1 which theoretical perspective better explains the workings of the Constitutional Convention and the ratification debate, the pluralist or power elite explanation?
Pluralist theory states that public policies are determined in the process that multiple interest groups compete, bargain, and negotiate with each other, and power is well distributed. On the other hand, in elitist theory, political conversation is dominated by few groups, such as large corporations and institutions, and most of the interest groups possess minimal power (Anagnoson 38). Power elite better explains the workings of the Constitutional Convention and the ratification debate because most people did not have a chance to take part in the political conversation and the constitution was not designed to protect the rights of many interest groups, such African Americans, Native Americans, indentured servants and women.
First, most ordinary Americans were excluded from the constitution’s ratification process. Constitution was drafted by men of wealth and education (Patterson 41) and constitution was ratified by state delegates who were not elected by ordinary people. When most people’s voice couldn’t be heard (Patterson 41), framers and delegates did not necessarily take non-landowners’ rights into consideration during the debate. The undertaking of ratification happened between few wealthy elites and the ratification of the constitution did not reflect most people’s interests. In addition, ordinary people’s interests were not protected by the constitution. African Americans’ rights were not protected. Three-Fifth Compromise was made so that southern states could have nearly half seats in congress. Delegates from north and south did consider African Americans as properties. Northern delegates argued against counting slaves so that the North would have majority of seats in congress and South claimed that slaves should have representatives in congress even though slave owners were not ready to offer slaves legal rights (Patterson 37). More importantly, the president was elected by the electors rather than the people. Electors were chose in the method of states’ choice and they might not be elected by people (Patterson 55). When government officials were not elected by people, officials were not obliged to protect people’s rights.
It’s hard to argue that pluralist can explain the workings of the Constitutional Convention and the ratification debate when women, who were not minority, did not have the right to vote, most indentured servants died before they could be land owners, and African Americans did not have basic human rights. Interest groups, such as women, African Americans, Native Americans, and indentured servants could not participate the political process.
In conclusion, constitution was proposed to protect the rights of wealthy white male elites and most people were not part of the conversation. Power elite can better explain the workings of the Constitutional Convention and the ratification debate.
References
Anagnoson, J. Theodore. “Interest Groups and the Media in California.” Anagnoson, J. Theodore. Governing California in the Twenty-First Century (Fourth Edition). 2009. 38.
Patterson, Thomas E. “Constitutional Democracy: Promoting Liverty and Self-Government.” Patterson, Thomas E. We The People: An Introduction to American Government. 41, 2013.
2 Does voting really matter? How effective are elections as a form of democratic control of government? Does the Presidential Election of 2000 demonstrate the value of every individual vote or just the opposite? How does voting compare with other forms of participation (lobbying, protesting, volunteering) in terms of effectiveness?
If you believe that “every vote counts,” explain why by using concrete examples to support your argument. If, on the other hand, you believe that “voting Is overrated,” explain why by using concrete examples to support your argument.
Even though, election process in US is deeply flawed and presidential election of 2000 did not demonstrate the value of American people, I still believe that every vote counts and voting is the most effective form of participation among lobbying, protesting and volunteering.
Although a republican’s vote in California does not decide who would be the president, the vote nonetheless does influence president’s policy making and state legislature. Single member district system in US makes it extremely difficult for a third party to win an election or a legislative seat in congress (Patterson 246), and individuals are less likely to find an ideal presidential candidate or house representative who share their values. While it is easier to flush a vote down to toilet, a vote to a candidate who may never win an election does influence other candidates’ policies. For example, Hillary Clinton adopted Bernie Sanders’ single payer healthcare plan after Sanders lost the primary election. When a third party candidate gains enough votes in an election, the third party’s ideas are always cooperated into one of the other party. For example, Democratic Party has cooperated many ideas from Green party, a liberal party that promotes environmental protection (Patterson 252). In addition, a third party might influence state legislature. In 1900s, Progressive Party forced many states into embracing primary elections.
High turnout rate can produce legislators who can better represent people’s value. Gerrymandering, primary system, and low turnout rate have produced legislators who are more liberal than the public on the Democratic side and more conservative than the public on the Republican side (Anagnoson 13). If everybody votes, people who are running for office would be more likely to know how diverse their districts really are and they would try to be appealing to more people. Then the legislature in a state could serve the people better.
Elections have failed so many people, but voting is the only way to fix the broken system. Claiming voting is overrated cannot be used as an excuse to avoid voting. Every vote matters.
References
Patterson, Thomas E. “Constitutional Democracy: Promoting Liverty and Self-Government.” Patterson, Thomas E. We The People: An Introduction to American Government. 41, 2013.
2000 election does not demonstrate the value of American people.
In 2000 election, the result was determined by few hundreds or few thousands people in Florida. The 2000 election is an example how electoral college failed the American people when a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the election.
If people could choose alternative candidates as CGP Grey explained, all votes went to Green party would go to Gore, in which case, Gore would be the winner, who represented more people’s interest than Bush.
For individuals, voting is more effective than lobbying, protesting, and volunteering.
