Hi All,

As ya'll know your answers for Essay #2 are due to me via email by midnight, this Friday evening (3/4). There will be an 8-hour grace period extending till 8am Saturday (3/5), but after that time I will accept no more answers. As soon as I receive your emailed answer, I will send you a confirmation message. If you don't receive a confirmation message from me within a couple of hours (or by 8am the next morning if you sent it after 10pm the previous evening), assume that I have not received your essay and resend immediately.

Also, remember that you MUST send your answer in the body of a regular email message. I DO NOT accept attachments.

Finally, an in some respects most importantly, I do want to remind folks that the emphasis of this assignment is the Political Concepts, not the topic. If you remember my note on the Essay #2 assignment page:

Remember the key to the assignment is to demonstrate your mastery of the political concepts by incorporating them, in detail, into your examination of the topic. Don't become overly concerned with the topic to the detriment of a detailed discussion of the political concepts.

• social movement theories (social strain theory, resource mobilization theory, political process theory, or social-psychologcial),
• NAACP,
• Martin Luther King and the Nonviolence Movement,
• Plessy v. Ferguson (1896),
• Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954),
• Civil Rights Act of 1964,
• Voting Right Act of 1965,
• and Affirmative Action.

Now, I have asked ya'll to limit your answers to around 1000 to 1500 words (approximately two to three, single-spaced pages). That of course is an estimate. If you go a little over that, I will still accept you answer, so don't let any limits hold you back. Do remember that this is an assignment that ya'll have had nearly two weeks to work on, and my expectations are geared accordingly.

Take care,

Hi All,

In just a moment I will return your graded essay answers for Essay #1. Overall we did very well for a first essay – the class average was 18.7 out of a possible 22.5, a B. For an in-depth examination of the assigned concepts in relation to the topic, please see the POL 120, Essay #1 Concepts Analysis email message that I just sent out.  For a detailed statistical breakdown of the class-wide performance, please see the Essay #1 - Results message on the Announcements page.

I do have a few quick class-wide comments for Essay #1 that I will share with you now.

1. We tended to err on the side of too much topic content and too little academic, political analysis. Remember the topic is simply a vehicle through which you can demonstrate to me your mastery of the political concepts.
2. Be sure to begin your essays with a statement of purpose for the essay (What are you going to do and how are you going to do it). Also, list the concepts that you will include in your essay. Doing this will help structure your answer, and make it clearer which concepts you are employing in your answer.
3. For an example of the level of depth I am looking for in your analysis of each of the concepts, please do refer back to the class-wide email – POL 120, Essay #1: Using the Political Concepts (Example) – that I sent out on February 5th.
4. Be more concise with your writing; if you can't connect a content point to either your general argument or to a political concept, then don't include it.
5. Realize that there are other points of view. Doing this will strengthen your own argument. It is much better to raise the other perspectives and refute them then it is to simply pretend they don't exists.
6. Please note that not every comment in *red* on your essay means a deduction. In addition to being the basis for the majority of your final course grade, the essays are a critical learning tool for the course; hence I will often include instructive feedback in my comments.
7. I provide the letter grades only for your benefit to see how you are doing. I only enter the numeric grade into my grade book and then total all such grades at the end of the semester, and only then do I assign a letter grade – your final course grade.
8. The calculation for your current participation grade is as of the conclusion of Discussion #7.
9. Remember that I will drop your lowest essay score and double your highest, so if you did poorly on this essay, simply use it as a wake-up call to revise matters for Essay #2. And do remember that I am here to help. Let me know what questions you have, and I will be happy to work with you on improving your performance for Essay #2.

Take care,

Topic Notes:

As we all know that that convention held in Philadelphia over the summer of 1787 became known as the Constitutional Convention because the delegates decided to start anew from the ground up, total redefining the relationship between the states and the national government and moving our governing structure from a confederacy to a federal form of government. This move from a confederacy (where the states reigned supreme) to a federal form (where power is shared between the states and the central government) started a loss of state power that continued through watershed events such as the decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War II and the emergence of the United States as a superpower. States today retain some power, but there is no question that the Federal government now reigns supreme.
 

The Federalist versus Anti-Federalist debate:

It really boils down to your view of federalism. Supporters of the nation-centered view argue that the nation preexisted the states and called the states into existence when the Continental Congress instructed the colonies to sever ties to England. In contrast, supporters of the state-centered view argue that the states preexisted the nation and created it by a compact among themselves. They believed that the individual states could secede from the union if the national government violated the compact by encroaching upon state sovereignty. With these sentiments in mind, you really can make a solid argument either way. Certainly issues such as education will always have a have local and state component. However, broader issues such as health care and national security will take the states working in union at the direction of the national government in order to be effective.

As we consider the very first transference of power from the states to the central government (the move from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution), we must understand the mindset of the founders and the political realities of the day. One, they had just fought a long and destructive war against excessive governability -- the unitary system of the British Crown. Two, and more importantly, the 13 states already considered themselves to be sovereign entities. These sovereign entities would not be willing to surrender their sovereignty to some new, centralized power.  The confederation proved unsuccessful on many levels, but most notable on economic grounds. Transporting goods across state lines was more akin to international trade than anything else, as individual state placed tariffs on goods produced in other states. The basis of the Annapolis Convention of 1786 was actually to discuss economic matters. This convention was in most ways a failure, but it was at the Annapolis Convention that the call went out for a convention to be held the following year in Philadelphia to consider revising the Articles of Confederation. The Constitutional Convention as we know it today, did far more than merely revise the Articles; it threw them out and started from scratch. While it was indeed not certain who would reign supreme, the states or the central government. The very act of revising the Articles of Confederation established a trend toward greater power for the central government. Realizing this, many ardent states rights supporters (such as Patrick Henry) chose not to attend the Convention. Ultimately the debate would simmer until the outcome of the Civil War which forever answered the question in favor of the central government.
 

Article I, Section 8 - Enumerated Powers:

These are the specified powers of the Federal government. Article I, Section 8 list 17 specific powers such as the power to regulate commerce, to coin money, to raise armies and navies, etc. Taken in total these 17 powers are rather limiting. The key to the enumerated powers is their connection to the implied powers found at the end of Article I, Section 8. It is through the implied powers (the necessary and proper clause) that the Federal government has been able to greatly expand its powers. For example, through the application of the necessary and proper clause, the several enumerated powers relating to financial matters can be expanded into the creation of a national bank. No where in the Constitution is the Federal government granted such a power, but it could quite reasonably be argued that a national bank is necessary and proper for carrying into execution such enumerated powers as borrowing money, coining and regulated the value of money, the punishment of counterfeiters, etc.
 

