An election is just one huge popularity contest. I would say the method of getting elected is not very democratic there are some required political aspects that must be present, but mostly it depends how much money, or how popular you are, which is anything but democratic. To get elected in today's political environment one has to be well known by everyone in the United States and have good political views that Americans agree with. When it comes down to it some people don’t vote for someone just because they are experienced and they agree with their political views; people vote for them because they are the most popular, hear about them the most, or see them on TV the most. The media has a lot of influence on who citizens vote for; the media is the source of how citizens are learning about the candidates. When the media does not present all the information about a candidate or adds their own opinion this could sway the potential voters one way or another. This may be considered as media bias, which refers to the bias of journalists and news producers within the mass media, in the selection of which events and stories are reported and how they are covered. Media bias usually implies a pervasive or widespread bias contravening the standards of journalism, rather than the perspective of an individual journalist or article. Some media bias is unintentional, but still exists; the inability of journalists to report all available stories and facts. An election can change directions drastically just by what the media is reporting about each candidate. So, the candidate with the best media coverage is usually better off than the other candidate. The candidates try to get as much good media coverage as they can so they have to raise a lot of funds to get the right message about the out. The two ways that candidates get money for their campaigns are by soft and hard money. Hard money is from political donations that are regulated by law through the Federal Election Commission. Soft money is money contributed directly to political parties for voter registration and organization by the Political Action Committees, or can unregulated contributions to the national parties nominally to assist in party building or voter registration efforts rather than for particular campaigns. The Political Action Committees (PACs) are organizations established by corporations, labor unions, or interest groups to channel the contributions of their members into political campaigns. The largest expense in a modern political campaigns is advertising, and most of the controversy about hard or soft money ultimately points to how much advertising a candidate can buy. Political advertising tends to say Vote for this Candidate. If an ad tells you, in plain terms, which candidate to vote for, then it's a political ad and must be paid for out of the candidate's campaign funds, or out of special funds of the political party. Because soft money is not regulated by election laws, companies, unions and individuals may give donations in any amount to a political party for the purpose of party building. Party building may include ads that educate voters about issues, as long as the ads don't take the crucial step of telling voters which candidates to vote for. So these funds are very important to the candidates so that they can get their name out into the public and maybe as an added bonus give the other candidate a bad name to give himself a better chance of getting elected. This is not very democratic at all voting on a president based on what the public sees on the news, because it could be untrue or just bias. Citizens are basically being told who to vote for there is no real politics anymore; it’s just who can control the media better.
Then there are other people who only vote for a person because they are part of their political party. A Political Party is an organized group that attempts to influence the government by electing their members to important government offices. This means that people vote for the candidate on the same side of the political spectrum as they are even if they do not agree with all of their political views. The election could be dependent on what the voter turnout was for each political party, that’s why people should not vote like that. Voter turnout is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election. An election should be about who would be better to lead our country and who has better political views not who is a republican or democratic. That is why a lower voter turnout is not good for America. As we get less voter turnout people will just be elected because of their political party not because they are a better candidate. A high voter turnout is not very good for America either, as the voter turnout grows more people are just voting for the last person they saw on TV, is more popular, or are just randomly picking which wills also not pick the truly rightful winner. So, a middle turnout percentage would be the best for America, so that the better candidate is elected to run the country and hopefully help the country as a whole.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Civil Liberties Test
When freedoms and protections collide, the government allows as much freedom allowed for it citizens to still be safe without breaking their civil liberties. Civil liberties are rights and freedoms that protect an individual from the state. Civil liberties set limits on government so that its members cannot abuse their power and interfere unduly with the lives of private citizens. First I would like to talk about the first amendment; the first amendment states that the government can not impede the free exercise of religion, infringe on the freedom of speech and infringe on the freedom of the press. I am going to focus on the freedom of speech aspect of this amendment. The court case of Texas vs. Johnson shows what happens when freedoms and protections collide. At a protest that Johnson organized to protest Reagan’s policies, a United States flag was burned. The Supreme Court of Texas ruled in favor of Johnson’s freedom; they believed that this mode of self-expression was protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, stating the flag burning was "expressive conduct" because it was an attempt to "convey a particularized message." When freedoms collide with protection, freedom wins as long as there is no direct damage to any US citizens. Freedom of speech in schools is different, and students have fewer freedoms. This is seen through the court case of Bethel vs. Fraser. Fraser gave a speech at a school assembly with sexual metaphors and gestures. He was found guilty for using vulgar and offensive language, which is inconsistent with the fundamental values of public school education, this is because of In loco parentis, which allows institutions such as colleges and schools to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students' civil liberties. In this case protection of the other students overrides the freedom of Fraser, because it could offend or mentally hurt them. So if anyone can get mentally or physically hurt, protection overrides the freedom of such people saying them.
Second I would like to talk about the Fourth amendment; which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court case of Mapp vs. Ohio shows what happens when protection and freedom collides over the Fourth Amendment. Police entered Mapp’s house because they believed a suspect in a recent bombing to be there, although they didn’t find the suspect they found some obscene literature that was illegal to have in possession. The police only had a warrant for the suspect and not for the obscene material, so the Supreme Court overturned this conviction on the grounds that the search was illegal. The Mapp case incorporated the 4th amendment into the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment and created the "exclusionary rule," which prevents the use of evidence gained by these so-called illegal searches. Opponents of the exclusionary rule argue "the criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered," to which Justice Clark answered "The criminal goes free if he must, but it is the law that sets him free." When protection of the citizens against obscene material collides with a person’s freedom against unreasonable search and seizures, the freedom of that person wins if the search was unlawful as in this case. The police entering the house was allowed because they were looking for a suspect, but they needed a new warrant to seize the obscene material. In schooling systems this is very different, because students have less freedom in school. This is seen in the case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O., were T.L.O. was accused of smoking in the bathroom of her high school. A principle searched her and found marijuana and other drug paraphernalia, the Supreme Court ruled that the search and seizure of this student was constitutional because school officials do not need probable cause to search a student on school grounds because of in loco parentis. When protection of other students collide with the freedom from a unreasonable search and seizure, the protection of students wins because institutions such as colleges and schools are allowed to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit. In this case they had the right to search this student, because they needed to act in the best interest of the other students to protect them.
