Russian-Funded Ads Behind the Election

Both Facebook and Google have found the evidence of Russia-funded ad spread in the internet. As Facebook announced, lots of accounts that are related Russia spent totally of 100,000 on campaign ads. Google says it founds evidence as well, that Russian operatives spends thousands of dollars on politically divisive advertisements. According to Will Oremus, it’s a big deal. However, from my view, I agree with that it’s significant because it violates the election law and affect the election, but it does not violates the constitution which guarantees the freedom of speech. Since the content of these ads are unrevealed, but it’s described as “amplification of “divisive messages” on issues such as immigration, race and gay rights”. From my perspective, people who wants to persuade others would use amplification as a tool. It is a common strategy to enhance candidate’s support from people. If Russia is not behind these ads, and these ads are posted by American companies, I don’t think these amplifications would cause lots of attention after the election. The States has two parties which lead to different ideas and opinions on different issue. It is the foundation of this country, so what is the problem that people have opposite perspectives on a certain issue.

The trouble from these ads, I personally think is mostly from “fake or discredited content from phony social media accounts posing as US or European citizens”. In the beginning of the school year, we learned the idea of filter bubble. Here, I think these fake news appears another sort of bubble on the internet. People have to learn the ability to distinguish right and wrong, since the information posted online are always mixed with true and false messages. People should not judge the truth of an information base on personal preference. Meanwhile, we need companies to set up regulations on the credibility  of information online.

Image source: http://wvik.org/post/davenport-library-host-rise-fake-news#stream/0

Four Years a King

In the beginning, America was founded as a nation free from tyrannical rule. Escaping the injustices that once plagued them by spreading the power that the monarch had across three branches of the government and into the hands of the people. The Executive branch of government is definitely the most attention grabbing in the nation. The role of the president and the power the president is a constantly evolving discussion involving much more than the reality of the office’s control.

In the Constitution of the United States, Article II addresses the powers of the executive branch. The powers of the president described in Article II, Section 2 include, “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”. From this description the power of the president involves a lot of military duties and responsibilities. The executive branch in a lot of ways ensures that United States Citizens follow the laws. They are in charge of enforcement. They have a say in approving laws, but they don’t make the laws, they can’t guarantee that what they want to see in the American Government is possible.

With all of this said we still treat each election for the president’s chair like we are putting a new king into office who will decide the fate of our country. Individuals and parties win campaigns based on the things they promise. They win the next campaign by theoretically reflecting on what they got done in the past four years. We often forget the bounds of the President’s direct power. The idea of one person controlling the government seems counter productive to America’s founding political philosophies. Obviously the office doesn’t hold all the keys to total control of a country, yet presidents make promises that they could only be made into a reality with total control.

The role of a president today is much different than it once was. Today it seems president’s serve as a median between the people and the government. This role is extremely important. The current Trump administration is definitely one of the most interesting cases of the loose definition in what sitting in the oval office means. Of the 44 presidents proceeding Trump has been at the forefront of redefining how people see presidential power. Donald Trump made it into office because of his resilience and strongly opinionated voice. However he should’ve played his cards a little closer to his chest. His totalitarian mindset seems to have put him in between a rock and hard place. With the inability to deliver even a fraction of what he seems to believe he could get done; he has lost the faith of both his supporters and his party. This isn’t his fault however, this is the way our government was designed, to protect the best interest of the people.

The lack of productivity in his first term so far seems to be a result of his mindset. One of Trump’s objectives is to defund Planned Parenthood. This is an excellent example of why the presidential seat is such strange limitation of power. Trump has said, “I would defund it because of the abortion factor, which they say is 3 percent. I don’t know what percentage it is. They say it’s 3 percent. But I would defund it, because I’m pro-life”. Setting aside biases on this issue this quote demonstrates a president making a claim on their own personal belief. This is where the line between president and wanting to be a King is drawn. Bring the ideas of a party into office is not by any means a new thing. However a king would make changes to the state of a country based on opinion. A president should make changes based on the good of the people.

