European Court of Justice Essay Example for Free

European Court of Justice Essay The European Union (EU) is a celebrated alliance of Nations that runs from the United Kingdom and Portugal in the West to Turkey in the East. The EU has made travel and trade much easier between its member states. With few exceptions this Union now shares a common currency known as the Euro. After close to a decade of existence the Euro is now stronger than the U. S. Dollar. This economic powerhouse is energized by free trade between its members a free trade marked by cooperation rather than competition. Today, the average French Citizen has access to Limburger, Swiss and Italian Cheeses at ever cheaper prices. The EU can legitimately boast that it has all but eliminated tariffs between native states. Unfortunately, this Union is not without its faults. There are occasions when selfish national interest subvert the good of the Union. After all, despite the good will and benefits that nations gain from free trade, parochial interests can still sometimes over come the common good. In such cases the European Court of Justice may be forced to intervene. For example, In Commission v.  Italy Italian customs charges were struck down because any pecuniary charge, however small, imposed on goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier constitutes an obstacle to the movement of such goods. † Commission vs. Italy is not an isolated case, it is safe to say that â€Å"In developing the rules of the internal market, the European Court of Justice has maintained a careful balance between the de-regulation imperative of the Treaty, as interpreted by the Court, on the one hand, and legitimate Member State interests and the reality of regulatory diversity, on the other. The Court’s perception of the place of both civil and political rights and social rights within the internal market changes in accordance with how this balance falls. † The European Court of Justice (ECJ), also known as the Court of Justice of the European Communities is the highest court of the European Union. The court is similar to a national Supreme Court. It strives, interpret the EU laws to ensure equal application across the various European Union member states The European Court of Justice is based in Luxembourg City and was established in 1952. It is one of the few European Union institutions that is not based in Brussels. There is one judge for every member state although only thirteen can be present to hear a case at any given time. The ECJ has jurisdiction over all matter of European Community law, but can not intervene with respect to national law. Every nation has its respective national legal system which the Union must respect. However, the ECJ ensures that EU level legislation is interpreted and applied in equal manner across the whole of the EU. This prevents national Supreme Courts from interpreting the same legislation differently. The Courts decisions are binding. For instance, a state that fails to implement a directive or a Commission that acts outside its delegated power has to answer to the ECJ. The Court also has jurisdiction over cases involving disputes between states, institutions, businesses and individuals A full tale of the ECJs jurisdiction includes the insurance that the law is observed in the interpretation and application of the Treaties of the European Union. This application must be uniform across all nations without bias or favoritism, hence the need for a Union-wide arbiter of the law. The court must also see that the provisions are laid down by Community institutions with the proper competence. The Court enjoys a wide latitude to hear various actions. Among other things the court may rule on applications for annulment or actions for failure to act raised by a member state or institution, actions against Member States for failure to fulfill obligations, references for a preliminary ruling and appeals against decision of the Court of First Instance Under Article 226 of the Consolidated Treaty Establishing the European Community (CTEEC), the ECJ may determine if a Member State has fulfilled its obligations under Community Law. A preliminary hearing will allow the erring Member State to reply to the complaint. If the hearing does not result in termination of the claim of failure by the Member State an action for breach of Community law may be brought before the European Court of Justice. Such an action is ordinarily brought to the court by a Member State by another Member State. If the court finds that the claimed obligation has not been fulfilled the erring Member State must terminate the breach with due haste. If the breach is not resolved within a reasonable time period upon the Request of the Commission, the European Court of Justice may impose a fixed or periodic financial penalty. In addition the court may also act on Actions for Annulment, Actions for failure to act, Applications for compensation based on non-contractual liability. The court can also rule of review on point of the law. The ECJ is the final arbiter with respect to the interpretation and application of community law. The Court of First Instance, deals with most cases before they are elevated to the ECJ. However, these two bodies are not the only judicial body tasked with interpreting the application of Community Law. The true court of first instance is actually the national courts. The national courts retain jurisdiction to review the administrative implementation of Community law. , for which the authorities of the Member State are responsible. It is because of this role that the National courts are