Diversity in the Supreme Court

These days, the Supreme Court has become more diverse, representing several races, religions, both genders, and so on. Though generally accepted as a good thing, many think that the individual Justices should not let their background influence their decisions. I think it should. The Supreme Court's job is to decide whether or not a law is constitutional. Some would say that is the reason why, that it should depend on the Constitution and nothing else. However, if the Constitution were so direct that simply looking at it can determine if a law follows it, we wouldn't really need a Supreme Court. They represent the people and the Constitution, which needs much interpretation. The people they represent are not homogenous. They come from different backgrounds and have different opinions. So, too, should the Supreme Court.

The influence of the media on how the public percieves government (with a ((hopefully)) brief off-topic intermission)

Most of us are not Senators or Governors or State Representatives or other kinds of people that know the inner workings of what's going on in the government. What we know about the government comes from the media. Now, this isn't bad, really, if you listen to many sources. But by only listening or watching media influenced by one side or the other, we essentially allow others to think for us. Many news stations, left, right or any side, does tend to state opinion as fact. If we only recognise one source, we essentially brainwash ourselves.
(Intermission:
You've probably all heard of the Twilight series, what with that new movie coming out. I read it, I liked it for a bit until I saw it for what it really was behind the hype. If you are a Twilight fan and unwilling to listen to reason coming from a viewpoint opposite yours, I suggest you move on to a different blog, because I'm going to bash the living daylights out of it. Twilight, for those of you who don't know, is a SERIES (not a saga. DEAR LORD IT'S ANYTHING BUT A SAGA) about a girl named Bella who falls in love (*coughmindlessobsessioncough*) with a "vampire" named Edward. He sparkles. He doesn't burn. No. Just no. If you're going to call it a vampire, show respect for vampire lore and not make it something that more resembles a blood-drinking FAIRY without wings than a vampire. VAMPIRES BURN IN THE SUNLIGHT. Furthermore, they do not fall in love with humans. That's like a guy falling in love with a cheeseburger. IT MAKES NO SENSE. Edwart-ahem- I mean Edward, breaks into her room at night and watches Bella, who is by the way nearly a century younger than him, sleep. Does anyone else sense blatant criminal-level stalking and pedophilia going on here? I sure hope so. This is supposed to be ROMANTIC?! If I saw someone in my room watching me sleep I'd mace that sick SOB. Bella has no aspirations or hobbies other than being with her precious Edward, even before he is introduced to the story. Her only discernable flaw is clumsiness, which only serves to have her saved from every little perceived danger like the perfect little damsel in distress, who spends all her spare time cooking and cleaning for her father. At least, that's what is stated in the story. One will see that she is also whiny, selfish, disobediant and lazy, even though she is presented as a role model. The plot is nonexistant other than: Girl meets boy, boy is a vampire, boy and girl get married, have a baby, happily ever after yay. The only conflict in the story is introduced and resolved in two chapters, and promptly goes back to describing how pretty and sparkly Edward is every four pages. I'm done now. Sorry it wasn't breif.)
The media is also dumbed down, barely concentrating on government at all, but talking about which celebrity is with who, how SHOCKINGLY TERRIBLE it is that that celebrity gained five pounds and is now only twenty pounds underweight, spending THREE MONTHS talking about the death of a musician nobody has listened to for twenty years, the movie premiere of an extremely overrated book, SCANDALOUS websites created by people who just want attention, and so on. If you want political news, stop watching if they're talking about fads or celebrities and whatnot, just stick to the newspaper.
Yes, this was an overglorified rant. That's what most blogs are.

Eminent Domain

The government can take your property-it's in the Constitution. They have to compensate you and it has to be for public use. Does that make it okay? At it's purest, eminent domain, taking property to make a school, a library, and so on, it's fine. But when people get kicked off their land to make room for a car dealership, a new housing development, because it generates tax revenue, that's not. If people get kicked out of their houses to beef up the city's wallet, they better be given a new house, not just cash, for their trouble.

Strict vs. Loose constructionism

The Constitution-is it a strict list of things the government can do or more of a framework? This has been debated since the ratification of the Constitution. My personal opinion? It's a framework. The Constitution was written more than two hundred years ago, and despite the brilliance of the founding fathers, there is no way they could have forseen what the new country was going to be like in the twenty-first century. At its beginning, America was a small, relatively insignificant country, tired after a long battle for independence. Now, it is one of the most powerful nations in the world at a time when information can travel across the globe in mere seconds, as opposed to a three-month voyage across the Pacific. If we limit our government to what is expressly stated in the constitution, our government will remain frozen in a time and place completely different from the world we live in today.

Secrecy vs. Freedom

Can the government keep secrets? Most definitely. Should the government keep secrets? That answer's a bit more complicated. Many people would like to have a government that keeps nothing from the people. After all, how can we have popular sovereignty if we don't know what the government is doing so that we can make it continue or stop their practices? Then again, in times of war, and especially in this age, where it's hard to control where information goes once it's out there, having a tell-all policy can jeopardize our safety. What I think is this: In times of peace, there should be no secrets. When at war, secrecy is usually the best option.

Post 3

Some people think that voter registration laws lead to disenfranchisement. Yeah, it does prevent some people from voting. The registration process is simple, though, and those too lazy to register to vote probably aren't going to vote anyway. Voter Registration laws also prevent voter fraud. One could easily walk into the voting booth and ask for a ballot, but without registration, how would we know whether or not they're underage, have already voted, a felon, a resident of another state, or using the identity of a deceased person. All in all- voter registration is a good idea.

Two-party system

The two party system in America- the Republicans and the Democrats. It's been this way for a while, so what's the problem? Some people claim it causes too many divisions between the people, and, in a way, I agree. Labels like goth, emo, punk, etc. are useless and don't focus on who the person is as an individual. why isn't the same true for what we believe in politically. I think we can stop people from electing incompetent officials if people concentrated on what each individual person believes in without pigeonholing them. If people just check whatever person belongs to their party without really listening, well then, they won't really know what's going on, and that's a voter's responsibility, to choose who is best for the country, not who has the right letter by their name