Religion

In the constitution, the First Amendment gives US citizens "freedom from religion." There is debate, however, about how religion should be dealt with in terms of government. The separatist view says the government should avoid complete contact with religion and should not endorse religious activities. The accommodation view says the government can support religion and associated activities. 

In the 1960's, the Supreme Court took a more separatist view during cases. In Engel v. Vitale, the constitutionality of the practice of praying each morning in a public school was challenged. Though the prayer had been developed by Protestants, Catholics, and Jews jointly, many parents still challenged the practice using the court pathway. The Supreme Court declared that a religious practice indicated improper government endorsement and pressure on religious belief. 

Gag Orders

There are many forms of gag orders, but the most common is a trial judge's order that no participant in a case can talk to the news media about the case. These participants include the parties, lawyers, law enforcement officials and witnesses. Judges insist gag orders are necessary to protect the parties of the trial and preserve the fairness of the trial. Gags orders were approved in the 1966 Supreme Court case Sheppard v. Maxwell. Sheppard, accused of murdering his wife, was released from custody because of massive publicity surrounding his case. This great publicity denied him his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.The  Supreme Court criticized that the trial judge should have gagged the participants of the Sheppard case to protect his rights. There were no standards, however, set for imposing an order. There still are no tests in lower courts for gag orders today. 

In my opinion, gag orders are a grey area. I believe in the protection of a person's right to a fair trial, however, I also believe in freedom of speech -- freedom of participants to talk to who they like and for media to gather the information they like. The release of certain information can be harmful to the protection of the party of the trial and to maintaining the fairness of the trial. But a gag order seem like a very harsh way to protect the rights of the parties of the trial. There should be a middle ground for confidentiality and the right to a fair trial that would also accommodate the first amendment. 

Qualities of a Supreme Court Justice

There are a few different things I would like to see in a Supreme Court justice. I don't think a law degree or serious experience as either a lawyer or an employee of the federal government is absolutely necessary when considering a justice candidate. I don't think, however, that experience in some sort of hard working career or job is necessary. I believe a candidate needs the experience of a job that has taught them hard work and has helped them shape informed opinions about our country and life in general. However, I also think a candidate needs to be lenient with his or her opinions. A candidate needs to be open to listening to the different facts of a case so they can pass a democratic judgement that is not necessarily based solely on their previously shaped opinions. Personally, a justice's political affiliation is not as important to me as it is to others, considering I consider myself moderate and an independent. However, I do think I would try to pick a justice who's values are closely aligned with mine, for I may trust their judgement more than a candidates who's values are completely different. 

Model Congress Wrap Up

The current process of legislation was put in place over two hundred years ago by the US’ founding fathers. It was created with democracy in mind and with the idea that the public’s voice needed to be heard. Justice and efficiency were also aimed for when the Constitution was drawn. Everyone’s opinion mattered, as well as a job well done for the betterment of the country. It cannot be said the legislative process is entirely fair or effective, though it would be wrong to label the process completely ineffective as well. The legislative process has been set up with such diligence that it has lasted the US for over two hundred years, however there are still issues, which make the process somewhat undemocratic.

            In many aspects, the legislative process of the Congress is very effective and has worked for the passed two hundred years. The founding fathers framed the process so each political party would share equal power. Though one party can dominate at a certain time, the minority party still has somewhat of a voice, as was seen in our model congress, when the Republicans successfully filibustered, or held the floor for as long as possible, only yielding to other Republicans. This defeated the Reproductive Rights For All Women Act. Also, one party is not forever the majority party in power. Democratic elections are held, where the public can directly decide who they would like to represent them in Congress. Because of the elections of new Congressmen, power in the Congress changes and flip-flops between the different parties. During the legislative process, bills are put up for debate and vote, instead of being directly sent to the president. This debate and vote is a democratic procedure. Simply because the public does not vote on the bills directly does not mean the process is any less democratic. The public voted for the Congressmen that would represent them. The people put their faith in the representatives to make decisions they would agree with during the process. The long history of the country shows that even through the roughest of times, the same legislative process has remained in place. Though there may have been small changes, changing the process in its entirety has never been a question.

            Though the legislative process is mostly effective and has survived for over two hundred years, there are still some issues. During debate in Congress, the minority party has a chance to exert some power with the filibuster. Filibustering is useful when preventing amendments from being added to bills on the floor, however, it can also prevent the voting process for a very popular bill. As seen in McGehee’s model Congress, the Reproductive Rights For All Women Act was defeated because of the Republican filibuster. However, this was a very popular bill among the Democrats. The lack of a vote for RRAWA did not give it a just chance in Congress and it’s complete defeat was somewhat undemocratic. This can be said for any and all filibustering. To improve the legislative process, a different method for hearing the minority party’s voice should be created.  There is also a possibility that one party can hold the majority for a long period of time, giving the minority party a very limited voice. This should not be considered undemocratic, for the majority and minority changes eventually. However, it would be appropriate to call the lack of voice for the minority party as ineffective. One party will have total say while it is the majority, however, there should be some way for the minority party to have a voice. As afore mentioned, however, a way more democratic than filibustering. Another rather undemocratic procedure of Congress is the addition of earmarks to a bill. Earmarks are funds that are direct to a specific program or recipient. However, to add earmarks to a bill, there is no Congressional debate or public overview. The unquestioned adding of funds to a bill is undemocratic. Because there is no oversight to the addition, these earmarks can be used by Congressmen as awards to campaign contributors or even bribes. This part of the process needs to be changed. Either earmarks are done away with completely, or there is some sort of Congressional hearing before they are added on to a bill. Though the legislative process has held strong for two hundred years, it is not hard to miss some of its flaws.

It is impossible to say the legislative process is either completely effective and just or completely ineffective and unfair. Claiming either extreme would be inaccurate. The legislative process is effective and just in certain aspects. It has lasted to two hundred years and gives the public a voice. However, there are certain issues that have yet to be worked out, thus creating kinks in the system. Like the meat packing conflict in USDA: Inspected, the legislative process is not black or white, but it is a gray area. It is not perfect, yet it is not completely useless. It has worked for the US, however, for two hundred years. There is no reason it can’t continue it’s efficient work (with a little tweaking) for many more years to come.

Work Cited

“Earmark FAQ.” Sunlight Foundation. April 2008. Sunlight Foundation. 29 April 2009. <http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/earmarksFAQ/>.