Division of America after the Election of Obama

Hi!

I would like feedback regarding my essay. Does it have enough depth, detail, is it too dull, are you intrigued to keep reading, etc. Thanks in advance for your help! :)

Why are Americans divided in spirit within our Nation and wanting succession
of state from the United States? -Draft

It is said that over 20 states have requested secession from the United States after the re- election of Barack Hussein Obama. The numbers startling as they appear are rising as we are confronted with the "fiscal cliff" scenario. The fiscal cliff is the so-called terminology used in the media regarding the House and Senate as well as our President of the United States not being able to come together at the table and set aside differences regarding how taxes, spending, etc. should be cut before the end of this year 2012. Secession pertains to eliminating or separating the statehood from the union of the United States.

Secession had only been tried once before in the United States and resulted in the Civil War that started in 1861 and ended in 1865. The war started due to southern states not wanting to abolish slavery. At the end of 1865 the war had ended and slavery was abolished and secession was denied by our federal government. The war was not in vain though, it had in actuality freed slaves and put a new agenda in the form of restructuring the states to form unity that was lost and

Fuller p.2

again found by our federal government. It was proven to be somewhat of a success with the abolishment of slavery even though so many lost their lives

Why are so many requesting this? I will give you examples of the frustration taking place across our country and it is up to you to decide if what these states are doing will change minds, create a change in our thinking and how we may change regarding our rights as individuals and as a country or are they simply voicing their opinions and wanting a listening ear.

What states are involved with this request and what caused them to request this from the United States? States such as Florida, Texas, Ohio and Virginia to name a few that were known as key states in which Obama had won the re-election have requested their secession. These states were documented on the White House website under "We The People" page. On this page, you may request a petition to be started with a certain amount of signatures the White House has set and they will address once that signature limit has been met.

What events have developed to cause this division of the American citizens of the United States? The blog "No Checks, No Balances: House Refuses to Authorize Obama's Libya War, but Funds It" is located by the website by The Nation and written by John Nichols. He has in his blog portrayed the article to grab the attention of everyone who are aware of how the checks and balances of Congress who have power to oversee the actions of our president of the United States and for those who aren't. John Nichols has been known for over a decade writing informative blogs, books, and columns for several well- known named newspapers such as New York Times, Chicago Tribune and is one of the co-founders of the Free Press which was formed to establish a reformed media and technologies and create a better democracy, written in several magazines and is known in Congress amongst those on the floor debating. The Nation website which features John Nichols blog has been publishing the magazine for over a hundred years. It was founded in July of 1865 and has slowly seen a decline in the magazine sales that now it's also online as well and has survived existence with the help of donors to the magazine. The founding prospectus of 1865, "The Nation will not be the organ of any party, sect, or body. It will, on the contrary, make an earnest effort to bring to the discussion of political and social questions a really critical spirit, and to wage war upon the vices of violence, exaggeration and misrepresentation by which so much of the political writing of the day is marred."- The Nation. He instilled in the audience the need for urgency to his audience. They both have work to do to improve the checks and balances that we have established by our founding fathers of our Constitution. In the blog the House was brought to the table to vote on two proposal requests from the president Barack Obama to declare war on Libya and the second proposal was to request the funding be cut for that war declaration. The House is made up of 435 House of Representatives and 100 Senators. To break the voting required for the proposals to pass you would need 2/3 votes of each house. (Monk, L 2003) In our constitution Article I give power to approve certain action that our President of the United states which to enact. One the first proposal which gives approval to declare war in Libya was struck down with votes 295-123 against the authorization for war but on the second proposal which authorizes funding to be cut was again struck down which means they denied the actual was to be declared but continued for the funding for war that wasn't declared to continue. Through the sarcasm of John, shows his frustration with the voting when he says "If the pairing of policies makes no apparent sense, well, welcome to John Boehner's Congress." John goes on to show the audience why he so upset with the hidden agenda of Boehner's plan. Boehner with certain selective group of constituents had hidden that they were to gain if struck down. How you ask? By allowing the striking down of the actual war they lose nothing but they gained continued funding to the undefined war to keep his lobbyists and protected military contracts from losing ground and funding which better most republicans within the House. In essences, he proved that neither side was doing justice for the people. They both have work to do to improve the checks and balances that we have established by our founding fathers of our Constitution.

