Individual commitment to a group effort -- that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work. (Vince Lombardi)
Whigs by nature value debate, collaboration, compromise and mutual effort. We believe by working together we can achieve far more than by working alone, and we value the contributions of our members and supporters -- our fellow citizens -- immeasurably.
The Whig Forums provide the opportunity for you to have your say, but we do have some simple rules we ask you to follow. Please review the rules before posting, and remember to be civil!
Add your voice below:
Sort the Whig Forms by category:
I encourage anyone to respond. I've personally read the principles and platform, but it is the platform I feel that really states exactly what is to be done. Ultimately I feel the Party needs to expand the platform with identifiable policy recommendations and then juxtapose what we propose versus the Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, and Republicans (and how we differ or concur with those other major/minor parties which the public may be more familiar with). And, have an explicit link to candidates who have won elections under the Party banner with what they have implemented as an example of our folks' efficacy in government. To answer this question specifically though, I find it difficult to exactly say where we're going or want to go. I appreciate that we are moderates and have a decidedly centrist attitude towards any political polarization. However, I think that does create difficulty for the casual observer to know where we really stand. As an example I'll use the foreign policy section of the platform: We could offer an official response to what we feel is the use of NATO, operations in Afghanistan, the crisis in Syria, etc. I purposely use the foreign policy section because I feel this should be a little more "clear cut" to explain for moderates as opposed to the Affordable Care Act. Again, I understand the ambiguity for some domestic problems, but if there are areas where we can be more specific and the public can understand exactly what we mean then let's do that. On the other hand though, the education section of the platform has a greater amount of planks than almost any other, so I feel we should at least bring all others to that point. Ultimately both major parties have over 100 planks and I feel we can match and easily overtake that, with well researched and debated policy proposals (which have been voted on in a convention). The more we more offer people the better. And I hope this doesn't seem like rambling.
The more I watch and listen to Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, I wonder should our party endorse such a candidate? I say yes. He may be a Libertarian but as far as the party goes we are not so different. There are a few core differences but in the end I believe if you watch and listen to them you will find a team that most of us in the party would actually look forward to voting for. They both have a proven record as Governors and were both reelected to the office. I think they are worth listening too and I really hope they get to the 15% in the polling numbers so more Americans can see them in the debates. It would be nice to actually vote for someone you want instead of picking the lesser of to evils. (Sorry about the spelling in the title. I couldn't get back in to fix it.)
Human cognitive science makes it clear - politics is subjective, intuitive and far more irrational than not. Should the Whigs care about that? Is reasoned politics not an important concern?
The federal debt is not being talked about much in this campaign for the presidency. Why not? Should there be more focus on it? How do we get to a balanced budget and pay down the debt? Right now, as of July 2016 the gross national debt is $19.48 trillion, about 104% of GDP. Here is a little history: In the 1930’s, during the height of the depression we ran deficits of between 0.1% and 5.8% of GDP; during WWII we had deficits as high as 29.6% of GDP, but we also had surpluses from 1947 thru 1949; in the 1950’s we had deficits that averaged 1.04% of GDP and the debt was 92% of GDP, but we also had surpluses from 0.7% to 1.9% of GDP; in the 1960’s we had deficits that ran an average of 1% of GDP and a debt that was 54.3% of GDP; in the 1970’s deficits ran an average of 2.1% the debt was 36.3% of GDP; in the 1980’s deficits ran an average of 3.8% the debt was 32.5% of GDP; in the 1990’s deficits ran an average of 2.88% of GDP with two years of 1.05% surplus and the debt was 54.5% of GDP; in 2000 and 2001 we had surpluses an average of 1.75% of GDP; from 2002 thru 2009 we had deficits that ran an average of 3.3% of GDP the debt was 55.5%; from 2010 thru 2015 we have had average deficits of 7.3% and debt was 91.4%, deficits have dropped back down to about 3% of GDP in 2014 and 2015 but debt was 102% of GDP. Numbers alone don’t give us a clear picture of the effects the economy has on the federal budget. For example, after WWII the economy grew very rapidly at around 10%, today it is a very anemic 1.2%. Tax rates are the other important part of the equation. For example, during WWII and the Korean War individual tax rates were as high as 91% with 24 tax brackets. Today the highest rate is 39.9% with seven tax brackets. The dilemma is, do you cut taxes or increase taxes in order to pay down the debt? It’s obvious that the high tax rates after WWII quickly brought down the debt and annual deficit, but there are two problems with trying to raise taxes today. One is, the economy is not growing as fast as it was after WWII. The second is that, after WWII the country was still pulling together as one, and people understood that the taxes were necessary. Today, businesses are demanding lower tax rates because the rates in most other countries are lower, and Democrats want to increase taxes to expand social services. That poses a political challenge. In the long run, lower rates eventually raise revenue, but would that raise enough revenue to lower the debt? Republicans want to slash taxes and regulations to get the economy moving, and eventually want to balance the budget; Democrats want more social spending and higher taxes but offer no plan for paying down the debt, that is clearly not practical. I think the real solution would be to raise taxes for a few years, make some spending cuts while increasing spending for the military and infrastructure along with cutting regulations. The problem is I don’t see the leadership needed to pull the country together to accomplish that.
