Saturday, December 8, 2007
Saturday, December 1, 2007
American Government
Where does our government need to be more and less involved? First i tried to think of the boundaries. It seems that is not a very easy think to do because it would seem that federal law seems to effect anything and everything to an extent. Every time there is a case that seems to find a loop hole they create a new law so it wont happen again.
I think the government needs to first work on immigration and securing boarders. That is one of the main jobs of the government is to watch the boarders yet that seems to be lacking to a great extent. In both people and goods that cross over, imports are under cutting many American businesses. I really wouldn't mind if a few of the cops that like to pull people over for going 5 over the speed limit went and used that kind of work ethic to escort people to sign up for taxes if they wanna be here so bad.
The second point they could get more involved in is making the court rooms less of a joke. People are filing suits over two hundred dollars or less because the loaned it to a friend and now they don't like that friend. Even if people sign a waver saying that they wont sue if they get injured all it means is they get less money because "you cant sign your rights away," people know why that's a law and that its not meant to be used that way but no one seems to do anything. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to sure unless it is considered "worthy" but more that they use common sense and not let the laws be twisted and manipulated.
Where do I think the government needs to get less involved, well there are a bunch of things but one of the main ones would be safety. When on mines collapses a hundred new laws com with it, they usually don't stop another mines from collapsing either, all they do is close a bunch of mines and cause inflation. When i was working a mining plant even though I was in the lab every day I had to stop everything I'm doing to make sure I eat exactly between my 6th and 8th hour, if I finish eating I cant get back to work until its been exactly 30 min. Its a joke that they feel they have to hold every ones hands all the time and are just impeding on progress.
They need to stop states from making laws that make so little sense they are at the base unconstitutional. There were a few recent suits made by people at their houses that said the concrete was defective. Technically this was the fault of the contractor but in order to make more money they sued the cement plant, how is the plant supposed to know where and how the cement is going to be used. The cement plant began to win some of the cases where there was no proof that there were any defects so California legislature made a new law that you did not need proof to sue the company. Are they trying to kill our economy, do they seriously not realize how hard they are making it to run a business. They made a law that a company had to make sure there is no sexual harassment taking place, as a result the companies fired people who were sexually harassing other people. Then a new law was made that was twisted in to, if you are fired fro sexual harassment you can sue the company for wrongful termination.
In the end I find very few things I think the government should get more involved in except for the basics that they seem to do very poorly. As fro what they could do less stop treating every one like children because that what their turning in to. Social Security is flawed, the idea that they can fix all the problems by making more and more laws is unintelligent, and the ability to remain oblivious to the twisting of the constitution is un-nerving. Then again it is partially our fault people don't seem to understand that "fix" is code word for "more complex laws."
I think the government needs to first work on immigration and securing boarders. That is one of the main jobs of the government is to watch the boarders yet that seems to be lacking to a great extent. In both people and goods that cross over, imports are under cutting many American businesses. I really wouldn't mind if a few of the cops that like to pull people over for going 5 over the speed limit went and used that kind of work ethic to escort people to sign up for taxes if they wanna be here so bad.
The second point they could get more involved in is making the court rooms less of a joke. People are filing suits over two hundred dollars or less because the loaned it to a friend and now they don't like that friend. Even if people sign a waver saying that they wont sue if they get injured all it means is they get less money because "you cant sign your rights away," people know why that's a law and that its not meant to be used that way but no one seems to do anything. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to sure unless it is considered "worthy" but more that they use common sense and not let the laws be twisted and manipulated.
Where do I think the government needs to get less involved, well there are a bunch of things but one of the main ones would be safety. When on mines collapses a hundred new laws com with it, they usually don't stop another mines from collapsing either, all they do is close a bunch of mines and cause inflation. When i was working a mining plant even though I was in the lab every day I had to stop everything I'm doing to make sure I eat exactly between my 6th and 8th hour, if I finish eating I cant get back to work until its been exactly 30 min. Its a joke that they feel they have to hold every ones hands all the time and are just impeding on progress.
They need to stop states from making laws that make so little sense they are at the base unconstitutional. There were a few recent suits made by people at their houses that said the concrete was defective. Technically this was the fault of the contractor but in order to make more money they sued the cement plant, how is the plant supposed to know where and how the cement is going to be used. The cement plant began to win some of the cases where there was no proof that there were any defects so California legislature made a new law that you did not need proof to sue the company. Are they trying to kill our economy, do they seriously not realize how hard they are making it to run a business. They made a law that a company had to make sure there is no sexual harassment taking place, as a result the companies fired people who were sexually harassing other people. Then a new law was made that was twisted in to, if you are fired fro sexual harassment you can sue the company for wrongful termination.
