Spoils System & the Merit System

By definition, the Spoils System is the practice of a successful political party giving public office to its supporters. The Merit System, by definition, is the process of promoting and hiring government employees based on their ability to perform a job, rather than on their political connections. Initially, it is the opposite of the Spoils System. Our country seems to have progressed by getting rid of the Spoils System today. As a whole, we have created a more democratic society by removing ways to create a majority in the government without the people's consent. We have realized that the spoils system is not an effective way to run the country as well. Most government officials, however, got their jobs based on previous experience, or their ability to do that job. The spoils system was not an evenhanded way to run the country. Once people realized this, they stopped using the spoils system. Since then the government has been working and functioning better. In quote, why and how the Merit System was created is as states, "The merit system uses educational and occupational qualifications, testing, and job performance as criteria for selecting, hiring, and promoting civil servants. It began in the federal government circa 1883. The merit system was established to improve parts of the governmental work force previously staffed by the political patronage or spoils system, which allowed the political party in power the opportunity to reward party regulars with government positions. The merit system has been adopted by state and local governments as well." In light of the research I have conducted to find if the Spoils System is still used today, I have found that here and there the Spoils System still makes itself present in some instances. For example, in the article I found titled "Obama's Racial Spoils System" it talks about how Obama has racial views in trying to achieve things he believes is beneficial to our society. The article also provides evidence from Obama's speeches that prove he uses the Spoils System. In my personal opinion, the Spoils System should not exist in the slightest. It should only be the Merit System simply because it has proven to be effective for our government. 




Works Cited:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Merit+System
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/08/obamas_racial_spoils_system.html

Cell Phone Article: Question #2

In my opinion, I do not believe it is a good idea for police to be able to search somebody's phone without a warrant. It is an invasion of privacy, especially if there is no logical reason for the police to search the phone. For example, if a person is pulled over for speeding and the police officer asks to search the person's phone, there is no need for that because it has no direct relation to why that person was being pulled over. However, I do believe it is okay for police to search a person's cell phone in a circumstance that involves a criminal case. For example, if police pull over a person that is suspected of kidnapping a child or murdering someone, that is a logical reason for the police to search the person's cell phone without a warrant. In a case of a serious crime or emergency I believe it is okay for police to search someone's phone without a warrant, but only in a case of an emergency and nothing more or less.
I believe that in the case regarding David Riley, the police had the right to obtain and search his cell phone due to the fact that they found two loaded guns in his car. That raises suspicion for safety of people, prompting the police to look into it further. I believe the police were right in searching Riley's phone because it led them to the information of a local gang he was involved in and the cell phone also linked him to a shooting. Without the cell phone, the police would not have gained knowledge of this important information and would not be able to build a case against Riley. If the police did not see the guns in Riley's car then there would be no logical reason for the police to search his phone. But because of the two loaded guns, it gave police a reason to search this man's cell phone. I do believe in the right of privacy, especially with cell phones and electronics, but when it involves a serious case of cause for alarm I believe privacy goes out the window and police have the right to search cell phones and electronics. In the case involving David Riley, I believe the police had the right to search his phone and the Supreme Court should not have thrown out the case.