1.) Is American News Media too dependent on polls? Is it appropriate for news agencies to create polls and then report on them? Why or why not?
I don't believe that American News Media is too dependent on information gathered from polls. I think it is good that news agencies choose to do these types of things because it gets the issues at hand more attention from potential voters. It stirs them up and gets them talking about and discussing issues, which in turn gets them involved with the issues important to them and makes them use their voice and and freedom of speech to express their agreement or disagreement on the current issues at hand. It spreads the word on the issues to a much broader audience which allows for more participation from the public when it comes to voting and supporting or standing against various issues.
2.) How important is political party identification to you (e.g. as a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc.)? Was it more or less important to your parents or grandparents? Does it seem more or less important to your friends? Why or why not?
Political party affiliation is not as near as important to me as the issues at hand. I tend to follow the issues I am interested in more than I follow the parties because the issues are responsible for our rights and responsibilities at citizens of the United States. Both my parents and grand-parents were very dedicated to the party of their choice. It was often talked about in our home as I was growing up, especially at election time. It was hammered into my head what political party I should be affiliated with until I came to voting age, and then I was basically told who they wanted me to vote for based on political party. It was never issues, and always about the parties themselves. Of course, with that being said I registered under the opposing political party, but I cast my votes based on issues and not to party dedication. Even though I am registered as one political party I still have the right to vote for candidates form other political parties that are on the ballot, and often due. I vote for who I agree with more on certain political issues rather than party dedication. In speaking with my friends, they seem to be more issue related as well, regardless of what political party they are registered to vote under. I think this is because our society as a whole is becoming more and more aware of what is going on in the world around them in this day and time and realize that the views of politicians are wide spread. Just because I vote for a certain politician doesn't mean that I agree with everything they bring to the table either. It just means that I agree with them on more of the issues I find important than other candidates and I think they would be the better person to do the job.
3.) Do you feel that your opinion of politics is more influenced by economic issues or by social issues? Why?
I find that my opinion of politics is based on both. Both are important to me. Of course, in trying economic times, your opinion becomes stronger on issues regarding money. In times when the economic situation is good, you focus more on the other issues at hand, such as right's, gun issues, abortion issues, Social Security issues, or any other issues that are important to me at the time. So many things influence what is important to me. My son is in the service so I am always interested in issues dealing with war and military deployment. I have friends in the gay and lesbian community, so when those issues are brought up, they are important to me because it affects the life-style of my friends. It's all based on a combination of so many different things.
Blog Comments:
Rachel Bunch
Ian Price
Brandi Lively
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Thursday, February 21, 2013
~~ Civil Rights ~~
On the Issue of Race; Does the government do too little or too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination? Why or why not?
On the issue of race, I think it takes a delicate balance of government interaction in order to regulate laws made to protect race. I believe this country has come a long way with racial discrimination, especially in the last 50 years. I feel that in some areas the government has done what they needed to do in order to protect people of different races from being discriminated against. In others, I feel they have left the door open for people of minority races to receive "special" treatment.
The government has set quotas that have to be met with many employers on a certain percentage or a certain number of people from different races being hired in to satisfy the government restrictions even when they are not qualified to get the job. If these quotas aren't followed, all the person has to do is go to the court system and file a racial discrimination suit, where in most cases they win, lots of times, without the courts even looking at the fact that they were not qualified for the job. Don't get me wrong; there are a lot of white people not qualified for jobs that they apply for, but I think someone should be hired based on qualifications and ability to do the job, rather than to meet race quotas set into place by the government. I also feel that in some cases and areas of the United States, that so many rights are put into place that there is some reverse racism going on. This is not equal treatment.
I do feel that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's was what this country needed. We need to keep in mind that blacks were brought to this country to be used for a purpose and were considered property when this country was in the building stages and this went on for many years. They did not ask to be brought here, and were brought here against their own free will. My belief is that no human being should be subjected to this type of treatment and that no human being should be considered property. President Abraham Lincoln made the right decision by signing the Emancipation Proclamation and freeing the slaves, although it caused a war and many more years of terror and suffering for the black people of this country. Many were being persecuted throughout the years just because the white man felt they were the supreme race and never looked at blacks as being human being that deserved the same basic rights that he had.
