Should women be allowed to have active combat roles? Traditionally, the armed forces have been all male. For years, even gay men couldn’t serve openly. It has only been in the past few years, after decades of hiding, that men can be openly gay and serve, so why will they allow women to serve so soon? If history has anything to show, it should take the government another 20 years before they let women into the military. If allowing openly gay men to serve was such a big step, the step to allow female presence is like climbing a mountain. Surprisingly though, the pentagon has taken the idea of women in combat out for a spin before. In 1993, the same year president Clinton agreed to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise, they allowed woman to participate as combat pilots. It may seem like a big step, but sure enough, the following year they denied women’s participation. Being a pilot isn’t new either. During World War II, women served as test pilots. Way before that, during the civil war, wives worked in the artillery and as nurses on the front lines.
Source: PoliticalLoudMouth, WordPress
Over the years, in just Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 800 women have been wounded and over 150 have died proforming their military duty. So doesn’t that imply that women already serve? No, it doesn’t. Although woman “now make up 14 percent of our armed forces form across all branches of the services”, many women are denied formal recognition of their combat (NYtimes). They do not formally have active combat roles but are still put in hostile situations. How do these branches get around the rules? They “sidestep official policy by “attaching,” rather than assigning, women to infantry and special operations units because their skills were needed” (NYTimes). Army Capt. Kelly Hasselman, 28, commands a company of female soldiers that builds relations with rural Afghan women. Officially, they aren’t in active combat, but everybody knows the truth; “we’re already here”, she states, “it’s just not officially in the books”.
Furthermore, women are beneficial to the military. It’s not like they don’t want women in the military because they are inferior. It’s because of preconcieved gender roles. A key phrase mentioned earlier was that women’s “skills are needed”. Reports dating back to 1951 find that women make just as many important contributions to the military as men do. Two women were even awarded the Silver Star, the nation’s third-highest medal for gallantry in combat. (LATimes). It is so shocking that the government can grant two women this medal and not realize the twisted irony. They are awarding two women for something that according to them then shouldn’t have been doing. Granted, since World War II, the United States has been trying to integrate women into the forces but it still isn’t fully condoned. So obviously not many people are truly against women actually serving against the military, many are just against the idea of it.
Source: Gazette
Opposing viewpoints argue that most women aren’t capable of the physical demands men must endure when in combat, especially in the infantry. They are concerned about upholding military fitness as well as scenarios where a man is injured and the women must carry him out. The honest truth is that most can’t. But the ones that want to join the armed forces are the ones that can. They are the ones that will work hard to meet the same standards. Rosie Darby, a 20 year-old medic was assigned to a combat outpost as a healthcare specialist. Her job requires her to trek through vineyards and fields to avoid mines, all the while carrying medical supplies. The other men in her platoon say that she outperforms half them. She isn’t concerned about physical demands. Her concern is emotional attachment. She says the men in her platoon think of her as a little sister and would want to take care of her if she were injured, even if they should be continuing the fight. This would pose a threat to the success of the mission. But these are minor problems compared to the overall goal. Women who cannot handle the stamina required are weeded out or reassigned just like men are. As for emotional attachment, it is up to women to prove that they are no different, by any means, than the men. It is something that men will have to get used to.
Last month, the Defense Secretary announced that they would be lifting the ban on women in combat. Although the ban will not be fully phased out until 2016, it is a time to celebrate. Women have time and time again proven their effectiveness and worthiness to join men in combat and finally have their chance to prove to the world that this should have happened a long time ago.
The foundation and evolution of our country has always fascinated me, especially the ongoing written argument between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. In the late 1780’s, the framework for American government was like a river in turmoil.
Source: Media.npr
The founding fathers had already discussed different forms of government and had established the Articles of the Confederation. And it was a complete failure, causing America to descend into discord. One group, the Federalists, favored dumping the Articles and replacing it with the Constitution, proposing that it “become the law of the land.” (Shea 58) To accomplish this, “9 out of the 13 states” would have to ratify the new Constitution. And the essay war began. An opposing group, Anti-Federalists, didn’t want the constitution to be passed and began trying to convince the people not to ratify. So James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Fay, leading members of the Federalist Party, wrote a series of essays called the Federalist Papers to persuade people to agree to change the constitution. They were published in newspapers all over the country, especially where anti-federalist views were majority. One specific essay, Federalist #10, interests me most with its discussion of factions. To me, factions can be the breaking or building points of a government. Also, when I compare Madison’s opinion of government and America’s present day form of government, there are some very distinct differences.