Article I, Section 8 - Implied Powers (necessary and proper clause):

The 'Necessary and Proper' clause (aka the elastic clause) gives the US Congress the right to make all laws which shall be deemed (by Congress, the President and the Supreme Court -- all national actors) …necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers (the enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8), and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Sounds like pretty sweeping stuff doesn't it. Yes there are checks and balances on this power, one or both of the houses of Congress could choose not to pass the bill, the President could choose to veto it, or the Supreme Court could declare the new law unconstitutional. But as pointed out earlier, these are all national actors, the states have no recourse to oppose what they might see as abuses of the necessary and proper clause. Their only option is to fight such through Federal bodies such as Congress or the Federal Courts.

Theoretically speaking, the key point of Constitutional contention is between the ‘Necessary and Proper’ clause of Article I, Section 8 and the 10th Amendment. Contrast the sentiments of the 'Necessary and Proper' clause with the 10th Amendment -- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The key phrase here being, 'not delegated;' certainly one could interpret the 10th Amendment to argue that we should only focus on the enumerated (delegated) powers of the Congress and should keep a very close rein on any of the 'implied' powers of the 'Necessary and Proper' clause.
 

Article I, Section 10:

This section of the Constitution places specific restriction on the states. State for example may not enter into alliances with foreign governments – that is strictly the domain of the Federal government. The specific proscriptions of Article I, Section 10 when taken with the potentially expansive powers of the necessary and proper clause of Article I, Section 8 certainly tip the balance of power in favor of the Federal government and away from the individual states. It is little wonder that the addition of the 10th Amendment (as part of the Bill of Rights) became a critical necessity to ensuring that powerful states such as New York and Virginia would ratify the Constitution.
 

Article VI (supremacy clause):

This clause holds that laws and treaties enacted and entered into by the Federal government will be the supreme law of the land; they shall supercede any state law or interest. The Marshall Court employed the supremacy clause as a critical part of its decisions in two of its most important case McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). Holding in McCulloch v. Maryland that the state did not have the power to tax an entity (a branch of the national bank) of the Federal government and in Gibbons v. Ogden that a New York law requiring the licensing (at a substantial fee) of out-of-state boat operators before using state waterways violated the interstate commerce clause. In the 1920 case of Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court held that a treaty entered into by the United State and Great Britain could be used to regulate the hunting of migratory birds even though no such power was granted to it in Article I, Section 8. The basis for the Missouri v. Holland decision was again the supremacy clause, specifically the wording of the clause relating to treaties.
 

The 10th Amendment (reserve powers):

It is important to note that the 10th Amendment, and its reserved powers for the states, was not included in the body of the original Constitution. It, and the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights, was only added to convince the states that the right of the states and the individual citizens would have formal protection from the potential of Federal tyranny. The 10th Amendment has been used as the basis for radical state’s rights movements – be it the nullification doctrine of the 1830s or the secession of eleven states in 1861 – and also in more subtle exercises of state power in areas such as education and civil rights.  However, the final arbitrator of all exercises of state power has ultimately been the Federal government – be it by force, legislative action or judicial decision. Hence the reserve powers have always fallen short when coming into conflict with the implied powers.
 

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Hi All,

What follows are my comments for Discussion #7. You'll find each of the three questions in bold, followed by my comments for that question and also a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions. Once you've had a chance to carefully go over this material, please do shoot me an email with any questions you might have.

Take Care,

Ernest
 

Freedoms and Values
Do our commitments to free speech and a free press conflict with our sense that flag burning should be prohibited or that pornography should be regulated? If such freedoms are to mean anything, mustn't we protect those very actions (speech - verbal or symbolic, and press) which we as a nation find repugnant? Be sure to cite some specific examples of where you feel the boundaries between protected and unprotected speech and press should be.

It seems that the topic of flag-burning always touches a raw nerve. I don’t really feel that my personal opinions are of much worth in this class. My job is to help you learn ‘how’ to think about political issues rather than ‘what’ to think. However, I will throw out a few comments to consider. One, is not the flag strong enough, fortified by the brilliant words of the Founders and the blood of patriots, to withstand any assault regardless of the feeble defense you or I might offer it? Two, let us take into account the quality of the individuals who would defile our flag. Are these really the kind of individuals we want endorsing American values, and in some strange way do these ‘scum’ as some of ya’ll have so charitable called them actual strengthen the very symbol they are attempting to desecrate?

I’ll share a personal aside with ya’ll here. This concerns not the American flag, but the Confederate Battle Flag – which is NOT called the Stars and Bars, as some would incorrectly call it. The Stars and Bars was the first official flag of the Confederacy; the Battle Flag is the X design that we are most all familiar with. Anyway back to my point. My ancestors fought under the Battle Flag from Vicksburg to Gettysburg, with several dying in a cause they believed just. While I don’t share the views of my Grandfathers regarding either slavery or secession, I do most earnestly respect their conviction and bravery; and thus, the Confederate Battle Flag has special meaning to me – I fully realize that many others will see this as a flag of oppression, and I do support efforts to remove the battle flag from official state symbols. Again, back to my point. :-) I detest it when organizations such as the KKK and other hate groups use the Confederate Battle Flag in their ceremonies and protest. The Battle Flag was a flag of honor carried by brave men willing to meet their end in grisly fashion on the field of battle. My Great-Great Grandfather charged that stonewall on the 3rd day at Gettysburg with the 34th North Carolina, and I doubt the hate-mongers who have adopted the Battle Flag today have 1/1000th the courage he and his comrades did. I see the hate-monger’s ‘endorsement’ of the Battle Flag as a desecration of his honor. However, the 1st Amendment gives these people to right to spout whatever venom they desire, and I must tolerate their behavior.

So my point is that there is more than one way to look at this issue, and sometimes we might prefer it if certain people or groups defiled our flag rather than attempt to co-opt for their own purposes. I for one, never wish to see Saddam or Osama waving an American flag. I don’t want their support for anything American.

