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

The role played by judges and the judicial system while supporting freedom basically depends on the situation at hand.  From my understanding of the material this week, they play by the law, which follows politics.  So while they have the decision on what happens in any given situation, it is usually in accordance with the law.  Basically, the judicial system is in place to make sure someone is there to state the final judgments even though they are already written.  However, certain judges will be chosen based on their status, republican president choosing republican judiciary or in President Clinton’s case, opening up the status to women and other members of race.  Perhaps if certain judges with their beliefs are in office, they will have more say of particular freedoms than the next. 

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

When the question asks how does congress limit or support authentic representation, I guess one would first have to answer, what does authentic have to do with things when the government is involved?  In other words, shouldn’t it be restated, “accurate” representation?  Like I saw from most of the classes’ discussion, it all boils down to power and money.  The famous saying on how the government is out to “make the rich richer and the poor poorer” comes into play.  I can’t tell you how many times I have heard this saying.  I remember my father saying those words when I was five and we are talking decades upon decades ago!!  Seriously though, in a way our book implies congress to be a double edge sword. They are responsive to “less privileged groups” in order to truly reflect on the public’s opinion, but how can that part of the public be so openly viewed when the wealthier of the two are certainly more likely to get out and vote or even donate money?  “Congress tends to hear the upper-class members of the chorus better because their money, their votes, and their organization amplify their accented voices.” (Katznelson, Kesselman, & Draper) The author is completely right with this statement, but like I always find myself asking, we all know that to be the case, and have obviously felt that way for generations past, what can the public do now to help make the lower and middle class more open and driven to be heard?  Ultimately, I feel Congress limits authentic representation because of the rich vs. poor ways we all seem to hold in our heads. 

However, while money has shown to play a large part in congress and its limits on “authentic” representation, in a way it has supported that representation.  If we think back to the past of why and how we came to be today, we remember that both people of color and women were restricted from playing any part in politics.  In the end African Americans were allowed to join the services and eventually vote.  Women also fought to be allowed that privilege as well.  In a sense, this is where the house or  any other party helped to support its representation.  However, while members of congress showed a support, it was never meant just for African Americans or woman and in fact for public as a whole.   Unfortunately, this leads to another area of debate because special districts might see this black majority support and then that would limit any time of “authentic” representation one would hope congress supported.   

Bibliography

Canon, D. T. (1999). Race, Redistricting, and Representation: . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Katznelson, I., Kesselman, M., & Draper, A. (2006). The Politics of Power. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Democracy as an Ethical Ideal

The below video is a bit long, but does hit on a few interesting points that I tried to reflect on in my blog post.  We need to consider what an "ideal democracy".  Really, it is based off a series of ethics, otherwise our democracy doesn't do anyone much good.

Democracy as an Ethical Ideal

In what ways does the US presidency support and limit the formation of an ideal democracy?

The US presidency supports and limits the formation of an ideal democracy in a variety of ways.  Ultimately, the President himself has a certain extent of power over decisions and political parties.  He determines a set panel of politicians in office at a certain time or certain situation and can generally use the public’s opinion to get the people what they want.  However, in difficult times and circumstances where the President comes into office when things have already been run to poor extreme, it takes time and much trial and error to find the right answer.  This leads to a series of characteristics through the presidency by the people.

First of all, we are entitled to an informed understanding.  In other words, we have the right to research and develop a clear understanding of what the government, president, etc. has to offer that will create a good situation.  From that informed understanding, effective participation is present.  The people in a democracy will definitely want their views to be known.  A majority of people will hold firm belief that a certain person or state of power will allow us the capabilities of rising up and pushing through tough times, an example recession.  Because of equality in voting, the people in the democracy can make those views be known.  Through the presidency, control is obvious.  A main leader needs to be chosen that will guarantee a balanced and organized environment of leaders who will go off the public opinion to fight and create new systems that will aid the American people. 

However, as a majority will win, for example democratic or republican, the party with the most votes will pass laws and take action benefiting the one party.  Again, it is up to the American people to choose the person who not only appears on one side or the other, but shows that no matter what, they fight for the entire population rather than just interested in one sided laws, examples: gay marriage and/or abortion laws.  Especially when more important areas like recession need concentration.  Ultimately, an ideal democracy seems perfect, but until the people can work together and therefore make life easier on higher ups with authority, our democracy will never be so “ideal”. 

MediaShift Idea Lab . What Would the Ideal Democracy-Enabling Tool Look Like? | PBS

MediaShift Idea Lab . What Would the Ideal Democracy-Enabling Tool Look Like? PBS