IT MAY NOT WORK IN POLITICS
Charles Rangel famously known as Charlie Rangel is an example of a member of the House of Representatives who has been charged with ethics violation. Rangel was found guilty of ethical violations on 11 counts. It was explained that Charlie Rangel while still a member of the house of representatives inappropriately sought services of his congressional staff and the official congressional letterhead to solicit funds in range of seven figures from corporates, chief executives of major institutions, private and public entities and charities to fund a college wing that had been named in his honor. He was accused of violating the New York City rules when he housed political committees in his personal rent controlled premises in Harlem. He was also accused of tax evasion for not paying taxes for his villa in the Dominican Republic. The other element was on personal disclosure of his wealth. He was accused of willingly avoiding to disclose mega financial resources in personal assets owned across the country and the world in general (Abramson, Aldrich, Paolino, & Rohde, 1995).
Potential penalties included the issuing of a formal reprimand to the member, the member maybe censured with rectification by a vote in the House. Expulsion is another possible penalty in this kind of ethical violations. Charlie Rangel was eventually censured from the house. This was the most severe punishment the house can administer apart from full expulsion. The decision was favorable because of the following reasons; Charlie Rangel was a long serving politician who served the people of New York and the United States in the Korean War. He also was in the frontline for the civil rights movement but besides that the members are not above the law, they are as any other citizen are bound by the same law. Censuring Rangel was a difficult and regrettable affair but one that restored confidence in the congress (Rosenstone, Behr, & Lazarus, 1996). For example, the 109th congress was one marked with unprecedented levels of corruption and unethical dealing from lobbyist by exerting influence without major cases of ethical violations being instigated against members. Members of the political class at times would like to appear as they are above the law and at times some treat the law with impunity but by censuring a long serving and very likable representative like Charlie was a step in the right direction. Another reason I believe the decision to censure Charlie Rangel was favorable is Mr. Rangel would no longer be in a position to use his congressional influence for his own good and would act as a lesson to other members to be responsible and ethical in all that appertains to them and their dealings (Chacon, 2016). Finally, the decision was important in country where millions of dollars are lost in tax evasion schemes and unethically donations to politicians which subdue the will of the electorate.
Third party candidates
Third party candidate is a term used in American politics for any other party or parties outside the two major parties in the country. The term can also be used to refer to any independent politicians who are not affiliated to any political parties.
The American political system is commonly referred to as a two party political system. This is highly influenced by how the American electoral system is structured (Jennings, 2012). Presidential candidates with wide spread endorsement from other party leaders are more likely to clinch the top office in the country. In 1992 Ross Perot a third party candidate run for office of the president of the United States of America against George Bush and Bill Clinton and failed miserably. Some of the reason why third party candidates have never had a successful run for the White House include lack of structured funding system as one in the major parties. The two major parties have organization which lacks in third party candidates.
In 2012 a campaign to field a third party candidate presidential candidate failed miserably despite the organizers using $35 million to get ballots in at least 29 states. The survey polls showed an all-time high dissatisfaction rate with both the Democratic and Republican parties, with such advantage a third party candidate would seem the most favorable candidate. However that was not the case. The American political system is built heavily in favor of the two major parties. Another reason why the third party candidates fail is because they lack serious candidates who are willing to forgo their parties and run as independent candidates. However even if a serious candidate is found the likelihood of clinching the top office is fairly very difficult take the example of 1912 election where Theodore Roosevelt after serving two terms as a Republican president lost by running as Bull Moose Party candidate.
Federal and State Authority.
Immigration is and has been a constant source of demographic dynamism and economic vitality in the United States. The immigrant population are entrepreneurs, taxpayers, job creators among other economic aspects. Despite the good the immigrant’s population have done their serious issues on the immigration system in the country today.
The constitution is not as categorical and precise on who is responsible for immigration laws (Defining Roles: Federal vs. State Immigration Authority | American Immigration Council, 2016). While the interpretation of various Supreme Court rulings seems to assert the exclusive power to the federal government, the states also play a vital role in the regulation of immigration. The constitution in article I, section 8 and clause 4 entrusts the federal authority with the powers on issues of naturalization. The states however are entrusted with the daily running of affairs of the immigrants and as such are constrained. The states are included in regulation of the immigrant’s society but not the immigration in its entirety. The Federal authorities have historically involved state and local authorities in enforcement of immigration laws. The constitution interpreted by Supreme Court unequivocally states that the federal government has the exclusive power to mitigate issues immigration. However, notwithstanding the letter of the supreme law of the land, federal immigration law has to be mediated by forces intervening at the state and local levels.
References
Abramson, P., Aldrich, J., Paolino, P., & Rohde, D. (1995). Third-Party and Independent Candidates in American Politics: Wallace, Anderson, and Perot. Political Science Quarterly, 110(3), 349. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2152568
Chacon, J. (2016). Who is Responsible for U.S. immigration policy?. Americanbar.org. Retrieved 13 June 2016, from http://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/14/spring-2014/who-is-responsible-for-u-s--immigration-policy-.html
Defining Roles: Federal vs. State Immigration Authority | American Immigration Council. (2016).Americanimmigrationcouncil.org. Retrieved 13 June 2016, from http://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/newsroom/release/defining-roles-federal-vs-state-immigration-authority
Jennings, M. (2012). Business: Its legal, ethical, and global environment. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Jennings, M. (2012). Business ethics: Case studies and selected readings. Australia: South-Western, Cengage Learning.
Rosenstone, S. J., Behr, R. L., & Lazarus, E. (1996). Third parties in America: Citizen response to major party failure. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
