Welcome To A Free & Open Mind & the Reviews of Marquell!

Please feel free to read my review and please do not hesitate to comment and even give your input. I am very interested in what everyone has to say and believe that everyone has a right to free speech. Please feel free to comment below my reviews or via my email: marquellgarrett@msn.com. Also please feel free to visit my main web page which will provide you some links to some of my other web pages and great links. To access my main web page please click on the link below!

Marquell Garrett's Mind: The Opinion of the Truth

Also feel free to read some of my speeches @ marquellgarrettspeeches.blogspot.com!

God Doesn't Exists

God Doesn't Exist
(Review)
-By Marquell Garrett
Dated: April, 28 2009; Tuesday @ 20:37HRS EDT

Introduction



I've never really believed in any gods, and the more I've learned about the world and religion, the more I've moved from strong doubts to outright disbelief. So today I can say that I can come to no other rational conclusion than: No gods exist.
In this essay I'll explain my reasons for this, and thereby answer the question I'm often asked: "Why are you an atheist?" I'll deal with some of the typical arguments for the existence of gods, argue why I think they fail, and I'll discuss some of the many logical problems in today's religions (though my focus will be on Christianity). Furthermore I'll argue that religious thinking is dangerous and that many religions are immoral in my opinion.
Before I get started, it should be noted that my choice of words might offend some people, and for that I'm sorry. However if I can argue that a claim is absurd, then I think it's entirely fair to call it just that, instead of wrapping my point in so many layers of political correctness, that the result becomes vague and meaningless.
Furthermore I'm quite aware that I can't know anything about the real world with certainty, but I feel as convinced that no gods exist as I do that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, and no one would think it unreasonable for me to say that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist.



God Doesn’t Exist




Proofs of the Existence of a God:

Many theists (a theist is someone who believes in one or more gods) have over the years tried to prove the existence of a god. I have seen quite a few attempts, but none have been able to survive critical scrutiny.
It will of course be beyond the scope of this essay to go through each and every proof, so we'll have to make do with a few short examples.

The Anthropic Argument:

Proponents of the anthropic argument points out that the universe is extremely well suited for life forms like humans. Had just a single physical constant been different, then the existence of humans would be impossible. This, they argue, tells us that someone made the universe to accommodate mankind.
Though this argument might sound persuasive, it's actually getting it all backwards.
Consider someone who sees a small pool of water in a hole and marvels at the fact the hole is formed in exactly the right way to accommodate a pool of that particular shape. This is of course silly, because it's not the hole that has taken on a form just right for the water's shape. Instead it's the water that has adapted itself to the form of the hole.
Similarly the universe isn't fitted to make life as we know it possible; instead life has adapted itself to the universe.
Imagine that when the universe began (assuming that it hasn't always existed) each of its attributes were set randomly. It seems reasonable to assume that only a few of the possible random universes could support humanlike life. It might however be that the other possible universes could support other kinds of life.
If the universe hadn't been structured to allow for human existence, then we wouldn't be here to wonder about it, and instead it might very well have been some other life form, wondering about the same thing. So a creature marvelling at the fact, that the universe just happened to be structured in a way, so that its race could evolve and survive, is silly in the same way that the example with the pool of water is silly.
Apart from this it should also be considered that there might actually be or have been a huge number of universes (which is an idea being considered seriously by physicists). If this is the case, then the existence of a universe supporting humankind is a lot more probable.

The Argument from Design:

