Last Post

I decided to do a little research on Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who had attended Yale and had a pretty normal upbringing, and found that his philosophy is on the conservative side, but with a bit of a liberal streak showing up in sometimes surprising cases. For example, he wrote a dissenting opinion on the United States v. Rybar, in which the government had banned private citizens from owning submachine guns, and in which Alito disagreed on the decision, stating that such a ban violated the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment- a pro-gun stance that is widely seen as a conservative ideal. However, in the case of death row inmate Michael Taylor, he voted against the state of Missouri’s request to strike down the stay of execution so that Taylor could be executed, a move seen by some conservatives as a more liberal stance. For the most part, I would, like many people, wither agree or disagree with his philosophy on a case by case basis. There are some cases in which the more conservative view is appropriate, and then there are others in which a more liberal view is appropriate- but for the most part, I can agree with his philosophy on most cases.

Judicial review is a power best used on a regular basis. If laws are passed by Congress or the president that could have the potential in being unconstitutional and thus unjust, then the Supreme Court should scrutinize every law to make sure that it is within constitutional parameters of the government. As well, this can prevent possible problems in the future that arise from the laws, and can save millions of dollars in legal fees that never even have to happen if the Supreme Court exercises its right of judicial review regularly.

I believe that the High Court should interpret the Constitution in reference to the changes in society and technology, on the basis that society has changed drastically since the time of the Framers and that there are far more issues that need to be addressed than there were before. The population has grown and the United States have become something more than what the Framers could have possibly dreamed of, and the rest of the world has changed as well, with globalization increasing amongst many world countries. The United States has become deeply rooted in foreign problems as well as domestic problems that were not seen as the government’s business during the Framer’s era. As well, in interpreting a living Constitution, the Court may also help the government’s laws adapt to the ever changing whims of society.

I commented on Gabriel Miller, Melissa Ray, and Ashley Pelfrey’s blogs.

Bureaucratic Natures

I feel that the while many of the government agencies serve a critical purpose, perhaps one of the most important is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In a time of increasing health problems such as diabetes and obesity, as well as new (and old) diseases like the swine flu and malaria still circulating the globe, the CDC is there to help provide and promote new information about all sorts of medical problems, as well as suggest possible solutions or point out signs and symptoms of when you should probably go see a doctor. It is a very helpful tool for people who do not understand certain health risks that can be associated with certain activities, and can help guide them in their decision making in either decreasing or preventing their possibility of having a certain medical problem, or can also be used to help guide them through fixing a medical problem or how to live with it.

In relation to the least needed federal agency that the government can do without, I would have to suggest in eliminating the Voice of America, which is responsible for broadcasting news about the United States to the people abroad. While this is all hunky dory, I feel that with the technology today that even if the people abroad were remotely interested in the daily affairs that are going on in the U.S. that they will simply go to Google news, or any news source on the internet, which would mean that the elimination of the Voice of America agency would have little impact.

It seems like many of the agencies listed have little sub-agencies that cover just about anything that the government can cover, which also means that I cannot really think of any agency at the moment that could be created.

I commented on Gabriel Miller, Tim Tunkel, and Jessica Tucker.

Presidential Greatness

For many people there are different definitions of measuring presidential greatness, but there are several common themes found in people who rate which presidents are the greatest and why. First off, people look at common leadership skills, such as the clarity of the president’s vision of policy, his ability to communicate with the public and government officials, as well with foreign politicians, his negotiation skills- meaning if he gives up too easily to others demands, is too stubborn to listen to reason, or can be sane enough to compromise or stand their ground when needed. Presidents are also rated due to how effectively they use their presidential powers overall. Obviously not everyone can encompass these aspects, but having strength in three out of four isn’t bad. People look for charisma and honesty, as well as intelligence and a fierce devotion to America. As well, it can be due to one historic moment in time that will forever define their presidency that determines how great they are, as during times of crisis the president is expected to be able to take control swiftly and solve the problem efficiently.

