Speechnow.org’s most leading argument was in the fact that they did not give donations to political candidates or political parties, a major component that is thought of be traditional standards to be labeled as a political committee. This argument was flawed, however, because the FEC defines a political committee as “any committee, club, association, or other group of persons that receives contributions of more tha... ... middle of paper ... ...There was no clear corruption in the past election season. It would make the most sense to wait until there is statistical evidence before worrying about the effects of these rulings. If there are issues some options for reform can be done by: making a constitutional amendment that applies to campaign finance, have the states enforce their own laws, or better enforce the laws we have now.
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.
One such misconception is something that will surprise you. Many Americans believe that the government cannot prohibit its citizens from voting, but the truth is - if Americans read their Constitution, they would be shocked to see that in no where does it provide that Americans are forever entitled to the right to vote. With that arises the question – does America need a “Voting Rights” Amendment enumerated into the constitution? Quite frankly – Yes, yes it does. The problem with the current system is that voting is in fact an inferred right – Although accepted as a right by the general populace, the failure of the U.S. Constitution to directly enumerate it leaves it room for interpretation and manipulation.
This is important when dealing with the idea of whether or not The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform was corrupt, and whether or not the ruling to overturn it was unjust. According to Justice Kennedy's ruling of Citizens United, corruption exists when someone seeks to influence an official through compensation, though there is no direct evidence to support this as there is in other cases in court. At a procedural ... ... middle of paper ... ...he scene interactions of politicians. There is no true way to limit this with an amendment, but this may help answer a conundrum of even though PACs account for a large portion of campaign contributions, most PACs donate much less than the maximum allowed. This social model of contributor-lawmaker relationship may be what really matters in the long run when paired with PAC influence.
Anyone buying shares under these circumstances had little chance of loosing money. Hamilton and Limited Government ·Hamilton’s plan to establish a permanent national debt violated the principle of equality among citizens; it seemed to favor the interests of public creditors over those of other Americans. Hamilton’s critics also denounced his proposal for a national band, interpreting it as a dangerous scheme that would give a small, elite group special power to influence the government. ·Opponents’ strongest argument against the band was their claim of its unconstitutionality. The Constitution gave Congress no specific authorization to issue charters of incorporation ·Unless Congress adhered to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, critics argue, the central government might oppress the states and trample individual liberties, just as Parliament had done to the colonies ·The president accepted Hamilton’s cogent argument for a loose interpretation of the Constitution ·Tariffs doubly injured the majority of citizens, first by imposing heavy import taxes that were passed on to consumers and then by reducing the incentive for American manufacturers to produce goods at a lower cost than imports HAMILTON’S LEGACY ·Despite the Federalists’ effort to associate themselves with the Constitution they actually favored a “consolidated” (Centralized) national government instead of a truly federal system with substantial powers left to the states ·Resentment ran high among those who felt that the government appeared to be rewarding special interests ·Southern reaction to Hamilton’s program was overwhelmingly negative ·The Band of the United States had few southern stockholders and it allocated very little capital for loans there THE WHISKY REBELLION ·Hamilton’s financial program not only sparked an angry political debate in Congress but also helped ignite a civil insurrection called the Whiskey Rebellion ·Hamilton had recommended an excise tax on domestically produced whiskey.
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.
The amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting… petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This amendment is very powerful but cannot be overly abused. Over time the freedom of speech has been constricted. There are many court cases that display the limitation of free speech. Environmental factors and certain materials are not covered in free speech. To understand our rights and know how and when our rights are limited, we must
At the time the Second Amendment was written, it had a major impact on this country because State and National governments were unable, or lacked the power to protect the people. This Amendment gave the power to the people to bear arms for protection. As Clede points out in his article, it was not the intent or purpose of this Amendment to bestow unlimited rights upon the people. The question to ask today is, are the people responsible enough to have the unlimited rights that they seem to have under this Amendment. Clede states, "that does not mean that the government can constitutionally prohibit all weapons, but it probably means that the government can reasonably regulate and limit their use."
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. On the other issue of shareholder protection, the court refuted the government’s proposition that insisted on shareholder protection from funding political speech. Protection of shareholder’s prevented unnecessary ... ... middle of paper ... ...r not the government should control the independent expenditures made by assorted groups. Consequently, the ruling upheld the initial ban on corporations to use the treasury funds in straight advocacy. An important aspect of the ruling revolves around the creation of a state of transparency on how the corporations could spend their finances on political prospects.
Electoral College is Wrong The Electoral College is the name given to a group of electors who are nominated by political activists and party members within the states. The electoral college really isn't necessary and should be abolished. There are numerous reasons why this is so. With the Electoral College in affect third parties don't have a chance to become the president, which isn't fair. Electors are expected to be honest but in the past our country has caught some untruthful ones.