[12.20.11] The Electoral College

Facts
1)"The existence of the electoral college usually undermines third parties, which are unlikely to win electoral votes...."
2) The election-of-a-candidate-who-lost-the-popular-vote has happened four times so far.
3) "Some seven hundred proposed amendments have been introduced in Congress over the last two centuries in an effort to reform or abolish this system."
4) The Eighteenth amendment extended Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce in addition to "at least one aspect of intrastate commerce as well."
5) "The law cannot prevent a candidate from voluntarily withdrawing from the race, nor can it prevent individual electors from changing their votes once he has given permission to change sides."
6) Some people say that the public will probably vote for the other candidate if one candidate wishes to get rid of the electoral college (it was created by the Founding Fathers, so that candidate would not get many votes.... "against the Founders' wishes")
7) 10 states "as of the year 2000 account for fifty-four percent of the US population..."
8) "The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared since Baker v. Carr in 1962 that one person-one vote must prevail at the state and local level, the Constitution effectively bars it at the federal."
9) George W. Bush was the first Southern conservative since before the Civil War.
10) The many small states that "benefit disproportionately from the Electoral College have made it plain that they will never consent to the slightest alteration [to the electoral college]."

Questions
1) Do many people want to get rid of the electoral college?
2) What is the purpose of the electoral college, then? Does this mean that the popular vote does not count?
3) Electors (from the electoral college, right?) are allowed to change their votes?
4) How would the Founding Fathers change the electoral college if they saw how the elections worked today?
5) How effective was Hillary Clinton on persuading people on her views about the electoral college?

I feel that the electoral college should be abolished. Like the "most Americans" mentioned in the beginning of the reading, I was very surprised to find out that the president is elected by electors; I had thought that he or she was voted by popular vote.

[12.19.11] Interpreting the Constitution in the Digital Era

Facts
1) Issues of the Constitution come into play - for example, would it be legal for the police to place a GPS on the bottom of a suspect's car (without his/her permission) and track him/her? (4th amendment - search and seizure)
2) There were (are?) Google vans driving down streets and taking pictures.... (Weird...)
3) There was a heat sensor that determined that one area of a certain man's house was warmer than the rest so the police searched his house (after getting a warrant).
4) If German intelligence people find information that is not necessarily terrorism-related (eg adultery), they cannot report it to the police.
5) The Patriot Act expanded the ability of the government to seize any data as long as it is relevant to a terrorist investigation.
6) However, the Patriot Act has been used for obtaining information about illegal immigration and non-terrorist-related things.
7) There is a type of MRI that has been gaining attention for scanning which part of brain being lit up during certain thoughts. (fMRIs)
8) Overactive amygdala - lock them up. predisposition to violence.
9) There was a woman who was fired for a certain picture on her MySpace. Her 1st amendment rights were ruled to be not violated.
10) Twitter was recently pressured to remove pro-Taliban tweets.

Questions
1) Could this possibly grow to be a sort of "Big Brother" sort of society?
2) Was it legal for Lower Merion to do what they did with the laptops a few years ago? How did they justify that?
3) Might there be future amendments to the Constitution concerning internet privacy?
4) Could colleges and schools go through a person's Facebook/MySpace/other social networking sites and find a picture that would justify them to reject that person/suspend them/fire them? Especially if everything is set to private?
5) What precautions are used to make sure people's information will not get out?

[12.18.11] More Pending Bills

Eli - S. 1500: Ensure Children Have Health Care Act: "This bill would allow health insurance companies in a state to cover children in other states."

Abby - H.R. 3359: Traveling Exotic Animal Protection Act: "To amend the Animal Welfare Act to restrict the use of exotic and non-domesticated animals in traveling circuses and exhibitions."

Aaron - H.R. 2256: Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2011: "To amend the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally."

I'd like to choose H.R. 2256 for my constituent letter. (Pet Safety and Protection Act of 2011)

[12.12.11] Political Cartoon

1) Do you think that Obama will get as many donations as he did last election?

2) What is a "nanny-state government"?

3) Do you think that Obama is trying to do what is best for the country? Don't compromises have to be made, things sacrificed, before things can be changed?

[12.12.11] National Debt

Hope S.
Are there any solutions to help our country decrease its debt in an efficient manner? If so, what are they? 
How does our debt compare with other countries' debts? What does this mean for America? 

Eli P.
How has America gotten out of severe debt in the past?
[I previously chose Eli's question, but found no sources that told me anything...]


Kathleen Q.
What was the main cause of the national debt spiraling out of control?


Sources that will be consulted:
Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Not serious but funny: link


Are there any solutions to help our country decrease its debt in an efficient manner? If so, what are they?
Limit the money spent on weapons and war; one site suggested that the US "should stop sending people and stop having wars" (the former of which we've started to do). That same person also suggested a change in the Social Security system - another way of funding it ("Social security should not give people extra income they do not need"). Yet another person suggested we make a gradual change to other energy sources, such as "oil, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear"; solar energy could also be an option.

How does our debt compare with other countries' debts?
Good news -- the US was the wealthiest nation in the world (in terms of GDP) in 2007, with 13,844 billion. Japan came in second with 4,384 billion and Germany with 3,322 billion. Unfortunately, the country in first place with external debt is - you guessed it - the United States, with 12,250 billion dollars. The UK followed with a close second with 10,450 billion, and, like last time, Germany was third with 4,849 billion.
CNBC has a pretty neat slideshow of the World's Biggest Debtor Nations. The United States was 20th on the list with its external debt (% of GDP) of 101.1%. The gross external debt, estimated for 2009, was about $14.66 trillion. Ireland stands at number one, its external debt at 1,382%. The estimated 2010 GDP is around $172.3 billion.

What was the main cause of the national debt spiraling out of control?
A website lists several causes:
*Expansion of the housing bubble (homeowners refinanced their homes at lower interest rates, took out second mortgages)
*Simple credit conditions
*Sub-prime lending ("the practice of dishonest lenders[...] to enter into "risky" loans for improper purposes")
*Deregulation
Just to name a few. GlobalIssues.org states that "in the 1960s the US Government had spent more money than it earned and to make up for this decided to print more dollars. So the world's stocks of dollars fell in value."

[12.11.11] New York Times Budget

Apparently I solved the deficit...
So apparently I did lots of things wrong. Ahahahaha.

23% came from tax increases while 77% came from spending cuts.

I felt that the easier choices to make involved the military, army, and navy, while the most difficult choices involved jobs, taxes on the less fortunate, health insurance, etc.

If Congress were to come into play, I think that probably none of these cuts/tax increases would have been acted on.

While I was reading the "7,000 Ways to Fix the Deficit," I couldn't help but notice the mention about the soda tax. It seems like a good idea, a sort of win-win situation. If there are still people that want to drink soda, there would be a lot of revenue generated. If people decided to drink soda less, it would help the obesity problem...