First, a definition for factions must be understood. Dictionary.com defines the word faction as a “group or clique within a larger group, party, government, or organization.” Madison defines faction as a majority or a minority united by some common impulse of passion or interest that aggregates the community. In Madison’s eyes, faction has a relatively negative connotation. So why is a faction so negative? Factions can motivate people to cause riots, violent reactions, and dangers to all parties. But factions are also a key part to society.
How can Madison say that something he thinks is negative is actually important to society? Well, without factions, a government would become a dictatorship, with one party ruling all of society. So multiple factions (more than two) keep each other in check and prevent a one party majority rule.
Madison goes on further to explain how these factions correlate and build a republic. A republic properly represents the people by having different parties with different prospects. So almost all points of view are represented. Even if the parties don’t necessarily get along, the republican form of government units all theses parties forming one united country. The only way factions can become positive and cure the mischiefs associated with factions is to have multiple of them. It seems twisted; that to get ride of all the negative aspects of a thing, we want more of them. But the truth is they represent a wider sphere of the country and the opinions of entire population.
The most interesting thing though, is that American government doesn’t follow these guidelines. Of course we still follow the constitution, but we have slipped into lazy pattern. We only have ‘three’ parties, if we can even call it that. Republican. Democratic. And Independent. But the republican and democratic parties are the reigning champions. So relatively, only two parties or factions exist. This goes against everything the founding fathers wanted.
Source: Sodahead
Every year, politicians spend countless hours in a deadlock against one another. They waste so much time opposing one another that nothing gets done. For example, if the Senate is majority democratic, it is almost guaranteed that the House of Representatives will be majority republican. There is so much discourse caused by having only two factions. On top of that, with only two parties, the public isn’t properly represented.
So what should we do? America, the land of the free, actually isn’t what the founding fathers dreamed it would be. What do you think?
Immigration reform in the United States is quickly coming to a head. As the dust from the Presidential election settles and the nation collectively exhales after our near miss with the fiscal cliff, legislators have refocused on issues that drastically impact constituents of certain key demographics.
The Washington Post explains that the driving factor that has brought the GOP to the negotiating table has been the inability of the party to capture the Latino vote. Politico argues that the concerted interest by the Republicans combined with a push by the Democrats has made reform of American Immigration policy a top legislative priority on capitol hill this year. Minorities have successfully utilized the voting pathway of political action to force some measured level of political reform.
That theme of that reform has boiled down to one word: compromise.
Schumer (D-NY), key player in ‘Gang of 8’ (CNN)
Individuals on both sides of the aisle have realized that passing any comprehensive immigration reform package will require bipartisan support. CNN argues that the realization of a need for bipartisan cooperation (specifically by key congressional powers such as Democratic Senator Schumer) has given way to the formation of what political pundits are calling the ‘gang of 8.’ The Washington post explains that the committee, consisting of 8 key senators (4 Democrats and 4 Republicans) have hammered out a package (of which a preliminary transcript is posted here) that rests on a couple of key planks. The first is increased border control, a non-negotiable issue for members of the GOP. The second is slightly more unconventional. In an effort to reach a true compromise, GOP members allowed for the inclusion of a path to citizenship in their reform package. The path, though long and arduous (it contains a number of key steps, the most notable of which is a requirement to pay fines and back taxes), is a key plank of the package that gives the Democratic senators on the committee something to back.
In addition to those key overarching planks, the National Review explains that the plan also demonstrates a concerted effort to improve the system of legal immigration to attract high skilled workers as well to improve employment verification and secure working rights for potential immigrants and existing illegal aliens already in the nation.
