Facts/Details
1. Technology reveals our privacy
2. Jeffery Rossen wrote the Constitution 3.0
3. Constitution 3.0- a collection of essays of future technological developments that stress the Constitution
4. These essays show how the Constitution is out-dated
5. People do not need to give consent for the pictures being taken and posted on Google Maps
6. Google has also been under pressure from the government to remove terrorist videos from YouTube.
7. Ilmstead v. United States- court ruled that the 4th and 5th Amendment does not protect a defendant against having personal conversations wiretapped by federal agents.
8. The Patriot Act expanded the amount of surveillance the government could do without a warrant:
9. The Patriot Act was used towards border control
10. The amendments and the Constitution do not fully apply to the country's problem today.
Questions:
1. Should we change the Constitution to relate to the changes in the world?
2. What can we do to protect privacy?
3. Is any action being taken or passed to protect privacy?
4. Is the privacy of the government involved at all?
5. Is the Patriot Act a good thing?
Monday, December 19, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
Electoral College Article
Facts/Details
1. Daniel Lazare argues that the elctoral college is an undemocratic institution
2. Richard A Posner see more difficulties in abolishing the electoral college
3. The electoral college greatly influences the character of the parties, the nominating process, and the outcome of the presidential election
4. The smallest number of electoral votes a state may have is 3
5. The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate political parties and they beleved that many candidates would receive votes in each election. If no candidate received an electoral majority, the president would be chosen by the House of Representatives
6. In defense of the electoral college, its supporters point out that a straight popular vote would encourage minor party candidates, making the election of a plurality president, possibly even one with a relatively small percentage vote
7. It is said that just as "we the people" were powerless to do anything about slavery prior to the Civil war, "we the people" are now powerless to do away with an arrangement as patiently unfair as the Electoral College
8. For the first time in postwar history, the GOP had made a clean sweep, gaining control not just of the executive and legislative branches, but of the judiciary too
9. The electoral college is destined to remain on the books for a long as anyone can forsee
10. Ten states as of the year 2000 account for 54 percent of the population while ten others account for under 3 percent. such a contest would render more like rather than less the sort of split decision in which one candidate wins the popular votes and the other wins the electoral
Questions
1. At one point did states use electoral college of electors?
2. Was the electoral college ever question before the election of 2000?
3. Why isn't anyone taking action? This seems like all talk.
4. Are the majority of the people even aware of this controversy?
5. Has any legal action ever been taken?
1. Daniel Lazare argues that the elctoral college is an undemocratic institution
2. Richard A Posner see more difficulties in abolishing the electoral college
3. The electoral college greatly influences the character of the parties, the nominating process, and the outcome of the presidential election
4. The smallest number of electoral votes a state may have is 3
5. The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate political parties and they beleved that many candidates would receive votes in each election. If no candidate received an electoral majority, the president would be chosen by the House of Representatives
6. In defense of the electoral college, its supporters point out that a straight popular vote would encourage minor party candidates, making the election of a plurality president, possibly even one with a relatively small percentage vote
7. It is said that just as "we the people" were powerless to do anything about slavery prior to the Civil war, "we the people" are now powerless to do away with an arrangement as patiently unfair as the Electoral College
8. For the first time in postwar history, the GOP had made a clean sweep, gaining control not just of the executive and legislative branches, but of the judiciary too
9. The electoral college is destined to remain on the books for a long as anyone can forsee
10. Ten states as of the year 2000 account for 54 percent of the population while ten others account for under 3 percent. such a contest would render more like rather than less the sort of split decision in which one candidate wins the popular votes and the other wins the electoral
Questions
1. At one point did states use electoral college of electors?
2. Was the electoral college ever question before the election of 2000?
3. Why isn't anyone taking action? This seems like all talk.
4. Are the majority of the people even aware of this controversy?
5. Has any legal action ever been taken?
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
National Debt Questions
1. What is the number one contributing factor to our debt?
2. At what rate is the debt increasing?
3. Which other countries are experiencing national debt the way the US is?
Nearly two-thirds is the public debt, which is owed to the people, businesses and foreign governments who bought Treasury bills, notes and bonds. I was not aware that this was one of the largest contributinng factor to the debt we have today. The debt continued to grow due to the government cutting taxes and increasing spending.
Even before the economic crisis, the U.S. debt grew 50% between 2000-2007, ballooning from $6-$9 trillion. After the economic crisis, I was unable to find a steady rate. Although the rate is not steady, I am aware that the debt continues to increase and appears to increase rather quickly.
While the United States total public debt is the largest in the world, a broader context shows that other countries face even more dire debt situations. One way to compare debt is by gross domestic product, or GDP. According to USN, "the debt-to-GDP ratio is one primary indicator of a country's economic health; a lower ratio is generally seen as more favorable, as it shows that a country is producing enough to eventually be able to repay its debts." By looking at the chart below the US has the most debt when compared, however Japan's ratio is very high which explains that they are not producing enough.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/US_Debt.htm
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/01/28/the-10-countries-with-the-most-debt
2. At what rate is the debt increasing?
3. Which other countries are experiencing national debt the way the US is?
Nearly two-thirds is the public debt, which is owed to the people, businesses and foreign governments who bought Treasury bills, notes and bonds. I was not aware that this was one of the largest contributinng factor to the debt we have today. The debt continued to grow due to the government cutting taxes and increasing spending.
Even before the economic crisis, the U.S. debt grew 50% between 2000-2007, ballooning from $6-$9 trillion. After the economic crisis, I was unable to find a steady rate. Although the rate is not steady, I am aware that the debt continues to increase and appears to increase rather quickly.
While the United States total public debt is the largest in the world, a broader context shows that other countries face even more dire debt situations. One way to compare debt is by gross domestic product, or GDP. According to USN, "the debt-to-GDP ratio is one primary indicator of a country's economic health; a lower ratio is generally seen as more favorable, as it shows that a country is producing enough to eventually be able to repay its debts." By looking at the chart below the US has the most debt when compared, however Japan's ratio is very high which explains that they are not producing enough.
| Country | GDP (2010 est., USD) | Debt as Percent of GDP (2010 est.) |
|---|---|---|
| United States | $14.6 trillion | 92.7 |
| China | $5.7 trillion | 19.1 |
| Japan | $5.4 trillion | 225.9 |
| Germany | $3.3 trillion | 75.3 |
| France | $2.6 trillion | 84.2 |
| United Kingdom | $2.3 trillion | 76.7 |
| Italy | $2.0 trillion | 118.4 |
| Brazil | $2.0 trillion | 66.8 |
| Canada | $1.6 trillion | 81.7 |
| Russia | $1.5 trillion | 11.1 |
http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/US_Debt.htm
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/01/28/the-10-countries-with-the-most-debt
Pending Bills - Classmates
Abby Marco's Bills
1. S. 1458: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012:
2. H.R. 3359: Traveling Exotic Animal Protection Act
3. H.R. 2359: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011
constituent letter: S. 1005: Parental Notification and Intervention Act of 2011
1. S. 1458: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012:
2. H.R. 3359: Traveling Exotic Animal Protection Act
3. H.R. 2359: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011
constituent letter: S. 1005: Parental Notification and Intervention Act of 2011
Political Cartoon 5
1. Why is the snowball going towards that building?
2. What is it "not necessarily a bad thing?"
3. Will it continue to get bigger or ever 'melt'?
Friday, December 9, 2011
New York Times Budget Puzzle
1. How much did you save?
2015: 515 $billion
2030: $972 billion
2. What % came from tax increases? 50%
3. What % came from spending cuts? 50%
Reflection
1. What choices were easy? difficult?
The choices about the war were relatively easy for me due to the fact I strongly do not favor the war and defense. The difficult options were health care and taxes especially because I do not know much about them.
2. How much harder is this task when votes/compromises are required?
It is extremely hardwer having to go through Congress and many people because all people have different opinions and some opinions are stronger than others. Other many not be willing to compromise at all. Resulting from this is no action at all. No plan can be made without compromises.
2015: 515 $billion
2030: $972 billion
2. What % came from tax increases? 50%
3. What % came from spending cuts? 50%
Reflection
1. What choices were easy? difficult?
The choices about the war were relatively easy for me due to the fact I strongly do not favor the war and defense. The difficult options were health care and taxes especially because I do not know much about them.
2. How much harder is this task when votes/compromises are required?
It is extremely hardwer having to go through Congress and many people because all people have different opinions and some opinions are stronger than others. Other many not be willing to compromise at all. Resulting from this is no action at all. No plan can be made without compromises.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Electoral College Reform Article
Facts/Details
1. Electoral college is malapportioned because each state get two electoral vote, regardless of the ste's population, in addition to votes equal to the state's delegation in the House of Representatives
2. Malapportionment is transparent- compare a candidate's percentage of the electoral vote with him percentage of the popular vote (especially in which the popular vote winner loses in the Electoral College
3. In the 2000 election, there is no doubt that Gore really did win the popular vote (he had the entire nationwide vote)
4. The fact that the Electoral College is undemocratic is not decisive against it any more than the fact that the Senate is malapportioned or that federal judge are not eleced at all, need be thought a flaw in our system of government
5. Two purposes important to the framers were preserving the balance among the states that had been struck in the design of the Congress and without confiding the election of the President to the Congress, a method of achieving objective that would have weakened the Presidency unduly
6. By the Constitution the election of the President by the House of Represenetatives if no candidate recieved a moajority of the electoral votes
7. The two party system doomed any hope that the Electoral College would choose the best person to be Presidnet, since the choice would be limited to the candidates picked by the parties
8. The implicit theory was that the public at large is more competent to pick individuals who can pick a President well than to pick the President directly.
