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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.