The Power of the Supreme Court

I find it very interesting that the true power of the supreme court does not really come from the constitution. As Mr. Stewart pointed out, no article in the constitution states that the court has the power of judicial review. The power of the court rests on the precedent set by John Marshall but is in no way indicated in the law. This is an interesting thing to note, because this is what makes the court relevant today, and even sometimes acts as a check on other branches. After doing some additional research I found a source about the supreme court that states that although the power of judicial review isn't explicitly stated in the constitution, it was heavily implied that the Framers wanted it to happen (https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx). However, then if it is so certain, why didn't the Framers just write it in? Did they think it was clear that the supreme US court would have to have judicial review? Or did they think that it would be better to not put it in, so that the court could be an adaptable institution, changing to fit the needs of the American people? Either way, we may never know why they didn't put it in the constitution or in an amendment, but most people will continue living their lives not knowing that the supreme court's power comes not from law but from a precedent set in early America.

The first amendment and instances of the intertwined nature of church and state.

    Although the first amendment states that "Congress" will not make any laws respecting a specific religion, the US is plagued with many violations of the state institutionalizing religion. Most of the examples I will give are done by the states, but are still pertinent as the separation between church and state is important not just in the central government, but in other lower-level governments.
    I would write about some smaller, but arguably important, violations. For example, "In God We Trust" on our currency. Little "seeds" of religion in government are planted everywhere, and money is a key example. Currency, obviously, is very ingrained in our culture. The doctrine of religion, which is not universal, is printed on something that is universal. Theodore Roosevelt, who was religious, opposed the phrase on currency.
    Another example of this is the Pledge of Allegiance. In Elementary school, we had to recite the Pledge often. I personally had not matured enough to establish my own choice of religion (or lack thereof), but in a public school (which is supposed to be secular), we recited the Pledge. It reads:
    I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it            stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Pledge asserts that a God exists and that, in fact, our Nation is one together under God (presumably the Christian God, based on the historical prevalence of Christianity in government). I personally believe that this short but important string of words has failed to uphold the constitutional values of the Nation- it pushes out nonbelief (and arguably non-Christian beliefs, for the aforementioned reason) as a right by implying that the unity of the nation is held together by God, therefore pushing religion.
    The next intersection I would like to touch on is not a violation, but a custom. Government officials in office, when sworn in, have typically been sworn in on the Bible. However, as implied, this is not always the case. There is no requirement to be sworn in on a Bible. The fact that this is custom, though, I think is a failing of the state. Presidents, for example, have overwhelmingly been sworn in on the Bible. This seems, to me, to be an act that at best denies the validity of the separation of church and state. A couple, however, have chosen not to be sworn in over the Bible (Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Pierce). As a personal note, I think that officials, ideally, would swear over something like a book of law (like Franklin Pierce) or the constitution. Or a Captain America shield! See: this clip.
    I could understand how these little connections might not be a huge deal, but right now I believe that the normalizing of little connections like the ones mentioned between the church and state undermine the workings of the state and violate the constitutional promise of the separation of church and state, which I think can be implicated from the first amendment and the intent of the the framers. I look forward to further studying the dynamic between the church and state in America.

The influence of the musical Hamilton in shaping the view of the Federalists

During the lecture on Wednesday, while discussing the countering viewpoints of the Federalists and Antifederalists, I realized that the first assumptions I had of certain founding fathers were not as accurate as they seemed. Like most people, I'd never really heard much about Hamilton until I heard about the musical. Of course, I knew who he was, but not much more than that. So most of the first impressions I had of the founding father were based on a musical that painted him as a hero. And in many ways, he might be. However, after learning more about the federalist party and their beliefs, it creates an interesting contrast to the way Hamiton was painted by Lin Manuel Miranda. In the musical, Hamiton becomes a rags to riches story that never really got finished, a man who worked until he had everything he wanted but gave it up in an attempt to get more. It's a story that makes you root for this orphan immigrant who could have done more if he hadn't been murdered. Miranda paints him in a very liberal light, one that may be more exaggerated than I first realized. From what I've learned so far, the Federalists were a very elitist group who only wanted certain people in power, namely the very elite that Hamilton made himself a part of. This surprised me because based on what I had heard about Hamilton, I would have assumed he wouldn't be elitist since he only married into the elite and he himself was in no way "really" a part of an elite family. One would be led to assume that although Hamilton might have thought not everyone should be in power (a common viewpoint), that he wouldn't restrict it to a group of people that he wouldn't have been a part of, except for a lot of luck and an unmarried woman in a rich family. This certainly isn't pointed out in the play, and the audience is allowed to assume that Hamilton was the type of person you would expect an orphan immigrant to be, even if he was in colonial America.