The government took a big step forwards in the 1960's by passing the Civil Rights Act. This gave minorities the right to vote, the right to be a citizen, the right to education, and the right to go out and make a living for your family and own property. These are all basic rights that should be given to every American citizen regardless of the color of their skin.
I feel that even though we have all these laws and rights in effect that we still have a ways to go where racial discrimination is concerned. As much as we, as Americans, don't like to admit it, there are still parts of the United States with very deep racist roots. I think the government will still have issues that arise form time to time in the future regarding race that they will need to address. I think we may also see some issues regarding reverse racism in the future due to some of the laws and regulations currently in place.
On the Issue of Gender; Does the government do too little or too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination? Why or why not?
On the issue of Gender, I think women have gained some of the rights in recent years that should have been in place all along. I do feel the government has done some of the things that needed to be done regarding women but still have some work to do. Women are still viewed as the weaker or "less capable" gender which is obvious when comparing salaries of men and women. The majority of men in a same exact position as a woman, and doing the exact same job as woman, are paid higher salaries and wages across the board. Even though this country has put laws into place to keep this from happening, companies are passing out employee handbooks warning against discussing salaries and wages among employees and threatening such things as suspension and being fired if it is found out that it has been discussed among co-workers, citing it is a breach of privacy in order to do this because the contract is between the company and the employee. These are just ways of keeping individuals from finding out the salary differences. Also, sexual harassment is rampant in many of the work places, especially in and around this area. I have been on jobs where this was a major problem and it even created a hostile work environment where charges were filed and it is still going through the system and headed to federal court. I know of others in this area who deal with it on a day to day basis, and it's not always a one sided thing. Women can harass too. I think the government still has some work to do in this area of discrimination.
On the Issue of Sexual Orientation; Does the government do too little or too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination? Why or why not?
On the issue of sexual orientation, I feel that everyone has the right to be with who they want to be with regardless of gender. My point here is if you agree with it and want to do it, you will.If you don't agree with it, and you aren't interested in being with a same sex partner, you won't. Every person has the right to be happy and live the life of choice here in the United States. I don't think the government needs to regulate what we do in our own private homes in the privacy of our own bedrooms, and I don't think the government should be in charge of matters of the heart. That is between individuals. I think gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals and transgenders should have the same right as a man and a woman have when it comes to being together. I do feel that the government needs to work toward stopping discrimination against people of different sexual orientation and give then the right to live as they please, and I think the states should be made to recognize these relationships and marriages just as they would one between a man and a woman. People who don't agree with them and their choices don't have to deal with these couples. It's that simple. I do think there is more government intervention coming in these relationships and eventually they will gain the right to marry and be recognized.
Blog Comments:
Brandi Lively
Amber Waters
Ashley Pelfrey, commented on 2/23/13 **
On the issue of race, I think it takes a delicate balance of government interaction in order to regulate laws made to protect race. I believe this country has come a long way with racial discrimination, especially in the last 50 years. I feel that in some areas the government has done what they needed to do in order to protect people of different races from being discriminated against. In others, I feel they have left the door open for people of minority races to receive "special" treatment.
The government has set quotas that have to be met with many employers on a certain percentage or a certain number of people from different races being hired in to satisfy the government restrictions even when they are not qualified to get the job. If these quotas aren't followed, all the person has to do is go to the court system and file a racial discrimination suit, where in most cases they win, lots of times, without the courts even looking at the fact that they were not qualified for the job. Don't get me wrong; there are a lot of white people not qualified for jobs that they apply for, but I think someone should be hired based on qualifications and ability to do the job, rather than to meet race quotas set into place by the government. I also feel that in some cases and areas of the United States, that so many rights are put into place that there is some reverse racism going on. This is not equal treatment.
I do feel that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's was what this country needed. We need to keep in mind that blacks were brought to this country to be used for a purpose and were considered property when this country was in the building stages and this went on for many years. They did not ask to be brought here, and were brought here against their own free will. My belief is that no human being should be subjected to this type of treatment and that no human being should be considered property. President Abraham Lincoln made the right decision by signing the Emancipation Proclamation and freeing the slaves, although it caused a war and many more years of terror and suffering for the black people of this country. Many were being persecuted throughout the years just because the white man felt they were the supreme race and never looked at blacks as being human being that deserved the same basic rights that he had.