I hope I have made my position clear here. Do let me know if I have not. What I am trying to do is challenge ya’ll to think differently. Do not make your arguments in predictable ways. Predictable arguments are easily defeated. I am not asking you to change your views, I just want you to express them in more defensible ways.

What follows is a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions:

I feel that freedom of speech is important, and regardless of how we feel about certain symbols it is the right of every American to express their views. The fact that the KKK can burn a cross, non-patriots can burn a flag, and pornography is present all around us is part of the price we have to pay for all American's to share this right. It is an individual’s right to turn away, turn the channel, turn off the radio, boycott products affiliated with certain groups and speak out against these things. So, regardless of how each individual feels, freedom of speech works both ways.

Freedom of speech is one of the foundations of our rights. Burning a flag is freedom of speech. Those who get upset should think of the flag as a piece of material. It is a sort of representation of our country but not one that is our country. It's just a symbol, the country is represented more by our people…

You brought up a good point, what is a flag but a symbol. In retrospect I should probably not feel as passionate about flag burning as I do but remember that it is only a piece of material that represents our country, but is not our country.

I agree with you to a certain extent. I feel that the flag shouldn’t be burned, because it's been with us these many years, yes it is a piece of material but I don't look at it like that…

I agree with you on the point that cross burning is not free speech. I feel the same you do about the flag but it is free speech to burn the flag.

I think that the flag should be protected but unfortunately it is free speech for a person to burn the flag. Pornography should be regulated and but it should be allowed to view or purchase by adults even though many of us disagree with it and find it distasteful. We should protect the freedom of speech and press no matter how repugnant an issue is. But, I believe that cross burning should not be covered under free speech.

Flag burning is a problimatic issue. I believe that some good would be done if everybody had to become a naturlized American citizen. If you worked to become a citizen, you would have more respect. I have been told that many graduated high schoolers could not pass the test! Our military men are not fighting for those that burn flags, they're fighting for our nation (represented by the flag itself). Flag burning is arguable an obscen act. Burning the American flag corrups America; it is a sign against our country. If we are not united as Americans, what unites us? It is clear in Regina v. Hicklin, among other cases, that our freedom of speech is free with strings attached. Under the current judicial standing, there are ways to argue apposing the flag burning. Should it be this way? I believe that the amendment all inclusively states the interperation... no string shoud be attached. We cannot hold a double standard! To conclude, morally and patriodically I cannot see allowing dis-unity ragarding the nation within the united states. I, however, do not see any way to properly interperate the Constitution (namly the 1st amendment) to allow freedom of speech and not the burning of the flag.

The examples that you gave of flag burning and pornography are completely different issues. Flag burning does not involve the personal life of a person as pornography does. Though we find some acts repugnant (such as the burning of an American flag) it is necessary for a freedom sake that we allow them.

To me, it is troubling when individuals claim constitutional omnipotence. How can we truly understand the Father's true intentions without some degree of deduction or interpretation. Further, most of us tend to be guilty of "reading" one portion of the Constitution literally, because it supports their viewpoint. Then in the next instance they will choose to "interpret" the Founders intentions, yet again because it fits their purpose.

Separation of Church and State?
Does our commitment to separation of church and state mean that no trace of religious sentiment or symbolism should emanate from government? What do you think of President Bush's proposal to allow religious-based charitable organizations to compete for Federal grants? Does such an action blur the separation of church and state?

Some might argue here that the Founders never intend for the separation of church and state to be absolute. Some recently uncovered letters of Jefferson, one of the least religious of the Founders, call into question his position on absolute separation. It appears Mr. Jefferson was not as inclined to build a wall between religion and the state as some scholars have believed.

Personally, I see the argument continuing well into the 21st Century, not so much on the basis of should the government actively support Christianity (the predominant religion in the United States), but more on the basis of should our government invoke the belief in a higher power. Usually, we turn as a nation to God in times of peril. ‘In God We Trust’ was added to our money during the Civil War and ‘One Nation Under God’ was added to the Pledge of Allegiance during World War II. There exists a long history of our government recognizing a God, but not defining whether that God is Christian, Muslin, Jewish, Buddhists, etc. However, in closing, I should point out that by our holiday schedule, American governments (federal, state, and local) already do, at least passively, support the Christian faith. Tell me, why is it Sunday that the mail is not delivered? Why not Saturday the Jewish Sabbath or Friday the Islamic holy day? Also, why is it that we have a public holiday on December 25th.

I point out these facts to illustrate a point. That is that the US government has always endorsed the notion of a higher power, and it has given a special position to the Christian faith. Does this violate the ‘no establishment’ clause? That may always be a point of debate. But here it is worth pointing out that the other clause of the 1st Amendment which deals with religion, the ‘free exercise’ clause, has never been considered an absolute. That is, you are free to believe whatever you want, but you are not free to put that belief into practice if it violates the law. Thus the argument can be made that if the ‘free exercise’ clause is not an absolute, than why should we think of the ‘no establishment’ clause in absolute terms. President Bush’s proposal to allow religious-based charitable organizations to compete for Federal grants will certainly move our government closer to the establishment end of the spectrum, but it certainly would not be a sea-level change in the general relationship the US government has had with religion.

What follows is a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions:

…We should all have the right to worship the way we want to. I do strongly oppose religious based charitable organizations ability to compete for Federal Grants, I do not believe it was ever intended for government to support religious efforts and missions. I believe President Bush's action blurs the separation of Church and State and that issue should remain separated.

Religious-based charitable organizations should be allowed to compete for federal grants. I believe that it would be unfair to 'discriminate' against an organization because of religion. Just because we allow them to compete for federal grants does not jeopardize the separation of Church and State. It only shows equal rights of all citizens to seek aid from our government. IT is there to help the people and organizations who need it and who qualify, regardless of their religion, race, etc.

The Established Clause of the First Amendment does not permit congress to make any laws respecting an establishment of religion. I don't believe the President's proposal "blurs" the separation of church and state. As long as everyone has the opportunity to apply for such federal grants. In the book it mentions whether children attending religious schools receiving state aid in the form of text books, lunch programs. Sending your child to a private school is a choice, the state provides all the services in a public school paid for with your tax dollars, so if a parent decides to send their child to a private school, then they are subject to incur the bill. I do believe the state can assist with textbooks and lunch programs.

