Ashley Anderson

Final E-Portfolio Assignment and Reflection

POLS 1100 400: U.S. National Government and Politics
This course satisfies the AI requirement.
Instructor: Jaime Nelson, MPA
5/2/2016
POLS 1100 was an excellent course that helped me gain a broad
understanding of the institutions and practices of the U.S. Government. It
helped me become more interested in politics, and I look forward to building
on the foundation that POLS 1100 laid for me. In this E-Portfolio post, I have
included both the Profile Paper and the Argument Paper that I wrote for this
class. The first paper profiles Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, a
man in whom I have found much inspiration. The second paper argues that
the changing of the definition of the word terrorism has led to the loss of
important civil liberties in the United States of America. After these two
papers, I have included a reflection on my overall experience in this class.

Profile Paper: Thurgood Marshall

Thurgood Marshall was born on July 2, 1908 and died January 24, 1993.
In his 84 years of life he accomplished a great deal in his goals of promoting
democracy, justice, and racial equality for both America and the rest of the
world as well. His work as a lawyer and judge provided hope for changing the

system from the inside, a fact that has been highly inspiring to generations
of Americans looking for change.
As a black man growing up in the United States during the early 20th
Century, much of Thurgood Marshalls perspectives and passions were
shaped by his lived experiences as a person of color in such a difficult time
and place. His views were further developed as he pursued his
undergraduate degree at the historically black Lincoln University in
Pennsylvania and studied along such noteworthy black intellectuals as the
poet Langston Hughes, the jazz musician Cab Calloway, and Kwame
Nkrumah, the future president of Ghana (Biography of Thurgood Marshall).
It is important to remember that only a relatively short period of time had
passed since the abolition of slavery. In fact, Marshalls grandfather had been
a slave (Fox), and Thurgood Marshall experienced firsthand the tangible and
lingering effects of entrenched American racism.
In the year 1930, Thurgood Marshall applied to law school at the
University of Maryland, but because he was black he was denied admission
(Fox). This frustrating experience would shape many of Marshalls policies
and the decisions that he would make as he moved forward in his career. It
strengthened his resolve and desire for racial justice, and he would work
hard to ensure that other people didnt have to go through the same
struggles that he did. If it were not for this struggle, Marshall may not have
been as effective in enacting the change that he knew the country that he
loved so desperately needed. Marshall ended up receiving his law degree

from Howard University, in Washington D.C., where he graduated Magna

Cum Laude in 1933 (Biography of Thurgood Marshall).
Almost immediately after graduation, Marshall took a job with the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in
Baltimore Maryland. One of the first cases that he worked on was that in
which he defended a client named Donald Murray. Murray, like Marshall
before him, was a well-qualified undergraduate student who had been denied
entrance into the University of Maryland Law School because of his race
(Fox). This was a very important case, and it was won in 1936, setting a
precedent for the future cases that would tear apart the legal basis of
segregation in the United States. This victory would put Marshall on the path
to change the United States forever.
Soon, he took a full-time job providing counsel for the NAACP. It was in
this position that he argued cases that further tore apart legalized racism in
the United States. By far the most notable of these cases was Brown v. Board
of Education of Topeka. This case established that fact that segregated
schools were not equal schools, and began the process of school integration
in the United States (Biography of Thurgood Marshall). Also, this was a
large catalyst and jumping off point for the Civil Rights Movement. This was
one of the most important court cases of the 20th century, and without the
work of Marshall, things would be very different in this country right now.
Because Marshall had worked hard and developed a reputation for
himself that reached far and wide, in 1961, President John F. Kennedy

appointed him to be a judge on the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals

