from the opposition to the framers was the lack...

Words: 1145 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

A Strong Central Government

...A Strong Central Government Throughout the history of American politics, there has been a power struggle between states' rights versus federal rights. Some citizens feel as if the state and local government should have more power while others feel that the federal government should dictate most issues. I believe that state, local, and federal governments each have a role. I believe that Washington should have greater power to dictate national policy, but I do not think that will happen. Throughout history there has been a battle of the states' rights versus federal rights. Our federal system is designed to allow states to experiment with different policies. This means that new social or economic policies can be tested for those states who may want the new policy. According to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, "Powers are not delegated to the federal government...and are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people (Harrison, 2010). The Constitution has set a balance between state rights and federal powers; however, the states are limited because no state law is superior to federal law (The Question Of). For example, California allows the use of medicinal marijuana, but it is against federal law. In order to obtain ratification of the Constitution, Federalist agreed to the Bill of rights. The Bill of Rights limited federal government powers and any other powers were given to the state. The composition of the Supreme...

Words: 792 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Lower Drinking Age to 18

...| Lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 | Sociology 100 | | John Max | | STRAYER UNIVERSITY 12/8/2012 Professor Taylor, Grace Individuals born prior to 1966 had the right to drink alcohol legally in the United States at the age of 18. In 1984 the United States changed its legal drinking age from 18 to 21. The legal drinking age in the United States of America should be lowered from the age of 21 to the age 18. Americans today are mature enough at the age of 18 to drink responsibly. Lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 will have a positive outcome for American society. Lowering the legal drinking age affects the country as a whole, as well as many countries around the world. When considering the issue in a global perspective view, the United States is only one of four countries that have a drinking age as high as 21. In just about every other country around the world there is little or no social pressure to drink. In the countries where the legal drinking age set to 18 irresponsible behavior is never tolerated. Young people learn at home from their parents and from other adults how to handle alcohol in a responsible manner. Lawrence Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development states that development occurs in stages. The second stage which is known as the conventional level appears in the teenage years. Kohlberg believes that in this stage young people lose some of their selfishness as they learn to define right and wrong in terms...

Words: 1021 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Formal Report

...LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY Prepared by Kate Buckner Secretary of McAlester Union Stockyards Report Distributed July 24, 2013 Prepared for ENG 3903 Technical and Professional Writing Dr. Mark Spencer Southeastern Oklahoma State University ABSTRACT This report looks at the history of the livestock industry and examines how it has changed throughout the years. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Humane Society of the United States, and other activist groups have continually tried to cast a negative shadow on the livestock industry; however, with groups such as Livestock Marketing Association, the livestock industry has flourished. The issue of horse slaughter has recently become a big issue for the livestock industry. INTRODUCTION The livestock industry has provided beef to the American public since cattle were introduced to our country in the early 1900’s. It is an indisputable fact that the human population requires enough protein to survive and maintain good health. The livestock industry has come a long way in the last century. It has survived droughts, depressions, recessions, fluctuating economies, as well as pressure and criticism from several organizations, such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), HSUS (Humane Society of the United States), the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), and other activist groups. History of Selling Cattle In the beginning, before there were stockyards, cattle were herded to their meat-packing...

Words: 2042 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

Psychology

...​In my reading I wanted find a clear understanding of what success and responsibility had in common. I started with the basic definition of the two words. Responsibility is defined by Merrimu-Webster” ("Success and responsibility," 2013). “as the quality or state of being responsible as moral, legal or mental accountability”. Then success was defined as “a favorable or desired outcome also the attainment of wealth, favor or eminence.” With that said it lead me want to find out what the relevance of the two is and how it plays a role in our life on what we consider a personal responsibility or obligation? Going back to the question of are we chosen or do we choose? In Redefining Failures – The concept of success vs. failure (Adess 2008) not only does this article helps support my theories but also challenge some of the thoughts I had. ​In Redefining Failures (Adess 2008) he states “Literally speaking there is no success/failure. Success/failures are mere concepts of the mind.” Which goes back to my theory that if we do not take personal responsibility for our choices, our action, our success it is then chosen for us there by giving up our option to choose. In another prospective (Adess 2008) it is stated that “ If success/ failures are concepts of the mind then how are they influencing the mind?” he goes on to state “ Success bring about great joy and happiness whereas failure bring about pain / sadness in the mind” (adess2008). With this statement Adess pose an opposition...

