Thursday, July 10, 2008

School Prayer Amendment - Barely Agreed Upon

After we voted in class today on the proposed amendment my classmates and I came up with, I was surprised that the School Prayer Amendment barely received a majority vote. In Congress you need super majority so technically my proposed amendment wouldn't have passed. I figured that with two arguments supporting the amendment, the class would be twice as inclined to vote to ratify it. What I want to know is why five people in the class were against it. I know people don't reply to these blogs very often, but if you do happen to read this let me know. Where we just not very convincing? or what about are argument just didn't settle with you? The School Prayer Amendment is intended to only preserve the rights given to us by the founders. The Constitution is just so vague at times that it is hard to determine how they wanted us to interpret certain laws (such as the First Amendment). Clarification is better than confusion.

Slavery/Involuntary Servitude

I was completely caught off guard by the proposal to pay minimum wage to those in federal prisons who are doing work as a form of punishment. This could start a horrible cycle of those who live under the poverty level committing crimes in order to make money for a period of time, live off the money when they get out, and then commit another crime when it runs out. Once you have been convicted of a crime it is very difficult to get a job in the United States, so a program such as this would only make it harder for criminals to "clean up." What would be the point if you know your basic needs as well as a minimum wage job will be provided for you in jail?

While I agree that prisoners should not be forced into doing physically straining or dangerous work, I think measures other than this amendment would better solve that problem. As for prisons using prisoners to do clean-up work around the community in parks and such, I think it is a little extreme to call this slavery or involuntary servitude. It is a punishment! They didn't volunteer to go sit in a jail sell and request three unappetizing meals a day in fairly poor living conditions. What is preventing someone from arguing that making a child clean his/her room as a punishment or before he/she can leave the house isn't involuntary servitude then? I understand where the argument for such an amendment came from, I just think her argument in class was taken a bit to the extreme

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

When is Political Violence the Answer?

Never. Political violence does not solve anything that peaceful protests, forms of civil disobedience, and, in some cases, conventional forms of political participation cannot solve. Instead, political violence makes the situation worse by causing many people who may have joined the cause in the first place to reconsider due to the violent nature of the group. As we talked about in class, the most important thing to do today is to gain attention and support for your cause. It is obvious that this can be done without getting violent with rioting, forms of terrorism, and/or guerrilla warfare tactics. If someone were to cause a violent disturbance in a way of trying to communicate to me that their cause was valid and important, I would probably disregard the group all together because of the immature ways in which they were going about drawing attention to themselves. I am all for unconventional forms of political participation, but please, can we act mature and keep it peaceful?

Monday, July 7, 2008

YouTube Serving Its Purpose

There seems to be a concern for the use of new media, primarily YouTube, as a means for presidential candidates to campaign. Because there a numerous political spoofs created by various users of YouTube, it can be hard to determine what a candidate truly stands for. While Obama has been known for posting real stances on issues in YouTube videos, his bias can be turned around in an overly bias video for the opposite candidate by a spoof. We need to realize that the purpose of YouTube as a medium is primarily that of entertainment. The majority of the videos available to viewers are entertaining, sensational, or funny things people catch on camera, such as laughing babies, freak accidents, and music videos. It seems inevitable that such spoofs were created on a site dedicated to entertainment. The only way to solve the bias associated with the videos is to make actual campaign ads have some sort of approval by the candidate visible and for spoofs to allow viewers to access the real information. This seems somewhat impossible to me to implement because of the large number of users of such websites as YouTube, so maybe people should start considering what information they take seriously. I mean, it's just YouTube, should we really be that concerned about its affect in something as serious as a presidential election?

Sunday, July 6, 2008

Inform Yourself, Please.

