Equal Rights Amendment

Concerning civil rights and liberties, there should, of course, be equality among men and women. But, for women and men to be absolutely equal in all aspects of life to each other goes against natural order. One section of the ERA deals with equality in the military. (Lest one may think that I have a penchant for anti-feminist thoughts, I do believe in equality for women, but it is not the nature of both sexes to be equally adept in all matters. This has nothing to do with personal philosophy, but with biological and pyschological aspects, even though, of course, exceptions do exist.) Due to the absence of necessary hormones and overall due to their entire biological structure, women are naturally not built to be of equal physical strength to men. Also, women are more emotional and maternally caring, by instinct, and hence wartime activities would logically affect them much more severly than they would men. Because of these aspects, the majority of women would be much less effective in war than men, which would compromise the entire military as a result. In retrospect, the majority of men would be less adequate in child development and related jobs, due to their lack of a maternal nature and an increased procilivity for violence. Thus, I do believe that women should have equal oppurtunies and liberties as men, but there are natural dividers between men and women, which prevents one gender from adequately competing with the other in a certain matter, and to challenge this natural law with human law would prove fruitless and a waste of time and energy.

Gender Issue Debates Concerning Equal Pay

Under the idea of comparable worth, compensation should be based on the worth of the job to an employer and that factors unrelated to the worth of a job, in this case gender, should not affect compensation. As long as an individual can perform his or her job adequately, compared with the performance of his or her coworkers, then gender should not be an issue, although employers tend to underpay females simply because of their gender. This isn't because of any spite, instead it is mere politics and economics: if the pay is cut, while the workload and work output remains constant, then there is a greater chance to reap greater profits, and since women have been traditionally disadvantaged in the work force, employers indulge in this act more freely. Yet, even though people comprehend that this is not morally right, the procedure is practised in order to financially better themselves, in a business sense. The way that it should be is that pay should depend upon the worth of the job to the employer, and how well the employee performs his or her tasks, compared to the margin with which the other employees perform the same task, so that this measures the worth of the employee and determines whether they are expendable, replaceable, and hence inadequate. Simply put, if one employer outperforms another, and if it is more costly to the employer to replace or fire that employee, then the pay of that employee should reflect this, regardless of gender.

Information Privacy on the Internet

Search engines, such as Google, keep record of all search queries and personal information regarding the users who made them, and so the government has been demanding the release of this information, so that it can protect national security by keeping track of suspected terrorist-linked individuals and groups. Many of these search engines, including Yahoo, AOL, and MSN have obliged, but Google is taking a stand, stating that by asking this, the government is overstepping its power and infringing upon people's privacy rights.
Privacy over the internet should be respected by the government, but to a certain extent. Granted, the power of the government should not be allowed to become so great as to trample completely on the liberties of the people, but the government has a duty to protect the nation as a whole. In order to achieve this, the government must remain knowledgeable about compromising information, such as security leaks and destructive intentions. This however, seems excruciatingly tedious with respect to maintaining civil liberties. Thus, the government should be able to attain information if and only if said information is vital to the security of the people and the nation. However, as to what is vital would surely be debated by the government and its people, as is the case of the NSA eavesdropping issue and the Google issue. Hence, this would only work if the government had restraint and if corruption was to a minimum. This, however, is not very plausible. Nevertheless, if the government had no knowledge and took no initiative to obtain any information regarding compromising issues, national and civil security would surely be less protected. As discussed prior, the problem is that the government needs to balance the need for the provision for the common defence and for the preservation of civil liberties.
Not only is national security a topic concerning Internet privacy, but also the adherence to laws: if the people are left unchecked, then penchants for crime and unlawfulness will develop.
Hence, the government should be informed of illegal activities on the Internet, such as child pornography, as well as activities that could present great danger, such as active participation in and support of pro-terrorism websites. Yet, this is only an ideal situation, since the government will surely not stop at this, but instead will proceed to obtain any information it desires. Overall, the balance between the people and the government seems to kept due to the perpetual conflict between the governed and the state: the government attempts to gain increasing control over the people, but when this becomes too clear and the people become cautious, they attack the government, forcing it to back down. This constant conflict seems to create equilibrium between the people and their government, in which the government does not become powerful enough to strip the governed of their liberties, but at the same time does not become weak enough to let its control and influence crumble. This can be applied to the issue of Internet privacy, since the people are striving to retain complete privacy of their activities, while the government is aggressive in its attempt to obtain all information that it can.
Thus, Internet privacy should be respected, as long as it does not infringe upon the nation's security and laws, as well as on others' liberties.

