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.