In November, I will vote for the first time in a presidential election. I have never had a tremendous interest in politics, but I feel that I should make an effort now that I am able to participate. I'm not sure whether or not I think my vote really matters, but I do want to be able to say I voted for personal reasons. Because of my lack of interest in politics, I feel that I need to catch up on the issues. I do not want to vote blindly for the party I normally side with without knowing each candidates stance on the important issues. Finding an unbiased source of this information is often difficult. Most websites are supported by one candidate or the other. These usually make one candidate out to be the good guy and the other candidate the bad guy. After accessing this website : http://obama-mccain.info/index-obama-mccain.php I think that the information is reliable. While only major issues stances are explained for both McCain and Obama, I feel that I am on the right track to becoming a more informed voter. I challenge all of you out there who aren't very well informed to gain some knowledge on the issues instead of blindly voting come this November. No one wants a President to be elected because no one really knew what he stood for.

Saturday, July 5, 2008

eBay's Latest Attraction

Max P. Sanders, a student from University of Minnesota, was recently prosecuted for putting his vote in the 2008 Presidential Election on eBay. While he claims that it was a joke, I think that this proves to the rest of America that the youth in our country don't think that their vote really counts in an election. With the electoral college system in place, many college students (as well as older members of society) feel that there is no point to voting. Members of the electoral college are not restricted to voting with the popular vote of their state and in states that always vote either democratic or republican the only reason seen for voting is as a civil duty. I believe that this incident has gone way beyond showing politicians that something needs to be changed. Candidates need to start focusing some of their campaigning efforts on our youth to get them to value voting in such elections. While I have mentioned previously that we need to increase voter turn-out, the fact that many young men and women like Sanders don't feel the need to vote does not help create a larger voter turn-out for future elections. It is up to the government and the politicians to realize this and come up with some sort of solution.

To see the actual article go to this website. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/04/ebay.vote.ap/index.html

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Increasing Voter Turnout

Since the start of the twentieth century, the percentage of registered voters that actually vote in the presidential election each year has been steadily under 60%. If you average the number of voters for presidential elections with all other elections since the mid 1900s, the percentage is below 50%. This means that even if a majority of the popular vote is behind a president, it is really only just above 25% of registered voters that truly support the newly elected president. A president's authority to govern the country for his four-year term can be greatly affected by the support of the public. We do not want a president who is not backed up by significantly less than a majority of Americans.
The solution to this problem is to make it easier for those Americans who want to vote, but can't for various reasons, to be able to do so. Making voting day a national holiday would allow so many more Americans who normally have hectic work schedules to get to the polls. Families with children could also take turns watching the kids while one parent is at the polls. It could solve a lot of reasons why many Americans simply cannot vote in elections even if they want to be a part of deciding our nation's president. I believe that this would definitely increase voter turnout and have a positive affect on our country's election of a new president.

Monday, June 30, 2008

Is the Declaration of Our Basic Freedoms in the Bill of Rights Necessary?

During the time the founder's of the U.S. Constitution decided to come up with a Bill of Rights, there were some opposing view points. Was it really necessary to include the five basic freedoms with the First Amendment? As it was to be assumed that the Constitution provides all citizen with the rights they deserved, why did the rights to free speech, press, assembly, religion and petition of the government deserve a specific statement? I believe that because the U.S. Constitution is so vague, it was necessary to express these individual rights. The five basic freedoms are important and should not be overlooked if the Constitution were to be misinterpreted. They are essential in any democracy as they grant power to the people so that the government cannot control them without their ability to voice their own opinion against it.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Strict Constructionism -- Not the Way to Go

Richard A. Posner, a judge in the seventh district of the United States Court of Appeals, was the author of "What Am I, a Potted Plant?" which happened to be the article I read and summarized in our last class. Posner was one-hundred percent against strict constructionism. I would have to agree with his stance on how the United States constitution should be read, interpreted, and altered. As he states, the founders created a very vague constitution for the people. If we were to follow only the word-for-word instructions, rights, and legislation of the constitution it would be nearly impossible to solve most court cases. The specific situations that cause a case to go to court are not going to be states in the constitution, unless it is a direct violation of the our stated rights. This would make the judicial branch pretty much useless. Wouldn't that throw off the balance of powers set up by the founders when they came up with the idea for a separation of powers between the different branches of government?