Lastly, I would like to talk about the Fourteenth Amendment, which contains the Due Process Clause. This clause has also been used to recognize: (1) substantive due process rights, such as parental and marriage rights; and (2) procedural due process rights requiring that certain steps, such as a hearing, be followed before a person's "life, liberty, or property" can be taken away. The amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions. The court case of Miranda vs. Arizona shows what happens when protection and freedom collides over the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case Miranda was questioned and forced to make a confession without knowing his rights to council and to keep silent. The Supreme Court decided in the favor Miranda’s freedom and said that the confession was inadmissible because the police should have stated his rights; to remain silent and to have a lawyer. When the freedom and protection collide under the Fourteenth Amendment freedom of having the right to council and to keep silent always wins, the trial then decides whether the person is guilty or not which is the thing protecting other citizens from criminals. Schooling systems have the same freedoms in the Fourteenth Amendment; this is seen through the court case of Goss vs. Lopez. Nine students were given ten day suspensions from school without hearings; the federal court found the students rights to have been violated. The Supreme Court favored the student’s rights to trial by jury, they should have been allowed preliminary hearings before the imposition of suspensions, because of due process stated in the Fourteenth Amendment. If the state of Ohio, where the school was, gave its citizens rights to education, it can not withdraw the right to a trial over matters of the school. In this case in loco parentis is used to protect the accused students, because it is in the best interest of the students to receive a trial in which the Fourteenth Amendment calls for. When protections and freedoms collide over the Fourteenth Amendment on school matter, the freedom of students win because everyone has the right to a trial no matter what they do. In this case there are no protection issues because there is still a trial for these individuals which if they are found guilty will protect citizens from criminals.
Second I would like to talk about the Fourth amendment; which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court case of Mapp vs. Ohio shows what happens when protection and freedom collides over the Fourth Amendment. Police entered Mapp’s house because they believed a suspect in a recent bombing to be there, although they didn’t find the suspect they found some obscene literature that was illegal to have in possession. The police only had a warrant for the suspect and not for the obscene material, so the Supreme Court overturned this conviction on the grounds that the search was illegal. The Mapp case incorporated the 4th amendment into the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment and created the "exclusionary rule," which prevents the use of evidence gained by these so-called illegal searches. Opponents of the exclusionary rule argue "the criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered," to which Justice Clark answered "The criminal goes free if he must, but it is the law that sets him free." When protection of the citizens against obscene material collides with a person’s freedom against unreasonable search and seizures, the freedom of that person wins if the search was unlawful as in this case. The police entering the house was allowed because they were looking for a suspect, but they needed a new warrant to seize the obscene material. In schooling systems this is very different, because students have less freedom in school. This is seen in the case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O., were T.L.O. was accused of smoking in the bathroom of her high school. A principle searched her and found marijuana and other drug paraphernalia, the Supreme Court ruled that the search and seizure of this student was constitutional because school officials do not need probable cause to search a student on school grounds because of in loco parentis. When protection of other students collide with the freedom from a unreasonable search and seizure, the protection of students wins because institutions such as colleges and schools are allowed to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit. In this case they had the right to search this student, because they needed to act in the best interest of the other students to protect them.
Lastly, I would like to talk about the Fourteenth Amendment, which contains the Due Process Clause. This clause has also been used to recognize: (1) substantive due process rights, such as parental and marriage rights; and (2) procedural due process rights requiring that certain steps, such as a hearing, be followed before a person's "life, liberty, or property" can be taken away. The amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions. The court case of Miranda vs. Arizona shows what happens when protection and freedom collides over the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case Miranda was questioned and forced to make a confession without knowing his rights to council and to keep silent. The Supreme Court decided in the favor Miranda’s freedom and said that the confession was inadmissible because the police should have stated his rights; to remain silent and to have a lawyer. When the freedom and protection collide under the Fourteenth Amendment freedom of having the right to council and to keep silent always wins, the trial then decides whether the person is guilty or not which is the thing protecting other citizens from criminals. Schooling systems have the same freedoms in the Fourteenth Amendment; this is seen through the court case of Goss vs. Lopez. Nine students were given ten day suspensions from school without hearings; the federal court found the students rights to have been violated. The Supreme Court favored the student’s rights to trial by jury, they should have been allowed preliminary hearings before the imposition of suspensions, because of due process stated in the Fourteenth Amendment. If the state of Ohio, where the school was, gave its citizens rights to education, it can not withdraw the right to a trial over matters of the school. In this case in loco parentis is used to protect the accused students, because it is in the best interest of the students to receive a trial in which the Fourteenth Amendment calls for. When protections and freedoms collide over the Fourteenth Amendment on school matter, the freedom of students win because everyone has the right to a trial no matter what they do. In this case there are no protection issues because there is still a trial for these individuals which if they are found guilty will protect citizens from criminals.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)