Citizenship: Rights, Responsibilities and Liberties

讲到role of gov, citizenship可以用到的一点概念

Describe concepts that define the meaning of democracy as expressed in the United States Constitutional system.

Explain that concepts of democracy define and shape the meaning of citizenship.
Identify fundamental political concepts:
• Fundamental worth and dignity of the individual: All persons are entitled to life, liberty, and due process under the law.
• Equality: All persons are entitled to equal rights and treatment before the law.
• Majority rule: The will of the majority as expressed through elections is fundamental to the American system.
• Minority rights: The Constitution of the United States protects the rights of the few from oppression.
• Compromise: The structure of the United States government necessitates compromise by all sides.
Individual freedom: All persons are born free, equal, and independent.
• Explain that an analysis of current events demonstrates contemporary applications of democratic concepts.

Explain that Civil liberties are freedoms upon which the government may not infringe.

Explain that the Bill of Rights is composed of the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. It guarantees the rights of individuals and expresses limitations on federal and state governments.

Identify First Amendment freedoms:
Religion
• Government may not establish an official religion, nor endorse, or unduly interfere with the free exercise of religion.
Speech
• Individuals are free to express their opinions and beliefs.
Press
• The press is free to gather and publish information, including that which criticizes the government.
Assembly
• Individuals may peacefully gather.
Petition
• Individuals have the freedom to make their views known to public officials.

Explain that the Bill of Rights protects citizens from
• Unreasonable search and seizures
• Double jeopardy
• Self-incrimination
• Cruel and unusual punishment

Explain how the right to due process of law is outlined in the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Describe two types of due process of law
• Procedural due process of law—The government must use fair proceedings.
• Substantive due process of law—The laws under which the government acts must be constitutional.

Explain how the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America protect due process of law:
• 5th Amendment—Prohibits the national government from acting in an unfair or arbitrary manner__
• 14th Amendment—Prohibits state and local governments from acting in an unfair or arbitrary manner.

Using the following information, analyze how the selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment (due process of law clause) greatly enhances the protection of civil rights and extends the Bill of Rights protections to state proceedings:
• Beginning in the twentieth century, the Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment (due process of law clause) to limit state actions, just as the Bill of Rights limits the national government.

The Supreme Court has incorporated in the due process clause all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights except those of the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, and 10th Amendments and the grand jury requirement of the 5th Amendment.

Explain how the protection of civil liberties and civil rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America, is balanced by compelling public interest.

Describe the limitations of rights because few rights, if any, are considered absolute:
• Some forms of speech are not protected (e.g., libel, slander, and obscenity).
• Speech that is a “clear and present danger” is not protected (e.g., shouting fire in a crowded building).
• The press can be restricted when publication will cause serious and irreparable harm (e.g., national security).

Explain that the equal protection clause is contained in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Explain that the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment provides the basis for the safekeeping of civil rights.

Describe how the promise of equal protection under the law does not guarantee all people will be treated exactly the same.

Explain that the government may classify or categorize people into groups for justifiable government goals (e.g., adults under 21 may not purchase alcohol).

Analyze applications of the equal protection principle:
• Civil Rights Movement—Congress passed a series of laws outlawing discrimination.
• Affirmative Action—The government passed laws and implemented procedures to reverse the effects of years of discrimination primarily against women and minorities.

Explain that thoughtful and effective participation in civic life depends upon the exercise of good citizenship.

Identify characteristics of good citizens:
• Trustworthiness and honesty
• Courtesy
• Respect for the rights of others
• Responsibility
• Accountability
• Self-reliance
• Respect for the law
• Patriotism

Explain that thoughtful and effective participation in civic life is essential to the nation’s well-being.

Identify duties of responsible citizens:
• To obey the law
• To pay taxes
• To serve as jurors
• To register and vote
• To perform public service
• To keep informed
• To respect the opinions of others

Hanging in the balance

Clive Stafford Smith

May 1, 2007 12:40 PM | Guardian Unlimited

Amnesty International has published its annual report on the death penalty, which makes modestly encouraging reading for those who would put an end to state-sanctioned killing.

This is not surprising: there is little chance that history, as it is ultimately written, will favourably recount stories of electrocution, hanging, gassing or lethal injection, any more than it does burning witches at the stake.

However, this is of little solace to the thousands of individuals who continue to be executed each year, each of whom has only one life to lose.

Consider China. There were 1,010 documented executions last year, but the true number was more likely to have been close to 8,000. Executions in China are shrouded in mystery, we are told, because the fact of an execution is a state secret. Why, if a government wishes to deter its citizens from crime, would the consequences of criminality be kept hidden?

China leads the premier league of executions by a long way, with well over 90% of all executions worldwide. Despite this, there are signs that China is moving towards abolition. In March 2007, a Chinese delegate told the United Nations that he thought "the application of the death penalty will be further reduced and it will finally be abolished" in his country. If the inevitability of abolition is already clear, what is the point of continuing to execute?