One of the most common arguments for the existence of a god is the argument from design. This argument states that the complexity and interdependencies of nature can only be explained; if someone intelligent (i.e. a god) designed it all.
This kind of argument is what atheists call a "god of the gaps"-argument. That is, God resides in the gaps of our current knowledge. When people couldn't explain lightning, it was a god who made it, and when that gap in our knowledge disappeared, the god had to retreat from it.
This has been a continuing theme throughout history: Gods have retreated from one gap after another as the light of science has illuminated them one by one.
The argument from design places gods in the shrinking gaps of the well supported theory of evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/), which explains the development of the species without the need of an intelligent designer.
One very common version of the argument from design is the claim that the odds of the eye being created by chance are so huge that the possibility can be discounted.
This argument however misunderstands what evolution is. Evolution isn't just randomness. It's randomness with selection, and evolution doesn't create things like the eye in one go. It's nearly 150 years since Darwin explained in "The Origin of Species", how the eye might have evolved. It could for example have started with a single cell that was sensitive to light, which generation after generation increased in numbers and complexity. In this connection it's worth noting that all our skin cells are sensitive to light. When we feel the Sun burning on our skin, then it's simply light of a frequency not visible to our eyes, which we feel. Furthermore we have today observed creatures in nature with eyes of different complexity.
As an analogy, consider a lottery where you have to pick 7 numbers out of 40. You would have to be extremely lucky to win such a lottery, but now assume that you were allowed to accumulate correctly chosen numbers from one game to all the following ones. Perhaps you will get one correct number in the first game, then nothing in the next three, then two in the fourth game. Now you have 3 correct ones, and you would get all 7 in a reasonable number of games.
This is the way evolution works. It accumulates advantageous mutations, just like winning numbers were accumulated in the lottery example. Thereby evolution climbs Mount Improbable step by step instead of making an impossible all-in-one leap to the top.
Even if we, for the sake of the argument, accept the existence of a designer, we can still point some annoying facts out to the theist:
The designer can't have been very intelligent. Just take a look at a giraffe: Why does it have a nerve between the brain and the larynx going all the way down the neck and then up again, instead of just going the very short and direct route? And why does a giraffe have 7 neck bones and a humming bird 14, when the opposite would have been more suitable?
The vast majority of the species, which have existed, have gone extinct, which goes to show that the designer has a lousy track record.
Who other than a sadist would design organisms that eat others from the inside, while they are still alive (such as some wasp larva does with spiders) or design diseases like Ebola and the plague?
If complexity implies design, then the immense complexity of the designer must imply that someone else designed him. The designer of the designer would then also require a designer, and we would end up with an infinite chain of designers.

The First Cause Argument:

The first cause argument is very popular among theists. It is based on the assumption that everything has a cause, and from this assumption it is argued that the universe must have had a cause, and that this cause is a god.
However, if everything has a cause, then the god must also have a cause, and that cause must have a cause and so on infinitely. This is a conclusion that I think isn't palatable for any theist. If the theists, to counter this, claims that his god is uncaused, then he has contradicted the assumption on which the argument is based and has therefore invalidated it.
Furthermore even if the argument were correct, all it would tell us would be that there is a first cause. Calling this first cause "God", doesn't give it any of the properties, which are normally ascribed to gods, it could be some perfectly natural occurrence. I might as well say "I call the chair, I'm sitting on, 'God', and therefore God exists".

The Argument from Religious Experiences:

It's often argued that since so many people today and throughout history have had religious experiences there must be something to it.
To answer this argument one should consider that earlier in human history more or less everyone experienced the Earth as being flat. Today science can explain why they saw it this way, even though it isn't true. Similarly scientists today are starting to explain why people have religious experiences and even trigger them without involving a god.
So when someone is trying to make a case for the existence of a god based on the many religious experiences, they could make an equally (UN) compelling argument that the earth is flat.
It should also be considered that religious experiences are dependent on the religion of the person having the experience, which indicates that it's only a subjective experience generated by the persons own brain. This aspect will also often make the experiences mutually contradictory, which shows that they can't all be true, and even if we accept them, then it will be very hard to argue why we shouldn't also accept the very similar experiences of alien abductions, succubus visits etc.

The Argument from Uncertainty:

Everything we know about the world is uncertain to some extent, and we have all seen how some scientific "knowledge" turned out to be wrong.
Based on this some theists argue that since our scientific knowledge is never 100% certain, it's quite alright for example to believe that the universe was created by God 6000 years ago, because the science, which shows that this isn't so, might be wrong.
Well, science might be wrong in this case, but it's so unlikely that it's silly to base anything on it being wrong, and no one in their right mind acts on such possibilities in any other connection. Your bed might have turned into peanut butter while you read this, but I'm pretty sure that you don't deem it worth your time to go look if this has happened. So why the equally implausible ideas of religion should be treated any different?

The Argument from Authority:

The world we inhabit is so complex that none of us can check everything out for ourselves, therefore we in many cases have to rely on authorities, who have specialized knowledge. Most people for example believe in the existence of electrons even though they haven't really seen any themselves.
Some theists argue that it's no different to accept the existence of a god based on the authority of a holy book or someone with great knowledge of a religion.
In my opinion such an argument cuts no grass, because a scientist claiming that electrons exist can back up his claim with a lot of solid evidence. The computer I'm writing this on wouldn't have worked if there were no such thing as electrons and neither would any other electronic device. Similarly the scientist will be able to teach you the theories backing up his claim, and at each step in your learning, you will be able to perform experiments that verify the theories. Religious authorities can do no such thing.
This example shows that it's rational to believe in the claims of science, because it has delivered overwhelming quantities of testable evidence, while religion has nothing to show for all its effort.

