I believe that a true politician should first and foremost adhere to public concerns, gain campaign funding through both federal funds and corporations and obtain good social skills. These leaders strive to play an active role in influencing policies that they believe are important to our ever changing society. Of course those are the qualities an ideal politician should retain, however, at the same time becoming a politician is not the easiest journey-there are many highs and lows along the way. It may not always be a Democratic process, but in the end the candidates do what they feel is best, to win the votes of the people.
Reflecting off of the two movies we watched in class, it gave us the inside view on how elections truly run. First off, a strong politician needs to affiliate themselves with a political party that best parallel their beliefs to better our society-parties such as the Democratic, Republican or Independent. Being a candidate, he/she must stand firmly on controversial issues, meaning that they must stay true to their own party's beliefs and not sway in a different direction. After the candidate makes themselves known to Americans, with their strong voices and opinions, certain corporations start showing their support. With that, the businesses will donate campaign money to the candidates because they feel that this certain individual will represent them best. For more votes, candidates will reach out to Political Action Committees, these people seem to be of close relation to the candidate or people who truly believe in what the candidate stands for. These committees will take the time to pass out flyers, call individuals, and put up signs to further the support for he/she that is running. However, it is crucial that these candidates can afford all this campaigning, this is when the hard and soft money come into place. All politicians can receive "hard money", which is money given from the Federal Election Commission. This is regulated by the government-meaning each candidate receives all equal money to spend on their campaign. Despite the fact these candidates receive money to run their campaign, sometimes it is just not enough to reach the minds of individuals all over the country-there's always more that they can do. Therefore, they need more money/donations-soft money. This money comes from contributions made to the party unregulated. These people are allowed to give as much money as they wish, without any government regulation- a loop hole in the law. I guess money is money and these parties will do whatever they need to in order to gain votes.
As the voting gets closer, so does the media. In ways, the media can be a good and bad thing. As he/she becomes a more popular candidate, reporters and journalists always want to know more. They want to get the inside scoop on everything that goes on during the campaigning. Some reporters may be out to ruin the politician while others are in it to expand the support system-all this is media bias. Obviously, if a reporter is a Democrat and the politician they are taking photos of is a Republican they want to take shots that make the candidate seem unfit for the position. Yet others, who are for the politician will even pass out pre-made signs to individuals so they can shoot a what seems like active political press conference with signs, masks, posters etc. The media also does a great deal of promoting candidates who have a dynasty in politics. For example, Carnihan had the advantage of having his mother and other family members already in Congress. The media portrays Carnihan as more experienced than Smith-just because of his family. Through the media and debates, the candidate can reach out to the people and attract their votes. This will result in an increase in voter turnout and ideally help the candidate win the election.
Voter turnout should be more emphasized in today's politics because without someones vote, we cannot get a true grasp of public opinion. When people feel strongly about an issue and vote on it, most likely the issue will be dealt with. There has not been a very large percentage of voter turnout recently, partly because the general population does not feel heard by the Representatives of Congress. Somehow our citizens need to be motivated to register and vote, because larger voter turnouts create a more accurate result in whom our leader should be.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Civil Liberties Test
It is safe to say that being protected and obtaining freedom are some of the main values citizens in the U.S have today. It allows them to act as they wish (to an extent) and at the same time know they are safe from harm. However, the big question we have been frequently asking in class is, what happens when freedoms and protections collide? I believe that though the two values are almost complete opposite of each other, they are similar to a package, in the sense that both benefit citizens in mostly a positive way. The difficult part is, that many people interpret the law with their freedoms different from how they interpret them when they are being protected. Despite the fact that it seems like in the end everything that is written in the constitution can be followed if proven in the right way, some of next cases even people who are obviously guilty can get away from punishment due to their freedoms. On the other hand, students seem to have limited freedom and more protection.
For example, in school we are protected by the teachers, deans, principals etc. from any harm that may come to us. To the students, it may seem too much-like we are actually being deprived of our rights. That is probably exactly what Matthew Fraser felt when he was suspended for supposedly using sexual metaphors to promote the candidacy of his friend. Therefore violating the disciplinary act. (Bethel v. Fraser) So the big question was, does the first amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student from presenting a lewd speech in front of fellow students-freshman and all? No. The school was definitely allowed to prohibit high school’s use of vulgar and defensive language. Fraser should have acknowledged the fact that one: he was in school and he should be using proper language in the first place, two: he made a speech to the ENTIRE school including young freshman and three: the school has the right: En Loco Parentis, meaning that any staff member at school is responsible for protecting students from any action or anything said that could possibly harm or offend them. Also there are some general things you may not be allowed to do in school vs. what you can do outside of school. Like in 1962 the first amendment was again the subject when New York authorized a short voluntary prayer at the start of each school day that the students were required to recite. (Vitale V. Engel) Yet Steven Engels found it unconstitutional for state officials to create a school prayer in public schools. The first amendment creates a separation between the church and the state and though any student is allowed to practice in any religion outside of school, the Supreme court claimed that a prayer in a public school is unconstitutional and personal beliefs should not be inferred with. Though the decision was anti religious, it was to avoid conflict between the church and the state because it is clear that the state and the government may not sponsor any religious activity. So anything that involves religion when going to a public school should be done outside of school.