I do believe, however, that it is important to remember that our Founders were not exposed to Eastern religions or philosophies. Since our Founders were "renaissance men", exposure to these ideas would have changed their outlook, even if only slightly. Our Constitution is a document limited by its time, yet impressive nonetheless.

I have to disagree with you, I feel that religious based charitable organizations should be able to compete for Federal Grants. The Separation of Church and State is to keep the government from declaring one religion as a national religion. The Federal Grants would be available for any religious based charitable organization, the grants would not be given out to just a specific religion it would be open to all religions. I feel that denying religious organizations the opportunity to apply for these grants is discrimination....

There are three basic views about the separation of church and state should be conceived. The first view calls for strict separation in which the state takes no notice of religion and permits no hint of religious sentiment or symbolism to attach to its actions. The second view holds that the state may not favor one religion over another, and certainly not one over all of the others, but that it may provide general support and benefit to all religions. The third view contends that the state should actively promote religion as beneficial to the nation's moral strength and health, though, once again that no religion or religious should be favored over others.

Affirmative Action
Does affirmative action to assist minorities or women automatically and inevitably mean discrimination against white men? Discuss specific examples of why this may or may not be the case.

I must preface my comments with the disclaimer that I am a white-male, and certainly the issue of affirmative action does hold direct, negative consequences for me – at least that is what my fears tell me. However, when I attempt to look outside my gender and race, I must recognize the fact that white-males still hold the predominant position in the American workforce. Most decision-makers deciding who do the hiring and promoting in this country are white-males. Regardless how some of us might react to the issue of affirmative action, being a white-male in this country is still a substantial benefit in securing educational and employment opportunities.

Really, I think I dropped the ball on this question. At mid-week, I really should have added a companion question on how ya’ll felt about the notion of a ‘glass ceiling’ for women attempting to move up the corporate ladder. I think such a question might have focused our thoughts a little more.

What follows is a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions:

I support your stand about women and men in certain professions might need a form of Affirmative Action where it should not be put in place in all situations but if it is done away with, the changes to the laws will most likely be put in place across the board. It may hurt women’s rights, but ethnic groups could make the same statement.

I do not think Affirmative Action discriminates against the white man, but I do think it affects his position in some circumstances. For the most part, women and minorities are still passed over for certain positions in the work place due to discrimination. It is also why white men make more doing the same job. It is only in cases where a quota for women and minorities in the work place is implemented that a white man may be passed over for a job or housing. The only discrimination that truly occurs is, and will more than likely be for a long time to come, is against women and minorities. Affirmative Action actually does little to even the playing field.

The basis for affirmative action doesn't really discriminate against white males. Unfortunately as time has gone on it seems to be used for promotion of only certain groups without any previous examples for a need. I think affirmative action is probably necessary at least until we can actually hire, promote, or admit to schools people who actually meet the qualifications without looking at what color, sex, nationality, or age. You would think it would be easy to just not ask those questions on applications and therefore narrow down the ability to admit someone based on these or not admit someone based on these.

Is Affirmative Action discriminatory? Without doubt. Even the program’s most passionate supporters do not typically refute this unfortunate by-product. They believe that “African-Americans and other minorities deserve compensation for policies that excluded them from educational and employment opportunities in the past.” Is reparation a legitimate goal? No. Affirmative Action's original ambition, which likely was to ease racial tensions and improve race relations, was commendable; however, the program has now outlived its usefulness. Affirmative Action often perpetuates racial division by reinforcing negative stereotypes. First, it inadvertently casts minorities in a “victim role”. In American society, victims are often viewed as weak; and weakness is considered to be a character flaw. Secondly, many bigots believe Affirmative Action is evidence of racial supremacy / inferiority; they think it shows that minorities need assistance to be successful. Finally, the program can also unfairly stigmatize minorities who attain positions with hard work or by merit.

Hi All,

Essay #2 is due this coming Friday (3/4) evening by midnight. For more information please do carefully review the Essay #2 message on the Announcement page and the assignment itself. If you have any questions at all concerning the assignment, please do let me know.

You should send your answer to me via regular email -- no attachments -- just copy and paste your answer into the body of a regular email message. There is an 8-hour grace period extending from midnight Friday to 8am Saturday the 5th. During that time, I will still be accepting answers, but after 8am Saturday, I will no longer accept any answers for Essay #2.

It is important that you include your full name at the top of the text of your email message, and that the subject line of your email message reads POL 120: Essay #2. When I receive your answer, I will send a very short confirmation message. Usually, you will receive it a few hours after your submission; however, if you send your assignment in the evening, I might not get you a confirmation message till the next morning. If you do not received a confirmation message, by all means resend you answer. My point is, if you have not received a confirmation message from me, consider that I have not received your answer. My confirmation message to you is your receipt showing that you have submitted the assignment. I strongly urge you to complete your assignment as soon as possible and never plan on using the grace period. In fact, submitting your essay a few days in advance of the deadline would be the best plan. Remember it is your responsibility to get the assignment to me in the manner I have described above.

Finally, please do remember the key to the assignment is to demonstrate your mastery of the political concepts by incorporating them, in detail, into your examination of the topic. Don't become overly concerned with the topic to the detriment of a detailed discussion of the political concepts, and do be sure to put everything in your own words. If you do use the words, thoughts or ideas of another, you must properly cite your source (author name, publication, and page number) and direct quotes must include the previous reference information and be placed inside quotation marks "...", to do otherwise is plagiarism. I am here to answer any questions you might have about the assignment. I will not review drafts, but if you’d like to send me a skeletal outline of what you are working on (be sure to include the specific political concepts you will use), I’ll be very happy to provide feedback. If you do wish me to look over a skeletal outline, you'll need to get it to me by Tuesday (3/1), otherwise I won't have enough time to thoroughly go over your outline and get you any meaningful feedback in time for you to incorporated it into your essay.

Take care,

Hi All,

What follows are my comments for Discussion #6. You'll find each of the three questions in bold, followed by my comments for that question and also a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions. Once you've had a chance to carefully go over this material, please do shoot me an email with any questions you might have.