Freedom of Religion

The Establishment Clause of the Constitution states that the national government must not officially support any establishment of religion. The Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution grants everyone the right to free exercise of religion. With respect to school prayer, these two clauses can conflict with each other: the Establishment clause calls for a wall between state and religion, but the Free Exercise clause allows all individuals to hold their religious beliefs freely. Clearly, prayer should not be mandatory in schools, since this simultaneously violates both clauses: the state is creating legislature dictating religious activity, and a certain religious practice is being enforced on all individuals. This can be observed in the landmark case of Engel v Vitale in 1962, in which the Supreme Court ruled that New York's practice of beginning school days with a prayer drafted by school officials violated the Establishment Clause. But when the issue is focused on the voluntary participation in prayer, the tension emerges: this voluntary exercise of religion in schools seems, to some, to violate the Establishment Clause's separation of church and state, while others see this as an affirmation of the rights granted by the Free Exercise Clause.
Completely suspending the practice of prayer in schools would be seem by some as constituting the involvement of the state in the religious beliefs. Hence, the best solution, if it proved to be tranquil and un-hindering to the liberties of others, would be to allow the voluntary practice of prayer by all individuals who choose to participate, as long as no political or politically social ties are associated with it (e.g. teachers advocating the prayers for propagation of a certain religion). In this manner, the state would not challenge the Free Exercise Clause or the Establishment Clause, since it would, respectfully, not advocate or denounce any single religion, nor would it be involved in any religious establishment; instead, it would merely assert religious neutrality, while keeping a check on the religious practice to ensure that it does not become involved in state affairs or become imposing upon other individuals.
In this blog, the author argues that the founding fathers intended for a freedom of religion, rather than a freedom from religion. He states that the founding fathers were God-fearing men who knew the importance of religious morality and who based the principles of the Constitution from the ethics of the Bible. This author firmly believes that religion (i.e. Christianity) should be a vital part of government. This belief seems honorable and moral, but fallacies pervade it: this is under the basis that all the citizens are following one religion, and furthermore, that all the citizens are in fact religious; moreover, this author is stating that morality arises from religion, even though, as one can bluntly see from past human history, even though the unadulterated teachings of religions attempt to instill people with morality, people cannot be changed into cleansed persons: corruption, greed, cupidity, and ultimate self-desire will interminable manifest themselves within all people. To continue, besides the fact that the author does not put weight on the natural principle that humans cannot be forced into absolute morality, the author seems to overlook the fact that morality stems from an individual's own nature, influenced by their own condition, not merely by teachings from the Bible. Even if the author's idea were held to be true, if only one religion is tied to the government, it goes against the logically interpreted intent of the Constitution's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. I say logically interpreted intent because to think that the founding fathers were completely accepting of all beliefs and dogmas (notice I disuse the term tolerant, for that is what they probably intended) is somewhat idealistically and imprudently childish. The founding fathers were of the Christian faith, even though they had differing sects, and hence they most likely advocated that principle dogma. But, due to the tyranny of England's state church system, they instituted tolerance in the Constitution. Now, converging back to the issue of logically interpreted intent: what i mean by this is that, in the present day, individuals posses many differing beliefs and religions/religious sects, and thusly the government must be fair to all, in order to ensure that civil liberties are equally proportioned among all citizens. In order to achieve this, the government must tolerate all religions, as the founding fathers accepted, and they must not officially support one religion, even though the founding fathers most likely advocated the Christian dogma. Thus, i do agree with the author of the blog concerning the intent of the founding fathers, but in order for the current system of equality and democracy to function within the state, the religion clauses must be interpreted in such a fashion as to inhibit the state from religious affairs, ensuring that all people will be given the right to freely exercise their beliefs, without the state dictating one central religious doctrine. Then, with respect to school prayers, the religious freedom of choice should be upheld by those who choose to participate, but the state should not interfere in the activities, lest they diverge from the Constitution, but it should most certainly exercise a check on them so that the boundary between church and state is not crossed.

McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819):

1. What are the advantages for the federal government of establishing a national bank? Read through Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution to determine which functions of Congress might be helped by such a bank.
A: It was a place for storing government funds, collecting taxes, and issuing sound currency.

2. Why would states feel threatened by a national bank?
A: Many states opposed opening branches of a national bank within their boundaries for several reasons. First, the Bank of the United States competed with their own banks. Second, the states found that many of the managers of the Bank of the United States were corrupt. Third, the states felt that the federal government was exerting too much power over them by attempting to curtail the state practice of issuing more paper money than they were able to redeem on demand.

3. In your opinion, does the United States government have the authority to establish a national bank? Provide justification for your answer. You may want to review Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution to see what powers it specifically gives Congress.
A: As Daniel Webster argued, the establishment of a national bank is a "necessary and proper" function of the U.S. government. In order for Congress to execute its specifically delegated powers, such as collecting taxes, issuing currency, and dealing with funds, the Constitution granted to it the power to do whatever is necessary, and hence, in order for these actions to be carried out properly, a national bank is vital.

4. If the United States does have authority to establish a bank, does Maryland have the authority to tax that bank? Why or why not?
A: Maryland does not have the authority to tax a bank established by the U.S. government. This would be a direct violation of the supremacy clause and doctrine, which state that the national government, under its constitutional powers, is superior to state and local law.

5. Why do you think the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear this case? What larger principles were at stake?
A: The Supreme Court agreed to hear this case since it was a direct conflict between the power of the states and the power of the national government. The larger principle of who possesses more political authority was at stake here.


Gibbons v. Ogden (1824):

1. Under what authority, state or federal, did Ogden operate his steamboats? Gibbons?
A: Aaron Ogden held a Fulton-Livingston license to operate steamboats under this monopoly, issued by the New York state legislature. However, Thomas Gibbons held a federal coasting license, granted under a 1793 Act of Congress, and operated steamboats between New Jersey and New York that competed with Ogden's.

2. What argument did Ogden use to support his license to operate steamboats? Gibbons?
A: Ogden's lawyer contended that states often passed laws on issues regarding interstate matters and that states should have fully concurrent power with Congress on matters concerning interstate commerce. The monopoly, therefore, should be upheld. Gibbons' lawyer, Daniel Webster, argued that Congress had exclusive national power over interstate commerce according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and that to argue otherwise would result in confusing and contradictory local regulatory policies.

3. The background information states that Gibbons relied on the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution to justify his case. If Ogden wanted to use the U.S. Constitution to back up his case, what section or amendment might he use?
A: If Ogden wanted to use the Constitution to back up his case, he might have used the Clause 6 in Article I, section 9, of the Constitution, which deals with Congress no being permitted to treat different ports within the U.S. differently in terms of taxing and commerce powers; he might have also used the Tenth Amendment, which deals with the reserved powers of the states.

4. The Commerce Clause was meant to clarify who had authority over interstate commerce; however, like most of the U.S. Constitution, the clause is stated in general terms that leaves open the possibility for interpretation. For instance, in this case there was a question about whether the transport of people constituted commerce. Try to think of another circumstance where the application of this clause would be unclear.
A: Another circumstance in which the application of the commerce clause would be unclear would be if Congress tried to regulate goods and services that states offered in order to attract more citizens.

5. This case appears to be a local dispute between two businessmen. However, the decision in this case is one of the most important in constitutional history. Please explain.
A: This case, decided 35 years after the ratification of the Constitution, was a key turning point for the expansion of federal power to address national problems. Though the clause clearly gave Congress some power over commerce, it was unclear just how much. It was also unclear what constituted commerce. The Gibbons case clarified some of these issues under a decision issued by Chief Justice John Marshall, who had nationalist intentions. Hence, this case helped to resolve some issues concerning the power of Congress, as well as of the states, to regulate interstate commerce.

