Long Live U.S. Rights

I am in favor of the Electoral College system. Article II of the U.S. Constitution makes it possible to elect the president and vice president through the Electoral College system. What was going through the minds of the framers at this time? The framers always intended for the states to have the power in choosing the president. They believed that the people were not educated enough to put the right person for the job in office. On July 25, 1787, Delegate Gerry exclaimed, “A popular election, in this case, is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." They believed if this power was placed in the hands of the people than it would lead to “tyranny of the majority”. The tyranny of the majority would be harmful to the minority and lead to subjugation to disliked ethnic, religious, or political groups. In addition to the reasons stated above

On Thursday, July 27, 2017, an argument titled Give Youth a Voice was posted from the blog Young Minded Perspective of the U.S. The author makes the argument that the youth, particularly 16 and 17-year-olds, should be granted the ability to vote. She elaborates on this topic by describing how the young are well educated at this time because they are enrolled in school. She also points out that the media plays a substantial role in educating the youth. She continues by stating that the government gives these 16 and 17-year-olds responsibilities, that they are caregivers, sometimes tried as adults in court, can legally drive and able to start their own businesses. According to the author, these points make a valid argument as to why teenagers should be able to vote. I disagree with the author, I believe the voting age should begin at the age eighteen. There are many reasons I am convinced that the age to vote is set at a reasonable scale. Yes, 16 and 17-year-olds are currently enrol

Should justices be allowed lifetime appointments? I am among the many who is not in favor of lifetime appointments at the federal level. Lifetime appointments changing over time, fewer opportunities for diversity, conflicts that come with old age, and diminishing productivity are some of the reasons I am against lifetime appointments. Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior…" The framers believed this was a good idea at the time to make the judicial branch independent. However, lifetime appointment was different back then. Our life span has increased making retirement age much older. According to a writing from The Slate by Adrienne LaFrance, “The average retirement age among the country's first 10 Supreme Court justices was 60 years old, whereas the average retirement age among the 10 justices who most recently left the bench was 76 years old.” This means

On Wednesday, July 12 th , 2017 the CNN published a commentary titled We Need to Hear FBI Nominee's View on Hate Crime Epidemic by Kristen Clarke and Vanita Gupta . The article describes a recent incident that happened in Portland, Oregon, that involved two teenage girls. They were approached by a man who began yelling anti-Muslim words at them. When a few people stepped in to help the girls, two were killed and one was injured. The authors describe how the new director of the FBI has many questions he’s going to need to answer. The commentary states, “ While President Donald Trump's new nominee to be the next director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,  Christopher Wray, will no doubt face questions during Wednesday morning hearing  about how he plans to address matters of national security, Americans also deserve to know how he will ensure that the FBI prioritizes civil rights enforcement and will investigate hate crimes. ” They describe how the rise of hate crimes ma

In the article Three Legs Good, No Legs Bad , by Paul Krugman, he addresses the reasons why the United States needs the Affordable Care Act (A.C.A). He refers to the A.C.A. as a three-legged stool.  One “leg of the stool” is requiring insurers to make health care available to everyone, including those with pre-excising conditions. The second “leg” is the mandate that everyone has insurance; this prevents a person from waiting to sign up once they become sick. The final “leg of the stool” is subsidies that limit the cost for those with low incomes. He claims that all three “legs” are needed in order for the A.C.A. to work properly. Krugman states, “as written (and interpreted by the Supreme Court), the law’s functioning depends a lot on cooperation from state governments.” Meaning the A.C.A is operated by the states and works where the states want it to work. He states that Republicans ideas require “sawing off one or more legs of that three-legged stool.” The Republicans want to get

Ivanka Trump briefly sits in for her father at G20 session, is the title of the article CNN published on Saturday, July 8 th . This headline is more than likely popping up on everyone's newsfeed, but I encourage you to read the article. Ivanka Trump not only appeared as a "diplomatic advisor" but also took her father's place during a meeting with world leaders. Ivanka Trump has neither the knowledge nor skills to assist at this important meeting. She should not have been there; she was unelected and unqualified for the job. On the other hand, I do support the initiative Trump is putting forth to involve his children in important roles. However, like everything else with importance, there is a time and place and a meeting with significant world leaders was neither the time nor place. Another high note about this topic is the promotion of women empowerment, but her ignorance in diplomatic issues makes her the wrong woman for the job.