I would love to see some discussion on goals for the party. I signed up and signed a petition, but I have no idea on where the party is going and what to do next. What am a volunteering to do if I sign up? How can I sell this party to those who think that the two party system is here to stay? Here are a few suggestion to provoke a conversation (I know eventually there will be a place to discuss strategy...). 1. Focus on recruiting well know moderate Republicans and Democrats to the Modern Whig Party and promising to fund them in their next election. 2. Increase the size of the Modern Whig party to 100,000 members. 3. Run advertising commercials in states that Presidential candidates are campaigning in. The narrative should be demonstrating that the Republicans and Democrats together have broken American. The right has pushed the financial deregulation on the right which led to the Saving and Loans crisis in the 80s and the crash in 2008. The left in turn pushed house ownership which helped lead to a bubble in the housing market. The left in turn has continually pushed the growth of entitlement programs etc. 4. Get Modern Whig hosting shows on talk radio. 5. Try to get five homegrown Modern Whigs elected each election cycle. 6. The strategy for the Whig party should be to be a powerful minority that can swing the vote on important issues. 7. Open up 100 Whig party clubs on college campuses in the next two years. 8. Have bumper stickers. 9. Try to attract a few household names to the party. 10. Connect to centrist think tanks.
It looks like Maine is going to adopt Question 5: Ranked Choice Voting Do you want to allow voters to rank their choices of candidates in elections for U.S. Senate, Congress, Governor, State Senate, and State Representative, and to have ballots counted at the state level in multiple rounds in which last-place candidates are eliminated until a candidate wins by majority?
Given that Donald J. Trump is almost certainly our next president, I believe it's more important than ever for all moderates, centrists, reasonable liberals and sensible conservatives to join together in a loyal opposition. Because only by speaking with a loud and unified voice can we hope to blunt the damage this man--and I use the term loosely--could cause to our country and our world. To that end, I propose we start a discussion on the best way to build that opposition. I think at minimum we need a better communications platform to get our word out. We also need to work out some means for people to debate issues in a controlled fashion (like local debating societies or citizen assemblies) so that the people can find and build on common ground. I'm not sure blog posts are adequate for that purpose. This isn't about building a third party movement anymore. It's about the future of this Republic and its people. Trump cannot be allowed to govern unchallenged. With Congress in Republican hands, only an organized, active, and extremely vocal citizenry can provide that challenge.
Throughout the whole of human history one primary belief has remained true and especially dear to the hearts of people around the world; health is undoubtedly valuable and obtaining it is crucial to the existence of humanity. However, the modern American society has perpetuated one of the worst man-made health epidemics in human history. Although most Americans see the effects of obesity every day, society has severely neglected this fundamental public health problem for decades and the inevitable consequences of societies negligence must finally be confronted. Over the past decades experts from across the nation and around the world have started to become cognizant of the developing problem; consequently, many propositions have been made to combat obesity. Currently, one of the largest barriers to curing obesity in the United States today is the difficulty and lack of cohesion in addressing the problem that currently affects nearly two-thirds of all Americans. Therefore, the implementation of proven and effective obesity management plans, general public health mandates, and the taxation of the causes of obesity are steps of paramount importance in overcoming obesity in America today. One of the most highly esteemed and empirically proven methods of reducing the prevalence of obesity is the implementation of proven obesity management plans. Although this term might seem relatively vague, multiple components are critical in implementing obesity management plans. One central component to managing the problem of obesity that America faces today is the education of the populace about the issue of obesity. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the amount of education a child receives about the issue of obesity from an early age undisputedly impacts their awareness of the effects of obesity and the necessity of proper dietary habits. After ensuring the foundation of awareness is established, it is imperative to ensure that the general public understands the repercussions of obesity and bad eating habits/lifestyles that directly correlate to higher rates of obesity among children and adults. These inexpensive and relatively simple forms of public education are crucial due to the ubiquitous qualities of the media. This ubiquity allows information to spread quickly to a large percentage of the population. In addition to utilizing the media to educate the public, allowing the public a free (or extremely cheap) opportunity to address their health concerns is another necessary step in providing a path to remission for those who suffer from severe obesity. Moreover, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) view medical support as the first pivotal step in achieving recovery from obesity, granting patients who suffer from obesity a chance to seek out professional advice