The government took a big step forwards in the 1960's by passing the Civil Rights Act. This gave minorities the right to vote, the right to be a citizen, the right to education, and the right to go out and make a living for your family and own property. These are all basic rights that should be given to every American citizen regardless of the color of their skin.
I feel that even though we have all these laws and rights in effect that we still have a ways to go where racial discrimination is concerned. As much as we, as Americans, don't like to admit it, there are still parts of the United States with very deep racist roots. I think the government will still have issues that arise form time to time in the future regarding race that they will need to address. I think we may also see some issues regarding reverse racism in the future due to some of the laws and regulations currently in place.
On the Issue of Gender; Does the government do too little or too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination? Why or why not?
On the issue of Gender, I think women have gained some of the rights in recent years that should have been in place all along. I do feel the government has done some of the things that needed to be done regarding women but still have some work to do. Women are still viewed as the weaker or "less capable" gender which is obvious when comparing salaries of men and women. The majority of men in a same exact position as a woman, and doing the exact same job as woman, are paid higher salaries and wages across the board. Even though this country has put laws into place to keep this from happening, companies are passing out employee handbooks warning against discussing salaries and wages among employees and threatening such things as suspension and being fired if it is found out that it has been discussed among co-workers, citing it is a breach of privacy in order to do this because the contract is between the company and the employee. These are just ways of keeping individuals from finding out the salary differences. Also, sexual harassment is rampant in many of the work places, especially in and around this area. I have been on jobs where this was a major problem and it even created a hostile work environment where charges were filed and it is still going through the system and headed to federal court. I know of others in this area who deal with it on a day to day basis, and it's not always a one sided thing. Women can harass too. I think the government still has some work to do in this area of discrimination.
On the Issue of Sexual Orientation; Does the government do too little or too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination? Why or why not?
On the issue of sexual orientation, I feel that everyone has the right to be with who they want to be with regardless of gender. My point here is if you agree with it and want to do it, you will.If you don't agree with it, and you aren't interested in being with a same sex partner, you won't. Every person has the right to be happy and live the life of choice here in the United States. I don't think the government needs to regulate what we do in our own private homes in the privacy of our own bedrooms, and I don't think the government should be in charge of matters of the heart. That is between individuals. I think gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals and transgenders should have the same right as a man and a woman have when it comes to being together. I do feel that the government needs to work toward stopping discrimination against people of different sexual orientation and give then the right to live as they please, and I think the states should be made to recognize these relationships and marriages just as they would one between a man and a woman. People who don't agree with them and their choices don't have to deal with these couples. It's that simple. I do think there is more government intervention coming in these relationships and eventually they will gain the right to marry and be recognized.
Blog Comments:
Brandi Lively
Amber Waters
Ashley Pelfrey, commented on 2/23/13 **
Thursday, February 14, 2013
~~ Chapter 4... Civil Liberties ~~
1.) Freedom of Speech: How important is it? Does the Freedom go "too far?" What areas of speech should not be protected?
I believe that Freedom of Speech is a very important liberty that we are fortunate to have in this country. It allows us to have a voice in all aspects of our lives, government, religion, etc. We have the ability to speak out about issues whether we think they are right or wrong. We are able to be heard when it comes to our government and leaders. Many countries do not have this day to day right that we, as Americans, seem to take for granted at times. I do feel that freedom of speech is one of the rights that we need to defend and keep because it is essential to the growth of this nation.
I think that on some occasions freedom of speech does go "too far." It's like anything else... some people carry the right itself "too far" and use it to harm others or use it to cause violence or rioting, or even share important things such as military secrets and defense plans or other high profile information that should never be shared. In these instances, I think they should be dealt with on a one on one basis, using the laws that are put into place to deal with these situations. "Voice" can be a mighty sword if it is backed by the wrong mindset or someone who is looking to do harm to others or our nation. This is where the line should be drawn and the necessary steps should be taken to stop and keep this type of behavior from happening.
I personally believe that some sort of laws or restrictions should be set on Campaign Finance for politicians. I think this is an area that has gotten way out of hand over the last several years. In my opinion, campaign finance allows huge companies and corporations to "buy" certain politicians and stack government in their favor.
2.) Freedom of Speech: Is separation of church and state necessary? Why or why not?