Take Care,

Ernest
 

The Problems of Factions
To what extent have the concerns of the Founders about the problems that interest groups and political parties might pose for our national politics been borne out? Do such institutions condemn us to a state of constant strife, or do they serve useful purposes?

In America we have long tended to define issues in terms of two sides only (pro-life v. pro-choice, gun rights v. gun regulation, slavery v. abolition, etc.) ; this phenomena can be trace back to our constitutional origins with the federalist v. anti-federalist debate. This is not the case in many European countries, where issues are often multisided. This very well could be the basis for our two-party system in contrast to many of the multiparty systems in Europe.

What follows is a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions:

I think that the Founding Fathers were sure that special interest groups would come together to attempt to sway the thinking of political parties and certain individuals to get favoritism. In the early years of our nation these goals were harder to achieve than today because of the slow movement of communication. The Founders also felt that these groups would be so numerous that the parties or the individuals would be able to pick and choose what "interests" would or could best serve the nation. As we all know, this is not always the case.

I do feel that these special interest groups do at times serve in the best interests of the nation or in the best interests of certain groups. One doesn't have to look far to see what strides have been made by women and blacks during the past 100 or so years. These groups have pulled together to become two of the largest political forces ever in the United States. Politicians had been slow in the beginning to hear these groups but upon realizing the large number of potential votes that could be gained, were quick to show support as time passed.

I don't think America is as divided by special interests and politics as the Founders might have expected. The tensions we have are useful because they focus our awareness and effort on specific issues and thereby facilitate social change. Technology and human nature assure us that for every problem we resolve, we will develop new concerns to replace the resolved issues. And a constant state of low-level strife is necessary for a healthy government and economy.

We also have the UN, a global government of sorts. Look at the proposed strike against Iraq. The US is working with/against an international organization that is composed of multiple nations. If we contrast this with American history (although I don't know if such a comparison would be accurate), we could conclude that entire nations may soon begin feeling the pressure that the states felt after the Civil War.

Interest Groups and Public Policy
How do interest groups go about trying to influence public policy? Does the 'soft' money they often provide to political parties and the direct contributions they make to individual candidates corrupt the governing process, or is this simply a valid method for exerting influence?

Interest groups are collections of individuals who come together to make some specific demand upon society. Most likely all of us are currently, or have been, members of at least one interest group -- NRA, PETA, Greenpeace, etc.

Current laws prevent individuals from making unlimited contributions directly to a candidate's campaign. However, there are no such limitations on contributions to political parties, and the parties are free to use any and all contributions on the behalf of the candidate.

What follows is a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions:

Interest groups influence public policy by funding the career aspirations of those who vote for their causes. This enables corporate America to have significantly more political influence than an individual's single vote. We accept the disparity because we are a capitalist society and money talks…

Up to a certain point, I think that "soft money" contributions are okay in that it is a valid way of throwing around influence. But when it turns strictly to a pay-off for a certain party or candidate, that is where I think it goes too far. Of course, I realize this is a very fine line, but in theory, I think it is a valid method for exerting influence UNTIL that money is all the candidate or party cares about.

…Bribery does come to mind, but to what degree? These independent groups are supporting a person, and if this person doesn't do what the supporting groups wants..... no funding!…

Social Movement of the 21st Century
In the spirit of the Equal Rights movement and the Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century, what do you believe will be the defining social movement of the 21st Century -- gay rights, rights of the child, internationalism, or something else?

Here I really didn't want folks to get into policy debates regarding the merits of the possible movements I listed, but it appears such was the case. :-) What I did want was for folks to carefully analyze current social trends and speculate as to which trends might developed into full-blown movements. Also, several folks mentioned patriotism and anti-terrorism. Certainly in the wake of the horrible events of September 11th these are two very important aspects of present day America, but I would argue that neither would really fit into the framework of a social movement. Anti-terrorism is more of a governmental policy and patriotism is always present to a great or lesser degree. Certainly anytime our country feels threatened we rally around our national symbols (for example, President Bush's 90 percent approval rating just after the attack) and our nation becomes far more patriotic. But for most citizens active patriotism is a fleeting notion. Just ask someone who purchased an American flag after September 11th about its proper display. No, leaving it out in the dark and the rain touching muddy ground is not the proper method. Sorry, I need to get off my soapbox, just a little perturbed at some of the ways I have seen our flag displayed. Anyway, my point is that patriotism comes and goes; an examination of our country's history shows that it is not a sustainable trend.

What follows is a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions:

I think the Twenty-first Century will have two defining social movements--Privacy and Intangible Property Rights. For example, who will have access to our genetic information and how will they be permitted to use the information they get? And are we willing to be a "transparent society" where everything we do is recorded digitally? Also, in contemporary society, most of the value of things exists in a digital electronic format rather than a physical form. The lack of a physical form means there is little scarcity to reproducing objects. With unlimited reproduction capabilities, trivial distribution costs and a virtual existence, who actually owns what and what does ownership mean?

I believe that one of the biggest movements in the 21st century will be gay rights. I think that the three factors that Doug McAdam says needs to be in place to feed a powerful movement. Politicians seem to be starting to listen to gay right issues and there are large numbers of people who are choosing to live a gay lifestyle and these people have resources. I do not believe that this movement will involve violence.

I believe another issue that we will address is at what point an embryo becomes a person worthy of protection under the law. I am not only speaking of abortion, but what rights do eggs and sperm have after they are harvested for scientific reasons.

In the spirit of the REAL social trend of the later part of the 20th Century and continuing unabated into the new millennium, I believe that until there is a significant shift back to a social conscience, the defining movement will be in the area of the Right To Be A Victim. Rather than seeking to find and correct social causality problems, all the gathering storms have aligned to validate victimhood and thereby exempt everyone from any personal responsibility for their own lives. All difficulties and failures are someone else’s fault. For example: People ordering “Hot Coffee” should be warned that it is …. (surprise) … hot!

Student Question:

I'm still a little unclear about sending in the essays. How will I know you received it?
 

My Response:

I've mentioned the confirmation message several times (in the Essay #1 announcement and in both the Essay #1 (Reminder) and Essay #1 (Advice) emails). When I receive your essay answer, I will immediately send you a confirmation message -- this is your receipt proving that I have received your essay. Usually, you'll receive a confirmation message from me within 2 to 3 hours of sending your answer. However, if you send your answer late in the evening, I won't send out a confirmation message till early the next morning.

