Shana Tovah - The Realities of Christian Domination in our Society

As today is Rosh Hashanah, I would like to take a look at the first Amendment right to religion. For those who don't know, Rosh Hashanah is the Jewish New Year and will soon be followed by Yom Kippur, where Jews from all over will be going to synagogue to celebrate. And 51% of the worlds Jews reside in the US (while only 30% live in Israel). So given there are millions of people who celebrate these holidays, how does the government and the society support this religion?
The answer: poorly. The only protection offered to Jews is time off for religious holidays. Yet there is no requirement that these days are paid. So, today, millions of people are missing their jobs, many without compensation, while many people's workplaces will be shut down for Christmas in just a few months. Moreover, very few people outside of the Jewish community are aware of these holidays. Last year, on Yom Kippur, I was fasting and spent all day in synagogue. Regardless of the holiday, there were teachers scheduling tests on that day, and the girl's volleyball team picture was taken that evening. I was not in the yearbook picture for my sport because I had a religious observance, but no one knew, and when I brought it up, it was said to be "too late" and "too expensive" to work around. Aside from holidays, there are many Jews that follow Kosher rules to varying degrees. For me, this means no pork (which is often put in dishes in restaurants without being listed, such as bacon bits on salads), and for others, it means never allowing meat and dairy to touch the same plate, regardless of how many times it was washed in between. While the later is a high order to follow, there are extremely restaurants that even attempt this. The whole list is listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kosher_restaurants, and it's not very long. And perhaps worse of all: while Christians have Sunday as a day of rest, the day of rest for Jews is Saturday. Yet everything that happens on the weekends happens on Saturday to allow Christians to go to church on Sunday, leaving many Jews to choose between their religious ceremonies and their activities.
While some of these are tall orders to be accommodated, there are smaller steps that the government can take to help lighten some of the issues placed on the Jewish people. Paid holiday leave would vastly improve many people's lives, as lower-income employees would be able to afford to spend their day in synagogue without worrying about being able to pay for their food that day. Also, general awareness of the holiday schedule would allow for fewer events scheduled on these days and would allow them to be easier to miss. For example, today's google doodle says nothing about Rosh Hashanah. While this is not a government company, it is still one way to raise awareness.
In the end, we need to understand that while the right to religion is protected, our government does not make religions other than Christianity easy to follow. This post talks about this in the context of Judaism, but it goes for all other minority religions. Perhaps we need a more diversified federal and national government that can fight for better policies and awareness.

What does it take to become a Supreme Court Justice?

In today’s class, we discussed the background of both previous Supreme Court Justices Hugo Black and Earl Warren. These two men raise an interesting question: what does it really take to become a Supreme Court Justice? The role of Justices within America’s justice system is crucial, dictating the precedent for the entire nation for years to come. Most would think every single one has an extreme amount of experience and education for this very reason. However, these two examples allow us to think differently as well. Hugo Black was an extremely influential Justice. Throughout his serving years, he was a crucial factor in many civil rights issues such as the desegregation of public schools, but how did he get there? Growing up, Black never received as much as a high school diploma or college degree, yet still made it onto the Court. So, what gave him the initiative to make it all the way up? Connections. In class, the documentary covered the connection between Black’s success and his involvement in the Ku Klux Klan. Through the KKK, Black was able to meet and get involved with some of the nation’s top leaders, and through these friendships was able to talk his way into the role of a Supreme Court Justice. Hugo Black is a demonstration of how, at the time in this country, connections to the right people were what were going to lead people to some of the top positions in government. In addition, Earl Warren got to be Chief Justice in a similar manner. Unlike Black, Warren did have experience as he was both an American politician and lawyer previous to his interest in getting on the Court. After not being nominated for the Presidential role of the republican party, his personal connection to the new President allowed him to make it to the Court. In 1953, Chief Justice Fred M. Winston passed away from a heart attack. President Eisenhower had a personal connection with Warren and ended up offering him the new slot of Chief Justice. Once again, connections are what got another man on the Supreme Court. So, it doesn’t seem like it took much more than knowing the right people to get on the Court in the past. However, times have changed, do the same standards still apply?

Hugo Black pt. 2

Today we learned about Hugo Black's contribution to the desegregation. After his rival resigned from the supreme court, Black was able to bring the issues that he thought were important to the table. The ruling during the Minersville v. Gobitis case was in favor of the school and the local governments, which was heavily supported by frankfurter. Black had disagreed with that because he thought that the government should be protecting the people's rights and that there was a bill of rights. The decision was reversed in Barnette v. West Virginia becuase the priorities changed. While black and Douglas were protecting the rights of the communists because they were also citizens, they were often accused of being communist supporters. Many people didn't like that they protected the communists, and the FBI wiretapped Black's home. However, another case came along that challenged the status quo, Brown vs the Board of education. There was a standing term called "separate but equal" to which Black argued that it violated the equal protection clause. Woren did help to reach the conclusion that being "separate" is not really equal which also was a major point that helped convince the other justices that segregation was wrong. While this case was a huge improvement from before, it was also a hard thing to engrain into people's heads. The Southerners were not happy about this law because they believed in white supremacy and when they had heard that Black had betrayed the white race by voting in favor of the individual, they were outraged. It might be easier to implement a law rather than change people's mind about something. This was the reason why when Black visited his hometown, Alabama, he had to wear a bullet proof vest because there were so many people that wanted to kill him, especially the many members of the KKK that he had betrayed. However, for there to be change, there has to be someone willing to take on the risk, and in this case, Black took the risk in order to improve the judicial system.

Hugo black

Today we learned about Hugo Black and his journey to become a supreme court justice. Hugo black  lived in Alabama and he dropped out of high school.  Then he got accepted into the University of Alabama law school and he kept reading a book each day for 50 years, usurping every single  piece of knowledge that he ever came in contact with. His political ties with Ku klux klan made his rise in political popularity much easier. Franklin Roosevelt needed a judge that supported the new deal in supreme court and because Black was slowly rising up the political ranks, and he also supported the new deal. Back then it was extremely hard for a person like him to gain political influence without tying themselves into political interest groups. I wonder if there was another way that Black could have gotten up the ranking without allying himself with the KKK?   I feel like being in the south would mean that you would be forced to join the KKK even if you didn't want to. What happens if he betrays the KKK, then there would be a lot of issue for him to deal with when he came back home. I wonder if Black knew the danger that he was getting himself in when he associated himself with them.

Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint

Multiple times, we have discussed the ideologies of judicial restraint and judicial activism on the Supreme Court affecting cases and therefore the lives of the people. Many judges have practiced judicial activism in important cases, setting precedent by overruling or allowing laws by questioning their Constitutional validity. One example is Roe vs. Wade, which struck down a law in Texas that would have stopped a woman from receiving an abortion unless the monther's life was at risk. This is seen as preserving woman's rights, just as many other judicial activism cases are seen as preserving the rights of minority groups whose ideas are not represented in Congress or the executive branch. (https://www.sagu.edu/thoughthub/judicial-activism-supreme-court-decisions) However, the counterargument is that the Supreme Court is the least democratic branch and therefore can easily use judicial activism to push their personal agenda, regardless of majority wishes. In the end, it seems important for at least one branch of government to be able to respond to the voice of the minority and therefore be able to preserve their rights. In the end, judicial activism should continue to be used, but judges need be well picked (both by the president and by the Senate's review of them) to make sure that they will not abuse their power. Another part of this is making sure that the public's opinion of the new judge is heard during the appointment process. One example of this not happening is during Kavanaugh's appointment earlier in Trump's presidency. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/bowmanmarsico/2019/09/03/revisiting-public-opinion-on-the-kavanaugh-confirmation-battle/#592c42b12222). In the future, more care needs to be taken in ensuring the public's say in the justice's appointed, as these justices are then ensured the power to protect the public's rights, a power they should use.

The Private vs. Public Life of a Government Official

Yesterday, we started learning about Hugo Black, who was a member of the KKK yet worked to defend civil liberties on the Supreme Court. Additionally, Bill Clinton was surrounded by a sex scandal but retained high approval rating throughout his presidency nonetheless. This begs to bring up the question: to what extent should we, the public, care about the personal life of a government official outside of the office. The biggest argument for taking personal life into account is that it is a show of character. (https://blogs.mprnews.org/todays-question/2009/07/why-should-the-public-care-about-a-politicians-private-life/) If a president cannot be trusted not to cheat on his wife, how can we trust him not to cheat the people? If a government agent is known (or highly suspected) to be involved with a racist organization, how are we able to trust that they will truly uphold justice once elected. However, while this seems like an obvious question, perhaps the answer is not so clear cut. We see examples of officials doing questionable things in their personal life, yet still uphold justice through positive and well-liked actions. Bill Clinton and Hugo Black are two examples of this. In the end, perhaps we should use personal life as a warning, but not blacklist a potential official soley for one wrongdoing. That said, many people find it hard to trust an official once that they have doubts, so it is no surprise that the American public puts so much attention into personal life and character.

Standards for Supreme Court Justices and Hugo Black

Hugo Black was a leftist liberal from the South appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR. Later it came out that he had been a member of the KKK, which lead to controversy surrounding his appointment. This brought up an interesting question, should Hugo's past have defined his future? Should his KKK membership have been enough to prevent him from being in the Supreme Court? 

In modern times, I think the answer would definitely be a yes. Even actors and comedians are held to a high standard of conduct, and racism, sexism, and homophobia are often career enders. Recently, SNL hired a writer who they later found out made offensive comments about Asian Americans, and he was immediately fired. Kevin Hart and Dave Chappelle faced backlash over comments/tweets about the LBGT community, and Scarlett Johansson has been in hot water for a long time over racial (and now transphobic) insensitivity. If the president tried to appoint an actual KKK member (even if he wasn't a member anymore) to the Supreme Court, there would be massive opposition. We don't live in a society where bigotry is allowed in any form, and hopefully a Supreme Court justice would be held to a higher standard than our entertainers. 

That said, our president has made comments that would have ended most people's careers. Elizabeth Warren listed herself as Native American when applying for college (and defended that choice multiple times), and Justin Trudeau has been outed for wearing blackface. Despite the backlash, all seem to be doing okay. Maybe this shows that our standards for politicians are actually lower than they are for other careers. Now that I'm thinking about, I'm not sure I could say Hugo wouldn't have been appointed to the Supreme Court in modern times. After all, the outrage over Brett Kavanaugh's appointment didn't actually stop him from becoming a justice. 

K Street Project

K Street is an area and street in downtown Washington DC. The K Street Project was an effort, mainly from the 1980s into the early 2000s, by the Republican Party to pressure the government into hiring Republicans into high ranking government positions. The people who work on K Street are known as lobbyists and often referred to as the fourth branch of government. Lobbyists are often hired by special interest groups and use their experience in government in order to exert influence over the American Government. While some think that lobbying is an effective way for voices and opinions to be heard, many others believe it is unfair and is not something that belongs in a democracy. K Street has certainly had it's share of controversies over the past years. In 2002, the New York Times reported on many different Republican and Democrat House Members being being hired by various different interest groups. Once this was exposed, Congress put a letter reminding members that this was a violation of ethics and would lead to corruption. The Abramoff Scandal, in which a group of political lobbyists grossly overcharged Native Americans when building their casinos. During the investigation of the scandal, it also got revealed that the lobbyists would often give illegal gifts and make campaign donations to Congress members is exchange for their vote in key issues. The scandal lead to Congress members on both sides reforming how lobbying works in DC and the power of lobbyists. All of this has lead to many lobbying firms moving out of K Street, and today only 1 of the top 20 lobbying firms in the country have a K Street Address. I think it is fairly to come to the conclusion that is good that K Street no longer notorious for holding most of the country's top lobbying firms.

Green Infrastructure

A couple days ago in class, we had discussed infrastructure. Specifically, grey infrastructure which is new pipelines, roads, bridges, tunnels, etc. It basically revolved around big urban cities with huge populations. While I do believe that grey infrastructure is a top priority so that people can go on with their daily lives. At the same time, I think the green infrastructure should be tackled. You know, cause people got to look out for the environment. I found a green infrastructure article(https://www.greenbiz.com/article/color-coordinating-how-urban-green-infrastructure-can-build-resilience). The article focuses on combining urban cities with green infrastructure. One of the first points introduced was that it could reduce hazards such as flooding and wildfire. At the same time, green infrastructure will be tackling global warming. The benefits keep on going as one of the only downsides is the cost. Green infrastructure is not a guarantee for better cost-effective grey infrastructure. Obviously, the cost would range on how big the project would be but it would go a long way. To minimize the cost, there should be report cards for green infrastructure as there is for grey infrastructure. This would help the cities and people understand how "healthy their natural assets are". From this, they could build on these reports to see what they need in order to bring out the most of green infrastructure. If green infrastructure is taken into action, it would allow new urban and rural partnerships. Labor would automatically bring new jobs to start projects and keep them going.

Should Senators Filibuster?

