first part of a 2 part course project 400-600 words

i need an analysis of a political news story related to the book the promise and performance of american democracy. explaining why i chose it and if it can be used as en example somehow in the book.  

teachers instructions “In your sample analysis, first please indicate why a particular news coverage interested you. Second, what would you think of this particular political news and political affairs? Your analysis and evaluation would be the main part of this news analysis. One way to expand your analysis, as you may consider, would be to tie the news to the course content and material. Is there any specific concept discussed in the book that you find useful or applicable in analyzing this news coverage? In your opinion, could the news coverage be included in the book as an example, or counter-example, to illustrate the content?”

  

teacher example will attached 

The Public Versus the Private Sector

In the midst of trying to find a news article for my course project, I discovered in interesting and at the same time, controversial news story. This story involved a golf club that had denied women the right to be members. At first I thought that this was illegal, that what had been taking place was preposterous according to law. The story definitely highlights what many like me do not fully understand about the reach of law.

Recently Augusta National Golf Club has been under attack to allow women to join the historically all male club. Because of the apparent enormity of the situation, President Obama gave his opinion. Mr. Obama’s press secretary told reporters that he believes women should be admitted, but that it’s “obviously up to the club to decide.”

At first glance many people would think that this refusal to allow women to join Augusta would be considered discrimination by law. This is not the case though. In order to understand this situation one must look back at the Civil Rights era and its legislation. For a long time African Americans, especially in the South, had been racially segregated in public facilities such as schools, transportation, and other accommodations. After many court room battles such as Brown v. Board of Ed., which made segregation in public schools illegal, the NAACP was able to work away at segregation (Bond 146). But governmental action in segregation and discrimination did not end there. A year after the assignation of Martin Luther King Jr., President Kennedy’s Civil Right Act of 1964 was passed and prohibited racial segregation in schools and public facilities, and barred discrimination in employment based on sex. The end result to all this was that segregation and discrimination in public facilities and employment was unconstitutional (Bond 151). It did not however make discrimination in private facilities unconstitutional. The only thing so far that the government has done in order to extend the reach of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to private entities was to deny federal funds to private programs that discriminated because of sex (Bond 166). For now though discrimination based on sex in the private sector is still legal. Interest groups are considered private organizations and can make whatever membership requirements they want such as a certain gender, race, age, or race. As of now there are at least 1,891 religious and ethnic based interest groups in the US. It’s no surprise that interest groups, especially ones that are centered around a certain ethnicity or religion would want to be selective in terms of membership. One of the most important reasons for joining an interest group is the solidary benefit of being surrounded by people with common views or interests (Bond 185). No law or case has ended this ability for private organizations like interests groups to be discriminative.

So for now, discrimination at the Augusta National Golf Club is perfectly legal. In the past half century civil rights court rulings and legislation have only ended discrimination in the public sector. Many private organizations such as interest groups can decide who can and can’t be a member. This discrimination is thriving through the legal loophole of the private sector.

Work Cited

Bond, Jon R., and Kevin B. Smith. The Promise and Performance of American Democracy. 10th ed. Boston, MA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2012. Print.

Landler, Mark. “Obama and Romney Enter Debate Over Augusta’s All-Male Policy.” 5 Apr. 2012. Web. 5 Apr. 2012.

The Arbitrary Denial of the Right to Privacy

This past week I had to choose an article to read and write about for my course project in Intro to American Political Science. While looking through the New York Times website, I stumbled upon an interesting piece titled “Police are using phone tracking as a routine tool.” Being the civil libertarian that I am, I thought that I would probably the topic interesting. Immediately I began reading it and it opened my eyes to the “cloak and dagger” world of police operations.

Recently cell phone tracking has become a major surveillance tool for local police across the US. One local police manual describes cell phone tracking as “the virtual biographer of our daily lives, providing the hunting ground for learning contacts and travels.” But many civil liberties proponents have raised questions about its constitutionality. Many police departments require warrants in order to track cell phones, but others have used “broad discretion” as a means to do this type of surveillance. Police departments in Arizona, for example have acquired their own phone tracking equipment, thus skipping the process of having to obtain records from phone companies.

Since the 14th century English courts held the doctrine that no person could be put to death or imprisoned without “due process of the law”. When English settlers came over to the New World many of them carried this ideology of safeguarding the rights of those who are accused. This Anglo-American concern for protecting the individual’s rights eventually evolved into formal amendments after the country’s founding. One of those rights that was born from the founding of the United States, was the Right to Privacy. Although not specifically mentioned in the constitution, this right is implied based on the numerous amendments and clauses that espouse the right to be free of government interference without due cause or due process. As part of this right to privacy, a person is protected under the constitution from arbitrary government action. Not only was the right to privacy born from these ideals, but also the right from unreasonable searches and seizures of personal property. In order for law enforcement officers to “collect evidence” they must first have “probable cause” to do so (Bond 130). Essentially what this means is that police officers have to have legitimate reasons to believe someone is about to break the law. “Broad discretion” as a means of getting cell phone records can be considered arbitrary government action, which in itself lacks probable cause, thereby violating the right to privacy and also the fourth amendment.

Cell phone tracking through the use of broad discretion is inherently unconstitutional. The Right to Privacy protects an individual from being spied on or having their personal property searched and taken without the legal discourse of probable cause. Broad discretion in sum, undermines one of the most important core American values; upholding human dignity.

Work Cited

Bond, Jon R., and Kevin B. Smith. The Promise and Performance of American Democracy. 10th ed. Boston, MA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2012. Print.

Lichtblau, Eric. “Police Are Using Phone Tracking as a Routine Tool.” New York Times. The New York Times Company, 31 Mar. 2012. Web. 5 Apr. 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/us/police-tracking-of-cellphones-raises-privacy-fears.html.