2005 ILLINOIS YOUTH SUMMIT ISSUES
I. Mandatory Voting
,
II. Federal Surveillance Powers under the USA PATRIOT Act
,
III. Same-sex Marriage
.
I. Mandatory Voting
The Declaration of Independence states "that, to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed." In the United States and other representative
governments, elections are seen as the will of the people--an expression of
their consent. Governments that do not offer their citizens a chance to vote
and to vote freely are viewed as not real democracies by most Americans. Voting
is also the premier example and expression of civic participation in a
democratic society.
As evidenced by the recent elections in South Africa, Afghanistan, and Iraq,
people around the world place great value on their right to vote, and election
turnout in newly democratic countries is very high. By contrast, in the United
States--often called "the world's oldest democracy"--the percentage of eligible
persons who actually vote is quite low. The 2004 presidential election had the
largest percent of voter turnout since 1968, but that turnout was less than 60%
of all eligible Americans voted. Is low turnout a sign of apathy among citizens
or of general agreement with the way things are? And if it is a problem, what
is the best way to address it?
In more than two dozen democratic countries around the world, citizens are
required to vote in national elections. In these countries, voting is seen not
just as a right but a civic responsibility. In response to America's low voter
turnout and to increase civic participation, some people believe that the time
has come for citizens in our country to consider a similar policy.
Focus Question
In order to increase citizen participation, should Congress require all U.S.
citizens 18 years and older to register and vote in federal elections?
II. Federal Surveillance of U.S. Persons under the USA PATRIOT Act
Passed and signed into law just six weeks after the attacks on September 11,
the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required
to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001" has been a focus
of controversy since the day it was proposed. The 132-page Act includes many
changes to existing law and new innovations. Among these changes are enhanced
surveillance procedures and the relaxation of certain restrictions in the
sharing of information among foreign and domestic intelligence and law
enforcement agencies.
For example, Section 215 of the Act allows the FBI to order any person or
entity to turn over "any tangible things," such as financial and library
records, so long as the FBI specifies that the order is "for an authorized
investigation… to protect against international terrorism or clandestine
[secret] intelligence activities." The FBI does not need to show probable cause
or have reasonable grounds to believe that the person whose records it seeks is
engaged in criminal activity. Those served with Section 215 orders are
prohibited from disclosing the fact to anyone else. This section will "sunset"
(automatically end) on December 31, 2005, unless Congress acts to renew it.
Section 215 serves as an excellent example of the controversy surrounding the
enhanced federal surveillance procedures under the USA PATRIOT Act by asking
citizens need to find a balance between their desires to be both safe and free.
Focus Question
Should Congress renew Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act which permits the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to apply to a federal judge for an order
requiring the production of any tangible things - including books, records,
papers, documents, and other items - for an investigation of a United States
person to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence
activities?
III. Defining Marriage
In the United States today, the institution of marriage is considered to be in
trouble by many observers. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that about 90 percent
of all persons will be married at one point in their lives, which is lower
historically than at other period in American history, and over 50 percent of
marriages will end in divorce ("Number, Timing, and Duration Marriages and
Divorces: 1996," 2002). More people than ever have chosen to delay marriage or
plan not to marry at all. Children are raised in single-parent homes as well as
by two parents who are not married.
Yet one of the most explosive issues of the last decade surrounding marriage
has been generated not by anything that married people are doing but instead by
a group of people who would like to enter into marriage but in most places
cannot: same-sex couples. In November 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts decided by a 4-3 vote that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
could not "deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil
marriage two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry."
The response was immediate both in Massachusetts and across the country. In
January 2004, President George W. Bush said he would support an amendment to
the U.S. Constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman. The first
same-sex marriages were conducted in Massachusetts in May. Same-sex marriage
was a leading issue in the presidential elections and dozens of state
elections. By November 2004, less than a year after the Massachusetts decision,
a total of 13 states had passed constitutional amendments prohibiting gay
marriage.
The controversy over whether gay and lesbian couples can legally marry has
raised important questions: What is the legal meaning of marriage in the United
States? What are the "protections, benefits, and obligations" of marriage? Who
has been able to marry in the past, and how is that different from today? And
what role does the government have in endorsing marriage?
Focus Question
Should Congress amend the U.S. Constitution by defining "marriage" as the union
of one man and one woman?
Last updated: March 1, 2005
Please forward all inquiries regarding the website to
webmaster@crfc.org
.
This website is provided courtesy of the Constitutional Rights
Foundation
Chicago. Copyright 1998-2005.