Politico Prep Test #8
May 10, 2012
1. The most important presidential role is the Commander and Chief. This is because the United States is the most powerful military force in the world, and a lot of countries rely on our interventionism in desperate situations. The president controls the military, and he can use it and order certain military actions to disengage problems throughout the world.
2. The least important presidential role is the Chief of Party, because the president is just basically a representative or ambassador for their political party. The actions as chief of party have no real effect on government actions, and an entire nation.
3. When political scientists claim modern presidents are on a "continuous campaign," they mean that the president is always concerned about being re-elected, so he has to be careful about what he says and does. One bad thing can ruin a presidents chance of being re-elected, because people today are so critical.
4. I found this to a good and interesting article, since the 2012 presidential election is coming up in a few months, and the two main candidates are campaigning. I think the framers would be surprised that the president has acquired so many powers, since they originally intended for Congress to be the main and most powerful branch of government.
Politico Prep Test #7
May 10, 2012
1. The greatest advantages of federalism is allowing the citizens to feel like they have some what of a voice in the federal government through their state and local government. It also allows state and local government to implement their own policies, different from the policies of the federal government, that appeal better to the people of that particular area. Some disadvantages of federalism are that state policies vary from state to state. For example one state may take a stance in favor of a particular issue, while another state may be against the same issue. The varying policies of different states can result in a divided nation and government.
2. Some powers the federal government has over the states are interstate commerce laws, food and drug laws, tax laws, and currency laws.
3. Some powers the state's have over the federal government are marriage laws, gambling laws, alcohol and tobacco tax laws, and voting laws.
4. The article was a good review to go over what we talked about in class that includes federalism, and separation of powers between the federal, state, and local governments. I would rule that the Arizona law is constitutional, because the state faced major immigration problems. It may be better for the state of Arizona to handle the problem with their own state immigration law enforcement, instead of wasting federal funds. Arizona should handle the problem themselves, because they understand the problem the most, and may have better solutions then the federal government.
Politico Prep Test #6
May 9, 2012
1. Governmental farm subsidies were first used during the late 1920's to regulate the growth and distribution of crops. The government used them to prevent farmers from growing to much, and protecting farmers from losing money.
2. The government subsidizes student loans, oil companies, transportation, farming, energy, housing, and the food and beverage industry.
3. Interest groups use lobbying to persuade politicians to support their cause by voting in favor of their cause in Congress. This can be anything from lobbying to have bills passed or to have funding for a specific issue or cause.
4. I found this article interesting, and it help me understand the concept of subsidizing better. I find that it is a lot harder to pass policy changes than implementing policy changes, because you have to gain the support of many politicians to it passed, and that is something that isn't so easy.
Politico Prep Test #5
May 7, 2012
1. The House of Representatives consists of 242 Republicans, 193 Democrats. There are 363 men sand 72 women in the House. There 362 whites, 42 blacks, 24 hispanics, 6 asians, and 1 native americans in the House . The Senate consists of 47 Republicans, 51 Democrats, and 2 Independents. There are 17 women and 83 men in the Senate.
2. The House has a quick legislation pass, where they have strict time limits for debates to ensure all members have a chance of speaking. The House represents the people more than the Senate. The House has strict rules, while the Senate has more formal rules, where there is no set time limit for debating.
3. The powers that the Senate doesn't not share with the House include: approval of president's appointments, ratifying treaties, and confirmation of judicial appointments.
4. This Politico article and all of the others I found helpful in studying leading up to the exam. It was a good review on the demographics of the members of Congress. I would recommend the congressional freshman to run to his advantages that he is freshman and that he can bring new life to the congressional. People are always complaining about Congress doing nothing, and they may be looking to vote someone younger into office.
Politico Prep Test #4
May 7, 2012
1. The important steps in building a successful presidential campaign is to get a lot of cash donations, to put out a lot of advertisements and campaign slogans. You would want the campaign message to speak to the lower, middle, and upper class.
2. Campaigns have become more candidate-centered and less party-centered,because the voters are not identifying themselves as much with a particular party, rather they are judging the candidates on past experiences and accomplishments, not their political party.
3. The positives of allowing party supporters to nominate presidential candidate is they will select a candidate who is most likely to win, most likely to do the best job, and mostly likely to what the people want and represent them best. The negatives are that they always don't vote for the party's candidate, sometimes they will change their vote.
4. I found the article interesting and knowledgable for helping to study leading up to AP Test. I do not think candidates should be responsible for their supporters comments, unless they support the message. If there is not endorsement, then the candidate shouldn't be held responsible, and that advertisement should not be relate to the candidate.
Politico Prep Test #3
May 3, 2012
1. The numeber of swing votes this year is as "small as ever," because of the presidenatial candidate in Barack Obama and most likely Mitt Romney have already established their support groups. Barack Obama who is very popular for most democrats, but their are some people who still do not think he is a good president, and they dont align with Romeny either. The same goes for Romney who is consider a moderate republican, who doesnt fully align with pure conservatives' views.
2. The demographics that factor into influence voter behavior and public opinion are that the south tends to vote mostly republican. Also the republicans tends to get the vote of rural, religious, white males. While the Democrats tend to get the vote from women, the youth, union members, and minorities.
