Congress is a governing power, which decides laws in order to support the people. There has been a common argument for a while; the argument is whether congress members put too much into thinking about their own reelection, and not enough time thinking about the people. Congress members like the position of power that they hold, and want to hang on to that power. Other than their own reelection congress members also focus on lawmaking, pork barreling, and casework. The main weakness of congress members is putting their own views aside. It is important that congress members put their views aside, and think about the views of the people. Congress’s decisions affect the people directly, and congress members need to take this into consideration.
It is said that one of the main goals of congress members is to get reelected. Rickard F. Fiorina believes that congress members spend too much working on reelection. If the main goal of congress members were to get reelected would congress members keep the people in mind or themselves? If congress members only cared about their position of power, then not a lot of thought would be put into the people. Morris P. Fiorina says, “on average, those congressmen who are not primarily interested in reelection will not achieve reelection as often as those who are interested” (American Government, The Rise of the Washington Establishment, 336). Fiorina believes that congress members have to fight for their spot in congress, it is not enough to just vote in favor of the people. Fiorina thinks that if you want your spot in congress, you have to be willing to fight for that spot.
Sometimes, the scenario occurs where members of congress are reelected even though they do not deserve to be reelected. This scenario tends to occur when citizens do not give their input to congress. This is part of the reason why it is so important for people to give their input to the government. Without input from the people, congress members have to make decisions based on what they think is best, and the views of the people tend to be forgotten. In order to keep their job Congress has to work extra hard to hear the voice of the people, “most members of Congress like their job, want to keep it, and know that there are people back home who want who want to take it away from them. So they work long and hard at winning reelection” (American Government, If, as Ralph Nader says, Congress is “The broken Branch,” How come We love our Congressmen so Much, 360). The members of Congress are aware when the people want them out of power. In order to assure that they will hold their position Congress members work extra for the people.
Congress is engaged in primarily three different activities: “lawmaking, pork barreling, and casework” (American Government, The Rise of the Washington Establishment, 336). Each of these tasks plays a role in the everyday decisions of Congress.
Lawmaking is the primary task of Congress. This is the task that most time is put into. Because most time is spent passing bills, the process in which a bill is passed tends to be long. The bill is first introduced in either the House or the Senate. Once the bill is looked at the bill is then passed onto a subcommittee. The subcommittee then makes revisions to the bill if necessary. The revisions then have to get approved before the bill is passed on to the committee. The committee may rewrite the bill again if they see it necessary. The committee may also choose to send the bill to the house floor or kill the bill. The last and final committee is the rules committee. The rules committee issues a rule that will govern the debate on the floor. Once they have decided the rule, they send the bill to the floor. On the floor the full House or the full Senate debates the bill, and amendments are offered to the bill. If the full house decides to approve the bill, it is then sent to the conference committee. The conference committee is composed of both members of the House and Senate. Both the House and the Senate meet together to smooth over differences seen in the bill. The redone bill is then returned to both the House and Senate for a vote. If the bill is passed it is sent to the president. The president then either signs or vetoes the bill. If the president signs the bill it becomes a law, but if the president vetoes Congress can veto the president’s veto by a 2/3 vote. This a long process, but it is one that occurs regularly in Congress.
Congress members are also spend a lot of time trying to get money sent back to their district. The ways in which money can be sent back are new dams, federal, building, sewage, treatment plants, urban renewal projects, and much more. This is called pork barreling. Pork barreling is, “a term originally applied to rivers and harbors legislation but now generalized to cover all manner of federal largesse” (American Government, The Rise of the Washington Establishment, 337). Pork barreling shows the federal projects, grants, and contracts that are in a congressional district. It is hard for the constituents to see how their congress member’s vote actually affects them, but when they see physical proof of what their congress member is doing it tends to make more sense. This is why it is important for Congress to keep the people’s vote in mind.
Casework is the third major activity that congress members spend a lot of time on. The constituents tend to appeal to their congress member when they want a favor or service. A lot of the favors that the constituents ask for are for Congress to intervene on the internal working of federal agencies, to help the constituents in a favorable way. Members of congress do not have total power to intervene in the internal workings of federal agencies, “congressmen possess the power to expedite and influence bureaucratic decisions. This capability flows directly from congressional control over what bureaucrats value most: higher budgets and new program authorizations. In a very real sense each congressman is a monopoly supplier unsticking services for his district” (American Government, The Rise of the Washington Establishment, 337). Congress members want to get as many services as they can for their district. It is the vote of the congress member that decides what services their district will receive, and what services they won’t receive.
The philosophy of government is that government should be deliberative and carried out in the national interest. The government is supposed to be the voice of the people. Congress plays a huge role in being the voice for the people because it is congress members who have to hear the people and try to get what they ask for. Sometimes it is the job of congress members to put their own interest aside, “it is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfactions, to theirs- and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own” (American Government, speech to the Electors of Bristol, 356). It is the duty of congress members to think about the people they are representing more then themselves. The decisions that Congress makes affect the people directly. This is why congress members have to put their own beliefs aside and vote in favor of the people who they are representing.
The congressional system has not yet been perfected, and a lot of time will be needed in order to perfect the system. It is hard for congress members to put their own beliefs aside, and focus solely on the beliefs of the people, but this is necessary in order for Congress to reflect the ideals of the people. It is the people who will be directly affected, and it is the people who are going to have Congress’s decisions affect their lives everyday.
-Christen
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Congress
The current structure of Congress has been the subject of much criticism lately. This committee organization has been blamed for everything from the growth of the bureaucracy and big government to the expansion of presidential power. Members of Congress have also been the subject of disdain for both paying too much attention and not enough to their constituents. These paradoxes are important topics of discussion if Congress is ever to be reformed or even understood.
One subject of the contempt that many hold for Congress and its activities is the constant struggle that congresspeople go through in seeking re-election. In Document 56, Morris Fiorina expands upon this theme. Members of Congress employ many strategies in this quest. These include position taking, pork barreling, and casework. In position taking, candidates are able to associate themselves with issues popular in their districts. Many candidates have nearly homogenous districts, allowing them to grow support by taking similar stances, without having to actually do anything. As Mayhew says in Document 61, “The position itself is the political commodity.” (Congress: The Electoral Connection, Woll, 374) Politicians mold their declarations very prudently, “watching each other’s elections to try to figure out what positions are salable.” (Congress: The Electoral Connection, Woll, 375)
Pork barreling is another useful trick politicians use to try to influence their electability. This is the practice whereby members of Congress utilize their cachet to pass certain “pet projects” that benefit their specific constituencies. It utilizes the belief that “new federal projects bring jobs, shiny new facilities, and general economic prosperity.” (The Rise of the Washington Establishment, Woll, 338) These projects are usually not controversial, unlike legislature, and widely accepted by conservatives and liberals alike. Unfortunately these are often costly projects that are passed in lieu of other federal projects, such as welfare. Also, they eat up funds that might be used in more general projects that would benefit a larger slice of people.
Casework is somewhat similar to pork barrel spending in that it also speaks directly to the constituency. It is basically the instance where “some poor, aggrieved constituent becomes enmeshed in the tentacles of an evil bureaucracy and calls upon Congressman St. George to do battle with the dragon.” (The Rise of the Washington Establishment, Woll, 338) This perpetrates an unfortunate image that each congressperson is individually working for good against an unfair and outdated system, where in reality these are the people who are in fact responsible for the unwieldy bureaucracy.