(Fox). This action showed how important Marshalls work had been in the
progression of the United States, and how valued he was by important
people, such as the president. He found great success in the U.S. Second
Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing over 100 cases, and never having a single
one overturned by the Supreme Court (Biography of Thurgood Marshall).
This enhanced his reputation even further, and Lyndon B. Johnson appointed
him to be the Solicitor General in 1965 (Fox). This was a momentous
occasion, because it made Marshall the first black Solicitor General in the
history of the United States. In this position, he won 14 out of 19 cases that
he argued before the Supreme Court (Biography of Thurgood Marshall).
With all of this experience working in the nations highest federal court,
and with the trust of the countrys leaders, Marshall gained a nomination to
the Supreme Court from President Johnson in 1967 (Fox). This would make
him the first black Supreme Court Justice in American History. This honor was
a symbol that much of Marshalls hard work for social justice had paid off in a
groundbreaking and important way, not just for himself and his career, but
for the good of the entire nation.
Marshall sat on the bench for a quarter-century, and during that time
used the power of the United States Constitution to champion for human
rights (Biography of Thurgood Marshall). He was intimately involved in the
case of Roe v. Wade, which ruled that abortion was a constitutional right, as
well as the case of Furman v. Georgia, a case that ruled the death penalty

was unconstitutionally cruel and unusually and placed a moratorium on the

punishment. He valued individual rights as an important part of the American
system and way of life, and his work reflected that (Biography of Thurgood
Marshall).
Although he stepped down from the Supreme Court in 1991 and
passed away two years later in 1993, Thurgood Marshalls legacy lives on.
His work is reflected in the day-to-day lives of many Americans and in the
way legal decisions are made today and they will undoubtedly be made in
the future. This is seen in the following quote about his place as a leader in
the Civil Rights movement. It says, We make movies about Malcolm X, we
get a holiday to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, but every day we live with the
legacy of Justice Thurgood Marshall (Haugen 94).
Marshalls work has also influenced the work of those who have stood
in opposition to him and continue to ideologically disagree with his policies.
People who find themselves on the anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, and
anti-affirmative action side of the fence have worked tirelessly to overturn
and weaken his decisions. Recently, this was found in the news when Abigail
Fisher, a white student, sued the University of Texas because she believed
that she was not admitted to the school because affirmative action policies
undermined her idea of a world in which there should be a meritocracy that
should benefit her over the needs of minority students (Caplan). This is just
one example of one of the ways that Marshalls work has had a lasting
impact even among his detractors and decades after his death.

Even though it hasnt been very long since his death, Thurgood
Marshall has gone down in history as an American hero. The positions that he
held in the federal government indicated a drastic change in the way blacks
were perceived in the country, and his tireless work has perpetuated that
change and improved the lives of countless people. Although there remains
much work to be done in order to achieve a just society based on the
principles of equality, we can look to Marshalls example for inspiration.
Works Cited
Caplan, Lincoln. Thurgood Marshall and the Need for Affirmative Action The
New Yorker.
09 Dec. 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.
Fox, John. "Biographies of the Robes: Thurgood Marshall." The Supreme
Court. PBS, Dec.
2006. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.
Haugen, Brenda. Thurgood Marshall: Civil Rights Lawyer and Supreme Court
Justice.
Minneapolis, MN: Compass Point, 2007. Print.
Thurgood Marshall Biography. Bio.com. A&E Networks Television. Web. 10
Mar. 2016.

The Changing Definition of Terrorism and the U.S. Governments

Intrusion on Citizen Privacy
October 26, 2001 marked a turning point for laws surrounding
terrorism and their enforcement in the United States. Not even two months
after the infamous September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New
York City, President Bush signed into law the act of Congress entitled the

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required

to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT act), which is
legislation designed to fight terrorism. Unfortunately, the USA PATRIOT act
has served to spark the redefinition of the term terrorism in the American
social consciousness in addition to developing new methods to define and
prosecute domestic terrorism, unnecessarily and improperly treading over
civil liberties in the process.
The word terrorism is notoriously hard to define. Hoffman states,
most people have a vague idea or impression of what terrorism is, but lack
a more precise, concrete and truly explanatory definition of the word
(Inside Terrorism). More clearly, terrorism is inherently political (Hoffman),
and has historically involved the use of seemingly random violence in order
to take innocent civilian lives as a tactic of instilling fear and gaining power.
For example, Ted Kaczynski AKA the Unabombers attacks were terrorist in
nature, because they fulfilled both of those requirements (Kaczynskis
attacks were an expression of his belief in the philosophies of Anarchoprimitivism). On the other hand, a school shooting, while randomly violent
and deadly, would not be considered terrorism because the motivation for
the act is not political.
However, after the passage of the USA PATRIOT act, less and less is
there a need for an act to be murderous or even violent to qualify as
terrorism. Rather, actions need only be destructive to property and be
politically motivated. An example of this is that the Federal Bureau of