The Ontological Argument:

Another famous proof of the existence of a god is the so-called ontological argument, which basically goes like this:
1. A god is a being greater than which nothing can be imagined.
2. Since nothing greater can be imagined, a god must be perfect.
3. One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
4. Therefore a god exists.
There are several things wrong with this argument. First of all I would tend to be pretty suspicious of its foundation. Can a human really conceive of perfection? I don't think so, and the claim definitely is in need of proof, which brings the ontological argument to a grinding halt before it even gets started.
Even worse, the argument confuses the concept of something with the thing itself. Just because we can imagine something, it doesn't follow that it in any way relates to the real world. This might be made easier to understand by seeing that one could as well argue that a perfect unicorn exists using exactly the same logic as the ontological argument.

As stated above, none of the arguments I have seen so far for the existence of a god have withstood close scrutiny. But it gets worse: Some of the attributes, ascribed to various gods, leads us to conclude that those gods logically cannot exist, while others make them seem very implausible.
Most of my arguments in this part of the essay will only cover some gods, and for each of them a lot of theists will be able to say, that the argument doesn't cover their particular god. This however is unavoidable given the sheer number of different conceptions of gods.

An Omnipotent God is a Logical Impossibility:

A lot of religious people claim that their god is omnipotent (all-powerful), this however leads to a lot of problems, which have been pointed out by numerous people. One of these problems is the consequences of the simple but a bit naïve question: “Can God create a rock that he can’t lift?” If God can’t do this, then he isn’t omnipotent, and if he can, then he still isn’t omnipotent, because then there is something, that he can’t do – i.e. lift the rock.
This means that omnipotence is a logical impossibility, and therefore omnipotent gods are also logically impossible.

Omniscience is Incompatible with Free Will:

Some Gods are also supposed to be omniscient (all-knowing), and humans supposedly have a free will. But how can humans have a free will, if a god in advance knows what is going to happen? There can be no choice in any meaningful sense of the word, if there is only one possible outcome to each and every situation (that is the outcome that the god has foreseen).
This leads us to conclude that free will combined with omniscience is impossible, and if we want to keep omniscience and thereby have to kill off free will, what does that do to the concept of sin?

Contradictions:

Being a logical impossibility isn’t the only problem facing gods and the holy scriptures of the religions. One should for example think that an all-powerful god would be able to make sure that his holy scriptures was relatively error free.
However upon examination one finds that this isn’t the case. Internal contradictions run rampant, and descriptions of the universe tend to be downright silly. A good example of this is the Bible:
In Exodus there are two very different versions of the Ten Commandments, and God is claiming that they are exactly the same (Exodus 20:1-17 vs. Exodus 34:1, 12-26).
According to Gen 2:18-19 God created man before the animals, but Gen 1:25-26 tells us that it was the other way around.
The Earth is claimed to be flat (see http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm).
Jesus is said to be born while Herod the Great was alive (Mat 2:1-2), and while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-7). Unfortunately Quirinius became governor ten years after Herod died.
This list could be continued for a long time, and it makes it seem quite implausible that the Bible is the word of God or even divinely inspired.
Such problems aren’t confined to the Bible. The Quran for example states that Heaven was created before Earth, and that Earth was created before Heaven (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/contra/first.html) and Hindu scripture apparently claim that the bottom of the universe is filled with water (http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/planetarium/index.htm).

The Absurdity of Religion:

Why is it that if I claim that the keyboard, I’m typing this on, regularly turns into green cheese from the planet Krypton, then everyone will call me insane, but if someone claims that the bread they are eating and the wine they are drinking are turning into the flesh and blood of a guy born of a virgin, who is his own father, and who rose from the dead 2000 years ago, then he’s called a Catholic and should be respected for his faith?
When an absurd belief is labelled religious, then it suddenly isn’t considered absurd any more. This seems pretty weird to me, and let’s face it, most religions are based on beliefs that really are silly. A typical example of this is the story of the Ten Commandments.
In this story God calls Moses to Mount Sinai to give him the divine will about human conduct. God then lets Moses walk up the mountain, down again and up once more, before giving him the Ten Commandments. Afterwards the tablets with the commandments are broken, and Moses must ascend the mountain yet again, to get a new copy. Now imagine yourself in Moses’ place. You have climbed three times to the top a tall mountain enshrouded in clouds and lightning to receive the divine guidance of the almighty God, and then it turns out that he can’t remember his own commandments and therefore makes up some completely new ones, while claiming that they are exactly the same. And to make matters worse the tenth commandment is “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk” (Exodus 23:19). That is the guidance that God in his infinite wisdom wants to give us? We can’t cook a goat in the milk of its mother?
Can anyone really look me in the eyes and with a straight face say that this story wouldn’t be considered plain silly, if it wasn’t a religious story? In my opinion it could have been taken straight out of a Monty Python sketch.
Of course being silly or absurd doesn't rule out existence, but it doesn't seem to be likely attributes of a being with infinite wisdom.