[12.11.11] Pending Bills Part 2

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.


Facts
1) To try and persuade a woman that her fetus is "already alive," this act will require that all women looking to get an abortion will have to get an ultrasound.
2) I just found it interesting how they had to put this in the bill. There is also something similar to it but it involves the sound.

‘(3) ABILITY TO AVERT EYES- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a pregnant woman from closing or averting her eyes from the ultrasound images required to be displayed, or not listening to the description of the images required to be given, by the provider or the provider’s agent pursuant to paragraph (1)."

3) An exception for this would be in emergencies that are threatening to the woman's life.
4) The first offense (if a woman refuses) will result in a fine of up to $100,000. "Second and Subsequent Offenses" will result in a fine of up to $250,000.
5) Bills have to first state the name. In this case:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Heartbeat Informed Consent Act’.

6) One justification:

(6) Less than five percent of all natural pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage after detection of cardiac activity. A fetal heartbeat is therefore a key medical indicator that an unborn child is likely to achieve the capacity for live birth.

Questions
1) Do you think that this act will lower abortion rates?
2) Could this be unconstitutional in any way?
3) What would happen if a woman refuses to look at the ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat?

[12.7.11] Political Cartoon

1) Do you think this will have a huge effect?
2) Do you think people will still buy the "Forever" stamps if mail takes longer to deliver?
3) If the post office keeps making cuts, could the postal service be completely gone one day?

[12.6.11] Lessons from the Nixon Administration

Links HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, AND HERE.


1) Adequate knowledge about law in addition to wartime experience - one might seem more reliable in certain times of crisis

...Nixon had a brilliant record at Whittier College and Duke University Law School before beginning the practice of law....During World War II, Nixon served as a Navy lieutenant commander in the Pacific.

Nixon joined the United States Navy in August, 1942. Given the rank of lieutenant he was sent to the Pacific as an operations officer with the South Pacific Combat Air Transport Command.

2) Keeping promises will make one seem more trustworthy - people put more trust in the president, believes he/she will achieve what he/she set out to do, more reliable

As he had promised, he appointed Justices of conservative philosophy to the Supreme Court. 

During the presidential campaign Nixon promised to negotiate the end of the Vietnam War. [And although fighting between the two sides escalated, in the end...] Nixon agreed to sign the peace plan that had been proposed in October.

3) Making a huge step in a discovery, or obtaining a huge achievement - more nationalism & pride for the country, more trust in the president to do great things

One of the most dramatic events of his first term occurred in 1969, when American astronauts made the first moon landing.

4) Creating treaties or improving relations between countries - promotes trade, etc

Some of his most acclaimed achievements came in his quest for world stability.  

President Nixon's trip to China in 1972 ended twenty-five years of isolation between the United States and the People's Republic of China (PRC) and resulted in establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries in 1979 

In 1969 Nixon appointed Henry Kissinger as his adviser on National Security Affairs. In this post Kissinger played an important role in the improved relations with both China and the Soviet Union in the early 1970s. He also iniated peace talks between the Arabs and the Israelis.

5) Don't try to do dishonest, sneaky things - being found out is not a good contribution to one's reputation

 During the election campaign there was a break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic Party at the Watergate complex in Washington. Reports by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post, began to claim that some of Nixon's top officials were involved in organizing the Watergate break-in.

Nixon continued to insist that he knew nothing about the case or the payment of "hush-money" to the burglars. However, in April 1973, Nixon forced two of his principal advisers H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, to resign. A third adviser, John Dean, refused to go and was sacked. Nixon's vice president, Spiro T. Agnew, was also forced to go after being charged with income evasion and was replaced by Gerald Ford.

It was now clear that Nixon had been involved in the cover-up and members of the Senate began to call for his impeachment. On 9th August, 1974, Nixon became the first President of the United States to resign from office.  

 

[12.6.11] Campaign Ad Analysis

SELF-PROMOTIONAL

This CM shows the candidate as a "normal" citizen, not as someone unapproachable. Along with the mellow music, the field, and the "proud of my heritage..." Etc. Effective.

CARDSTACKING

Not effective. Pictures were dark and the narrator's voice was creepy. Most of the things listed (Eagle scout, honor student, etc) does not necessary mean that he will be a good president.

PLAIN FOLKS

Music, a safe feeling.... Looks like a "everyday" citizen, approachable. The elderly woman's words also have an effect, too. (May or may not make one emotional) Effective.


HUMOR

Effective. And very amusing. Completely did not expect the end.


TESTIMONIAL

Have people "switching" to the other side, wanting for change... A little bit effective.


SCARE TACTICS

Effective. Strong pictures of the Vietnam War, need to change what is happening. Therefore, change president.



This is not related to government but is a very effective commercial, in my opinion. The commercial does not advertise its "product" well, but it is still worth watching.

[12.6.11] Electoral College

Facts
1) Each state gets two electoral votes in addition to "votes equal to the state's delegation" in the House.
2) The total number of votes that each candidate receives in an election are not added up and compared.
3) A reason why  the Electoral College was created was because it was "a mathod of achieving objective" without giving Congress power to elect the president.
5) "The two-party system doomed any hope that the Electoral College would choose the 'best' person to be President, since the choice would be limited to the candidates picked by the parties."
6) If the president was just determined via popular vote, then "a state would no longer be a relevant entity for purposes of determining the winner of the election."
7) "All states select their Presidential electors by popular vote..."
8) If there is a very small margin of victory between the two candidates, then the House would have chosen the president.
9) The Constitution did not mention a "method for resolving disputes over electors."
10) There was a bill to "abolish the Electoral College in favor of a nationwide popular vote with a runoff if no candidate received at least 40 percent of the vote."

Questions
1) If the first candidate to reach 270 wins, how... is that fair?
2) Difference between popular vote and electoral college vote?
3) "Florida's experience suggests that Democratic voters are morelikely than Republican ones to spoil their ballots." What does the author mean by "spoil"?
4) How many of the votes could be fake? ("not to mention outright fraud, which remains common, especially with regard to absentee ballots"
5) Difference between pleurality and majority?

[12.4.11] Taxpayer.net

The Precarious State of the Highway Trust Fund (Cascadia Prospectus)

1) The new bills concerning highways were passed with both majority in the House (298-121) and in the Senate (70-30).

2) The "obligation limitation for the highway program" is about $2 billion less than this year's. (This is for FY 2012). However, "an additional $1.66 billion is appropriated for highway-relared 'emergency relief.'"

3) California is planning to have a high-speed rail/bullet train built, but there was no mention of this in the budget.

4) Some people are concerned that this bill "will deplete almost all resources from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) by the end of fiscal year 2012."

5) Sometime in December the "American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act" will be announced." This bill "would authorize expanded offshore gas and oil exploration and dedicate royalties from such exploration to "infrastructure repair and improvement" focused on roads and bridges."