on how to address their health problems on a case-by-case basis. Despite their empirical ability to urge the public to reform their diet and living habits, public education via the media and the opportunity for citizens to seek help in addressing their obesity problems will not be able to single-handedly solve the immense problem of obesity; therefore, it is critical for the community's focus to shift from passive actions to active forms of combatting obesity. Another vital part of the success of these new plans to limit obesity is the concept of implementing and enforcing public health mandates. Many of these mandates include the monitoring of a citizen’s waist size or body mass index (BMI) to allow the government to document which citizens may be at increased risk for health problems related to obesity. Additionally, some of the more austere health mandates call for a policy of higher taxation for those who do not fulfill the set health conditions. The logic behind these policies originates with the goal of reducing health care expenses for the general population by reducing the prevalence of one of the most detrimental diseases that exists within the United States. Currently, American healthcare is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, according to the World Health Organization, prompting many citizens to go without necessary treatment because of the cost of receiving medical care. The CDC also declared that America spends nearly 10% of its entire annual healthcare budget ($147 billion) dealing exclusively with obesity; therefore, it is necessary to mitigate the prevalence of obesity in order to make healthcare more affordable for the general populace. The communities of America also have a moral obligation to mitigate the shocking rates of death caused by obesity every year. In 2014 alone, over 600,000 people died in the U.S. due to diseases directly related to obesity, meaning nearly 1 in every 5 deaths in the U.S. occurs because of obesity. These astonishingly mortality numbers prompted the American Medical Association to categorize obesity as a disease in 2008; despite this classification, no decisive action on how to solve this overwhelming health issue was produced. In contrast to this blatant lack of concern towards obesity, the U.S. spends over $215 billion a year treating and researching cures for cancer in spite of the fact that obesity kills approximately 23,000 more people annually than cancer. Therefore, taxation or financial penalties on the obese could be a necessary step in generating extra revenue to increase the affordability of health care and creating crucial incentives for citizens to become healthier. Although this attitude towards obesity might seem strict and excessively harsh on citizens suffering from obesity, these actions have been tried in the past in nations like Japan and have yielded beneficial results on a national and municipal level. Since 2005, Japan has implemented health mandates for citizens ages 40 to 74, these require citizens to come to hospitals to have their waistline and weight recorded, allowing the government to predict which patients may be at risk for heart disease, diabetes, and other obesity-related illnesses. These methods have been implemented on a national and local level in Japan, meaning that urban centers and rural communities alike can experience the benefits of an improved state of public health. In addition to its empirical successes, several health experts, including Yoichi Ogushi, ardently support the inclusion of health mandates in the United States. Ogushi, a health expert from the Tokai School of Medicine states, “if you did this in the United States, there would be benefits, since there are many Americans who weigh over 100 kilograms [around 220 pounds]”. In Japan the program has had astounding results and the Japanese government has projected that they will reduce the overweight population by 25 percent over the next seven years. Due to these triumphs, there is a high probability that the future of America’s public health will rely on its ability to adopt, adapt, and improve upon the public health mandates implemented internationally. In addition to the implementation of proven management plans and the introduction of public health mandates, the process of taxing the root causes of obesity is a critical step in eradicating the disease. This type of taxation, commonly called a “fat tax”, often centers around reducing the affordability of foods that are deemed unhealthy for consumers. This line of action is often regarded as one of the most feasible and historically implemented forms of obesity mitigation in history. Similar to many other great innovations in obesity management, taxes on unhealthy foods were first created overseas. In Denmark, the government decided to implement a tax on certain foods that possessed more than 2.3% saturated fats. After Demark’s experimental trial with the “fat tax,” many other European nations such as Hungary and France joined Denmark’s pioneering campaign to improve the health of their citizens. These successes across Europe prompted the European Union’s health associations to praise the taxation on unhealthy foods, remarking that the action was able to “achieve a reduction in the consumption of the taxed products”. This truly laudable ability to collect revenues from the tax and limit the impact of unhealthy foods on society allows a community to witness an improved state of public health and have enough excess revenue to subsidize healthier foods. Moreover, the implementation of taxes on unhealthy foods are of paramount importance in addressing the public health issues that Kansas is facing. Currently, Kansas has the 13th highest adult obesity rate in the nation at just over 31%. Obesity in Kansas has also increased over 