A Formal Review on Government & Order

-By, Marquell Garrett
DATED: March 12, 2008; Wednesday @ 1700hrs EDT



Introduction:



Looking at the world today there are very few people who will disagree with me when I say that there is no order and peace about the world today. There are several contributors to this crises but the prominent contributor is that of a lack of an ideal government. Many nations and citizens of humanity turn to the United States of America for guidance but the fact remains that the U.S. hasn’t symbolized the basic principles of freedom and a government for the people and by the people in a long time. The world is in desperate need for order as it is only natural that without order and freedom, human beings will revert back to their natural animal instincts of survival. The purpose of this review is to educate others and make aware of past governments, the collapses and failures of other governments, and the ideal government in order to truly have peace and order. This is not a proclamation or declaration of war on any nation. Nor should it be seen as an act of treason or betrayal. This review will simply address the issues of past and current governments and the ideal government in order to avoid some of the current and past crises of different governments and in order to maintain peace, liberty, and order.

Purpose of a Government:

Definition:

The definition of government can be broken down as the following:
1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body.
3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority.
5. A governing body or organization, as:
a. The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system.
b. The cabinet in a parliamentary system.
c. The persons who make up a governing body.
6. A system or policy by which a political unit is governed.
7. Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.
8. Political science.

Function of a Government:

The whole idea of a government is to provide some type of order and peace amongst the people and to remain independent from other lands or governments. Naturally all living things have a basic instinct of survival. Animals are willing to do anything to survive and or protect their offspring. Homo sapiens are no exception to the rule. It seems that it is a universal instinct and reaction of all living things to survive and protect their offspring. It is also universal that all animals, Homo sapiens being no exception to the rule, will do anything to get what they desire or need in life in order to survive or satisfy some other need or pleasure. So, what is it that makes human beings so great? For one, Homo sapiens have an incredible passion and desire to care for others, love, and hate yet control it all. More importantly, human beings have the ability and knowledge to organize and live together under unity and hopefully peace. However, when a person’s life or peace is in jeopardy you begin to see people revolt against their government and revert back to their natural animal-like instincts. The whole idea of a government is to maintain unity, in order to maintain order, which is too also help maintain peace. What typically comes into question when looking at previous and current governments is whether or not order is producing peace and happiness and whether or not peace, liberty, and happiness should come before order? This is a tricky question. The real answer to this question will hopefully be answered by the end of this review. Traditionally a government is suppose to provide four basic things. The first basic responsibility of a government is that a government has is to provide domestic and foreign protection against all domestic and foreign invasions and or enemies. First I will discuss a government’s role in domestic security. As I mentioned above, Homo sapiens are like any other animal in the sense that we will do virtually anything and everything to get what we desire or need to survive or have a plentiful life. With this being said, one major role of the government is to provide security and a system of justice domestically in order to maintain order. There are several different ways to do this. Basically the current trend seems to be the use of a police department, privet security such as private detectives and security guards, and also other departments such as the FBI, DEA, Homeland Security, etc. Now by providing these departments the overall objective is to help catch those who break the law, bring those personnel to justice, and more importantly, keep order amongst the communities. The government has a job to protect its citizens against ciaos and criminal offenders. Remember that I stated earlier that Homo sapiens are naturally a wreck. We see something we want or need and naturally we want and are willing to do anything to get it. We also have the ability to overcome these urges and also have the ability to ignore these urges altogether while there is still a sense of order about things. However, as soon as that order is jeopardized Homo sapiens tend to turn to their natural defense, every man being for themselves. It is the job of the government to provide a domestic security and justice system to focus on this underline problem and to control crime. There are many people that will tell you that criminals are all prisoners of the same frame of thinking and that there is a criminal behavioral pattern that can be observed in all criminals to help one capture criminals, essentially saying that there is a formula that will give you a criminal. I for one am too smart to recognize this as a fact. The fact is that Homo sapiens, like many other species, are a natural wreck and without order we will lose all control. It is the government’s job to prevent this from happening by fulfilling multiple responsibilities for the people, domestic security being one of them. It is also important for the government to protect its people from foreign invasions and foreign enemies. A government is suppose to provide order and remain separate from other lands and governments. This can only happen, and the people will only feel secured, if the government protects its people from foreign invasions. Most of the time this is done using a military or paid mercenaries. There have been many occasions where civilians have been drafted out of their homes and placed on the battle field by force. Nonetheless it is the duty of a government to protect its people domestically and foreign in order to maintain order and control. The second responsibility of a government is to provide a system of justice and law. This is to also help establish order but more importantly it is suppose to maintain peace and get rid of the peace disturbers. It doesn’t matter how a government choices to provide a justice system, as long as there is a system were laws can be interpreted and forced. With this being said, a third responsibility a government has is to provide laws to the people in order for the people to know what is expected of them and to set some standards for order and peace. If the people do not know the law and do not know what is expected of them then they will naturally at like any other animal and develop a mind set and attitude of every man for themselves. This will also happen if a government fails to provide their fourth obligation. A government is also suppose to provide prosperity and economical welfare for the people. A government is responsible for providing all the basic economical needs and basic needs of life to all people who cannot independently achieve these needs. It is also the responsibility of a government to be sure that all of its citizens have basic needs such as a home, food, water, and other basic necessities of life. By failing to provide these needs order will disappear as the people will be forced to use their natural instincts and do anything and everything to survive including murder, stealing, and abandoning their young to increase their own chances of survival. If this happen then the government will have failed to maintain peace and order and therefore be defeating the prominent objective of a government. In addition to establishing and maintaining order and peace a government is suppose to maintain a sense of pride with its people and spread happiness to its citizens. Now that we know the purpose and role of a government I will now talk about some different types of governments and some problems and benefits of these governments.



Types of Governments & Their Pros and Cons:

Anarchy:

Definition: By current definition anarchy is the absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.

Historically anarchy can be described as a theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder). The ideal of anarchy is that the people should have the right to control their lives and protect themselves without oppression or influence from others and that people do not need a government in order to establish order and peace because these principles can be established amongst themselves as a person, family, and or communities. Many people believe that anarchy is anti-government and against order and peace but in all fairness anarchy is pro-individual liberty and pro order and justice without government influences. Historically the idea of anarchy has been around for a while and it could be argued that it holds some of the greatest ideas of freedom and human rights than any government ever offered. Anarchists have played a part in revolutionary movements throughout history. The French Revolution that begun in 1789 had a strong proto-anarchist element. Anarchists such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin, and Errico Malatesta played an essential part in the development of revolutionary anarchist theory in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Anarchists played a substantial role in the revolutionary movements in Russia in 1905 and 1917, but were suppressed, often ruthlessly, once the Bolsheviks had consolidated power. The Spanish Revolution of 1936-1939 set the stage for the most widely known large-scale manifestation of anarchist practice, in which anarcho-syndicalist organizations (the FAI and CNT) successfully created workable, non-hierarchical social and economic alternatives. In the United States, as well as in Mexico and Latin America, there was an anarcho-syndicalist influence within the trade union movement (for example the Industrial Workers of the World). Prominent anarchists such as Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman participated in a variety of radical causes throughout the early 1900s. There was a strong anarchist current in many of the social change and alternative lifestyle movements of the 1960s (including parts of the feminist movement, the gay liberation movement and the anti-war and free speech movements); although in many cases these were overshadowed, if not frankly repressed, by Marxist/Leninist/Maoist currents. The whole objective of any anarchist or anarchist group is not to overthrow the government, which may very well happen in the process, but the overall objective of the anarchist is to grant 100% human rights and liberties to the people and not have these rights controlled or dictated by any government. This may sound very familiar. Many would argue that the founding fathers of the United States had these same ideas in mind. Also we see throughout U.S. and world history that there have been many men and women who have not seen themselves as anarchists nor portrayed as such argue for the rights and liberties of human beings to be granted to all and not influenced or controlled by the government. Historically this is all anarchism means.

Monarchy:

Definition: 1: undivided rule or absolute sovereignty by a single person 2: a nation or state having a monarchical government 3: a government having a hereditary chief of state with life tenure and powers varying from nominal to absolute.

