The War of Political Parties

December 5, 2012: Transcending Political Parties

In his article "How to Turn Republicans and Democrats Into Americans", Mickey Edwards brings up a topic George Washington and James Madison warned us about: political parties.  Although we are all citizens of this great country, our political parties create a wall of separation, forcing Democrats and Republicans to battle each other.  No longer is solving the real issues the goal in politics; the system has transformed into "a struggle for power between two private organizations".  Is this really the best way to organize the government?

Although now that these political parties exist and there's no way to fully get rid of them, Edwards does have a few suggestions I also feel can improve the situation:

"Break the power of partisans to keep candidates off the general-election ballot.": If every candidate, regardless of party, were put on the same ballot, and voters, regardless of party, could choose among them, voters' choices would not be as biased towards the representative of their political party.  Rather than giving their vote to a candidate simply because they support Republicans or Democrats, citizens could judge candidates based off of real issues and the policies.  Representatives could represent everyone, not simply the members of their own private political group.

"Turn over the process of redrawing congressional districts to independent, nonpartisan commissions.":  As Edwards recalls, as a Congressman his district was redrawn to benefit the political parties, leaving him with a more rural district full of issues he felt he could not properly represent.  By preventing this occurrence, legislators can have a district that they can truthfully voice issues for, serving the community interests.  Properly serving a community should not be sacrificed simply because political parties wish to maintain their power.

"Choose committee staff solely on the basis of professional qualifications.":  This idea is one that should be reflected in all areas of work, and it surprises me (although power for political parties can be blinding) that this has not been practiced amongst Congressional staff members.  However, with all staff members chosen based on their qualifications rather than the political party they represent, these jobs can be better carried out, allowing for a more efficient government.  Just like most cases of gender, jobs should not show a bias towards certain political parties.

Overall, I really have no complaints over Edwards' propositions to solving these political party issues.  The only fact I would have to stress is that this government needs to somehow be turned into a setting in which political parties do not feel the need to have more power, eliminating the motivation behind the struggle.  Perhaps we should eliminate events such as the Democratic and Republican Conventions, bringing both parties together.  If all representatives were treated as equals and the government emphasized the importance of helping the country rather than dominating it, political parties could work together in this great country in which we all live.

We may never be able to destroy political parties, but we can certainly try to overcome their negative effects.  

Looks Like a Fog Won't Clear

November 12, 2012:  The Legalization of Marijuana

Along with the re-election of President Obama, Colorado voters passed Amendment 64 last Tuesday, making Colorado the first state to legalize marijuana for the recreational use for adults.  How will this course of action play out?  Will it be a positive experience?  Will it allow other states to follow in its footsteps?

According to CNN, “legalization could save U.S. taxpayers the $10 billion spent each year on enforcing marijuana prohibition, and eliminate the criminal cases against more than 750,00 people arrested per year for possession.”  These benefits really could make a difference-imagine if all the states passed this law and saved $10 billion!  Plus, with fewer criminal cases involved with the possession of marijuana, more serious cases can be given more time and have more available resources to be dealt with.

Since many people still dealt with marijuana behind closed doors without it being legal (reminiscent of the times of Prohibition), Amendment 64 may only make easier what has already been done.  Citizens of Colorado can now enjoy the drug sans the sketchy deals and threat of the law.  However, with its nontoxic nature and the fact that it cannot cause death by overdose, marijuana won’t be overly dangerous, and as stated above, more than just its users will benefit from the amendment.

Although it seems to be a dramatic change, I don’t feel that Amendment 64 will really alter that much in the country.  I find it highly unlikely that every citizen of age in Colorado will suddenly jump on the opportunity to use marijuana legally.  Instead, the amendment probably will only allow those who used the drug in secret to now use it freely.  Maybe the rest of the country should follow suit and allow the concealment of marijuana to disappear...

Note: I am in no way advocating the use of drugs.

Re-election Provides Many Reactions

November 11, 2012: Political Reactions to the Re-election of President Obama

The news is in!  President Barack Obama has been re-elected for his second term!  Although a close (or maybe not so close? check out http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ for those election forecasts) race, Obama earned 303 electoral votes in comparison to Mitt Romney's 206, leading to his victory.