12% since the year 2000; these statistics have led experts to conclude that by 2035, Kansas’s obese population may exceed half the population of the state. Therefore, it will be necessary to implement taxes on unhealthy consumer items in Kansas and the across entire nation; certainly these taxes will play a vital part in how the state and local communities will view obesity in the future. Undoubtedly, humanity truly values the gift of health and it is imperative that the often debilitating, malignant disease of obesity is battled on a national and local scale. Therefore, it is crucial that our community and our nation is able to change and reform to meet the needs of our citizens in solving the colossal obesity problem. Moreover, the future health of the nation depends on how America confronts obesity today. Hopefully, the implementation of proven and effective obesity management plans, general public health mandates, and the taxation of unhealthy consumer goods will mold the future generation of Americans to appreciate the gift of health and strive to ensure the longevity of the generations that succeed them. As a footnote I would also like to apologize for the previous post entitled "Possibly a focus on the future of the Modern Whig Party" for its briefness. I was still new to the site and was unaware of proper posting procedure.
In any organization's life, there comes a time where that organization must eventually transition from an informal structure to a formal one. During this transition, finances are one issue, as well as formal membership. The Modern Whig Party has reached this juncture. I would put forward that the party needs to establish formal membership, and that party dues are a necessary part of this. At present, while we have many hard working individuals all trying to accomplish rational political goals, we do not have a clear dividing line between those who are "in" the party, and those who, as on Face Book just "like" us. It seems a common sense matter, that the direction and operation of the party needs to be determined by members. It also seems a common sense matter, that members need to be identified by a certain level of commitment. While volunteerism, and participation in discussions do indicate commitment, they are hard to quantify. Money on the other hand is fairly simple to quantify. Money is also one of the key fuels in politics, and the lack of it is one of the biggest barriers to political growth. So given that we need money, and given that we need a way to determine who is and who is not a member of the party, dues make sense. Dues indicate a commitment to the party, provide the necessary financial means for growth of the party, and minimum level of support for the party's activities. Further, given that the party, in many areas of the country, has not yet grown to a level where state or regional structures can yet exist to handle finances, it makes sense that a certain portion of dues and donations paid be reserved for the state organizations responsible for party activities in the areas that such funds originated from, and that the national party treasury hold such funds for those states and manage the funds in such a way as to insure their use for party development in the states themselves. With this in mind, I propose that there be a $25 annual dues structure adopted for party membership, and that of that $25, $5 dollars be reserved for use within the state that the member is from. Further, I propose that the same 20% rate be used for all donations to the party, and that 20% be also reserved for use within the state that the donation originates from. By doing this, we can identify our membership, determine who can and cannot vote on party policy and platform matters, and eventually who can vote in party caucuses for candidate selection. We can also raise needed funds for operating costs, and for party development at both state and national levels. I don't think $25 is too much to ask. In this day and age, that is only about the cost of burger and fries for two. I don't fear that we will drive people away, because if someone is unwilling to pay party dues, they really are unwilling to commit to joining the party in the first place. The equivalent of Face Book "likes" do not equate to membership. Before we can move forward, we really do need to know who is actually with us. ---- Doug Harvey, LTC, MS, AKARNG (RET) MWP Director of Veterans and Active Duty Affairs
Hello Whigs ! What is your your opinion on the Coffee Party movement ? It seems to have originated as an antithesis of the Tea Party. But by some things I have read, it looks more moderate/Centrist at the present time. Has anyone attended a meeting of the sorts/know anybody who is apart of it ?
So far, I'm all in. Unless the answer to those questions is yes and then I have to think
Hello, I am a New Member. Please Forgive me for not using my true name. I tend not to like the idea, of people looking me up on the internet. Protection of family thing. I am also a member however as myself. Just for posting purposes, I prefer this.
I am seeing, at least from the more liberal news organizations. A lot of talk about fake news. It seems they are claiming the whole election may have been lost because of it. They are it seems also blaming Facebook. Apparently Facebook, is reacting in some fashion to try to limit the propagation of Fake News. There is little doubt Fake news exists. The goals of those propagating it. Probably fall into three or more categories. Some actually financially benefit directly from producing and distributing Fake News. Some are politically motivated, with the hope of either rallying the like minded or harming the reputation of those they are against. Some may simply be for the Fun of Seeing if they can get a Fake News story to spread.