the first guarantors of the Community law. Unfortunately, National courts are beholden to the nations in which they belong. It cannot be helped but for a justice to give his loyalty first to his country and second to the Union. Cynicism aside, there can and there have been occasions were the parochial interest of the state was upheld by the National courts over the fair and equitable application of the EU’s laws. It is in these circumstance that the Court must intervene. In Costa vs ENEL it was established that Community law takes precedence over the member states domestic law. Furthermore, in Simmenthal II the Court held that there is a Duty to set aside provisions of national law which are incompatible with Community Law. Hence, the Court justifies its rulings in favor of Community law over the parochial decisions of National Courts. Despite criticism that at time the court has overstepped its bounds and has interfered with local laws. The powerhouse economy of the EU is made possible by the elimination of Tariff barriers that once plagued the nations. Tariffs historically, made products of one nation less competitive in the market of another nation. For example, all things being equal, a bottle of wine produced in France will cost more than Italian wine in Rome because the French wine had to pay Tariffs. Articles 23 and 25 of the EC prohibit all â€Å"customs duties on imports and exports and of all charges having equivalent effect. This applies between Member States and also applies to customs duties of a fiscal nature. The ECJ has remained steadfast in upholding the Union’s commitment to Free Trade. The ECJ has ruled that ‘Goods’ are â€Å"products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such of forming the subject of commercial transactions . † Hence, painting, sculptures and even musical recordings are ‘goods’ the establishment of tariff barriers against is disallowed. Even waste is capable of forming the subject of a commercial transaction A criticism against the ECJ is that at times it may overstep its bounds and interfere with the internal workings of a nation. For example, in Diamantarbeiders ; â€Å"A charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty is any pecuniary charge however small and whatever its designation and mode of application which is imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense. This is the case even if it is not imposed for the benefit of the State [and] is not discriminatory or protective in effect, or if the product on which the charge is imposed is not in competition with any domestic product. Also in Bresciani Charges imposed for a public health inspection carried out on the entry of goods to a Member State can be a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty. It was not important that the charges were proportionate to the costs of the inspection, nor that such inspections were in the public interest . Thus, the ECJ continues to maintain its commitment to free trade and the removal of all barrier to trade between Member States. The efforts of non-compliant Member States to form covert or hidden tariffs is vigilantly watch by the Court in order for it to act swiftly and decisively upon any breech that arises However, Court is not wholly without heart or willingness to render judgment based on its jurisdiction as a court of Justice AND equity. It is not utterly insensitive to the plight of Member States. In commission vs Germany it ruled that; A charge for a service will not be regarded as a customs duty where it: (a) does not exceed the cost of the service, (b) that service is obligatory and applied uniformly for all the goods concerned, (c) the service fulfills obligations prescribed by Community law, and (d) the service promotes the free movement of goods in particular by neutralising obstacles which may arise from unilateral measures of inspection . This decision is of interest because of its Solomonic approach, Germany at that time was suffering a period of economic dislocation and in a nut shell needed to be cut some slack. By allowing charges for a service to be accounted as not a customs duty, it allowed Germany a quantity of income. Strict rules were established to ensure that such allowance is not abused by Germany or any other Member State. However, the European Court of Justice still upheld its commitment to free trade. Art 90 of the EC provides that Member States are prevented from imposing, â€Å"directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products. In Humblot it was held that the prohibition extends to internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection of product†. This case was an example of how pervasive and at times invasive the European Court of Justice can get in upholding its mandate. The European Court of Justice has a mandate to protect the Community Law. At times it must do so over the heads of Member States who have put parochial interests before the good of the Union. Fortunately, the Court has been granted sufficient mandate and jurisdiction to uphold the its commitment to Free Trade. The Court is at times criticized for being too invasive and interfering even with the internal workings of a Member State. The Court is also lambasted from being overly committed and ignoring the facts of the ground, or the special circumstances which might merit certain exceptions. As was noted in the Germany case, this is not so. Despite its mandate, the Court remains sensitive to the needs of individual nations some of which may require some temporary consideration in order to adjust and eventually be full partners of the European Union.