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

A Flaw in the System

Congress has the sole power to declare war as written in the US Constitution. This power in recent decades has been useless as the founder's did not foresee that the United States would ever have a standing army. It was the Congress who was to assemble the army which prevented the President from acting as Commander and Chief of the armed forces without out congressional approval. Because the United States has had a standing army since WWII, the president can basically send troops wherever he deems appropriate and order them to follow his commands. It is unnecessary for Congress to declare war when the president can order the armed forces regardless of their opinion.
I believe that this is a flaw that has emerged in the checks and balances system that the founders of our constitution came up with. To correct this I would like to see a change in the Presidents power to command the armed forces. While he should still be the commanding officer, Congress should have to approve sending of any amount of forces into another country. This can prevent the President from waging war on another country without the approval of Congress and the people of the United States.

Monday, June 23, 2008

John McCain and Question Time

Presidential candidate John McCain has promised that if elected into office he will insure that the United States requires a question time much like that in British parliamentary systems. While he may be winning more popular votes with this idea floating around the general public due to an article in the New York Times, I do not believe that such this would be a good idea at all. McCain may or may not truly want to impliment this into our government, but it definitely makes him appeal more to the moderate voters in our country in comparison to some of his extremely conservative ideas for government.
Many Americans may think that a question time would be great, entertaining, and a way to keep the president in check and on top of the issues. I don't believe that this plan would have such results if gone through with. In Britian the question time lasts 30 minutes and is nothing but witty banter and attempts at poking fun at the prime minister. I feel that our president would not be able to handle such ruthlessness and would ultimately not want to do this every week for their entire four year term. While we could make some ajustments to the rules regarding question time, I think it would be a waste of time still. Cameras would cause politicians to feel the need to act for the public and the public would not be informed on any important issues. It is nothing but 30 minutes of cheers for and boos against what the person talking is stating. No issues are solved, discussed at detail, or even simply explained to those listening. What's the point?
In fact question time may make bipartisanship even more unlikely to occur as question time seems to increases the gap between the two parties and makes it more of a war for power and public popularity.

Governmental Benefits: British Parliament System vs. System of Checks and Balances

While the British parliament system, existing in countries such as Canada, can differ greatly in regards to the country's dispersal of power in comparison to the United States' system of checks and balances/separation of powers, the two structures of democratic government have fairly equal benefits.
In a parliament system, one of the huge benefits I see is the way their elections run. While the United States and Canada both indirectly elect the leader of their country, it is done much differently. Prime Ministers are selected by the majority party group within the rank of MPs, which are of course chosen by the voters themselves. Because the people do not vote for a prime minister as a way of figuring out the popularity of a candidate, I believe that it helps unify the voters behind their prime minister more so than in America where the case can arise when the electoral college and the voters pick different presidential candidates to win the election.
Still, I feel that the United States has a benefit over these traditionally British systems of government with the separation of powers and the checks and balances system associated with it. A prime minister essentially rules the entire country with little limit to his legislative or executive power. This makes it extremely easy for such a leader to govern his country according to his own, personal agenda. In the United States however, the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are given very separate powers that are limited by the system of checks and balances that forces the branches to work together. No one branch can overpower the other two and completely take over. For example, the judicial branch can declare any presidential act unconstitutional, while the executive branch (the president in this case) can veto congressional legislation and the legislative branch can impeach judges. It is much more difficult for a president govern simply with his own agenda with such a system in place.
Maybe some sort of combination of these two benefits found in different structures of government could benefit our country if enacted together.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

The Real ID Act of 2005 - Too Much?

The Real ID Act of 2005 was signed by President Bush in the month of May as a result to the need for higher national security since the events of September 11th. This act requires that all states issue new driver's licenses to all drivers based on new federal standards by December of 2009. While a cooperative state-federal standard for new driver's licenses was in the process as of 2004, these attempts have been halted with the new act in place. For specific details of the act itself you can access the the National Conference of State Legislators website at http://www.ncsl.org/standcomm/sctran/Realidsummary05.htm.