          In the last few weeks, we've been focusing on, among other things, the reasons that the government can be inefficient. From Iron Triangles to dictatorial committees, it's clear that there are many. In my opinion, the least sensical of these legislative speed-bumps, is filibustering.
          We've talked about filibustering in class, but it essentially allows any senator to protest legislation he or she disagrees with by filling the time with words. This has lead to marathon speeches, where senators will talk about the first thing that comes to mind. The record of 24 hours and 18 minutes has remained unbroken since 1857, when Sen. Strom Thurmond spoke to delay the voting on the 1957 Civil Rights Bill. During that time, he recited historical documents, which included the Declaration of Independence and George Washington's farewell address. This was the longest out of an organized front of filibusters against the same bill, which all told, delayed the voting by 57 days. This is ridiculous, and it's only gotten more so. In 2013, to protest Obamacare, Ted Cruz spoke overnight, including a reading of Dr. Seuss' "Green Eggs and Ham" in its entirety.
          Originally, since the practice's beginnings in the 1850s, both the House and Senate were able to filibuster, but it was removed from the House due to its rapidly increasing population. Only 75 years later was cloture introduced, which requires a 2/3 vote to stop a filibuster. Obviously, in such a divided senate, it's almost impossible for Senate Democrats to stop Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell from talking for 6 hours to stop a Net-Neutrality, climate change, or infrastructure bill.
          In 2018, 73% of bills stopped dead in the Senate without even being discussed, after making it through the House. While not all of these bills were complete game changers, among them were multiple election security bills, which would have safeguarded our vital democratic election processes.
          President Trump has spoken for the removal of filibustering on multiple occasions, as he's shown frustration with the apparent lack of action in our legislators. This sentiment is echoed by many Republicans, but Sen. McConnell disagrees. He argues that Democrats are the true problem, opting to obstruct any bills which they disagree with.
          Regardless of who's at fault, filibustering is slowing down the legislative process with non-relevant nonsense. Neither Republicans nor Democrats like it, and the citizens are increasingly skeptical about the efficiency of our government. Why is it still here?

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/396401-569-house-passed-bills-await-action-in-the-senatehttps://thehill.com/homenews/house/396401-569-house-passed-bills-await-action-in-the-senate
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
https://www.thoughtco.com/longest-filibusters-in-us-history-3322332
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/30/why-is-mitch-mcconnell-blocking-election-security-bills-good-question/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2013/09/25/transcript-sen-ted-cruzs-filibuster-against-obamacare/?utm_term=.b7fad4fcb9f7

Health Care and the Iron Triangle

As someone with type 1 diabetes, what we talked about today in class disturbed me. I need insulin to live, and it feels kind of insidious for people to knowingly profit off a health condition I was diagnosed with when I was 2. People like me have no control over their medical needs, and personally I think it's outrageous a developed nation like America is willing to let a significant portion of their population (30 million including type 2) suffer in the name of money. 

In AP Micro we talked about how something like Medicare For All could actually benefit the economy, as the money business's have to spend on employee health insurance would instead go into production and other industry ends. In America, the main cause of bankruptcy is people not being able to pay their medical bills. Both ethically and economically the concept of Medicare For All makes a lot of sense to me. It's part of the reason Bernie is so popular, 70% of Americans support Medicare For All (though not everyone is a fan of his version of it) and I believe health care will be a very important issue in the Democratic Primaries. 

That said, what we learned about the Iron Triangle changed my perspective somewhat. Today in class, we learned that just because a bill or idea is popular doesn't mean it's going to passed. Once a bill makes it through the house it has to pass in the Senate, where it usually dies at the hands of Mitch McConnell. The Iron Triangle means that it would be near impossible to get around Big Pharma's influence, especially with the 'Grim Reaper' as senate majority leader. This made me consider if it even matters if a candidate is for Medicare For All. Even if Bernie (or Warren/Yang etc) actually won, they would likely not be able to pass it. In fact, they would likely fail to pass the majority of their progressive policies. 

This makes me very worried for the future. It seems a progressive leader would not have as much an impact on the situation as I previously thought. Insulin prices will likely continue to increase (since price ceilings are a gateway for socialism, obviously) and eventually only the wealthy will be able to afford what many of us need to survive. 

"Death Spirals" and Big Pharma

While in class today, I realized a similarity behind the fear of budget cuts in the defense industry and the issue with Big Pharma that we talked about today in class. In the issue of the F-35s, a budget cut to this program would cause a so-called "death spiral", with budget cuts following more budget cuts, because as the number of planes made decreases, the cost increases, eventually ending with the termination of the program. Theoretically, one wouldn't think that making fewer planes is more expensive, but because you are making only a few planes, it is much harder to mass-produce them with cheaper methods and profit more. When I thought about it, I realized this somewhat applied to the issue with limiting drug prices, at least in the eyes of the pharmacy companies. We talked about how this would create less incentive to produce/research drugs for rare diseases, but did anyone think about why? Its the same idea as the F-35 planes. If you are spending lots of money researching, testing, and producing (A process that takes about 10-15 years and billions of dollars) a drug for only a few people, there is going to be much less of a profit, and probably a much higher expense. Because they have to create smaller quantities of the drug, just like budget cuts would force manufacturers to make fewer and fewer F-35s, the cost of actually producing the drug rises. Along with the rise in production costs, the market this drug is going to be applicable to is much smaller, leading to a lower profit that might not compensate for the higher production costs. Pharmacies are using this idea to argue that if there was to be a cap on the price of mass-produced drugs, this would create less excess revenue that could be used to balance out the cost of creating treatments or cures for the much more rare diseases, where manufacturing is less cost-efficient. And while we all wish that our medicines could be less expensive, or wonder why certain drugs are cheaper in other countries, this argument does hold a lot of weight. It makes sense that Pharmaceutical companies are going to want to make excess revenue off of more marketable drugs, to (hopefully) use this extra money to develop and produce drugs for smaller but still seriously afflicted markets. That doesn't mean that these companies aren't charging too much: in fact, I think that they are. Putting a cap that isn't too low will probably be a good thing, as it will allow medicines to be more available to the mass market, while still creating enough excess revenue to fund the creation of less marketable drugs. Also, if the only concern is that there won't be enough excess money to fund the development of drugs for more rare diseases, there are still other ways for these companies to access the money they need, without overcharging the rest of the population.

