POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT

When America's Constitution was written in 1787, the main goal was 
for a guide to govern the nation and the government. The group of men known 
as 'the framers' emphasized that the Constitution was to encompass men and 
women of all races equally. Those same group of men also knew that not 
everyone would be pleased with everything that it withheld but for the 'greater 
good' of their nation the U.S. Constitution was adopted. Unfortunately, there is no 
system of government available that can make everyone happy even today, but 
there are rules that have to be governed for the good of the people. While others 
may not be pleased with this type of governing, the work for the 'greater good' is 
the main focus of America's government. While individual liberty and mutual 
masses are connected, the population as a whole has to be considered, this is 
why government is necessary. The government was instituted to maintain order, 
provide public goods and to promote equality. Among many of the governments 
duties, not everyone as a whole is going to be pleased. There are many values 
that people hold differently such as liberals and conservatives. For example, 
liberals support government but oppose regulation of individual rights; 
conservatives support reduction of government and greater individual rights. The 
government is set for the control of human behavior, in order to keep human 
behavior in social guidelines. Without government there would be no 'set rules', 
the weak taken advatage of and the strong remaining strong. The government 
has an important role in the conduction of equality, a very big issue today. Many 
people believe that the government has too many rights and that it has taken away 
too many liberties; whereas others support that the government has not taken 
enough liberties. There are many ways of governing, America's governing is 
some what like capitalism-which emphasizes free enterprise and private 
ownership, and rejects a broad economic role in government. The government 
takes a great role in what is best for the majority rules. What is best for a great 
number of people may not work for the minority, but it makes up for the 'greater 
good.' There is not a system of government that can please everyone in the 
United States, not everyone can receive what they desire; the government 
considers the equality of the nation as a majority compared to individualistic 
liberty. Yet the American government preserves the minority by having the Bill of Rights, thus providing protection for the minority. When considering the good for 
the majority, the minority will lose some freedoms. Some people consider this as a 
win or lose situation.

Some people might ask how a system of government can work 
where in every law and every policy someone wins and someone loses. The 
answer to that is equality, the majority wins the favor of the ruling. It is simply not 
a win or lose situation, cases are tediously weighed by great minds in the 
government and decided upon the best choice for the majority of Americans. Of 
course, there are those people who suggest that lives would benefit without 
government. One could argue that without some sort of ruling, it just might be a 
case of winning or losing; the strong taking advatage of the weak. Throughout 
history, from Aristotle with the Natural law to capitalism of today, it has shown 
that men need guidance and some sort of standard to live by. The government 
tries to provide some of that equality. Even the colonists so many years ago were 
aware of the need to have a well functioning economy and that government had a 
key role in maintaining that. Even the Declaration of Independence advances 
individual rights and liberties as opposed against social values. Unfortunately, 
most decisions of government will benefit some but hurt others. The Essentials of 
American Government describes it as, "The political system, for example, is based 
on an underlying notion of the importance of balance among the legislative, 
executive and judicial branches, between the state and federal governments, 
between the wants of the majority and the minority, and between the rights of the 

individual and the best interests of the nation as a whole" (9-10). Some people 

might say where is the liberty for individuals, and if the government considers 
individuals instead of just the masses.
Individual liberty and the good of the majority are combined, in such 
that individualistic liberty is composed of oneself whether it be a member of the 
minority or the majority. The government can not be consumed by the dealing of 
just one individual when millions might not be fighting the same issue. When there 
are millions, possibly trillions of people depending upon the nature of the issue 
compared to one individual opposing that issue, the majority is seen as upstanding 
and more important than the one individual. In other words, it is better to save 
millions of people's lives than it is to choose the million over one individual. Even 
though the majority rules, the minority is still being protected by The Bill of Rights. 
The Essentials of American Government describes it as, "Yet, the American 
system also stresses the need to preserve minority rights, as evidenced by the 
myriad protections of individual rights and liberties found in the Bill of Rights" (10). 
This is where equality comes into play. Some might ask if there is any equality in 
the American government, and if there is any justice to be obtained. The answer 
can be clear, it is the governments responsibility to consider what is best for the 
people. The government has not forgotten individual equality between with the 
majority and the minority. The Essentials of American Government details it 
as, "Although some individuals clearly wield more political clout that others, the 
principle "one man, one vote" implies a sense of political equality for all" (11). 
Unfortunately, politics consists of struggles by individuals and groups in pursuit of 
their own interests. That is perhaps why America is a some what capitalist 
country. When power is widely distributed, it is more difficult for only one person 
or group of persons to determine public policy. It takes a majority of people in the 
government to make final decisions. Not only is the minority considered but the 
majority is also considered. The government should not be for personal gain, that 
is why the decisions are handed down through many different leaders before it 
becomes a final decision.
 

Although the American government has struggled with equality for 
its nation between the minority and the majority; individual liberty and the liberty of 
the masses are still considered. The government considers what is the best 
choice of decision for the entire nation. The government has to consider the 
equality of the nation compared to individualistic liberty. It can not allow the 
minority to become at ease while the majority of the nation suffered. This is why 
voting in America is so important. Citizens willingness to vote represents his or 
her consent to be governed. Men and women need guidelines in which to 
conduct business and personal uses. If there were no guidelines, the strong 
would only survive, and there would not be any such equality to consider. At the 
root of capitalism is a commitment to the good of the individual, and the 
government tries to provide equality for every individual. The government was 
established so that it would maintain order, provide public good and to promote 
equality for the nation. It is based upon order, freedom, and equality. After all, the 
American government is for the people and by the people. Next time when it is 
time to vote, think about who is on the ballet and their purposes. If it is equality 
that the government needs to maintain, there should be leaders that can provide it.

Political Environment Web Assignment #1

How can a system of government work where in every law and every policy someone wins and someone loses? 

The interests of the majority of the republic must be met for a system of government to succeed. Systems, which implement the success of a civil society, for example, are key to insure the government’s longevity. “One man, one vote” is one of the principles America was founded upon, and holds true today. If that single vote is counted the voter feels that their vote is heard and considered; thus equality is achieved. The voice of the people IE the voice of the majority dictates the governing laws. 

If I were to have a basket of oranges before me, which cost $1.00 and a single apple, which cost the same price, I would purchase the basket of oranges. Why? I would receive more for my money; my belly would be filled longer. There is a broad consensus on fundamental principles and values that American’s hold dear. The basket of oranges, if you will, each orange is counted as one vote the majority rules the government is successful. 

How do you make law and policy where the most good is done for the most people and the least harm is done to the least number of people? 

Again, the government must consider the political ideology of the majority for said government to be successful. The voice of the majority must be heard. There is a delicate balance between special interest groups, bureaucracy, and the individual. “Put it to the vote.” 

A line from the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This document was not written when America was considered “The Melting Pot”. It was not written when there were 283,000,000 people living under the American flag. Unlike my forefathers I do not believe that man is inherently evil. If the government takes a neutral role in the state of affairs, illustrates the situation to be voted upon openly and honestly, the majority will make a decision where the most good is done for the most people and the least harm for the least people, that is of course if special interest groups and bureaucratical propaganda do not inundate the media, and the vote is left to THE PEOPLE. 


Political Environment
Are individual liberty and the good of the masses mutually exclusive?

Yes, total individual liberty is mutually exclusive with the good of the masses because it may be my will to force every man to become a Christian. It may be the majority’s rule to force every man to mumble a Christian prayer before a football game. However, communism, utter socialism, and totalitarianism would create a kind of stasis, inertia that would dampen the dynamism of the human race. 

Example Below: 

”Now comrades, what is the nature of this life of ours? Let us face it; our lives are miserable, laborious and short. We are born, we are given just so much food as will keep the breath in our bodies, and those of us who are capable of it are forced to work to the last atom of our strength; and the very instant that our usefulness has come to an end we are slaughtered with hideous cruelty. No animal in England knows the meaning of happiness or leisure after he is a year old. No animal in England is free. The life of an animal is misery and slavery: that is the plain truth.”
-Animal Farm, George Orwell

And that is exactly what the majority does not want. The American majority does not want governmental control over education, the media, the economy or religion. The American majority does not want to work to have their profits distributed evenly to the masses. If citizen A works harder and longer then citizen B how then would the rations be distributed equally? If the Government has sole ownership of industry how would monopolies be avoided? How would the “invisible hand” of the economy work it’s magic? 

The premise that “All men are created Equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Indicates that it is my right to sit at home eat potato chips and watch soap operas. It indicates that it is my right to make as much money as possible and keep it all to myself and it is my right to vote for officials who will represent my ideals in a just manner. If this is the philosophy of the majority, the rights of the individual who wants their salary pro-rated depending on the population are infringed upon. If the individual chooses to change things, to make a difference, they need only to make their needs known, to find supporters, contact their legislature, and put it to a vote. 

“One Man, One Vote”

Political Environment

A system of government in which everyone is a winner is a very difficult task to achieve. Most often when a new law or policy is passed there will be a small percentage that loses and not gain advantages from the new law or policy. It may seem to some that today we  still live according to oligarchy rule. Oligarchy rule is a form of government in which the right to participate is always conditioned on the possession of wealth, social status, military position or achievement (America Government Continuity and Change). Most would agree that few people would win under this type of control and or rule. Today in America we live  in a system of democracy. Democracy is a system of government that gives power to the  people, whether directly or through their elected representatives (American Government: Continuity and Change). When living in a democracy there will still be a few that lose but  not like in the oligarchy rule of government. I do not believe there could be a possible way  to create laws and policies in which everyone wins, there will always be a few people who  will lose. In a country like America this is a sad fact but it is so. Consider tax laws for 
example.