 This isn't to say that Hamiton was a terrible person, but more of a reflection on the assumptions I allowed myself to make on a play that may be historically accurate but is still at heart a play. Although Miranda highlights some of Hamilton's imperfections (The Reynolds pamphlet, his tendency to lash out publicly at people who disliked his policy), Miranda allows us to ignore the key fact that Alexander Hamilton was a Federalist, and more importantly, that the Federalist party was elitist in nature. This realization made me notice my assumption and re-evaluate my thoughts on history. I'll still be enjoying the soundtrack, and continuing to be interested in history, but have learned the valuable lesson of reading multiple sources before creating a solid opinion.

Does the electoral college really solve the problem of candidates focusing on only a few states?

In class today we learned about the original intent of the electoral college: to force presidential candidates to care about all states, not just the large ones. This made sense to me at first, that this does in a way help smaller states matter. But I thought about it more, and doesn't it just push the candidates to only care about the swing states? Most elections depend on the voting of these states, which promotes the favoritism that the electoral college was trying to fix in the first place. This can be seen with the hoard of presidental candidates visiting the Iowa (a swing state) State Fair in order to win Iowa's favor, something that would be unlikely to be seen in California or Wyoming. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/13/iowa-state-fair-hillary-clinton-donald-trump) Most of these swing states are not small states, so in that regard, the electoral college fails too. They include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. (http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/swing-states/) If the electoral college isn't serving its original purpose, why does it still exist? Is there another benefit of continuing to using it? If it was possible to get rid of the electoral college, what should replace it? Popular vote? Or possibly another system that would reduce favoritism?

Can Power Be Created or Does It Have to Be Taken?

Today in class, Mr. Stewart mentioned the idea of power being able to be created versus power being able to be taken.  I think that power cannot be created and must be taken from others, whether it be through a peaceful transfer of power, an overthrow of power, a sharing of power (which diminishes the amount of power each individual has), or something else.  The idea of power is that it gives people an advantage or ability that surpasses those of others as Mr. Stewart discussed in his notes on power.  These advantages or abilities include being able to overtake others, to impose one's will, or to impose certain effects towards others.  Therefore, there always has to be people who are powerless or have comparatively less power for power to even have meaning.  If power could be created, it could lead to a situation where everyone eventually gains power, meaning the power gained would paradoxically not exist since power is relative.  As a result, the only way to gain power is to take it from someone else (although it does not necessarily have to be in a malicious way). 

How to Avoid Hatred While Being Feared

During class today, we discussed Machiavelli's The Prince, which is where Machiavelli presents his argument that it is better to be feared than to be loved if a choice between one had to be made with the caveat that being hated should be avoided.  This brings up the question of where the line should be drawn in one's cruelty while ruling to avoid being hated while still being feared.  In my opinion, people begin to hate a ruler when they feel a sense of unfairness and irrationality from the ruler.  For example, there are children who begin to hate their parents when their parents impose rules and restrictions that make no sense to the children and have no logic to them.  This does not mean that being cruel will cause someone to be hated because cruelty can still be based on fairness and rationality.  Machiavelli brings up the point that rulers could do fairly violent and cruel acts like killing people as long as there is a reason or justification for it because the general people would be able to understand why a certain punishment occurs, no matter how cruel it is.  Therefore, no punishment that is made for an understandable reason can lead to hate.  However, if cruel actions or punishments are done for no rational reason, this would soon lead to hate due to people not feeling like they are being treated fairly.

Welcome!

Welcome to our classroom blog!  I sincerely hope you find this a valuable resource for information and sharing ideas.  Please remember to observe classroom guidelines on the blog but also understand blogs are often informal rather than formal writing assignments.