The system is set up so ideally what is best for the people will happen. This raises questions about what it means to be president at the same time. Did Trump just promise too much? People seem to almost be keen to the idea of one person making all the decisions for the country. Do our presidents today still symbolize what they once were? Do we want a king? In a time of political change and presence of information among the population is it any surprise that the unfulfilled promises are to be expected? The next four years onward will be vital in defining the role of the leader of the free world.

Image Source

Can We Repeal the Second Amendment?

For Americans, our right to bear arms, granted to us by the Second Amendment, is a vital part of our fundamental freedoms; however, could this cornerstone of our democratic republic be repealed and what would be the consequences? Of course, such a bold suggestion arises only after the deadliest mass shooting in American history which occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada. Fifty-eight people were killed and more than five hundred were injured. This topic has many argumentative standpoints and for this discussion, we are going to review the matter through a Constitutional lens.

Underneath the Constitution and the Bill of Rights , we as American citizens are guaranteed the right to “…keep and bear [a]rms…” (Amendment II). The Second Amendment was, and remains to this day, an essential part of the Bill of Rights which was the driving force for the ratification of the Constitution. For most Americans, to repeal this amendment would greatly infringe on personal rights; however, that does not mean repeal would be impossible. Under Article V, which covers amendments, there are no explicit clauses that mention repeal. The clauses only mention the creation of amendments and the steps necessary to ratify them. This causes somewhat of a dilemma, as there is no process to repeal the Second Amendment. Law, however, when scrutinized, can contain loopholes and we look to the example of the 18^th and 21^st amendments for guidance. The 18^th amendment prohibited the manufacturing and sale of alcohol in the early 1900s; later on, the 21^st amendment was ratified in order to repeal the 18^th amendment. Legislators used the language of the Constitution to repeal the amendment when there was no procedure for repeal in the first place. They simply utilized the creation clauses for amendments to produce an amendment that made the 18^th null and void. From what I have gathered, if Congress were to make a move to fully/partially repeal the Second Amendment, this is the course of action that they would most likely take. Additionally, if Congress were to follow through with this action, there is also another debate to be had over the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to our Constitution guarantee and protect our most basic rights and never in our country’s history have any of the amendments in the Bill of Rights been repealed. Issues like these create questions that both politicians and citizens are likely to be debating about heatedly. Questions such as: Does Congress have power to touch any amendment in the Bill of Rights, a document that is the very foundation of this country? If so, what would a repeal of the second amendment symbolize for both the U.S. and its citizens? What could it also signify for the rest of the amendments in the Bill of Rights? How stable are their foundations to withhold this oncoming storm of discussions?

Furthermore, Congress would also run into road blocks such as the procedures necessary to create amendments. First, “two thirds of both Houses” must be willing and deem it necessary to propose amendments to the Constitution (Article V). Afterwards, an even more challenging process follows because then, “three fourths of the…States” must elect to ratify the proposed amendment within each of their legislative bodies (Article V).

While repeal of the Second Amendment, whether it be partial or full repeal, sounds feasible on paper, the reality is that it most likely would not pass through into law because of the human factor. We are a democratic republic and we the people have a voice which demonstrates our will. Since the Second Amendment is such a fundamental right for the American people, it is highly unlikely that the voice of the people would stand by as that right is taken away.

Image Source

From the Age of Muskets to the Age of Mass Shootings

Gun control has long been a topic of heated discussion, focusing around the 2nd Amendment and the powerhouse that is the NRA. In the shadow if the recent Las Vegas shooting, the most deadly to ever occur killing 59 and wounding nearly 600, the push for increased gun control and, in some cases, an all-encompassing gun ban is being brought to the forefront of local and national governments

The loudest voice against these suggestions is the NRA. In their statement regarding the incident, a representative said banning guns “will do nothing to prevent future attacks”. Instead, they and many that support the often criticized 2nd Amendment, say banning devices that can be used to modify rifles to mimic the rapid action firing of machine guns is the only realistic solution. In particular, the NRA names the “bump stock” as the device responsible for the horrifyingly large death count. Bump stocks allow for a semi-automatic rifle to perform as a fully automatic rifle, firing 400 to 800 rounds per minute.