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I am sure we have all heard of this phrase. This phrase derived from the failures of the monarchy government. The whole idea of a monarchy government or kingdom is that one person will have all power and be in charge of appointing others as he or she sees fit. Also this person typically will derive from royal bloodline or noblemen. The structure of this government is centered around one person on the bases of tradition but more prominently to establish a strong since of order. The benefit of this government is that if you have one great leader serving the best interests of the people and listening to the people, along with sharing power, then the state of the nation will be magnificent and almost undefeatable. The problem is that when you have a bad king acting in his or her own interests, ignoring the people, and not sharing power there is no peaceful solution to this problem and it would be hard to stop such ruler because legally and traditionally they will have all of the power and the people will have no way to challenge such ruler. In addition to this problem you will find that the ruler’s replacement or successor may not be so popular either and even a worst ruler. Historically we have seen Kings, Pharaohs, Russian Zars, Queens, and emperors make deals with the church and force religious ways and convictions on people, deny people basic individual rights and liberties, and deny people basic welfare such as shelter, food and water due to a poor sense of order and importance of welfare. Because monarchy leaders cannot be controlled and have absolute power, when monarchists act in ways that harms the people, the government no longer is effective and no longer functions as a government because it brings ciaos amongst the people which is exactly what a government is suppose to be preventing. One example of this is the French King during the French revolutionary war, King Louis XVI. Under this King’s reign we seen France become a horrible nation to live in while the King and his wife drove the nation into debt, destroyed the moral character of France, and abandoned the welfare of the citizens of France by leaving them with no money due to high taxes and no food or shelter being they were all confiscated due to the inability of common men and women to pay their overpriced taxes. It is safe to say that King Louis XVI failed to provide welfare for the people and failed to maintain order amongst the people. The monarchy hence failed the people and ultimately the people reverted back to their natural animal-like instincts of every man being for themselves. We also saw this with other monarchies such as with China during the era of the Emperor Qin Shi Huang. Under such emperor Chinese citizens who opposed or disagreed with what the emperor wanted done was killed. In addition to this people were forced to build a wall around the entire empire which is now known as the Great Wall of China. Men who became ill and died while building the wall were said to have been buried inside the wall. It is also known that the emperor exhausted all of his resources on the wall ignoring the economic and social welfare of the Chinese people. The people were starved and dissatisfied with their government but powerless to change it. It can be said that the only way to change a monarchy is through violent means being that having one person with absolute power really doesn’t leave you with much room to politically challenge the government. Ultimately a monarchy government relays too much on one man and does not provide all the basic needs a person needs from their government. It can be said that a monarchy creates ciaos and misery instead of order and peace.

Theocracy:

Definition: Theocracy is a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e.: a church), replacing or dominating civil government.

Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God". A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative hierarchy of the government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two 'arms,' but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy. Some democratic political parties and other organizations advocate reconstruction of governments as theocracies. Some alleged examples include the Unification Church and Christian Reconstructionism. Theocracy is a government that is centered on a common religious belief and governs the people according to such religious convictions. One example of this government is Afghanistan during the government rule of the Taliban. During the Taliban leadership you see many citizens of Afghanistan forced to uphold and prescribe to certain religious beliefs under the laws of the country although many women who were forced to prescribe to such tenets and convictions vigorously opposed such notions and convictions. The Taliban set the religious standards for the nation and the nation’s religion of Islam and forced all citizens of the nation to follow the law. The problem with this is that not all citizens practiced Islam or believe as vigorously or believed in certain aspects of Islam as the Taliban. This meant that the Taliban set standards for people’s religion and forced religion onto the people, denying the people happiness, peace, and their basic human rights. A government is suppose to provide peace and order to its citizens but in the case of the Taliban rule we see the government fail to provide peace and happiness thus they failed to provide true order and liberty to the people and so failed as a government. The government could not be challenge by an individual person because it was against religious convictions to challenge religious leaders and Allah and so it was impossible to challenge the rule of the Taliban without facing your very own death. Another example of a theocracy is the government of modern day Iran. Iran also currently has their government structured around religious convictions. We do here about people who talk about religious oppression in the nation of Iran and the structure of the government being so one-sided that it is impossible for any one person or group of people for that matter to change the structure and role of the current government. We see that with a theocracy people are denied their basic civil and equal rights to practice or not practice their own religious and personal beliefs and convictions as he or she see fit. It also forces certain preferences and denominations of religions on people and fail to provide the people with a way to challenge their government and fight for justice and equality without being considered as criminals, terrorists, and committing an act of treason. The only way that any theocracy can be challenged is through violence and blood and to a dominate degree; challenge the religion of the nation. For those who do not believe in a god or religion a theocracy provides no liberty, order, or protection and only cause this person to live in misery and as an unwilling slave to religion. Theocracy fails to provide order amongst the people because it fails to provide a way to peacefully and rightfully challenge the government and fails to provide all of its citizens with a path to happiness that they can accept and a path to peace. Each citizen of humanity has a right to choice religion as a path to happiness or not to choose religion as a path to happiness. Theocracy eliminates this right and forces religious convictions onto its citizens. This is not maintaining true order, peace, and liberty and so is failing as a government.

Dictatorship:

Definition: 1. The office or tenure of a dictator. 2. A state or government under dictatorial rule. 3.

Absolute or despotic control or power. A dictatorship is a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) Example of dictatorships and governments in which a dictatorships can derive from include a monocracy, one-man rule, shogunate, Stalinism, totalitarianism, tyranny, authoritarianism, Caesarism, despotism, absolutism, autocracy, autarchy - a political system governed by a single individual, democracy (if the people fail to challenge their government or can’t reasonably challenge their government-republics included), and police state - a country that maintains repressive control over the people by means of police (especially secret police). A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by a dictator. Roman dictator was a political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily. In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state. For some scholars, like Joseph C.W. Chan from the University of Hong Kong, dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed, while totalitarianism describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior of the people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power (where the power comes from) and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power (what the government regulates). In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's life) corresponds to liberalism (government emphasizes individual right and liberty). Though the definitions of the terms differ, they are related in reality as most of the dictatorship states tend to show totalitarian characteristics. When a governments' power does not come from the people, their power is not limited and tend to expand their scope of power to control every aspect of people's life. One example of a dictatorship is the Iraq government during the time of Saddam Hussein. We seen under his rule the Iraqi people denied basic necessities of life. We also seen under Saddam’s rule the people treated inhumanly, i.e. Being exposed to chemical and bio-agents in order to test such agents although the agents were known and expected to cause thousands of innocent lives. We seen Saddam so subsisted with building palaces that he denied people basic things like food, water, and a job in order to focus all of the nation’s wealth and resources on him and his palaces. It is clear that this dictator has no regards to his citizens and no regards and respect for order and peace. We seen Saddam deny his people the right to freely oppose him by killing anyone who spoke or fought against him. We also see the constitutions and laws of the land centered around Saddam’s absolute rule and his right to make and bend laws as he sees fit. The problems with a dictatorship is that regardless of the laws and constitution the dictator becomes unstoppable through peaceful means leaving the only option for homo sapiens to revert back to their animal like instincts and to act out in violence against the government. This is not peace and more prominently it is definitely not order. A dictatorship can never maintain order and peace because there is no way to challenge the dictator and the dictator always become far too powerful and concerned with their own ideas and interests instead of the people’s ideas and interests.

Totalitarian:

Definition: Rule by a single political party. One single party controls all the nation’s legislation, human rights and civil rights of the people, military, and the nation’s judicial matters. People are forced to do what the government tells them and may also be prevented from leaving the country.

Totalitarianism is state regulation of nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cults, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, single-party states, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics. One example of a totalitarian government is China. China considers themselves a republic but is a communist practicing nation versus capitalism. China is governed by one single political party. This party often acts in matters that are not of the people’s wishes and not in the best interests of the people. The problem with this government is that when it comes to the judicial matters of the nation, the people will always face harsh judgment and will not be given a realistic and fair trial where their side of the story will be heard and the truth will be sought after. Totalitarian regimes differ from older concepts of dictatorship or tyranny. Totalitarian regimes seek to establish complete political, social and cultural control, whereas dictatorships seek limited, typically political, control. Two types of totalitarianism can sometimes be distinguished: Nazism and Fascism which evolved from "right-wing" extremism, and Communism, which evolved from "left-wing" extremism. Traditionally, each is supported by different social classes. Right-wing totalitarian movements have generally drawn their popular support primarily from middle classes seeking to maintain the economic and social status quo. Left-wing totalitarianism has often developed from working class movements seeking, in theory, to eliminate, not preserve, class distinctions. Right-wing totalitarianism has typically supported and enforced the private ownership of industrial wealth. A distinguishing feature of Communism, by contrast, is the collective ownership of such capital.
Totalitarian regimes mobilize and make use of mass political participation, and often are led by charismatic cult figures. Examples of such cult figures in modern history are Mao Tse-tung (China) and Josef Stalin (Soviet Union), who led left-wing regimes, and Adolph Hitler (Germany) and Benito Mussolini (Italy), who led right-wing regimes.
Right-wing totalitarian regimes (particularly the Nazis) have arisen in relatively advanced societies, relying on the support of traditional economic elites to attain power. In contrast, left-wing totalitarian regimes have arisen in relatively undeveloped countries through the unleashing of revolutionary violence and terror. Such violence and terror are also the primary tools of right-wing totalitarian regimes to maintain compliance with authority.
The problem with a totalitarian government is that the people are forced to do what the government tells them to do. This leaves little room to question or challenge the government peacefully because the judicial branch will be nonexistent. Also people will be monitored and their basic civil and human liberties will be denied in the name of the government, freedom, and security. This will ultimately leave people oppressed by their government, denied the basic right to independently pursue economic welfare, and denied the right to freedom which is not true order but only outrages people and can cause an eventual revolt and overthrowing of the regime or government which is defiantly not order. Totalitarianism does not keep control and order over the people and ultimately does not address the basic will of the people to be happy and do anything to get there and remain happy.

