At times we call on our supreme court to empower our laws and see if certain laws are unconstitutional. There are times that certain individuals or groups find a way to take advantage of the system. Thanks to Marbury vs Madison our Supreme court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.
There have been certain monumental cases brought forth to the Supreme court. Brown Vs the Board of Education. This case declared that state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional. There was also Loving vs Georgia that invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
Not all cases help the people though. During the time of the draft Charles Schneck was passing pamphlets saying how the draft is a "monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system." He was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. People thought he should've been able to do so in accordance with our first amendment to Freedom of speech. It was stated that during wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished.
The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law, although it may only act within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction. The Supreme court is needed to provide much needed support to our laws. The Justices usually uphold the law justly but at times could be against the people.
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Presidential Speeches
Presidential speeches offer hope and promises of a better life. Inaugural speeches are one of the grandest and some of the most memorable. The one main common theme in these inaugural speeches is the economy. All the speeches mention we must unite to overcome challenges and to give our children a better place. All presidents main focus seems to be on fixing our economic challenges.
Now how a president is going to fix the economy is another. Each president has different challenges. Kennedy had to deal with the threat of communism, Reagan the Cold War and Obama the war in the middle east. Each had their own domestic policy. Based on their inaugural speeches Reagan wanted to diminish government but Obama states in his inaugural speech "...it's not if government is too big or too small but whether our government works."
Each president has huge challenges to overcome including trying to get their agenda through Congress. Each president trying their way to make our economy stronger. The inaugural speeches presidents give will be remembered for through time. Kennedy embodied what inaugural speeches are for. The speeches are to unite the country to the United States a better place. Ultimately Kennedy said it best when he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
Now how a president is going to fix the economy is another. Each president has different challenges. Kennedy had to deal with the threat of communism, Reagan the Cold War and Obama the war in the middle east. Each had their own domestic policy. Based on their inaugural speeches Reagan wanted to diminish government but Obama states in his inaugural speech "...it's not if government is too big or too small but whether our government works."
Each president has huge challenges to overcome including trying to get their agenda through Congress. Each president trying their way to make our economy stronger. The inaugural speeches presidents give will be remembered for through time. Kennedy embodied what inaugural speeches are for. The speeches are to unite the country to the United States a better place. Ultimately Kennedy said it best when he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Gerrrymandering
In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice intended to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries. Now districts must be equal in size within the state by population and must be contiguous. This gives us some very unique districts. Illinois 4th district was featured by The Economist as one of the most strangely drawn and gerrymandered congressional districts in the country and has been nicknamed "earmuffs" due to its shape. It was created to pack two majority Hispanic parts of Chicago into one district.
Technically districts should be drawn to give equal representation for the given district but this is not so. The districts are cut up in such a manner to give itself a distinctive advantage come election time. That means if one party has the majority of the state legislature they usually want to draw the districts so that they have a better chance of winning. This makes elections of state legislatures very important. There should be laws against gerrymandering and draw lines with more equal representation. The problem is democrats tend to live in the urban areas and therefore would most likely win most of the seats in Congress. My opinion is that gerrymandering complicates the political process and should be done away with.
Social rights
Our Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, but are we actually all equal. According to Marshall, social citizenship includes “the whole range from the right to a modicum of economic welfare and security to the right to share to the full in the social heritage and to live the life of a civilized being according to the standards prevailing in society”. The best example Marshall explains, "explain to a pauper that his property rights are the same as those of a millionaire, he will probably accuse you of quibbling." He states that "The Poor Law" was an aid since it relieved industry of all social responsibility outside the contract of employment and schooling increased the value of the worker without educating him above his station. Most of the time, higher income individuals will believe there are too many handouts and lower income people will say there isn't enough help.
Now Marshall's point of view is from a white man. Mr. Fredrick Douglas speaking to a black crowd must feel even more distant from having an equal right to the pursuit of happiness our declaration states. Douglas' speech tells the horrible acts of the slave trade, "the crack you heard, was the sound of the slave-whip; the scream you heard, was from the woman you saw with the babe...... that gash on her shoulder tells her to move on." He gives many more examples of how Negros are treated and how the 4th of July should be a mockery to them. It amazes me now how slavery could've existed. Douglas states how profitable the industry was and they needed to revolt as much as they could to change the system. Douglas finished off believing slavery will eventually be a thing of the past and he was right.