Basically, according to Document 56, big government is encouraged because legislation is drafted in rather vague terms. This creates agencies which must “translate a vague policy mandate into a functioning program, a process which necessitates the…the trampling of numerous toes.” (The Rise of the Washington Establishment, Woll, 341) However, members of Congress are safely out of harms’ way behind these agencies. Then, constituents generally complain to their individual congressperson of the “obscure decision process of the bureaucracy.” (The Rise of the Washington Establishment, Woll, 341) Then, the congressional representative is able to take individual credit for helping out and perpetuates their kindly, helpful image among their constituency. As Fiorina states, “Congressmen take credit coming and going. They are the alpha and the omega.” (The Rise of the Washington Establishment, Woll, 341) The bureaucracy partly exists in order to be “a convenient lightning rod for the public frustration and a convenient whipping boy for congressmen.” (The Rise of the Washington Establishment, Woll, 341)
Another argument has been set forth that the aim of re-election actually takes a back seat to the struggle for power in determining the actions and organization of Congress. In Document 57, Lawrence C Dodd contends that the statistics actually show that most incumbents are re-elected, so, especially as time goes on and the experience and seniority of members of Congress increases they get to spend less and less time on drumming up support in their constituencies and more on lobbying for power within Congress. As Dodd concisely states, “The existence of secure electoral margins thus allows members to devote considerable effort toward capturing a “power position” within Congress and generating a mystique of special authority that is necessary to legitimize a select decision-making role for them in the eyes of their nominal peers.” (Congress and the Quest for Power, Woll, 345) With the rise in seniority and power, congresspeople are also thrust more into the public eye, and so receive free, but sometimes-controversial publicity. The committee system, they say, is specifically set up to spread this power around, but also concentrate it in certain specialized individuals. Committees can handle many varied issues and allow more expert groups to weigh in on a bill before it is passed to the more amateur general Congress. They also split up the work and cull out bills that are impractical or unwanted.
Many critics of the committee system state that the lack of central leadership severely impairs Congress’ ability to “fulfill its constitutional responsibilities to make legislative policy and oversee the implementation of that policy.” (Congress and the Quest for Power, Woll, 350) This committee work is often incoherent, as is shown in the process of passing bills. As the bills are distributed between committees, a committee on making the bill into one consistent form is often needed. Bills are also passed in different forms between the House and the Senate, necessitating another committee to iron out a compromise. Also problematic is the unity of Congress as a body. If, for instance, Congress wishes to take a different stance on an issue than the President, the President is often able to make a more effective argument because of being “able to present a straightforward and publicized position.” (Congress and the Quest for Power, Woll, 350) Finally, a very salient point is fiscal responsibility. As a rule, it is never desirable to have to pass further taxes to pay for a program, so generally more programs get budgeted for than actually get money. If there were more central leadership, perhaps the budget could be more coordinated and aligned with reality. It also leaves Congress open for Presidential interference in fiscal matters, acting as a voice of reason: “The result, of course, will be a concomitant loss of the congressional control over the nation’s purse strings.” (Congress and the Quest for Power, Woll, 351)
Always a problem, but exacerbated by the committee system, is accountability. With the large number of people involved in making a bill, it is difficult to pinpoint the main players. Many committees conduct their business behind closed doors, and even if they don’t the accounts of minutes are so dense very few bother to decipher them. This system “isolates Congress from the nation at large.” (Congress and the Quest for Power, Woll, 352) This closed deliberation also fuels the suspicion of congressional activity by the general public, making lawmaking seem elitist and unable to be understood by citizens.
Yet another controversy of Congress is whether members should have positions entirely representative of their constituencies, or be swayed by their personal feelings and judgments. One position on this was expressed by a member of Parliament in 1774, that the representative “owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” (Speech to the Electors of Bristol, Woll, 356) This has been debated ever since then.
Until major steps are made to reform Congress, the committee system and the constitutionality of it will continue to be debated. While the general public does not know or understand Congress as a whole, many feel great loyalty to their personal representative because of pork barrel spending and casework. It needs to be understood that these actions merely increase the big government that many rail against.
-Ellen
One subject of the contempt that many hold for Congress and its activities is the constant struggle that congresspeople go through in seeking re-election. In Document 56, Morris Fiorina expands upon this theme. Members of Congress employ many strategies in this quest. These include position taking, pork barreling, and casework. In position taking, candidates are able to associate themselves with issues popular in their districts. Many candidates have nearly homogenous districts, allowing them to grow support by taking similar stances, without having to actually do anything. As Mayhew says in Document 61, “The position itself is the political commodity.” (Congress: The Electoral Connection, Woll, 374) Politicians mold their declarations very prudently, “watching each other’s elections to try to figure out what positions are salable.” (Congress: The Electoral Connection, Woll, 375)
Pork barreling is another useful trick politicians use to try to influence their electability. This is the practice whereby members of Congress utilize their cachet to pass certain “pet projects” that benefit their specific constituencies. It utilizes the belief that “new federal projects bring jobs, shiny new facilities, and general economic prosperity.” (The Rise of the Washington Establishment, Woll, 338) These projects are usually not controversial, unlike legislature, and widely accepted by conservatives and liberals alike. Unfortunately these are often costly projects that are passed in lieu of other federal projects, such as welfare. Also, they eat up funds that might be used in more general projects that would benefit a larger slice of people.
Casework is somewhat similar to pork barrel spending in that it also speaks directly to the constituency. It is basically the instance where “some poor, aggrieved constituent becomes enmeshed in the tentacles of an evil bureaucracy and calls upon Congressman St. George to do battle with the dragon.” (The Rise of the Washington Establishment, Woll, 338) This perpetrates an unfortunate image that each congressperson is individually working for good against an unfair and outdated system, where in reality these are the people who are in fact responsible for the unwieldy bureaucracy.
Basically, according to Document 56, big government is encouraged because legislation is drafted in rather vague terms. This creates agencies which must “translate a vague policy mandate into a functioning program, a process which necessitates the…the trampling of numerous toes.” (The Rise of the Washington Establishment, Woll, 341) However, members of Congress are safely out of harms’ way behind these agencies. Then, constituents generally complain to their individual congressperson of the “obscure decision process of the bureaucracy.” (The Rise of the Washington Establishment, Woll, 341) Then, the congressional representative is able to take individual credit for helping out and perpetuates their kindly, helpful image among their constituency. As Fiorina states, “Congressmen take credit coming and going. They are the alpha and the omega.” (The Rise of the Washington Establishment, Woll, 341) The bureaucracy partly exists in order to be “a convenient lightning rod for the public frustration and a convenient whipping boy for congressmen.” (The Rise of the Washington Establishment, Woll, 341)
Another argument has been set forth that the aim of re-election actually takes a back seat to the struggle for power in determining the actions and organization of Congress. In Document 57, Lawrence C Dodd contends that the statistics actually show that most incumbents are re-elected, so, especially as time goes on and the experience and seniority of members of Congress increases they get to spend less and less time on drumming up support in their constituencies and more on lobbying for power within Congress. As Dodd concisely states, “The existence of secure electoral margins thus allows members to devote considerable effort toward capturing a “power position” within Congress and generating a mystique of special authority that is necessary to legitimize a select decision-making role for them in the eyes of their nominal peers.” (Congress and the Quest for Power, Woll, 345) With the rise in seniority and power, congresspeople are also thrust more into the public eye, and so receive free, but sometimes-controversial publicity. The committee system, they say, is specifically set up to spread this power around, but also concentrate it in certain specialized individuals. Committees can handle many varied issues and allow more expert groups to weigh in on a bill before it is passed to the more amateur general Congress. They also split up the work and cull out bills that are impractical or unwanted.
