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.