I don't want to be President

Now, I know its bold of me to even assume that I have a chance at being the president, but regardless, I'd never want to be the President. I'd rather be the person behind the president, the advisor who is actually in control, otherwise known as the power behind the throne. Machiavelli said that it is better to be feared than loved as a ruler, but what if you don't have to be the ruler? What if you can be behind the figure-head, feared by those around you because you are actually in control, but not really seen? Historically, being the King's right-hand man gave you a lot of power, because you could persuade the king to do certain things that would benefit you. You would receive the benefits, but wouldn't have to be in the spotlight, and could somewhat avoid more blame. For example, the solicitor general. While further research showed that this position is not as powerful as it seems, given an unreliable term length, in principle, it should be very powerful. One person has been given the power to persuade the court to take up specific cases and can dissuade them from taking others. This one person (depending on how persuasive they are), can directly influence which cases the court decides to see. Another example are the congressional staffers. These people are usually staff on standing committees in Congress and are the people who take care of a lot of things that the senators are to busy to do. These kinds of people have the power of suggestion as well and can voice specific ideas about smaller issues and get their way, with the senator being too overwhelmed to pay too much attention and allow their staffer to take care of everything. Now, its always hard to tell how much influence these examples actually have on the "throne" they are behind of, especially now, but in theory, this strategy is almost a better method of gaining power than actually trying to run for president. The one thing you would have to work hardest at is remaining in favor of whomever you are working with. So theoretically, you would want to be on the president's advisory committee or even the senior advisor to the president. I'd have to do more research into the amount of control each of these positions are given and how those relationships could morph into a "power behind the throne situation" (Its quite difficult to find this kind of information online), but as an idea, its something I've been thinking about for a while, and came up again when we discussed the solicitor general in class.

The Pernicious Iron Triangle

Over the past couple of days in class, we have learned about the "Iron Triangle," a political relationship between the bureaucracy, Congressional Committees, and special interest groups. The Medium article that we read in class along with Mr. Stewart's lesson conveyed that while these groups use this system to bolster U.S. defense programs, the effect that it has on the Federal budget and the national debt is staggering, to say the least. And the Iron Triangle was not created recently; the article states that this network has been involved with the military budget for about three decades. Ever since Eisenhower's presidency, interest groups have supported Congress members in exchange for favorable legislation, and the bureaucracy has relied on Congress for funding and provides a variety of "policy choices" and congressional support. And while there is an overwhelming amount of evidence showing that the Iron Triangle has resulted in billions of dollars wasted for dysfunctional aircraft carriers, ships, and even "unauthorized expenses at strip clubs," the most disturbing and ironic part of it all is that cutting these programs would produce even more debt. Another aspect that stood out to me is how inefficient these programs are. The article drew a comparison to the U.S. and China's ability to effectively build an aircraft carrier: China is able to produce about a thousand of carriers for the cost of "one Ford carrier." This reflects the American government's inability to do less with more. It's atrocious that our government puts up the facade that spending this money is solely for defense purposes when in reality what's actually being furthered is a political agenda. The resources being squandered could instead be allocated to resolve other pressing domestic issues such as homelessness, famine, and poverty. Until action is taken to counter some of these programs, the government will continue to abuse its power and misuse its budget.

The Importance of Diversity in the Supreme Court

After learning about the roles and powers of the Supreme Court, I realized how influential of a body it is in modern day America. It truly is equal in power to Congress and the President. Therefore, those 9 justices have got a crap ton of influence on the well being of the US. The documentary showed pictures of the 20th century Supreme Court. Oh my goodness. They were all, shocker, old white men. This lack of diversity made it really difficult for minorities to get their perspectives heard. That is why it is so unbelievably important that we have a diverse Supreme Court. Now, there are justices like RBG, Sotomayor, and Kagan who switch it up and represent women. Imagine if Kavanaugh didn't get appointed and we could have gotten a justice that represented a different minority. Diversity on the Supreme Court is key.

The Effect of Budget Cuts

After learning about the Iron Triangle on Friday, specifically the F-35, it got me thinking about how the importance of investment in various things. According to the article, one significant budget cut to the F-35 project, even though it's not doing great at all, could cause it to "death spiral," meaning that it will do even more damage than not cutting the budget. This really got me thinking about arts programs at schools. At a lot of school, arts programs experience budget cuts that put them further and further in the dirt. This makes way for lower-paid staff, who would be less experienced than higher-paid staff, who would give less quality teaching. Since the program is starting to fail, more cuts would occur, leaving the progam at its bare bones. At that point, it is barely helping anyone, where the cost of the program outweighs the help it gives the students. This analogy helped me visualize the "death spiral" and just how bad a budget cuts affect things, and why we should focus on investing in the beginning. By investing in a good arts program that is beneficial to students, arts and the products would flourish at the school. Same goes for projects like the F-35. Why even start making it at all if all it's gonna be is a pile of metal. We have to carefully plan in the beginning, and focus on cutting-edge innovation that is more beneficial to us, and far more advanced.

Newt Gingrich's role in dismantling Congress

Newt Gingrich, soon after he became a member of the House, began his campaign of aggressive and ad hominem rhetoric against Democrats. Gingrich vowed to take on liberals, and found a special target in Speaker Jim Wright. As part of his new strategy, he would present to C-SPAN speeches attacking Democrats- only it was after the House had adjourned, so there was no one there. Gingrich effectively started an investigation on Wright about how he had allegedly used his own staff to compile a book he wrote. The investigation continued, and even started accusing Wright's wife. Texas Democrat Jack Brooks called Gingrich out on this, saying that his actions (the investigation, C-SPAN speeches, etc) were undermining Congress and destroying bipartisanship. Brooks fielded a question about the investigation, and referenced many past Speakers, many of whom held opposing views. And despite these opposing views, arguments were about the opposing views- not the people behind those views. Brooks asserted that Gingrich's tactics were creating a legislative environment antithetical to Congress' purpose and America's values.

Wright, in an act to prove his dedication to keeping Congress orderly, resigned in an effort to try and move Congress forward from his own investigation. Brooks subsequently made a speech confirming Wright's character.

Brooks later said that the controversy and media had deemed Wright guilty without trial. This was his major reasoning behind his defense of Wright throughout the investigations.

Mr. Stewart said that Gingrich wasn't the sole cause of gridlock and negative political rhetoric- but Newt Gingrich's actions certainly served as a catalyst and a symbol of the advent of this new age of adverse political rhetoric.

Source

The Judicial Act of 1789

As we learned in class, the Constitution was quite vague about how the judicial system should be set up and how much power it should have. In 1789, Congress passed the Judicial Act to establish the three-tier federal court system we still abide by today. In fact, the three court system is based on the precedent set by the British. However, the British system had the three courts independently operating and responsible for different crimes (private law, criminal law, and equality). One of the biggest arguments over the Judicial Act was how much power should be bestowed to the court. Many people feared a strong federal government. However, over the years, the Supreme Court has continually expanded its power (as seen by Marbury vs. Madison). While it may seem illogical today, when this Act was passed people did not even want the federal government to be able to override state laws. Today, this is an important part of making sure that every state is fair and equal to its citizens.  This Act was monuental in setting a base that has since expanded and grown into the court system we know today.