Capital Punishment and Catholicism :: Argumentative Persuasive Essays

Capital Punishment and Catholicism 2 sources cited Among the major nations of the Western world, the United States is singular in still having the death penalty. After a five-year moratorium, from 1972 to 1977, capital punishment was reinstated in the United States courts. Objections to the practice have come from many quarters, including the American Catholic bishops, who have rather consistently opposed the death penalty. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1980 published a predominantly negative statement on capital punishment, approved by a majority vote of those present though not by the required two-thirds majority of the entire conference (1). Pope John Paul II has at various times expressed his opposition to the practice, as have other Catholic leaders in Europe. Some Catholics, going beyond the bishops and the Pope, maintain that the death penalty, like abortion and euthanasia, is a violation of the right to life and an unauthorized usurpation by human beings of God's sole lordship over life and death. Did not the Declaration of Independence, they ask, describe the right to life as "unalienable"? While sociological and legal questions inevitably impinge upon any such reflection, I am here addressing the subject as a theologian. At this level the question has to be answered primarily in terms of revelation, as it comes to us through Scripture and tradition, interpreted with the guidance of the ecclesiastical magisterium. In the New Testament the right of the State to put criminals to death seems to be taken for granted. Jesus himself refrains from using violence. He rebukes his disciples for wishing to call down fire from heaven to punish the Samaritans for their lack of hospitality (Luke 9:55). Later he admonishes Peter to put his sword in the scabbard rather than resist arrest (Matthew 26:52). At no point, however, does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment. In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, "He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die" (Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10, referring to Exodus 2l:17; cf. Leviticus 20:9). When Pilate calls attention to his authority to crucify him, Jesus points out that Pilate's power comes to him from above-that is to say, from God (John 19:11).

Intermarriage †opposition Essay

Marshall Sklare was able to articulate the fears of many older Jews and he wrote: Intermarriage (and its sociodemographic consequences) can no longer be treated as marginal when it is the result of a deep-rooted sociopolitical ideology and value structure and a function of lifestyle, residential pattern and educational and occupational structure †¦ The intermarriage issue has become central to the internal struggles of American Jewry (1982, p. 37). Aside from the fact that the older generation seemed to be in a perpetual survival mode of existence, keeping to themselves to continue Jewish values and traditions, there is a deeper reason why many are opposed to the idea of exogamy. Steven Bayme explains that the rise of intermarriage is a threat because it can only mean the, â€Å"†¦ decline of Jewish commitment, a weakness in Jewish identity, a failure of Jewish education and the Jewish family to bring about the commitment to Jewish continuity†¦ † (2002, p. 226). If this is true then it will just reveal the error of their ways. This is because suppressing the symptoms will not make the sickness go away. If the symptom for impiety and the shortcomings of a flawed educational system is the high rate of intermarriage then opposing exogamy will not change the fact that there is problem with Judaism. Traditionalists made their opinions known; that they do not agree to intermarriages but this seems to be an idea suited for past generations who cannot see the possibility of compromise in the land of the heathen. A popular 1950s joke regarding this matter was an accurate depiction of how parents felt about their children marrying non-Jews. The following dialog is between a young Jewish soldier coming home from the Korean War and his mother. Before the young man left Korea he calls his mother to inform her about the good news (Shapiro, year, p. 233). Son: I have survived the war without being wounded. Mother: That is good. Son: I am bringing home a Korean wife Mother: That is also good. Son: We don’t have a place to live. Mother: That’s okay. You can stay in my apartment. Son: But you live in a one-bedroom apartment. Mother: That’s no problem. After I put the phone down I am going to jump out of the window, and you will have the entire apartment to yourself. According to Bayme, when it dawned upon the Jewish community that intermarriage is snowballing into something that can overwhelm them, the reaction was radical and aimed at the jugular to forcibly stop the perceived madness and he adds: When the first news of the growth of