Congress

I believe there is no black and white answer to this question. A Congressman cannot only act upon what their constituents want, nor can they act only based upon their opinions and what they believe is best. There should be a compromise between the two extremes. I believe that a compromise can be reached with either the Politico Model or the Conscience Model of legislating. With the former, a Congressman follows his own opinions and beliefs, until the public becomes seriously involved with the issues and he must heed their wishes. This makes perfect sense to me, for said Congressman's opinions were obviously liked enough by his public to get him elected. The majority of the public obviously trusts the Congressman to follow his beliefs (which were made known during campaign time), and they believe his opinions will lead to the best decisions for the district.  Similar to this Model is the latter, the Conscience Model of legislation. The Congressman will follow the will of his public for the most part, until there is a situation where he must follow his own instincts in doing what he believes is right for the district. I like this model as well. Again, the people obviously trust the Congressman's opinions and therefor trust his instincts and conscience, because they are the ones who elected him. And many times, the Congressman will have the knowledge the public does not, and can use that knowledge to make his own choice which will benefit the people. For example, Congressman Cao of Louisiana had to trust his own opinions on what he thought would be better for his district when voting on the Stimulus Package. Though the people thought he would vote yes, at the last minute, Cao trusted his own instincts and did not vote in favor, for he considered the other option to be better for the district which he represented. 

Points of View: Gay Marriage

Gay Marraige: Federal or State Issue?

I agree with Mr. Wilkinson, a constitutional amendment is not the way to go with the issue of gay marriage. The amendment would ban gay marriage, thus limiting the rights of homosexuals. The Constitution, however, is not for banning rights, but for reassuring the people's rights (along with a description of governmental organization). The Founding Father's did not imagine the Constitution suppressing the people, but rather granting equal rights. As Wilkinson comments, "[The Framers] did not envision our Constitution as a place to restrict rights or enact public policies."  Furthermore, the Constitution is composed of amendments and articles that the whole of the United States mostly agrees upon. The matter of same-sex marriage, however, is far to controversial at this day an age for an amendment to be put in place. Putting in place a banning amendment across the whole nation would only cause chaos and riot. Letting state law decide their stand on the issue would be less problematic. If a gay couple lives in a state where same-sex marriage has been outlawed, they could potentially move to a different state which would give them a marriage license. If found the hypocrisy of conservatives on the issue of this federal amendment to be quite ridiculous. Wilkinson says, "Conservatives who eloquently challenged the Equal Rights Amendment... for federalizing core areas of state law now support an amendment that invites federal courts to frame a federal definition of marriage and the legal incidents thereof." Matters of marriage have always depended on state law, so why should Conservatives' opinions change to be in favor the Federal Marriage Amendment, when they were so strongly against the Equal Rights Amendment? This hypocrisy greatly angers me for I feel as though the Conservatives are letting their prejudice get in the way of their politics. I  support state law for same-sex marriage mostly because I am a full supporter of same-sex marriage, and feel as though, if states can decide whether or not gay marriage is legal, then homosexuals will still have equal rights as any other American, even if they have to move to a different state. I could go into much more depth on why I believe that gay marriage is perfectly okay, and why it is rather idiotic, really, to ban two humans who love each other (even though they both have the same type of genitalia) from getting married. And though this is a constitutional vs. state government argument, my opinion on gay marriage has most likely shaped my opinion that this issue should be a state matter. If I were opposed to gay marriage, I might not mind that there would be an amendment banning it. However, it completely depends on the circumstances. Same-sex marriage being an issue for state government seems to make much more sense to me, but possibly, if there weren't so much controversy over the matter, a federal constitution might not be so ridiculous. However, our country is greatly divided on the issue, and I find it would be unhealthy for Constitution to become a greater matter of controversy than it is already. 

Federalism

HEALTH CARE !

When the constitution was framed, our founding fathers chose the path of a federal system of government, instead of a unitary system. This system meant that the government would have many levels or layers, such as for cities, states, and the country as a whole. However, the nation's government, the federal government, was not to have complete sovereignty over the state governments. This allowed each form of government to have it's own responsibilities and duties, and would also prevent tyranny later down the road.  This article about universal health care shows that the federal government does have the power of the states to pass a law ensuring people with health care. But it also shows that, during the Clinton Administration, the people had the power to come together to halt his efforts towards universal healthcare. This shows that, though the federal government does have great authority, it is not completely in control. It does not have complete sovereignty. 

PROP 8 !

This article about Proposition 8 is another great example of federalism in the US and the balance of powers. Proposition 8 was an amendment to California's own constitution, banning same-sex marriages. It was not the responsibility of the federal government. However, when protests arose and people greatly disputed the proposition, the federal government became involved. Review of the constitutionality of this proposition went to the Supreme Court. The state government of California has the power and authority to pass amendments to it's own constitution, without needing the help or permission of the federal government. However, when needed, the federal government has the power to intervene, and the Supreme Court has the authority to review the constitutionality of the amendment. 