Its fair to say False information Meme's are rampant on Face book, especially over this last campaign season. Though they don't qualify as news. I would suggest they are popularly propagated none the less for the same motivations.
My Statement is to say. There is concern of those, mentioned above, in the Media and such. That are very concerned about Fake News. They are giving it a name of Post Truth. Yet they don't seem to understand why it is apparently so effective.
I believe it is safe to say. The easiest lie to get someone to believe. Is the lie that supports their beliefs and preconceived notions.
So we have to ask ourselves. Why would people want to believe? Especially to believe those reports that seem rather obvious as bogus. It is my belief that we have reached a point in America under the dominant Two Party system. That the fear of loosing in these elections to the opposing ideology is so great. That it obligates those who lean toward a particular ideology to support any claim that favors their team. That we as Americans feel compelled to accept anything a candidate says. To ignore any failing and Justify it. Simply for the fear. Of how horrible the world will become if the other side gets into power.
I believe as The Modern Whig Party. We should make the case. In asking our Fellow Citizens. Ask them; Do they believe this is good for America? Is this acceptance of corruption and dishonesty for fear of loosing, what they want for America?
We should make the Case. That the only solution to stop the Madness of supporting all that we hate about Politics and Politicians is a new party.
A Party built upon Principles at least similar to the ones we have established. That this is the purpose of this new Party.
I recognize as a New Member, I may be told. This is exactly what MWP is doing already. I am still catching up on reading all that is available on this Website. However I am interested in Participating and I have been annoyed that the Media seems fixated on telling everyone how to think. Yet fails to have the introspection and reporting on why Fake news might be popular.
Besides assuming again all us Citizens are just stupid, that is. They wonder why conservatives hate them when anytime they don't go along with their reporting. They fall back on their belief that we are just stupid and gullible.
Thank you, I look forward to any thoughts or input.
I would like to know the opinion of my Fellow Whigs on the topic of Net Neutrality. As of now, the FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, plans on voting to strike down Article II that was passed by the past FCC chairman 2 1/2 years ago to solidify the policy of Net Neutrality. After spending some time on it, I am myself cannot seem to fully understand the issue in its entirety, but I do strongly support one side of the argument and cannot understand the other. Yet, I wish to know what stance should the party take. Is Net Neutrality for the Common Good?
Sometimes, as I go through my daily ritual of scanning the news feeds, I get that deep feeling of unease that I imagine the last Roman Centurian standing atop Hadrian's Wall had, as he looked back over his shoulder toward Rome and saw.... nothing but chaos and anarchy. I spent decades in the military defending the Nation. I've spent nearly 20 years working in the Department of Corrections. I'm just going to tell you that there is a plague running rampant through society which is destroying our educational system and threatening the very roots of democracy in this country. When people think that they can resort to legal action just because someone else's religion or opinion offends them, when popularity becomes more important than truth or fact, when "entitlement" displaces responsibility, duty, or rationality, it's all over folks. Life isn't intrinsically fair. Some people will do better than others. The Whig Philosophy is one of meritocracy. If you are willing to work harder, longer, smarter, study more, apply yourself more diligently, then you do deserve to reap the benefits of your efforts. This is what is meant when we refer to the United States as a land of opportunity. In my reading today, I came across this article on the NBC News website, wherein Oklahoma Wesleyan University President Dr. Everett Piper makes these points quite eloquently. Since when have we turned our institutions of higher learning into daycare facilities? How do we reverse this trend? If we don't immediately take corrective action in our schools and society I fear we are rapidly approaching the Brave New World that Aldous Huxley predicted. The United States has been eclipsed industrially. We have been passed by educationally. There isn't much left to lose before it is all gone. Rome rotted from within and collapsed. I believe we still have time to reverse the trend, but the signs are there. Read the article at the following link and give me your ideas and suggestions: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-wesleyan-university-president-dr-everett-piper-not-daycare-n472066
Hello there Whigs ! I am so eager to be apart of this great website ! I just want shoot a simple question with complex implications: What do you think of the Federal Government ? Some people want to dissolve it right away, others believe it is a tool to be used for social well being. I look forward to all responses !
