Category: American Constitution

When many people try and talk about how the Constitution advocated for racial quality, there isn’t any real proof of such. In fact, most modern historians conclude that the American Constitution could in fact be a proslavery document. Recognition of the proslavery Constitution would lead the United States to explore our early history much deeper. The Constitution protected slavery and promoted slave possession, which consisted of many proslavery clauses. The Apportionment Clause, Article I, Section 2, added three-fifths of slaves to the amount of free inhabitants of a state for purposes of representation. This clause increased the amount of representatives in Congress for the slave states, ensuring political protection for slavery. This three-fifths proportion assisted the slave states in the Electoral College during election time because of the increased amount of representation they had in the slave states. The slave import limitation, Article I, Section 9, outlawed Congress from the regulation of the international slave trade 21 years following the ratification of the Constitution. This period of time from the ratification of the Constitution to 1808 made the slave trade completely illegal. Congress was not allowed to interfere by any means for that 21 year period. Along with Congress not being allowed to hinder in the international slave trade efforts, Article V of the Constitution directly disallows amending the slave import limitation. In conclusion, the Fugitive Slave Clause, Article IV, Section 2, secure nationwide, made certain that slave owners had the right to seek and regain their slaves.

Although the clause that restricted congressional power to control the international slave trade was not permanent, the Constitution still gave protection over slave owners by increasing the amount of representation in the southern slave states. Also, the slave owner’s right to pursue their runaway slaves was granted and preserved by the Constitution. Not only was the control over another human being legal, but the Constitution encouraged the ownership of slaves by giving more political representation all while slaves were flooding into the U.S., unchecked for two decades.

In my opinion the actual fact that the thought of the American Constitution as proslavery is widely agreed upon should throw up some red flags. Of course, it is well known that the slave trade existed throughout the United States for a long time, but some are under the impression that slavery came to an end when America became independent. That is not true by any means due to the simple fact that Congress was not allowed to regulate the transatlantic slave trade for over two decades after the Constitution was written. This also brings up the topic of reconstruction and how it abolished slavery. Although it is true that the Reconstruction amendments were in fact able to take away slavery legally, the abolition of slavery did not mean that slavery was no longer practiced in our country. The official abolition of slavery did not change how whites dominated blacks. The former slave coded turned into black codes, and then eventually as we have all heard of, Jim Crow laws. These laws were entirely unfair to people of color.

One may pose the argument that the U.S. Constitution did include useful clauses for the better of the nation, but one also can not deny the fact that “…of the 11 clauses in the Constitution that deal with or have policy implications for slavery, 10 protect slave property and the power of master.”(Waldstreicher, p.2) As is stated earlier, the three-fifths clause severely helped the slave states which counts three-fifths of slaves towards taxation and representation. It is really hard for me to grasp the concept of what people were trying to accomplish during this time. I am aware that there were really power hungry and money driven people in the world, and there always will be, but to only consider someone as 60% of what they are is immoral. No matter what point in time, I think everyone can agree that this clause is wrong and advocates inequality. This example of considering someone for only 60% of their being perfectly fits the narrative that this article in the constitution was directly designed to keep the slave states in control to benefit from the use of their slaves. Another thing that I find ironic is that the saying that America was founded on freedom and liberty. And while this can be true for many people, it was a lie to many others, specifically slaves who were treated as property. In modern America, it can be said proudly that all are equal, but at the very founding of this country, the principles that this country was supposed to be built on were not available to everyone.

Waldstreicher points out how “Madison obliquely distanced himself form the three-fifths clause by saying that one had to admit that slaves were, irrefutably, both people and property. He actually argued that the three-fifths clause was a good example of how the Constitution would lead to good government- by protecting property.” (Waldstreicher, p.3) Madison’s stance on the three-fifths clause is very stongly in his favor of course because it protected the ownership of slaves and considered them to be property.

Sean Wilentz’s article begins abruptly with a statement “The Civil War began over a simple question: Did the Constitution of the United States recognize slavery – property in humans – in national law?” (Wilentz, p.1) The slaveholders in the south argued that the Constitution was indeed proslavery, while on the other hand, Northern Republicans and abolitionists denied the Constitution being proslavery. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has been quoted saying that the United States was founded on racist principles. And while this statement is true, that does not mean that everything in the Constitution was created to racially divide. It is undeniable that slavery was widespread throughout America and that whites considered themselves superior to black people.

During the Constitutional Convention, the main argument was about property. “The South did win some concessions at the convention, but they were largely consolation prizes.” (Wilentz, p.2) Wilentz is saying that even though the southern states were able to count slaves as three-fifths representation under the three-fifths clause, they were originally trying to count them as full persons to gain even more political power in the south. There was constant arguing back and forth between the delegates on both sides of the spectrum about the regulation of the Atlantic slave trade, and that is why a compromise had to be made, resulting in the three-fifths clause. The proslavery delegates were fighting in favor of making it illegal for the national government to control the Atlantic slave trade because they believed that it would negatively affect their ownership of slaves in the south. On the other hand, the Northerners were arguing entirely against the proslavery delegates. The Northerners were in favor of the government being able to manage the slave trade and eventually have the power to abolish slavery as a whole after 1800.

Wilentz goes on to eventually state, “Far from a proslavery compact of ‘racist principles,’ the Constitution was based on a repudiation of the idea of a nation dedicated to the proposition of property in humans. Without that antislavery outcome in 1787, slavery would not have reached “ultimate extinction’ in 1865.” (Wilentz, p.2) From my interpretation of Wilentz’s final statement in his article, he is referring to the Constitution as the “antislavery outcome in 1787.” His stance on the writing of the Constitution is that it is the reason for slavery eventually being abolished in 1865. Wilentz believes that the Constitution was based solely on the question of whether or not humans can be considered property and that the Constitution didn’t include any racist principles.

In conclusion, I have come to realize that there are two sides to every argument, and in this particular case it is especially hard to identify a side because of the truth that can be found on both sides. I do agree that there are racist principles in the Constitution, specifically in the three-fifths clause that only counts slaves as three-fifths of a person. But the entire Constitution does not revolve around slavery. The Constitution was most definitely not perfect, but it was intended to create justice and benefit the people of this new nation.

One way which both constitutions are similar is both England and USA have laws which are put into place which people are expected to follow. People are aware of the expectations and the consequences if laws are broken. By having rules in place people are kept in control because the laws clearly state what is and is not expected. Laws are created so that people are protected from harm, but they are also created so that the public know that there are rules in place which keep them protected and to stop them from doing wrong and others doing wrong to them. Constitutions ensure that everyone knows the standard of behaviour which is expected. If we lived without following laws our society would be different and this could result in a large amount of destruction and chaos caused to the country. Both England and USA have people in control for example England has a Parliament run by the Prime Minister and America has a president. They ensure that punishments are given to those who break the law meaning that this should cause people to think before they commit the crime and do not follow the rules.

One of the differences with British Constitution and American Constitution is that in Britain the acts are not written, this means that when a law needs to be amended this is not a difficult process. The laws are easier to change when they are not written. However, before any law is changed in America, they have to follow the two point rules and laws are more difficult to amend. This is because the laws in America are considered concreted because of how hard they are to change.

The difference with the UK is that they do not have a constitution which is written in a document, they have not laid out the laws in writing. The British Constitution can be found is Parliament and this is where laws are set out, the Prime Minister will work closely with the Parliament members. Furthermore, Parliament has the authority to change or set aside the judicial decisions with ease as they have the authority to do this and with hindsight this allows us to realise that common law which has now been cemented whereas some of the other acts are. I have used the case of Thoburn v Sunderland City (2002), a list of laws were provided which were believed to have been examples of constitution. These included Bill of Rights 1689, The Human Rights Act 1998 and a few others. A Constitution is still in place in Britain regardless of there not being a document and people are still expected to follow the acts as they have been properly explained. Most acts have also been around for a long time so people are expected to know what some of these are and they should carry out research where possible. A quote which I have taken from Ivor Jennings from ‘The Law and the Constitution (1959) explained that he thought nobody would be aware of The British Constitution if the constitution had to be described as being a document which was written down similar to that which America has. The main reason that I have quoted Ivor is because he has placed emphasis on the fact that The British Constitution does exist despite the fact that they do not have documents which has been mentioned that outline any regulations or rules taken from establishments. Even though physical documents do not exist a constitution has still been made because laws of the land must be followed. A land will struggle if the people did not have laws that they had to follow as there would be disruption and chaos because the people would not know what was right and what was wrong.

Another case I will be discussing is Entick V Carrington (1765), I have chosen to discuss this case because of the large amount of impact this creates on constitution. This case in particular showed the limits which had been set for the power of the Secretary of State to ensure that warrants could be issued. One of the positives which come from Common Law is that citizens rights are protected which means that the government are made responsible for what they do to the public. The public are then able to understand that rules aren’t made to limit them on what they are and aren’t able to do but are also their to protect them. One of the issues which arise from Common Law is the uncertainty because of how easily the laws can be changed. Discussions have also taken in regards to other acts these include Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Treason Act 1351 and other types of statutes are also included within this but I have only named a couple.