Many critics of the committee system state that the lack of central leadership severely impairs Congress’ ability to “fulfill its constitutional responsibilities to make legislative policy and oversee the implementation of that policy.” (Congress and the Quest for Power, Woll, 350) This committee work is often incoherent, as is shown in the process of passing bills. As the bills are distributed between committees, a committee on making the bill into one consistent form is often needed. Bills are also passed in different forms between the House and the Senate, necessitating another committee to iron out a compromise. Also problematic is the unity of Congress as a body. If, for instance, Congress wishes to take a different stance on an issue than the President, the President is often able to make a more effective argument because of being “able to present a straightforward and publicized position.” (Congress and the Quest for Power, Woll, 350) Finally, a very salient point is fiscal responsibility. As a rule, it is never desirable to have to pass further taxes to pay for a program, so generally more programs get budgeted for than actually get money. If there were more central leadership, perhaps the budget could be more coordinated and aligned with reality. It also leaves Congress open for Presidential interference in fiscal matters, acting as a voice of reason: “The result, of course, will be a concomitant loss of the congressional control over the nation’s purse strings.” (Congress and the Quest for Power, Woll, 351)
Always a problem, but exacerbated by the committee system, is accountability. With the large number of people involved in making a bill, it is difficult to pinpoint the main players. Many committees conduct their business behind closed doors, and even if they don’t the accounts of minutes are so dense very few bother to decipher them. This system “isolates Congress from the nation at large.” (Congress and the Quest for Power, Woll, 352) This closed deliberation also fuels the suspicion of congressional activity by the general public, making lawmaking seem elitist and unable to be understood by citizens.
Yet another controversy of Congress is whether members should have positions entirely representative of their constituencies, or be swayed by their personal feelings and judgments. One position on this was expressed by a member of Parliament in 1774, that the representative “owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” (Speech to the Electors of Bristol, Woll, 356) This has been debated ever since then.
Until major steps are made to reform Congress, the committee system and the constitutionality of it will continue to be debated. While the general public does not know or understand Congress as a whole, many feel great loyalty to their personal representative because of pork barrel spending and casework. It needs to be understood that these actions merely increase the big government that many rail against.
-Ellen
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Cheesesteak.
I found this video of Palin, and i thought it would make some of you guys laugh.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/28/palincheesesteak.cnn
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/28/palincheesesteak.cnn
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Federalism
Federalism has been hotly debated since the origin of the American republic. Groups go back and forth between whether the American form of federalism gives too much or too little power to the states in contrast to the national government, and the precedent for each in the Constitution. This tug of war between the states and the national government, and direct and representational democracy, are compelling and enduring disputes.
In the beginning of the republic, the battle was to make people release their hold on state power in order to allow a stronger and more effective central government. As James Bryce mentions in his study of the American federal system, Federalism is useful because it unites “commonwealths into one nation under national government without extinguishing their separate administrations, legislatures, and local patriotisms.” (The Merits of the Federal System, Woll, 72) Federalism could be adopted “for the sake of loosening a pre-existing bond,” that of the loyalty to individual states. (The Merits of the Federal System, Woll, 72)
In order to satisfy the majority and create the union, the Federalists had to compromise on a combination government, with both central and state power. As James Madison argues in the Federalist 39 this government, enumerated by the Constitution, does contain a mixture of national and federal government, contrary to the anti-federalists’ fears. (Federalist 39, Woll, 67) For instance, the Constitution was ratified state by state, which was a federal act, as defined in Madison’s Federalist 39 where federal refers to the sharing of power with the states, and national is directly from the people. Also, the Senate is a body elected by the states, with equal representation, another federal act, while the House of Representatives is elected nationally, by the people. This combination of federal and national power allows people to be represented both individually and by their society, or state. This gives people twice the representation, in a way, because they can associate with the majority in their state but still retain individualism and power as part of a nation.
Even though there was a compromise between state and national power, many still feared the balance leaned too heavily towards the national government. After all, the Constitution did state that all national laws were supreme to state laws. James Madison tried to allay some of these fears in Federalist 44, which describes the need for the controversial “necessary and proper” clause. (Federalist 44, Woll, 61) This states that Congress can pass any laws they see a need for to help carry out all powers enumerated by the Constitution. However, since the Senate is elected by state, there is no reason why the Senate would then pass laws that severely limited state power. As he says, there is an intermediary between the people and the Constitution, because if the executive and judiciary branches do not deal immediately with the unconstitutional law, the people can simply elect a new legislature to undo the unpopular law. On these grounds, legislatures have no reason to enact severely unpopular laws, because it will put their positions in danger.
Another issue related to federalism is majority rule. With the Articles of Confederation, the government was weakened by the necessity of a unanimous decision by all states. The national government had little power, and the states had trouble compromising on taxes and such. The founding fathers saw a need for quicker decision-making and so substituted majority rule, both by state and directly by representatives elected by the people, starting with the ratification of the Constitution. This adoption of majority rules made government more efficient and practical. This also created a problem for the Federalists: how to satisfy the people that this would not create a tyrannical society ruled by the masses.
As David Broder successfully argues in “A Republic Subverted,” the system of representative democracy removes the power from the direct majority rule of the people, which is a necessary thing. As Madison argued, a pure democracy “can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.” (A Republic Subverted, Woll, 100) By removing the masses by one step, and allowing them to pick representatives that then vote on things, people are able to choose representatives that share their views but do not think as passionately and turbulently. The representative is forced to be more rational because they have to defend their actions to their constituency, whereas in direct democracy the whims of the people can create laws with unforeseen consequences. Broder also argues that unfortunately with the advent of initiatives and referendums this direct rule of the people has come to pass and is creating many of the problems foreseen by the founding fathers that made this country a republic.
Even though nowadays representational democracy is somewhat scorned and politicians are seen as “selfish, self-centered partisans, controlled by special interests and constantly on the lookout for ways to line their own pockets and pay off their pals and political sponsors,” James Bryce did indeed make some compelling arguments for the merits of the federal system. (A Republic Subverted, Woll, 103) While it might have been first adopted as a compromise between state and central or national power, Federalism proved to have other advantages. For instance, Federalism allowed the country to expand “in a more truly natural and spontaneous way than can be expected under a centralized government.” (The Merits of the Federal System, Woll, 73) Also, Federalism supposedly prevents the rise of a tyrannical government that “menaces the private liberties of the citizen.” (The Merits of the Federal System, Woll, 73) Although this has not proven entirely true, if the system were to work entirely by the Constitution tyranny might be more closely reigned in. Another benefit of Federalism is that it relieves the national legislature of many functions that would overwhelm it. Over time this has proved increasingly true, as the state governments receive more responsibility and funding for various projects, from welfare to education. It does speed the issues, and allow the national government to focus on “questions which most nearly touch the whole country.” (The Merits of the Federal System, Woll, 74)
Finally, Bryce argues that all this would not be possible without the Constitution. The Constitution has providing the outline for this Federalist government. It divides the burden of elections nearly equally between the states and the people as a nation. It allows for the check of the judiciary and executive against the possible tyranny of the legislature. It enumerates specific responsibilities to both the national and the state governments. Finally, it provides itself as an independent and supreme overseer of government, and the judiciary as its protector. The Constitution, Bryce says, secures “an efficient central government and preserves national unity, while allowing free scope for the diversities, and free play to the authorities, of the members of the federation.” (The Merits of the Federal System, Woll, 74)
It is in the Constitution that the national and state governments are balanced. Although over time the national government has become supposedly more powerful, the states have also in their own way grown in power with the advent of initiatives and referendums. The supremacy of states versus national government swings back and forth with each Supreme Court decision, which, in turn, is based on the Constitution. As long as the Constitution still stands, the true meaning of Federalism will continue to be debated.
-Ellen
In the beginning of the republic, the battle was to make people release their hold on state power in order to allow a stronger and more effective central government. As James Bryce mentions in his study of the American federal system, Federalism is useful because it unites “commonwealths into one nation under national government without extinguishing their separate administrations, legislatures, and local patriotisms.” (The Merits of the Federal System, Woll, 72) Federalism could be adopted “for the sake of loosening a pre-existing bond,” that of the loyalty to individual states. (The Merits of the Federal System, Woll, 72)
In order to satisfy the majority and create the union, the Federalists had to compromise on a combination government, with both central and state power. As James Madison argues in the Federalist 39 this government, enumerated by the Constitution, does contain a mixture of national and federal government, contrary to the anti-federalists’ fears. (Federalist 39, Woll, 67) For instance, the Constitution was ratified state by state, which was a federal act, as defined in Madison’s Federalist 39 where federal refers to the sharing of power with the states, and national is directly from the people. Also, the Senate is a body elected by the states, with equal representation, another federal act, while the House of Representatives is elected nationally, by the people. This combination of federal and national power allows people to be represented both individually and by their society, or state. This gives people twice the representation, in a way, because they can associate with the majority in their state but still retain individualism and power as part of a nation.