Lobbying is effective for corporations, who have enough resources to make contributions to the candidates’ campaigns and start initiatives, to pursue their profit. It’s ineffective for individuals to volunteer in pressure groups and influence representatives for change. Because of gerrymandering and low turnout rate, house representatives choose their constituents rather than the other way around. The only negotiating power that individuals possess is their votes. It’s extremely difficult to persuade the representatives to do something against their party and large interest groups who makes contributions to their campaign. In addition, scattered citizens’ groups do not have enough resources to compete against large corporations. If group members do not vote, lobbying would have virtually no effect on legislature.
Protests can raise people’s awareness on certain issues, but protests cannot make political progress like voting. For example, marching for science has little effect on Trump administration’s environmental protection policies and the protest cannot convince people that schools should not teach religion.
3 Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution provides that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Historically, Congress and the president have interpreted the meaning of the words, “executive Power,” differently. For Congress, “executive Power” is defined by the list of presidential powers in Article II, Section 2; for presidents, “executive Power” refers to powers in addition to those enumerated in Article II, Section 2. In particular, presidents have interpreted “executive Power” to mean that the president can act without the consent of the Congress when necessary to protect national security. Congress, on the other hand, has argued that an unchecked president creates the risk of abuse of presidential authority.
Which interpretation is correct? Should presidents have the authority to act without Congressional authorization when necessary for the nation’s security, or should the president seek Congressional authorization before acting in order to preserve Constitutional checks and balances?
In terms of national security, I agree with Alexander Hamilton’s view: “A surprise attack on the United States was the only justification for war by presidential decree.” (Anagnoson 372) Except for the case of surprise attack, the president should seek Congressional authorization before acting in order to preserve Constitutional checks and balances.
Checks on the president have been weakened as the executive branch continued to expand, and the president is more likely to abuse its power. For example, in April, 2017, Trump ordered 59 missiles against an airbase in Syria without the congressional approval. And the white house failed to convince people that the attack was necessary (SyriaDeeply). Shockingly, Trump mistakenly said the US launched missiles to Iraq (CNN). In the next month, Trump fired James Comey because Comey refused to drop the investigation against Michael Flynn (SCHMIDT). So far, the speaker of the house has not called out the president for abuse of power. These behaviors would be unacceptable if people and congress still held Whig theory. In addition, the current presidential power is beyond the framer’s expectation (Anagnoson 372) and the checks on president become more and more important. The New Deal established the strong (stewardship) presidency (Anagnoson 376), and the president, not congress, dominates the foreign policy after World War II, (Anagnoson 377). Before the Iraq invasion in 2003, President Bush tailored the assessments of Iraq’s weapon system to gain congressional support (Anagnoson 395). During Vietnam War, Johnson and Nixon presented congress with false intelligence estimates to get congressional funding (Anagnoson 400). Even though congress does not share the same intelligence as the president, congress is the most important check on the presidential power. If the president was free to launch military attack without congressional authorization and the congress did not withdraw the funding for war, the result of Vietnam War and Iraq War could be worse. Finally, unlike European countries, the president does not share executive power with anyone. If the president does not seek authorization for military action from congress, the military power might be abused.
I by no mean support Whig theory. Congress is not designed to run thousands of agencies. But the executive branch tends to abuse power in name of protecting national security and the nuclear war might break because of one mistake. In conclusion, the president should get congressional approval before any military action.
References
Anagnoson, J. Theodore. “Interest Groups and the Media in California.” Anagnoson, J. Theodore. Governing California in the Twenty-First Century (Fourth Edition). 2009. 38.
CNN.Trump mistakenly says the US bombed Iraq (Links to an external site.)
. 12 apr 2017.
SCHMIDT, MICHAEL S. Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation. 16 may 2017.
SyriaDeeply. Executive Summary for April 7th. 7 apr 2017. (Links to an external site.)
https://www.newsdeeply.com/syria/executive-summaries/2017/04/07 (Links to an external site.)
4 Are judicial elections at the state level a good idea? Do judicial elections, like those in California, make judges more sensitive to public opinion or do they unnecessarily introduce politics into the legal system? If not elections, how should state judges be selected?
If you are in favor of judicial elections, explain why you support judicial elections. If you oppose judicial elections, explain why in your essay. Be sure to use concrete examples to support your logical argument.
Judicial elections at the state level is unjustified. Comparing to merit plan, which is superior, judicial elections unnecessarily introduce politics into the legal system and they fail to hold judges accountable to the public.