In a country with varied views on practically every issue, there have been a multitude of reactions to Obama's re-election.  With my curiosity, I came across this article from ABC news.  Here, they provide a range of statements from political figures.  Here are a few of my favorites:

Mitt Romney:  As the other presidential candidate, it was obvious that a statement was needed from Mitt Romney.  In this article, he gives the typical congratulations to Obama.  I can't help but wonder what he really feels beneath those words.  He must be extremely disappointed, but I'm happy to see that he does not abandon respect and class simply because he lost and must no longer campaign.

Sarah Palin:  Although Palin does not outright speak about Obama or Romney, her disapproval of Obama's re-election is evident in her words.  Her main concern is the economy, insinuating that Obama will only bring more debt.  Maybe Obama really hasn't helped the economy in the past four years, but he is not the sole cause.  I sense Palin feels some bitterness over the results...

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:  McConnell says a line I could not express better: "The voters have not endorsed the failures or excesses of the president's first term, they have simply given him more time to finish the job they asked him to do together with a Congress that restored balance to Washington after two years of one-party control."  In the debates leading up to the election, many citizens argued that Obama had not done what he promised during his presidency.  However, now he has more time to continue his efforts in bettering the country.  Being president is not a simple task, and McConnell can easily realize this.

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell:  McDonnell speaks another few of my favorite words of the article: "And we are bound together by something far more important than politics and policy: we are Americans, and this is a great country. The campaign is now over. It is time for us to heal and face our tremendous challenges. We will only be able to surmount those challenges by working together."  The election is now over, and there are many issues to be addressed.  If anything is to get done to improve this country, political leaders must come together and work as partners.  McDonnell, like many other politicians, does not always agree with the President and Vice President, but he understands that they must overcome their differences to work through the problems of the nation.  His words are extremely admirable.

No one knows for sure how the next four years will play out.  There may be great change, gradual change, or no change at all.  Despite the issues present in our country, citizens must unite and work with our re-elected president.  I raise my glass (of water) and wish the best of luck to President Obama.

Aborting Views on Abortion

October 10, 2012: Abortion and the Right to Privacy

The right to privacy isn't exactly stated in our Bill of Rights.  But hey, it's basically implied, right?  We couldn't have protections from things like unreasonable searches and seizures of the Fourth Amendment without suggesting our right to privacy, now could we?

In dealing with the right to privacy, the big controversial issue of abortion comes to discussion.  What aspects of abortion can the government control?  Some believe that abortion should be banned.  Others believe that women should have the right to decide whether or not an abortion is the best option for them.  And for others, there's a blurred gray area, making view points on the topic extremely varied.

In my investigation of this issue, I came across an interesting article dealing with Mitt Romney and his views on abortion.  Since there are such unique and various opinions on this issue, it becomes difficult for presidential candidates to appeal to everyone's beliefs.  Up until reading this article, I had been informed that Mitt Romney was pro-life and completely opposed to abortion.  It had even been brought to my attention that he expressed support for the reversal of the decision of Roe v. Wade .  Well, it seems Mr. Romney is now going in another direction.

As stated in the article, Mitt Romney has stopped replying to comments on abortion and does not take a definite side.  It seems as if he is "hid[ing] his position in abortion in an attempt to close the deal with voters".  While it may be wise to appear to remain neutral, I fear that it may be too late to conceal his feelings now.  We've all seen his views by now, so it probably won't make much of a difference to voters unless he drastically changes his mind about the issue.

There is no winner in this situation.  Whatever one's views on abortion, there are no right or wrong answers, and there will continue to be disagreement.  I applaud Mitt Romney's attempt at hiding his views on this controversial topic, but it's too late in the game to take back what was previously said.  No matter what, there will always be a debate on the issue.

When Life as a Student Seems to Get Worse

October 7, 2012: Students' Not-So-Equal Rights

Upon opening the Students' Rights Handbook, I felt a bit apprehensive.  Could it be possible that my school was hiding something from me and limiting my rights?  Did I really want to know about a variety of inequalities between my status as a student and normal citizens?

