1. The issue of race - does the government do too little or too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination? Why or how so?
I think the government does too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination. In my opinion, I don't agree with all black colleges and the TV channel BET (black entertainment television.) If there were all white colleges and a television channel marketed towards just white people, there would be riots and constant arguments. I think the government is trying too hard to appease people who are not Caucasian. My daughter is biracial and I still hold strong to my opinion on this topic.
2. The issue of gender - same question as #1.
Honestly, I think the government is doing neither too little nor too much. I think they are handling the issue of gender discrimination very well. They have made the workforce more equal for men and women which was definitely a huge step towards gender equality. More and more we are seeing women holding CEO positions which was almost unheard of 30 years ago. I am very content with gender equality in the United States, although I do hope to see a woman win a presidential election.
3. The issue of sexual orientation - same question as #1 and #2.
I think with sexual orientation equality, the government is doing too little. I've always believed that people who are gay should have the same rights as people who are straight. Why should a homosexual be denied the same rights as a heterosexual person just because they don't love someone of the opposite sex? The government should have legalized same sex marriage a long time ago. Instead, they are allowing people to protest, holding up disgusting signs that say things like "homosexuals go to hell." And yes, I know that protesting is your freedom of speech, but maybe if the government treated homosexuals like normal people, there wouldn't be much disapproval and hate towards same sex marriage.
Commented on:
1. Brittany McCann
2. Nathan Tollett
3. Dexter Pelfrey
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Monday, September 16, 2013
Chapter 4
1. Freedom of Speech: How important is it? Does the freedom go "too far"? What areas of speech should not be protected?
I think freedom of speech is very important. If people weren't allowed to say what was on their mind, I think that they would feel trapped. I think sometimes the freedom goes too far. For example, in Snyder v. Phelps, protesters were allowed to say how they feel, even though what they were saying was disgusting and extremely hateful, because it was protected by their freedom of speech. I don't think people should be allowed to protest such hateful things, but that's just my opinion. I think areas of speech that should be protected are opinions as long as they are not hateful. People should always be able to say that they don't agree with what the president is doing in office. I'm very glad that we are allowed to express our concerns with the government.
2. Freedom of Religion: Is separation of church and state necessary? Why or why not?
I do think that separation of church and state is necessary. If every school said a prayer in the beginning of the first class of the day, someone who wasn't Christian could feel left out, secluded, and uncomfortable. I think people should be able to practice any religion they want as long as they don't do it around other people that aren't the religion that they are. Honestly, I don't really agree that "nation under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance. In my opinion, it goes against separation of church and state.
3. Criminal Procedure: Are defendant's rights crucial to our system of government? Why or why not? Many argue that defendants have too many rights - do you agree? Why or why not?
I definitely think that defendant's rights are crucial to our system of government because if defendants did not have rights, I think that a lot more innocent people would be incarcerated. I do not agree that defendants have too many rights. If someone who was wealthy was arrested for murder, they could afford a lawyer. If someone who was poor was arrested for the same thing, they also would be given a lawyer by the state. If they didn't have this right and an attorney wasn't given to people who couldn't afford one, it wouldn't be fair. Money shouldn't determine whether or not someone has the same rights.
Commented on:
1. Megan Biggs
2. Cassandra Kunsman
3. Robert Johnson
I think freedom of speech is very important. If people weren't allowed to say what was on their mind, I think that they would feel trapped. I think sometimes the freedom goes too far. For example, in Snyder v. Phelps, protesters were allowed to say how they feel, even though what they were saying was disgusting and extremely hateful, because it was protected by their freedom of speech. I don't think people should be allowed to protest such hateful things, but that's just my opinion. I think areas of speech that should be protected are opinions as long as they are not hateful. People should always be able to say that they don't agree with what the president is doing in office. I'm very glad that we are allowed to express our concerns with the government.
2. Freedom of Religion: Is separation of church and state necessary? Why or why not?
I do think that separation of church and state is necessary. If every school said a prayer in the beginning of the first class of the day, someone who wasn't Christian could feel left out, secluded, and uncomfortable. I think people should be able to practice any religion they want as long as they don't do it around other people that aren't the religion that they are. Honestly, I don't really agree that "nation under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance. In my opinion, it goes against separation of church and state.
3. Criminal Procedure: Are defendant's rights crucial to our system of government? Why or why not? Many argue that defendants have too many rights - do you agree? Why or why not?
I definitely think that defendant's rights are crucial to our system of government because if defendants did not have rights, I think that a lot more innocent people would be incarcerated. I do not agree that defendants have too many rights. If someone who was wealthy was arrested for murder, they could afford a lawyer. If someone who was poor was arrested for the same thing, they also would be given a lawyer by the state. If they didn't have this right and an attorney wasn't given to people who couldn't afford one, it wouldn't be fair. Money shouldn't determine whether or not someone has the same rights.
Commented on:
1. Megan Biggs
2. Cassandra Kunsman
3. Robert Johnson
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Chapter 3
1. Is a strong national government necessary or should the state governments have an equal share of power? Why?
I definitely think that a strong national government is necessary. If a national government wasn't strong and didn't hold a lot of power, states wouldn't really have anyone telling them what they could and could not do. I think that states would abuse their power and start wars with each other. They would be trading with each other and forming alliances that could be detrimental to the nation as a whole. The national government, in my opinion, keeps all the states at peace with each other.
2. National power increased during the Great Depression but then power began to shift back to the states (somewhat) during the Reagan administration? Why did that happen and is that shift appropriate?
