Bill of Rights: First 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

What Role Do Judges And The Judicial System Play In Supporting Freedom?

The judicial system interprets the Constitution and applies federal laws that govern all Americans.  The judicial system reviews decisions of state courts to make sure they comply with federal law.  One would think this sounds more like the judicial system restricts freedom more than it supports it, but that is not the case.  By the judicial system interpreting the Constitution, it gives us freedoms.  For example, let’s consider freedom of speech, press, and religion.  If the judicial system did not interpret those, we would have less freedom.  All this makes the U.S. unique from other countries.  You do not have to belong to a certain religion.  You can say whatever is on your mind, within reason. 

I have posted a video on the Bill of Rights that is the first 10 Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.  I believe the Bill of Rights are the most important Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.  Without the Bill of Rights would there be human rights in the United States?  I really do not believe so.  There would be no other basis for human rights.  Citizens would have no freedom.  Police officers would not have to do their work the right way in order to put people in jail.

The Bill of Rights covers freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, granting soldiers the right to be quartered in houses only with consent of the owner, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to not be tried for any serious crime without the Grand Jury meeting first to determine if there is enough evidence for trial, the right to a speedy trial, the right to a jury, the right to no cruel or unusual punishment, the right to other rights besides what’s in the Constitution, and the right for anything the Constitution doesn’t say that Congress can do should be left up to the states or to the people.

All of these rights are subjective.  Judges and the judicial system are there to interpret these rights.  They are here to make sure our rights are not violated. 

Another important way the judicial system supports freedom is by giving the weak the ability to challenge those who have power.  Those who have power generally do not have to face up to anything.  That is not the case in the court of law.

Bill of Rights: First 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

How Does the U.S. Congress, as it Exists in its Current Structure, Support and/or Limit Authentic Representation?

The way Congress support authentic representation of the people is by representatives and senators being elected into their positions.  This lets the public determine who they want in the Senate and House of Representatives rather than other political parties voting for who they think should be in the Senate or House of Representatives.  The Senate makes sure each state is represented in Congress, while the littler areas within each are made sure they are represented by the House of Representatives.

Congress limits the authentic representation of people by not having an exact profile of the citizens its members represent.  There are some populations with too much representation.  Some of these populations are most likely males, college educated, white, wealthy, professional and business people.  Other populations are not represented or if they are they are disproportionately represented.  Some of the populations would likely to include Hispanics, Blacks, poor, high school educated, and homeless.  I don’t see those who are being over-represented really trying to work towards the interests of those are not represented or are disproportionately represented.

Congress is allowed to pick Supreme Court judges.  That is another way Congress limited authentic representation of people.  Since the majority of Congress are wealthy, white, males they more than likely will want to pick Supreme Court judges like themselves.  That isn’t right at all.  They should have a more open mind about others.

I came across an article on Supreme Court judges and American Indians.  The American Indian population would like to be represented in the Supreme Court.  Currently there are no American Indians in the Supreme Court.  They often are misunderstood.  A lot of American Indian judges or lawyers spend all their lives helping their tribes or public interest groups, while tribal experience is misunderstood and dismissed. 

Elena Kagan is perhaps the most qualified American Indian to be considered for the Supreme Court.  Congress was against having Elena on it.  This was a devastating blow because it could have further made history.  There are 860 Supreme Court judges and not one is American Indian.  How is that truly having presentation for everyone?  How can we finally have adequate and equal presentation of Senate, House of Representatives, and Supreme Court?

American Indians Ask for Voice on Federal Court - http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/07/02/american-indians-ask-for-voice-on-federal-court?PageNr=2

Debating the Electoral College System | The New York Observer

Debating the Electoral College System The New York Observer

In What Ways Does the U.S. Presidency Support and Limit the Formation of an Ideal Democracy?

The U.S. Presidency supporting and limiting the formation of an ideal democracy is a contradictory subject.  On one hand, the U.S. Presidency supports the formation of an ideal democracy by allowing the public to vote.  In other countries, that is not always the case.  The public can vote on the Presidency all the way down to local things like Amendments, Mayor, Governor, etc.  There is a huge difference in how elections work from the Presidency to all the local elections like Mayor, Governor, Amendments, etc.  For local elections, everyone simply votes whether by mail-in ballot or going to your assigned voting destination.  After that, the votes are counted up and the winners are announces.

For the U.S. Presidency, it is not that simple.  Everyone can still vote whether by mail-in ballot or going to your assigned voting destination.  After that it is determined, as a country who has the majority vote.  It does not stop there.  The other system in place for the U.S. Presidency is the Electoral College.  It gives different elector numbers based on the number of Senators and members of House of Representation the state has.

That is one of the parts that are contradictory.  While the U.S. Presidency allows the public to vote, it does not rely heavily on individual votes.   For example, in the 2000 election, Al Gore had the majority vote but George W. Bush had more Electoral College votes and won.  In an ideal democracy, it should be more about individuals than groups.

Another contradictory fact is that, while the public can vote on different bills to pass or fail, Congress still has the power to pass a bill that the public did not pass on.  If Congress really likes a bill that did not pass, them and other political parties can send it to the President and let the President decide on it.  This doesn’t seem much like a democracy.  Why is the public voting on bills when Congress can still pass them onto the President regardless of the outcome?

I attached a link to a clip of debating the Electoral College system.  Tom Golisano wants to eliminate it, while Pat Buchanan wants to keep it in place.  My question is should the Electoral College system still be in use?  Should we elect the President purely on the majority vote? Is there another possible system to use to elect the President?

Debating the Electoral College System | The New York Observer

Debating the Electoral College System The New York Observer