I'm wondering: how are the bills in the Senate and House numbered? Are the numbers reused? The above bill is HR 7. Do the numbers on the bill skip around?




Despite earmark ban, lawmakers try to give money to hundreds of pet projects (Washington Post)

1) There is a moratorium  ("delay or suspension of an activity or a law") announced in both the Senate (last February) and the House (last November) on earmarks.

2) Representative Doris Matsui (from CA) does not support the banning of earmarks since that gives "all the power to the administration."

3) Earmark spending "nearly tripled over a 15-year period, to $31.9 billion in 2010, the year before the ban."

4) I thought this was kind of funny: "Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio), who previously secured more than $2 million in earmarks for a 'Corrosion Engineering Education Initiative' at the University of Akron, added $33 million to the authorization bill this year for 'Corrosion Protection Projects.'"

5) "After 2008, lawmakers had to disclose when they were seeking money for pet projects in their districts, providing a description of the project and the dollar amount. They also had to file paperwork certifying that neither they nor their spouses would benefit financially from the earmark."

[12.1.11] Pending Bills

H.R. 3120: Student Visa Reform Act

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to require accreditation of certain educational institutions for purposes of a nonimmigrant student visa, and for other purposes.

Status: This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Explanation: Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee. [Last Updated: Oct 25, 2011 6:18AM]



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: This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Explanation: Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee. [Last Updated: Nov 21, 2011 12:10PM]



S. 1697: Dairy and Sheep H-2A Act
112th Congress: 2011-2012
A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide a special rule for the period of admission of H-2A nonimmigrants employed as sheepherders, goat herders, or dairy farmers, and for other purposes.

Status: This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Explanation: Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee. [Last Updated: Oct 18, 2011 6:23AM]

[11.30.11] Political Cartoon

1) With the rate of obesity going up, do you think it was right for Congress to declare pizza a vegetable?

2) Why is it such an issue that Obama might have been born in Kenya? The Constitution reads

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

 3) What exactly is so horrible about Newt Gingrich?

[11.29.11] PA's 2008 Presidential Election Returns by District

"[Obama] also gained ground in northeastern and southwestern Pennsylvania — areas crucial to Republican nominee John McCain. McCain prevailed in most of the Republican bastion of central and northern Pennsylvania."

"A former Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice had to apologize for a GOP e-mail sent to Jewish voters that likened a vote for Barack Obama to ignoring warning signals that led to the Holocaust."

"Election watchdog groups reported scattered problems at polling places around the state, including malfunctioning machines, understaffed polling places and poorly trained election workers."

"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."

"Pennsylvania is a strong gun rights state with almost 1 million licensed hunters."

[11.28.11] Pennsylvania's Congressional Districts

1) The 7th congressional district contains the western and northwestern suburbs of Philadelphia.
2) This district had an area of diverse wealth, "ranging from blue collar and working class households... to the affluent Main Line area..."
3) The 1st congressional district includes " primarily central and South Philadelphia, the City of Chester, the Philadelphia International Airport, and other small sections of Delaware County."
4) The 1st congressional district has an "overwhelming Democratic majority."
5) The second district "has an overwhelming Democratic majority. It is the fifth most Democratic Congressional District out of the 435 in the nation, according to the Cook Partisan Voting Index, with a score of D +38. It is the most Democratic district outside of New York City."
(So NYC has 4 congressional districts?)
6) The 6th congressional district was controversial since people claimed it to be a case of gerrymandering.
7) Ever since the 6th congressional district was redrawn in 2002, the district has gotten much more competitive.
8) Also, the 15th district (Lehigh & Northampton Counties) is usually a heavily contested area (politically).
9) The median income for those living in the 7th congressional district is $56,126.
10) From 1833 to the present, a majority of the representatives from the 7th congressional district have been Republican.

[11.28.11] The Death Penalty

Liam
How severe does a crime have to be to legally gain the ability to end someone's life with the crime?

Justin J.
If the sentence someone to life in prison, why not just sentence them to the death penalty?

Tristan G.
How much does it cost to pay for the death penalty, with court cases and expenses included? How does it compare to the inmate living in a prison?

Answers can be found here, here, here, and here.
Interesting website : LINK

[11.22.11] How Washington Works

Facts
1) Congress works from Monday afternoon to Friday morning so members have more time to communicate with constituents.
2) People who go to D.C. to serve in the executive branch or Congress usually stay in that city and "become lawyers, lobbyists, or consultants" when "their president leaves office or they lose their congressional seats."
3) (I find it a bit strange but fascinating how) "personal relationships often cut across party and ideological lines."
4) "Washington jargon" - Dept of housing and Urban Development is pronounced "HUD" but DOT (Dept of Transportation) is pronounced D-O-T.
5) "Sometimes an amendment [to a bill] is a complete substitute bill with quite different impact and meaning, known in the trade as a "killer amendment."
6) "The political community lurches from one passion to the next," yet
7) A majority of the "passions" are "one-subject": politics.
8) "The city and its suburbs are encircled by a sixty-four-mile freeway loop known as the beltway."
9) Newt Gingrich considers all of this a game.
10) "Patomic fever" - "the incurable addiction of wielding political power or feeling at the political center."

Questions
1) The government pays for the airfares of the members of the Congress, right? (To and from their state)
2) How much of an effect does this "D.C." culture have in laws, policies, etc?
3) What is the reason why most politicians entered politics in the first place?
4) How many politicians are more interested in the attention rather than the "power"?
5) Is there such a difference between D.C. and the rest of the country?
6) How often are representatives from other states noticed? (Do reps get THAT much attention?)
7) Does D.C. have a high rate of crime? (Amount of people)
8) How much do representatives consider their constituents?
9) Have there recently been any physical fights between representatives? How friendly are reps to the other party?
10) How many jobs are there in D.C. that revolve around the government?

[11.17.11] Terry Gross Interview

Facts

1) The first birth control clinic oppened in 1916.
2) Sanger was arrested for simply giving out information about contraception.
3)"[The Comstock Act] classified all sorts of printed material as obscenity and specified contraception as obscene so that it [was] illegal to send through the U.S. mail ... information, even in a philosophical sense, about reducing a woman's fertility." || Could not speak, write, publish about contraception.
4) Contraception came out of the fear of death during childbirth.
5) There was a fear that contraception would lead to more women commiting adultery.
6) The New York Penal Code prevented Sanger from distributing things about contraception.
7) Mississippi rejected an initiative that would have granted rights of personhood to an fertilized egg.
8) Birth rate has been falling among wealthier and more educated women.
9) 1960s - role of government in overpopulation a big issue.
10) 1970 - Title 10 - much more government intervention that provides funding for family planning services

Questions
1) Wouldn't the Cornstock Act have been a violation of the first amendment?
2) Is there still a overpopulation problem now?
3) Isn't childbirth more safe now?
4) Why didn't people come up with more ways to control the population without contraception?
5) Do people want to have less kids now? Why or why not?
6) What were people's reactions to Sanger's "movement"?

