The Citizens Clean Elections Act
Clean Elections Act is a proposition that gives everyday people like you and I a chance to give something back to our community without having to spend millions of dollars to campaign with but instead the money comes from donations on your W2 form and also taxpayers. Arizonans have agreed that it is just a better way to have elections among the rich companies and candidates. The current proposition has influenced a higher voter turn out along with more candidate competition. Though, this proposition is still currently active the large firms have taken it to the Federal courts seven times desperately trying to get the proposition overturned by saying it is unconstitutional. With the help of voters supporting this proposition we can keep the clean elections act in Arizona.
As the wealthy politicians get more tax cuts the average everyday American running for office stands no chance in beating his competitor without having money to back him. In Arizona and three other states we have a different aspect that has changed elections since 1998 it is a clean act on campaigning, it helps the average man or woman to run for any office. The act protects average Americans who do not have millions of dollars to campaign with. The act makes a fair election process because whose to say that all rich people are the best candidates for the job why not an average American such as a teacher or a police officer to take on the task as a Senator or Governor for any state. Many Americans do not run for these positions because money has a huge impact on the way elections unfold in the United States. If you do not have campaigning money how can you get your name out there for anyone to see? So, in theory if you have no money you have no candidate.
In 1998 when Arizonans passed the “Citizens Clean Elections Act” by a mere 51% they were the fourth state to have passed the act. The act is for candidates who need public funds for their own campaigning. In other states the public funding came from traffic tickets and surcharges making the Clean Elections Act not able to pass because that money was needed at other areas in the government. The court system deemed it unconstitutional to use traffic tickets for public campaigning since it was an optional funding for candidates.
The voter ID issue starts with certain laws that, in the US, require that a person show a form of official ID before they are allowed to register to vote. This issue has split both Republicans and Democrats. According to Kenneth Jost, “republicans say [voter-ID laws] are needed to prevent fraud and protect the integrity of elections. Democrats say the laws are not needed and are being pushed in order to reduce voting among groups that skew Democratic in elections especially Latinos and African Americans” (Jost, p. 171). Both of these perspectives are valid, and with an open mind, can both sides have important points about the validity and inclusion of elections. On one hand, it is crucial to prevent fraud and keep the elections free of error, otherwise the outcome could be an unfair ruling. On the other side of the argument, voter-ID laws can cause discrimination and prevent people from voting, also
Campaign finance reform has a broad history in America. In particular, campaign finance has developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, the history of campaign finance in regards to individuals must be examined. At the crux of these campaign finance laws is the balancing of two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in upholding these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision of Citizens United v. FEC.
That is why Rebekah Elliott’s article “The Real School Safety Debate: Why Legislative Responses Should Focus on Schools and Not on Guns” would be valuable to include. Elliot writes that to properly provide safety into schools is to put more funding into higher security and individual school safety programs. Like many writers, she agrees that the Sandy Hook incident shifted America’s views on the second amendment but she believes that having armed teachers could be a safety risk in itself. Her argument is that although it would be more cost efficient to arm teachers than to hire more security, it could increase the liability for negligence if there was a result in injuring a student (2015
The idea of Voter ID laws began to sprung after the 2000 election, when George W. Bush won Florida after it was too close to call. The main issue that surfaced after the election was in regards to voter fraud. The first Voter ID law was the Help America Vote Act, which was signed into law by President Bush which required all first time voters of general elections to present a photo Id upon registering and voting. Help America Vote Act, or HAVA for short, was a coordinated attempt by Republicans to enhance security regarding the casting of ballots. HAVA also helped establish the Election Assistance Commission which would be in charge of creating new ballots and adjusting the security. This act was the first one that gave voters various options to use regarding the verification of their identity. After HAVA was signed into law, states began to act on the new proposals for Voter ID laws. Arizona was the first state to pass a Voter ID law, requiring citizens to have a state-issued photo ID when they were going to vote. In other states, proposals for similar laws began to pop up.
They are our first defense and would be able to react much faster than any police officer who couldn't get to the scene in time “(yes or no)”The teachers will be certified which requires a background check so all teachers carrying will be mentally stable. most of the public shootings are in gun-free areas, i.e. schools, malls, etc. By making schools gun-free it doesn't make the school safer for the children, it makes it safer for the shooter. “(yes or no) “Teachers are the first line of defense in a classroom. And it states in the 2nd Amendment that we have the right to bear arms. In Utah, the 10 years teachers have been allowed to carry guns no K-12 school shooting have occurred. Some teachers spend more time with students than their own parents do “(yes or no). I can not find a way that this is still not safe. The safety is
... a high school student, I don’t take much stock in the safety codes and drills in place to keep students safe in the event of a shooting. I would feel much safer knowing my teacher has the ability to protect the class, rather than hide and lock the door. An educator is responsible for the students in their class. They are responsible for their education and their safety while the children are in their classroom. The safety of fifteen or more students would be much more easily secured by one person if that person was armed. Promoting teachers to arm themselves also prevents school shootings; criminals don’t attack a victim that can fight back. At least 60% of school attacks would be prevented with an armed faculty warning sign. School faculty members should be armed to secure the safety of the countries students, and in hand prevent the majority of potential shootings.
School shootings are still happening and we have to put a stop to it. We need to have these teachers prepared and ready to fight. Students to deserve to have their lives out to rest knowing something could have been done that’s why we need to have these teachers armed. This is a cold world if someone enters a school with a weapon teachers need to have their weapon ready too for the sack of their children. A school is a fun place to learn but to also keep safe. This is why teachers should be armed.
