Final Exam part 2 definition of a well-informed 21st century US Citizen

Way back in February when this project began I talked about what I thought was a definition of a well-informed 21st century US citizen. I talked a lot about technology, I mean as recent as two or three decades ago internet innovations as we know it, personal computers, hand-held apple products like ipods, ipads, other products like androids and black berries really didn't exist. Today we enjoy the benefits of all those products, so the world is at our fingertips.....literally. Newsprint and other paper products are going down in popularity, as a century ago they were at a much higher rate, and now with all the newstainment and other slightly biased, comical programs can give a skewed vision on our government and the issues, and what is truly going on. Essentially, now after a semester of government class I would actually say quite the opposite. I believe that people that rely on the abundance of products we enjoy today completely are not informed at all. With all the websites, the talk shows, the advertisements, how do we know what is real anymore? The well-informed 21st century citizen needs to go out and figure things out for themselves rather than relying on what people are saying. Things like getting out into the community, attending rallies, visiting the political parties headquarters or whatever, researching on their own different political parties, PACs, or common issues information, see whether or not these people are reliable. If you hear about an issue on the news and see who is reporting, could that have something to do with it? If you are watching.....i don't know.....let's say you're watching Family Guy, and it breaks to commercials and an advertisement for the government race comes on, a well-informed citizen knows better than to believe everything that's said because it's coming from a biased, opposing party. That's when why get out there and listen to the speeches, research what exactly is going on, what each candidate stands for, not abusing the powers we have.


It's been an immense pleasure to have taken this course, it has completely changed how I view our government, it has changed on how I approach an opinion. This class was just what I needed to get me ready for tackling the urban setting of Philadelphia in a large university. In one semester I am now able to start making educated decisions about what I believe rather than relying on how I was raised, what everybody else is doing etc, and begin viewing politics in a different, more personal way. Thank you!!

Final Exam part 1

“Mommy I want to be president, because he gets to do whatever he wants….”, “if you elect me president, I’ll give you whatever you want, whenever you want.” We have all probably heard these from kids we know today if either in a school election, or just in general. If you went into a classroom of third graders today and asked them “what do you want to be when you grow up” I would bet that many of them would say president of the United States. But why would a youngster today care about political ideas like social issues, economic plans, and foreign affairs? They probably don’t. Rather the glamour of the chief position carries over the responsibilities, and I feel that many American’s don’t realize quite what the president really does, how much is resting on his shoulders, but also what areas he is not absolutely powerful, where he is under the authority of other figures. What does job of the president really entail and how does this differ from other forms of government?

First let’s talk about the chief positions our president has. When Barack Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009, he took a lot more titles than just Mister President. Essentially, Mr. Obama became the CEO of the nation, the Chief of State, the Chief Executive leader of the Executive branch, the Chief Diplomat, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, the Chief Legislator with Congress, the Chief of his respective party, in this case Democratic, and the Chief Leader of the economy.  That’s more chiefs than the Shoshoni Indian tribe! But how on earth does one person take on so many positions? Wouldn’t simply one of those be enough to drive a person mad? Well that is what the president’s job entails. The president is responsible for leading the federal government in national affairs, especially economic because that seems to be the largest area of concern. In addition, the president is the commander-in-chief of the military, serving as the fearless leader, also foreign affairs and world traveling is a large portion of the job description, and the list goes on and on. Let’s break this down into a typical American family. Let’s say you are the parent of a family with eight children. That’s a lot of kids! You have to lay down the law, along with your spouse. We’ll make your spouse congress. You can’t do anything without the approval of your significant other; you have to pretty much agree. You can veto anything but something tells me your spouse wouldn’t be happy about that! You have eight children and you have to balance your family’s budget, you have to lay down the law, and now let’s make this a step further; let’s say your nerdy, dorky neighbor accidentally backed into and knocked over your garbage can……before the garbage truck came…….and it was FULL! So everything from your youngest child’s dirty diapers to the rotten lasagna from last Tuesday spilling out into your front yard! Yikes! But this isn’t the first time he’s done something like this and worse yet….he called your wife FAT at the Memorial Day barbecue! That’s it, it’s time to go to war! You saddle up your family and it’s go time! However, right before you decide to TP his big oak tree or something, you realize that you have to be the bigger man here. You walk over and make amends, just like the president and other political leaders try to do in the Middle East. Just managing your own family is a full-time job, it’s a no wonder 4 presidents died in office and over a dozen had other stress-related problems (not including the 4 that were assassinated.)