According to C-SPAN Historians Presidential Leadership Survey, the other two greatest presidents, as ranked by the American public, are distant cousins Franklin D. Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt. Franklin Roosevelt has been ranked as one of the greatest due to his steady and calming presence during the worst period in American history- the Great Depression- as well as being the main president for most of World War II. He had a clear vision to help out the Americans in a policy called the New Deal, which created a large amount of jobs, as well as expanding the government’s role in the economy to help regulate it to make sure that nothing as terrible as the stock market crashing ever happened again. He also helped create Social Security, something still enjoyed by millions today, and was also a more personal president to the public, creating the fireside chat which was a radio address to the public in which he would explain his reasoning for his actions. He was truly one of the few who had an everlasting reach in American government, and from my  point of view set a high standard for every president after him. Concerning Theodore Roosevelt, he was an adventurous man, one whose accomplishments included a creating a strong and firm foreign policy, in where his famous phrase “walk softly and carry a big stick” rings true today, as well as his ability to create new reforms for the nation. He also made sure that the government was more regulatory in big business matters so as to protect the working class people, and was a president deeply imbued in international politics as well. Plus, Teddy Roosevelt rode a moose- who could want anything more in a president?

I decided to do a little research on Chester A. Arthur, the 21^st president of the United States.  Some of the interesting things that I learned about him was the Arthur had originally been the vice president to the 20^th president, James Garfield, when Garfield was suddenly assassinated by a disillusioned man, and came into presidency after his death. President Arthur was also responsible for several civil service reforms, such as the Pendleton Act. He was also signed the Edmunds Act, which made polygamy illegal in the United States and also barred polygamists from being able to hold governmental offices. Concerning Native Americans, Arthur also wanted to give individual Native Americans their own land in an allotment system, but such an idea was struck down by Congress.  In all, I would say that President Arthur was an effective president. He was able to efficiently get many positive reforms passed, and had no huge events happen during his presidency, but seemed like a generally well respected individual, even if he is not seen as a notable president like Abraham Lincoln or moose riding Theodore Roosevelt.

I commented on Ashley Pelfrey, Albert Munoz, and Gabrielle Miller’s posts.

Representatives and Stuff

My Senators are Republicans Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander, while there are nine Congressmen representing Tennessee. Phil Roe, John Duncan, Marsha Blackburn, Diana Black, Stephen Fincher, Scott DesJarlais, and Chuck Fleischmann are all the Republican representatives, with only two Democrats- Jim Cooper and Steven Cohen. My Congressman is John Duncan.

 One area that I support that many other Congressman and Senators support is the continuing growth and efficiency of the education in not just Tennessee but in the whole nation. I support for every reason that everyone else supports in expanding education, as we all want a better education system and curriculum to be taught to our kids, for schools to always have the supplies they need, to create a more comfortable and receptive learning environment, and more up to date and innovative teachers, all geared toward providing the best education and giving every student the opportunity to maximize their abilities and intelligence.

One issue that I disagree with is Jim Cooper’s support of the Affordable Care Act, also popularly known as Obamacare. The bill is not very concise and leaves many questions unanswered that will only be solved as the program is implemented, and so not many of us really know if it will have a positive or negative effect in the long run. And while I understand that a big part of it is giving healthcare insurance to people with pre-existing conditions that were previously denied, which is a great thing indeed, I work in the medical field and I see the people that are already on programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and TennCare that are definitely abusing the program. In regards to paying a bill, the government will find every single way that it can to not pay your bill, just like a private insurance company, and if they have to foot it, they will only pay the bare minimum. I and my fellow coworkers have been constantly hounded by our billing department to always be on top of paperwork, and we are always quick to scramble and change to follow the ever-changing rules that Medicare produces, but it is never enough. People cannot always foot the rest of the bill either, and much of the hard labor that we do goes unpaid. In short, this Obamacare is more than likely just going to become another Medicare, and hopefully people won’t be too surprised when they figure out that their doctor visits and ER visits won’t be totally free.

                I commented on Ashley Pelfrey, Gabrielle Miller, and Brandi Lively’s blogs.

Elections and Voting and Pudding

In regards to the 2000 presidential race between Al Gore and George Bush, I am more inclined to agree with the majority opinion, but only because of the fact that the four counties that Gore requested a recount in did not complete the recount by the deadline, which was December 12^th. The officials conducting the recount should have known of the deadline and been quick and efficient about it so as to declare the presidential election winner, but instead seemed to take their time. I concede the fact that it would have been quite difficult to determine some voters actual chosen candidates if there were multiple “dimpled” chads, and I can’t see it being quite realistic- or legal- to call up the person and ask them who they voted for. They may just change their mind right over the telephone. Other than that, there is the possibility that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bush simply due to partisan loyalties, or hey, maybe they just wanted for the presidential election to be done and over with.