Voter suppression is no surprise to the American Government. It goes unseen by most. of the public, or they realize the suppression of voters after the damage has already been done. done.
I have discussed this argument with several people and most of them are against teachers carrying guns while teaching. One main concern that I have heard is, “what if the teacher is having a bad day”, or “what if they decide to take it out on the students? And then I remind them that teacher’s go through a very rigid background investigation and are trusted individuals! We must trust our teachers and their judgment. If we feel comfortable enough with these teachers to send our kids to them five days a week, f...
Female genital mutilation is a heartbreaking practice which violates basic human rights and must be banned worldwide. FGM it's a operation on which the clitoris and genitals are completely cut off. Referring to (www.mtholyoke.edu) The cause of this procedure may fluctuate it can be either for family honor, virginity protection, religion, or excessive sexual satisfaction for their partner. Also, this is done by traditional midwives with no medical experience, no anesthesia, or any drug. The tools used for this practice are pieces of glass, knives, scissors, razors and other sharp basics.
Gun laws are an important key to consider. There are pistols and machine weapons as well. If a teacher were to carry a gun, it would be a handgun type and an attacker could easily carry a machine weapon. A handgun is hardly a legitimate defense mechanism against a machine gun. A machine gun can carry forty five to sixty rounds, whereas a handgun can only carry about nine bullets (Glennon). If a machine gun that an attacker brings has that many bullets and is automatic, a pistol isn’t going to do anything unless shot first. Also the government interferes in the problem of guns because the need for gun control. “Roughly sixteen thousands two hundred and thirty seven murders were committed in the United States in 2008 of these about ten thousand two hundred eighty-eight, or 67% were committed with firearms” (Agresti,Smith). Also the government has right to carry laws which enables citizens the right to carry a firearm if one can pass a background check and a gun safety course. Forty out of the United States fifty states has agreed to let people who meet certain criteria to carry firearms, and the other ten are indecisive or completely disagree (Agresti,Smith). This shows that the population as a whole has the right to carry guns if legally allowed, but not teachers just because s...
One reason teachers should not be able to carry guns because guns are currently illegal in schools; Guns are illegal because they are dangerous. The Gun Free School Zone Act (GFSZA) is a federal law that was accepted in the United States in 1990. According to the GFSZA, “It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” In order for teachers to carry guns, we would have to discard this law. Also, the school board would have to create a new policy, allowing teachers to carry guns. Adjusting the rules would be time consuming and confusing. Changing the GFSZA would make students tense and distract children from learning. Citizens from CNN Politics say, “72.4% of educators said they would be unlikely to bring a firearm to school if allowed to do so.” This data shows that the majority of teachers do not even want possession of a gun in the classroom. School officers have the right to carry guns, teachers should just focus on education. Not only does it create a huge responsibility, there would also need to be a large financial investment to supply guns for every school. This money would be hard to come up with, and not everyone is in favor of sacrificing money for firearms.
Everyone knows that parents’ first worry is the safety of their children. With the increase of violence in schools, parents have started to wonder if their children are really safe in the school setting. Shootings like Sandy Hook and Columbine left parents, administrators, and educators feeling the need to be proactive towards children’s safety. Reacting to situations like these is not good enough when children’s lives are on the line. Administration has started to brainstorm different ways to help insure the protection of their students. The idea of having teachers carry concealed weapons has been on the front burner for quite some time. As a result of this extreme idea, insurance companies have started to increase or even cancel policies with schools that have armed teachers because of the high risk they are putting themselves at. Parents and administrators also worry about the idea of children getting their hands on one of the teachers’ weapons and injuring themselves or other students. Because this idea seems quite extreme, I believe there are other alternatives that are less dramatic and more positively out looked, such as having armed security guards in schools.
The issue of campaign financing has been discussed for a long time. Running for office especially a higher office is not a cheap event. Candidates must spend much for hiring staff, renting office space, buying ads etc. Where does the money come from? It cannot officially come from corporations or national banks because that has been forbidden since 1907 by Congress. So if the candidate is not extremely rich himself the funding must come from donations from individuals, party committees, and PACs. PACs are political action committees, which raise funds from different sources and can be set up by corporations, labor unions or other organizations. In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires full disclosure of any federal campaign contributions and expenditures and limits contributions to all federal candidates and political committees influencing federal elections. In 1976 the case Buckley v. Valeo upheld the contribution limits as a measure against bribery. But the Court did not rule against limits on independent expenditures, support which is not coordinated with the candidate. In the newest development, the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling from April 2014 the supreme court struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined. Striking down the restrictions on campaign funding creates a shift in influence and power in politics and therefore endangers democracy. Unlimited campaign funding increases the influence of few rich people on election and politics. On the other side it diminishes the influence of the majority, ordinary (poor) people, the people.
Vaccines against diphtheria, polio, pertussis, measles, mumps and rubella, and more recent additions of hepatitis B and chicken pox, have given humans powerful immune guards to ward off unwelcome sickness. And thanks to state laws that require vaccinations for kids enrolling in kindergarten, the U.S. presently enjoys the highest immunization rate ever at 77%. Yet bubbling beneath these national numbers is the question about vaccine safety. Driven by claims that vaccinations can be associated with autism, increasing number of parents are raising questions about whether vaccines are in fact harmful to children, instead of helpful (Park, 2008).