The ban or regulation of modifications such as the bump stock are a much more realistic outcome following the slew of mass shootings, rather than the 2nd Amendment being repealed from the constitution or stricter interpretation becoming mandatory i.e. all gun owners being placed into a “well regulated militia”. However, now more than ever the call for some sort of edit to the frankly outdated constitution is absolutely needs to be answered.

There is a reason the U.S. has more public mass shootings than any other country in the world- we like guns. Not only that, we have a constitutional right to own and operate those guns. As Op-Ed columnist Bret Stephens calls it, “blanket constitutional protection” is unnecessary and has led to only more mass shootings as we are unable agree upon a new way of gun ownership. It protects people like the Las Vegas gunman and so many other so called “madmen”, giving them the constitutional right to own guns that, when writing the constitution, our forefathers never imagined could ever exist.

When they framed the 2nd Amendment, they lived in an age of muskets, which could fire at a rate of one or two rounds per minute. That is proof enough that our country has and is changing, and I am under the opinion that our constitution should follow that pattern. A stricter interpretation or even an amendment added is at this point in time, in the shadow of the deadliest shooting ever on American soil, necessary for the safety of our country. It’s not about politics anymore, it’s about allowing people to leave their house and not worry about being killed at a concert. Banning modifications will help to an extent, but will not prevent horrifying killings like Las Vegas forever. The problem is we need protection from ourselves, which we may not be willing to admit just yet.

image source: pintrest

Something needs to be done

Gun control along with repealing and amending the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution has been a topic of discussion among many people since the recent Las Vegas shooting. Americans are worried about mass shooting happening more often as they sadly do to often in our country. People are blaming the National Rifle Association for this, and others say that it is other things. I do not think it is the NRA’s fault, but a missed red flag by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Repealing the Second Amendment would not solve the problem, but adding more gun regulations and amending the Second Amendment could eliminate more mass shooting and take guns off the streets.

It is the right of an American citizen to “bear arms” (Amendment 2) so taking away this right is stripping away the freedom that the Constitution promises us. The United States needs to find a solution to the amount of gun related shootings, but it is not going to be an easy fix. More gun control needs to be at the top of the list which starts with harsher restrictions on being able to get a hand gun license, and the amount of ammo and guns some one is allowed to buy at one time. Harsher restrictions could come with backlash since people might argue that these restrictions are limiting their freedom, but it is should not be a walk in the park to get a license for any gun especially semiautomatic and automatic rifles.

People on the other side might say the repealing the second amendment would solve the gun problem in America. Outlawing guns logically seems like the best idea, but many people in America own guns who would strongly disagree about this. Repealing the Second Amendment is taking away Americans freedom, but by repealing guns would stop the legal selling of guns. This would be great for those who are anti-guns, but people who are desperate enough to buy a gun could still buy them off the black market.

While repealing the second amendment seems the most logical, it would never work in the society we will live since most people own for protection or hunting even though they should feel safe in their country. I think that we should get rid of the the “well regulated Militia” (Amendment 2) since we have a national army that is one of the powerful in the world. It is not needed in modern society anymore. Since it is a right for the people to own a gun, they just need to need more regulated, which the government could put more security in place to look for certain red flags. There needs to be a certain harsher criterion for owning and why you want to own a gun. I am for people owning guns, but at some point, we need to realize that they are dangerous and not everyone should have one.

Amending the second amendment and regulating guns through gun legislation like in the past could help solve the gun crisis in that has been hurting our country for the last several decades. When John F. Kennedy was killed by Oswald, gun control was a topic of discussion after this event since Oswald bought the gun from mail order. Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut pushed legislation to regulate gun sale to people under 18 years old. He didn’t succeed at first, but finally, he got the Gun Control Act of 1968 passed which regulates firearms dealers and imposed a federal minimum age requirement of 18 for handguns and long guns. Carl T. Bogus says, “Publicly, the National Rifle Association supported the bill.” (Chicago-Kent Law Review) The NRA also spent “144,000” to support the bill. The biggest promoter of guns and the second amendment is even for harsher restrictions on owning guns. Limiting and regulating guns could decrease the mass shootings and gun related deaths in our country.

