Up until a few years ago, I couldn't have cared less about American government or political science. I found it all too boring, too monotonous, and too complicated. In high school, I had no political or governmental opinions of my own; I basically just regurgitated what I heard around me. In freshman year of college, however, I had to take a political science and American government course. I wasn't happy about this, as I was sure it would bore me to sleep twice a week. Spoiler alert: I ended up loving it. I realized that the reason I never found our government interesting is because I didn't understand it. There are still things about it I don't understand. I don't claim to know everything.

That said, I do know enough to know that no one knows enough. The American public is grossly uninformed and there are several things to blame for this. One: ourselves. The vast majority of Americans don't pay attention. We're too busy browsing Twitter or Facebook to take notice of the important current events taking place in our country and abroad. Two: The System. Like I said, I found government too complicated to be interesting. And it is. Our political system is so convoluted and confusing that it makes normal people uninterested in figuring it out, which was done on purpose to keep the power in the hands of a few. It makes sense; keep the public confused and disassociated, and you have complacent followers. Three: Education. Schools don't spend nearly enough time teaching kids -- elementary and high school alike -- about how this country works. Kids spend only a few weeks learning about government, usually not until the fifth grade or after. I didn't have a comprehensive government class until ninth or tenth grade, and it was only because I had the opportunity to take an AP course.

As a college student, I am quite often written off by most as someone who is too young, too inexperienced, and too naive to understand the world enough to have a valid opinion on things like government, international policy, politics, and the ways of the world. I know that I have a lot more to learn, especially things that come with age. I do, by nature of my personality, have a fairly rosy and optimistic outlook on the world. I try to believe in the best in people, which often comes of as me being ignorant and simple. I think what people fail to realize is that you can be an optimist and a realist at the same time; you can wish for optimistic outcomes and still understand and expect things that are highly realistic.

For example: I do not like Donald Trump. If you know me, you know this. However, the optimist in me hopes that we don't circle the drain at the hands of his leadership. The realist in me, though, wouldn't be surprised if we do.

See? Realism and optimism working together.

As far as American Government is concerned, we are a nearly two hundred and fifty year old experiment. Nothing we have ever done has been perfect. Our system is far from fail-proof. That said, it is still worth learning about because if no one understands it, no one can fix it if it falls to pieces.

I have the utmost respect for the American Government as a whole, especially in regards to its history. It started as a group of people desperate to rule themselves and became one of the most influential political powers in the world; it's the ultimate underdog story.

Here's a quick video, made in 2014 by Youtube user Jthunderflash, to creatively explain the basics of how the government works. Because we've since had an election for both President and Congress, his point about Congress being split is no longer accurate, but still good to know.

Basically I just want the American people informed. In recent days, President Donald Trump ordered an air strike of 59 Tomahawk cruise missileson Shayrat Airbase in Syria. To do this, he bypassed Congress. Another way to explain this is that he completely ignored telling Congress of his plans and performed an action that could wage world war. Now, here's the thing: a lot of people are saying that Trump didn't need to inform Congress or seek Congressional approval in order to order the strike.

Here's a brief explanation of the "rules" regarding congressional approval:

The Constitution of the United States divides power to declare and conduct war between the the legislative and executive branches of government. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war and to maintain standing military forces. Article II names the president as commander in chief of the military and gives he/she the authority to lead American military forces. Simply put: Congress decides whether or not to fight and the President then manages the fight.

And here is a brief history of congressional approval:

More than half of all the congressional use of force authorizations came in the first 30 years of American independence. Congressional approvals have been less frequent over time, with less than ten taking place in the 100 years since America entered World War I. The Korean and Vietnam wars are two of the most prominent exceptions in the seeking of congressional approval. Truman claimed the Korean War was a “police action" that did not require congressional approval and Johnson used the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (which stated that two missiles had been fired at American ships in open water) as justification for armed conflict in Vietnam. Since these two instances, presidential use of military force without congressional approval has been somewhat dependent on two criteria. First, the military action is intended to defend U.S. citizens, U.S. property, or national interests. Second, the military action is clearly short of the traditional understanding of an act of war.

Now. You can interpret recent presidential actions in any way you like, as is your right. However, the big issue is that he did not inform Congress. As stated above, a president does not need to seek approval if the military action is in defense of American people, property, or interests or if said action is clearly short of an act of war.

If you believe recent military actions to be short of an act of war and in defense of one of the three things listed above, then okay -- Trump wouldn't have needed congressional approval. If you do not believe recent military actions to be short of an act of war and in defense of one of the three things listed above, Trump needed approval. The action can be interpreted in more than one way.

For me, the biggest issue here is that Trump, while he may not have technically needed congressional approval, informed Russia of the strike without informing Congress. I am fully aware that in the United States Government there are loopholes that are black holes and that former presidents have gone around Congress time and time again. I understand that. However, if you, as an American president, have time to let Russia know, at least do your own government the courtesy of informing them, whether you are seeking their approval or not.