Interstate Compact Involving Florida

Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision: Transferring supervised offenders across state boundaries

link fest!

Expressed powers of the Federal government

- to coin money

- to conduct foreign relations

- to regulate interstate commerce

- to levy and collect taxes

- to declare war

- to raise and support the military

- establish post offices

Expressed powers of the State governments

- regulate intrastate commerce

- conduct elections

- provide for public health, safety and morals

- establish a state militia

Sixth Amendment-Right to Call Witnesses

Right to Call Witnesses - The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which is concerned with the rights of defendants in criminal prosecutions, was framed by the Founding Fathers in response to abuses, which they perceived, by the British government in criminal cases. Still, it is the judges, who enforce the rights set forth by the Sixth Amendment and swear to "support the Constitution of the United States", who protect criminal defendants.
The "confrontation" clause of the Sixth Amendment was drawn from the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, in which Raleigh was convicted and sentenced to death from only written testimony from a witness: the witness was never physically present in the trial, and hence was not able to be cross-examined. This act of not having the witness physically present at the trial of the accused certainly does not provide a just trial for the accused, and, seeing this, the Founding Fathers dictated that the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him or her. Thus, it is my opinion as well, that, in order to ensure that the liberties of the accused are not hindered, the said accused person should be entitled to have the witnesses attempting to incarcerate him or her present at the trial, so that the evidence presented by the witness is not left unchallenged and hence absolute.

Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers: The Issue of the Separation of Powers

Concerning the principle of the separation of powers, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists possessed differing opinions on the matter. The Federalists foresaw the benefits of such a system instilled in a federal government, while the Anti-Federalists were repelled by the intrinsic vices that they thought were naturally present within such a system. Both groups possessed both correct philosophies as well as ideas with fallacies about the distribution of powers within a central federal government. Hence, both sides had premonitions about the future of the government and about human nature that held to be true.
An explanation about this system will be presented, as well as the conflicting viewpoints of the two parties, and an article that will offer support of the current situation concerning the balance and separation of power within the current federal government.

The online encyclopedia Wikipedia explains the principle premise of separation of powers and checks and balances:

Separation of powers (or trias politica, a term coined by French political thinker Montesquieu) is a model of democracy that involves the separation of political power between three branches of the state: The Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. In the "separation of powers" model, each branch is prevented from exerting power in the field of responsibility of another branch. Nonetheless each branch of the state may be empowered to exert checks on the actions of the other branches.
The phrase "checks and balances" was also coined by Montesquieu. In a system of government with competing sovereigns (such as a multi-branch government or a federal system), "checks" refers to the ability, right, and responsibility of each power to monitor the activities of the other(s); "balances" refers to the ability of each entity to use its authority to limit the powers of the others, whether in general scope or in particular cases.
Keeping each independent entity within its prescribed powers can be a delicate process. Public support, tradition, and well-balanced tactical positions do help maintain such systems.
The essential difference between the separation of powers as developed in common law theory and in France was that in the former, the checks and balances inherent in the mixed constitution and in Montesquieu's analysis were incorporated into the doctrine. In France, on the other hand, the judges were regarded as sources themselves of tyranny and not liberty as in England, and the hostility of Jean-Jacques Rousseau to any check or limit on the popular will, combined to establish the 'non-interference' model of the separation of powers.
Famously, the framers of the United States Constitution are said to have taken the best of many concepts including the then-new concept of the separation of powers in drafting the constitution. The concept is also prominent in the state governments of the United States; as colonies of Britain, the founding fathers felt that the American states had suffered an abuse of the broad power of the monarchy. As a remedy, the American Constitution limits the powers of the federal government through several means, but in particular by dividing up the power of the government among three competing branches of government. Each branch checks the actions of the others and balances their powers in some way.

In Federalist No.47, James Madison contemplates and defends the particular structure of the new government and the distribution of powers among its different parts:

In the structure of the federal government, no regard, it is said, seems to have been paid to this essential precaution in favor of liberty. The several departments of power are distributed and blended in such a manner as at once to destroy all symmetry and beauty of form, and to expose some of the essential parts of the edifice to the danger of being crushed by the disproportionate weight of other parts. No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded.

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system. I persuade myself, however, that it will be made apparent to every one, that the charge cannot be supported, and that the maxim on which it relies has been totally misconceived and misapplied.

The British Constitution was to Montesquieu what Homer has been to the didactic writers on epic poetry. As the latter have considered the work of the immortal bard as the perfect model from which the principles and rules of the epic art were to be drawn, and by which all similar works were to be judged, so this great political critic appears to have viewed the Constitution of England as the standard, or to use his own expression, as the mirror of political liberty; and to have delivered, in the form of elementary truths, the several characteristic principles of that particular system. That we may be sure, then, not to mistake his meaning in this case, let us recur to the source from which the maxim was drawn. On the slightest view of the British Constitution, we must perceive that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments are by no means totally separate and distinct from each other. The executive magistrate forms an integral part of the legislative authority. He alone has the prerogative of making treaties with foreign sovereigns, which, when made, have, under certain limitations, the force of legislative acts. All the members of the judiciary department are appointed by him, can be removed by him on the address of the two Houses of Parliament, and form, when he pleases to consult them, one of his constitutional councils. One branch of the legislative department forms also a great constitutional council to the executive chief, as, on another hand, it is the sole depositary of judicial power in cases of impeachment, and is invested with the supreme appellate jurisdiction in all other cases. The judges, again, are so far connected with the legislative department as often to attend and participate in its deliberations, though not admitted to a legislative vote. From these facts, by which Montesquieu was guided, it may clearly be inferred that, in saying "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates," or, "if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers," he did not mean that these departments ought to have no PARTIAL AGENCY in, or no CONTROL over, the acts of each other. His meaning, as his own words import, and still more conclusively as illustrated by the example in his eye, can amount to no more than this, that where the WHOLE power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the WHOLE power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted. This would have been the case in the constitution examined by him, if the king, who is the sole executive magistrate, had possessed also the complete legislative power, or the supreme administration of justice; or if the entire legislative body had possessed the supreme judiciary, or the supreme executive authority. This, however, is not among the vices of that constitution. The magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides cannot of himself make a law, though he can put a negative on every law; nor administer justice in person, though he has the appointment of those who do administer it. The judges can exercise no executive prerogative, though they are shoots from the executive stock; nor any legislative function, though they may be advised with by the legislative councils. The entire legislature can perform no judiciary act, though by the joint act of two of its branches the judges may be removed from their offices, and though one of its branches is possessed of the judicial power in the last resort. The entire legislature, again, can exercise no executive prerogative, though one of its branches constitutes the supreme executive magistracy, and another, on the impeachment of a third, can try and condemn all the subordinate officers in the executive department. The reasons on which Montesquieu grounds his maxim are a further demonstration of his meaning. "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body," says he, "there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner. " Again: "Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR.
Were it joined to the executive power, THE JUDGE might behave with all the violence of AN OPPRESSOR. " Some of these reasons are more fully explained in other passages; but briefly stated as they are here, they sufficiently establish the meaning which we have put on this celebrated maxim of this celebrated author.

