Chapter 5 Blog Comments

I commented on Melissa Ray, Brandi Lively, and Ashley Pelfrey.

Chapter 5: Civil Rights

1. The issue of race - does the government do too little or too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination?  Why or how so?

Following the civil war, slavery was ended but it still did little to reduce discrimination. People in southern states found ways to go around the law and still discriminate. Blacks still could not vote, own land, or sometimes could not even leave plantations. The government did step in with the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but discrimination was still a problem. Organizations such as the Ku Klux Clan killed black people and were convicted, but their cases were later overturned. I don’t think the issue was necessarily that the government wasn’t trying, but that they weren’t doing enough by allowing loop holes in the law. Since then, the government has been doing more and more to try to make our country equal by breaking down voting barriers, public discrimination, and private discrimination. Though discrimination will always exist, I believe the government has made great progress in trying to eliminate it as much as possible.

2. The issue of gender - same question as #1.

In the earliest days of America, women had no rights independent of their husbands. They couldn’t own property, sign contracts, or keep their own wages. Women were only allowed to vote if they lived in New Jersey and met property requirements, but even that privilege was eventually taken away. Women such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton lobbied for the right for women to vote. Still, it wasn’t until the elections of 1920 were women all over the country allowed to exercise the right. Still, there are many other areas that women were treated differently in. Congress passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, prohibiting employers from paying different wages on the account of gender. Even now, there are hot button issues such as women in the frontlines of battle. Though it isn’t something I would ever want to do, I’m sure there are women who are very capable and willing to fight for our country. Keeping that in mind, gender discrimination is on the downfall, but our government still has a way to go.

3. The issue of sexual orientation - same question as #1 and #2.

Of the three issues discussed in this blog, sexual orientation is definitely relevant to the current times and is ongoing. Up until 2003, many states banned any type of homosexual activity. Homosexuals in the military have also been an extremely controversial issue. Prior to the Clinton administration, simply having homosexual tendencies was enough to be discharged. Congress enacted the don’t ask, don’t tell policy, which changed the policy to only discharging for engaging in homosexual relationships or discussing sexual orientation. Current U.S. President Obama has asked Congress to change the policy so that lesbians, gays, and bisexuals can serve openly in the military. With those issues somewhat moving forward, gay marriage is still a big controversy. Without being legally married, the ban causes gay couples to be ineligible for rights that come along with being a married couple such as visitation rights, the right to make health-care decisions for a spouse, inheritance rights, and tax benefits. Many people look at the issue based on religious beliefs, which is understandable, but in a country that has taken so many steps toward equality, it seems unfair to prevent homosexuals to have the same rights as anyone else. Based on the idea of equality, I believe the government is trying to take steps in the right direction, but at the moment there is so much controversy that it is hard to do so without also creating violence.

Chapter 4 Blog Comments

I commented on Amber Waters, Brad Richardson, and Albert Munoz.

Chapter 4: Civil Liberties

1. Freedom of Speech: How important is it? Does the freedom go "too far"? What areas of speech should not be protected?

The First Amendment declares that “Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech”. Even though this statement seems pretty straight forward, it is important for congress to allow individual freedoms, while still protecting our country and its citizens. In some ways, I do believe the freedom goes too far, because there are people out there who would purposely abuse the freedom. A person could be collaborating with terrorists or giving out confidential information and claim that they have the freedom to say whatever they want to. Because of those types of situations, it is important that the government adopt policies such as the clear and present danger test, the fighting words doctrine, laws against hate speech, etc. While we should be able to communicate and express our opinions, we should not have the liberty to cause harm to others by doing so.

2. Freedom of Religion: Is separation of church and state necessary? Why or why not?

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson called for a “wall of seperation” between church and state. At the time it was an extrememly hot issue because Britain had put an order in place that declared the Anglican Church the “official” church. This was very controversial and lead to much rebellion. I think the seperation of church and state is very necessary in order to keep peace. There are so many people with so many different ideas and opinions in America that it would be impossible to keep everyone happy. Even if the majority of people in an area practiced the same religion, there would likely still be at least some people who do not believe the same and it wouldn’t be fair to force it upon them. Keeping church and state seperated is necessary in order to be fair and keep everyone peaceful.

3. Criminal Procedure: Are defendant's rights crucial to our system of government? Why or why not? Many argue that defendants have too many rights - do you agree? Why or why not?

Defendant’s rights are extremely crucial to our system of government. In our society, there are a lot of people who do wrong and deserve to be punished but at the same time there are a lot of people who are accused of doing wrong and really haven’t. Because of this, it is imparative that we have established laws that protect the innocent and that keep the guilty from being abused by the system. This may just be because I am kind hearted, but I do not think defendants have too many rights. With so much going on in our society today, I think it is important that everyone who is accused of a crime have the ability to stand up for themselves. There are a lot of cases that are more serious than others, but it is only fair to extend the same rights to everyone.

Chapter 3 Comments

I commented on Gabrielle Miller, Amber Waters, and Jessica Armes.