Now Marshall's point of view is from a white man. Mr. Fredrick Douglas speaking to a black crowd must feel even more distant from having an equal right to the pursuit of happiness our declaration states. Douglas' speech tells the horrible acts of the slave trade, "the crack you heard, was the sound of the slave-whip; the scream you heard, was from the woman you saw with the babe...... that gash on her shoulder tells her to move on." He gives many more examples of how Negros are treated and how the 4th of July should be a mockery to them. It amazes me now how slavery could've existed. Douglas states how profitable the industry was and they needed to revolt as much as they could to change the system. Douglas finished off believing slavery will eventually be a thing of the past and he was right.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Equal Rights
In the late 1840's women and African Americans were trying to get equal rights. It seems natural for oppressed groups to come together since there is more power in numbers. Frederick Douglas' lecture is taken from a women's organization in Rochester called "Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society". The lecture was acknowledging the different groups in the anti slavery movement and how he felt there needed to be more energy in the anti slavery movement. The women held a convention in which the shared sentiments on what rights they should be entitled to. Frederick Douglas was one of the signatures in the Declaration of Sentiments.
People felt women and African Americans had their roles and should stick to it. Obviously these are wrong views and it was a long battle to change popular opinions. Equal rights for all Americans is what they were after and at the end succeeded.
People felt women and African Americans had their roles and should stick to it. Obviously these are wrong views and it was a long battle to change popular opinions. Equal rights for all Americans is what they were after and at the end succeeded.
Innovation and John C Calhoun
States are going to vary in innovation or how quickly a state can adopt new policies. The most important variables are demographic factors mainly income, how much urban area, agricultural/factory output, literacy, and years of education. There's also a political factor but it's not as important. States also group themselves together and there's usually a lead state and other states in the group look towards that state to see how it worked it out.
John C Calhoun was against innovation in ending slavery. He knew the south needed slaves to keep their industries alive. Fortunately he wasn't a successful statesmen or he would have spread slavery into the union. He was pretty smart and if anything I would only agree that states should have more power than the federal government.
John C Calhoun was against innovation in ending slavery. He knew the south needed slaves to keep their industries alive. Fortunately he wasn't a successful statesmen or he would have spread slavery into the union. He was pretty smart and if anything I would only agree that states should have more power than the federal government.
Monday, March 28, 2016
Another Stab at the U.S. Constitution
The Constitution was written a long time ago and making any changes to it happens too infrequently. Below are some issues brought p.
Term Limits for Federal Judges - As stated by Jamal Greene the average lifespan of an American in 1787 was about 36 years old. Now with modern medicine the life expectancy is about double that. There should be fixed terms much like other countries. The tenure should be long enough to ensure independence from political patronage and short enough that we remain a country of laws and not of men.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment - This is a very fine line and hard to determine what is considered cruel. To me solitary confinement is cruel and shouldn't be done. Cruel mental punishment is just as bad as say waterboarding a physical punishment. There's also the issue of some crimes not fitting the punishment. Some punishment is given out to they can be made an example which is not fair. There should be more emphasis placed on reform not punishment.
Allow Naturalized Citizens to Be President - This law was made so someone from another country couldn't come here and take over immediately. This was understandable during a time when there were only 13 states. I would want my president to be a citizen of this country. There should simply be a rule that someone who wants to run for president be a citizen of the country for 10 or even 20 years.
Restore Federalism - States should have more authority over it's citizens than the federal government. I think federal power should be limited by what the state wants and it should be able to overrule a federal law.
Do away with the electoral college - This one is a no brainer to me. A popular vote nowadays would make more sense since we have more educated citizens then when it was a bunch of farmers in our early days. It would also do away with "swing states". Nowadays a republican wouldn't really try to win New York's vote since it almost always votes democrat in a race.
End the Monopoly on Amendments - This is another that states should have rights to propose amendments and an easier process to amend the constitution is necessary. Our world is constantly changing and need a constitution that is more fluid.
Get rid of the right to bear arms - I do not agree with this one. I believe we should have the right but there should be more laws governing that right. Maybe having to renew licenses more often and make it harder to procure weapons.
Treaties are laws - Treaties the federal government made should be law.
Amend the commerce clause - We the people should vote on economic policies. Especially subsidized healthcare and states should be able to decide what trades they want to make with other states (not other nations).
Rewrite First Amendment - I think this is kind of redundant and we pretty much understand that our rights shouldn't be infringed upon based on religion or if we wish to petition something.