Antifederalist No.47 argues that “balance” of departments is not achieved under the new constitution:

I am fearful that the principles of government inculcated in Mr. [John] Adams' treatise [Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America], and enforced in the numerous essays and paragraphs in the newspapers, have misled some well designing members of the late Convention. But it will appear in the sequel, that the construction of the proposed plan of government is infinitely more extravagant.
I have been anxiously expecting that some enlightened patriot would, ere this, have taken up the pen to expose the futility, and counteract the baneful tendency of such principles. Mr. Adams' sine qua non of a good government is three balancing powers; whose repelling qualities are to produce an equilibrium of interests, and thereby promote the happiness of the whole community. He asserts that the administrators of every government, will ever be actuated by views of private interest and ambition, to the prejudice of the public good; that therefore the only effectual method to secure the rights of the people and promote their welfare, is to create an opposition of interests between the members of two distinct bodies, in the exercise of the powers of government, and balanced by those of a third. This hypothesis supposes human wisdom competent to the task of instituting three co-equal orders in government, and a corresponding weight in the community to enable them respectively to exercise their several parts, and whose views and interests should be so distinct as to prevent a coalition of any two of them for the destruction of the third. Mr. Adams, although he has traced the constitution of every form of government that ever existed, as far as history affords materials, has not been able to adduce a single instance of such a government. He indeed says that the British constitution is such in theory, but this is rather a confirmation that his principles are chimerical and not to be reduced to practice. If such an organization of power were practicable, how long would it continue? Not a day-for there is so great a disparity in the talents, wisdom and industry of mankind, that the scale would presently preponderate to one or the other body, and with every accession of power the means of further increase would be greatly extended. The state of society in England is much more favorable to such a scheme of government than that of America. There they have a powerful hereditary nobility, and real distinctions of rank and interests; but even there, for want of that perfect equality of power and distinction of interests in the three orders of government, they exist but in name. The only operative and efficient check upon the conduct of administration, is the sense of the people at large.
Suppose a government could be formed and supported on such principles, would it answer the great purposes of civil society? If the administrators of every government are actuated by views of private interest and ambition, how is the welfare and happiness of the community to be the result of such jarring adverse interests?
Therefore, as different orders in government will not produce the good of the whole, we must recur to other principles. I believe it will be found that the form of government, which holds those entrusted with power in the greatest responsibility to their constituents, the best calculated for freemen. A republican, or free government, can only exist where the body of the people are virtuous, and where property is pretty equally divided. In such a government the people are the sovereign and their sense or opinion is the criterion of every public measure. For when this ceases to be the case, the nature of the government is changed, and an aristocracy, monarchy or despotism will rise on its ruin. The highest responsibility is to be attained in a simple structure of government, for the great body of the people never steadily attend to the operations of government, and for want of due information are liable to be imposed on. If you complicate the plan by various orders, the people will be perplexed and divided in their sentiment about the source of abuses or misconduct; some will impute it to the senate, others to the house of representatives, and so on, that the interposition of the people may be rendered imperfect or perhaps wholly abortive. But if, imitating the constitution of Pennsylvania, you vest all the legislative power in one body of men (separating the executive and judicial) elected for a short period, and necessarily excluded by rotation from permanency, and guarded from precipitancy and surprise by delays imposed on its proceedings, you will create the most perfect responsibility. For then, whenever the people feel a grievance, they cannot mistake the authors, and will apply the remedy with certainty and effect, discarding them at the next election. This tie of responsibility will obviate all the dangers apprehended from a single legislature, and will the best secure the rights of the people.

Dr. Paul Craig Robert, with respect to separation of powers, compares the actions of President Bush to Caesar crossing the Rubicon (this was considered an attack on Rome, and hence treason), and goes on to explain his opinions about the balance, or lack thereof, of power in the current federal government:

The Republican interest in strengthening executive power has its origin in agenda frustration from the constraints placed on Republican administrations by Democratic congresses. The thrust to enlarge the president's powers predates the Bush administration but is being furthered to a dangerous extent during Bush's second term. The confirmation of Bush's nominee, Samuel Alito, a member of the Federalist Society, to the Supreme Court will provide five votes in favor of enlarged presidential powers.
President Bush has used "signing statements" hundreds of times to vitiate the meaning of statutes passed by Congress. In effect, Bush is vetoing the bills he signs into law by asserting unilateral authority as commander in chief to bypass or set aside the laws he signs. For example, Bush has asserted that he has the power to ignore the McCain amendment against torture, to ignore the law that requires a warrant to spy on Americans, to ignore the prohibition against indefinite detention without charges or trial, and to ignore the Geneva Conventions to which the U.S. is signatory.
In effect, Bush is asserting the powers that accrued to Hitler in 1933. His Federalist Society apologists and Department of Justice appointees claim that President Bush has the same power to interpret the Constitution as the Supreme Court. An Alito Court is likely to agree with this false claim.
Bush Justice Department official and Berkeley law professor John Yoo argues that no law can restrict the president in his role as commander in chief. Thus, once the president is at war – even a vague, open-ended "war on terror" – Bush's Justice Department says the president is free to undertake any action in pursuit of war, including the torture of children and the indefinite detention of American citizens.
The commander in chief role is probably sufficiently elastic to expand to any crisis, whether real or fabricated. Thus has the U.S. arrived at the verge of dictatorship.
This development has little to do with Bush, who is unlikely to be aware that the Constitution is experiencing its final rending on his watch. America's descent into dictatorship is the result of historical developments and of old political battles dating back to President Nixon being driven from office by a Democratic Congress.
There is today no constitutional party. Both political parties, most constitutional lawyers, and the bar associations are willing to set aside the Constitution whenever it interferes with their agendas. Americans have forgotten the prerequisites for freedom, and those pursuing power have forgotten what it means when it falls into other hands. Americans are very close to losing their constitutional system and civil liberties. It is paradoxical that American democracy is the likely casualty of a "war on terror" that is being justified in the name of the expansion of democracy.