The president, in an effort to assume the role of chief legislator, has waded in and out of the immigration debate. The Washington Post explains that he most recently proposed a solution in Las Vegas as he “put the weight of his administration behind efforts to pass legislation” on Immigration Reform. Although his plan has been deemed unfeasible by Rubio (a key republican senator who is part of the ‘gang of 8’) he has brought immigration reform to the forefront. The National Journal explains that Obama’s proposal was repeatedly been blasted as “dead on arrival,” but it sends a clear message: that immigration reform will become (and already is) a key legislative issue in the foreseeable future.
Obama lays out his plan in Vegas (Wash Post)
Ultimately, I am of the opinion that we will soon see some sort of deal on the issue of illegal immigration. With 11 million undocumented individuals already in our country’s borders and the immense political might of the Latino community, the stakes are simply too high for the issue to remain unresolved. Though the two groups may seem resolute, with the democrats refusing to budge on a path to citizenship and the republicans intent on blocking that very path without significant border control, progress on immigration reform is inevitable. The issue is simply far too important economically, socially, and politically for gridlock to continue.
It is not often that a Justice from the United States Supreme Court agrees to an interview on national television, or an interview of any kind for that matter. So when a Justice does come forward, it is a great opportunity to get a glimpse into some of the inner workings of the highest court in the land.
Article 3 of Section I of the United States Constitution states that “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” With this statement combined with multiple amendments, acts of Congress (specifically the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 73)), and countless landmark decisions, the Supreme Court has become what it is today. Operating under 28 U. S. C. §§ 1-4105, the Supreme Court has the duty to serve at the top of the judicial branch as a vital part of the “checks and balances” system, a concept created by Montesquieu and incorporated into the structure of American government by the Constitutional Framers.
One of their longest serving distinguished justices and a strong believer in the practices and intentions of the Framers of the Constitution within the Supreme Court is Senior Associate Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia. Born March 11, 1936, in Trenton, New Jersey and appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 to fill a seat vacated when Justice William Rehnquist was elevated to Chief Justice, Scalia displays legal brilliance in his aggressive yet witty oral and written opinions, especially when he dissents. He is the talkative one on the court, asking more questions and making more comments than his peers. Dahlia Lithwick of Slate has described Scalia’s performances saying:
Scalia doesn’t come into oral argument all secretive and sphinx like, feigning indecision on the nuances of the case before him. He comes in like a medieval knight, girded for battle. He knows what the law is. He knows what the opinion should say. And he uses the hour allocated for argument to bludgeon his brethren into agreement.
His written arguments are also famous for the sheer number of concurring opinions and dissents that he has had the privilege to author. Another Slate reporter, Conor Clarke comments on his writing style:
His writing style is best described as equal parts anger, confidence, and pageantry. Scalia has a taste for garish analogies and offbeat allusions—often very funny ones—and he speaks in no uncertain terms. He is highly accessible and tries not to get bogged down in abstruse legal jargon.
Described by many as the premier legal thinker of his generation, his role on the court is that of the scholarly anchor of the conservative majority. Aside from his brilliant legal career and well-known conservative philosophies, Scalia prides himself in his devout Roman Catholic points of view. He is a family man with nine children, nearly thirty grandchildren, and a lifelong mate, Maureen McCarthy.
Thus, in the midst of this today’s hot political atmosphere with the influence of the Supreme Court ringing throughout the nation’s ears, Justice Scalia, somewhat of a political celebrity, put aside his reluctance to conduct interviews and sat down with Chris Wallace for “Fox News Sunday.” In the half-hour interview, aired July 29th, 2012, Scalia and Wallace discuss a broad range of topics.
Justice Antonin Scalia Interview with Mike Wallace, “FOX News Sunday”
Three major points that stand out to me are enumerated below:
I. Legal Philosophy
Referencing Justice Scalia’s new book, Reading the Law: The Interpretation of Legal Text, Wallace opens the discussion with Justice Scalia on the topic of judicial philosophy, specifically originalism and textualism. According to Scalia, one who subscribes to the practice of textualism believes that one should be accountable to the text alone; neither the perceived favorability of the outcome nor legislative and judicial history should bear any influence in one’s decision. As a sort of subset of the this philosophy lies the concept of originalism—the idea that the text should be interpreted under the context of when it was created, that “if it was the Constitution written in the 18th century, you try to find what those words meant in the 18th century” (Scalia Interview).
