Make an Argument, Get a Government

Joseph Ellis' book American Creation is about our triumphs and overcoming our failures as a new nation rising up. Chapter three in his book is titled "The Argument." This is the rising and founding of our government which is still with us today. Ellis writes to portray the importance of all the hardships we went through that impacted the way we discern our government and the people who reside within.

Our independence had just been fought, and won for. It was a victory over the British Empire and the creation of an American Empire. Our expansion was indeed a manifest destiny that sparked a revolution in the eyes of America and her people. But the unification of the states did not last much longer than the war. As soon as it ended, states started going their separate ways. George Washington stated that we needed a strong central government to manage the states wandering around the continent. It was difficult to give that idea when the government they just escaped was like the one portrayed in Washington's mind. 

"The gap between these two political camps was an unbridgeable chasm separated by a fundamental difference of opinion over the true meaning of the American Revolution."

The new effort was to create a form of government that embraced the American dream and a firm ground for all the changes to come. 

                                          

One major person in the ratification of our government system was James Madison. He exposed the failings of a weak central government and fought to find a new one. Alongside him were Washington, Alexander Hamilton, George Mason, and Patrick Henry. The fear of Washington and Madison was that the America they worked so hard for was on the edge of anarchy, the fear that the nation would not fulfill its promises. Many situations went downhill after trying to create a solution. Madison, attempting to mend the Articles of Confederation, invested in developments to fix them. But they were somewhat complicated and failed to work out. The one that succeeded involved one man, George Washington. He was the one with most experience and that began his progression of becoming the future President. 

 Madison and Washington both agreed that "the full promise of the American Revolution could be secured only by a stable and wholly consolidated nation-state." The first development was concerning navigation rights of the Mississippi River. John Jay suggested that they give up American rights in able to use the Mississippi River. But this initiative was only temporary and partial interests, and would not benefit for a long period of time. 
The second development was the state of union among rebel farmers in America. Also known as, "Shay's Rebellion", some twelve hundred rebels fought to earn their own land back after they came back from the war. This did not last long nor was it very effective in the struggle for their rights.  
The third development was the failure of the Annapolis Convention. There was only five states that showed up to the convention, but its initial failure emboldened him to try a business proposal from Alexander Hamilton.  
The last development was the manipulation by Madison to get Washington out of retirement and back to doing what he was great at. What they both realized what was best for the constitution was complete change of the Articles of Confederation. 

"The Articles of Confederation did not need to be revised, they needed to be completely replaced with a fully empowered national government that possessed a clear mandate to coerce the states in both foreign and domestic policy."

Between March and May of 1787, Madison endorsed a two-pronged campaign in order to prepare himself for the debates in Philadelphia. He was a strong orator and a 'frustrating' opponent because he always had better swaying opinions and relevant information. Edmund Randolph wrote to Madison saying that they would not tolerate the enhancement of the Articles. A radical reform would not appeal to the public opinion and almost surely lose. But Madison was proud; "if not extravagant, absolutely unattainable and unworthy of being attempted." His outline of a answer was made clear to him. There should be bicameral legislature representing instead of the single-house legislature representing the states. This new created federal government was going to be what they hoped for in fighting their battle for independence, a government made for the will of the people.

Strong-headed Madison arrived in Philadelphia on May 5, 1787, determined to face the challenge and a clear vision of the proper shape a truly national government needed to assume. He knew that he was fully armed to fight the political conflicts of the debate. The interests of the people determine the overall thoughts of the government. There is a gap between "will of the people" and the abiding interest of the public. Madison was fighting for a republic. They work best in small geographic areas, where the elected representative remained close to the interests of the citizens who elected them. Larger republics increase the number of competing factors, this made space an asset rather than a liability.

The debate as a whole was another "standing miracle", equivalent to the victory for our independence. It was the typical, "He said, she said" of government arguments. The people deliberating calmly on what form of government would be the best according to their happiness. But having a form of government meant that there would still be some people against it; therefore, there were Anti federalists. They believed they were protecting ordinary Americans from a takeover of the American Revolution. The main goal of the Federalist was to contest that claim by stating that the Constitution was a rescue rather than a betrayal. All the time, debates raged and some Americans were upset with our government, and both Hamilton and Madison were forced to frame their argument on behalf of the constitution. 

The constitution became the central government with only enumerated powers essential for preservation of the union. Madison had found the beauty of ambiguity or also shifting sovereign-ties. The argument eventually won out, it triumphed defied logic because the argument itself is the answer. This is how we do or create things all the time, inside or outside the government. We argue to make the best out of something; "thereby, making the Constitution, like history itself, an argument without end."

Who is Making America Great Again?

In this 2016 presidential debate, Trump and Hillary argued the different needs and values of this country stirring the minds and hearts of everyone, voting or not. From all the social media and conflicts among people, this by far seems like one of the most popular campaign debates over the years. People want to see who will win, not necessarily because they care, but because they want to see a fight. The argument, in a sense, is the answer.

The first question of the debate was about achieving prosperity. Hillary's stance was essentially about building economy for everyone, not just those at the top. She wants new jobs and different jobs. Make the economy fairer by raising minimum wage and increasing women's jobs. Paid family leave, sick days (by having the rich do their part). 
Trump stated that our jobs are fleeing the country (china, mexico) they are "piggy banking us" and we can't allow this to happen. Companies are just using America. He wants to reduce taxes to 15%. He believes that renegotiating trade deals will help with the economy and communication with other countries. 
Hillary want to do all these things that will build the economy with things like solar panels, clean energy, etc. But these cost money and what Trump said was that we don't have the money ($20 trillion in debt) to have these luxuries. By raising minimum wage, we are raising our taxes and that's the last thing people want to do. Trump also questions why Hillary for the past 30 years of her being secretary has not found a solution to these problems. He attacks Bill Clinton by recalling "the worst trade deal, NAFTA, which includes Canada and Mexico." 

The next question was to inform the people of their plan to increase tax on the wealthy. Trump believes that getting rid of bad taxes helps out middle class. People are leaving because of high taxes. There is this "bureaucratic red tape" that prevents our nation from winning. Our country is being ripped off by the other countries in the world. We need money from other countries that we help out with our armies. 
Hillary claims she will support tax increase because it is for our benefit. She says that trump own millions to Wall Street. and attacks him by asking why he won't release his tax returns and says Trump hasn't paid federal tax income. But Hillary admitted to deleting millions of emails on a private site claiming it was a mistake. Trump revealed that she might not be worthy of trust because of this intentional decision.

One of the biggest subjects of this time is the argument of race. What Hillary states is that race sometimes determines how people are educated, treated in criminal justice areas, and where they live. We need to change the tension between cops and black people, restore trust, work with the police, gets guns out the hands of people who shouldn't use them. On her stance of "Stop and Frisk", she believed it is not right/ constitutional. She wants to come forward with a plan like a second chance program. Common sense gun safety would help out. But shouldn't we already have common sense now? What is going to make this change and what more can be done? But in the subject of people coming over from different countries, they need comprehensive background checks. Those on the terrorist watch list should not have guns and if they are not safe to fly, then they are not safe to have a gun. Claims Trump was sued twice for racial discrimination in businesses he owned.  
What Trump added to the issue was that we need law and order. African Americans and Hispanics are living in hell because of discrimination. Thousands of shootings are just in Chicago over the past few years. Gangs roaming the streets (lots are illegal immigrants claimed to be these shooters). Need more police, need better community relationships with police. His "Stop and Frisk" position was that it brought down murder rates and increased safety. And it was shown in the post debate discussions that when this stopped crime went up. He says that African American communities are abused by politicians when earning votes and abused by their lies.  

When questioned on the subject of securing America Hillary claims that cyber attacks are coming from Russia. Hackers in our systems are destroying us and we should intensify our air strikes against ISIS. Working with NATO will essentially turn our attention to terrorism by stating "An attack on one is an attack on all". 
Trump was concerned of the person or country who broke in to DNC saying it could be anyone, even a 400lb person sitting on his couch. He claims that under Obama, we have lost control of things in our country. There was vacuum created by Hillary and Barack when they wanted to invade Iraq. Against the war in Iraq, it has destabilized the middle east. We should have taken their oil because that was the source for ISIS.


Finally, Trump states that we are losing money when we protect those around the world with our armies and we don't get anything in return. This country cannot afford to have another bad deal with anything and he is right. We need to get something in return for America to prosper.
Hillary finishes with that we need to further peace and prosperity. Those trying to destabilize the world should not be allowed to be here in America. 

Being the first debate, this does not determine the outcome of the election but it can sway the minds of people on the opposite side. I personally agree more to the ideas of trump and his reasoning although he tends to rant too much and repeats himself a lot. When people go to vote this year in November, some will vote on what they believe, while others will simple vote on the "lesser of two evils." Vote because it is our right as citizens and appreciate the privilege we have in America.  