Conventions is another example that I will be using for the British Constitution. Even though con-ventions play an extremely vital role in the British Constitution, the court are unable to force these upon the public, conventions are known as binding for the people because they ensure the consti-tution is being operated regularly. A convention cannot be made punishable and they do not have to be followed by people. An example on conventions which comes from British Constitution in-clude how the Queen is able to choose who she would like to become the next Prime Minister, however the convention states that a leader of a party will be chosen by the amount of seats that they gain in Parliament. Therefore, the Queen will never decide who she wants solely based on her own opinion but will allow the people in her country to decide who they think would be best. A different example of a convention is that when discussing who has responsibility for Parliament, this would be the minister. When speaking, the minister has to ensure they speak using one tone and they show that they are trustable in keeping conversations private and only sharing when ab-solutely necessary. The minister should not pick sides as he would not want to be considered bi-ased. The case of Carltona Ltd v. Commissioner of Works [1943] 2 ALL ER 560 is an example I have used because this is where conventions where involved. This idea was established from govern-ment department because an agreement for convention occurred between the ministers which were seen as a kind of case law.

The Common Law is an alternative place where constitutional documents can be found, these are described as judicial decisions. These are laws which Parliament would not have passed but the court would have decided. Differing opinions occur when discussing the hierarchy for constitution. The European Communities Act 1972 and the Magna Carta 1215 are seen in one aspect as being laws which are fundamental however can be changed easily, again this is because they aren’t writ-ten down. Case Law can be described as being unpredictable because they can be changed easily meaning that ideas which are constitutional which present themselves are not protected and ordi-nary members of the public would be unable to determine them, however one of the ways this can be done is if they know where to find the information to prove their point. Before they are used the people have to ensure that they have gathered enough evidence to support their point.

After summarising the above, I think that a large amount of the Constitution in Britain can seen to the public as vague because of the way this has been presented and because of the way the acts are available. In one way a constitution can be described as rooted but because of social and politi-cal pressures, which stray from the conventions as well as abolishing or making a change to the Constitutional Statutes, even though many people think that this can be done with ease, in reality this will provide difficult for politicians. This differs from the American system because the Ameri-can Constitution is more strict and if we had the same system that they had this would limit Parlia-ment in what they were able to do with the statutes. One of the reasons why I think the constitu-tion is like this is because this gives flexibility to Parliament. A constitution which is able to change and be changed because it can be moved around with ease and it is not written in a single docu-ment, this does not mean that the power given to Parliament will be limited. This means that un-like the Americans where the laws are harder to amend, Parliament are able to change or amend any of the acts should they need to, the advantages of having a constitution which is not coded means that the Prime minster with parliament are given a lot of flexibility meaning that this will be the same for every Parliament which follows.

The most cherished and recognized right, featured at the very top of the American Bill of Rights within the Constitution of the United States of America, is the freedom of speech; specifically, the rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble peacefully, freedom of press, and the freedom to petition the government. These rights, ordained by the Framers of the Constitution as the most important, is also one of the most infringed upon. What changed? What is freedom of speech? Should the government be allowed to limit it? These questions are frequently debated upon by all branches and bureaus of the government to this day. With the invention of new technologies came a new era where information spreads faster than a disease. Stock markets, weather, politics, entertainment, and more are available in an instant at the touch of a button. The Founding Fathers never anticipated news delivery at the speed of sound or the breaking into government systems to steal electronically stored, confidential documents; the current technological state we are in is unpredictable, unreliable, and way too easily accessed. Is the freedom of speech outdated? Or are we acting in accordance to our rights?

Words have power. The uttering of a simple sentence can cause a world of destruction. “Alea iacta est” (the die is cast) marked the beginning of Julius Caesar’s conquest of the Italian Peninsula. The legendary Bob Marley urged earlier generations as well as current generations to find peace and “feel alright” through his bouncy, reggae compositions. A few words strung together can have a potent effect. Similarly, the simple philosophy of “Strength lies in not defense, but attack.” was coined by Adolf Hitler. That one little sentence inspired his offensive maneuvers in Europe causing the most brutal, horrific, and scarring events in history. Is this what the Framers meant when they thought of free speech? Absolutely not! The Framers were virtuous men with the intent of installing wisdom in the people. They believed in the expression of grievance and opinion rather than the unrestricted ability to say whatever, whenever. Having been suppressed by the British government with the Stamp Act, they first-hand experience the consequences of restricting speech. Ironically, in the early 1800’s, the federal government passed a law demanding that no war or military news be released without the demand of the government. So what really is free speech? According to the First Amendment, it is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Breaking this down into four parts leaves a more manageable analysis. Seemingly straightforward and simple, the amendment has caused more issues than one would think. Breaking these down chunk by chunk will not establish finite definitions, but hopefully show the boundaries an American has regarding his or her First Amendment rights.

First addressed will be religion; “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” This is a very well respected part for Atheists, Christians, Muslims, and more. Ironically, the blatancy of the text is still quite debatable. All of the Founding Fathers were religious men with their beliefs based upon Judeo-Christian values. They consisted of Protestants, Deists, Catholics, Quakers, and more. Although similar, these religious groups were all at ends with each other at one time or another; but since they all were believers in God and freedom, they made that a priority in the Constitution. Straightforward as it sounds, the problem lies in defining a religion and how one may exercise their religion. What if some guy claimed to worship the lizard god “Zorp” and that his exercization of his beliefs involved sacrificing children in the public fountain? In a not so gruesome way, there was an attempt to justify the illegal practice of polygamy in Utah in the Reynolds v. United States. Polygamy had been made illegal federally but it still remained a Church of the Latter Day Saints (Mormon) practice, especially in Utah. Violators would be subject to a $500 fee and up to 5 years in prison. Chief Justice Waite delivered the court opinion and actually upheld the constitutionality of the law. It was deemed neither cruel nor unusual punishment and the justification regarding religious freedom was based upon the grounds that the first amendment protects the religious beliefs, not the religious practice. Waite makes the point that any man could do what he wants by claiming it is practice of religion. Without limitations on religious practices, every man writes his own law and thus takes away from the freedom of other citizens. Another legendary trial was the State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes. Commonly referred to as simply “the Scopes Trial”, John Scopes was a teacher in a Tennessee high school where he openly taught the theory and science of biological evolution in his science class. Prior to this incident, William Jennings Bryan had been convincing state legislatures to pass anti-evolution teaching laws in over 15 states; but clearly is that not a violation of unimposed religion? The State of Tennessee did not seem to think so. While Scopes was put on trial, Bryan, defender of fundamentalism, took the offensive side. His plan horribly backfired and religious fundamentalism, although strong, took a very heavy blow by the wit and knowledge of John Neal. He did a magnificent job of defending Scopes. He essentially made fundamentalist law look foolish. Days into the case, however, they decided to settle on guilty because it was useless to try against a biased court. While Scopes lost and had to pay a fine, everyone knew who the real victor was. Even Bryan knew he lost. 6 days after the trial, he “died of a broken heart” in his sleep. Soon after, the ruling was actually declared unconstitutional, but never was reversed.

Second, the rights of free speech and press are listed together in the same sentence. This really does not make logical sense because saying something and publicizing something are two very different things. Spreading a rumour by word of mouth has a lot less effect than posting it on instagram. One is very unreliable, questioned, and fizzles out; but by posting something in public for all to see, it automatically gains the trust of those who read it (ironically) and it will be there forever. Beginning with speech, all the major Supreme Court decisions are somewhat common sense. In all honesty, some of the things people have tried to defend themselves against have been quite idiotic. Rulings have contained the following statements on restriction of speech: to insight actions that could do harm to others (Schenck v. United States), to make or distribute obscene materials (Roth v. United States), burning draft cards (United States v. O’Brien), printing articles in a school newspaper over objections by the administration (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier), students making an obscene speech at a school sponsored event (Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser), and students advocating illegal drug use at a school sponsored event (Morse v. Frederick). In all of these cases, the courts have ruled against the persecuted; but quite obviously the “criminals” were harming not only society, but themselves. From Schenck v. United States, the example of shouting “fire” in a crowded room is given as a perfect example of “illegal” speech. Schenck and a friend of his had been printing leaflets and rising up the public against the draft claiming that it was against the 13th amendment regarding involuntary servitude. Their little campaign caused a public stirring big enough to inspire authorities to take action and convict them of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. They appealed saying that their first amendment rights were being restricted. Justice Wendell Holmes concluded that their first amendment rights were not being taken. He said that during a time of war, the courts are obliged to support the war effort and that by inhibiting the growth of the military by discouraging the draft, they are imposing imminent danger upon America. Along with the pending danger, it is pathetic that anyone would not feel obliged to fight a war for the greatest country on earth. Their actions were disgraceful. However, a critical way to determine whether or not something should be restricted or not. The “immediate danger” test basically stated that if someone’s speech or exercise thereof may be restricted if said speech was causing immediate danger to those surrounding or not. Shouting “Fire!” in a crowded room could cause injury, therefore, it is restricted. Roth v. United States is one of the listed cases that is actually debatable. Roth had been mailing obscene content to potential consumers as an advertising campaign; this content had been outlawed federally and in California by the Federal Obscenity Statute. Roth was proven guilty upon Justice William J. Brennan, jr. who claimed that the content was below the standards of speech protected by the first amendment based on contemporary views (of the time) on the content he was mailing. The obscene documents were declared non beneficial to society and therefore not protected by the constitution. The problem lies within what standards are. There a people who see bikinis as a one-way ticket to hell while others see nudity as beauty. Who is the Supreme Court to judge “contemporary standards?” Well, it wasn’t their call. Based on the majority of people who, seeing free erotica pamphlets in their mail and try to hold down their lunch decides that advertising with pornography is not a social norm. Handing out nudity is not an expression of free speech. It is a corruption of morality. Lastly, two of the cases regarded high school students receiving disciplinary action for their actions, but choosing to revolt instead. These two cases, in all honesty, shows the entitlement and naive of some of the teenagers in America. Both Frederick and Fraser explicitly broke their school codes that they signed to oblige to. One (Frederick) was advocating for the use of marijuana with a sign saying “Bong rips 4 Jesus”, which breaks school code as well as state and federal law. Clearly, his encouragement of criminal activity should be punished. Fraser had a similar case to that of Roth, although not as wide spread. He was giving an endorsement speech for his friend and made multiple crude, sexual remarks during his speech in front of the entire student body. Violating school policy, Fraser received disciplinary action.