Moving to the opposite side of the spectrum, Wallace asks Scalia about another judicial approach called purposivism. Describing it as “probably the most popular form of interpretation in recent times,” Scalia explains purposivism as “consulting the purpose of the statute and deciding the case on the basis of what will further the purpose.”
At its root, this is the basis of the liberal “Living Constitution” theory, which maintains that the interpretation of the Constitution must change as the values and desires of society change. As President Woodrow Wilson believed, our nation is “a living thing . . . modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks and live.”
As observed through his response to the video clip of Justice Breyer subscribing to the idea of this “Living Constitution,” Scalia’s conservative judicial philosophy lies in stark opposition to these more progressive perspectives. As Scalia states, “What originalism means is that you give the Constitution the meaning that it had with respect to those phenomena that were in existence at the time, say, the death penalty.” For those phenomena that did not exist at the time, Scalia posits that while interpretive decisions must be made, the criterion for the interpretations must be based in the understood interpretations of the applicable statutes at the time. Essentially, while the electric chair did not exist in the times of the Constitution, death by hanging did, and it was not considered cruel and unusual. In deciding the case, originalists would question whether the electric chair is more cruel and unusual than hanging. For Scalia, there is no way that it is as it was adopted in the first place to be less cruel.
Most conservative originalists understand that the Constitution is imperfect and that society changes. Yet, the idea of an evolutionary Constitution is quite antithetical to the point of having a constitution: a document that places unchanging limits on the powers of the government to preserve the people’s social contract. For judicial conservativists, the only legitimate way to incorporate societal changes into the Constitution is through the amendment process as it ensures that changes are only made for those matters of the utmost importance. It safeguards the integrity of the Constitution while preventing simple reinterpretations at the momentary public whim.
II. Gun Control
In light of the recent “Dark Knight” shooting in Colorado, Wallace also brought up the issue of gun control, a topic that has made its way into the media an increasing number of times in the past several years. In the 2008 majority opinion of District of Columbia v. Heller (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, Scalia stated, “The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” Declaring the handgun ban in the nation’s capitol as unconstitutional, this landmark Heller decision was the first United States Supreme Court case to confirm that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms.
Scalia makes clear, however, that the right as stated in the Second Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights is not unlimited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” (Scalia in Heller opinion). In the interview, he also emphasizes the fact that the Second Amendment obviously only applies to those weapons that can be hand-carried, that one can “bear.” Even so, with technological advances allowing smaller weapons to cause immense damage, the extent of what limitations should be considered “permissible” will be up for discretion in future cases. Scalia, as a textualist, states that “My starting point and ending point probably will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time. They had some limitation on the nature of arms that could be born. So, we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”
These comments shocked many ardent supporters of American’s right to “lock and load” as they questioned where the Scalia was that wrote the landmark gun control case. They would argue that the Second Amendment emphatically states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” namely, that the people’s individual right to be armed ought to be respected and that the resulting armed population will be secure against tyranny, invasion, and crime. Thus, outrage immediately sprang up on the Twitter and Internet feeds as supporters saw the door opening for future gun-control legislation. Those in support of Scalia, however, would say that he was simply discussing the principles the court should apply in deciding the contours of the right to “keep and bear arms” in the various settings where a case could surface, just as they guided his majority opinion in Heller and Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010.
III. How Political is the Court?
The third major point of interest in the Chris Wallace interview revolves around the Supreme Court and its interaction with politics. When questioned about the politics of the court, Scalia responds that he does not believe that the court is political at all. For him, the facts that conservative judges vote for conservative outcomes and liberal judges vote for liberal outcomes as well as the 5-4 split votes with Republican-appointed judges on one side and Democrat-appointed judges on the other is all based upon their judicial methodologies. If Republicans are looking for originalist conservative judges and Democrats are looking for the opposite, then “Why should it be a surprise that after, you know, assiduously trying to get people with these philosophies, they end up with this philosophies?” (Scalia Interview).