Parliamentary:

Definition: A parliamentary system is led by representatives of the people. Each is chosen as a member of a political party and remains in power as long as his/her party does. A parliamentary system, also known as parliamentarianism (and parliamentary in U.S. English), is distinguished by the executive branch of government being dependent on the direct or indirect support of the parliament, often expressed through a vote of confidence. Hence, there is no clear-cut separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, leading to a differing set of checks and balances compared to those found in a presidential republic.

Parliamentary systems usually have a clear differentiation between the head of government and the head of state, with the head of government being the prime minister or premier, and the head of state often being an elected (either popularly or through parliament) president or hereditary monarch. Though in Parliamentary systems the prime minister and cabinet will exercise executive power on a day-to-day basis, actual authority will usually be bestowed in the head of state, giving them many codified or uncodified reserve powers, providing some balance to these systems. The term parliamentary system does not mean that a country is ruled by different parties in coalition with each other. Such multi-party arrangements are usually the product of an electoral system known as proportional representation. Parliamentary countries that use "first past the post" voting usually have governments composed of one party. However, parliamentary systems in continental Europe do use proportional representation, and tend to produce election results in which no single party has a majority of seats. Parliamentarianism may also be for governance in local governments. An example is the city of Oslo, which has an executive council as a part of the parliamentary system. The council-manager system of municipal government used in some U.S. cities bears many similarities to a parliamentary system. One major example of a parliamentary system is play is the United Kingdom. In the UK parliament pretty much controls the government and is chosen by the people. Also you see one house of the parliament is chosen by their bloodline (House of Lords). What mainly should be pointed out is that generally as long as your party is in power (elected) the parliament members of the part can remain in power. This may sound similar to Totalitarianism but I assure you it is far different and far better. For one Parliament doesn’t have secret police or force people to remain in the country. Parliament is chosen by the people and is similar to a republic but varies in the since that a Prime Minister (member of Parliament) is the chief head of state. In some cases there is a President but the Prime Mister typically have more power and the Parliament typically have the authority to vote out the President and replace he or she. The problem with all governments is that people will not always agree with government decisions and may wish to become a government official to change things. With a Parliamentary system this is hard to do being that if you are not a member of the party already in power then you will have to become a member (which is not easy to do) and wait in line for your party to give you an ok to run. If you wish to run as an independent you can’t because you have to be a member of one of the parties’ that are already in place. So this being said, there is no way for someone to challenge the government peacefully and change the government by means of running for public office which means that ultimately not everyone can have an influence or control over their government. So when the government acts in ways that the people don’t like they will have to simple vote in another party which may be just as bad or just deal with it. It is impossible for one man to make a huge impact which brings chaos to the common men and does not maintain control and order over the people in the long run.

Republic/Democratic:

Definition: A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch, where the people of that state or country (or at least a part of the people) have impact on its government, and that is usually indicated as a republic. A democratic government is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch, where the people of the state or country (or at least a part of the people) have direct impact on its government, and also have the direct ability to pick individual people to led them (similar to a republic).

In most modern republics the head of state is termed president. Other titles that have been used are consul, doge, archon and many others. In republics that are also democracies the head of state is appointed as the result of an election. This election can be indirect, such as if a council of some sort is elected by the people and this council then elects the head of state. In these kinds of republics the usual term for a president is in the range of four to six years. In some countries the constitution limits the number of terms the same person can be elected as president. If the head of state of a republic is at the same time the head of government, this is called a presidential system (example: United States). In semi-presidential systems and parliamentary republics, where the head of state is not the same person as the head of government, the latter is usually termed prime minister, premier or chancellor. Depending on what the president's specific duties are (for example, advisory role in the formation of a government after an election), and varying by convention, the president's role may range from the ceremonial and apolitical to influential and highly political. The Prime Minister is responsible for managing the policies and the central government. The rules for appointing the president and the leader of the government, in some republics permit the appointment of a president and a prime minister who have opposing political convictions: in France, when the members of the ruling cabinet and the president come from opposing political factions, this situation is called cohabitation. In countries such as Germany and India, however, the president needs to be strictly non-partisan. In some countries, like Switzerland and San Marino, the head of state is not a single person but a committee (council) of several persons holding that office. The Roman Republic had two consuls, appointed for a year by the senate. During the year of their consulship each consul would in turn be head of state for a month at a time, thus alternating the office of consul mayor (the consul in power) and of consul suffectus (the subordinate consul who retained some independence, and held certain veto powers over the consul mayor) for their joint term. Republics can be led by a head of state that has many of the characteristics of a monarch: not only do some republics install a president for life, and invest such president with powers beyond what is usual in a representative democracy, examples such as the post-1970 Syrian Arab Republic show that such a presidency can apparently be made hereditary. Historians disagree when the Roman Republic turned into Imperial Rome: the reason is that the first Emperors were given their head of state powers gradually in a government system that in appearance did not originally much differ from the Roman Republic. Similarly, countries usually qualified as monarchies can have many traits of a republic in terms of form of government. The political power of monarchs can be non-existent, limited to a purely ceremonial function or the impact by the people on the country's government can be exerted to the extent that they appear to have the power to have their monarch replaced by another one. The often assumed "mutual exclusiveness" of monarchies and republics as forms of government is thus not to be taken too literally and largely depends on circumstances:
• Autocrats might try to give themselves a democratic tenure by calling themselves president (or princeps or princeps senates in the case of Ancient Rome), and the form of government of their country "republic", instead of using a monarchic based terminology.
• For full-fledged representative democracies ultimately it generally does not make all that much difference whether the head of state is a monarch or a president, nor, in fact, whether these countries call themselves a monarchy or a republic. Other factors, for instance, religious matters can often make a greater distinguishing mark when comparing the forms of government of actual countries. For this reason, in political science the several definitions of "republic", which in such a context invariably indicate an "ideal" form of government, do not always exclude monarchy: the evolution of such definitions of "republic" in a context of political philosophy is treated in republicanism. However, such theoretical approaches appear to have had no real influence on the everyday use (that is: apart from a scholar or "insider" context) of the terminology regarding republics and monarchies. The least that can be said is that Anti-Monarchism, the opposition to monarchy as such, did not always play a critical role in the creation and/or management of republics. For some republics, not choosing a monarch as head of state could as well be a practical rather than an ideological consideration. Such "practical" considerations could be, for example, a situation where there was no monarchical candidate readily available. However, for the states created during or shortly after the Enlightenment the choice was always deliberate: republics created in that period inevitably had anti-monarchical characteristics. For the United States the opposition of some to the British Monarchy played a role, as did the overthrow of the French Monarchy in the creation of the first French Republic. By the time of the creation of the Fifth Republic in that country "anti-monarchist" tendencies were barely felt. The relations of that country to other countries made no distinctions whether these other countries were "monarchies" or not. You may have noticed that I have not mentioned a democratic government. This is because a democratic government is bound by the same principles of a republic, the only difference between the two is that a democratic government tends to show a little more concerns to the people in terms of human rights and choosing a government but is so similar to a republic that at the end of the day it works the exact same as a republic. This is why you will hear people say that all democratic governments are in some form a republic, at least by tenets. The problem with democratic governments and republics is that is can become so concerned about the republic and less concerned about the people that the people become screwed out of their basic civil liberties and necessities of life. Also republics and democratic governments have such high potentials of producing dictators that without a government being able to be recalled and constantly directly challenged by the people the government will produce a dictator or function as a Totalitarianism government and we all know the final outcome of this. There is no republic or democratic government that allows the people to directly recall and challenge all government officials and so the republics and democratic governments all will fail in the end. We see this by looking at the history of the Roman Republic. We seen that political officials and military generals became so upsisted with power and money that they stopped acting in the best interests of the people, consolidated power to one person, and used the military to keep order and control while they acted in their own interests. Republics and democratic governments have so many great tenets but have the ultimate flaw on relying on the government in the end and not the people. The government has to be checked by the people otherwise the people will become unhappy and un-orderly when they can’t control the government quick enough to seize their own fate.



Economic Systems & Their Pros and Cons:

Socialism:

Definition: Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community or government.

Socialist governments own many of the larger industries and provide education, health and welfare services while allowing citizens limited economic choices. The whole idea behind this is to be sure that all people are provided with an equal amount of wealth, educational opportunities, and other necessities of life and economic blessings. The government essentially is the CEO of all of this and is directly responsible for providing the people with all the things that are needed and desired. The problem with this system is that it leaves little to no room for independent companies and business, as well as individual entrepreneurs, to control their own economic welfare or to improve their economic welfare as no matter how hard a person works the reward will remain the same or maybe even grow for others but decrease for them. This does not address the need of the people in terms of seizing what is needed for their happiness and wellbeing and this will cause chaos. People are very impatient when it comes to their finances and other economic well beings. The other huge problem with this system is that the government doesn’t have to bother representing the people in terms of taxation. Since the government will control the economic sector all together the government will simply raise prices of everything because there will be no competition and the people will be forced to pay for the higher prices. Socialism is typically supported by the working class being they generally are not doing well in terms of economics and the large businesses seems to ignore their concerns and economic crises.