[11.16.11] Frontline - Lost in Detention

Facts
1) Obama is more strict on immigration.
2) Secure Communities consists of local law enforcement that try to track down illegal immigrants who commit crimes.
3) Less than 20% of illegal immigrants deported from Illinois committed a serious crime.
4) 46% of illegal immigrants have live in the US for at least 11 year, undocumented.
5) There are around 250 detention centers.
6) There is a required number of illegal immigrants that need to be deported each year (for ICE).
7) Some people believe that Secure Communities actually is doing more damage rather than helping this situation.
8) Four and a half citizen children living in the US where one or both of the parents are undocumented.
9) No access to attorneys = detainees are more less likely to have legal protection in case of physical or sexual abuse.
10) If detainees tell someone in charge about physical or sexual abuse, it may get worse for them...

Questions
1) What happens when people who have children are taken away?
2) When, if ever, is it okay for an illegal immigrant to gain citizenship?
3) Can the US government force an American-born child to leave the country if his/her parents are deported? (Both)
4) Are the detention centers like the internment camps?
5) How harsh are punishments for guards that don't act in a proper manner?

[11.16.11] Committees of Congress

Mike McIntyre
Member, House Committee on Agriculture
*"Precedent is also used to determine committee jurisdiction."
*Jurisdiction includes agricultural economics and research, the dairy industry, human nutrition and home economics, and more.
*The subcommitties for the House Committee on Agriculture include Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture; Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry; Nutrition and Horticulture; General Farm Commodities and Risk Management; Department Operations, Oversight, and Credit; and Conservation, Energy, and Forestry.



Bob Casey
Member, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
*Jurisdiction includes the "acquisition of land and buildings for embassies and legations in foreign countries."
*Also included are the "international activities of the American National Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross."
*Also has an influence on "international law as it relates to foreign policy."

Member, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
*"The Subcommittee has jurisdiction over a wide range of issues including Head Start, child care and child support such as the Child Care & Development Block Grant, the Family Medical Leave Act, National Service, women and children’s healthcare, and other issues involving children, youth, and families."
*"It is the committee that generates proposals to change the health care system, the minimum wage, working conditions and compensation, and welfare and labor laws."
*"The committee is also responsible for how the Food and Drug Administration operates, including the process for approving drugs and medical devices."

[11.15.11] West Wing - The Stackhouse Filibuster

Facts
1) People who keep a filibuster going can talk about anything they want.
2) People who filibuster can not stop talking, even if they want to eat, drink, or use the bathroom.
3) Those people also cannot sit down or lean on anything.
4) A filibuster is when someone is objected to a certain bill and wants to prevent it from passing.
5) A bill goes to the House and to the Senate. When a filibuster occurs, it only happens in the Senate due to the limit of time for a speech in the House.
6) The conference chairman should be the head of the conference committee (right?). THe conference committee is the group that makes compromises on the bill that the House and Senate disagree on.

STACKHOUSE
Of course you can. You simply pick up the phone, you call the Conference
Chairman, and...

7) The Senator is allowed to yield for a question without yielding the floor.
8) A filibuster can be initiated by a group of people.

Question
1) Why can people who filibuster be allowed to talk about something that is completely unrelated to the topic?
2) What is the origin of a filibuster? (Who came up with this idea?)
3) Why are the "rules" for a filibuster the way they are?
4) Are filibusters usually effective?
5) Can other senators leave the room to eat or drink, for example, while someone is filibustering?

[11.13.11] PA's Electoral College Votes

Details
1) Dominic Pileggi, PA's Senate Majority Leader, created a plan what would have "electors chosen out of congressional districts with the remaining two going to the statewide winner."
2) Nebraska and Maine have abandoned the "winner-take-all system."
3) Candidates would only need to win a bare majority if this plan was to be put into effect.
4) A group called "All Votes Matter" has been pushing for this since May.
5) If the system changes, then PA will not be as important a state for electoral votes as before.
6) Voting turnout may quite possibly go down since the state does not have as great of an impact on the election.
7) "Many believe that the move to change PA's electoral vote apportionment was a proper Republican response to polls showing nationwide voter dismay over the present Electoral College system...."
8) Some Republicans are against the plan.
9) Even Nebraska Republicans are thinking of chainging their system.
10) People may get harrassed because of this (All Votes Matter doesn't disclose its donors "as a matter of policy, per the request of many of them," Gerow told Mother Jones. "It's their legal right not to have it disclosed, and they don't want it disclosed so they're not subject to media calls and other potential harassment," he added.)

Questions
1) What's so bad about this change if it goes into effect?
2) What is the reason for this change?
3) Why was it the "winner-take-all" system in the first place? (Who established this system?)
4) The souce of money counts in this situation?
5) How would this new system be unfair?

Additional source HERE.

[11.9.11] House Speaker John Boehner

Facts/details
1) His "package" of spending cuts did not work out.
2) "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."
3) He wrote "an overhaul of pension laws."
4) "Boehner doesn’t exercise authoritarian power."
5) He threatened to puncish "recalcitrant Republicans by taking away committee assignments."
6) “Speaker Boehner has historically claimed that he supports the will of the House working its way."
7) After winning control of the House, his personality has not changed...
8) House speaker and house majority leader are not the same position.

Questions
1) What exactly does the role of house speaker have?
2) What does it mean when one controls a "single chamber of Congress"?
3) How would one exercise "authoritarian power" in the House?
4) Is he not really opposed to the outcome of each "debate" over each issue?
5) What is so significant about Boehner?

[11.9.11] Is the US House Too Small?

Facts
1) Brian Frederick's research suggests that "as districts get bigger in population, constituents are less likely to report that they had contact with their member of Congress, less likely to report that their member would be helpful? and less likely to favorably evaluate their member of Congress."
2) Rein Taagepera's "cubed root law" says that the cube root of the nation's population would be the desired number of people in the house.
3) The bigger the government or number of representatives ("institution"), the "less smoothly it often operates."
4) The results of a recent poll shows that 20% of the population support on increasing the number of people in the House, 60% want the number to stay the same, and 20% want to decrease the number.
5) By increasing the number of representatives, "'you're asking people to support more politicans, to pay more salary, and to many people that may not be an easy cost to bear.

Questions
1) Why was 435 the set number in the first place?
2) Could one split up bigger districts?
3) In what places were there an increase in population?
4) How would one change the set number of representatives?
5) Where does it say that 435 was the set number?

Opinion
I do not feel that the number of members should stay at 435. When the founding fathers set the government up, the Great Compromise stated that the members of the House of Representatives would depend on the state's population... So for however many people, there is a representative, right? I wonder why the number is at 435. To be honest, I did not know that the number of members was set until a few days ago. Citizens of the United States should be familiar with their representative in the House.

