Ok, Now we are going to finish up the chapter on the founding in the text. We are also probably due for a quiz.
The passages from Tocqueville and from Madison are among the most interesting and important in the history of political thought. I hope you find them stimulating.
Also, just to make sure we don't get lost with these papers, it might be a good idea to include in your posting which paper this is for you, i.e., first, second etc. That way, if I have let any slip through the cracks we can catch it more quickly.
9 comments:
Justin Huckaby
4th paper
(Answer to discussion #2 of The Federalist, No. 51)
I believe that the system of separation of powers and checks and balances works well with our modern and dangerous world. I do not see how people could disagree with this, but then again everyone is entitled to his own opinion. Our society tries to place all the blame onto one branch of the government or an individual. Obviously the branch that is usually branded with these accusations is the executive branch. An example of this is the Iraq War. Our society likes to think that President Bush is nothing more than a warmonger, but I would like to make the point known that the president cannot wage a war without a passing vote from Congress. Everyone fails to remember this. Yes, the president did push this due to what we now know was not really reliable information, but at the time he went with what he had. No one blames Congress only President Bush. This also brings out the idea that the resignation of former Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is going to bring forth a turn in the war. This is not going to happen. We cannot blame all the things that happened in Iraq on Rumsfeld or Bush, but we do. Back to the point that separation of powers works in our current world. This prevents tyranny from taking place. Pres. Bush could have done nothing without the vote of Congress. If we did not have separation of powers then yes we could blame whole ordeal on the president. I do not believe that we should do away with the separation of powers because it again prevents tyranny. I do not think that doing away with separation of power would make for a more efficient government. We would always have the same people in office. Think about it statistically the incumbent almost always wins. Most of the voting population are ignorant to what is taking place in American politics and would re-elect incumbent politicians. A good example of this is the re-election of Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi. Walk up to someone on the street and ask them why Sen. Lott resigned as the Senate Majority Leader and they cannot tell you. Though the media blew this out of proportion, if people had remembered this at election time, Sen. Lott may not have been re-elected. Incumbency always manages to somehow prevail. Separation of power prevents tyranny by not allowing incumbent politicians who somehow manage to keep getting re-elected due to the ignorance of the voting public from having all of the power.
I just wanted to comment on Julius Caesar, and how the Senators thought it was okay to kill Caesar because he was being unjust by being a dictator, but yet they were ruling as an elite class in Rome. I think that this particular notion always has a place in history. I think it funny that everyone always wants to depose the person in power, when it benefits them of course, but they forget about the people they are still controlling.
I know this is a little different, but I find it funny that when politicians are running for president they make sure to hit the states with the most electoral votes first and most often because they know that that is who they need to win their election. Sometimes I think they forget that the other half of the country they are expected to govern if they win is from a small state that could have the final swing votes in their elections. These small states could also have senators or representatives that could make or break a bill they are trying to pass. I think this relates to the movie because Brutus and the other Senators decide that it is in their best interest to let the public know what they have done after Anthony wants to speak, and once they realize it is in their best interest to get the public on their side!!!
Also, this pertains more to one of last week’s discussions and Wednesday's discussion, but I just wanted to put this out there anyway. We talked about the north growing wealthier and more rapidly than the south because the slave trade was costing them money and stifling the jobs of the small farmers in the southern United States. I wanted to say that a hypothesis for this thought is that the African kings who were going into Africa to capture their people to sell to the Europeans. The Africans were raising the prices of slaves on the Europeans to get rich because everyone was in desperate need of slaves to run their plantations. The Southerners who were buying slaves were having to go through middlemen (African kings) who were getting very rich. I know slavery was a heinous institution, but I just want to say that like Dr. Reinhard said, it was accepted everywhere. Even the Africans were willing to capture the natives of their homeland just to sell them and get rich. I also think the reason the north grew more rapidly was because everyone could find a job. Jobs were growing and people were able to work and make money to support themselves. The more money everyone has; the more products they can buy which boosts the economy.
The movie we watched earlier this week helped me better understand the concept of the power of the majority that was a concern of many of the founders. After the assassination scene, the crowd was chaotic, therefore vulnerable to an extreme shift in opinion. Brutus and Marc Antony obviously took advantage of this. Brutus calmed the crowd down and managed to get their support; but in a matter of minutes Marc Antony incited their anger against the assassins. The founders were obviously thinking of a crowd like that when they outlined their fear of “excessive democracy.” When a large enough group finds a common goal to pursue, it is easy for them to disregard the opinions or goals of the opposing minority; therefore, individual rights are easily jeopardized in such situations. I could imagine that any supporters of Brutus following Marc Antony’s speech would have been victims of the anti-Brutus mob that began lying waste to the city square. The volatility of such a crowd demonstrated to me the potential dangers of not having a representative government.
To touch on another interesting subject, I was surprised to learn that the prohibition amendment was the only example of a constitution amendment that also served as direct legislation. Since it was also the only amendment to be formally repealed by another amendment, I thought of the gay marriage amendment that Republicans were trying to push forward at one point. Banning gay marriage is another example of direct legislation that could affect the social stream of the country years from now; I thought that since direct legislation through an amendment didn’t work the last time (when Prohibition was repealed), it would be unwise to try to “handle” a social issue like gay marriage. Then I read the article at the end of the chapter about the gay marriage amendment, which pretty much reiterates what I just said.