3. The candidates will send out a more liberal message in their campaign to resonate with suburban women.
they will address their views on abortion, gun control, education, and welfare policy.
4. The topic of this article provided me with a good review pof public opinion and the challenges the presidential candidates are facing is this upcoming election. I think the Democrats have the advantage in the upcoming election with swing votes because the voters will know what they will get out of Obama since he is the incumbant. In Obama's first term he really did nothing that was really good and he did nothing that was was really bad. He had an average first term and that could be and advantage for him in winning over the swing voters.
Politico Prep Test #2
May 2, 2012
1. Interest groups are fundamental for a strong democracy, because it allows citizens to a voice in government, by influencing the decisions of Congress. Although it may not allow the citizen to address Congress directly, they can do it indirectly by donating money to an interest group, and the interest group will then influence and voice an opinion in Congress. Interest groups can be dangerous, because they do not always support an issue that is beneficial for America's citizens.
2. National Rifle Association: protects gun ownership
Sierra Club: protects the environment
AARP: protects interests of the elderly
PETA: protects animal's rights
NAACP: protects rights of all people; promotes equality; protects against racial discrimination
3. Interest groups use many techniques to gain support on an issue and influence public policy. Interest groups' most common techniques are lobbying, legal action in the court, petitions, public rallies and, TV, radio, and newspaper advertisements.
4. I find this article interesting and it was a good review of interest groups for the AP test. I personally do not have a problem with former members of Congress being hired by interest groups to influence and persuade current members of Congress. What are they not suppose to get another job after leaving their congressional seat? I just see it as them taking advantage of their resume and established relationships to make good money by influencing Congress and public policy on issues the effect the nation as a whole, and their is nothing wrong with that.
Politico Prep Test #1
May 1, 2012
1. The Democratic coalition is made up of mainly the lower class, average middle class, women, the youth, union members, African Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities. The Republican coalition is made up of mostly white, rural, males who are religious, small business owners, and big business. The coalitions have changed over history because voters in southern states used to vote predominately democrat, but now presently the South votes mainly with the Republican party.
2. The state legislatures can use gerrymandering to re-draw congressional districts, in which they contain a majority of the population of strong Democrats or Republicans, which would be less favorable to moderates in that district.
3. PA State Representatives:
- Senator Robert Casey: Democrat
- Senator Patrick Toomey: Republican
- Representative Robert Brady: Democrat
- Representative Chaka Fattah: Democrat
- Representative Mike Kelly: Republican
- Representative Jason Altmire: Democrat
- Representative Glenn Thompson: Republican
- Representative Jim Gerlach: Republican
- Representative Patrick Meehan: Republican
- Representative Michael Fitzpatrick: Republican
- Representative William Shuster: Republican
- Representative Thomas Marino: Republican
- Representative Lou Barletta: Republican
- Representative Mark Critz: Democrat
- Representative Allyson Schwartz: Democrat
- Representative Michael Doyle: Democrat
- Representative Charles Dent: Republican
- Representative Joseph Pitts: Republican
- Representative Tim Holden: Democrat
- Representative Tim Murphy: Republican
- Representative Todd Platts: Republican
4. I found this article very interesting, because I learned some new terms that I have never heard before, like "Blue Dog Democrats." The partisanship in Congress is something I'm disgusted by, because we are all Americans and it shows that we cannot unite together on a common interest that affects everyone. It is just another example that America is divided on issues, and I do not see it ending any time soon.
Meredith Madness
4/1/12
Anthony Nicolo and Dan Nucero
(1) Roe v. Wade (1973)
In June 1969, Norma McCorvey discovered that she was pregnant with her third child. She lied and said she was raped so she could obtain a legal abortion under Texas law, but the plan failed becasue there was no police report. In 1970, her attorneys filed a suit for Norma McCorvey under an alias of Jane Roe. the district court ruled in favor of McCorvey and later an appeal reached the Supreme Court in 1970. The constitutional question of this case is does the Constitution protected a woman's right to have an abortion. The Supreme court ruled on January 22, 1973 with a 7-2 majority in favor of Roe. The Court ruled that a woman's right to an abortion fell under the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the 14th Amendment. The ruling gave woman the control over the pregnancy during the first trimester, and gave different levels of state interest for the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. The laws of 46 states were affecting as a result of the Court's ruling.
(2) Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978)
Allan Bakke, a 35 year old white man, who applied twice to the University of California Medical School and was rejected both times.The University put aside 16 places in each entering class of 100 students for qualified minorities, as a part of the school's affirmative action program. Bakke's GPA and test scores exceeded those of the minority students, and he believed he was only rejected because of race. The constitutional question is if the University of California violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by implementing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the rejection of Bakke to their medical school. The Supreme Court ruled 5 - 4 in favor of Bakke, that said the admission process of the school was unconstitutional. Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun said that race could be used as a factor for the school' s admission process. Justices Stevens, Rehnquist, and Stewart, and Chief Justice Burger ruled that whether race could ever a be a factor was not at issue in the case, but the school's special admissions program which violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Powell ruled that race could not be the basis for the rejection of a candidate, race may be one of the many factors in admission considerations.