The V-22 Osprey

The V-22 Osprey was first unveiled in 1988 in Texas. The plane/helicopter had multiple accidents that resulted in many deaths, which was highly publicized. It was the subject of much criticism and and skeptics wanted to cut it out of the defense budget.
The reasoning behind this was not only the multiple accidents, but also the cost. The project's cost exploded from $68.7 million to $29.1 billion. The average cost per vehicle was $83.7 million. And this was by 2009- according to Fortune, by 2012, estimates say that the total cost could be $56 billion.
To touch on the crashes, the Osprey had its worst stint in the 90s. It crashed four times in non-combat operations, resulting in 30 deaths. Five more crashes have happened since then.
Politically, the Osprey survived throughout all this because it was an Iron Triangle. Congress overruled Dick Cheney's attempts to cut the program, and the Marine Corps drove the efforts to keep it alive.
The Osprey is just another instance of defense spending gone haywire- despite the project having recovered and being more successful today, it is wracked by catastrophe and bad spending.

The Real Area 51 (In Honor of the Area 51 raids that were supposed to happen today)

In honor of the Area 51 raid (which was supposed to happen today but nobody who showed up actually wanted to run at the base so they had a party instead), I wanted to inform you all that if you thought that the Government was keeping the aliens in Area 51, there is a way better base that is more likely to have aliens. The Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton Ohio has been a likely candidate for actual aliens for many years, and people who cared about finding aliens long before the storm area 51 meme became a thing have suspected that the evidence everyone is looking for had been there all along. Now, I am writing this mostly as a joke, but there are a few things that make the base more interesting than Area 51. For one, it was the actual site of Project Sign (Or Project Grudge/Project Bluebook), an official government study on UFOs that was supposedly terminated in 1969. Project Sign/Bluebook has now since been declassified, and while findings state that there were no discoveries of aliens, many believers are not so sure. On top of this, Wright Patterson also has a restricted area inside the airforce base that people who have clearance on the base are not allowed into. This area, called Hangar 18, is said to contain remnants of the Rosewell UFOs that crashed, and possibly a whole other variety of alien-related items. My Grandfather was in the air force, and when my Dad was a kid, he actually lived at Wright Patterson while my Grandpa worked there. When I asked him, he did mention a big "barn" up on a hill that was closed off from the rest of the base, and the urban legends that surround the base. Wright Patterson is the base most known for studying foreign tech and reverse engineered foreign aircraft during the cold war, so it technically makes sense that should the government find alien debris, they would send it to Wright Patterson. Of course, there have been tons of "eye-witness testimonies" of seeing a 3-4 foot tall grey-skinned alien, and how in Hangar-18 there are studies on the biology of the aliens, their crafts, and anything else people can think of that might correlate (There have also been multiple books published by military personnel and their families who lived on Wright-Patt). Although this is all fun to think about, especially in light of all the Area 51 jokes, in reality, nobody should be trying to break into an Airforce base. (But if you were, Wright-Patt would give you a higher chance of "seeing them aliens")

(Additional Sources: 1, 2)

Civil Rights Act

Yesterday we learned about the importance of the 14th amendment and how many people were either for or against it. Mostly the southern states were against it because they still wanted to have slaves while most of the Northern states wanted slaves to have more freedom. Lincoln during his presidency wanted to have a democratic vice president to show that republicans and democrats can all work together harmoniously and so he was assassinated, his democratic vice president, Andrew Johnson took office. After Johnson took office, it was him versus a republican congress. Johnson supported the actions of the southern states because he himself was from the south had owned slaves himself. The republican congress wasn't happy that the president vetoed the Civil Rights Act and so they overrided his veto, making the civil rights act into a law. The Civil Rights Act was supposed to be used in order to give African Americans equal access to public accommodations without any regard to race and the African Americans thought that something might come out of it. That they would finally be treated equally, however the laws were violated constantly and 5 different cases have set the standard that states have to enforce the law in public situations, but at private discretion they can be. It is very hard for people to follow laws if they are not enforced that and if there is no punishment for a set crime, then people have no incentive to follow it. I think that this was the case when the Civil Rights Act was made into a law because many of the people that believed in white supremacy disobeyed the law. It is possible to enforce a law, but it's almost nearly impossible to change someone's opinion unless they, of their own accord, do it themself.

Corporation Personhood

I was thinking after class about corporation personhood, and while I was talking about it with my dad, he mentioned something interesting; if we are thinking of corporations as people, aren't they almost like slaves? They are able to be bought and sold, people consider them as investments and "property" and they are only thought of people sometimes? (Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for population purposes to get south more recognition, but were not recognized as people anywhere else). And under the 13th amendment, isn't slavery illegal? If the argument is made that they are not actually slaves, and aren't really people, doesn't that invalidate the idea of corporate personhood under the 14th amendment ruling by the supreme court? So how far does the decision that corporations are people really extend? If they are people for legal purposes, but only sometimes, then why not just change certain things and not call them people? And again, if they are only partial considered people and are also considered property, isn't that similar to slavery? Except corporations are actually not living beings, while former slaves certainly were. I don't think there is a good balance of what corporations should be, but I think that they shouldn't be considered people. 

The 14th amendment

In class today, we learned about the 14th amendment and specifically, the vague language of the amendment. This brings to mind the question of why the language was so vague.  Although the amendment is intrinsically tied to the civil war and protection of the rights of former slaves because it is not bound by specific wording, it has a power akin to the elastic clause in the constitution (the one that grants congress a lot of its power). While initially, this seems like a good thing, because now any race and gender can be protected from discrimination from the state, Mr. Stewart also showed us many ways of how the vague wording has been used in negative ways. The striking down of the first civil rights act, because of "states" and the protection of corporations by classifying them as people are all ways that the wording of the amendment have been detrimental (in some views). So, therefore, why was the wording of the amendment so vague? Was the intent that it would protect a wider range of people in America? If this was the case, why are we still fighting discrimination in all forms of life? Why did it take so long to secure rights for women (arguably something we are still fighting for), and ended with the creation of another amendment, if the 14th amendment is not bound by gender? That makes me think that the vague language of the amendment may not have been an attempt to secure rights for more minority groups than intended, but instead to leave open other opportunities that would end up benefiting the "wrong" people. But either way, the vague language of the amendment certainly has had a huge impact on the US, the Supreme Court, and interpretation of the law.

