Politico Test Prep 9

 

1. The Court uses original jurisdiction in hearing a case for the first time. It uses Appellate jurisdiction in hearing cases of a lower court. It uses Appellate jurisdiction when two courts issue differnt rulings.

 

2. Interest groups can persuade the President to choose a more liberal or more conservative judge. They can also try and persuade Senators to block certain appointments.

 

3. For the most part i would say our United States Supreme Court is above politics. There are many decisions made 9-0 or with a strong majority. I think the different ways judges act based on judicial activism or retraint can add to the politics but they are still interpreting the Constitution just in different views. I think the Court is fine the way it is, sort of above politics but also sort of involved.

 

4. The article was interesting in the ways it showed more about the Supreme Court. I would have to rule in favor of the law because i believe it is promoting the general welfare of our nation. Healthcare is essesntial to modern day life, it's not fair for some people to not get health coverage because of wealth.

 

Politico Test Prep 8

 

1.The presidential role that I think is the most important is the Commander and Chief because it gives the president the supreme power to control all branches of the armed forces. Because security and defense are such big issues in our country today, I believe that it is extremely vital for the country to have a very strong and reliable Commander and Chief.

 

2.The presidential role that I think is the least important is the Chief of State because it is more of a symbolic role rather than an active role. As Chief of State, the president acts as the symbolic leader of the country. Even though this role is indeed important, I believe that it is the least significant compared to the other more important roles of the president.

 

3.When political scientists claim that modern presidents are on a “continuous campaign” they mean that the presidents are constantly concerned about reelection. Instead of focusing on their current term, presidents often work to please the people in order to get as many votes as possible in the coming election. They are constantly working to gain reelection.

 

4.I really liked this article because it related to a topic that is very popular today in regards to presidential campaigns and the amount of time, work, money, and competition that goes into these campaigns. I think the framers would be very surprised of the modern presidency simply because they had intended for Congress to ultimately have more power than the actual president.

 

   

Politico Test Prep 7 5/9/12

 

1. The greatest advantages of federalism is that, as divided as our country is demographically and geographically, we all use the same form of government.  States are given powers under which their particular state must follow, but ultimately our national government reigns supreme. At the same time, the amount of power the federal government has over the states can be seen as a disadvantage. Often times local issues in particular states get brushed aside to the national problems. There is also much competition among the states for federal funding because there isn't enough money to go around.

 

2. Some powers the federal government has over the states is having a uniform currency that is used in every state, having  one national military, having the power to declare war and to levy taxes.

 

3. Some powers that have increased the states authority over national programs is that each state has its own local police enforcement and each state runs its education system.

 

4. I would side with Arizona in this Supreme Court case.  They did not overstep their authority over the ordeal with illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrantion has been growing in America and it has become too much for the federal government to regulate. If each state regulated it, there would be a lot less illegal immigrants in the United States. I believe they do have the right to place these people in jail until they give proof of their freedom to be here.

 

 

Politico Test Prep 6 5/8/12

 

1. Farm subsidies were first used during the Great Depression through the Agrircultural Adjustment Administration (AAA). They were used to pay famers to limit distribution and growth of crops.

 

2. The government subsidises oil companies, housing, student loans, and green energy.

 

3. Interest groups will try to encourage lawmakers to vote in their favor, manipulating them in a sense.  They are trying to push their policies, showing the benefits of their side. 

 

4. Before reading this article, I didn't know much about the money that was given to farmers through subsidies. It is interesting to note the government encourages flex fuel cars which use corn, that is why the corn market has grown so much. I think it is much harder to pass policy changes because there can be fierce opposition across party lines. This is where the courts come into play.

 

 

Politico Test Prep 5 5/7/12

 

1. The demographics for the 112th Congress include:

-Republican majority in the house.  241 Republican, 198 Democrats, 2 open seats 

-Democrat majority in the senate.  47 Republican, 51 Democrats, 2 independent  

 

2. Majority of the legislation is formed in the House and then revised and approved by the Senate. The legislation then goes on to the President for final approval. If there is a disagreement between a piece of legislation in the House and Senate, the bill or legislation is sent to committee where a compromise is made. It is at this point that the piece of legislation can be sent to the President for final approval.

 

3. There are several powers that the Senate does not share with the House including interacting with foreign affairs, removing members from office, and conducting trials and impeaching government officials.