Even though there was a compromise between state and national power, many still feared the balance leaned too heavily towards the national government. After all, the Constitution did state that all national laws were supreme to state laws. James Madison tried to allay some of these fears in Federalist 44, which describes the need for the controversial “necessary and proper” clause. (Federalist 44, Woll, 61) This states that Congress can pass any laws they see a need for to help carry out all powers enumerated by the Constitution. However, since the Senate is elected by state, there is no reason why the Senate would then pass laws that severely limited state power. As he says, there is an intermediary between the people and the Constitution, because if the executive and judiciary branches do not deal immediately with the unconstitutional law, the people can simply elect a new legislature to undo the unpopular law. On these grounds, legislatures have no reason to enact severely unpopular laws, because it will put their positions in danger.
Another issue related to federalism is majority rule. With the Articles of Confederation, the government was weakened by the necessity of a unanimous decision by all states. The national government had little power, and the states had trouble compromising on taxes and such. The founding fathers saw a need for quicker decision-making and so substituted majority rule, both by state and directly by representatives elected by the people, starting with the ratification of the Constitution. This adoption of majority rules made government more efficient and practical. This also created a problem for the Federalists: how to satisfy the people that this would not create a tyrannical society ruled by the masses.
As David Broder successfully argues in “A Republic Subverted,” the system of representative democracy removes the power from the direct majority rule of the people, which is a necessary thing. As Madison argued, a pure democracy “can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.” (A Republic Subverted, Woll, 100) By removing the masses by one step, and allowing them to pick representatives that then vote on things, people are able to choose representatives that share their views but do not think as passionately and turbulently. The representative is forced to be more rational because they have to defend their actions to their constituency, whereas in direct democracy the whims of the people can create laws with unforeseen consequences. Broder also argues that unfortunately with the advent of initiatives and referendums this direct rule of the people has come to pass and is creating many of the problems foreseen by the founding fathers that made this country a republic.
Even though nowadays representational democracy is somewhat scorned and politicians are seen as “selfish, self-centered partisans, controlled by special interests and constantly on the lookout for ways to line their own pockets and pay off their pals and political sponsors,” James Bryce did indeed make some compelling arguments for the merits of the federal system. (A Republic Subverted, Woll, 103) While it might have been first adopted as a compromise between state and central or national power, Federalism proved to have other advantages. For instance, Federalism allowed the country to expand “in a more truly natural and spontaneous way than can be expected under a centralized government.” (The Merits of the Federal System, Woll, 73) Also, Federalism supposedly prevents the rise of a tyrannical government that “menaces the private liberties of the citizen.” (The Merits of the Federal System, Woll, 73) Although this has not proven entirely true, if the system were to work entirely by the Constitution tyranny might be more closely reigned in. Another benefit of Federalism is that it relieves the national legislature of many functions that would overwhelm it. Over time this has proved increasingly true, as the state governments receive more responsibility and funding for various projects, from welfare to education. It does speed the issues, and allow the national government to focus on “questions which most nearly touch the whole country.” (The Merits of the Federal System, Woll, 74)
Finally, Bryce argues that all this would not be possible without the Constitution. The Constitution has providing the outline for this Federalist government. It divides the burden of elections nearly equally between the states and the people as a nation. It allows for the check of the judiciary and executive against the possible tyranny of the legislature. It enumerates specific responsibilities to both the national and the state governments. Finally, it provides itself as an independent and supreme overseer of government, and the judiciary as its protector. The Constitution, Bryce says, secures “an efficient central government and preserves national unity, while allowing free scope for the diversities, and free play to the authorities, of the members of the federation.” (The Merits of the Federal System, Woll, 74)
It is in the Constitution that the national and state governments are balanced. Although over time the national government has become supposedly more powerful, the states have also in their own way grown in power with the advent of initiatives and referendums. The supremacy of states versus national government swings back and forth with each Supreme Court decision, which, in turn, is based on the Constitution. As long as the Constitution still stands, the true meaning of Federalism will continue to be debated.
-Ellen
Federalism
Federalism is “a way of organizing a nation so that two or more levels of government have formal authority over the same land and people. It is a system of shared power between units of government” (Government in America, 68). The topic of federalism has led to two major debates: how much power should the national government have over the state/local government, and which topics should be a national issue or a state/ local issue? These debates started with the writing of the Constitution, and are still being discussed today. These debates started because of implied powers, commerce, and equality. These are the main issues that offset the balance of power between the national and states government. Federalism is truly a power struggle between the national and state government, both want to possess the power, but an equal balance is a hard compromise.
Federalism is a key factor in the American government. Federalism helps the government because it “decentralizes our politics” (Government in America, 69). Federalism allows the states to have a say in what goes on in the national government. An example of the decentralization of politics is senators only representing one state, rather than an entire nation. This lets the opinions of each state be heard in the national government. Federalism gives more people the opportunity to have power, and this then allows more people’s demands to be met. Because of federalism there are more levels of government where someone’s idea can be heard. When a dispute erupts there are levels of government that are there to help resolve the matter. Although federalism does help at some levels, it also causes more disputes between the National and state governments.
If there is supposed to be a balance between what the states government control and what the national government controls, why has the national government gained more power over the states? Over time four events have occurred that have given the national government more power: the doctrine of implied powers, the commerce clause, and the struggle for equality.
Implied powers are “powers of the federal government that go beyond those enumerated in the Constitution” (Government in America, 74). The debate over implied powers first began with the writing of the Constitution. The federalists believed that implied powers were necessary to run an efficient government, and with the help of implied powers the states government had no reason to intervene with the national government, “It appears from these articles, that there is no need of any intervention of the State governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the Constitution and laws of every State are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with the Constitution” (American Government, The Anti-Federalist papers No. 17, 58). The Federalists wanted as much national power as they could, they did not see the need for the states government to play a role in the national government. With the help of implied powers the national government is given as much power as it needs. The Anti- Federalists on the other hand believed implied powers gave the national government too much control. James Madison, a Federalist, argues that without the “power to make all laws… the Constitution would be a dead letter” (American Government, Federalist 44, 61-62). Madison believes that if the national government does not have full power to make laws than there is no point in the Constitution. Why is it so important that government have full control over the laws? The issue of implied powers also plays a role in the Supreme Court case MCCulloch v. Maryland. This case established that the national government would have control over the states government. This means that national government’s supremacy over the states is ok as long as the national government follows the Constitution. Implied powers can be stretched as far as the government would like, as long as the government does not break the elastic clause.
As well as debating over implied powers, there is also the debate over the power of commerce. As stated in the Constitution the national government has the power to regulate interstate and international commerce. Federalists believed that not a lot of people opposed the regulation of commerce, “The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained” (American Government, Federalist 45, 66). Federalists believed that the Anti- Federalists did not object to the national government regulation of commerce, and this is partially true. The regulation of commerce was not the main issue that Anti- Federalists had with the Constitution, but it was still an idea that Anti- Federalists disagreed on.
For years the American courts have tried to define commerce, but in the Supreme Court case Gibbons v. Ogden the word commerce was defined using a very broad definition. The Supreme Court decided that the national government would have the power to regulate interstate commerce in almost every way. It was not until the great depression hit, that regulations were put on the national government. Recently, the national government has been stepping over the lines of its power. In 2000, the case of United States v. Morrison the national government did not have the power to institute the Violence Against Women act. This act that the national government created was more of a states issue than one that the national government should be dealing with.