Student Question:

I have a question concerning essay #1 (and each consecutive essay).  I know that you want two single-spaced pages.  Is there a way to compose the essay on say, Microsoft Word and then paste it to the email that will be sent to you?  If not, do we write two pages out on paper and then type it on the email, or type directly on the email. If we type directly on the email, is there any way to tell if we have written two pages?
 

My Response:

First of all don’t worry about the page length, it is the word total I am interested in – somewhere betwee 1000 to1500 words for the essay.

As I've said in previous email messages, I strongly advise ya’ll to write your essay in a word-processing program such as Microsoft Word and then save it. This is very important, for you sure don’t want to have to retype or reconstruct your essay.

Here are those copying and pasting instructions again.

Once you have saved you essay, have your email program and your word-processing programs opened simultaneously. To copy your essay, simply highlight the material and then hit Control-c (this will copy the material highlighted). Now move to your email program and be sure that your cursor is  in the text box, and then hit Control-v (this will paste the material that has been highlighted). ***One note, Control-c means that you hold down the Ctrl key and hit the c key, and Control-v means that you hold down the Ctrl key and hit the v key.***

     Here it is one more time in a nutshell.

• Save your work in your word-processing program!
• Highlight your text.
• Hit Control-c.
• Move to your email program.
• Make sure you are in the text section of your message.
• Hit Control-v.
• Send your email message to me at ernest@ernestmorgan.com

• the Federalist versus Anti-Federalist debate,
• Article I, Section 8 - Enumerated Powers,
• Article I, Section 8 -  Implied Powers (necessary and proper clause),
• Article I, Section 10
• Article VI (supremacy clause)
• the 10th Amendment (reserve powers)
• and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

Now, I have asked ya'll to limit your answers to around 1000 to 1500 words (approximately two to three, single-spaced pages). That of course is an estimate. If you go a little over that, I will still accept you answer, so don't let any limits hold you back. Do remember that this is an assignment that ya'll have had nearly two weeks to work on, and my expectations are geared accordingly.

Take care,

1. Don't simply insert quotes from the textbook or from a website. I want to see your thoughts on the question, not the textbook's. However, if you feel that you must insert a quote from the textbook or from a website, do be sure to properly cite that material; and if it is a direct quote, you must place the quoted text inside quotation marks, to do otherwise is plagiarism.
2. Discussions conclude promptly at midnight on Friday evenings. No submissions made after that time will be counted towards your participation grade.
3. Students waiting till the last Friday of the discussion to make their initial response will be counted as present for participation grade purposes, but will receive no additional participation credit.
4. Submitting a response to fellow students in the form of a question is a great idea, but not late on the last Friday night of the discussion. No sense posing a question to which you know the person won't have time to respond.
5. Please don't type in ALL CAPS. In Internet culture ALL CAPS is considered shouting.
6. Finally, if you have questions about the material during the week, please do send them to me in an email message, and I will send my response out to the entire class.

Ernest
 

National versus State Power
What powers and responsibilities did the US Constitution give the national government in relation to the states and the states in relation to the national government?

The key relationship here is between the ‘Necessary and Proper’ clause of Article I, Section 8 and the 10th Amendment.

The 'Necessary and Proper' clause gives the US Congress the right to make all laws which shall be deemed (by Congress, the President and the Supreme Court -- all national actors) …necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers (the enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8), and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Sounds like pretty sweeping stuff doesn't it.

Contrast the sentiments of the 'Necessary and Proper' clause with the 10th Amendment -- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The key phrase here being, 'not delegated;' certainly one could interpret the 10th Amendment to argue that we should only focus on the enumerated (delegated) powers of the US Congress and should keep a very close rein on any of the 'implied' powers of the 'Necessary and Proper' clause.

What follows is a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions:

Several decades of legislative and judicial abuse do not change the specifics of power division as established by the United States Constitution. Amendment 10 clearly states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution outlines powers specifically granted to Congress: (power to tax, borrow money, regulate trade, regulate immigration, control the nation's currency, set standard measurements, provide for postal services, issue copyrights and patents, establish federal courts, and declare war). Article 2, Section 2 sets forth powers of the Executive Branch: (Commander in Chief of the armed forces, power to make treaties with Senate approval, appointment of ambassadors, Supreme Court justices, and "other officers," etc.) Article 3 of the Constitution established a judicial branch to INTERPRET the laws made by Congress. It is unfortunate that many justices have used their positions to re-write these laws instead - pre-empting existing state laws in their decisions. The federal government, contrary to widespread belief, does not have the constitutional authority to override state constitutions unless it is exercising one of the specific rights and responsibilities outlined above. Currently, there is a frightening imbalance of power between the states and the federal government. In the case, New York vs. the United States (1992), Justice Sandra Day O'Connor observed, "The Federal Government undertakes activities today that would have been unimaginable to the Framers in two senses; first, because the Framers would not have conceived that any government would conduct such activities; and second, because the Framers would not have believed that the Federal Government, rather than the States, would assume such responsibilities." In Federalist Paper No. 45, James Madison noted, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." It would be refreshing if any of our elected representatives - "conservative" or "liberal" - would remember the clearly-defined intent of our Constitution's framers regarding the federal system, rather than twisting their words to promote federal centralization of power.

…It seems to me, especially, that elected officials at the state and local level would get involved more forcefully with the struggle to retain power at the level closest to the people. Unfortunately, in many cases the need for federal dollars, accepted in hard times and now an integral part of the budget, outweighs the principles we're discussing. Take for instance the drinking age. I can vote, die for my country, receive the death penalty in federal or state court at the age of eighteen, but I can't buy a beer. This "state" law is the same as the rest of the states (unless LA is still holding out... anybody know?) not because the people of NC voted that way, rather, because our elected representatives didn't think they could get reelected if they had to raise taxes to replace the federal dollars fixing the potholes on I40. Just one glaring example of the federal growth that naturally follows federal expenditure.

The Constitution setup an idea known as "Dual Federalism" which stated that were specific powers for the national government and the state and there were a few powers that overlapped. The federal government had what are called the enumerated powers which stated specifically what the powers of the federal government were. The second is the implied powers which has been a cause for controversy because this is where the necessary and proper clause comes into play and depending upon whether you were a strict constructionist or whether you were a loose constructionist your view of the implied powers changed. A strict construction didn't believe that you could read into what the constitution said you had to take it for face value and the loose constructionist was a major fan of the elastic clause which basically stated that the powers of the federal government could be stretched to overlap the state powers.