There is not much that can be written about tax laws that can be said to be all fair.  While the richest may benefit at times the poorest may also benefit at other times. The problem with all this is that one or another always gains the disadvantage wile the other gains the advantage or benefits. According to Florida's new sales tax code it has been said that this tax code is so tangled in a web of special interests, threats from the broadcast media and favors for a lucky few that there is no fair option left. Is this a true democracy? Some would be left to ponder this. This again backs the idea that all laws and policies  cannot be made fair for everyone. Tax laws and many other laws and policys are unfair and leave one side or another at a disadvantage. The new school voucher program that grants children from low income families or low performing schools to attend a private school of  their choice is also another policy that will leave a few at a disadvantage. Many will argue that sending "these" children to private schools will somewhat decrease the performance or status of private schools that have for years been known for only catering to the rich and those that hold status in a community. While others will argue that all children regardless of background should be allowed an equal education. Should our tax dollars pay for such a program or should we focus on bettering our public schools so tax money will not be needed to send children to costly private schools? I believe we should focus on our public schools and get them back to where they need to be and performing at a national average. There is really no way to make this fair to all involved, but our elected officials must try their best to only leave as few as possible disadvantaged.

Making every law and policy where good is done for the most people and the least harm is done to the least number of people is difficult but possible. There will always be a few that lose but it is possible to create laws where only a few or least number of people is at an disadvantage. It is up to our elected officials to be creative and create laws and policies that make it where the least amount of people are losers. When making new laws and policies our officials should research the idea being proposed and study history. Studying history is a great way to look at ideas or laws that may have once been passed and either did or did not work.

Individual liberty and good of the masses may be exclusively possible. We all enjoy our freedom of today and should be thankful to our founding forefathers for this freedom. Freedom has not always been around for many especially African Americans. But is it possible to enjoy such grand freedom for all and also allow our government to create laws and policies that manage and control this country? I believe it is possible because we live in such a nation today. There are in fact laws made that will not satisfy all involved and a few will indeed lose. Freedom and satisfaction of the masses are possible and thriving today.

Political Environment

The United States of America was and still is formed on the idea that as a nation it is a melting pot.. The simplicity of America’s outer layer of its social environment is that it loves its diversity of culture, religion, and views on any subject. Although, what the nation does not say out loud is that it is comfortable with the diversity as long as it does not interfere with the well being of the masses; this includes foreign masses in public opinion. The fact is that there are some laws and legislation in this country that do not benefit many groups, but there again, their opinion does not change legislature because they are not apart of the “elite,” whom make the vital political decisions. Every United States citizen, whether he or she is a minority, or a part of the “elite,” supplies three basic areas of the political venue, the conservatives, the liberals, and the nonvoters. Even inside these three basic groups there are many differences of opinions. 
The conservatives of this country believe in less government to control civil liberties, and if change does occur, he or she would like it to occur slowly. Conservatives are more in favor of local government and less action from the government level in specific areas, especially the economy, and balanced budgets. Individuals in the conservative world are more likely to want to stay close to any of the old ways, such as not wanting women in certain areas of the armed forces like the SEALS, having homosexuals in any military aspect, or recognizing any homosexual marriages. Generally, conservatives do not believe drinking alcohol in any form on any occasion is appropriate. The stigma of this society is thought to feel more stuffy, or strict. For many younger generations, the conservatives are not the social avenues they want to pursue. The thought of someone looking over his or her shoulder at all times, watching what is said, inspected for what is worn, and dictating every move is just not appealing to this generations voters. It could be a great experience to be a conservative, but this community must allow some new, fresher ideas and leniencies to enter the process.
The other majority of the country is a liberal who generally are known to have more of an opened mind. Already, this sounds like a better avenue to take compared to the conservatives, but just like the conservatives, the liberals have an unfailing reputation of believing that their opinion is always right. The liberals are unmoved in the opinion that women have the right of choice over their body, and gays should be allowed to do anything a heterosexual can, including recognized marriage. Another aspect that is very unattractive about the liberals is that they are increasingly argumentative in the political debates. In the liberal society there are many ethnic groups such as the minorities like blacks and Hispanics. With all of these different groups there is no possibility of pleasing each and every one of them. The blacks are going to believe they are mistreated, as are the Hispanics, and every other person who disagrees with one aspect of the legislature. 
In the third category are the nonvoters, or those that do not want to worry about the issues of the world because they are so consumed with their day-to-day issues. The people in this category are generally of the younger generation. Unfortunately, these individuals do not believe they have a voice, or at least not one that is heard no matter how loud they may scream. This person is the fifteen year old that does not want to take advantage of the system, but just wants enough to finish school to get a decent career to support her baby, this is the leukemia stricken college student that missed three weeks of his class because he was too ill to attend and was forced out of school because all his finances went to the hospital, and this is the individual who had their house burn down, but could not get a fraction of their belongings recovered because their insurance would not cover the expense, even though the premium was raised twice in the last year. These individuals have no desire to be recognized in any political category because their thought is that the government has turned its back on them for the last time. 
In each political avenue, or arena, there are so many differences of opinion, it would be hard to keep track. The policy of the government is to process laws and legislation that will not please, but keep safe the majority of the entire nation, not the political party, and not even each and every individual. The truth is that every great idea always has its downfalls, but the point is to produce a system in witch the majority will be safe to live by. The government is a well-oiled machine ran by rusty individuals, therefore, someone is eventually bound to get hurt.

Political Environment:
I think democracies fine line that they are trying to walk is actually getting
wider and wider as time goes on. But the responsibility for that will fall
back on us, the people. We are the ones that choose, one way or another,
the ones to represent us or to speak for us. We choose these people
trusting that they will do the best job possible, yet we are unknowing or
blind to the cold hard fact that it is "politics". You scratch my back and I'll
scratch yours. The chosen could have the best of intentions for their
held position but may be unable to fulfill their promises due to the rules
governing their station. One big example of that is our national deficit. It
continues to grow by an enormous daily amount. We still hear a million
ways of reducing the debt, however, we never see any action on it. We
will have this debt for our entire lives. So much debt in fact, that by the
year 2042, they think the social security fund will be completely depleted.
The younger generations will have nothing although their hard earned
money from working will help take care of the older generations.
President Bush has passed a program called the New Freedom Initiative,
that is supposed to give all handicapped persons an opportunity to learn
skills, have a productive job, a home, and be able to participate in their
community. Seeing how we have a government program dealing with this
such thing, I believe it should be mandatory for every school to be able
to accept any child, handicapped or not. Personally, I think we are
actually causing more problems by segregating children with
disabilities from the ones without. How are we supposed to teach our
children that everyone is equal if we separate them from the start? Each
school district and school board is responsible for their spending and
funding. Yes, having all of the children together might mean that the
school might have to forfeit something from time to time, like new
gymnasiums, or they might have to have parents buy uniforms for some
of the children's activities. Let's go back to simplicity, do the children
really need twenty to thirty items on an everyday lunch menu? During my
years of school, we were offered one nutritionally balanced plate and it
didn't limit our ability to make choices later in life or damage our psche.
Another topic I would like to discuss is the ban on smoking. It started out
as a law being passed for no smoking in bars. Then just as children do,
you give them an inch and they will take a mile. Suddenly, it has become
not only bars, but restaurants, bowling alleys, playgrounds, and now they
are saying no smoking on the beach. They have tried to pass a ban on
smoking in cars. Your own personal property. What will be next? There

has already been a child custody case where the mother lost custody of
her children because she smoked within the home. (Child endangerment)
Abortion is definately a subject to be considered. Most of the people I
asked regarding this have had a strong opinion on this subject, one way
or another. My Sunday school class, obviously, is very pro life, but some
other people I met were pro-choice. This has been an issue since the
beginning of time and I don't think it will go away as long as I live. In
1973, a young pregnant woman Ms. Roe brought a class action suit
challenging the constitution regarding the Texas abortion laws. The
government had to make a decision. They chose to legalize abortion with
some restrictions. A woman can decide to terminate the pregnancy in the
first trimester but local governments can add some restrictions, and an
abortion must be available if the mother's health is at risk.
Here's another one-remember the days when your parents would get in
the car and you would jump in the back seat and inevitably you would
crawl into the back window and fall asleep? How about the parents
loading the car up with family and the only place left to sit was in the floor
board? Those days are long gone! This is just another fine example of
how the government decided to pass laws that are better for the whole.
The seat belt law we have now states only the driver and the passengers
who are in the front seat must wear a seat belt. (not including small
children in car seats) But they are already trying to pass a new bill
requiring everyone in the vehicle to be buckled up including any cargo
areas of a truck or trailer.
A subject that also stirs a lot of controversy is that of assisted suicide.
Many countries and states have different laws regarding this subject
matter. According to www.finalexit.org/orlaws.html in Oregon one
hundred twenty nine people have used the "Oregon Death With Dignity
Act" to end their lives just with in the last five years.
The provisions of this law includes: you must be eighteen years old or
old with a terminal disease, expected to die within six months, you must
have an attending physician and a consulting physician make a
professional diagnosis, you must receive counseling, you need t be able
to make an informed decision, and your case must be medically
confirmed. You must request medication from a physician in a proper form
with relative witnesses signatures, etc... The rules go on and on. This is
to allow you to kill yourself with dignity? This is just to show how the
government has something to do with every piece of our lives.
From the moment we come into this world until the time we leave. They
will never be able to make everyone happy but that widening line is just to
cover all details, that way one is left to blame again, but us.

