It May not Work in Politics
Representative Maxine Waters of D-California was charged with an unspecified ethical violation which rooted from a requested meeting with then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. “After the meeting, the Massachusetts bank received $12 million in taxpayer aid from the $700 billion Wall Street bailout” (Jaffe, 2010). House Ethics Committee suspected Waters, who was believed to benefit from the transaction and from the meeting with Paulson, a cabinet official. The committee said that having a meeting with a cabinet official is not something to be easily done by a state representative. However, Waters defended that the meeting was called due to an important issue, and not for personal reasons (Jaffe, 2010).
However, this is not sufficient to charge Waters with ethical violations. First of all, the charge was unspecified, and from there, the accusations already lacked the needed support for the charge. Even when the committee sensed a possible corruption in the Congress, it is still important to have a clear and specified charge in order for the opposition to review their actions carefully. It is actually unfair for Waters because the difference of power between Waters and Paulson was the sole basis for the ethical misconduct. The second reason was that the details of the meeting were overlooked, if one will make the article as a reference. It can be seen that the case focused on the events that transpired after the meeting. The committee concluded the charge after the $12 million has been transferred to the Massachusetts bank (Jaffe, 2010). However, when the details of the meeting have been ignored, then there is a higher chance that the reason for the bank transaction was overlooked as well, thus making the charge against Waters insufficient and unsuitable. This will deal a blow against the committee, because the vagueness of the charges might affect the ethical standards of the committee. A thorough investigation must be done first in order to maintain the trust of the public.
Third Party Candidates
In the United States, the presidential election only involves two political parties represented by their previously determined candidates. This policy has been protected by the laws of the United States of America (Bartlett, 2010). This is one of the main reasons as to why a third party will find it difficult to become successful in presidential elections. The regulations have already been set to favor the two-party system, and it will be hard to change the current election system to accommodate another party. Though there are some successful third party candidates in the history, such as Theodore Roosevelt and Ross Perot (Bartlett, 2010), the chances as compared to the other major parties are extremely low. As such, it is impractical to have a third party to be included in the presidential race. The votes will be divided, and the goal of a majority decision, will not be met at some point in the process.
The second reason for not having a third political party in the presidential election is that some influential people only wanted to pursue their self-interest. According to Bartlett (2010), the current two-party system contained some of these people. However, they are not within the party they wanted for some reasons, and as a result, their interests are not prioritized, but instead, other more important issues are being highly considered. Think about if these people are in a third party where their decisions will rule. The party will become weak in terms of principles and political obligations; thus, people will less likely put their trust in them. The votes will be divided among the three candidates in case a third party will be included in the election. Most of the time, endorsements will be given to the two other major parties because they represented most of the states in America. Due to this, the third party will lose support and as such, the percentage of winning becomes very low.
Federal and State Authority
One issue currently faced in the United States today is the increasing cases of absenteeism in schools. However, federal and state laws assume roles in alleviating and reducing these problems. For example, in California, Education Code defines the term ‘truant’ precisely as “a student missing more than 30 minutes of instruction without an excuse three times during the school year” (California Department of Education, 2016). The law also specifies the corresponding punishment and the schools must conform to this standard and no student or parents shall be exempted to the rule. Considering this law, there are three major roles that the federal and state and authorities must fulfill. First is the clarification of the law. The definition of the alleged violation must be fully specified to avoid confusion, both in public and in the court. The second is to inform. Informing all the people involved in the violation: the doer, relatives, teachers – is very important because they are the ones to be referred to in case there are some misunderstanding or something that needs to be verified for the case. The last is to execute the necessary punishment, which is in accordance to the law and has already gone legal proceedings.
U.S Constitution does not constrain the federal states and laws. In fact, most of these laws are outlined based from the constitution and the way these laws disciplined the perpetrators are all legal and just. Just like in the California Education Code, punishments are not made immediately; the truant is given a warning not to repeat the same offense in the future (California Department of Education, 2016). This is to establish an understanding of the case, and not to jump at conclusions. The doer might have the reason for doing this thing, and giving a warning first will give him or her a chance for redemption. However, if the offense was repeated, then there must be something going on that needs to be addressed or stopped. This is where the punishment enters and will justify the repeated actions of the offender.
References
Bartlett, B. (2010). Why Third Parties Can't Compete. Retrieved June 12, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/13/third-parties-fusion-voting-elections-opinions- columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
California Department of Education. (2016). Truancy. Retrieved June 12, 2016, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ai/tr/
Jaffe, M. (2010). Rep. Maxine Waters Charged With Ethics Violations. Retrieved June 12, 2016, from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rep-maxine-waters-charged-ethics- violations/story?id=11307872
