Freedom and the Judicial System

The (federal) judicial system is highly influential in that it is able to interpret the Constitution and apply federal laws that govern all Americans. Cases begin at the district court level and may go through the court of appeals and ultimately end up at the United States Supreme Court—a panel of nine judges that have the final say in deciding the cases. The Supreme Court decides which cases are worth hearing, and ends up fully reviewing far fewer than are petitioned to it. For example, in 2007-08m it received over 9,600 petitions but only fully reviewed 75 of these (Katznelson, 259).

The Supreme Court is also able to review that decisions of state courts to ensure they comply with federal law. And while this may sound like the judicial system restricts freedom more than it supports it, but this is not the case.

By being able to interpret the Constitution, the judicial system actually gives us freedoms. Consider our freedom of speech, press, and religion. More recently, the judicial system gave women the right to have an abortion. The 1973 case, Roe v. Wade, heard by the Supreme Court, granted women the right to have abortions, and was important in recognizing the constitutional right to privacy. It followed the 1965 case, Griswold v. Connecticut, which overturned a state law banning the use of contraceptives (Katznelson, 272).

Finally, the judicial system supports freedom in a very important way: it gives the weak the ability to challenge those who have power. The Politics of Power states, “Even the powerful cannot do as they please but must submit to the rule of the law.” Though “submitting to the rule of law” may seem to limit freedom, it actually supports it by ensuring that EVERYONE may be free, not just those with the money and resources to do so (Katznelson, 283).

I often wonder, does our judicial system have enough power compared to the other branches of our government--the executive and legislative? 


Sources: 
"An avalanche of cash in judicial campaigns, Pt. 2 « Sustained Outrage." Gazette blogs. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2011. <http://blogs.wvgazette.com/watchdog/2010/10/29/an-avalanche-of-cash-in-judicial-campaigns-pt-2/>.


Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper.  The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.

Congress: Authentic Representation?

Congress supports authentic representation of the people in that representatives and senators are elected to their positions democratically. The Senate ensures that each state is represented in congress, and the House of Representatives ensures that smaller areas within each state (which may have different interests than the entire state) are represented. Thus, Congress is made up of 100 Senators and 435 Representatives (Katznelson, 220).

Congress limits the authentic representation of the people in that, like every other legislature in the world, it does not have an exact demographic profile of the citizens its members represent. "A disproportionately unrepresentative legislature is likely to leave many members of the population without representatives who even minimally comprehend their life situations and needs, while other who are overrepresented are likely to have their views taken into account as a matter of course" (Katznelson, 227). 

Congress contains a much lower proportion of Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians and other minorities than it does white, male, educated, rich, professional and business people. Blacks make up 12% of the electorate vs. 7% of seats in the House and 1% in the Senate and Hispanics are 9% of the electorate vs. 6% of House seats and 3% of Senate seats (Katznelson, 229).


Are the white, male, educated, rich, professional and business people in Congress really representing the interests of working class Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, etc.?


Sources: 
"grassroots." Morocco Board News Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2011. <http://www.moroccoboard.com/grassroots>.


Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.

The US Presidency and Democracy

The US presidency limits the formation of an ideal democracy more than it supports it. Recently, presidential power has grown so much that the United States is moving away from democracy altogether. In the case of President George W. Bush, the United States may almost just as well have been operating under a dictatorship, so out of control was the amount of power exercised by President Bush. He even recognized that (multiple times!).





When all three branches of government (executive, judicial and legislative) check and balance each other as they are supposed to, the presidency supports the formation of an ideal democracy. However, recently the presidency has found loopholes to avoid the checks and balances that are supposed to be provided by congress and the supreme court

Though the people elect the president, what the president does after that is mostly out of our control, and this is not in keeping with the rules of democracy. President G.W. Bush and the Patriot Act are prime examples of this. President Bush issued many signing statements, which he effectively used to interpret the meaning of laws to fit his own agenda. He also invoked a doctrine, the unified executive, to assert sole and unlimited control over the executive branch (Katznelson, 184). The Patriot Act, passed by congress after 9/11, gave the executive branch "wide latitude relatively unconstrained by congressional or judicial oversight" (Katznelson, 185). It deliberately did away with the checks and balances of the three branches of government that our fore fathers envisioned and therefore severely limits the formation of an ideal democracy.