 

4. I would suggest to freshman members of Congress in order to get reelected that they should focus on reminding the people in their districts all of the positive things that they have done during their tenure. Make sure they don't play the blame game and keep a positive outlook. 

 

 

Politico Test Prep 4 5/4/12

 

1. In order to run a succesful presidential campaign you must first become known.  Once your name is out there, continue to campagin and fundraise. With enough money and support, you should be organized enough to spread your message. 

 

2. Campaigns are more candidate-centered today because the people have much more of a say in selecting the candidates to represent their party.  Primary elections have voters either far left or right. The voters are going to select who they want to represent their party. In the old days it was more of political elites determining a party's candidate and that candidate running on the party's standpoints. We can see today there are different factions within the major political parites. This allows the voters to best elect who they want as the candidate for their party.

 

3. The positives of allowing party supporters to pick their candidates is the fact that the voter is getting more of a say. A potential negative could be the fact that only those supporters to the far left or right vote and it could make it more difficult for more moderate voters to support that candidate in the general election thus hurting the party.

 

4. I don't think candidates should be held responsible for things that their non paid supporters say. They are not able to control what people say or do. Although it looks bad to have their name associated with what those supporters say, there is nothing they can do about it so why blame them. 

 

 

 

Politico Test Prep 3 5/3/12

 

1. The number of swing votes is as small as ever this year because both political parties are so strong on their beliefs.  The undecided voters voices are getting unheard because the noise from the Democrat and Republican parties are so defined. 

 

2. Some demographic factors that influence public opinion is location, living enivornment, race and social status.  These factors generally determine the party affiliation.

 

3. Politicians use the message of equality between men and women to get women to vote in their favor.

 

4.  I think Democrats will attract more swing voters this election because the Republican party is so divided.  There are many different candidates and views in their party, whereas the democrats are stable, backing Obama.     

 

 

Politico Test Prep 2 5/2/12

 

1. Interest groups are definitely fundamental to a strong democracy. It allows individuals to unite together to support and stand up for a specific cause. When interest groups come together, they are able to accomplish their goals, using power in numbers.  They are able to raise money and awareness towards their cause.  At the same time, tnterest groups help the government because they motivate government officials to support their causes and enact laws that will help America as a whole. On the other hand, some interest groups can be detrimental because they can push causes that would not be in the best interest of the country.

 

2.  NRA(National Rifle Association): large interest group which tries to ensure protection of the 2nd amendments right of the right to bear arms.

AARP(American Association of Retired Persons): interest group that promotes the welfare of those over 50 years old.

AMA(American Medical Association): interest group that promotes healthcare issues.

NAACp(National Association for the Advancement of Colored People): interest group that ensures the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.

 

3. The technique that seem to work best for influencing public policy is getting its members involved. Power in numbers.  For example, if an interest group asked all of it's members to write their legislators to vote a certain way it would definitely have an impact.  An interest group endorsing a certain candidate would also impact their election, for better or for worse.

 

4. I found this article to be a good review for the AP test.  I think that interest groups hiring former members of Congress to influence current members of Congress is actually a really smart idea.  No one knows how to influence public policy better than interest groups.  At that point, they are already well-informed and involved in Washington life, so they can only help.

 

 

Politico Test Prep 1 5/1/12

 

1. The Democratic coalition traditionally consisted of the south. This included blue collar workers, union workers, Latinos, African Americans and women. The Republican coalition was traditionally made up of the south, including more rural males, a focus on religion, more pro business. The coalitions have changed because the voters from the South who used to be strong democratic voters have changed to the Republican party.

 

2. Gerrymandering could be used to create a congressional district with a high majority of one party making up the population, therefore, lessening a moderates shot at winning.   

 

3. Most of Pennsylvani's representatives are Republican, with the exception of Philadelphia, who is strongly Democratic.  Our senators are Bob Casey, a democrat and Pat Tumey, a Republican.

 

4.  This article was interesting because it showed how the increased partisanship in congress is weaking the government, driving it further into a divided nation.  I see it as a negative because it prevents anything from getting done in congress, and reflects the rest of the country.

