Recent orders
The Culture of Childhood; Dropping Enrollment in Public Schools Around the Country
The Culture of Childhood; Dropping Enrollment in Public Schools Around the Country
Name:
Affiliation:
Course:
Instructor:
Date:
The Culture of Childhood
Many people hold that adults play a significant role in raising, socializing, and educating children. That is such a misguided idea, and, in any case, if one does not understand, children learn most things from their fellow children. Usually, parents’ roles in children’s lives are far-fetched and exaggerated and only based on beliefs and theories on how children develop. It is quite an obvious truth that children require adults in their lives for things like food, shelter, security, and to encourage them. Adults usually act as children’s role models though it is not apparent that adults always act according to moral principles. However, parents, or instead, adults do not necessarily raise, educate, or even show children how to socialize; instead, they do that independently. Children often set their character by merely observing and learning from other children. It is so much about their peers than adults.
Biologically, children are made to grow up in a childhood culture. Contemplate a child’s taste in certain hobbies, music, clothes, manner of speech, among others. People could often associate that with adults or even the parents; however, everything has to do with other children’s likes or what they are doing. Children biologically learn from one another to fit in that particular environment, learn what the other does, and know what they know. There are some misguided attempts to discredit children from achieving their social childhood life and turning educating jobs over to adults. From a traditional perspective, there two distinctive cultures, childhood and adulthood cultures. They are both somewhat dependent on one another. In socialization, young children socialize with young teenagers to learn and explore, but away from adults. Perhaps it takes a village to raise a child because only a village can offer or instead provide enough kids to form a playgroup.
Children must spend their childhood interacting with other children to learn about different cultures, games, traditions, values, and even different ways of making friends. Children will tend to know new cultures to fit in and integrate with their peers. The only way they can learn is through their peers and not from adults. Based on the natural selection theory, human children tend to evolve a strong inclination towards spending most of their time with other children instead of adults. Children can learn more from their fellow peers than they would with adults. Through interaction with other children, they can learn authentic communication. Have you ever listened to a communication between a child and an adult? Adults tend to be condescending towards children and always ask some dishonest and stupid questions. If it was between children, every conversation is meaningful and is majorly based on the play’s context. Think of questions asked by teachers. They are often based on testing a child instead of sharing ideas or understanding their thoughts. Children learn how to be courageous and independent when they interact with other children.
Dropping Enrollment in Public Schools Around the Country
Amid the Covid-19 pandemic, schools in the United States are struggling to resume regular learning. Over the past few months, over 20 states have recorded a significant drop in enrollment in public schools around the country. As the country is still struggling to fight the Covid-19 crisis, so do the schools are trying to improve their remote learning and adopting some safety measures to facilitate how to minimize the risk of spreading Covid-19. The vast majority of the people are concerned about the children’s safety and unequal access to technology across the country. In particular, Washington’s state recorded a 2.8% enrollment drop, orchestrated by a 14% decrease in kindergarten. Perhaps, families are trying to find the best solutions concerning the safest and most suitable learning environments for their children. District schools are already feeling the heat of massive cuts on their budget, making it hard for them to operate as the funding is done based on the students’ turn-up rate. If that trend persists, there will be adjustments to be made by many districts even as they prepare to enroll large numbers of kindergarten and first-grade classes next year.
The average decrease in kindergarten and pre-K stands at 16%. Educational experts and the vast majority of parents have a dived opinion concerning remote learning virtues on very young children. Pre-K and kindergarten are somewhat play-based learning and would be of less significance if children cannot interact among themselves. Reducing the risk of spreading the virus would mean taking children to private school tuition where parents would be forced to work even harder to afford to pay such a school. The district schools are on the edge of losing money because public schools get funded on a per-pupil basis. In October, all public schools are supposed to give out their official enrollment count so that the states can determine the amount required for the subsequent year. It presents a hardship for district schools as they continue to struggle with the cost of schooling amid the pandemic—some of the expenses involved masks, sanitizers, and hiring additional teachers. The Covid-19 has induced recession in the education budget as massive amounts meant for education have been redirected towards fighting the Coronavirus. The only thing the district schools can hope for is for students to start going back to school in large numbers to make the cost of running the schools relatively easy. The budget pressure seems to be the only push factor towards the school reopening; otherwise, they would not.