9. The practical concern is that electors are not bound to cast their votes for the candidate to whom they are pledged
10. We need a constitutional amendment rather than on abolition of the Electoral College
Questions
1. Why did the electoral college start?
2. Who supports the electoral college? Why?
3. If everyone is so against it, why not change it?
4. What can we do to better organize voting? Will the system ever change?
5. Shouldn't we change since the founding fathers did not know 2 parties would form?
6. Is it fair if the one with popular vote loses?
1. Electoral college is malapportioned because each state get two electoral vote, regardless of the ste's population, in addition to votes equal to the state's delegation in the House of Representatives
2. Malapportionment is transparent- compare a candidate's percentage of the electoral vote with him percentage of the popular vote (especially in which the popular vote winner loses in the Electoral College
3. In the 2000 election, there is no doubt that Gore really did win the popular vote (he had the entire nationwide vote)
4. The fact that the Electoral College is undemocratic is not decisive against it any more than the fact that the Senate is malapportioned or that federal judge are not eleced at all, need be thought a flaw in our system of government
5. Two purposes important to the framers were preserving the balance among the states that had been struck in the design of the Congress and without confiding the election of the President to the Congress, a method of achieving objective that would have weakened the Presidency unduly
6. By the Constitution the election of the President by the House of Represenetatives if no candidate recieved a moajority of the electoral votes
7. The two party system doomed any hope that the Electoral College would choose the best person to be Presidnet, since the choice would be limited to the candidates picked by the parties
8. The implicit theory was that the public at large is more competent to pick individuals who can pick a President well than to pick the President directly.
9. The practical concern is that electors are not bound to cast their votes for the candidate to whom they are pledged
10. We need a constitutional amendment rather than on abolition of the Electoral College
Questions
1. Why did the electoral college start?
2. Who supports the electoral college? Why?
3. If everyone is so against it, why not change it?
4. What can we do to better organize voting? Will the system ever change?
5. Shouldn't we change since the founding fathers did not know 2 parties would form?
6. Is it fair if the one with popular vote loses?
Pending Bills Update
S. 174: Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention America Act
- A bill to improve the health of Americans and reduce health care costs by reorienting the Nation's health care system toward prevention, wellness, and health promotion.
status: Referred to Committee
Details:
1. Includes increase in Excise Tax on Small cigarettes and cigars
2. Mr. Harkin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance
3. 12 months after this bill, the Secretary must publish proposed regulations that establish a single, standardized retail front-label food guidance system
4. includes the Federal Trade Commission to issue regulations that restrict advertising foods and beverages to children under the age of 18 years if the Federal Trade Commission determines that the food is unhealthy for chilren
5. Each Federal agency shall install point-of-decision prompts encouraging individuals to use stairs wherever practicable at each relevant building and installation
Questions:
1. Where would money for the items included in the bill come from?
2. Would it affect most people?
3. Does the constitution say anything concerning to this bill?
4. Why would it be referring to the Committee on Finance?
- A bill to improve the health of Americans and reduce health care costs by reorienting the Nation's health care system toward prevention, wellness, and health promotion.
status: Referred to Committee
Details:
1. Includes increase in Excise Tax on Small cigarettes and cigars
2. Mr. Harkin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance
3. 12 months after this bill, the Secretary must publish proposed regulations that establish a single, standardized retail front-label food guidance system
4. includes the Federal Trade Commission to issue regulations that restrict advertising foods and beverages to children under the age of 18 years if the Federal Trade Commission determines that the food is unhealthy for chilren
5. Each Federal agency shall install point-of-decision prompts encouraging individuals to use stairs wherever practicable at each relevant building and installation
Questions:
1. Where would money for the items included in the bill come from?
2. Would it affect most people?
3. Does the constitution say anything concerning to this bill?
4. Why would it be referring to the Committee on Finance?
President Research
George W. Bush
Sources
Lessons Learned:
1. Foreign Policy: U.S. has intervened more often in more countries farther from its own shores than has any power in modern history. Bush did so more brazenly and more recklessly than many of his predecessors, but he adhered to American tradition more than he broke with it.
- Obama said he'd stay away from the thoughts of foreign policy but he started to take ideas from Bush such as withdrawing troops slower than promised.
2. No Child Left Behind Policy
- Good idea by Bush but needs to be regulated more by new presidents
3. Bush came up with big ideas but no little plans on how to get there
- Upcoming presidents can use this example by finding the smaller plans to reach a bigger idea
4. Congressional Republicans turned their backs on the president, running in 2006 on an “all politics is local” platform. Bush didn't go to New Orleans to check out the situation he just flew over the city.
- New presidents should learn what the people want and not disappoint the majority like Bush did with Hurricane Katrina. Presidents should be someone the people can rely on and this action did not prove that.
5. Republicans were very disappointed with Bush for many reasons. He is known as the Republican who killed the Republican Party.Couldn't please his own party by trying to change the GOP and beign too conservative with immigration
- Presidents should try to please both parties ut particular their own.
6. Bush announced many promises and "missions accomplished" that he had to go back and restate. For example his overly optimistic statements about ending the war.
- Using this example, Presidents need to be overly careful with their words and not to get the peoples hopes up because it will eventually just backfire
7. Bush responded quickly to 9/11 pleasing the people
- Respond quickly and do something about it
Politcal Cartoon 4
1. Why is debt represented by a T-Rex?
2. Why are McCain and Obama watching?
3. What does the red container represent?
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Political Ad Techniques
1. Eisenhower v Stevenson (Eisenhower)
- catchy music, song, jingle
- cartoon
- happy
I think this ad was very effective. It wasn't to informative and boring. It had a catchy twist unlike many recent campaign ads.
2. Bush
- family/friends
- faced challenges
- prepared
- soothing/happy music
I think this was somewhat effective. It was easy to relate to using the family and friends aspect.
3. Kennedy
- music using name
- constant name, simple pictures
I don't think this was the most effective ad. Although it was catchy with using his name, it was not very informative.
4. Reagan
- against other party
- Iran would vote aginst weaker president (other party)
- flag
- soothing music
- everyday people
I think this was somewhat effective. It used the idea of Iran and current issues that people would understand and have strong feelings about.
5. Johnson
- short
- explosion (symbolism)
I don't think this was very effective. It was confusing and rather short with little information.
6. Perot
- specific words
- words shown
- children
- tone of voice
Although Perot used most words that should be included in a campaign ad, they were just stated and written in a long paragraph. I don't think this was very effective because it wasn't catchy and was rather boring.
Research Study
1. Overall advertising does little to inform, next to nothign to mobilize, and a great deal to persaude potential voters
2. If avertising only informaed voters, voters could better allign their decisions with their policy perferences rather than one candidate outspending and persauding another
3. More advertising alone will not produce a better democratic result
- catchy music, song, jingle
- cartoon
- happy
I think this ad was very effective. It wasn't to informative and boring. It had a catchy twist unlike many recent campaign ads.
2. Bush
- family/friends
- faced challenges
- prepared
- soothing/happy music
I think this was somewhat effective. It was easy to relate to using the family and friends aspect.
3. Kennedy
- music using name
- constant name, simple pictures
I don't think this was the most effective ad. Although it was catchy with using his name, it was not very informative.
4. Reagan
- against other party
- Iran would vote aginst weaker president (other party)
- flag
- soothing music
- everyday people
I think this was somewhat effective. It used the idea of Iran and current issues that people would understand and have strong feelings about.
5. Johnson
- short
- explosion (symbolism)
I don't think this was very effective. It was confusing and rather short with little information.
6. Perot
- specific words
- words shown
- children
- tone of voice
Although Perot used most words that should be included in a campaign ad, they were just stated and written in a long paragraph. I don't think this was very effective because it wasn't catchy and was rather boring.
Research Study
1. Overall advertising does little to inform, next to nothign to mobilize, and a great deal to persaude potential voters
2. If avertising only informaed voters, voters could better allign their decisions with their policy perferences rather than one candidate outspending and persauding another
3. More advertising alone will not produce a better democratic result
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Tay Payer Articles
After 9/11: A Decade of Watching War on Terror Spending
http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?action=issues&proj_id=4832&category=National Security&type=Project
1. The wartime defense budget has more than doubled, and the new Department of Homeland Security grown dramatically.
2. At least one-sixth of the $200 billion spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—between $30 to $60 billion dollars--was lost to waste, fraud, and abuse.
3. The first appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was $29.4 billion, while the FY2011 bill gave the agency $41.7 billion—an increase of 40 percent.
4. Earmarks in were almost nonexistent in the early the homeland security spending bills, but 196 earmarks worth $296 million peppered the FY2010 bill.
5. There's plenty of money in a more than $700 billion budget for the military to buy what it really needs, as long as it sets priorities and spends its money efficiently.
Taxpayers Plowed Under
http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?action=issues&proj_id=3184&category=Agriculture&type=Project
1. An even more bloated version of agriculture disaster relief hopped onboard the Senate Finance Committee’s proposed draft jobs bill. T
2. Tucked amongst the various tax cuts and spending provisions was $1.5 billion for everything from farmers facing drought or flood loss, to fish farmers facing rising feed costs, to poultry producers who suffered from the bankruptcy of chicken producer Pilgrim's Pride Company.
3. More emergency funding bills to address natural disasters, or rising feed costs, or other unforeseen needs for agriculture are rising.
4. In the 2008 Farm Bill, Senate negotiators added a provision creating a permanent agricultural assistance disaster title. It estimatedto cost $3.8 billion.
5. Modest attempts by the President to shave direct agriculture subsidies—by decreasing eligibility to those with less than $500,000 adjusted gross income instead of $750,000—are likely to be blown away
http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?action=issues&proj_id=4832&category=National Security&type=Project
1. The wartime defense budget has more than doubled, and the new Department of Homeland Security grown dramatically.
2. At least one-sixth of the $200 billion spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—between $30 to $60 billion dollars--was lost to waste, fraud, and abuse.
3. The first appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was $29.4 billion, while the FY2011 bill gave the agency $41.7 billion—an increase of 40 percent.
4. Earmarks in were almost nonexistent in the early the homeland security spending bills, but 196 earmarks worth $296 million peppered the FY2010 bill.
5. There's plenty of money in a more than $700 billion budget for the military to buy what it really needs, as long as it sets priorities and spends its money efficiently.
Taxpayers Plowed Under
http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?action=issues&proj_id=3184&category=Agriculture&type=Project
1. An even more bloated version of agriculture disaster relief hopped onboard the Senate Finance Committee’s proposed draft jobs bill. T
2. Tucked amongst the various tax cuts and spending provisions was $1.5 billion for everything from farmers facing drought or flood loss, to fish farmers facing rising feed costs, to poultry producers who suffered from the bankruptcy of chicken producer Pilgrim's Pride Company.