I feel that separation of church and state is necessary. I feel if we don't keep this separation, we would end up having a government chosen and ran religion, that could lead to a ban on religions that aren't readily accepted. I just do not believe that anyone should be able to tell us who to worship or how to worship. Freedom of religion is one of the basic building blocks of this country, and should be a protected right.
3.) Criminal Procedure: Are defendant's rights crucial to our system of government? Why or why not? Many argue that defendant's have too many rights-- do you agree? Why or why not?
I believe that a defendant's rights are crucial to our system of government. I don't think anyone's freedoms or life should be put in jeopardy without the system being absolutely responsible for proving that person is guilty. It's been proven that innocent people have been sent to prison and have lost out on years of their lives. It's also been proven that innocent people have been executed. No one can give those years of life back to them that they have missed out on, and no one can give the innocent life back to those that have been executed. I don't think that defendant's have too many rights because of these situations. I think our judicial system is built to protect both the defendant's, as well as the victim's rights, and for the most part does a great job, especially in this day and time. With all the advances in forensic science there are fewer mistakes made when prosecuting individuals, and that proving guilt or innocence has almost become a precise science, and leads to almost fool proof convictions. I know if I were ever on trial for something, or a family member of mine was ever on trial for something, and I knew without a doubt that I was innocent or that my family member was innocent that I would want all of those right's available to me and hope that it would be able to prove innocence.
Blog Comments:
Ashley Pelfrey
Amber Waters
Amanda Strange
I believe that Freedom of Speech is a very important liberty that we are fortunate to have in this country. It allows us to have a voice in all aspects of our lives, government, religion, etc. We have the ability to speak out about issues whether we think they are right or wrong. We are able to be heard when it comes to our government and leaders. Many countries do not have this day to day right that we, as Americans, seem to take for granted at times. I do feel that freedom of speech is one of the rights that we need to defend and keep because it is essential to the growth of this nation.
I think that on some occasions freedom of speech does go "too far." It's like anything else... some people carry the right itself "too far" and use it to harm others or use it to cause violence or rioting, or even share important things such as military secrets and defense plans or other high profile information that should never be shared. In these instances, I think they should be dealt with on a one on one basis, using the laws that are put into place to deal with these situations. "Voice" can be a mighty sword if it is backed by the wrong mindset or someone who is looking to do harm to others or our nation. This is where the line should be drawn and the necessary steps should be taken to stop and keep this type of behavior from happening.
I personally believe that some sort of laws or restrictions should be set on Campaign Finance for politicians. I think this is an area that has gotten way out of hand over the last several years. In my opinion, campaign finance allows huge companies and corporations to "buy" certain politicians and stack government in their favor.
2.) Freedom of Speech: Is separation of church and state necessary? Why or why not?
I feel that separation of church and state is necessary. I feel if we don't keep this separation, we would end up having a government chosen and ran religion, that could lead to a ban on religions that aren't readily accepted. I just do not believe that anyone should be able to tell us who to worship or how to worship. Freedom of religion is one of the basic building blocks of this country, and should be a protected right.
3.) Criminal Procedure: Are defendant's rights crucial to our system of government? Why or why not? Many argue that defendant's have too many rights-- do you agree? Why or why not?
I believe that a defendant's rights are crucial to our system of government. I don't think anyone's freedoms or life should be put in jeopardy without the system being absolutely responsible for proving that person is guilty. It's been proven that innocent people have been sent to prison and have lost out on years of their lives. It's also been proven that innocent people have been executed. No one can give those years of life back to them that they have missed out on, and no one can give the innocent life back to those that have been executed. I don't think that defendant's have too many rights because of these situations. I think our judicial system is built to protect both the defendant's, as well as the victim's rights, and for the most part does a great job, especially in this day and time. With all the advances in forensic science there are fewer mistakes made when prosecuting individuals, and that proving guilt or innocence has almost become a precise science, and leads to almost fool proof convictions. I know if I were ever on trial for something, or a family member of mine was ever on trial for something, and I knew without a doubt that I was innocent or that my family member was innocent that I would want all of those right's available to me and hope that it would be able to prove innocence.
