Display of Unity

Jacob Banta

CBC Sports: Seahawks planning ‘display of unity’ before Sunday’s game.

On Sunday, September 11, 2016, the fifteenth anniversary of the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the NFL’s Seattle Seahawks are planning a “display of unity” during the demonstration of the national anthem before kickoff against the Miami Dolphins. It is rumored that the Seahawks coaches and players are going to sit during the national anthem to demonstrate their belief that the United States is racially divided and they do not agree with the direction in which the nation is moving. The NFL has yet to comment on the rumors and does not plan on punishing the team or individual players for the Seahawks’ boycott.

This topic is related to We the People class because it is a controversial topic directly related to individual’s first amendment rights. According to the first amendment to the United States’ Constitution states that the government cannot “abridge the freedom of speech” of United States’ citizens. However, popular belief is that the pledge of alliance and the national anthem is an unofficial exception to this right and many believe all citizens must participate in the nation anthem and pledge.

This topic is personal to me because I am one who believes that all citizens must participate in the pledge and the national anthem. For example, the most common place that people will refuse to say the pledge of allegiance is in public schools, however they don’t realize that the flag they pledge allegiance to, gives them the right to a free education regardless of the state of the country or our racial tensions. I hope that when the NFL coaches and players are told to rise for the national anthem, they remember the 2,605 civilians, 73 law enforcement officers, and 343 firefighters who died 15 years ago.

What Do You Think?
What are the positive and negative consequences of a limited national government?

The term limited government is often confusing. For instance, when you hear limited, you would think that the government is limited in what it is able to do. However, the definition is more specific than that. A limited government is a system in which the officials have very little governing powers over the decisions and laws that are created without approval from other branches or leaders within the government.

A limited government is often a great philosophy and allows for a good system of checks and balances. For example, a limited national government gives the states the ability to virtually make all decisions that do not pertain to welfare, defense, and currency. However, like all great systems there are always flaws. If a limited federal government becomes to limited in power, the states loose the vital resources that only the federal government can provide.

Some people will argue that there are better forms of government than being limited in power. Some would say that when 3 branches of government are equal in power, the government will be at a constant battle with each other and decisions will take a long time to negotiate.  Some believe having one leader that you trust, will make better decisions for the common good of the people. However, I believe that although the branches may be constantly debating each other and even though this may delay the process of passing legislature, it is the only way to prevent a government from taking control of the rights of it’s people.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s