Polls To Elect The 43rd President Of The United States
Polls To Elect The 43rd President Of The United States
On November 7, 2000, American voters went to the polls to elect the 43rd president of the United States. Ritualistically, the nation watched that evening for the election returns. The tallies for Democrat Albert Gore and Republican George W. Bush teetered in the makings of a dead heat. It soon became obvious that Florida would be the deciding factor. Exit polling in the state showed Gore as the projected winner. So, at 7:49 P.M., NBC was the first station to forecast Gore as the winner of the state and the general election, with the other stations soon following suit. As the evening gave way to the night, the state was put back up for grabs and then landed in the Bush column. In the early hours of the morning, the state was once again listed as undecided before finally having Bush hold a razor-thin advantage.
Florida law in this matter provided some odd provisions for closure. First, an automatic recount is invoked when elections are close. This requires no intervention or agreement from political bodies but is rather part of the process of counting the votes. Then there is a one-week protest phase before the vote is certified by Florida Secretary of State. During this phase, candidates may protest to each county where they have a dispute. After certification begins the contest phase, a legal proceeding in court that can result in ineligible votes being thrown out or a recount being ordered. Here again, candidates are contesting the tallies of the specific counties where they feel inadequacies.
The narrow margin of victory triggered, by Florida statute, an automatic recount. After the recount, an even closer margin declared Bush as the winner. Gore refused to concede the election and proceeded with protests to specific counties. This sparked a Bush protest in federal court to stop the recounts. Soon both Florida state and United States federal courts were tied up with contests ranging from extension of deadlines to the method of recounts to the actual legality of proceeding with the counting of ballots. It looked as if the country would not have a president in the normal time frame it had come to expect. As then-President Bill Clinton said, “The people of America have spoken. It’ll just take us some time to figure out exactly what they said.”
In this tightly held race, every action was followed by a lawsuit. When canvassing boards did recounts, the Bush team lobbied to stop them. When these boards stopped their recounts, the Gore team lobbied to have them restarted. With the Florida statute vesting so much discretion in the hands of the canvassing boards and Secretary of State Katherine Harris, the methods and legality of the recounts came into question. Also, with so much dispute over legalities, it was improbable that a concrete, much less impartial, decision could be made by the officials held by the two parties contending for the election. The only recourse seemed to be to leave the battles to the respective legal teams. In such a case, it is unlikely that a resolution could have been reached without intervention of the courts.
A natural question that arises in this scenario pertains to whether the courts are the proper forum for election disputes. The matter of the Florida courts’ involvement was a natural proliferation of Florida statute. Under Florida law, any candidate can file protest, any voter can bring a contest lawsuit over an election for public office, and any taxpayer can bring a lawsuit in a referendum. The right of the courts to review these matters is an accepted manifestation of our democratic process. The emergence of the issues in the courts was the only recourse for issues of contention.
Now that the battle was on the legal front, every decision made by the lower courts was appealed to higher courts. When the Florida Supreme Court extended the deadline for reporting election results, the federal judiciary’s head turned. The Supreme Court was soon brought into the mix and asked to comment on the issues raised by the Florida Supreme Court. It handily accepted to review the case on a fast track. At first, the U.S. Supreme Court simply asked for an explanation of the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling. But when this state court did not comply, the U.S. Supreme Court found it necessary to cast final judgement on the issue.
The issues bringing in U.S. Supreme Court had to do with Article 2 of the Constitution and, more loosely, on the equal protection clause. In Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United State Constitution, the states are granted the right to appoint presidential electors in the manner directed by the state legislatures. In Florida this is done through a popular election, as in all other states, followed by the possibility of protests and contests. When the Florida Supreme Court decided to extend the deadline for vote certification, the U.S. Supreme Court saw a possible violation of this “manner directed” clause. The Supreme Court wrote that the Constitution vests the manner of appointment of presidential electors to the legislature and not the courts. The Court saw that the Florida legislature intended to meet the safe harbor clause provided in federal statute by setting a stringent deadline for certification. Therefore, the courts cannot rewrite law by extending deadlines for certification. Furthermore, an issue of equal protection was presented. In the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, when a singular method of recounts was not clearly stated by the Florida Supreme Court, the varying methods employed by the different counties violated the equal protection of those votes.
When the Florida Supreme Court made its decision change the Florida statute on the method of garnering electors, the involvement of the United States Supreme Court was inevitable. The state court made a ruling strictly violating the Constitution and could have started a precedent for other state courts to similarly act. In this instance, the U.S. Supreme Court’s intervention was both necessary and warranted. Rather than being a Constitutional crisis, it was a violation that was specifically prohibited.
Outside of the legalities involved with the propagation of these issues in the judicial branch, the political culpability also plays a part. Elections are essentially a political machination. To discuss an election without involving its political aspect would be incomplete. Several scenarios could have presented themselves without the courts involvement. Most of these are politically unpopular.