 

 

Case: Clinton V New York

Facts: This case consolidates two separate challenges to the constitutionality of two cancellations, under the Line Item Veto Act.  In the first, New York City, two hospital associations, a hospital, and two health care unions, challenged President Clinton's cancellation of a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which relinquished the Federal Government's ability to recoup nearly $2.6 billion in taxes levied against Medicaid providers by the State of New York. In the second, the Snake River farmer's cooperative and one of its individual members challenged the President's cancellation of a provision of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The provision permitted some food refiners and processors to defer recognition of their capital gains in exchange for selling their stock to eligible farmers' cooperatives. After a district court held the Act unconstitutional, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on expedited appeal.

Question: Did the President's ability to selectively cancel individual portions of bills, under the Line Item Veto Act, violate the Presentment Clause of Article I?

Decision:  The Court first decided that both the City of New York, its affiliates, and the farmers' cooperative suffered sufficiently immediate and concrete injuries to sustain their standing to challenge the President's actions. The Court then explained that under the Presentment Clause, legislation that passes both Houses of Congress must either be entirely approved  or rejected by the President. The Court held that by canceling only selected portions of the bills at issue, under authority granted him by the Act, the President in effect "amended" the laws before him. Such discretion, the Court concluded, violated the "finely wrought" legislative procedures of Article I as envisioned by the Framers.

 

 

Case: Clinton V Jones

Facts: Paula Corbin Jones sued Presdient Bill Clinton because she suffered several sexual advances while he was governor of Arkansas.  She claimed that her continued rejection led to her punishment by state supervisors.  Clinton requested that all matters relating to the case be suspended, with a prior request to dismiss the case completely on the grounded of presidential immunity.  The judge ordered that trial on stay until after Clinton's presidency.   On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal denial but reversed the trial deferment ruling since it would be a "functional equivalent" to an unlawful grant of temporary presidential immunity.

Question:  Is a serving President, for separation of powers reasons, entitled to absolute immunity from civil litigation arising out of events which transpired prior to his taking office?

Decision:  The Court unanimously held that the Constitution does not grant a sitting President immunity from civil litigation except under highly unusual circumstances. Neither separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level information can justify an unqualified Presidential immunity from judicial process. While the independence of our government's branches must be protected under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Constitution does not prohibit these branches from exercising any control over one another.

 

Case: Reynolds V United States

Facts: George Reynolds, secretary to Mormon Church leader Brigham Young, challenged the federal anti-bigamy statute. Reynolds was convicted in a Utah territorial district court. His conviction was affirmed by the Utah territorial supreme court.

Question: Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice?

Decision: The Supreme Court unanimously decided that the statute does not violate the first amendment and the statute can punish criminal activity without regard to religious belief. The first amendment does not protect religious practices that are considered criminal, such as bigamy.  Those who practice polygamy could no more be exempt from the law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief.

 

Case: United States V Nixon

Facts: A grand jury returned indictments against seven of President Richard Nixon's closest aides in the Watergate affair. The special prosecutor appointed by Nixon and the defendants sought audio tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in the Oval Office. Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena claiming "executive privilege," which is the right to withhold information from other government branches to preserve confidential communications within the executive branch or to secure the national interest.

Question: Is the President's right to "executive privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review?

Decision: The Court held that neither separation of powers or confidentiality can sustain "executive privilege".  The Court granted that there was limited executive privilege to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice."  Nixon had to release the tapes, but resigned shortly after they were released.

 

Case: Scott V Sanford

Facts: Dred Scott was a former slave in Missouri who then resided in llinois, which was free under the Missouri Compromise.  Scott attempted to sue the courts for his freedom, unsuccessfully. Scott's master maintained that no pure-blooded Negro of African descent and the descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution.

Question: Was Dred Scott free or slave?

Decision: Dred Scott was a slave. Under Articles III and IV, no one but a citizen of the United States could be a citizen of a state, and only Congress could confer national citizenship. No person descended from an American slave had ever been a citizen for Article III purposes. The Court then held the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, hoping to end the slavery question once and for all.

 

Case: Bush V Gore

Facts: Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, and concurrent with Vice President Al Gore's contest of the certification of Florida presidential election results, on December 8, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand 9000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all "under-votes" (ballots which did not indicate a vote for president) because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt. Governor George Bush and his running mate, Richard Cheney, filed a request for review in the U.S. Supreme Court and sought an emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's decision. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and issued the stay on December 9. It heard oral argument two days later.

Question: Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution by making new election law? Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution?