I feel that fundraising, while important to help finance a campaign, has started to take precedence over more qualifying attributes- namely, a competent and smart candidate. It seems as though instead of actually just focusing on understanding and dissecting a candidate’s stance on important issues, that we must also feel as though they can be popular enough to raise numerous amounts of money to help their campaign and to be given the possibility to be elected into office. And while I understand that fundraising is important to fund the political ads and get the word out, I just get so tired of hearing how much money somebody raised in an excess of millions that could be used for much better things. We could say that there is no mandatory amount of money to be raised, but then people really would question on whether or not the person is actually quite serious about winning an election if he cannot raise up a good chunk of money.

There is a lot of voter apathy in the United States, with a majority of it due to issues such as ethnicity, age, sex, and education. Women and Caucasian people tend to vote more than men or ethnic minorities, and as one gets older they typically get a little more involved (or at least concerned) with politics, while younger people are not so driven to become interested in politics. Education is another huge issue, as depending on one’s level of education they may think that voting is not all that important or are ill-informed of the issues and candidates at hand, or they may have a job that does not let them have the time off to vote, as U.S. elections are generally held during week days. Another thought is that people have become disenfranchised with voting and feel as though it is useless anyways. Indeed, even now my grandfather at the age of sixty-one recently told me that his vote feels like nothing, that it doesn’t really matter. General distrust of the government could be another reason for some as well.

I commented on Gabrielle Miller, Melissa Ray, and Amber Waters blogs.

Political Parties And You

I do not really strongly identify with any political party, as growing up politics were not a staple in my family life, and as an adult I find that trying to fit myself in the existing political parties are an unsavory option. However, I tend to be more conservative in my choices and political ideology, influenced by my choice of religion and past experiences.  As for opposing certain political party platforms, from the more conservative political parties (for example, the Republican Party) I tend to disagree with the issue of unions. I feel that unions have a special place in the workplace and that they protect the working man’s interest. Though it can become a great nuisance to businesses and even hinder their production, it is better to make sure that a worker is safe and happy, and the corporation is bound to reflect that.

I think that America does not need political parties so much as people naturally gravitate towards them. Everyone shall have opposing or similar views, and it is only natural that people will create a coalition of people with similar views to create a large and loud voice that can sway people’s opinions. I think that in today’s society that America cannot live without political parties. As said before, people are naturally and instinctively drawn to create groups to protect and promote their interests, and that it would go against a person’s instinct. Without the political parties, people would not feel as though their interests and opinions  and needs are not being heard or recognized.

One political party that I found interesting  and slightly attracted to was the Citizen’s Party of the United States. The political party has a mixture of all sorts of views, from liberal to conservative, but is mostly moderate in it’s platforms. The Citizen’s Party seems to represent a more middle class stance instead of trying to benefit and cater to more of the minor classes in America- that is, the wealthy and the outright poor.  To me, this party has potential, with many clear platforms, and has so many different views that it could draw in many moderates that are currently unaffiliated with any political party. However, its downside is that it is obviously not very well known, and that the opposing vies may work against it, as people who tend to be more politically invested tend to have strong views that can become polarized, and they may attack it as being wishy wahsy or trying to please people in only certain regions.

I commented on Jessica Tucker, Gabrielle Miller, and Albert Munoz’s blogs.

The Best I Can Do After Spring Break

The interest group American Federation of Teachers represents, obviously, the hard-working (and not so hard-working) teachers that we all know and love (or positively hate.) Their issues are the numerous complaints that we all hear about the current condition of many of the schools in America- the students aren’t learning anything, bad teachers are kept because they have tenure, and that are schools are becoming increasingly unsafe, even from its own students. Some of their chief beliefs are to create better methods for evaluating teachers, expanding and improving student’s curriculum, and improving schools in general to make it a better workplace for teachers and to give students a better learning environment, as well as a far more enjoyable school experience. There are far more beliefs and goals that they have in mind, and they have been fighting and striving for years to make them come true. I support many of their issues, like the ones mentioned above, as I know that our public schools are not in the best condition in every sense of the word, and I believe that our teachers need to be re-evaluated and a better curriculum system be put in place.

One interest group that I can identify with is the Accuracy in Media. Their mission is to play the role of the watchdog over the media, making sure that they do not get out of hand with their reporting and that the media reports contain no bias and that the stories are the complete and total truth, as well as exposing media outlets that lie in their reports. I think that this type of interest group is very needed, especially in a time where many of the news outlets have a political bias or twist the truth to fit their needs. Since the media wants so desperately to provide the public with grandiose stories of government corruption and scandal, there should also be a group to make sure that the media does not get out of hand.