I too believe that the court is not overly “political” but for reasons beyond Scalia’s argument that the court typically splits based on judicial methodologies. If one looks at history, dissents are not always along party lines. Thus, ideology does not always drive the dissent rate, but the types of cases heard by the Supreme Court drive the outcomes. As cases have become more complex, polarized, and controversial, dividing the Court of Appeals, they tend to make their way to the highest court in the land. Easy cases at the lower court levels with 8-1, 7-2, or similar outcomes rarely are heard on appeal. Thus, by nature and based upon historical data, future courts will have comparable divisions based upon the cases they choose to hear.
Yet, realistically, it seems to be impossible for the court to be completely independent from party affairs. In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama publicly criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United stating, “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interest, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.” Scalia describes the State of the Union as a “juvenile spectacle” that is inappropriate for justices to attend. In my opinion, the President’s swipe at the Supreme Court was a lack of respectability and represents what is bad in Washington politics. While Scalia was present in seven of the first nine addresses after being appointed to the court, he hasn’t been to one since. (NY Times) Just as Scalia isn’t attending, recent addresses have seen a decrease in attendance among other court members, indicating that some are uncomfortable being put in such a “partisan” position.
Even when presented with a quote from Obama pressuring the court during the Affordable Care Act proceedings, Scalia remains restrained stating, “I don’t criticize the President publicly and he normally doesn’t criticize me.” He does give a brief comment on the court and politics continuing, “What can he do to me? Or to any of us? We have life tenure and we have it precisely so that we will not be influenced by politics, by threats from anybody.”
Furthermore, when Wallace questions Scalia about whether the unprecedented nature of the court—an unelected group—to overturn an act passed by congress (had the Affordable Care Act (ACA) been declared unconstitutional), Scalia engages on an explanation, and a very eloquent one in my opinion, of the role and function of the Supreme Court in American society:
Look, the most important role we play and the reason we have life tenure is precisely because now and then, we have to tell the majority, the people that they can’t do what they wanted to do. That what they want to do was unconstitutional and therefore go away. Now, that’s not going to make us popular. And you can say, oh, it’s very undemocratic and in a small sense it is. In the larger sense, it isn’t however, because it’s the American people who gave us the power. It’s the American people who said, no, there are some things we’re not going to let future legislators do, even if they want to do it. And we are simply applying the judgment of the American people over time.
Ever since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the high court has overturned countless acts of Congress; it is the duty of the Supreme Court to do so. At the core of his statements, Scalia is describing how the Supreme Court is not and should not be accountable to the people, but to the Constitution alone. Their one and only role is to protect its integrity and in doing so protect the social contract of the people.
The interview concluded with a lively exchange concerning the question of his retirement from the bench. When Wallace asked about Scalia timing his retirement to give the appointment to a conservative President, Scalia reluctantly answered the question stating, “No, of course, I would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing everything that I’ve tried to do for 25 years, 26 years, sure. I mean, I shouldn’t have to tell you that.” For sure, Scalia is concerned about his legacy and the hole in the “originalist” philosophy that might result from his departure. However, Scalia made it clear, he doesn’t seem to be ready to say farewell to the law or his legal career just yet.
The concept of judicial review is an element of our judicial system that few would doubt or criticize in modern times. From the time we first start learning about American government, we are taught about the separations of powers and how each of the three branches of the government keeps the other two in check. We become familiar with stories on the news when Supreme Court opinions are published and an act of Congress either is nullified or confirmed. Why should there be any reason to doubt the role of the Supreme Court and the federal court system to rule whether acts of Congress abide by the Constitution or not?
While this may generally be accepted as one of the major jobs of the Supreme Court today, the Constitution does not explicitly give the Judicial Branch the power of judicial review. Through the establishment of court precedent, however, the ability to declare laws unconstitutional is considered an implied power under Article III and Article VI of the Constitution of the United States.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority. . . . In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. . . . [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.
These excerpts of the Constitution have created enough convincing evidence for the landmark case Marbury v. Madison to establish the concept of judicial review that is such an integral part of judicial conduct.