Points of View: The Constitution

It is not hard to see the major flaw in Beard's argument about the Constitution. He argues that the Constitution was created undemocratically, in an undemocratic society, and that it was created only for personalty interests, i.e. money, public securities, manufactures, and commerce. However, Beard has little to none evidence to support this thesis. The evidence he does have is second hand and most likely picked to specifically support his case. It seemed as though Beard drew his thesis from bitter feelings of the upper elitist class. It was easy for Beard to connect the problems of the current US back to the selfishness of the framers of the Constitution. It is ridiculous of Beard to say that only the elitist upper class was in favor of the Constitution, and all other American's were opposed to the document that would only benefit that upper class. It was also ridiculous of Beard to conclude that the framers wanted to only benefit themselves and ignore the rest of American. Many times, yes, framers made decisions that would benefit them, but that also meant these decisions enhanced the situations for people in other classes as well. Evidence shows that the constitution was not only a product of the upper class, but of the farming middle class as well. Beard stated that men with personalty interest greatly outnumbered men with realty at the convention, but Brown shows that to be simply not true. Beard argues that many farmers with realty interests did not vote, however, because they were disenfranchised. Browns counters, saying that, in reality, men with realty could very well vote, they were just uninterested. Also, Beard's  idea that property was the main concern of the framers was partially incorrect. Property was not the only concern. Both property and the people's rights concerned the framers, and not just for themselves, but for all of America. It is safe to say that, while Beard has a strong argument, it is an opinion and is founded on an "act of faith", as Brown puts it. Beards thesis does not convince me and cannot be called a historical analysis. 

Overturning Prop. 8

Proposition 8 is a California amendment banning same-sex marriages and questioning the validity of about 18,000 already existing marriages. Many opponents of this proposition argue it's constitutionality, and the conflict has been taken to the Supreme Court. Firstly, this approved proposition demonstrates the principle of Federalism. California's state government exercised it's power and authority by passing this amendment to their own constitution, without the help or need of the federal government. Federalism is the idea that the federal government has it's own set of responsibilities, while state governments handle others. It is not the federal government's responsibility to handle amendments to the California constitution. The Supreme Court analyzation of the constitutionality of this amendment also exercises the principle of the Checks and Balances system. The Supreme Court is limiting, or "checking", the power of California's government. The judiciaries can invalidate the act of Prop 8, if they find it was not a constitutional act. Finally, this article demonstrates the idea of a fixed system open to change. First, Proposition 8 was an amendment ratified in California, which was changing the legality of same-sex marriage. Now, with the Supreme Court review of the amendment, there is a possibility that the amendment will be overturned, much to the pleasure of Prop. 8 opponents. The system of government remains the same, but the passing of Prop. 8 and the possible overturn of it shows that laws are malleable. 

LINK TO ARTICLE !

REVIEWING PROP. 8

Abortion

For a while, I have been seriously concerned with the issues of abortion. I'd like to start off by saying I am not "Pro-Abortion." I, personally, don't think I would ever get an abortion, unless the circumstance was absolutely dire. I don't necessarily encourage abortions, either. I am "Pro-Choice." I feel like it is a woman's decision whether or not she gets an abortion, not the government's choice. The government should not have control over a woman's body. It is my body, I can do what I like with it. If I am allowed to poke holes through it and tattoo ink across my skin, I should be allowed to have an abortion if I so wish. I understand the argument that taking a young life is horrible, and I agree. I don't believe aborting a fetus that actually looks and resembles a human is right. However, I believe abortions are perfectly fine during the first trimester of pregnancy, when the baby is still an embryo - merely a sack of cells. 

The Circumstances which surround the pending abortion must also be taken into consideration. Will a fifteen year old girl really be a fitting mother for an infant? Should a rape-victim have to raise a child which would remind her of her attacker everyday? What if the woman's life and health is at risk during a pregnancy and an abortion is the only safe way out? There are circumstances in which a baby would be least healthy for the woman's physical and mental stability. Furthermore, making abortion illegal is potentially as dangerous to a woman as an abortion is to an unborn child. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and if women can't turn to a clinic abortion, they man attempt to perform the abortion themselves. This is very dangerous and potentially lethal. Death by home abortion is easily preventable if women have the option of a clinic abortion. Taking the option of a professional abortion away not only stifles women's rights, but takes away a woman's security blanket as well. 

I completely believe it is up to the woman  whether or not she goes through with the pregnancy. It is the woman's choice. She should not have the right to decide taken away from her. I fully support the Freedom of Choice Act, which would protect and guarantee women in coming generations the right to a choice. I must make this clear again: I am not arguing for the right to abortion, but rather, I am arguing for a woman's right to choose and the control over her own body. 

LINKS !

Planned Parenthood
Prochoice.org
Pro-Choice

PRESIDENT'S VIEWS ON ABORTION !

Obama's Views 

On the Issue

THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT !

Freedom of Choice Act