The presidency was intended to provide checks and balance for the very democratic system of congress, but in fact, more often than not, congress ends up doing this for the presidency (when the existence of things like the Patriot Act don't get in the way).


The Presidency is not supporting the formation of an ideal democracy in the United States. Has the control the President exercises over our country gotten so out of control that the executive branch is harming our country more than it is helping it? 


At least President Obama recognizes his power and is attempting to use it to fix some of the mistakes of our former "Dictator-In-Chief," Mr. Bush. "Those seeking the presidency are far more motivated by ideological commitment and the desire to wield power than by a lust for wealth" (Katznelson, 181). America should examine which of these weighs more heavily on presidential candidates: ideological commitment or the desire to wield power. 


Sources: 
jaxhud. "YouTube- Bush Dictator ." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. . N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD3xfT0c99g&feature=related>.


Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.

Influence on the Political Process

In my opinion, individuals influence the political process mostly through voting, but there are a few other ways they can make their opinions heard. Individuals can educate other people about their political views, and start social movements and interest groups. Rosa Parks is a great example of how an individual can tremendously influence the political process. Her protest on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama precipitated the Montgomery bus boycott, which eventually ended segregation on buses (Katznelson, 150).

This is also a good example of how social movements can be highly effective. The Montgomery bus boycott was a highly effective social movement. It lasted just over a year, and resulted in the federal court ruling in Browder v. Gayle, which declared bus segregation unconstitutional. The boycott was so effective because the African-American community (a large population) were the primary paying riders of the bus system, and they used alternative forms of transportation for a year, denying the Montgomery bus system the funds it needed to continue to run.

Interest groups and social movements influence the political process by mobilizing large numbers of people to work towards a common goal. Recent interest groups are more professional and specialized, so they are able to make less demands of members but greater demands of the government. Social movements use more unconventional and confrontational methods to influence politics. Social movements are riskier, so they are a more demanding form of political participation (Katznelson, 137). Since they are less organized and bureaucratic (Katznelson, 137) they have the ability to influence the political process in different ways than elections and interest groups, such as making government officials aware of their stance through media and protests.

Social movements have been very effective in the past. So, why have we seen a decrease in social movements and such a surge in interest groups in the twenty-first century?


Sources:
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.


"Rosa Parks' Life: A Call to Carry it On MELVIN DICKSON / The Commemorator v.15, n.3, 1dec2005." Mindfully.org | Mindfully Green. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2011. <http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Rosa-Parks-Dickson1dec05.htm>.

Public Opinion and the Formation of a Democratic Society

In theory, public opinion should influence the formation of democratic societies tremendously, since the definition of democracy is “a system of government by the whole population,” (Oxford American Dictionaries, 2011). In fact, more often than not, it doesn't.


One thing to note here is that most modern democracies function differently than “small town democracies” used to. In a small town it was possible to gather everyone’s opinion in a setting like a city council meeting, and everyone could weigh equally on decisions about governing the town. Because the United States is a large society, democracy works much differently here. With a large society, it is not possible to sit the whole population down in a room to gather their opinions or make decisions about how to operate said society. In the United states, since it is not realistic to have 300 million people come to a consensus about anything, we have elected representatives who may or may not actually have the true public opinion at heart.


In a society with elected representatives, political participation becomes a very important consideration in how public opinion influences the formation of that society. Often political participation rates are not high, which means that the same prospect of governing based on public opinion becomes much more difficult and public opinion becomes much less influential.  However, when people do participate politically, public opinion can affect the formation of a democratic society through what the people vote for. Additionally, what people want and believe does affect what the different branches of government do, and who resides in those seats of power.


The core mechanisms of political participation (especially in the United States) are political parties, finance and elections (Katznelson, 128). Political parties offer voters more clear-cut choices (Katznelson, 128), which can encourage less educated voters to participate more. Finance plays a key role in political participation by helping decide who gets to compete in general elections. And of course, elections give the public a venue to express their opinions.


