Civil Liberty Restrictions?

It is always going to be a touchy issue on whether or not the government should minimize citizen's freedoms during times of war or invasion. I think everyone can see it both ways, at least to some extent. Today, we looked at the case of Korematsu v. United States. I agree with some of my classmates that looking at it from today's perspective it is easy to say that Japanese internment camps were wrong. However, it needs to be looked at in the light of what was going on at that time. At that time, Pearl Harbor had just been attacked by Japan and in part because of espionage from Japanese Americans. Just as after 9/11, the American people were looking for the government to take action and "fix" the problem. It isn't an excuse, but no matter what the government did there would have been disagreements. As the Court stated, it was vital to take action right away (the threat of an invasion on the West Coast was a very valid threat considering what had just happened and the position of Japan to our coast). Parts of the West Coast were turned into Military Areas and even though the government knew that not all of the Japanese Americans were traitors, they did what they thought was best to protect the soldiers and the American people at that time. Again, I'm not saying that I think it is right, but after an attack on American soil it makes me see why such extreme measures were taken. I think that is why some people find it alright that the government has heightened security measures today (for example - wire taps and security at airports). It is not as extreme as what happened after Pearl Harbor, but it poses the question of where the line should be drawn? And after an attack or invasion on our own land, most people agree that something wasn't working and measures need to be taken to change procedures to prevent an attack from happening again. As I said, I think this subject will always be touchy and although people want increased national security it will be up to the government to weigh the costs against the benefits.

District of Columbia v. Heller

I know that Americans have several differing beliefs, feelings, and understandings of the 2nd Amendment. I think this case is a perfect example of how different people interpret the constitution in totally different ways. I feel very strongly that the Right to Bear Arms is just as important as other rights given to U.S. citizens. I also know people that feel that guns should be taken out of this country and only police officers and the military should have them. As much as I would love to live in a world like that it is too unrealistic. The problem being that no matter what criminals are going to have guns because criminals don't obey the laws. Therefore, shouldn't law abiding citizens have a way of protecting themselves against these criminals? Moreover, what is the point in having a weapon that you have to keep unloaded and in a locked case - that isn't going to help the person getting robbed ("hold on while unlock my gun case and load my gun?)! In-home robberies are much higher in Illinois than in Texas - mostly because a person is less likely to pull a gun out on someone if they think that person can be, and probably is armed. I'm not saying that everyone should carry around a loaded weapon, but with the proper training and licensing people should be able to have that right. I do think that there are several problems with gun access in this country (I think we've all seen that in the past couple of years with NIU and Virginia Tech). I think the laws for buying a gun need to be a lot stricter and training classes should be mandatory. Someone should not be able to walk into a gun store and own a gun within 24-48 hours or even a week for that matter. I know people that own guns and are extremely careful, safe, and cautious when using them, so I realize that I may not have the best perspective to judge the entire situation. Nevertheless, I think that if some of these steps were implemented then it would keep a lot more people from getting licensed. And like I said, criminals will find a way to get weapons no matter what, so I don't think a full out ban is what is best for the law abiding citizens.

Judicial Activism v. Judicial Restraint

Judicial review has been in effect for a long time now and is part of the judicial process in the U.S. However, I agree with some of my classmates that judicial restraint should be practiced rather than judicial activism. Judicial review is another form of checks and balances, but to what extent? If Congress and the President both vote for a bill to be passed, and the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional, is it safe to assume that the majority of Congress and the President are all wrong? This kind of assumption is what makes me think that the Supreme Court should practice judicial restraint. If the Supreme Court issues too many rulings against bills or actions that have been taken by other branches of government then it sends the wrong message to the people - presumably that the other branches are not doing their jobs and are possibly incompetent. I know that my last statement is extreme, and I'm not saying that judicial review should be overturned. If for some reason issues fall through the cracks without being properly debated, then I think it is the Supreme Court's right to step in and say that those decisions are wrong. I just feel that the Supreme Court needs to be very careful in assessing rulings that affect previous decisions made by other branches of government.

Presidential Nominations and the Electoral College

I think that we have all come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a perfect government. No matter what, there will always be flaws with every law, bill, and process and someone will always be unhappy with the decisions that are made. So, the question arises of whether to "fix" certain processes or leave them as is. One discussion we had in class had to do with the primary process in the U.S. It seemed that most of the class thought a change should occur and I agree with that. However, the same problems seemed to arise in most of the proposals - small states not getting the same recognition as larger states and/or the later voting states not be as important as the earlier voting states. Also, it is hard to say what will happen for sure, because in this year's primary the later voting states played a significant role in choosing the democratic candidate.

As I mentioned, nothing is perfect so if a process works 98% of the time, is it worth changing to another process that will probably only work 98% of the time? I'm not saying that if a system or process is seriously flawed that it shouldn't be changed, but when only 3 problems (such as in the Electoral College process) have emerged then is it significant? The Electoral College is based upon state representation in Congress. If people do not find the Electoral College to be fair, does that mean that the representation in Congress is unfair? Should the number of representatives be changed if the Electoral College is removed? Some people wanted a proportionate representation from the Electoral College instead of a winner-take-all. However, since a candidate has to have a majority from the Electoral College will this cause more instances of leaving it up to Congress to choose the President? Will this actually take more power away from the people? I think that a system in which the popular voted candidate has won the election in all instances except for 3 is a process worth keeping. I realize that nobody wants any flaws in such an important process as the presidential election, but a perfect process is unrealistic.