Political Environment:

How can a system of government work where in every law and every policy someone wins and someone loses?
In today’s society, laws are stringent and we are constantly looking for “ways around them”. However….after taking the little for instance exam where I got to be mayor of Podunk, USA, I realized there are a lot of different things that go into lawmaking and the decisions and emotions that drive them. For instance, Podunk had a little old lady who at all costs wanted her taxes to remain unchanged. Well, had her taxes changed even slightly because of the decision I had made, I probably would have lost re-election.
I think government is based on a trial and error basis anyway, or, they wouldn’t have established ratification and amendments way back when. As I learned with my experience as “mayor”, not all people can be pleased all of the time. It is all a game of compromise and “hide the kitty” basically. Everyone is under the impression that their candidate “works for them”, when in actuality, there are very few that follow through on what they say in their pre-election speeches. Someone wins, and someone loses. There is always a disappointment somewhere. The only reason this works here is because we are able to change our minds and opinions and do something about it every 4 years, in the case of the presidency anyway.
Our system works, because in my opinion, American’s are spoiled….a lot of them anyway, and they take advantage of the rights they have and twist everything to where it works for them. But, everyone wants to piss and moan about the changes they don’t like. But at the same time, they just go on. It’s kind of like since their lives aren’t exactly as they always planned them to be, then they are used to the disappointment and will “live with” the changes, because they “can’t do anything about it anyway”. In my opinion I think that is the general consensus of the majority of Americans….Hey, if you get used to disappointment, then it’s easier to “roll with the flow” and not be shell shocked when one thing doesn’t go your way in an everyday vote or in a major election…

How do you make law and policy where the most good is done for the most people and the least harm is done to the least number of people?
I think it most cases, you have to look at the views and opinions of the parties involved, and make an informed decision before you actually act on it. Now, I am a Bush supporter, however the act of going into war without all the facts was a harsh one, and in my opinion he is lucky to have won re-election. But then again we have to look at who he run against. If President Bush had made an informed decision and not just acted, then even if we had ended up going to war in the long run, more people would have supported him in this. Think before you act. Look at the greater “long-range” impact your decision will have on the majority of people. Even if in the beginning, your decision may not appear to be for the greater good of a community, it turns out to, to everyone’s dismay. Kinda like kids and parenting. I make laws and policy everyday…I’m getting rather good at it if I do say so myself!!!!! They may not always be what my kids want to hear and they may be disappointed with my decision, but most of my decisions for them are for a greater good, that when they get older, they will understand. Law #1, enacted the first day my oldest learned how to run, was “NO RUNNING IN THE HOUSE”. However, I guess laws are made to be broken….because I now have three children who are constantly reminded of Law #1. The don’t like the consequences of breaking the rules either. But neither does the killer or the lady who didn’t want her taxes raised in order to help raise money for the expansion of roads, for new textbooks in the public schools, for upgraded park facilities, for all the things she asked for and got because of the tax hike. She wanted all those things, but she doesn’t want to actually have anything of hers going into the project. How ridiculous are we all? We want, want, want, and when we do get what it is we want, we aren’t happy anyway. We find something wrong with it, or we realize that we were wrong in wanting it, hence “trial and error”. I think in a utopian setting, we all will have lobotomies. No one will have an opinion on anything, no will we be upset about anything. No disappointment…No one is hurt by decision our lawmakers make, nor are the happy about them either. There in no one way to make all people happy all the time. You just have to take the situation at hand, do your research and do it will, and cross your fingers as you sign the law into action.



Are individual liberty and the good of the masses mutually exclusive?
Is it not possible for these both to occur? I think individual liberty by definition is what is good for the masses in a general sense. Laws are made and changed as times change, but the laws are made in an attempt to be for the “good of the masses”. I can not think of one law that isn’t that is upheld today. Now you can look on a web site called stupid laws or something and find quite a few laws that over time have fallen by the wayside, because apparently they WEREN’T for the “good of the masses. For instance, “It is illegal to have the hind legs of farm animals in your boots”, “Oklahoma will not tolerate anyone taking a bite out of another's hamburger “. Now, are those for the good of the masses? NO…Just dumb…Whatever the circumstances where for those laws and the Oklahomans who made them is beyond my realm of thinking. I, for one, share a hamburger on at least a once a week basis. Most of the laws governing society as a whole can be traced to the ten commandments….Thou shalt not kill…..Well, that’s for the good of the masses…..Thou shalt not steal…..Again, good for the masses, no theft, prices stay lower; Thou shalt not lie (commit perjury)…Well, maybe not for the masses all at once but it sure helps when you are on the defending side of an argument and the plaintiff is held to the law of thou shalt not lie!!!!!!! I think most everyone benefits in some way from our most important and upstanding laws. There are none that I can think of that are not pretty much for the good of the masses. So no, I do not believe they are mutually exclusive. I do believe they can co-exist. However, I am one in a billion people who thinks this way. I DON’T break the laws, except maybe the speeding one….But who doesn’t occasionally, and that is also really good for the masses. If that one weren’t in place, it would be the autobahn around claremore and Blue Starr Hill, and that wouldn’t be good for anyone. Mutually exclusive, I have to look up…It means that the two can not both exist….I found this question interesting though. I would like to know more on this subject, and will research it further later….

CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

Constitutional Basis:

American Government Essay #2 “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (The Constitution of the United States) The framers with these few words provide for us a basic outline of what the Constitution contains. They are trying to establish a “more perfect Union”, because at the time this document is written The Articles of Confederation was their form of government and it was not working for them. They were fearful of what was to become of their newly founded country and their freedom. Under their current government there was no way for them to raise the money they needed to run the government, solve disputes between states, or to defend themselves from foreign nations and their armies. So they set out to create a government, with “checks and balances”, that would provide the Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and provide for the Posterity of this new country. With these words they were not only thinking of what was currently going on in their nation, but also future generations to come. Would they approve of how the constitution is being applied today? The Constitution was written by fifty-five politicians, from twelve of the thirteen colonies, Rhode Island having refused to send any delegates. Many national figures of the time were unable to attend or refused to go. Patrick Henry and others not trusting the attempt to form a new government would stay away from the convention. In time it makes one wonder if they regretted their decisions to not be a part of the founding of a Democratic government that would last for over two hundred years. The framers would have to have some pride in this one fact. Longevity of this one document is great. It has been the principle basis for our government and has lasted with minimal changes. How the Constitution was created with the three branches of government, the Bill of Rights providing basic liberties, and the ability for the government to make amendments, provides it ability to change with the times and provide for its citizens. Chief Justice John Marshall in 1819 ruled that “to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out its specified powers, so long as they were not specifically prohibited by the Constitution." Young Readers American History) This one ruling would allow the Constitution to expand over time. Though one has to wonder would the Framers approve of some of the amendments made to the Constitution. Less then one hundred years after it was written the Thirteenth Amendment was made, abolishing slavery. Many of the Framers were slave owners. Some fought hard for the rights of slave states to count their slaves as population. In the end the 3/5ths law was passed, were 3/5ths of the states total number of slaves would be counted toward the population. Would these same men look forward to the slaves freedom. Then the Fifteenth Amendment was passed allowing “all men” the right to vote. What would they think then? The Nineteenth Amendment probably would have stirred up much more controversy for these men. This amendment allowing women to vote, would have created ultimate upheaval of the Framers lives. To imagine that their wives could vote. But in the end it may not have been their wives, but their Granddaughters who could vote. The passing of the Eighteenth Amendment, the prohibition act not allowing sale and distribution of alcohol. The Twenty-first amendment was passed repealing the Eighteenth. Whether the Framers would have cared would depend upon their personal views and inclinations. In the passing of the Twenty-sixth amendment, eighteen year-olds were allowed to vote. Allowing for young men who were able to go and die in war to actually vote for the leaders of their country they were fighting for. I think if the Framers saw the vast devastation and implications of the Civil War, World Wars I & II, Korea, Vietnam and The Bush Wars, they would understand. They would agree that these young men have paid for the right and deserve the right. Whether the framers would agree totally of how the Constitution is being applied is purely a question of speculation. But the fact remains that the Constitution is working the way the Framers intended. It is changing with the needs of its people and providing a lasting government for futures generations. Congress has taken “We the People” to mean all of us, not discriminating on race, color, religion, or sex. All of us, is a pretty large group, providing a very large and diverse nation to govern. Not just the thirteen colonies the Framers had intended. The Framers obviously thought the nation would grow and expand and they created a government that could provide for this expansion. In this knowledge they would also have to take some of the bad with some of the good they created. They surely would not agree with the internet porn being covered under the First Amendment. Or the violation of this same First Amendment by President Bush always making protesters stay a “reasonable distance” away from him, meaning five blocks away and kept in a barricade. There are abuses and violations, but eventually the Constitution leads the way providing “a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure Tranquility, provide for common defense, promote the general Welfare, and Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity”. I believe that the Constitution works about as best as it can in a government that sometimes overlooks or maybe doesn’t know the best way to provide for its nation. As with all things sometimes time is the best cure of societies ills. With time we become wiser and are more able to understand that all people have rights and that no one should be infringed upon. As we have learned with slavery and women’s rights, especially the rights of young people to go to war and die for their country. There are also times due to complacency that we do not know our rights are being violated. At times it may seem like it is easier to look the other way, then to stand up and fight for your rights and your beliefs. That is where Constitutional rights and amendments come to light. It is up to our government to make sure our rights are not being violated, but it is up to us as the citizens of this nation to put forth effort and participate in our government as the Framers laid it out and intended for us to do. Even if the Framers did not intend for “us” to be what it is today. 

Constitutional Basis:

The Constitution did not give the American people many details about their government. Instead, the Framers of the Constitution wrote the Constitution around six broad ideas, or principles. The framers of the Constitution discovered that traveling the road to progress can be painfully slow, because first you have to build the road. Our Constitution is not the goal we are seeking. It is the road that is taking us to that goal-to a nation of fairness, liberty, and equality. Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court has reminded us-I think correctly-that the life, not the birth, of the Constitution was the true "miracle at Philadelphia. "But without the birth of the Constitution, we would not have had the roots that permitted the nation's ideas of liberty, justice, and equality to live and to grow into their present forms-and to continue to grow as we learn more and see old problems in new ways. After all, many of the men who signed the Constitution in 1787 were not satisfied with it.  Gouverneur Morris disliked its concessions to the slave states. Alexander Hamilton thought it wasn't strong enough. Benjamin Franklin believed that it wasn't democratic enough. But these men believed that the Constitution was at least a start on the right path. The Framers wished their handiwork to be durable, so they made the document difficult to amend. Two-thirds of both Houses and three-fourths of State legislatures was one of the four difficult methods of change. But there it was, the method of change. It had to be there. It was in all the State constitutions. The provision in constitutions for their amendment was itself an invention within an invention. For it confirmed that there was truly an origin of the Constitution in the people; they might, not easily to be sure, change it. It implied, too, that the proper method to change the basic structure, powers, and functions of a government was by peaceful and legal means, not by violence. They wanted to make the country safe and indulgent for business, and therefore included various clauses that forbade the States from impairing the obligation of contracts, issuing currency, imposing any import or export duties, interfering with interstate commerce, or making engagements with foreign powers. To assure uniform rules of the game, full recognition was to be given each State's acts by every other State. Privileges and immunities of a person in one State had to be extended to citizens present there from any and all States. The Framers protected patents and copyrights nationally (but ominously did not protect the creations of foreigners). The Constitution was to change markedly by means other than formal amendment. Several of the amendments were adopted, too, in order to help get the Constitution itself adopted in the first place, while other amendments were imposed upon the Southern States under duress and had to wait for political changes to be enforced. Various amendments were adjustive and technical. Such was the changing of dates for assumption of office. The Constitution that came out of Philadelphia helped the collected ruling elites of the thirteen States to hang on to most critical powers of government and to prosper economically. The Framers did not speak with the specific voice, but they were similarly inclined. They felt for the most part that by guaranteeing the success of the well-to-do through the control of the power of the commonwealth they would assure the same class, which they saw clearly as a small minority, of high standing on the other value indices of respect, education, and personal well-being. The Framers believed that they might get the Constitution adopted if they could avoid the stipulation of a unanimous approval of the States. They probably could not do so if they turned it over to the existing Articles of Confederation Congress to vote on (as States, not as free representatives), or if they asked the Congress to give it over to the mercies of the State legislatures, most of whom were under the influence of localists, independent farmers, and debtors. Progress in Alabama is difficult at best under our current constitution. A new constitution would give our state the opportunity to improve vital state functions like education, public safety, prisons, and transportation infrastructure. By enacting a new constitution, our state would be boldly addressing citizens’ needs, rather than dragging its feet, as has been the case so often under the current document. We could expect our government at all levels to be more responsive to citizens’ needs. And most important, we would have a constitution that expresses where the people of Alabama are today, rather than a document that represents the worst of where our state has been in the past. We can revitalize our democracy and renew our civic life at a time when America must project its values clearly to the entire world. The Constitution was to change markedly by means other than formal amendment. Several of the amendments were adopted, too, in order to help get the Constitution itself adopted in the first place, while other amendments were imposed upon the Southern States under duress and had to wait for political changes to be enforced. Various amendments were adjustive and technical. Such was the changing of dates for assumption of office. the United States

Constitutional Basis:

The constitution of any entity can be seen as the framework under which the entity defines its structures, processes, authorities and fundamental operating principles. In order to determine whether or not any particular constitution is being followed it is important to look at the spirit and underlying basis under which the constitution was constructed. The constitution of the United States was developed in a climate of great disunity and conflict. It was developed to address the disunity problem in particular “by proposing a general scheme of government…the framers hoped to win quick acceptance for the scheme as a whole, leaving the thornier problems for later”(Denberg 16). 
Today the constitution still stands as a framework within which all structures and processes of government must operate. Although some may perceive that the current application of the constitution has strayed from its original intent, if one were to look at it using the above stated principle then it is still operating as intended by the original framers. It provides a basis for decision making while still ensuring that no one structure or entity may override the interests of others. It also ensures that there is a basic agreement among a significant number of key decision makers before an action may be taken.
The American Revolution and the American Constitution were both resultant from the differing economic and political views of key stakeholders within the colonies. Some of these stakeholders included shopkeepers, farmers, merchants, artisans and loyalists. The colonies also contained a core of elites who were many of the wealthier land holders and a radical element made up of many of the shopkeepers, laborers and small farmers. These two factions were in considerable conflict throughout the early eighteenth century over issues such as taxation, trade and commerce. However, in 1750, when Britain’s debt and financial crisis spilled over into the colonies, and began to threaten the core elite’s economic base that the radicals were able to gain a stronger hold and to start counting some of these elite among its ranks.
In the 1760s Britain began to impose various taxes on the colonists and limit trade within and outside of Britain. Acts such as the Sugar Act of 1764, and the Stamp Act (1765) incited the northern merchants and southern planters to begin demonstrating against Britain and boycotting British goods. This came to a climax during what was known as the Boston Massacre on March 5, 1770. British soldiers opened fire on a mob and killed and wounded a number of colonists. This was used to incite further anti-British sentiments throughout the colonies and radicalization of the colonists. 
It is important to note that the main issue on the table at that time was that of taxation and not independence. However, further acts on the part of the radical faction such as the Boston Tea Party goaded the British into harsh retributive actions and created a cycle of provocation and reprisal. In 1774 the First Continental Congress, made up of delegates from the colonies, met to call for a unified boycott against British goods and to consider the idea of independence.
In 1776 the Second Continental Congress met and appointed a committee (Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, John Adams and Robert Livingston) to draft a statement of independence from Britain. The Declaration of Independence was drafted by Jefferson and adopted by the Second Continental Congress. The document was intended to create both individual rights that could not be altered by any governance structure and an ideological framework for unity among the colonies. 

Once the colonies declared their independence they established a governance structure which was set out in the first constitution in 1777 and know as the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. This document was focused on ensuring that the government’s central powers were limited. The Congress, which was made up of state representatives whose first allegiance was still to their respective states, could declare war, make peace, create treaties and alliances, coin or borrow money and regulate trade with the aboriginals. It could not tax or interfere with commerce or trade among the states. It had no executive or judicial branches. 
The newly developed governance framework proved to be too limited and inadequate in creating the unity hoped for. By the mid 1780s debt had started to take its toll on the colonists. Many colonists had to borrow money to pay taxes. Many importers had borrowed heavily in Britain to finance their inventories. After the war a number of the British financiers called in their loans against these importers. These importers in turn called in their accounts payable. This created a crisis among those who were in debt. In 1786 Daniel Shay led a rebellion against the Massachusetts government in an attempt to prevent foreclosures by keeping county courts from sitting until after the next election. Ultimately, in 1787 a newly elected state government granted some of the demands set out by Shay. However, this rebellion demonstrated that Congress was unable to manage a crisis under its existing framework. In May of 1787, fifty-five state delegates met in Philadelphia to address the recognized weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation. 
Through a number of stages and negotiations a final document was drafted to serve as a Constitution. Issues such as representation were resolved through the Great Compromise and the issue of slavery and representation was dealt with through the Three-Fifths Compromise. These are both complex agreements and outside the scope of this paper. However, it is important to note that these were both intended to address the major issues that were barriers to final resolution of an overall unifying document and to allow for as much consensus as possible as quickly as possible. 
The Constitution was not intended as a prescriptive document that elaborated on every detail of governance. It was intended as a governance framework that would allay “the evils of faction” (Federalist Papers #10), set out each of the governance structures and their roles, responsibilities and limits, and ensure that citizens would be represented when the government acted. It also provided for its own revision in Article V. It provided for a separation of powers among the three branches of government. There was an underlying philosophy that there had to be as difficult as possible for any one group or person with power to abuse that power and there had to be enough political will among the parties to act that they were able to do so through consensus. 
The United States has continued to grow and evolve. It reigns as one of the most powerful nations in the world and as a consequence one that is faced with constant pressures among its various constituents. However, what continues to underlie many of these issues is the struggle between liberty and order, the struggle between ensuring those inalienable rights and maintaining a free, orderly and just society. In each one of these issues, although the outcome may or may not be seen to be satisfactory to many of the stakeholders, the process still remains true to the original framers ideology. There can be no rule by tyranny nor can there be an inability on the part of the government to act on those powers that it has been given under the constitution. The process is still working in the way that was originally intended by the framers of the constitution. 
As a firm believer in due process and the social contract, I personally think that the constitution continues to be applied in way that I approve of. I do not always approve of the outcome of the decision making process, but I do approve of the process. Unlike systems that have been modeled using a parliamentary system there is no prevailing party or power that can take a tyrannical hold of the decision making process. That is not to say that interest groups and the political elite do not run things, quite the contrary. However, they cannot do so without aligning their behaviors within the process set out by the Constitution. 

Works Cited

Denberg, R.V. Understanding American Politics. London: Fontana Press, 1996.

FEDERALISM
Federalism:

At the root of our government is a basic premise of Federalism. Federalism has a dual role, balancing power between national government and state governments. Overtime there has been a need for Federalism to change to meet the needs of its citizens. There are times when the Federal government needs to do more for its individual citizens. But yet there are also times when it needs to let the states handle this business. 

During the Great Depression, President Roosevelt helped change Federalism to a more cooperative form between state and national government. After the stock market crash of 1929 and massive unemployment during the 1930’s, Roosevelt created New Deal programs that would supply jobs, money, and large projects to states that were in desperate need. Created were unemployment insurance, the Social Security program, bank insurance, subsidies for farmers, and the ability to join unions. Under the New Deal, Hoover Dam, the national highway system, and many other large construction projects were started. These large projects provided a ready source of employment for many of the unemployed of the time. 

President Lyndon Johnson launched the Great Society program, which was a war on poverty and discrimination. He persuaded Congress to pass the most reforms since Roosevelt’s New Deal. Grants where provided to states, but with strings attached. These strings were more to fit what the government wanted the states to do. Instead of what the states wanted, they were forced to succumb to the pressure of the federal government.

When President Richard Nixon ran for office, he pledged to return power to the states. The revenue sharing program provided money, but without the strings. States were able to spend the money where thought it was needed. His term was shortly ended by the Water Gate scandal. Nixon being the only president forced to resign under the threat of impeachment. 

Under Ronald Reagan’s presidency block grants were less restrictive, allowing broad grants to states. Reagan believed that the old grants-in-aid imposed national priorities on states. The new block grants were for specific activities. Federal programs were cut back and states received less help. But since the Reagan era there has been a movement to return more money and power back to the states.

There have been times, like the Great Depression and the Civil Rights Movement, that the need for more government involvement is needed. Sometimes this is the only way that large social change is brought about. Without mandates from the government the states had no reason to go against tradition and what there citizens thought were there rights, even if they violated others rights or freedoms. It is the government’s obligation to provide for all of its citizens no matter what. There has also been times, where like in 1990’s, that less governmental involvement has lead to better economic times for the states. There were more federal and state budget surpluses at this time. But by 2001, due to the stock market dropping and to September 11 terrorists attacks the economy has greatly suffered. Unemployment has increased, while consumer confidence has fallen. There is a fiscal shortage in education, where schools are cutting everything from teacher salaries, to programs that once before would have been thought unthinkable to live without, like music and art programs. Health care costs are soaring out of control. Now as our nation fights a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy and the powers of the nation is a constant consideration in the upcoming elections. 