Blog Comments:
Ashley Pelfrey
Amber Waters
Amanda Strange
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Chapter 3 ~ Federalism
1.) In my opinion a strong national government is required for our country, with certain powers and decisions left to the individual states. I think both forms of government should work together for the good of all people. In having a strong national government, we are better able to protect our nation from domestic and foreign enemies. Having a strong government enables our representatives and congressmen to work together with other national and state government officials to set in place laws in this country for the protection of our people. A strong government is also able to protect our rights and freedoms as individuals, just like some of the founding fathers of this country envisioned.
2.) Republican President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) was a supporter of New Federalism for the national government of our country which began again with the Nixon Administration (1969-1974). He felt that the government was not the solution to problems in our country, but that the government itself was the problem. He cut back on categorical grants, which were monies form Congress to the states that had to be spent in specific categories, and put into place block grants. These block grants were monies from Congress to the states that had to be spent in broader categories. He limited the restrictions on these grants allowing the states more control over how the money was spent. At the same time, he also eliminated general revenue sharing.
In my opinion, this was an appropriate shift because in doing this, President Reagan dissolved the general revenue sharing program which was too lenient, and he done away with the categorical grants which were too strict and put into place a system of grants to the states which held some accountability for monies they were granted, but didn't allow the national government total control on how thew monies were spent. In doing this, he let the states decide where the money was most needed for the betterment of the people within the state.
3.) Regarding education, I feel that the state and local governments should be in charge of educating the children in their communities with limited power from the federal government. I feel the educators in our state and communities know our children and families better than the federal officials do and are better aware of the traditions and community compositions than the people in our federal government because most of them don't live here. I think the federal government should monitor how education is working in individual states and communities and have some sort of system in place to step in and assist if something doesn't seem to be working.
Blog Comments:
Amber Waters
J. Albert Munoz
Gabby Miller
2.) Republican President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) was a supporter of New Federalism for the national government of our country which began again with the Nixon Administration (1969-1974). He felt that the government was not the solution to problems in our country, but that the government itself was the problem. He cut back on categorical grants, which were monies form Congress to the states that had to be spent in specific categories, and put into place block grants. These block grants were monies from Congress to the states that had to be spent in broader categories. He limited the restrictions on these grants allowing the states more control over how the money was spent. At the same time, he also eliminated general revenue sharing.
In my opinion, this was an appropriate shift because in doing this, President Reagan dissolved the general revenue sharing program which was too lenient, and he done away with the categorical grants which were too strict and put into place a system of grants to the states which held some accountability for monies they were granted, but didn't allow the national government total control on how thew monies were spent. In doing this, he let the states decide where the money was most needed for the betterment of the people within the state.
3.) Regarding education, I feel that the state and local governments should be in charge of educating the children in their communities with limited power from the federal government. I feel the educators in our state and communities know our children and families better than the federal officials do and are better aware of the traditions and community compositions than the people in our federal government because most of them don't live here. I think the federal government should monitor how education is working in individual states and communities and have some sort of system in place to step in and assist if something doesn't seem to be working.
Blog Comments:
Amber Waters
J. Albert Munoz
Gabby Miller
Friday, February 1, 2013
~ Chapter 2: The Constitution ~
1.) The Articles of Confederation only granted Congress powers that were extremely limited and very weak in nature. There were no separate executive branch and no established judicial system, although they had the power to establish judicial panels and an executive committee with a rotating president, there were none in place to build a solid foundation for our country. There were no funds coming in, so the nation's debts were going unpaid, damaging their credit. Economic growth was stunted due to states taxing imports coming in from other states.
The Constitutional Convention of 1787, and the coming together of fifty-five delegates working together and debating different ideas made them realize that there were many compromises to be made in order to unify all of the states, so they went to work in order to create a structured national government, and came up with The Constitution of the United States. This was a much stronger and structured document because it created a three branch government, giving each of them their own separate and specific powers, and putting into place a checks and balances system for each branch of government to limit the other branches, so that one branch could not become more powerful than the others. They also gave authority to the people over their government, by having direct authority to choose who ran their government by allowing them to vote people into office. Certain tasks of government were even passed on to the state governments in order to prevent a concentration of power.
The Constitution created a much stronger government. If we did not operate under Constitutional law in this country today, I believe we would live in a very chaotic society. Our nation would be in economic ruin. The United States territory would probably be several different divided nations instead of one nation under one national government. We would not be protected by a strong military from our foreign enemies and the crime rates in this country would be out of control.