Presidential Question Time?

The video of the Prime Minister's Question Time was very interesting, and somewhat fun to watch. As to the question of whether such a process would work in the U.S. is still undecided. It appeared in class today that everyone thought the President should be accountable for his actions, but it was unclear on how exactly to make that happen. Several people expressed opinions as to why this process would not work in the U.S. - many of which I agreed with. I would like to say that with proper implementation (and changes to fit our political culture) that this process could eventually work. However, I feel that Congress and/or the President would make it too complicated with too many rules, which would cause it to be ineffective. Also, I feel that with the ever-rising smear politics and campaigns in the U.S., that that is what this process would turn out to be. It would be a good change to make, but it may never happen.

I thought the discussion on unified or divided government went well. I was surprised at how much the class agreed on the pros and cons of the different forms of government. I was also surprised to see the change from a unified government being the norm at the beginning of the 20th century to a divided government being the norm today. I realize that there are problems with both forms of government, but I think that it is important to have a divided government as another form of checks and balances.

Dispersal of Power

Today we discussed the dispersal of power on several levels. Even though the 10th Amendment discusses reserved powers, I feel that it isn't as cut-and-dry as that in the U.S. As we discussed today, there will always be events that will cause our government to change how it operates - and in many cases it is for the good of its people. With that said, it can be difficult to decide exactly when the states will or won't receive aid (financial or other) or when they will or won't be allowed to maintain their authority. Education decisions are supposed to be one of the reserved powers left to the states. However, we discussed two specific situations in which the national government stepped in - grant-in-aid programs, which were helpful for states to start college institutions, and the No Child Left Behind Act, which has caused much controversy. Also, we have seen projects handed down from the national level for the state level to carry-out, but no aid is given to the states to do so. However, a chart that we saw in class today made me change my mind about how I view the dispersal of power in the U.S. The chart showed the dramatic variance of federal aid given to the states over the years. I believe that the differences have a lot to do with our economy at those times and what was going on in the world. With that said, our national government may not always be consistent with how it operates, but when the states are in need the national government will be there to help.

I understand that this does not always work out and that there are issues in which the national government should not get involved with. I still believe that the government at all levels needs to be able to operate in full authority within their own districts while still cooperating with each other. And I applaud the move to a "New Federalism," because I think it is important for the national government to worry about bigger issues and not waste time dealing with insignificant issues.

The Election Process

The discussion in class today made me examine the voting system in our country. However, in some ways it only strengthened the beliefs I already had. First of all, no government is perfect nor will it ever be. Secondly, I feel that if a candidate has less than 50% of the vote, but still has more votes than any of the other candidates then that person should become president. Everyone gets one vote and if someone chooses to vote for a third party that may only get 5% of the national vote, then they should stick by their decision. If that same person really wanted one of the top 2 candidates over the other, then their vote should have gone to that candidate in the first place instead of the third party candidate. Just as we talked about today - Hindsight is 20/20 and I'm sure if people could see the ultimate outcome then they may choose a different candidate and/or actually go out and vote if they had not previously. It comes down to the fact of what is the difference between electing a candidate with only 47% of the vote or having a re-election (to get a candidate to have >50% of the vote) knowing that the third party voters really wanted someone else anyway.

However, for the other topic of discussion - should the Constitution be ratified only by a supermajority - I am still undecided. It doesn't make sense that 1/4 of the country can veto something that the rest of the country wants. However, I don't think it is right for a major change to the Constitution to be ratified if only 51% of the country wants that change. Where should the line be drawn?

Constitution and the Articles of Confederation

It was an interesting class discussion today about the differences between the U.S. Constitution and the Articles of Confederation. Due to little emphasis placed on the content of the Articles of Confederation in history classes, I did not have much of an idea of what exactly it stated. Today, I learned that much of this document left most power to the states at that time. In contrast, the Constitution places power in a federal government. It is strange to think that in only a few years the leaders of our country changed to an entirely different format of government with an entirely different view of what the United States was and should become. However, at the same time it is amazing that it only took a short time from the point of our leaders knowing that change needed to be made to the point of taking action and drafting the Constitution.

And learning about South Africa's lengthy and detailed Constitution makes me further understand why our brief and somewhat vague Constitution has lasted so long. The U.S. Constitution has not been amended very often because the basic foundation is still the same and the rest can be left to interpretation by the Supreme Court when new issues arise in certain court cases. Also, it makes me wonder if the Constitution would have ever been drafted had it not been brief and generalized - would agreements and compromises have been made to a document of great detail?

Introductory

I find it interesting that the U.S. Constitution has not changed much since it was first written. It is easy to forget that fact when several laws are enacted everyday around the country. I feel that many people view the Constitution as a document of history rather than a document of important political principles. However, it is hard to believe that a document that is somewhat vague has withstood over 200 years with minimal change. It is an interesting argument between vagueness attributing to the longevity of the Constitution vs. vagueness causing the problem for too many loopholes.