Does Voting Matter?

Voting is one of the fundamental parts of “American Democracy”.  When people think of America, they often think about how everyone has the right to vote and voice their own opinions—unlike many other countries in the world.  Voting certainly does matter; as many of our ancestors have died just so future generations could have the right and blessing to vote.  Even if you think that your vote does not count, it really does.

            Voting matters because, as a United States citizen, you have the right to choose whom you think will best govern our country.  Even though it may seem like your single vote does not really have any effect on the election as a whole, it does.  Your vote could be the vote that breaks the tie in the election, and it contributes to your candidate’s total number of votes no matter what.  If only a few people showed up to vote, then who would be choosing the leaders of our country?  We would be leaving that decision up to the few people who actually did decide to vote.  This fact certainly does not represent democracy as a whole and does not effectively represent the views of all U.S. citizens. 

    Finally, voting matters because it allows the people to have some control in the government.  Government should not be able to completely control and regulate our lives, and government itself is regulated by the people’s vote.  In order for a candidate to be re-elected, he must at least attempt to listen to his constituency and show his constituency that he truly does care about those people.  If he refuses to listen or simply does not do a good job while in office, his chances of being re-elected are certainly in jeopardy.  Also, voting gives the American people a significant voice in government in who we think should be leading the country and how those leaders should handle themselves.      

Federal Budget Process

1. President submits proposed budget to Congress

2. Congressional committees report budget estimates

3. Action completed on Congressional budget resolution

4. House consideration of annual appropriations bills

5. Action completed on conference committee reports

6. House completes action on appropriations bills

7. President submits Mid-Session review of budget

(From http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101799d.htm)

http://www.cbpp.org/3-7-03bud.htm

The Battle for the Bailout

In order for Congress to have passed the bailout bill, President Bush had to be happy with it.  He ultimately has the final say in the matter, and, if Congress had not listened to Bush's requests, he could easily veto the bill and get the process started all over again.  President Bush knew the dire situation of the economy, and he knew that somehow this bill had to be passed.  Not only is it the President's job to pass legislation, but he also keeps the American public informed of the status of the bill.  It is his job to try to keep the American public's support of this bill and to encourage the public to get Congress to pass the bill.  So, basically, President Bush has the final say in the matter- he decides whether the bill will become law or not. He also helped to keep the American public informed and tried to keep the public optimistic about the bill's probable effect on the economy.  Thankfully, President Bush did agree with the bill that both houses of Congress finally agreed on, and the bill was signed into law on Friday afternoon.

SOURCE: http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/03/news/economy/house_friday_bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008100309

  

Senate vs. House of Representatives

First, the Senate's main powers include the requirement to ratify all treaties with other countries, the power to try all impeachments, and the ability to advise the President on his government appointments.  Not included in these powers, however, is the power to initiate revenue-raising bills- this power is given to the House of Representatives.  On the whole, Congress itself has the power to raise revenue, "provide for the common defense and general welfare", regulate the "militia", and regulate interstate commerce...along with a few other responsibilities. In foreign policy, also, Congress has the power to declare war, combat piracy, regulate foreign commerce, and regulate military institutions. Congress holds a great deal of responsibility for the American people it represents.  Both the House and Senate are there to represent the will of the people, and they are also there to keep the other two branches of government in check.  Without Congress, the American people would not be properly represented.

Stalemate/Nature of Representation

Stalemate happens because of the varied representation present in Congress. Different interests come into conflict over a certain law or decision, and this conflict, many times, keeps any progress from happening. The House of Representatives is more concerned with the interest of the people, while the Senate is more concerned with the "landed interests of society".  Because of this bicameral, or two-housed, legislature, stalemate occurs often because different concerns come into conflict with one another.  

     Gridlock, another name for stalemate, occurs because of divided parties in Congress and the bicameralism in the legislature.  Divided parties have divided interests in the legislature, so it is truly almost impossible to get the parties to agree on anything. Similarly, bicameralism's inherent setup seems to promote stalemate because of the ideological differences between the House and the Senate. Personally, I feel that this gridlock is an appropriate representation of the will of the people. If one party was able to pass whatever policies or laws it desired, then the American people would be at an incredible disadvantage.  Inevitably, one party would be left out and cut down because of these new policies favoring only one group.  Gridlock is necessary in order to compromise between different interests and figure out what is best for everyone. Even though bicameralism has its problems with gridlock, it is still an effective body of government because it effectively represents the will of the people.  

Courts or Legislation?

Historically, the courts have had the most impact on desegregation.  Although Congress passed the 14th Amendment, it was the Court's job to enforce this legislation and to interpret the words expressed in the Amendment if they should come up in trial. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the courts upheld a Louisiana statute that required segregation, saying that the "equal protection of the laws" stated in the 14th Amendment was not violated as long as the facilities were separate but equal.  So, the Court interpreted the Amendment in one way...later it would change its opinion.  In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court ruled that "separate education facilities are inherently equal"- completely contradicting what it had ruled almost 60 years earlier in Plessy.  Congress could present and pass legislation, but the Court had the power to interpret that legislation whatever way they seemed fit. 

I don't think that it was the Court's fault for the backlash that occurred, especially in the Southern states, after Brown v. Board of Education.  The Court has the power to rule what it thinks fit for the whole country, and it is the states' responsibility to follow the rules set forth by the Court/Federal government.  The states can throw a hissy fit and say what they want, but, ultimately, they have to do what the Court and federal government tell them to do.  Further, I don't think that it would have mattered if federal legislation had been passed concerning desegregation.  The states(especially in the South) were not going to be happy with whatever ruling came about from desegregation.  If there was desegregation- it could have come from the President, Congress, or the Court- the states were going to be upset and there was almost certainly going to be violence. 

Incorporation Blog

Selective incorporation is a ruling of the Supreme Court that allows for parts of the Bill of Rights to be included in its interpretation of the 14th Amendment for a particular case. Basically, the Supreme Court is attempting to rule that only certain parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the 14th Amendment. American federalism seems to have slowed incorporation down- or at least a little bit. The cases that came to the Supreme Court had to go through state courts and lower federal courts, and sometimes the Supreme Court even changed its mind on the ruling of a certain incorporation. Barron v. Baltimore started the move towards incorporation, as Barron tried to argue that he must receive just compensation from the state for depriving him of his property. Barron used the 5th Amendment to bolster his plea, but this Amendment only protects one from the national government- not the state governments. So, the Supreme Court rejected Barron's plea. This case was held before the 14th Amendment(1833), so the story may have been much different if the case had been held in the 1880s. In Palko v. Connecticut, Palko argued that his murder sentencing had occurred because of "double jeopardy" and that he cannot be guilty according to the Constitution. But, since he was tried in state courts, the Supreme Court could not prove his innocence because double jeopardy was not one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment. Like Barron, Palko could not be helped because he was not a victim of the national government. Finally, in Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of speech is one of the fundamental rights protected by the due process clause in the 14th Amendment. This case is different from the other two because the Supreme Court actually does rule in favor of the people--free speech is protected by the 14th Amendment.