3. More emergency funding bills to address natural disasters, or rising feed costs, or other unforeseen needs for agriculture are rising.
4. In the 2008 Farm Bill, Senate negotiators added a provision creating a permanent agricultural assistance disaster title. It estimatedto cost $3.8 billion.
5. Modest attempts by the President to shave direct agriculture subsidies—by decreasing eligibility to those with less than $500,000 adjusted gross income instead of $750,000—are likely to be blown away
Pending Bills
S. 174: Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention America Act
- A bill to improve the health of Americans and reduce health care costs by reorienting the Nation's health care system toward prevention, wellness, and health promotion.
status: Referred to Committee
H.R. 3130: Heartbeat Informed Consent Act
- To ensure that women seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound and an opportunity to review the ultrasound before giving informed consent to receive an abortion.
status: Referred to Committee
S. 1005: Parental Notification and Intervention Act of 2011
-A bill to provide for parental notification and intervention in the case of a minor seeking an abortion.
status: Referred to Committee
- A bill to improve the health of Americans and reduce health care costs by reorienting the Nation's health care system toward prevention, wellness, and health promotion.
status: Referred to Committee
H.R. 3130: Heartbeat Informed Consent Act
- To ensure that women seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound and an opportunity to review the ultrasound before giving informed consent to receive an abortion.
status: Referred to Committee
S. 1005: Parental Notification and Intervention Act of 2011
-A bill to provide for parental notification and intervention in the case of a minor seeking an abortion.
status: Referred to Committee
Politcal Cartoon 3
1. What does this imply about political ads?
2. Do you think many agree with this man?
3. What can we do to the system to avoid this irritation?
Pennsylvania's 2008 Presidential Election
Facts
1. Obama won decisively in Philadelphia and did well in its suburbs.
2. Obama's victory marked the fifth straight presidential election in which the Democrats carried Pennsylvania.
3. With 96% of precincts reporting, Obama had 2,988,473 votes, or 55%, and McCain had 2,399,080, or 44%.
4. McCain spent nearly three times as many days campaigning in Pennsylvania as Obama.
5. Democrats now outnumber Republicans by more than 1 million in a state that last chose a Republican for president when it supported George H. Bush in 1988.
1. Obama won decisively in Philadelphia and did well in its suburbs.
2. Obama's victory marked the fifth straight presidential election in which the Democrats carried Pennsylvania.
3. With 96% of precincts reporting, Obama had 2,988,473 votes, or 55%, and McCain had 2,399,080, or 44%.
4. McCain spent nearly three times as many days campaigning in Pennsylvania as Obama.
5. Democrats now outnumber Republicans by more than 1 million in a state that last chose a Republican for president when it supported George H. Bush in 1988.
PA's Congressional Districts
Facts/Details
1. After the 2000 Census, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was divided into 19 Congressional Districts, decreasing from 21 due to reapportionment.
2. After the 2010 Census, the number of districts decreased again to 18.
3. Pennsylvania's 7th congressional district incorporates parts of the Philadelphia suburbs, including most of Delaware County.
4. It is represented by Republican Pat Meehan in the 112th United States Congress.
5. 7th congressional district was created in 1791 from the at-large district
6. Pennsylvania's 1st congressional district also contains parts of Delaware County.
7. Pennsylvania's 9th congressional district is a relatively safe seat for the Republicans.
8. Pennsylvania's second district includes predominantly African American sections of the city of Philadelphia
9. 2nd congressional district is the fifth most Democratic Congressional District out of the 435 in the nation.
10. 13th congressional district had been heavily Republican in the past, but has grown more Democratic because of demographic changes and redistricting. The district has not voted Republican for President since 1988.
1. After the 2000 Census, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was divided into 19 Congressional Districts, decreasing from 21 due to reapportionment.
2. After the 2010 Census, the number of districts decreased again to 18.
3. Pennsylvania's 7th congressional district incorporates parts of the Philadelphia suburbs, including most of Delaware County.
4. It is represented by Republican Pat Meehan in the 112th United States Congress.
5. 7th congressional district was created in 1791 from the at-large district
6. Pennsylvania's 1st congressional district also contains parts of Delaware County.
7. Pennsylvania's 9th congressional district is a relatively safe seat for the Republicans.
8. Pennsylvania's second district includes predominantly African American sections of the city of Philadelphia
9. 2nd congressional district is the fifth most Democratic Congressional District out of the 435 in the nation.
10. 13th congressional district had been heavily Republican in the past, but has grown more Democratic because of demographic changes and redistricting. The district has not voted Republican for President since 1988.
Pennsylvania's Congressional Districts Map
Death Penalty Questions
1. Do other countries have death penalties?
According to Amnesty International, 139 countries have abolished the death penalty. In 2010, only one country, Gabon, abolished the death penalty for all crimes. During 2010, 23 countries executed 527 prisoners and at least 2,024 people were sentenced to death in 67 countries.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html#ixzz1fC7lYJZV
With this being said, other countries also have the death penalities, however some have gotten rid of it. I wonder how these countries have changed from this change
2. What are the methods of execution of a prisoner?
1103 Lethal Injection
157 Electrocution
11 Gas Chamber
3 Hanging
3 Firing Squad
35 states plus the US government use lethal injection as their primary method. Some
states utilizing lethal injection have other methods available as backups.
I wonder why Lethal Injection is the number one way of execution in the US.
3. About how many people have been given the death penalty and then later found guilty?
Since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. This statistic scares me. What if these people were executed and never committed the crime? Why should we have the death penalty if people can be found not guilty in the time being. In my opinion we should abolish the death penalty in all states due to this statistic and numbers.
Great Information:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
Sunday, November 27, 2011
How Washington Works
Questions
1. Why is the theme that Washington is disconnected from the country a misleading notion?
2. Does this short work week actually help create more time? Do Congressmen actually take advantage of this time?
3. Why is it surprising that Washington is open to newcomers?
4. Does discovering what tiny fragment of power Congressmen grasp surprise them?
5. Why is the nations destiny set in Washington?
6. How is the conceit of Washington like the conceit of Paris or Moscow?
7. What is the difference between constant dollars and current dollars?
8. Why is the Department of Transportation pronounced "D-O-T" and never 'dot'?
Facts/Details
1. Washington is different, but not isolated
2. Congress works a short week in Washington (Monday to Friday) to give members more time with constituents
3. Those who arrive to serve in Congress learn to live in two worlds (hometowns and states and in the special world of the capital)
4. To get more power, newcomers make alliances, join groups, get appointed to committees, make contacts with the press, and find friends in the administration
5. Potomac fever - the incurable addicting of wielding political power or feeling at the political center
6. Very few politicians go home to retire or make money. Most stays in Washington and become lawyers, lobbyists or consultants because they've grown accustomed to Washington's ways
7. Power is the aphrodisiac- the special brand of federal power that is Washington's monopoly.
8. Political Washington is a special community with a culture all its own
9. The city and suburbs of Washington are encircled by a sixty-four-mile freeway loop know as the beltway
10. Many people treat the work politician as a synonym for hypocrisy
1. Why is the theme that Washington is disconnected from the country a misleading notion?
2. Does this short work week actually help create more time? Do Congressmen actually take advantage of this time?
3. Why is it surprising that Washington is open to newcomers?
4. Does discovering what tiny fragment of power Congressmen grasp surprise them?
5. Why is the nations destiny set in Washington?
6. How is the conceit of Washington like the conceit of Paris or Moscow?
7. What is the difference between constant dollars and current dollars?
8. Why is the Department of Transportation pronounced "D-O-T" and never 'dot'?
Facts/Details
1. Washington is different, but not isolated
2. Congress works a short week in Washington (Monday to Friday) to give members more time with constituents
3. Those who arrive to serve in Congress learn to live in two worlds (hometowns and states and in the special world of the capital)
4. To get more power, newcomers make alliances, join groups, get appointed to committees, make contacts with the press, and find friends in the administration
5. Potomac fever - the incurable addicting of wielding political power or feeling at the political center
6. Very few politicians go home to retire or make money. Most stays in Washington and become lawyers, lobbyists or consultants because they've grown accustomed to Washington's ways
7. Power is the aphrodisiac- the special brand of federal power that is Washington's monopoly.
8. Political Washington is a special community with a culture all its own
9. The city and suburbs of Washington are encircled by a sixty-four-mile freeway loop know as the beltway
10. Many people treat the work politician as a synonym for hypocrisy
Terry Gross Interview
Facts/Details
1. First clinic of birth control was opened in 1916
2. It was opened by Margaret Sanger who was one of 11 children
3. Margaret Sanger came up with the name of birth control
4. Sanger helped deliver mothers baby and raised them after her mother died.
5. Mother died of tuberculosis at young age
6. Sanger became a socialist
7. Birthrates for working class are still very high
8. Sanger decided to try and make contraception legal
9. Condoms started in 1850 which were expensive and hard to get
10. Child birth was very dangerous.
Questions
1. Should abortion be legal for all people?
2. What part of the Constitution deals with abortion?
3. What is abortion such a big issue today?
4. Has abortion always been a big issue?
5. Why was birth control and abortions established?
6. How did the public react to the idea of birth control when it first originated?
1. First clinic of birth control was opened in 1916
2. It was opened by Margaret Sanger who was one of 11 children
3. Margaret Sanger came up with the name of birth control
4. Sanger helped deliver mothers baby and raised them after her mother died.
5. Mother died of tuberculosis at young age
6. Sanger became a socialist
7. Birthrates for working class are still very high
8. Sanger decided to try and make contraception legal
9. Condoms started in 1850 which were expensive and hard to get
10. Child birth was very dangerous.
Questions
1. Should abortion be legal for all people?
2. What part of the Constitution deals with abortion?
3. What is abortion such a big issue today?
4. Has abortion always been a big issue?
5. Why was birth control and abortions established?
6. How did the public react to the idea of birth control when it first originated?
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Committees - Bob Casey
Bob Casey’s Committees
3. Committee has primary jurisdiction over private retirement plans and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
3. Includes 5 Subcommittees
2. Bicameral Congressional Committee composed of ten members from each the Senate and the House of Representatives
3. Ten Democrats and ten Republicans on the Committee
4. Main purpose is to make a continuing study of matters relating to the US economy. The Committee holds hearings, performs research and advises Members of Congress.