One scenario might have been for two slates of Florida electors to show up. Both these electors would try to cast votes for the Presidency. In such a situation the Constitution provides no clear-cut resolution. It provides no manner for which the votes are counted much less the oddity of multiple slates of electors. The United States Congress would be forced to make a high-profile decision that disenfranchised rather than created constituencies. Politically, the members of Congress prefer the courts to make the decision in such issues. With Supreme Court judges holding lifetime appointments, the threat of public scrutiny does not extend to the ballot box.
Another scenario would be for the Florida State Legislature to choose the electors to meet the safe harbor clause provided in federal statute. Once again, this provides an unpopular vestment of authority in a branch that’s popularly elected. Although legal, it is common knowledge that the right to choose electors, once given to the people, is not a right easily given up.
Some political pundits would make the argument that the Court’s distance from popular will is precisely why it does not belong in decisions about a popular election for the Presidency. However, the Court is not completely separated from popular will. As the Court stated in Roe v. Wade, “The Court must take care to speak and act in ways that allow people to accept its decisions…as grounded truly in principle, not as compromises with social and political pressures.” While being separated from the immediate will of the people, the Court has no method of execution without agreement from the executive and legislative bodies, which are both elected by the people. More importantly, the Court has limited its decisions to issues of constitutionality and legality rather than selecting a victor.
However, the decisions set forth by the different courts begin to test the definition of an impartial jury. The courts in Florida, the majority being liberal, handed down decisions seeming to favor the Democratic candidate. The United States Supreme Court, with its conservative slant, wrote decisions appearing to be line with Republican candidate. A quite convincing argument can be made that decisions were made based on the political leanings of the judges. Further, allegations were made as to a conflict of interest with Justice Scalia stemming from his son working for the law firm that employed Bush’s council. The allegations were quite unfounded, as Scalia’s leanings would have produced a similar opinion if his son were council for Gore. However, the difference between a political judgement and a judgement based in political leanings is a primary one. A well-founded decision will rely on the beliefs and opinions of its members without seeking political ends. Being equitable in judgement lies with making judgements based on facts presented rather than outcomes. Without this, the court seems no more than an extension of the political bodies that employ it.
Further controversy arises in the specificity of the Supreme Court’s final decision. By writing “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstance, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally present many complexities,” the court limited itself to making a ruling on the present case rather than enacting a more robust precedent. Perhaps the court should have limited itself to an Article 2 ruling, but this goes beyond the argument of whether its involvement was necessary. However, perhaps from the Court’s perspective, if it were able to avoid the issue completely, it would. It was in essence forced into a situation it could not overlook.
From the beginnings of government, the judiciary has been the arbitrator for disputes ranging from personal to political. It is in this branch that clarification and acuteness to statute become clear. It is in this branch that law is interpreted and applied to the anomalies garnered in the commonwealth. It is in this branch that decisions are made by impartial justices on partial issues.
In an election that was fought well after the ballots closed, the Supreme Court’s decision was the final turning point in this nation’s unbearably close election. As Gore said in his concession speech, “Neither he (Bush) nor I anticipated this long and difficult road. Certainly neither of us wanted it to happen. Yet it came, and now it has ended. Resolved, as it must be resolved, through the honored institutions of our democracy. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court’s decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College.” And so it has come to pass. The courts have handed down a judgement that permitted closure and we are granted a 43rd President of these United States.
Bibliography:
Politics-02-01
Institutional Powers of the President
The House of Representatives and the Senate are the two chambers that make up the Legislative Branch of the United States government. This arm of government was established, according to Article I of the Constitution (Ginsberg et al., 2021: 5). The Constitution grants Congress a wide range of investigative powers, the exclusive authority to pass laws and declare war, the capacity to validate or invalidate a number of candidates for the presidency, and a lengthy list of other essential responsibilities (Ginsberg et al., 2021: 41). The United States Congress is one of our government’s three equally powerful branches since the Constitution endows it with a significant amount of authority. The only component of the government with the power to pass new laws and alter existing ones is the Congress, due to the fact that it has unrestricted legislative authority. It is possible for the President to veto legislation that has been enacted by Congress; however, all that is required for Congress to override the President’s veto is a majority vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, thereby creating a balance in governance of the country.
