What role do judges and the judicial system play in supporting freedom?

I think that judges and the judicial system play a very important role in supporting freedom. Judges tell us what the law is and how it is interpreted through their rulings and decisions. "They get to say what the law is, and their judgment is final." (Draper 247) It is for this reason that I believe that they are integral in supporting freedom. "Unlike umpires, judges do not simply apply the rules to what occurs on the field; instead, they actually decide what the rules are through their decisions." (Draper 249) Additionally, judges have the power to make rulings or decisions that may take away some of our freedoms, for the most part they have upheld our basic and inherent freedoms; in this way they have also supported freedom. "The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court regularly profess ardent devotion to what they divine as having been the intentions of the framers of our nation’s Constitution." (Gusewelle)

The judicial system is also a social change tool. The judicial system as well as judges are entrusted with the task of ensuring that we are all treated equally and fairly. All laws apply to all people. "the law is an arena of equality: the same rules apply to everyone." (Draper 249) I think that ensuring equality is very important in supporting freedom.

While I do believe that judges and the judicial system play a very important role in supporting freedom I also believe that they are highly contradictory in their nature. The court's are often influenced by political causes and actions which could lead to unfair, prejudicial and preferential decisions. This is evident in the fact that federal and supreme court judges are appointed rather than elected. Judges who closely represent the political affiliations of the president who are selecting judges to fill vacancies are more likely to be appointed  then judges who don't. This can ensure that their parties beliefs are represented for years to come. I am not sure that this is the best way to support freedom. 

This all begs the critical question: do you think that judges should be elected rather than appointed? What sort of political influences that currently exist in the judicial system do you think this approach would help to avoid?

 Draper, Alan. The Politics of Power a Critical Introduction to American Government. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2011.

kansascity.com. "Westboro Baptist Church members dishonor their faith." Gusewelle, C.W. Published Mar. 19, 2011 10:21 PM. http://www.kansascity.com/2011/03/19/2739306/westboro-baptist-church-members.html#ixzz1HBvf6N6V

How does the U.S. Congress, as it exists in its current structure, support and/or limit authentic representation?

I think that at the heart of this authenticity question is the fact that our current Congress may not resemble what the founding fathers intended Congress to look like. However, I also believe that there are so many changes that have occurred in our country that the founding fathers could never have predicted or envisioned would have happened that have shaped our Congress to be the way it exists today. 

Having said that, I believe that the current structure of the U.S. Congress mostly limits “authentic” representation. I think that this limitation is the result of many different things.   Firstly, I believe that this limitation may result from the vast power that has been granted to Congress. While I do believe that the founding fathers intended Congress to have substantial power I believe that it's important to point out that "in almost every other democracy, the national legislature lacks the kind of authority the American separation of powers system places in Congress." (Draper 210) I also believe that the founding fathers intended for the other two branches of the government to provide a checks and balance system for Congress. However, it would appear that this very separation of powers has actually empowered Congress to an extent that is no longer as subordinate as it was prior to the 1960s. "Into the 1960s, Congress continued to play a mostly subordinate role to the presidency in initiating policy proposals and setting the agenda of government. Congress was content to let the president provide leadership, and even encroach on congressional powers, because it largely agreed with the president's policies." (Draper 217)

Secondly, I think that the evolution of lobbyists has also led to the decline of authenticity in Congress. Lobbyists were certainly never conceptualized by the founding fathers and their current power has led to the possibility of buying representatives to a certain extent. Lobbyists spend huge amounts of money to make sure that their “clients” causes are represented in Congress. In fact, "the pharmaceutical industry has more registered lobbyists than there are members of Congress." (Draper 241) I think that this has led to the decline of authenticity mostly because the more money you can spend on a cause the more exposure that cause will have and then the possibility of that cause’s goals being enacted in Congress grow exponentially. Lastly, what I really worry about is that after some crucial supreme court decisions the future holds the prospect of unlimited campaign contributions and therefore accelerated lobbying. As one author put it: "if you think spending on the 2010 election broke records, wait until the 2012 race heats up later this year. So long, campaign disclosure. Hello, unlimited secret spending." (Schneider) This prospect frightens me. 

 I believe that the current structure of the U.S. Congress supports “authentic” representation in that our Congress has, for the most part, always remained true to the vision of the founding fathers. We have, and hopefully always will have, a system of checks and balances that ensure that each branch of the government remains accountable to the others. The fact that the Congress, or any other branch of the government, has never tried to “do away” with our system of checks and balances shows that the U.S. Congress does support “authentic” representation.  

I think that all this begs the critical question: What remedies do you think the founding fathers provided to "check and balance" the Congress? Do you think they are effective?

Draper, Alan. The Politics of Power a Critical Introduction to American Government. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2011.

theday.com. "Democracy can't survive shrouded in secrecy." Schneider, Gabriela. Published 03/13/2011 12:00 AM. http://www.theday.com/article/20110313/OP03/303139957/1044.

In what ways does the U.S. Presidency support and limit the formation of an ideal democracy?

I think that the U.S. Presidency supports the ideals of democracy in many ways. As our book points out, "the presidency is the most powerful institution within American government, but presidents encounter immensely powerful obstacles to the pursuit of their goals within American government and society as well as abroad." (Draper 189) This change in power from the government to the president occurred After "the New Deal and World War II supersized the presidency and the executive branch. Accompanying the growth of the federal government's role was a change in the balance of power among the three branches of government: power tilted decisively toward the president during Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency from 1933 to 1945." (Draper 180)

One way that the U.S. Presidency supports the ideals of democracy is by passing bills. The president must sign off on many pieces of legislature before they become "law." In many instances it is up to the president to ensure that any laws represent the best interests of the county. I believe that this is an extremely important example of how the U.S. Presidency supports the ideals of democracy.

One more way that I believe that the U.S. Presidency supports the ideals of democracy is in foreign relations. "Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century's, there were swings between strong and weak presidents, between presidential and congressional supremacy." (Draper 179) These swings in power made it so that the presidency is most often the face of our democracy and way of life to the rest of the world. It is very important that they present the whole countries ideals when they are dealing with the rest of the world. 

 Alternatively, I believe that the U.S. Presidency limits the ideals of democracy is almost in direct contrast of the ways that it supports democracy. Our government has in place a system of checks and balances that are meant to keep each arm of the government in synch and accountable to all of the other arms. It is the executive branch's duty to make sure that the president's actions are in the best interests of our country. If the president uses his veto power neglectfully or if he passes bills that are not in our best interest then he is limiting the formation of an ideal democracy. One recent decision that Obama made that I do not necessarily believe was promoting the ideals of democracy happened when, last summer, he "bypassed Congress and appointed Dr. Donald Berwick to head Medicare and Medicaid -- filling the job while Congress is in recess to get around Republican opposition that threatened to derail Berwick's confirmation." (FoxNews.com) Taking this important decision out of the hands of the Congress was not the right way to show our country or the world that our president fully supports an ideal democracy. 

All of this makes me wonder the critical question: are there any additional checks and balances we could put on place to ensure that the presidency never becomes a dictatorship? 

Draper, Alan. The Politics of Power a Critical Introduction to American Government. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2011.

FoxNews.com. "Obama Fills Medicare and Medicaid Post Without Senate Approval." FoxNews. July 07, 2010. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/06/president-medicare-medicaid-post-senate-approval/#ixzz1FrGIA2h8