I believe that every interest group has varying amounts of influence and power in the political system, and with most interest groups, I believe that they have enough power. I suppose the line that must be drawn as to how much power the interest groups have is when they are able to easily “influence” the government decisions in the areas that the interest groups are advocacies of.

I commented on Albert Munoz, Melissa Ray, and Time Tunkel.

Mass Media and Politics

Objectivity does still exist in the media’s coverage of politics, but seems to be few and far between. While many of the big name news media are used mainly as outlets for political party’s views and arguments, there are still plenty of other mass media outlets such as newspapers, online blogs, and even some news stations that strive to simply find the truth in political issues. It is hard to not be biased, as it is our bias that usually drives us in the decisions and our perceptions of reality, but if there are people that are being objective journalists out in the field gathering information, then they would be less inclined to put a certain biased twist on the information. Of the major news networks that many Americans are familiar with today, the most biased ones would be FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC are all pretty bias, with Fox News leaning considerably towards the right and MSNBC being the most liberal, and CNN and NBC definitely also possessing a left-leaning bias. NPR, however, has been rated as the least bias network, at least in the past, but is now facing allegations that NPR is also a more liberal network.

I do not actually listen to radio talk, so I can effectively say that it does not affect any of my political views.

Media objectivity is very important, as it tries to encompass the facts and truth of events all the while being indifferent. In doing so, this can let people analyze and critically think about the facts that have been presented to them, and will hopefully see the plain truth instead of a distorted one that is usually presented by biased mass media. However, people will also interpret those facts how they see fit, even if their rationalization isn’t even close to being the actual truth. But you cannot really stop that, because even if someone gave a biased report on an event and why they think it happened, people will still be more likely to try to draw their own conclusions.

I commented on Gabrielle Miller, Jessica Armes, and Melissa Ray’s blogs.

Which Side to Take?

1.       The American news media does like to rely on polls for political and social issues or to rate politicians’ performances. Since you cannot get out and interview every single American about their opinions of today’s happenings in the world of politics or social issues, polls have become a very convenient way to figure out a rough idea of what the public thinks and feel. However, convenience may lead to sloppy numbers that are not always particularly representative of the majority of the population. Besides, certain news media can be biased in their political mind set and, when creating polls, word them cleverly enough to help people pick the choices that the news media will want them to choose to provide cold hard “data” to back up their statements and beliefs. As well, these polls are completely voluntary, and it is usually people who have very strong opinions on the topic at hand are more likely to vote on the polls, and the polls are sometimes based on a small survey group. If you take notice at CNN’s recent polls, one of them is polling the percentage of the mixed views of Obama’s inauguration, but the poll was made up based on 408 adult Americans. That is not near enough people to take the poll completely seriously, especially with a margin of error at 5%.  It even states on the bottom of the website that the polls were taken using “CNN approved polling methodology” and then goes on to say that there are some polls that are put up that do not meet their criteria, which are then marked with an asterisk. That in and of itself makes it seem as though the polls can be twisted by the news media for a more favorable outcome. Now, not all polls are like this, and some can be very reliable, and in fact predict the outcomes of certain issues, such as the presidential election of 2012. The polls ended up favoring Obama near the end, and it was indeed Obama who won. People must simply be more careful about what these news media polls say, however, and should look for more unbiased polls, if possible.

2.       Political identification for me is not very important at all, and mostly due to the fact that describing yourself with your political ideology can create impressions for people who do not even really know you, leading them to either see you in a favorable or very unfavorable light. It’s a ridiculous way to judge someone before you even get to know them. Besides, should I really even care about those ridiculous political sides? Not particularly. Politics is important, but I don’t believe in playing into a certain side’s wants and needs and supporting their ventures just because I see myself as a Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, or whatever else I choose to be, and think that supporting them is what I’m suppose to do. It’s all a very “us versus them” mindset at the moment in American politics. If they choose to support something, then by God, we’ll oppose it! And so goes on a constant power struggle in American politics. However, everyone else around me seems to like playing sides. My parents and grandparents tend to be more on the conservative side, while my friends like to parade around with the sign “Democrat” blinking around their heads in neon lights. It’s all very tiring. Perhaps they find playing sides helps them to easier define themselves to other people, or maybe they really do believe in that political mind set, but I just can’t bring myself to do it.

