The simulation of a Congressional committee in class could arguably be called a success. One might ask why the “arguably” adjective is included, and it is for a very simple reason. While most of the students took the assignment seriously, a significant number did not really attempt to do the necessary work required of their role in it. This can be due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the exercise. It is important to know that while it can be inferred that this is a statement about the failure, this essay aims to explore the opposite. The exercise was successful in demonstrating ideals of federalism and civil liberties, while offering a glimpse into the basic nature of the system and how those willing could invariably exploit. This last part of the statement contains a caveat, that exploitation is extremely limited but none the less significant.
So first, what lessons did the simulation illustrate about constitutional ideals such as federalism, civil liberties and/or civil rights? According to the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University Law School, federalism is defined as “. a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. Generally, an overarching national government governs issues that affect the entire country, and smaller subdivisions govern issues of local concern. Both the national government and the smaller political subdivisions have the power to make laws and both have a certain level of autonomy from each other. ” So for the purpose of the simulation the federal or national branch of the government was the one attempting to pass a bill to law. This level of government was represented in the form of a congressional committee including a Democratic Party majority t...
... middle of paper ...
...ps have access to the law making machinery, but that access comes at a price and it by no means assures success.
Works Cited
Federalism. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved April 20, 2014, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/federalism Linder, D. (2014, January 1). The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?
The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution? Retrieved April 20, 2014, from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html Patterson, T. E. (2012). Ch. 3 Federalism: Forging a Nation. We the people (Tenth ed.).
McGraw-Hill Humanities.
Patterson, T. E. (2012). Ch. 4 Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights. We the people (Tenth ed.). : McGraw-Hill Humanities.
Patterson, T. E. (2012). Ch. 5 Equal Rights: Struggling Towards Fairness. We the people (Tenth ed.). : McGraw-Hill Humanities.
2. Roche, John P. "The Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus in Action". American Politics. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. 1999. (Pages 8 -- 20).
Schultz, David, and John R. Vile. The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America. 710-712. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale Virtual Reference Library, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that individuals have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and impacts, against absurd searches and seizures, yet the issue close by here is whether this additionally applies to the ventures of open fields and of articles in plain view and whether the fourth correction gives insurance over these also. With a specific end goal to reaffirm the courts' choice on this matter I will be relating their choices in the instances of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which bargain straightforwardly with the inquiry of whether an individual can have sensible desires of protection as accommodated in the fourth correction concerning questions in an open field or in plain view.
Williams, W. W. (2013). Ruth Bader Ginsburg's equal protection clause: 1970-80. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 41.
Do the First and Fourth Amendments Protect?" Current Issues & Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument with Readings. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. 5th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin's, 1999. 316-324.
"Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789." The Avalon Project. Yale Law School, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.
Dye, T. R., Zeigler, H., & Schubert, L. (2012). The Irony of Democracy (15th ed.).
The Presidential Advisory Simulation was a thought provoking assignment that required students to take on the roles of various political actors. After watching all of the simulation videos, it is evident that the simulations effectively mimicked the presidential advisory system in order to solve a real world policy problem. Moreover, the three simulations, though dealing with different policies, exhibited similarities and differences, conflicts and disagreements, and supported theories and concepts from class lectures. Overall, the simulation assignment was an opportunity to demonstrate our understanding of the presidential advisory system and decision-making in terms of leadership, participation, communication, interests, and various pathologies.
The right to privacy is listed out in the fourth amendment. The constitution is considered the supreme law of the land. The fourth amendment has three components. The first is that U.S. citizens have the right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." The second protects U.S. citizens by prohibiting “unreasonable” search and seizures, which are without probable cause. The third component states that “no warrant may be issued to a law enforcement officer unless that warrant describes with particularity "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" ("Legal Dictionary"). The three components of the fourth amendment lay down the ground work so that U.S. citizens like us have certain rights, which are expressly written.
Knapp, Peter, Jane C. Kronick, R. William Marks, and Miriam G. Vosburgh. The Assault on Equality. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1996.
Works Cited The "Civil Rights" Cornell University Law School, Inc. 2010. Web. The Web. The Web. 1 Apr. 2011.
privacy and searches. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches, and seizures, shall not be violated,
The fight for privacy rights are by no means a recent conflict. In fact, there was conflict even back in the days before the revolutionary war. One of the most well-known cases took place in England, ...
From the beginning of time, females have played a powerful role in the shaping of this world. They have stood by idly and watched as this country moved on without them, and yet they have demanded equal rights as the nation rolls along. Through the years the common belief has been that women could not perform as well as men in anything, but over the years that belief has been proven wrong time and time again. So as time marches on, women have clawed and fought their way up the ladder to gain much needed equal respect from the opposite sex. However, after many years of pain and suffering, the battle for equal rights has not yet been won. Since women have fought for a long time and proven their importance in society, they deserve the same rights as men.
In September 25, 1789, the First Amendment protects people’s privacy of beliefs without government intrusion. The Fourth Amendment protects one’s person and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures. On February 1, 1886 in Boyd v. U.S. Supreme Court recognized the protection of privacy interests under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. In the 1890s, the legal concept of pr...