Decision: Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 USC Section 5). Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case. Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas) argued that the recount scheme was also unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court's decision made new election law, which only the state legislature may do. Breyer and Souter (writing separately) agreed with the per curiam holding that the Florida Court's recount scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause, but they dissented with respect to the remedy, believing that a constitutional recount could be fashioned. Time is insubstantial when constitutional rights are at stake. Ginsburg and Stevens (writing separately) argued that for reasons of federalism, the Florida Supreme Court's decision ought to be respected. Moreover, the Florida decision was fundamentally right; the Constitution requires that every vote be counted.

 

Case: Hammer V Dagenhart

Facts: The Keating-Owen Child Labor Act prohibited the interstate shipment of goods produced by child labor. Reuben Dagenhart's father had sued on behalf of his own freedom to allow his fourteen year old son to work in a textile mill.

Question: Does the congressional act violate the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment?

Decision: Day found that production was not commerce, therefore, outside the power of Congress to regulate.  The regulaton of production was reserved by the 10th amendment. Day wrote that "the powers not expressly delegated to the national government are reserved" to the states and to the people.

 

3/12/12 Budget Cutters See Green in Federal Workforce

 

This article by Seung Min Kim takes a look at the  consistency of federal workforce from 2006-2010.  Kim talks about the dilemma of whether or not to increase the number of employees in the federal government.  Democrats are in favor of increasing the number of workers, while Republicans would rather cut the number down.  The Republicans argue that by limiting the number of federal workers, who are doing wasteful jobs, the money could be used elsewhere.  They want to use that money in other areas such as to fund the payroll tax cut.  The Democrats believe that the Republicans are just trying to sabotage the federal workforce considering that they have control of the House.

 

After seeing both sides of the argument, the Democrat approach seems more logical.  While it is probably true that many federal jobs are unnecessary, it is necessary to keep them considering the state of our economy.  Cutting down on jobs is the last thing that the country needs to be doing.  The country should be focusing on creating jobs, not ending them.  The government should look into other areas where they can cut money.  Making government workers jobless doesn't seem like it would benefit the country whatsoever.  It seems more harm than good would come out of it. 

 

 

2/16/12 Patterson

 

This reading analyzes the importance of the president's staff, or cabinet.  It looks mainly at his chief of staff. The chief of staff controls a majority of what goes on in the white house, including the day to day affairs. He is responsible for making the president's schedule as well as overseeing every issue that comes the president's way. His most important role is to be the right-hand man of the president, but he must not forget about the first lady and vice president.  The chief of staff must be aware of the political life in D.C. to make accurate decisions, but also stay on top of his duties to the president.  The position of chief of staff is vital to the white house, especially to the president.

 

The position of chief of staff is extremely underrated.  It seems as if they receive no credit, when in reality they are doing the most work.  The chief even plans the president's schedule by the hour.  He knows everything about the political life in Washington.  Most people probably don't even know what the chief of staff does, or who currently holds the position. The president wouldn't be able to function without his chief of staff doing all the little things for him.  It's almost as if the president is just a figure head and has all his workers do everything for him.  The chief deserves a lot more credit than he is given because I don't think people realize the significance of his job description.  

 

 

2/16/12 Mayer 

 

It is not fair to say that the president is to blame for everything that goes wrong in the country during his time in office.  Although he is head executive of the country, he is not in control of all aspects.  The president has the power to issue executive orders to create policy or legislation.  This is necessary for the president to do so when the constitution or congress is restricting him.  The president can announce a national emergency and basically receive control over everything.  Critics often see executive orders negatively, because many presidents have taken advantage of it. There have been 1,028 executive orders since 1936, falling mainly into the groups civil service and public lands.  Executive orders a big factor in presidential power.  

 

Many people do hold the president responsible for what goes on in the country while he is in office.  This is completely unfair because most of the time, the president before him messed up.  On the other hand, executive orders does leave the president with a large amount of power, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is going to use it.  Executive orders can be good or bad, depending on the situation. If it is an emergency or something that needs to be done with no time to spare, than the president should give an executive order.  But as the past has shown, presidents have not always made the best decisions regarding this. 

 

2/13/12 Cronin/Genovese

 

This reading, titled "The Paradoxes of the American Presidency" talks about how the American people judge the president due to their paradoxial views of him.  They split the passage into nine paradoxes, which make up what the people claim to want in a president.  They have many images of what they want their president to be, but they are often contradictory.  They expect the president to be superhuman, having good qualities, but also a dirty side when necessary.  We, the people, admire the president for his power, but fear it at the same time.  The people limit what the president can do, but they want him to do everything they want...and more.  In some ways, the paradoxical presidency is a good thing because a little constructive criticism never hurt anyone. 