The struggle for inequality began with slavery and is now still going on today. When it came to racial equality the national government and the states government did not agree. The southern states wanted to keep segregation, while the national government was working against segregation. In the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court decided that segregation was unconstitutional. This did not settle with the south. The politicians of the south said that they were going to resist this decision. Governor George Wallace was very opposed to the decision of the Supreme Court, but with time Wallace realized that segregation was wrong. The issue that is being dealt with now about inequality is gay marriage.
The main disputes that occurs between the national and states governments deals with policies. The debates that occur today are whether the national or states government should regulate gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, health care, and the school systems. Some issues deal with personnel beliefs, while others deal with needs of the people. Usually states are responsible for public policies dealing with social, family, and moral issues, and the national government is responsible for issues dealing with equality, the economy, and the environment. When an issue can fit both into the national and states government responsibility, the debate is then about the issue as well as federalism. Right now, states are taking the issue of gay marriage into their own hands because it can be considered a moral issue, but can’t gay marriage also be considered an issue of equality? Isn’t there inequality in telling a same sex couple that they can’t get married? At this time states are voting for the issue of gay marriage on their own. Some states have already made it legal for a gay couple to get married. Some people believe that it is wrong for the states to have taken this into their own hands and held elections. These people believe that it is a national issue and that the states should stay out of the decision.
The issues which concern Federalism have changed greatly over the years, before Federalism dealt with the inequality of African Americans and women, and now federalism deals with the issues of gay marriage and abortion. The topics of implied powers, commerce, and equality that Federalists and Anti-Federalists argued about, are still being discussed today in Supreme Court cases. The balance of power between the states and national government will never be truly equal. Federalism has shaped the balance of power in the United States in many ways; it has been the center of many debates over history, and will continue to be the center of debates for years to come.
-Christen
Federalism is a key factor in the American government. Federalism helps the government because it “decentralizes our politics” (Government in America, 69). Federalism allows the states to have a say in what goes on in the national government. An example of the decentralization of politics is senators only representing one state, rather than an entire nation. This lets the opinions of each state be heard in the national government. Federalism gives more people the opportunity to have power, and this then allows more people’s demands to be met. Because of federalism there are more levels of government where someone’s idea can be heard. When a dispute erupts there are levels of government that are there to help resolve the matter. Although federalism does help at some levels, it also causes more disputes between the National and state governments.
If there is supposed to be a balance between what the states government control and what the national government controls, why has the national government gained more power over the states? Over time four events have occurred that have given the national government more power: the doctrine of implied powers, the commerce clause, and the struggle for equality.
Implied powers are “powers of the federal government that go beyond those enumerated in the Constitution” (Government in America, 74). The debate over implied powers first began with the writing of the Constitution. The federalists believed that implied powers were necessary to run an efficient government, and with the help of implied powers the states government had no reason to intervene with the national government, “It appears from these articles, that there is no need of any intervention of the State governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the Constitution and laws of every State are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with the Constitution” (American Government, The Anti-Federalist papers No. 17, 58). The Federalists wanted as much national power as they could, they did not see the need for the states government to play a role in the national government. With the help of implied powers the national government is given as much power as it needs. The Anti- Federalists on the other hand believed implied powers gave the national government too much control. James Madison, a Federalist, argues that without the “power to make all laws… the Constitution would be a dead letter” (American Government, Federalist 44, 61-62). Madison believes that if the national government does not have full power to make laws than there is no point in the Constitution. Why is it so important that government have full control over the laws? The issue of implied powers also plays a role in the Supreme Court case MCCulloch v. Maryland. This case established that the national government would have control over the states government. This means that national government’s supremacy over the states is ok as long as the national government follows the Constitution. Implied powers can be stretched as far as the government would like, as long as the government does not break the elastic clause.
As well as debating over implied powers, there is also the debate over the power of commerce. As stated in the Constitution the national government has the power to regulate interstate and international commerce. Federalists believed that not a lot of people opposed the regulation of commerce, “The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained” (American Government, Federalist 45, 66). Federalists believed that the Anti- Federalists did not object to the national government regulation of commerce, and this is partially true. The regulation of commerce was not the main issue that Anti- Federalists had with the Constitution, but it was still an idea that Anti- Federalists disagreed on.
For years the American courts have tried to define commerce, but in the Supreme Court case Gibbons v. Ogden the word commerce was defined using a very broad definition. The Supreme Court decided that the national government would have the power to regulate interstate commerce in almost every way. It was not until the great depression hit, that regulations were put on the national government. Recently, the national government has been stepping over the lines of its power. In 2000, the case of United States v. Morrison the national government did not have the power to institute the Violence Against Women act. This act that the national government created was more of a states issue than one that the national government should be dealing with.
The struggle for inequality began with slavery and is now still going on today. When it came to racial equality the national government and the states government did not agree. The southern states wanted to keep segregation, while the national government was working against segregation. In the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court decided that segregation was unconstitutional. This did not settle with the south. The politicians of the south said that they were going to resist this decision. Governor George Wallace was very opposed to the decision of the Supreme Court, but with time Wallace realized that segregation was wrong. The issue that is being dealt with now about inequality is gay marriage.
The main disputes that occurs between the national and states governments deals with policies. The debates that occur today are whether the national or states government should regulate gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, health care, and the school systems. Some issues deal with personnel beliefs, while others deal with needs of the people. Usually states are responsible for public policies dealing with social, family, and moral issues, and the national government is responsible for issues dealing with equality, the economy, and the environment. When an issue can fit both into the national and states government responsibility, the debate is then about the issue as well as federalism. Right now, states are taking the issue of gay marriage into their own hands because it can be considered a moral issue, but can’t gay marriage also be considered an issue of equality? Isn’t there inequality in telling a same sex couple that they can’t get married? At this time states are voting for the issue of gay marriage on their own. Some states have already made it legal for a gay couple to get married. Some people believe that it is wrong for the states to have taken this into their own hands and held elections. These people believe that it is a national issue and that the states should stay out of the decision.
The issues which concern Federalism have changed greatly over the years, before Federalism dealt with the inequality of African Americans and women, and now federalism deals with the issues of gay marriage and abortion. The topics of implied powers, commerce, and equality that Federalists and Anti-Federalists argued about, are still being discussed today in Supreme Court cases. The balance of power between the states and national government will never be truly equal. Federalism has shaped the balance of power in the United States in many ways; it has been the center of many debates over history, and will continue to be the center of debates for years to come.
-Christen
Monday, September 22, 2008
READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO ANSWER THE PAKISTAN POLL
As the War on Terror rages on, the United States attention has turned towards Pakistan. The mountainous northwestern fringes along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan are known havens for terrorist groups and activities and considered a likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri. Al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban have used it as a staging area for attacks into Afghanistan and the U.S. has previously fired upon militants as they attempted to flee into the mountainous and protective refuge of Pakistan. The situation has changed though; on September 3rd the U.S. headed an air assault raid consisting of helicopter and ground troops that resulted in 17 Pakistani casualties. The past clashes with suspected al-Qaeda targets hiding within the borders have been through indirect fire or Hellfire strikes via Predator drones, but this was the first time the U.S. has reported a ground operation into Pakistan. The result has been an up roar from the Pakistani government and military. Senior military personal of the Pakistani Army have stated that Pakistan would not allow foreign troops onto its soil and that Pakistan would be defended at all cost. Pakistan has had trouble controlling the growing terrorist training camps and havens in the past. Pakistan’s FATA or Federally Administered Tribal Areas are ungoverned regions along the border that are perfect for the likes of al-Qaeda and Taliban forces. These areas are a major concern for the surrounding countries, and Pakistan has had a history of playing on both sides when addressing the issue. That, along with the recent election of President Asif Ali Zardari, who has spent more time in prison then in the government and got out of a corruption trial in 2006 by pleading mental instability, leaves the U.S. skeptical on depending on Pakistan to deal with the untamed FATA. With tensions rising, the path forward remains unclear.