Image source:Vegas Shooting Picture 

Image 2 source: Second Amendment Picture

It is Women’s Right to Decide

In government class we had discussed the many different ways to become active in government. The pathways of action, and especially the court pathway, are one of the many ways that citizens can participate in government. The court pathway has been used to shape government. In the courtroom they use the Constitution to back up their argument. In this instance using the Constitution is the most powerful tool because it is one of the founding principles of our nation.

The use of the Constitution was extremely evident in the Roe vs. Wade Case in 1973. The Roe vs. Wade case was very instrumental in changing the law nationwide. They had used the court pathway to shape the nation by “establishing a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that included the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child” (Justia Law)

Curtsey of Cecilia.W.Yu

. They had won the case 7-2 because under the Constitution in Amendment Fourteen, women obtain the right to equal protection, and liberty. The lawyers in the Roe vs. Wade case had skillfully used the Constitution as a tool to reinforce that all people have the right to privacy, and that women have the right to decide if they want to have an abortion.

However, the Constitution did not anticipate abortion so there are places in the Constitution where it is not clear. Pro-life activists used this to their advantage. The pro-life activists had used every pathway to pass new laws and place restrictions upon abortion. In the Constitution it states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States…” (Choices, The Constitution). The Constitution does not clarify and say that all persons born and unborn should not be deprived of life. But the Constitution does not indicate whether the person can be unborn. There are some “gray” areas in the Constitution but it is ultimately up to the judges of the case to determine what is being said and how to apply that knowledge to modern day living.

The pro-choice advocates led with the issue that women could have health risks if abortion was banned due to the violent uprisings of the pro-life advocates. Some pro-life activists burned down abortion clinics, and attacked the doctors performing these operations. These serious actions proved that it is a controversial issue. Some women do need these clinics, and if the women did not have the option they would turn to people that were not specifically trained to do so, and could potentially suffer severe problems or face death.

Curtsey of “The World As I see it” Blog by albertacowpoke

Under the Constitution, I believe that every woman should have the option to have an abortion.  Despite the many protestors against pro-choice, it is ultimately up to the woman. The fourteenth amendment clearly states that women have the right to choose whether she wants to terminate her pregnancy. She has the right to her privacy if she doesn’t want to share her personal information to the public. The government cannot dictate that only have an abortion if the woman has health issues, or her decision on if she wants to proceed with the operation.

Abby

Foundation to Govenment

With everything that we have learned over the course of the first two trimesters this year my favorite topic has by far been has been when we studied the Foundation of our government. It was cool to go back and talk about Hobbes and Locke’s ideas and analyze their writing as well as discuss not only the Declaration of Independence but also talk about the Constitution. All throughout this unit we studied some of the most major documents that were written during the beginning of the United States. During this unit I loved how we got to actually go through all the different documents and analyze them on our own then come back together and share what everyone thought on the subject as well as the main idea.

During our talk about the Constitution when we did our Constitutional Research Project I can say that was when I learned the most. I learned more about our Constitution by actually studying the document instead of being lectured about it. As well as with this project it taught me that when working in groups one must not only be on task but also willing to listen to the other members of the group.

Memorizing the first 55 words of the Declaration was also exciting for me because while people know the preamble of the Constitution not everyone knows as much about the Declaration. The Declaration is one of the most important documents our country has. It is the document we used to declare that we were no longer going to be under the rule of a tyrant and that we were going to be a free people and that everyone has the right to freedom. While the Constitution protects those rights without the Declaration the Constitution its self would have never been written.

While we were also on this unit the last Presidential elections were beginning to really heat up. It was cool to study how a person has to meet certain qualifications to become president. Having this take place at the beginning of the year really helped set the tone for how we were going to learn in the class. With the government course over now I can say that I am walking away with a better understanding of not only how our government works but also how our forefathers wanted us to set up our government.
At the end of the unit when we didn’t have a paper test but instead wrote two different essays about what we had learned over the course of the unit it really helped cement the fact that the course was indeed there to help mold us into becoming engaged and responsible citizens.

So What Exactly Is a President?