In spite of the fact that previous presidents have tackled a broad variety of political challenges, the position of President of the United States has garnered greater respect and influence throughout the course of the last century. Because the presidency is “unitary,” the president has the ability to make judgments and take swift action. In the 20th century, the power of the presidency, the office of the presidency, the executive branch, and the public’s expectations for strong presidential leadership all increased (Ginsberg et al., 2021: 293). As a result, a strong executive began to take shape and became a permanent part of the politics of the United States of America. Because of the method in which these three factors interacted with one another, this was made feasible. In spite of the fact that those who drafted the Constitution intended for Congress to be the most influential branch of the government, modern presidents have access to a wide variety of official and informal instruments that allow them to rule the nation effectively.
According to Article II of the Constitution, the President of the United States is the head of all of the departments and agencies that make up the executive branch (Ginsberg et al., 2021: 332). The executive powers now include not just those that were previously mentioned, but also the capacity to enact reforms, the ability to propose a policy platform to Congress, and the ability to issue executive orders (Module 10, Lecture 2). The majority of the time, events of this kind result in a modification of the legislation. Other provisions of the Constitution, particularly those that provide the president executive authority and the title of commander-in-chief, provide the president with additional tools for carrying out his or her foreign policy responsibilities (Ginsberg et al., 2021: 346). For instance, having the explicit right to pick and accept ambassadors suggests that one also has the implicit capacity to recognize other governments and maintain diplomatic ties with other nations.
Because of the division of powers, the president and Congress are each responsible for separate aspects of foreign policy, and there is a great deal of debate over the extent to which each branch of government wields its own authority. Recent Congresses have had greater authority than in the past, which is in keeping with what the Constitution says, which emphasizes that legislative power is necessary (Module 10, Lecture 1). The Constitution states that Congress shall have the ability to pass laws. The Congress of the United States is the primary legislative body of the United States. Congress receives reports from both the executive branch and the judicial branch of the government (Module 9 Lecture 1). The US Congress is responsible for drafting and debating new laws, and it also has the authority to overrule vetoes issued by the President of the United States. Another indication that the legislature plays an essential part in the representative system of government that the nation utilizes is the significant role that both chambers of the legislature play in the process of revising the Constitution. Some of the president’s and Congress’s foreign policy authorities are theirs alone to exercise, while others are shared or don’t have a clear constitutional assignment.
When it comes to matters of foreign policy, particularly military action, the transfer of funds to other nations, and immigration, these two branches of the government often find themselves at odds with one another. The power of the judicial branch to resolve conflicts arising from the constitution (Module 9 Lecture 1). The Judicial Branch has a limited and hesitant ability to decide constitutional issues over foreign policy, since their responsibility is to review the work of Congress, which is in charge of regulating the nation’s foreign policy (Module 9 Lecture 1). The yearly appropriations process in Congress gives committees the opportunity to investigate the operation of large bureaucratic agencies such as the military and the diplomatic service, as well as the amount of money such bodies spend. Every year, the expenditure of more than a trillion dollars has to be approved by Congress, and of that amount, more than fifty percent is allocated to the pursuit of military and foreign policy objectives. In addition, legislators could have some input about the use of this money. For instance, Congress informed the Obama administration on two separate occasions that it was unable to utilize funds to transfer inmates out of the military prison located at Guantanamo. Because Congress has a great deal of investigative authority (Module 9, Lecture 2), it is able to examine into either the country’s national security or its foreign policy.
From this relationship, it is clear that there is a healthy balance between the presidency and the Congress, while both of these institutions act within their expected roles and responsibilities. Regarding how much power the president should have and the future of the balance between the presidency and Congress, I contend that the present structure and expectations from both institutions is optimum and healthy for a democratic nation. Past presidents have enjoyed relatively more power compared to recent presidencies such as President Obama and President Trump. On the one hand, having a strong Executive branch of government enables rapid and decisive action, which could be crucial for responding to conflict, emergent global issues such as the pandemic, and any other current events. On the other hand, if the US president gets an overwhelming amount of power, Congress and the general public may lose the ability to demand accountability and answers from a powerful office. Therefore, my proposal is that the relationship of Congress and the Executive branch remains as is, with the exception of adjusting to current affairs and emerging issues as appropriate.
References
Ginsberg, B., Lowi, T., Weir, M., Tolbert, C., Campbell, A., & Spitzer, R. (2021). We the People: An Introduction to American Politics, Nueva York. W. W. Norton & Company
Module 10, Lecture 1. Policymaking: Domestic and Foreign.
Module 10, Lecture 2. Can American Government Govern?
Module 9 Lecture 1. The Judiciary (1): The Foundations of Institutional Power.
Module 9, Lecture 2. The Judiciary (2): Organization and Membership.