Well the president certainly has a lot of responsibility; however he is not the absolute power. The president does not have the power to declare war like many people believe, that is for congress. Also the president does not have the power to make a law. If a congressperson writes a bill the president does have the ability to approve or veto it, but Congress essentially has the final say because they can vote on it again and if two-thirds majority approve, they can basically veto the president’s veto. The president is not immune to impeachment either. In fact, two presidents have been truly impeached, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The president has to be 35 years old, have lived in the United States in a permanent residency for 14 consecutive years, and be a natural-born citizen. However, the president is still a human being, he or she is still a regular American who grew up and lived like you and me, and had the same dream of success and importance we all share. Every president had leisure activities they enjoyed do de-stress from all of their duties; in fact each president today receives $19,000 in an entertainment fund for their pleasure. For example, George W. Bush loved to watch Sunday Night Football with his family on the White House big screen TV while munching on pretzels, Bill Clinton enjoyed running, President Eisenhower enjoyed golfing so much he had a putting green installed outside the oval office so he could practice during breaks, and Ronald Regan and his family enjoyed a quiet dinner with his family and friends while watching a movie rather than those elaborate balls and banquets. Each president has their preference, and was at one point a regular US citizen. They weren’t born into royalty, they earned their position by election and democracy. Presidents like Bill Clinton and Ronald Regan especially showed their humanity and connection to the people. Often we perceive the president as this absolute, powerful deity when he is simply a regular guy who has a big job.

But how does the role of the president differ from that of a British Monarch, a dictator, how is the position unique? In Great Britain their primary form of government is a monarch that is crowned based on the royal line and the heir to the throne, and then appoints the Prime Minister. Obviously in a dictatorship, seen in a generally communist or fascist region is a single absolute power who assumes the throne, often with violence as seen with Stalin and Hitler. Let’s break it down for a second. The president serves as the executive leader in the economic, military, social, and diplomatic issues as well as maintaining the highest possible level of morale otherwise as we saw in our own state, the people may take action. He or she cannot potentially set off too many people otherwise the job is in jeopardy and no matter how the issues would have potentially helped the nation, they may not be carried out anyway. Obviously on a state level this would be easier to maneuver than on a federal level, but the principle remains the same. Now monarchies because of their impact on the heir, the family genealogy, the people do not elect, nor do they really have power to eliminated unless like Marie Antoinette and King Louis XIV when the guillotine is used. Two very different kinds of government one by the people of the people and for the people, the other enforced upon, all essentially are trying to accomplish the same goal, which his unity, social and economic prosperity and a productive government.

Ok, let’s back up a second and re-evaluate. Today we enjoy a free, democratic, people-voiced government. Abraham Lincoln himself said “the government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth,” one of my favorite quotes in existence from who I believe is to be our truly greatest president. Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 shortly after the end of the American Civil War, but on those grounds of Gettysburg he gave that powerful statement, not long before he died. The fact that this occurred less than a century after we won our independence from Great Britain, is I believe historically significant. We can enjoy a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, while other countries struggle each day from a ruthless dictator, or have to abide by a monarch they didn’t elect, that was crowned by their genealogical history. The point is, we take for granted way too much the democracy we have. The fact that we can elect by popular vote (usually) who we want in office, is one of the key foundations that make this country great. The president doesn’t have absolute power as we see, but the point I’m trying to make is that the president was at one point a regular person, wasn’t a monarch, wasn’t born into the family. The president is a citizen of the USA most importantly, because he or she represents this government that Lincoln dictated, is representative of we, Americans.

United States Government Final Exam Question

What is the true role of the president, and do you believe this is overplayed or underplayed by the media today? How is the role similar and different from the monarchy governmental system of britain or a dictatorship in other regions?

How much is too much?

