Our longest simulation took the whole week. It was the Model Congress. A bill was presented called “Keeping America Safe Bill.” It pretty dealt with how to deal with criminals, from murderers on death row, to sex offenders to illegal drug dealers and users. The convention of 400 was split up into 9 caucuses and 3 committees of 2 two different political parties. The whole convention didn’t work together until the end. The beginning we were split up into caucuses and committees. The committees were then furthen split up by parties. Caucuses were write an amendment to the bill according to their beliefs, which were all given in the simulation book. The Committees would look over the amendments and decide if they wanted to support the amendment. I was in the Education Committee. My political party was the Democrats. I chose the job of specialist. A Specialist’s job was to review a caucus and persuade those in the committee to either approve or disapprove of the amendment. I chose to look over Caucus A. Caucus A wanted to make an amendment getting rid of the death penalty. Once again, Candice was my partner because she shared the same views. Our job was to ask first go and see how Caucus A was amended the bill. Once we collected the amendment, we wrote questions to ask the Caucus representatives to answer. Since we were for the Bill, we gave them easy and positive questions. On Friday was the committee hearing. Two representatives from every caucus came to the education committee hearing. When their designated time came, they would approach the microphone and present their amendment and why it should be passed. Then the specialists in the committee from each party would get the chance to ask questions. If the party were for the amendment, the question would be positive and easy, siding with the caucus. If the party was against the amendment, the questions would be hard, attacking the caucus. While Candice and I were well prepared for the committee hearing, our caucus was not. We gave them easy questions and they struggled to answer them. When attacked by the Republic party, they were demolished. It was not good. When it came time for voting for the amendments, our amendment tied. When there is a tie, it does not pass. We were upset. Saturday was the general hearing. All the caucuses and committees got together to vote on the amendment and the final bill. The general session was to begin with discussion over to un-amended bill, but the House Speaker skipped that and went straight to the amendment discussion. That was a big mistake and it was ignored. During the amendment debate, the clerk of the house would read the amendment and present how it did in the committee. In real Congress, if an amendment was killed in committee, it would make general session. But for the NYLC, the rule was changed and all amendments made it so that all caucuses would be a part of the general session and to make sure not all the bills were killed. Then there would be 2 one-minute speeches. One speech would be for the amendment, the other would be against them amendment. This was decided by party. After the speeches were complete, the amendment was voted on. This time, the amendment’s fate was official. If the amendment passed, it would be added to the bill. If the amendment was voted against, it would die there. Once again, the Caucus A amendment did not make. All the other amendments did. Once that was decided, there would a debate on whether to pass the bill as it is with the current amendments attached. Sixteen people got a chance, eight from each party. People from each party both were for and against the bill. Most of deciding came from what amendments were added. The time for voting came. The vote revealed that the bill passed, but it was close. This was a fun simulation. It was a little tiring though because it was spread out through the whole week. I was a little upset that my amendment didn’t make it both time. I wished that instead of being on a committee I had been part of a caucus. I think it may have been more fun to defend a position than just convince people in my party to vote in favor of the law. If I was in a caucus, I would have wanted to be in Caucus K. Caucus K’s amendment was to support faith-based drug rehabilitation.
The Contextual Literalist 
one question here why are you agenst the death penality when it is biblical?please explaine your views
LikeLike
While the death penalty is biblical, I believe that the idea of forgiveness is also more biblical. I would first like to start by saying that my Mennonite education has given me a Cristocentric view of the Bible. The gospels are highest authority, followed by the New Testament, then the rest of the Bible (Old Testament). I do not have a “flat Bible” view.
I would like to draw your attention to the story “Jesus Forgives an Adulterous Women” found in John 8:1-11 (click if you are unfamiliar with the story). According to the Law found in the Old Testament, this women deserved to be stoned to death (see Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22 ). Pharisees and teachers of the law pointed out this and asked Jesus if they should go through with her death penalty. Jesus told them in John 8:7, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first one to throw a stone at her.”
In today’s day and culture, we only give the death penalty to those who really deserve it, like murderers. However, in Biblical times, the death penalty also goes to the “lesser sins” like adultry. Truth is, every sin is the same evil and deserves death. Romans 6:23 tells us the wages of sin is death. What it cost to sin is death. Everyone has sinned, so therefore everyone deserves to die for the sins, including you and me. We all deserve the death penalty, just because we are sinful.
Well, eventually the Pharisees and teachers of the law realized this and they left one by one until Jesus and the woman were the only one left. He asked if she was condemned. She replied no. Jesus replied, “Then neither do I condemn you. Now go and leave your life of sin.”
Jesus said the only the person without sin had the right to stone her. None of the teachers of the law or Pharisees could stone her because they were sinful. They deserved to get the death penalty as well. It would be hypocrtical. The only there who had the right to stone her there was Jesus, because Jesus was sinless! But did he stone her? No! He chose to forgive the sin and not execute her. Not did he chose not to put her to death, but he chose to die in the place of her sins. Jesus died for everyone for every sin ever committed, so we wouldn’t have to. Isn’t it ironic??!! Jesus was sinless, so he didn’t deserve to die. Yet he still decided to die, so we, the sinners who really deserve to die for our sins, didn’t have to!!
I believe a sin is a sin. There is no such thing as a “greater sin” or a “lesser sin.” Murder is as bad as adultry, as stealing, as lying, as coveting, etc. Every sin deserves deserves the same punishment – death. But Jesus decided to give a free gift of eternal life by dying for taking the punishment for sin. The debt has been paid. Now all we need for forgiveness is to ask Jesus for forgiveness. That is why I do not believe in the death penalty. I believe everyone on death row is just as much as a sinner as you, me, and everyone on the earth is and also should be given an equal chance to be forgiven and be able to turn their life around and serve Jesus. I also believe in following the teachings of Jesus and the example He set. Jesus said as sinners we do not have the right to “throw the stone” or give someone the death penalty. Only a sinless person can do so, and there is no sinless person on earth. Even the perfect Jesus would forgive the adultress rather than execute her. As Christians, we must not judge and condemn, but choose to forgive those wrong us.
Most people believe in “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life.” But as Gandhi would say, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” The death penalty says that the only way to right a killing is for the killer to be killed as well. But for that to happen, someone would have to kill the killer. And then that person would have to be killed by someone else. This mess would continue until there is only one living person. This would kill the whole world! What about war? Under this theory, the only fair and “just” war would be the war where the dead on each side is equal. If someone kills a person, that person should me dead as well. The point is killing only leads to more killing. As it is written in Romans, “Do not repay evil with evil, but with good.” Remember how I said that most people believe “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” In Matthew 5:38-42, Jesus is against this. Do not resist an evil person. Follow the example of Christ. Jesus did this on the cross: He forgave those who crucified and mocked him (Luke 23:34). Learn to love and forgive those who persecute you and your “enemies”.
LikeLike