There will always be different view points on how the election should be financed but the truth is, not everyone will be satisfied with the Supreme Court's decision. It is difficult to determine how far political funding and donations can go until democracy is forgotten. The First Amendment is perhaps the most controversial amendment in the Bill of Rights. The framers intended the Constitution to be more of a foundation, and not a set of laws. As a result, the first amendment is vague and does not limit the influence a corporation can exhibit on elections or campaigns.
The Supreme Court has refused to apply strict scrutiny to felon disenfranchisement except where discriminatory intent can be proven”. (The Missing Right) Having the amendment added will protect America from current and future abuses of power. Eric Holder’s proposition along with that of Mark Schmitt’s “Right to Vote” Amendment would not only protect the rights of ex-convicts - they would protect the voting rights of every American citizen. A wise man once said "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth."
The argument is not about the ideal of privacy or the ideal of security, it is about the improper use of data collected by the government that is misrepresented and improperly utilized in violation of our very own Civil Rights and Liberties. This is allowed through silver tongued legal representation sponsored by the government for the government to exercise the ability to use loopholes in the legal system. The very Supreme Court in which we entrust to make the legal and moral decisions on privacy versus security is a judge nominated by the same political system (government) that has enacted such distrust. Our forefathers warned us in their speech and tried to save us in their laws. We have failed them by our actions and with our greed.
First, Buckley’s argument that the government needed to prevent instances of corporate corruption did not befit the case. It is because quid pro quo corruption interests limited the government’s the precautions. Second, the government’s interest as outlined by the constitution restricts direct associations of the candidate on the expenditure, but not independent corporate expenditures. Third, the indigence of elected officials in the process of expenditure does not deem them corrupt. Finally, twenty six states in the United States do not restrict independent corporate expenditures and the government failed to prove that the absence of the restrictions in the states resulted in corruption.
Because the Judicial branch houses appointed justices and not elected justices, conflicts with democracy because it denies the people the right to vote for who they want to represent them, it gives an enormous amount of power and influence to a few people for too long, and it tolerates justices placing their own interests and tasks ahead of the people’s. The Judiciary is supposed to protect and interpret the constitution and federal laws, not to create new policy for everyone to follow; history has shown what it takes to overcome the inadequacy of unelected Supreme Court Justices. Works Cited Greene, Jamal. “Term Limits for Federal Judges.” New York Times. 8 July 2012.
Its members are not elected which violates the first rule of democracy, the freedom to choose. Neither the justices have a set term for serving the Court, nor are they directly held responsible for the mistakes that happen. This Supreme judicial body also “strikes down decisions by the elected officials, thus overruling the majority” (Cengage Learning 1). The main reason behind people criticizing the court for its anti-democracy is its power to strike down laws. However, the presence of judiciary is the key to democracy as the other two branches cannot survive without a law implementing
Factions and the Constitution The framers designed the Constitution in such a way as to lessen the influence of political parties in American government, however at the same time, the very essence to the formation of political parties, liberty, was left in the Constitution. Both Madison and Schattschneider cite that while the Constitution does not support factions, it cannot abolish them because of the fact that the Constitution was designed to protect the liberties of the citizens. They both go on to say that liberty is the spark, which causes political parties to develop. In Madison's Federalist 10, it is evident that he was not in favor of the formation of factions. He states, "…The public good is often disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties…" Madison made the point that the dangers of factions can only be limited by controlling its effects.
It would then be regulated like all other money that a candidate raises. The main argument that has halted past legislature on campaign finance reform sites the first amendment. Many people feel it is their constitutional right to contribute to a campaign in any amount or manner they see fit. The Supreme Court, in Buckley versus Valeo, ruled that congress cannot regulate when a candidate may put ads on television because it is a violation of the first amendment. The Supreme Court sited in its ruling that, “One’s right to speak in his own behalf in an election campaign protects the expenditure of funds that are used to buy advertising,... ... middle of paper ... ...ul.
American Rights to Privacy In 1787, the constitution was born. The constitution has been America’s guideline to the American way of life. Our US constitution has many points in it to protect America and it’s people from an overpowered government, our economy, and ourselves. The only thing the constitution doesn’t directly give us, is our right to privacy, and our right to privacy has been a big concern lately courtesy of the National Security Agency (NSA). (#7) Although our constitution doesn’t necessarily cover the privacy topic, it does suggest that privacy is a given right.
For nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his constituents as the certainty of returning to the general masses of the people from whence he was taken and where he must participate in their burdens" ( quoted by Christensen). Mason's argument for term limits was compelling at the time. However term limits were considered a matter of "detail" and not suitable for inclusion in the fundamental law of the country. The rejection of term limits was correct at the time of the framing because it was a limitation on the freedom of Americans, and no excision of freedom should be taken lightly, no matter how small. However, the founders never envisioned the evolution of the political careerist or the destruction such an animal could afflict on the republic.