 

Every paradox listed in this passage is accurate. The people want a common-man president who can relate to them, but also want a super-hero who can solve all the nation's problems by dinner time. The people are afraid to give the president too much power, then complain that he doesn't do enough. We want a Mr. nice guy sometimes, but a sly fox every once in a while to get the job done. The people say they want an "outsider" to Washington, then complain that he doesn't have enough "experience." The people want someone to lead them, but always take their side. The people want a president with confidence, but talk about the fine line between confidence and arrogance. The presidential candidate who talks a big game during his campaign, may not do anything once in office. It all comes down to the fact the Americans don't know want they want... they're so fickle.  Or maybe they don't know enough about the president to make an educated opinion on what his characteristics should or shouldn't be. 

 

1/29/12 Clear Congress Project

 

This clear congress site was pretty cool, but confusing at the same time.  It was helpful in getting an idea of what the big picture is like of congress.  I was surprised to see that the republicans are more bi-partisan than the democrats. It was relieving to see that the speaker of the house, Boehner, is way closer to the bi-partisan side.  It was also surprising, and disappointing, to see that many of them do not propose bills themselves.  No one wants to have their name on the bill that doesn't pass but these people are supposed to be the leaders of our country, they should have enough courage to attach their name to a bill.  I pretty much have the same feelings about congress as I did before I used this website: they don't do much.  And that seems to be the general consensus.

 

 

12/5/11 Caesar/Busch

 

In this reading, Caesar and Busch discuess the red and blue states used after the 2000 election.  Red= republican.  Blue= democrat.  Some states are neither, and some are mixed, making them purple.  George Bush won the 2000 election, and since he was a Republican, it was portrayed on the map that most states were red.  in 2004, the republicans won again, both locally and nationally.  It seemed that the republican party was increasing, but that wasn't necessarily true.  One of the big reasons Bush was re-elected in '04 was because of the 9/11 attacks.  This prevented the democratic issues of taxation, social welfare, etc. from being focused on.  People identify as Republicans, democrats, or neither, depending on their personal, economic and political beliefs. 

 

Many times, it is not just black and white.  It is rare to be 100% democrat or republican.  The red and blue state map does help to differentiate the two parties, but it is not always accurate.  But it should have been introduced long before 2000. Just as Bush won the 2004 election due to the 9/11 attacks, Obama should have the '12 elections in the bag because of Bin Laden.  All the other issues will fade out.  The country won't seem so republican then.  The majority is always going to fluctuate between the two parties depending on what is most prevalant at the time.  People are fickle. 

 

 

 

12/5/11 Black

 

This reading talks about the South's transition from strictly Democrat to strictly Republican, as it remains today.  Siblings Earl and Merle Black discuss what caused this change considering the length of time the south was democratic.  One major factor is race.  White southernors were against the Civil Rights Act.  Republican senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona shared this in common with the democratic southernors.  Because of this, he won the presidential nomination in the south in 1964.  The south has voted republican since.  Another politican, Ronald Regan also has a lot to do with the political party change.  Originally a democrat himself, Regan converted to republican and brought some followers with him.  Regan and the conservative, white southernors (the majority) held similar views on many issues, therefore, they voted for him--a Republican.  Another factor is that the south is no longer filled with plantations and farms.  It is much more technologically advanced and modern.  These big businesses are more likely to be republican than democrat.  

 

Goldwater came in the clutch for the Republicans in the 1964 election.  Although he did not win,  he did win in the south.  That was an accomplishment in itself.  The republicans knew that the conserative, white south would never vote for a president who was in favor of the Civil Rights Act.  The republicans really just got lucky.  Regan also helped in keeping the south republican.  He switched to republican to make sure he got southern votes, but either way it worked.  It is not that surprising that the south changed from one party to another; politics and the people are constantly fluctuating.  The democrats stand for a different thing today than when the party was originally founded by Jefferson.  Things change over time.  Let the republicans have the south...who wants to be associated with southernors or republicans anyway....talk about a bad mix. 