In the end I find very few things I think the government should get more involved in except for the basics that they seem to do very poorly. As fro what they could do less stop treating every one like children because that what their turning in to. Social Security is flawed, the idea that they can fix all the problems by making more and more laws is unintelligent, and the ability to remain oblivious to the twisting of the constitution is un-nerving. Then again it is partially our fault people don't seem to understand that "fix" is code word for "more complex laws."
Saturday, November 10, 2007
11th Amendment
“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
This was never considered to be an issue until Chisholm v. Georgia. Alexander Chisholm, a citizen of South Carolina and executor of the Robert Farquhar estate, filed suet against Georgia for payment of goods given to Georgia during the American Revolutionary War. Georgia did not go to the hearing claiming that as a state they had immunity. The court found in favor of the plaintiff saying that Article III Section 2 of the constitution stated they could be sued with the same rights as a normal person and did not have immunity according to the constitution.
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”
While the Supreme Court favored with the plaintiff they saw a problem that could later grow and two years later passed the 11th amendment on February 7, 1795. It simply stated that a state can not be sued by another state or country or any person that is not a citizen of that state.
In 1890 suet was filed that attempted to go around the states immunity. In the case Hans v. Louisiana, Hans was a citizen of Louisiana and thus the 11th amendment did not technically apply to the case. He was suing the states for state bonds he owned, that due to a new change to the state constitution would become invalid. Two problems arose because of this, first was that there was no statement in the constitution that said a citizen could not sue their own state, second was that the circuit courts said since it was all contained within their state the supreme court did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court stated that it was within their power to take position of any hearing they saw necessary.
The Supreme Court after reviewing statements from the founders stated that the concept of a citizen suing their own state was something they never would have considered. During their time if a citizen tried to sue their own state the case would be ignored unless the state consented to going to court. The Supreme Court stated then that the eleventh amendment implied that a state can not be sued by on of its own citizen thus giving it seemingly complete immunity.
This was left for a while as a plain stated amendment however that was realized not to be true when compared to other amendments such as the bankruptcy clause of Article I or the later ratified 14th amendment.
In the case Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer the plaintiffs said that they had been subject to sex discrimination in their retirement policies and that this violated the 14th amendment that stated that there could be not discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. The state claimed they had immunity but the Supreme Court ruled that the eleventh amendment could be nullified if a case went against section 5 of the 14th amendment.
This seemed to open up more holes because it seemed to state the 11th amendment could be ignored if a case violated another amendment. Central Virginia Community College v. Katz in 1976 seemed to give example to this. The plaintiff owned a chain of book stores that were quickly going out of business, along with the fact that the owner himself had a number of high debts. He was forced to file bankruptcy but also decided to file suet saying that the bankruptcy clause of Article I allowed him to recover alleged preferential transfers in the form of rent he had given to the collages. The state claimed immunity and the supreme court ruled in their favor stating that Article I did not grant citizens power to sue states.
The 11th amendment is one that is not completely clear, while a number of cases try to use it as a loop hole the Supreme Court continues to make the allowed cases through the 11th amendment smaller. The Supreme Court must still view cases that claim to violate the 14th amendment to see if they have the right to sue their state. It is an amendment that is also slightly controversial because in its attempt to make order by giving states immunity they can not allow complete immunity because that would give the states to much power. Even though it seems like a simple statement it implies many more things that go along with it.
This was never considered to be an issue until Chisholm v. Georgia. Alexander Chisholm, a citizen of South Carolina and executor of the Robert Farquhar estate, filed suet against Georgia for payment of goods given to Georgia during the American Revolutionary War. Georgia did not go to the hearing claiming that as a state they had immunity. The court found in favor of the plaintiff saying that Article III Section 2 of the constitution stated they could be sued with the same rights as a normal person and did not have immunity according to the constitution.
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”
While the Supreme Court favored with the plaintiff they saw a problem that could later grow and two years later passed the 11th amendment on February 7, 1795. It simply stated that a state can not be sued by another state or country or any person that is not a citizen of that state.
