Can Mr.Smith get to Washington? NO SIR!!!!!

In today’s society, the most important aspect of elections is the money. Without it, it would be impossible to get elected. Usually the more money a candidate has, more likely will they get elected. Since with that money, they can buy more air time on networks, travel to more places and spread their ideas. Everything else like political ideals, character, image and expierenc e are all second to money. Since with money, all these things can be spun to look good or bad, and turn an election for a candidates favor. Before the Bipartisan Campaign reform, soft money ran rampant in the political system. It basically allowed for major corporations to buy in an official that would help them. After the McCain-Feingold (BCRA) passed it made soft money illegal in the United States, but instead the 527 commitees formed. Even though they could not support a candidate directly, they were allowed to support issues in campaigns, and literally pour tons of money to getting their “issue” into office. Unlike soft money, hard money is legal and it sets a cap per person on the amount which thy are allowed to donate. Even with this cap, because of the 527 committees, it has little effect. Just based on money, the man of the people cannot get elected, that time has passed and gone. All of those that claim to be from the people, usualy are from wealthy families and have rarely if ever faced the same challenges and roadblocks. Just because of the money factor in elections, it prevents many good candidates from getting elected because they do not have the capital to back up their good ideas. Many times these people with good ideas get overseen by the PACs because their ideas aren’t good for the top, or elites. Instead the PACs choose a cadidate which will favor major corporations and the upper class, with just enough attention to the masses to keep up the illusion of “the man of the people”. The only true democratic part of our politcal system today is paper. In reality, no matter which political party gets elected, things rarely change drasticly, as neither party is truly that different. When those who have good radical ideas that a worth a shot to try, the parties shun them away saying its better to wait, since the public isn’t ready. On top of the already biased opinions of the parties, comes the media itself. No matter how hard they try to hide the bias, it would always be present. Most of the time, the media outlets would rather bash a candidate, or their ideas, then bring up real facts. Most of the time many of these stations are run by the extremeist that give their over party a bad name, for either being a gun crazy war monger or a socialist loving hippie. Yet even with all these problems, the real problem in our political system is the low turn out. That most people would rather believe that their vote doesn’t matter and just ignore the problem, then take a measly hour out of their day to help bring their ideas to life. Our society doesn’t want to take the responsibity to pay attention to the government and question in because that is too much work.

Civil Liberties Test

Our country was founded on the basis of equal rights for every man. Even though many of those rights have changed or evolved throughout time, the basic principle is the same, guaranteed freedoms protected under the constitution of the United States. As new problems arose, many of those rights had to be modified in order for them to still protect a person.
Until Gideon v. Wainright, the idea of a state appointing an attorney to an individual was not widely used. Many judges, based on their own judgment decided when an attorney should be appointed and yet, if the crime was petty, they would not allow it. When Gideon had committed a crime, and asked for an attorney to be appointed to him, the judge refused because the crime was considered petty. In the end, he was found guilty and sentenced to jail. Yet because the judge had not appointed him a judge, he infringed on Gideon’s right to a fair trial because he himself was illiterate, and had barely an education. Even though he had committed the crime, he was not allowed to fairly defend himself, thus the trial itself was unfair. Because of this, the Supreme Court agreed with him, and because of that under the right to a fair trial, the idea of an official being appointed by the court was secured into the constitution. Even though the right to a fair trial was secured in the courts, however, in schools, it was still ignored. Not until Goss v. Lopez did the idea of due process exist everywhere in the United States. In that trial, 9 students were suspended, yet none of the students received a hearing. They were caught and sentenced to punishment without a chance to fairly prove their innocence. They were guilt automatically, not proven guilty. After the case, the right to a fair trial was no longer for courts, but for also students in any type of school.
Even though Due Process had been fixed, the police were still able to infringe about the rights of people in their homes. They could perform illegal search and seizures without any repercussions. Yet when Mapp’s home was illegal searched, and she was then put on trial for having obscene materials. Even though she had committed a crime, they still performed an illegal search. When Mapp v. Ohio was brought upon the Supreme Court, they soon redefined the search and seizure laws. Because of that trial, the court proclaimed that all materials that the police had obtained illegally were not admissible into the courts. Yet unlike the courts, schools are a different matter. In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O, the principal had found a girl in the bathroom when it smelled as though she had been smoking; because of this he searched her bag and found drugs and other paraphernalia. Her parents claimed that by searching her, he infringed the search and seizure laws, yet the court saw differently, they declared that in schools and other similar places, the official would be allowed to use a code of reasonable suspicion.
In the state of Texas, they had a law against flag burning. After Johnson burned a flag in protest, Texas officials arrested him under the law. He believed that his right to freedom of speech had been infringed upon. When Texas v. Johnson was brought up to the Supreme Court, they found in favor of Johnson and declared that the Texas law against flag burning was illegal because the idea of flag burning was considered a strong symbol, thus freedom of speech now protected not only spoken words, but also written and symbolic.

Serge Limonchik

Test Post

This is my test post