At first I felt as though a national identification card of some sort would be beneficial and may even make getting through airport security easier when traveling. However, I was unaware that this new act was overturning an act from just a year before in which the state and federal levels of government would together decide on new standards. I feel like this is more acceptable, especially if a large majority of the costs will be coming out of the state governments' budgets. States know how much money they can be put toward new driver's licenses between now and December of next year. The federal government can still make sure that all of these new identification cards are extremely difficult to copy and hold to the national standards. A compromise between the two levels of government makes more sense then the federal government controlling something very much at the state level, even if it would increase national security immensely.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Toubles with the Presidential Election

I believe that Publius's (James Madison) solution to the tyranny of majority fractions being related to the great size of a republic and the diversity of its people, as he expressed in The Federalist No. 10, is very relative to problems our society has with the way today's presidential elections are held. Frequently people who are a part of the same party (mainly Democratic or Republic) break away from their party to independent run for president due to some conflict of interests of beliefs. As Publius predicted, this makes it harder for there to be a majority agreement in the popular vote during many presidential elections. People begin to wonder if we should not elect a president who is not approved of by the majority of the people. We could always regulate elections to two candidates, but i believe that this would cause that tyranny of majority fractions to have even worse consequences. If you think about it, this is what Publius wanted to happen to some extent.

According to all of the diagrams shown in class today regarding presidential elections, almost all of the electoral votes had a majority winner. As a republican democracy, this is how we run. Those in the electoral college or more aware of what the candidates running for presidency will do with their time in office and how it will effect the American population. The average American is more concerned with the gossip and personal lives associated with political candidates. They can take into account a mistake a candidate made in his/her personal life and not vote on his based at all on his political views. (Clinton presidency is a great example of this. He may not have one the popular vote because of the huge scandal regarding him that was constantly in the news and tabloids). Maybe it is better that we vote for the electoral college and let them decide on who should be president as they aren't as likely to be persuaded by the candidates personal lives. A majority of electoral votes should be enough to make sure our president is one who will work for the common good of all of its people.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Majority and Supermajority: Dempcratic?

In a democracy it is the people who are to have the most political power. No one group (whether a majority or minority group) is to have more power than another. If a vote is to be taken regarding a law being placed that would benefit only one portion of society and not the society as a whole, the law should not be allowed. This is where i believe a supermajority vote is necessary to account for those who are not a part of the group being benefited by the law. For example, a law that gave all white individuals (being one portion of the United State's populations) a certain benefit would not be fair to those off other races. A supermajority vote would prevent something like this from happening as more than the amount of people in the majority group would have to vote to pass the law. With this reasoning taken into account, I don't believe that a simple majority is democratic. The basic idea of it follows democratic ideals, if only 51% of the people can cause certain changes in the way the country is run, then there is still a huge portion of the country's populations who has ideas, concerns, and objections that are not being heard or considered. A true democracy should listen to all of its people and make decisions best of what is good for all of its citizens as often as possible. As a supermajority vote better helps to accomplish this, I would say that it is a much more democratic approach.

Monday, June 16, 2008

Introduction

First I thought I would recap the introduction I gave of myself in class today. Obviously my name is Maggie, since you're reading my blog I am sure you are well aware of that. I am a "townie" and have lived in Bloomington-Normal my entire life. I will be a sophomore this fall here at ISU where I will continue to major in psychology. I have thought about a dance minor. Because it isn't very helpful when my major focus is psychology, it probably won't happen though.
Truthfully, I have never been very interested in politics and haven't taken any courses on the topic since my junior year in high school as a graduation requirement. I feel that one of the main reasons I do not enjoy politics is because I'm not very well-informed on the topic so i become easily confused in politics discussions. Hopefully through this class I will begin to understand politics and be able to voice my own opinions on important political matters in the future.