Communism:

Definition: Communism is a form of government which attempts to empower workers and eliminate social class. Its socioeconomic structure promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production.

In a communist country, the government owns all businesses and farms and provides its people's healthcare, education and welfare. It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution. Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems believed to be inherent with representative democracy, capitalist economies and the legacy of imperialism and colonialism. The dominant forms of communism, such as Leninism, Trotskyism and Luxemburgism, are based on Marxism. Karl Marx is sometimes known as the "father of Communism", but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarchist communism) also exist. Communism is a form of socialism and Marxism. An example of a communism government is Cuba, China, and also North Korea. There are other communist governments but mainly what needs to be known about these governments is that like socialism, communism is a huge problem in that the government doesn’t have to bother representing the people in terms of taxation since the government will control the economic sector all together. The government will simply raise prices of everything because there will be no competition and the people will be forced to pay for the higher prices. Communism is also highly supported by the working class people versus middle class and high class people.

Capitalism:

Definition: Capitalism is an economic system made up of free market with little to no government influence. The consumers, independent business, entrepreneurs, and corporate business essentially control the economy.

In a capitalist or free-market economy, people own their own businesses and property and must buy services for private use, such as healthcare. This is an excellent system in the sense that it allows for consumers, independent business, entrepreneurs, and corporate business opportunities and expansions. Because of this there is also high competition which ultimately helps the consumers because it forces lower prices. The problem with this system is that it does not provide a failsafe against a group of citizens being economically oppressed. We see with this system that the working class personnel are economically oppressed and denied basic necessities of life. Also this system does not provide protection against monopolies which will end competition and increase inflation and prices forcing harsher lives on the consumers. This will untimely cause chaos utmost the consumers and force them to act in ways that demonstrate homo sapiens’ natural instinct to do anything and everything to survive and be happy.



Picking A Government & Their Pros and Cons:

Totalitarian Style:

Definition: The government and government officials are nominated and/or chosen by a single party or group of government officials.

A totalitarian style process is governed by a single political party that does not allow votes for alternative candidates and parties. Citizens are allowed and 'encouraged' to vote, but only for the government's chosen candidates. There are many examples of a totalitarian style government in terms of election and nomination processes. One example of this government is North Korea. In this country we see the party of the government nominate government and political officials and then the people are forced to choose from the nominees selected by the government. No one have the right to run independently or under another party and voters are forbidden to vote for such candidates. The problem with this election process is that the people have absolutely no say in who will control and influence their lives and have no peaceful way to challenge their government process and so this creates chaos in the long run. The only positive thing about a totalitarian style election process is that the government officials currently in power will most likely always remain in power. The problem is that this may only be good for the government officials and not the people.

Oligarchy/Plutocracy Style:

Definition: Oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family or military powers). The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (ὀλίγον óligon) and "rule" (ἄρχω arkho). Plutocracy refers to the rule or power through wealth or by the wealthy.

Oligarchy/Plutocracy Style government is a form of government which consists of rule by an elite group who rule in their own interests, especially the accumulation of wealth and privilege. Only certain members of society have a valid voice in the government. This can reflect (but is not limited to) economic interests, a particular religious tradition (theocracy), or familial rule (monarchy). In an Oligarchy/Plutocracy Style special interests groups picks the government and political officials and also picks the government. One example of this style of government is Pakistan. In Pakistan you large special interest groups show very high influence in the election process and nomination process. The problem with Oligarchy/Plutocracy Style governments is that the special interests groups are often only concerned with themselves and leave the people out to dry in terms of economics, and basic necessities of life. The only positive thing about this government is that the people can simple create a special interest group or corporation to gain more influence over their government. The problem is that the government still isn’t controlled and chosen directly by the people.

Revolutionary Style:

Definition: Revolutionary is organizing and revolting against the existing government in forms of violence.

Revolutionary style government is when the existing structure is overthrown by a completely new group. The new group can be very small - such as the military - or very large - as in a popular revolution. After a period of time, this 'becomes' one of the other types of government (unless there is another coup or uprising). This form of selecting a government is excellent when it comes to eliminating totalitarian regime, dictatorships, monarchies, theocracies, and other extreme governments. However this form selecting a government should never be used to force a government on the people. Historically we see that the Romans and Alexander the Great used a revolutionary style to overthrow governments and reestablish new ones. The problem with this is that if the revolution is not initiated and controlled by the native citizens of the country going through the revolution then this form of selecting a government will never work because for one the people have to want the government, and secondly the people are going to be the ones stuck with the government in the end and so they have to be able to challenge the government peacefully and be overall satisfied with the structure of the government. If this form of government remains permanent then the people will be forced to overthrow the government when they decide they want new officials of the government or a new government entirely.

Democratic Style:

Definition: The government is selected directly by the people and by small groups that are selected by the people.

In a democracy, the government is elected by the people. Everyone who is eligible to vote - which is a majority of the population - has a chance to have their say over who runs the country. This provides the people with a way to challenge the government peacefully and to have an overall say and control over their government. This prevents violent overthrows and maintains a sense of peace and order amongst society. The problem with most democracies, in fact all active democracies and inactive democracies in the history of this world, is that democracies does not provides a clear and simple natural right for even one person to gather a certain percentage of the population and recall government and political officials. Overall a democracy is stronger than other known forms of governments with the exception of the ideal government. Nonetheless the process of selecting a government through a form of democracy is far better than the other forms listed above.


Ideal Government:

Government:

The ideal government should provide all or as many as possible of its citizens with the basic necessities of life, and economic welfare. The ideal government should also maintain peace and order and establish a sense of pride amongst its people. There is no doubt the idea government should be a democracy-anarchy style government but each branch of government, government officials, and political officials should be able to be directly and indirectly challenged by the people. The ideal government should not be allowed or able to challenge the individual, human, and civil rights of the people. With this being said, the people, church, religious leaders or groups, and or one person should never be allowed or able to challenge and or limit the human, civil, or equal rights of another citizen. The basic right for a person to pursue their happiness, have a family, purchase and live in a home/house, run for political office, marry another regardless of gender or age as long as the relationship is mutual, etc, should never be challenged. The basic common-sense rule of separation of church and state should always be enforced. The people will not catch everything that their government does that is not of the people’s wishes and not of the people’s consent. In order to counter this, a small board or committee should be put together directly by the people each year to monitor a certain government branch and government/political officials. This committee should have the power to call a vote amongst the people and should also have the power to fire or suspend government and political officials. Essentially the ideal government will be ran by the people and so the people will be able directly challenge and change their government, government officials, and political officials eliminating the need or desire to violently overthrow the government because the people will be the government. This will maintain order while not restricting people’s basic rights but instead expanding and protecting such rights. Every citizen will have the right to vote and the government can be petitioned or a vote can be called upon by a simple 10% of the nation’s population or 100,000 of the nation’s citizens, whichever is the least amount. The people should have the authority to also set their own laws directly through voting on the issue themselves and should have the authority to overturn a law or decision made or passed by the government, government/political officials/or a board or committee. No one in the Ideal government should be able to deny its citizens with the fair and equal representation and opportunities that every government owes its people. In terms of criminal justice and terrorist interrogation, neither the ideal government nor its military will use torture or other cruel integration techniques. Everyone will have the right to heitis courpus and the right to be informed of their rights and provided with an adequate, fair jury and attorney. All criminal suspects should be innocent until proven guilty. The ideal government’s military criminal justice system should work the same and top officials in the military should be voted to such positions by the people. This may seem odd but it actually provides a fair representation of all military personnel that can be challenged and recalled when not in times of emergency or war. During such time their should be a special committee to control such matters. Such committee should be put together by the people and answer only to the people unless an emergency arrive in which the commander and chief of the military will take command of the military. The commander and chief don’t necessarily have to be the head of state or President. The ideal government’s citizens’ rights to free speech and bare arms should never be challenged or regulated. People should have the right to a free trial. People should also have the right to vote, not be discriminated against, and the right to not answer questions from the police, state or federal agents, local law enforce, and or any court. Government officials’ and political officials’ terms should be limited. These are all common-sense things that should be rooted deep within the ideal government. There are other things that should be included in the ideal government but the overall point is for the people and the individual to have far more authority and control than any legislative body of government. The people are capable and will govern themselves if only presented with the structure and opportunity. This is the only real way to peace, order and happiness. The people must rule themselves.

Selecting the Government:

There is no doubt that the ideal government should be chosen by the people and the people should be the essential aspect of the government. The ideal government will be a democracy style government when it comes to the selection process, however, the ideal government will be fixed where as its citizens can recall, suspend, and replace all government officials, political officials, and top military leaders. This is a real democracy and the only foreseeable and realistic way a government will ever truly protect the people while giving the people absolute control. People who remain in power for even the smallest amount of time will become corrupt, greedy, and selfish. Giving the people the right to recall such officials will protect the people from dictatorship, monarchy, theocracy, and all other foreseeable forms of governments. There are going to be situations were a revolutionary process will have to be used by the people to overthrow the current government in order to establish the ideal government. This is ok only as an initial selecting process and then should be consumed by a democratic process in addition to the people being able to recall government officials, political officials, and top military leaders. The ideal government, like any other government, should never be forced on anyone even when it is a better way of living. History teaches us that not only this technique totally ineffective but it also leads to the political and militarily destruction of a government and nation.