There has been some concern about the powers of judicial review since Marbury v. Madison established a legal hierarchy in the United States with the Constitution reigning as the supreme law. Two Presidents of the time, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, were prominent in criticizing the principle of judicial review. They believed that by making the judicial branch the guardians of the US Constitution, the court would be given a supreme position over the other two branches of government (legislative and execute). In addition, they argued that the Justices were individuals not subject to the rigorous democratic process of election and re-election, and thus, life tenure through only the appointment and confirmation process put too much power in the hands of judges to determine the future of legislation without being fully vetted by the American people. In 1820, Tomas Jefferson expressed his deep reservation concerning the doctrine of judicial review in a letter to William Jarvis where he stated:
“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . . . Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
Several years later, Lincoln cited as evidence that this power brought forth a low point in American democracy with Dred Scott v. Sandford Case in 1857. This case was decided 7-2 against Scott, an African American slave who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom on the assertion that Scott could not bring suit in the federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. The court also overturned the Missouri Compromise arguing that the Compromise deprived plantation owners of their human (legal) property and therefore violated the Fifth Amendment’s clause that states, “. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
However, since the days of Lincoln and Jefferson, judicial review is now widely accepted in both the political and legal arenas. Though interpreted differently in different jurisdictions, the idea has been exported and integrated into the constitutional fabric of numerous countries such as Brazil and Germany. Today, in the United States, it is the cornerstone of constitutional law; however, for the Founding Fathers as they figured out and solidified the governmental system, it was the first major test of the US Constitution. With Marbury came a whole new sense of direction and a new vision of how to shape both a growing America and an America in the 21st Century.
Fact: The majority of kids today attending school can hardly read, let alone write. To these children, simple math without a calculator would be harder than running without legs. Children don’t know many presidents, have no idea who our founding fathers were, and many probably can’t give the name of our current president. This being said, I think it is safe to say most children today don’t finish school with any kind of education. Sure there is a minority of the private school kids with parents who pay very large amounts of money so their kids can emerge with a good education, and even those less privileged kids with amazing stories of how they came out on top. But this is the 10%, leaving the 90% in the unfortunate category. You might be thinking, wow, how do so many kids then make it through college? And the answer is that many don’t. According to the College Academic Board, “approximately 35 percent of students who enter college will drop out during the first year,” and “only 63 percent of students who enroll in a four-year university will earn a degree, and it will take them an average of six years to do so.” Each year, this sad statistic seems to get worse, with no foreseeable end near. Many politicians make clear their concern for the education system, and constantly throw taxpayer money at the situation, but it only seems to get worse. In my opinion, the education is not the main problem, but instead the kids lack motivation to seek out a good well rounded education. For example, public schools across the U.S. use the same types of scheduling, classes, and hold strict rules, which largely affects child participation and cooperation in classrooms.
One way of revamping public education in the U.S. has been reforms. Debates occur votes take place and teachers come together to try and find solutions to questions pertaining to how they can make school days provide more learning with less collateral; Collateral being those who decide school doesn’t make sense, so why try. The head of education at a top university stated that, “public education reforms fail because they are compromised or sabotaged by the education lobbies—teacher associations, administrators, and the legislators in their pockets. There is certainly some truth to this explanation, as we shall see. But in many cases, attributing the failure of reform to subversion merely exonerates that reform. Most reform ideas are either irrelevant or destructive of education. They would fail whether organized political interests opposed them or not.” Her suggestion is that instead of building on the education system that isn’t working, support the current one with minimal change, which will lead to a more successful system each year.
With all of this money and time being spent to better our public education system, and no clear evidence that it is working, it only makes sense that it is the students who are at fault, right? maybe. Many false incentives are provided to children at an early age, influencing their views on their education and its real purpose. Myself along with many students were always told that good grades will lead to a life of success and money, makes sense right? wrong. As a junior in high school, I am mature enough to know that I hold the key to my own future, and it is our view on life that triumphs over grades and measures our success. This realization can be scary to most students, it was for me. Stress gathers, cheating occurs, and then you find yourself in situations that make you question the kind of person you’ve turned into, almost like a mid-teen crisis. Another sad statistic pertaining to our education system is that it can leave average students far behind academically. Many of what could be the most brilliant kids, full of potential, are left in the dust, a wasted mind. In the end, the education system and the pressure around it is what is causing the student to damage the system, with too many worries about getting the A, and less worries about pursuing the potential present in each one of our bodies and minds.
