Should the government (state/federal) have a say? v. Terri Schiavo

The fundamental question: is terminating the life of a person in a vegetable state (removing feeding tubes, taking off life-support, ect.) wrong and should government be able to decide if its wrong?

The answer is no.

Moral values and religious beliefs aside, such a case is, plain and simple, a private issue. Assuming that a family member knows one of their own better than the federal government, the final decision should be left with the loved ones of that individual. While the government may be free to persuade and influence a decision, it is not their duty to make decisions which should be reserved to individuals on whether or not someone is in a state worthy of life or not. What involvement or personal attachment does it have to that specific family's case? None. It is simply an attempt to impose moral, perhaps even religious, beliefs upon a situation which requires judgement based on the level of hope in the situation and the invidividual beliefs of the family.

Of course, one could argue that government could put in place a law to prevent rash decision making in a case where the outcome is not yet certain and the said person's life may not truly be doomed. However, in a situation where the life of a family member is reduced to a vegetable state, a state in which the individual loses the ability to operate independently and make his own decisions, the responsibility should fall on the shoulders of that persons family, not government to judge the "sustainablity" of that life as well as its future.

Is the Constitution too easy to change? Is it too hard to change?

Madison on Article V: "it guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults."

Although Madison claims the Constitution to be balanced in its stance on ammeding, history and the progression of time has shown that the Constitution proves extremely difficult to change. In the two centuries following 1789, only 27 of 9,746 have been ratified. This statistic is very stunning, although the context of these attempted ammendments may have been worthy of such denial. To be finally passed, an ammendment must undergo a series of voting through the House and Senate as well as ratification by various legislatures and conventions.

While the Constitution should indeed be difficult to ammend to prevent corruption, the right of passage which an ammendment must undergo seems almost unrealistic. Whether this is a blessing or an obstacle is debatable. It seems comforting on some level to know that not just any proposal will be adopted by the document which essentially defines our government, but at the same time it makes you wonder whether many a worthy proposal has been denied by the rigorous selection process.

What are the similarities and differences between the Honor Code at MBA and the US Constitution?

Similarities:
Both are attempting to keep something in check; while the honor code attempts to lay out guidelines and standards for the students, the Constitution does so for the government.
Both set a standard to be followed by their respective audiences.
Both suggest consequences for not following standard procedure.
Both can be exploited through individual interpretation.
Both require obedience of those to whom they are directed

Differences:
The honor code is limited to moral and judgemental behavior, while the Constitution involves legal guidelines and consequences as well.
The honor code includes a slight "grey area" in its interpretation, whereas the Constitution lays out more concrete guidelines (although grey areas can still be found in Constitution).

What is the purpose of Government? Does politics support or impede that purpose?

The purpose of govenment is most simply, to safeguard the liberty of those whom they have power over. Government is power and in a Republic or Democracy, the government has the job of exercising its power to support the general interest of the people. The problem which arises is that the people do not for the most part represent their interests directly, not do they all share the common interest or the interest those with whom they disagree.

In this manner, politics serves as a means more accurately serve the interest of the people engaged in the politics. Since each and every citizen is not likely to have his personal interests served through government action, politics attempts to call attention to the interests which are not being represented. It is a two way road, however, as politics in reality may turn into a dirty business of coersion, bribery, and other forms of corruption. While politics allow the voices of those who opt for change to be heard, there is no gaurantee that those voices will be heard or at least responded too.

So the relationship which emerges between government and politics is one of checks and balances: politics must exist so that a government cannot serve ONLY the interests of a minority or majority, yet government must also intervene and regulate should politics get out of hand and violate the law. It seems as if neither can operate independently of eachother and they continually complicate eachothers roles, especially with the introduction of corruption and self interest.

What do I hope to accomplish in Gov this year?

I want to understand not only the fine aspects of a functioning government (and maybe the things in the fine print), but also to get a better understanding of just basic functions. There are alot of references in the news that I'm not actually familiar with and would like to understand, mostly so that I can form a better opinion about politicians.

Along the lines of politicians, I would also like to be able to tell how realistic political promises are in today's government (e.g. the policies which the upcoming candidates propose to institute once they are elected). Basically I want an objective view, not a view of either party's ambitions or claims, something which the media makes ample news about. What are the hard facts? How much power does government actually have? How much do we have? What goes on in Washington every day that we dont think about? How does today's form of democracy compare to that of the vision of the Founding Fathers? The answers to these questions in real life application, not theorized, is what I hope to learn from the class. As well as how our government stands up against those of other countries, as far as functional freedom and opportunity goes.