(3) Tinker v. Des Moines S.D. (1969)
John Tinker, 15 years old, his sister Mary Beth Tinker, 13 years old, and Christopher Echardt, 16 years old, decided to wear black armbands to their schools to protest the Vietnam War, during the Christmas holiday season. The principals of the schools created a policy that prohibited the students from wearing armbands by being asked to remove them or face suspension. When John, Mary Beth, and Christopher wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them and they refused. They were suspended until after New Year's Day. The constitutional question is does the prohibition of wearing armbands in public school, as a form of a protest, violates the 1st Amendment's freedom of speech protections. The Court ruled that wearing armbands was closely related to pure speech and is protected under the First Amendment. The principals that authority to impose such restrictions on the students freedom of speech. The principals also had failed to show that the wearing of the armbands would have interfered with appropriate school discipline.
(4) Korematsu v. United States (1944)
During World War II, President Roosevelt gave an executive order (9066) that gave the military the power to exclude Japanese citizens from areas deemed critical to national defense and potentially vulnerable to espionage. Americans of Japanese ancestry were place in internment camps, but Fred Korematsu refused and was arrested. Korematsu argued that the Executive Order 9066 was unconstitutional and a violation of the 14th Amendment. The constitutional question is did the president go beyond his war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights Americans of Japanese descent. The Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the government, stating the government's need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's rights. Justice Black said that compulsory exclusion, though constitutionally suspect, is justified during situations of "emergency and peril."
(5) Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)
Hamdan, Bin Laden's former chauffeur, was captured and imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. A military tribunal ruled that Hamdan was a enemy combatant. The district court granted his habeas petition, ruling that he must be given a hearing first to determine if he is a prisoner of war, before he could be tired by a military commission. The Circuit Appellate Court of D.C. overturned the decision, ruling that the Geneva Convention could not be enforced in federal court and that military tribunals are constitutional under the authorization of Congress. The constitutional question is "may the rights protected by the Geneva Convention be enforced in federal court through habeas corpus petitions? Was the military commission established to try Hamdan and others for alleged war crimes in the War on Terror authorized by the Congress or the inherent powers of the President?" The Court ruled 5-3 in favor of Hamdan, stating that neither an act of Congress nor the inherent powers of the president expressly authorize the sort of military commission at issue in this case. The Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice could be enforced by the Supreme Court, which made Hamdan's trial illegal because he was absent.
(6) Heart of Atlanta Hotel, Inc. v. United States (1964)
The Heart of Atlanta Hotel in Atlanta, Georgia, refused to accept African Americans and was charged with violating Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade racial discrimination by business of public accommodation if their operations affected commerce. The constitutional question is "did Congress, in passing Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, exceed its Commerce Clause powers by depriving motels, such as the Heart of Atlanta, of the right to choose their own customers?" The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of the United States, stating that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate local incidents of commerce, and that places of public accommodation had no right to select guests as they saw fit, free from government regulation. The Court also added that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for was constitutional, and that the applicability of Title II was "carefully limited to enterprises having a direct and substantial relation to the interstate flow of goods and people."
(7) Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
Barron was a co-owner of a profitable wharf in the harbor of the Baltimore. As the city began to expand and develop, large amounts of sand started to built up in the harbor. This built up of sand denied Barron of the deep waters, which had been a key part to his successfulness as a business. He sued the city of Baltimore to recover a part of his financial losses. The constitutional question is "does the Fifth Amendment deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property's owner?" The Court voted 7-0 in favor of the City of Baltimore without even hearing the arguments for the case. Chief Justice Marshall found that the limitations on government in the 5th Amendment were specially intended to limit the powers of the national government. Marshall argued that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the case, since the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states.
(8) Ex Parte Milligan (1866)
In Indiana, during the Civil War, Lambden Milligan was sentenced to death by a military commission, for acts of disloyalty. Milligan sought a release through a habeas corpus from a federal court. The constitutional question is "does civil court have jurisdiction over a military tribunal?" The Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Milligan, stating that trials of civilians by presidentially created military commissions are unconstitutional. Martial law can not exist where the civil courts are operating. The legal principle that was used in this case is the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
(9) Ex Parte Endo (1944)
During World War II, Japanese immigrants were excluded from entering the United States, as a part of the war effort against Japan. On December 18, 1944, the same day that the court decided Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that regardless if the United States had the power to exclude people of the Japanese ancestry, they could not continue to detain people that the government conceded was a loyal citizen of the United States. This decision reopened the west coast as an entrance into the United States for Japanese-American citizens who were held in camps during World War II.
(10) Munn v. Illinois (1877)
The State of Illinois regulated grain warehouse and elevator rates by establishing maximum rates for their use. The constitutional question is "did the state-imposed rates deny the warehouse and elevator owners equal protection and due process under the 14th Amendment?" The court ruled 7-2 in favor of Illinois, stating that the 14th Amendment did not prevent the State of Illinois from regulating charges for the use of grain warehouses and elevators. The case allowed states to regulate certain businesses within their borders.
(11) Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)
In 1831, the state of Georgia passed legislation depriving the Cherokee nation of their rights within their boundaries. However, the Supreme Court would not hear the case because they ruled that they had no original jurisdiction in the matter. The court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was a dependant nation while remaining a “foreign state”.