How much is too much? How far is too far? Do the current Federal Financing Laws create a more capitalistic government? Have they crossed the line? I believe the answer is yes, plain and simple. First of all, money plays too large of a role in politics I believe. Even though Mitt Romney and Barack Obama certainly don't their $1.3 Billion or however much out of their own pocket, but you certainly have no change to run if you are even middle class or lower, probably even in the "rich" category. Let's say there's a guy living on a corn farm somewhere in Kansas, happy as can be, but he's smart, he has great ideas to run this country, he has great ideas for the nation, because of his corn business he can balance a budget, he has the qualifications. Just one problem, he's poor. He lives in a small farm house and makes $30,000 a year but he's content because he has his family, his farm, and the great outdoors. Ok, let's say that an agricultural PAC or something like that thinks "gee, this guy is really smart, he's organized, he does what he says he will, he has great ideas, I want to support him." Even with the maximum amount they may ask for it still won't him in the door. Secondly, why should there be a limit? If people or a company desire to give more money, why should that stop them? One may argue that would be unfair, but hey it's already unfair! An Finally, I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing that we are going to a more capitalistic government, that I'm perfectly fine with, but the intentions made about the financing laws I believe may have worked better 100 or even 50 years ago, when economy was different. Now days economy is all over the chart, money is everything. I believe that money essentially equals speech. Taking away that option is essentially taking away their voice, their speech. If a company wishes to vocalize their idea but are limited, that is a hindering their first amendment in a way I believe. Money is huge, perhaps too huge, and unfortunately in politics, it often is the deciding factor.

Media

After the watching the Election Night media coverage and the Newstainment media coverage, what are the differences between the two? (Consider purpose, delivery and intended outcome)




Ok, I love a good debate as much as the next guy, but even I know that debate equals opinion, which equals NON-concrete evidence and arguments. While watching the Election Night media coverage from 1960 with JFK vs. Richard Nixon all the way to the Obama McCain of 2008, I noticed that generally the facts, statistics, and projections based on those facts and statistics were dominant throughout the entire program. Typically you had two people sitting and chatting with interviews with other reporters or reliable sources. Generally speaking, they talked about the background of the candidates, the votes, where the votes were coming from, the statistics, the objective results. Most of what they said on Election night was fact or projection based on fact. While watching Bill O'Relly, the Ed show and programs like that, I saw lots of debate, lots of opinion, very little actual fact. It was mostly the ideas and conceptions and opinions of several people all shouting at each other to get their idea across, often delivered in a more comical way rather than dry and monotone like a lot of the Election night announcers. Newstainment reporters tend to be charismatic, energetic, very dramatic and their purpose I believe isn't to relay the facts, but to show their spins on the issues and how the candidates are presenting those issues.

Running with Romney

I believe that the most important traits Romney should look for are whether the candidate will enhance his status in the eye of the public, whether he or she will appeal to young people, the future of America, and as much as I absolutely hate to admit, I truly believe that the attractiveness of the person adds as well. Romney does not seem like a very charismatic person especially compared to Barack Obama so I truly believe that he should look for someone who can get the people excited and bring some charm to the election in his favor, also the young people, the future, those that may be their first time voting, or the first time in the job force, the backbone of America’s future, I believe he should consider greatly because these are people that are most likely going to be affected directly, and finally America is a very vain country, they go a lot by visual, and I hate to admit it but I have always felt that American goes by the sight too much, even while deciding a position of office.

After closely reviewing all of the potential candidates, I honestly feel that the best option for Romney, is the young, 40-year old Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Here you have a young, energetic, intelligent, highly respected young man. He appeals to the ultra-conservative Tea Party voters and the Latinos as well. Romney instantly has a rock-star kind of Vice President, you have a well-loved guy, he will add pizazz to the campaign, the kind that I don’t believe that Romney will ever have, and plus he will appeal to the Latino culture and the young people which I feel will help his campaign very much. On the flip side, I’m not saying he is a bad choice at all, I just don’t think he’s the right one, and that’s Bob McDonnell. Romney already has issues with his “gender gap” and with the apparent “ultrasound issue” that McDonnell, the Virgina governor dealt with, would probably already take Romney out of the women’s favor, which is about half of the voters right there. He doesn’t seem to add to Romney’s character, and I don’t believe that he will compliment Romney’s campaign well at all.

Bob McDonnell: http://www.bobmcdonnell.com/

Marco Rubio: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/biography

Electoral College

Today, Electoral College I believe is actually set up rather well. I believe that it is set up in a way that the larger states get more say because they have more people. If it was set up like the US Senate, then that wouldn't be fair. Also, It is run by the majority, just a majority, not two-thirds, or three-fourths or something. And lastly, Electoral College is educated representatives that understand politics and what is going on rather than people from the local districts that are pulled at random like a jury duty. However, I also believe that there could be even more accurate and true representations. In addition, it appears that only the very wealthy, the top 1% have even a shot at the presidency. What if there was the next Abraham Lincoln or better sitting in a corn field in Medicine Hat, North Dakota or halfway to Timbuktu living a comfortable but simplistic rural lifestyle, but he has better ideas, he knows business because of his crops, and relations because of his excellent customer service? What about people like that? Should we really shun even middle class people from running because of costs? This is how I believe we should elect the president.