Furthermore, adult citizens who do find their rights in the constitution are even able to get away with crime like Miranda-in the case Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda was arrested for raping a mildly disabled character and when he pleaded guilty he was sentenced. However, when he was informed of his right to stay silent which is promoted by the 5th amendment that protects you from self-incrimination-things became different. Now the question was, were the police allowed to interrogate individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination? Obviously not, so he then recanted and was let off. Although he did commit the crime, Miranda's rights were violated, leading the supreme court to show their stress on the importance of citizen's rights in the Constitution. In this instance it does not seem fair that Miranda was set free when he openly admitted to the crime, but he was deprived of his right and was lawfully let off. Thankfully he eventually received his karma.
Similar to Miranda, In the 1962 Gideon v. Wainright trial, Gideon was charged with state court felony for breaking and entering, but, when he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him he was denied. Gideon defended himself in the trial but was convicted by the jury and sentenced to five years in state prison. Except, did the state’s failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial? Yes. This modifies the 6th amendment where it guarantees one an attorney when being convicted. So in short, Gideon did have a right to be represented by a court attorney ultimately leading him to get off his conviction. This seems constitutionally correct because any convicted person has the right to claim a lawyer to help fight his case hence the saying innocent until proven guilty. Without a lawyer Gideon is not receiving a fair trial as stated he would in the constitution. So the supreme court felt that they were in no position to sentence a man who did not receive his rights. Though again, another criminal let off for his rights/freedoms.
As of right now, these amendments seem a little confusing, but when it comes down to it there are some amendments that are more strictly followed than others but it does seem apparent that children have a lot of protection when it comes to the laws (protection for minors). At the same time it does seem like the government and the courts do respect the individuals rights. It all comes down to what is written in the constitution, how it is interpreted and what the compromise is. Almost always freedoms and protections will collide, it is quite inevitable.
For example, in school we are protected by the teachers, deans, principals etc. from any harm that may come to us. To the students, it may seem too much-like we are actually being deprived of our rights. That is probably exactly what Matthew Fraser felt when he was suspended for supposedly using sexual metaphors to promote the candidacy of his friend. Therefore violating the disciplinary act. (Bethel v. Fraser) So the big question was, does the first amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student from presenting a lewd speech in front of fellow students-freshman and all? No. The school was definitely allowed to prohibit high school’s use of vulgar and defensive language. Fraser should have acknowledged the fact that one: he was in school and he should be using proper language in the first place, two: he made a speech to the ENTIRE school including young freshman and three: the school has the right: En Loco Parentis, meaning that any staff member at school is responsible for protecting students from any action or anything said that could possibly harm or offend them. Also there are some general things you may not be allowed to do in school vs. what you can do outside of school. Like in 1962 the first amendment was again the subject when New York authorized a short voluntary prayer at the start of each school day that the students were required to recite. (Vitale V. Engel) Yet Steven Engels found it unconstitutional for state officials to create a school prayer in public schools. The first amendment creates a separation between the church and the state and though any student is allowed to practice in any religion outside of school, the Supreme court claimed that a prayer in a public school is unconstitutional and personal beliefs should not be inferred with. Though the decision was anti religious, it was to avoid conflict between the church and the state because it is clear that the state and the government may not sponsor any religious activity. So anything that involves religion when going to a public school should be done outside of school.
Furthermore, adult citizens who do find their rights in the constitution are even able to get away with crime like Miranda-in the case Miranda v. Arizona. Miranda was arrested for raping a mildly disabled character and when he pleaded guilty he was sentenced. However, when he was informed of his right to stay silent which is promoted by the 5th amendment that protects you from self-incrimination-things became different. Now the question was, were the police allowed to interrogate individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination? Obviously not, so he then recanted and was let off. Although he did commit the crime, Miranda's rights were violated, leading the supreme court to show their stress on the importance of citizen's rights in the Constitution. In this instance it does not seem fair that Miranda was set free when he openly admitted to the crime, but he was deprived of his right and was lawfully let off. Thankfully he eventually received his karma.
Similar to Miranda, In the 1962 Gideon v. Wainright trial, Gideon was charged with state court felony for breaking and entering, but, when he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him he was denied. Gideon defended himself in the trial but was convicted by the jury and sentenced to five years in state prison. Except, did the state’s failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial? Yes. This modifies the 6th amendment where it guarantees one an attorney when being convicted. So in short, Gideon did have a right to be represented by a court attorney ultimately leading him to get off his conviction. This seems constitutionally correct because any convicted person has the right to claim a lawyer to help fight his case hence the saying innocent until proven guilty. Without a lawyer Gideon is not receiving a fair trial as stated he would in the constitution. So the supreme court felt that they were in no position to sentence a man who did not receive his rights. Though again, another criminal let off for his rights/freedoms.
As of right now, these amendments seem a little confusing, but when it comes down to it there are some amendments that are more strictly followed than others but it does seem apparent that children have a lot of protection when it comes to the laws (protection for minors). At the same time it does seem like the government and the courts do respect the individuals rights. It all comes down to what is written in the constitution, how it is interpreted and what the compromise is. Almost always freedoms and protections will collide, it is quite inevitable.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)