Sedition Act

1) The Sedition Act was established in 1798. It was created to control pro-French troublemakers by forbidding criticism of the federal government. The Sedition Act was meant to curb freedom of speech, but the government took it too far. They arrested many people for minor situations. The Sedition Act was never brought before the Supreme Court and in 1801 the Sedition Act was expired. When Jefferson was elected he pardoned all the people that were convicted when Adams and the Sedition Act were in term. After the Sedition Act the government tried many things to regulate freedom of speech, such as the Espionage Act
2) The Sedition Act was unconstitutional and constitutional. The Sedition Act was unconstitutional because went beyond protecting the government because it went against everything that was "'false, scandalous, or malicious"' or against the government. People who did nothing wrong, except speak their minds, were arrested.The Government arrested

twenty-five citizens under the Sedition Act. One man was found guilty for saying that he wished that a cannon would fire in a salute to President Adams and would hit him in the seat of his pants. It is was constitutional because, some people needed to be stopped, the people who caused danger to the US.

3) The Freedom of Speech is a right granted to American citizens, but many people take advantage of it. The freedom of speech not only deals with a persons choose of word it deals with their actions and the decisions they make while presenting their thoughts, but, right to free speech needs to be limited during wartime and threats against America. If it is not limited people can say what they want such as; hurtful or fighting words, threats, and limiting what people can say to the military.

4) The Government might limit freedom of the press or speech during peacetime, so people do not offend military and families of the military. If a military group comes back people could riot and say how they felt about the war, and that could cause, "Clear and present danger" and the government has to stop it before something happens.

Religion and the Pledge

1) "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The pledge has been recited for many years. The pledge shows patriotism and loyalty for the United States of America. The pledge shows symbolism for our flag, which in turn represents what this country was built and founded upon, freedom. The words "under god" were added in 1952 when the Knights of Columbus thought that it would be a good addition, because it was used in Lincoln's, Gettysburg Address.

2) The Ninth Circuit did not rehear the case because they felt that it was a patriotic act and not a religious act. The pledge was not only made to show their loyalty to God, but mainly to show loyalty to America. They agreed with the Supreme Court in the fact that the pledge is not unconstitutional.

3) The first amendment is what started the controversy. The first amendment grants the rights of freedom of speech and religion. Some people believe that using "under god" in the pledge goes against their freedom as a citizen. Using "under god" is mainly based on the Christan religion so other religions are offended.

4) Some say that using "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance is a patriotic act that has been here for 111 years. Others say that there children were "injured" by being forced to listen to the teachers recite the pledge of allegiance. The congress say that if it is unconstitutional to say "Under God" in the pledge, then it is unconstitutional to read the Constitution or the Gettysburg Address, because it is listed in both of them.

5) "Our Board of Education believes strongly that our students should be allowed to recite the Pledge. We are proud to defend the pledge of Allegiance." I agree with this statement. All Americans should be proud to recite the pledge. The pledge is a patriotic thing, we should all take time to show our loyalty for our country.

Tax Cuts

1) The article sums up tax cuts and spending. It simplifies who pays what and how much. It works this way so that the rich have to pay more and the poor pay nothing. The poor can only make more if the rich become richer. When a wealthy man gets his pay check at the end of the week he looks at his check and notices that almost half of his hard earned money is taken out, he wonders were the money actually goes. Yeah some of it goes state and some goes to federal, but a great majority goes in the pockets of the non workers, the ones who can work but choose not to. Like at the end of the year, after people file for taxes and maybe get back some money, the ones who get back the most are the ones who worked the least and the ones who worked the most get very little to nothing. How is that fair?

2) This article does explains how complicated the tax process and the tax system actually is, but in real life it is obviously not this simple. It isn't this simple because so people feel obligated to ask questions and so the government can make money. In the article the people get tax cuts and the rich get a bigger percent because they paid more. As stated in "How Did the Tax Code Get so Complicated?" They say "To make it worse, the "mix" of tax increases and decreases for particular groups of taxpayers often shifts from one year to the next, resulting in a constantly changing kaleidoscope of tax increases for some and tax decreases for others." (Ernest S. Christian). This statement makes sense because the tax system is constantly changing making it more and more complicated.

3) The author is a Democrat because he tend to favor the low income more. In the article the men get together and beat up the ricg man because he got more money then the lower class. The author talks more about the poor and there is more poor people then there is rich.


