Friday, November 18, 2011

Final paper, motivating research

I am studying the new Stop Online Piracy Act bill that congress is examining

I am studying this because I want to find out why it has amassed so much opposition so quickly and if it is unconstitutional.

I am doing this in order to confirm, validate, or challenge my current understanding of the bill and to better prepare me for the final paper.

Revision

Prerevision

Controversy is nothing new to American politics. For years politicians have argued and shouted to convince the voters that they were the correct choice for the country, that they had the solutions to everyone’s problems. But over the years there has developed a disturbing trend in political debate. While politicians argue over what should be done and what can be done, there has been almost no debate over what they are allowed to do. Simply stated over the years the government has forgotten, or just plain ignored its constitutional restraints. Many politicians view these as inconveniences and are often quick to bypass them when they are able. This has become a huge issue in politics, and it is an issue that no one is talking about.

When the constitution was created the framers had to basic principles in mind. Creating the groundwork that would allow them to build a new government, and the limitation of that government’s power, to assure that it was never abused by those in control. As stated by the tenth amendment “Powers not delegated to the United States By the Constitution nor powers nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.”(Amendment 10, Constitution).

Final revision

Controversy is nothing new in American politics. For years politicians have argued and shouted in order convince the voters that they were the correct choice for the country, that they had the solutions to everyone’s problems. But over the years there has developed a disturbing trend in political debate. While politicians argue over what should be done and what can be done, there has been almost no debate over what they are allowed to do. Simply stated over the years the government has forgotten, misinterpreted, or just plain ignored its constitutional restraints. Many politicians view these as inconveniences and are often quick to bypass them when they are able. This has become a huge issue in politics, and it is one that no one is talking about.

When the constitution was created the framers had two basic principles in mind. Creating the groundwork in order to build a new government, and limiting that government’s power, to assure that it was never abused by those in control. Many people know basic Constitutional Amendments such as a freedom of assembly, the right to a fair trial, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. These amendments limit the government’s actions by forbidding any act that goes against these basic rights. But there is another amendment that is less well known by the American public that is broken fairly frequently nowadays. The tenth amendment which states that “All powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor powers nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.” (Constitution) Basically any power not given to the federal government by the constitution is held by the individual states, this along with other parts of the constitution is designed to keep the government’s power from growing to large.

Friday, November 4, 2011

Arguments venue


1.The issue this article is about the inconsistencies in the constitutional restrains that are put on the Federal government, and why its the limitation put on a democracy are just as important as democracy itself.

2.The author believes that by trying to stay in a "middle ground" in constitutional restraints is impossible. Once one rule has been lifted for an exception, no matter how popular the exception is, all of the rules are called into questions. This is could lead to one day rules and rights that were thought to be basic and undebatable being called into question which is a very dangerous thing for any republic.

3. The writer makes his argument by citing historical examples of past democracies including Hungary, and focus on the the issues being pressed by the democratic party, the republican party, and the tea party movement.

4. I believe the writers argument is succinct deliberate and makes his point very clear. I am inclined to agree with him and I think he brings up some very interesting points on why there cant be a middle ground between strict restrictions stemming form the constitution and having almost now constitutional restraints, he is able to create a create a clear picture without resorting to sensationalism.

5. I really like this writers style. He seems very balanced and always in control of where the piece is taking the reader. he keeps his judgments reserved and gives the impression of an expert. I do not know If I will be able to adapt this style to my own writing but i will defiantly try to use some elements of it to enhance this essay.

6. The number one way I will attempt to incorporate his style into my piece will be to avoid all semblance of sensationalism, a technique to common in political writing. I will attempt to argue my point with a lot of historical evidence and logic as the foundation of my argument, but I will never say that the country is doomed our anything to over dramatic.