Commentary:

When taking into account the present day effectiveness of the principle of separation of powers, one is able to ascertain the political philosophies about the benefits and, to an even greater extent, the vices and limitations of such a system. The Federalists argued that, with accordance to Montesquieu, when the governmental powers of legislation, executive execution, and judicature are placed within one single body, making that body the sole creator of laws, enforcer of laws, and reviewer of those laws, the liberty of the governed is compromised, since there are no restrictions upon that governing body, which, left unchecked, would be allowed to act without restraint, which, in turn, would allow tyrannical laws to be instituted by the tyrannical government, since, according to James Madison, tyranny is the accumulation of all governmental powers into a single body or person, hence constituting the said government as tyrannical. This concept, then, seems to be a profoundly beneficial one, allowing the governmental powers to remain in check, and hence safeguarding the liberties of its governed. In support of this principle, Madison also stated that the separate branches will not absolutely be isolated from each other, but instead they will have a certain amount of influence over each other, so that the government itself can still be a single, unified institution. What Madison argued was that the governmental branches would have some control over the actions of the others, but absolute power over one branch would most certainly not lie in the hands that maintain absolute power over another branch. This supplemental concept, as well, in theory, seems to present a beneficial principle in government, concerning the regulation of governmental powers and securing the liberties of the citizens. In argument of these philosophies, the Anti-Federalists stated that in order for such a system of government to function, the prudence of humans would have to be so great that it is able to properly create the three coequal branches of government, instill them with the same weighted political authority, and render their interests profoundly different, so that no two bodies are able to form a coalition against the third. The Anti-Federalists saw this as implausible, and argued that no such functional government had ever existed in reality. In theory, they stated, the British Constitution may be a manifestation of such a political system, but, in practice, even this system fails to satisfy the ideology of such a governmental principle. Hence, it was argued that such a government based on the principle of separation of powers would fail to work: the different orders of government would not produce a common good for the whole. The Anti-Federalists of course went on to propose their own idea for a federal government. They advocated the formation of a republican government, in which the people would retain ultimate sovereignty, arguing that any deviation from this form of government would lead to aristocracy, monarchy, or despotism. The proposition was that, due to the unwillingness and lack of information in people, a simple government should be created, that placed authority in one legislative body of men, elected by the people themselves, which would remain in office for a short period of time, and which would be removed at the next election if it did not satisfy the people. This way, the Anti-Federalists argued, a tie of responsibility would exist, which would dispel all the ills of a single legislature, and would best secure the rights of the people. This form of government possesses two underlying, paramount problems: a single, all-powerful legislature would have ultimate authority and control once elected, being able to reign unrestrained until the next election, when, even then, it could amass so much power that it completely takes over the entire state and establish a oligarchy; and it relies upon the prudence and pragmatic mentalities of people. People as a majority are simply not able to govern themselves, which is why direct democracy is not able to function properly over a large state. In order for the Anti-Federalists’ form of government to work, it requires that people be profoundly wise and capable of making fraternal and beneficial decisions, and that the elected body be almost completely without cupidity, greed, and self-interest, working cooperatively to only benefit society as a whole. As history dictates, this is, quite bluntly, not possible, for it is human nature itself to benefit one’s self prior to working for the common good.
Still, the separation of powers principle has its flaws, as Dr. Robert points out in his article. In theory, the principle works quite well, as do many others, including communism, but when human nature is taken into account, the principle has troubles in practice. As Dr. Roberts points out, the Bush administration is allocating power to itself, granting itself certain privileges that the executive branch is not meant to have, such as when President Bush vetos bills he signs into law by asserting unilateral authority as commander in chief to bypass or set aside the laws he signs, and when his Federalist Society apologists and Department of Justice appointees claim that President Bush has the same power to interpret the Constitution as the Supreme Court. Dr. Roberts goes on to say that the commander in chief role is probably sufficiently elastic to expand to any crisis, whether real or fabricated, and thus has the U.S. arrived at the verge of dictatorship. This caustic criticism of the present day federal system exposes the vices that were predicted by the Anti-Federalists. It is true that the system of separation of powers attempts to keep control over the government, but it is also true that the system is run by people, who are intrinsicly subject to human nature, indulging in corruption, greed, and, of course, the propagation self-interest.
Thus, both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had their opinions about the Constitution and its principle of the separation of powers, and both groups had philosophies that had held true about the system. The Federalists attempted to create a system in which the government would not be able to become too powerful, and the Anti-Federalists warned that such a system would not be able to function properly. The present-day result is that the system is only able to work to a certain extent, until the reality of human nature manifests itself and allows for imbalance of power. Hence, both the Federalists’ and Anti-Federalists’ ideas about the principle of the separation of powers had truth in them.

Touch of sorrow in Los Angeles - Situations such as these can create animosity towards a certain society or its ideals. This, in turn, influences political socialization (as to hindering it, this concept can be taken as somewhat myopic, since the very definition of the term implies that it is a process through which political attitudes and social ideas are formulated, and hence, any impact on this process will only influence it; the word 'hinder' can only be used if one thinks that the influence is profoundly negative, allowing no form of progression in the political socialization process to occur). The Mexican people are politically dominated by the United States, and due to the violent history and animosity between the two, the political socialization of the Mexicans can very well be largely negative towards the United States. Instances such as this, where the United States keeps dominating Mexicans in every aspect of political, social, cultural (which was the case here), economic, and militaristic life, could produce subtle hostility towards the values of the U.S. society and culture. Even worse, towards many things, such as this game, which was of the utmost cultural importance to the Mexicans, U.S. citizens are apathetic and unappreciative. All of this deters the positive growth of political socialization, with respect to the politcal and social issues of the United States, for the Mexican people.