[11.7.11] Illegal Immigration

Christina N. - Are illegal immigrants that great of a threat to our country?
Answers to each side of each argument can be found HERE.


I personally do not think that illegal immigrants pose a threat to the United States. It isn't like a majority of the immigrants are terrorists; most are unhappy with their country and want to come here and start a new life. Besides, Paul F. deLespinasse stated that "But the scoundrels who took out the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and four planeloads of travelers came into the U.S. legally." In addition, illegal immigrants take the jobs that Americans do not want. Take for example the law that was passed that did not allow illegal immigrants to work on farms/fields. The people in charge complained that their tomatoes, for example, were picked when they were too ripe since there were not enough workers.... Also, the non-illegal immigrant workers that they hired did not do their jobs well enough.

[11.8.11] Representatives' Finances

First thing - I love how on the "why does this matter" page, they encourage people to contact their representatives in the government if they want to find out more about their personal finances. Will the representatives really agree to reveal more things? Do they think it's a violation of privacy?

The people's assets, liabilities, and such are really shocking to me as well - not because of the numbers but because of the detail. Not only do they list the organization, they also list the value of each.

At first, I was surprised at the difference of net worth for Bob Casey (HERE) and Mike McIntyre (HERE), but then I looked and was reminded of the fact that Casey is a Senator and McIntyre is a member of the House. I wonder, is the difference between the two really that much? I figured that yes, it was... Since things are more "diluted" (forgot where I heard this term for things in the House).

[11.6.11] Due Process - "Last Resort"

Facts/details
1) DNA plays a huge part in a criminal case.
2) However, it is only used about only 5% of the time.
3) Eyewitnesses also have a role in determining whether or not a person is guilty. There have been several cases where the eyewitness has lied.
4) In the past 20 years, more than 270 exonerations have been made due to Scheck and the use of DNA evidence.
5) The number of death sentences and executions has gone down over the last 10 years.
6) On average, it takes about 25 years from getting sentenced to death to being executed.
7) $187 million more is spent on those in death row
8) Lawyers sometimes assume the worst and believe that their clients are guilty.
9) Psychologists are trying to find ways to reduce the risk of error for witness testimonies.
10) New Jersey and New Mexico are some of the states that repealed capital punishment.

Questions
1) What does new evidence have to do with constitutional claim?
2) Should witnesses be used at all? How much "help" do they provide?
3) Is there any way to guarantee an honest witness?
4) For the people that have been found to be not guilty (after several years in prison) & were released, do they get any compensation from the government?
5) Do people consider taking people off death row because of the expense?

[11.3.11] Justice Stevens - Lawrence v. Texas

Facts
1) Stevens was on the majority side that ruled to overturning the ban on same-sex sexual intimacy
2) The Court ruled that the Texas law that prohibited same-sex sexual intercourse violated the Due Process Clause.
3) Bowers v. Hardwick, a case that stated that  "there was no constitutional protection for acts of sodomy," was overruled.
4) The decision was 6 to 3, with Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting.
5) Interestingly enough, the legal provision that was used for Bowers v. Hardwick was also Due Process.
6) Justice Kennedy said that "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."


Questions
1) How would Texas enforce their law?...
2) What is the reason behind Justice O'Connor's decisions for the two cases?
3) How did the other court justify their position when they said same-sex intercourse was not allowed because it was not "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition"?
4) Why did the oyez website say that the conviction of this couple did not violate their rights?


http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_140
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_102

[11.3.11] The Supreme Court Justices

1) Many of the justices seem to have been law professors at colleges or universities.

2) How does one qualify to be a justice nominee?

3) Many were also Assistants to the Attorney General, either nationwide or statewide.

4) Currently, there are three women on the court.

5) All justices have been judges for the Court of Appeals (each in his or her own circuit).

6) Every justice except for Alito has received their B.A.

7) Is there a recommended number of years of experience one needs in law before they become a justice?

8) Justice Scalia has nine children.

9) It took about 3 months for the two newest justices to go from being a nominee to being appointed to the court.

10) What "special" powers does the chief justice have, if any?

11) Justice Kennedy and I have the same birthdate!

[11.3.11] Court Cases

KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES - 1944
The United States military authority declared some areas of the country "critical to national defense and potentially vulnerable to espionage" and ordered those of Japanese descent to leave. The Supreme Court declared this constitutional because although Korematsu's rights were violated, the United States was in a circumstance of "emergency and peril."
I felt that this was extremely interesting because the government was singling the Japanese (and Japanese-Americans) out... I know that today, the national government can tell people to move because they want to build something on the people's land (eg a highway), but those people are compensated. I wonder if the Japanese were compensated as well.


MAPP v. OHIO - 1960
Ohio police illegally searched Dollree Mapp's house for a fugitive and found that she had "obscene materials" in her possession. She "appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression." The Supreme Court decided that since the evidence that was collected in violation of the fourth amendment (search and seizure), it was not legit in court.
I found this intriguing because although Mapp might have done something illegal, she was "let go" because the method by which the evidence was obtained violated her rights.


LEMON v. KURTZMAN - 1970
Pennsylvania and Rhode Island had statutes that "provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools. The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools. Each statute made aid available to 'church-related educational institutions.'" The Supreme Court decided that the states violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. I found it a bit strange how this clause was put "into action"; the states could not help fund non-public, religious schools.

[10.31.11] Roe v. Wade

Facts/details
1) Some say that anti-abortion laws were previously established to "discourage illicit sexual conduct."
2) One of the reasons why abortion is limited to only the first trimester is because the mortality rates are lower or just as low as childbirth. (So the states consider women's health, too.)
3) The right of privacy, although not explicitly noted in the Constitution, covers a woman's personal choice whether she wants to get an abortion or not.
4) However, the right of privacy is not absolute. An example of this would be getting vaccines.
5) The state also considers a woman's mental health when an abortion is concerned.
6) One has to consider people might believe "life" begins at different time (eg birth or conception).
7) Some consider conception to be at the point where "the fetus becomes 'viable,' that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."
8) A state (or the government?) is required to preserve and protect the health of a pregnant woman, "whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident." (Relations between states)
9) A state will also consider a fetus' life after viability when setting when an abortion is allowed.
10) The Texas Penal Code said that abortions were only allowed when the mother's life is in danger, but it isn't legit. One of the reasons is because abortion during the first trimester may be less dangerous than normal childbirth.

Questions
1) How would one distinguish from a private choice and one that is not?
2) This is a biased question - but how would a zygote not have life?
3) How will "point of conception" be established?
4) Will there possibly be a reversal of Roe v. Wade in the future?
5) Will abortion be a point that companies and others consider when hiring? (Eg the West Wing episode) Would this be legal?

[10.29.11] West Wing - The Supremes

Connections
1) The president nominates a judge from his own party. The judiciary committee:

JOSH: We're some democrats over here.  We're not going to nominate a born again
elk hunter with a tattoo of the confederate flag on his [butt].

