Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
As a member of the legislature of a large Midwestern state, suggesting the issuance of a state currency as a solution to the financial challenges and funding for necessary programs raises constitutional considerations. The U.S. Constitution grants the federal government the power to coin money and regulate its value. Therefore, the idea of a state issuing its own currency might be in conflict with the Constitution.
Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits states from coining money, emitting bills of credit, or making anything other than gold and silver coin legal tender for payment of debts. The purpose of this provision is to ensure a unified national currency and prevent individual states from creating their own currencies, which could lead to economic instability and confusion in interstate commerce.
While states have the authority to regulate various aspects of their economies, the exclusive power to issue currency lies with the federal government. Therefore, issuing a state currency that can be exchanged for dollar bills may raise concerns about encroaching on the federal government's constitutional authority.
However, it's worth noting that states can adopt alternative measures to address their financial challenges, such as implementing state bonds or seeking federal assistance, within the boundaries of the Constitution.
In response to the disappointment over low voter turnout in the previous election, passing a law that mandates compulsory voting raises important considerations regarding individual rights and freedoms.
Arguments in support of compulsory voting may include:
1) Civic Duty: Mandatory voting can be seen as a civic duty and a way to foster a more engaged and participatory society. It encourages citizens to actively participate in the democratic process and make their voices heard.
2) Representation: A higher voter turnout can lead to more representative and legitimate elected officials. It ensures that the views and interests of a broader segment of the population are reflected in the decision-making process.
3) Accountability: Compulsory voting can enhance the accountability of elected officials to the electorate. With a larger and more diverse pool of voters, politicians may be compelled to address a broader range of issues and be responsive to the concerns of the electorate as a whole.
On the other hand, arguments against compulsory voting include:
1) Freedom of Choice: Forcing individuals to vote can be seen as a violation of their freedom of choice and freedom of expression. Some people may choose not to vote as a form of political protest or because they feel uninformed or disenchanted with the available candidates or political system.
2) Informed Voting: Mandatory voting may lead to a higher number of uninformed or disinterested voters. Some argue that it is better to have a smaller, but more informed, electorate making thoughtful decisions rather than compelling everyone to vote regardless of their level of knowledge or interest.
3) Practical Challenges: Implementing and enforcing compulsory voting can present logistical challenges, such as ensuring that everyone is registered, tracking compliance, and administering penalties for non-compliance. These challenges can strain resources and potentially lead to unintended consequences.