The American Economy and the Federal System
How did the expansion and integration of the American economy over the past two centuries help to shape the balance of governmental power and authority within the federal system?

Really our form of government was founded on the issue of economics. It was trade considerations between the states which led to the Annapolis Convention of 1786, and it was at the Annapolis Convention that the few delegates who bothered to show decided that the economic issues facing the fledging country work necessitate a revision of the existing governing structure -- the Articles of Confederation. Thus they called for another convention to be held the following year to consider revising the Articles of Confederation.

As we all know that that convention held in Philadelphia over the summer of 1787 became known as the Constitutional Convention because the delegates decided to start anew from the ground up, total redefining the relationship between the states and the national government and moving our governing structure from a Confederacy to a Federal form of government.

Over time as our economy has taken on an increasing nation and then international flavor the role for the Federal government in regulating commerce among the several states (one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8) has grown drastically. Also, with trade agreements such as joining the World Trade Organization (WTO) the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), etc., these are only activities the Federal government may engage in, and as stated in Article VI  "…all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;"

What follows is a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions:

I would say the biggest shift in power began during the Great Depression. President Roosevelt had to do something so he decided to give large grants and contributions to individuals and businesses in an effort to keep the American people from starving to death. This action spurred growth and kept our nation from falling apart. As Presidents changed the magnitude of our problems changed but our economy is still dependent upon the government. As long as our government sets the interest rates or should I say determines the cost of borrowing money, our government will continue to have the power and authority over all of us and our daily lives.

The Civil war clarified the position of state and national government where states could secede. The expansion of the country and the coming of the rail road and telegraph changed the landscape for business. With such large corporations states couldn't even attempt to control them. With these companies going from state to state it was impossible and would have been cumbersome for the companies to try and meet each states laws. So the national government had to step in and take over. With the depression in the 1930's and the election of Roosevelt things would change quickly. The president wanted to make major changes to get the country back up and running. After he got his way with the supreme court, some retiring others changing their votes. He got the approval for his programs. This led to the National Labor Relations Act, the Railway Labor Act, the Farm Mortgage Act, and the Social Security Act. This would change the way the national government would work from now on.

…everything definitely changes when Roosevelt was elected it represented probably the biggest government expansion in our nation's history. I think it was to our benefit that it happened because without this expansion who knows how long we would have been in a depression. Thanks to Roosevelt we were able to climb out of it and get feet back on the ground. I also believe that World War II played the biggest role in ending the Great Depression.

States: A Present Day Role?
Have the complexities and dangers of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries rendered our government essentially national or do state and local governments still have important roles to play?

It really boils down to your view of federalism. Supporters of the nation-centered view argue that the nation preexisted the states and called the states into existence when the Continental Congress instructed the colonies to sever ties to England. In contrast, supporters of the state-centered view argue that the states preexisted the nation and created it by a compact among themselves. They believed that the individual states could secede from the union if the national government violated the compact by encroaching upon state sovereignty.

With the above sentiments in mind, you really can make a solid argument either way. Certainly issues such as education will always have a have local and state component. However, broader issues such as health care and national security will take the states working in union at the direction of the national government in order to be effective.

What follows is a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions:

Each individual state definitely has its own important role to the citizens of that state and to the nation. However, I think the national government is definitely center stage right now. In some ways that's good and in other it's bad. They have taken so much on (i.e. war in Iraq, Afghanistan situation, social roles with England and the eastern Asiatic countries) that I'm afraid it's spread itself too thin. The national government can no longer do anything WELL. I think the states are suffering (i.e. NC's economy as well as other states is in terrible shape, unemployment is high, health plans are lacking or very expensive, taxes went up). The states are trying to cope with the mistakes of the national government.

I believe that today there is a much greater emphasis put on the National government. I do believe that the state governments were intended to exercise more power that they do; however, because technology is shrinking our world, it is much easier for the National government to function.

In regards to the very near and present dangers that our nation faces in this day and time, I would have to say that for national security issues there has been a definite shift to national control. With the passing of the American Patriot Act there have been additional powers created or increased. The local and state governments do play a part in the security but it is on the federal level that our security lies with the operations of the FBI, CIA, and the newly created Homeland Security Dept. It does filter down to state and local levels, but the information is being gathered and disseminated by national departments. The local and state can only act/react based on what information they have.

Constitutional Convention: The Debates
In your opinion, what was 'the' central issue debated at the convention? There is no 'right' answer; just be sure to justify your argument.

While it was indeed not certain who would reign supreme, the states or the central government. The very act of revising the Articles of Confederation established a trend toward greater power for the central government. Realizing this, many ardent states rights supporters (such as Patrick Henry) chose not to attend the Convention. Ultimately the debate would simmer until the outcome of the Civil War which forever answered the question in favor of the central government.

What follows is a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions:

In my opinion, the central issue or "main issue" debated at the convention was the question of power--who was going to be in power and how much power would he have?

The central issue was to form a stronger national government. The majority of delegates wanted this because of the cons of the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles each state had its sovereignty or independence; each state was their own country. The negatives to this were that the powers designated to the Continental Congress under the Articles was not enforceable and there came to be hard feelings between states. They needed a form of government that had power to enforce agreements but that did not have unilateral powers that could be abused. This is why the delegates threw out the Articles and James Madison and others wrote a new constitution that created three branches of government creating a checks and balances system.

I believe that one of the most important issues that began this convention lay between the differences of the southern and northern states. It was probably obvious that these states would have different issues from the start.

I believe the major stumbling block at the convention revolved around representation. Who would have how many representatives. Large states wanted more representatives the small states feared they would not have a voice or power to steer their own fates. This battle went on and on and was finally compromised that each state would have an equal amount of Senators but the House Representatives would be based on population.

