Merit vs Spoils systems

The merit system is a system where it hires government employees based on their ability to perform.  The soils system hires government based on people who know others in the government and their supporters.  Obviously the two are very different.  The spoils system was a lot more common back when George Washington was president.  In the article it states that "most of Washington's employees belonged to the Federalist party" which is the party  Washington tended to lean more towards.  Washington started the tradition of the spoils system for a long time to come.  Andrew Jackson, however, was the turning point when the systems switched.  He basically got rid of the spoils system and inherited the merit system which is still in use in today's government.  He made his cabinet not full of people who have been in government for a while. Instead he brought a new group of people into his cabinet.  The spoils system is effecting government today but only at a small percent.  About 3% of the government still is involved with it today.  Most jobs come from private institutions competing alongside the federal government.




http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h965.html

Cellphone Blog

  The Riley vs. California was about a man, David Riley, who was pulled over for having an expired car registration.  During the stop, police looked through Riley's cell phone and saw texts and videos which led them to believe he was associated with a gang.  They ended arresting him and took his phone.  He was sentenced to 15 years in prison.  This case went all the way to the supreme court.  The supreme court ruled that the police were wrong for what they did and because they violated the fourth amendment. The court was able to do so because they were "trying to apply the basic rights enshrined in the constitution to life in the 21st century" (14).  I agree with the ruling of the supreme court because most people have a lot of important  information on their cellphones so it should be protected. This is a landmark case because it shows how the old ways of the constitution are being brought to the 21st century.  Another good point the article had was back when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution "they had in mind the British soldiers before the Revolution,where they could enter colonists' homes, search property, and seize their belongings without their permission" (15-16).  What the supreme court is doing is bringing those same ideas into the technological world today.
  Lastly, they point for making police officers get a warrant in order to obtain a cellphone is to protect the rights of individuals.  On page 16, it states "people's most private information is all accessible from a device that leaves home when they do."  It is important that police have a reason to go through and accuse someone for a crime by just looking at a phone.  The supreme court is bringing old ideas from the Constitution into modern times.