Apportion

Today in class we learned about Baker V Carr, a case which set the foundation for redistricting. The case was grueling, with one justice even suffering a nervous breakdown and have to recuse himself from the lawsuit. In the end the court ruled in favor of Baker, setting a standard of 'one person one vote.' Shortly after, many other redistricting lawsuits were filed.
This made me curious about the origin of Gerrymandering, and how it became so common place. Gerrymandering is when district boundaries are manipulated in order to establish a political advantage, and it's often used to keep certain groups in power. Without it, America's districts would look quite different (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/13/this-is-actually-what-america-would-look-like-without-gerrymandering/?noredirect=on).
I found the term has been around since 1812, when Massachusetts was redistricted in order to maximize votes for the Democratic-Republican party. The reason the Gerrymandering is so common now is because the political party that controls state legislatures gets to draw the district lines, and they often do so in a way that is most likely to keep them in power. (http://theconversation.com/4-reasons-gerrymandering-is-getting-worse-105182).
As of now, this practice is legal (though attempts can be contested in court). Personally I don't believe it belongs in a just system, as it 'allows politicians to select their voters rather than voters choosing their representatives.' That said, it's difficult to think of a way to solve the issue, because redistricting is important in ensuring the whole country has a voice. How do you guys think Gerrymandering should be addressed, if at all? Is it possible for redistricting to ever be nonpartisan?

The Role of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions

During Mr. Stewart's class today, specifically while he was going over the slideshow titled "Overview of Chapter 9," we discussed the different philosophies and factors that may affect Supreme Court decisions: one of these factors is public opinion.  Some people believe that the Supreme Court is rather sheltered from public opinion and that although public opinion may have an effect on the Supreme Court occasionally, most Supreme Court decisions are based on the justices' uninfluenced opinions.  On the other hand, some people think that the Supreme Court is constantly influenced by public opinion and that almost no Supreme Court decisions are decided based on the justices' uninfluenced opinions.  I believe in the latter opinion.  This is because of all of the opportunity for influence in the form of oral arguments and the people who can become amici curiae.  In oral arguments, lawyers can bring up how the public would react to certain decisions, which means that even if the justices try not to be influenced by public opinion, they could still be influenced subconsciously by lawyers speaking about public opinion and public reaction to Supreme Court decisions.  Furthermore, the fact that amici curiae can make arguments on behalf of the petitioner or the respondent reveals that interest groups can make arguments in the Supreme Court as amici curiae.  As a result, the justices can be influenced by public opinion through listening to interest groups' opinions since these interest groups supposedly represent the public's opinion.  Thus, the Supreme Court cannot be separated from the public's opinion and in almost every single one of its decisions, it will be influenced by public opinion.

The Twenty-First Century Calls for Impeachment

Today in Mr. Stewart's class, we discussed how in recent years, proposals to impeach presidents have been mentioned in almost every administration, especially in the twenty-first century.  After watching part of a documentary called  "How Bill Clinton's presidency was rocked by the Monica Lewinsky affair - video," we discussed much of the calls to impeach recent presidents in the twenty-first century.  Calls to impeach George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump have all made the news although none of them have actually come into legislative fruition.  In my opinion, these calls to impeach these presidents can become excessive to a point where its impact can be forgotten in the American consciousness.  It might become natural to call for the impeachment of a president that has different opinions than oneself rather than to call for the impeachment of a president that has committed a crime that could be classified as treason as defined in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1.  In other words, impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors" might not become the sole reason for impeachment; differences in opinion with the president could become another reason.  This is dangerous to the idea of democracy; it undermines the value of having a president with different opinions than oneself to do what may be the right actions for the country despite what people may think.  Without the opportunity for presidents to act contrary to opinion, the president would be ruled by the mob rather than ruled by what is in the country's best interest.  This would be all because the president would be afraid of being impeached for going against the public's wishes if impeachment calls continue to be as or even more pervasive as they are today.  Therefore, the public's infatuation with impeachment should be changed and can even be harmful if left in the American consciousness for too long.

The Crazy Story behind the 27th Amendment

    The 27th amendment is the most recently passed amendment. It reads:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.
I'd like to go back and talk about this last amendment, even though we've moved on a bit from amendments. I think the story is worth telling. In the early 1980s, a student named Gregory Watson from UT Austin wrote a paper about how the 27th amendment could still be ratified due to it still being pending. James Madison had proposed the amendment in 1789, and six states ratified it. After that, it just sat. After receiving a C on the paper, Watson decided to take the issue on himself. He wrote letters to state politicians, and over time, many states picked the amendment up and ratified it. Eventually, 38 states ratified it and it became an amendment.
    I think that this is more than a cool story- it also shows an interesting feature of proposed amendments. They don't really have an "expiration date," and after being proposed can sit idly for hundreds of years.

Source

Church Committee

The Church Committee was formally known as the U.S. Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. It was a U.S. Senate select committee that investigated abuses by government agencies, including the CIA, NSA, FBI, and IRS.

The Church Committee was created on January 27, 1975, after Nixon’s Watergate scandal revealed that the executive branch had directed national intelligence agencies to carry out unconstitutional tasks. Senator John Pastore introduced a resolution to the Senate on January 21, 1975, and it was approved in a 82-4 vote.

The committee's task was to conduct a wide-ranging investigation on national intelligence agencies and programs, write a detailed report, and provided legislative recommendations. All of this had to be completed within one year, though this time limit was later extended to 16 months.

The Church Committee ended up holding 126 full committee meetings, 40 subcommittee hearings, interviewing over 800 witnesses in public and closed sessions, and combing through over 110,000 documents. The Church Committee’s final report was published in April 29, 1976 in six books.

The Church Committee is an excellent example of congressional oversight and the checks and balances in place in the United States government, as the committee investigated and reformed federal agencies.

Sources:
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/investigations/ChurchCommittee.htm
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Church-Committee

COINTELPRO

COINTELPRO is short for Counterintelligence Program, and it was a series of covert projects conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from 1956 to 1971. COINTELPRO aimed to surveil, infiltrate, discredit, and disrupt organizations that were deemed to threaten U.S. political stability. It often achieved this through illegal means. Organizations that were targeted included the Communist Party, Black Panther Party, Ku Klux Klan, and anti-Vietnam War organizations.

The program officially began in August 1956 to break up the Communist Party USA. Tactics used included anonymous phone calls, IRS audits, and the creation of documents that would divide the group internally.

For each organization targeted, the FBI aimed to break them down internally by creating conflict, create a negative public image for them by releasing collected data, and restrict their ability to protest by infiltrating their group and sabotaging plans. Many of these actions were illegal and violated people’s First Amendment Rights.

COINTELPRO operations were exposed in 1971 when the Citizens’ Commission to Investigate the FBI group broke into an FBI office in Pennsylvania, stole over 1,000 classified documents, and released them to the press. More information about the program was released through the Freedom of Information Act, signed by President Johnson in 1966, which granted American citizens the right to see the contents of files maintained by federal executive branch agencies, such as the FBI. Lawsuits regarding the program also uncovered more information, which included agent testimonies.