(12) Betts v. Brady (1942)
The question raised in this decision was whether or not defendants have the right to counsel in trial when prosecuted by the state. Betts indicted and denied counsel by the judge, forcing him to represent himself. The court ruled that right to counsel may be denied to defendants when prosecuted by the state. This decision was overruled in Gideon v. Wainwright.
(13) Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
This case brings up the question whether or not Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause in the United States Constitution. The court ruled that the Commerce Clause in the Constitution designated power to Congress to regulate interstate commerce, which also includes navigation. The decision was made saying that the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to Congress in the Constitution.
(14) Worcester v. Georgia (1832)
Samuel Worcester was convicted by the state of Georgia for being present on Indian lands without having permission from the state. The case vacated his conviction, saying the Georgia statute that prohibited non-Indians from being present on Indian lands without a license from the state was unconstitutional. The court ruled that states have no criminal jurisdiction in Indian country.
(15) Snyder v. Phelps (2011)
The Phelps family are members of the Westboro Baptist Church. Matthew Snyder, a US Marine who was killed in the Iraq war, was being honored at his funeral service. During the funeral, the Phelps family publicly protested in front of the ceremony, causing emotional distress to the family and friends of Snyder. The question involved in this case is whether or not the First Amendment protects public protesters at a funeral against tort liability. The court ruled in favor of Phelps by a vote of 8-1, saying that their speech related to a public issue and was held on a public sidewalk, allowing them to freely protest at the funeral. The First Amendment freedom of speech clause protects public protesters, even at funerals.
(16) Johnson v. McIntosh (1823)
Thomas Johnson bought lands from Native American tribes in 1773 and 1775. Johnson left the claim to these lands to his descendants. In 1818, McIntosh bought land from the US Government, which consisted of some of the same land Johnson claimed to own. The Constitutional question is whether or not McIntosh's claim to the disputed land is superior to Johnson's claim because McIntosh's claim was a result of Congressional action. The court held that McIntosh's claim was superior to Johnson's because the federal government appointed the land to him. The result from this case is that private citizens cannot purchase lands from Native Americans.
Seung Min Kim- Federal Workers Under Siege
3/12/12
In the article "Federal Workers under Siege" by Seung Min Kim examines the consistent growth of the federal workforce between 2006 and 2010. He talks about the controversy of whether or not to let the federal workforce to continue to increase or to reduce the number of employees within the federal government. Kim presents the argument between Democrats, who want to continue the growth of the federal workforce, while the Republicans want to cut back the number of federal employees. The Republicans want the cut back to help fund the payroll tax cut, jobless benefits, and a transportation bill. They see that the government is spending money on too many wasteful jobs, and that it could be use in better and more beneficial ways. However, the Democrats believe that the Republicans since their take over of the House have been trying to attack the federal workforce.
This controversy that Kim writes about in his article, is something that contradicts itself. From the Republicans point of view, I understand where they are coming from, my dad holds a federal government job and from what he tells me there are a lot of jobs within his area that seem wasteful. There is always boss on top of boss, and it seems like a never ending chain. But in the current economic situation that we are in it does not seem logical to cut federal government jobs, because of the current unemployment rate. If they did cut federal government jobs, than the money that they would be saving would be going right back to the unemployed workers through jobless benefits. Cutting job within the federal workforce will not help the economy and will only make the unemployment rate rise.
Bradley Paterson #36 The White House Staff: [Chief of Staff]
2/15/12
Bradley Paterson analyzes the vital importance of the president's chief of staff. Paterson informs us the president's chief of staff is in charge of every aspect of the White House office. Paterson believes that, “the chief of staff must be all things to the president, but he must be careful in the process not to become isolated and alienated from the numerous people whose requests he has to reject on behalf of his boss.” The chief of staff is also responsible for staying in connection with the first lady, the vice president, and the vice president's wife. He has to plan the president's hour by hour schedule, months in advance. All presentations to the president are subject to the chief of staff's review. The chief of staff must be familiar with the political life of D.C., but he also must serve as the president's liaison on Capitol Hill. Other responsibilities include reviewing all the papers that come out of the president’s office, deciding when to take an issue to the president, and traveling on all of the president's journeys.
Bradley Paterson perfectly describes the necessity and importance of the president's chief of staff in “The White House Staff: [Chief of Staff].” The chief of staff is like the president's blackberry, he runs every day of the president's life from his meetings to his travels. The president's chief of staff is also responsible for making important decisions without delegating them to the president, but he has to know when to draw the line and go to the president for a decision. Paterson went through great observation to give us a detailed picture of how important the chief of staff is. The chief of staff should definitely get more recognition for his work, because plenty of people probably don't even know who the current chief of staff is.
Kenneth Mayer #35 With the Stroke of a Pen
2/15/12
Kenneth Mayer in “With the Stroke of a Pen” analyzes the powers of the president that are less visible and less checked. Mayer identifies that the president can have great influence beyond that specifically authorized in the Constitution or gained from the personal ability to persuade. The power that Mayer mentions is an executive order, which doesn't require congressional approval only the signature of the president. Mayer explains executive orders as “presidential directives that require or authorize some action within the executive branch. They are presidential edicts, legal instruments that create or modify laws, procedures, and policy by fiat.” Some people oppose executive orders, because they believe that they can create a presidential dictatorship and totalitarianism. Mayer reveals that executive orders are necessary, because they allow the president to have some freedom to get policies accomplished.
