research and then produce a paper outlining the current condition or health of our American Democracy. Is our democracy working for everyone? If not, how do we change or improve it? What are some challenges that we face? Is there a specific domestic or foreign policy position that would help our democracy?
Category: American Government’s
Civil Rights, Equality, and Social Movements
Contains unread posts
Mar 4 – Apr 7
Must post first.
Religious exemptions allow individuals and organizations to be exempt from following certain generally applicable laws that they say burden their religious beliefs. Religious exemptions have been at the heart of some recent high profile Supreme Court cases as the court continues to vigorous debate what the scope of religious exemptions should be and in what instances they should be granted.
James Madison wrote, concerning religious liberty, that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds, and it is for that reason that freedom of conscience is an unalienable right. In essence, I cannot alienate to you the power to control my thoughts, because I am unable to entirely control them myself. They are the product of my reason and reflection. Therefore conscience (religious liberty) is unalienable.
Some scholars of the Bill of Rights argue that, in the founders understanding, the government lacks jurisdiction over religious exercises as such, hence the free exercise clause. For example, the government does not issue preaching licenses because government doesn’t have authority to issue such licenses while it can for cosmetology or for being a server in a restaurant. Others argue that the free exercise clause inherently includes exemptions for religious/moral beliefs. For instance, if you are a cake baker and are asked to bake a wedding cake (a service you provide) you should be able to deny service based on religious and/or moral beliefs concerning the marring couple. This is normally thought of in situations concerning LGBTQ couples, but in 2019 an interracial couple in Mississippi was denied access to a wedding venue (Boone’s Camp Event Hall) based on “sincerely held religious beliefs.”
The question here is, if a person’s religious beliefs conflict with the law or lead to bias against other groups, should the government protect the exercise of those beliefs? Why or why not? Are religious/moral exemptions ever appropriate/inappropriate? Under which circumstances? Provide a defense of your position and include citations for sources. Be sure to base your answer in fact and logic/reason.
Voting in America
Contains unread posts
Mar 25 – Apr 7
Must post first.
More than three-fourths of Americans support both stricter gun laws and a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought here as children. Roughly the same number of Americans agree “that our differences are not so great that we cannot come together.”
A 2012 study by Carlee Beth Hawkins and Brian Nosek shows that labeling policies as “Democrat” or “Republican” can influence policy support, depending on the implicit bias of participants toward each party. A 2017 study by David Tannenbaum and colleagues finds that support for policy “nudges”—such as changing 401k retirement accounts to opt-out rather than opt-in—was heavily influenced by whether they were framed as supporting the goals of the Democratic or Republican party. This was true of regular U.S. citizens and for senior government leaders. Similarly, a 2018 study by Leaf Van Boven and colleagues finds that the majority of Republicans agree that climate change is happening—but their support for policy solutions declined when presented by Democrats.
In other words, people like policies proposed by members of their own in-group—and they don’t like ideas generated by out-groups.
Given this, how necessary are political campaigns and how much importance do voters place on policy platforms if simply changing a party label can affect general support for the policy? Who are campaigns targeted toward? Party faithful? Independents? Be sure to include citations for any sources you use and ground your answer in facts using logic and reason to defend your position.
During the Constitutional Convention, the discussion on whether or not to include a Bill of Rights occurred and the idea was rejected. Supporters of the Constitution, the Federalists, thought a bill of rights was unnecessary and even dangerous. The authors of The Federalist Papers, including James Madison, argued for ratification of the Constitution without a bill of rights. They thought no list of rights could be complete and that therefore it was best to make no list at all, lest the list become a limit to liberty and freedom as opposed to its guarantor (an idea later enshrined in the 9th Amendment).
However, New York and several other states were initially opposed to ratification and only agreed to ratify with the promise that the First Congress would add rights to the Constitution through the amendment process. They feared that without explicit restriction, the federal government would abuse those powers it was granted; primarily those found in Art. I Sec. 8., coupled with the Necessary and Proper [Elastic] Clause.
The first declaration in the preamble to the Bill of Rights makes this concern explicit, reading: “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
Taking what you have learned in class as the basis for your response, was the Bill of Rights a necessary addition to the Constitution? Why or why not? Does the 14th Amendment’s incorporation of the Bill of Rights onto the states, in addition to the federal government, alter the importance of the Bill of Rights? Be sure to provide a defense of your position.
Feel free to reference current events, including legislation, executive action, and judicial opinions in your response. Cite your sources!
Presidential Power
The question of executive power has plagued the United States since its inception. Historically, power has been vested in the legislature, but modern presidents have bucked precedent by using executive orders to establish government agencies, skirt laws which they disagree with, and to issue unprecedented immigration policies.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in favor of a strong unitary executive in Federalist Paper No. 70:
“Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks…to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy.”
In his Pacificus Letters No. 1, Hamilton noted the differences between how the legislature and executive were granted their powers in the Constitution. Specifically, the legislative powers were explicitly limited: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,” while the executive power was not expressly limited by enumeration since it was “vested in the President of the United States.”
Hamilton states:
“The enumeration ought therefore to be considered as intended merely to specify the principal articles implied in the definition of executive power; leaving the rest to flow from the general grant of that power, interpreted in conformity with other parts of the Constitution, and with the principles of free government… the executive power of the nation is vested in the President; subject only to the exceptions and qualifications which are expressed in the instrument.”
The impact of a unitary executive (and Imperial Presidency) can be seen in the Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The New Deal did not just produce a federal government of broad power, it produced a presidency that was more institutionally independent of Congress than ever before. The establishment of a new bureaucracy that could enforce and set its own regulations, made the executive more unilateral. Throughout his 12 years in office, Roosevelt is described as expanding the role of the president from being that of the chief executive to also include that of a chief legislator. Since then, the trend of increasing presidential power at the expense of the legislative branch has continued.
With potentially many unenumerated powers vested in a unified executive, and an increasingly independent one at that, could such a concentration of executive power, especially when enabled by Congress, be an assault on democracy? Or can such concentration be necessary in extenuating and (critically) temporary circumstances (Think Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War suspension of Habeas Corpus, or FDR and the Great Depression as well as WWII, or Donald Trump and an alleged immigration emergency necessitating a wall)?