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
1. Chairman – Tom Harkin
2. Committee is ensuring our country’s workforce is prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st Century3. Committee has primary jurisdiction over private retirement plans and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
1. Meetings- first and third Wednesdays of the month
2. Matters relate to issues such as: Home economics, Human nutrition, Inspection of livestock, meat, and agricultural products, Pests and pesticides, and School nutrition programs3. Includes 5 Subcommittees
Joint Economic Committee
1. Chairman - Bob Casey 2. Bicameral Congressional Committee composed of ten members from each the Senate and the House of Representatives
3. Ten Democrats and ten Republicans on the Committee
4. Main purpose is to make a continuing study of matters relating to the US economy. The Committee holds hearings, performs research and advises Members of Congress.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Immigration Questions
1. What happens if illegal immigrants have children that were born in the US? Are they (the children) also considered illegal immigrants?
2. What is life like for the child of an illegal immigrant?
3. Is it really fair to make a person a citizen if they have illegally immigrants for parents, even though they themselves were born on US soil?
This three questions I chose are all related by having to do with illegal immigrants and their children. If an illegal immigrant had their child in the US, the child is considered a citizen of the United States; however their parents are still considered illegal immigrants. About 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 (or 8 percent) had at least one parent who was an illegal immigrant.
"The study comes as lawmakers in Washington have been debating whether to consider changing the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States." Should they? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/us/12babies.html)
In the Frontline program we watched in class, a family was interviewed who had parents of illegal immigrants. These young children don't quite know about this illegal thing until a parent is deported. In this case, their mom was deported. The father was lost without her and did not know what to do. Should he stay in the US safely with his kids or go find his wife and kids in harm? The kids was completely upset hoping to once reunite with their mother sometime. Each kid had a dream. One was a lawyer and police officer but after this incident they completely changed their minds. Seeing these kids and how they have to live without their mother really makes me and other think: is it right for parents of legal citizen kids be deported?
My opinion on this matter is that parents of legal kids should not be deported. I personally cannot imagine living without my mom or dad especially knowing they are forced to live somewhere else. They aren't doing any harm to the US citizens so why deport them for some small stupid crime such as no turn signal? It just makes no sense. How can we find away around this?
2. What is life like for the child of an illegal immigrant?
3. Is it really fair to make a person a citizen if they have illegally immigrants for parents, even though they themselves were born on US soil?
This three questions I chose are all related by having to do with illegal immigrants and their children. If an illegal immigrant had their child in the US, the child is considered a citizen of the United States; however their parents are still considered illegal immigrants. About 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 (or 8 percent) had at least one parent who was an illegal immigrant.
"The study comes as lawmakers in Washington have been debating whether to consider changing the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States." Should they? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/us/12babies.html)
In the Frontline program we watched in class, a family was interviewed who had parents of illegal immigrants. These young children don't quite know about this illegal thing until a parent is deported. In this case, their mom was deported. The father was lost without her and did not know what to do. Should he stay in the US safely with his kids or go find his wife and kids in harm? The kids was completely upset hoping to once reunite with their mother sometime. Each kid had a dream. One was a lawyer and police officer but after this incident they completely changed their minds. Seeing these kids and how they have to live without their mother really makes me and other think: is it right for parents of legal citizen kids be deported?
My opinion on this matter is that parents of legal kids should not be deported. I personally cannot imagine living without my mom or dad especially knowing they are forced to live somewhere else. They aren't doing any harm to the US citizens so why deport them for some small stupid crime such as no turn signal? It just makes no sense. How can we find away around this?
Friday, November 11, 2011
Electoral College
Facts/Details
1. Under the current system, the winner of the statewide popular vote receives all of the electoral votes from that state.
2. New system proposed: if a candidate wins a congressional district, he or she would receive one electoral college vote.
3. Part of the new system: whoever does best in the statewide race would receive two electoral votes.4. Proposal before the Republican-controlled state legislature that would change the apportionment of Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes for President from winner-take-all statewide to winner-take-all by congressional district
5. A group of people has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund an effort to change the rules of the 2012 presidential election to make it very difficult for President Barack Obama to win reelection
6. Democrats have won Pennsylvania in the last five presidential elections
7. Pileggi proposed this idea in Pennsylvania
8. They believe this is a bad idea because they think the overall voting rate will go down
9. Pennsylvania’s electoral vote in 2008 under the district plan would have gone 11 for Obama 10 for McCain.
10. Seven Democratic U.S. House members in safely Democratic districts and eight of the 12 Republican Pennsylvania House members from are districts considered marginal
Questions
1. Why would they make this change?
2. Would it make counting the votes harder?
3. Would campaigning increase? Why or why not?
4. "If the Republican plan becomes law in either Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, those states would change how electoral votes are awarded." Why just these specific states? Why not all of them?
5. Who supports this change and who does not?
6. Is this really simply to try and make Obama lose?
7. Why is Pennsylvania 'so competitive'?
8. Should Congress eliminate the electoral college all together? Why or why not?
Thursday, November 10, 2011
West Wing Episode #2
Facts/Details
1. 1 Person can hold up a debate/bill
2. Filibuster causes a hold up causing drama
3. Filibuster comes from a Dutch word
4. 60 votes are needed to end a debate
5. Longest filibuster according to the show was 24 hours
6. A cloture vote ends a filibuster
7. During a filibuster you cannot eat drink, use the bathroom, sit down, or lean on anything
8. Senators are allowed to hold the floor as long as possible during a filibuster as long as they can follow the rules listed above.
9. Filibuster is a loop hole in the Senate
Questions
1. Can you open a closed bill? How?
2. What does a President do during a filibuster?
3. How long do these typically last?
4. Are there multiple reasons for a filibuster to occur?
5. Can we avoid the chaos of a filibuster? How?
1. 1 Person can hold up a debate/bill
2. Filibuster causes a hold up causing drama
3. Filibuster comes from a Dutch word
4. 60 votes are needed to end a debate
5. Longest filibuster according to the show was 24 hours
6. A cloture vote ends a filibuster
7. During a filibuster you cannot eat drink, use the bathroom, sit down, or lean on anything
8. Senators are allowed to hold the floor as long as possible during a filibuster as long as they can follow the rules listed above.
9. Filibuster is a loop hole in the Senate
Questions
1. Can you open a closed bill? How?
2. What does a President do during a filibuster?
3. How long do these typically last?
4. Are there multiple reasons for a filibuster to occur?
5. Can we avoid the chaos of a filibuster? How?
Immigration- Frontline Program
Facts/Details
1. Illegal immigrants are high under Obama than Bush
2. Curran says 20% in jail are without immigrant documents
3. Goal is to report and remove criminal aliens
4. Many immigrants do not want to leave Mexico but are forced due to fear and circumstances
5. Less than 20% illegal immigrants carry out serious crimes
6. 400,000 deports is the target number
7. 36% of undocumented have families in US and lived in the US for over 11 years
8. 3 million were detains and brought to detention centers in the last decade
9. Texas has the largest detention center, holding 300,000
10. Some say restricting immigrants is doing more damage than help
Questions
1. Do they deport any immigrant noncriminals?
2. Is it fair to deport parents of young children?
3. Are simple crimes such as no turn sign necessary to deport?
4. If immigrants leaver there own country due to fear and come to the US with more fear of being deported, why do they move?
5. Does any other country have this problem? If so, how do they deal with it?
1. Illegal immigrants are high under Obama than Bush
2. Curran says 20% in jail are without immigrant documents
3. Goal is to report and remove criminal aliens
4. Many immigrants do not want to leave Mexico but are forced due to fear and circumstances
5. Less than 20% illegal immigrants carry out serious crimes
6. 400,000 deports is the target number
7. 36% of undocumented have families in US and lived in the US for over 11 years
8. 3 million were detains and brought to detention centers in the last decade
9. Texas has the largest detention center, holding 300,000
10. Some say restricting immigrants is doing more damage than help
Questions
1. Do they deport any immigrant noncriminals?
2. Is it fair to deport parents of young children?
3. Are simple crimes such as no turn sign necessary to deport?
4. If immigrants leaver there own country due to fear and come to the US with more fear of being deported, why do they move?
5. Does any other country have this problem? If so, how do they deal with it?
John Boehner
Facts/Details
Questions
1. Represents Ohio's 8th Congressional District.
2. Republican
3. “Biggest regret” of his speakership: he failed to cut a multitrillion-dollar deficit-reduction deal with President Barack Obama
4. Former House Speaker said: John kind of watches and sees where it goes and kind of herds the flock that way
5. Boehner’s Republicans have used the leverage of controlling a single chamber of Congress to slash $1 trillion or so from the budget over the next decade.
6. One of the most striking aspects of the first year since Boehner won control of the House is how little the new role seems to have changed him.
7. It is said that he always votes no
8. Most dramatic change of this year: Spending less money, passing free-trade agreements
9. Believes House should "work its will."
2. Republican
3. “Biggest regret” of his speakership: he failed to cut a multitrillion-dollar deficit-reduction deal with President Barack Obama
4. Former House Speaker said: John kind of watches and sees where it goes and kind of herds the flock that way
5. Boehner’s Republicans have used the leverage of controlling a single chamber of Congress to slash $1 trillion or so from the budget over the next decade.
6. One of the most striking aspects of the first year since Boehner won control of the House is how little the new role seems to have changed him.
7. It is said that he always votes no
8. Most dramatic change of this year: Spending less money, passing free-trade agreements
9. Believes House should "work its will."
Questions1. How can the House "work its will?" What does that include?
2. How is he the Speaker of the House?
3. Do people actually like him in the House?
4. Has he done anything to significantly help or harm Congress?
5. How can he work while being so against the Senate and President? Why is he?
Is the US House too small?
Facts
1. The US House of Representatives has been at 435 members since 1911
2. The average congressional district now contains roughts 640,000 citizens, as opposed to about 200,000 in 1911
3. The US population is 12.8 percent black and 14.4 percent Latino, but 9.4 percent and 5.1 persent in the US House.
4. Arend Lijphart has argued for 650 seats
5. House is 435 instead of 669 that would now be expected given the US population of 300 million
Questions
1. How often do constituents contact with their member of congress?
2. Why all of a sudden has this question arose?
3. Why can't we change this?
4. Who opposes this and who favors this?
5. Is this logical? If everything has been working why change, which may/will cause chaos?
My Opinion
I believe that the House is fine as it is. If changes are made then chaos may break out. We have too many other issues to worry about and figure out at this point that changing this number is unnessecary right now. Alos, having too many bodies making decisions could cause delay. Too many opinions and people would be chaotic and confusing. I think the way the House is now, is how it should be since there are many other things to worry about.