Money’s influence on the election process has increased due to social media and the availability of advertisements for campaigning. In the 60’s it was common for a successful House candidate to spend less than 100,000, but by 2008, the average cost of winning a seat in the House topped 1.4 million. Buying advertisements has been the primary resource for spending money to reach out and influence voters, so the person with the most advertisements and the most successful ads, will have the greatest touch on the voters opinion.
In our work in government class we discussed the pros and cons of the influence of the money in politics. The amount of money being spent for each candidate increases every election with few exceptions. Most would say that the increasing influence of money is a great thing because it allows for more to be informed of the views of the politicians, but I would say it is a disadvantage.
Government has tried to control the raging flow of money in elections by limiting candidates to amounts of money they are allowed to spend. This isn’t such a bad idea because of the downsides of allowing the rich to spend as much they want to get their voiced opinions out to the public, giving the poor a lesser chance of winning power. If a rich man was allowed to spend all of his money, he would have access to more of the public and have more of an advantage over the poor man. Since the man with the less money has insufficient funds to spend on advertisements, he must work harder to have any voice at all in his efforts to campaign.
In the senate and house, the money plays a major role in who is elected or reelected. When an incumbent, someone running for reelection, is in the race for reelection, they have an an advantage in raising money for their campaign. The challengers raise about half the amount of money the incumbent did in total, and there are fewer incumbents then there are challengers. The trust built or lost in the incumbent’s influences the amount of money they are able to raise and if there is a sufficient amount of money raised then their reelection is pretty much guaranteed.
The 2008 Presidential election was predicted to be the “1-billion dollar election”. It was also thought to be the most expensive and longest election in American history. The candidate with the most money was guaranteed presidency. Barack Obama spent more than 747.8 million dollars in his campaigning, which happened to be 400 million dollars more than his leading competitor, John McCain. The reason for the vast amount of spending was because it was the first open seat in this generation, because of the state of the economy and the war in Iraq. The candidates that had no shot at presidency were the candidates with little money to spend in comparison to the leading competitors
“A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election” (Bill Vaughn). But how can this be? Our founding fathers strived to provide for us a nation that was “by the people, for the people”(Abraham Lincoln). Yet, it is apparent today that Americans are too lazy to have their say in the government. This lack of voting spurs an amalgam of problems for our nation including misrepresentation, inaccurate votes, and an unfair advantage to some candidates and bills to be passed. The reasons this lack of voter participation persists includes the possible negative role of the media in influencing the population, the change in current lifestyle of Americans, and the attitudinal change that has occurred among the citizens of the United States, all problems that can and should be solved.
First of all, the negative influence of the current media has caused many to choose not to vote or participate in certain roles of citizenship due to their adverse reactions to the media broadcasts. One cannot take a stroll about town without encountering some sort of advertisement, radio broadcast, or other forms of media influence. With all of this, the minds of the public can’t avoid the overwhelming slur of opinions and information that is fed to them. Yet, although the media can be beneficial for the spread of informative facts about the candidates and current affairs, it can also be a curse by spreading false information about a candidate’s personal life or political beliefs . An example of this is an occurrence with Barack Obama during the 2008 election. The media had spread false information that Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States because his birth certificate did “not appear to be an authentic certificate”(1). This media calamity caused many to question the citizenship of Obama, and, even with the release of his legal birth certificate, people today still have doubt(1). Situations like this one seem to discourage citizens from voting for certain candidates, or from even voting at all, sparking lack of voter problems as well.
Next, lifestyle changes among Americans have changed the dynamic of American life, creating a shift into a “busier” schedule for many. This “shift” has caused many to declare themselves “too busy” and become too distracted by all of the outlets of technology and entertainment today. Every minute of an American’s life is filled, whether it is with eating, socializing, surfing the web, moving from point a to b, watching television, working, exercising, or others. Americans are constantly busy with all of their day to day activities, so when do they have time to vote? Americans seem to be too distracted by all of the opportunities the technological and social world has to provide, finding themselves without a spare minute to go and vote. Overall, because of the vast difference in our society today compared to that of 50 years ago, citizens currently feel less inclined to vote due to their busy schedules and constant distractions.