I believe the election should be like the stock market. Here is how it works, anybody that wants to be president stands on the market, there could be hundreds of thousands even. They post all their ideas on a website and people can search based on what they want to know. Social issues, Health Care, foreign affairs, industry, environmental concerns, and have their biography with education, experience, religion, etc. Each profile stands on the market. People then click "like" or "dislike" as if it was a youtube video. (They can vote as many as they want) At the end of the voting period, they take all the people and take their likes and subtract their dislikes and that becomes their score. Campaigning is not allowed except for what they put on their profile. People don't pay extra to get their names higher on the list, it is all in a database and people can scroll through and search by any category they like. The person at the end of the voting period with the highest score is our new president, assuming he meets all the legal responsibilities. I believe that this is better because literally every person's vote counts but they also can say whom they dislike, also it gives opportunities for everyone to run if they choose and everyone has equal opportunities, and there are more options, if there are only two options then you many not like either but feel obligated to vote for someone. This method is cheap, you can do it from the comforts of your own home, people may argue that not everyone has a computer, true, but not everyone has a way to get to a voting booth, and there are no lines, and if you are impartial, you just don't say anything. But this way you can speak out if you dislike someone also rather than just like.

Elections Blog

Now days campaigns and elections are quite an affair. They cost millions of dollars and can stretch painstakingly long periods of time. I for one, would make the process go much faster, I feel the process should take no longer than two months, none of this six or seven month, start campaigning primaries in like January and wait until November for the actual election. Secondly, the government is struggling enough, I believe most of the campaign finances should come from primarily public or private donations. Therefore, I would not put a cap. Now I understand that by doing this a chain reaction would occur and perhaps the richest president would make it over the most qualified. But hey, America sometimes votes based on other factors rather than true, quality and experience, more so than they wish to admit, so we may as well save a few dollars in the government. Finally, elections should be completely private. I personally don't really like the idea of a caucus. I believe all votes should be truly in a booth, alone that way all votes are truly heard.

Mitt Romney Campaign

Republican United States Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is the assumed opponent against incumbent President Barack Obama. Obama has had a powerful reign in the past four years and Romney is bold to challenge. Being a conservative myself, I could see myself as a campaign manager for Romney rather than Obama more easily, and after thorough evaluations on previous elections and the current polling data, I would say Romney does have a fair chance at winning the election, however if I was his advisor a couple things I feel would be very important to give him a chance. After reviewing the elections from 1980 to the most recent election, of John McCain vs. Barack Obama of 2008, a couple things stand out. You have to ask yourself  what groups are consistently and diligently republican voters, which are democratic? Which groups seem to fluctuate the most? I would advise Mr. Romney not to worry about African-American or Jewish voters, they have been dominating liberal over the past thirty years and I do not see any signs of change. To campaign for these groups I feel would be a waste of his time. However, religious organizations, caucasian males, and the wealthy are consistently Republican, and Romney being a Mormon, would probably appeal in these areas, therefore I feel their votes would be cast towards him in general anyway. Now we have those in-between, those that have fluctuated the most over the past thirty years. I would say the elderly, the first time voters, the middle class, those that in general seem to be on the fence, those are who he should campaign. Big cities are obviously out, too much time and too much money and they have always gone democrat, likewise rural areas have always gone republican. However suburbs seem to fluctuate, I would recommend hitting those areas hard, likewise poor people will probably vote democratic, where wealthy most like republican, it's the middle class that I would work towards as well. Basically if I was Romney's advisor I would say don't worry about those you can't obtain like Blacks, Jews, and big cities like New York, likewise religious people, caucasian males, and rural areas always seem to vote republican anyway, he should focus on suburbs, the middle class, women, those who are on the fence and if he does he has a shot at the 2012 presidency