Christian, Ernest . "How Did the Tax Code Get so Complicated?." Center for Stratigic Tax Reform. 28 Mar 2005. Investor's Business Daily. 12 Dec 2008 .

Second Presidential Debate 2008

In the 2008 presidential debate Barak Obama and John McCain both had great arguments, but I feel that Obama came out on top. He was fluent in everything he said. He answered every question and each question answered made sense and were all great ideas. The first thing that I think is most important is taxes. Barak Obama says that he plans to provide a tax cut to 95% of the middle class Americans. He also says that he will give tax cuts to small businesses that make less that $200,000 a year. Obama thinks that small businesses need loans so they can provide payrolls and so they don't go out of business resulting in employees loosing their jobs. He also believes that the people who need financial help should get it and the people who don't shouldn't. Obama wants to help the environment by increasing the peace corp numbers so we can help out more with the world and its people. McCain on the other hand wants to provide tax cuts to big businesses. He also says that we should buy up all the business loans. McCain wants to make nuclear power plants. He says that they are clean and efficient for the environment, he also want them built to create jobs for Americans. The debate did not change my opinion at all. I still think that Obama would make a better president than McCain. He is a good leader and has really great ideas and solutions. I think he could lead the U.S. out of depression. He should be the next president of the United States.

Democracy

1) The creators of Americas Political system were wealthy aristocrats, intellectuals, and power brokers of the colonial America, so the founding fathers feared literal democracy as a potential for "mob rule", which would give the people ultimate power and could result in taking the riches away from the wealthy, meaning they would be the ones who lose their wealth and be the ones who were most affected by the change.


2) The problem with the oligarchical representative republic is without a political system watching over society, greed would slowly coruppt the law and the political and economic legislative systems in ways that greatly benefit themselves and those who provide them funds and political favors.


3) The Status Quo works in the away that the people who endure the most hardships and are at the bottom of the chain need change. The people at the who are at the top of the chain and are of the elite minority, benefit most from the system, but will not do anything because they perfectly content with their lives. So the people who want and need can't do anything, because they can't get their voice heard, and the people who could do something and make other peoples lives better won't do anything. The system prevents any change and progress.


4) The author is saying that the government is falsifying our means of being secure and having power among us. He also says that we are not really a Democracy, the government just makes us think we are, because we have only a few features of Democracy and the government is using propaganda to drill the meaning of a Democracy into the minds of there society.

Declaration of Independence

1) The passage says, violating right of life and liberty of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere. It also says that he is determined to keep an open market where MEN should be bought and sold.
2) To purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them and Murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them, with crimes of which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
3) Thomas Jefferson was against slavery and was against King Georges decision to encourage slavery in the 13 colonies, but at the same time Jefferson owned slaves of his own and did not set them free.
4) Jefferson accuses King George for encouraging slavery in the 13 colonies and refusing to restrict the slave trade, and inciting slave to rebel.
5) The King insinuates that slaves in the 13 colonies would be good. He also insinuates that the slave trade should stay.

Candidates 08

John McCain and Barack Obama are the last candidates running for president. John McCain is a Republican, while Barack Obama is a Democrat. The two have similar issues such as; the migration of illegal immigrants, and they both support stem cell research, but they oppose human cloning.

John Sidney McCain was born on August 29, 1936, Coco Solo Naval Air Station. He was a naval aviator for many years until he was shot down and captured by Vietnamese. He was a prisoner of war for six years. John McCain retired from the Navy in 1981. He moved to Arizona and was the U.S. Senate from arizona in 1986. He was married and divorced, but is now currently married to Cindy Hensley McCain. They have seven children.

John McCain is for free trade and voted yes on NAFTA. He also plans to do something for the environment by Introduced the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007, created to reduce greenhouse gases and use different energy sources such as neuclear power.

Barack Hussein Obama was on born August 4, 1961, at Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. he went to Columbia University and Harvard Law School where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review, Barack taught contistutional law at the University of Chicogo Law School for nine years. Currentlt he is the U.S. senator from Illinois. He is married to Michelle Obama. The have two children.

Barack Obama says that he would immediately try to amend NAFTA with Mexico and Canada, and would eliminate tax breaks with companies that are planning to move over seas. He would also start an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to ride greenhouse gases, and would try to make the U.S. a leader in the gobal climate change.