1) The constitution can be changed in many ways. Formally, only two ways have ever been used. One way to formally amend the constitution is by getting 2/3 of each house of congress to vote for it and then to have 3/4 of all state legislatures ratify it. Another, less popular route, is by getting 2/3 of each house of congress to vote for it and then have 3/4 of all state conventions to ratify it. This is rare because state conventions are rare and this is why only the twenty-first amendment followed this path.
The constitution can also be changed informally. One way that this occurs is by the process of judicial review. A prime example of judicial review came in 1896 when the supreme courts decided that racial discrimination was still legal, even though we already had the fourteenth amendment. A second informal way that the constitution changes is by technological advance. Clearly there was no internet when the founders were writing the constitution. Now that we have the internet, informal changes to the constitution have dedicated powers to regulate the internet to the federal government, even though there is no mention in the actual print of the constitution.
Informal amendments are used more often than formal amendments because informal amendments are much more practical. They don't take a lengthy process of paperwork, support, and legislative debate.
2)After the Articles of Confederation were abolished, the US went to a federal system with a strong central government. Federalism is when multiple levels of government all have power over people living in one area.
Over time, the federal government has gained power over the states. One perfect way to illustrate this is the process of giving out categorical grants. When a state accepts a categorical grant from the federal government, they must also follow the federal mandates attached to said grants. For example, if the federal government is going to give states money to help build roads, there may be a string attached to this money saying that the state must have all speed limits below 60mph.
In some ways, the states have kept or even increases their power too. When a state applies for a block grant, it is judged solely based on the application and comes with no strings attached. This means that the states have the power to write good applications and get federal money without federal mandates. A second way that states have gained power is directly form the tenth amendment. This amendment delegates all power, not given to the federal government or directly denied to states, to the states. This, obviously greatly increases the power of the states.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
FURK
1) James Madison's model for government was very concerned with the prevention of any faction gaining too much power. He made a system to safeguard against tyranny of the majority and protect minority rights. With all of these safeguards some branches of government were more loosely linked to the citizens than others. The part of the national government that was most closely related to the citizens was the house or representatives because these representatives were, and still are, directly elected by the citizens. Their short, two year, terms also make them more reactive to the people. This makes them the most closely tied with the citizens.
The constitution limited majority rule in many ways. One way that majority rule was limited by the constitution was through the appointment of judges and justices. Justices are appointed to their positions by the president instead of by a majority vote and serve for life. Another way that majority rule was limited was by the use of the electoral college in presidential elections. Because the president was voted upon by the electoral college, a candidate could have a majority and not get the presidency.
Over time America has become more and more democratic. One example of this is the increased use of primaries over caucuses. In modern times we have significantly more primaries than we used to and, by default, significantly less caucuses. This makes us more democratic because primaries are based on voting as opposed to caucuses where only a few people decide. Another area that shows our increase in democracy is the passing of the 17th amendment. This amendment changed the election system for the senate from an appointment by state legislatures to a statewide vote. This puts power into the hands of more people and is, in turn, more democratic.
2) Historically, America's voting rates have been steadily decreasing. Today the voting rate is extremely low. Luckily, Americans can participate politically in other ways besides voting. Two other forms of political participation include protesting and running for office.
One major advantage of protesting is that it gets lots of media attention. Because it gets lots of media attention, it has another distinct advantage attached to it. Protest can get issues onto the political agenda very quickly--much faster than voting. Running for office is, on the other hand, a very slow process. Luckily it has its' advantages too. Firstly, running for office lets more ideas be heard. The more people run for office, the more ideas are being discussed and debated which increases the flow of ideas and democracy. Another advantage to running for office is that it may increase voting. When more people run for office, it is more likely the average joe has a candidate that he can relate to. If he has a relatable candidate then he is much more likely to vote and participate.
The constitution limited majority rule in many ways. One way that majority rule was limited by the constitution was through the appointment of judges and justices. Justices are appointed to their positions by the president instead of by a majority vote and serve for life. Another way that majority rule was limited was by the use of the electoral college in presidential elections. Because the president was voted upon by the electoral college, a candidate could have a majority and not get the presidency.
Over time America has become more and more democratic. One example of this is the increased use of primaries over caucuses. In modern times we have significantly more primaries than we used to and, by default, significantly less caucuses. This makes us more democratic because primaries are based on voting as opposed to caucuses where only a few people decide. Another area that shows our increase in democracy is the passing of the 17th amendment. This amendment changed the election system for the senate from an appointment by state legislatures to a statewide vote. This puts power into the hands of more people and is, in turn, more democratic.
2) Historically, America's voting rates have been steadily decreasing. Today the voting rate is extremely low. Luckily, Americans can participate politically in other ways besides voting. Two other forms of political participation include protesting and running for office.
One major advantage of protesting is that it gets lots of media attention. Because it gets lots of media attention, it has another distinct advantage attached to it. Protest can get issues onto the political agenda very quickly--much faster than voting. Running for office is, on the other hand, a very slow process. Luckily it has its' advantages too. Firstly, running for office lets more ideas be heard. The more people run for office, the more ideas are being discussed and debated which increases the flow of ideas and democracy. Another advantage to running for office is that it may increase voting. When more people run for office, it is more likely the average joe has a candidate that he can relate to. If he has a relatable candidate then he is much more likely to vote and participate.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Presidential Dough
In modern campaigns money is becoming an increasingly important factor. Campaign spending is on a steady rise with no end in sight. Some candidates like Bush and Kerry actually decided to not receive initial government funds that would have matched contributions they received because of government caps. Money propels almost every aspect of modern campaigning.