Are "De Facto" Parents Making Adoption Meaningless?

"De facto" parents are presumably redefining parenting. These are the people that are involved in a child's life and are assumed to be the parent or a de facto parent. Parenthood is changing from the norm of regular marriages to LGBT couples and more. Legal rights for parents wanting to adopt is no longer associated with marital status, but it is also becoming a new continuing struggle for equal rights. 

Universally, parenthood is determined by descent from a father and mother, or in this case, by adoption. A ruling in 1991 denied parental rights to all "nontraditional families" such as unmarried opposite-sex couples, gays/ lesbians, and stepparents who wanted to raise kids. The restriction, as of then, for parenthood was stated that it should be limited "to biology and adoption." Therefore, the court established its consistency throughout basically all of human history. 

Now the courts have changed their mind and admitted to the damage it has resulted in, which means that our society has evidently changed its "sexual ethic." The original definition of marriage and being a parent has initially been erased from our minds and been corroded over by the new way that our society thinks.

What seems to be going on in the de facto parent situation are the problems with custody over the child. One case had a gay couple that separated at the time they had a child. The biological parent was clear in not wanting the other parent to have visitation rights to see the kid. But the court's statement was, 

"That going forward, a partner can seek visitation and custody if it is shown... by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together."

Also in the article, it is mentioned that the term "conceive" did not mean what its original intent was. In this meaning, it is talking about couples having children but they aren't involved in the child's biology at all. There are now advances in technology that allow the reproduction of babies through test tubes, also called Vitro Fertilization Procedure. Behind this lies a morality that questions whether or not this is a good thing for mankind. This is the redefinition of human sexual relationships lurking in the shadows of the LGBT movement for equality.

Sometimes it is a difficult and dangerous thing for just anyone to become a de facto parent. It recognizes that some people can deserve custody even if they came into a child's life after their birth. This can set up situations in which anyone who has some relationship with the child can claim they are "de facto parents." This is what happens when the issue is challenged and brought to a court that now has to legally give rights to that person.

The movement that lead to this initial "victory for gay parents" was not about them, but for non-parents claiming to be parents. The court basically eliminated adoption as "the meaningful legal category that establishes parenthood without biological relationship." It has come to the point where we can no longer adopt because of choice. It makes sense that we have basically destroyed the word and meaning of "parent." We now have to draw a line between all these different parent types that cause confusion among people when in reality there is only one.

Babies Addicted to Drugs

Kids and adults of every age are filling their systems and ruining their minds with the one thing that has taken over; drugs. Ironically, so are babies. It is the mother that stimulates the addiction of drugs onto her child, leaving them with a mental problem or the body of a drug addict. Why is this denial of morality even considered? If we confront the problem, perhaps it will open the minds to the realness of this issue.

Specifically, in the article, it states that in Indiana, one in five babies is born addicted to drugs. This might not seem like a large number but this is only one state and for the U.S. it has more than tripled in the past decade. In America, around 13,539 babies are born with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (babies addicted to drugs, NAS). Once they are born, the effects of the drug supply from their mother disappear and they suffer withdrawals. The whole time, this fetus was being bombarded by things that shouldn't even be near its body; proving for instance that a fetus is, in fact, a human being suffering. Not just another 'thing' in the womb that can be aborted after a few weeks. This results in both short-term and long-term consequences. The problem in this picture is the fact that the world tries to make this a medical problem instead of a moral problem. People don't want to face the facts that they are doing something wrong and the easiest thing for them to do is blame the drugs, not the person.

In my family, I have a lot of cousins that were born addicted to drugs and I've seen the effects. Most of them are not turning out well; they steal, lie, have barely any common sense, and are not mentally well. One of my closest cousins has ADHD. His real mom was a druggie and she gave him up for adoption soon after he was born. Most children with NAS end up in child protective services. He will probably be this way forever just because of the one thing his mom did.
Galatians 5:13 states, "For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another."
God gave us these bodies to use them for His glory, not trash them or especially hurt anybody else while we are simply 'living out our rent.'

The United States makes a lot of its money in developing drug culture and other labs designated for drugs which has taken over much of American land. If we can break down drug use and abuse, it may help the number of mentally disordered babies. 
"It is insane and impossible to believe that progress can be made merely on the medical front if the moral issues are not centrally confronted." 
Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome is probably most common in causing mental retardation but it is 100% preventable. Something that can be scarce is more likely to happen just because they don't care. These effects of NAS are irreversible and last their whole life. We don't have to look too far for the idiocy that runs deep in the blood of our precious America.