From Dr. Berry!
Hi all! Please don't forget to sign your polls so I can give you credit!
There are good ones so far this week!
Dr. Berry
There are good ones so far this week!
Dr. Berry
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Same-sex marriage poll
Currently the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages as being marriages under the federal law due to the Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 which defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman. However, both Massachusetts and California acknowledge same-sex marriages. New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey, and Connecticut have created legal unions which grant same-sex couples the same responsibilities and rights of marriage under state law. There are currently 41 states with statutes defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, 27 states have Constitutional language defining marriage, 5 states without laws banning same-sex marriages, and 1 state with a DOMA Constitutional amendment on the 2008 ballot.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Some Info on Undocumented Immigration to the US
Firstly, the poll is supposed to say: Assuming that illegal immigration from Mexico and other parts of Central and South America is a problem, what is the best solution to decrease illegal immigration to the Unites States?
According to the Urban Institute, the number of unauthorized immigrants arrested at workplaces increased from about 500 in 2002 to almost 5,000 in 2007, but far less then 1% of unauthorized workers have been arrested.
Independent groups such as The Minutemen now legally patrol stretches of the border hoping to catch illegal immigrants. Secure fencing exists on 106 miles of the border already, but in 2007 Congress provided the Department of Homeland Security with $1.5 billion for upgrading infrastructure and technology on the border. With a virtual fence already having cost $2.5 million, talk of a 700-mile fence along the entire US-Mexico border suggests costs around $49 billion (including 25 year maintenance).
President Bush proposed a guest worker program that was estimated to grant amnesty to 12 million immigrants. It required employers to first search for a citizen to fill the job, then permit would be issued to immigrants following "requirements and laws," harsh penalties were proposed as being harsh for employer violations, and those in the program would have to apply, pay a fee, and then return to their country when their permit expired.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan:
Create Secure Borders: more infrastructure, personell, and technology
Improve Immigration System: increase number of legal immigrants and straighten out immigration bureaucracy
Remove Incentives: cracking down on employers
People out of Shadows: undocumented immigrants pay a fine, learn English, and go to back of the line for naturalization
Work With Mexico: Promote economic development in Mexico
John McCain on Border Security and Immigration:
Securing our Borders first: physical and virtual barriers, adequate funding, deploy aerial vehicles, continue US-VISIT
Comprehensice Immigration Initiatives: prosecute bad employers, implement temporary worker program, address the undocumented, and eliminate the family backlog.
What is US-VISIT? A program for non-citizen travel in and out of the US. The requirements on a Mexican citizen include having a visa, having a I-94 Form, and being between the ages of 15 and 78. The program includes fingerprinting and tight inspection rules.
What is the family backlog? The line that Mexicans face for naturalization that tends to take 20 years.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Cool website for election from Ari in F Block
This is a really cool website created by youth advocates throughout America to help young voters (like some of you!) to find the stances of the Presidential candidates. It lays their stances on all of the issues right next to each other so you can compare them. If you are 18 and will be able to vote but not sure who you're going to vote for, there is a section called "My Ballot" which helps you to organize your thoughts and see which candidate agrees with your political platform the most. Hope you enjoy it!
Also, if you're not 18 and can't vote, you should still look at it because it's really cool. :)
votegopher.org
-Ariella
Also, if you're not 18 and can't vote, you should still look at it because it's really cool. :)
votegopher.org
-Ariella
Monday, September 15, 2008
Energy solutions poll
Conventional energy sources: drilling for oil and natural gas, and coal mining. A hot topic at the moment is whether or not the ban on off-shore drilling(the coast of America) should be lifted. Proponents of lifting this ban believe it would make America more independent of foreign oil and reduce American energy costs. Opponents of off-shore drilling cite environmental concerns, specifically contributing to global warming by burning more fossil fuels, the danger of oil spills, and the disruption of marine habitat. Major forms of alternative energy include: solar, wind, biofuels, geothermal, and other renewable energies.
Constitution Blog
The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are three of the documents that started the growth of the United States of America. But how relevant are they today? Can we, as Americans, base our understanding of our rights and freedoms on those three documents? When special interest groups and politicians are using those documents to defend any cause they see relevant, it doesn’t seem to have the same meaning as it once did. Amendments are a form of modification that has been provided to allow that meaning to mold with the times, but the process of ratification is long and difficult. If the Constitution is to truly represent the American people, why do only politicians have the power to change it? They hardly represent the voice of America, though they claim to. In order to bypass this process special interest groups have simply interpreted the Constitution to benefit their cause. But because the Constitution is “a framework for balancing liberty against power.” (American Government, How Not to Read the Constitution, 47), it shouldn’t be taken as absolute rule. Other countries around the world, especially France, have had multiple Constitutions. The fact that the American constitution has lasted so long can only be attributed to the fact that the details have not been filled in. The entire document has been used to support various cases and causes. Even the abstract words used in the document, such as “Life”, “Liberty” and “the pursuit of Happiness”, allow for the free interpretation of the document.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (The Declaration of Independence) The inalienable rights talked about in the Declaration of Independence are part of a balance between personal freedom and the power of government the Founding Fathers did their best to create. The balance is something being threatened by the free interpretation of the Constitution. There has always been a debate between those who are for furthering government control and those who desire more personal freedom. The Constitution gives the sections of government considerable amounts of power, but sections of the Bill of Rights also give the individual certain power. This constant struggle is something that goes against the fact that “From its very creation, the Constitution was perceived as a document that sought to strike a delicate balance between, on the one hand, governmental power to accomplish the great ends of civil society and, on the other hand, individual liberty.” (American Government, How Not to Read the Constitution, 47) Laws like the Patriot act constantly violate the balance that the document tried to achieve, and still needs to be achieved.
It is also stated in the declaration that began the birth of America that all men are created equal. This can be argued to mean many things, equality of rights, equality of social status, equality of economic standing, etc. But true equality between all people doesn’t exist. We live in a time where money is everything. Outsourcing to third-world countries and paying those employees pennies on the dollar is common business practice. The rich and famous are getting more decadent in their spending the more money they make. America has become dependent on oil, driving up demand, and driving up prices so the oil companies can make more money. American people lose their homes to debt every day. The dollar is weak. Even when you go past all of the economic and social status given to a child the minute he or she is born, we are still not equal on a genetic level. Some people have better eyesight, better skin, better everything just because of who their parents are. Political influence isn’t equal either. Though American democracy allows any registered citizen to vote, the process of getting on the ballot is hardly an equal challenge. “Political effectiveness, the study concludes, depends on three varying factors: resources, especially time, money, and skills; psychological engagement with politics; and ‘access to networks through which individuals can be recruited to political life.’” (Democracy’s Romantic Myths, Debating Democracy, 36) So, by leaving the type of equality open to interpretation, the statement can be used in any number of arguments, as it has been throughout history. But also by the use of the phrase “all men”, shouldn’t those who interpret it literally have a certain duty to protect other peoples? The way some only take parts of the Constitution, interpret them literally, and follow them vehemently leads to the disputes special interest groups have with each other all of the time. Some of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights lend themselves easily to free interpretation as well. The right of the accused to “enjoy a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district” is an unclear one. The how speedy depending on the seriousness of the case is never specified, nor is to what standard of impartiality the members of the jury are to be held. In the right of freedom from “Excessive bail”, “excessive fines”, or “cruel and unusual punishment” to be imposed on a citizen, what qualifies as excessive is also never specified. Though the documents probably would’ve been more boring, providing concrete rules may have helped to keep the multitude of legal disputes from happening today. Political figures throughout history have had no problem in using the Constitution to defend whatever cause they deem fit, “readers on both the right and left of the American political center have invoked the Constitution as authority for strikingly divergent conclusions about the legitimacy of existing institutions and practices,” (American Government, How not to Read the Constitution, 47). So is it really fair to ask all Americans to follow a set of rules set down by men over 200 years ago that can just as easily be bent to support their beliefs as something that differs from those beliefs? The answer, just as the interpretation of the document itself can be multifaceted. It could be argued that the idea of still following the Constitution, the Bill of Right, and the Declaration of Independence is ridiculous, but it could also be argued that the values that those documents represent are still at the core of American life. So perhaps the answer is to still follow the principles offered by the Founding Fathers but to keep from following them word for word. It could also be said that it is our duty to fill in the gaps left in the documents by achieving the balance between an effective government and individual freedom, and providing concrete definitions of the unalienable rights. Because, after all, the Constitution “is only a framework; it is not a blueprint.”. (American Government, How Not to Read the Constitution, 47) Its purpose was not to guide us carefully through every step of governing society, but to provide the American people with guiding principles that would help in the forming of new relevant laws. Continuing to interpret the Constitution literally does not help to define our country today, but hinders it because we, as Americans, must define our society in our own words.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (The Declaration of Independence) The inalienable rights talked about in the Declaration of Independence are part of a balance between personal freedom and the power of government the Founding Fathers did their best to create. The balance is something being threatened by the free interpretation of the Constitution. There has always been a debate between those who are for furthering government control and those who desire more personal freedom. The Constitution gives the sections of government considerable amounts of power, but sections of the Bill of Rights also give the individual certain power. This constant struggle is something that goes against the fact that “From its very creation, the Constitution was perceived as a document that sought to strike a delicate balance between, on the one hand, governmental power to accomplish the great ends of civil society and, on the other hand, individual liberty.” (American Government, How Not to Read the Constitution, 47) Laws like the Patriot act constantly violate the balance that the document tried to achieve, and still needs to be achieved.
