Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Protester holding Adbusters' Corporate American Flag at the Second inauguration of George W. Bush in Washington, D.C.. Corporatocracy [a] or corpocracy is an economic, political and judicial system controlled or influenced by business corporations or corporate interests.
The government's power is not unduly curtailed by the constitution or international agreements; The elected government can take legislative action to enact its promises; Electoral Commission that ensures a free and fair election; Voting system that comes close to ensuring all votes count equally
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed as Congress felt that President Nixon was abusing his authority to impound the funding of programs he opposed. The Act effectively removed the impoundment power of the president and required him to obtain Congressional approval if he wants to rescind specific government spending.
In some cases, government officials have broad or ill-defined powers, which make it difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal actions. Worldwide, bribery alone is estimated to involve over 1 trillion US dollars annually. [3] A state of unrestrained political corruption is known as a kleptocracy, literally meaning "rule by thieves".
Graft, as understood in American English, is a form of political corruption defined as the unscrupulous use of a politician's authority for personal gain. Political graft occurs when funds intended for public projects are intentionally misdirected in order to maximize the benefits to private interests.
Breaking the law is a scandal. The finding of a court is the sole method used to determine a violation of law, but it is not the sole method of determining a scandal. Also included as scandals are politicians who resign, quit, run, or commit suicide while being investigated or threatened with investigation.
Plus: East River swimming, Nord Stream update, Palmer Luckey, and more...
In 1922, the Supreme Court held in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon that governmental regulations that went "too far" were a taking. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority of the court, stated that "[t]he general rule at least is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking."