United States government structure and function

U.S. Government

Discuss the 2004 elections, and explain what led to the victory for the Republicans. Discuss whether candidates emphasis on "feel good" issues, leadership, competence, and values, detracts from substantive issues such as the deficit, crime, and poverty.

The republican victory in the 2004 elections is a complicated issue, as there are several issue that lead one to believe that the 2004 elections might have gone in a different direction. The reelection of George W. Bush took many by surprise, yet it is likely due in great part to the fact that Bush was the more favored candidate, simply because we were in the middle of a war and Kerry's commitment to that war was simply unknown while we as voters knew in part what to expect from Bush in the future. Bush also demonstrated the utilization of "feel good" issues like leadership, confidence and values that detracted from those same characteristics in Kerry.

These same "feel good" issues detracted from more complex issues of the period as these issues were as unknown as the opposition candidate and the sentiment of the nation, post 9/11 and after the war began might have been seen as in need of affirmation that the nation had done the right thing in entering the war in Iraq. In other words the nation seemed to believe, based on very patriotic ideals and "feel good" issues that Bush deserved a chance to prove that the nation as a whole (though few had any real decision making power in the actions) had done the right thing.

The reason why the election was so close was because the nation was in a pinnacle point of deciding if the actions taken by the U.S. To enter the war in Iraq was correct. Many had early belief in the idea that such actions were not correct, and some voted against Bush as a result, and those who voted for him, despite any immediate misgivings were likely responding to the emotional personality issues generated by the need to believe that such decisions had been properly made and had been properly undertaken. Many saw the reelection of Bush as a necessary but possibly difficult aspect of the continuation of the confidentiality in the decisions he had made in his previous term and felt they had no choice but to reelect him to allow him to follow through with decisions he had made on the part of the people.

The nation was, in short seeking confidence, even in the face of controversy and Bush was the man who many believed could provide it. In many ways the "feel good" issues associated with the highly emotional period of history, including but not limited to those mentioned in the topic question are more determinate of personality and character perception, rather than the ability to lead a nation, yet the emotional nature of the period led to the reelection of a relatively unpopular president, as the compared candidate (Kerry) had no such emotional tug for the nation.

3. What do you believe the role of the Department of Homeland Security should be? How might the role of this department differ from the role the military has always played in domestic issues?

The role of the Department of Homeland Security should be to help protect the nation from terrorism, both external and internal. As terrorism is not an act perpetrated by a nation or any other legitimate body that can be either attacked or negotiated with in any formal way and in many ways is based on the commitment of individuals to assert emotional and physical control over others the Department of Homeland Security should be in the business of confronting, questioning and controlling, if possible those individual threats, through awareness of proposed collective actions by terrorist groups and the individuals who carry out terrorist acts. The role of the military, in comparison has been to act as a legitimate tool of control over governments who seek to negatively affect the U.S. And U.S. interests abroad, the military and its diplomatic partners must then be a part of the solution in a completely different manner.

The Department of Homeland Security should then have the power to collaboratively collect and review (and later act on) intelligence gathered by all branches of the U.S. government, who are in a position to seek and listen to such intelligence. This should include the military, the CIA, the FBI and any other legitimate intelligence agency. The Department can then choose to act upon such intelligence by identifying and possibly detaining foreign and domestic individuals who would act violently toward the U.S., and who would seek to compromise the safety and security of the nation.

With the development of the Department of Homeland Security, the nation might then feel more safe and therefore be less affected by terrorism, when it is curtailed or limited by actions, based on collaborative intelligence. The Department can and should act to determine the threat level of individuals who are entering the U.S. For the purpose of terrorist acts or acts that would support or further terrorist motives and support. This may mean some rights of individuals might seem challenged, mainly through security measures and yet it should ultimately limit the number of individual acts that take place, to further a terrorist cause, before it takes many lives.

The department of Homeland Security, in its charge to control the threats to the U.S. associated with terrorism, must resolve to challenge internal and external threats of terrorism through proactive but not overarching strategies. Seeking to control terrorist threats through intelligence gathering and reasonable action taken against individual terrorists is an essential aspect of the need for such a department among other, including military, agencies that might have done similar work in the past.

4. Describe the U.S.A. Patriot Act of 2001. Have there been constitutional challenges to this act? How did the Courts rule on these challenges?

It is not commonly known that the U.S. Patriot Act of 2001 is actually an anagram for a much longer title, that has little to do with the strongly emotional word, patriot. "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" the later is obviously a mouthful and was therefore shortened to a highly charged and emotional word.

The act is a collection of expanded rights of U.S. agencies to collect, catalogue and act upon intelligence (in arrest, detention and litigation) in a manner that would have previously been in violation of countless privacy laws which have been upheld by the U.S. In common and criminal law for centuries.

Though the act does not give U.S. agencies cart blanch with regard to collecting intelligence it does strengthen the rights of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to gather information. The agencies then have the right to tap phone lines, collect and act upon information found in personal emails, recorded personal conversations and many other scenarios. The intentions of the Act are good, but in reality it leaves a lot to be desired, as its constitutionality and supposed challenge to traditional American Civil Liberties has been questioned from the start.