2.) Article I: In reading Article I of the Constitution, I was not aware that when Representatives and direct taxes were apportioned that Indians not taxed were excluded and that there was still a three-fifths rule of any kind still in effect. I was also unaware that if any bill was not returned by the president within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it is presented to him that it shall become law as if he had signed it, unless Congress by adjournment prevent its return, in which case it would not become law.
Article II: In reading Article II of the Constitution, I was not aware of the actual voting process of the electors regarding the presidential election.
Article III: In reading Article III of the Constitution, I did not know that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over all matters in all cases affecting Ambassadors, Prime Ministers, and Consuls.
I also did not know that no person could be convicted of treason against the United States unless there was testimony from two people for the same act, or a confession in open court.
3.) The Marbury v. Madison (1803) Supreme Court decision was very important because it brought to the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. This landmark case gave the Supreme Court the ultimate say in interpreting the Constitution. It gave more power to the judicial branch in the checks and balances system, and allowed them more power when it comes to limiting the powers of the legislative and executive branches of the government, making sure that they stay within the guidelines of the Constitution.
4.) In looking at the United States government today, I feel it is more like what the Federalists envisioned. The Federalists were open to change and evolving this country based on issues as they arose. They realized that this country needed a structured government and they realized the importance of separating the powers of our government into separate branches, allowing each separate branch it's own specific powers, but at the same time, they realized the importance of separating the powers and adding a system of checks and balances so that each branch could monitor what the other branches were doing, and keep one branch from gaining too much power over the others. Their visions and ideas are still outlined in our Constitution, which shows their strength and durability, but at the same time our Constitution holds gateways to allow change when and where it is necessary.
Blog Comments:
Tim Tunkel
Brandi Lively
Amanda Strange
The Constitutional Convention of 1787, and the coming together of fifty-five delegates working together and debating different ideas made them realize that there were many compromises to be made in order to unify all of the states, so they went to work in order to create a structured national government, and came up with The Constitution of the United States. This was a much stronger and structured document because it created a three branch government, giving each of them their own separate and specific powers, and putting into place a checks and balances system for each branch of government to limit the other branches, so that one branch could not become more powerful than the others. They also gave authority to the people over their government, by having direct authority to choose who ran their government by allowing them to vote people into office. Certain tasks of government were even passed on to the state governments in order to prevent a concentration of power.
The Constitution created a much stronger government. If we did not operate under Constitutional law in this country today, I believe we would live in a very chaotic society. Our nation would be in economic ruin. The United States territory would probably be several different divided nations instead of one nation under one national government. We would not be protected by a strong military from our foreign enemies and the crime rates in this country would be out of control.
2.) Article I: In reading Article I of the Constitution, I was not aware that when Representatives and direct taxes were apportioned that Indians not taxed were excluded and that there was still a three-fifths rule of any kind still in effect. I was also unaware that if any bill was not returned by the president within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it is presented to him that it shall become law as if he had signed it, unless Congress by adjournment prevent its return, in which case it would not become law.
Article II: In reading Article II of the Constitution, I was not aware of the actual voting process of the electors regarding the presidential election.
Article III: In reading Article III of the Constitution, I did not know that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over all matters in all cases affecting Ambassadors, Prime Ministers, and Consuls.
I also did not know that no person could be convicted of treason against the United States unless there was testimony from two people for the same act, or a confession in open court.
3.) The Marbury v. Madison (1803) Supreme Court decision was very important because it brought to the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. This landmark case gave the Supreme Court the ultimate say in interpreting the Constitution. It gave more power to the judicial branch in the checks and balances system, and allowed them more power when it comes to limiting the powers of the legislative and executive branches of the government, making sure that they stay within the guidelines of the Constitution.
4.) In looking at the United States government today, I feel it is more like what the Federalists envisioned. The Federalists were open to change and evolving this country based on issues as they arose. They realized that this country needed a structured government and they realized the importance of separating the powers of our government into separate branches, allowing each separate branch it's own specific powers, but at the same time, they realized the importance of separating the powers and adding a system of checks and balances so that each branch could monitor what the other branches were doing, and keep one branch from gaining too much power over the others. Their visions and ideas are still outlined in our Constitution, which shows their strength and durability, but at the same time our Constitution holds gateways to allow change when and where it is necessary.
Blog Comments:
Tim Tunkel
Brandi Lively
Amanda Strange
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)