The Bill of Rights—left untouched by meddling hands for almost 200 years—secures that grace; the freedoms that allegedly make America different from other countries. It is most certainly not a coincidence that the freedom of expression is the first inalienable right our forefathers chose to protect in the constitution. Unfortunately, our First Amendment is not able to protect itself. It seems as if certain politicians are preoccupied with other issues, such as the necessity of civilians owning assault rifles and exaggerating the size of American flags in classrooms. Now, amongst all other stresses and responsibilities of our government, the United States Senate has somehow miraculously found the time and prerogative to groan about whether or not certain freedoms of expression should be legal.
Before September 11, the suggestion to take $40 billion from the Social Security "surplus" would have been indefensible. Has it now been done-with every Democratic senator voting for it and all but one of the Democrats in Congress? Think of it: Are your retirement contributions-and mine-are going to fight Bush's "war." No one dares to talk about it that way. It's just $40 billion, as if it came out of nowhere.
The Articles of Confederation created to be used as a written document that established the functions of the national government of the United States after it had declared independence from the Great Britain. Aside from that, it also established a weak central government that was mostly, but did not entirely prevent the individual states from conducting their own foreign diplomacy. Under the Confederation, the Continental Congress had successfully waged war, made alliances, secured loans, negotiated peace with Great Britain, and passed the Northwest Ordinance. Yet in the wake of the Revolution, the new United States faced many serious problems. Since Congress could only request funds from the States, and not levy taxes, it was unable to pay war-related debts.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_detention) Both the Democrats and Republican passed the Patriot Act in the Senate in 2001, with little knowledge of what it would entail. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act) There is not a record of who voted for or against it, considering it was a verbal ballot. Today there is pensive controversy over the Patriot Act. Most Democrats are opposed to it and feel it ... ... middle of paper ... ..., every individual in this country no matter race or religious background has the right to civil liberties. After September 11th Javaid Iqbal’s civil liberties were striped away.
Another factor of the Articles' ineffectiveness was that Congress was in essence tied in its authority. After the war, the colonists trusted no ultimate authority; not even one they designed. It could not regulate commerce, so what resulted was thirteen colonies with different taxations and tariff laws. This only added to the already present feelings of dislike and distrust which had existed between the colonies since they were first established. After this period of eight years, the "Critical Period", the light at the end of the tunnel arrived with Thomas Jefferson writing the Constitution.
According to some, the only war the USA has won was the Civil War, since there are no winners in war – well done United State, for you have my vote. These are only empires still easily visible today, and does not include for example, Mongolia, Persia, Ottoman Empire, and so on. Can we not just go swimming and leave the wars for somebody else, anybody? For it is the red that bleeds, not the blue; it is the white that dies not the black. Perhaps one should get rid of all the lines; but then, who knows any better?
While this plan would be an improvement, the executive would be subordinate to the Legislative branch. The New Jersey Plan called for an, the executive would consist of multiple members chosen by Congress, this plural executive would serve for one term, and could be removed at any time by a simple majority of state governors (cite web). This plural executive would be able to appoint federal officers... ... middle of paper ... ...hich when passed in 1951 was the first amendment that actually decreased democratic ideals (Karol, Debating the Presidency pg. 50). This constitutional amendment removed the ability of the people to decide if they want to continue with the same president after 8 years.
In brief, we have come to a roadblock in the privacy protection problem. Although many notable historians and politicians have argued that we have amendments and laws that protect some rights, it has been proven that almost no privacy still exists. Until we can find a proper system to speed up legislation alongside technology advancements, or until technology slows down drastically, the constitution no longer protects our own rights to privacy. Because of our own astounding capabilities in the 21st century soaring past what constitution drafters and early politicians ever foresaw, privacy as we knew it will never be the same again.
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.
Where is the democratic debate when, a scant 4 days after the events, all of Congress decides for the nation that there is no alternative to military action? Without full knowledge of who was involved in the events, and careful consideration of all possible alternatives, what are they basing their decision on? The messages from network television has been similarly alarming in its uniformity. Already on Tuesday, newscasters were not presenting democratic alternatives, but speculating about military targets. Is that the best that we can do as a nation, reach for our guns, striking out in anger rather than justice?