During the Great Depression, people wanted national action to aid the economy. Roosevelt's nation-centered federalism was said by political scientists to resemble a "marble cake," with specific powers under both national and state authority. Voters began to display wariness about the powers of the national government. President Reagan sought to reduce the power of government and was an avid supporter of the New Federalism. He stated "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." He cut back on categorical grants, replacing them with more flexible block grants. He also eliminated general revenue sharing. State-centered federalism gained some traction, so I do think that the shift was appropriate. The people wanted more power to the states.
3. Education stirs much discussion relating to the issue of federalism. Should the national government regulate education or is it a matter best left to state and local governments? Why?
I think that the national government should regulate education. I think good standards could be kept better if the national government regulated every high school and college. I know that the high school my mom teaches at in Madisonville, Tennessee has a "no-fail rule" which basically means my mom isn't allowed to fail a student, even if they don't do most of their work. I think that if the government regulated the system, less "shady" things would be going on in our high schools.
Commented on:
1. Nathan Tollett
2. Brittany McCann3. t
I definitely think that a strong national government is necessary. If a national government wasn't strong and didn't hold a lot of power, states wouldn't really have anyone telling them what they could and could not do. I think that states would abuse their power and start wars with each other. They would be trading with each other and forming alliances that could be detrimental to the nation as a whole. The national government, in my opinion, keeps all the states at peace with each other.
2. National power increased during the Great Depression but then power began to shift back to the states (somewhat) during the Reagan administration? Why did that happen and is that shift appropriate?
During the Great Depression, people wanted national action to aid the economy. Roosevelt's nation-centered federalism was said by political scientists to resemble a "marble cake," with specific powers under both national and state authority. Voters began to display wariness about the powers of the national government. President Reagan sought to reduce the power of government and was an avid supporter of the New Federalism. He stated "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." He cut back on categorical grants, replacing them with more flexible block grants. He also eliminated general revenue sharing. State-centered federalism gained some traction, so I do think that the shift was appropriate. The people wanted more power to the states.
3. Education stirs much discussion relating to the issue of federalism. Should the national government regulate education or is it a matter best left to state and local governments? Why?
I think that the national government should regulate education. I think good standards could be kept better if the national government regulated every high school and college. I know that the high school my mom teaches at in Madisonville, Tennessee has a "no-fail rule" which basically means my mom isn't allowed to fail a student, even if they don't do most of their work. I think that if the government regulated the system, less "shady" things would be going on in our high schools.
Commented on:
1. Nathan Tollett
2. Brittany McCann3. t
Monday, September 2, 2013
Chapter 2
1. The Articles gave the states authority to wage war, establish alliances, and conclude peace. The states retained all powers not expressly granted to the Congress. Under the Articles, Congress did not have the authority to regulate commerce or any authority to operate directly over the citizens. Congress could not tax citizens or products, it could only request revenues from the states. The Articles made governing very difficult. It did not establish a judicial branch, or a separate executive branch. Popularly elected legislatures with no checks on their authority passed laws rescinding private debts and creating barriers against other states. There was too much turmoil, so a the Constitutional Convention was scheduled to revise the Articles. The United States Constitution is stronger than the Articles because there is more organization and ruling. There are three branches that are each responsible for different things and the states don't hold all the power. I think the history of the United States would be completely different if we still operated under the Articles. I believe that the states would constantly be at war with each other and there wouldn't be as much peace as there is today under the Constitution.
2. In the first article, it says that a Representative should be a citizen for seven years. I thought that you had to be born in American to be a Representative, so that is definitely something new that I learned. I also didn't know that you had to be living in the United States for fourteen years straight before you can run for president.
3. In Marbury v. Madison, The Supreme Court declared that, because the Constitution specified which types of cases the Supreme Court could hear, the section of the Judiciary Act that expanded the Court's original jurisdiction conflicted with the Constitution. The court ruled that the Constitution is supreme over the law. The court declared that the judiciary would decide such issues. I think that the Supreme Court is very important in the Marbury v Madison ruling because the Supreme Court would not order Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. The Court granted itself the authority of judicial review, the power to put down laws passed by Congress only on the grounds that those laws violate the Constitution. I think that it was a very momentous moment in history.
4. Looking at the government today, I would say that it is more like the Federalists envisioned it. The Antifederalists didn't agree that the ultimate law making authority should be in the hands of the national law, they thought it should be in the hands of the state law. Today, the law making authority is in the hands of the national law like the Federalists wanted and agreed with.
commented on:
1. Jared Griffith
2. Shana Butler
3. Megan Biggs
2. In the first article, it says that a Representative should be a citizen for seven years. I thought that you had to be born in American to be a Representative, so that is definitely something new that I learned. I also didn't know that you had to be living in the United States for fourteen years straight before you can run for president.
3. In Marbury v. Madison, The Supreme Court declared that, because the Constitution specified which types of cases the Supreme Court could hear, the section of the Judiciary Act that expanded the Court's original jurisdiction conflicted with the Constitution. The court ruled that the Constitution is supreme over the law. The court declared that the judiciary would decide such issues. I think that the Supreme Court is very important in the Marbury v Madison ruling because the Supreme Court would not order Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. The Court granted itself the authority of judicial review, the power to put down laws passed by Congress only on the grounds that those laws violate the Constitution. I think that it was a very momentous moment in history.
4. Looking at the government today, I would say that it is more like the Federalists envisioned it. The Antifederalists didn't agree that the ultimate law making authority should be in the hands of the national law, they thought it should be in the hands of the state law. Today, the law making authority is in the hands of the national law like the Federalists wanted and agreed with.
commented on:
1. Jared Griffith
2. Shana Butler
3. Megan Biggs
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)