In 1975, a major investigation on COINTELPRO was launched by the U.S. Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. It was nicknamed the “Church Committee” for its chairman, Senator Frank Church. While few files were actually released, its final report sharply criticized COINTELPRO, stating that it violated First Amendment rights and that “many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that.''

Sources:
https://vault.fbi.gov/cointel-pro
https://www.britannica.com/topic/COINTELPRO
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Freedom-of-Information-Act

Gas Tax

Today in class we watched a documentary that made a gas tax on the entire nation seem like a solution to raising money to fix infrastructure. As it turns out, several states have enacted a gas tax for these reasons, including a 12 cent per gallon tax implemented in California in 2017 (https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article147437054.html). This tax is expected to help rais $52 billion dollars in the next decade.
And yet many people are against this tax. On the surface level, a lot of voters don't like gas taxes for two reasons. The first is that it is very obvious when gas taxes are unequal among states, and residents in states with slightly higher taxes get upset. The second is that gas tax, unlike income or other taxes, talks about money in easy to understand terms: dollars (not percents). Therefore, people feel like it affects them more.
On a larger scale, many people feel that this is targeting lower-income families. These are families that can't afford an electric vehicle and therefore have to pay for gas. Also, lower-income families often drive older, less fuel-efficient cars, and therefore will have to pay a larger than proportional percent of the gas tax.
While the current alternative includes toll fees, there doesn't seem to be another way proposed to raise so much money for infrastructure. Therefore, despite a lot of people's concerns, perhaps a gas tax is the best way to fix our roads.

gridlock pt. 2

Today we learned that Newt Gingrich was the "father" of gridlock because he demonized the democratic side of congress. He made the democrats seem like the bad guys to the American people by talking to an empty congress chamber, making it seem like they couldn't disagree with what he said about them. I think that was an interesting political maneuver, but the way that he went about it was not right. Demonizing the other side might work to win an election, but what happens when he/she needs to work with the other group that he/she humiliated? There are always two sides to a coin. Political tribalism has positive and negative effects. Because Gingrich set the standard for humiliating the other side, this leads to a gridlock because neither side wants to cooperate with the other side. Gingrich even gave republicans a memo in congress to refer to the democrats in certain choice word. Because congress is very bipartition, is very hard for either side to pass legislations that they want to pass. Because of congresses inability to pass important legislation, they are not able to fix infrastructure problems. Such can be seen in the Brent Spence bridge, where presidents (Obama and Trump) vowed to fix the bridge, but were not able to follow up on the problem. While congresses idea of using the gas tax to fund money for the bridge seems like it might work, it negatively affects the poor income families heavily. This is all combined with Trump's threat of not following up on funding for infrastructure because of the private investigations into Trump's alleged collusion with Russia. There is a lot of problems that inhibit infrastructure laws from being passed, but everyone one, all three branches agree that not addressing the crumbling infrastructure is a problem that needs to be fixed.

infrastructure

Today we learned about how congress is in gridlock because of the lobbyists, whom are affiliated with certain political parties, that are taking the place of experts to promote their party agenda. This a problem because infrastructure is our nation's foundation. People are not able to get to places that they would normally be able to if they had some kind of infrastructure. For example in the New York, new Yorkers really wanted Penn station to be renovated because the walls were crumbling and the water was seeping through, however Trump didn't want to allocate funds to renovating the train because he wanted to fund money for his wall. Although the president is legally allowed to decline to sign, it still is kind of shady. Infrastructure is important in New York because its is not only their that main source of transportation, but also a source of their economy. New York is integral to the US economy, (stock market, etc),  that the entire country could go into recession. Pennsylvania and New jersey also wanted the rail road lines because many people use it for the commute. There was an accident in Minneapolis where a bridge broke because it was unsteady and people on top of the bridge died. This is just one example of unsteady infrastructure. A dam in Orville broke and flooded the entire vicinity. In addition, infrastructure bills are not able to sometime get past the majority leaders agenda, (i.e. Mitch McDonnell) because they don't want the other political party to attain a "victory" and put in on the bottom of their list. Americans need an infrastructure bill because without it, many people could die unnecessary deaths.

Impeachment and Corruption

The other day Mr. Stewart brought up an interesting point that I have never thought about before, the fact that other government officials that are not the president can be impeached by the senate through a two thirds vote. There have been 19 total politicians that were put on trial for impeachment. Out of those 19 that were on trial, 12 were either found guilty and removed, or resigned before the start of the trial. Perhaps the most notable of those 19 being Richard Nixon, the infamous president of the United States who resigned after the Watergate scandal. There are hundreds of examples of government officials being caught in shady activity and while most of them are held responsible, this is still a large issue that no one is talking about. If you to the Wikipedia page titled "List of Federal Political Scandals in the United States" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States#Barack_Obama_administration_(2009%E2%80%932017) you will find an alarmingly long list of politicians that were caught doing various illegal activities, and this is just all the ones that got caught. There have to be many more that got away with their shady activity. So this begs the question, how do we get rid of all this illicit activity in our government? Well there is no clear cut answer, I think we should first consider putting better more qualified people into these positions of extreme power. Increased background checks or psychological evaluations could also help, but ultimately I think government officials need to realize that they are representing the United States as a whole with every single action they take and should deeply think over everything they do. This problem will likely continue deep into the future unless something is done about it.

Political Parties and Washington's Farewell Address

            While talking about political parties, and how they are becoming so polarized that our government is becoming gridlocked, I began thinking about Washington's Farewell Address. In the address, Washington specifically stated that America should strive to prevent the formation of political parties because the unity of America was important, and we shouldn't let political parties divide us (Here and Here). However, despite the first president's best attempts, political parties were already forming under his presidency and only continued to grow once he left the office. In fact, now political parties are so ingrained into America's political system and add such structure to the election, that I'm not sure what we would do without them (Interesting article here). This makes me wonder what Washington was thinking. He wouldn't have been so naive about politics (He was a president after all), to think that America would somehow be able to unite and not divide and form political parties. Separate parties were going to form: that's just how things naturally go. People who believe certain things gravitate towards those who believe either similar or the same things, and eventually, enough of these people get together and decide that they want other people to know what they believe in, and either influence current policy or convince others to join them. So Washington must have known that there were the first inklings of political divide under his presidency and with his colleagues and known that these would eventually develop into full parties.
              Was the warning in the address just a last-ditch attempt at reminding the people and the government of the dangers of political parties, in hopes that they would try and tread more carefully for at least a little while? Clearly, by putting it in his address, Washington knew that these divides were in real danger of coming to fruition in the near future, especially because he also noted to not try and divide America by geological differences. He could see the writing on the wall and the natural divisions in interest between the North and South because of their geological differences and industrial divides and seemed to want to warn against dividing America in this way. These political and somewhat geological differences do somewhat still hold to this day, with people in different regions stereotyping those in other opposing areas of America.
             Regardless of what Washington hoped to do with the address and his warning in it, he clearly saw the dangers that political parties could have. I don't think he could have ever predicted the effects to the extent we are facing today, but maybe we should have tried to listen to his advice, despite how inevitable a strong division in ideas was.

