the Federal Congressional level , political science homework help

Dear writer please replies to my classmate discussion Posts for example you might start Hi nice post …..

post 1: Jonathan wrote this:

I was not even aware that such a thing was taking place in our country!

This is incredible. It seems a simple, Federal law could be put
together at the Federal Congressional level that would protect against
all such future seizures. A person’s property shold be protected just as
much as their person is. It aught to be a straight up solid principle –
property rights are automatically guaranteed by simply being an
American; a human being. But since this principle is apparently being
ignored in some cases, then law needs to be legislated out in order to
protect the rights of the American people.

Several of our amendments even tough on this principle and Thomas
Jefferson even considered putting “Life, Liberty, and property” in the
Declaration instead of the “Pursuit of happiness” that appears there
now; point is, the protection of an American’s own personal property was
thought to be such a default principle that Jefferson did not think it
necessary to place the term in his Declaration to the King of Britain at
the time of our nation’s founding.

But here we are, two hundred and forty years later and these rights
are not being respected by our local governments. A law should be put
together that lays down clear lines of property protection acrost the board with only the correct eminent domain laws allowing confiscation which should be fully compensated for.

Post 2: Joshua wrote this:

After watching that John Oliver clip, I don’t think anyone can argue
that there is nothing wrong with civil forfeitures. Based on what I saw
and read, I understand why it was put in place, but also understand that
there is too much abuse. For starters, if property is taken, and
someone goes to court and attempts to claim it back, the police should not
be involved in that court case. There should be a judge in that
hearing, not a prosecutor from the DEA. That level of bias is obvious. I
also feel that if there is an instance of unfair forfeiture, there
should be a penalty on the police department. The way I see it, if they
take property, and the system works the way it is supposed to, then no
harm no fowl. However, if they abuse the system, there should be
penalties and fines, just like in other areas of life. The laws are too
vague right now and they overuse civil forfeitures. Therefore, it’s only
logical to set up punishments, which will force the officers to
restrain themselves, and their power, when dealing with other people’s
property. No more free margarita machines.

Post 3: Cary wrote this:

I do not believe that a homeowner
should have to submit a plan for their property. Individuals have the
right to do or not do what they want with their property. Is it fair
that because I live in a suburban community I do not have these
requirements but a homeowner who lives near water has to? It does not
seem fair to me. Barriers that people in support of having homeowners
submit a plan could vary depending on how determined they are. The
homeowners who live near water could simply not listen to policy, they
could petition against it, the government could not deem it necessary,
the water pollution could still be happening even with the new plan set
in place, natural disasters and weather could effect pollution more than
standard upkeep. It appears that supporters of this plan would have to
overcome a lot to require homeowners to submit a plan. I was not able to
locate any state policy of other states doing similar legislation. The
closest thing I could find was in Minnesota they created a pollution
control agency that set general standards for everyone, not specifically
homeowners, on how to maintain watershed pollution.

Post 4: James wrote this:

Concerns about human impact and the
environment ever growing. Unfortunately, environmental damage is a
shared societal issue. Not only is all of humanity impacted by
environmental damage, but the damage is also caused by all humans. Many
issues are more easily fixed, or atleast discussed
in a constructive way when the issues have an isolated cause, and
subsequently have some sect that will be affect. Instead environmental
issues negatively affect everyone, and the cost of fixing these issues
is on a shared basis. I believe people will have a hard time accepting
that everyone is responsible, but instead have a sect (in this case
farmers) pay for the fix.

The first issue that implementing this
policy would face would be this type of apathy. Secondly, this policy
would require people to actively submit a plan for there property. For a
country that has regular voter turn out rates of 50% and lower, I
highly doubt people would take initiative to do this without
implementing some type of incentive. This incentive could work either as
a benefit for submitting a plan in a given window, or a penalty for not
doing it at all. Even if the incentive works then you have to assign a
some sort of task force to, somehow, ensure that people are sticking to
their commitments. Third, if the only way to ensure that people will
comply is through incentive, then why not just simply have owners of
certain types of properties, or perhaps all properties pay a tax to pay
for the clean up of the watershed? States could then simply add
exemptions, or allow people to pay for X amount of improvements to there
property to mitigate run off and thus be exempt.

Dear writer what will you replied to these classmates about their posts .

Calculate Price

Price (USD)