 

 

 

Alabama Literacy Test Results: 40/68= 59% ........:(

 

I would consider myself to belong to the Democratic party.  I am pro-choice.  I am against capital punishment.  I am all for gay marriage.  I do not believe that everyone needs a gun. You don't need a gun to protect yourself if no one else has a gun either. Very anti-second amendment.  I am rather liberal economically.  I believe in welfare, giving tax breaks to the middle class(Reganomics isn't cutting it), unions, creating jobs, and anything else that helps the majority.  I am not just looking out for myself, as it seems most Republicans do.  I believe in taxing to improve social welfare.  There can't be good government programs without taxing.  Big government.  Government for the people.

 

 

11/28/11 Wattenberg

 

In this reading, Wattenberg talks about young Americans voting, or lack there of.  The youth of America is not educated in politics.  They are not interested enough to become educated.  The teenagers and young Americans do not see immediate or direct results from their vote, therefore, they don't see the point.  As they mature, they realize the importance of being politically active.  Americans don't realize how lucky they are to be able to be vote, they just take it for granted.  The media has a big impact on people's disinterest in politics.  People follow what they see on the media, and generally politics is not a hot issue.  At the rate the country is headed, less and less Americans are going to vote.

 

Young people don't vote because they don't think their one vote will not make a difference.  As the past has shown, like in the 2004 presidential election,  it can come down to just a few votes to decide who the winner is.  As people get older, they are more politically involved (probably because they have nothing better to do).  Just kidding.  It is extremely important to be aware about what is going on in the country...to stop things like a depression from happening, maybe? I don't know.  The media is especially to blame for this.  People are more concerned with voting for the winner of "dancing with the stars" than voting for president of our country? It is ridiculous and absurd and wrong.  Ignorance is NOT bliss.  If Americans stayed informed, they wouldn't complain about the "state of the economy" because they would have done more to prevent it.  Know what is going on in the country before you complain about it.  Stay informed...the future of America is depending on it!

 

 

 

11/16/11 Lippmann

 

Lippmann was an American journalist in the 20th century.  In his famous book, the Phantom Public, he talks about how much the people don't know what they are talking about.  It is pretty critisizing. The citizens are uninformed about what is going on in the country and that is usually because they don't care. If a crisis occurs, the citizens seem to care for a short period of time, but even then it does not involve the whole population.  Lippman stated that in some ways it was a good thing that the people didn't participate if they were not informed, or in other words "It is abd for a fat man to try to be a ballet dancer".  The political leaders should keep leading and not expect much from the public, according to Lippmann.

 

From personal knowledge it is can be seen that Lippmann's theory is pretty accurate. Most Americans couldn't even name the presdential candiates fo the 2012 election.  Why? Because they don't care and don't think that one person makes a difference.  If something like a war takes effect on the country, the people seem to spark an interest and become involved in the war cause, but it usually blows over quickly.  The people just get bored.  It is better for the people to stay uninvolved in politics though if they don't know what they are doing or talking about because their decisions will jsut affect the country negatively.

 

11/16/11 V.O. Key

 

V.O. Key studied America politics.  He attempted to expain the relationship between the opinions of the people and the political leaders in The Public and American Democracy.  He believed that what the people believe does have an affect on what the political leaders do. He concentrates on both elite and mass influence.  Political leaders will try their best to satisfy the people because the people keep them in office.  Key refers to this as the "opinion dike'.  Political leaders answer to the people.  The people keep the political leaders in line.  The political elite and government need the people to operate.

 

When making political campaigns, politicians will promise many things to satisfy the people and remain or come into office.  Most of these promises remain empty.  The politicians tell the people what they know they want to hear. They will say or do whatever it takes to be elected.  Once elected, they may not necessarily do what they promised but they are still trying to do good for our country.  What the people think they want and what they actually need are two different things. One government official cannot dominate the government.  The government and the people need to work togther in order tor really accomplish anything. Compromise.

 

 

10/25/11 Beard

 

Beard is giving an economic interpratation of the Constitution.  He explains the primary reasons why the Constitution was made.  He talks about the 55 framers, what they did for a living, their demographics, and how they would be affected by this document.  At first, Beard implies that many of the Framers drafted this document to financially benefit from it.  Beard lists a survey of the economic interests of the members of the Convention and its results.  He attempted to show why some agreed and some opposed the Constitution.  Beard concludes that the majority of the framers who signed the Constitution were wealthy, slaveholders who would benefit from it. They focused solely on fundamental economic interests.