When asked the question “What is a President?”, one might be surprised at the lack of knowledge. Some might say he is “the leader of the country,” others might say, “he’s that guy who gets to live in the White House.” So what exactly does the President do? Well, for one he makes all the decisions, right? Wrong. The President does not hold all of the power, like a King or Queen would, but us Americans know that already. So what else is there to know about the role of the President. Lots. In our government class we discussed several documents about the role of the President, including Article II of the Constitution, Richard Neustadt’s Presidential Power and Clinton Rossiter’s The American Presidency. These articles helped me to fully understand the true powers, and limitations of the President. Article II of the Constitution describes the official powers of the President, what his official jobs are and what he can and cannot do. Neustadt’s Presidential Power explores the informal powers of the President, along with how these powers are useful in modern life. The American Presidency discusses the modern roles of the President that have been taken on as America grows older. These three articles help define what a President is.

Article II of the Constitution gives the formal duties of the President. In section 2 it states “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States … and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States.”  But, there are some catches to all the powers he holds. He “require[s] the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices” so that he does not have complete dominance over every part of the US government. The president shall also “give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union”(Article II section 3). Now this might be something the public knows right? They know that the President gives the State of the Union Address annually and that it is always during prime time television. Although this is the case nowadays, it says nowhere in the Constitution that this update must be in the form of an address, it could just as easily be a letter dropped off at the Congress’ headquarters. These duties and powers of the President do seem a little vague, so what does a President exactly do with these powers? Richard Neustadt explores this in his work, Presidential Power. 

So we know the President has powers, but what exactly does he DO? Presidential Power by Richard Neustadt studies the powers of the President, and explains how being a President really works. One of his main arguments is Presidential Power is “the power to persuade” arguing that one “does not obtain results by giving orders.” Basically all of the President’s power stems from his power to persuade and how he is seen by the public. Article II gives the formal powers of the President, but Neustadt explores what the informal powers are. The connection between the president’s constitutional powers and his informal political power originates from his unique job. Each branch of the government shares some of its powers with the president, making him connected to each branch, along with the decisions each branch makes. The president can influence each branch, and the decisions that the branches make influence the American society as a whole, which gives the president informal power over almost all aspects of the government and American life.

Clinton Rossiter’s The American Presidency tackles the question of what role does the President play? Rossiter would argue the President has 10 very important roles, and that each of these roles pertains to a different aspect of his power. The ten roles are Chief of State, Chief Executive, Commander in Chief of Army and Navy, Chief Diplomat, Chief Legislator, Chief of Political Party, Voice of the People, Protector of the Peace, Manager of the Prosperity, and World Leader. These roles play a large part in defining what a President is.

So what is a President? A President is someone who is elected by the people of their country, to preside over the other parts of government, without being able to actually take over their powers. A President is someone who speaks for the benefit of his country, and who advocates the rights of the people. A President has many roles, and is expected to do many things. A President is a leader of the nation.

Killing Constitution to Save Lives?

Photo Credit: New York Daily News

In present day America, the government desires to restrict the second amendment for the future prevention of public shootings. The effectiveness of this action is questionable and can potentially cause more damage than save innocent lives. With all the media coverage and numerous debates between political parties it is undeniable that gun control is a major topic in modern-day America. The recent shootings in the nation have made gun laws a priority by the democrats as seen in President Obama’s recent State of the Union Address. Democrats feel as though if there were some limits on guns, there would be less shootings in our nation. Republicans on the other hand generally support the second amendment and the right to bear arms. Personally, I believe that just because the limits on guns increase, it does not reduce the number of the mentally ill people in the nation who take the lives of innocent civilians. There is no logical mathematical formula to try to reduce the number of people killed by the hands of the violent mentally ill. If the insanity of a person is so far gone to desire to kill people, they will find a way whether it be by gun or by hand.

