Blog Stage 5

Modern day American government and our capitalistic society have become very entwined over the years. The American public, Democrats and Republicans, are coming to the consensus that the US economic and political systems, currently places a heavy importance on benefiting the richer percentile of the population, including big corporations. This consensus discourages Americans from engaging in political matters- for instance, not voting because Americans believe their vote doesn't matter and won't change the system that doesn't care about them. Wealthy individuals and big name corporations play a big part in the modern American electoral process, the easiest and most prime example being Donald Trump being elected as President. Money has become power with synonymous, and nowadays it is common belief that one cannot occur without the other. This mindset, and the fact that the American people believe the government favors (and cares more about) the rich show just how involved capitalism has become with democracy. In order to attempt to fix this problem, one thing that can be done is diminish the role of money in politics, in addition to altering the unethical corporate practices, so that workers receive more fair share proceeds, and the gap between corporate and the workers isn't as drastic.

Blog Stage 8

Responding to my classmate's blog post, Lack of Diversity, I believe that the United States is taking a very slow and lackadaisical approach regarding the inclusion of a more diverse government. The US government seems to be complacent with the bare minimum amount of representation in public office. It appears as if the government is saying, "You want to have your voice heard? Here, have one seat in office- now you don't have a right to complain about inequalities anymore!" In Trump's cabinet alone, 73% is comprised of white males. Especially with Donald Trump serving as President, the the United States seems to be running under a plutocratic mindset, catering to the mentality of "The rich help the rich", instead of focusing on America's majority- the common man. How can the voices of the majority (roughly 40% being minorities) truly feel heard when the makeup of Parliament is nowhere near indicative of the population? This has been a struggle America has failed to get past, one of the main reasons being the inherent and obvious social prejudices and discrimination (such as racism and sexism) rooted in American government and society. The United States' population demographic continues to change and become more diverse, and in return the government needs to mirror that and begin to change to better fit the nation's needs. Individuals with different views and backgrounds bring fresh perspectives that otherwise might have been overlooked, and simply gaining insight to these perspectives will evitably lead to more informed, unbiased and educated decisions. There is no way the country would not benefit from a more inclusive and diverse government, and representation in office may be a key to solving a facet of the nation's problems.

The Executive Branch and its Ties to the Justice Department

Articles used for reference: The Sense of Justice That We're Losing and Watergate and White House Interference at DOJ
The Executive branch of US government is seemingly the most complex and complicated of the three branches. The Executive branch's powers are limited when compared to the other two branches, however the President is viewed as the most powerful person/position in government by the public. The Executive branch's constitutional powers include granting pardons and reprieves for federal crimes, however following the Watergate scandal Edward Levi and Griffin Bell implemented changes to the Justice Department to separate law from political influence. According to Bell and Levi, the law was meant to be neutral and nonpartisan, and in order to achieve that standard, the President must abide by the rule of law and lack involvement in criminal prosecutions. In the past and now again with Trump as President, there has been an infringement on this separation- with the President using his power to abuse the rule of law by forcing his way into cases exclusively meant for the Justice Department. This appears to be an example of the stewardship theory- where the President believes he is able to exert any power that is not express prohibited by the Constitution, if it is in the nation's best interest. In Trump and Nixon's case, they saw the law as an instrument they could bend for power (and because they had power), instead of justice. With all of his ties to Russia and the ongoing investigation with Russia, Trump has been pushing the limits Bell and Levi have put in place. For example, when it comes to the Russia investigation, Trump is using the law in a biased fashion- in a way that he believes will help himself and his case. Trump has "personally intervened to try to lift a gag order on an undercover FBI informant sought by Republican members of Congress in an investigation of Russian nuclear industry efforts to gain influence in the United States during the Obama administration". Trump has continually interjected himself in political law enforcement issues, interacting heavily with the Justice Department, attorneys and the FBI (i.e. the Robert Mueller case). This is clearly not following Bell and Levi's advice to keep the Department of Justice neutral and separate. The Department of Justice is an agency within the Executive Branch, and the Executive Branch is responsible for regulating and overlooking the Department of Justice. Of course, the Department of Justice has jurisdiction apart from the Executive Branch, but with the intermixing of politics and law stemmed from the President's actions, that power can be diminished. The President should not use his overall, Executive power to intervene on issues meant only for the Department of Justice just because he deems that he has the power to do so- it will muddle the boundaries between politics and law, and we have Watergate as proof.

Commentary On Classmate's Blog

Blog post I commented on- https://megagovt.blogspot.com/2018/03/trump-is-bad-but-pence-is-worse.html
I agree with all of the statements in your blog post, and I also believe that most of Pence's public actions and focus has been geared towards his religious affiliations and social beliefs. Pence does not shy away from pushing to pass anti-abortion regulations and laws, claiming at a recent pro-life rally that abortion will "end in our time". Before he was appointed Vice President (in 2016), he signed an Indiana law that would have banned abortions sought due to fetal genetic abnormalities and required that aborted fetuses be buried or cremated. Requiring a woman to be responsible for burying or cremating her aborted fetus' remains is unlawful and disgusting, and creates unnecessary psychological trauma for a woman who has already had to endure massive hardship. Furthermore, Pence's stance on LGBT people and his outward distaste towards their lifestyle is extreme and problematic. Pence has stated that "societal collapse was always brought about following an advent of the deterioration of marriage and family", and in 2007 opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, saying the law "wages war on freedom and religion in the workplace". If Trump were to be impeached and Pence took his place as President, the country would undoubtedly be in the process of regressing socially. Knowing Pence's extremist conservative views and believing that issues like abortion will guaranteed end "in our time", and potentially putting him in one of the most powerful positions in the country is unnerving. Given the rise of racist and sexist organizations like the KKK after Trump got elected, if Pence replaces Trump, these people will only be more motivated to come out of the woodworks and make their presence known. The social progress we have made as a nation will consequently be pushed back years if Pence becomes President. It would be very likely that Pence put his religious views before everything else as President (he did consider himself a Christian and a conservative before a Republican), which indicates that some of the economic issues might be put on the back burner. This is not what our country needs, this is not what a national leader looks like.