 

From Beard's interpratation it is evident that a majority of the framers were extremely self-interested. By wanting what was best for "the people", they really only considered people who were just like them.  This does not hold true for all 55 of the framers because some of them did fall under the category of farmers, or non-slaveholders, which is probably why they didn't sign the document.  Although it seems as if they had extremely selfish motives, they must have done something right for this document to persevere for over 200 years.  The document is definitely not perfect, but has led America to be the one of the most powerful countries in the world.  There is never going to be 100% agreement, so kudos to the framers for doing what they did. 

 

 

POWERS

 

1. power to make a law (legislative)

can decide the constitutionality of a law/ judicial review (judicial)

 

2. pass laws (legislative)

veto laws/bills (executive)

 

3. can veto a bill or law (executive)

override a veto with 2/3 vote (legislative)

 

4. commander in chief of the military (executive)

sole power to declare war (legislative)

 

5. appoints supreme court judges (executive)

polices its members (judicial)

 

6. appoints ambassadors and treaties. (executive)

power to ratify them (legislative)

 

7. Supreme Court has life terms (judicial)

can impeach justices (legislative)

 

8. Legislative branch checks on itself (within the 2 houses)

 

9. Supreme Court Justice becomes President of Senate during presidential impeachment

 

10. power to make/enforce taxes (executive)

must approve taxes (legislative)

 

 

10/17/11 Lanahan 42

 

Eugene Rostow defends the importance of Judical Review of the Supreme Court in his article "The Democratic Character of Judicial Review".  Although many critics consider the Supreme Court "antidemocratic", ironically Rostow argues that it is actually "the essence of the American democratic system".  Rostow believes that some issues should be beyond majority control, in order for the minority to be heard.  Not every decision should be left up the the majority.  Judicial Review is meant to make sure that the legislative and executive branches don't have too much power, but more importantly to insure individual rights to the people.  People sometimes forget what a democracy really means.  Although the supreme court may seem overbearing at times, they are only trying to protect people from the "tyranny of the majority".  They are  seeing that American's constitutional rights are fulfilled. 

 

The Supreme Court balances the government more than anything else. It does hold the most power in a sense, but does not abuse that power.  Rostow is accurate in his article today, half a century later.  The Judical branch of the government keeps everyone else in line.  The people's best interest is focused on rather than the politicans self-interests in other branches.  In a sense, the judical branch represents the people more than the other two branches, even though they are not elected.  They are often more interested in what the people are interested in.  The government should be more about the electors than the elected.

 

 

10/17/11 Lanahan 11

 

Lani Guinier discusses the "tyranny of the majority" and how the minorities get no say in what goes on.  Guinier comes up with ideas including cumulative voting to get the minorities more involved.  She uses everyday examples such as herself as a Brownie or her son, Nikolas, to prove her point. She recalls that a hat-making contest was rigged in her Brownie days when one of the girls had their mother help them and won the contest.  Guinier quit Brownies, and from then on, has been motivated to make the rules fair.  In a high school in Chicago where the school ended up having two proms because the "minority" felt they weren't represented, Guinier suggests a solution that could have brought it back to one prom.  Her son Nikolas made her realize it in simpler terms: that it was just about taking turns.  Guinier has advocated fairness and equality throughout her life.  She wants to make the rules fair for everyone, even the minorities.  After being withdrawn from the consideration of being Assistant Attorney General for civil rights in the Justice Department, this is Guinier's rebuttal to the critics who called her the "quota queen". 

 

This is an important point made by Guinier that many people don't realize.  There are flaws to the democratic system in America.  It is not really representation if it is not representing everyone.  It is true that there is the power to choose, such as in elections, but when it is limited to either Democrat or Republican, how much is everyone really getting heard when their opinions are all meshed into two categories?  The cumulative voting system seems like a much more appropriate way of getting everyones voice heard and insuring a better representation.  Guinier was most likely withdrawn from consideration in her position because people didn't like what she had to say.  They knew she was right, and it scared them.  This just goes to show that Guiner, the minority, was withdrawn by the majority.  Definitely not a win-win situation.