2) They mention the appellate court, which hears cases already decided in district courts.

EVELYN: Well I don't mind.  But people wonder why the appellate system is so backed
up.  We shouldn't let them know this is how I spend my time.

3) One of the nominees mentions Roe v. Wade, which determined that abortion is constitutional

EVELYN: If you're Webster, the question is 'Where do you stand on Roe v Wade?'.  And
the answer is 'Judicial ruling shouldn't be based on personal ideologies -
mine or anyone else's'.

4) The right to privacy is also mentioned. (14th amendment)

EVELYN: I'm told I have a right to privacy.  I think this is the sort of thing it's referring to. 

5) They referred to Brown v. Board of Education, which took place in 1954.

JOSH: More than bright enough.  If we had a bench full of moderates in 54 'Separate
but Equal' would still be on the books and this place would still have 2
sets of drinking fountains.

6) Enumerated rights, which are rights that are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, were mentioned.

TOBY: The man wrote a book that flushes the entire doctrine of enumerated rights
down the-

7) They mentioned Miranda rights, which is the law that police have to inform you of your rights when you are being arrested.

Charlie: He censored on minority set assage instruct hate crime legislation. When
asked the Miranda Rights.  Feeling pretty good about that?

8) The 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) was brought up.

TOBY: It's an equal protection violation.

Questions
1) What is the difference in power of the chief justice and the other justices?
2) Is having a moderate judge such a bad thing?
3) Do judges get offended when you ask them to step down?
4) Is the judiciary committee made up of both Republicans and Democrats? Or is there one for each party?
5) Would putting a Democrat and a Republican on the court at the same time be okay? Wouldn't there be more conflict in the court?

[10.27.11] Federalist 78

Quotes
1) Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
I find it interesting that what we talked about in class was directly mentioned in the Federalist papers (although I shouldn't be so surprised)... I also love the metaphors that Hamilton uses here. The Executive branch, the branch that enforces the law, holds the "sword" - the thing that puts it in a lot of power. The legislative branch, the branch that makes the law, commands the "purse" (the money of the United States) as well as has the power to make laws. However, I found the last part strange. While it is true that the Supreme Court has no influence over either "the sword or the purse," it still has force - force against the legislative branch. It can declare laws or acts unconstitutional. Also, they may declare treaties unconstitutional. I like to think of the Supreme Court as passive-aggressive...

2) 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; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks.
The judicial branch "can never attack with success either of the other two"? But what about the idea of checks and balances? This sentence contradicts the ideas of 3 equal branches that Madison put out before.

3) No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
These sentences highlighted how much power the Constitution has. It is also a little scary because our whole government, our whole foundation, is under this "piece of paper"; Hamilton's words imply that the government and technically the people are servants to a document.

3) 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 sentence firmly establishes that the Supreme Court is supposed to review the cases in a objective manner, not a subjective manner.

4) But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society.
This reminds me of the idea that the Supreme Court is their own entity, separate from the others. That is the reason why they are appointed for life. They may not be as easily corrupted, nor may they have to concern themselves with elections... Instead of carrying out their own beliefs, they are supposed to enforce (if that is the correct word?) the "will" of the Constitution.

5) That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. 
For some reason, I really like this quote. It gives a sense that seniority is a good thing because one is more experienced in what they are doing; their knowledge is "indispensable" to something that is significant.

Questions
1) If the three branches were supposed to check and balance each other, therefore being equal in power, what about the judicial branch, which was the "weakest"?
2) How can one make sure that the judges are not being biased to their party?
3) How would people be picked as a nominee for a judge?
4) Would "judicial review" be against the FFs' wishes? (Did it give the courts too much power?)
5) Why would the court be the go-between for the legislature and the people?

[10.26.11] Bush v Gore part 2

Facts/details
1) There were four interventions in the Bush v Gore case. The dates were 11/24, 12/4, 12/9, and 12/12.
2) The Florida Supreme Court interpreted state law to require that the deadline for a manual recount was to be extended.
3) The US Cons requires states legislatures, not state constitutions, to determine the manner of appointing electors.
4) The different technology has an effort on the results.
5) SC: statewide recount proceeding has to be overseen by a single judge. Standard for counting votes must be the same and must be concrete enough to ensure that similarly situated people will be treated similarly.
6) Some counties use the butterfly ballot even though an "unusual number of voters are confused [after/while voting], and do not successfully vote for the candidate of their choice."
7) Some shady business: Bush won. The vote was 5-4 in the SC, and the "five-member majority consisted of the most conservative justices."
8) The Court's opinion had no "basis in precedent or history."

Questions
1) How was the FL SC extending the deadline a highly controversial interpretation of the law? I don't understand how it would violate the 14th amendment; doing a recount would ensure more accurate results, wouldn't it?
2) Why don't people set standards to ensure that "similarly situated people would be treated similarly"?
3) How would people amend states' constitutions? Similar process as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States?
4) How would one appoint an elector? (Page 127, second to last para. Sorry if this is a stupid question.)
5) If some votes were not counted, why not recount them? (Page 131)

[10.24.11] Update on Bob Casey

*The Continuum of Learning Act of 2011 was introduced by Casey on October 11th and was referred to Committee.


*The Small Business Diaster Assistance Act of 2011, which is a bill to "temporarily reduce interest rates for certain small business disaster loans, and for other purposes" was introduced on the 13th. It also has been referred to Committee.


*Casey introduced the Fallen Heroes of 9/11 Act, which is a bill to "provide for a medal... awarded by the President to the memorials at the 3 sites...  of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001," on June 21, 2011. It had been been referred to Committee and passed Senate on September 9th, 2001. Congratulations!

[10.24.11] "The Common Good"

While reading the Catholic religious definition of "the common good," which is "the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups... ready access to their own fulfillment," I was reminded of the three unalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This led me to wonder - if everyone pursued their own "happiness," or if they were fulfilled, would it be for "the common good"? I figured no, since the ambitions of some may impede or stop the dreams of others. Although I strongly wish there was a "common good," I do not honestly think that it will exist everywhere. It is in human nature to be competitive and naturally greedy, and some people are more willing to risk others to get what they want. In America, for example, universal healthcare stands as a popularly debated issue. Some people say that healthcare should be universal since every citizen would benefit from it. Others say that people should pay for their own healthcare since they were the ones that worked hard for their money - so why not get more out of their effort? Individualism is strongly encouraged in the United States, so people feel the right to act in their own interest. 

