2015+PERIOD+6+GOVERNMENT

=media type="custom" key="28103393"= = GOVERNMENT =

= Pros: = = = = -Crime rate lowers = = = = -Less riots = = = = -Provides emergency services = = = = -Military support = = = = = = Cons: = = = = -Surveillance = = = = -Power =

What Steps Should the Government Take to Keep Order Among it's people?
By: Brian Diomede

[] This link leads to the article that the PICTURE came from. Please note that, while there is an article, there will be no summary since I am just using the picture.

@http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/ This link leads to a Web Page about the Constitution. It lists who wrote the Constitution, what was decided to be put in the Constitution, who debated, what the majority wanted, and facts about the making of the Constitution.

@http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/11/france-orders-this-for-first-time-since-world-war-ii-in-response-to-paris-attacks/ This links leads to a news article that talks about what France is doing to help protect their people and keep order among them. They are declaring the attacks as a "State of Emergency" and have made actions such as shutting down their metro, having a curfew, locked down the borders, and even have started to enter private property. As it says in the article's closing sentence, "Extreme times call for extreme measures."

@https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/battle-over-patriot-act This blog talks about the patriot act, the debate over it, and the strong and weak point of the patriot act. It also talks about Mr. McConnell and what he said/did right and wrong.

@http://www.jstor.org/stable/4232997
This link leads to a jstor article about how the lifestyle of New Orleans was changing during the Civil War. It tells the hidden story about the troubles New Orleans was in during the Civil War, and how it managed after. It also explains how the military there kept order and try to keep the people safe. The people still panicked, and everyone knew that they were not safe. Finally, it tells how the people in New Orleans was suffering, with no money to buy food, shelter, water, and other basic necessities. New Orleans was not a good place to be in at that time.

@http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/sanders--freedom-act-doesnt-go-far-enough-455630915854 This 8 minute 26 second video talks about the freedom act and how it doesn't go far enough. It talks about the weak points in the freedom act and it also talks about what we should do to fix the freedom act and make it better.

@http://vermonthistory.org/research/research-resources-online/green-mountain-chronicles/women-get-the-vote-1920 This radio show talks about one of the lead women in Vermont that helped women vote in the US. It also talks about how women were treated before and after women were allowed to vote. It is 4 minutes and 37 seconds long.

@http://fee.org/freeman/keeping-the-peace/ This article talks about the increasing crime rate and what we should do. It talks about the alcohol prohibition and how the crime rate increased significantly during that time, and about the consequences of not intervening at the right time and intervening too early. This will be replacing my corresponding criticism because I didn't know where to find it, I didn't know what it looked like ,and I didn't find anything relevant to my topic there. --

"Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." -Ronald Reagan

This question might seem simple, but it's a lot harder than you think. It's not like you can easily make people obey your every will. Everyone has different stances, different desires, different wishes, and different flaws. While some people might be happy with one policy, others might be dissatisfied or even angry at the new policy. So, how do you make everyone happy?

The first step is to see what we did in the past, and use that to help us now. History is something everyone takes for granted. Nobody seems to realize that without history, we wouldn't be able to advance in life. So, let's look at the Constitution. The summer debate trying to make the Constitution was a heated one. Men young and old debated on the future of America. Some wanted a strong government, something they didn't have in the Articles of Confederation, while others wanted a Bill of Rights so the states still have power. By having these states debate, we were able to Unite these United States, and we were able to make most people happy. Of course, that doesn't mean that we didn't have our mess ups. For one thing, we only had rich white men debate, so most women and african americans weren't included. Something that would be changed later on.

When women were allowed to vote in 1920, it changed everything. Women started to be self confident, and they got stepped on less and less. Granted, women are still considered inferior by several men, but most men are seen as jerks for considering women inferior instead of as their equal. It showed how america could evolve and how we could change how the world worked. Another good example was the civil war. During that time, the north and south were split into people who wanted slaves (south) and people who wanted to free slaves (north). The north won, and while it still took a long time for african americans to be considered our equal (heck, we still have prejudice to this day over blacks and whites), we have definitely evolved from hundreds of years ago.

So why am I mentioning all of this? What does this have to do with keeping order and keeping the peace? You see, during these times of evolution, a lot of the common people were in desperate need. For example: during the civil war, no one in New Orleans had any money for food, water, shelter, and other basic needs. During the making of the Constitution, the Americans had no money, no government, and little to no hope into coming into a powerful country. So what did these people do? They panicked. They were out of control, and there was little to no order. So how did we solve it? We had good leaders that can make quick decisions, we had honest people that didn't cheat the system, and we looked to the past for answers. To keep order, we have to see what others did in the past so we can act accordingly. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. All we need to do is look to the past. As they say, "Those who do cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

The other thing we should do to keep order is for the government to protect us. They shouldn't be in control of our lives, but they should still keep watch and make sure that nothing catastrophic happens. For example: when the government issued a new article in the Bill of Rights stating that alcoholic beverages were prohibited, people flipped out. Crime rates increased, the order and the peace was not kept, and it was only resolved when the government got rid of the amendment so alcoholic beverages were not prohibited. This is an example of the government intervening too much, causing havock where there shouldn't be any.