It is also stated in the declaration that began the birth of America that all men are created equal. This can be argued to mean many things, equality of rights, equality of social status, equality of economic standing, etc. But true equality between all people doesn’t exist. We live in a time where money is everything. Outsourcing to third-world countries and paying those employees pennies on the dollar is common business practice. The rich and famous are getting more decadent in their spending the more money they make. America has become dependent on oil, driving up demand, and driving up prices so the oil companies can make more money. American people lose their homes to debt every day. The dollar is weak. Even when you go past all of the economic and social status given to a child the minute he or she is born, we are still not equal on a genetic level. Some people have better eyesight, better skin, better everything just because of who their parents are. Political influence isn’t equal either. Though American democracy allows any registered citizen to vote, the process of getting on the ballot is hardly an equal challenge. “Political effectiveness, the study concludes, depends on three varying factors: resources, especially time, money, and skills; psychological engagement with politics; and ‘access to networks through which individuals can be recruited to political life.’” (Democracy’s Romantic Myths, Debating Democracy, 36) So, by leaving the type of equality open to interpretation, the statement can be used in any number of arguments, as it has been throughout history. But also by the use of the phrase “all men”, shouldn’t those who interpret it literally have a certain duty to protect other peoples? The way some only take parts of the Constitution, interpret them literally, and follow them vehemently leads to the disputes special interest groups have with each other all of the time. Some of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights lend themselves easily to free interpretation as well. The right of the accused to “enjoy a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district” is an unclear one. The how speedy depending on the seriousness of the case is never specified, nor is to what standard of impartiality the members of the jury are to be held. In the right of freedom from “Excessive bail”, “excessive fines”, or “cruel and unusual punishment” to be imposed on a citizen, what qualifies as excessive is also never specified. Though the documents probably would’ve been more boring, providing concrete rules may have helped to keep the multitude of legal disputes from happening today. Political figures throughout history have had no problem in using the Constitution to defend whatever cause they deem fit, “readers on both the right and left of the American political center have invoked the Constitution as authority for strikingly divergent conclusions about the legitimacy of existing institutions and practices,” (American Government, How not to Read the Constitution, 47). So is it really fair to ask all Americans to follow a set of rules set down by men over 200 years ago that can just as easily be bent to support their beliefs as something that differs from those beliefs? The answer, just as the interpretation of the document itself can be multifaceted. It could be argued that the idea of still following the Constitution, the Bill of Right, and the Declaration of Independence is ridiculous, but it could also be argued that the values that those documents represent are still at the core of American life. So perhaps the answer is to still follow the principles offered by the Founding Fathers but to keep from following them word for word. It could also be said that it is our duty to fill in the gaps left in the documents by achieving the balance between an effective government and individual freedom, and providing concrete definitions of the unalienable rights. Because, after all, the Constitution “is only a framework; it is not a blueprint.”. (American Government, How Not to Read the Constitution, 47) Its purpose was not to guide us carefully through every step of governing society, but to provide the American people with guiding principles that would help in the forming of new relevant laws. Continuing to interpret the Constitution literally does not help to define our country today, but hinders it because we, as Americans, must define our society in our own words.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
SLD Blog; The Constitution
In America, everybody talks about all the freedoms we have are always being pushed down our throats. But what are they, and do we use them? Many people would say because of the way the Constitution is written we do not fully understand our freedom, and in return we do not use them to our advantage. In many ways, the Constitution is “only a framework; its not a blueprint”(doc 5, American Government,45)and causes many disputes between people.
The Bill of Rights is regarded as one of the founding documents that keep our freedom safe, but many of the “rights” are too vague. For example Article VII says, “ Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.” Nowhere in this article or many of the other articles does it say what is considered excessive, or what is considered cruel. If we look back on history many people have not followed this article. For example although the slaves were not considered citizens, no where in this article states that slaves were not include, and yet the slaves still had to go through cruel punishments. This is one of the many times that the framers of the constitution had problems because they tried to “ strike a delicate balance between, on the one hand, governmental power to accomplish the great end of civil society and on the other, individual liberty.”( Doc 5,American Government,45) This ambiguity allowed the citizens of the United States feel like they had dominance over the government in this issue, but in reality it gave the government the dominance because they also had the same rights.
This ambiguity may be to the advantage to the citizens, but in reality people do not understand the rights that they have. In many ways this America is the country that has given many advantages to many citizens, especially immigrants. “Opportunity defines our heritage” ( Myths of Rich and Poor,Debating Democracy,338) in America and allows people to move up in status. This is because America has the foundation like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that allows the protection of the rights of people. However, while it is true that the constitution says that all men are created equal, why are there many people in America who tend to be more affluent than others? Some may argue that Americans think the inequality is okay. Americans believe people who have more of the education deserve to get higher pay than a high school graduate, and in fact everyone is getting richer. Rich people and poor people have both gotten better in their economic situations. While that may be true, the poor people have only made a $2000 increase in their salary in the last 30 years, while the top CEOs increased by 4 times, and this was in times of economic prosperity.
With all the inequality in a country that is supposes to be equal, why is it that no one is doing anything. The common thinking is that Americans at this present time do not care for a cause if it does not affect them. Especially with new technology and the increasing “individualism” in this country, Americans are more detached from one another, unless they have a common goal to reach. One example used by Paul Loeb was a fisherman Pete Knutson. Knutson was a person who bridged the gap between fisherman and environmentalist to help save the environment, so that the area would be preserved for future generations.
However when inequality comes to things that do not affect Americans, such as people being paid very little in Indonesia making Nike shoes, but “Michael Jordan being paid more to be in ads than all of factory workers combined”(The Active Citizen, Debating Democracy ,42) Americans tend to turn the other way. If America as a nation really believed so strongly about its constitution and freedoms that they tout so much, why is it we allow our large corporations to practically enslave people in other countries? The war in Iraq is based on the sole purpose of spreading democracy to people who were oppressed, and with the support of many American citizens they believe the war is spreading democracy. But why is it when it comes to something like not buying clothing or a $300 name brand bag from a sweatshop, Americans don’t have a sense of the oppression that they are causing by doing that. The reason why Americans do not stand up for this is because they have a mentality that if it cannot be fixed fully, they do not try to fix all of it.