Sometimes the Federal government needs to have more control and provide more services to its citizens when those needs are not being met by the states. At times of War, national crisis or disasters the government needs to step in and provide for its citizens the programs they need. Then there are times this power needs to be returned to the states, where specific needs of its citizens can be met. Sometimes the states may be better capable of providing for their citizens. The states are more likely to know who their citizens are. Whatever the case, the Federal government needs to remain flexible to meet the needs of its citizens as it was intended to do. Federalism was created to provide a distribution of power among the Federal government and the state government. The Federal and state governments sharing concurrent powers which help to provide some of this flexibility. With the state and Federal government sharing responsibility of certain powers helps encourage cooperation among the two units of government. As in the past Federalism will surely change to meet the times and situations that may arise. But as long as our government remains flexible and willing to meet the needs of its citizens it will remain strong. Only when it fails to meet the peoples needs will it be important for the national or state government to take an active role in its citizens lives.

I do not believe that one is more important then another. Like with all parts of the government it is a “checks and balance”. If one is not able to provide then the other should take its place and provide for the people of the United States. The system has a balance that it has maintained for years and will continue to maintain. States may be more likely to know more the demographics of its regions, thus being able to have more knowledge of the needs of its people, but it is also up to the national government to make sure these needs are being met. Sometimes the states have short falls and do not have the money or resources that are needed. That is were the Federal government must take over and meet its citizens needs. As with education, it is not alright to impose strict mandates on states if they are not meeting education requirements due to lack of funds necessary. It is the Federal governments responsibility to make sure everything possible is done for all to succeed. If President Bush’s policy of “no child being left behind” is to succeed then it is the states and the Federal governments responsibility to make it so.

The purpose of Federalism is to act in a dual role, providing power from state and Federal governments. Whether we are at a time where the Federal government needs more control or the states need more control is hard to answer. At this time I am concerned about some of the actions President Bush has taken to gain power or control. There are some actions that I think violate some of our civil rights, that he is controlling under “terrorist” protection. In this presidency Free Speech has been questioned. There have been times people have spoken out against Bush and something has happened to them. For example the CIA agents name being revealed, after her husband a Congressman or senator spoke out against President Bush. There also is the question of the Iraq War and its legitimacy. Was this an overstep of Federal power or not? These are all things to consider and will play out in the up coming elections.

Federalism:

Should the Federal Government do more or less for individual citizens or is this State business?

In answering this question I find that my opinion is divided. The sixteenth amendment authorized Congress to enact a national income tax. (pg 76 Essentials of American Government) Since the Federal Government is receiving funds from its citizens I feel that the federal government should do more, for the individual citizens. For example:

http://okda.org/pages/oral_health/articles/child_abuse.htm

Every year, 1.5 million U.S. children are physically assaulted, with many more the victims of neglect and emotional maltreatment.

Yet, in the state of Oklahoma individuals involved in the Foster Care Program, trained people who allow abused children stay with them while in protective custody, only receive $300.00 a month to care for each child in their home. For a child who finds their self in this particular situation, structure is necessary in their healing process. Extra curricular activities such as an involvement in sports or one of the Arts are fundamentally imperative for each child’s success. Also, depending on the abuse each child suffered, counseling sessions are needed, at least once a week, sometimes more. This puts the Foster Parent in dire straits as the parent is driving the child to and fro various appointments, sometimes in distant locations, to meet their needs. The foster parent also must come up with the money for uniforms, musical instruments, or various other equipment necessary for the child to be successful. Three hundred dollars must be stretched a long way, and we all know three hundred dollars isn’t much this day and age. 

Who is responsible for sorting this situation out? The state generates funds from the national government and allocates the funds to the necessary departments and only has enough to spend $300.00 per month for its portion of the 1.5 million abused and or neglected children. Preventative services must be implemented to educate citizen’s of the situation we find ourselves in, rehabilitation services for the offender are necessary to treat the offender, cure them of their abusive behaviors and hopefully unite each child with their family in a safe protected environment where each child is free from harm. 

I would prefer to spend my federal income tax dollars on such problems rather then fund the federal government to go to war at will for reasons unjustifiable to the people of the nation for which it serves, but that is only a preference from an individual. One of the concurrent powers is “To spend money for the general welfare” of the citizens. A State power is to “Take measures for public health, safety, and morals” and a National power is to “Declare War.” 

In the above situation given as an example one has to ask their selves, which takes precedence and who is responsible. Through the implied powers of Congress, the text gives examples of prohibiting prostitution and creates a minimum wage standard, but in 1916 the Child Labor Act was struck down because it was ruled by the Supreme Court to be an area of state concern. Grants-in-Aid are provided to the states for the above-cited example, but where does it fit in with the some odd trillion-dollar deficit the country finds itself in today? The Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 gave each state 30,000 acres of federal land to sell with the intention of using the profits for higher learning institutions, and today President Bush is attempting to pass Section 215. 

In a country whose preamble to the Declaration of Independence reads: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, … as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

And in a country whose Constitution reads: 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Each situation must be looked at individually. In previous chapters we learned that the constitution evolves with the needs of the people who accept the doctrine. Children are governed by said doctrine and in 1.5 million instances every year their needs are not being met. The states are not implementing just laws to meet these needs, their civil liberties are being invaded. The have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and congress has the ability through the implied powers to provide for their General Welfare. 

Yes, the Federal Government should do more for the individual, as the constitution is an ever growing, evolving entity. Again, each situation should be looked at individually to determine the best course of action to protect the civil liberties of each individual represented by the majority.

Federalism:

Considering the fact that, it was a 100% white male group who constructed the original draft (that is considered this country‘s “bible” for which we are to live by), it was drafted with that particular sect of individuals in mind. 
Do I think that, if the framers were still alive and here today, would African Americans be looked at as human beings, with the rights to equality, liberty, justice and freedom, as Anglo Saxon’s? Would they be allowed to be home, land, and business owners in any white community, today? Would they be allowed to run for any elective office, let alone, be allowed to actually serve that position? For that matter, would they be allowed to vote, or even attend the same schools as Caucasian children? I would have to answer no those questions.
Nor, do I believe that women would have the rights to which they have today. In all essence, we still don’t have the same rights as men, but they are better than what we had (even) fifty years ago.
Nor, do I also believe that Native Americans would even be here still. I believe that we would have been a race made completely non-existent. (That’s a whole other paper, within itself though. Because of that, I chose not to dwell into that topic, or this paper would go on forever.)
I don’t believe that the framers would be happy with the amendments made to its final draft of the constitution. Let’s look at the issues going on at hand, this very day. Take the issues of gay marriages, for example.
Would the framers be happy with the ideas of the fact that, Massachusetts is getting ready to change it’s laws, allowing the rights of marriage to couples of the same sex? No, I don’t believe that they would. That would never be an issue even to be discussed; let alone, would they allow the thoughts of an amendment to be addressed, to allow the thoughts of such an idea to be ratified within the constitution.
I do believe that they would look at what is going on in within our country, today, and be horrifically disappointed as to what has been allowed to take place.
Then again, we have to look at the time frames to which we’re addressing, as well. We’re talking about men, whom at that time, believed that, yes, Christianity should be upheld; not only within our homes, but also within our country. 
Though, the rights to be able to worship were addressed and deemed as a protection of our own free rights; to have the decision to choose the denomination of religious practices to which we feel most comfortable with. This, coming from the fact that, the English didn’t have those rights then. They were forced to practice worship within the Church of England.
Still, they believed in what the bible said. They did believe in Christianity, and believe that, without it, the world and all of its inhabitants was destined for “damnation.” A thought to ponder on here: With all that is going on within our own country, today, we’re they right?
I think that they would take a harsh look at our politicians today and tell them, point blank, “Look, either you’re going to run this country under the basis of Christianity, or you’re not. You can’t tell these people that they cannot allow pray within the schools because it could offend others around them who aren‘t Christians. Then, turn around and paraphrase the bible (without crying out Christianity), by claiming that the sanctity of marriage should be strictly that between a man and woman, and expect them to accept it. You’re either going to have to go one way, or the other. You can’t do both and expect it to work. Grow a back bone, and stop worrying if you tell these people ‘no‘ all of the time, that you‘re not going to be re-elected into political office.”
So, to answer the first question, no. 
Again, we have to look at the time frames. We’re talking about a vast amount of negative and positive (both equal) changes, which have occurred within the course of over two centuries. 
The fact that we have progressed as a very highly educated country, for one (even if a vast majority are self-taught), says a lot about what the leaders (both past and present) have accomplished. The vast changes within production, has proven us, socially, to be one of the few countries classified, as a “high-income country,”#
Looking briefly to which I have just written, do I feel that the constitution is being applied today in a way that I approve. No, I do not.
I still feel, as though, this is a country run by individuals who want to remain popular to keep their positions in office. So, in order to do so, lets sacrifice the morals of this country. 
It’s my own personal opinion that, these elected officials have forgotten why they were elected into office, to begin with. They’ve forgotten that they’re in there representing the welfare and good of the people who elected them into these positions, and not for the sole purpose of how this is just going to benefit them, personally.
Most have proven that, in the issues of pornography, prostitution, and even homosexuality; it’s “okay” for them to engage in these practices, but it’s illegal for the “common man/woman” to do so. 
Why is it that, these officials are paid huge salaries to be the voices heard, of the people whom they represent, to make a better change for the better of all mankind; yet, thousands of families are homeless and children are going to bed with empty stomachs, every night. Unemployment rate is outrageous, and the ability to receive help from state aided programs (especially in a temporary emergency situation) is nearly next to impossible.
They’re enforcing parents to make their children attend school up to a certain age, and if they don’t, those parents go to jail; yet, (Oklahoma in particular), teachers have the one of the lowest paid salaries.
They want to tell parents how to raise their children; what is deemed as discipline and what is deemed as abuse. Then, they wonder why we have such a high percentage rate of adolescent violence against their parents, teachers, and even other children. “Spare the rod, spoil the child.”
Do I feel that there is only negative going on within our government and its elected officials? No, I do not. But, I do feel that there is a lax in what could be accomplished by those individuals in office, in comparison to what really is being accomplished.
It’s also my opinion that, those that truly are in there to make good by those who put him/her there, are overpowered by those who are there to benefit themselves, and themselves alone.