The somewhat petty offenses are not just that; they are a reflection of the society of that time and the common political beliefs. Those court cases, while they may be old, will be used as a reference in the future to help guide jurisdiction. None of those offenses had very consequential effects. A few high schoolers making jokes about sex and drugs and some creepy guy sending out pornography are not anything new to us. No one was seriously affected by a “bong hits 4 Jesus” poster or a sex joke during a high school speech, and that is why the courts ruled against it. The thing that links all of these confirmed cases is that all the “speech” being used was inconsequential. The courts have repeatedly decided that inconsequential speech is not protected, especially if under another authority before the federal government. Primary school students (minors) are first under the jurisdiction of the school disciplinary code as well as the constitution. The school code takes over when the need arises in such cases when the learning environment is ruined. The federal government is leaving it up to the smaller groups to decide constitutionality of any rule impeding on free speech which is good and bad. Taking power from the Federal government is good. But what is to stop a smaller body-say a state-from creating their own little no free speech zone? This is where a problem begins. The federal courts have protected that from happening in many other court cases. This intellectual voyage through speech leads to Cohen v. California. A man (Cohen) was wearing around a jacket with “F*** THE DRAFT, STOP THE WAR” embroidered on the chest for all to see. Under California State law, Cohen was guilty of ‘maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or person [by] offensive conduct.’ and sentenced to 30 days in jail. Justice John Marshall Harlan reasoned that the jacket, while vulgar, was simply an expression of ideas and emotions which is fully constitutional. He said “One man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric.” From this case the emotive (emotional) and cognitive (ideological) parts of speech were upheld and protected. Having speech defined in these two terms adds an immense amount of clarity. Now to the “dirty” free speech. Brandenburg v. Ohio showed just how far free speech can go. Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, delivered a public speech involving the promotion of various nefarious activities that went against the morality of most people. Under Ohio law, he was fined $1000 and served 10 years in jail. However, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling upon a two-pronged way used to evaluate speech as prohibited. Is it directed to incite violence? Is it creating violence? If the answer is yes to either of these, it is prohibited. While Brandenburg’s ideas were offensive, it neither was asking for or creating violence and therefore, declared constitutional. Brandenburg and Cohen really show the tolerance for free speech that the government has. The government, in these cases, established the precedent that they don’t care what people say, as long as it is not violence provoking or provokes hatred for the government. All passive speech is permitted.

“And so it is to the printing press–to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news–that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.”-John F. Kennedy

The press, whether digital, paper, or verbal, is a powerful tool. Press decides what the people will and will not know, the press influences elections, the press creates distention. Cheesy as it sounds, great power requires great responsibility. The amount of faith that the average person places in the press is unreal. Intended or not, people are affected by the news they see every day. Almost all Americans have a daily intake of some sort of news and it is the press’ responsibility to inform the people to the best of their ability. Sometimes, “to the best of their ability” is against what the government really wants. What if a reporter felt it was his or her duty to expose government secrets that may jeopardize security? Well that very scenario happened during the Vietnam War. Vietnam, the most controversial of American wars, was highly contested by pretty much everyone. The government had lost almost all support of the people, Nixon was just about universally hated, and anti-war efforts were beginning to become publicized and glorified. Daniel Ellsberg was a war strategist during the vietnam war and worked in the pentagon. Having the elevated position he had, he was part of a 12 year, top secret research project called “The Pentagon Papers.” Upon his findings of the tragedies in Vietnam, he felt responsible and leaked the papers to the New York Times; naturally, they ate it up and printed it as fast as possible. A story like that would make millions and gain the support of the public. With the full knowing that he was already hated, Nixon did his best to go after the NYT. The case appeared in the supreme court in a matter of days. By declaring it a direct violation of the Espionage Act, Nixon was able to halt the publication of the documents. The Espionage Act in part a says “whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defence with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Nixon saw the publication of the documents as intended injury to the national defense. However, the supreme court ruling said otherwise. The per curiam ruling declared the publication of the papers as constitutional due to the fact that it was aimed to inform, not to stir up issues. The New York Times really got lucky. Because of the disdain for Nixon and lack of support for the war, they were “let off the hook.” This case was not just a one time deal. The freedom of press gained ground on that day. There really was no better time in history to test the bounds of free speech.

Probably the most infringed upon portion in the first amendment is the right to “peacefully assemble.” So many times throughout history have peaceful groups been done wrong to by the government. Labor Unions have definitely taken the heaviest blows. While labor unions may help workers’ conditions, wages, etc., they really are no longer needed. The government already has requirements for conditions, wages, benefits, and the like that no longer need to be fought for. The National Labor Union, Industrial Workers of the World (I Won’t Works), Knights of Labor, and more have been created to advance the desires of the common worker. While pure in original motive, these unions quickly turned sour and caused cultural, class, and occupational division. The National Labor Union fizzled out when the foreigners began to ask too much of the corporations and stir up issues involving inflation so that they could return to their homeland with a fatter paycheck. Corporations quickly shut them down. The IWW was an industrial group consisting primarily of steel workers, miners, and loggers. The I Won’t Works were notorious for doing just that. They went on strike so often and caused so many international issues, that legislation was passed directly to deal with them. The Knights of Labor were controversial as well. They were affiliated with terrorist attacks (Haymarket Square Bombing), anarchism, and accused of violence. The huge group began as a small and secret club, but soon expanded into a colossal group. Their strikes involved upwards of 800,000 workers and really pissed off the big businesses. Their strikes worked, but efficiency of the Union dissipated when the terror began. The reason anti union legislation was passed was because they were causing horror, supporting socialism, and destroying the economy as well as the rich ran the government. However, there are other types of peaceful gatherings that are entirely permitted. The [Boy] Scouts, Elks, NRA, and many many more clubs are allowed to meet because they don’t cause any problems even though there may be some controversy regarding their beliefs.

Lastly, but equally as important is the right to [peacefully] petition the government. Who doesn’t love whining about elections? Where else can people insult their leaders actions and get away with it? Only in America. Petitioning the government can entail stakeouts, walkouts, and gatherings at a governmental building in hopes of making a point. This right, however, is deeply misunderstood by so many clueless and uneducated morons. For instance, Samantha Bee thought petitioning President Trump by posing with a replica decapitated head was alright, people walked around wearing vagina hats to support pro-choice agendas, and people walk the streets lacking their much needed attire to promote equality and love. People are stupid, and thankfully the founding fathers knew that too, otherwise we would be in deep. The founding father/framers of the Constitution were virtuous men. They knew their classics, their philosophy, and their reasons for doing what they did. These rights were not intended to allow the people to splurge on something just because they can. They were intended to be used in moderation and in wisdom.

The freedom of speech is not just to say whatever the individual desires, but it is the protection of potentially potent, educated, and meaningful text. Without the freedom of speech, the government could get away with anything it pleased and the citizens would be helpless. In fact, attempts have been made to do just that. Early in American history, as said before, military news was suppressed. From pulling press passes, to even killing journalists, governments here and afar try to limit the bad news they are the focus of. The press is a tyrannical governments worst enemy. Countless dictatorships, Communist governments, and other abusive ruler have began by regulating press to alleviate the nation of facts. Allowing free speech (and all other freedoms accompanied) grants the people the ability to spread new ideas, learn new ideas, and create a network within the country of ideology; thus, creating a whole population of free thinkers and educated persons.