The government tries to regulate campaign spending but it often follows the "hydraulic theory of money and politics." This theory simply states that money, like water, will always find a way around an obstacle. One perfect example of this is the donation of soft money. After the McCain-Feingold act stopped these soft money donations, 527 groups became increasingly popular. These groups accept limitless contributions to show "political messages" that don't specifically advocate for the election of a particular candidate but do advocate for a one side of a political issue that often directly correlates with the views of one political party. As much as the government tries to limit campaign spending, PACs and other media allow for corporations, unions, or other interest groups to easily influence politics.
This government regulation is not adequate despite being very comprehensive. In my opinion, government regulation is just too slow to keep up with all of the people finding loopholes. As it takes a congress months to pass one piece of legislation regarding campaign spending, it only takes corporations minutes to start finding loopholes. In the end, the government will never be able to keep up with determined corporations and interest groups in the fight for campaign spending.
The government tries to regulate campaign spending but it often follows the "hydraulic theory of money and politics." This theory simply states that money, like water, will always find a way around an obstacle. One perfect example of this is the donation of soft money. After the McCain-Feingold act stopped these soft money donations, 527 groups became increasingly popular. These groups accept limitless contributions to show "political messages" that don't specifically advocate for the election of a particular candidate but do advocate for a one side of a political issue that often directly correlates with the views of one political party. As much as the government tries to limit campaign spending, PACs and other media allow for corporations, unions, or other interest groups to easily influence politics.
This government regulation is not adequate despite being very comprehensive. In my opinion, government regulation is just too slow to keep up with all of the people finding loopholes. As it takes a congress months to pass one piece of legislation regarding campaign spending, it only takes corporations minutes to start finding loopholes. In the end, the government will never be able to keep up with determined corporations and interest groups in the fight for campaign spending.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Middle America - But not Kansas
Modern America has a new political group emerging. This group is the middle. Not the middle of the country but the middle of the political spectrum. Apparently, I fit into this new middle.
This new middle America is mostly pessimistic. The middle dislikes the republicans and dislikes the democrats. Ironically, it is mostly made up of democrats or republicans who both dislike the two party system. It advocates for the abolition of the two party system. They don't trust the government and don't like its current situation. They want less government in most areas. Internationally we should stop being the global police and domestically we should regulate less. This new middle is where I belong. Most of these facts accurately describe my philosophy.
Although the new middle is not a political party, it often sides with democrats. They don't want to talk about guns. They don't want to talk about god. They definitely don't want prayer in schools.
On the topic of government participation, the center is slightly hypocritical. They think that help should be offered only to those who really need it but other than that government should stay out of there lives. Marijuana should be legal and so should abortion in the first three months according to the new middle. This new middle is made up of a lot of white people. It's not as white as the right, but still, it's white. It is also mostly middle class. They are fine with tax raises and support taxing the rich more. In their free time the new middle drinks, recycles, and watched TV.
Most importantly, the new middle is up for grabs. They disagree with both political parties in general. Neither is doing a great job according to the middle. So does this mean we need a new system? Will a third party emerge? Who knows. All we know is that there's a new philosophy in town and it's not happy.
This new middle America is mostly pessimistic. The middle dislikes the republicans and dislikes the democrats. Ironically, it is mostly made up of democrats or republicans who both dislike the two party system. It advocates for the abolition of the two party system. They don't trust the government and don't like its current situation. They want less government in most areas. Internationally we should stop being the global police and domestically we should regulate less. This new middle is where I belong. Most of these facts accurately describe my philosophy.
Although the new middle is not a political party, it often sides with democrats. They don't want to talk about guns. They don't want to talk about god. They definitely don't want prayer in schools.
On the topic of government participation, the center is slightly hypocritical. They think that help should be offered only to those who really need it but other than that government should stay out of there lives. Marijuana should be legal and so should abortion in the first three months according to the new middle. This new middle is made up of a lot of white people. It's not as white as the right, but still, it's white. It is also mostly middle class. They are fine with tax raises and support taxing the rich more. In their free time the new middle drinks, recycles, and watched TV.
Most importantly, the new middle is up for grabs. They disagree with both political parties in general. Neither is doing a great job according to the middle. So does this mean we need a new system? Will a third party emerge? Who knows. All we know is that there's a new philosophy in town and it's not happy.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Public Opinion Polls
Public opinion polls are a benefit to American politics. They can help us see where we stand in comparison to the rest of the country. Because of public opinion polls I can see if my opinion is held by the majority or if I'm in the minority. They can unfortunately influence what politicians campaign for and actually advocate for while in office. Critics say that this problem is widespread and that politicians base entire careers on the whims of public opinion. I agree that it happens and can be a disadvantage but I don't think that this is a major problem. On the whole public opinion polls only give a general consensus to how the public feels on one issue. Policymakers know, when passing bills, that they are complex, with many rules and regulations. They also have cost associated with them. For these reasons I think that public opinion polls can have small negative impacts but on the whole benefit American politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)