Ideal Economy:

The ideal economy should be set up exactly like most capitalism economic systems with a few exceptions. An open market controlled by the people is the ideal economy. However, in order to be sure that all citizens receive fair and equal opportunities and also receive their basic necessities of life, the government should be sure to provide lower class people or whatever group of people that are suffering, with the basic necessities of life and a decent income along with the opportunities to maintain such standards. In order to keep competition high and prices low for the consumers, monopoly should be banned and a special committee should be put together by the people to monitor such prospects of a monopoly.



Conclusion:

There is no doubt by looking at the world today that there is no order and there is an abundance of inequality and injustice while the world lacks justice and peace. There are some nations that are heading toward the right direction but the fact is that this is not good enough and immediate actions should be taken to immediately have an ideal government to set the example and to establish a place where human beings can live free and be human. The ideal government is the only way to peace and harmony. The United States of America has failed to attain the ideal government and is now heading far away from the ideal government. People’s human and civil rights shouldn’t be questioned and never regulated. By sacrificing even the smallest of liberty for security means that there is no more need for security because by sacrificing your liberty you no longer have anything to protect. Big Brother will take over and the Ideal government will be no more. This is not order and not peace. Homo sapiens need order and a government but people can also naturally bring order to themselves and protect their liberties if only presented with the structure to do so. The ideal government is the only government that will stand at the end and the only government that is for the people and by the people.

My Final Viewpoints on Homosexual Liberties and the Road America and the World Should Take In Order To Amend the Hatred and Prejudice Toward Homosexua

People view America as the land of the free, one in which all cultures, beliefs and groups can come together and live harmoniously. Why then do we still have the problem of discrimination against homosexuals in today’s society? My question is should America and the rest of the world withhold the benefits and privileges of homosexuals? Such benefits as marriage, civil unions, and adoption that many of us take for granted. There are many incidences in which same-sex couples have been discriminated against. The United States of America, the leader of the free world, has 49 states out 50 states that ban same-sex marriages, with Massachusetts as the only exception. Marriage isn’t the only issue same-sex couples are forced to deal with. Florida denies the right for homosexual couples to adopt a child under any circumstances. I believe that the solution for this discrimination in America is to grant homosexuals the same rights and benefits as other citizens are granted. Same-sex couples should be allowed nationwide marriages. All homosexual couples should be able to adopt/ foster children, regardless of their sexual affiliation, as long as they are willing to support and care for the child. Same-sex couples who are in civil unions should be granted the same benefits as married couples receive from their employers and government. People say if there is gay adoption that the child will have no mother or father figure in their lives. People also say that marriage should be considered between a man and a woman, which it has always been that way, and it’s the way God had made it. People also commit that if homosexuals can’t conceive a child naturally then they shouldn’t have one. People are also saying that placing a child in this type of environment will only harm the child. The fact is in the many cases and studies of homosexual adoption, the success rate of the adoption has been higher than that of heterosexual parents. Another fact is that many heterosexual couples cannot conceive a child naturally and no one says a thing to them when they adopt a child. It is ignorant and prejudice to deny a couple the right to raise a child because they are opposite of the traditional sexual affiliation. I believe deep in my heart that homosexuals will become equals in our society someday because there is a new generation coming into the voting age, which has an open mind and an ability to accept others. This new generation, “would one day denounce male- female marriage as mean spirited and bigotry”. The new generation will recognize that stopping homosexuals from getting married, just because they are interested in the same sex is mean and inconsiderate. Also, “younger people, even in conservative churches, are more open to same- sex marriage”. This reveals that even the younger generations in strict churches are allowing themselves to open their minds to new people and new ideas even if at one point it was against their religion. I believe deep in my heart that homosexuals will become equals in our society someday because the State of Massachusetts has recognized same- sex marriage since 2004. If one state in the United States recognizes same- sex marriage, then I believe there is hope for the rest. It shows that there are people out there that do support homosexuals and we believe that number is only growing. I interviewed individuals to see what their response would be to my plan. Their responses were all generally the same as the following commit given by a 17 year old senior who grew up in a strict house hold and a strict church environment. “Unequal treatment based on sexual preference is horrible, but I understand why it happens. We come from a much closed minded area, and most people are unable to accept new changes in society. We need to change the laws, in order to fit everyone’s needs. It is important to create equal treatment for everyone.” This person wished to remain anonymous in order to avoid negative responses to his words. I will respect his wishes. Many conservatives and right wing republicans will criticize my proposal and beliefs. The fact still remains though, homosexuals are human beings and deserve as much civil liberties and rights as any other American, anyone who can’t see this, can’t see the very fabric and heart of America.

A REVIEW ON THE FAILURES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND ACTIONS NEEDED TO CORRECT THE JUDICIAL BRANCH:

Opening Arguments:



The U.S. Supreme Court was created as the highest court in the Unites States of America. The only reason why the Judicial Branch exists in the first place is in part because of the courts. Basically our founding fathers did not want the Executive Branch acting as a king by proposing laws, making laws, and then imposing and interpreting laws all at the same time. This would give to much authority to the Executive Branch and cause a democracy to become a dictatorship or monarchy. In order to prevent this tragedy our founding fathers separated this government into three smaller governments and gave more rights to the individual people than had ever been done before. Our founding fathers also set into law that each State would run their own government similar to the federal government. Each Branch of government is supposed to essentially act as a system of checks and balances. Throughout the history of the U.S. many struggles have came about in the U.S. Many of these struggles increase the level of difficulty for any government to function. The problem the United States has today, concerning its government, is that of many. However, the problem that I would like to address in this review is that of the Judicial Branch. The Judicial Branch no longer provides a system of checks and balances. The Judicial Branch is not in fear of the American people and thus fails to defend the constitutional rights of the people. Lastly the Judicial Branch in general is influenced and controlled by the Executive Branch far too much, which is exactly what our founding fathers were trying to prevent. This can be fixed by simply, but drastic measure.


Case Arguments:



Checks & Balances:

The Supreme Court is suppose to overrule every single actions, laws, or programs initialized of affiliated with the federal or State government that violates the constitutional rights of the individuals in any way. The Supreme Court has failed at this duty primarily because the Supreme Court has become an employee of the President. The State Supreme Courts are more of the same being they have become employees of the Executive Branch of their State. This being said, I offer the following evidence: The Supreme Court has recently made a decision that an abortion bill that was signed into law by President Bush does not violate a person’s constitutional rights. In all actuality the Supreme Court has overruled the Roe versus Wade Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court has done this almost immediately following the President’s replacement of a formal Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court has now become known as the President’s men and women instead of the people’s men and women. This is exactly what the Supreme Court reflects as well. The Supreme Court no longer protects the people from cruel and bogus bills from Washington D.C. and State Capitals. The evidence of this is all around us. This current administration has allowed for a policy allowing the NSA and other law enforcement agencies to spy on American citizens that they deem as a terrorist threat or suspect. This is definitely a violation of the fourth amendment. The Supreme Court is supposed to protect the people but it appears they are imposing the President’s plans and religious actions onto all of the people. This being said, the Supreme Court is not doing what it was directed to do by our founding fathers. The Supreme Court is not challenging the decisions of the Executive and Legislative Branches and the Supreme Court is no longer serving as a balancer in this government and so this government is no longer balanced. The main problem is that this government is no longer concerned with the people and has lost all fear of the people. This leaves the people with no constitutional rights, as no one in the government is willing to enforce such rights.

Fear of the People:

The greatest government, whether a dictatorship, republic, democratic government, or an empire or monarchy, is a government that works in coherence with the people and one that has total fear of the people. This forces the government to act in the best interests of the people and listen to the people. Thus, the people will have absolute control over the government while still having order and liberty. This no longer describes the government of the United States of America. The evidence of this is too clear. President Bush has vetoed two bills from congress calling for the American forces to pull out of Iraq. The President has ignored the people throughout his administration and is forces his religious beliefs on the people while ignoring the rights of the non religious community. The President has proposed a constitutional amendment to limit the rights of the people. Anyone whom dares to do all of this clearly has no fear and no regards to the people’s opinion, desires, and needs. It is not just the executive branch who is simulating this attitude. Congress has done nothing the stop the President from committing such acts because they fear the President greatly and fear the People not even a little. The Judicial Branch has become so fearful and polluted by the Presidency that they too allows unconstitutional laws and acts, such as the Patriot Act, to be allowed and fails to represent the best interests of the people. This is because the Executive branch of this government controls the legislative and judicial branch far too much. All the branches of this government have lost all fear of the people. This means that the voices of the people will not be heard and the people will not be able to see change in this nation. Government officials are now lying to the American people without consequences. We have seen this from the President, Congress, and the Attorney General. There is no more accountability in this government and no more order and justice in this government and nation. In effect of there being no fear of the people in this government, we have seen the Bush administration and this government step all over the constitutional rights of the people.