As a very libertarian thinker, I believe that our First Amendment rights should not even be touched for the most part. While the courts have struggled over the issue of defining these rights, I do have a fairly blatant perspective on the issues; but that mostly lies in the fact that I am politically biased. Nonetheless, I stand firmly by them and actually, I have found that quite a few justices have similar conclusions to me. I know it, when I see it. As unintellectual that sounds, Justice Potter Stewart said it himself when asked to describe obscene material. But in reality, defining these rights is supposed to be tricky. If the Framers had laid everything out step by step, law by law, rights would be restricted; by leaving them vague creates room for advancing them and making sure that they are guaranteed. However, to establish my own opinion, I must actually put it on the table. For religion, I personally believe that it should be kept absolutely away from government because nothing as toxic as politicians should come anywhere near a religious institution. Ancient traditions should be allowed to be practiced by those few members of original heritage. That is to the extent that they are not actually harming others and only continuing heritage. Department of Human Resources, Oregon v. Smith concluded with Scalia’s opinion that religious groups may be exempt from some things, but cannot violate law simply because of religion. Here, I strongly disagree. Peyote, the hallucinogenic drug, has been used for thousands of years by natives. We have already stripped them of everything they have, does their tradition have to go too?

Similarly, the rights that are grouped into the vague language of the first amendment describing speech, press, and petitioning are vague for a reason. The rights of businesses to discriminate, the rights to publish “fake news”, the right to hold a Satanic Ceremony, and more are granted by these rights and it is our job to keep them protected. The ultimate byproduct of the slow but surely progression towards suppression results in government control of all media. Say, for instance, that the government mandated all truth be told on news stations. No exaggerations, lies, gossip, and the like. With the government in charge of that, it decides what is truth. When this happens, there is tyranny. The Framers of the Constitution feared this and that is why these rights are to go unabridged.

In conclusion, I stand by my firm opinion that the government should have nothing to do with our First Amendment rights. As long as my speech does not harm another, my assembly remains peaceful, my religion is free, and my press is reasonable, the government should have no say whatsoever in deciding what is right. Leaving it up to private institutions to decide what you should and should not say creates an environment where like-minded people can cooperate and enjoy liberty together while expressing their own unique ideas and follow their own religion. The best part about free speech is that you do not have to listen! You can go to any news outlet, website, or blog and listen to whatever you want to. If you don’t like it, don’t listen. It is that simple

To sum everything up, all this court case mumbo jumbo can be compressed into a smaller and more manageable chunk of text. As long as your words, symbols, religion, documents, images, or any other form of expressing the First Amendment rights do not directly interfere with the lives of other, cause physical harm, or promote treason, speech has no limits. A lot of justices would be in concurrence with me because of the lack of prior restraint already in practice, and that the only times speech can be ruled against have been because someone’s words caused immediate harm. Although these cases become confusing and elaborate and seem to melt into one, that is essentially what they are, one overall ruling. It really just depends on the standards of the day which cannot be defined by anything except 20/20 hindsight vision, or the opinion of the ancient Supreme Court Justices of The United States of America. May freedom reign forever, and let not your speech be limited by anyone but the person you see in the mirror.

Why do we have rules in today’s society in work, school, and even people like you? Ever since the concept of having rules in history. Yet, when people think of ‘right’, they would give many different answers for defining the word’ ‘rights’. The word right definition is “That which is morally correct, just or honorable” or “A moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way”. Throughout history, many monarchies and governments have created these rules for protecting their people and their interests. As many people explore the world they also bring in their ideologies and rules to keep everything in check, even a country needs to check their colonists. Later on in time as we fought against Great Britain. Ever since the end of the Revolutionary War. We have developed many rules in our society from 1783 to now in today’s modern lives around the world. After the founding fathers set a high standard of ideals for this new nation to live up to a back in 1776 during and after the Revolutionary War. Taking a look back in the past in our nation there were some moments in history when this nation has its high and low moments in history for its rules, right and laws throughout history in the workplace, schools, and its people. And yet this nation made it strides towards its long tack towards its bright future as the U.S.

After the war, the founding fathers created the Declaration of Independence. Which over time, we have created the Constitution on September 17, 1787. This leads to creating Congress on March 14, 1789. The first branch of government ever originates by the U.S. Constitution. Its primary objective is to create a national law to regulate and to set limitations to the Constitution. Which leads to creating Congress on September 25, 1789. Congress relay to all of the state’s legislatures 12 proposed amendments to the Constitution. Which the 12 amendments were then later adopted into the Constitution and it became known as the Bill of Rights. It became in force on December 15, 1789. The rest is history.

Since then, we have developed various rules and regulations to help to substantive our workplaces, schools, and the people in any sovereign nation. Like the rules for workers/workplaces in any part of the world. The most basic reason for the benefits of rules/regulations for businesses/companies is to ensure that they protect the company. By ensuring the employees the protection from the hazard thing and safety measures, which protect the company from lawsuits from the injured or killed employee. The employee must be following the rules/regulations of their company. Which those rules help the workers to understand what is expected of them to do in that situation and what will happen to them if the workers violate the company rules. Rules and regulations are different for each company and business. But in every single business/company have one thing in common, the worker’s workplace. Workplace safety is very important for every employee and industry because all the workers desire to work in a safe place and a protective atmosphere. Health/safety is the key factor in all industries to promote wellness for both the employees and employers in any industry to make contracts with business or corporation.

But yet in any country, many people need a job in order to live our life. But before a person can get a job, he/she needs to be educated enough to be able to go to college/university. To be able to have a high occupation position in most cases. But it mostly depends on whether or not that person wants to continue on with their education for that occupation. An yet there are rules in every school anywhere in the world.

One great example is the U.S. schools are basically the most important places for everyone’s life and it is essential that a school has rules/regulations because without rules no one can learn. A without learning anything, that person will have a difficult time in life without education. Rules are the most significant part of our lives especially outside of school. Which each state create their own policy in each and every school which these policies are very important to a school because it helps a school establish rules, procedures, expectation, accountability, and equality for all (Side note I’m talking about segregation, which was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1954). And the importance of having rules regulations in schools will enable the class to run smoothly so that everyone can learn and have benefited from what the teacher has to offer to the class. School (rules) also simulate as a workplace (rules) so that the student should be able to follow the rules before they get to adulthood and need to be able to obey the rules so that they can make a living. And also how schools in the U.S. have evolved during the last 80 years to now. Which schools used to have chalkboard but then later being replaced with whiteboards, which is also will be soon slowly replacing it with smart boards in schools. Books/textbooks are also slowly being replaced with computers, laptops, iPads, Androids tablets, and much more (better Tech) in schools.

Within the Holy Bible the role of government is outlined several times for in 1 Peter 2:13-14 it states, “submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution; wether to a king or one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right”. This passage speaks on individuals given authority by the Lord to uphold justice on earth while maintaining morality and eithics. Natural law is a moral theory which relates to this passage for the law is based on what’s “correct”. For natural law is “discovered” by humans through use of reason and choosing between good and evil. As with inalienable rights, all men were created equal with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as stated in the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution.

This essential equality means that no one is born with a natural right to rule over others without their consent, and that governments are obligated to apply the law equally to everyone. This is where the separation of church and state comes into play for Baptists in Virginia who strived for the state to lose power over coercion individuals to convert to the state’s official religion of Episcopalian. Church and state were distinct in that the Federal Government could not elevate one denomination over others. In 1786 a preamble in Act Establishing Religious Freedom stated that “the Author of our religion gave us our “free will” and that he “chose not to propagate it by coercion”. Nor could government and its flawed inhabitants usurp divine authority by harnessing politics to the church. This was done to remind individuals that faith is no civil contract, but a personal matter not to be profaned by politics. This belief is supported in the Bible Acts 5:29, “But Peter and the apostles answered, We must obey God rather than men”.

In response the first constitutional amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Shallus, Jacob. 2019). This passage that it often explained as the religion clauses, prevented the new government from establishing a state religion, and protected the right of citizens to adhere to any religion they seem fit.

This goes hand in hand with the development of federalism which involves the linkage of individuals, groups, and politics in lasting but limited union in such a way as to provide for the energetic pursuit of common ends while maintaining the respective integrities of all parties. This resambls a covenant in which a higher moral force, traditionally God, is either a direct party to, or gurantor of the particular relationship” (Skillen, James. P. 111).

Within public administration, “the covenant is a radically liberating force, one that frees humans to act but not at the price of denying the transcendent authority and power that sets the parameters within which they act and the terms under which their actions are legitimate and morally acceptable” (p.112). As to ensure no crime or sin is committed one must stay true to the convenant but not all crimes committed are sins. A crime can be placed into place during a period of time but as the world progressesss that “crime” becomes morally accepted. For example, during the 3rd century homosexuality was a crime but in 2019 it is widely accepted even though still being a sin.

This can also be seen as a policy issue on civil rights for the LGBTQ community in which the biblical principles do not condone this type of sexual preference. However, on the basis of the United States Constitution’s fifth and fourteenth Amendments, everybody is created equal and has the right to freedom of expression. The government in recent years has fought legislation that has given individuals within the LGBTQ community the right to marriage, laws to ensure a persons sexual origin is not discriminated against, prevents individuals from being fired off the basis of their sexual preference, and granted the right to adopt a child.

These new policies correlate with the postmodernism worldview in which different perspectives are all acceptable for things are relative oppose to objective. For everyone has a different outlook on life coupled with their personal beliefs and interpution on things. Postmoderisim in turn focuses more on authenticity, creativity, intuition, and imagination. As people with a modern worldview tend to place science as their basis for it is a realiable source of knowledge. Moderism takes away from the bible and opposes logic, rational, and science as their basis for tackling life issues.