Democrats vs. Republicans

It is very clear that elections dominate the local media, and the everlasting race to perfect and improve the United States will continue to force through for all of time I believe. In an election usually two parties with the same goals of improving the United States and create a better quality of life are represented with the occasional third party. However the ways they go about this are what define them. Today a third party called Libertarians share some with both the Democratic and the Republican parties. I believe that Libertarians can side with both in several ways. Libertarians in short strive for little to no government action in social, personal, religious, and economic views. Therefore they would side with Republicans in that they government should cut spending, that people should be accountable and that the government should butt out. They believe in freedom of religion and the ability to express oneself religiously and that is not for the government to decide. However in many social and personal issues they would side more with the Democrats. They believe that issues like gay marriage, abortion, and unmarried sex which are generally very much frowned upon and advocated against in the Republican party are also dismissed by the Libertarians. In general they believe the government should stay out of those issues too, that you should be able to decide and do what you want without the government constantly dictating your life. In short, Democrats generally favor with governmental actions regarding economic issues, however frown on social and moral issues, where the Republicans want the government against social and moral issues however desire the government out of economic actions. Libertarians can easily side with both because they strive for government to cease in all areas, therefore easily the third parties that run today can sway the election results because they take some ideas from one party and some from the other.

Presidential Powers

The Executive Branch in general today displays a type of leadership unique to America in my opinion, especially in the Federal level. The President has a very specific job, different from the monarchy forms that preceded it. I feel that our founding fathers would definitely be surprised however with today's government.

The President should exercise a checks and balances type of government, meaning one branch has power to overrule the other if enough comply. Today I feel that often the president tries to do the job of another branch, like create a law, or inflict punishment, where this would be more in the lines of a different branch. We talked about executive privilege and absolute power, and the president really does not have either. They have a job like any other and are expected to perform this job to the best of their ability without branching off, like we have seen with past presidents.

The governmental hierarchy is that of something called Federalism. The federal government holds an umbrella over the state and local governments, yet they are free to dictate themselves. Although the president is the Chief Executive Officer of America essentially, he or she does not have power to dictate directly within the state or local levels. Definitely there are issues which may be overruled or seen by the federal level, specifically the president, however the actual issues should remain within the lesser levels, like how I believe our Founding Fathers began this government.

Finally, the President is the Commander in Chief of the army, essentially leading the common people. He does not have the power to declare war, only Congress does. The President leads into battle, and serves in military affairs, likewise he is a legislator, he does not have power to make laws without the consent of two-thirds of both senate and the house of representatives. The President is undoubtedly the most powerful person in America, however he does not have absolute power. I find that recently especially some presidents do believe to be able to exercise that non-existent power, and as we have seen with presidents like Richard Nixon, they do not have the power to do whatever they please if it goes against the law as seen with Water Gate. I believe our Founding Fathers would be rather surprised to see how our Presidents are today as opposed to a hundred years ago, however the main concept remains, of a powerful, non-tyrannical leader chosen by a democratic election of the people's voice. That has stayed the same, therefore perhaps they would not be as upset because the prinicple is the same, the roles have just changed a bit

Congress and the Budget Process

My mom is an accountant, she works as senior supervising clerk for FIS, formerly Metavante. I often see her working late at night on our budget for my family of 6. She complains often on how difficult it is to manage our family's financial statements, our taxes etc, and she's a professional. Now imagine putting that to the entire nation of well over 300 million people? That is what our politicians crafting our budget are doing. As I experienced in the game there are thousands of combinations of cutting and expanding that all are working towards our goal of diminishing our national debt and increasing the GDP. Sometimes as I learned you have to spend in order to earn to improve our economy, like when I spent to improve funding for disadvantaged children and to make college more affordable in my simulation. Being very interested in education, I want to be a college professor, and have wanted to be my whole life pretty much I feel that is one way we boost our economy by improving the education of the next generation. However, obviously you have to make cuts, like military cuts, science, space exploration cuts, medicare, health care, and social security. As difficult as it is, I can see how raising the age of social security and medicare benefits for all by a couple years could potentially have a positive impact on our economy, while at the same time upsetting millions of Americans, likewise drilling for oil, or mining can create jobs and improve our GDP. All of these decisions are what go into our national budget, and I found out that it's the perfect combinations of spending and cutting that can create a positive effect.

Do we have too many rights, or too few?

Well after viewing the 10 presentations on the bill of rights it is very clear that we have a great number of rights, many of which we may not even know about. I personally believe we have the perfect amount of rights, however if I had to choose I would say perhaps too many. For example, in my court case of Tinker Vs. Des Moines, we have a couple teenagers speaking out against the war in Vietnam, I feel that yes we should have the right to express ourselves as we please, however I do not feel that what they were protesting, the message they were trying to get across was important enough for them to cause that much trouble, it is not like persecution of religion or racism or something like that, I felt they took it too far, likewise the rights of the accused are significantly more than I even imagined. One that I feel is a little questionable is searches and seizures. I believe even if you are searching for say guns and you happen to stumble upon illegal substances you should even without a warrant be able to use that as well, what are they supposed to do, ignore it? However I can see how it is not fair to just barge into a person's private property without valid reasoning. Finally, I was interested in freedom of assembly with the whole Westboro Baptist Church scenario, and I find it appalling, and yes they do have the right to assemble together in global persecution, however I still find it strange how they can go about and stir up such havoc. We have a multitude of rights that we take for granted, and I feel that if we didn't have as many we would perhaps straighten up and people would be more aware of their actions and perhaps a more peaceful existence, as opposed to more rights.

