Removal Of Rights Research Articles

The Authoritative Sway of Artificial Boundaries of Sexual Orientation: An Ethical Imperative for Public Administration

Public administrators implement and direct the powers of government. Public administration ethics, combined with social equity, is positioned to direct these powers and to thereby advance the rights and inclusion of all humanity. This paper discusses how social categories create artificial boundaries and allow for authoritative removal of rights; it examines barriers to full rights and privileges for individuals who are LGBT. We ask: Do public administration ethics reflect the self-evident truths of the founding documents, including “all… are created equal” with “unalienable rights?” Unfortunately, “all” still does not apply to everyone. Today some groups remain marginalized. Centuries after the Constitution was ratified, in the wake of WWII, the international community affirmed our founding principles. Do we limit rights through categories we create? In society are we “man” or “woman” only as a result of categories determined by various religious approaches? Employing intersectionality and Critical Action Research, we draw from stories of students who are LGBT. We surface the damaging impacts of negative categorization, stigma, and hierarchy of credibility which contribute to their experience as “lesser” persons in society. We conclude with expanding social equity in a way to extend ethics in Public Administration to Humanity Beyond Boundaries.

Capitalism and Christianity: A Symbiotic Relationship or a Quiet Replacement

Capitalism and Christianity: A Symbiotic Relationship or a Quiet Replacement Jane Clark American political leaders like Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Raegan, and even Donald Trump have continually pushed the idea of a United States grounded in Christian theology and practice. With the help of evangelical leaders like Billy Graham, Joel Osteen, and Phyllis Stewart Schlafly, the direction of political leadership has maintained a projection of public policies and laws that are rooted deeply in the belief systems of Christian ideologies. This tactic is unwarranted and does not follow the direction prescribed by Jesus Christ, the originator of the Christian religion. America is not a Christian nation. The idea that political leaders in the United States have promoted a form of pseudo‐Christianity to push a capitalist agenda for decades is in fact, a manipulation of the American people for power and financial control. This power has co‐opted a popular religion for financial gain under the guise of public good. The teachings of Christ, as we’ll discuss, are defined by humanitarian acts, particularly care for refugees, sinners or as we will call them, prisoners, and the poor. People belonging to these classifications are mentioned in the bible as having specific attention from Jesus but are no longer present in the new American religion. In this paper, Christianity, or more importantly, how Christianity is not the religion in which American politician base their decision on, will be discussed. Following will be a brief summary of what the religion of America has become in its place. The purpose of this paper is to rebuke those in political power who have used a power system based on socialist ideas to manipulate “the people” by morphing it into a police state based on the removal of rights and driving of inequality. Christ’s teachings and current observance Christianity, by definition, is based on adhering to the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Abrahamic prophet of Christian based religions, specifically those with a Protestant foundation. These can be found throughout the bible and specifically quoted in the Gospels; a collection of books in the bible which depict the 30+‐ years Jesus was said to be alive (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). According to the Merriam‐Webster dictionary, Christianity is “the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies” (Christianity 2019). If Christianity was created by Jesus Christ, should Christians not follow his teachings specifically? Furthermore, if the United States is a Christian nation, should we not base our policies on the teachings of Jesus Christ? The simple answer is no. In a capitalistic society, there is too little financial gain to be made from humanitarian acts. The statement that America is not a Christian nation can be argued by discussing three issues present today that are heavily discussed in the bible: the decision to accept or reject refugees, prisoners as sinners, and the treatment of the poor. One of current salience is the American treatment of refugees. Currently, the United States does not openly welcome refugees, specifically those at the southern border. In contemporary times, the leadership of the United States would rather build a wall to keep refugees out than offer resettlement assistance. Vilified as a financial menace, refuge seekers undergo a difficult journey through a maze of immigration services where they will live in detainment prisons until they are either denied or received drudgingly (Sawyer and Wagner, 2019). Those allowed to enter the United States will do so based on the verdict that they meet the minimum standards of employability and ability to assimilate. From there, they will be treated as unwelcome guests by the American public until they prove their worth by a show of individual materialistic success. Regarding refugees, Jesus said “Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed...