After reading the article by Carl Hulse called "Senate Hears Testimony on a Gay Marriage Amendment," I hope that this amendment does get passed. Marriage is a very important part to our society and it is and should be defined as the union between a man and woman. I agree with the Senate for wanting to give marriage constitutional protection. People can still be gay if they please but I do not believe that they should receive a marriage license. Rev. Richard Richardson states that "Children are raised expecting to have a biological mother and father," and I believe that kids who are raised by gay parents will be unfairly treated in this society. While growing up they will be made fun of and they will not be able to experience growing up with both a mother and a father. It is not fair to those kids who are adopted by gay couples. This amendment is not being proposed in order to discriminate against the gay community but it is attempting to place recognition of the traditional view of marriage and family in the Constitution. Many opponents believe that President Bush and others supporting this amendment should be concerned with more crucial problems and challenges that affect the lives of everyone. I might agree that there are greater issues that need to be taken care of but I have no problem with this amendment and I believe that it should be passed by Congress. Marriage is the union of a man and woman and there should be no other way to define it. (this is my 4th response)
5th - President
In my opinion, I completely agree with the method of electing the president by use of an electoral college instead of a popular election. If the country was to have a popular election the whole country would not be represented evenly. If a candidate was to receive every vote in California and New York alone but lose every other state by a hundred votes, obviously, the popular election would go to the candidate that received every vote in California and New York, but it would not be a fair representation for the rest of the country. I also agree with the national convention system for nominating the presidential candidates mainly because it does not allow as many candidates at one time.
With regard to the president’s powers outlined by the Constitution, the presidents’ inherent powers seem to be very vague. I do not believe any president has taken advantage of these powers yet without good reason but the powers could be used to one man basically king. I do not feel like the framers of the Constitution had the intention of the inherent powers essentially being limitless.
In conclusion, the framers did not want the president to have the power he has today. They feel he should be equal with Congress and the Supreme Court. Today, he is known as the face of the country. The country turns to him when there is a crisis, but I do not believe the framers intended for this to be the case.
As I was reading the text that the President had to wait for Congress to give him permission to declare war or issue a state of emergency. Many presidents did not even seem to care about delegated powers. It was as if the delegated powers did not exist at all. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush ordered an invasion of Panama without consulting with Congress, in 1995, President Bill Clinton ordered a massive bombing of Serbian forces without authorization from Congress, in 2001, President George W. Bush ordered military forces to overthrow Taliban regime in Afganistan.
Why does this even exist if the presidents just ignore it? In the text in stated that the War Powers Act was barely mentioned on Capitol Hill and was ignored by the White House.
President Dwight Eisenhower in 1957 sent the national guard into Arkansas to insure that nine black students attended Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas because the court ordered that the school be intergrated. This excerpt proves that the president does not have to wait for Congress to give the okay. In my opinion I think that they should just do away with it because it is invisible any way.
After reading the section on the president’s military powers, I am not so sure the checks and balances are effective. It seems the president is at liberty to do what he wills with the army. There are many examples of this in the text. The fact that an act of war has not been declared since 1941 is the first one. The text offers a great comfort of congress usually following up with resolutions to authorize the president’s actions in order to appear in control. But, it is not always the case that congress supports the president in his decisions. They did something about it with the War Powers resolution which is an attempt to reign in the president, however much it is “ignored.” Furthermore, the text states that in the case of Bush and his military campaigns, “the president was careful to assert that he did not need congressional authorization.” But, the president’s military power is only a threat to other countries, right? He is not supposed to be able to deploy national troops in a state unless he receives a request from the state legislature. Not quite, the president can send troops where he wants as long as he “considers it necessary to maintain an essential national service during an emergency, to enforce a federal judicial order, or to protect federally guaranteed civil rights.” It is the broad terms of “emergency” and “civil rights” that seem dangerous. Is it not up to interpretation? I see the possibility of a threat to the civil rights of Americans being sacrificed in order to protect Americans. Is this not approved in congress by the patriot act also?
After reading the section on the president’s military powers, I am not so sure the checks and balances are effective. It seems the president is at liberty to do what he wills with the army. There are many examples of this in the text. The fact that an act of war has not been declared since 1941 is the first one. The text offers a great comfort of congress usually following up with resolutions to authorize the president’s actions in order to appear in control. But, it is not always the case that congress supports the president in his decisions. They did something about it with the War Powers resolution which is an attempt to reign in the president, however much it is “ignored.” Furthermore, the text states that in the case of Bush and his military campaigns, “the president was careful to assert that he did not need congressional authorization.” But, the president’s military power is only a threat to other countries, right? He is not supposed to be able to deploy national troops in a state unless he receives a request from the state legislature. Not quite, the president can send troops where he wants as long as he “considers it necessary to maintain an essential national service during an emergency, to enforce a federal judicial order, or to protect federally guaranteed civil rights.” It is the broad terms of “emergency” and “civil rights” that seem dangerous. Is it not up to interpretation? I see the possibility of a threat to the civil rights of Americans being sacrificed in order to protect Americans. Is this not approved in congress by the patriot act also?
Why take away the line item veto? Is it not beneficially to the bills to be passed with a little clean-up instead of being vetoed? The majority of the bill would be passed. If something is important enough to have passed, then make a bill for it by itself. I am sure it is important enough. It is not as though something would be hidden in a bill to be passed.
This is the problem; bills are passed all the time with “riders,” which are inserted without full congressional knowledge. These bills are sometimes very lengthy and are voted on with a “take it or leave it” attitude. This makes a lot of space for things to slip through the cracks. These “riders” typically involve funding such as grants or commitments to purchase goods inserted by individual congressman. But there is no guarantee that they will ever become public. If the president had the ability to have his branch comb through these bills, a lot of this excess could be trimmed with a lot of money saved. Just think about it. Congress could still overturn the items if they are honest benefits for the country.
Post a Comment