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.

Words Made Using Periodic Table Element Symbols

Words Made Using Periodic Table Element Symbols Chemical element symbols are one- and two-letter abbreviations for the element names. They are used to make the periodic table and chemical formulas easier to read. You can combine the symbols to make words. Here is  a list of English words made from periodic table  element symbols. There are thousands of words that can be written using these symbols, so experiment to see if you can write your name or fun messages that show your chemistry savvy. Words Made From Element Symbols AcAcIAs AcNe AcTiON AgITaTiON AgNOSTiC AlCoHoLiC AlIMoNY Am AmErICaN AmISH AmPUTaTiON ArGeNTiNa AsPIrIn AtLaNTa AtTeNTiON AuTiSTiC BaNaNa BAlLiSTiC BaPTiSm BArF Be BeArS BeErS BErSErK BODy BONFIRe BUNCH BrUNCH BUTaNe CaN CaNDY CaNNIBAl CHeErS CHINa ClOCK CoOK CoPErNiCuS CuFFLiNKS CuIrAsS CuISiNe CuP CuTeNeSS CYCLiC CYClONe CYNiCs CYSTeINe DYEs DyNAmITe DySFUNCTiONAl FeTiSH FIRe FLaSH FrAcTiOn FrOLiC FrY GeNeSiS HeINOUS HeLiCoPtEr HeReTic HOOK HOOKErS HoSe HYMn HYPErBOLiC I IRaN IReLaNd IrON KNIFe LaDy LaOs LuBrICaTiON LuCIFEr MoCK MoCKEry MoNaCo MoNTaNa MoRe MoTiOn, MoTiON NArC NAtO NeON NePAl NO NON AlCoHoLiC NUN OF OHIO OsMoSiS PaKISTaN PAlEsTiNe PIRaTe PLaY POISON PoLiSH PSYCHIC SCaNdAl ScOTCH SePTic SiCKNeSS SiNGaPoRe SiPHON SNIPEr SOCIOPaTh SPAm SPaN TeAm ThAt TiCK US USe UTaH VAtICaN VIRuS VOICe VOTe WAr WAtEr WAtCH WASH WASP WITh YArN YIKEs YOU YOUTh YUCCa YUCKY YUPPIEs

The qualities of the hero and antihero Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

The qualities of the hero and antihero - Essay Example Playing the hero, Indiana Jones is an idealist. He starts a principled journey against the powerful Nazis and their leader Adolf Hitler in search of the Ark of the Pledge. Indy stands up to bad guys, Nazi thugs, who are determined to acquire the ark. He sacrificed himself against great odds. For instance he compromised his distress of snake in order to acquire the ark. Indiana role as a hero also demonstrates when he rescues Marion and reclaims the ark from Belloq and the Dietrich. Jones is always pro-active and makes effective decisions. For instance, when he surrenders rather than destroy the ark, an important historical artifact, now in the possession of Belloq. Indiana always succeeded in his goals, which is a true definition of a hero. He managed to keep the agreement out of the reach of the Nazis. Playing the role of an anti-hero in the movie Payback, Mel Gibson (Porter) is a realist. Porter is a criminal: a killer, a thief, a thug, a gambler, a cheater, and a liar. He murdered many, including Resnick and Philip. Self-interest drives him as shown when he narrated; he had $70,000 robbed from him, and that is what he desires to get back The heroism in him demonstrates through the vengeance mentality. He stands up to authority in tracking the money that had passed into the hands of "the Outfit". In order to reach Resnick, the Porter first dealt with Arthur Stegman, the Chinese trios, crime bosses from the Outfit, and the unethical police detectives Leary an d Hicks. Most notably as an antihero, Porter eventually fails in his goal of reclaiming the money. Harrison Ford depicted as Indiana Jones is evidently a masculine character. Indiana shows heroism through the enormous resources he possesses for the use of the gun, fists and whip when relevant. Indiana also demonstrates the character of a rebel. In a general view, Indiana