Investigations (FBI) official website says, Together, eco-terrorists and

animal rights extremists are one of the most serious domestic terrorism
threats in the U.S. today (Putting Intel to Work Against ELF and ALF
Terrorists). The bureau lists the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth
Liberation Front (ELF) as the two most insidious forces behind this terrorism.
However, the ALF Credo and Guidelines state that [the ALF] is a nonviolent campaign, activists taking all precautions not to harm any animal
(human or otherwise) (animalliberationfront.com). Instead, ALF activists free
animals from confinement and cause property damage in order to create
financial loss for companies that profit from the misery and exploitation of
animals. Thus, it can be seen that the definition of terrorism by which these
organizations are measured does not align with older definitions. This
indicates a changing of the meaning of the word over time.
Hoffman states, Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one
party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has
indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint (Inside
Terrorism). In this way, the United States has been successful in establishing
its power and moral authority over many enemies, foreign and domestic, by
labeling them terrorists.
And with this increased power and moral authority comes an expanded
scope of what law enforcement agencies can legally do while monitoring and
prosecuting suspected terrorists. Title II of the USA PATRIOT act is entitled
Enhanced Surveillance Procedures and encompasses just that, marking an

expansion of federal agencies powers to intercept, share, and use

telecommunications as evidence (USA PATRIOT Act [H.R. 3162]). Examples of
this are that agencies can gain access to records of session times, the
duration of electronic communications, and the addresses of the devices
used to conduct such communication (Section 210). Title II also makes it
easier for authorities to listen to individuals or organizations voicemail
messages, as they no longer need to apply for a relatively hard-to-get
wiretap order, but must only apply for a regular search warrant. In the
bureaus explanation of the actions they are taking to counter the threat of
eco-terrorists and animal rights extremists, the FBI says, Were also
analyzing information from financial records, phone records, and mail And
were sharing intelligence with our partners through our Joint Terrorism Task
Forces and other investigative endeavors (Putting Intel to Work Against ELF
and ALF Terrorists). This is an example of increased scope of surveillance
because of the USA PATRIOT act.
However, this increased scope represents a violation of the Fourth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which provides, [t]he
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment: an Overview). While
there is no specific wording in the United States Constitution that guarantees

a general right to privacy, the Bill of Rights makes obvious the founding
fathers intent to protect a citizens privacy (The Right of Privacy).
Whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden, previously an employee of
the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and a private contractor for the
National Security Administration (NSA) who leaked evidence of overreaching
government surveillance, have worked to prevent this violation of privacy
from federal agencies. Snowden, and others like him, believe that such
pervasive government surveillance, enacted under the motive of stopping
terrorism, only opens the door for more legislation that will violate citizens
privacy. He said, Society really seems to have developed an unquestioning
obedience towards spooky types Did we get to where we are today via a
slippery slope that was entirely within our control to stop? Or was it
a relatively instantaneous sea change that sneaked in undetected because of
pervasive government secrecy? (Harding).
In fact, Section II of the USA PATRIOT Act, although its provisions
officially expired for the last time on March 10, 2006, did open the door for
more legislation. A key example is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
(AETA). The AETA amends the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992, not
only by adding the word Terrorism to the title, but by giving the
government greater authority to target animal rights activists, doing so by
limiting their right to privacy, and even to free speech. Representative
Dennis Kucinich said that the law was written in such a way as to have a
chilling effect on the exercise of the constitutional rights of protest