Mayer analysis of the president's power of executive orders are accurate. Executive orders allow the president to act with some freedom, without the approval of Congress. As long as the president's executive order does not violate the Constitution, the order will be authorized. This power would seem extremely helpful today because of the partisanship of Congress, where bills and policies get denied, because they were created by an opposing party. Executive orders are necessary for the president that act quickly in case of crisis or an emergency, because Congress might be a little slower to deliberate.
Thomas Cronin and Michael Genovese #33 The Paradoxes of the American Presidency
2/13/12
In this passage from “The Paradoxes of the American Presidency,” Cronin and Genovese attempt to explain the many depictions of the president by the citizens through the use of paradoxes. Cronin and Genovese list nine paradoxes to show the different views and expectations of the president by the citizens. For example, the American people want an every day man to become president, but yet the expect him to be extraordinary and perfect. We admired presidential power, but yet fear it at the same time. We demand strong leadership from our president, but yet we put a limitation on his powers. These are just some of the paradoxes mentioned throughout the text, that provide that paradoxical nature of the American presidency, which brings us to understanding. Through understanding enlightenment and constructive criticism is created, which is the foundation of citizen democracy.
Thomas Cronin and Michael Genovese in “The Paradoxes of the American Presidency” perfectly describe the standards and expectations on a president, set by the American people. The people ask for a common man to run for the presidency, but than they complain that the candidate doesn't have any political experience. The American people always want something out of their president. Once they have a candidate or president with these specific qualities, it is just not enough for them and they just want something else more. The American people can never be satisfied with want they wish for and then receive. And with such paradoxical expectations of a president, it is any wonder why the people criticize him so harshly.
Clear Congress Project
1/29/12
The site was very interesting, because it broke down each member of Congress into a chart that was easy to use. At first it was a bit confusing and I didn't really understand what it was all about. Once I got use to it, I found how easy it was to acquire information on each member. I was surprised to find out that republicans are more bi-partisan than democrats. Thomas Gibes even went as far as to include each of the member's twitter feeds, which I found to be great for keeping updated on each member. Overall, I found this to be a great site, and it was very helpful for gathering information on the 112th Congress.
Democrat or Republican?
12/5/11
I am a Republican because my beliefs are:
-
the rich should not be taxed more
-
equal tax rate
-
if you work hard than you will receive benefits from the hard work
-
right to own a gun
-
free enterprise system
-
you should be able to do what you want with your money as you please
-
I support the death penalty
-
strong national defense
-
individuals are responsible for the actions
-
opposed to abortion, although it may be accepted in some cases
-
opposed to required healthcare
-
welfare but needs to be heavily regulate, it is abused way too much
-
support gay marriage, even though I'm a Republican
-
less government involvement in the people's lives
James Ceasar and Andrew Busch #74 Red Over Blue
12/5/11
In this passage, “ Red Over Blue”, James Ceasar and Andrew Busch discuss the presidential election of 2004 and the subject of red and blue states. Red states represent the Republican party, which means the Democratic Party is represented by blue states. Ceasar and Busch suggest that the cause of why people are Republican or Democrat is their attitudes on moral issues. Busch and Ceasar also acknowledge that this is not a black and white issue, which results in there being purple and fuchsia parts of the map. Throughout the reading the authors show support for how the Republican Party has been gaining support over the past years and elections and has made the elections a lot more competitive and interesting. Later in the reading, Ceasar and Busch explain how now more American people are choosing “red over blue.” The authors state that when it comes to the American people on choosing a political party to identify themselves by, they tend to focus on the political party's view on major political issues.
Ceasar and Busch are accurate that red and blue does not completely represent our nation as a whole. As they said there are many in between views and beliefs that don't directly fit into red or blue, but yet there are purple and fuchsia areas that represent some of the American people. Although these colors might not show up on the map, these people are still out there. Even though when “Red Over Blue was written, the American people were choosing red, now that be changing to people choosing blue over red. The American people are always changing their views and beliefs because they are very fickle, it just depends on the current happenings in the world and the stance the government takes on them.
Walter Dean Burnham #73 Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics
12/5/11
In the passage from “Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics”, Walter Dean Burnham attempts to explain why particular presidential elections throughout American history mark important long-term changes in the social and economic direction of the nation. Burnham uses the elections of 1800, 1828, 1860,1896, and 1932 to support his characteristics of a critical or realigning election. Burnham considers these realigning elections occur in “uniform periodicity”, in equal intervals of time, about 30 to 38 years apart. Burnham believes the critical elections are a result of the ever changing ideology of politics, social and economic issues. The people become involved depending on what is currently happening in the world they live in, and it affects their beliefs on how the government should be run. Burnham suggests that critical realignments happen when an external force affects the routine of the party leaders, because if the party leader has a successful routine for winning then there is no reason for the to change their routine.
