Significant Events in the 20th Century

Significant events in the 20th century In the 20th century, a countless number of events took place such as social, economic, and political that had a huge impact on America and literature. The impacts over the past 20th century affected Americans greatly, that many might think just how much more can people endure. For example, I researched the latter part of the 20th century taking one major event from each decade to understand the changes. First, the 1956 Highway Act had both economic and social impacts.

The law’s inception facilitated the growth of suburban communities tied to urban areas by both the highway and light rail construction. Becoming more popular each day suburban living broke way for the beginning of the automobile owner and annual auto sales rose relentlessly for years. Altering the transportation model forever and bringing railroad construction virtually to a standstill, as trucks used the highway to haul rail-transported products directly to retail outlets.

Trying to gain support for the new interstate system was a huge undertaking for President Eisenhower and his staff. Uncertain and unconvinced city officials believed that roads bypassing downtown would reduce business visibility and profit. A major selling point was public safety and roadways would allow for the evacuation in the event of nuclear war. As a result, the name was changed to National System of Interstate and Defense Highways which many thought was misleading or deceptive, but it was portrayed that opposing highway construction was made to appear unpatriotic.

However, the development and implantation of the interstate system would provide jobs and bust the economy and as a result a number of traditional areas were disfigured. At a more personal level, many Americans never enjoy leisurely drives along two-lane country roads, such as a 4-day ride from Los Angeles to Seattle described by Scott Heidrick and annually undertaken by his family during his childhood. “The trip took place in 1962, with Seattle World’s Fair being the final destination.

The trip took weeks of planning, countless maps, and endless coordination. It was an amazing journey, with excitement at every turn, breathtaking scenery and countless tourist traps (Drive, Spring 2007). ” Transportation was changed for-ever as Americans new it, with the introduction of the automobile and highway system. Leaving the booming 50’s and moving into peace, love, and acceptance, the 60’s brought American’s the Immigration Act of 1965. This law is thought by some people that it will have a huge impact on our future American generations.

Starting in the 1920s, American immigration was almost entirely of Europe descent. During the four decades prior to the 1965 act an individual’s homeland dictated immigration eligibility, with UK, Ireland, and Germany having the highest numbers. Refugees from communist countries were granted special privileges under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. That law was amended in 1965, to change the requirements for entrance to the United States. Motivation for the act was closely associated to the civil rights movement.

In the words of President Lyndon Johnson, ”This system violates the basic principle of American democracy, the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores (CIS, 1995). ” Congressmen anticipated that immigration under the new law would be much the same as the old, with only a small amount of foreigners opting to take advantage of the new allowances.

Planners of the 1965 law did not see it as an effective means of changing the flow of immigration but was to be considered more of a symbolic act or an extension of civil rights sentiments beyond our borders (CIS,1995). There is some evidence on the part of the Johnson Administration during the period leading up to this enactment. For example, Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, in testimony before Congress, stated that there would be no pressure of Mexico under the new act. He later stated that he was unaware that Mexico’s population had doubled between 1940 and 1962. The outcome was quite different from what was anticipated.

The bulk of the 22. 8 million immigrants who entered between 1966 and 2000 were family members of recent immigrants participating in continuing streams of chain migration with arriving immigrants making still other family members potential future immigrants (Daniels). This generated a new phenomenon in American cultural history the failure of successive generations to make fundamental adjustments necessary to participate fully in American life. Traditionally, new immigrants made an effort to learn English, at least to the extent necessary to hold a job. The second generation was usually bilingual and the hird generation spoke English, with perhaps a smattering of words from the old country.

Today, in Mexican immigrant communities, social organization may be such that there is no incentive to learn English. At the other extreme and to the great benefit of American technological entrepreneurship, the 1965 Act has encouraged highly educated, technologically oriented individuals willing to work at relatively low wages to immigrate, generating a dual outcome; prospectively lowering the pace of development in home countries and reducing average wages in certain very high-skill industries.

The Equal Rights Amendment of 1972 provides that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex. ” The actual objectives of the Equal Rights Amendment are to eliminate the ‘glass ceiling’ in promotions and existing impediments to certain jobs has been largely accomplished in the absence of representation. The original proposal was rejected in 1982 because of three votes short of the 38 required for approval. A number of states have incorporated Equal Rights Amendment language into their respective constitutions.

Massachusetts was under the terms of the state constitution’s Equal Rights Amendment provision, that the Court of Appeals upheld the same sex marriage law. Recent proposals have surfaced, calling revival of a national Equal Rights Amendment. (Chapman, 2007). Believe or not, men and women are different and From time to time, the courts have had to deal with those differences in the adjudication of causes at law. In Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court struck down an Idaho statue designating a male offspring, as estate administrator, in the absence of any designation in the decedent’s will.

In Fronteiro v. Richardson (1973), the Court struck down an Air Force regulation establishing that male dependents of female service members were subject to greater financial security then were female dependents of male service members. Those appear straightforward enough, although Fronteiro certainly overlooks the greater likelihood that a male dependent will be in the workforce longer than his female counterpart. Other cases raise more issues that they resolve. In Craig v.