Term Limits for Federal Judges - As stated by Jamal Greene the average lifespan of an American in 1787 was about 36 years old. Now with modern medicine the life expectancy is about double that. There should be fixed terms much like other countries. The tenure should be long enough to ensure independence from political patronage and short enough that we remain a country of laws and not of men.
Cruel and Unusual Punishment - This is a very fine line and hard to determine what is considered cruel. To me solitary confinement is cruel and shouldn't be done. Cruel mental punishment is just as bad as say waterboarding a physical punishment. There's also the issue of some crimes not fitting the punishment. Some punishment is given out to they can be made an example which is not fair. There should be more emphasis placed on reform not punishment.
Allow Naturalized Citizens to Be President - This law was made so someone from another country couldn't come here and take over immediately. This was understandable during a time when there were only 13 states. I would want my president to be a citizen of this country. There should simply be a rule that someone who wants to run for president be a citizen of the country for 10 or even 20 years.
Restore Federalism - States should have more authority over it's citizens than the federal government. I think federal power should be limited by what the state wants and it should be able to overrule a federal law.
Do away with the electoral college - This one is a no brainer to me. A popular vote nowadays would make more sense since we have more educated citizens then when it was a bunch of farmers in our early days. It would also do away with "swing states". Nowadays a republican wouldn't really try to win New York's vote since it almost always votes democrat in a race.
End the Monopoly on Amendments - This is another that states should have rights to propose amendments and an easier process to amend the constitution is necessary. Our world is constantly changing and need a constitution that is more fluid.
Get rid of the right to bear arms - I do not agree with this one. I believe we should have the right but there should be more laws governing that right. Maybe having to renew licenses more often and make it harder to procure weapons.
Treaties are laws - Treaties the federal government made should be law.
Amend the commerce clause - We the people should vote on economic policies. Especially subsidized healthcare and states should be able to decide what trades they want to make with other states (not other nations).
Rewrite First Amendment - I think this is kind of redundant and we pretty much understand that our rights shouldn't be infringed upon based on religion or if we wish to petition something.
Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Federalist Papers
In the beginning of the formation of the United States there was a need to keep order by implementing a governing power yet keep government small and fair. In order to do so we Declared our independence from England and created our own Constitution. I'm quite fond of the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. It's pretty much the basis of anyone in a relationship looking to break up. It's basically stating people have a tendency to breakup and we should just breakup amicably.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Once the United States gained freedom the Continental Congress functioned as a provisional government for the United States. The first constitution was the Articles of Confederation. The problem with the Articles was there was no unity or more importantly as George Washington put it "no money"(1). There were no ways for the United States to pay their debts nor fund and army. On February 21, 1787, the Confederation Congress called a convention of state delegates at Philadelphia to propose a plan of government. This lead to the drafting of The Constitution which we hold now as the supreme law in America.
Following the Constitutional Convention, there ensued an intense battle over the Constitution's ratification. Each state was requested to hold a special convention to deliberate and determine whether or not to ratify the Constitution. Madison was a leader in the ratification effort. James Madison with help from others wrote the "Federalist Papers". Two of Madison's works were Federalist No. 10 and Federalist No. 51. Federalist No. 10, Madison discusses the means of preventing rule by majority faction and advocates a large, commercial republic. In Federalist No 51, Madison argues for checks and balances in government.
1.)Maier, Pauline (2010). Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-684-86854-7.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Once the United States gained freedom the Continental Congress functioned as a provisional government for the United States. The first constitution was the Articles of Confederation. The problem with the Articles was there was no unity or more importantly as George Washington put it "no money"(1). There were no ways for the United States to pay their debts nor fund and army. On February 21, 1787, the Confederation Congress called a convention of state delegates at Philadelphia to propose a plan of government. This lead to the drafting of The Constitution which we hold now as the supreme law in America.
Following the Constitutional Convention, there ensued an intense battle over the Constitution's ratification. Each state was requested to hold a special convention to deliberate and determine whether or not to ratify the Constitution. Madison was a leader in the ratification effort. James Madison with help from others wrote the "Federalist Papers". Two of Madison's works were Federalist No. 10 and Federalist No. 51. Federalist No. 10, Madison discusses the means of preventing rule by majority faction and advocates a large, commercial republic. In Federalist No 51, Madison argues for checks and balances in government.