Walter Dean Burnham's explanation of “critical realignment” is correct with his citing of the presidential elections, in that realignment only occurs when an external force outside of politics happens and a change is needed to succeed. He is also accurate with his statement on how once a successful routine is established by a government organization, that helps them win political positions, ... why change? Change only occurs when a extreme occurrence has happened and action is required. When comparing Burnham's analysis of critical realignment to the history of America, and the change in government, it proves to be correct.
Martin Wattenberg #82 Where has All the Voters Gone?
11/28/11
In the passage from “Where Have All the Voters Gone?” by Martin Wattenberg, analyzes why the younger population of U.S. citizens lack voting participation. Wattenberg's reason for the low turn out in young voters is the nature of mass media and how it is changing. Wattenberg supports his reason by a series of surveys, for example in a yearly study of freshman in college found that 26% of the class of 2002 said that “keeping up with politics” was a priority for them, compared to 56% of the 1970 class. He also states that the change in television channels from basic channels such as CBS, ABC, and NBC to cable channels such as ESPN, MTV, and VH1 are part of the cause for the lack of political knowledge in the younger generation. Basic channels focused on “broadcasting” to a variety of people with topics that the were concerned about, such as politics and government. Although now cable channels focused on “narrowcasting” to a specific interest, such as ESPN which focuses specifically on sports. Wattenberg doesn't blame the younger generation for their lack of involvement in politics, because they have not been informed as much as they should of while growing up. He also doesn't blame the politicians because they didn't help produce the circumstances that benefit the older generation of people. They focus on the people who voted in the past, and this then leaves the younger people out of the picture. Those people who don't vote are in the end ignored. He suggests that a solution to this problem may be hard to find, but in the end the younger generation will have to find an answer, because they will soon be replacing the older voters. Who will be voting then?
Wattenberg is correct in his analysis that the younger generation voting rate is lower, then when compared to past generations. His examples for why the younger population does not vote is also correct when compared to the young people today. The young American people has become less and less informed in politics and government actions, because they feel that it won't affected them personally, they don't know anything, or they just don't care. Although it is the job of the young people to get out and vote to get their voices heard, because if they don't then they will be ignored. We the young people have to get out and vote, because “who votes does matter.”
V. O. Key #56 Public Opinion and American Democracy
11/16/11
In the excerpt, from Public Opinion and American Democracy, Key attempts to explain the connection between the public's opinions and the political leadership's opinions. Key believed that the public's opinions stops political leaders from straying too far away from the boundaries acceptable to the people in the making of policy. Key focuses on two important influences of both elites and the mass. Key explains that elected political officials are worried about the public's opinion, because they don't want to go against the public, and have the chance to not be re-elected. This is where the public uses “opinion dikes” to keep the politicians in line and stop them from straying away from the truth and reality. It is like a sewer, which keeps the storm water from flooding, while opinion dikes keep the politicians from telling too many lies. This is true, because it is mass influence, the voice of the public, that the government operates and abides by.
Key's statements are true that the government and elected political officials make unrealistic and empty promises. This especially occurs during the campaigning of a candidate, who is running for office. The candidates make these reasonable but highly unrealistic promises that they will do something, for example: lowering taxes or that they would support the withdrawal of the military from the Middle East. These promises just help them gain enough supporters than the other candidates to win the election. Opinion dikes just provide the American people with some form safety, so that the elected officials cannot promise the American people something totally outrageous, for example like no taxes. It keeps the politicians in boundaries, to stop them from deviating from the public's opinions, and in helps them keep mass influence in their minds. It allows the public's voice to be heard and considered, to help political official make decisions on issues that face this country.
Walter Lippmann #55 The Phantom Public
11/16/11
In the passage, from The Phantom Public, Walter Lippmann discusses the role played by the American people in government decision making. The image of the American people painted by Lippmann was that they are uninformed, and are mostly uninterested in politics. Lippmann used an analogy of “it is bad for a fat man to try to be a ballet dancer,” to show that it is impractical to expect he public to participate more and voice their opinion. Lippmann says the individual man does not have opinions on all public affairs, because he doesn't know how to direct public affairs, he doesn't know what is happening, why its happening, and what ought to happen. Lippmann believes the only time the American public becomes involved in public affairs is during a crisis. The public opinion than diminishes over time, once a solution is found to fix the crisis. Lippmann believes that not all of the blame should be on the American people or the government, but it should be on the private organizations. These organizations are hidden from the public, which makes it hard for the American public to be informed on all of the issues in the American government. These private organizations handle the issues of America, because they are the informed people, who know how to resolve an issue.
The writings of Walter Lippmann are very true, there is very little participation by the American people in public affairs today. The American people today are at a low in government participation, they just don't feel like taking the time out of their day to vote. The public just maybe to busy, or it could be just pure laziness for them to take time to register and vote. It seems though whenever the president or Congress does something that a person doesn't approve of, they complain, but when you ask them if they voted the majority would probably say no. If you did not vote in the elections, than you should not be complaining on the outcome, because it all comes back to you for not taking your part in voting. Agreeing with the passage by Lippmann, it is noticeable that many of the government decisions are made by private organizations and institutions, because it seems that the government does not have any faith in the citizens right now to make decisions that could national impact this country.
