Assignment Title Self-discipline Essay Essays

Assignment Title Self-discipline Essay Essays Assignment Title Self-discipline Essay Essay Assignment Title Self-discipline Essay Essay Demonstrate self-denial through relevant activities M2 – Perform relevant activities with a high criterion of self-discipline D2 – Evaluate personal degrees of self-denial for entry to the uniformed public services I personally believe that I as an single posses many accomplishments and qualities that demonstrate my self-discipline. Self-discipline is another signifier of subject and an indispensable quality for a member of any service. Self-discipline can be defined as the ability to use yourself in the right mode. including commanding yourself and your feelings. To appreciate the qualities needed for self-discipline to the full. you need to understand the undermentioned things ; personal training and presentation promptnessclip directiondependabilityattendingcalmattitudepublic presentationpersonality If you lack any of the qualities that make up the cardinal countries of self-discipline so more likely than non. you will non be able to win at your occupation. For illustration. hapless attending could intend that you are non to the full informed of of import issues at briefings. which will intend that your squad can non trust on you to react to certain state of affairss right. Over the clip I have spent at college I believe that I have successfully achieved some. if non all. of the points listed supra. Personal Grooming and presentation In the uniformed public services. where members of the populace may be looking to you for aid or counsel. it is peculiarly of import that you are of smart visual aspect. Peoples form feelings and sentiments about us from the manner we appear to them. so if you want to make the right feeling it is of import that you are right presented. I have shown great illustrations of personal training and presentation by geting at college ( with 100 % attending ) in my uniform. with polished boots and good ironed uniform. Punctuality In order to run expeditiously and efficaciously. administrations have to be keep to tight agendas and this means being governed by clip. In the public services promptness is critical so that. at any clip. person can state where. when and how many people are on responsibility. At the beginning of a displacement. public service forces are briefed about any major issues that may hold been arisen. for illustration. constabulary officers would be kept updated about a missing kid. If you are late for a displacement and lose the briefing. so you are forestalling that administration from operating at its full efficiency. Time Management Good clip direction accomplishments are really utile accomplishments to hold. Person who manages their clip good can be far more productive than person who may look to be really busy. but who is. in fact. non being really productive at all. Often. there is non adequate clip to make all the work that needs to be completed by specific deadlines. This theoretically means that employees need to prioritize their work. To prioritize agencies to screen out which undertakings are the most pressing and need to be completed first. Peoples can be easy distracted and lose concentration instead rapidly when undertakings have to be completed. hence. it requires a high degree of self-denial to maintain on path and remain dedicated. Dependability In the uniformed public services dependability is an indispensable quality to posses. Bing dependable agencies making what you have agreed to make. therefore non allowing people down. This is highly of import in the public services. where good teamwork is indispensable and team members need to be able to trust on each other. Attendance All employers. both in the populace services and in the private sector. anticipate their employees to go to work on a regular basis. Poor hearers can be expected to be disciplined or even dismissed. This is because work Rotas are planned around the figure of people who will be available. and this can non work if people do non turn up. No squad or administration can run efficaciously in this manner. Composure If a individual is described as being composed. it means that they remain unagitated. even in nerve-racking state of affairss or times of crisis. This can be highly of import members of the uniformed public services who need to believe rapidly and clearly at such times. Attitude Having the right attitude can be really of import when you have to go to a occupation interview. Uniformed public service employers will be looking for person who shows that they are enthusiastic without being overbearing. confident without being cocky and who are polite and gracious. non aggressive or ‘stroppy’ . Having a good attitude can be every bit of import when you are employed as a member of the uniformed services. You will necessitate to be able to listen to members of the populace and to sympathize with them without allowing your ain attitude and feelings come to the for forepart. Performance Conscientious employees will transport out their occupation to the best of their ability. Public service workers will ever be expected to supply a excellent service and to give the populace good value for money. You will happen that if your self-denial is at a high plenty standard so you will be able to make this without person holding to watch over you. Personality When ‘personality’ is talked about in the uniformed public services. it means they are speaking about the distinctive. alone qualities that make members of a service stand out from others. When you are seen in a unvarying people assume that you don’t hold a personality. This is decidedly non the instance. Your personality can do a immense difference to your function within the public services: it can do you popular co-worker to work with it can ease dealingss with the public both at place and abroad.

