The Progressive Era

The Progressive Era

Americans can exercise their right to free speech in any form as long as it is within the confines given by the government. If there is any infraction of free speech or incorrect use of the right, the government can legally enforce a subsequent punishment. This is much more freeing than other countries that completely restrict some speech and media, where they enforce Prior Restraint.

Several people have taken full advantage of the government ordained free speech in various websites and forums, where people with opinions or points they want to share can state their opinion, agree with others who have similar views, or argue certain points if there is a disagreement. This practice is completely legal, as the United States allows opinions about the government to be shared publicly with no backlash unless opinions and words turn into anti-government actions. The day I wrote this post, a retired Air Force colonel replied to this post and talked about withdrawing troops from Iran and Saudi Arabia on the website antiwar.com, arguing that withdrawing troops was not premature or reckless. This was published so recently that there were no replies or comments posted. Every day people use their freedom of speech to express their opinion, even if nobody else has seen it yet, and I believe that is valuable.



Pictured: American troops in Saudi Arabia.

People even get to talk about the President and his orders, policies, and other actions in both positive and negative ways without facing any government punishment. A blogger on The American Conservative stated in one of his blogs regarding the relationship between Rudy Giuliani and President Donald Trump, "Trump may be an idiot, but he is not stupid..." In other, stricter countries, calling their leader an "idiot" could land you some serious consequences. Countries under dictatorships or heavily enforced monarchies ensure that their citizens always agree with their leaders, no matter what they do or decide to do with their country. The value of free speech is incredibly overlooked, since some people would be thrown in jail or worse if they said even half of the things they say about our President. Websites like antiwar.com and The American Conservative would not exist if the United States had the same laws of countries like Turkmenistan or North Korea, which controls the press in its entirety.

Sources:

antiwar.com

The American Conservative

Civil War and Reconstruction

Almost every state in the US is suspicious of the power that Google wields over the American population, and they certainly have the right to think so. Google controls a lot more than just the top results when you search "how to change a tire." They also control the advertisements that pop up when you search for something as well as several websites and technology that you use daily, such as YouTube, DoubleClick, a Chromebook, or an Android smartphone. It seems that the Internet itself is Google, and one is certainly inclined to think so due to the amount of power Google holds over the Internet.

Many congressmen and congresswomen have chimed in on the situation of Google's supposed monopoly over the internet and advertising to increase their platform. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt noted that it was like buying a house, but Google owned the house, several houses on the same block, and was also the buyer's agent and the seller's agent. They controlled everything in the purchase, like it or not. Another attorney general, Leslie Rutledge of Arkansas, stated "when my daughter is sick and I search online for advice form doctors, I want the best ones, not the ones who spent the most on advertising." This emphasizes the fact that Google has total control over what results are shown when a search is made, giving the top result spots for the companies that paid Google the most money.

The Attorney Generals want to see Google's power lessened or more evenly distributed among other areas instead of monopolizing the internet, but unfortunately this will prove to be a difficult task. If a state government or the federal government were to issue a rule or law against Google and its many services, it would be a violation of the 14th Amendment, specifically the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The government cannot restrict a person's rights or access to the privileges granted to American citizens, and the Internet can classify as a privilege. Though it may be inconvenient that Google owns a major portion of the Internet and the tech and services that accompany it, the government cannot change that directly, as it is made of a corporate body and qualifies as a person.

However, the Attorney Generals in the 48 states investigating Google are taking a better approach to the situation and are launching antitrust investigations in an attempt to discover if Google broke any laws getting to where they are now. This process is entirely legal, but if they find something incriminating against Google, the government cannot restrict them in any way that violates the 14th Amendment. It is a tricky balance, but one that is certainly doable.

Source: CBS News

The Founding Era

Week 3: The Founding Era

After watching the history of the Supreme Court, I definitely walked away with more knowledge about how the Court operates than I initially knew. Americans often get educated about how the Congress operates and what the duties of the President are, but the Supreme Court and its duties often get overlooked.

The Supreme Court gets several thousand petitions per year, and it is up to the Justices to determine which ones require full consideration. After a decision is settled on a case, the justices write an opinion, which will reveal to the American people what the justices decided upon. This is the most important job of the Justices, as this will reveal exactly what the thought processes were among the nine Justices as well as the conclusion of a very important case.

I personally liked the idea that the Justices have implemented in their discussions, and that is to make sure that everyone talks first before anyone talks twice. This ensures that every opinion is heard and no voice is silenced in the matter. With nine unique persons on the table it can be easy to overlook one or two people's opinions, but the Supreme Court makes sure that it never happens. Additionally, I liked Justice O'Connor's response to the question "Is there an implicit affirmation of the result of the case if a case is dropped?". It affirms that the Court does everything in their power to make sure every case gets the proper amount of consideration when it is presented to them.

I particularly liked the line that was said at the conclusion: "The power of the court is the power of trust earned, the trust of the American people." The more I think about this line, the more I realize that it is very true. The American people trust the President to lead the country the best they can by affirming laws and creating executive orders when necessary. They trust that Congress will listen to their suggestions and create laws based on what the general population desires. However, it is up to the Supreme Court to declare how a certain issue is to be addressed, and these issues may be very relevant to the general population, sometimes more so than laws or orders.

Though I do not fully understand law nor do I desire to go into the field of law, I do understand how important a single case can be for a number of people. Lives change from cases in simple domestic courts and cases in criminal courts, so the power that the Supreme Court wields is much greater than the average American suspects. With that being said, I fully respect the authority that the Supreme Court holds and I will make an attempt to read up on some of these opinions that the Justices release.

Source:

History of the Supreme Court