Our forefathers used the basis of christanity to compose the constitution to ensure the people maintained a nature of truth and values with the assistance of limited government. However, as centuries pass modernism was introduces given government a more expanisve role which is illustrated with the listed enumerated powers in Artile I, Section 8 of the United States constitution.

These listed powers were granted to the federal government to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise and maintain armed forces, and to establish a Post Office. Furthermore, to ensure that citizens are involved in political decisions certain powers not specified in the United States Constitution are given to each state. However, there are certain political powers that both federal and state governments hold such as the power to impose taxes, the power to run elections, the power to borrow money on behalf of the government, and the power to establish and maintain a working court system. These are referred to as concurrent powers but if there is a dispute in which both federal and state governments do not agree, the powers of the federal government prevail.

The government was formulated to ensure justice prevailed each time but Article 1, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constituion was established to ensure certain powers neither level of government may hold such as any action that violates the Bill of Rights, the imposition of taxes on exports from the states, the authority to use money from the Treasury without approval and passage of an appropriations bill, and the authority to change state boundaries. As with powers denied to the federal government the state governments also are denied certain rights such as the authority to enter into treaties with other countries, authority to print money, authority to tax imports or exports, authority to retroactively impair contract rights or obligations, and the authority to deny an individual’s rights without due process. One must keep in mind the United States is a democracy and to ensure corruption does not encompass the government the constitution also includes powers that are denied to both federal and state governments such as authority to grant titles of nobility, authority to permit slavery, authority to deny citizens the right to vote according to their race, color, or previous servitude and the authority to deny citizens the right to vote according to their gender.

In conclusion, the United States was built on the Christianity worldview which instilled everyone’s alienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but also to uphold moral intergrity. Throughout the centuries the world has evolved and certain policies that were put into place has been rectified to reflect today’s worldviews but also aliegns with the original policy or law to a degree. For example, the fourteenth amendement was amended in 1868 to include African Americans as legal citizens who now possess equal rights; since then the fourteenth amendement has grown to include individuals of different sexual origins to possess equal rights to ensure they are not subjected to discrimination. For the Bible and government have become separated in postmodernism.

References

1. Flax, Bill. The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State. July 2011. https://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/07/09/the-true-meaning-of-separation-of-church-and-state/#2c2654aa5d02
2. Jacob Shallus. June 2019. The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
3. Robert D. Orr (2007) The Role of Christian Belief in Public Policy, Christian Bioethics, 13:2, 199-209. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13803600701473489
4. Fischer, Khalib. 2013. Biblical Principles of Government. https://learn.liberty.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-34979618-dt-content-rid-420303954_1/courses/PADM550_D05_201940/PADM550_LUO_8wk_MASTER_ImportedContent_20190321034338/Biblical%20Principles%20of%20Government.pdf
5. Separation of Church and State. The Boisi Center Papers on Religion in the United States. https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/centers/boisi/pdf/bc_papers/BCP-ChurchState.pdf
6. Enumerated Powers. Novemebr 2015. https://legaldictionary.net/enumerated-powers/
7. Equal and Inalienable Rights. 2019. https://www.docsoffreedom.org/student/readings/equal-and-inalienable-rights

The US Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights, are the primary documents that stipulate the rights of American citizens and the protections they are afforded. Adopted in 1789, the Constitution ensures that “no man should be deprived of his unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Though it is seen as a perfect opportunity for freedom and democracy, the American Constitution deliberately excluded segments of the population from the liberty the Founders wanted to ensure. Women, along with several other groups, were denied the simplest form of freedom: which is the right to vote. Women of all types had their freedoms limited due to outdated views of femininity and a woman’s place in society.

Coverture prevailed in the years leading up to the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment. This derived from British common law, coverture was the legal principle “that dictated a woman’s subordinate legal status during marriage” (Britannica). The freedom that unwed women had to enter into contracts, sue, and exchange property was revoked under the status of “marital unity”. There was no unity. A woman who was wedded became the property of her husband. She could not make her own decisions. It was as if she was enslaved.

For those educated women who wanted a career as well as a family, this was a huge problem. A common way of thinking by Americans since the country’s founding, was known as Republican Motherhood. This term represented the role of being a caretaker, that was a prominent norm at the time. For a woman, her most important responsibility, according to those who adhered to the belief of the of Republican Motherhood, was the raising of her children. Whether a woman is educated or not, her job shouldn’t be to solely raise children. Another preference for women at the time was to have a male child. A women’s personal progress was not a matter of discussion. If a woman wanted to secure more rights for herself, the only thing she could do, would be to raise men, and hope that one day when they are adults, they would advocate for women. Even with this mindset being prominent, that suffragettes persisted. They did not conform to the then norms, nor did they let these obstacles to freedom set them back. They managed to put up a solid fight to receive the franchise. Taking a look at the grassroots, judicial, and legislative strategies these activists used to enact change, will not only help us to understand this movement, but also help us to comprehend how the the strategies they used are still of importance today.

The Seneca Falls Convention of 1848 is a master class in the importance of grassroots activism. The Seneca County Courier, a semi-weekly journal, contained this announcement: “Woman’s Right Convention — A convention to discuss the social, civil, and religious condition and rights of woman, will be held in the Wesleyan Chapel, at Seneca Falls, N.Y., on Wednesday and Thursday, the 19th and 20th of July, current; commencing at 10 o’clock AM. During the first day the meeting will be exclusively for women, who are earnestly invited to attend. The public generally are invited to be present on the second day, when Lucretia Mott, of Philadelphia, and other ladies and gentlemen, will address the convention” (Stanton, 67).

In progressing toward their goal, nineteenth century suffragettes were sure to include a critical mass of people. When one conducts grassroots activism, they use the people in a given district, region, or community as the basis for political and economic action. Even though Mott, Stanton, and others “were quite innocent of the herculean labors they proposed” (Stanton, 68), they knew the importance of creating a consensus among a wide group of people. The more agreement there was on the sentiments of women, the higher the possibility for change at the national level. They also understood the significance of having a diverse political block. A primary source on the convention recalls that “it had been decided to have no men present, but as they were already on the spot…it was decided…that this was an occasion when men might make themselves preeminently useful. It was agreed that they should remain and take the laboring oar through the convention” (Stanton, 69). These women recognized the privilege of men. Instead of excluding these people, they saw that the men would be useful to advocate for their cause among fellow men. This strategy that these women so haphazardly produced has become a bedrock of our American democracy. When one looks at the Black Lives Matter movement, or the fundraising of the Sanders campaign in 2016, one sees how grassroots movements have progressed in the advancement of technology. With the rise of twitter and social media, activists have been able to galvanize a critical mass more efficiently.

Beyond utilizing grassroots activism to affect political change, the suffragettes also advocated at the state level for the franchise. What is significant about this action is that the suffragettes, women who were excluded from American Political Society, were knowledgeable about the systems of power that did not include them. In American government, laws and amendments can be changed in two ways. The first way is completely legislative: two-thirds of both the house and the Senate can vote to bring an amendment to the floor. Three-fourths of states would then have to approve the amendment for it to be become ratified. The second, more democratizing way of getting an amendment ratified relies on state legislatures, If two-thirds of state legislatures favor a law or principle, the quorum can request that Congress call a national convention to propose potential amendments. The suffragettes recognized the need for political activity at various levels of government. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) was extremely interested in change at the national level. Other, more militant associations, such as the Alice Paul-led National Woman’s Party, also shared interest in national bodies like Congress. Some groups, like the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA), eschewed the lobbying of Congress. Led by Lucy Stone, her husband Henry Brown Blackwell, and others, the AWSA was established in 1869 as a more moderate suffrage organization than the NWSA. While the NWSA did not support the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment and rights for formerly enslaved peoples, the AWSA supported general abolition. The AWSA, unlike the NWSA, was a single-issue organization, and only focused on expanding the vote to women. Because the AWSA was a single-issue organization, and because they lobbied states instead of Congress, they were more able to efficiently enact change before merging with the NWSA in 1890 to form the National American Woman Suffrage Organization (NAWSA). The AWSA had their own publication, the Woman’s Journal, that relied on a state-by-state strategy to increase consideration about the female franchise. They wanted to initiate change in a way that they believed would help get everyone involved. The front page of a 1917 copy of the Journal illuminates the work that these women were trying to do. It’s lead stories primarily focus on things happening at the state level. In particular, it features two stories on Indiana and Arkansas. Under a story with the title “Arkansas is First Southern State in Suffrage Ranks”, it is written, “Gov. Brough Signs Riggs Bill Permitting Women to Vote in Primaries-means practically full suffrage-Fifth Big Suffrage Victory for 1917” (Woman’s Journal, 1). There is also a story on Indiana, covering Governor Godrich’s signing of a state bill “extending nine-tenths of the full franchise to all women of the state” (Woman’s Journal, 1). It is important to note that even though these victories do not completely grant the franchise, they are significant, incremental steps to change. Every movement made towards implementing a new way mattered. Though women in Arkansas were not allowed to vote in national elections, suffragettes could use the primary vote as an argument to eventually vote in bigger elections. “Democratic Primaries are so large,” the article goes on to say, “primaries are really elections” (Woman’s Journal, 1). During the two-decade run of the AWSA, Wyoming and Utah women won the right to vote. Though this change seems small, only 33 states need to approve the female franchise in order for an amendment to be proposed. The political organization at the state level is also a focal point of American democracy. In the wake of a possible repeal of Roe v. Wade, several state leaders vowed to put abortion protections into state law. In July of 2018, Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo said, “Roe v. Wade has the protections that we now rely on in New York. We never passed the New York State law because we relied on Roe v. Wade…we now need to codify Roe v. Wade, which will actually increase the protections in New York” (Cuomo). In the years after the passage of the nineteenth amendment, we see federalism being the avenue by which citizens and states advocate and secure protections for all Americans.