Notable Rulings from Alito - In the case of ACLU v. Schneider, Alito and the court ruled that the holiday displays dipicting nonsecular objects, as well as secular ones such as Forsty the snowman, Santa, a sleigh, and a banner advocating diversity, was not unconstitutional.
By definition, dominant culture encompasses the values, customs, language, and ideals established by the group or groups in society that traditionally have controlled politics and government institutions in that society. By its very own definition, dominant culture cannot overstep its own rights, because it itself ordains its own rights. This case, then, is an example of where the dominant culture exerts the very rights which to itself it ordains. The court is obviously part of the dominant culture, due to its undissoluble influence on politics, and, due to the judicial backing of the Constitution, which rendered the displays constitutional, the ideals of the court were exerted. The holiday displays were not intended to provoke contraversy; they were merely a manifestation of holiday spirit and a rally for social unity. Yet, there are alway individuals who find offense in everything. In this case, they did not prevail, since the dominant culture was in favor of the displays, and dominant culture, by its own premise, is what controls politics.

Alito Goes a Long Way: But He's Still No John Roberts. - According to the article, Alito is being critiqued continually with respect to former chief justice Roberts. The author believes that Alito fails to stand up to that status of Roberts, writing "Roberts stole all the best lines and the best jokes and the best legal theories." Even if this were the case, Roberts is no longer chief justice, and if Alito is expected to be an equal manifestation of Roberts, those who make the expection will be dissapointed. Alito will have to develop his own pragmatic style and prudence in the court, even though many are expecting him to live up to their own great image of Roberts.
In his opening statement, Alito spoke about how he grew up from humble beginnings and went on to Princeton, where he witnessed smart and privileged people abusing their responsibilities. This could be seen as an attack on Elite Theory, which holds that society is ruled by a small number of people exercising power only in their self interest. Alito witnessed privileged people acting only for their self interests, and he was appauled by this. Alito probably places Roberts into this category, commenting that Roberts was superflous in his actions and character, while Alito himself is truly humble. This seems to indicate that Alito believes that he himself will serve the public interest better than Roberts did, since he doesn't consider himself to be an elitist.

Social Security - Republicans call for phaseout of Social Security, pension taxes - Iowa House Republicans say that they are going to propose a plan that would exempt retirees from paying state taxes on pensions and social security, in order to discourage them from leaving the state, and hence allowing them to keep their investment capitol in the state of Iowa.
This plan does indeed benefit the individuals proposing it, but in turn it also benefits those whom it affects, even though the reasons may not be profoundly noble. Still, if benefits are offered to both sides, one should be content. The elderly would not have to pay taxes for pensions or social security, and due to this, they would not have a need to leave their homes, families, and lives. The state, in turn, would have a senior population with investment capitol, and hence the economy would benefit from this. Thus, in this matter, everyone has the oppurtunity to be content.

ARS - Waste management: It's about thyme - Agricultural Research Service scientists are developing a method to reduce the negative properties of manure. They are experimenting with thyme and other chemicals, which reduce concentrations of odor-causing volatile fatty acids and pathogens.
This project certainly offers benefits from its research. If all goes well, efficient and uncostly methods can be developed to reduce the odor of manure as well as the pathogens which can cause illnesses. Thus, this could benefit the cattle and manure business (due to cleaner manure, to a certain extent), as well as public health.

Local Fire Dept. - Bear Pond Fire Dept. gets grant - FEMA presented the Bear Pond Volunteer Fire Department with a $106,828 grant for operations and safety equipment.
Considering the unimpressive amount given to the fire department, this is a good investment, to say the least. The department will be able to purchase better equipment with the grant, and hence will be more efficient in saving lives as well as property, which in turn, saves money.

Local Police Dept. - Kronenwetter Police Department Under Investigation? - The village board is prepared to hire an investigator from out of their county to investigate an accusation of harrassment against two police officers by a resident, who, in fact, has been in trouble with the police before.
It is very possible that the police officers are corrupt, but, given that the resident has been in trouble with the law before, it is more likely that resident is merely trying to exact vengeance on the police. If the investigator can solve this little case, then it is settled, but if the investigator cannot, then it is more wise to have faith in the agency which attempts to provide order than in an individual who has a proclivity to upset it.

Medicare - More U.S. Doctors Accepting New Medicare Patients: Study - The Center for Studying Health System Change has done a study which shows that, despite a slight decline in reimbursement rates, the percentage of U.S. doctors accepting new Medicare patients has increased over the past four years. Although doctors may be willing to accept a one time fee reduction in Medicare, yearly fee cuts would lead to a reduction in doctors willing to accept new Medicare patients.
From this, one can gather that Medicare is becoming too costly for the government, and hence the elderly who are on the plan will be the ones who suffer. Even though the doctors are at a financial disadvantage by taking in new Medicare patients, they do so anyway, since the fee cuts are not so high that the doctors can become seriously affected by them. This does offer hope to the elderly on Medicare, at least for the time being. There is little doubt that fee cuts will occur in the future, though, and when they do, doctors may begin refusing to accept new Medicare patients.

NCLB - Mt. Pleasant Area meets NCLB standards - The middle and secondary schools in Mt. Pleasant Area, Pennsylvania have met "adequate yearly progress" standards under the federal no child left behind legislation.
The NCLB legislation is a nice idea, but one cannot expect every state to meet its requirements. It is progressive to at least see one state excelling in the requirements of the legislation. This reassures the public that it is possible to better the public educational system.