The Obama administration announced in 2012 that organizations providing health insurance will have to provide contraception coverage for their employees. Some religious groups opposed to contraception have objected to this requirement by citing their First Amendment right to religious liberty. As I read in an article from Foxnews.com, Liberty University is appealing the Obama announcement of mandating all employers issue the contraception of all workers and will be looking to overturn the decision which was previously upheld that Obama's "ObamaCare" may not be appealed under it being a tax, however, it left it open stating, it can still be heard under other circumstances such as unconstitutional for religious reasons, so Liberty University resubmitted their appeal to the law. Protests arising from such adjudication of the laws as they are interpreted are becoming the norm of society. Another story written by author John Jansen and was a writer for the Pro-Life Action League. This was posted on LifeNews.Com. He has shown the anger of those against the healthcare mandate that not only inhibits and prohibits religious beliefs with contraceptives, women rights and culture diversity. He has commentated on various articles and protests regarding the Obama's administration pertaining to the new healthcare that was not passed by legislation but was an executive order by the President himself.

We have a First Amendment rights which states we the people have the right to freedom of religion. This Amendment is separated into two clauses. 1. The Establishment Clause which states the government cannot favor one religion over another which he (Obama) did consider, however, he did not consider Clause #2-Free Exercise Clause which states that our constitution prohibits any government interference of religious beliefs. Therefore the arguments of such religious groups have grounds to be heard before the courts for proper interpretation of the law that is our constitution. Should religious groups be exempt from this measure because of their beliefs? Or should this be viewed entirely as unconstitutional for all people? Our rights are being changed on a constant basis. They are interpreted differently than the founding fathers had intended. Is there judicial activism or judicial constructivism? Judicial activism is rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. Judicial constructivism is when the judge to apply the text only as it is spoken.

What are people in some or most states doing to show their disapproval of how things turned out and being ran in Congress and with the Presidency and what they are hoping Congress and the President will do? A. 47 states have requested separation from the United States as of November 12, 2012. This has not been the first time such requests have been dealt with. They had previously been asked after the elections of 2004 and 2008 States included in this request are Texas, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina and South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Tennessee, Louisiana, Kentucky, Arkansas, Colorado, North Dakota, Oregon, Mississippi, Missouri and Montana. These include the so called "swing states" that Obama won in the re-election of 2012. Pennsylvania included. You do not have the right to separate from the Union. The eleventh amendment of our Constitution proclaims that in fact we the people have no right to sue the federal government without its consent. The state cannot sue the government and the people of any state cannot sue the state. These are written in our Constitution. Therefore the government will not give consent to be sued or hence give permission to separate from the Union. In all, it seems to be due to the lack of education in the processes of our great nation as a whole. We would simply complain and whine to the media instead of learning the rights and responsibilities of our own actions. If we don't vote we can't change the facts. We can't "backseat drive" and expect things to change. We need to educate ourselves and those needing the education and only then can we make a difference in this great land we live in.

I think this essay needs to actually be about why the country is divided. Right now it is just filled with anti-liberal slurs. It's too opinionated -- a term paper should be factual and professional, but this is blatant and rude. You're ranting about why you don't like Obama, not about why the country is divided. It doesn't address the prompt.

You need to scratch this essay and reevaluate your content. I think your writing is technically sound and that you could do much better.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I gave facts based on the protests which I did not attend. I gave fact on the Lybian War which I did not vote upon. I gave facts on how so many voted and seemed to think that the other side would be victorious based on how they voted and their thought of the popular vote. I understand that I may have spoken in the second but should have been according to third person... In no way does should it come across as "anti-liberal slurs" as you put it. I have had essay reviewed on other sites as well. But thank you for your honesty, I do appreciate it.

The startling numbers as they appear


... this sentence is too long and hence it disturbs the clarity of your idea. Have your focus on what is meant by the fiscal cliff.

The fiscal cliff is the term used by the media to refer to the economic effects that could result from tax increases, spending cuts, and a corresponding reduction in the US budget deficit beginning in 2013 if existing laws remain unchanged.

... A part of this sentence I captured from wikipedia. This sentence, clearly defines what "fiscal cliff" is and does not contain too much details that would distract the attention of the reader. It's important that your ideas are presented in a more comprehensive manner. Otherwise, the reader has to put lots of effort to memorize every detail in it and he does not like it :)

Thank you Dumi!
Appreciate your response.
Will regroup the wording and adjust for my cited works.
Did you get a sense of anger or ranting as you read from the writer?
That definately is not what I was going for.

Since this is a research report, I would suggest you to adopt a more formal tone. For example ;
This is evident by ...



I think, may be it's the way you are presenting these ideas that has got the other person to make that comment ; it sounds more like you are talking through your personal attitude on the issue rather than through a careful analysis.(have a look at the bolded part; that sounds too personal) However, I think with a little change in your presentation style, you can get rid of this accusation :D

You speak with facts and therefore don't take that comment very seriously. Change the tone of this essay from personal to official and that would help a lot :)