I just have to share my homework....I'm making this fun for me

[opiesilver]

And I really hate my class.....

Would you believe I have a 98% in this class so far?

[opiesilver]

Your homework is a 400 to 500 word essay on founding principles.

Congratulations, you are a senior advisor to the US State Department. You have been asked to offer advice to a new government being formed in eastern Europe. What western values and traditions from our readings this week would you recommend to this new government as keys to success?  What might you warn them about?  Be sure to support your essay with at least three of the readings for this week. Feel free to conclude with your own thoughts.

09 Dec 2009
Suggestions for the Unified Republic of Brittonhold

Dear Mr. President,

Congratulations for finally unifying the Republic of Brittionhold.  You are in the best position in the history of the world to make a successful transition to a working democracy.  After centuries of absolute tyranny was laid upon your people by the hands of the evil empire of Mendozicstan your new country threw off the yoke of oppression.  The United States of America stands ready to aid you, if requested by your government, in helping you establish a new governmental structure for your country.  In the earliest days of our country we ourselves had made some missteps that we hope to help you avoid.  We also had some of the most brilliant minds for the time and setup structures within our own government that still stand today as the standard for all democracies.  There are many keys to success in setting up a new government but please allow me to point out a few that are what Americans consider to be extremely important.
   First off, there are no greater freedoms that what our collective creator imbued within us.  Among these freedoms for Americans’ are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  You can find the basis to theses claims and others in our Declaration of Independence (Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader, Rauchut, 2008, p. 11).  You need to decide for yourselves what are the most important values and freedoms of your people.
To protect these freedoms for all Americans we instated a constructional form for democratic government.  You will find in reading our constitution (p.20)  that it is not a perfect governmental construct.  Lucky for us our forefathers had the foresight to have a mechanism in place to make changes, or amendments to our constitution.  Please do not forget to include a way for your people to effect a change in the founding documents of your country if the people deem it necessary.  These changes are not to be made lightly so it is important to make it only possible to change your constitution through the overwhelming consent of the people of your country.  Your constitution is a direct reflection of ideals and values of your country.
   And lastly, you need to protect these values and freedoms.  Your new government needs to be ever vigilant against threats to your core values and freedoms.  The United States of America did just this by setting up our constitution to limit the power of the federal government and then went one step further by dividing power within the federal government into three main branches (p. 75).  This was done so no one branch of our government could achieve power over the other two.  Self scrutiny of your governments’ actions and treatment of the people that it represents is your countries first line of defense against failing to achieve a long last and working government.
   In conclusion I submit to you that your country has a magnificent opportunity to secede where so many have failed before.  Help your country take its rightful place in history.  Help guide your country to a truly free and democratic society.

Very respectfully,

Del Goins
US Department of State, Senior Advisor

[opiesilver]

Your homework is a 400 to 500 word essay on the US Constitution.

Congratulations, you are a senior editor for The Omaha World-Herald newspaper. You attended 'The Great Debate' between Brennan and Meese, Stevens, Bork, and Reagan. Write an opinion column for the Sunday paper which informs the readers about the topics in the great debate and offers your analysis of the debate.  What was it about? Who won? Who lost? What do you think your readers should gain from this debate?

15 Dec 2009
Editorial for the Omaha World Herald

Hello my all loyal readers.  I am the maleficent Editor in Chief of your news paper and as such get to say anything I want because you will believe anything in print anyway.  As a good friend of mine, the Emperor of Mendozicstan, used to say “Americans are stupid, fat and lazy. Americans are sheeple.  Why don’t you just defect?” 
   But onwards.  This week I wanted to talk to you about something which has been a topic of discussion in the office all week long.  I’m talking about The Great Debate between Regan, Bork, Meese, and Stevens.  I was there man.  I heard it all.  For those of you who haven’t heard of it don’t bother doing your own independent research on the internet.  I will tell you everything you need to know to form the right opinion on it.
   The major topic of the debate was should Supreme Court justices make their rulings based on original intent of the writers of the US Constitution or base their ruling on the literal interpretation of it.  Thus we are presented with two opposing philosophies.  The Living Constitution philosophy and the Originalism philosophy.
   On the side of the Living Constitution proponents point out cases such as Dred Scott versus Sanford (1856) (Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader, Rauchut, 2008, p. 77) in which a seriously bad ruling  was issued that was in favor of slavery despite a statute passed by Congress banning slavery in federal territories.  Chief Justice Taney threw out the congressional debate and the Missouri Compromise (p.78) in order to promote his own passionate belief in the right to own slaves.  The Chief Justice’s actions illustrates the danger that Originalist point out is the danger of the Living Constitution philosophy.
   The Originalist on the other hand believe that the job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution and no legislate from the bench. (p.73)  They believe that the Living Constitution philosophy promotes “an end run around popular government” as a way to effect social changes. (p.77)
   So who won this debate between the great thinkers of the 20th century?  Why was the debate important to us?  Do we even care?  Well, to answer this series of questions we must understand that the appointment of Supreme Court nominees has really become more and more of an exercise in political philosophies.  The conservatives want a justice on the court who is more in line with the Originalist philosophy so that the Judicial Branch of our government does not in effect make laws from the bench or overturn laws that by popular demand of the people of the United States were enacted.  The liberals want judges who believe in a Living Constitution because they don’t really believe that the Constitution as it is really applies to today’s life and that only thru the version of correct interpretation of the Constitution can social reforms be made.  Both sides have abused and twisted the laws to their own benefits.  Neither philosophy can be totally right 100% of the time.  Neither can they be wrong.  But without this kind of debate in public a court could be stacked so heavily in favor of one or the other philosophy that decisions such as the Dred Scott vs. Sanford case could be allowed stand.  That’s why we must care and that’s why we must continue to have such debates.  As to who won….we all did.