Charles Beard “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution”
10/25/11
In this passage “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution”, Charles Beard argues the true motives behind the Founding Fathers structuring of the Constitution were purely for their own economic reasons. Beard wanted to understand the economic situations that each of the members would have been influenced by. As a result Beard did research to support his argument, including the examinations of each of the delegates' occupations and personal land holdings at the Constitutional Convention. He also goes deeper into their lives by investigating which members owned slaves, loaned money at an interest rate, and who owned a merchant business. Beard made sure his accusations were supported strongly, by using historical documentation sources such as census records. At the end of his research Beard came to the conclusion that the majority of the the delegates who supported the adoption of the Constitution would have been directly affected economically and financially. The majority of the members who were non-slaveholders were held disadvantage and opposed the adoption of the document.
The allegations by Charles Beard were surprisingly shocking and correct, despite the little knowledge and resources Beard had to work with to find evidence to support his accusations, he made on the delegates of the Constitutional Convention. Beard analyzed the economic profile of each member and came to the conclusion that there were motives behind the creation of the new government besides the welfare of the United States. It is hard to disagreed with the findings of Beard that the 55 men in the same room, where the Declaration of Independence was signed, created and supported the Constitution for their own economic and financial well being. With this being said Charles Beard established, from the research that was done, why specific ideas were constructed in the new government and supported by particular members at the Convention.
Powers
10/21/11
- Writes and enacts laws(Legislative), Determines whether a law is unconstitutional(Judicial)
- Appoints judges and executive department heads(Executive), Senate has to approve judges and executive department heads(Legislative)
- May veto laws(Executive), Can override presidential veto with 2/3 vote(Legislature)
- Wages war at the direction of Congress(Executive), Congress can only officially declare war(Legislative)
- Polices its own members(Judicial), The House can remove judicial officers
- President can make treaties with other countries(Executive), the Senate ratifies treaties(Legislative)
- Power to authorize investigates especially against the executive(Legislative), May grant pardons to convicted persons except in the case of impeachment(Executive)
- Appoints Supreme Court justices(Executive), once appoint free from control of the executive branch(Judicial)
- Ability to call special session of Congress(Executive), Requires the president to make a State of the Union address(Legislative)
- Neither house-House of Rep. or Senate- may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house(Because the Legislative Branch is bicameral, it has a degree of self-checking)
Eugene Rostow #42 The Democratic Character of Judicial Review
10/16/11
In the excerpt from The Democratic Character of Judicial Review by Eugene Rostow, he provides the most important examination of the Supreme Court's power of judicial review. Judicial review is the ability of the Court to declare an act of Congress or the executive or a state law unconstitutional. In some people's eyes this may be antidemocratic to give the Supreme Court that much power, but to Rostow the power of judicial review is a vital element of the American democratic system. He sees the Supreme Court as more of mediators to interpret the Constitution. The United States of America is a “polity”, Rostow explains, in which the majority rules with protections guaranteed for individuals and minorities. The power the Supreme Court is allowed establishes that the minority and individual is secured from the “tyranny of the majority.” Also the Supreme Court ensures that the executive and legislative branches of government never hold to much power, that could be used to deprive the right's of the citizens.
Overall looking at the power of the Supreme Court, it looks like they control more power in the government then the two other branches. Although the power of the Supreme Court which includes judicial review, is the only power allowed in all three branches government that is strictly objective and not bias. There is no bias decisions in the Supreme Court, because it strictly deals with the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, which declares that all people are to be treat equal and have an entitlement to their basic human rights. Taking this into consideration the Supreme Court is the most important part of the U.S. Government, because without the Court, Congress and the President would be able to interpret the Constitution however the would like based on their beliefs. The people would be left without any adequate protecting from the destruction these powers could do to their rights, if the was no Supreme Court to watch over and validate the legitimacy of their actions.
Lani Guinier #11 The Tyranny of the Majority
10/16/11
Lani Guinier is a law professor, who was up for consideration for assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Justice Department. However Guinier was withdrawn from consideration, because of her beliefs of the poor and unfair representation that takes place in the elections of the United States. Guinier believed that in a diverse society, such as the one in the United States, winner-take-all elections shut out the minority from having no contribution at all. Lani explained her beliefs that the way the elections in America are conducted are prejudiced, by using two analogies one on a small scale and another on a larger scale. The first analogy concerned an exercise from a Sesame Street Magazine, which had an image of six children: four of the kids had their hands raised to play tag, while the other two kids wanted to play hide-and-seek. The reader was supposed to decide which game the children would play, her son Nikolas answered they would play both, a positive-sum solution, something many adults would disregard. The second analogy was in reference to song selections for prom at a Chicago high school. The school had each student write down three songs, which they would like to have played at prom. Although the black students at the school felt there was unequal representation, since there was a much larger census of white students. As the minority, they felt their song selections had no affect, so they decided to organize their own separate prom. Guinier brings forth the idea of a cumulative voting system in the United States, which would better represent the minority’s vote and would include more equality for the minority’s idea so they are not just brushed away and ignored.