I came across this article on the New York Times website during my daily review of national news. Use the link below to read the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/upshot/carly-fiorina-shows-us-just-how-weird-americas-tax-system-is.html?WT.mc_id=2015-JULY-OUTBRAIN-UPSHOT_AUD_DEV-0701-0731&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=AUDDEVREMARK&abt=0002&abg=1 Now I have long been a proponent of either modifying or abolishing Federal Income Tax to either simplify the system (like a flat tax) or turn the cost of government over to the states in proportion to their populations (using census data), but obviously, certain things need to be worked out. This article seems to support the idea that our tax system needs an overhaul. What are your views?
I can't speak for the other authors on these forums, but you can feel free to share anything that I post here with anyone or on any social media outlet that you like. Just be sure to mention that you found it on www.modernwhig.org. Spreading the word, so to speak, via person-to-person contact, or via your own individual electronic networks is the most effective means of both continuing the discussion and getting the message across to a larger audience. --Doug Harvey, LTC, MS, AKARNG (RET), MWP Director of Veterans and Active Duty Affairs
Throughout the history of the judicial system of the United States, different Supreme Court Justices have taken a different approach to the functions and abilities of our government. Over the 226 years of the Supreme Court’s existence there has been a multitude of different approaches to government which have been illustrated via their decisions on significant Supreme Court cases. These rulings can determine an immense amount about a justice’s political preferences, affiliation, and beliefs as a public officer in a critical office. One such example is our current Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts. In many respects, although Roberts is a Republican, he embodies many key attributes of a liberal and has, in the past, sided with many liberal policies. One example of Roberts more liberal side is his ruling in the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius in 2012. John Roberts’ decision in favor of the Affordable Care Act was absolutely pivotal in establishing his tendency and ability to side with pro-left and more liberal policy that have given him a more liberal appearance to many politicians over the last 4 years. Additionally, although Roberts has identified himself as a conservative Republican in the past, the modern Chief Justice has been approving plans that, by his fellow Republicans’ standards, have been relatively liberal. Although not all of Robert’ decisions have been liberal, his more pro-liberal stance in his conventional and expected rulings have lead many to hail him as a powerful moderate (and by some perceptions a possible emerging liberal). For example, Roberts’ ruling in the cases of Morse v. Frederick in 2007 and United States v. Stevens in 2010 were demonstrations of the moderate and liberal approach Roberts’ tends to take in his political rulings. This case specifically deals with the First Amendment and its applicability into messages that portray illegal activity or even violence. Contrary to Roberts’ claimed conservative stance, he makes a more moderate and liberal decision that such areas of speech are not conclusively protected by the First Amendment and this type of speech can be can be stopped and limited, a critical step in the evolution of jurisprudence of the modern Supreme Court. Another critical justice of the Supreme Court was Chief Justice Earl Warren. Warren was pivotal in implementing several levels of liberalism in the Supreme Court of the 1950’s through 1960’s. Specifically, Warren’s career was marked by massive reform in the United States including the transition of African-American Civil Rights which witnessed the desegregation of public schools. This institution of desegregation is critical to the history of the nation and the ke court case that illustrated the liberality of Warren and his fellow justices was the Gideon v. Wainwright of 1963 and the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education. Warren’s decision in the latter case was considered extremely liberal during its time and it encompassed the wider reforms made by the “Warren Court” under Warren’s office of Chief Justice. Another case that has made Warren a historically renowned liberal is his ruling in the case of Abington School District v. Schempp in 1963. This historically vital case centered around the constitutionality of bible readings in public schools, a common practice in america prior to the case. Warren’s decision, which concluded the case, made this action unconstitutional on the basis of its violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. In this specific case the clause was used to explain that have school-sponsored religious practices is tantamount to forcing a religious ideology on a child and that it is not in anyway the right or responsibility of the school system to make any form of prayer and have children recite it in the school. According to the Cornell University Law School’s account of the case, Chief Justice Warren declared that “the First Amendment, in its final form, did not simply bar a congressional enactment establishing a church; it forbade all laws respecting an establishment of religion. Thus, this Court has given the Amendment a broad interpretation . . . in the light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress” The significance of Warren’s opinion in this case is the solidification of his liberal perspective on American law and the American judicial system. Moreover, Warren’s perspective on this religious topic reaffirms his predisposition to support secular liberalism, a position that believes in the firm separation of public affairs from the authority of spirituality and the church, during his time as Chief Justice. Along with Warren, another important and influential Chief