No Constitutional Rights:

Currently, in part due to the Bush Administration, in part due to the Congress, in part due to the Supreme Court, and in part due to the American people, the American people have found themselves with no constitutional rights. The American people have seen the Bush administration propose to ban same sex marriages and flag burning. This means that for the first time in United States history this government have suggested and argued to limit the rights of the individuals. This government is more concerned about protecting the reputation and constitutional rights of government officials than protecting the constitutional rights of the American people. This government now believes that it is better to have security than human rights. This government has forgotten what one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, once said. Benjamin Franklin spoke years ago that a person who is willing to give up even the smallest amount of liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. It is not just the Bush administration that feels that security is greater than human rights. In the Democratic National debates the top two democratic candidates, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, both stated that security is more important that human rights. The United States Supreme Court and State Supreme Courts have rejected more cases and petitions than in the history of the United States of America. In the Year of 2007 so far there has been the least amount of petitions and cases brought forth to the Supreme Court since the 1950’s. Yet we see that more cases and petitions have been rejected by the Supreme Court than ever before. This means that this government is no longer concerned about the civil liberties and constitutional rights of the American people. This means that the American people have no constitutional rights as the judicial branch is failing to protect such constitutional rights. This means that this government is no longer a republic. It means that this government is no longer a government created for the people by the people. This government has walked all over the constitutional rights of the American people. This government has lost all order and liberty and is only concerned with themselves. This government no longer is concerned about the American people and this means that the American people have no one to protect their constitutional rights. In order to truly fix this government the judicial branch must be fixed first. Fear must be reinstated in this government and it must start with the judicial branch. The judicial branch should have absolutely no affiliation with the executive branch and both the executive branch and legislative branch should be judged harshly by the judicial branch and all branches of this government should be judged harshly by the American people.

Correcting the Judicial Branch:

The Judicial branch is influence far too much by the Executive branch because the top officials of the judicial branch are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The top figure of the Judicial Branch, the U.S. Attorney General, answers to the President. This is a major problem. In order to provide checks and balances the judicial branch should be completely separate from the executive branch. The U.S. Attorney General and other key figures of the judicial branch, such as the Supreme Court Justices, should answer directly to the people and should be nominated and elected by the people directly. The executive and legislative branch should only nominate and confirm top officials of the judicial branch in extreme and emergency situations as a temporary measure that can be overturned immediately by the people. The Judicial Branch would have more fear of the people and protect the constitutional rights of the people if they answered directly to the people. In order to make this happen constitutional amendments should be proposed for the people to elect such officials and for the people to be able to recall such officials. The executive and legislative branch should only have the authority to suspend the top officials of the executive branch until the people can decide on whether or not such officials will remain in authority. Obviously if there is an emergency situation then the legislative branch should be able to suspend such official and appoint another temporally unit the people can vote on a decision. The Supreme Court Justices’ position should only be a ten year term that he or she can only hold twice. This is obviously not set into concrete but the position should be limited to instill the wrath of the people and the position should be limited to two terms to avoid a monarchy or dictatorship over the position. The Attorney General’s position should be a four year position and should too be limited to two terms. The reason why this position is shorter than the Supreme Court Justices’ positions is because the Supreme Court needs to make decisions based on the constitution and not the people. This being said, the Supreme Court cannot be concerned about elections but at the same time needs to have the fear of the people instilled deep in their hearts. The U.S. Attorney general needs to be concerned with the constitution but also needs to be concerned with the people’s ideas and concerns. All federal and State judges should be elected directly by the people and all top officials of the judicial branch needs to be elected by the people. Each State should run their judicial branch similar to the federal branch of government in order to better deliver justice and order to this nation. By electing all the top officials of the judicial branch and judges of the federal and State government, the judicial branch will be influenced less by the executive and legislative branch and too would fear the people once again. This will force the judicial branch to enforce laws correctly and force the Supreme Court to protect the constitutional rights of the American people 100% of the time. In order to be sure that the best interests of the people is taking place in the judicial branch, a special committee should be put together by the people and elected by the people every year to constantly monitor the top officials of the judicial branch and report all information directly to the people. The committee should also have the authority to suspend the top officials of the judicial branch that can only be overturned by the committee and or the people. Without these drastic measures or similar measures the Judicial Branch will not provide the American people and government with checks and balances. The Judicial Branch will continue to fail to protect the constitutional rights of the American people. The Judicial Branch will continue to not fear the American people, and the Judicial Branch will continue to act on the behalf of the President instead of the American people.


Closing Arguments:



We have seen the Bush administration and this government step all over the constitution of the United States. We have the Judicial Branch ignore the concerns and constitutional rights of the people. We have also seen the President nominate Supreme Court Justices and we have seen the Senate confirm those Justices even thought majority of the people disagreed with this decisions. This means that the people were powerless to stop this from happening. The government and judicial branch no longer is concerned about the people. The Judicial Branch is malfunctioning the only real solution is the give more authority and control to the people through elections. Currently the Judicial Branch no longer provides a system of checks and balances. The Judicial Branch is not in fear of the American people and thus fails to defend the constitutional rights of the people. Lastly the Judicial Branch in general is influenced and controlled by the Executive Branch far too much, which is exactly what our founding fathers were trying to prevent. Our founding fathers knew that ethics, morals, and time would all change throughout history. In order to keep this government up-to-date and protecting the people, our founding fathers allowed for amendments of our constitution. It is time for their to be constitutional amendments to give the people more authority over this government and to protect the constitutional rights and best interests of the people. The judicial branch can be fixed, but only by giving the people more authority over the judicial branch and instilling the fear back into the judicial branch.

ATHEISM REVIEW

-Marquell Garrett

July 5, 2007; Thursday @ 0900hrs EDT

INTRODUCATION:

There are in existence several documents that define the term atheist and several documents that give talks about and point out the discrimination toward the atheists and the negative stigmas of the atheists in the world. However, there is no single document that combines all of these things and attacks it head on as well as addresses the future of the atheist population and what need to be done to further such future. This review is designed to do just that, and serve as a guide to the United States, world, and all atheists of what are the issues of many atheists held down by society and the issue of what it means to be an atheist. As this review will not clear up everything and will not be the sole review or document to bring light to the subject of atheism, it will hopefully bring some light to the subject of atheism and start the long chain needed to correct the role and negative stigmas in society. Many atheists as well as the free thinking society wants to see a change in this world for the better and tired of all the prejudice and hatred toward not only the atheists but toward all that is different. It is ones hope that this review will ignite such transformation. Ultimately it is up to the individual people to respond to this review and act in a way to change things for the better, as stated above; this is only a review and guide of some concerns and facts of the atheists in humanity. The people of this world will do with it what they will.



ATHEIST REVIEW:

DEFINED: Atheism- The lack of a belief in a god, or the supernatural/supernatural being. The absence of a belief in superstitious and witchcraft, magic, EST. The lack of a belief in destiny, and luck. The absence of a belief in religion.

NOTE: ATHEISM IS NOT THE BELIEF IN ANY THING BUT THE ABSENCE OF A BELIEF IN SOMETHING. I.E. ATHEISM IS NOT THE BELIEF IN SCIENCE RATHER THE ABSENCE OF A BELIEF IN RELIGION.



