In today’s society, it takes a whole lot of hoopla to get elected in the political environment full of criminals, hustlers, and thugs. Is it truly democratic? Yes: it’s survival of the fittest, only the strong survive. Most people look at a candidate and wonder why he/she is pro-life when the rest of his/her campaign is generally a liberal one: cash money my friends, cash money. Whether it’s hard money, the money that is raised under the guidelines set out by the Federal Elections Commission, or soft money, money contributed indirectly to political parties through media buys, politicians need the capital to pay for everything surrounding their campaign. Commercials aren’t cheap, so these men and women have to sacrifice ideals when it comes to staying afloat. PAC's, private groups that raise and distribute funds for politicians, like to stick their hands in the mix when they get the chance; this, however, only adds fuel to the fire that gives a bad name to politics as a whole. It is amazing to see how quickly a group of bible pushers will throw their ideals of moral wealth out the door by shoving money at any candidate who references church in his/her promotion speeches. These guys play dirty because they need the voter turnout, the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election. Without the public, they have nothing. All the money, all the dirty games and smack talk, all of it is for nothing if the voters don’t choose them. The political parties, political organization that seeks to attain and maintain political power within government through election, fight for every election, but for the most part, it is pretty evenly split. For the Democrats, it takes the spirited youth and minorities to come out and vote. For the Republicans, it takes old money and convincing the middle class that their taxes are already too high. Most of the campaigning is making fun of the other side, but a lot of it is media coverage. Media bias, the bias of journalists and news producers within the mass media, changes many opinions of voters simply based on their loyalty to the network. Most of the stations are democratic; FOX generally is the most conservative. They choose their sides for ratings, but their coverage incidentally helps/hurts each party’s campaigning. For example, Howard Dean got slammed for looking like a crazy person, yet no where in his campaign did his words suggest such a mental state, only his image; which is why low turnout is a good thing for America: there are too many voters who voice their opinions for the least reasonable or logical reasons. Since it is a democracy, it is hard to say who should or should not vote. Is it possible to distinguish a “voter qualification system”? Low turnout is somewhat of an equalizer: only the people who care enough to vote generally have an opinion based on past experiences and some sort of knowledge of the politicians. Voting based on what-name-rings-a-bell is what perpetuates the evil system of payment for ideals. The larger the turnout, the larger the section of ignorant voters, leading to a victory based on whoever could raise the most money. In the political game, its either get rich or die tryin’.

Civil Liberties Test

The United States government has the body of a 35 year old California gold digger: it has faced multiple adjustments and alterations in order to achieve its fine state. Since there is a large gray area concerning the battle between freedoms and protections, it is only right that the government try to define this area through its own form of plastic surgery, the guess and check method. Yet when these freedoms and protections collide, the government comes closer to a guideline of higher moral behavior in the United States, ultimately favoring protections.

A major issue concerning protection by the first amendment is freedom of speech. In Morse v. Frederick, a student was suspended from school after he refused the principal's direction to take down a banner that appeared to advocate illegal drug use in violation of school policy. The Ninth Circuit found a First Amendment violation because the school officials punished the student without demonstrating that his speech gave rise to a risk of substantial disruption. However, the Supreme Court decided that the "substantial disruption" rule of Tinker was not the only basis for restricting student speech. Since there are special characteristics in the school environment, they decided that schools were entitled to take steps to safeguard those characteristics. This decision proved to enforce further rulings that certain rights such as freedom of speech are cannot be withheld in schools if such actions prohibit the learning process or promote non-legal activities such as drug or alcohol abuse.

Another issue within the first amendment is freedom of religion. In Epperson Et Al. v. Arkansas, a teacher challenged the constitutionality of the Arkansas law that made it a misdemeanor to teach the evolution theory, which she was fired for. Clearly the law was not religiously neutral, since it attempted to blot out a particular theory due to its supposed conflict with the Biblical account. Therefore, the Court reversed the decision of the state supreme court and decided that the Arkansas law violated the first amendment. Though the government believed it was protecting student’s by hiding the information concerning evolution, it is in violation of the first amendment, for there is no danger or ignorance in the teaching of such beliefs. After this case, the government can no longer prohibit teaching information with non-religious affiliation that also does not harm the well being of the academic youth of the nation. This is the government's form of protecting the youth from the dangers of concealing information, affecting the advancement in the future of our nation.

Along with the first amendment comes another which is has caused countless debates, the fourth amendment. In Board of Education vs. Earls, students contended that the board's drug testing policy was unconstitutional since the board failed to identify a special need for testing students who participate in extracurricular activities. The United States Supreme Court held, however, that the policy did not constitute an unreasonable search because the board has a right to detect and prevent drug use by its students. Since the student’s signed a waiver which eliminates the expectation of privacy, the school has a right to take urine samples for testing. This sets a guideline which states that the government has the right to protect the youth, basically, from their own destructiveness through drug testing.

In addition, argument over the fifth amendment has proven to increase the freedom of the general public. In Miranda v. Arizona, Miranda confessed to his crime, yet was set free due to a technicality; since he was unaware of his rights while being arrested, his self incrimination could not be used against him in the court of law. After this ruling, self incrimination cannot be used as evidence of any case. Though there are more rights, such as the right to remain silent, the truth is, the government is protecting citizens from themselves by not allowing them to “shoot themselves in the foot.” The ruling is a truly solid step forward in creating the American guideline for a more moral government and general public.

As seen in the decisions of such court cases, when freedoms and protections collide, the government tends to favor protections. Whether it be offensive speech or concerns with drugs, the government will do whatever it takes to ensure a safer, healthier future. Though the gray area is still quite large, these steps will soon add up to a distinct, sensible set of laws which will hopefully prevent the need for any further use of the “guess and check method” which we, as a nation, currently know and love.

Test Post

This is my test post