Words: 273 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Articles of Confederation

...The Articles of Confederation was an agreement between the founding thirteen states that established the United States of America. While the Articles of Confederation had its flaws, it did serve an important purpose at the time it was written. Some of the strong points include: the Land Ordinance of 1785, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, defined territories, and establishment of an adequate temporary government. At the time, the American colonies had suffered under the long tyranny of England’s King George III and the American colonies’ primary goal was to establish a government in which its people would be protected from such domination. The Articles of Confederation did this, claiming very little power over individual states and people. Furthermore, in the Articles of Confederation territories and rules between states were explicitly laid out, with states gaining an understanding of how they played into the federal government. Lastly, the Land and Northwest Ordinances of 1785 and 1787 respectively were established in the Articles of Confederation. The Land Ordinance defined the general practices of land surveying and land ownership provisions. This ordinance was considered a success, in that may people were able to purchase and secure land with very little trouble. The Northwest Ordinance required some of the original states to give up land near the Ohio River. This land was later used for the development of five new states. Furthermore, the Northwest Ordinance abolished slavery...

Words: 905 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Civil Disobedience

...Civil Disobedience [1] I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least";(1) and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war,(2) the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure. [2]    This American government — what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary...

Words: 4281 - Pages: 18

Premium Essay

02.03

...In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause when it passed a law prohibiting gun possession in local school zones. The case arose out of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which made it a federal offense "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." Alfonso Lopez Jr., a high school senior, was convicted in a federal district court for knowingly possessing a concealed handgun and bullets at his San Antonio high school. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, ruling that the law was beyond the reach of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The government appealed to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1994. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and released in 1995, ruled that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional and overturned Lopez's conviction. The Court ruled that the act exceeded the limited powers of Congress under the Constitution, rejecting the government's argument that the act was constitutional because the buying and selling of guns and associated illicit activities affect "interstate commerce," which Congress may regulate under the Commerce Clause. The government claimed that gun violence in schools leads to both more dangerous and thus less commercially healthy neighborhoods and less...

Words: 604 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Religon

...University of Phoenix Material Foundations of the U.S. Federal Government Worksheet Complete the chart below by identifying the three branches of government and their entities. |U.S. Constitution | |[pic] | | | | | | | |[pic] [pic] [pic] | | | | | | | | ...

Words: 736 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

State of Confusion

...review how Tanya Trucker can suit the State of Confusion, by following all the constitutional laws in the right court, and the litigation process she must follow to suit. The Federal Court will have jurisdiction over this case because Tanya Trucker leaves in the State of Denial, and her suit will be against the State of Confusion. Cheeseman (2010) stated “A case may be brought in federal court if there is diversity of citizenship” (p. 41). Because this case will have a federal question because Tanya Trucker could file her lawsuit against the State of Confusion for violating the commerce clause under the U.S. Constitution. Cheeseman (2010) stated “The Commerce Clause gives the federal government the authority to regulate the interstate commerce.” The U.S. Supreme Court has handled numerous case, but one particular case is the Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761, 65 S. Ct. 1515, 89 L. Ed. 1915 (1945), this case was about an Arizona statute that prohibited railroads with more than 70 freight cars to travel within the state (“The Free Dictionary by Farlex,” 2012). This law was found to be a violation of the Commerce Clause, despite of the fact that it treated intrastate and interstate commerce equally to the point that when put into operation the law hindered interstate commerce as there was difficulties faced by the train if it followed the state law. Similarly a statute was endorsed by the State of Confusion, recommending the use...

Words: 1260 - Pages: 6