The central issue at the Constitutional Convention was the dilemma of fair representation. Larger states wanted representation to be derivative each states population. The larger states were "hoping that their greater numbers and wealth would be reflected in greater influence over the national councils." Predictably, smaller states argued that all states should have equal representation in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. They worried "their interests would suffer" if the councils were dominated by the larger states. Interestingly, men from the South expressed similar concerns worrying "their interests would suffer" if men from the North dominated. North vs. South? Slaveholders vs. Abolitionists? Puritan vs. Baptist? A compromise was finally reached after delegates from Connecticut proposed representation be based on population in the House and be equal in the Senate. Regardless, "the convention took seven weeks of intense debate to move grudgingly, toward the middle ground..."

The Bill of Rights
After reading the 'Pro and Con' piece on page 45 (page 57 if you are using the 1st edition of the textbook), what do you belief? Do we need a Bill of Rights?

Please do note that Only the first ten amendments, which were ratified together on Dec. 15th 1791, are known as the Bill of Rights.

Certainly, the notions of ‘right’ and ‘liberties’ will be a very real point of debate in the coming weeks and months as the US government struggles with the dilemma of how to balance security considerations along with the rights and liberties guaranteed to all Americans by the Bill of Rights. We will spend much more time on the distinction between Civil Liberties and Civil Rights when we examine Chapter 13 in a couple of weeks.

I do very much agree with the majority of ya’ll that the Bill of Rights is still a very important part of our lives and it is very much needed.

I believe a key debate for the 21st Century will be over the 4th Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How will we protect ‘privacy’ is an era of ever increasing abilities of governments to collection information on us and monitor our activities? See, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/, for more on this amendment.

What follows is a sampling of some of the more insightful student comments from this and past discussions:

A Bill of Rights is very important, it's a binding contract with the people and their leaders that certain rights will be protected. At the time the document was needed to convince the people still unsure about the new constitution, that for lack of a better phrase, "the government would have their back". I don't think that it was out of pure and honest concern for civil liberties that the Bill of Rights was formed, but rather of a combination of that and the need to pacify the opposition.  Regardless of the circumstances leading to the Bill of Rights, the history that follows it is much more telling. It seems that since its creation, the amendments were meant to be bent and twisted which ever way fit the leaders of that time. The Sedition Act in 1798, and up to present with the Patriot Act, show us that the Bill of Rights isn't the armor of protection it seems to be.

The thing that I am concerned about is what the government deems a terrorist. Is a terrorist somebody who does not agree with the way the government acts or is? Is a terrorist one who is conservative or "fundamentalist." Terrorist is a very broad term. The other day, a researcher spoke of there being many similarities between the Al Qaida and the fundamentalist conservative Christians. That kind of shakes me up because many view me as a fundamentalist conservative Christian. Does this make me fit in the criteria as a terrorist. I am afraid that it might someday…

Yes, I am afraid we do. The purpose of listing our rights was to bind the government in a written contract from touching our rights. Even now with our rights being amended to the Constitution, the government seems to be trying to do everything to limit OUR rights. For example, the government is trying to limit our First Amendment rights (it is trying to free us from our freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition (not listed by the book), Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Fourth Amendment right to be secure against unlawful searches and seizures, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (Look at the form you have to fill out for government purposes), and so on. Many of these freedom will be more encroached upon under the new Homeland Security Act which natural places all residents and (or) citizens of the US under suspicion and the watchful eye of the government as potential terrorists. I am surprised how people will give up their rights for security when our founding fathers gave up their security and so much more so that posterity could enjoy freedom. Posterity though seems to count that freedom and the blood shed as nothing.

The problem with the mentality of "if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?" is that it's the beginning of a very slippery slope. Once people stop standing up for the rights that so many people died for, because they have nothing to hide, those rights are going to be taken advantage of. I have nothing to hide, and here's what I'm afraid of...that by allowing small infringes on peoples rights to privacy, like library records, go on without dispute, how long will it be before car searches and house searches will be treated the same way? How long will it be before freedom of speech is assaulted in the same way? Give the government an inch and they just might take a mile.

After reviewing some of the material between the two sides the opponents of the Bill of Rights had a warranted concern. Given our human nature, they knew that there would be problems with the people in office "Government" imposing implied powers if all rights were not spelled out one by one. One look at today’s U.S. Supreme Court will justify that. They (US S. Court) have constantly been asked to decide between the two. However, I do think and believe the Bill of Rights was needed. Where would we be today without them? The Bill of Rights provided a starting point for our individual liberties. I do think and believe that we as a country must be open to change, because what worked 200 years ago may or may not work today. We have to be willing to accept the responsibilities of change for the future generations, just as the founding fathers did for us.

One of the chief arguments of the Anti-Federalists was that if a Bill of Rights was included, the people would feel that certain rights had been left out, that it would be impossible to enumerate all rights of humankind. But, the Bill of Rights makes up for this excuse by including the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

I do believe at that time we needed a bill of rights. But I also agree with James Wilson about the danger of leaving implied rights at the behest of government to recognize. Take for instance what is commonly considered the right to privacy. Well that is a very dear implied right to most Americans but it has been infringed upon by government many times and their actions were later upheld by the courts. The only free space in America lies between your ears. In the name of security all privacy advocates have seen their efforts set back and perhaps rendered futile by the insane actions of a few non-citizens. Big brother has arrived and we are lacking the constitutionality to combat him.

Got a question - am trying to work on this essay have need a basic question answered. Since I've learned that each instructor has their own vision of what should be in an essay answer -- What format of response are you wanting covered in the essay? You refer to an outline that you will review - what parts are you thinking of for this outline? If you can clarify this, I will have a better chance of covering the points required in the essay.
 

My Response:

My vision for the essay is for you to demonstrate, in some detail, a mastery of 5 of the political concepts included with the assignment. Please do refer back to the POL 120, Essay #1: Using the Political Concepts (Example) email I sent out on Friday the 4th for an example of the kind of detail I am looking for. I do want you to address the topic, federalism, but it is your demonstration of a mastery of the concepts that is the key -- the topic is merely a vehicle allowing you to show your understanding of the political concepts. As for the format, please provide:

• a brief introductory paragraph (in this paragraph be sure to include a statement of purpose for your essay – what are you going to do and how are you going to do it – and also list the concepts which you will address in your essay),
• a paragraph of analysis or so on each of your 5 concepts, (see the Article V example from the POL 120, Essay #1: Using the Political Concepts (Example) email. You should plan on having 5 such paragraphs in your essay -- one for each concept.)
• and a concluding paragraph.