In 1890 suet was filed that attempted to go around the states immunity. In the case Hans v. Louisiana, Hans was a citizen of Louisiana and thus the 11th amendment did not technically apply to the case. He was suing the states for state bonds he owned, that due to a new change to the state constitution would become invalid. Two problems arose because of this, first was that there was no statement in the constitution that said a citizen could not sue their own state, second was that the circuit courts said since it was all contained within their state the supreme court did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court stated that it was within their power to take position of any hearing they saw necessary.
The Supreme Court after reviewing statements from the founders stated that the concept of a citizen suing their own state was something they never would have considered. During their time if a citizen tried to sue their own state the case would be ignored unless the state consented to going to court. The Supreme Court stated then that the eleventh amendment implied that a state can not be sued by on of its own citizen thus giving it seemingly complete immunity.
This was left for a while as a plain stated amendment however that was realized not to be true when compared to other amendments such as the bankruptcy clause of Article I or the later ratified 14th amendment.
In the case Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer the plaintiffs said that they had been subject to sex discrimination in their retirement policies and that this violated the 14th amendment that stated that there could be not discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. The state claimed they had immunity but the Supreme Court ruled that the eleventh amendment could be nullified if a case went against section 5 of the 14th amendment.
This seemed to open up more holes because it seemed to state the 11th amendment could be ignored if a case violated another amendment. Central Virginia Community College v. Katz in 1976 seemed to give example to this. The plaintiff owned a chain of book stores that were quickly going out of business, along with the fact that the owner himself had a number of high debts. He was forced to file bankruptcy but also decided to file suet saying that the bankruptcy clause of Article I allowed him to recover alleged preferential transfers in the form of rent he had given to the collages. The state claimed immunity and the supreme court ruled in their favor stating that Article I did not grant citizens power to sue states.
The 11th amendment is one that is not completely clear, while a number of cases try to use it as a loop hole the Supreme Court continues to make the allowed cases through the 11th amendment smaller. The Supreme Court must still view cases that claim to violate the 14th amendment to see if they have the right to sue their state. It is an amendment that is also slightly controversial because in its attempt to make order by giving states immunity they can not allow complete immunity because that would give the states to much power. Even though it seems like a simple statement it implies many more things that go along with it.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Democracy in Iraq
On March 20, 2003 America invaded Iraq stating to objectives. The first goal we wanted to accomplish was to make sure there were no WMD's and to shut down any programs to create WMD's. The second objective was to take Saddam Hussein, Iraq's dictator, out of power. Saddam Hussein had been the leader over Iraq from 1979-2003 and ruled with fear and power and attacked a number of surrounding areas such as in the Gulf War.
The problem that arises when trying to take a leader out of power is that someone needs to or is going to move in to that open support of power. We could have left Iraq right when we took Saddam out of power but someone else would have moved into that spot, most likely would be the most aggressive person. If we left this vacuum open we might be responsible for someone even worse than Saddam being in charge. The best solution seen would be to remain in Iraq and change their government into a democracy. If Iraq could be turned into a democracy the people would be more in control rather than someone controlling them by force.
This sounds like a good idea but good doesn't mean easy, we have seen it takes more than just elections to start a government. Even if we don't leave that doesn't mean that no one is going to try to move in to power. A second problem is there are a number of people that wish to attack Americans and anyone not against us even if they are not trying to take control. Many attacks on troops and anyone trying to help turn Iraq into a democracy make it very hard to accomplish anything. There is also the fact that many people have never lived with some control over their government, for their entire lives the government had control of them, this fact alone has many people resist the change.
A large reason why it is so hard to change Iraq government is because to create a democracy requires some amount of the people wanting to work together. In Iraq there are a number of religions and beliefs and most do not take kindly to the idea of working together or settling with something they are against. Before they might have been forced but now they will not sit by peacefully and watch another side gain power. They many random attacks and extremists keep Iraq disorganized and against each other so that no one government can be formed with most of the people agreeing to follow it.
As of recent American troops have gained more control and there are slightly smaller amounts of groups attacking each other. There are still extremists and the road toward turning Iraq into a democracy will be hard but we have seen progress and we must keep faith we will see it to the end. There are many people that say we should quit but then that means many of the sacrifices we have made will have been for nothing, as soon as we leave it will create a vacuum that will create chaos until one man can grasp enough power even if very few people support him. Even though it is a rough journey democracy is the best leadership they could have and as long as we can we should continue helping them try to achieve it.