1.)Maier, Pauline (2010). Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787–1788. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-684-86854-7.
Saturday, February 20, 2016
America: More stew than melting pot
America was once considered the Great Melting Pot. An idea that all who come to this land will become American. That all races will blend together under our creed that "all men are created equal". Instead we have come to learn that America is more of a stew than a melting pot. In a melting pot whatever is put in will melt and into whatever is melted and then become one piece. In a stew all the parts are separate but serve it's purpose. In other words we need to retain some of our own cultures if we want to keep fresh. We don't lose our sense of nationalism; our nationalism is fluid.
Unless you were born here we do not share a common language nor a similar history. Our nation is very young compared to other countries and we can all trace our roots back to another country fairly easily. This is not normal in other countries. Once the next generation is born here they learn their culture from schools. Schools teach us the "American" way of life. Schools teach us our language, our history, and our culture. Now depending in what region of America you are in, your culture will differ (again different than most countries). So what is American nationalism? It's American patriotism.
The fact that we are pretty much free to live our lives the way we want is what separates us from other countries. If I want to be a polygamist who believes that Cthulhu is our savior and that aliens will cause the rapture in the year 2022 I can. I can start a website and even found a church based on that.....but I digress. We are a free country that was founded on a principle that we shall be free from persecution no matter what we believe in. So even though we don't have a true sense of nationalism we are patriotic.
Unless you were born here we do not share a common language nor a similar history. Our nation is very young compared to other countries and we can all trace our roots back to another country fairly easily. This is not normal in other countries. Once the next generation is born here they learn their culture from schools. Schools teach us the "American" way of life. Schools teach us our language, our history, and our culture. Now depending in what region of America you are in, your culture will differ (again different than most countries). So what is American nationalism? It's American patriotism.
The fact that we are pretty much free to live our lives the way we want is what separates us from other countries. If I want to be a polygamist who believes that Cthulhu is our savior and that aliens will cause the rapture in the year 2022 I can. I can start a website and even found a church based on that.....but I digress. We are a free country that was founded on a principle that we shall be free from persecution no matter what we believe in. So even though we don't have a true sense of nationalism we are patriotic.
Friday, February 12, 2016
Power in Government
Power in government is ambiguous. Politicians will point their fingers at someone else when something goes wrong, and claim they are the reason for something that goes great. Politicians have their agendas which is backed by interest groups. Since every issue will have two sides there will be discontent among their citizens.
The federal government is just one massive business and the state government's are acting as smaller subsidiaries. Our local government act as customer service for said business. Like most businesses social media reviews, the more people reviewing, the more negative reviews you are going to get. People are quicker to give a negative review than a positive one. There are more poor/middle class than rich, therefore there will be more resentment towards the government. The rich generally control the power. I feel comfortable saying that those with money in this country control the power.
I side with the sociologists and say that elitist are in control and have the power. Pluralist like to believe power is tied to an issue, but I feel the issues are controlled by those in the elite portion of the stratification system. Wealth, power, and prestige all play a huge part with politics as in the case in New Haven and funding for their public school system. Those with wealth send their kids to private schools and therefore feel that public schools need less funding.
It's hard to suggest the pluralist are correct. In the case of New Haven creating a group Citizens Action Committee to limit the power of mayor's, it was immeasurable to say what influence the group had over the mayor. It's also hard to suggest that those in the committee didn't have their own agendas, and in what part of the stratification system they fit into.
The federal government is just one massive business and the state government's are acting as smaller subsidiaries. Our local government act as customer service for said business. Like most businesses social media reviews, the more people reviewing, the more negative reviews you are going to get. People are quicker to give a negative review than a positive one. There are more poor/middle class than rich, therefore there will be more resentment towards the government. The rich generally control the power. I feel comfortable saying that those with money in this country control the power.
I side with the sociologists and say that elitist are in control and have the power. Pluralist like to believe power is tied to an issue, but I feel the issues are controlled by those in the elite portion of the stratification system. Wealth, power, and prestige all play a huge part with politics as in the case in New Haven and funding for their public school system. Those with wealth send their kids to private schools and therefore feel that public schools need less funding.
It's hard to suggest the pluralist are correct. In the case of New Haven creating a group Citizens Action Committee to limit the power of mayor's, it was immeasurable to say what influence the group had over the mayor. It's also hard to suggest that those in the committee didn't have their own agendas, and in what part of the stratification system they fit into.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)