Unethical Death Penalties

In Alabama Has Been Torturing Poor People For A Long Time by Stephen Cooper, published in Counterpunch magazine, Cooper discusses the immorality of the death penalty in Alabama, and the unconstitutional measures the state has gone to acting through the death penalty. Cooper's intended audience is revealed in the end of the article, where he directly challenges writers and reporters to address the death penalty (especially in Alabama) with zero sugarcoating, using the most reprehensible and vile words to describe the act, since that is the reality. The articles should be shocking, they should get the public's attention, and furthermore, the public should be outraged upon acquiring this information. Stephen Cooper is greatly credible in his statements as well- he is a former D.C. public defender who worked in Alabama specifically as an assistant federal public defender for three years. He knows the state and its prominent legal issues from his experience, and the fact that he has chosen to write multiple articles about the unjust cruelty brought by the death penalty proves that his views should not be pushed aside. Cooper claims that the people who are being subjected to the death penalty in Alabama (mainly the underprivileged population) are regularly being tortured, and because of their status, majority are turning a blind eye. He uses several men as examples- such as Torrey McNabb, Ronald Bert Smith and Christopher Brooks, all of whom were recently tortured and subsequently executed in Alabama. In each of the three cases, there is sufficient evidence that implies that Alabama officials are responsible for the torturing of these men during their death, however Alabama continues to stand firm on its use of violence. The level of violence the state executioners use on the prisoners set to receive the death penalty is unconstitutional- it breaks the Eighth Amendment. These men are usually not medically experienced and licensed to administer a "conscious assessment" before lethal injection. Therefore, I agree with Cooper and his opinions, and also believe that the death penalty should be labeled as torture when its being practiced this unethically. These unvoiced, "disenfranchised and vulnerable" people are continually being underrepresented when they are clearly being tortured through a system that overlooks a constitutional violation.

It's Time For A Gun Ban

What does necessary action concerning gun control look like? What is a reasonable proposition for gun reform? In a recent New York Times article, Republican Congressman Brian Mast weighs in on his opinion, being an Army veteran and a gun-owner. I believe the audience Mast was writing towards was the general public, but mainly other Republican gun-owners. Mast wanted to show that gun control isn't only something valued by the liberals. Mast builds credibility by stating that he was in the Army for 12 years and in turn has extensive knowledge of assault rifles and experience with these weapons. He also is a licensed carrier and values the Second Amendment, stating that the right to conceal and carry guns is not necessarily the problem. His opinion is that weapons of mass destruction, such as an AR-15, should not be attainable to civilians, and background checks and mental illness should be more cracked down and intense.
I support Mast's proposals and ideas, that automatic rifles should not be available to purchase in any circumstance because no one needs to bear an automatic rifle to protect themselves. Government needs to take action instead of simply staying silent on the prospect of changing the gun laws. No change will only lead to more mass murders, and unfit people will continue to purchase guns with harmful intentions. Guns laws and accessibility aren't the only things that need to change, there needs to be a more rigorous system of background checks and mental illness needs to be just as important of a factor to the government as the actual guns. The government and FBI need to take suspicious behavior more seriously, and follow such people portraying suspicious behavior as actual threats. Every aspect is being treated lazily, and if that persists the future will look identical to the present. The FBI and government need to be held to higher standards, with the safety of the people always in mind. There are no clear boundaries set in place, and that stagnancy needs to end in order to administrate change that will keep the people safe The government needs to value the ensured safety of the American people rather than valuing gun rights more. The Second Amendment doesn't have to be completely eradicated, but when you're dealing with weapons used in numerous mass killings, it's not rational to view that Amendment as absolute law.

Where Does One Draw the Literal and Figurative Line?

In an article posted on January 29, 2018 by The Huffington Post titled "Republicans Beg Supreme Court To Let Them Keep Using An Unconstitutional Map", Sam Levine displays in detail how Republicans from seven states are fighting to keep the current congressional district map of Pennsylvania in effect until the 2022 election. Pennsylvania has already gone through three elections with this corrupted congressional district map, and the GOP can successfully gerrymander congressional seats in the state. For example, in each of the three elections already held in Pennsylvania, Republicans have taken "13 of the state's 18 congressional seats while winning only about 50 percent of the total vote." In another attempt to delay the readjusting of the maps, Republicans from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, South Carolina and Pennsylvania advocated that the new maps would simply create confusion among the people and add difficulty to their campaign processes and their funding. The Pennsylvanian Supreme Court came to a conclusion that the Republican-dominated state legislature would create a new redistricting plan, and Democratic Governor Tom Wolf would decide if the plan should be passed. 

In my opinion, this article is worth reading not because of the specifics and content itself necessary, but instead the merit behind it. Governor Tom Wolf said himself that making a biased and gerrymandered map is much harder than creating an equal and balanced one. The Republicans from the seven states listed above would rather build and hide behind blatant dishonesties to save their representation in Pennsylvania than allow fairness in the maps. It's obvious that the current congressional district maps of Pennsylvania are catered towards the GOP, but even when the Republicans have every piece of evidence pointed against them, they still come up with excuses and untrue reasoning to help their success. Even the average citizen can read this article and say with one-hundred percent certainty that the Republicans have no grounds for their argument. There is not a single place in government/politics that isn't corrupted or filled with some sort of lies.