Another noteworthy thing is that “political participation in the United States is slanted toward the rich in terms of voting turnout, campaign contributions, and political activism” (Katznelson, 128). Since the influence of public opinion and political participation are highly connected, this means that the opinion of the rich is more influential in our society than the opinion of others.

How can we work towards a system where it is actually public opinion that influences the formation of our democratic society rather than a select few opinions?

Sources:
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.


New Oxford American Dictionary . 3rd ed. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.

The Intersection of Government and the Private Sector

The Politics of Power describes how, “capitalism creates a mobilization of bias that gives the corporate elite a decisive advantage” (Katznelson, 64). I think that this is the most important way that the government and the private sector intersect—through the economy and especially through the interactions of the corporate elite.

In a capitalist economy, the government has to do some regulation of markets in order for the economy to function properly (i.e. so we are not constantly in a recession or depression). Liberals and conservatives disagree about the amount of government regulation that is needed here. “[T]he free market has always been a fiction. Markets cannot exist without a government to maintain order, enforce contracts, create currency, and provide a host of other public goods” (Katznelson, 64).

While the government makes the decisions regarding market regulation, corporate elite can use their money to influence these decisions. They are able to do this through campaign donations, payment of lobbyists, etc.

In a capitalist economy, intersection of government and the private sector is somewhat unavoidable. I believe that government should do more to control capitalist markets and control how much power the elite of the country have over public policy decisions. During the 1930s and the Great Depression, America saw how a more expansive roll for government could be effective. Under Democratic Party control and FDR the government helped turn the economy around. FDR’s “New Deal created the outlines of the modern welfare state to cope with the distress. This was followed by the government’s enormous success in managing and coordinating the transition to a wartime economy during World War II” (Katznelson, 66).

Does our current economic recession need a “New New Deal?”

Sources:

Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.

"An Ol' Broad's Ramblings." An Ol' Broad's Ramblings. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2011. <http://olbroad.com/2009/02/13/>.

The Role of Power in Economy, Government and Politics

My last blog post touched on how our country’s elite have a larger influence on public policy decisions than the majority of lower-class Americans. This is important for understanding today’s subject—the role of power in government, economy and politics—because the fact that we have a capitalist economy greatly impacts the role that power plays in these sectors of our country.

I believe that power is what ties together economy and government (As politics is defined by the Oxford American Dictionary as, “the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, esp[ecially] the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power” government and politics may be used interchangeably). As discussed in the previous post, although all eligible Americans can vote and these votes carry equal weight in elections, people with more money generally have more influence over public policy debate.

The Politics of Power States, “Capitalism does not simply distribute money and wealth unequally. It also distributes economic power unequally. Although globalization and technological change have increased competition and the pace of change, a small elite of corporate executives and large shareholders own and control the means of production, have power over the working lives of their employees, and make decisions that have far-reaching consequences for the entire society” (Katznelson, 59).

In America, economy and government interact with each other in a never ending cycle, which is fueled by power. How power is used is very important to this cycle, because it can dramatically affect the lives of people in our country in addition to the lives of people abroad.

The recession that began in 2008 is a good example of how the use of power in economy and government can affect everyone. During the 2008 recession, the government took over mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to keep the economy afloat, but Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson refused to bail out Lehman Brothers investment bank. Following this announcement, the stock market plunged 500 points in one day and multiple other financial institutions also came close to declaring bankruptcy (Katznelson, 55). In 2007 and 2008, lending companies used their power over American citizens to try to turn a bigger profit, which eventually contributed to the economy’s drop into the recession (Katznelson, 55)

On the other hand, consider Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal. FDR spent billions of dollars during the Great Depression to try to aid the American people and bring the economy out of the depression. Perhaps even more powerful were his 30 “fireside chats,” which educated the people about the financial crisis and gave them confidence in their Commander in Chief (The New Deal, 2011).

Since economy and government revolve around power, how individuals with power in those sectors use it is very important, especially in a capitalist economy. The elite class of the country in a capitalist economy have huge influence, so maybe we should be asking, “How does the control of power in a capitalist system play a role in economy, government and politics?”


Sources:
Katznelson, Ira, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper. The politics of power: a critical introduction to American government. 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. 2-12. Print.

"The New Deal." United States History. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Feb. 2011.