Definitely of a 21st century citizen as state by a natural-born Korean

As the new era of the 3rd millennium approached and began, technology has erupted throughout America. Now in the 21st century, technology essentially has become our lifeline to the world around us, and we continue further down that path each and every day. Because we literally have the world at our fingertips, generally speaking there is an abundance of ways to keep informed on what is going on around us, whether it being television, Internet, apple products, androids etc. Because of all of these additional products being within our immediate reach, a well informed 21st century citizen is able to use these products to keep up with that is happening, what is changing, what is leaving, essentially how our lives are affected by the daily innovations and improvements that are being made. 100 years ago, before Computers and Internet, Televisions, and certainly Apple products were either invented or in use, the informed citizen would have to work harder to keep up. Today, literally the sky is the limit.

Constitutional Principles

If I could add a fifth principle to the Constitution it would be a true separation of Church and State. This nation was founded by Christian principles and one of the main reasons the Europeans came to the Americas was for religious freedom. However based on how the nation is today, I feel religious issues should be dictated by the church only. My church, Dayspring Baptist Church is right now discussing our legal document called the Constitution and Bylaws of the Church, which is a legal document that will and has been used in court to state what we believe. However if at any time the government attempts to interfere we must and have had to use this document to maintain our independent status. I feel as though the religious issues should be within the church only and not dictated in any ways by the church. The church should stand firm in its own beliefs and should not have the government intervening. In addition the government today tries to use its power to limit churches and say what they can and cannot do, like in the instance of the parent church to mine, Quentin Road Baptist Church, they were told by the government how they should dictate their ways of worship, which is why they had to form their Constitution and Bylaws document to submit to the government to keep the out of their way of worship. Their elected board members had to strive to achieve the independent status, much like our nation did. And finally, and perhaps the touchiest subject today, is the issue of the particularly religious political issues of homosexuality and abortion. Although I strongly disagree with both based on my moral and religious beliefs and I strongly speak out against, I feel that is an issue the government should stay out of, legally. Because these are particularly religious issues they should be within the church and address within the church, rather than the federal government. The church should stand firm on its fundamental principles and let the government do its job by keeping America safe and secure for all. I have attached a link on the Reynolds vs. United States US Supreme court. In it we have George Reynolds, a secretary to the well-known Brigham Young, a mormon church leader, and he is protesting against an anti-bigamy statue, which is basically against the polygamy of the Mormon faith. This act basically banned that, so here is a federal decision based on a religious concept, the issue has to do with true separation of church and state. How much can our government fudge itself into the religious practices, and how much is acceptable? This court case is an example of someone who felt that the government is going to far.


http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1878/1878_0

Founding Documents

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are both fundamental pieces of our nation’s origin and beginning, however I feel are very different because the Declaration of Independence was focusing more on obtaining our freedom from the British where when the Constitution was passed in 1789, we have already had our independence for 13 years and now we were determining and beginning our free country government. The Declaration of Independence focused the statement of the oppression our founding fathers experienced, “All Men are Created Equal, Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness” were some of the rights they believed every person deserved. They also went to list many of the King’s faults and why they were upset “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good” being the first. The Constitution however was different, it focused on the rights we would have after already obtaining our independence, “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote general Welfare” etc. were the beginnings of our nation and the freedom we enjoy today.

About Isaac Young

Primarily I am in the music field, as a violinist, pianist, French horn player, vocalist, and conductor. I’ve been in the Milwaukee Youth Symphony for 8 years, and am currently concertmaster or first chair. My aspirations are to continue in music at either University of Michigan or Eastman School of Music for an undergraduate degree in violin performance and eventually obtain degrees in conducting at the Julliard School to live my dream of a professional or collegiate conductor of orchestras. I’ve been to numerous all-state, national, and international music festivals the most recent being in Greensboro, North Carolina the previous two summers. In addition to music I run cross-country, and am very active in my church, Dayspring Baptist Church.