Justice of the 20th century was William Rehnquist. Rehnquist was influential in his time for being a powerful Chief Justice and a conservative. Throughout his life as a Chief Justice, Rehnquist made several conservative and controversial rulings on cases along with holding relatively conservative views on religion and its necessity and implementation in the public. One of the most crucial examples of this was in Rehnquist’s fervent belief during his time as Justice in the constitutional division of authority between the states and the administrative national government, a concept also known as federalism. Throughout Rehnquist’s time as Associate then Chief Justice on the Supreme Court he advocated for politically pro-conservative policies. As a conservative Rehnquist fervently advocated, during his time on the Supreme Court, for the restitution of prayers in school after it had been taken away and revoked by his predecessor, Earl Warren. Rehnquist also made massive advocations and defences for the separation of government from certain issue; moreover, as a conservative Rehnquist fervently opposed overbearing national policies, and, as is typical of a conservative, advocated for less national regulation on many issues and comparatively smaller government. This sentiment was expressed in several landmark Supreme Court Cases. One such case was the 1973 landmark case of Roe v. Wade. In this case, Rehnquist then an associate justice dissented the majority decision of on abortion law and claimed in his dissent that the United States and its law simply had no business in determining the life or death of a mother’s unborn child. To the conservative Rehnquist this was a flagrant violation of U.S. Constitutional protocol. Another similar dilemma, dealt with in the 1997 case of City of Boerne v. Flores, which identified the role the Supreme Court would play in analyzing cases in the future. To briefly summarize the impact of the case, the case was able to set an example upon which future case decision were predicated. Specifically, Rehnquist’s conservative opinions about the limitations of Supreme Court jurisdiction over issues stayed true through his time in office as an Associate Justice to his time as a Chief Justice. Another crucial Rehnquist case was the 1981 case of Rostker v. Goldberg. This case showed Rehnquist's conservatism in greater depth that other cases. The case was specifically based on the Rehnquist’s interpretation of the Constitution in concern to the fifth amendment of the United States. Specifically, it dealt with the ethics of having only men apply for selective service, which, in 1981, was a significant dilemma for the Supreme Court. By Rehnquist's (and the court’s) decision the selective service’s policy of only including men for potential service was within its rightful constitutional guidelines. In Rehnquist’s own words, “The Constitution requires that Congress treat similarly situated persons similarly, not that it engage in gestures of superficial equality.” These words have resonated with the nation for over thirty years now and Rehnquist’s impact via his opinions and conservative predispositions has left an indelible precedent on the Supreme Court along with a lasting memory of Chief Justice Rehnquist. In the history of the U.S. Supreme Court there has also been a significant amount of strong and able Chief Justices during the 19th century as well. One prime example of this was Chief Justice John Marshall. Marshall, in his career on the Supreme Court, is often viewed as a conservative for the time in which he was a Chief Justice. A main point that supports this position is Marshall's strict and austere perspective on the use, utilization, and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In his words, Marshall declared in 1803, when ruling on Marbury v. Madison that “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” This perspective on the contents of the 1803 landmark Supreme Court case establishes the firm and relentless fervor of of John Marshall to uphold and interpret the Constitution in a strictly constructionist sense. Moreover, John Marshall’s ability to establish judicial review in the Supreme Court and uphold it throughout other court decisions was critical to the fledgling American judicial system. For example, Marshall’s court ruling in the 1824 case of Gibbons v. Ogden demonstrated the supremacy of the Constitution and the superiority of the Supreme Court in comparison to other laws established in lower courts. A similar assertion is made in the decision of the 1819 case of McCulloch v. Maryland. In this case specifically, the concept of legal superiority and state superiority in law was heavily scrutinized. Under Marshall’s court, the ruling was in favor of the nation entity, the Second Bank of the United States and the ultimate verdict cited the Necessary and Proper (Elastic) Clause of the Constitution, effectively reiterating the supremacy of the highest law in the land being interpreted and viewed by the highest court in the land. This view of jurisprudence was central to Marshall’s core conservative and constitutional beliefs as Chief Justice that established his policies of abiding by the Constitution. The concepts of judicial review, constitutional interpretation, and austere promotion of constitutional law instituted by Marshall was able to set a firm judicial and legal precedent that is crucial in the establishment of American jurisprudence to this day. In addition to the name of John Marshall, Chief Justice Roger Taney was also a critical force in the U.S. Supreme Court during the 19th century. Most of Taney’s decisions in office revolved around the institution of slavery, which became a highly controversial subject during Taney’s time in office. From the perspective of political alignment, Taney is widely considered to be a conservative. Although Taney was, by political affiliation, a Democrat, the party ideals of the time were very different than what they are now and there is a massive difference between modern “liberal” Democrats