Judicial elections will give Americans unwanted burdens. When Americans are not well informed on congressional elections and presidential elections, with large quantities of judicial elections, it is impractical to expect that the voters will turn out to vote with informed choices. In addition, judges may compromise themselves to gain public support during election years. Judges are supposed to make judgement according to the evidence and law, rather than personal belief or public opinion. However, elections force judges to be tougher on crimes to win public support (WEISS 1102). Additionally, the idea that the judicial elections can hold judges accountable is valid only when the public can make informed choices. To be informed in a judicial elections, voters need to check candidates’ personal belief, credentials, and past performance. Even the most dedicated voters cannot possibly find all these information and evaluate the data properly either because the information is poor in quality (Anagnoson 150), not allowed to share (Anagnoson 150), or voters do not have enough knowledge to evaluate the performance of a judge. On the other hand, with merit plan, judicial selection commission, which is composed of experienced lawyers, will make a list of candidates according to candidates’ professional qualifications rather than their political credentials (Patterson 450). Furthermore, judicial elections are not actually more democratic than merit plan. In California, most superior court judges are appointed by governors when vacancies in superior court appears and most incumbents are unchallenged in reelection (Judicial Selection in the States: California). Consequently, the superior court judges are not elected by people, but judges are exposed to the influence of special interests. Finally, special interest groups may influence the court through campaign contributions. Highly qualified candidates cannot possibly win an election without campaign contributions. The amount of money that is spent on judicial campaign is appalling (Anagnoson 149). Ohio Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Paul Pfeifer once said:” I never felt so much like a hooker down by the bus station… as I did in a judicial race. Everyone interested in contributing has very specific interests. They mean to be buying a vote.” In practice, elected judges are more accountable to special interest groups rather than the public.
Under merit plan, judges are less likely be controlled by special interest group, they are selected according to their professional qualifications, they do not have to compromise themselves to please the public, and voters can hold judges accountable through retention election (Merit Selection: The Best Way to Choose).
Not just California supreme court and the courts of appeal judges, all judges at state level should be selected using merit plan.
References
Anagnoson, J. Theodore. “The California Judiciary.” Anagnoson, J. Theodore. Governing California in the Twenty-First Century (Fourth Edition). 2009. 38.
Judicial Selection in the States: California. n.d. <http://www.judicialselection.us/judicial_selection/index.cfm?state=CA>.
Merit Selection: The Best Way to Choose. n.d. <http://www.judicialselection.us/uploads/documents/ms_descrip_1185462202120.pdf>.
Patterson, Thomas E. “The Federal Judicial System.” Patterson, Thomas E. We The People: An Introduction to American Government. 41, 2013.
WEISS, JOANNA COHN. “TOUGH ON CRIME: HOW CAMPAIGNS.” WEISS, JOANNA COHN. TOUGH ON CRIME: HOW CAMPAIGNS. n.d. <http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-81-3-Weiss.pdf>.
5 **Read “Ten Reasons Why Reparations are Bad for Blacks” and “King Cotton’s Long Shadow”
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24317
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/king-cottons-long-shadow/
Should the descendants of American slaves receive reparations? Before 11:59 p.m. on June 2 (Friday), post an essay that supports the position toprovide reparations or supports the view to deny reparations. Present your argument in a clear, logical manner and use evidence (cited if an outside source) to support your thesis.
Slavery fueled the southern cotton economy. African Americans created large amount of wealth, yet they were treated as properties (JOHNSON 2). The impact of the slavery is long-lasting and African Americans are still discriminated against. African Americans are less likely to have access to education, they are disadvantaged in job market and they are more likely to be convicted of drug felonies (Patterson 161). If everyone is an angel and people agree that African Americans should be compensated for what they have lost, reparation would be a great way to improve people’s lives. However, many people do not think they should pay for the crime they did not commit. Forcing reparation will only aggravate discrimination against African Americans.
Although the arguments brought by David Horowitz are flawed, his article did voice many people’s thoughts – Who should pay for the reparation? Who are responsible for African American’s suffering (Horowitz)? While slight majorities of white Americans do not think that racism is a threat to the society (Wolf), asking them for reparations would foster hatred toward African Americans, which would further divide the society and everyone would suffer. In addition, reparation might create a crisis where all historically disadvantaged groups ask for reparations. When African Americans receive reparations, it is reasonable for Native Americans, who lost their land, Mexican- Americans, who were isolated from their former country, and Japanese Americans to ask for reparations. In the process, all the burdens would fall on white Americans. Not all white Americans are rich and some of them might argue that the white would be the new disadvantaged group. Some might even reinforce the lazy Sambo stereotype arguing that they should not pay for someone else failure. Furthermore, reparations to African Americans will not pass the congress when congressmen are disproportionally white males and many of their constituencies do not support the reparations.
Affirmative action, which is far less aggressive than the reparation, has been upheld by Supreme Court several times (Patterson 160). To avoid pushback from society, people can consider more subtle ways other than reparations. For example, end war on drug, build universal health care, pursue basic income, embrace proportional representation in government, and fund free education, which disproportionally affect African Americans.
Inequality does exist. African Americans deserve better opportunities. But the reparation is not the best solution.
References
Horowitz, David. Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks – and Racist Too. 03 January 2001.
JOHNSON, WALTER. King Cotton’s Long Shadow. 30, MARCH 2013.
Patterson, Thomas E. “Equal Rights.” Patterson, Thomas E. We The People: An Introduction to American Government. 41, 2013.
Wolf, Z. Byron. CNN / ORC Poll finds racial divide on police, justice system. 22 December 2014.
collegexam 