(Congressional Record, V. 152, Pt. 17, November 9, 2006 to December 6

2006). This is because AETA criminalizes peaceful picketing or other peaceful
demonstration as intimidation (18 U.S. Code 43 - Force, violence, and
threats involving animal enterprises).
In a post-9/11 world, the United States government has worked to
change the definition of what a terrorist is or is not in order to gain the power
and moral authority to expand its reach over not only terrorists, but everyday
civilians as well. These new methods for stopping terrorism, to which the USA
PATRIOT Act provided a precedent, are neither necessary nor proper, and
they dismantle civil liberties provided for in the U.S. Constitution. Increased
power follows power, and U.S. citizens must be sure that the government is
not using the peoples socialized fear of terrorists and definitions of terrorism
to continually overstep their rights.
Works Cited
18 U.S. Code 43 - Force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises.
(n.d.).
Retrieved April 27, 2016, from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/43
ALF Credo and Guidelines. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2016, from
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/alf_credo.htm
Congress (Ed.). (n.d.). Congressional Record, November 9, 2006 to
December 6 2006 (17th
ed., Vol. 152).
Fourth Amendment: An Overview. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2016, from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment
Harding, L. (2014, February 1). How Edward Snowden went from loyal NSA
contractor to

whistleblower. The Guardian. Retrieved April 27, 2016, from

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/edward-snowdenintelligence-leak-nsa-contractor-extract
Hoffman, B. (1998). Inside terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Retrieved April
27, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/h/hoffmanterrorism.html
Putting Intel to Work Against ELF and ALF Terrorists. (2008, June 30).
Retrieved April 27,
2016, from
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/june/ecoterror_063008
The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution? (n.d.). Retrieved April
27, 2016,
from
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html
USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162). (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2016, from
https://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

Reflection

Making specific references to your work in this course, tell me what it means
to think like a political scientist and how your thinking has been altered by
this course. Have any of your assumptions or understandings changed? Why?
What assignments/activities/readings were influential in this process? How
will you approach politics differently?

Over the course of the semester, I have learned more how to think like
a political scientist from the readings, assignments, and concepts taught in
POLS 1100. Specifically, the Profile Paper that I wrote on Thurgood Marshall
helped me realize what a person who is versed in law and political science

can do to change the political landscape. The process of writing it showed

me how ordinary citizens also need to understand political science in order to
not only have a grasp on what is happening in the world we live in, but have
access to the tools and analytical thinking skills necessary to be the change
that they want to see in the world.
Many of my assumptions and understandings have changed. I have
realized that politics do not often revolve around broad movements and
conglomerations of personally held beliefs as they do around specific,
independent, and identifiable issues. I realized this most seriously when
looking at the life of Judge Thurgood Marshall. He didnt accomplish changes
in the judicial system or the world by gaining power and suddenly enacting
all of his beliefs. Rather, he carefully did the work necessary to enact the
change that he, as well as many likeminded and similarly intelligent people,
spent years laying the groundwork for.
I also learned a lot about the current political climate and how change
is made by reading about the money that politicians receive from donors,
and about the strong-willed and smart people that stand on either side of
that issue. The Campaign Finance Discussion, in conjunction with the Political
Ads discussion, showed me that politicians are not always exactly who or
what they represent themselves to be, and that often times they use the
formal processes of democracy only because they ultimately have to, not
because they truly believe in the principle that the people of a country

should get to choose their elected officials or have any power over them.
Rather, politicians sometimes try to manipulate people into thinking that
they will be an effective representative of them.
I now know that I cannot rely on a single candidate not Bernie
Sanders, not Donald Trump to represent all the issues that I care about, and
fix everything that is wrong in this incredible country. Rather, I have to gain
more and more understanding in order to work on changing those things
myself, in my life, and in the lives of people around me. I have to know how
the political process works in order to be able to do those things. I now know
that politics affect every aspect of our lives: where we live, how educated we
are, even what we think we believe. Seeing how people think about politics,
how they interact about politics, and what the government does and doesnt
do has helped me to start down the path of being a more informed citizen,
and one who can begin to use political tools in order to see the future that I
want for myself and the people that I love. This is what it means to think like
a political scientist.