and the quite conservative Democrats of the early 19th Century. In Taney’s career, as previously mentioned, many of his decision revolved around the highly controversial institution of slavery and the legal ramifications and liberties a slave had in the U.S. One of Taney’s most famous and important cases, the 1857 case of Dred Scott v. Sandford was a critical suit that was pivotal in lighting the flames that fomented a civil war. Moreover, this case demonstrated Taney’s conservatism, for like his predecessor Marshall, Taney based the majority of his controversial decisions off of the document that had been used consistently to guide American jurisprudence, the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, Taney ultimately sided against the case of Dred Scott and decided in 1863 that the black populace and their descendents in bondage possessed “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” Many people in the modern-era of liberalism and freedom for the African-American race have referred to Taney as the “Leviathan of Slavery”, however, it was not his stubbornness to keep slavery, but rather his adherence to a constitution that did not disallow slavery or offer any equality to races that caused him to make such rulings as in the case of Dred Scott. Another important Taney decision made on the subject of slavery was the Prigg v. Pennsylvania of 1842. This case was extremely critical, firstly in its solidification and affirmation of the powers of the government over states and secondly, the ability of men to be taken from lands of freedom and returned to slavery and bondage. This case and issue specifically has fueled much historical debate over the ethics of the fugitive slave laws which were the main concern of the case.Similar, yet less known than the Dred Scott and Prigg cases was the 1837 case of Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge in which Taney analyzed a clause of Article I of the Constitution the Contract Clause. In the case the validity of a charter to build a bridge came under intense scrutiny by officials in the city of Boston. Taney, who ultimately ruled on the case, referred to the U.S. Constitution to formulate his verdict and took a textualized approach, citing direct information from the document to validate his court. Therefore, Taney as a Chief Justice was a relatively conservative justice of the U.S. Supreme Court who used an extremely textualized interpretation of the Constitution to decide his cases, essentially drawing conclusions “by the book”. Therefore, throughout U.S. history there has been many trends in liberalism and conservatism in the Supreme Court. Each individual preference and fluctuation in political alignment has fascinatingly left its own unique legacy, precedent, and impact on the nation.
Here is a link to Federalist Paper No. 10:http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp As presented by “Federalist Paper No. 10” James Madison views the matter of public opinion with many different attitude. From one perspective Madison acknowledges the necessity of division between people's’ beliefs and opinions and he also concedes that a society in which every citizen hold the same beliefs and views in truly impossible. Therefore, acknowledges the need for division that creates a healthy divide between parties which allow loyalty to be granted to citizens, allowing the average man to align with a party and faction that fits his perspective. However, Madison also acknowledges the fact that public opinion can often be extremely disparate leading to divides that are unhealthy for the unity of the nation and can undermine the power and control of the state. This often occurs, as Madison claims, when factionalism and partisanism occurs, dividing the nation along a line which can split the populace into two belligerent, opposing sides. Madison also presents the fact that when such division in public opinion occurs it can often tear apart the fabric of the newly established democratic systems often causing a division that can potentially mitigate the efficacy of the national government. This all originates from the fact that America was at the time very unique, for globally this experiment of a democratic government allowed the people's opinions to have a large stake in the running of the government, which can be extremely detrimental when the nation is divided and severely separated and can lead to problems in national administration. Similarly, Madison believed that the nation could potentially fall under an injurious rule of the people in which the people of the nation, who in many ways are the source of the nation’s sovereignty can become tyrannical and force the government to be hindered by their opinions and actions, mitigating the power held by “enlightened statesmen”. In many respects, Madison presents a blatant negative perspective towards the separation and destruction that could be made via the divisions of the public opinions and their predisposition to given factions. Additionally, Madison clearly concedes the fact that in a representative democracy such state divisions on public opinion are inevitable, regardless of the destruction and inefficacies Madison claimed they caused. Likewise, Madison presented the system of a republic as a way that the nation can attain a balance between control and/or hinderance by public opinion and can save the nation from the tyranny of a few despotic leaders. Madison also claimed that sovereignty should rest with the people however factions that create division were inherently damaging to the nation. Consequently, Madison established the idea that although the forces of public opinion may at times hinder (as Madison clearly stated that he perceived factionalism and division in public opinion to fetter the government) the unity and progress of the union, it is perpetually vital for the government to be able to set aside what is “popular” to do what they deem is right for the people of nation while supporting the spirit and underlying passion of a popular government.