1. The US House of Representatives has been at 435 members since 1911
2. The average congressional district now contains roughts 640,000 citizens, as opposed to about 200,000 in 1911
3. The US population is 12.8 percent black and 14.4 percent Latino, but 9.4 percent and 5.1 persent in the US House.
4. Arend Lijphart has argued for 650 seats
5. House is 435 instead of 669 that would now be expected given the US population of 300 million
Questions
1. How often do constituents contact with their member of congress?
2. Why all of a sudden has this question arose?
3. Why can't we change this?
4. Who opposes this and who favors this?
5. Is this logical? If everything has been working why change, which may/will cause chaos?
My Opinion
I believe that the House is fine as it is. If changes are made then chaos may break out. We have too many other issues to worry about and figure out at this point that changing this number is unnessecary right now. Alos, having too many bodies making decisions could cause delay. Too many opinions and people would be chaotic and confusing. I think the way the House is now, is how it should be since there are many other things to worry about.
Representatives' Personal Finances
Bob Casey
Net Worth: From $160,020 to $578,000
Rank: 84th in Senate
Assets: 14 totaling $160,020 to $578,000
Transactions: 3 totaling $45,003 to $150,000
Mike McIntyre
Net Worth: From $68,006 to $196,000
Rank: 349th in House
Assets: 4 totaling $68,006 to $196,000
Knowing members of Congress' personal finances is beneficial because then we can get an understanding of where their veiws and opinions are coming from. It is very difficult for us to believe that a very wealthy Congressman can represent the common American people and make decisions for the average American. I did not realize so many Congressmen were so wealthy, which makes me wonder how they can make decisions for us. How can these people make decisions that reflect our needs if they don't know what our needs are?
Net Worth: From $160,020 to $578,000
Rank: 84th in Senate
Assets: 14 totaling $160,020 to $578,000
Transactions: 3 totaling $45,003 to $150,000
Mike McIntyre
Net Worth: From $68,006 to $196,000
Rank: 349th in House
Assets: 4 totaling $68,006 to $196,000
Knowing members of Congress' personal finances is beneficial because then we can get an understanding of where their veiws and opinions are coming from. It is very difficult for us to believe that a very wealthy Congressman can represent the common American people and make decisions for the average American. I did not realize so many Congressmen were so wealthy, which makes me wonder how they can make decisions for us. How can these people make decisions that reflect our needs if they don't know what our needs are?
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Due Process
Facts
1. Kevin Rojas was convicted and charged in 1991
2. Kevin Rojas was sentenced to 15-life in 1992
3. Lesley Risinger and her mother decided to work on proving Kevin is innocent
4. Only 5% of criminal cases actually have DNA.
5. A death sentence takes 25 years for action to be carried out
6. Texas has more death sentences than any other state.
7. A case can be worked on for 10-15 years
8. 11 of the 44 people convicted have been accused due to false eye witness identification.
9. Jim McCloskey, a member of Centurion Ministries, has freed 44 innocent people in the last 30 years. His group looks for cases that do not include DNA as evidence.
10. It costs about $187 million more to keep someone on death row than in the general population
Questions
1. Was his jacket really enough evidence to prosecute him?
2. What is the longest amount of time a case has been worked on?
3. Why does it take so long for action in a death sentence?
4. Why was Lesley and her mother so interested in proving him innocent?
5. Does false eye witness identification happen often?
1. Kevin Rojas was convicted and charged in 1991
2. Kevin Rojas was sentenced to 15-life in 1992
3. Lesley Risinger and her mother decided to work on proving Kevin is innocent
4. Only 5% of criminal cases actually have DNA.
5. A death sentence takes 25 years for action to be carried out
6. Texas has more death sentences than any other state.
7. A case can be worked on for 10-15 years
8. 11 of the 44 people convicted have been accused due to false eye witness identification.
9. Jim McCloskey, a member of Centurion Ministries, has freed 44 innocent people in the last 30 years. His group looks for cases that do not include DNA as evidence.
10. It costs about $187 million more to keep someone on death row than in the general population
Questions
1. Was his jacket really enough evidence to prosecute him?
2. What is the longest amount of time a case has been worked on?
3. Why does it take so long for action in a death sentence?
4. Why was Lesley and her mother so interested in proving him innocent?
5. Does false eye witness identification happen often?
Justice Stevens Court Case
Wallace v Jaffree
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=472&invol=38
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_83_812
Facts
1. Took place in Alabama
2. Argued December 4, 1984
3. Decided June 4, 1985
4. Jaffree challenged the constitutionality of a 1-minute period of silence in all public schools "for meditation or voluntary prayer."
5. The District Court said that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit a State from establishing a religion which allows the schools for provide this time
6. However, the supreme court voted: 6 votes for Jaffree, 3 votes against (saying that the moment of silence does not show neutrality of religion)
Question
1. Why did Jaffree challenge this?
2. Was the case related to the Constitution the only reason it made it to the federal court?
3. Why would the District Court say the amendment didn't relate to the States?
4. What were the reasons 3 justices voted against Jaffree?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=472&invol=38
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_83_812
Facts
1. Took place in Alabama
2. Argued December 4, 1984
3. Decided June 4, 1985
4. Jaffree challenged the constitutionality of a 1-minute period of silence in all public schools "for meditation or voluntary prayer."
5. The District Court said that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit a State from establishing a religion which allows the schools for provide this time
6. However, the supreme court voted: 6 votes for Jaffree, 3 votes against (saying that the moment of silence does not show neutrality of religion)
Question
1. Why did Jaffree challenge this?
2. Was the case related to the Constitution the only reason it made it to the federal court?
3. Why would the District Court say the amendment didn't relate to the States?
4. What were the reasons 3 justices voted against Jaffree?
Justices
1. John G. Roberts was nominated by President George W. Bush.
2. What does Associate Justice mean?
3. Antonin Scalia took his seat September 26, 1986.
4. Anthony M. Kennedy received his B.A. from Stanford University and the London School of Economics, and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School.
5. What are the requirements of being nominated as a Chief Justice?
6. How many women have ever served as a chief justice? Is it more common?
7. How long does the process of selecting and taking the seat take?
8. Is it common for the justices to be professors before being nominated? (Many seemed to be)
9. Clarence Thomas served as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, and as Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
10. John Paul Stevens retired from the Supreme Court on June 29, 2010. Who replaced him?
2. What does Associate Justice mean?
3. Antonin Scalia took his seat September 26, 1986.
4. Anthony M. Kennedy received his B.A. from Stanford University and the London School of Economics, and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School.
5. What are the requirements of being nominated as a Chief Justice?
6. How many women have ever served as a chief justice? Is it more common?
7. How long does the process of selecting and taking the seat take?
8. Is it common for the justices to be professors before being nominated? (Many seemed to be)
9. Clarence Thomas served as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, and as Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
10. John Paul Stevens retired from the Supreme Court on June 29, 2010. Who replaced him?
Friday, November 4, 2011
Court Cases
1. Cavazos v. Smith (2011)- Doctors found that a baby died of shaken baby syndrome (SBS). The baby's grandmother said that when the baby did not respond to her touch she picked him up and gave him a little jostle. Smith was arrested and charged with assault on a child resulting in death. She was found guilty. I chose this case beacuse the I wanted to see how they found the evidence and what the outcome was.
2. FCC v. Fox Television Station (2011)- FCC tried to say that TV stations could be fined for foul language during live broadcasted programs. That happened on Fox in 2002 and 2003 when Cher and Nicole Richie cursed during award shows and were not bleeped. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said that the regulations were "unconstitutionally vague." I chose this case because we discussed a case like this in class and it caused great debate. I believe that we should be able to regulate this because what if children are watching.
3. AT&T Mobility LLC v Concepcion (2010)- In California AT&T was accused of fraudulent since they offered free phones for new costumers who signed up but charged the costumer sales tax on the retail value of the free phone. When reaching the courts, AT&T was favored because "the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") did not expressly or impliedly preempt California law governing unconcionability." (Not exactly sure what that means) I chose this case because technology interests me and this specific case interested me as well.
2. FCC v. Fox Television Station (2011)- FCC tried to say that TV stations could be fined for foul language during live broadcasted programs. That happened on Fox in 2002 and 2003 when Cher and Nicole Richie cursed during award shows and were not bleeped. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said that the regulations were "unconstitutionally vague." I chose this case because we discussed a case like this in class and it caused great debate. I believe that we should be able to regulate this because what if children are watching.
