Election Test

I think that a successful politician needs to have strong beliefs in a specific political party. They need to either be a Republican, Democratic or Independent. They also need a strong and willing Political Action Committee because then they will hand out flyers, get voters/ citizens involved and convince them to vote for their candidate they are representing. I think that PAC’s is a major part of the elections because then it will get the candidates name out there, and maybe get citizens who normally don’t vote; to vote. If they succeed in getting many new voters, (Voter Turnout) then that means that they have people who really care, and want to stand up for what they believe in. It shows how involved they are. If the turnout is very low, then that can be good or bad depending on whom you are. My opinion is that if there is a low turnout then it’s bad because then it shows that the citizens do not care, and they think that their vote doesn’t matter, also they do not get who they really want to run instead it’s just a certain group of people opinion. A very important factor in running in an election is hard money because you then get money directly given to the person running and you need money to get all the supplies to campaign, and to get to where you need to be in time. For example all the decorations for speeches they give, and signs they make to give to the public. Another problem thought would be soft money because that is illegal, and the money is not regulated or given directly to the candidate. Lastly a large majority of campaigning would be the media because that is what most people in the world see every day. It can either be a huge success or a flop. Some media stations are bias and choose to lean to one candidate over the other, so that leaves bad publicity to the one not in favor. I believe that running in an election it is very difficult and it takes a lot of work, and time.

The Civil Liberties Test

Freedoms and protections are both valued a lot in today’s society but I don’t think that one is valued more than the other because it always depends on the situation occurring.
The first amendment is about personal freedoms, like spoken, written and symbolic actions. For example some cases that show freedoms for citizens would be Engel v. Vitale. The school was mandated a school prayer to be said before school. They forced the students to say it every day. The government decided that it was unconstitutional and it was being forced upon rather than letting the students decide. I think that was a good decision because if the student did not want to read it then they should have to, it should be their own choice. The second example of spoken freedom would be the Bethel v. Fraser case, when a high school student was saying a speech in an assembly, to influence kids to vote for a friend. He was using sexual metaphors to promote his friend. This violated the first amendment because he was using vulgar and offensive language and the values of the school were broken. Also for it to be during a school assembly made it ten times worse it is understandable if it was outside of school, and he was just talking to some friends but it was a school event and it made things go under the school rules and expectations.
The fourth amendment is about if a citizen has evidence obtained illegally it cannot be used against you to an extent. One example of the fourth amendment would be the New Jersey v. T.L.O, a 14 year old middle school student was suspected of smoking in the bathroom of her school. The principal of her school searched her purse and found marijuana and other drugs. This case does not violate the fourth amendment because it was of probable cause, it violated the law. It was a protection case because the girl also had a list of students that she was selling drugs to, and they want the students of their school to be safe. Another case that happened was the Mapp v Ohio case. This case was about a woman named Polree Map, who was accused of having drug in her house but when she was searched she was found with a wide variety of pornography. This violated the fourth amendment because that is her freedom to have that in her house, and they had a warrant to search her house for the drugs but instead charged her with something completely different. I think that was unfair for them to have her get time in jail when they found stuff because it was her freedom to have that n she was not doing anything that was putting people in danger.
The Fifth Amendment talks about protections against self incrimination, and how you have to be told your rights, and nothing you say before that can be used against you in court. In the Miranda v. Arizona case Ernesto Miranda was charged for raping a girl and was taken in for questioning when they finally got a written confession he then was told his rights so his confession was not used in the court room and he was favored so he had no sentencing. I think this is bad but good because the people knew he was guilty and he confessed to it, but then he was not charged with anything because he wasn’t told his rights. Ernest got away with doing something illegal and wrong but everyone knew he did it, it just doesn’t make sense to me.