intermarriage occurred, communal leaders responded with agony and handwriting. Virtually all Jewish organizations passed resolutions and statements signaling opposition to intermarriage. Conferences were held about what we can do in the face of this tidal wave (2002, p. 226). Calvin Goldsheider pointed out that even as late as the 20th century the reaction was fairly dramatic. Opposition to the marriage was made plain by, â€Å"†¦ Jewish mourning rituals of sitting shiva or reciting kaddish†¦ † (2004, p. 29). It must have been a disconcerting sight for a son to see his parents lamenting his decision to take a bride not from his people. Rising Tide But it seems that no matter what type of measures was put in place to discourage interfaith marriages; more and more Jews chose to be joined with a non-Jew. It is therefore understandable that others may conclude rebellion to the norms and traditions of Judaism as the number one culprit. But more and more studies claim the contrary. In fact Shapiro remarked the traditional scape goat for the high rate of intermarriage no longer applies. Marshall Sklare, a noted sociologist on American Jewry, warned that, â€Å"†¦ attributing intermarriage among Jews to self-hatred, cowardice in the face of anti-Semitism, or social climbing misread its etiology †¦ because marriages with Gentiles increased while anti-Semitism was dwindling and many of the social traditional status distinctions were being swept away† (as qtd. in Shapiro, 1992, p. 235). Bayme supports the finding of Shapiro and Sklare and was very practical in his approach for he said that differences in religion are not a significant consideration to young couples of today. Bayme also added that American society values romantic love more than it values differences in religious beliefs. And to top all that Jews are contending with an unexpected external force, â€Å"†¦ 87 percent of Americans welcome marriage to a Jew†¦ † a rather surprising revelation considering what the Jews had to endure for centuries (2002, 226). Now if the reasons for the rising rate of interfaith marriages can be explained in terms of love, openness, acceptance and the realization that every human being is created equal in the sight of God then what kind of community will dare go against universally accepted principles? More so, what kind of community will have the resolve to continually fight for exogamy in the face of a â€Å"love† assault? Surely, only a few can resist the advances of a determined lover and that may well be the number one reason why this crisis – at least in the eyes of Jewish elders – could not be contained. Resolution Marshall Sklare minced no words in asserting that there are only two definitive actions that can be used to settle the issue: 1. Change the social structure and value orientation of the American Jewish community; or 2.accommodate and accept the intermarried (1982, p. 37). Since option no. 1 is clearly unacceptable then the Jewish people are only left with one choice and it is to go out and welcome the non-Jew spouse into Jewish life. This is a view espoused by Calvin Goldscheider who believes that it is a blessing in disguise and contrary to antiquated and popular opinion the high rate of intermarriage will ensure the survival of the Jewish race both in numbers and in cultural distinctiveness. A seemingly incompatible set of ideas considering the nature of Jewish life. Goldscheider summarizes his argument into the following statements: The key indicators of an ethnic community’s strength, however, are not who marries whom, but the activities that their grandchildren engage in. A group’s continuity depends on the ethnic and religious commitments of the family. Focusing on families and the ethnic commitments of the young redirects questions about assimilation away from biology and marriage and toward economic activities, cultural obligations and how parents pass on traditions to their children. In this regard, the American Jewish community is surviving, maybe even thriving† (2003, p. 282). Goldscheider arrived at the aforementioned conclusion as a consequence of the following research findings: ? The decline of the American Jewish community is a product of exaggeration and sensationalization of the facts; ? Interfaith marriages were assumed to result in complete and immediate conversion of the Jewish partner into non-Jewish religion, practices, and customs;? the terms used to define modern day Jews were biased towards the already assumed conclusion that there is a significant decline in their numbers; ? The numbers did not add up considering that there is a significant number of non-Jewish spouses who convert to Judaism, or informally integrate into the community and follow Jewish customs and traditions; and ? previous studies did not account the fact that in many intermarriages the intermarried couples decided that their children will grow up as Jews or at least encourage them to practice Jewish customs and traditions.

