Premium Essay

Redistricting Reform: A Rhetorical Analysis

Submitted By
Words 778
Pages 4
“Land of the free, home of the Brave”. In 1776, the United States officially became a country. 11 years later, the constitution was formed. The constitution breaks the powers of government up into three different branches: the legislative that makes the laws (the President and the Cabinet), the executive branch that executes the laws (the Senate and House of Representatives), and the judicial branch that interprets the laws (the Supreme Court). It also sets up a system of checks and balances (ensuring no branch has too much power), divides power between states and the federal government, and most importantly- puts power in the hands of the people. All three branches are elected by the people, which is the main point of a democracy.
There are …show more content…
Which if you look up the word paradox in the dictionary it reads as this: a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory. I think that explains in and of itself that gerrymandering is not and will never be a smart idea and why it can and is seamlessly hurting the United States’ democracy today.
Another example of gerrymandering affecting democracy in the United States would be around the time of the 2002 elections, when Republicans quickly charge of the state house in Texas. Congressman Tom DeLay, who also serves as House Majority Leader in Washington, decided he wanted to reopen the redistricting question because “the current makeup of the congressional did not reflect the state’s true political orientation”. As time passed, according to Jeffrey Toobin, the Republican Legislative leaders “candidly admitted that they intended to draw lines to favor their party as much as possible.”

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Foundation Outline (Prof. William Ewald)

...[Enter Document Title]  Foundations            of the U.S.               Legal System  Prof. William Ewald  Contributors  Wim De Vlieger Suvitcha Nativivat Alasdair Henderson Ana Carolina Kliemann Alexey Kruglyakov Rafael A. Rosillo Pasquale Siciliani Paul Lanois Gloria M. Gasso Kamel Ait El Hadj Yuanyuan Zheng Ana L. Marquez Pumthan Chaichantipyuth Wenzhen Dai Penn Law Summer 2006 I.  Introduction and Historical Background    A. What the course will cover?      This  is  not  an  introductory  course.    You  are  all  lawyers;  I  shall  assume  a  good  deal  of  professional  expertise,  and  that  many  of  you  already  have  a  body  of  knowledge  about  American  law.    The task: prepare you for the coming year, give you the basic grounding that you will need  for the courses you are going to start taking in September.  For this, you need two things:    ♥ A  great  deal  of  basic  factual  information  about  how  the  courts  and  the  legal  system  function, and about basic legal concepts (and legal vocabulary);     ♥ But  more  importantly:  background  information  about  some  of  the  critical  ways in which  the American legal system is unique, and differs from legal systems elsewhere in the  world.  This is hard: often you will find that your professors or fellow‐students will make  assumptions  or  presuppose  certain  ways  of  doing  things  that  aren’t  explained  in  class.    A  large goal of this course is to explain those assumptions...

Words: 43059 - Pages: 173

Premium Essay

Mister

...Contents Title Page Dedication Prologue CHAPTER ONE: Republicans and Democrats CHAPTER TWO: Values CHAPTER THREE: Our Constitution CHAPTER FOUR: Politics CHAPTER FIVE: Opportunity CHAPTER SIX: Faith CHAPTER SEVEN: Race CHAPTER EIGHT: The World Beyond Our Borders CHAPTER NINE: Family Epilogue Acknowledgments About the Author Also by Barack Obama Copyright Prologue IT’S BEEN ALMOST ten years since I first ran for political office. I was thirty-five at the time, four years out of law school, recently married, and generally impatient with life. A seat in the Illinois legislature had opened up, and several friends suggested that I run, thinking that my work as a civil rights lawyer, and contacts from my days as a community organizer, would make me a viable candidate. After discussing it with my wife, I entered the race and proceeded to do what every first-time candidate does: I talked to anyone who would listen. I went to block club meetings and church socials, beauty shops and barbershops. If two guys were standing on a corner, I would cross the street to hand them campaign literature. And everywhere I went, I’d get some version of the same two questions. “Where’d you get that funny name?” And then: “You seem like a nice enough guy. Why do you want to go into something dirty and nasty like politics?” I was familiar with the question, a variant on the questions asked of me years earlier, when I’d first arrived in Chicago to work in low-income neighborhoods. It signaled a cynicism...

Words: 120305 - Pages: 482