Chapter 4

1. Freedom of Speech:  How important is it?  Does the freedom go "too far"?  What areas of speech should not be protected?

Well let’s be honest, freedom of speech is vitally important to our way of life, as Americans. Without it we would not be allowed to be who were are and who we want to be. We would have to live everyday censoring what we say, how we express ourselves.  I think that the way the laws are written now is pretty satisfactory. It’s true that freedom of speech should not be allowed as an excuse for slander or libel, or for maliciously attacking and demeaning people based on things like race, gender, or religion, but we need to be allowed to express our own thoughts and ideas.  I also agree that the government’s actions to limit advocacy of unlawful activities and fighting words (as defined as hate speech) is necessary.  I’m not really sure how I feel about the prohibiting of symbolic speech. I think that wearing a symbol, showing support of a cause in a peaceful way, unless it is an unlawful activity, should not be prohibited.

 

2. Freedom of Religion:  Is separation of church and state necessary?  Why or why not?

I have to say yes, that the separation of church and state is most definitely necessary. If we were to allow a mingling of church and state we would be causing tremendous problems concerning other laws, as well as the general happiness of the country. There is no supposed to be any religion placed above another in importance in our country. This could also affect people’s free will in many ways. For example if we had a government that was primarily catholic, as it was in England all those years ago, would we be allowed to practice our own religions without persecution? Would we have to pay tithes by law? Could Muslims wear their head coverings? By keeping church and state separate while still having the right to freedom of religion I believe we are holding onto a wonderful balance of freedoms.

 

3. Criminal Procedure:  Are defendant's rights crucial to our system of government?  Why or why not?  Many argue that defendants have too many rights - do you agree?  Why or why not?

Yes, without a doubt. Defendant’s rights are the key that keeps our police and the courts from taking advantage of the defendant or of abusing their powers in any way. Overall I agree with the laws protecting defendants and agree that people should be innocent until proven guilty. I do not feel that defendants have too many rights, based on the previous belief that we are innocent first. I would like to see a little tighter security in our prisons and maybe more stringent bail laws in cases concerning murder. I also feel that someone is going to complain about the system regardless of how we may decide to change it.                

 

Ashley Pelfrey

Gabrielle Miller
Amber Waters

Chapter 3

1. Is a strong national government necessary or should the state governments have an equal share of power? Why?
I think this question is very very complicated to answer. Overall though I think that the national government is necessary. If we were to give the states an equal share of the power I believe there would be chaos. A strong national government gives us a good, supportive backbone as a country. I do, however believe that there are many issues that should be returned to the states, with guidelines and limits from the national government.

2. National power increased during the Great Depression but then power began to shift back to the states (somewhat) during the Reagan administration? Why did that happen and is that shift appropriate?
The national power would have increased during that time because of the strain on our nations supplies and morale's. We in a sense really banded together in a time of distress, the states as well as the American people turned to our supreme leaders for guidance and help. I would say that the shift was aptly warranted and appropriate. if we cannot depend on our national government in a time of distress then why should we trust them to rule us. The power shifted back afterwards because things had settled down and we were able to have a little peace, the states were better equipped to handle their burdens and responsibilities than they had during the Great Depression.

3. Education stirs much discussion relating to the issue of federalism. Should the national government regulate education or is it a matter best left to state and local governments? Why?
OK, this is a very debatable, and debated topic I know. In my own personal opinion I think that in the end the national government should regulate education, BECAUSE, if left solely up to the state and local governments there would be no equality in education nation wide, no sense of organization even. Kids would be moving on to college, possibly in different states and not fully be aware of what is expected of them. Having said that I am also a firm believer in collaboration between the national and state governments. Each state and local government is gonna have a better sense of what their areas are in need of, their strengths and their weaknesses, so by working with the national government they can come up with a almost universal education plan that will have room for everyone.



Brad Richardson
Chelsea Dunn
Jessica Armes

1. Why is the United States Constitution stronger than the Articles of Confederation? How would the history of the United States have been different if the country still operated under the Articles?
The Constitution is a stronger guiding document because it provides the government the ability to rule more efficiently. If gives the governing body a way to support the country financially by creating and changing taxes. The constitution also provides the checks and balances system which prevents any single branch of the government from taking control or assuming too much power, or from abusing their powers.
If we were still under the Articles we would most likely not have the peace and solidation of such a strong nation we have now. The government would not have the right to regulate commerce.

2. The first three articles of the Constitution establish/define the three branches of government - read these articles. What did you learn that you didn't already know about our government?
Section 2 of Article 1 says " and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen." I thought a representative had to live in the state, this says otherwise.
I did not know that the amount of compensation for the president cannot be changed during his time in office, that is reassuring.


3. How important is the Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison and why?
It established judicial review. Allowing the  Judicial system and supreme court the right to find laws passed unconstitutional and to be abolished.


4. Looking at the United States government today, is it more like what the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists envisioned and why?
It is more like the federalist vision. They were in support of the constitution and wanted a separation of state and nation.