If the democrats succeeded in persuading the country to vote in favor of gun control, the second amendment would go against the people’s rights. The second amendment protects the right of all American’s to keep and bear arms; it provides American’s protection and guarantees a constitutional way of defense. A recent post on the New York Times revealed the thoughts of the people who only view guns as an offensive weapon and as a danger to the public. Senator Christopher Murphy, a democrat of Connecticut “is haunted” by the tragedy that recently occurred in Newtown, Connecticut. As a democrat of a state that just witnessed a terrible event, he proposed limitations on the bullets in a magazine. He supports this idea with the thought that “amateurs have trouble switching between magazines,” thinking that the interval of time between switching magazines can potentially provide the critical time needed to disarm the gunman. Influential lawmakers of both political parties have shown openness to this idea of limitations on the magazines. The lawmakers open to this idea all agree that there is a “difference between limits on magazine size and assault weapons ban;” Senator Angus King Jr. of Maine states that “it is the difference between appearance and functionality.” The idea of magazine limits has been appealing for many Senate Democrats up for re-election in the states that generally support gun rights. These Senate Democrats are torn over whether “a restriction on ammunition erodes the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” or is a “mild annoyance for those owners in the name of public safety.”

Photo Credit: ABC News

A restriction on the size of magazines seems to be a logical solution to resolve the debate on gun control. The gun-supporting Republicans are able to still keep their firearms and the gun-restricting Democrats are able to feel as though they are sparring lives. A restriction on ammunition does not contradict the second amendment because the second amendment states it is the “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” it states nothing on the idea of ammunition. With ammunition laws, lives can potentially be spared and the second amendment can be preserved. Ammunition control as opposed to gun control serves as the bipartisan answer to help the nation agree on a solution.

The recent discussions about current events in government class this year have persuaded me to form my own ideas and propose possible solutions that would appeal to both political parties. The events in the country have furthered my knowledge on the course material being taught in class by seeing the actions of the government and understanding the reasoning behind the actions made by the politicians.

Obama Violates the Constitution

On January 4, 2012 Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations

Obama violates the Constitution

Board while the Senate was on vacation for the holidays.  This allowed him, in theory, to make the appointments without having the Senate’s approval. The Republicans argued that this was a violation of the Constitution because they weren’t really recessed; they held Pro-Forma sessions every other day.  Pro-Forma sessions are when the Senate or another governmental body holds a very short period in session in order to avoid letting a president make recess appointments.  On January 25, 2013 news reports stated that the US Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit had ruled that the appointments that Obama had made were a violation of the Constitution.

The court defined a recess as “only during the breaks between formal year-long sessions of congress, not just any informal break when law makers leave town.” When Obama made his appointments, the Senate was on extended holiday break only and this, according to the Constitution, did not qualify as an opportunity to make recess appointments. Furthermore, “the president can bypass the Senate only when administration vacancies occur during a recess.” The vacancies on the labor board that Obama filled had been open for months before he chose to fill them leading me to assume that he waited to do this only to avoid any input from the Senate.

The Constitution was written to create a framework for the United States.  As we have discussed in class, the Constitution allows for an Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branch.  The Constitution specifies how laws should be passed, how appointments should be made and how courts should be run. Interpreting the constitution in such a way as to manipulate the meaning so that it benefits only the party in power directly contradicts the intent of the Constitution.

The checks and balances created by the Constitution are something that should not be ignored.  Republican’s and Democrat’s views have become so extremely different that the checks and balances system has blocked much of anything being accomplished but it is still an integral part of the Constitution.  No one seems willing to compromise and the opposing party refuses to approve their policies. Obama’s response to this was to manipulate the system so that his choices would not be subject to the approval of the Senate.  As said by Chief Judge David Sentelle, “allowing the president to define the scope of his own appointment power would eviscerate the Constitution’s separation of powers.” Other presidents have used the same tactics to appoint their own choices to vacancies, but the practice has evolved to such a degree that our leadership is straying from the original intent of the constitution.

If we want to remain a Democratic society, we need to observe what the intentions of the Constitution were when it was written.  The constitution created a back up plan for when vacancies occurred and a Senate was not available to approve the appointment.  Obama used the back up plan to avoid following what the Constitution intended, almost as if he wanted sole power like a dictator.  If this ruling stands, more than 600 board decisions over just the past year could be invalidated.  Isn’t it time that we go back and read the Constitution and consider how this country was founded in the first place? Looking for loopholes in the Constitution is not how we should run the country!