Homeland Security - Senate homeland security leaders sketch 2006 agenda - The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee this year is considering significant legislation on the organization and structure of the Homeland Security Department. The committee has several plans, including an investigation of the government's slow response to hurricane Katrina, a plan to recommend changes to the Stafford Act, and a plan to debate changes to the funding formula for "first responders" to emergencies.
The plans formulated by the committee are necessary indeed. Natural disasters can cause ruin to a nation's economy and welfare, such as Katrina demonstrated, and the handling of such disasters needs improvement. The funding formula recalculation seems to be a decent idea as well, since it is only logical that more populated and developed areas present more attractive targets for enemies than vacant, unindustrialized rural areas. Thus, if funds are going to be spent, protecting that which presents more of a target should take priority.

Post Office - Price Increases at the Post Office - The prices of stamps as well as all other post office services have increased, due to Congress requiring the establishment of a $3.1 billion escrow account.
In order to ensure economic growth and stability, no matter how minute, certain measures have to be taken. The increases of post office stamps and services offers a way to bring more money into the economy, quite possibly without agitating many people to a great extent.

Medicaid - Sweeping Medicaid Reforms Attack Fraud, Waste - New York state has issued a proposal stating that 'whistle-blowers' who report Medicaid fraud would be rewarded with a share of the money that they helped recover. This is only one of the measures instituted in order to cleanse a Medicaid program riddled with fraud and waste.
It is ironic, to say the least, that a program designed to benefit the poor is being corrupted for the benefit of the rich. Even if the state must appeal to people's cupidity in order to solve the issue of Medicaid fraud, which leads to tremendous financial wastes, the issue must be resolved. Medicaid is already a financial burden for the government, and fraud only worsens this.

NASA - NASA's Pluto Mission Draws Three Dozen Protesters - About three dozen people gathered at the Cape Canaveral spaceport Saturday to protest this month's planned launch of a plutonium-powered space probe bound for Pluto. The people are worried that if the rocket explodes, it would expose them to high levels of radiation. They are also concerned about whether this whole project is not merely a chance to test a nuclear generator for use in space weapons.
There are always risks associated with progress, but at times the risks can be too costly. If the rocket should explode, the radiation would become embedded within the environment essentially forever. Even if there were safer methods of proceeding with this project, the cost issue would most likely render them useless. This particular project does not seem to be that imperative, and risking people's lives as well the environment over it would not be a prudent decision.

TVA - TVA scientists test strobe lights on fish - Scientists installed underwater strobe lights at a Tennessee Valley Authority power plant in order to keep fish away from the pipes that draw water for the plant, so that fewer fish are killed, which improves efficiency and helps meet tougher Clean Water Act standards. If it works, this project will expand to other plants.
This project seems to be beneficial, to water cleanliness, fish safety, and plant maintanence. If the lights do not have any deteriorating effects, they quite possible have future implementations, provided that they are cost-efficient.

FDIC - FDIC: Effect of hurricane on Gulf banks still unclear - Even though banks have historically survived natural disasters, the impact of hurricane Katrina is still unclear. Although banks showed no significant financial deterioration in the years following hurricane Andrew, the Loma Prieta flood, the Northridge earthquake, and the Grand Forks flood, the economic loss from hurricane Katrina alone could amount to one and half times the economic loss from the other disasters combined. Local, state, and federal government assistance will help to offset losses.
In times of disastor, the economy of the affected region, and even the nation, can easily deteriorate, depending on the magnitude of the destruction. In the case of Katrina, the damage was paramount, and due to this, the local economies of the affected areas may very well suffer for a while, or at least remain stagnate, since this occured with all other previous disasters. In the end, after a long while, the economies may rise to normal levels, as did those of the areas affected by previous damage.

Copyright Laws - Song publishers say karaoke packages violate copyrights - In Tennessee, several Nashville song publishers have filed a federal lawsuit against a Knoxville-based firm, Chartbuster Karaoke, that supplies Karaoke fans with lyrics and tunes to many popular songs. The publishers contend that the firm's products violate copyright laws.
If this firm is violating copyright laws, then why wasn't this brought into the open sooner? And surely if this firm is infringing on copyright laws, it is very plausible that every single other Karaoke establishment is as well. It's quite possible that this is merely an attempt to gain publicity and profit.

SEC - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION: New guidelines drafted for fraud fines - The SEC announced new guidelines for fining companies for fraudulent conduct. The guidelines take into account the seriousness of the alleged corporate misconduct, how cooperative the company was in the investigation, and the deterrent effect of the punishment.
It is true that fraud should be punished to ensure the common welfare, but it also true that in times of need, punishing companies without regard to the items mentioned in the article (alleged misconduct, cooperation, and deterrent effect of punishment), which could result in the company's deterioration, may harm the economy. The country's wartime spending is approaching half a trillion dollars, according to the St. Pete Times, and if profitable companies went under, the economic state would surely worsen. Thus, company misconduct should be punished, but in unsure economic times, the punishment should be reasonable.

Secret Service - U.S. Secret Service to visit Seoul, Rice calls N.K. 'dangerous' regime - A United States Secret Service delegation is planning to visit South Korea as part of an Asian tour to discuss the North Korean counterfeiting issue. The U.S. treasury has banned American financial institutions from dealing with a Macau-based bank, accused of laundering money for Pyongyang and helping to circulate counterfeit dollars. In turn, North Korea has threatened to stay away from the six-way nuclear talks.
It is apparent that North Korea recognizes its leg-room when dealing with the United States. North Korea does not appear to be intimitated by the U.S., and hence is not submissive to any demands. Pyongyang believes that he holds great enough power to be able to negotiate with equal status with the United States. This, along with knowing how eager the U.S. is about the nuclear talks and the power he holds by possessing nuclear arms, allows Pyongyang to have negotiating rights with the United States. If the United States offers appeasement over the counterfeiting issue to Pyongyang, due to its anxiety to settle the six-way talks positivley, it would seem as though the U.S. is yielding to North Korea and losing its power over the negotiations between the two.

DMV - DMV Introduces New Digitized License Plates - In Tennessee, the DMV has issued digitalized license plates. The new technology will prevent theft, provide a more convenient way for law enforcement officers to learn more information about the driver, and save taxpayers money.
Considering the benefits of this new invention, it would seem as though the DMV has taken a right step in this matter. Since the new plates are more cost-efficient, have greater anti-theft capabilities, and allow law enforement officers to gain information about the driver without placing themselves in a great amount of danger, this new idea will probably prove to be a successful one.

