Philosophy of Government 2 {pog2}

Based on my observation of my group and the other groups, I believe that our constitution does in some cases solve conflicts effectively and it now supports freedom of speech and the right of the people. Three conflicts the constitution effectively solved were the I-chip situation, it protects the rights of citizens during conflict and if there is a conflict in need f the supreme court they sometimes effectively solve the problem In the I-deal simulation I believe that the individual freedom was more important. My goal was achieved; the I-chip was eliminated. The citizens took president Bloomberg to the Supreme Court and the judges ruled in their favor. During the I-deal society the I-chip was eliminated because it violated the rights of freedom of speech as stated in the first amendment. Even though the constitution doesn’t always effectively resolve conflicts it does in some cases.

I believe that the constitution effectively solves problems but in some cases it doesn’t. One example of how the constitution does not work is the case of Dred Scott, a black American slave. The constitution did not protect his civil rights because he was an African American slave and the constitution didn’t consider him a citizen of the United States. Even if he was free it would still be the same. The constitution didn’t protect the rights of women, African American, Indians and many others. It only protected the rights of rich white men! In the trial with Dred Scott, he was treated unfairly. 7 of the 9 justices threw out the 1820 compromise that made the territory free congress unconstitutionally derived slave holders of their 5th amendment property rights. So in the overview of this situation I believe this is a perfect example of how the constitution (sometimes) doesn’t effectively solve conflicts.

The constitution allows the citizens to protect their rights during conflict. For example, in the case of Bloomberg vs. Bryant, citizens achieved freedom against the I-chip. The president was bought up on charges. It was said that that he was violating two of our ten amendments and he was violating the patriot act. The first amendment allows citizens to express and to be exposed to w wide range of opinions and views. The fourth amendment protects people the unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials. The patriot act it clearly states that government cannot wire tap unless it relates to terrorism, so everyday citizens cannot and should not have the I-chip.

Also, during the ideal society President Bloomberg was charged with high crimes/misdemeanor and bribery, but congress dismissed the president for insufficient evidence to support the charges. The constitution did effectively solve this conflict.

In conclusion, the constitution does effectively solve problems in some cases. The Dred Scott case was the supreme courts biggest mistake. The constitution now supports the rights of everyone which is a very good thing.


Shaniya Pryer
10-22-07