Within the first two pages, my fears were already being confirmed.  Although students' rights are established and protected by the U.S. Constitution, the New Jersey Constitution, federal and New Jersey state laws and the courts, "rights that you might have on the street may not apply when you are in a public school."  The first headings that caught my attention were Types of Clothing and Hair.  As the handbook states, "A student does not necessarily have a First Amendment right to wear a particular type of style or clothing."  The courts seem to need some explanation as to what message certain clothing conveys.  What if I just like the way it looks or makes me feel?  Why does it matter if the male students in Illinois who wore earrings did not convey some message?  It is certainly not fair to prevent a student from wearing certain clothing because it does not convey "a particular message", especially if it does not really affect the school environment.  Similarly, "school officials may...require students to alter hairstyles if they interfere with work, create a disruption in the classroom or elsewhere in the school, or present a clear and present danger to health or safety." This seems a bit extreme.  Hair is another form of self expression, and I honestly don't see many ways in which it could really pose a danger to the school environment.  Other issues should be dealt with other than the controversiality of someone's hairstyle.

Under Student Newspapers and Publications, I quickly found a point I did not agree with: "School officials may exercise editorial control over both the style and the content of school-sponsored newspapers and other publications, so long as the restrictions they impose are reasonably related to a valid educational policy."  In the real world, newspapers are relatively free to publish what they desire.  It does not seem reasonable not to translate this value to the school.  I do see the need to limit it somewhat to keep an orderly environment, but students should otherwise be free in expressing their ideas and opinions.

The last statement in the handbook that caught my eye was under Censorship of Information: "As to classroom texts, the school's authority is much broader because of the school's duty to teach "community values" in the classroom.  Accordingly, schools may select books that are consistent with those values."  If public schools are not allowed to teach and advertise a certain religion, they should not be able to select books to teach their "community values".  These "community values" can act in the same way as a religion can, imposing a certain mindset on students.

Overall, I see the need for limiting some students' rights.  We are just kids, after all, and we need some guidance.  However, we shouldn't be so limited in areas of our dressing and hairstyles, school newspapers, and censorship.  In the real world, citizens are free to express themselves, so we should get this same right.  Going to school with an abundance of work and lack of sleep makes me mad enough already--you don't want to push my buttons by putting restraints on my student rights.

A Time for Change?

September 12, 2012: Changing the Constitution

As the times are rapidly evolving, some look to the Constitution and see flaws that must be fixed.  The Constitution was written around 220 years ago, yet in this time, it has hardly changed.  While some believe the document to be some holy, permanent work, the fact is that the country isn't the same as it was when the Framers wrote it.  

In reading the United States Constitution as well as many articles with different opinions of the topic, I came across Article. I. Section. 3. and found a discrepancy I agree needs to be modified.  Part of the clause states:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.”

As of now, the Constitution allows for a legislative branch of government with two houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate.  While the number of representatives from each state in the House is based off of state population, this clause allows for each state in the Senate to have two senators from each state, regardless of population.  I feel that this part needs to be adjusted a bit.  When the Constitution was first ratified, there was not as large of a population difference between large and small states as there is today.  However, now, even though larger states can have an incredibly larger population than other states, they still only get two senators. Yes, the Senate is the “equalizer” for the states of the two chambers of Congress, but I still don’t find this system equal when the larger states have most of the nation’s people, yet they can accomplish nothing in the more powerful, long-term decision-making Senate without the approval of the less populated states.  

To make this issue of population difference a little fairer, I would propose a slightly more representative Senate.  Instead of completely basing the amount of representation on population like the House of Representatives, a small extra amount of senators could be added to the larger states with the most population.  Perhaps the top ten most populated states could have an additional 2 senators each and the next 15 or so most populated states have one additional senator each.  The Senate could still be more equal and more independent of the people, but the representation could be more balanced and fair.  This Constitution aims for a balance of power, but the position of the Senate today does not follow this principle.  Sorry Framers...this document needs some updating.