Do We Have Too Many Rights?

I believe that while we do have considerably more rights than many other developed countries, we could still better ourselves by adding a few more rights, especially in the social and religious realms, because we need to be open to all forms of expression as long as we don't harm or encroach on the freedoms of others. Free speech is a right that we are allowed to exercise to an extent much greater than other states. Take this for example: Gregory Lee Johnson burned the flag of the United States in protest. Should this have been protected? I think it should as long as the burning is done safely. If the government illegalizes specific acts of protest, the action could very well intimidate its citizens, scaring them away from opposing the government. This could be a slippery slope, ending the government taking complete control, simply because the general population was too scared to do anything. That would be contrary to our constitutional ideologies which state that it is the right of the people to control what their government does. This freedom of speech is very important and perhaps there could be more done to ensure this right is protected, but I am content with the extent to which this right protects us. Another right that is important to U.S. citizens is our right against self-incrimination. Before one's Miranda rights were needed to be explicitly stated, the police could interrogate people whom did not know they had the right to be silent. In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, it was established that the criminal should be informed of his rights. This, I believe, is very important. It prevents people from being falsely pressured into admitting to crimes which they did not convict. It is mostly to ensure that innocent people are not locked up, but it has also allowed guilty people to walk on technicalities. Regrettable as that is, it is necessary. It results in a justice system that encourages more concrete evidence to be needed for convictions, which, presumably results in more accuracy and a reduction in wrongful imprisonments, which I believe to be a positive thing. There are other freedoms such as abortion and gay marriage which are very controversial, but I believe they should protected as rights because they do not harm others. By illegalizing these practices on, for example, religious grounds, we open the door to remove any right that anyone opposes, simply because said individual would not condone the action personally, which could result in fewer and fewer rights as we try to insulate the easily offended from actions that neither harm nor even personally involve them. As a whole, all our rights are definitely needed, as I believe a reduction in rights would be detrimental. Furthermore, more rights need to be explicitly given to us. While I touched on the continued legalization of abortion and the universal legalization of gay marriage, there are plenty of other things such as legalization of marijuana complete with taxation similar to tobacco, and clear national legalization of stem-cell research, that should be legalized. These issues are primarily social, and it is not the government's place to govern us morally. While I understand these views are highly controversial and are seen as extreme to many, I believe that the people should be able to govern themselves morally as long as they don't harm others. At the least, we should protect the rights we do have. In a worst case scenario involving the removal of freedoms, it could be a slippery slope into the reduction of all our rights, and that would be far less preferable to having to accept other people exercising rights we may not agree with completely.

Political Party Analysis

Our country runs on a bipartisan system. This being said, our choices as voters between the two parties should be drastically different, correct? For the most part, this statement is true. The parties are basically exact opposites, or at least that's what the graphic would have you believe. However, the two separate parties do have their similarities, but the graphic attempts to hide them from your average viewer. For example, both Democrats and Republicans are shown to be very religious, for the most part. This showcases that this obviously must be something that our society as a whole cares about, regardless of political affiliation. Additionally, the graphic also draws much attention to the importance of family on both sides of the political spectrum. This is not an inherently political concept, but it is given more emphasis than a more politically heated issue like religion, which I find interesting. And lastly, the key concept that is shared between both parties is the end goal. Both parties have set out to create a government that provides for it's citizens in the best way it possibly can. Sure, as the graphic shows, the Right and the Left have drastically different ways of going about it, but both sides share the same subheadings. Two different sides working to accomplish a similar goal.

How to Improve Elections

The system that the United States uses to elect its leaders has proven itself in its ability to elect capable leaders. Be that as it may, this system is far from perfect. I have a few suggestions for how this system could be improved. Our founding fathers outlined a government “by the people, for the people”. I feel as if this is not fully represented in modern elections. The question isn’t as much “Vote for the person you want to lead the country.” as much as it’s “pick whichever one of these predetermined figureheads you like better.” This is because not everyone has an equal shot to run. Any citizen should be able to run for president, but the race is monopolized by career politicians. Local leaders who gain popularity should have access to some sort of government fund to avoid the trouble of these career politicians remaining in charge just because they’re the only ones who can afford it. Being CAREER politicians, they know nothing else but politics, and can’t really relate to the general populace. Additionally, the election process itself is inadequate. With the electoral college, not all citizens are given as equal of a voice as they should in elections. Voters in larger states have power taken away from them and transferred to voters in smaller states to make it “more equal.” But this process is obviously flawed. If we are to keep some form of elector system, there must be an equal ration across the nation of citizens to electors, regardless of land area. A final suggestion I would have to improve this system would have to be to decrease the role of advertisements and mudslinging in campaigns. The focus needs to be on the candidates and what they stand for, not the candidates wording things to get the most votes. It should be clean cut which candidate stands for what, no funny business, so that voters can make correctly informed decisions and we will end up with a president who represents what the people truly want to see in their governing body.

