Analyzing Implications of Two Political Articles Essay

Exclusively available on Available only on IvyPanda® • No AI

Table of Contents

We the People. The Weekly Standard – Argument and Implications
Surveillance: Cozy or Chilling? The New York Times – Argument and Implications
Responses to peers
References

Most vocabularies define “implications” as events that may happen in the future as the result of some prior action (“Implication” par. 1). Analyzing the implications of texts, speeches, and events is crucial to understanding the core motives behind them. Many readers and viewers do not bother looking beyond what is written in the newspaper or spoken on TV. However, being able to do so develops critical thinking and analytical skills that are important for everyone. This paper will analyze the implications of two political articles.

We the People. The Weekly Standard – Argument and Implications

An article from The Weekly Standard called “We, the People” suggests that Congress should consider the Constitution every time its members seek to pass a bill. The members would be expected to name a particular section of the document that grants them the authority to pass such a bill. The author of the article views this requirement in a positive light, as it would give the Republican Party the tools to oppose the Affordable Care Act, which they view as unconstitutional (Eastland 7).

The implications of the article, however, are different. Right now, the Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether a law is constitutional or not. The article implies that this authority should be taken away from the Supreme Court and given instead to Congress. That way, whoever holds the majority in Congress would be able to block any law, under the guise of it being “unconstitutional.”

Surveillance: Cozy or Chilling? The New York Times – Argument and Implications

The second article, found in The New York Times, considers the issue of the protection of privacy in the age of smartphones, computers, and the internet. The article puts forth an argument that digital surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (“Fourth Amendment” par. 1). The article itself is made to look argumentative. However, the opposition, while present, is represented by a straw man point of view. Because the opposing arguments are simple and easy to debunk or ridicule, the argument looks somewhat one-sided (Cohen 6).

The implications of this article are far-reaching. The Supreme Court has ruled out that in order to take away and inspect a person’s cellphone, computer, or any other device that contains digital information, the police must have a warrant. This ruling creates a precedent and a benchmark for the protection of personal privacy in the United States in the 21st century (Rotenberg par. 1).

Responses to peers

I largely agree with the first opinion presented to me, as we share common ground regarding the issue of separation of power (“Three Branches of Government” par. 1). An attempt to take away one branch’s responsibilities and give them to another offsets the balance of the system and thus cannot be allowed. However, I fail to see how separation of power relates to the second article, which is about the protection of digital privacy.

As for the second peer reply, I mostly agree. I disagree with the statement that the initiative forcing Congress to consider every bill’s constitutionality serves no purpose. It does clearly have a purpose. However, that purpose is a malicious one. It seeks to further a particular political agenda with no regard for long-term consequences. I agree with my peer’s assessment of the second article – Constitutional amendments must keep up with modern times and reflect the realities of today, rather than those of years gone by.