Occam’s Razor:

I have argued above that gods tends to be logically impossible, and the stories about them are absurd and contradict themselves and well known facts. This in my opinion should be enough to dismiss them – at least until someone present some very solid facts.
There are however one more reason to do this, and it’s the principle known as Occam’s Razor. This principle, which is widely used in science simply states, that when trying to explain something, one shouldn’t add unnecessary elements to the explanation – or stated in another way, which is more useful in this context: If something can be explained with reference only to things we know to be true, then one shouldn’t invent and add new things.
This principle, while only a rule of thumb, ensures that our explanations are more likely to be true, and applied to the concept of god; it tells us to cut him away, because we don’t seem to need him as an explanation of anything.

Why Haven't We Seen Any Gods?:

If any gods really exist why haven't we seen any of them? If they really want us to worship them, why should they want to hide from us? I know that this is no definite proof against the existence of gods, but it should give anyone pause that religions have existed for thousands of years and a huge number of people have done their best to discover gods or prove their existence, and as far as I have been able to find out, we still have no real evidence.
If it were anything other than religion we were talking about, wouldn't you have given up if such a search had failed to find any evidence? I know I would, and I don't see any reason to make religion a special case.

I have now argued that the proofs of the existence of gods are wrong and that the ideas of gods contain all manner of contradictions and absurdities. Now I will turn to other issues, such as morality and the dangers that religious thinking contains.

Are the Gods Worthy of Worship?:

Even if the god of the Bible one day proves his existence to me, I wouldn’t worship him (though I would of course believe in him), because if you try to take a look at the Bible and see how it describes God’s behavior, then you’ll quickly see, that he commits one despicable act after another.
He kills all the first-born of Egypt, mainly for something that he himself makes a pharaoh do (Exodus 7:13 and Exodus 13:15). He seems to endorse slavery (Lev 25:44-46), rape (2 Sam 12:11), murder (Lev 20:9) and the slaughtering of those who aren’t a part of his chosen people (Deuteronomy 2:21). He makes bears rip apart 42 children, simply because they mocked a prophet (2 Kin 2:24). One could go on for a very long time just listing the atrocities that the god of the Bible has committed or endorsed, and it boggles the mind that anyone would want to worship him.
Not only is God apparently committing acts that are abhorrent to most humans, he is also the reason that I was born with the personality I have, and with his omniscience he must have known that I would be an atheist. He would have to know that I value proof above blind faith. Therefore it follows that when he created everything, he knew that I and countless others, were destined to burn in the Hell he created.
Furthermore let’s say, for the sake of argument, that before I die, I convert and become a Christian and end up in Heaven. However some of the people I love might not be there, since they aren’t baptised, they could be tormented in Hell instead (1 Pet 3:21). How am I to live in eternal happiness while knowing this? Even if we for the sake of the argument assume that God can change me to be able to live that way, then that's not the kind of person I want to be.
Some may argue that most of the atrocities that God has committed belong to an earlier age – the one described in the Old Testament – and that with the coming of Jesus and the founding of Christianity the main message is now about love. I don’t take much notice of such an argument however, because of the following words of Jesus: "For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all is fulfilled." (Mat 5:18) – As far as I know the Heaven and the Earth haven't passed yet. Furthermore Jesus with all his messages of love also had this message: “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (See http://ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php for a look a critical look at Jesus’ teachings.)
This section has only dealt with the Christian god, but many of the other gods that I've heard about is no better than the Christian god - Allah, for example, brings a painful doom to anyone who doesn’t believe his every word (2:7 and 4:150-151). There are of course also gods who are less violent, but considering all the violence and evil they allow in the world, I also have a hard time finding them worthy of worship.

The Dangers of Religion:

Not only do religious people waste their time in devotion to cruel and non-existing gods, they also represent a dangerous system of thought.
The dangers come from the fact that religion can make people absolutely certain that they are in possession of divine and infallible truth, and that this allows them to do whatever they like to anyone who doesn’t do what their interpretation of the religion demands. As Voltaire succinctly put it: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
History has shown us one example after another of the atrocities of religion. The Christian crusades led to numerous wars and the massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. The witch trials exemplify how badly the juridical system can be perverted by religion, and tens of thousands of people were executed without any possibility of defending themselves against the baseless accusations, and many were tortured during their trials.
Today we see how religious fanatics blow themselves and innocent children up, and fill their pockets with nails, so that the explosions can maim even more people.
Furthermore religion have time and again been used to oppress people and force them to abide by dehumanizing rules, and it stops free thought dead in its tracks, which makes it even easier to prevent people from improving their lot and question their dictators.
All of these things make me so angry, that I struggle to put it into words. How dare such people presume to make themselves lords of their neighbours, based on a book filled with blessings of violence, rape and war written by primitive people millennia ago?
Religion can also be physically dangerous to the believers. Blood transfusions, for example, are not allowed by some religions and some, such as the members of the Christian sect called Christian Science, turn to prayer instead of doctors and medicine.
Furthermore religion can also give people reasons for not helping others. The Karmic Law for instance basically leads to the conclusion, that if you have an illness or is born with a defect, then it’s your own fault – and is caused by something you did in this or another life. This is, in my opinion, a detestable point of view.

Morality:

Atheists are often told by theists that since they aren't religious, they can’t behave morally. However I think it says quite a bit about the morality of those saying such things. Who is really the more moral person, he who behaves well by his own volition, or he who only behaves well because he’s threatened with the eternal torment of hell?
Furthermore even Christians tend to put their own moral standards above those given by their god; this can be seen from the way they pick and choose among the numerous commandments of the Bible. They don't accept them all, they only select those that are consistent with their own internal moral compass, and this undermines arguments based on a superior god given morality.
I also don’t find it the moral thing to do, to worship a being that has numerous atrocities on his conscience, and I find it quite ironic that the Bible is called “The Good Book”.
The fact that people seem let the opinions of priests carry greater weight in matters of ethics and morality baffles me. As I see it, it's as if people accept arguments like the following:
'I have this invisible friend – I can't show you that he exists, but trust me, he does. He's childish, cruel and vindictive and his morals belong to a society that is completely different from ours. I want to carry out his will together with my sexist organization that have time and again shown that when it gets sufficient power it will oppress, kill or torture those who don't agree with it. Therefore I should have a greater say in matters of ethics and morality.'
This argument would of course be a laughing stock – that is until someone calls his invisible friend God, and then it's suddenly deemed to be reasonable.

The Advantages of Atheism:

Some see a disadvantage in the lack of “magic” in the world of the atheist – I don’t. I think that the real world is awe inspiring without the filter of religion. As the author Douglas Adams puts it: “Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
Religion limits people by imposing nonsensical rules created by humans in a totally different society. Atheism on the other hand sets us free. It breaks down the barriers that exist between persons, who each have their own version of the “one true belief”, and atheists don’t have to feel guilty for enjoying beer, pork or sex.

Should Religion be Exempt from Critique and Satire?:

There seems to be a wide spread acceptance of the idea that it’s wrong to criticize other people’s religious ideas, and while political satire is completely acceptable, religious satire isn’t. I must admit that the reasoning behind this eludes me.
If someone believes that the best way to combat unemployment is to chop off everybody’s hands, then no one would demand that we respect this point of view and think it beyond critique or satire. Why then is it that such demands are made regarding the dangerous and absurd claims of religion?
I won’t respect a point of view that is arguably silly and morally abhorrent to me, and I will reserve the right to criticize it with or without the use of satire. On the other hand I accept the right of others to hold such points of view.
By putting religion beyond critique, we risk being stuck in a quagmire of religious ignorance, oppression and violence.
On the other hand we shouldn’t mock religion, but there’s a difference between mocking and satire. Mocking is simply putting other people down, while satire is a useful tool for making a point clearer through the use of humour and exaggeration.

Conclusion



Though I have spent a considerable amount of time reading, thinking and arguing about religion, I of course haven’t investigated each and every imaginable god and each and every argument. I can’t definitely prove that a god can’t possibly exist. I have, however, looked into several religions, and can argue that their gods are implausible or simply impossible.
This leads me to the point that has finally made me conclude that no god exists, and I would like to end this essay with a small parable that illustrates it.
Once upon a time a hermit lived in a cave near the top of a tall mountain. The entrance of the cave was next to a plateau, which had a sharp edge leading to a long and steep fall.
People often came to the plateau and many stopped by the cave and talked to the hermit. Each and every one of these people fervently believed that if they jumped off the edge while flapping their arms vigorously and chanting a magic word, then they would be able to fly.
Each and every one of them were convinced that the magic word they were using were the right one, and each and every one of them crashed into the cliffs below the edge.
After years of this happening the hermit got tired of listening to the visitors’ rambling stories about how fantastic their particular magic word was, and he finally put up a sign outside his cave. It read:
No, your magic word won’t work, and if you are sure that it will anyway, then please don’t come and tell me about it, until it really has made you fly.

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.