Assignment 4- Debating the Constitution

Shylene Mejia

Class: POL 166

Professor: Barry Murdaco

Lehman College

Assignment 4- Debating the Constitution

          The assigned reading for 10/3/15 week is “Another Stab at the Constitution,” published by The New York Times (NYT’s) on July 8, 2012. This article is a compilation of ten University professor providing their opinion regarding what they will suggest to change in the constitution. In this discussion, I will further analyze Jamal Greene, professor of law at Columbia Law School, position regarding setting term limits for Federal Judges. 

           In the NYT’s article one of the compilation “Revisiting the Constitution: We Need Term Limits for Federal Judges”,  Greene states:

 “In a democracy, no one person should wield so much power for so long. Article III of the Constitution provides that federal judges ‘shall hold their offices during good behaviour.’ In practice this language means they serve for life absent voluntary retirement or impeachment. Were we to draft the Constitution today, we would be wise to reconsider this provision.” 

I am in agreement with Greene’s observation, regarding limiting judges to a set number of years in office either by mandating a retirement age or an 18 year term assignment as suggested in the reading. I agree with this amendment change due to the lack of choices if the judge is not doing a satisfactory job. For example, if a judge is doing a non satisfactory job in the majority public opinion, then there is very little the public or those in office can do unless the judges commits ‘bad behavior’. The term ‘bad behavior’ is up for different translation that may not be in concern with the way he/she may be interpreting the law. Let’s take for instance the same sex marriage debate, which was decided by the US supreme court who mandated for all states to recognize same-sex marriage. If the US Supreme Court would have decided otherwise and other decision  were maintained very conservative, then a citizen or public officials would have to wait till the judges begin to retire before potential change can happen in the courts jurisdiction. 

            I choose this part of the article to review due to my interest with the differences between federal and state judiciary courts. As the federal and state courts handle different matters and the judges are elected differently. As for the State court judges are chosen in a number of ways either by election or appointment for a given number of years/ life or a combination of both. In conclusion, the term limit for judges can provide potential awareness of public opinion in the court room decisions which can entice the populations to be aware of who is in office and if they should go or stay.  

Reference

Comparing Federal & State Courts. (n.d.). Retrieved October 8, 2015, from            http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts

Greene, J. (2012, July 8). Revisiting the Constitution: We Need Term Limits for Federal Judges.                  The New York Times. Retrieved October 6, 2015 from   http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/07/08/another-stab-at-the-us-constitution/revisiting-the-constitution-we-need-term-limits-for-federal-judges

MOSENDZ, P. (2015, September 4). Why Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Can't Be Fired for Refusing                 to Issue Same-Sex Marriage Licenses. Newsweek. Retrieved October 8, 2015 from http://www.newsweek.com/why-kim-davis-cant-be-fired-marriage-licenses-368902

Assignment #3 The Politics of the American Founding

Shylene Mejia

Class: POL 166

Professor: Barry Murdaco

Lehman College

Assignment # 3 The Politics of the American Founding 

             The assigned reading for 9/26/15 week included the Declaration of Independence, 1776; Constitution of the United States, 1787; The Federalist Papers #s 10 and 51, 1787-88 .  The Declaration of Independence 1776 discussed some of the reason why a separation from Great Britain was necessary. The constitution although not the confederation initial agreement upon the separation from Great Britain, it is the one that is used today. The initial agreement between the states was the Article of Confederation 1781 which was changed for the constitution due to not providing a firm state of federalism, and a separation of power. The separation of power was thought to assist with the check and balance at the different level of government. Furthermore, The Federalist Papers were 85 essays written to persuade state support of a federalist government. 

              In The Federalist # 10 written Nov 22, 1787 by James Madison discussed how a federalist government will avoid disruption of  small or large dissenting groups in state government politics. The Federalist # 10 is titled The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. In the below passage in the federalist # 10 it says:

“The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.”

Upon reviewing this passage, it was as to say that a firm national government and separation of power would prevent dissenting groups successfully organizing against the government and overthrowing it. In the essay, it explains the reality at that time was that the “most considerate and virtuous citizen” would have the tendency to complain. This complain by common folks if organized together will force the government to act upon their interest not as the rule of justice suggest. The article suggest domestic faction is the disease of a democracy and the cure in this case is the separation of government into local, state and national, as a conflict in state/ local will  not easily reach national level before it is contained or a solution agreed upon.

                  In conclusion, the politics surrounding the initiation of the federalist government was not an easy transition as persuasion for state support was necessary. I choose this passage to discuss as it made sense of why there had not been any overthrown government in the United States, which it was clear that the separation of government was useful in preventing that from happening and as described in the passage when a population is this large, there will be a large democracy where different point of views interact with each other. The responsibility of living in a democracy is that every individual has to be involved politically or their rights can be undermined by a louder more persuasive point of view in the political arena.