With the China Olympics slated for next year, criticism of the industrial scale of executions is muted. Perhaps this is inevitable since the US still comes in fifth on the annual execution table (with 53), chasing China and Pakistan on total numbers of people awaiting execution on death row.

No matter what George Bush's attitude may be, Britain cannot afford to sit silently by, if morality and British foreign policy are to intersect at all. Reprieve has learned that there were at least two British nationals among the thousands who faced execution in China in 2006, yet the British government has apparently not been able to contact the men, or influence their fate.

Presumably, China wants to earn the respect of the world in the run-up to the Olympics in Beijing. A public commitment towards abolition would be a good way to start. The fact that Australia executed nobody at the Sydney Olympics has not been touted among the reasons for the success of the 2000 Olympiad; conversely, however, executing your guests hardly enhances the goodwill of the games.

THW permit legislating by citizen initiated referenda

Citizen-initiated referendums

We cannot all go down to the local town centre as the ancient Athenians did. Our nations and our states are too big for that. Citizen-initiated referendum is one way for citizens to have a direct say in government decisions where there are large populations. Two of the things citizen-initiated referendum can do are:

• allow citizens to propose a new law

• allow citizens to vote against laws passed by parliament.

Some countries that have citizen-initiated referendum have one of the above and others have both.

Citizen-initiated referendum in three countries

Switzerland

The Swiss have had citizen-initiated referendum for over 100 years and in that time have voted on more than 300 issues. In 1977 the people rejected a proposal by the government for a new kind of tax. In 1984 they rejected another government proposal to reduce the working week from 42 hours to 38 hours.

United States

In the United States many states have some form of citizen-initiated referendum. In California during the 1990 elections, voters had to deal with a ballot paper with 20 referendum questions and 144 pages containing arguments for and against each referendum proposal.

In the 1960s the Californian government passed a law that real estate agents and owners of apartment houses could not use racial discrimination against people who wanted to rent or buy apartments or houses. The real estate agents initiated a referendum to overturn this law so that they could discriminate against people in this way. The real estate agents won.

Four states have voted to bring back the death penalty through referendum. Anti-gun laws have been introduced in several states.

Italy

In Italy the citizens can only initiate a referendum to vote against a law passed by the government. They cannot initiate a referendum to propose a law. In 1991 Italian people voted to remove a law which prohibited divorce.

How citizen-initiated referendum could work

Step 1

Some people in the community want a new law or to remove an existing law. They collect a number of petitions of registered voters and take them to the electoral office (say 1 per cent of voters in a majority of electorates in order to move to the next step).

Step 2

Parliamentary officers prepare a proposed law.

Step 3

The proposed law is debated in the parliament. If the parliament does not pass the proposal, it moves to Step 4.

Step 4

A referendum is held and if a majority of voters in a majority of electorates support the proposal, it becomes law.

This House Believes That we should have more direct democracy?

Arguments against more direct democracy	Arguments for more direct democracy
People already have a choice between members of parliament and the government programs they support.	People have more say about particular issues. Sometimes politicians of opposite sides agree among themselves on a policy they know the people don't support.
People already have to vote for federal, state and local governments. They don't want to have to go to polling booths more often. Electronic voting is not a realistic option; it has too many problems.	Electronic media allows debate and voting among large populations without any need for people to come to one place.
People have an opportunity, apart from elections through community and lobby groups to influence governments and governments are often guided by opinion polls.	Governments and parties can still play a role as they do today.
Citizen campaigns can more easily be led by people or groups with money - meaning wealthy groups have too much influence. Individual citizens or groups of citizens who propose change may not have the interest or the ability to make proposals in the best interests of all the different groups in the country or state.	Politicians are not the only people who are expert in making decisions for the nation as a whole. As people become more involved they become more expert.
Representative governments should look after the interests of minorities as well as the majority that voted for them. The people may be more influenced by prejudice or less concerned about minority rights.	Representative governments have not always looked after the interests of minority groups.
Once the people had voted on a citizen-initiated referendum it would have to become law. There would be no opportunity for the parliament to review the proposed legislation or make changes before it became law.	There is no reason to think that citizens will be any better or worse than governments.

referendum campaigning is much less well developed and well understood than the art of election campaigning. More effective in saying “NO” than saying “YES”
Amongst other things, modern political advertising tends to be:

* negative, often fiercely so;
* visual rather than textual;
* targeted to different segments of an electorate which is profiled and segmented in depth by party organisations;
* in particular, targeted at “swinging voters” who are considered by the parties to be the voters who are least well-informed, least civic minded, most materialistic and most easily stirred to negative emotions;
* increasingly short and simple;
* content-free as far as substantive issues and policies are concerned;
* geared to selling personalities rather than policies.

None of this is well suited to securing the passage of a referendum proposal, and task which requires (a) clearly explaining the proposal so that a large majority of the voting population understand it and (b) providing persuasive arguments to convince a majority of the voters to support it.