3. AT&T Mobility LLC v Concepcion (2010)- In California AT&T was accused of fraudulent since they offered free phones for new costumers who signed up but charged the costumer sales tax on the retail value of the free phone. When reaching the courts, AT&T was favored because "the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") did not expressly or impliedly preempt California law governing unconcionability." (Not exactly sure what that means) I chose this case because technology interests me and this specific case interested me as well.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Roe v Wade Handout
Facts/Details
1. Texas urges that life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy but it is still a very controversial question
2. The woman's privacy must be measured accordingly.
3. State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of a pregnant woman.
4. Also has interest in protecting the potentiality of human life
5. A state may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health.
6. The "compelling" point is approximately the end of the first trimester
7. The constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.
8. The privacy right is present but not absolute and is subject to some limitations
9. It has been argued that laws were the product of a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct.
10. A concern is medical procedures and how abortion is hazardous for women.
Questions
1. Who decides what the "compelling" point is?
2. Can the states decide laws regarding abortion? Should they?
3. Is there anything else in the Constitution that could be used to defend either view point?
4. Were any other cases of abortion found in the Supreme Court?
5. What do the majority of the people and states view on abortion?
1. Texas urges that life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy but it is still a very controversial question
2. The woman's privacy must be measured accordingly.
3. State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of a pregnant woman.
4. Also has interest in protecting the potentiality of human life
5. A state may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health.
6. The "compelling" point is approximately the end of the first trimester
7. The constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.
8. The privacy right is present but not absolute and is subject to some limitations
9. It has been argued that laws were the product of a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct.
10. A concern is medical procedures and how abortion is hazardous for women.
Questions
1. Who decides what the "compelling" point is?
2. Can the states decide laws regarding abortion? Should they?
3. Is there anything else in the Constitution that could be used to defend either view point?
4. Were any other cases of abortion found in the Supreme Court?
5. What do the majority of the people and states view on abortion?
Sunday, October 30, 2011
West Wing Episode
Connections
1. Roe v Wade gave right to abortion
2. Executive Branch is carrying out process of appointing a new supreme court justice
3. Referenced a 9th circuit state court
4. Extensive background searches are needed for selection and appointment of a federal judge
5. The current judge wouldn't step down because the President wouldn't fill the seat with same party and views
6. President and others hoped the elder man would step down
7. President appointed a judge of his own party
8. Two vacancies could occur at some point of time
9. Mentions enumerated powers
Questions
1. Why is abortion such a big deal if it was legal? Can they legally judge her off of this?
2. Do they really go through all this trouble? Does it get this chaotic and intense?
3. If so, why don't they change this process?
4. Would they ever actually plan on someone dying or ask someone to resign?
5. How important is the judicial branch in our system? Why?
1. Roe v Wade gave right to abortion
2. Executive Branch is carrying out process of appointing a new supreme court justice
3. Referenced a 9th circuit state court
4. Extensive background searches are needed for selection and appointment of a federal judge
5. The current judge wouldn't step down because the President wouldn't fill the seat with same party and views
6. President and others hoped the elder man would step down
7. President appointed a judge of his own party
8. Two vacancies could occur at some point of time
9. Mentions enumerated powers
Questions
1. Why is abortion such a big deal if it was legal? Can they legally judge her off of this?
2. Do they really go through all this trouble? Does it get this chaotic and intense?
3. If so, why don't they change this process?
4. Would they ever actually plan on someone dying or ask someone to resign?
5. How important is the judicial branch in our system? Why?
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Federalist 78
Questions
1. Do you agree with the Supreme Court justices serving for a life-time? Why or why not?
2. Do you think that judges should decide a case based on solely the Constitution or on their own beliefs as well?
3. Why did you believe the judiciary branch was the weakest of the three?
4. What do you think of the judiciary branch now?
5. Do you or did you think the judiciary branch will or has become stronger over the years?
Quotes
1. "They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental."
This shows he believed that the judges should decide a case based on the Consitution.
2. "For I agree, that 'there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."'
This shows Madison agreeing on our current system or separation of powers.
3."The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government."
This shows that judges serve for a life-time. He states that as long as they do not do anything wrong that a life-time is appropriate.
4. "It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two."
This shows how Madison believed that the judiciary branch will be the weakest and not gain a lot of power.
5. "The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body."
This shows that judges should base their ruling off of the constitution and not their own beliefs.
1. Do you agree with the Supreme Court justices serving for a life-time? Why or why not?
2. Do you think that judges should decide a case based on solely the Constitution or on their own beliefs as well?
3. Why did you believe the judiciary branch was the weakest of the three?
4. What do you think of the judiciary branch now?
5. Do you or did you think the judiciary branch will or has become stronger over the years?
Quotes
1. "They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental."
This shows he believed that the judges should decide a case based on the Consitution.
2. "For I agree, that 'there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."'
This shows Madison agreeing on our current system or separation of powers.
3."The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government."
This shows that judges serve for a life-time. He states that as long as they do not do anything wrong that a life-time is appropriate.
4. "It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two."
This shows how Madison believed that the judiciary branch will be the weakest and not gain a lot of power.
5. "The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body."
This shows that judges should base their ruling off of the constitution and not their own beliefs.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
2000 Election Reading #2
Facts/Details
1. Bush vs. Gore was decided under the Rehnquist Court
2. The Court's vote was 5-4
3. Bush v Gore was the 4th intervention, by the US Supreme Courth, in the litigation over the outcome of the presidential election
4. On November 13, Katharine Harris announced that the deadline of November 14 was final.
5. On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of 4-3, that a manual recount was required by state law.
6. Six justices were unwilling to accent Bush's major submission to the effect that the Florida Supreme Court had produced an unacceptable change in Florida law
7. Minimalism was on full display in the courts two rulings during the election.
8. The Court's decision lacked any basis in precedent.
Questions
1. Did Washington ever consider making the voting process nationalized? Why or why not?
2. Why couldn't they recount or revote?
3. Have they made a new way to completely avoid this from happening again or found a way to deal with this in the future?
4. Would the decision of the recount been changed if the justices political views were different?
5. Was the decision of the Supreme Court more difficult since there was no precedent? Why or why not?
6. What is minimalism in regards to government?
1. Bush vs. Gore was decided under the Rehnquist Court
2. The Court's vote was 5-4
3. Bush v Gore was the 4th intervention, by the US Supreme Courth, in the litigation over the outcome of the presidential election
4. On November 13, Katharine Harris announced that the deadline of November 14 was final.
5. On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of 4-3, that a manual recount was required by state law.
6. Six justices were unwilling to accent Bush's major submission to the effect that the Florida Supreme Court had produced an unacceptable change in Florida law
7. Minimalism was on full display in the courts two rulings during the election.
8. The Court's decision lacked any basis in precedent.
Questions
1. Did Washington ever consider making the voting process nationalized? Why or why not?
2. Why couldn't they recount or revote?
3. Have they made a new way to completely avoid this from happening again or found a way to deal with this in the future?
4. Would the decision of the recount been changed if the justices political views were different?
5. Was the decision of the Supreme Court more difficult since there was no precedent? Why or why not?
6. What is minimalism in regards to government?
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The Common Good
This article related directly to my Health Care posts of last week. In my posts I discussed who would pay for health care and why this method would be unfair at times. In the article they discuss the cons of a common good. One of these cons included the “free-rider problem.” This problem is when the common good provides for all even for all those who choose not to do their part. In relation to health care, these would not be the people who could not get jobs but the people who refused and were lazy to even try.
After researching health care and reading this article, I think common good is almost impossible to reach. Many people have different morals or beliefs which blocks a common good from being established. There are too many obstacles to find and keep a common good with our country. Although I believe a common good could unite the nation, it just does not seem realistic to me.
Lastly, in regards to Madison, I think his idea of factions would hinder the idea of a common good. Since these groups have separate beliefs, common good would be nearly impossible to agree on.
After researching health care and reading this article, I think common good is almost impossible to reach. Many people have different morals or beliefs which blocks a common good from being established. There are too many obstacles to find and keep a common good with our country. Although I believe a common good could unite the nation, it just does not seem realistic to me.
Lastly, in regards to Madison, I think his idea of factions would hinder the idea of a common good. Since these groups have separate beliefs, common good would be nearly impossible to agree on.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Politician Update #2
Mike McIntyre
Voting Record:
Mike McIntyre missed 211 (2%) of 10,162 roll call votes since Jan 7, 1997.
Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship
- sponsored 53 bills since Jan 7, 1997 of which 48 haven't made it out of committee and none were successfully enacted.
- co-sponsored 1,783 bills during the same time period.
Most Recent Sponsored Bills
Voting Record:
Mike McIntyre missed 211 (2%) of 10,162 roll call votes since Jan 7, 1997.
Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship
- sponsored 53 bills since Jan 7, 1997 of which 48 haven't made it out of committee and none were successfully enacted.
- co-sponsored 1,783 bills during the same time period.
Most Recent Sponsored Bills
;SetInnerHTMLFromAjaxResponse('/users/ajax_addmonitor_icon.xpd?monitor=bill%3ah112-2477&action=add&elemid=monbtn_4', 'monbtn_4')){kind=link}
Friday, October 21, 2011
Health Care #2
After researching more, I realized a big question relating to health care was if everyone should receive the same health care. This would be a great thing for our country’s unity; however this cannot happen with how people are today. Some people work hard for their healthcare and others do not. This causes great controversy.
Some work long hard hours for health care. Some try to find long hard hours to work but have no luck. And some don’t try at all. These people who do not try are the reason today’s health care should not be standard for all people. These lazy people do not deserve the health care that people who work or try to work deserve.
So how do we determine who deserves health care? There really isn’t an answer for this right now which is why there are many debates about health care. There is no fair way to deal with this problem.
This idea of working for health care relates to my last post on health care about money. Would it be fair if people who work hard all their lives to pay higher taxes for health care that the lazy people without jobs paying nothing? There needs to be a line drawn between can’t get a job to not trying for a job. We need to determine how to do this. WithAmerica
Some work long hard hours for health care. Some try to find long hard hours to work but have no luck. And some don’t try at all. These people who do not try are the reason today’s health care should not be standard for all people. These lazy people do not deserve the health care that people who work or try to work deserve.
So how do we determine who deserves health care? There really isn’t an answer for this right now which is why there are many debates about health care. There is no fair way to deal with this problem.
This idea of working for health care relates to my last post on health care about money. Would it be fair if people who work hard all their lives to pay higher taxes for health care that the lazy people without jobs paying nothing? There needs to be a line drawn between can’t get a job to not trying for a job. We need to determine how to do this. With
Thursday, October 20, 2011
2000 Election Reading
Pre-Reading Questions
1. How do you determine if a recount is needed?
2. Has the candidate with the majority votes, ever lost the election or was this the first time?
3. Was there tension within the two Presidents during or after the recount?
4. Hope long does it take for an actual recount?
5. What is a butterfly ballot?
Facts/Details
1. Counting the 2000 election, there has been four elections in which the winning candidate received fewer popular votes than his opponent.
2. The election was ended by a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court.
3. 20,000 voters were legally disqualified
4. The butterfly ballot was where candidates names are in two columns and punch holes are in the middle which was use in Palm Beach.
5. The case of Romer vs. Evans created special voting rights for homosexuals.
Post-Reading Questions
1. What can or has government done to prevent this from happening again?
2. Why did the Supreme Court get involved?
3. Was it right that the Supreme Court got involved or should it have been left to the states?
4. How did they determine what counties to recount?
5. Should voting processes be nationalized or at least standard within a state?
1. How do you determine if a recount is needed?
2. Has the candidate with the majority votes, ever lost the election or was this the first time?
3. Was there tension within the two Presidents during or after the recount?
4. Hope long does it take for an actual recount?
5. What is a butterfly ballot?
Facts/Details
1. Counting the 2000 election, there has been four elections in which the winning candidate received fewer popular votes than his opponent.