HISTORY: Many theists and non theists have a common belief that atheism is either older than theism or younger than theism. This, however, is not the case. Atheism is clearly not a religion nor can it be considered to be such. Atheism is not the denial or hateful feelings toward theism and so can clearly have no common grounds that can be intelligently considered to be religious in any way. The fact is when the questions is asked, how old is atheism, atheism is being looked at as if it was a religion. Theism can be traced back to a specific era in time; however atheism could have never existed without theism. Before theism there was no religion or spiritual belief, so how is it then the opposite of something that doesn’t exist, can pre-exist. Atheism came into existence only as the opposite of theism. In this since the defining components of atheism is just as old as theism and no more or less. We, however, must commit to memory that atheism is not a religion and serves only as the opposite or absence of religion. The next question then regarding atheism is how long atheism has been coerced under the false pretence to religion or theism? The answer to this may not be as simple as one may anticipate. There are no clear dates or documents/evidence on this matter, however, atheism has been considered to be a religion in the United Stated of America for some time now. In fact there are accounts where atheism has been publicly criticized for being a hypocrite religion to religion as early at the early 19th century. There are also unconfirmed circumstances where atheists in Europe where considered to be apart of one mass religious cult in the late 16th century. Regardless of the reality of these circumstances it is clear that it is not new for atheism to be falsely accused of being a religion or cult. It would be unacceptable to say that uneducated Americans are apart of a religion or cult simply because they are uneducated regardless of there personal beliefs. This is too true when it comes to atheists. Simply because people are absent from a religious belief doesn’t make them automatically apart of a cult or religion. Many atheists have many separate views from other atheists. This is because atheism is not a religion and each atheist are human beings with different ideas and dreams. It is way past time for America and the world to push aside the stereotypical beliefs attached to atheism and accept atheists for who they are, human beings who deserve to be treated as such and not considered to be apart of some cult or religion just because they have an absence in theism. Christians and other theists can only argue their reasoning and belief in a religion and a god by simply reducing atheism to a religion. This, however, is unacceptable for Christians to do because as expressed above, atheism is not and never have been a religion or cult. It is not the responsibility of the atheist to prove the non existence of a god rather the burden of proof must be placed on the person making the claim that a god exists. This means that it is up to the theist to provide evidence that a god or higher power exists which they have failed repeatedly to provide. The next major question that comes to mind concerning the history of atheism is that of, Is there any famous or popular atheists amongst the atheist community and society abroad? The answer may be surprising to many theists and non theists but the answer still remains the same. There are many atheists that have stood out in history and amongst many atheist communities. Some of America’s most famous historical atheists are Benjamin Franklin, who was an U.S. Senator, Ambassador to France during the Revolutionary War, and the inventor of many useful things used stilled today. Thomas Paine, author to the novel Common-Sense, and Age of Reason. Albert Einstein, perhaps one of the greatest contributors to science this world has ever witnessed. And let’s not forget about Robert G Ingersoll, considered to be the “great agnostic”. There are other atheists that are popular amongst the atheist community as well. George H. Smith, author of the powerful novel, Atheism: The Case Against God is one of the most powerful free thinkers ever known to man. Dan Barker is a well known atheist who was a very religious person, and minister to the youth in his church that he founded. Dan Barker lost his faith in faith as he put it and became an atheist and afterwards, became the founder of the Freedom Foundation Institution, a community college in his local neighborhood, as well as the Freedom Foundation Organization, an organization for free thinkers to communicate some common issues. Dan Barker is also an ex-Christian who is the Author of the novel, Losing Faith in Faith, which is a very powerful book. Similar to Dan Barker there is Robby Berry, who was a very strong minded Christian and now a free thinking atheist. Robby Berry is also the author of many documents containing to atheism and life as an atheist in America. There are many other famous atheists throughout history such as the deceased actor Christopher Reed who died an active member of the American Atheist Organization, an organization fighting for the rights of the atheists in America. Do not be conned into believing that atheists are not in this nation’s history or this world’s history because you would be widely mistaking.



Discriminations of the Atheist: Many people discard the idea of prejudice and hatred/discrimination toward the atheist. Many people are sadly and dangerously mistaking. Fact, atheists are discriminated all over the world including the so call leader of the free world, the United States of America. As a well known atheist in America I know first hand of the hatred, prejudice, and discrimination faced by the atheist in America. I have seen first hand intelligent students who could have made a difference in this world expelled from school after exercising there right to not say the phrase, “Under God” in the pledge. I have witnessed personally being given a week of after school detention after refusing to pray at a memorial ceremony held at my old elementary school. I am here to tell you that a great friend of mind who was born in Italy and raised by Roman-Catholics where religion governed ever aspect of their lives moved to the U.S. in order to free himself from religion. Not only did he have to learn and recite a pledge demanding religion over this land but too have to spend currency everyday representing him believing in a God. A nation should not be focused on representing the religious majority rather representing all citizens equally. This nation’s currency should not read “In God We Trust”, rather more on the line of “United We Stand”, “We the People” or something that represents the foundation of this government and the people, not a religion. Many of the discrimination atheists face in this nation is contributed by the false stigmas and rumors about atheists. Until this stigma is controlled and eliminated the atheist in not just America, but the atheist in the world will continue to be discriminated against and hated by many. We must remember as humanity that the most prejudice and hateful person is the one that doesn’t have knowledge that they are indeed prejudice or hateful, this is also the most dangerous of them all. There are in fact people who losses there job due to there lack of a belief in the supernatural. Many atheists find themselves being avoided and even hated just because they are an atheist. Atheists find themselves facing housing and property discrimination. In Greenville, SC property was refused to be sold to a very good buyer based on the reasoning that because the person lacked in a belief in the supernatural it would be hard to explain to the kids in the neighborhood what this meant and who this person was and that the parents of the community should have a right to explain this on there own time and not because of a new buyer of property. What type of reasoning is this? It is the right of every American to pursue there happiness anywhere and anytime they wish to do so. It would be unacceptable to deny a black American that very same property for that very same reason and so it is too unacceptable to deny anyone else such property regardless of their religious belief or lack there of. Atheists have been ignored in the U.S. for many years but will no longer be ignored. It is said that when people are not familiar with other kinds, and become over whelmed with fear they replaces this fear with discrimination. Atheists are human beings like any other Americans. We have the right to be treated as such. There is no need to fear the atheist but only to fear the discrimination of the atheists in America and this world. There was a college professor a few years back who was the director of the science department of some college who lost his position as the director and his job as a professor after the Board of Directors ascertained that he was an atheist and taught evolution in class as he was suppose to. This is the type of nation we live in now. Where the rights of the individual matters none. Where the right to pursue ones happiness matters none. We live in a nation that tells our children that nonbelievers are all bad people and should be hated and avoided at all times. We are telling our children that the rights and feelings of such citizens matters none. To teach such hatred and discrimination to our children is to remove the fabric of this nation and replace it with Death, Slavery, Injustice, Inequality, and Pursuit of evil and destruction. The fact remains that most atheists, I myself being one of them, are only trying to spread Life, Liberty, Justice, Equality, and the Pursuit of Happiness. There are going to be many so call leaders, politicians, religious leaders, and fellow citizens trying to con you into believing that the atheists in America and around the world are not discriminated against for there lack of belief but I am here to tell you today that the people telling you this are sadly, and dangerously mistaking. So why would such citizens tell you a destructive lie? The answer to this is simple, they were told this lie and they believe this lie and so they feel they are spreading the truth. However, let us remember that the worst prejudice/hateful person is the one that lacks the knowledge that they are indeed prejudice/hateful. Be no fool, America as well as the rest of the world is full of prejudice, hatred, and inequality toward several types of people and the atheists is a great bit of them currently. Rest assures that the atheists will not accept this and will continue to push on for our rights not just as Americans and citizens, but as a part of humanity.

The Morals of the Atheists: First off, Christianity or religion does not give you morals. Many people are so quick to say that atheists are ill moral and that you must have some basic belief in a higher power to be at peace with your self and to have good and “righteous” morals. This is the most blankly false statement to ever be made in the history of mankind and it is statements like these that places false and extremist stigmatisms on the atheists and place all atheists in the so call evil circle or evil wing. News flash to all who believe in this false charge that atheists have no morals, there is a guy who was brought up around hate and religion. Religion taught this guy to hate others and the religious way was the only way. Religion taught this person that all non believers had a common theme of evil and betrayal and all was apart of the same circle of evil. The guy eventually broke free from this slavery call religion and became a free minded person. This guy went on to create an organization fighting for equality for all of humanity and the fair and equal protection and representation of each citizen of humanity. This person made several political and financial contributions to many religious communities and non religious communities. This person believe that all people were born equal and should all be treated the same. This person believes that there is nothing greater than the idea of freedom and wishes only to spread Life, Liberty, Justice, Equality, and the Pursuit of Happiness. This person’s morals are of pure love and are of Life, Liberty, Justice, Equality, and the Pursuit of Happiness. This person did not get this from religion or hate; this person gathered his morals from personal experiences in his life time and personal growth not from religion. This person is an atheist; I know this because this person is me. I have a message for the world. A person who is raised completely isolated from religion will still have morals. There morals will not be necessarily evil or ill moral. There morals will not be your morals but there morals. The fact is that most atheists’ morals include Life, Liberty, Justice, Equality, and the Pursuit of Happiness and most theists’ morals include Death, Slavery, Injustice, Inequality, and the Pursuit of Evil and Destruction. The fact is that the ill moral people and negative moral people are not majority non believers, but majority believers. It is an ignorant thing to say that morals come from religion. If that’s the case when you totally isolate a person from a religion forever and never expose them to such religious ways then they should never grow to have morals but the fact is that the cave men prior to establishing a religious belief had morals of taking care of family and the tribe and that they should be strong in nature and the ruler over the world. The fact is this was their morals then and many people’s morals today. These morals originated from how the cave men lived and not from a religious belief because they had yet to establish the idea of a religion or higher power. This proves that even without a religious up bringing and a religious environment one can still have what is concerned by society reasonable and good morals. This is because religion does not make a person full of good morals or good-willed. Religion, if anything, makes a person blind to life, and full of prejudice and hatred. This is not the type of morals I wish to commit to and definitely not the morals I want my children to commit to. When is comes to morals it is crucial that religion is left out of it and that the world’s future, the children, understand that it is not religion in which morals is sprung from but the experiences a person have throughout his or her life and the choices he or she makes based on those experiences. America and the world must realize that religion is full of hate, prejudice, and injustice, and should not be the supreme nor minute governor of anything, let along a government, or the creator of morals and virtues solely. I declare to the world that religion has never been the originator of morals and will never be. Eventually mankind will push aside religion all together and expand their mind far out beyond the universe after achieving unity and harmony. This will only be possible if we realize as humanity the faults in religion and the truth behind morals. Atheists as individuals have already achieved this, but this means nothing unless we can spread such achievement across the world and open the eyes of humanity to this truth and close the eyes of humanity the lies around the world. It is not the sole obligation of the atheist to push the truth that religion is not the original creator of morals but that of the individual person. People must push aside the foolishness and understand that morals originate from the experiences a person encounters throughout life and the way he choices to respond to them.