Line Item Veto Definition - History and Examples

Line Item Veto Definition s The line item veto is a now-defunct law that granted the president absolute authority to reject specific provisions, or lines, of a bill sent to his desk by the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate while allowing other parts of it to become law with his signature. The power of the line item veto would allow a president to kill parts of a bill without having to veto the entire piece of legislation. Many governors have this power, and the president of the United States did, too, before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the line-item veto unconstitutional. Critics of the line item veto say it granted the president too much power and allowed the powers of the executive branch to bleed into the duties and obligations of the legislative branch of government.  This act gives the president the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in 1998. Specifically, the court found that the  Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution, which allows a president to either sign or veto a bill in its entirety. The Presentment Clause states, in part, that a bill  be presented to the president of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it.   History of the Line Item Veto U.S. Presidents have frequently asked Congress for line-time veto power. The line item veto was first brought before Congress in 1876, during President Ulysses S. Grant’s term of office. After repeated requests, Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. This is how the law worked before it was struck down by the high court: Congress passed a piece legislation that included taxes or spending appropriations.The president lined  out specific items he opposed and then signed the modified bill.The president sent  the lined-out items to Congress, which had 30 days to disapprove of the line item veto. This required a simple majority vote in both chambers.If both the Senate and House disapproved, Congress sent  a bill of disapproval back to the president. Otherwise, the line item vetoes were implemented as law. Prior to the act, Congress had to approve any presidential move to cancel funds; absent congressional action, the legislation remained intact as passed by Congress.However, the President could then veto the disapproval bill. To override this veto, Congress would have needed a two-thirds majority. Presidential Spending Authority Congress has periodically given the President statutory authority not to spend appropriated funds. Title X of The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 gave the president the power to both delay the expenditure of funds and to cancel funds, or what was called rescission authority. However, to rescind funds, the president needed congressional concurrence within 45 days. However, Congress is not required to vote on these proposals and has ignored most presidential requests to cancel funds. The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 changed that rescission authority. The Line Item Veto Act put the burden on Congress to disapprove a line-out by the presidents pen. A failure to act meant the presidents veto take effect. Under the 1996 act, Congress had 30 days to override a presidential line item veto. Any such congressional resolution of disapproval, however, was subject to a presidential veto. Thus Congress needed a two-thirds majority in each chamber to override the presidential rescission. The act was controversial: it delegated new powers to the president, affected the balance between the legislative and executive branches, and changed the budget process. History of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 Republican U.S. Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas introduced the initial legislation  with 29 cosponsors. There were several related House measures. There were restrictions on presidential power, however. According to the Congressional Research Service conference report, the bill: Amends the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to authorize the President to cancel in whole any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, any item of new direct spending, or any limited tax benefit signed into law, if the President: (1) determines that such cancellation will reduce the Federal budget deficit and will not impair essential Government functions or harm the national interest; and (2) notifies the Congress of any such cancellation within five calendar days after enactment of the law providing such amount, item, or benefit. Requires the President, in identifying cancellations, to consider legislative histories and information referenced in law. On  March 17,1996, the Senate voted 69-31 to pass the final version of the bill. The House did so on March 28, 1996, on a voice vote. On April 9, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law. Clinton later descried the Supreme Courts strikedown of the law, saying it was a defeat for all Americans. It deprives the president of a valuable tool for eliminating waste in the federal budget and for enlivening the public debate over how to make the best use of public funds. Legal Challenges to the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 The day after the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 passed, a group of U.S. senators challenged the bill in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. U.S. District Judge Harry Jackson, who was appointed to the bench by Republican President Ronald Reagan, declared the law unconstitutional on April 10, 1997. The U.S. Supreme Court, however,  ruled the senators did not have standing to sue, tossing their challenge and restoring the line item veto power to the president. Clinton exercised the line item veto authority 82 times. Then the law was challenged in two separate lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. A group of lawmakers from the House and Senate maintained their opposition to the law. U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan, also a Reagan appointee, declared the law unconstitutional in 1998. His ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the law violated the Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3) of the U.S. Constitution because it gave the president the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been passed by Congress. The court ruled that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the process that the U.S. Constitution establishes for how bills originating in Congress become federal law. Similar Measures The Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act of 2011 allows the president to recommend specific line items be cut from legislation. But its up to Congress to agree under this law. If Congress does not enact the proposed rescission within 45 days, the president must make the funds available, according to the Congressional Research Service.