3.       I feel that it is influenced by both economic and social issues, as both directly impact my life, and that sometimes they go hand-in-hand, but if I were to pick one of the two, then I would be more influenced by social issues . Obviously, I want to be stable economically myself, and to make sure that happens, I’m going to vote for laws and policies that I believe would promote growth in our economy. However, if such policies were to tread on a social issue, like making labor unions illegal (as they are in China), then I’d be against them, as I feel that infringing on people’s rights is an obvious wrong that should be avoided, and that their rights should always come first, because a wealthy but unhappy society is worthless.

I wrote on Gabrielle Miller, Jessica Tucker, and Elise Black's blogs.

And Here's Another For Your Viewing Pleasure

1. It seems that the government has almost reached it’s limitation of being able to legally reduce race discrimination without encroaching on certain natural rights, mostly free speech. Since the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment, there has been a tremendous struggle for the government to try to eliminate discrimination as much as possible, first starting with public institutions, and then, during the Civil Rights Movement, with private businesses and even limiting what individuals do to express their discrimination of a certain race. Now, it is obviously illegal to deny someone business due to their race, and due to the Affirmative Action Act, businesses and schools give preference to people of minorities or of race, and of course the right to vote. And while on the surface it seems that equality is being achieved for minorities, there are still places where the government can work on, and what it has a hard time controlling. For example, the government cannot actually stop an individual from discriminating against a person of color until they take a physical and usually violent action. But if a person wishes to talk about another race in a derogatory manner, that is them expressing their opinions due to their freedom of speech. It does not make it right, but it is their right, just as if someone were to talk hatefully about you since you spilled coffee on them this morning. As well, the government has a hard time controlling gangs that are based on a hate of another race, such as Skinheads or the KKK, since they are surreptitious about their actions and, like terrorists, are hard to catch sometimes. And even in today’s society, not all groups of minorities are represented equally. Native Americans are still fiercely underrepresented, and many live in squalor in reservations, with little help from the government to improve living conditions. Obviously, the governments ability to provide for equality for all races has expanded exponentially in the past one hundred years alone, but there are still improvements that could be made.
2. As with the issue of race, the government has also made large strides in providing gender equality, especially for women. Back in the good ol’ days, it used to be that the men were in charge of everything, from being the head of the house to managing property to bringing home the bacon, and so on so forth. Women had very little rights and were expected to be subservient and on the brink of being “second-class citizens”. But with time, change has been brought about in the United States , and women have been gaining equality far greater than Susan B. Anthony ever dreamed of. With the passing of the Nineteenth Amendment, Equal Pay Act, Affirmative Action, and numerous organizations dedicated to improving equality amongst women and men, women’s suffrage has come a long way. And in today’s modern world, women do have almost all of the privileges as men do. However, that does not necessarily mean that the government has provided equality everywhere for women as it does for men. It is known that women are reported to have lower salaries than their male counter parts. But that does not mean that gender equality has become still. Women have just recently been granted the right by Congress to serve in combat, which use to be an “all-male” thing, while women served in the army on the side lines where it was deemed safer. However, men also seem to be discriminated against. Men are viewed as the head of the household, the bacon winner, and are suppose to be “macho”. It is a pressure that men feel constantly. If a man acts feminine or does something characterized as “girly”, they are harshly made fun of, and the man must learn or continue to be face humiliation. There are still steps to be made, but it seems as though the government is striding forward for gender equality, though who knows if woman and man will ever be totally equal.
3. Same-sex marriage still has a long way to go as far as government intervention is concerned. While I do not support it, if people wish to see same-sex marriage happen and be legal in all fifty states, then the government has several laws to pass- namely, one declaring gay marriage legal. It would have to go beyond just that, however. The government would also have to make it to where schools would teach about not only the traditional family life (with a mother, father, and children), but also about same-sex marriage families. It would be a long uphill battle for that in the United States, with some declaring it unfit as they do not believe the schools have the right to teach their kids that that is okay, with advocates countering with the fact that it makes both families types equal in value and showing them that it is not evil, but just a different lifestyle. In a way, for same-sex to be treated as equally as traditional marriages, the government would have to ban all public and private businesses from discriminating against a same-sex couple. This could create further outrage, and more laws would have to be passed. Eventually, it would probably end up like how the fight against discrimination of people of color has- with the government passing numerous laws to make it of equal and legal status, with most people accepting it.