Authority Judicial Review Jurisdiction Case Study

Authority Judicial Review Jurisdiction - Case Study Example The Panel took the form of an entirely non-statutory, self-regulating association, setup by persons having a common interest, which had devised and operated a code of conduct to be observed in the take-overs and mergers of public companies. The court held that, bearing in mind that the panel did have governmental backing and was exercising its duties in the public interest, it should be subject to the control of public law. As Sir John Donaldson put it: "We have reached the position where the ambit of certiorari can be said to cover every case in which a body of persons of a public as opposed to a purely private of domestic character has to determine matters affecting subjects. Looked at in this way, the board in my judgment comes fairly and squarely within the jurisdiction of this court It is clearly performing public duties." This introduces the functions test of affects doctrine, that is if the body has the public functions or its decisions produce public law consequences then, in principle, the courts might intervene. In the case of the IRA, neither it has public functions nor do the decisions of the IRA produce public law consequences hence, the courts may not intervene in the given situation. Specifically, the IRA has no statutory or prerogative basis. One of its main functions

Problems With Profit Maximization Strategy Finance Essay

Problems With Profit Maximization Strategy Finance Essay Shareholder Value is a financial term which is the final measure to see whether the company is successful in enriching its shareholders or not. We have tried to find the difference between shareholder and the owner wealth and have concluded that shareholder wealth is the supreme point of contention for any organization as in the long term it will benefit both owner and shareholder. Hence, both of them will be content. We first look at why shareholder value maximization should be the primary goal of any organization. Then, we look why there is divergence of the organization with the objective of shareholder wealth maximization. Then, we looked at various agency problems that come due to this divergence. Then, we gave strategies on how managers can increase shareholder wealth. At the end, we concluded with the new concept of stakeholder wealth maximization and explained its utility. Who owns any organization which is listed in share market, obviously, the Shareholders. These are those individuals who have bought stocks of the company which shows their ownership of the company. Even if business is a person firm, he is the shareholder. If the Business is big, the board of directors are made up of people who own the right by owning the majority of shares. Since, the shareholder own the company, they are entitled to maximum value generation from the money they have invested (Ahlstrom 2010, pp 11-24). In old times, the traditional approach of companies was to maximize the owners profit, but there were multiple limitations like:- Any firm has multiple targets other than maximizing shareholder wealth. These can be like achieving higher market share, huge sales growth, more stable market position. The traditional approach didnt consider all of these issues. Shareholder Wealth Maximization has multiple things to be looked into like Short term, Medium term and Long term Shareholder Wealth Maximization Shareholder Wealth Maximization over a period of time. The traditional approach lost out to these points. Social Responsibility needs to become the most important aim of any organization. Big Organizations need to give back society in lieu of the resources that they take from them. These big organizations need to devote something out of the profits that they earn. The traditional approach didnt take in account this (Smith 2003, pp 52-76). Modern approach puts more emphasis on Shareholder Wealth Maximization rather than owner profit maximization. This includes increasing the Earnings per share of every shareholder so that their net worth is maximized. Wealth increase is equal to what gross present worth in needed for raising profits in the future. This value needs to be discounted as per the time frame to found out the annualized rate of return for the shareholder. In Shareholder Wealth Maximization, it places priority before any other objective for the organization. Any action which has positive effective on Shareholder Wealth Maximization needs to be given priority. In any capitalistic society, the goal of business should be Shareholder Wealth Maximization as mostly the ownership of goods and services is by individuals, since, they own all the means so that they can make money. Shareholder Wealth Maximization at the end leads to rise in value of the shares which at end maximizes wealth of the shareholder (Ahlstrom 2010, pp 11-24). . Maximizing Shareholder Wealth as the Primary Goal Any financial decision to become effective needs better understanding of organizational goals. Shareholder Wealth Maximization should guide the decision making of the