Among the lifestyle changes, Americans have also undergone attitudinal changes, causing them to choose not to vote. Americans have become less and less confident in their government due to the problems throughout the years. According to a survey done by the New York Times, of a “poll of 1,017 adults, conducted in early September… 81 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed”(2), a very significant amount. The diminishing economy, the failure of some bills and laws to be passed, and other mishaps of the government make many doubt the effectiveness of the government. People are wary of the democratic government and some believe a different system would be beneficial for America. Due to these beliefs, many American citizens have chosen not to vote or take part in the democratic process, causing a rise in non-voters and therefore a rise in misrepresentation, unfair advantages and disadvantages, and other effects.
The effects of the absence of many voters due to many of the reasons discussed above can be very critical to the United States government. Being a government based upon the democratic belief of representation for all, the United States government depends on the votes of the people to accurately judge how the nation should be governed and what laws should be passed. Without a population of voters that are indicative of the entire nation, the democracy in America could possibly fail. Many people who did not or could not vote would be underrepresented and would be more inclined to have issues with the way the government was making decisions. Voting is a crucial responsibility for all Americans and should be practiced by all in order to create a nation represented “by the people, for the people”(Abraham Lincoln).
Money has always been a contributing factor in political races across the political spectrum, but lately, money seems to bear an even greater importance in the races. An executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network states, “Throughout this decade, money wins 95% of the time.” Also, a research which has been taking place for many years states that it costs about 16% more money each year in order to run. This being said, limited money can be a problem, especially if you intend to win. Another interesting fact concerning money is that to run for state House and Senate, winners in this decade have spent upward of $100,000. With all of this eye opening evidence and blatant facts, there is no way to disprove the fact that more money equals more votes, right? Wrong. To understand why this is wrong, you must know that you could have a billionaire running against a millionaire. Both people can support their dues and successfully run to win, but does the billionaire have the edge? not at all. For example, at this year’s 2012 Iowa Caucus, Rick Santorum defeated big names such as Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul, who spent over 20 million dollars each in Iowa. Santorum only spent one million dollars all in, yet he came out on top. Despite this being a small battle in the war for the Republican nomination, it speaks volumes for those candidates with less funding who want to compete and win their political race.
Super PACs are also very important when it comes to money and elections. PAC stands for ‘Political Action Committee,’ this organization campaigns for or against political candidates. Federally, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives more than $1,000, while at the state level, an organization becomes a PAC depending on that state’s election laws. These Super PACs are sometimes the deciding factor when it comes to more money and more votes. So all of this being said, while it is probably true that ‘A dollar paid is a dollar earned,’ it all depends on how this money is being gathered, whether it be from donations, outside spending, government plans, or Super PACs. For example, these Super PACs can collect unlimited amounts of money, and use it all toward one candidate whom they want to win. With all of these overwhelming facts and enticing ideas pushing me farther toward the pro side of this argument, I still have my doubts. For example, think of two candidates in around January, and think about who might be the richer candidate by that November. Say they both get millions and millions over this time span, but candidate #1 makes 50 million more than candidate #2. Candidate #1 won right? maybe, maybe not. Candidate #2 could actually have won because his net worth would be higher, therefore it didn’t matter what sum of money he made, because his net worth was already larger. This being said, I believe that it is not possible at all to know how much money really matters when it comes to campaigns when only factoring in who wins and loses.
In my opinion, modern politics is one of the most complicated systems around when it comes to raising, spending, or anything money. There are so many important factors like votes prior to an election, primaries, finding good candidates, and the fund raising, which all require lots of money. Our country faces deadly challenges, lots of upkeep, and lots of demand for leadership, and these are the factors which should win over money every time. In the end, gold doesn’t always buy you success in politics, but you better be willing to get some, because in the long run it could be the difference between success and failure.
21st Century Citizenship 
