Federal Judges

It seems quite sensible that Congress sets the pay for federal judges, however I do not agree with the fact that their income remains the same even after they retire. A federal judge may retire at age 70 if he or she has served for at least ten years. At the time of this retirement it is stated that they will continue to receive full salary for the rest of their lives. The same goes for a 65 year-old judge if they have served for at least fifteen years. I am all for giving hard-working federal judges benefits after they retire but I do not feel as though our government's money is being spent in the most wise way possible if we have to not only pay those federal judges in office full salary, but also those who have retired. I think there are plenty of other systems that could be worked out, that these judges would agree to, that would reward them for all their hard work without spending money so frivolously. This seems especially absurd that continue to receive full salary if they are on 65 years old because for most, they still have quite a bit of life left.

Presidential appointments

Though there has been much debate regarding whether or not the President must get approval from the Senate to remove his appointments, I think that that is the best way to go. I guess you could say because the president initially instated the appointment it may make sense for him to dismiss the appointment on his own, however I disagree. I believe that in order to keep to our checks and balances throughout the branches, the President, though he does overall hold the most power, shouldn't get to decide who is and who is not qualified on his own. It is important that the Senate be behind the president to back him up in his decision, or disagree if he is in the wrong. I believe this is truly the best way to make sure those who hold powerful positions in our government are honest and qualified individuals. If we only have the president making this decision, there could be cases of favoritism or possibly a misjudgment of character.

warrant-less wire tapping

While this topic appears that it could be debatable forever, I am pretty firm in my belief despite all the controversy. I think that under no circumstance should our government be allowed to wire tap in the absence of a warrant. Yes, it could lead to some conclusions or stop some sort of danger, but at the same time getting a warrant is not all that difficult and in no situation should it be avoided. Besides, if this were to not be an accepted principle, a new issue would arise as to when it is enough of an emergency to wire tap warrant-less and when a warrant is in fact necessary. Therefore, in saying that warrants are always and in every situation mandatory, a lot of confusion may be eliminated and both the government and the public will be on the same page.

"riders"

In my opinion the benefits of "riders" don't appear extremely obvious to me. Yes, i understand that these little "rules" and such tend to attach themselves to bills in order to have the opportunity to pass, however I'm not so sure they should be allowed this chance. It almost seems to me like if someone wants a "rider" passed, he or she should combine a bunch of them together to make their own bill rather than simply attaching them on to bills in order to be accepted. If a rider is not strong enough to stand alone and be accepted alone. maybe there is a reason for that. Now I'm not saying this is an extremely pressing manner especially since most riders that end up passing as a part of a bill just go unnoticed, however it is something to think about.

Filibusters

The idea of a filibuster sort of confuses me. I guess to an extent it is effective but it also causes to me to question whether what our members of Congress are doing is worthwhile or not. When i learned that in the history of our Congress one of the members filibustered for 15 hours by reading off recipes and other sorts or pointless material, I began to wonder if there is a "better" way to accomplish the same task. This method of extensive and chaotic distracting for as long as one can handle seems like a waste of time to me. I think our members of Congress should be able to discover a new method of "talking a bill to death," possibly without the talking aspect. Our country certainly has a lot of problems right about now and wasting time away on filibustering certain unpopular bills is not helping our country at all.

eminent domain

This particular power is rather interesting to me. It seems pretty unfair under any circumstance to be able to strip someone of their private property and put it to public use. Yes, it may be for a really good cause and could benefit the neighborhood or city as a whole for that matter, but that is not the point. Though eminent domain cannot be proven "legal" without providing due compensation it still does not seem like anyone truly gets the amount of money they really deserve. If the city government is taking away someone's home, the place they have lived their entire life, a small sum of money will for sure not make up for stripping them of their property and the life they have been able to build for themselves. This is just one of the many reasons I find it hard to accept the concept of eminent domain and simply take it for what it is, without question and slight disapproval.

whether or not congress is representative of the american population

 In my opinion, I do not view congress as entirely representative of the American people at this point in time. Yes, the individuals within Congress are for the most part the most qualified and great performers of their duties, but when it comes to reaching out to the American people and making themselves relatable that is not entirely the case. Yes, we can hope that no matter the comparison between the demographics and dynamics of Congress and the American public that these members will choose to reach out and do whatever they can to relate to the public, however it is up to the citizens to decide to listen. I'm not so sure that we have the best current balance in Congress for the American people to feel as though they are being fairly represented and if they have the desire to listen and want to speak up to such a different make up of people. A few particular examples I just learned about are that 17% of the American public is age 60 and older, while 40% of congress is, 13% of Americans are foreign born, while only 2% Congress is, and finally 51% of our population is women while only 17% Congress is female. These statistics really got me thinking about how the citizens of our country feel about this. Should they accept that this is the portion of our society that can afford to make it to Congress? Or should they be angry that the public is not being fairly represented?