2. The election was ended by a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court.
3. 20,000 voters were legally disqualified
4. The butterfly ballot was where candidates names are in two columns and punch holes are in the middle which was use in Palm Beach.
5. The case of Romer vs. Evans created special voting rights for homosexuals.
Post-Reading Questions
1. What can or has government done to prevent this from happening again?
2. Why did the Supreme Court get involved?
3. Was it right that the Supreme Court got involved or should it have been left to the states?
4. How did they determine what counties to recount?
5. Should voting processes be nationalized or at least standard within a state?
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Recount Film
Questions
1. How does this 'close call' not happen more often if they continue to assume?
2. Do they ever have to recount all states? Why or why not?
3. What does concede mean in government?
4. Has any other election come this close?
5. How will they get the recount done in 6 days?
6. Was Al Gore wrong from choosing most Democratic areas?
7. What is the 'butterfly ballot'?
8. Could Gore have actually won if the recount was extended more?
9. Do you think dimples or other confusing ballots should be counted?
Facts/Details
1. Bush beat Gore by 0.03%
2. While care reviewed, recounts must stop
3. Two limited recounts were ordered: one requested by Al Gore, and the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court
4. The two recounts were short-circuited by Florida county and state election officials and by the U.S. Supreme Court
5. Bush won when the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 ruling, agreed with his lawyers' contention that the counting should end.
6. Florida had to examine175,010 ballots in 67 counties
7. In response to this confusing election of 2000, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 was established.
8. It took 36 days to decide a winner.
1. How does this 'close call' not happen more often if they continue to assume?
2. Do they ever have to recount all states? Why or why not?
3. What does concede mean in government?
4. Has any other election come this close?
5. How will they get the recount done in 6 days?
6. Was Al Gore wrong from choosing most Democratic areas?
7. What is the 'butterfly ballot'?
8. Could Gore have actually won if the recount was extended more?
9. Do you think dimples or other confusing ballots should be counted?
Facts/Details
1. Bush beat Gore by 0.03%
2. While care reviewed, recounts must stop
3. Two limited recounts were ordered: one requested by Al Gore, and the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court
4. The two recounts were short-circuited by Florida county and state election officials and by the U.S. Supreme Court
5. Bush won when the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 ruling, agreed with his lawyers' contention that the counting should end.
6. Florida had to examine175,010 ballots in 67 counties
7. In response to this confusing election of 2000, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 was established.
8. It took 36 days to decide a winner.
Above is a picture of a newpaper showing the close election.
Health Care #1
I honestly was not aware that health care was such an issue until taking this government class. After learning and researching about our country’s health care, I was amazed to see how important health care really is and the outstanding number of people uninsured today. The first thing I researched and informed myself of was the Health Care Bill of 2010.
The number one issue of this bill that comes to my mind with health care is the cost. How will we determine who will pay for this? It is expected that within the first 10 years the cost will be over $940 billion. That’s a lot of money! Washington says the money will be provided by new taxes, fees on industries involved in health care, and cuts in projected spending growth for existing government health efforts, primarily Medicare.
First off, Washington says that there will be higher Medicare tax on the rich people. Starting in January of 2013, the rich should be expecting much higher taxes. Is this fair? Should the rich be paying for the jobless? Secondly, there will be new tax on expensive health insurance. I don’t quite understand what is taxed but it is said that it will be in effect in 2018 and bring in over $32 billion dollars in the first two years. And also, there will be fees on health care industries. Obama believes that this is only fair due to the fact these companies will be getting a lot of new customers. Another tax that interested me was the tanning tax. Washington wants to establish a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning. I wonder what caused this idea.
So with all of this being said, is the place where the money is coming from fair? Is everyone being affected by this? Since, I don’t know much about health care and how it is affecting our country I cannot pose my opinion on how fair Washington is being. After more research with next blog post, I think I will be able to develop an opinion on today health care issue.
The number one issue of this bill that comes to my mind with health care is the cost. How will we determine who will pay for this? It is expected that within the first 10 years the cost will be over $940 billion. That’s a lot of money! Washington says the money will be provided by new taxes, fees on industries involved in health care, and cuts in projected spending growth for existing government health efforts, primarily Medicare.
First off, Washington says that there will be higher Medicare tax on the rich people. Starting in January of 2013, the rich should be expecting much higher taxes. Is this fair? Should the rich be paying for the jobless? Secondly, there will be new tax on expensive health insurance. I don’t quite understand what is taxed but it is said that it will be in effect in 2018 and bring in over $32 billion dollars in the first two years. And also, there will be fees on health care industries. Obama believes that this is only fair due to the fact these companies will be getting a lot of new customers. Another tax that interested me was the tanning tax. Washington wants to establish a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning. I wonder what caused this idea.
So with all of this being said, is the place where the money is coming from fair? Is everyone being affected by this? Since, I don’t know much about health care and how it is affecting our country I cannot pose my opinion on how fair Washington is being. After more research with next blog post, I think I will be able to develop an opinion on today health care issue.
Politician Update
Bob Casey
Voting Record:
Robert Casey missed 4 (0%) of 1,518 roll call votes since Jan 8, 2007.
Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship
- sponsored 174 bills since Jan 4, 2007 of which 170 haven't made it out of committee and none were successfully enacted.
- co-sponsored 730 bills during the same time period.
Most Recent Sponsored Bills
Voting Record:
Robert Casey missed 4 (0%) of 1,518 roll call votes since Jan 8, 2007.
Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship
- sponsored 174 bills since Jan 4, 2007 of which 170 haven't made it out of committee and none were successfully enacted.
- co-sponsored 730 bills during the same time period.
Most Recent Sponsored Bills
;SetInnerHTMLFromAjaxResponse('/users/ajax_addmonitor_icon.xpd?monitor=bill%3as112-1239&action=add&elemid=monbtn_3', 'monbtn_3')){kind=link}
;SetInnerHTMLFromAjaxResponse('/users/ajax_addmonitor_icon.xpd?monitor=bill%3as112-958&action=add&elemid=monbtn_4', 'monbtn_4')){kind=link}
;SetInnerHTMLFromAjaxResponse('/users/ajax_addmonitor_icon.xpd?monitor=bill%3as112-1623&action=add&elemid=monbtn_5', 'monbtn_5')){kind=link}
;SetInnerHTMLFromAjaxResponse('/users/ajax_addmonitor_icon.xpd?monitor=bill%3as112-1614&action=add&elemid=monbtn_6', 'monbtn_6')){kind=link}
;SetInnerHTMLFromAjaxResponse('/users/ajax_addmonitor_icon.xpd?monitor=bill%3as112-1565&action=add&elemid=monbtn_7', 'monbtn_7')){kind=link}
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Faction
Madison's Definition
A number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
Anaylsis
These factions that Madison talked about a lot in Federalist 10 were the new political parties or groups that the Costitution called for. He thought factions would enable women and minorities to have more of a say. These factions were grouped by common interest and ideas. Madison felt that these factions would allow more people to have a say and not one group would become more powerful working like our checks and balance system.
Questions
1. Do factions hurt our government today?
2. Why did he chose the word 'faction'?
3. Who do you think benefits from faction?
4. How are new factions formed?
5. If needed, how can we get rid of factions?
My Definition
Faction: a group of people within a larger group united by mostly the same opinions, interests, and goals
Factions Today
I believe that factions still play a part today such as the Republican, Democratic, and other parties. Sometimes these parties disagree and have opposing opinions on many ideas so these group of people work together to defend themselves against one another.
A number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
Anaylsis
These factions that Madison talked about a lot in Federalist 10 were the new political parties or groups that the Costitution called for. He thought factions would enable women and minorities to have more of a say. These factions were grouped by common interest and ideas. Madison felt that these factions would allow more people to have a say and not one group would become more powerful working like our checks and balance system.
Questions
1. Do factions hurt our government today?
2. Why did he chose the word 'faction'?
3. Who do you think benefits from faction?
4. How are new factions formed?
5. If needed, how can we get rid of factions?
My Definition
Faction: a group of people within a larger group united by mostly the same opinions, interests, and goals
Factions Today
I believe that factions still play a part today such as the Republican, Democratic, and other parties. Sometimes these parties disagree and have opposing opinions on many ideas so these group of people work together to defend themselves against one another.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Members of Congress
Local Representative:Bob Casey
Democrat
Senator of Pennsylvania
Member of Congress:
Mike McIntyre
Democrat
Representative (North Carolina)
Political Ideology
My results of this survey was related to both Democratic and Republican Parties. I, however, consider myself a Democrat. I was given two Democrats in the House of Representatives that share my ideology.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Federalist Program
Details/Facts
1. Endangered Species Act (1973)- wolves were first to be restored
2. Idaho objected and though they should decide if the wolves should be restored; they felt threatened
3. They had no choice and were forced to make own laws to protect these species
4. 40% of crashes/deaths are cause by drunk drivers
5. Only 2 states including North Carolina objected a standard national blood alcohol level
6. .10 blood alcohol level compromise but can be challenged ( most states wanted .08)
7. Devolution- power shifts to states from national level
8. Clinton tried to shift social welfare to the stats since nothing was working to reduce poverty
9. National government gave states money to set up a plan and make decisions on welfare.
10. Stick approach- states must do what government says or else state funds would be set back
Questions
1. Should the citizens have a say in the Endangered Species restore?
2. Did people in Idaho ever consider moving to get away from the wolves?
3. If they do what Washington asked, will they really be awarded?
4. Should there be a Natioanl Blood Alcohol level? Why would one disagree?
5. When does the power shift to the states? Who decides?
6. How do the people react to the shift?
7. Is it ethical to "bribe" states?
8. What should be done by states and what should be done the national government?
9. Is there a state that is considered to have "the most" poor people?
10. What made government decide to suddenly help the poor?
1. Endangered Species Act (1973)- wolves were first to be restored
2. Idaho objected and though they should decide if the wolves should be restored; they felt threatened
3. They had no choice and were forced to make own laws to protect these species
4. 40% of crashes/deaths are cause by drunk drivers
5. Only 2 states including North Carolina objected a standard national blood alcohol level
6. .10 blood alcohol level compromise but can be challenged ( most states wanted .08)
7. Devolution- power shifts to states from national level
8. Clinton tried to shift social welfare to the stats since nothing was working to reduce poverty
9. National government gave states money to set up a plan and make decisions on welfare.
10. Stick approach- states must do what government says or else state funds would be set back
Questions
1. Should the citizens have a say in the Endangered Species restore?
2. Did people in Idaho ever consider moving to get away from the wolves?
3. If they do what Washington asked, will they really be awarded?
4. Should there be a Natioanl Blood Alcohol level? Why would one disagree?
5. When does the power shift to the states? Who decides?
6. How do the people react to the shift?
7. Is it ethical to "bribe" states?
8. What should be done by states and what should be done the national government?
9. Is there a state that is considered to have "the most" poor people?
10. What made government decide to suddenly help the poor?
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Constitution Questions
1. Do you think it is good that the articles and amendments are written vaguely or should they be more specific?
I think that the Founding Fathers should have been more specific. I believe if they were more specific there wouldn't be as much controversy as there is today. Our country is based off this document and if it were more specific there would be less confusion. It also would not require any interpretations minimizing conflicts regarding laws. Lastly, a tenth amendment would not be necessary if it were to be more specific because the lines between state and natioanl governments would be clearly drawn and no implied laws would be present.