I commented on Gabrielle Miller, Brandi Lively, and Ashley Pelfrey’s blogs.

Too Tired to Make a Witty Headline

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

            The freedom of speech had been a near and dear aspect of American life. We believe that we have the right to say whatever we want about whatever topic we wish to talk, rant, rave, and criticize about. This liberty to talk freely has been hard fought for, and is even more special and important when looking at other areas of the world which limit the ability to speak out publicly. And yet, there are instances in which some people believe that the freedom of speech does go too far. Some would ask the question of “Should we allow the racist bigots of the world spew their twisted and untrue opinions because they believe it to be their right? What right do they have if all they will say is lies?” Others would counter it, saying that everyone, and that does include everyone, has a right to voice their opinions and beliefs, even if it runs contrary to most other human beings. In the United States, with the courts on the local level to the federal level now allowing a broader amount of freedom of speech, still believes that some speech should be unprotected. Hate speeches and speeches promoting any violence or unlawfulness should not be permitted, as they aim to try to entice listeners to commit violent acts of crime against people or places. In doing so, that would intrude on the targeted person or group of people’s freedom. However, trying to control such acts of speech is increasingly hard, since the Internet serves a lovely base to attack people and stay safe in front of a computer screen. Other than that, most other areas of speech should be protected. I should be able to criticize the government or a business or another person, because it is my right. It doesn’t mean that my opinions are correct in anyway, like in this blog, but it does at least make me feel better to be heard.

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

The separation of church and state is necessary in certain aspects. While being a Christian myself, I feel as though if the state and church became too intertwined with one another, that the church may end up influencing the state too much. Take Islamic countries with strict sharia laws such as Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. To commit blasphemy in these countries is to, at the maximum, be sentenced to death. Blasphemy! Think back on all the times you had said something that was blasphemous, all the times you may have taken God’s name in vain. That could have earned you a death sentence. As well, in the United States, there is a large variation of religions. To have one religion, no matter what it is, rule the state is unfair to all the other religions being practiced. Now, I’m not calling for a ban on all religious things that could intersect anything that the government has to do with- as it’s probably impossible- but I do think that there should be equal consideration for all religions. It’s the only way to be fair. Besides, religion is different to everyone, even if they claim to be a part of the same religion. It is sacred and dear to a person, one of the most important parts about them. It wouldn’t make sense to try to elevate one faith above them all, in a government stand point at least.

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 crucial to our system of government. The term “innocent until proven guilty” justifies that. No matter what people believe, a person is considered guilty until proven guilty by a jury of their peers (or unless they give a full confessional before that comes). And until then, they should have rights just as any other innocent person when being served in a court of law. As well, the rights given to a defendant are needed when being accused of a crime. Many people are ignorant of the inner workings of the law and court processes (such as myself), and, especially in high profile cases such as murder, cannot defend themselves properly against seasoned a prosecutioner, and so needs an attorney to give them a fighting chance- even if they did commit the crime in question. And I think that defendants have as much rights as they need to a fair trial. A right to a public, speedy, or jury trial, a right to an attorney and adequately represented, and the right to not be placed in double-jeopardy are by no means giving them the whole world. Now the ways to get out of a guilty verdict may seem unfair, but the people running around the courts are lawyers. They find loopholes to help their case- even if it does mean that they can get the guilty verdict thrown out by the fact that the attorney may assign a law school intern in his place while he leaves the court while the trial is in session or other reasons that seem strange and desperate. 

I commented on Gabriel Miller, Jessica Tucker, and Albert Munoz’s blogs.

Hey Look, More American Government Questions.