Compare the United States "system" to other countries of the world. Let's take Japan for an example. Japanese workers are extremely devoted to their work and company. In Manufacturing last year, we watched a movie (Gung Ho) that highlighted the difference in American culture and Japanese culture. The basic plot of the movie was that a Japanese company bought out an American car company and now the American workers have to work under Japanese bosses. The Japanese expected perfection, routine, and order in the car assembly lines. The Americans were outraged at this and set their mind to do things "their own way," even though it might not have been as efficient as the Japanese way. The Japanese also had the workers work long hours (since the assembly line wasn't as efficient, the company was behind on schedule) and expected perfect attendance. The American's point of view? Shorter work hours, weekends off, days off, and just the same pay. Just from this, one can see that the Japanese are willing to work together and support the company that supports them. Americans, however, seek things for their own interest. One will, at one point, meet a person who thinks of himself (or herself) only. For example - there are people who litter their trash on a sidewalk. (It still baffles me that full-grown adults do not know how to clean up after themselves!) Do they care that they are making their own community more dirty? The "save the environment" issue is also big right now. Will everyone work together and try to recycle? Will everyone take mass transportation or carpool instead of taking individual cars? Of course the answer is no. There are people who might decide to drive their own car to work and think, "I'm probably one of the only people who does this. It's okay because it's just one more, single person adding to the pollution." The problem is is that there are many more people that think the same way too! So in the end, we all just have a lot of people driving their own car to work. Again, like I said before - people act in their own interest.

"The common good" solely depends on everyone's mindset. Would one be willing to help others? Make a sacrifice of their own to help someone else? There are people who will and others who won't.

[10.20.11] Recount

Facts:

1) People thought that they voted for the wrong person because the butterfly ballot was confusing to read. Also, the ballot may have been inserted incorrectly.

2) People who had names that were very close to felons' names could not vote.

3) The election results had to be certified by a certain date.

4) Katherine Harris was the Secretary of State of Florida.

5) Some thought that hand recounts were illegal.

6) The Supreme Court shut down the recount, and then they ruled that Florida could not do a recount because the deadline passed...

7) Ballot counts are different (in number, in a large area) each time they are recounted.

8) The founding fathers established that all people eligible to vote in the nation would all vote on one day.

Questions:

1) Why would there be a difference in results between hand and machine recounts?

2) Why did counties refuse to do a recount?

3) How did "intent" have to do with the ballot? How come the paper wasn't fully punctured? Why wouldn't a ballot that showed intent count?

4) Why were hand recounts considered to be illegal?

5) How does the electoral college work?

6) Why did Katherine Harris refuse to extend the confirmation deadline?

7) What was the Supreme Court's reason for their final decision?

8) Why exactly were people put on the "felons" list if only their names were similar?

[10.19.11] Bush v. Gore

Pre-reading questions
1) Why did the Supreme Court order the recount to stop and then later say that the recounted votes do not count since the counters did not meet the deadline?
2) What was the number of judges supporting each side (was it an unanimous decision? 5-4? 6-3?)
3) Wouldn't the bias of some judges affect this outcome? Aren't elections supposed to be "fair"?
4) Was what the Supreme Court did constitutional?
5) What were the reasons why the Supreme Court made its decision?

5 facts/details learned
1) Florida has 25 electoral votes.
2) Gore wanted a recount of all "'undervotes' in four heavily Democratic counties."
3) The majority of the court has been criticized for "setting the cutoff date on the twelfth rather than on the eighteenth of December, [but] neither date could realistically have been met."
4) The Florida Supreme Court had six Democrats and one independent.
5) The Florida Supreme Court wanted a flexible "deadline" in order to recount the votes and possibly give Gore "the maximum opportunity to win."

5 post-reading questions
1) Did the voting system in Florida change after this incident?
2) How would changing the state's election law cause "Gore forces" to steal the election? Isn't it simple? Doesn't the candidate who has the most votes win? If Bush really won the election, then he would get more votes, which leads to my next question:
3) How come people did not do a revote? People would have voted for the same person, and they would have known how to vote "correctly."
4) How would the election be "stolen" in Florida if they did a recount?
5) Is our voting system accurate? Should we fully depend on it?

[10.17.11] Update on Mike McIntyre

Mike McIntyre introduced a bill to "authorize a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction at Surf City and North Topsail Beach, North Carolina" on July 8, 2011. However, the last action made on it was on the 11th of July. All of the representative's bills so far this year have not recently been updated; the most "recent" news on his bills were made in July.

[10.11.11] "Faction"...

According to Madison, a faction is a group of citizens that is brought together by "some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens." It seems that Madison disapproves of factions and gives a negative connotation to the word; he says that they are created through impulses and go against the rights of other citizens, which the founding fathers were trying to avoid. To me, a "faction" translates to something like a political party currently, although I've read that factions are more like interest groups. Political parties influence the government, and interest groups are groups "determined to encourage or prevent changes in public policy without trying to be elected."

1) Are factions okay in little "amounts"?
2) What would be the "rights" of other citizens? People think that some issues are rights and some are not.
3) Wouldn't the factions have the rights to create a group based on what they believe in? Why do they have to cure/remove them?
4) Would a faction be considered as a political party today?

Credit:
http://www.twyman-whitney.com/americancitizen/links/lobbies.htm

[10.10.11] 2 Members of Congress

Bob Casey, Jr.

PA

US Senator

Democratic Party

Mike McIntyre

NC

US Representative

Democratic Party

[10.6.11] Political Ideology Survey

According to the survey, I am a moderate. I have the views of both the Democratic and Republican party. A few years ago, I classified myself as a Republican; maybe my opinions on certain issues have changed over time. However, I am easily persuaded... So that might not help.

[10.5.11] Response to Constitution Questions

While writing the Constitution, did the Founding Fathers want to limit the actions of the government or to protect people's basic rights? -Christina N.

I think that the Founding Fathers aimed for both while writing the Constitution. From the experience of being under the British king's rule, the writers of the Constitution wanted to limit the power of government. They created a document that would make sure that the government is checked. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the reason why the government exists is to protect the people's rights. That same ideology must exist in the Constitution as well. The Bill of Rights, for example, guarantees citizens rights that cannot be taken away by the government.

As the Constitution states, the President must be a natural born citizen. How do you feel about this? - Emily F.

I disagree with this requirement. Why should this be a factor in deciding who is president? Would being a natural born citizen make one a "better" president? What if someone who was highly qualified wanted to run for president, but he or she was born in another country? I feel that the United States passes up too many chances for strong leadership by having this statement in the Constitution.

[10.5.11] Democracy in the United States

Facts/details learned
1) Idaho has not happy about the Endangered Species Act; they said that it was dangerous to their livelihood.
2) The federal government expected Idaho to protect the wolves even though they knew Idaho was not happy about the act. (A bit ridiculous, if you ask me...)
3) The limit of the blood alcohol level (that one could have while driving) in South Carolina was .1% before.
4) The government stated that all states had to have a limit of BAC at .08% or that state would not receive highway funds.
5) In 2002, South Carolina had a bill that suggested a lowering of the allowed BAC one could have while operating a vehicle.
6) "Deauthority" is giving power to the states. [I'm not sure if I have this right.]
7) Reagan tried to shift welfare authority to the states.
8) Kennedy signed a bill that actually did shift welfare authority to the states.
9) Mississippi did not have as many welfare "success stories" as Michigan.
10) The founding fathers made some parts of the Constitution vague so some certain things could pass through.... [This was mentioned in the beginning somewhere.]