Federalism:

Whether the Federal Government should do more or the State Government do more is not an either or issue. I think the most effective approach to an objective view of Federalism is to first resolve not to think in extremes. History has already shown us that when any one entity is allowed to rule without any lateral or superior governing relationship (accountability) regardless of how limited or expansive the parameters of that rule, chaos results. I believe this is a principle the Framers had in mind when they set up the concepts of the separation of powers and checks and balances; these principles are a failsafe provided by foresight into the future of fallable human judgment.

Why has the relationship between national and state governments shifted over time? I think because government as a whole is having to deal with more people than ever before claiming that the structure and methodology of the legislature that has prevailed for the longest time, is actually an infringement or violation of their civil and constitutional rights (homosexual marriage for example). Also, government on the national level does not have as intimate a contact with the citizens; therefore, state governments are actually more qualified to judge how laws affect the everyday lives of their people—for the good or bad—in everyday life.

I think Constitutional theory does not account for such shifts because the Framers specifically apportioned most of the power to the states (which is better controlled by the people than national government) and intended to avoid a huge mass of an entity with sole sovereignty. They sought above all else to be sure not to recreate the situation of living in bondage to a whimsical monarchy, whether it exists in the form of one man or in the form of many men acting as an entity. The fact that constitutional theory does not account for shifts is not, in my opinion, due to lack of foresight on the part of the Framers (indeed we have conceded that they were the elite from within the business, law, political, and educational communities); I think instead, that shifts were not permissible in their minds. I think the Framers meant for the greater portion of power to always rest with the states, and consequently, the people. 

A key to weighing the worth and effectiveness of all our changes to the federal system (changes supposedly made as a result of learning through trial and error), is to examine the following statement provided by the instructor's lecture notes:
Since the 1960s, American INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS have evolved to FRUIT CAKE FEDERALISM, where the overlaps and duplications between federal and state governments have become dense and unmanageable, yet provide "sweets" for everyone. 
In my opinion, this idea of Fruit Cake Federalism directly reflects the fact that we cannot run an effective, sound government with the whims of the people at the core of our MO. We must settle on a standard of what is right that we can all function with in a delegatable format. Political divisions are an acknowledgment of diversity; but there is only so much good diversity can do in the scheme of making decisions. Realistically, diversity only does its best work in something like a brainstorming session; but when it's time to make decisions, there must be a supreme principle or set of supreme principles to adhere to. Diversity shouldn’t be the gauge for our laws if we are truly the United States. Consider the following metaphors: how can we strike a balance between the ideal will of God and the iniquitous will of man? How can we as parents be the child's buddy and authoritative but loving guardian at the same time? We can't, someone will have to submit.

I conditionally agree with the following statement from the lecture notes:
Poor states cannot provide benefits that rich states can offer, yet state citizens--rich and poor--are citizens of the United States. National citizenship should address these inequalities. Yes, I agree, but where then will be the room for the entrepreneurial spirit to thrive and triumph despite adversity, setback, sacrifice, and hardship? Will people appreciate a degree of wealth merely bequeathed to them as much as if they earned it as a result of disciplining themselves. This may sound harsh, but everyone does not deserve to be wealthy (financially); because everyone is not willing to put forth the effort, sacrifice, study, delay gratification, etc. to get it. Worse is done to the human spirit not challenged than not "helped". More times than not, the homeless person needs to be mentored rather than financed. Any "self-made" wealthy influential person will tell you that favor and opportunity and more important than money. How and to what degree could state objectives for funding of social relief programs differ from those of the national government? Don't the majority of us have the same take on poverty? Apparently, but I think the national government does not have a build- people-from-the-ground-up mentality like the state and local government does. Community-based entrepreneurial pursuits and developments tend to be so much more potent because people are not just having their pockets filled, they're having their self-esteem filled. I just think there was something almost magical about the Mom & Pop, hand car wash, and lemonade stand type of economic development--it was the community spirit--not national incentives that involve standing in long lines, signing a few papers and getting a check with few or no questions asked.

The U.S. is currently in billions of dollars of debt, not because of defaulting on foreign trade obligations, but because we are recovering from the filthy-rich-parent-with-a-rescuer-complex dynamic that was prevalent during the FDR, Nixon, and LBJ eras. When President Reagan came along he was getting us back to the idea of states working out their own problems; however, it was a bit too abrupt for the states to handle. Just as state legislatures from their inception needed to be monitored and mentored, in a sense, as they handled their sovereign legislative powers, they needed to be weaned from the breast of the national government always bailing them out. People typically abuse newfound ability or power secretly longed-for over much time during which they were circumstantially powerless. Most cannot handle a good thing if it comes upon them too fast. The states were like teenagers being lured back to being breast-fed and were mommied or rescued a bit too much for 30+ years. It stands to reason that there would be a need to slowly wean the states back into a position of being motivated to take charge of their individual economic stability. I really believe had Reagan's New Federalism approach not been as abrupt, the states would not have had their backs to the fiscal wall again in 1972. But I guess sometimes when an official sees a horrendous mess, he is just so overwhelmed by the ideas he has always had about who's doing what wrong that when he finally gets into a position to tackle it and execute something official, he does so ravenously while completely forsaking the aspects that must be tred lightly.

Not only do continual and considerable amounts of federal aid to states impose federal priorities on the states and make them unduly vulnerable to the superior rule of the national-level government, but this type of funding contributes to a lack of initiative on the part of the states to foster their own economic development. Individual states need the legislative room to make appropriate choices for their individual economic development that results from career and entrepreneurial mentorship and training. Also, healthy entrepreneurial competition among states would naturally occur once the national government assures all that the capitalistic playing field is indeed level.

Just as parents don't have to be 100% right about everything they decide with respect raising their children, our national government has stepped in unnecessarily sometimes throughout the history of this nation to try and balance what the states seem to have carried out in extremes; but America still "turned out alright" and we are the greatest nation on Earth. Just as parents need to properly discern when to let their kids experience the full brunt of not-so-smart decisions (understanding that the experience, error, and pain will teach them better than any amount of lecturing or bailing out can), the national-level government doesn't need to take hands off completely; just the training wheels be the hands instead, and after a level of proficiency is attained, take the training wheels off. There is no reason to fear that giving states this space will collapse our nation; if the political perils we've prevailed over thus far, didn't destroy America, a little more delegation to the states won't either.

In summary, I believe the national government should establish the supreme principle upon which the identity of this nation is based, but state and local governments should be free to carry out that vision by any creative and individual means necessary. The national government should be present to regulate not restrict, support not suppress, protect not preempt, support not spoil, and check not chainsaw.

CIVIL LIBERTIES

Civil Liberties

The debate on many laws is currently a hot topic. Oddly enough, it seems as the laws that are under so much controversy are the laws created and decided on by the Supreme Court. Let’s take school prayer for example. People have been arguing about this topic since 1960. Frankly, I believe more people believe school prayer should be put back in schools but because a few people get offended because of it, the Supreme Court decides to completely abolish it. I agree for having school prayer because at least it gives people a feeling of hope and security even if a student does not believe in prayer or Christianity.
I feel that the Supreme Court should have allowed this type of law go through the entire rotation before being passed. Instead of going through the legislature, then executive branches, the bill stopped at the court system causing many angry people. This is another reason for our nation being split in half. Everyone seems to be finding loopholes in our system such as the Supreme Court that gives the government too much power to abuse. The majority does not even seem to matter anymore as long as the Supreme Court feels strongly enough about a subject to pass their own law.
I still remember years ago when the government attempted to take away our guns as citizens of the United States. We fought to keep them and thanks to the NRA, we were able to still have guns in our homes. This became more of an issue of preference. In the New England states, they did not need many guns because they were not avid hunters. They did not seem to care about those in Oklahoma or Texas who for some that is all they know. Gun control became a nationwide issue but as we can see now, we have restrictions on buying them. I can agree with this because it makes it tougher for a young person under eighteen or twenty-one to own a gun. I also believe that if someone wanted a gun bad enough, he or she could probably get a hold of one. However, these gun control laws make it tougher, keeping honest people honest, essentially.
The first amendment in itself has stirred up much controversy. For example, the freedom of speech means different things to different people. Look at obscenity. If a person was caught swearing at an authority figure or in front of a child, he could end up with a fine. Many people would argue this point as a violation of the freedom of speech. However, the constitution says that your freedom stops when another begins. Basically, when you are violating someone else’s rights, yours stops. Another freedom in the first amendment is the freedom of religion. We are legally allowed to believe and worship with any religion we want to. Yet we have people constantly going door to door trying to suede them to convert. What if some religions require sacrifice? The “cruelty to animal” law becomes a factor.
The final point I am attempting to make is that laws can be interpreted several different ways depending on the personality of a person or interpreting a law the way they want to hear it. The freedom of speech can actually be taken as only freedom as long as it does not hurt anyone else. The freedom of religion may be interpreted as the freedom to annoy people until they agree with you. These are just a couple of examples of how the wording of the constitution can be difficult to decipher. I also think that if our government would follow their own system all the time, maybe less controversy would occur. When prayer was taken out of our school system, a majority of the citizens were shocked. If this law would have made it to the president, at least it would have shown a better percentage of the people who agreed with it rather than just the nine sitting on the supreme court.

Civil Liberties

Have the courts wrongfully assumed some responsibilities of the other two branches of government? Has the court system evolved into an "imperial judiciary" then threatens the liberties of the majority to benefit the minority?

In the case of abortion, citizens must ask their selves if Congress is allowed to create laws, which reside over personal choice of an individual, be it child or mother. 

