[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).