Boren (1979), the court struck down a Oklahoma statute that allowed females to consume ‘3. 2’ beer at age 18, but disallowed men under age 21 to do so. The state argued that, as a rule, women were more mature and self-controlled at 18 than their male counterparts. On perhaps a more serious note, in Michael M. v. Supreme Court (1981), the court upheld a California statutory rape law that criminalized male sexual activity with a minor below a certain age, but did not extend the same provision to females involved in the same type of conduct.

What would be the outcome of those cases under the national Equal Rights Amendment? Well, predicting Supreme Court decisions is a risky business, under any circumstance. However, it is difficult to imagine Craig being decided differently. Michael M. raises far more troubling issues. If the Court were to accept an artificial argument that there were no differences between men and women, other than genitalia, then certain sex-related misbehavior might be unenforceable.

Should military conscription be resumed, an formal preference for males over females in its operation would likely be challenged, although the Court might well defer to Congress, under the provisions of Article I, section 8 but the outcome would be far from certain. Finally, it could well be argued that the actual objectives of ERS proponents have been achieved and the amendment no longer has a real purpose other than as constitutional ‘window dressing,’ albeit of a type that would likely create any number of problems for American society.

The Iran-Contra hearing was an investigation into a complex covert operation undertaken by the Central Intelligence Agency in support of two different Reagan Adminstration foreign policy objectives. The administration wised to continue providing financial support to the Contras, anticommunist opponents of the reigning Nicaraguan regime, the Sandinistas, despite provisions of the 1984 Boland Amendment that forbade such assistance. At the same time, the United States was engaged in efforts to secure the release of American hostages held in Lebanon terrorists.

Since Iran-Iraq War was then raging and Iran needed arms to continue the contest, CIA planners suggested fostering sale of Israeli weaponry to Iran, at inflated prices, with the United Stated making up the Israeli arsenal deficits through cut-rate sales of comparable to equipment to Israel. The resulting profits would then be transferred to the Contras, release of the prisoners would be secured, and everyone would go home happy. The key administration player, the man who juggled all the national security balls in the air, was Marine Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North. Unfortunately, all of this came apart when it became public.

Congress conducted a highly publicized hearing on the matter in 1986. Whatever the merits of the hearing, it turned into a fiasco. The objective of congressional Democrats was to implicate President Reagan, thereby facilitating calls for impeachment and, thereby, avenging the crushing defeat the President had visited on Michael Dukakis, the hapless Democratic 1984 presidential nominee. Another problem was the Israel connection. Committee Democrats did not wish to alienate pro-Israel Jewish constituents by having it become generally known that Israel was the primary international facilitator, just as Saudi Arabia was the primary financial one.

The solution was to refer to Israel solely as ‘Country I (‘eye’). ’ The Administration participants had broken a few laws, notable the Arms Export Control Act, however further their goals may have been. The congressional hearing should have been the proverbial ‘walk in the park’ for Administration opponents but it was not. Colonel North, on advice of counsel, agreed to speak freely before the joint House-Senate hearing, although he refused to provide committee counsels a prior briefing. As things eventually turned, a number of White House figures were indicted and convicted, including North, but their convictions was overturned on appeal.

President Reagan pardoned the rest before he left office. In that single respect, the Iran-Contra hearings may have made a contribution to the administration of justice, although it is certainly arguable that the independent counsel, Lawrence Walsh, would have not acted any differently in the absence of televised hearings. As for the hearings themselves, they made the Administration witnesses look like heroes to the majority of Americans who watched the proceedings on television. Likewise, they made committee members and staffs appear not only as enemies of those in uniforms, but bumbling ones at that.

In the two decades since the Iran-Contra hearings, no congressional committee has shown any desire to put a uniformed officer on the witness stand in a formal adversary position. In 1996 Congress enacted a consolidated reform measure which is known as Welfare Reform. It was something that was needed in order to keep people from receiving public assistance their whole life, without having to try and work. Welfare Reform set time limits on cash assistance, known today as TANF, making a strong statement that cash assistance was no longer an entitlement (Blank, 5).

The overall impact has been a reduction in the welfare recipient population, but not a concomitant increase in employment. According to Blank, between 1995 and 2002 female head of household welfare caseloads fell by 50 percent. Welfare Reform had objectives extending beyond reducing government outlays. It was accounted that life lived on the dole would be largely aimless and for that matter contributed to other social pathologies. According to Rector, following the Welfare Reform enactment, “there was an abrupt shift in the growth of illegitimacy.

The growth of the white out-of-wedlock birthrate slowed considerably, and the black rate actually declined. ” Given the intent of the Clinton Administration, it may reasonably be concluded that the Welfare Reform Act has not only achieved a significant portion of its economic goal, it has made a good start with the underlying social ones. The future for our country doesn’t look good for the American people. All the above events have had a huge impact on our country some good and some bad. The working people today face the possibility of never seeing retirement due to lack of Social Security funds or the cost of living. Either way our children, the future generation, have a long hard road ahead of them.