The enumerated powers given to Congress include: 
1. Taxation 
2. Coinage of money, 
3. Regulation of commerce 
4. Authority to provide for a national defense. 

There are 17 such powers listed in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution, but they primarily refer to national powers, not issues regarding civil liberties. Congress has gotten them selves involved in abortion with the power here listed as number three. 
Regulation of Commerce. 

Congress is only allowed to create laws which directly involve the abortion clinics, as the woman is a consumer, the clinic offers a service. They have neglected to adhere to this policy recently with the much-debated Ban on Partial Birth Abortions. 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/13/congress.abortion.ap/

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to ban a procedure that critics call partial birth abortion, a triumph for President Bush and the Republicans who took control of Congress this year. Congress twice before passed legislation to impose a ban, but former President Clinton vetoed both measures. A third attempt was sidetracked in 2000 when the Supreme Court invalidated a Nebraska state law that closely resembled the measure moving through the House and Senate. Yet a fourth attempt failed last year when Democrats, then in control of the Senate, refused to schedule a vote.

If congress is not allowed to make laws regarding this particular aspect of civil liberty then which branch of the government is responsible for the protection of liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness to American citizens? 

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 
Please note that Jurisdiction means the authority to interpret and apply the law. 

There is no law in the Constitution, which states that every woman has the right to abortion, therefore, the Supreme Court must infer the initial intention of the liberty in the document. This exemplifies the term “Evolving Constitution” that was taught in previous chapters.
Does this then mean that the Supreme Court played the role of legislatures? My opinion is that each branch of the government must balance each other. This is evident in the Conscious Clause:

http://www.pennyhill.com/abortion/rs21428.html

Conscience clause laws allow medical providers to refuse to provide services to which they have religious or moral objections. In some cases, these laws are designed to excuse such providers from performing abortions. During the 108th Congress, S. 1397, an abortion conscience clause bill, was introduced in the Senate, and a companion bill is expected to be introduced in the House. 

This report describes the history of the conscience clause as it relates to abortion law and provides a legal analysis of the effects of such laws, including S. 1397.

This clause allows the rights of women, as well as protects the moral rights and obligation of medical professionals. Congress takes a law interpreted by the Supreme Court, Legalized Abortion, and balances it with the Conscience Clause. 

When a situation arises that does not fall under the jurisdiction of either branch of government, measures must be taken to ensure that the constitution is being implemented in a way, which suits the majority that accepts the doctrine. When the Supreme Court rules on a matter, the decision stands. (stare decisis) All subsequent court cases may be judged upon the decision of preceding cases. 

Does this then mean that the Supreme Court is creating laws? 

Does it mean that the Supreme Court is negating the opinion of the majority? 

Does it mean that Congress has no ability to create laws in civil matters? 

The Constitution was written, among other things, to balance the three branches of government, and assure power to the people. In my opinion, it means that the Constitution is working as it was intended. Assuring the wants and needs of the majority, all the while protecting civil liberties where permissible.

Civil Rights

A democracy depends on a free exchange of ideas, and the First Amendment shows that the Framers were well aware of this fact. One of the problems that history has had a problem with is the interpretation of the First Amendment's mandate that "Congress shall make no law.... Abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." When the First Amendment was ratified in 1791, it was considered to protect only against prior restraint of speech or expression, that is, to guard against the prohibition of speech or publication before the fact. As was the case in Great Britain concerning free speech, the First Amendment was not speaker or publishers might say or print. Thus, over the years, the meaning of this amendment’s mandate has been subject to thousands of cases seeking judicial interpretation of its meaning. Although the Supreme Court has allowed few governmental bans on most types of speech, some forms of expression are not protected. In 1942, the Supreme Court set out the rationale by which it would distinguish between protected and unprotected speech. According to the Court, obscenity, lewdness, libel and fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment because "such expressions are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such high social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." I feel that the courts are doing what they need to do to set the lines of tactfulness without discriminating anyone or being to overzealous at the same time. I also feel that it depends on the case, to what "the limit" might be. As far as child pornography, I would have to say that if the Supreme Court did not doing something about that then there would be a lot of unhappy citizens in this world. That is a subject that is not tolerated though out the United States and it punishable by laws in many states. For example, though 1957, United States courts often based their decisions of what was obscene on an English common-law test that had been set out in 1868: "Whether the tendency of the matter charges as obscenity id to deprive and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and in to whose hands a publication of this sort might fall." Another example, in Roth v. U.S., the court abandoned that approach and held that to be considered obscene, the material in question must be "utterly without redeeming social importance," and articulated a new test for obscenity:" whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominate theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interests." 
Congress has been particularly concerned with two obscenity and pornography issues: (1) federal funding for the arts; and, (2) the distribution of obscenity and pornography on the Internet, which has "embroiled it in the constitutional struggles over the proper balance between free expression and the interests of the majority." Monitoring the Internet has proven more difficult for Congress. 
Burning the American flag also has been held to be a form of protected symbolic speech. In 1989, a sharply divided Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Gregory Johnson, who had been found guilty of setting fire to an American Flag during the Republican National Convention in Dallas. As a result, there was major public outcry against the Court. President George Bush and numerous members of Congress called for constitutional amendment to ban flag burning to overturn Texas v. Johnson. Other, including Justice William J. Brennan Jr. , noted that if it had not been for acts like that of Johnson, the United States would never have been created nor would a First Amendment guaranteeing a right to political protest exist.

CIVIL RIGHTS

Civil Rights

In Mrs. Clawson’s first grade class children are loud and unruly. It’s not that the teacher has no control. She is a good teacher with many years of experience under her belt. In a discussion with the teacher, topics of what the difference is with this generation of students, has come up. Is it due to the baggage that these children drag to school, the lack of discipline, or more what these children are exposed to. Or is it a combination of all these things. As is the normal practice, the children in Mrs. Clawson’s class say the Pledge of Allegiance. Do they understand the words they are reciting? A majority of this class is made up of first or second generation, Hispanic children. English is not their first language and they busily discuss things in Spanish amongst themselves. Do they understand this Pledge? Are they really pledging their allegiance to this new nation that they now live in or do they still consider Mexico home? 
As you listen to the children talk, there are times I am amazed by what they say or how they talk to each other or their teacher. It seems at times that either they have not been raised to respect authority, their peers, or themselves. In my day, I’m not that old, I was afraid to say “No” to my teacher. Though in this classroom you can hear that word often. These children, whom I feel, are older and wiser then I was at this same age may be too old too soon. Their life has been bombarded with constant exposure to violence, lewd talk, and sexually explicit images from radio, television, and video games. They live in a world where over exposure of all things is common. Where 9/11 played 24 hours a day on television for weeks. 
Has the Courts liberalized the “free expression” protections of the First Amendment too much? Written in our text is an understanding of the “clear and present danger test”. This allowed Congress the ability to ban speech that could cause a grave and immediate danger to society. I believe we are there. You only have to talk to our youth and realize something is gravely wrong with our society. The deprivation is all around, in the videos they play where they play at killing unknown people and do unspeakable things. This is all done in the name of fun. But then consider Columbine, where two student shot and killed class mates. These two young killers also played these video games. Their parent thought nothing was wrong with them. Yet these two boys, like many other students, would go on to kill with little or no remorse. Are we creating a mass of children who are overly exposed to death? A lot of these children have said after they have killed, that they still did not believe it was real. That it was too much like television. 
Currently the FCC, has gone before Congress to try and pass new legislation regarding what images can be shown on television. All due to Janet Jackson showing a breast during the Super Bowl halftime show. This one act has unleashed a flurry of activity regarding reform. There was little outrage at the fact another performer wore a flag, cut with an opening, like a poncho. So much was said about Jackson, little about the flag. We as citizens have been raised in a time of “free expression”. We have seen our national flag burned and desecrated, all legally protected by the First Amendment. But when is it enough. When are we, as citizens, going to say this is not right. 
I personally believe that Congress has protected free speech too much. I do believe that we have the right to protest against our government, but does that have to include burning of the flag? Yes, the burning of the flag makes a very strong statement, especially when done by its own citizens. This one statement outrages and creates such a public outcry. The burning of the flag gets people who would not normally get involved in political matters, suddenly involved. But it is it right? We as a nation should have a limit. 
My father was a Vietnam vet and was unsatisfied with the government. As many of the vets from this era were. He often was angry about the treatment of his fellow soldiers and the backlash that they received when they came home from this War. Many protested, but got little recognition for their service until recently. During the Vietnam Era flag burning, war protests, and hate speech were prevalent. The government was and is still questioned about the real reason for this War. As today, in the Irag War, the government is suspected of having hidden reasons for this War. But unlike the Vietnam War, I do not believe that these soldiers will come home to anything less then a hero’s welcome. The citizens are more informed due to the Press and we are fully aware of the fact it is not the soldier’s fault for this War. It is the responsibility of the Press to inform us of the welfare of our nation and the actions of our government. Yet, this does not mean they need to broadcast 24-hour coverage of these events. It does no good to our society to do this. Thank goodness this media was not a round during Pearl Harbor. The constant broadcasting would have probably destroyed this nation by breaking our hearts and our wills. We would have been defeated.
When the First Amendment has to protect pornography it is a shame. The framers surely did not consider this form of degradation. The fact such a noble document has to protect such a vile industry. The Internets ability to exploit children and not be caught is horrible. So if I was a Chief Justice on the Supreme Court and a case came before me involving a Website that displayed children being sexually abused, I for one would love to see a precedent made. One of those groundbreaking cases that would be in all of the Federal Government books. But first I would have to follow the letter of the law. It would have to be defined “whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by state law, and whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” In 1998 Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act, that stated any “visual depiction that is, or appears to be, a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct”. This also includes any digitally generated picture or image. This act targeted material that was found to be harmful to minors. But unfortunately this was found unconstitutional due to vagueness. Since then lawmakers redrafted more specific legislation. Hopefully this new legislation would be more sound and be able to stand up to scrutiny and be found Constitutional. Because if we do not have legislation that can protect the smallest of our citizens we will continue to decline as a nation. We will continue to raise children that are overly exposed to lewd materials and they will be unable to contribute to a more caring Nation.