Lani Guinier's references to the unfairness and inequality in the American voting system is still a reality presently today, even seventeen years after her writing of The Tyranny of the Majority. The majority still heavily out weighs the minority’s votes and ideas, something the will not change until the election system is altered. The majority and minority are constantly adjusting though, to the different beliefs and concepts that are brought forward for discussion among the people. So there is never just one identical group of the majority or minority, they adapt to one's own particular beliefs. Although the voting system in the United States will not be changed for sometime, it is because this current voting system the most equitable way for all the people to be considered and accounted for. Though it may not always be equal, everyone always has a chance to voice their opinion.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama
James Madison #9 Federalist 10
10/10/11
In Federalist 10, James Madison introduces the idea of “factions”, which he explains them as any single group especially a mob-like majority, but perhaps even a tiny minority that attempts to overtake the political process. Madison explains that it is almost impossible to remove factions from a government entirely, but he suggests that factions can be controlled with a republican form of government. There were two methods in which factions can be controlled: (1) remove its cause; (2) control its effects, and again there are two ways in removing its causes: (1) destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; (2) give every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests. Madison believed that if a large and diverse nation was present with many groups of people than no one faction would be paramount. Liberty was considered by Madison to be the air to a fire for factions, without liberty there would be no factions. James Madison believed that factions are more deadly than a disease.
The explanation of factions in Federalist 10 by James Madison is still accurate today even though it was written over two hundred years ago. James Madison explained that a faction's actions can be hazardous to a nation' government and society. To prevent this from happening to a nation he suggested two methods: remove the causes of factions, or control it. Madison believe that only one of these methods would be feasible which was the latter, because if you were to remove the causes of factions than you would have to remove liberty from the American government. If liberty is removed from the American government than the way of American life and the principles on which this nation was built on would be destroyed. The only option left considered by Madison was to control factions, which would best be done by a republican form of government. As we can see a republican system has worked for the two hundred years since the American government has been created, or do the American people just accept the system, because it would be to difficult to change? Even though the republican system Madison suggested for controlling factions partially works today, factions are still heavily present, but they are just able to hide behind the public's eyes with the help of media and other technological advances.
Alexis De Tocqueville #1 Democracy in America
10/6/11
The excerpt from "Democracy in America" by Alexis De Tocqueville is about his journey from France to the United States of America in 1831. Tocqueville took on the challenge of examining and studying the new form of the democratic government in America. While in the United States he noticed the rareness of the U.S. government that all Americas, who were not servants or slaves, were equal among each other. Of all the emigrants that settled in America, every single one had an equal opportunity from the beginning. Although that may be because of the emigrants leaving there native country, they had no feeling of superiority over one another in America. The United States gave the opportunity to the lower class of Americans to participate in the government, not just to the rich upper class. That is something no other nation in the world had to offer at the time.
Alexis De Tocqueville's perspective on the United State's democratic government in 1831, is not what is seen in the current U.S. government. The U.S. government in 1831 was viewed as nation with equality among all people even between the poor and rich. In the present government this is hard to locate, it is seen with the rich controlling more than the poor since the rich have resources to farther position themselves in today's government. Although every person in America has a vote that is equal to everybody else's vote, the rich can use their money and social status to help gain popularity among the people. The poor do not have these resources to take advantage of, which farther separates the gap between the rich and the poor in the political and social system in America. But the U.S. democratic government has survived for over 200 years, so the American people and emigrants still coming to America must agree with something within the U.S. government for it to have lasted this long.
Richard Hofstadter #8 "From The American Political Tradition"
9/22/11
In Richard Hofstadter's thesis "The American Political Tradition", he explains what the concept of liberty meant to the Founding Fathers. Hofstadter states that Liberty is not associated with democracy but with the right to own private property. He supports his beliefs with the ideas and beliefs of the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers believed that democracy was the menace of liberty. Instead they thought that liberty was linked to the ownership of property. If the writers of the Constitution believed that liberty was related to democracy than it wouldn't of needed to have been included in the living part of the Constitution. The founders considered that freedom of property would produce liberty for at least the worthy men. The common belief among the men who drafted the Constitution was that democracy could only be a stepping stone in government, because it either developed into a tyranny or an aristocracy. The Founding Fathers accept Thomas Hobbes philosophy of the "state of nature", in that man is only concern with self-interests and that it was war of all against all. The Founding Fathers opinion was that self-interest was the most threatening and unbreakable quality of man. Instead of attempting to change the nature of man, they decided to establish a government that could control and regulate the conflict of self-interests.
After reading Richard Hofstadter's thesis about the legitimacy of the intentions of the writers of the Constitution and the legitimacy of the interpretations of the Constitution, you gain a whole new perspective on the Founding Fathers. It is ironic that they believed the nature of man to be concerned with only self-interests, because they were self-interested while writing the Constitution. Did they forget that they are man also or did they think they were some higher power? No matter what reasons they overlooked some major conflicts in society, and they were either not concerned about these problems or they were just to lazy to include them. But we are in the 21st century, almost 300 years after the creation of this document, it is hard to predict how society would of changed from 1787 to 2011. The Founding Fathers shouldn't be held accountable for these mistakes, since it is the nature of man to make mistakes and learn from the mistakes that they have made.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.