Beyond grassroots organizing at the national and local levels, suffragettes attempted to utilize the courts and the judicial branch to receive political freedoms. Two prominent leaders of the movement, Susan B. Anthony and Virginia Minor, went through legal proceedings in their respective states aimed at expanding the franchise. In 1872, Anthony and other members of the NWSA registered, or attempt to register to vote. Because Anthony successfully registered and voted in New York, she and 13 other women were arrested and they were fined $100. Anthony was the only woman who pleaded not guilty to this charge. At her trial, she said, “the only chance women have for justice in this country is to violate the law, as I have and as I shall continue to do” (Stalcup, 132), beyond Anthony’s conscientious objection, other cases were brought to higher courts. Virginia Minor, a popular suffragette leader in Missouri, sued Reese Happersett, a voting registrar, for denying her the right to vote. She argued to the Missouri Supreme Court and later the US Supreme Court that the prohibition of her voting was in direct violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The clause reads that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…”. As a citizen, Minor contested the refusal to allow her to vote violated her fourteenth amendment rights. Eventually, both courts rejected Minor’s opinion. Even though she was a citizen, her status as female did not grant her the privilege of voting. Though many judicial measures to secure the franchise were generally unsuccessful, they are important for a couple of reasons. These suffragettes tried to change legislation at the legal level through establishing precedent. Precedent is a legal term that states that legal rulings impact future laws and legislation. That is to say, if the Supreme Court repealed Missouri’s ruling, women across the country would be allowed to vote, because the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is national. Beyond the issue of suffrage, the utilization of the courts has been used to advocate for the rights of enslaved African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and other marginalized groups. In the summer of 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 5-to-4 that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. In response to several state rulings that allowed businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The supreme court’s ruling makes individual, state-based rulings null and void. Advocating though courts is a central feature of American democracy. It will continue to be used in the future.

In conclusion, when people are excluded from their rights, they will go through a variety of methods in order to enact positive change for themselves. Marginalized peoples will advocate for themselves at the social level. They will, as in the case of suffragettes, create petitions to develop critical masses and coalitions. They will picket and protest to galvanize more citizens to join their causes. They will lobby state legislatures, engaging in significant political action to meet their goals. They will update the American public on the actions of their elected officials, so that their representatives know that people are watching. Lastly, when options in the social and political sphere are exhausted, people will attempt to advocate for themselves judicially. The Suffrage movement of the nineteenth and twentieth century is crucial because the tactics and techniques used by suffragettes are still used today. To better understand current political movements, the actions of the past must be analyzed. If we do not know our history, we are doomed to repeat it.

Bibliography

1. Advocates Reignite the Fight for an Equal Rights Amendment. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/women/publications/perspectives/2018/october-november/advocates-reignite-fight-an-equal-rights-amendment/.
2. 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Women’s Right to Vote (1920). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=63.
3. Cady Stanton, E., Anthony, S. B., Gage, M. J., & Husted Harper, I. (1848-1861). History of Woman Suffrage, 1. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/historyofwomansu01stanuoft/page/n12
4. Chira, S. (2019, February 16). Do American Women Still Need an Equal Rights Amendment? Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/sunday-review/women-equal-rights-amendment.html.
5. Dubois, E. C. (1999). Feminism and Suffrage: The Emergence of an Independent Women’s Movement in America. Ithaca , NY: Cornell University Press.
6. History of the Women’s Rights Movement. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://nationalwomenshistoryalliance.org/resources/womens-rights-movement/history-of-the-womens-rights-movement/.
7. http://media.bloomsbury.com/rep/files/Primary Source 14.2 – Seneca Falls Convention.pdf. (n.d.)
8. Law, T. (n.d.). The History of the Equal Rights Amendment. Retrieved from https://time.com/5657997/equal-rights-amendment-history/.
9. Prasad, R. (2019, April 30). Women’s Equal Rights Amendment sees first hearing in 36 years. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44319712.
10. Pruitt, S. (2018, August 24). American Women’s Suffrage Came Down to One Man’s Vote. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/news/american-womens-suffrage-19th-amendment-one-mans-vote.
11. Raub, A., Foley, D., & Heymann, J. (2014, May 20). Where do Women Stand? New Evidence on the Presence and Absence of Gender Equality in the World’s Constitutions: Politics & Gender. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-gender/article/where-do-women-stand-new-evidence-on-the-presence-and-absence-of-gender-equality-in-the-worlds-constitutions/
12. Schuyler, L. G. (n.d.). The Weight of Their Votes: Southern Women and Political Leverage in the 1920s. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
13. Stalcup, B. (2002). Susan B. Anthony. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.
14. The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. (2007, October 8). Coverture. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/coverture.
15. The 14th and 15th Amendments. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.womenshistory.org/resources/general/14th-and-15th-amendments.
16. Weiss, E. (n.d.). Celebrating Women’s Suffrage While the Fight to Vote Goes On. Retrieved from https://time.com/5661123/suffrage-womens-equality-day/.
17. Waite, M. R. & Supreme Court of The United States. (1874) U.S. Reports: Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall.
18. (1917). Woman’s Journal, 48(10). Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/omeka.net/11417/archive/files/ed263b0a8c98c6b014cb9b1d532a71d8.JPG?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAI3ATG3OSQLO5HGKA&Expires=1577318400&Signature=ipLpoWIX/MYmwc6aW7drYp6YgXU=
19. (2018, July 11). Governor Cuomo: New York Will Sue to Protect Roe v. Wade, Retrieved from https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-new-york-will-sue-protect-roe-v-wade

The American political system is broken. The current state of our democratic republic is a blatant reflection of the obvious defects in the founding document(s) we so often rely upon for guidance, wisdom, and enlightenment. Our founding document, the Constitution, establishes a conventional substructure for an effectual administration of a nation in which its people are permitted to exercise their natural human rights in accordance with the law and pursuit individual happiness. The Constitution expresses a deep understanding that equality, liberty, and opportunity are fundamental rights; that government depends on the will and consent of those governed by it, and that the powers bestowed upon the government should not exceed its appropriate capability and thus should be organized in a way that ensures the rights of the people. We have no nobility here, rather we embrace the idea that opportunity and access to opportunity should be equal; that a truly democratic society is one in which everyone, regardless of religion, gender and ethnicity, has the right to freely express their opinion without the fear of reprimand, openly believe in a divine force and the right to associate with a group & collectively act to pursue the interests of those within the group. And yet despite the progressive ideal in which it was founded upon, the Constitution is flawed.

The founders themselves had very little to no faith in the power of ordinary people, in the power of the common whole; they were to put in simple terms, motivated by elitism. The United States of America wasn’t founded as a democracy but as a republic. The people are not directly involved with politics rather designated ‘representatives’ are. The representatives are by no means bound to loyally uphold public opinion and sentiment, but instead to exercise their own judgment. The founders feared civic uprisal and therefore wanted men, at all times, to mediate between the public and the nation. The electoral college itself stems from republicanism rather than direct democracy. The electoral college elects the president and vice president of our nation. Which only brings us back to the bigger issue: how much power do the people really have? It’s reiterated time after time that the future is in our hands, that our voice and votes matter because we are the ones who put the head of state in power. That’s a lie. When voters go to the polls, we are actually “voting for the slate of electors vowing to cast their ballots for that ticket in the Electoral College” (History, Art & Archives, 2018). Each state is designated a number of electors that is in par with the number of senators and representatives in their respective jurisdiction. These electors, are the ones who vote to choose who the next president will be. If there’s a tie, then the House of Representatives selects who the next president will be. A candidate can lose the popular vote, but still, win the election.

The practice itself is undemocratic. Democracy is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people. In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular or electoral vote. In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the presidency but lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden. In 1888, Benjamin Harrison became president despite losing the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes (FactCheck). In 2000, George W. Bush became the 43rd president despite Al Gore winning the people’s vote by more than 540,000 (FactCheck). In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote over Hillary Clinton despite Hillary receiving 2.9 million more popular votes than Trump (FactCheck). Another undemocratic aspect of the Constitution rests on Judicial power. Judges are appointed not elected to serve for life. They have the power to rule any law or regulation passed as unconstitutional, even if the own president and legislature approved it. Additionally, every state gets two senators regardless of the population. States like Wyoming, Rhode Island and Maine get the same amount of senators as states like Texas, New York, and Florida. Wyoming has a population of 572,381 (World Population Review). Texas has a population of 29,087,070 million (World Population Review). Maine has a population of 1,342,097. Florida has a population of 21,646,155 (World Population Review). Now the controversy surrounding this is that, why should a state smaller in quantity be held up to par with a state with a much higher population? Is assigning two senates per state really working for our democracy?