firm which needs to be represented in the common stock price. Profit maximization shouldnt overshadow Shareholder Wealth Maximization as many a times decisions taken to maximize profits of the owner has a short term view and in the long term erodes the value of shareholder wealth. Warren Buffet, who has been the advocate of Shareholder wealth, says that long term economic goal of any organization should be increasing the average annual gain of the intrinsic business value in their firm for their shareholders. Economic progress isnt shown by size of firm but by per share progress (Smith 2003, pp 52-76). Shareholder Wealth Maximization goal should be about management of firm seeking to increase the present value of their future of their shareholder but not increasing the profits of promoters. This return to shareholder needs to be given in the form of periodic dividends as well as if any shareholder decided to sell of the stock. As long as the dividend stream or the value stream is flowing, it increases the value of shareholder. Also, the higher the risk for future wealth growth, it reduce the faith of shareholders on the company. Stock prices always show what is the timing and risk associated with the future benefits which can be reaped by the shareholders. Shareholder wealth is defined as per the total number of shares times the value of per share at which it trades in the stock exchange the company is listed (Van Beurden Gossling 2008, pp 407-424). The advantages of using Shareholder Wealth Maximization as an objective are:- This considers the time period as well as the risk in investing in the firm. Managers must take in account this while making decisions like expenditure so that in contributed to increase shareholder wealth. Shareholder Wealth Maximization can be tested with every decision which is made by organization so that consistency in decisions can be maintained. If the decision increase shareholder wealth it is a good decision, otherwise it isnt, hence it shouldnt be taken. Shareholder Wealth Maximization is impersonal by nature. Shareholder is free to take their funds out and sell the shares and invest anywhere. If the shareholders risk preference isnt according to the decisions made by the firm, the shareholder will sell the sticks owned by him and invest in the organization which has best profile as per his investment needs (Bejou 2011, pp 1-6). For all of these reasons, Shareholder Wealth Maximization should be the primary goal to be achieved by any firm. But, the issues like social responsibilities managerial objectives, agency problems can create departure from pure Shareholder Wealth Maximization behavior shown by managers as well as promoters and more considerate in profit maximization. Nonetheless, Shareholder Wealth Maximization objective gives a standard on which every managerial decision can be judged and screened on (Ahlstrom 2010, pp 11-24). . Divergent Objectives The goal of shareholder wealth maximization is about how financial decisions should be made in an organization. But, not all management decisions need to be made by this. Using the index of managerial performance, we can measure the managerial success in achieving the shareholder wealth maximization objective. They should try and work to maximize Economic Value addition which is the difference between profit after tax and the cost of capital employed to generate that profit. Multiple corporations like Coca Cola, AT T, and General Electric use this concept of Economic Value added (Husted de Jesus Salazar 2006, pp 76-91). It has been seen that all those firms which dont give attention to stockholder interests and are more indulged in promoter profit maximization perform poorly in long term. There is always a divergence in shareholder wealth maximization goal and the other objectives which are undertaken by management. The main reason for this divergence is shareholders are real owner but control is with promoters in all corporations. This separation of ownership and control allows manager to pursue self-promoting goals which are not in line with shareholder wealth maximization. They are consistent to maintain the control of the company. Instead of pursuing the goal of shareholder wealth maximization, managers just work for satisfying or look for acceptable levels of shareholder wealth increase, while working for their interest improvement (Shaw 2009, pp 565-576). The maximization of personal welfare of managers can lead to long run job security of themselves. The focus on long term survival of managers limits the risk taken by firm as unfavorable outcomes can lead to disastrous outcomes for the firm. Similarly, the need for job security is one reason why management doesnt allow any merger offers given by other companies. The Golden Parachute approach is usually in the interests of managers more than the shareholders wealth. Now days, multiple companies give top management stock options which ensures their ownership in the company. Pan-American gives retirement option in common stocks which ensures that they think on the options to increase the share