[opiesilver]

Your homework is a 400 to 500 word essay on the role of the national government in the USA today.

Congratulations. President Obama has heard that you are well-versed in the concepts of limited government, progressivism, Machiavelli, and utopianism.  He has invited you to supper to give him some advice on how to conduct himself as president of our great country. His Chief-of-Staff has asked for a summary of your advice in anticipation of the supper.

Answer these three questions for President Obama:  How much control should the national government assume when confronting our political challenges? How should he balance his progressive ideals with Machiavellian political realities of exercising power?  And, what should he strive for instead of the never-never land of utopianism?

Naturally, you want to sound informed and intelligent, so be sure to use at least three of the readings for this week to support your essay. In other words, your essay should prove to your beloved professor that you read and understood the assigned readings.

***READ WITH A THICK RUSSIAN ACCENT***

22 Dec 2009
Outline for meeting with the President
Dr. Mr. President,
My name is Doctor Professor Serji Kavorkian.  I am a naturalized citizen and professor of American Government at Bellevue University in Bellevue Nebraska.  I was born in a small country I’m sure you have heard of, especially since you had it bombed on accident three years ago.  I was born in Cheltonia, Brittianhold.  My father was a poor shoe maker and my mother sold matches to feed my 14 brothers and 5 sisters.  I went to college with the help my uncle who sold his left eye to get the money for my tuition.  I then came to America to study for my masters degree on scholarship.  Much like your Mexicans, I just never left once I was here.
You have asked for my advice on how to conduct yourself as the President of the United States of America in regards to exercising political power.  I have much to say on this, you will see.  But first let me explain a few concepts for you.
I have noticed that you seem to want to create a more Utopian style society here in America.  With all of this talk about health care reform and making peace with long time enemies of the United States.  Well, my uncle used to say, before his tongue was removed by my Aunt for making bad jokes, that utopias are for fools.  The idea of a Utopian society goes back as far as 428BC.  When Plato (Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader, Rauchut, 2008, p. 277) was just a young man, over 2400 years ago, he used to have nothing to do but sit around and write down all the silly thoughts in his head.  He thought about many things and how his own government was and how he would ideally shape it was one of those things.  His idea for a perfect government was one in which everyone was possessed of all good virtues and if the need arose everyone was willing to fight to defend their utopian way of life.  Although he died before completing his writings he is considered the father of the utopian dream.
What you really should concern yourself with is how to balance your silly progressive dreams with the reality of exercising responsible political power.  An example of which are the changes to current environmental laws being discussed at the United Nations.  You seem to be a proponent of radical, and dangerous, restrictions on carbon emissions.  You are pushing for your own ideals while ignoring the effect that it will have on the economy.  Ideally you would want to weigh the pros and cons of such wide ranging agreements when in truth we would be the only country on the face of the planet to really try and enforce such a change on our citizens.  You should read up on Machiavellian theories of political leadership p. 225).  Machiavelli used empirical observation and generalization to understand that perceptions are more real in their consequences than reality itself.
Here is what I sincerely believe you should strive for giving that human nature will never allow for a Utopia to exist.  You should do your best to shrink the federal government.  Stop spending at 1980 levels.  Yes, this will mean an actual budget decrease and not the made up decrease that doesn’t actually represent a decrease in money spent.  For too many years politicians have claimed spending decreases when it only meant a decrease in the rate of acceleration of the spending that was happening.  You should dissolved Federal departments which operate in a manner of passing regulations that have the weight of being laws without the consent of the people.  The Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission are prime examples of this.
And remember, Mr. President, if you really want to help the American people then suicide is an option….feel free to have the Vice President and the Speaker of the House demonstrate this tactic for you.
Very respectfully,
Doctor Professor Serji Kavorkian

[ZWarrior]

Nice subtle references in there.  Loved the biting sarcasm.  Too bad it is probably lost on your instructor.