An example of the government going too soft was with the freedom act. It was basically a watered down version of the patriot act, making security not as heavy in some regions. Sure, you wouldn't have to take off your shoes, but would you rather take of your shoes, or die in a ball of fire in a 9/11 type event? It's being safe, and it's better safe than sorry. The freedom act was not passed, and that's a good thing. Because if we didn't pass it, who know what countries like ISIS would be doing.

In the end the government should both look to the past and protect it's people. France is doing something similar to what I am saying, putting in laws for curfews and lockdowns like they did during WWII. They are looking to the past so they can protect their people. By doing this, the people in France feel a bit safer. In the end, if the government wants to keep order, they will have to look to the past for answers, and protect the people.

Where does One Draw the Line Between Protection and Personal Freedom?
By: Brandon Lin

Security and Protection is a very controversial topic, especially here in the United States. In my opinion, its our personal freedoms that we are given that make the US the greatest place to live in. We are special because of these rights. But if the government tries to take away our rights, are we that different from the rest of the world? We say that we are the "land of the free," but in reality, we are not that free. The government believes it is okay to violate our privacy by checking in whenever they like. I understand that it is for security purposes and so that we do not have another tragic event occur. However, I do believe that there must be a clear separation between protection and personal freedom.

[|http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/12/11/tech...-americans]

This link leads to an article that talks about how the National Security Agency (NSA) needs to stop spying on Americans. It briefly discusses the revealing of the NSA's surveillance by Edward Snowden in 2013, then further leads into how tech companies are trying to stop the NSA from invading our privacy.

@https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/security_vs_pri.html

This article goes through the very controversial debate of security vs. privacy. It talks about the security protocols that have been enforced after the 9/11 attacks and how most of the protocols don't really protect but are more used to take away freedoms. It provides a good eye opener to much the government is taking away from us as an excuse for protection.

[]

This is a video where Kentucky Senator Rand Paul discusses the Patriot Act and as he describes it as "the most unpatriotic act of all." He goes further on to say how he does not want the Patriot Act reauthorized. He says that he is fighting for the freedom of every single American and he is trying to protect every American's privacy from the government. I think that this is very powerful considering it is someone of the government trying to stop the government's motives.

Laws that Protect Society V.S. Loss of Personal Freedom:
By: Sara Cadiz

= Eminent Domain: = = Pros: - can create more jobs = = - Some people are paid money if they give their property = = - Increase of tax revenues = = Cons: = = - Poor people are relocated = = - People could feel that the price the government is offering them is too low = = - Property owners can fight back by filing a law suit = = = = = = This is a Link to a News Article is About Eminent Domain = = This article talks about how the government has the right to take away or give your land to use for private use. A lot of people know this is known as eminent domain, but what they don’t know is that the government is able to take away your land without your full permission if they are able to prove that they are using your land for the ‘public good.’ For example, they can take away your land and replace your house with an more expensive house, building, office, etc. that will pay more in property taxes than your house did. The article goes on to talk about the families and people who have lost their homes because of eminent domain. = = This is an example of loss of personal freedom because after the government takes your land you have to struggle to find somewhere to live. = = =

= Government Surveillance: = = Pros: = = - used to catch terrorists before they acted = = - helpful in investigations = = - only the guilty should be afraid = = Cons: = = - invasion of privacy = = = = = = @http://goo.gl/I0lgWB = = This is a link about government surveillance Summary: This video talks about the arguments over the governments spying program. Some people think it's wrong for the government to collect people's phone records. Individuals argue that they can have a surveillance program in a cost effective way. Others think its okay to let the government keep doing what they’re doing because it is keeping people safe. There is major controversy over this topic. = = This is an example of loss of personal freedom AND protection of society because we are preventing bad things from happening in America like terrorism. This is an example of loss of personal freedom because our phone calls and computers are tracked and watched by the government. We think it’s not happening, but it is. = = =

= Child Passenger Safety Laws: = Pros: - keeps your child safe - prevents death - prevents injuries Cons: - if a baby is in a car seat facing away from the parents he/she can choke on something

= @http://goo.gl/srQ5Rl =

This video talks about the new car seat regulations in New Jersey. It is said that children under the age of two who are thirty pounds should be facing the rear. Children who are 2-4 years old and 40 pounds should be forward facing only if they follow the weight and height requirement of the seat. Ages 4-8 who are less than 4 foot nine should be in a booster seat facing forward. This law is a type of law that protects citizens. If we do not follow these rules our siblings or children will mostly likely develop an injury or increase their risk of losing their life. The government is responsible for people’s safety and there is a way to pass laws that increase people’s safety without taking away their personal freedom.