price. This helps in alignment of interests of managers with those of shareholders (Bejou 2011, pp 1-6). Agency Problems The presence of different objectives of owners and managers is one kind of agency relationship problem. Agency relationships happen when one individual hires other individual so that he can perform duties on behalf of his. They delegate the decision making to the agent. These kinds of agency relationships exist between stockholders and managers and those of stockholders and creditors. When we talk about agency relationship between stockholders and managers, the inefficiency rises as each party works in a way to maximize its interests and utility. The management thinking for looking for long term survival rather than thinking about shareholder wealth maximization. Other example is about using company airplanes, limousines and offices without having any ownership in the firm. This shirking by managers is an issue. Enron Corp lost $1 billion of investments in 2001. In 1991, Enron permitted their CFO to purchase assets and minimize the risk of Enron. The CFO made million personally. This conflict of interests made way for Enron filing for bankruptcy in Chapter 11 (Smith 2003, pp 52-76). In Enron Case, the agency issue was poorly handled which led to shareholders feel the brunt of this mismatch. Agency costs include 1) Expenditures made for minimizing the incentives for management which management took for removing decisions in contrast of shareholder interest, Such as giving management compensation in from of stock option of the firm. 2) Expenditure to oversee management action like audits both external and internal. 3) Protection of organization from managerial dishonesty. 4) Opportunity cost of lost chances due to complex structure of organization (Husted de Jesus Salazar 2006, pp 76-91). Managerial motivation act in the stockholder interest when they have stock in form of compensation, the threat of losing their job and threat of being taken over by any other organization. Agency problems and related costs can be decreases if financial markets are efficient enough. Also, it can be done with the use of complex contracts in financial terms. Agency problems lead to costs which reduce the value of firm on market place (Bejou 2011, pp 1-6). The Other agency conflict is between shareholder and creditors starts from the relation between owners and creditors. Creditors always stake a fixed claim on companys resources in lieu of long term debts, bank loans, commercial agreements and other instruments. The returns given to creditors are fixed while those to shareholders are variable due to stock price. Owners can try to make risky investment decisions, but creditors need to be paid back in full but investments need to be made as early as possible. Creditors to protect their money ask for other protective covers from company line bond indentures, limitation on dividend payments, types of Investments Company can make, poison pills and new debt application. This all can reduce the potential market value of the firm (Ahlstrom 2010, pp 11-24). Problems with Profit Maximization strategy If Managers of any firm want to work in the direction of shareholder wealth maximization, they should look beyond their conventional thinking of owner profit maximization. Profit maximization model isnt useful for decision making due to multiple reasons like 1) The standard macroeconomic model for any firm is static. Profit maximization cant compare short term and long term profits. Profit decisions should be reflected on time basis. And should have a long term impact on the firm 2) Profit is defined in accounting terms between costs and revenue, but it doesnt define any priority on multiple things like maximization of absolute profit, rate of profit as well as earnings per share. 3) The last problem is profit maximization of owners gives no way for managers to seek the risk assessment option. Tw projects giving same profits can have different risk profile (Cosans 2009, pp. 391-399) Conclusion The complete concentration on shareholder wealth maximization has been under criticism since the dot com burst. A shareholder value increase talks about benefit of the owners only but doesnt talk about the social issues like employment, environment and ethics. Any management decision can maximize shareholder value but can lower welfare of other stakeholders listed above. A Company while making decisions for maximizing shareholder value can also prove detrimental to interests of its customers as multiple decision regarding product lines can have effect. Also, shareholder wealth maximization strategy needs to have a long term view not a short term one. The intrinsic value of any business is brought up by the combination of financial might, societal contribution, employee satisfaction and shareholder interests maximization. This is said to be stakeholder value maximization. However, this concept is very hard to implement as every decision cant be useful to all stakeholder. They need to be prioritized and weighted upon before implementing nay managerial decision