The Bicentennial Speech, delivered by the Former Associate of the Supreme Court Thurgood Marshall, counterattacks those who praise the founding fathers for their ‘genius’ writing by reiterating how the defective document they created needed, “several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation” (Marshall, 1987) to attain a system of “constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms” (Marshall, 1987). The first three words, “We the People” did not include the majority of American citizens. On the matter of having the right to vote, “negro slaves were excluded” (Marshall, 1987), despite them being counted as “three-fifths each” for representational purposes. As a means of raising earnings, the tax imposed on slaves transported across international lines was “up to ten dollars per slave” (Marshall, 1987). Despite, the understanding of the role of involuntary labor and the enslavement of African Americans would play in creating the nation we are today, moral principle and responsibility were compromised with “no explanation of the conflicting principles for which the American Revolutionary War had ostensibly been fought” (Marshall, 1987). The war had been fought in defense of the idea that “all men are created equal” and yet that equality seemed to only apply to particular individuals. They had for “more than a century been regarded as beings of an inferior order” (Marshall, 1987), unfit to be of the same value and importance as the white man. A negro of the African race was property, and bought, and sold as such. Out of the delegates who were present at the Constitutional Convention, about 25 owned slaves. Take a brief moment & read that again.

It took a civil war and the 13th amendment to abolish slavery. To finally, reject the old philosophy of “separate but equal” and embrace a philosophy that concurs each individual the right to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality in the eyes of the law; disregarding external appearances and ancestral lineage. Despite blacks participating, “to the developments of this country’s magnificent wealth” (Marshall, 1987) it took yet another century for them to “share equally such basic opportunities like education, housing, and employment” (Marshall, 1987). To be considered of substance and worth. They were “enslaved by law, emancipated by law, disenfranchised and segregated by law” (Marshall, 1987) and finally they gained equality by law. The people were no longer enslaved and it was not thanks to our founders. It was thanks to those who refused to accept old fashioned opinions on who “liberty, justice, and equality” pertain to.

We’re progressing towards different times. We’re growing into a nation with various ethnicities, religions, and socio-political ideals. This is not a homogenous republic. If we seek progressive social, cultural and economic growth as a nation, the decisions taken to ensure the stability and fairness of our legal system by no means, should be tightly bound to the outdated words of men who lived in a different time and were not exposed to modernized ideas and ways of thinking. The Constitution should be utilized for partial guidance, it should not be the sole dictator and decision-makers in situations dealt with in the present. While the argument is not to completely disregard the Constitution, there’s no denying that it certainly can be reformed so our American values of liberty, justice, and equality for all can revitalize. An effective constitution will: effectively protect the rights of the people, promote fairness, solve problems democratically, and foster prosperity.

References

1. Marshall, Thurgood. 1987 (May 6). Remarks of Thurgood Marshall.
2. At The Annual Seminar of the SAN FRANCISCO PATENT AND TRADEMARK LAW ASSOCIATION. Maui, Hawaii.
3. Gore, D’Angelo. “Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote”. FactCheck.org, 23 Dec. 2016, www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/.
4. “US States- Ranked By Population 2019”. US States – Ranked by Population 2019, worldpopulationreview.com/states/. September 15, 2019.
5. History, Art & Archives, U.S. House of Representatives, “Electoral College Fast Facts”, https://history.house.gov/Institution/Electoral-College/Electoral-College/ (September 15, 2019).

As a future political science major, one of the most talked about documents in my field of study is the Constitution. The, arguably, most prevalent debates over the Constitution is how flexible it should be. Constitutional traditionalists often call for a strict reading of the Constitution in its original form, whereas Constitutional progressives often are in favor of a looser reading of the famous document. This is not a new debate, in fact this debate has been going on since the Constitution was first brought forth. Starting in 1789, when the Bill of Rights was published, the Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times. Ranging from the ban of alcohol, to the rights for women to vote, the constitution has been added to or changed, but many people say that is not enough. Some people have claimed the entire Constitution should be, periodically rewritten. Is there a historical basis for an idea like this, and would it achieve the end result these people hope for? Many historians say ​they​ are conflicted on the issue.

When people turn to historical figures to reason why we need to rewrite the constitution, one of the earliest figures they recall is one of America’s first fathers: Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, expressed concerns about a rigid Constitution, and showed great interest in one that could be easily rewritten. As Ambassador to Paris, Jefferson was absent from the writing of the Constitution so his ideas did not show up during the Constitutional convention, but were received in many letters to different frameworkers, most notably James Madison. One of the biggest issues for Jefferson was that the Constitution was the center of the Government, so it must be able to fit the needs of a changing country, and only people living could adapt for that. The idea of “dead should not rule the living” (Reutter, 2007) was something that really plagued the idea of the Constitution for Jefferson. At the time of the letter writing, this was a real issue. Nobody that is dead can change the document, so there needed to be a way to see the document form and change. But to just take this letter at face value would neglect the timing of the writing. This letter in question was written while the early blocks of the Constitution were being laid. At this point there was no talk of a Bill of Rights, and later Amendments had not been discussed at all, so really Jefferson was only warning against a completely solid Constitution. Amendability is right within the Constitution, Article V (National Archives), to be exact, which states exactly how to make amendments, which is exactly what Jefferson had asked for.

Later on in American ​h​istory, shortly after the Reconstruction Era we saw another President call for the rewrite of the Constitution. This time it was Woodrow Wilson. Wilson, often seen as a quiet man, actually wrote several papers on why the Constitution needed to be rewritten, ​a lot of which came before he became president. Many of his ideas were geared more towards Congress ​and the power it has. He wanted to dissolve Congress over a period of time, or at least let the President have more of a presence inside of it. Although his points do make sense inside the letters, you must look deeper into the time to really understand why he felt so strongly. Wilson wrote these letters in a time of great change. America was working on its rebuild, and Congress was running much different than it had run when it was first formed. It had tried to impeach Johnson 20-30 years earlier, had been fighting like never ​before​, and many people of the time believed that Congress needed to be reformed. Again, timing is key on why the call to rewrite was so great.

Even much later in history, in today’s world, the call to rewrite the Constitution is being echoed by voices all over the country, but that does not always mean that it is right. Americans have been given a truly ​embodies a unique way of life, and one that many people paid their lives to make. To simply discredit their work is truly a dangerous precedent to set. The Constitution is a living, breathing document, and it something that many countries envy. Of course it will have its flaws, but it has stood this long because we have the ability to shape it, refine it, and do what is needed to make it work for us, without the need to rewrite it all together. The forefathers crafted the Constitution to stand the test of time, and it is the responsibility of the people to protect such a legacy.

References

1. “Constitutional Amendment Process.” ​The National Archives and Records Administration​, National Archives and Records Administration, https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution.
2. “Constitutional Topic: Rewriting the Constitution – The U.S. Constitution Online.” Constitutional Topic: Rewriting the Constitution – The U.S. Constitution Online – USConstitution.net​, https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_newc.html#Recon.
3. “Presidents, Vice Presidents, & Coinciding Sessions of Congress.” ​US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives​, https://history.house.gov/Institution/Presidents-Coinciding/Presidents-Coinciding/.
4. Reutter, Mark. “U. Of I. Scholars Collecting, Analyzing Constitutions from around the World.” ​ILLINOIS​, 12 Feb. 2007, https://news.illinois.edu/view/6367/206732

In the Merriam Webster dictionary (2020), the definition of systemic racism is broken down into two words. Systemic meaning “fundamental to a predominant social, economic, or political practice”. Racism also defined by Merriam Webster definition (2020) means, “the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another”. I believe systemic racism occurs today. People treat people differently due to the color of their skin, and that is the sad, disappointing truth.

At the start of Covid-19, people were treating those of the Asian descent differently. They treated them differently due to the coronavirus starting in China. “Governments should take urgent steps to prevent racist and xenophobic violence and discrimination linked to the Covid-19 pandemic while prosecuting racial attacks against Asians and people of Asian descent, Human Rights Watch said today” (Human Rights Watch, 2020).

Civil liberties is defined as, “freedom from arbitrary governmental interference (as with the right of free speech) specifically by denial of governmental power and in the U.S. especially as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights —usually used in plural” (Merriam Webster, 2020). “Civil liberties are protections against government actions. For example, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees citizens the right to practice whatever religion they please. Government, then, cannot interfere in an individual’s freedom of worship. Amendment I give the individuals ‘liberty’ from the actions of the government” (US History, 2019).

I believe that the way the government has handled the rights of Americans regarding their civil liberties, is dependent upon who is in office, and whether they are democratic or republican. Yes, I do believe that the Constitution should be the last word when it comes to what the government can and cannot do to US citizens. The Constitution was “written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the United States Constitution is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government” (Senate, 2020). The Constitution has been in the charter of the government for two hundred and thirty-one years now. I feel that the protests were in order given to the notion of civil liberties.

