Federalism

An escalating issue in the United States is the controversy over same-sex marriages. In California, Proposition 8, which banned same –sex marriage licenses, was just struck down. The reasoning for the decision was that the ban didn’t act in the better interest of everyone, and it was unconstitutional to ban the gay couples from getting married. Now, representatives in Minnesota are trying to make a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in 2012.

Federalism is the separation of regional governments from the central government. Federalism plays a major role in the controversy over gay marriages because each state has their own law that either opposes or supports the law. Each state is allowed their own view on the controversy, and they can make their own laws either supporting or banning the marriages. In Minnesota, Richard Carlbom, a political veteran, will now be the campaign manager for Minnesotans United for All Families, which is an organization that is working to defeat the proposed same-sex marriage ban. Carlbom is openly gay and is now engaged to his boyfriend of four years. Voters in 29 states have previously considered gay-marriage bans, and they have all supported amending the constitution. This shows federalism because each state is expressing their own opinion, and they are all viewed as individual states, instead of being viewed as one whole government. In Bobby’s post, he talked about how voters in California voted to bring a new representative into their House. This can also show federalism because each state has a group of representatives that makes decisions for the state, so that they can report back to the central government.

In the article “Our Constitution is in Grave Danger” the author expresses
his bias opinion of the lack of limited government in our country due to the
president, Barack Obama. He explains that despite our founding father’s solid
foundation with very limited Federal powers, the current president does not
accept the limitation. The framer’s intent of our Constitution was to give
power to the citizens but “temporarily be on loan to those public official whom
people elected and appointed to serve them.” The author continues to express
that without immediate action against our president, we will become “slaves of
Barack Obama and other unkind tyrants.” This extremely biased article demonstrates
the democratic principle of limited government because it explains how the
government can have more power over the people but only to a certain point due
to laws in our Constitution. This article in written in a biased perspective
because it only criticizes the government and power and fails to acknowledge the
laws that limit government’s power such as the bill displayed in Greg Doucet’s
post.

Resource Site: http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/may/2011-09-17/our-constitution-grave-danger

Popular Sovereignty

Gay-marriage has been a major issue in politics recently, from the recent strike down of Proposition 8 in California to Tuesday's special Congressional election in New York. In this election Republican Bob Turner was voted into Congress over Democrat David Weprin. This victory is, by some, attributed to their stance on gay-marriage; Turner opposes same-sex marriage while Weprin voted to legalize it. New York's large Orthodox Jew community opposed Weprin because of his vote to legalize gay-marriage especially since Weprin claims to be a religious Orthodox Jew and same-sex marriage is against their religion.

This vote shows popular sovereignty because the voters took control of who they wanted to represent them. They did not like how they were represented by Weprin so they voted in someone who they knew would oppose same-sex marriage as they did. The majority of people wanted Turner to win and so he did; this is how people can govern themselves best, by voting. Voting is the most common form of popular sovereignty and the most effective.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/nyregion/gay-marriage-issues-role-in-bob-turners-victory-is-debated.html?ref=politics

Popular Sovereignty and Equal Protection

Troy Davis was convicted of killing a police officer, Mark MacPhail, in 1989 in Savannah Georgia. He was scheduled to receive lethal injection three times, but it was delayed. This case has been going on for twenty years.There was no witness testimony proving Davis to be innocent until recently. Witness testimomy says that someone else was seen shooting MacPhail. 663,000 people have signed a petition protesting Davis' execution. A candlelight vigil is being prepared in honor of Davis tonight. This is an example of popular sovereignty because by the people signing a petition to protest an execution, they are "governing themselves". If Davis' supporters can get enough signatures to protest his death penalty, he will be freed. Equal protection is also examplified in this article. Somwe argued that Davis was only convicted because he is African- American. Witnesses, also African- Americans, said they were pressured by police to report Davis as MacPhail's killer.

Source: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/15/663000-names-on-petition-protesting-troy-davis-execution/?hpt=us_c2

Equal Protection in Current Events

In 1995, Daune Buck shot his ex-girlfriend and her friend in front of his 14 and 11 year old children in Houston, Texas. He was convicted and sentenced to death by the state of Texas, but his lawyers saw a problem with the sentencing. During the trial, a question was raised regarding Buck's race, which is African-American. Two appeals came before the court saying that the decision was based on race and a doctor spoke about how black people are more likely to be violent than other races. One of the appeals was granted. One of Buck's lawyers stated that a case involving someone's life should not be based on race. The state of Texas has deemed his trial unfair and it is one of the four death sentences to be halted by the state.

This case very clearly defines the importance of equal protection. Without equal protection, corrupt judges could be placing harsher sentences on minorities. Duane Buck feels his Constitutional rights have been ignored and he and his lawyers feel he is receiving the death sentence by lethal injection only because he is African-American. This means he is not being tried fairly because he thinks people of other races would get a less harsh sentence, such as life in prison, and does not want his rights to be ignored.

Although many people can see how Buck's sentencing could be a result of his race being discussed in court, some people see thing differently. People suggest that Buck is being put to death because he is a murderer, and feel the decision has nothing to do with his race.

Present Day Issue

The bill, "The Protecting Jobs from Government interference Act," was passed by the United State's House of Representatives onto the Senate. The bill forbids companies from taking action of dismissing employees or transferring a factory as a result of workers practicing their federally protected rights to form a union or go on strike. The Republican Party supports the bill and agrues that the bill will increase the amount of job creators because no one will be able to tell them where they can locate and start their business and it will make it easier to move jobs from overseas. Democrats in contrast, claim that the bill enforces an independancy from the governement wich will be bad for the economy. The process of the bill becoming a law is a demonstration of limited governement and seperation of power in the government of the United States. If the bill becomes a law, the bill will limit the amount of power the government withhelds over companies and businesses. The seperation of powers among the three branches of governement affects the process of the bill being passed. The bill was presented to the House of Repusentatives to be debated and equally voted on by each state repusentative. The House by majority vote approved the bill, but due to the seperation of power in the government, the bill does not become a law, currently the bill is being passed to the Senate to be revised and if approved onto the Executive branch for the president's final decision to establish the bill as a law or veto the bill.

Resource Cite:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/business/house-approves-bill-restricting-nlrb.html?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

Assignment Due Monday September 19th

We have spent significant time analyzing six democratic principles that are established in our founding documents and how they are at being applied to a present day issue. To reflect on and use what you have learned, please consider other current issues or challenges that our country is facing and discuss how one of the six democratic principles (limited government, popular sovereignty, checks and balances, separation of powers, equal protection, federalism) is being applied to that issue.

 

In responding to this post, you must (in paragraph form):

 

1. Explain a present day issue in our country.
2. Reference a specific current event article that you have used to better understand the issue you have chosen (provide a link to your article so others can read it if they want to learn more).
3. Show how one or more of the democratic principles is demonstrated in the example you have chosen (Please pick a principle that is different than the one you focused on in class).

This blog response will be worth a five point homework grade for history.