Civil Rights

There is a very clear and evident foundation that our country, and Constitution was and still is founded upon. The amendment of freedom of speech was the first to enter into law because apparently, this had been an important issue for the country at that time. The first amendment was a great gift to the American people because in the country where the founding fathers descended from, Great Britain, no person was allowed to speak any ill will toward the country in order for the country’s citizens to have one thought process when it came to his or her great country, and that was that it was the brightest, most competent, and most powerful nation in the world. Any process that was to take place by order of the country’s leader was to never be questioned, and certainly no outcry was to occur. In our country, the United States, we not only take for granted, but we abuse our privilege of freedom of speech. This abuse is evident in the perverse use of the first amendment of the paparazzi, internet stalking, and internet abuse. 
The paparazzi are best known for their constant annoyance toward the famous, usually stationed in Hollywood. These photographers are allowed to pursue their business by bending the laws and using technicalities in order to complete their business. His or her purpose is to get that perfect shot, no matter what the cost. It is one matter when the cost is just the daily discomfort of the famous, but it is quite another when it takes someone’s life. This was very evident the night that Princess Dianna died suddenly in a car tunnel in France. She and her companion were leaving her hotel and then the paparazzi started to follow and chase her in cars. Princess Dianna’s car entered a tunnel and spun out of control and hit the tunnel wall killing her and her companion, along with the driver. This was obviously a great tragedy, not only to the people of Great Britain, but to those all around the world. Princess Dianna was forced to live every day in the public eye because of her status, but what she did not know was that her life would be taken by these people. Not a single person was charged for the death up Dianna, not even a single misdemeanor. Was this precious life worth the picture she died for? 
Advances in technology can be such an extraordinary purpose in order to help the humans on this planet. Unfortunately, these advances can also be a very dangerous monster hidden in practically every home in the United States. The continuous upgrade in technology is evident in the internet, which we use every day. The problem that we can run into is the chat rooms we as citizens have come to love more that the phone. Why is this new phenomena so catching? There is a freedom in these chat rooms that some are not able to obtain in the real world. He or she is allowed to be whomever they want, be in whatever profession they choose, or look how they have always desired. Why is this, well, there is no one censoring these chat rooms properly. There are grown men chatting to girls as young as twelve years old on the internet as we speak. These men find the insecure young girl who is desperately just trying to find some place to fit in, or someone to understand her life and mind. The conversations may stat out very innocent, but eventually, the talk turns more sexual. The men start asking the girl to do things she might not have ever done before, or may not even really understand, but no one can see her right? Eventually, the man cons the girl into meeting him in a private place, and even in some cases, in another state. This is where the girl’s life changes forever because she is concentual to something she does not understand, or raped to never recover. This all starts with the freedom of a person to talk as he chooses to whomever he chooses. In this case the pornography was real. This all occurred because of this man’s freedom. 
Many obscene broadcasts occur on the internet, none more obscene than that of abuse of children. Any person that would sexually abuse a child is demented enough as it is, but to plaster it all over the internet is something almost too unthinkable in itself. The Supreme Court should make this issue one of its top priorities because this involves children, and children are supposed to be the future of this country. If I were to be sitting on that bench of the Supreme Court whose case had to do with something of this nature, I would fight to give who ever was responsible for this sight, the heaviest disciplinary action possible. I can understand the importance to keep the amendment, freedom of speech sacred, but I believe more sacred party is the children. If there was a person being prosecuted for the crime of sexual abuse against a child, he or she would be convicted, so why would we allow this to go on in the internet? We are already negligible for allowing any pornography on the internet period. 
When our founding fathers decided to put forth the amendment of freedom of speech, I believe they had a much healthier idea for this amendment in mind. In our perverted world today, this amendment has been abused to the point that a princess died, children are stalked and raped, and children are sexually abused to the amusement of others. The Supreme Court should take a much stronger stand on this issue. I am actually debating whether or not to have children for the simple fact that it truly frightens me for them to have to grow up in a world this perverse. What is even scarier than that is that my greatest dream in life was to have children; what a shame.

CONGRESS

Congress:

Who does the US. Congress represent most? (the people, their party, their state, their district, or special interest groups) Think carefully, Explain
I think the parties are most represented by the US Congress. I believe this is so because of several factors. The US Congress is made up of mainly Democrats and Republicans with only two Independents serving in the 108th Congress. In the senate, there are fifty-one Republicans, forty-eight Democrats, and one Independent. In the House of Representatives, there are two hundred twenty-nine Republicans, two hundred five Democrats, and one Independent. (Pg 190, American Government) As you can see, the parties are relatively even and represented well by these numbers. The only party that is lacking in representation is the Independent party. Another reason is because the people of the US vote on who they believe is the best person(s) to represent their ideas. Most people vote with their party affiliation and so the numbers of the party in Congress pretty much represents what the people believe is the best.
Close to tying with the party representation, I believe the people are also highly represented in Congress. The reason that I believe this is because the representatives in Congress are voted on by the people. This allows the people to decide which candidate will be the best person to represent their ideas. The other reason is that if the people are unhappy with the way the person is behaving, during the next election, the people can choose not to vote on that person.
Making sure their representatives are citizens from the state they are representing, is how the states make sure they are represented correctly. The states do this by requiring that all representatives of the state are legal citizens of that state. It is not required that the person be born in that state or even in the United States for that fact. The requirement for those that are immigrants to the US is that they must have resided in the US for seven years to be a member of the House of Representatives and nine years to be a Senator. (Pg 175 American Government) This allows the person time to become knowledgeable about the system of government. 
I do not think the districts are well represented because there are many different religions, races, sexes, and ethnic backgrounds in one district. The way the lines are drawn reflect which party or group will benefit most from the votes. This does not allow the candidate to fully represent those people residing in that district. Most of the individuals representing the people in Congress are white males, from a wealthy background. I do not understand how this person can represent those of poorer status when they probably have never had to worry about money in their life. There are some states areas that have a higher ratio of blacks but are not represented in their ethnicity because the lines have been drawn to incorporate more white people so the white male is elected over the black man that may be running. I think an important factor in deciding who is the best candidate would not be to “gerrymander” the district lines and instead make them so that the people are represented correctly.
I do not think that special interest groups are fairly represented in Congress either. Special interest groups to me mean people representing groups that are minorities or have another interest at hand. You never really hear about any gay or lesbian representatives in Congress. (Unless that has been an issue and I am just not aware of it.) Also, on the committees, the chair heads choose who should be on the committee. How does this allow for the people that might have an interest in the subject at hand? There is some representation, as those who are representing the people should be taking into consideration what the interest of the people would be, but there is only a certain degree of interest others will have if the subject at hand does not immediately affect them. The other special interest groups that are not fairly represented are the ethnic backgrounds that are minimally represented in Congress. It is only fair to have the minority ethnic backgrounds also be fairly represented in numbers.

Congress

Several years ago, the congress was developed to form a way to work for the people. It was a way to try to unify our nation by incorporating some of the citizen’s ideas into the government. In order to achieve this goal, our elected congressmen are supposed to be unbiased and selfless in how they run their position. For example, they each have their own views on how things should be controlled but they do not get malicious with each other, tearing each other down as other positions such as the presidency. This is the idea of it anyway, but may not necessarily be carried out. When one congressmen candidate disagrees with another candidate, they may debate their points. However, on the other side, they may also agree on some key points and not afraid to admit it. As a result of this idea, the parties of the candidates do not get in the way as often as it does in a higher office. The presidency usually is chosen more on the party then actual values, which as we have seen in the last election, can cause problems.
Congressmen could represent the state in some areas. I think they have a large influence in making laws which helps determine how the state will be run. However, I do not feel that our congress is more representing of the state than anything else. The congress helps keep everything in line as far as human rights and the president. The national congress has power of impeachment if the president does something that defaces our country. Congress in the national realm also has power in declaring war. The president cannot solely make that choice. If we left some of these choices to one man, eventually he is going to make a bad one and it could cost lives, money, or welfare. It is possible to be heard through our state congress by writing letters or calling a local congressman but is much more difficult through a congressman in Washington D.C. The representation of congress may even vary between individual congressmen or each state.
Is it legitimate to say that congressmen work for the people? Do they attempt do everything possible to make as many people happy as can be. Many congressmen do, but that really depends on the intention of the congressman as a person. A congressman who grew up in a wealthy home who did not have to work much growing up may not care as much about the welfare of the lower class. However, this is also true about the congressmen who grew up in a poor or middle class home. He may want to encourage higher taxes on the wealthy so the lower class may have better lives. Some may have no intentions of making America a better place but rather care about his own welfare or basically “there for a paycheck.” That really aggravates me when I see people in office who are there for several years but never make a difference. To assume that congress works for the people as a whole, can be harsh though the basis of congress is for the people.
After reading the lectures and doing a little outside research, I have found that congress seems to work for special interest groups in modern day. The reason for this is because business power is what is popular here in the twenty-first century. Most of the middle class is governed by their own bosses and business owners. Therefore, congress feels that it is more helpful to do as leaders in business wish rather than the middle class citizens. In addition to this, these business owners have spent a lot of time and money lobbying congress to persuade them to do as they wish. This may be helpful as well as problematic. It can be helpful because at least these ideas are coming from well-educated people but on the other hand, it can be problematic because it means our government becomes a government to the wealthy.
In summary, I attempted to show that our congress is not extremely stuck to their party. They are however, somewhat helpful to the state and district. Congress helps pass laws even at the expense of a president’s veto to help our state and national government. Congress also helps our people with the formation of the strongest government they can build. The only problem with this is that it is still not completely for the people. The Congress does more for special interests groups, such as entrepreneurs for example, than anyone else. As a result of this, our government sides with the wealthy more than the middle or lower classes. There may be a few kinks to work out in our government, but at least the pressure is not put on just one person like many other countries.

Congress:

“Recent studies by political scientists reveal many citizens hold Congress to very high standards putting the public’s feelings about Congress as a whole lower than their general high support for their representative.”(222) So how does the American people really feel that