PENGENAAN PAJAK PENGHASILAN ATAS WARIS DAN HIBAH DALAM PENGALIHAN HAK ATAS TANAH DAN/ATAU BANGUNAN DI KOTA PADANG

<p><em><span>Income Tax (PPh) is one of several types of tax, which is one of the primary sources of state revenue for development, which aims to improve the welfare and prosperity of the people. Income Tax (PPh) is regulated in Government Regulation number 34 of 2016. Where in each transfer of rights carried out by the taxpayer will be subject to Income Tax, but there is a transfer of rights excluded from the imposition and collection of Income Tax as stipulated in the Director-General of Taxes Regulation Number 30 / PJ / 2009, namely the removal of reasons due to inheritance and grants to blood families in a </span></em><em><span lang="PT-BR">straight</span></em><em><span> line. From this income tax collection, it is necessary to know some problems that arise. The issues, namely First, how is the imposition of Income Tax on inheritance and grants in the transfer of rights to land and buildings in the City of Padang. Second, is the Constraint in imposing income tax on estate and concessions in the removal of rights to land and buildings in the City of Padang. The research method used is an empirical juridical approach, and this research is descriptive-analytical as well as collecting data in the form of document studies and field research. Based on the results of the study, it was found that: The imposition of income tax on inheritance and grants in the transfer of rights to land and buildings in Padang city can be excluded from tax collection by submitting an income tax certificate for inheritance and donations between blood families in a straight line. Constraints in imposing Income Tax on estate and awards in the transfer of rights to land and or buildings in the city of Padang, are still taxpayers who have an NPWP but do not report their annual SPT and there are taxpayers who are not registered at the Tax Office and do not have NPWP, which causes the SKB application to be rejected or not granted.</span></em></p>

Authoritarianism and privacy: The moderating role of terrorism

The resurgence in interest in authoritarianism has been linked to a rise in the acceptance of right-wing ideology and also restrictions on civil liberties, particularly in relation to surveillance and the right to privacy. Whilst we can observe simple correlations between these variables, the dynamics of threat are more complex to understand. The analysis reported here demonstrates how the relationship between authoritarianism and the curtailment of civil liberties is moderated by the threat of terrorism. Using 2005 British Social Attitudes survey data, collected either side of the 7/7 bombings, comparisons between the pre-post samples indicate that the threat of terrorism activates authoritarian tendencies and reduces the protection of rights to privacy from government. Interestingly and importantly, reactions to terrorism in the form of a change in opinion regarding civil liberties for those scoring higher in authoritarianism remained almost constant between the two periods. The results provide support for understanding how minority opinions (removal of rights to privacy) can become majority views during times of threat.

A Dive into Deep Constitutional Waters: Article 50, the Prerogative and Parliament

This article analyses the Article 50 TEU debate and the argument that for the UK Government to trigger the formal withdrawal process without explicit parliamentary authorisation would be unlawful, because it would inevitably result in the removal of rights enjoyed under EU law and the frustration of the purpose of the statutes giving those rights domestic effect. After a brief survey of Article 50, this article argues first of all that the power to trigger Article 50 remains within the prerogative, contesting Robert Craig's argument in this issue that it is now a statutory power. It then suggests a number of arguments as to why the frustration principle may be of only doubtful application in this case, and in doing so it re‐examines one of the key authorities prayed in aid of it ‐ the Fire Brigades Union case.

Discrimination Based on SCV Holder Immigration Status: The Systemic Removal of Rights from New Zealanders in Australia

In 1973 the Governments of Australia and New Zealand announced a ‘complete open door policy’ between the two countries. Today, Australian citizens in New Zealand still enjoy virtually identical rights to those that a New Zealand citizen is entitled to. The rights of New Zealand citizens in Australia, on the other hand, have not fared nearly so well with the passage of time.This account documents the progressive undermining of the rights of New Zealand citizens in Australia in 3 distinct phases: Australia’s implementation of the TTTA from 1973 to 1994; the conversion of New Zealand citizens onto the SCV and its effects between 1994 and 2001; and the worsening situation as a consequence of the Howard Government’s 2001 changes.

Teisinio veiksnumo reforma Lietuvoje: nuo sovietinio konteksto iki šiuolaikinių žmogaus teisių standartų

Remiantis tarptautiniais visų žmonių lygybės prieš įstatymą, pagarbos žmogaus orumui ir vientisumui principais, fizinės ar psichikos negalios asmenys turi tokias pačias teises kaip ir visi kiti asmenys. Lietuvai ratifikavus JT Neįgaliųjų teisių Konvenciją 2010 m., valstybė prisiėmė tarptautinius įsipareigojimus gerbti, užtikrinti ir įgyvendinti įtvirtintus žmogaus teisių standartus, įskaitant dėl lygybės prieš įstatymą užtikrinimo. Straipsnyje analizuojamos 2015 m. kovo 26 d. LR Seimo priimtos naujos Civilinio kodekso bei Civilinio proceso kodeksų nuostatos, kuriomis siekiama tobulinti galiojančius neveiksnumo ir riboto veiksnumo institutus asmenų su negalia (psichikos, proto) atžvilgiu.