This lack of speaking the issues because it cannot be fully fixed can potentially cause major stagnation of social reform. Susan B. Antony was used as an example of someone who fought for what she believed in no matter how rough the tides were .All her life she fought for women’s suffrage; although she died fourteen years before it finally became a reality her struggle inspired many people to continue her cause until it was realized. Having now attained a lot of what is considered our rights, Americans are just following the current flow of things, and not shaking anything up. Thomas Jefferson said “A little rebellion now and then...is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government” and that is why in the Bill of Rights, Article I says the people have “ the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of Grievances” so that the people do not live what they feel is unfair.
Many of today’s issues are not being as enthusiastically fought for as the issues of before. For example, for women’s suffrage Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are always regarded as the women who would organize all the women, and some men to fight for women’s suffrage at any cost. Today many of the issues such as stem cell research, and gay marriage do not have the same enthusiastic feel to it. Sure these issues may have something that is equivalent to the Seneca Falls convention, or the March on Washington (Civil Rights) but they do not have the same impact that the events of the past had. It all boils down to the non-participating American citizens that rather sit at home than make a difference.
Everything just comes around full circle in this situation because if a person has rights that although vaguely stated is a lot of power, and they fail to use it because they are confused, people in power will use the power making the inequality greater in a society. The only thing that will help this problem in America is for each citizen to understand their rights, and their limits, so that things that need to be changed can be. It is a duty that is owed to the founding fathers, who left us a “framework”, and to those who used the framework to make a difference in American Society. Technology is always blamed for this stagnation of American movement because people do not group together like they used to, but in fact there is no excuse for it to be like this. If Americans can protest with from people across the country or the world against the new Facebook layout it certainly means that they have the ability to take up more serious causes. Before technology people had to travel days or months to talk about their common grievances, but now it can be within seconds. It does not mean that everyone has to be a Susan B. Antony or Marin Luther King Jr. but at least with them supporting a cause that they believe in.
—angelo
The Bill of Rights is regarded as one of the founding documents that keep our freedom safe, but many of the “rights” are too vague. For example Article VII says, “ Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.” Nowhere in this article or many of the other articles does it say what is considered excessive, or what is considered cruel. If we look back on history many people have not followed this article. For example although the slaves were not considered citizens, no where in this article states that slaves were not include, and yet the slaves still had to go through cruel punishments. This is one of the many times that the framers of the constitution had problems because they tried to “ strike a delicate balance between, on the one hand, governmental power to accomplish the great end of civil society and on the other, individual liberty.”( Doc 5,American Government,45) This ambiguity allowed the citizens of the United States feel like they had dominance over the government in this issue, but in reality it gave the government the dominance because they also had the same rights.
This ambiguity may be to the advantage to the citizens, but in reality people do not understand the rights that they have. In many ways this America is the country that has given many advantages to many citizens, especially immigrants. “Opportunity defines our heritage” ( Myths of Rich and Poor,Debating Democracy,338) in America and allows people to move up in status. This is because America has the foundation like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that allows the protection of the rights of people. However, while it is true that the constitution says that all men are created equal, why are there many people in America who tend to be more affluent than others? Some may argue that Americans think the inequality is okay. Americans believe people who have more of the education deserve to get higher pay than a high school graduate, and in fact everyone is getting richer. Rich people and poor people have both gotten better in their economic situations. While that may be true, the poor people have only made a $2000 increase in their salary in the last 30 years, while the top CEOs increased by 4 times, and this was in times of economic prosperity.
With all the inequality in a country that is supposes to be equal, why is it that no one is doing anything. The common thinking is that Americans at this present time do not care for a cause if it does not affect them. Especially with new technology and the increasing “individualism” in this country, Americans are more detached from one another, unless they have a common goal to reach. One example used by Paul Loeb was a fisherman Pete Knutson. Knutson was a person who bridged the gap between fisherman and environmentalist to help save the environment, so that the area would be preserved for future generations.
However when inequality comes to things that do not affect Americans, such as people being paid very little in Indonesia making Nike shoes, but “Michael Jordan being paid more to be in ads than all of factory workers combined”(The Active Citizen, Debating Democracy ,42) Americans tend to turn the other way. If America as a nation really believed so strongly about its constitution and freedoms that they tout so much, why is it we allow our large corporations to practically enslave people in other countries? The war in Iraq is based on the sole purpose of spreading democracy to people who were oppressed, and with the support of many American citizens they believe the war is spreading democracy. But why is it when it comes to something like not buying clothing or a $300 name brand bag from a sweatshop, Americans don’t have a sense of the oppression that they are causing by doing that. The reason why Americans do not stand up for this is because they have a mentality that if it cannot be fixed fully, they do not try to fix all of it.
This lack of speaking the issues because it cannot be fully fixed can potentially cause major stagnation of social reform. Susan B. Antony was used as an example of someone who fought for what she believed in no matter how rough the tides were .All her life she fought for women’s suffrage; although she died fourteen years before it finally became a reality her struggle inspired many people to continue her cause until it was realized. Having now attained a lot of what is considered our rights, Americans are just following the current flow of things, and not shaking anything up. Thomas Jefferson said “A little rebellion now and then...is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government” and that is why in the Bill of Rights, Article I says the people have “ the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of Grievances” so that the people do not live what they feel is unfair.
Many of today’s issues are not being as enthusiastically fought for as the issues of before. For example, for women’s suffrage Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are always regarded as the women who would organize all the women, and some men to fight for women’s suffrage at any cost. Today many of the issues such as stem cell research, and gay marriage do not have the same enthusiastic feel to it. Sure these issues may have something that is equivalent to the Seneca Falls convention, or the March on Washington (Civil Rights) but they do not have the same impact that the events of the past had. It all boils down to the non-participating American citizens that rather sit at home than make a difference.
Everything just comes around full circle in this situation because if a person has rights that although vaguely stated is a lot of power, and they fail to use it because they are confused, people in power will use the power making the inequality greater in a society. The only thing that will help this problem in America is for each citizen to understand their rights, and their limits, so that things that need to be changed can be. It is a duty that is owed to the founding fathers, who left us a “framework”, and to those who used the framework to make a difference in American Society. Technology is always blamed for this stagnation of American movement because people do not group together like they used to, but in fact there is no excuse for it to be like this. If Americans can protest with from people across the country or the world against the new Facebook layout it certainly means that they have the ability to take up more serious causes. Before technology people had to travel days or months to talk about their common grievances, but now it can be within seconds. It does not mean that everyone has to be a Susan B. Antony or Marin Luther King Jr. but at least with them supporting a cause that they believe in.
—angelo
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Background on Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin was chosen as the Republican running mate for John McCain in the 2008 election. Palin started as a city council member for a town called Wassail with just over seven thousand people in 1992. She was elected mayor of Wassail in 1996 and began to develop her personal stance on abortion, gun control, and taxes. As mayor of Wassail her duties included being in charge of the Police Department and while in office Palin increased the city's tax to pay for a new multi-use sports center. She was easily re-elected mayor of Wassail in 1999. Palin ran for lieutenant governor in 2002 but was unsuccessful. She spent 2003-2004 working on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission serving as the Ethics supervisor. In 2006 Palin defeated Sean Parnell to become the governor of Alaska. Palin strongly promotes oil and natural gas research in Alaska, which includes the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In 2007 Palin passed a law allowing the construction of a natural gas pipeline from the North Slope to the Lower 48.
Her political positions are very conservative. She is known as a traditional 'hockey mom". She opposes abortion unless the mother is in danger. She supports capital punishment but opposes same sex marriage. She believes in the right to be able to keep and bear arms. She is very well known for strongly supporting oil and natural gas drilling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)