 

 

 

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=big+government&hl=en&safe=active&gbv=2&biw=1017&bih=425&tbm=isch&tbnid=uOWly5H8kDQd5M:&imgrefurl=http://epautos.com/2011/04/28/big-business-or-big-government/&docid=2WS7BWWwM_s1KM&w=267&h=261&ei=DGWUTrjXEorq0gGj25ySCA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=125&page=1&tbnh=104&tbnw=105&start=0&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0&tx=42&ty=58

 

 

 

 

10/10/11 Lanahan 10

 

Michael Kammen is trying to explain what the Constitution really means.  It has been interpreted throughout the years from a "machine" to an "organism".  Kammen explains that metaphors such as these are made up about the Constitution in an attempt to understand it.  In the 18th and 19th century, many referred to the Constitution as a machine, and the greatest machine in government at that.  People praised the Constitution so much that they did nothing to interpret it but revered it as a machine, neglecting their own political duties.  By the 20th century, more people thought along the lines of Wilson, that the Constitution was more of an organism than a machine.  The government was a living, growing thing, which needed to be developed and interpreted. 

 

Kammen's analogy to the Star Trek episode "The Omega Glory" is pretty accurate as to how many Americans view the Constitution, even today.  In the Star Trek episode, the "yangs" praise "The Prime Directive".  They know they can't disobey it, but do not fully understand what it entails.  In America, the "yanks" are guided by "The Constitution", which many do not understand.  Is that a coincidence or what?  It is not so much important to understand what the writers meant when they were writing the Constitution hundreds of years ago, but rather be able to interpret it in todays world.  Even the strictest Consructionists, such as Jefferson, even used their own interpretations of the Constitution for what they believed would better the country.  It's not really about what the writers meant by their words, but by how we see their words today.  And unfortunately, most Americans generally don't give a damn about any of this Constitution nonsense unless it is immediately effecting them.  When conflict arises, then the people have something to say about the Constitution.  That's actually when even more conflict begins because people begin to realize just how much they don't agree on.  Americans can't even agree on whether authority should be granted on a state or national level. 

 

 

 

 10/6/11 Lanahan 1

 

This reading was about a Frenchman, Alexis De Tocqueville, who came to America in 1831 to explore the American Democratic system.  He wanted to learn about the roots of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.  Basically, Tocqueville wanted to see what democracy was all about, with his owns eyes. He came to see how this democractic system really worked, to see if there was equality for all.  He found that the rich did not overpower the poor, and that all classes were equal.  There was a system of checks and balances to make sure not one branch of the government got too much power, which kept it equal as well.  The checks and balances were key in the the government because the founding fathers did everything in their power to ensure that it wouldn't turn into a monarchy.  

 

Tocqueville was pretty much amazed at the American form of government.  It was the type of government he didn't believe could really exist.  It was a government where so many of the people were involved and had a say of what was going on.  Although there was a separation of classes between rich and poor, the poor still had the same rights as the rich.  The poor had the chance to rise up the social class ladder, which was not common in other countries, like France.  There was equal opportunity for all (unless you were a slave).   After touring the country, interviewing Americans and witnessing the system with his own eyes, Tocqueville believed that this was the ideal form of government. At the time, this type of government was non-existent in the rest of the world.  It was mind-blowing to Tocqueville to see such liberty and equality among the people.  In his eyes, the founding fathers got their job done right because this system ws anything but a monarchy.  It was actually envied among the citizens of many other countries, which is why so many emigrants fled to America. Tocqueville discovered that the American political system of democracy worked effectively.  This is later proved by America's dominance throughtout the rest of the world in the years to come. 

 

 

9/22/11 Lanahan 8

 

In this reading, Hofstadter portrays the founding fathers in a different light.  Theyadopted the ideals of philosopher Hobbes, who said that humans are selfish and only looking out for themselves. These men felt they were above and beyond the common man, who was uncapable of running the government.  Although the founding fathers wanted humans to have say in the government, they didn't believe they should run it.  The founding fathers were not interesting in conforming man, but only to create a system to control them.  It also shows what the fathers considered to be liberty.  To them, it meant ensuring private property, not freedom.  Liberty and democracy we're not really linked.

 

Hofstadter is basically taking a stab at the Founding Fathers.  It challenges traditional views of the founding fathers, that they are not as great as the history textbooks portray them to be. Although they considered man to be selfish, in reality, they were the selfish ones. Basically, they're just contradicting themselves because they are just as human as the very men they talked about. Through this reading, Hofstadter proves that they had ulterior motives.  Contrary to popular belief, the founding fathers did not really care about the common man and did not procliam liberty to benefit them.  It was not until the ten ammendments were created years later that the Constitution even became known for what it is today, which the founding fathers had nothing to do with.  They would most likely disagree with the addition.