Womens Roles in America in the Early 1800s

In the early 19th century in America, women had different experiences of life depending on what groups they were part of. A dominant ideology at the beginning of the 1800s was called Republican Motherhood: middle- and upper-class white women were expected to educate the young to be good citizens of the new country.   The other dominant ideology on gender roles at the time was separate spheres: Women were to rule the domestic sphere (home and raising children) while men operated in the public sphere (business, trade, government.) This ideology would have, if followed consistently, meant that women were not part of the public sphere. However, there were a variety of ways women participated in public life. Biblical injunctions against women speaking in public discouraged many from that role, but some women became public speakers anyway. The end of the first half of the 19th century was marked by several woman’s rights conventions: in  1848, then again in 1850.  The Declaration of Sentiments of 1848 clearly describes the limits placed on women in public life before that time. Minority Women Women of African descent who were enslaved usually had no public life. They were considered property and could be sold and raped with impunity by those who, under the law, owned them.  Few participated in public life, though some came to public view. Many were not even recorded with a name in the records of the enslavers. A few participated in the public sphere as preachers, teachers, and writers. Sally Hemings, enslaved by Thomas Jefferson, was almost certainly his wife’s half-sister. She was also the mother of children most scholars accept Jefferson fathered. Hemings came to public view as part of an attempt by a political enemy of Jefferson to create a public scandal. Jefferson and Hemings themselves never publicly acknowledged the relationship, and Hemings didn’t participate in public life other than having her identity used by others. Sojourner Truth, emancipated from slavery by New York’s law in 1827, was an itinerant preacher. At the very end of the first half of the 19th century, she became known as a circuit speaker and even spoke on women’s suffrage just after the first half of the century.  Harriet Tubman took her first journey to emancipate herself and others in 1849. Not only were schools segregated by sex, but also by race. In those schools, some African American women became educators. For instance, Frances Ellen Watkins Harper was a teacher in the 1840s, and also published a book of poetry in 1845.  In free black communities in northern states, African American women were able to be teachers, writers, and active in their churches. Maria Stewart, part of Boston’s free black community, became active as a lecturer in the 1830s, though she only gave two public lectures before she retired from that public role.  In Philadelphia, Sarah Mapps Douglass not only taught students but also founded a Female Literary Society for African American women aimed at self-improvement. Native American women had major roles in making decisions for their own nations.  But because this didn’t fit the dominant white ideology that was guiding those writing history, most of these women have been overlooked.  Sacagawea is known because she was a guide for a major exploratory project. Her language skills were necessary for the success of the expedition. White Women Writers One area of public life assumed by women was the role of a writer. Sometimes (as with the Bronte sisters in England), they would write under male pseudonyms and other times under ambiguous pseudonyms. However,  Margaret Fuller not only wrote under her own name, but she also published a book on Woman in the Nineteenth Century before her untimely death in 1850.  She had also hosted famous conversations among women to further their â€Å"self-culture.† Elizabeth Palmer Peabody ran a bookstore that was a favorite gathering place for the Transcendentalist circle.   Women’s Education In order to fulfill the aims of Republican Motherhood, some women gained access to higher education so—at first—they could be better teachers of their sons, as future public citizens, and of their daughters, as future educators of another generation. These women were not only teachers but founders of schools. Catherine Beecher and Mary Lyon are among notable women educators. In 1850, the first African American woman graduated from college. Elizabeth Blackwell’s graduation in 1849 as the first woman physician in the United States shows the change that ended the first half and began the second half of the century, with new opportunities gradually opening for women. Women Social Reformers Lucretia Mott, Sarah Grimkà ©, Angelina Grimkà ©, Lydia Maria Child, Mary Livermore, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and others became publicly active in the abolitionist movement. Their experiences of being put in second place and sometimes denied the right to speak publicly or limited to speaking to other women also helped lead this group to work for women’s emancipation from the â€Å"separate spheres† ideological role. Women at Work Betsy Ross may not have made the first United States flag, as legend credits her, but she was a professional flagmaker at the end of the 18th century. Through three marriages, she continued her work as a seamstress and businesswoman. Many other women worked in various jobs, either alongside husbands or fathers, or especially if widowed, on their own. The sewing machine was introduced into factories in the 1830s. Before that, most sewing was done by hand at home or in small businesses. With the introduction of machines for weaving and sewing fabric, young women, especially in farm families,  began to spend a few years before marriage working in the new industrial mills, including the Lowell Mills in Massachusetts. The Lowell Mills also channeled some young women into literary pursuits and saw what was probably the first women’s labor union in the United States. Setting New Standards Sarah Josepha Hale  had to go to work to support herself and her children after her husband died. In 1828, she became the editor of a magazine that later evolved into Godeys Ladys Magazine. It was billed as  the first magazine edited by a woman for women ... either in the Old World or the New. Ironically, it was Godeys Ladys Magazine that promoted the ideal of women in the domestic sphere and helped establish a middle- and upper-class standard for how women should carry out their home life.