Chaper 3: Federalism

1. Is a strong national government necessary or should the state governments have an equal share of power?  Why?

A strong national government is necessary, but the Framers feared a national government with too much power could lead to tyranny. Because of this, a system was established that divides governmental powers, rather than concentrating them in a central government. The Framers decided that Federalism was the best choice for America. The national government and state governments split power so that no one system has too much power over the other. The states derive their authority from the people and reserve powers not outlined to the national government in the Constitution. Both the state and national governments have their own authorities, but in areas that authority is shared, the national government reigns supreme. This system works out because it creates a mostly even distribution of power and keeps conflict to a minimum.

 

2. National power increased during the Great Depression but then power began to shift back to the states (somewhat) during the Reagan administration?  Why did that happen and is that shift appropriate?

During the Great Depression, the people of America wanted the national government to step in and get the economy back in shape. Federal intervention in manufacturing, farming, and many other areas that were normally run by state governments, helped stimulate the economy. This continued beyond World War II with aid to public schools and health care coverage to the poor and elderly. The opposition to national power began with the onset of the civil rights movement. Ronald Reagan was a supporter of the idea of New Federalism, the shifting of power back to the states. He famously said that “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem”. Block grants set fewer restrictions on spending. In 1994, the Contract with America limited powers of the federal government. After September 11, 2001, national power expanded once again, including the No Child Left Behind Act, prescription drug plans, and national standards for driver’s licenses. The shift in power really has a lot to do with whatever trials are going on in the nation at the time. Sometimes states need help financially and sometimes the national government gets too powerful. The shift is appropriate because it goes along with the needs of the country at the time.

 

3. Education stirs much discussion relating to the issue of federalism.  Should the national government regulate education or is it a matter best left to state and local governments?  Why?

The Founders considered educated citizens essential to the survival of the democracy, and they were correct. Educated people are more able to hold leaders accountable and pay attention to the overall responsiveness of the government. Seeing this to be true, it is extremely important to take every step possible to increase the availability and quality of education. Education is included in the reserve powers left to state and local governments. Funding for elementary and secondary education is mostly based on local property taxes, with some assistance from state governments. The federal government only funds about eight percent of all elementary and secondary spending. Because of the disparities in the wealth of communities, the quality of education that is afforded also varies a lot across different areas. I believe the national government should provide more for those areas so that all children have equal opportunities. There are issues with some federal programs, such as No Child Left Behind, because the government sets higher standards for schools across the nation, yet does not provide the funds to do so.  This causes a lot of confusion and controversy. If the national government wants to step in and make our nation more educated they should also take steps to make it happen.

Chapter 2 Blog Comments

I commented on the Chapter 2 blogs of Ashley Pelfrey, Albert Munoz, and Mackenzie King.

Chapter 2- The Constitution

1. Why is the United States Constitution stronger than the Articles of Confederation? How would the history of the United States have been different if the country still operated under the Articles?
         

The Articles of Confederation were the original governing authority of the United States. Because of the way the colonists were treated by Great Britain, they were still weary of the thought of being controlled by a nation. The Articles of Confederation emphasized freedom from any kind of national authority, which made governing the nation very difficult. Congress could not place taxes on citizens or products directly; it could only request revenues from the states. Because of this, the nation had no way to pay its debts and economic growth was coming to a standstill. The Constitution helped solve these problems by establishing judicial and executive branches, outlining a system of checks and balances, finding a way to represent the states proportionally and all in all put a stronger structure behind the country. If the country still operated under the Articles, it would be much harder for the states to negotiate with one another and I believe there would be a lot more disagreement between citizens concerning major issues.

 

2.  The first three articles of the Constitution establish/define the three branches of government - read these articles. What did you learn that you didn't already know about our government?

Congress, or the legislative branch, is established in article I of the Constitution. Congress is divided into two groups: the Senate and the House of Representatives. These two groups were created so that no one institution had too much power. Congress is responsible for making laws, collecting taxes, providing for the common defense, declaring war, and many other issues. Article II established the executive branch, which consists of the president and the vice president. One thing I didn’t know is that even though the president is commander in chief, only Congress can declare war. This ensures that power is evenly distributed and no one person can make major decisions. Article III of the Constitution established the judicial branch of our government. The Supreme Court and federal courts make up the judicial branch and are in charge of interpreting the laws.

 

3. How important is the Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison and why?

In the Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison, the court granted itself the authority of judicial review. Judicial review gives the Supreme Court the authority to strike down any law passed by Congress if the Court believes the law violates the Constitution.  The idea was that if a law conflicts with the constitution, either the law itself takes authority over the Constitution, or the Constitution reigns supreme over the law. The authority that is given to the Supreme Court by the power of judicial review is extremely important because the Constitution was agreed upon by the people. The Constitution is the fundamental structure of our government and it is important that the Supreme Court makes sure that no laws are allowed to undermine that.


4. Looking at the United States government today, is it more like what the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists envisioned and why?

When ratifying conventions began meeting over the Constitution, two groups were formed. Those who supported the Constitution called themselves Federalists. Those who opposed the Constitution became known as the Antifederalists. The Antifederalists feared that under the new Constitution, the national government would consolidate its authority over the state governments because national law was supreme over state law. The Federalists argued that if the people were sovereign, then they could split lawmaking authority between the national and state governments as they saw fit.  In today’s government with issues such as gun control on the front page of EVERYTHING, it seems that the people are seeing our government more like the Antifederalists did. People are afraid that national law will take their rights away. It seems kind of like history is repeating itself.