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

 In my opinion, I believe that a strong national government is necessary to simultaneously unite and guide the states. As was shown during the time when the Articles of Confederation reigned supreme, there was much friction between each of the states due to how each state dictated in terms of taxes, commerce regulations and the like, as there was no standards in these issues across the nation- each state decided what it’s laws and policies were, and if they differed radically from their neighboring states, so be it. Once the Constitution passed, and the national government was granted its enumerated powers, it seemed as if the states were slowly forced into cooperating, while still having a voice in the government and the legislature that was to be voted on. As time has passed by since then, the national government has also made sure that states have had to meet certain criteria in several important issues, such as educational standards, healthcare, voting rights, and employment rights. While I believe that a strong national government is good, as it creates a “leader” government that the smaller states governments follow, I also do not think that there should be an overly strong national government, as the state governments (and their population) should have the right (to some degree) to decide what should happen within that state, as a state can regulate some internal issues better than the national government. However, with a nation in where the states each have equal power means that every state’s voice should count, and in doing so legislature would be passed slowly or, in some cases, none at all, as also shown when Rhode Island blocked an amendment raising taxes on imports to 5% in 1781. In doing so, the rest of the nation suffered by losing out on some much needed revenue, and all because of one tiny state. Of course, this was when an amendment to the Article of Confederation required a unanimous vote, but none the less, it shows how trying to share the power equally amongst too many states can result in harming the country.

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?

Reagan’s era of presidency saw the shifting power from the national to the state governments due to Ronald Reagan’s belief in New Federalism, in where the powers shift back to the states that began in the Nixon administration. Reagan cut back on the categorical grants from the Johnson administration which gave money to the states from Congress to finance a specific topic, such as funding for new school materials in all of the state’s schools. Instead, Reagan replaced the categorical grants with fewer block grants, which gave the state’s a more flexible way to use the national government’s money, and in doing this Reagan also cut out Nixon’s general revenue sharing program. The shift was actually appropriate for the country. While stated before that I support a strong national government, I believe that it had started to gain too much power, such as issuing out mandates to the states that Congress had no intention of helping finance, making it more difficult for states- especially those with less finances – to fund and meet the standard. In shifting the powers, it would make it slightly easier for the state’s to regulate programs and finance them appropriately, all while still meeting the criteria of the national government, (of course, this transition of power happened in the Clinton administration, but hey, Reagan’s administration got the ball really rolling), and feeling that they again had some semblance of power as opposed to the national government.

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?

If it were to be either the national government or the state government to regulate education, then I would choose the national government. In this way, Congress can pass legislatures that create criteria that the state’s must live up to, and can also help fund the poorer communities that cannot provide much for their local schools via local property taxes. With national standards, students could move across country without having to worry about being behind in the state’s standards, and credits would be able to transfer more easily. However, in reality, I also believe that there should be limits to the national governments regulation of education, lending some of the regulating to the states and local governments as well, since they would be able to keep a better eye on the school’s progressions and would also be able to find problems that need fixing quickly. They would also be able to better part up the finances and fund the curriculums that may need it most, such as to keep certain sports or the arts. Mostly, though, I think that the duty to push a child into becoming a better student and intellectual being lies with the parents, because no matter what the national, state, or local governments tell someone, one of the biggest motivators in learning and education is an involved parent.

Only One Little Ol' Question Got Answered...

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 United States Constitution is by far stronger than the Articles of Confederation primarily due to the fact that it creates a strong but not overbearing national federal government, while also giving some power to the states legislatures to still be able to create many laws in which it could in many ways govern its population. The Constitution also united the states, giving them a power that they individually could not have had under the Articles of Confederation, which gave the states far too much power over a weak central government. They did not have to pay revenues to Congress, and Congress did not have any actual power to tax citizens themselves, in which the nation’s debt wasn’t being paid. As well, under the Articles of Confederation the states had different taxes on imports and exports from the other states, which hurt the nation’s overall economic growth. Even worse still was the fact that there was no strong central government, only state maintained small armies or militias, which proved to be incompetent when the Spanish blocked off commercial access to the Mississippi River. With the Constitution in place, the national government would be able to regulate such things in a relatively smooth manner, giving the states a strong structure to work off of and to be more focused on what happens within the state itself. The country would be extremely different, with the states trying to regulate the commerce in and out of its state with more states (as the nation naturally expanded), leading to a possibly weak economy all around. Or the United States, with its weak and sporadic state armies, may have fallen to another, more powerful country. In all honesty, the differences without the Constitution would be too numerous name.

Hello Everybody!

Hello everybody! I am currently a sophomore in college, and have lived in Knoxville, TN for over three years. I work as an emergency medical technician in Blount County and when I’m not running around on an ambulance, I’m trying to get class work done and sleep as much as possible. What I am hoping to learn from this class is a better understanding of how our government works and why they make the decisions that seem to frustrate or confuse many Americans. My academic major (for now) is Political Science, however, while I am not quite sure what I wish to do with that degree, I also wish to further myself in the emergency medical field, and perhaps one day become a paramedic. I hope I survive this semester.