2. Did the founding fathers intend for the Constitution to last until today, or did they expect that it would be revised/rewritten?
I'm not exactly sure what the founding fathers intended but I'm sure they planned on keeping this document around for a long time. I do however think they did expect it to be revised overtime due to the fact that their laws were very vaguely written. I also argue that they couldn't expect this document to stay the same as time changes. I think they expected the framing of the Constitution to last until today but would expect slight changes to be made as necessary.
I think that the Founding Fathers should have been more specific. I believe if they were more specific there wouldn't be as much controversy as there is today. Our country is based off this document and if it were more specific there would be less confusion. It also would not require any interpretations minimizing conflicts regarding laws. Lastly, a tenth amendment would not be necessary if it were to be more specific because the lines between state and natioanl governments would be clearly drawn and no implied laws would be present.
2. Did the founding fathers intend for the Constitution to last until today, or did they expect that it would be revised/rewritten?
I'm not exactly sure what the founding fathers intended but I'm sure they planned on keeping this document around for a long time. I do however think they did expect it to be revised overtime due to the fact that their laws were very vaguely written. I also argue that they couldn't expect this document to stay the same as time changes. I think they expected the framing of the Constitution to last until today but would expect slight changes to be made as necessary.
Federalist 10
Questions
1. Is it good for our government that everyone has a different opinion?
2. What is the difference between the two republics?
3. Why do you think political parties create factions?
4. How can we get rid of factions?
5. Why are both papers written to the People of the State of New York?
Quotes
1. "Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction."
I picked this quote because it addresses the main point of the Federalist paper which is to control and break factions.
2. "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires."
I picked this quote because it shows an analogy between the relationship of liberty to a faction which is a main topic of this paper.
I picked this quote because it addresses the main point of the Federalist paper which is to control and break factions.
2. "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires."
I picked this quote because it shows an analogy between the relationship of liberty to a faction which is a main topic of this paper.
3. "It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government."
I picked this quote because this is shows how greedy people are with power. People naturally want to have the power, and it must be controlled so that people can not abuse the power they have.
4. "The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."
I picked this quote because it shows how our system which has a small representative group is most sucessful.
5. "As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other."
I picked this quote because it relates to my question about peoples opinions interferring with government and other subjects.
1. Is it good for our government that everyone has a different opinion?
2. What is the difference between the two republics?
3. Why do you think political parties create factions?
4. How can we get rid of factions?
5. Why are both papers written to the People of the State of New York?
Quotes
1. "Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction."
I picked this quote because it addresses the main point of the Federalist paper which is to control and break factions.
2. "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires."
I picked this quote because it shows an analogy between the relationship of liberty to a faction which is a main topic of this paper.
I picked this quote because it addresses the main point of the Federalist paper which is to control and break factions.
2. "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires."
I picked this quote because it shows an analogy between the relationship of liberty to a faction which is a main topic of this paper.
3. "It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government."
I picked this quote because this is shows how greedy people are with power. People naturally want to have the power, and it must be controlled so that people can not abuse the power they have.
4. "The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."
I picked this quote because it shows how our system which has a small representative group is most sucessful.
5. "As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other."
I picked this quote because it relates to my question about peoples opinions interferring with government and other subjects.
Federalist 51
Questions
1. Why does the choecks and blanaces need "furnishing"?
2. Do you favor the rest of the Constitution?
3. Are you saying the branches should work separately and not communicate?
4. Why should the legislative authority dominate?
5. Why is Checks and Balances so important?
Quotes
1. "It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices"I picked this quote because it makes it clear that separation of powers are very important to the branches.
2. "If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."
I picked this quote because it shows that the majority could outdo the minority if nothing is done to prevent it.
3. "The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other states."
I picked this quote because it illustrates how important a national government is.
4. "You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
I picked this quote because this illustrates popular sovereignty that the governments power comes from the people.
5. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
I picked this quote because it confused me. I know it proves that government is necessary but why would Madison state this?
1. Why does the choecks and blanaces need "furnishing"?
2. Do you favor the rest of the Constitution?
3. Are you saying the branches should work separately and not communicate?
4. Why should the legislative authority dominate?
5. Why is Checks and Balances so important?
Quotes
1. "It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices"I picked this quote because it makes it clear that separation of powers are very important to the branches.
2. "If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."
I picked this quote because it shows that the majority could outdo the minority if nothing is done to prevent it.
3. "The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other states."
I picked this quote because it illustrates how important a national government is.
4. "You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
I picked this quote because this illustrates popular sovereignty that the governments power comes from the people.
5. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
I picked this quote because it confused me. I know it proves that government is necessary but why would Madison state this?
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Politcal Cartoon 2
1. What is depicted in this political cartoon?
2. What is the significance of each persons facial expressions?
3. Do you agree or disagree with this cartoon? Why or why not?
Simile/Metaphor
Metaphor for the American system of separation of powers and Checks and Balances.
The American system of separation of powers and Checks and Balances is like a volleyball game. The National Volleyball Association makes the rules as does the legislative branch, the coaches enforce the rules as does the executive branch, and the officials judge the rules as does the judicial branch. These rules made and carried out are just like the laws these branches use. All three of these groups need to work together to have stable and sucessful game.
The American system of separation of powers and Checks and Balances is like a volleyball game. The National Volleyball Association makes the rules as does the legislative branch, the coaches enforce the rules as does the executive branch, and the officials judge the rules as does the judicial branch. These rules made and carried out are just like the laws these branches use. All three of these groups need to work together to have stable and sucessful game.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Questions and Facts/details learned from Frontline program
Questions:
1. Why were they so secretive after 9/11? Wouldn't people find out eventually and make it worse?
2. Why was it called Greystone?
3. Why did the CIA go overseas first?
4. Why did they decide to build an overseas prison?
5. How did they determine who were the Al Queda leaders?
6. How did the American public find out and react to the war?
7. What is meant by "unconventional war" with Iraq?
8. What made this man search for all the secret government buildings in the US?
9. How do Americans react to secret buildings? Are enough Americans aware of this?
10. Is it even beneficial to have these agencies?
Facts/Details:
1. Plan for war began immediately after 9/11 occurred
2. Greystone- code name for Al Queda mission
3. War started within a week, CIA went before military
4. Worked with locals to minimize American footprint
5. Used enhanced integration techniques to get information
6. John Rizzo created prison system overseas which was a secret international building
7. NSA mission: prevent a future terrorist attack
8. War required information not tanks and guns
9. Secret world has grown after 9/11 (not revealed to public and scattered around US)
10. Billions of dollars going into these secret agencies
1. Why were they so secretive after 9/11? Wouldn't people find out eventually and make it worse?
2. Why was it called Greystone?
3. Why did the CIA go overseas first?
4. Why did they decide to build an overseas prison?
5. How did they determine who were the Al Queda leaders?
6. How did the American public find out and react to the war?
7. What is meant by "unconventional war" with Iraq?
8. What made this man search for all the secret government buildings in the US?
9. How do Americans react to secret buildings? Are enough Americans aware of this?
10. Is it even beneficial to have these agencies?
Facts/Details:
1. Plan for war began immediately after 9/11 occurred
2. Greystone- code name for Al Queda mission
3. War started within a week, CIA went before military
4. Worked with locals to minimize American footprint
5. Used enhanced integration techniques to get information
6. John Rizzo created prison system overseas which was a secret international building
7. NSA mission: prevent a future terrorist attack
8. War required information not tanks and guns
9. Secret world has grown after 9/11 (not revealed to public and scattered around US)
10. Billions of dollars going into these secret agencies
Friday, September 23, 2011
Interview
I interviewed an 18 year old student about the themes and big ideas of this chapter. I first started off about the overall idea of voting and our government. I asked about whether getting reelected is more important to politicians than making real decisions. He doesn't think so because he believes in order to get reelected it is necessary to make real decisions. You need to make the people happy with your decisions to get reelected. He said he would vote strictly for his party. I don't understand how people know who to vote for or how to get to know all the candidates. Do many people just vote on other people’s opinions and follow them or do they vote on your party. I'd like to know how to vote since I will be voting in the near futures.
I then started discussing the Constitution with him. He started off saying that the Constitution should be revised periodically since a lot of things have changed and it needs to benefit the people of that time. However many people have different views on this specific topic of updating the Constitution. He also believed the Constitution was written as a set of guidelines since guidelines are more flexible and easily changed. But he believes it has now began to become strictly adhered too since people constantly turn to the Constitution for support of their cause. There are many opinions on this also. He said that we must have the Constitution rather than going by our own humanity. He brought up the fact that there are many beliefs and morals with the different people that we must have a set of guidelines that we can all base on.
Overall I agree with these answers. I wonder what older adults would feel on these issues and themes of this chapter. I would like to compare my findings with other students who have interviewed adults such as parents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)