Communication Between Agencies Essay

In order to be successful having great communication is the key to that success. Our country has endowed many tragedies with many of them due to the poor communication. Many lives had been lost because of poor communication or the first responder’s not being trained properly for a situation as this. Communication problems became the focal point of our nation’s emergency management improvement ever since September 11. Every day in cities and towns across the Nation, emergency response personnel respond to incidents of varying scope and magnitude. Their ability to communicate in real time is critical to establishing command and control at the scene of an emergency, to maintaining event situational awareness, and to operating overall within a broad range of incidents (National emergency communications, 2008). Communicating messages to the general public is a critical yet underdeveloped aspect of effective emergency management. Such messages fall under three basic categories: risk, communication, and warning and crisis communications. Risk communication involves alerting and educating the public to the risks they face and how they can best prepare for and mitigate these risks in order to reduce the impacts of future disaster events. Warning involves delivering notice of an actual impending threat with sufficient time to allow recipient individuals and communities to take shelter, evacuate, or take other mitigated action in advance of a disaster event. Crisis communication involves the provision of timely, useful, and accurate information to the public during the response and recovery phases of a disaster event (Bullock, 2009). The emergency management community as a whole has vast experience in practicing risk and warning communications. Preparedness programs have been an active part of emergency management in this country for decades, and public education programs conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, local fire departments, and other public and private sector agencies have disseminated millions of brochures and checklists describing the risks of future disaster events and the steps that individuals and communities can take to reduce and prepare for them (Bullock, 2009). In our text Bullock States, â€Å"The National Commission on terrorist attacks on the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, found that inadequate communications contributed greatly to hindering the ability of responding agencies to respond to the events that unfolded, and led directly to the high number of police and fire department employees who were killed when the towers collapsed† (Bullock, 2009). From this you can conclude that information was not passed along fast enough so as a result many people lost their lives because of this. There were also language barriers many of the different agencies did not use the same â€Å"lingo† and because of this confusion information was not passed between them correctly.

Analogy vs. Homology - Theory of Evolution

There are many types of evidence that support the Theory of Evolution. These pieces of evidence range from the minute molecular level of DNA similarities all the way up through similarities within the anatomical structure of organisms. When Charles Darwin first proposed his idea of natural selection, he used mostly evidence based on anatomical features of organisms he studied. Two different ways these similarities in anatomical structures can be classified is as either analogous structures or homologous structures. While both of these categories have to do with how similar body parts of different organisms are used and structured, only one is actually an indication of a common ancestor somewhere in the past. Analogy Analogy, or analogous structures, is actually the one that does not indicate there is a recent common ancestor between two organisms. Even though the anatomical structures being studied look similar and maybe even perform the same functions, they are actually a product of convergent evolution. Just because they look and act alike does not mean they are related closely on the tree of life. Convergent evolution is when two unrelated species undergo several changes and adaptations to become more similar. Usually, these two species live in similar climates and environments in different parts of the world that favor the same adaptations. The analogous features then help that species survive in the environment. One example of analogous structures is the wings of bats, flying insects, and birds. All three organisms use their wings to fly, but bats are actually mammals and not related to birds or flying insects. In fact, birds are more closely related to dinosaurs than they are to bats or flying insects. Birds, flying insects, and bats all adapted to their niches in their environments by developing wings. However, their wings are not indicative of a close evolutionary relationship. Another example is the fins on a shark and a dolphin. Sharks are classified within the fish family while dolphins are mammals. However, both live in similar environments in the ocean where fins are favorable adaptations for animals that need to swim and move in the water. If they are traced back far enough on the tree of life, eventually there will be a common ancestor for the two, but it would not be considered a recent common ancestor and therefore the fins of a shark and a dolphin are considered to be analogous structures. Homology The other classification of similar anatomical structures is called homology. In homology, the homologous structures did, in fact, evolve from a recent common ancestor. Organisms with homologous structures are more closely related to each other on the tree of life than those with analogous structures. However, they are still closely related to a recent common ancestor and have most likely undergone divergent evolution. Divergent evolution is where closely related species become less similar in structure and function due to the adaptations they acquire during the natural selection process. Migration to new climates, competition for niches with other species, and even microevolutionary changes like DNA mutations can contribute to divergent evolution. An example of homology is the tailbone in humans with the tails of cats and dogs. While our coccyx or tailbone has become a vestigial structure, cats and dogs still have their tails intact. We may no longer have a visible tail, but the structure of the coccyx and the supporting bones are very similar to the tailbones of our household pets. Plants can also have homology. The prickly spines on a cactus and the leaves on an oak tree look very dissimilar, but they are actually homologous structures. They even have very different functions. While cactus spines are primarily for protection and to prevent water loss in its hot and dry environment, the oak tree does not have those adaptations. Both structures do contribute to photosynthesis of their respective plants, however, so not all of the most recent common ancestor’s functions have been lost. Oftentimes, organisms with homologous structures actually look very different from each other when compared to how close some species with analogous structures look to each other.