EPA - EPA doles out $10M in grants for beach water monitoring - The federal government will be distributing $10 million in grants to 30 states and five territories for beach water quality monitering and notification programs. The water monitering aids to identify actions (e.g. warnings and closures) needed to reduce pollution when bacteria concentration levels become hazardously high.
This funding seems reasonable, since it would aid in protecting the health of people, as well as in making the monitoring of beach water efficiently possible. This not only safeguards the welfare of the people, but also overlooks the welfare of the beach environment.

FEMA - FEMA to hold event Saturday - FEMA is sponsering a Disaster Outreach Event to aid displaced hurricane evacuees and Alabama residents living in trailors, hotels, or with host families in developing long-term housing solutions.
FEMA's delayed response to the hurricane disastor did not go unnoticed by the American public, and FEMA has received harsh criticism due to this. Even though the damage has already been done, at least FEMA is attempting some form of reconciliation, however unsuccessful it may prove to be, by offering this event.

FCC - FCC's Martin Says He's Not Pushing Any Cable Option - Kevin Martin, Chairman of the FCC, thinks that consumers need choices and control over cable content delivered into their homes. He also stated that the FCC will continue to meet its legal mandate to enforce standards of decency on broadcast television.
To offer even more control over what content is delivered to consumers' homes might prove to be more profitable. This is thus, since people are willing to purchase, if they are able, those things which they desire. Offering more choices to people would only increase the spending from the consumers, who would indulge in purchasing content that they desire.

IRS - Not-so-shocking news about IRS - In Washington, it was discovered that the Internal Revenue Service had access to some taxpayers' political party affiliations. But this shouldn't have come as a shock since this information is available to anyone. This lack of privacy has caused some voters in Washington to fight any attempt to require party registration.
All government and all agencies are run by people, and it is the innate nature of people to form opinions and even discrimatory penchants. This holds especially true if people are in a group that has an opposition, such as political parties. If the IRS was dominantly controlled by a certain political group or influenced by certain policies, it might be inclined to give favor to those who belong to their group. Also, this could be seen as an infringement upon citizen's privacy.

TSA - TSA announces new airport bomb detectors - The TSA has announced that the busiest U.S. airports (about 40 percent of them) will have "puffer machines" installed by spring. These bomb-detection devices will allow efficient detection of bombs on passangers.
This is a prudent decision for the safety of the nation. The more effective the security systems in airports are, the more oppurtunity the nation has to be secure (at least in domestic skies). Installing these machines would, as the article describes, make bomb-detecting profoundly more efficient, enabling the airports to function more safely.

FDA - FDA test reveals potential health hazards - The FDA collected a sample of carrots for lab testing in Pune and found that they were coated with Rhodamine-B, a hazardous coloring chemical. The FDA is not taking chances, and hence is collecting random samples of fruits and vegetables for testing from across the state.
The FDA is a vital government agency. One cannot begin to discuss any philosophy, whether political, or any other, before acknowledging the founding premise of ourselves: People possess life. If we are not alive, the rest cannot be manifested. Thus, to stay alive takes premise over all other priorities. The FDA ensures that those substances which we consume do not compromise our lives, and hence indirectly safeguards our health.

CIA - Author explores CIA connections to torture tactics - Alfred McCoy, a professor of history at UW-Madison, has written a book about the CIA's psychological torture methods, which originated in the 1950's, and which McCoy claims were practiced in Abu Ghraid Prison.
In order to fight for the common defence, to keep the country safe, information must be obtained about those who wish to inflict harm upon the nation. The CIA's pyschological torture, if and only if it exploited the weakmindedness of compromising individuals in a mental manner, in order to gain information vital to the nation's security, would it began to be justified. Torture would fall under cruel and unusual punishment, but the constitution protects only the citizens of the United States, and certainly not those who are not citizens of it and upon it wish ill will. Hence, pyschological torture can be justified, at least, in a myopic sense: the weak pysche of the victim leads to their ultimate suffering, and if the torturers are not without restraint, this can be done efficiently to the point of obtaining what is needed from the victims. Yet, in no way should this be endorsed upon the innocent for cruel pleasure. Only on the individuals posing a serious threat, and who may, at a very high possibility, possess vital information, should this method be exercised. One does not necessarily have to interpret psychological torture as a way of caustically destroying the victim's emotions and thoughts, but as a way to make the individual feel surrounded and without hope, leaving them only one option: cooperation. Only in this way would pyschological torture begin to be justified, if at all.

FBI - FBI arrests businessman in UN oil-for-food scandal - The FBI arrested a South Korean busineessman accused of receiving millions of dollars from the regime of Saddam Hussein in order to bribe top United Nations officials over the oil-for-food program.
It is absolutely certain that any program will not go unhindered. Such corruption as this should not come suprisingly, since the opposition will not rest until it prevails. The FBI managed to catch one culprit, but it is a great possibility that innumerable others are out there. Due to the importance of its work, the FBI's efforts are vital for the common defence and domestic tranquility.

NSA - Cheney: NSA eavesdropping critical to U.S. security - Vice president Cheney argues in defense of the previously covert NSA eavesdropping program (which allowed for the eavesdropping on al Qaeda operatives, including those that are American), claiming that it is vital for national security, although some question the program's legality and argue that it violates civil liberties.
In my opinion, civil liberties are maintained, to any degree, by the government, which, under the constitution, is obligated to ensure freedom to its compliant governed. However, this cannot occur if the government itself is threatened. Since the people elect their representatives, who in turn form the governing body, any threat to either the people or the government is a direct assault upon the people. Thus, in order for the people to have their civil liberties, they need to protect themselves and the government, which grants them those liberties, first. This eavesdropping program may be an infringement upon certain individual's rights, but this is imperative in order to protect the nation as a whole. If the government infringes upon the rights of those individuals who wish harm to their own government and to their people, then, by the natural right to self-preservation, which supercedes human law, the program is (was, in this case) necessary, in order to ensure the safety of the said government and people.

Welcome to my website. This is my link to Google.