Questions
1) Should there be certain laws for animals? (Eg animal protection laws... having reserves)
2) What was the other state that did not have an alcohol driving standard?
3) Why did South Carolina want a very low BAC?
4) What is an advantage of federal government controlling welfare?
5) Should Mississippi welfare standards be lower? Why aren't there more "success stories" in Mississippi?
6) Did the founding fathers establish an unstable system?
7) Why follow the Constitution if every one is arguing so much over the interpretation of the Constitution?
8) Should governments establish a basic standard for everything?
9) Should a firm separation of power between federal government and state government be made?
10) What are some things that should be controlled only by the federal government?

[10.4.11] The Federalist Papers

The Federalist No. 10

Questions
1) What are the roots of "instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils"?
2) Is faction acceptable in small amounts?
3) Is the number of representatives that Madison refers to in the second half mainly about the Virginia and New Jersey Plans?
4) Aren't there other methods of removing the causes of faction?
5) Is there a way to guarantee that a reliable person will be in a position of power? It doesn't seem like Madison trusts the people enough to let them have complete control of everything.

Quotes
1) "Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens... that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party..."
It is interesting that a man in power, such as Madison, would know the opinion of the average citizen. Normally, one would think that he would not care at all. I wonder if he had these things in mind while the Constitution was being written.


2) "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 and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves."
I simply like this statement since it is true to me. If one has an opinion on something, he/she would normally be very passionate about that topic. If one really likes psychology, for example, they have a positive opinion toward it. Naturally, that same person is probably passionate about learning the subject since they like it so much. It is not passions that shape opinions; it is opinions that shape passions.


3) "A zeal for different opinions.... disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities..."
This excerpt is especially interesting since Madison basically states that it is human nature to want to pick fights with people. Could it be because of our natural survival instinct? Or is it a matter of personality - for example, the more stubborn and outspoken a person is, the more likely they will get in an argument?

4) "By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you may render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects."
This is an example of the balance of power between the people and the representatives (sort of). One has to make sure there are not too few representatives in the House and not too many. I sometimes wonder how each district is split up.


5) "The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country...."
This, again, is the idea of a representative democracy. Citizens select people to represent them the the government. Madison trusts the public - to an extent. He says that people should have their own say in government but not directly.

---

The Federalist No. 51

Questions
1) What exactly are the "exterior provisions [that] are found to be inadequate"?
2) What is meant by an "absolute negative"?
3)The government is to guard the injustice of the minority but the "many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable" - what does that mean?
4) If the "society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, how will "the rights of individuals, or of the minority," be in "little danger from interested combinations of the majority"? Won't the rights be in even more danger?
5) How exactly is justice the end of government and civil society?

Quotes
1) "...It is evident that each department should have a will of its own..."
Madison is establishing the idea of separation of power here.

2) "Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another."
Madison is outlining the idea of a representative democracy; the people in the three branches, after all, came from one body. People elect others to represent them in government. Also, here, he is going back to the idea that the government exists only because the people allow it to.


3) "It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others..."
This is the concept of separation of power. Each branch has its own unique powers; those powers can balance the powers of other branches as well as be checked by powers of other branches.

4) "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
I love how blunt Madison is here; he knows that humankind is not always good and acknowledges the fact that someone needs to lay law and order.

5) "In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments."
We talked about the issue about the powers that the federal and states governments have. The ability to make treaties, for example, goes solely to the federal government, while education is controlled by both.

[10.3.11] Political Cartoon 2

1) How do you feel about the decline in the number of people who read newspapers? How will this affect the newspaper companies?
2) How do you feel about newspapers going bankrupt? Borders recently closed its doors (RIP Borders!); do you feel that people should depend less on technology?
2) Is technology too exaggerated here?

[10.3.11] Separation of Power & Checks and Balances

The Separation of Power and Checks and Balances are like a big restaurant. Customers come in and tell the waiter what they want to eat. The waiter brings that order to the cook and the cook makes the food for the customer. After eating, the customer pays for the food. That money goes back to the cook for cooking supply money and ingredients money. The two exist within this system since each person has his own special part in the "cycle," yet they all depend on each other. Of course, one part can function on its own for a while, but it eventually will fall. A cook can start with a supply of food, for example, and cook. That cook will surely get customers for his shop, but he isn't collecting any money for his products - so eventually all the food will run out and the cook will need to get more. However, since he did not profit from his food, he has no way to get more cooking ingredients. Therefore, he will go bankrupt and out of business. The same goes for the cashier - how is he or she supposed to make a profit by not selling anything? The cashier checks the cook by providing the cooking ingredients and is also balanced by the cook since the amount of money depends on the quality of food (bad cook = bad food = no customers = no money).

[9.27.11] Frontline

Facts:
1) The president and Congress were willing to do anything for war after the September 11 attack. Congress provided a "blank check"; the United States were to use any means at their disposal.
2) Cofer Black was in charage of anti-terrorist efforts at that time.
3) Black strongly urged the United States to defeat Bin Laden and to start the war.
4) Graystone was the codename of the plan to bring down al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda supporters. It was the largest covert action since the cold war.
5) On September 26, 2001, American soldiers flew in to Afghanistan. They worked with locals and also tried to minimize the American footprint there.
6) The CIA fired at a car that was traveling in Yemen with a weapon that many did not know the CIA had.
7) Stress and duress techniques to interrogate... These were called "enhanced interrogation techniques."
8) Black sites are prisons that exist around the world. There are around 200 in number and are run & paid for by the CIA.
9) There are 100s of secret locations that are part of the NSA. They seem like "normal" buildings from the outside. Apparently, it is like a secret world; although there may be only four stories above ground, the building may extend for many stories under.
10) There was a terrorist threat the week before Obama's inauguration.

Questions:
1) What the attack in Yemen necessary? Was it, like a certain man said in the program, like "buying eggs"? Does the United States have a license to kill whoever they wish to?
2) Aren't the black sites inhumane and should not be allowed?
3)What is the difference between a covert action and military operation?
4) Would intercepting people's cell phone conversations be an invasion of privacy? Is this justified?
5) Is there definite proof of the "secret locations" that are run my the NSA? Where is all of this money funding all of these buildings coming from?
6) What are other countries' opinions of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?
7) According to a woman in the program, "intelligence officials don't exactly know what they're doing." How do they not? Why?
8) Is the United States too paranoid? (Seems similar to Cold War)
9) Is security (eg wire-tapping, airport security, etc) too strict?
10) How many Americans know about what we just learned?