Atheists In Politics: There are atheists who are politicians; however the numbers of these atheists are very limited. This is because of the stigmas of the ill morals of the atheist and the stigma that atheists are all bad and a danger to society. With this attitude and frame of mind it is no wonder there are a lack of atheist leaders appointed and elected as government officials. The nation to deny such positions to a non believer the most is none other than the “leader of the free world”, the United Sates of America. This is because the United States over the past couple of decades have strayed far away from the great ideas of Life, Liberty, Justice, Equality, and the Pursuit of Happiness and now is a slave to religion and the hatred and prejudice taught by such. The very proof of the matter is in the currency spent in the U.S. and the words of the pledge to the flag representing all the lives sacrificed for this nation, many of which being atheists. As long as such perspective that religion represents this nation exists, it will be hard for the United States to see pass such differences and elect and appoint the best leaders to government positions. There need to be an increase of atheist leaders in the world, however. The fact is that most atheists are good people who will make great leaders and better leaders than the politicians this nation is faced with on a daily bases. Atheists need to rise up and demand to be included in politics. The fact is that the most atheist leaders are outstanding leaders and if the world would pay attention more to leaders who share the identical goals and ideas of those of atheist leaders, one will find that the world would be a better place. One does not have to be an atheist to be a great leader, however, most atheist leaders are great leaders because they have no religious agenda or prejudice/hateful ideas to hold them back from spreading true harmony. The fact is that most atheist leaders wish to spread nothing but Life, Liberty, Justice, Equality, and the Pursuit of Happiness and live like any other human being, as do most atheists in general as well as humanity. The fact is that as long as there is negative stigmas attached to the atheist by society and as long as society sees atheists as the opposite of humanity and the opposite of good and morals, atheists will continue to be discriminated against in elections and continue to be ignored for appointments of government positions and the election of government positions. This is unacceptable. Because of the negative stigmas attached to the atheist and the negative outlook by society on the atheist, causes great leaders to become denied to positions where they can better the world. Atheists are denied such positions because of a lack of belief in a god or higher power. The fact is if an atheist was to run for President or any other political office they would not even make it to the final preliminary stages because of their lack of belief in a god or higher power. This is a very prejudice and hateful virus that is destroying not only the United States of America, the so call leader of the free world, but it is both abruptly and leisurely destroying the very fabric of freedom and good in the universe. Are atheists not humans? Atheists have been discarded from the politics for a long time. This must no longer be stood for. It is time for the United States and the world to know that atheists is no longer asking for the same opportunities and equal rights as any other citizens of this world to be elected to political positions, we have been asking this for far too long. Atheists are now demanding that we are given equal opportunity to such positions and not looked upon as the lesser of society. The fact is that more theists commit crimes and so call immoral sins than the atheist. If you look at the ratio of theists who commits crime versus the ratio of atheists altogether the percentage of crimes per population for theists will still be significantly higher than that of the atheists. So with this fact who is contributing more chaos into society, and who are truly the lesser of society. Society needs to stop trying to decide who’s evil and who’s not base on their religious beliefs but need to focus on the real issue of who best to unite the world behind the ideas of Life, Liberty, Justice, Equality, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The fact is that religion doesn’t spread these ideas; it is the heart of humanity that spreads the idea. It is time for these ideas to rule the world and be set into stone. By electing theists to political positions is not spreading such ideas. Atheist leaders are great leaders, and like any other leaders deserve to be elected and appointed to positions where they can demonstrate their great skills and ideas across the world. The fact remains that the atheists are not going to tolerate the discrimination and prejudice they face everyday by society and should be appointed and more importantly elected to a lot more government and political positions not just in the United States but the world. There is nothing logical or rational that can be said that will justify why there aren’t more atheists appointed and elected to government positions. There are several atheists world wide that are running for such positions and not getting elected based primary because of their lack of a belief in a higher power or a god. Let us remember that the most dangerous person in any society is the one with nothing to loss. You do not need ten such men, one will do. Well there are millions of atheists all around the world and we will not be ignored and will not continue to be discarded from political or government positions.



The Organizing of the Atheists: One of hate’s biggest allies is silence and fear. Atheists must not be silent and must not be afraid to shout to the world that atheists will not be ignored and will not be stepped on. Many atheists, particularly with the youth, refuse to exhibit or declare their lack of a belief in a god because of the knowledge and fear of what will come next. What comes next is the discrimination and hatred. What comes next is the out casting by society and tossed into a society where you are the lesser and the ill moral one. What come next are hard times and a lot of fighting for what is rightfully all of mankind’s’. What comes next is not pretty but what comes when one lives under false identity and declares not there lack of belief is a lifetime of lies and shamefulness. Atheists must not allow this hate to drive one down. Atheists must unite and stand up with one mighty roar that atheists will be heard and will not surrender to hate and prejudice. Concealing ones lack of a belief in a god or higher power is to allow into the society that teaches such lack of beliefs to be evil and a danger to society. There must no longer exist a fear in the atheists when it comes to uniting and standing up against the discrimination and hate in this world. There are millions of atheists around the world and its time for them to take a stand. It is time for atheists to support other atheists. It is time for atheists to protest against the hate and fear in society. It is time for the atheists to vote and elect other atheist leaders to public office. This is the only way the atheists will be respected. This is the only way the atheists will be free. Atheists have been the victims of Christianity, hate, and fear longer than any other group or theme of people in the history of the universe. Atheists are indeed the last minority. But through unity and fearless pride we will break the chains of fear and hate and take our place amongst society as equal citizens. Young atheists must come out of their closets and corners and take their positions on the streets fighting for equal rights and civil liberties. There has always been a need for more activists amongst the atheists. Change does not come by sitting on the side lines shouting for change. Change comes by getting out on the fields and getting dirty. There are too many clean sideline atheists shouting for change and not enough dirty, fighting for changes, atheists demanding for change. America is the worst when it comes to the hate and discrimination of the atheists but even still the great up rising and demands for equal rights of the atheists should not begin in America, rather in the entire world simultaneously. It is the responsibility of the atheists to make this happen. Atheists must unit, regardless of their differences, and attack this plague of discrimination, hate, and fear head on. It is time for this plague to be destroyed. This means that young atheists must stand up as well and join the mighty roar of freedom and equality. There must be, as there will be, a clear message to the American people and the citizens of humanity that atheists will be free as well and will not stand on the sidelines any longer. The wealthier atheists have advantages because they have money. This is not justice nor is it equal. However, it is something the atheists will have to work with. In order to spread Life, Liberty, Justice, Equality, and the Pursuit of Happiness the wealthier atheists will have to put there money on candidates that can best benefit the atheists and will also have to spread the message of change throughout the nation and world. This will be harder to do for the lower class of atheists but the less wealthy of atheists must assists as well in their attitude, performance, and financial ways. The road to peace and harmony will have to be carved by the atheists. It is apparent that standing on the sidelines will not amount to change. It is even more apparent that for the atheists to be free we will have get off of the sidelines and lead the way to Life, Liberty, Justice, Equality, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We will have to lead the way to peace and harmony. Atheists will unit, and this world and universe will finally begin to see the hate and prejudice dissipate and the road to freedom, peace, and harmony begin to become paved. Life, Liberty, Justice, Equality, and the Pursuit of Happiness will come to the atheists, but will only come to the atheists through unity and fearless pride. America has come far from representing freedom and equality. America is the guiltiest of spreading this hate, and prejudice toward the atheists. Soon, however, the atheists will eliminate this plague all over the world and endure this freedom dreamed of for millenniums. It is way past time for change in this universe and way past time for the atheists to unite. With millions of atheists fighting for change this universe will see the biggest event since the big bang. The event of Life, Liberty, Justice, Equality, and the Pursuit of Happiness being spread throughout all of humanity.



CONCLUSION:






Being an atheist is just that. Being an atheist does not make you a part of a religion or cult. Being an atheist does not make you a believer or disbeliever in anything, rather the lack of a belief. It doesn’t matter whether one is an implicate atheist (one who has never practiced religion or have no consciences objection to religion) or if you are an explicate atheist (one who have practiced religion or have a consciences objection), you are still an atheist. A person with out a belief in the supernatural or higher being. Being an atheist does not make a person ill moral. There are many atheists who have their own families and are some of the best and model families in the universe. Atheists have been around for a long time and have contributed a lot to society. Atheists are very discriminated against but that is all about to change. The atheists will rise up and unite, and there will be a change in this universe. Much of humanity is afraid of change, but change is coming. Atheists will no longer be pushed aside and ignored. The atheists must unite and the world must realize that change is coming whether by force or voluntarily. Long live the atheists.