Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Elections Test
In the state of our nation today, I believe that the elections of our leaders aren’t entirely democratic because in this day it is very difficult to fund an election as an average man. Elections today are all about exposure and without proper funding that exposure can be very difficult to attain. Hard money can be defined as money that is given directly to a candidate, and soft money is money that is given to the party. Hard money is regulated so that candidates cannot directly receive too much funding, while soft money is money that is given to the political party as a whole to avoid these regulations. Media bias refers to the bias that is put into the stories that various sources of news by the people that write the stories. They will often write things in a way so that their viewpoint is the only one that is seen by the viewer, and because of this the viewer is incapable of seeing both sides. Political Action Committees play an important role in elections because they fund the political parties which then fund the propaganda and things of the election. Voter turnout refers to the amount of eligible voters that decide end up casting their ballots in an election. This can very much affect the outcome of an election based on which voter loses more votes due to a weak voter turnout. Although the parties are funded by other people, for the average man, getting the exposure needed to attain this funding can be extremely difficult especially in comparison to a wealthy man that can spend money to get his name and ideas out to the people. The average man truly can get to Washington if he has the determination in getting his name out, but it is still much more difficult to get your name out without great wealth, and that is why I believe it is not truly democratic. These people do have the possibility of gaining political power, but their opportunities aren’t equal to that of people with wealth, ant true democracy is about equality.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Civil Liberties Test
My first example of when protection and freedoms collide is in the case of Near vs. Minnesota. In this case Jay Near was set to publish many “unproven” scandals that may have been occurring with Minnesota officials, but Minnesota had a law that prevented any defamatory publications. However, this law that Minnesota had in place violated the 1st Amendment that government cannot prevent or censor a publication in advance, and only if it is proven defamatory or untrue after, they can get in trouble.
Another instance of freedoms and protection in collision comes in the case of Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier. In this case high school students were unable to publish two of their articles because the principal found them inappropriate. The students argued that this violated the 1st amendment like in the Near vs. Minnesota case, but because it happened on school grounds it feel under in loco parentis and it was up to the principal’s reasonable discretion. Since the kids were protected by the school very similarly to that of our parents, it does not violate the 1st amendment.
The next example of freedom in collision with protection is the case of Mapp vs. Ohio. In this case Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing pornographic material after an unlawful search was conducted in her home. In this ruling, because the search violated the 4th amendment, she was not convicted. The 4th amendment prevents unlawful search and it is known as the search and seizure policy.
A similar case occurred in New Jersey vs. T.L.O. In this case T.L.O was accused of smoking in the bathroom at her school, and when she was called down and questioned, the principal searched her purse and found marijuana along with rolling papers and a list of people that owed her money. She argued that by not having probable cause, the search violated the 4th and 14th amendments, which is the search and seizure policy, and the right to equal protection of the law respectively. However, because she was in school and was under the rule of in loco parentis, these were exceptions, and reasonable suspicion was enough for a search warrant.
Another instance of freedoms and protection in collision comes in the case of Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier. In this case high school students were unable to publish two of their articles because the principal found them inappropriate. The students argued that this violated the 1st amendment like in the Near vs. Minnesota case, but because it happened on school grounds it feel under in loco parentis and it was up to the principal’s reasonable discretion. Since the kids were protected by the school very similarly to that of our parents, it does not violate the 1st amendment.
The next example of freedom in collision with protection is the case of Mapp vs. Ohio. In this case Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing pornographic material after an unlawful search was conducted in her home. In this ruling, because the search violated the 4th amendment, she was not convicted. The 4th amendment prevents unlawful search and it is known as the search and seizure policy.
A similar case occurred in New Jersey vs. T.L.O. In this case T.L.O was accused of smoking in the bathroom at her school, and when she was called down and questioned, the principal searched her purse and found marijuana along with rolling papers and a list of people that owed her money. She argued that by not having probable cause, the search violated the 4th and 14th amendments, which is the search and seizure policy, and the right to equal protection of the law respectively. However, because she was in school and was under the rule of in loco parentis, these were exceptions, and reasonable suspicion was enough for a search warrant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)