Should the primary system be reformed?
Should the primary system be reformed? On the surface, the primary system seems to combine the best of all worlds. It has brought about the decline of the "smoke-filled-room", with ordinary citizens selecting the Presidential nominees - and yet it allows both of the major parties to retain their identity with separate ballots. Mirroring the Electoral College system allows for states to retain their own identity, while scheduling stops larger states from dominating. However, the democratic credentials of the primary system can easily be disputed when statistical evidence is brought into play. In New York, only 18.3% of potential voters turned-out for the 2008 primaries; this compares unfavourably to the 50% that voted in the national election of 200B. High levels of political disengagement abound. Moreover, prohibitive state-party rules, regarding closed primaries and caucuses, often restrict voting rights to those registered with the two major parties. The combined result of this is that, invariably, nominees are elected not by the American people at large, but rather by a smaller sub-section of the population - those with political interest. Of course, it could be argued that this not an altogether undesirable outcome. In effect, caucus goers and party-affiliates are able to vet the candidates for a wider electorate that is less likely to be educated on the issues. As a
McCulloch v. Maryland and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Joanna Rodriguez September 29, 2003 Period 3 McCulloch v. Maryland and the Necessary and Proper Clause The United States was a newly independent country in 1791 still recovering from the effects of the dominion of Great Britain during its years as a colony. The government leaders were still unsure if a strong federal government was the best option for the country. Many of them such as Thomas Jefferson, who the Secretary of State at the time felt that a limited government was the best option because it did not centralize all the powers into the national government. Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton proposed a charter to Congress that would create a national bank. Jefferson with his ideas of a limited government was against this charter because it would give the federal government too much power. He debated Hamilton by saying that no where in the Constitution did it state that the national government had the power to create a national bank and that the government had only the explicit powers the Constitution gave it. Hamilton then stated that the national government had all the powers the Constitution did not deny them and that the necessary and proper clause in Article one and section eight of the Constitution gave it the right to create all the laws necessary to carry out the Constitution. With the support of President George Washington, congress passed the
Lowering the Legal Drinking Age In New York State
Lowering the legal drinking age In New York State the legal age to purchase and publicly consume alcohol is twenty-one. Many laws at the state and federal level require that people be only eighteen to do certain things. For example, when someone who is eighteen is accused of a crime they are tried in a court of law as an adult. However, when it comes to purchasing alcohol, eighteen doesn't cut it. In many European countries there is no legal drinking age. In most of these countries there is less alcoholism and abuse of alcoholic substances than in the United States. The legal drinking age should be lowered to eighteen. One reason to lower the drinking age is to keep laws fair and consistent in our state. To drive after nine o'clock in New York a licensed driver must be eighteen - years - old. One must be eighteen to enter a bar or nightclub, or to tend a bar, according to state laws. If someone wants to purchase "adult" material or enter an "adult" club in New York that person must be eighteen. Lastly, to purchase cigarettes (a more addictive and physically dangerous drug) a person in New York needs only to be eighteen years old. In the United States all eighteen-year-old men are required by law to sign up for the draft. If the U.S. were to become involved in a war, any or all of these men could be forced to fight in it. Our federal government feels it is okay
Federalism vs. Devolution
ÐÏࡱá >