The Founding Documents

Something that both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution have in common is the focus on a just government, ruled by the people, not by a singular royal. The Declaration outlines the need for this government, while the Constitution actually goes on to set up such a government. This desire for what will become modern democracy is stated in the Declaration with the line: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” To avoid the tyranny of the previous regime, the Constitution enhanced this democracy by breaking up the government into separate bodies, such as “a Senate and House of Representatives.” In addition, the Constitution establishes the process by which a leader is selected by the people in Article II of the document. The founding documents can be seen as very similar, as the central goal of each is the establishment of a new government system- democracy. One of the fist lines of the Declaration, shown above, states in the founding father’s desire for a government run by those it governs. This idea is only reinforced by the Constitution, which, in its various beginning articles, outlines how the different members of the political system are to be elected by the people. In addition, the Constitution also calls for the new government to be broken up into several branches. Although this breakup is not specified in the Declaration, the reasoning behind the split is, however, found in the Declaration. The Declaration’s argument is against tyranny, and breaking up the power between separate government bodies is an effective way of doing so. So it can clearly be seen that the founding documents are fundamentally similar.

Checks and Balances- The Key Constitutional Principle

The most important of the four principles of the Constitution, in my opinion, is the system of Checks and Balances. It is a popularly held belief that power corrupts. I also hold this to be true. The goal of the Constitution was to take power away from one singular ruling body by splitting the government up into several branches. This split would be pointless without Checks and Balances. Without this system, each branch would try to gain as much power as possible. But, the other branches will keep each other at bay in their own desire for the most power, keeping the power evenly distributed for the most part. Secondly, we all know that people in power tend to get carried away. It is very likely that a politician may overstep his or her bounds. As the common man cannot be expected to know the exact parameters of each politician’s position. Thus, the system of Checks and Balances is set up for the government to regulate itself, in a way. Whenever a person holding a certain office bleeds his authority into an area other than his own, the “system” will automatically correct itself. Finally, the reason that this principle far surpasses the others in importance, is that this is the principle that keeps all the others running smoothly. This is the most basal form of regulation set up in our Constitution. The system of Checks and Balances ensures that our government is strong, but only when all of its branches are working together. If any one branch were to gain more power over another, the other constitutional principles would be negligible. Therefore, I believe the most important principle of the Constitution is the system of checks and balances because it is the glue that keeps our unique government from falling apart.

Congerss and the Budget Process

In engaging in a budget simulation “game”, I have discovered just how difficult it is to craft a budget. Politicians in Congress have a devoted voter base that they must make sure is represented. This was showcased in the game through the three medals, or goals that you had to choose at the beginning of the game. To meet these goals, you must be sure to keep programs that your following supports, and/or cut those it does not. There are a few major issues a member of Congress must consider when crafting a budget. The first of these is bluntly to craft a budget that is reasonable, offering a decent amount of government programs/benefits, while simultaneously trying to minimize the amount of debt created. Secondly, the members of congress must worry about the consequences of the programs they cut on the general populace. I too, was confronted with these issues when playing the simulation. To be successful in the simulation, you must carefully choose what your “trophies” or aims are. You must cut and adopt certain programs in order to fill up each trophy to completion, one half of the battle in crafting a good budget. Therefore it is best to pick trophies that represent similar aims. Each issue is shown with its price, pros, and cons. It seems rather simple to just have to cut programs willy-nilly, that is where the cons come in. The cons illustrate the social impact that cutting a certain program will have. This doesn’t play much of a role in game terms, but it allows players to see what an actual member of Congress would be faced with when cutting programs from the budget. Lastly, I needed to make sure I not only made a feasible budget for this year, but watch the meter in the bottom right corner. I needed to ensure that this budget would prevent the government from going bankrupt in the years to come. Decisions like these help to create a multifaceted approach to elucidating the process by which our Congress members must deal with the budget process, creating a somewhat accurate, yet entertaining simulation.

So What's Up With the Electoral College?

1.I propose a system for electing a president, which I believe is far more fair, simplistic, and less controversial than the existing system of the Electoral College. In my system, states will be cut into districts based on population. For the sake of simplicity and understanding, let’s say each district is constituted by one hundred people. These hundred people will elect/appoint their district voter. This district voter will represent the entire hundred citizens in the presidential election with their vote. This will occur across the country, in every district. Their being less total votes, totals will be much easier to tabulate, and majorities will be more apparent, and less controversial. In addition, I believe that this new system will give every individual citizen a more equal voice, as opposed to the Electoral College’s misguided attempt to “balance” voter power throughout the country.

2. There are still a few good reasons to keep the Electoral College in place. First, and most clearly, a reason to keep it is that it is the system already in place, and that replacing it would be a long, difficult and possibly expensive process. A second reason is that even though the system isn’t perfect, as nothing is, it has proven to elect a multitude of great leaders for our country. And lastly, the Electoral College enhances the impacts of certain majorities in order to ensure a clear-cut winner and avoid confusion and controversy.