Logrolling in Congress

In class, we briefly discussed factors in Congressional decision making, so I wanted to look more into the moral justifications behind logrolling. Logrolling occurs in Congress when informal agreements are made to trade votes, for example, a senator promising to vote for a bill on solar energy if the senator pushing the bill forward votes on their bill to save the enviornment. On the surface this process makes sense: kids every day are seen using this same philosophy ("I don't have any money but if you pay for my boba today I'll pay for yours next time"). Yet does this have a place in our democratic government? Does logrolling not put our government at risk of corruption as senators work to pass their personal agendas?

It turns out, there are many pros to logrolling. (https://ivypanda.com/essays/logrolling-in-politics-and-its-impact-on-government-budget/) For starters, it allows the minority party a chance at being able to pass bills. They may not be able to get enough support on their own simply because of the small size of the party, but rather than years for the numbers to change through reelections, the minority party can trade for the votes of some of the more indifferent members on the majority party. Also, it allows bills that are necessary but unpleasant to be passed. While not many people would be happy about bills to protect the environment, they are necessary, especially in the modern age. Logrolling allows senators that think about the future benefit of a bill to further their ideas.

Despite all this, logrolling has an obvious negative: it allows for the growth of corruptness in our government if congressmen vote against their own opinions in hope of later help. So why is logrolling still allowed? Well, while congressmen could use logrolling on any bill, a lot of congressmen are aware that the people in their states' are the ones to reelect them. A senator from California is not likely to accept a logrolling deal if it means he has to vote against abortion rights, given that the people who elect him would become very unhappy. Such a decision may cost him his office in the next election.

So should we worry about logrolling? Not really. While it may seem like a problem on the surface, the democratic system of government keeps checks to make sure logrolling does not get out of hand. Instead, the public should focus on holding congressmen responsible for their decisions and electing well qualified and moral people. 

The Supreme Court's "True purpose"

Something Mr. Stewart said in class today made me think of how we view the supreme court today. While finishing up the worksheet for the documentary, and answering the question about the changing role of the supreme court, Mr. Stewart said that their role would eventually evolve into the "protector of the people's civil liberties". If this was not a purpose of the court initially, what was the court going to be for? Even if we don't agree with the court's rulings, were they not justifying their rulings with reasoning for how they were protecting people's rights? For example, the minimum wage laws, where they said that it infringed on the people's rights to work for less, or the maximum hour laws, which they said infringed on the people's rights to negotiate their own contracts and working hours. Although ultimately they were not protecting the employees from being exploited by their employers, and these justifications were just stretch reasonings to continue pushing their pro-business agenda, the court still felt the need to say that they were making these rulings as a way to protect the rights of the people. So wasn't it always their role to secure the rights of the people, even if they were not always doing this in practice? Was that not always the theory? Or did the founding fathers just make a main court, with no intention of giving the power to secure the rights of the people to this branch? They certainly didn't write into the constitution that the court had the power of judicial review, but they also wanted it to, so why would the write down what the true purpose of the court is? Most people view the supreme court as the ultimate reader of the law, and interpreter of the law, as a way to secure people's rights, but was this always the intent? Hopefully, this will be explained when we learn more about the supreme court later in the course.

The Supreme Court's Ironic Use of the "Liberty of Contract"

In the documentary today about the Supreme Court (Episode Two of the show "The Supreme Court") concerning the early twentieth century battles between labor and capital, the narrator explained that the Supreme Court judges used the "liberty of contract" as a justification for many of its pro-business rulings.  As the judges at the time understood it, the "liberty of contract" was the freedom for employers and employees to make their own "contracts" or agreements about how the employee should have worked for the employer.  However, in my opinion, this justification that the judges used was incorrect.  The word "contract" implied that both the employer and the employee were part of the making of the agreement.  Thus, a "one-sided contract" (one in which the employee really had no choice but to stay in the job in order to survive) would not technically be considered a "contract" and would therefore not fall under the "liberty of contract."  In order for something to consist of the "liberty of contract," both the employee and the employer needed to have the freedom to consider other options other than the contract.  Since in the early twentieth century, many employees would literally starve or die from quitting their low-paying jobs, they did not truly have any choice in considering other options and were effectively forced to stay within the jobs they already had.  The pro-labor laws created during this time were actually opening up the "liberty of contract" to the people because they allowed workers to have other job options through minimum wage laws, maximum work hours, and more.  Therefore, ironically, the pro-business rulings of the Supreme Court during this time in favor of the "liberty of contract" were actually restricting people's "liberty of contract."

Judicial Activism Versus Judicial Restraint

As we watched Episode Two of the show "The Supreme Court," which explained the Supreme Court and its relation to the battle between labor and capital in the early twentieth century, two terms came up: judicial activism and judicial restraint.  Justice Holmes believed in judicial restraint, which was the belief that the Supreme Court should "shut up" and not interfere with what the people want or desire to do, unless something that the people want to do is completely and undoubtedly unconstitutional.  On the other hand, the Four Horsemen of the Supreme Court, who were Justices James Clark McReynolds, George Sutherland, Willis Van Devanter, and Pierce Butler, believed in judicial activism, which was the belief that the Supreme Court should try to impose their own beliefs about what was morally right to do by manipulating the Constitution to support their ideas about what was morally right.  In my opinion, I believe that the Supreme Court should take a more judicially restraint ruling style.  This is because the Supreme Court judges rule for life, so often, many of the judges became out of touch with the younger generations who have fresh ideas.  If Supreme Court judges rule by their own opinions, they could be denying the ability for the younger generations' new ideas to be tried out or to advance people's liberties in the opinion of these younger generations.  By ruling based only on whether something is truly and undoubtedly unconstitutional or not, the Supreme Court judges would allow progress to occur much quicker (instead of continuing to block possible new legislation that could advance liberty like in the battle between labor and capital) while still making sure to keep the fundamental freedoms of all people in place (in case possibly this new legislation goes too far).  The "truly and undoubtedly unconstitutional" doctrine would prevent Supreme Court judges from loosely interpreting the Constitution to falsely claim that a new piece of legislation that advances liberties for one group takes away liberties from others when objectively under the aforementioned doctrine, the legislation does not unconstitutionally take away rights from certain groups of people.