“Gov. Brian Kemp warned Tuesday state authorities are prepared to do “whatever is necessary to keep the peace” (Augusta Chronicle, 2020). If people were having peaceful protests, the police did not get involved, but if rioting were to happen that is when the police started to arrest people. I believe that the police are just trying to do their jobs. Does abuse of power happen in the police? Of course, it does, but I think a way to fix that is to have the deputies and sheriffs move around, like the military does. That way no one person could be in charge. Governor Kemp has signed a law to protect the police, and other first responders. Governor Kemp stated. “a step forward as we work to protect those who are risking their lives to protect us. While some vilify, target and attack our men and women in uniform for personal or political gain, this legislation is a clear reminder that Georgia is a state that unapologetically backs the blue” (Fox News, 2020).

President Donald Trump does not want to defund the police, but instead wants to change the system. He states, “We’re going to talk about ideas how we can do it better and how we can do it if possible, in a much more gentle fashion” (NPR, 2020). I agree with President Trump. He wants to change the police system, but not defund the police. I do not want the police defunded, they have trained to protect those and sometimes risk their own lives to protect strangers. I think that America has woken up. We have all realized that there is a problem with abuse of power, and Donald Trump wants to change that.

References

1. Beau Evans, C. B. (2020, June 02). Georgia Gov. Kemp: Keep protests peaceful or face force. Retrieved from https://www.augustachronicle.com/news/20200602/georgia-gov-kemp-keep-protests-peaceful-or-face-force
2. Casiano, L. (2020, August 06). Georgia Gov. Kemp signs new law to protect police, other first responders. Retrieved from https://www.foxnews.com/us/georgia-governor-law-protect-police
3. Civil Liberties and Civil Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ushistory.org/gov/10.asp
4. Civil Liberty. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil liberty
5. Constitution of the United States. (2020, January 21). Retrieved from https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm
6. Covid-19 Fueling Anti-Asian Racism and Xenophobia Worldwide. (2020, September 20). Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/05/12/covid-19-fueling-anti-asian-racism-and-xenophobia-worldwide
7. Racism. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
8. Rampton, R. (2020, June 08). Trump Says He’s Considering Ideas For Policing ‘In A Much More Gentle Fashion’. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/08/872473799/trump-says-hes-considering-ideas-for-policing-in-a-much-more-gentle-fashion
9. Systemic. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/systemic

In the Supreme Court case, Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the notion of “dual citizenship” became what ultimately shaped civil liberties and civil rights protections for early citizens as the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution’s Bill of Rights restricted only the powers of the federal government and not those of the state. In other words, John Barron might have been protected by the fifth amendment on a federal level. However, the U.S. government’s Bill of Rights did not fully extend to that of the states. He ultimately had to live under the laws of Maryland which discussed the eminent domain and the action of taking property without just compensation. In short, these implied powers served to encourage unjust action under the state’s individual Constitution, further dismantling the promise of the protection of civil liberties/civil rights to American citizens.

In answering the second question, we need to discuss the effect of the Civil War. This fight between northern and southern states became the leading gateway towards establishing the nationalization of the civil liberties and the civil rights. The fourteenth amendment, in particular, granted the right of national citizenship and also extended the Bill of Rights to citizens regardless of their state of residency. Meaning, all states were restricted from enforcing any law that “deprived any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process [. . .]”. This addition to the Constitution was intended to grant more protection under the law of the state which was not previously granted before.

When we begin discussing the benefits of incorporating civil liberties protections to extend the citizens of the United States, we tend to emphasize the notion of equal protection. More specifically, it indicates the limitation of power imposed by the state government to withhold the protection of additional civil liberties to citizens. This amendment to the Constitution has in fact paved the way in which we live today in modern time. Court cases such as Roe v. Wade (right to privacy), Miranda v. Arizona (right to counsel and remain silent), and Gideon v. Wainright (right to counsel in the criminal trial) have collectively served as precedents for other individuals fighting the same struggle. However, this extension of civil rights and liberties protections have ultimately developed a trend of public outrage. The Supreme Court has gradually adopted a more conservative view on public issues pertaining to social justice and has begun to rule in favor of states regarding violence against women, federal gun law, religion, and abortion. In turn, it becomes extremely terrifying for some to identify the evolution which has established the dominance of the national government. Minority protections are now considered under the national government instead of their residing state. Jim Crow laws were pieces of legislature that were derived from white supremacist ideals and the Reconstruction era. These laws restricted any black individual to consort with members of another race. Although immoral and unjust, these discriminatory laws were created in order to disenfranchise black citizens and segregate them from the whites. These laws were largely remedied by the efforts of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). This particular organization served to overturn the enactment of Jim Crow laws during the Civil Rights Movement. The event of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) became a pivotal case for the desegregation of schools and ultimately became a precedent case for Plessy v. Ferguson as it stated that “separate but equal” education was not logically possible or morally correct. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) also emphasized that the act of de jure segregation, segregation mandated by law, violated the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. These cases, in particular, paved a gateway towards eliminating segregation and incorporating public schools.

In addition, Congress also established an effort to remedy the enactment of Jim Crow laws by acknowledging the several campaigns regarding civil rights. In 1957, Congress passes the Civil Rights Act, a law imposing federal punishment if one chooses to prevent an individual from voting. They, again, passed a second piece of legislature in 1960 which increased sanctions for denying one’s right to vote. Although Congress intended to correct the governmental framework of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, it ultimately created a form of segregation that trapped several African Americans in poor neighborhoods. De facto segregation continues to persist in spite of de jure segregation dying. This is largely due to the event of “white flight” and the socioeconomic sorting that resulted from the legacy of the civil right policy.

Given the Supreme Court ruling of Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the federal government at that time did not have the ability to interfere with state issues. Therefore, when we begin discussing the notion of civil rights and federalism, we generally analyze the resulted tension that restricts one from seeking political union. Because amending the Constitution requires adherence from both levels of government, it becomes extremely difficult for individuals to initiate a political reform. Several states during the Civil Rights Movement, for instance, did not hold the harmonious view of extending the rights of minority groups. Therefore, the ability of obtaining equal protection under the law of the federal and state government became almost impossible.

However, despite the delay, these rights became extended under the jurisdiction of Congress, Supreme Court cases, and the event of social movements. After the event of the Civil War, several amendments were made to the Constitution in order to reform the laws regarding the discrimination placed on Black individuals. The ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were specifically designed to protect the victims of discrimination but more specifically the newly freed blacks. Although the Supreme Court was slow to acknowledge the need for political reform, it became evident that the Court was in favor of combating racial discrimination. In the Supreme Court ruling of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), it addressed the unconstitutional framework of segregation and more specifically acknowledged that separate facilities were inherently unequal. Rights were also expanded within the decision to enact a federal Civil Rights Act and a Voting Right. This, in short, granted American citizens the right to vote, the access to housing, and established equal opportunity within a work environment. Organizations such as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Congress of Racial Equality, and the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, began to push for a more confrontational approach when campaigning for political reform. Direct action and civil disobedience became extremely effective and gained momentum for the expansion of civil rights.

According to the reading, political parties were created in order to develop and implement policies. More specifically, they directly guide the members of Congress during the process of drafting pieces of legislature. In terms of a representative democracy, political parties partake the role of identifying and aligning sets of issues that are important to voters. By doing this, their position on critical issues begins to influence public policy through its members. The roles that the political parties carry within elections and the implementation of public policy, become extremely beneficial when discussing the voting process. Considering the role to clarify certain aspects of politics, voters are able to make a more efficient decision based on the guidance given by their respected political party. In addition, the role of political parties tends to make the process of running for office less difficult. Voters help political affiliated candidates by providing an existing base of support for their individual party. Notably, this foundation created for candidates furthers the efficiency of the electoral process. However, the roles of political parties also creates issues regarding the freedom of voters. The circumstance of only having two politically dominated parties limits the choices for individuals during an election. This, in short, leaves voters to choose a party that somewhat represents their political ideology or, in simpler terms, appeals to them the most. Additionally, the role of parties begins to politically divide the people. Each party will continue to seek political advantage and establish dominance within public policy/elections. This, in effect, will prevent the action of compromise between both political parties and encourage the event of conflict, making it extremely difficult to progress.

When we discuss the reasoning behind the practice of a two-party system and the failure within an additional party to an electoral system, we need to consider the significance of Duverger’s Law. This theory of law addresses two questions: “How many votes does one need to win a seat?” and “Are people encouraged to vote honestly?”. As we begin to discuss the method of plurality voting, we will then begin to understand the answers to both questions. Given that plurality voting creates an electoral system in which each eligible voter is restricted to only one candidate vote, it begins to emphasize the importance of existing support within a single-winner district. This begins to demonstrate the difficulty within a third-party candidate as it requires one to have majority support or government representation. In addition, the notion of voter psychology also begins to determine the success of third parties. With a lack of minority representation, voters are never inclined to pick smaller parties even if a particular individual is their favorite candidate. This is largely due to the rationality of voters who do not want to “waste” their vote or even worse, throw the election to a candidate they very much dislike. Considering these two factors are not likely within a third-party candidate, it ultimately addresses the failure of becoming electorally successful.

However, it also demonstrates why the U.S. has implemented a two-party political system as it becomes efficient for Congress and presidential candidates. This form of voting establishes a method of “winner takes all,” making the electoral process easier for some as it only requires a plurality of the vote to be elected.