The problem that arises when trying to take a leader out of power is that someone needs to or is going to move in to that open support of power. We could have left Iraq right when we took Saddam out of power but someone else would have moved into that spot, most likely would be the most aggressive person. If we left this vacuum open we might be responsible for someone even worse than Saddam being in charge. The best solution seen would be to remain in Iraq and change their government into a democracy. If Iraq could be turned into a democracy the people would be more in control rather than someone controlling them by force.
This sounds like a good idea but good doesn't mean easy, we have seen it takes more than just elections to start a government. Even if we don't leave that doesn't mean that no one is going to try to move in to power. A second problem is there are a number of people that wish to attack Americans and anyone not against us even if they are not trying to take control. Many attacks on troops and anyone trying to help turn Iraq into a democracy make it very hard to accomplish anything. There is also the fact that many people have never lived with some control over their government, for their entire lives the government had control of them, this fact alone has many people resist the change.
A large reason why it is so hard to change Iraq government is because to create a democracy requires some amount of the people wanting to work together. In Iraq there are a number of religions and beliefs and most do not take kindly to the idea of working together or settling with something they are against. Before they might have been forced but now they will not sit by peacefully and watch another side gain power. They many random attacks and extremists keep Iraq disorganized and against each other so that no one government can be formed with most of the people agreeing to follow it.
As of recent American troops have gained more control and there are slightly smaller amounts of groups attacking each other. There are still extremists and the road toward turning Iraq into a democracy will be hard but we have seen progress and we must keep faith we will see it to the end. There are many people that say we should quit but then that means many of the sacrifices we have made will have been for nothing, as soon as we leave it will create a vacuum that will create chaos until one man can grasp enough power even if very few people support him. Even though it is a rough journey democracy is the best leadership they could have and as long as we can we should continue helping them try to achieve it.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
American democracy
Today, America functions as a democracy, this means the people choose what laws they want and who they want in power by voting and going by majority rule. This however is not exactly how out government is run, if the people were to vote on everything we would be voting on a number of things almost every day. That would be known as a pure democracy, in the United States we are run under a representative democracy.
Representative democracy means that the people in an area elect men to vote on their behalf. The man the has the same views of most of the people in the area is elected to represent them. This way people only need to vote on the men they choose and more important laws and elections.
"A democracy is a government in the hands of men of low birth, no property, and vulgar employments. - Aristotle.(Sharansky, Natan )" When the United States was being founded the founding fathers drew up the constitution. In this the designed the government to be split into branches that were supposed to be equal in power. In these branches there are equal voting rights for all men through the men chosen to represent them. This was one of the main reasons our government was formed into how it is today.
In the end the main reason we became a representative democracy is because our nation was founded for the people. When we were posed with the choice of the two different types pure or direct democracy didn't seem like it would work, so they were left with the more logical choice. In this after the people choose their representatives they no longer hold any power over general laws or decisions.
I believe it was a wiser choice for the reason of many people will not look into the details on a law and then base their entire opinion on one commercial they see. "If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost. -Aristotle.(Byrstyn, Joan )" In taking the idea that we would be founded on a government for the people it seems its as simple as we tried to find the most logical solution.
Sharansky, Natan "The Case for Democracy" First Serial, British Commonwealth 2007
Byrstyn, Joan "A Challenge to American Democracy" COPYRIGHT Libra Publishers, Inc. 2002
Representative democracy means that the people in an area elect men to vote on their behalf. The man the has the same views of most of the people in the area is elected to represent them. This way people only need to vote on the men they choose and more important laws and elections.
"A democracy is a government in the hands of men of low birth, no property, and vulgar employments. - Aristotle.(Sharansky, Natan )" When the United States was being founded the founding fathers drew up the constitution. In this the designed the government to be split into branches that were supposed to be equal in power. In these branches there are equal voting rights for all men through the men chosen to represent them. This was one of the main reasons our government was formed into how it is today.
In the end the main reason we became a representative democracy is because our nation was founded for the people. When we were posed with the choice of the two different types pure or direct democracy didn't seem like it would work, so they were left with the more logical choice. In this after the people choose their representatives they no longer hold any power over general laws or decisions.
I believe it was a wiser choice for the reason of many people will not look into the details on a law and then base their entire opinion on one commercial they see. "If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost. -Aristotle.(Byrstyn, Joan )" In taking the idea that we would be founded on a government for the people it seems its as simple as we tried to find the most logical solution.
Sharansky, Natan "The Case for Democracy" First Serial, British Commonwealth 2007
Byrstyn, Joan "A Challenge to American Democracy" COPYRIGHT Libra Publishers, Inc. 2002
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)