Politico AP Government & Politics Test Prep #9: The Supreme Court

May 11, 2012

 

1. Describe the process that the Supreme Court uses to decide its cases.

     The Supreme Court uses “The Rule of Four” which is when they need 4 of the 9 SC Justices’ approval along with granting a Petition of Certiorari to bring up the case. It hears cases from the lower courts, such as the U.S. Court of Appeals Circuit Courts or the state supreme courts.

2. How can interest groups impact the justices appointed to the United States Supreme Court?

     Interest groups can influence the justices appointed to follow their political agenda by demonstrations of what they stand for. To impact the justices, interest groups can send in donations. Interest groups can even impact appointed justices through the use of the media, like TV, ads, billboards, the internet, newspapers, etc. There are many ways for interest groups to get their message across while impacting the U.S.S.C.    

3. Is our United States Supreme Court above politics? Should it be?

     I believe that the United States Supreme Court is above politics. I definitely think it should be. After all, the Supreme Court is expected to act as “the guardian of the Constitution.”  

4. What do you think about the topic of this POLITICO article?  How would you decide on the health care law if you were on the Supreme Court?

     This was a good test prep for me. I’m not entirely sure what I would do, but I’m pretty sure I’d consider the law unconstitutional just based off of what I’ve heard and read. I don’t like the idea of forcing people to do things against what they believe in.

 

Politico AP Government & Politics Test Prep #8: The Presidency

May 10, 2012

 

1. What presidential role do you think is most important?

     I think that the role of being Commander-in-Chief is the most important role of the president. I think having the authority to make decisions regarding military actions is a pretty big deal. A president’s decision as to whether or not we should go to war, raid, invade, retreat, etc. can make a huge impact on the country as a whole.

2. What presidential role do you think is least important?

     Honestly, I feel like this question is a hard one to answer. I consider all of the president’s roles and responsibilities to be extremely important. However, if I had to choose one I’d probably say his role of Chief-of-Party. It even says that “the Constitution makes no reference to political parties.” Therefore, I think worrying about the opposing parties ideas is a smaller concern.

3. What does it mean when political scientists claim modern presidents are on a "continuous campaign"?

     Whenever political scientists say that modern presidents are on “a continuous campaign” it’s basically like they’re trying to say presidents are always trying to be on their best behavior. Presidents are constantly striving to get people on their side so it’s almost as if they never stop campaigning. Presidents continue their campaigns even when they’re in office. It’s just a way to keep the people happy and keep the title.   

4. What do you think about the topic of this POLITICO article? What do you think the framers of our Constitution would think of the modern presidency?

     I learned a lot about the presidency, Obama and his administration from reading this article. I think the framers of our Constitution would be a little surprised with how some things are in the presidency, but proud none the less. If anything they might just be afraid that the executive branch has too much power, but then again you can look at it from the other side and say that the Constitution is a living breathing document that must adapt to the times. So, the framers would approve of most of what happens today with the presidency, but would have their doubts about or issues regarding other aspects.  

 

Politico AP Government & Politics Test Prep #7: Federalism*****

May 10, 2012*****

 

1. What are the greatest advantages and disadvantages of federalism?

     Advantages: giving states some authority rather than having the federal government have all of the power with everything, federal government keeps state governments in line by watching over what each state does, open communication between the local and national governments        Disadvantages: states could all be on different pages of the same book (despite following the same form of government), the federal government’s ability to oversee everything the state governments do can sometimes be seen as a disadvantage in addition to its positives.  

2. Describe some laws passed in the past 20 years that have expanded the federal government’s authority over states.

     Laws regarding things like food, drugs, currency, commerce and taxes show how the federal government has great authority over the states. 

3. Describe some laws passed in the past 20 years that have increased the state’s authority over national programs.

     Laws regarding things like voting, taxes within the city and gambling increase the state’s authority over national programs. 

4. What do you think about the topic of this POLITICO article? Explain how you would rule on the constitutionality of Arizona’s law.

     I found this article informative because I had no idea that “the Obama administration’s claim[ed] that the state overreached its authority.” This article helped me to see what powers of authority lie in the hands of the federal government and which ones the state governments are responsible for. 

 

Politico AP Government & Politics Test Prep #6: Public Policy

May 8, 2012

 

1. Explain why governmental farm subsidies were first used?

     Governmental farm subsidies were first used to put a limit on how many crops were grown. A subsidy or payment “to supplement their income, manage the supply of agricultural commodities, and influence the cost and supply of such commodities,” such as this one was used to balance out the total of crops. 

2. What other American industries are subsidized by the federal government?

     Other American industries that are subsidized by the federal government would be transportation, oil, gas, energy, etc. 

3. What techniques do interest groups use in shaping public policy?

     Several methods that interest groups use to formulate and carry out their political objectives would especially include the lobbying techniques used to gain public support. Some interest groups hire lobbyists while others have their own already. They write legislation and use law suits to their advantage. When they get people talking about something they want to be known, interest groups are succeeding when it comes to influencing public policy. Every interest group has an agenda. They each want to sway the public to side with them and they are willing to do whatever it takes to get them on their side. 

4. What do you think about the topic of this POLITICO article?  Which do you think is more difficult, passing policy changes or implementing policy changes?

     Honestly, I didn’t know that much about subsidies prior to reading this article nor did I know how it affected the farmers. In the long run, I gained a lot from this POLITICO article. Implementing policy changes seems pretty difficult. “Policy implementation is what happens after a bill becomes law,” so I almost feel like it’s more involved that passing policy changes along.

 

Politico AP Government & Politics Test Prep #5

May 7, 2012

 

1. Describe the demographics of the membership in the 112th Congress.

     112th Congress:

• Senate: 
• Total: 100- 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans and 2 Independents
• House: 
• Total: 435- 242 Republicans and 193 Democrats

2. Explain how the House and the Senate differ in their legislative procedures.

     The House of Representatives has more rules and is tightly organized. It is more of an elaborate structure than the Senate. The Senate, on the other hand, has more of a loose structure than the House. There’s no speaking limit in the Senate, but there is filibuster which is basically when someone can talk a law to death. The Senate is more stuck-up than the House and is more traditional. The House has the Rules Committee and the Speaker of the House. A good way to put it would be that the house is more relatable with “a neighborhood bar” while the Senate is more likely to be associated with “let’s have a cocktail hour at a mansion.”

3. Describe the powers that the Senate does not share with the House.

     The Senate can try to impeach while the House cannot. Also, the Senate has the final say on the law and is able to use filibuster, but the House doesn’t have that advantage.

4. What do you think about the topic of this POLITICO article? What strategy would you recommend for congressional freshmen running for reelection?

     This POLITICO article was pretty informative in regards to freshman vs. incumbents and what not. I would recommend coming up with fresh ideas and tactics to dilute the older ones that may not be applicable anymore. Getting some fresh blood in there isn’t a bad idea. In fact, it’s actually a really smart one. We need people to adapt things to the times and young, new congressional freshmen may be just what we need right now.

 

Politico AP Government & Politics Test Prep #4

May 7, 2012

 

1. What are the most important steps in building a successful presidential campaign?

     The most important steps in building a successful presidential campaign are: get the necessary tools to run a campaign, figure out a way to raise money, hire a dependable and reliable campaign staff, establish a campaign budget, come up with a strategy or plan of action, and finally come up with a catchy slogan or main message.

2. Explain why campaigns have become more candidate-centered and less party-centered.

     Campaigns have grown to be more candidate-centered rather than party-centered because of the decrease in party-identification. Less and less people are pledging to one party and are meanwhile supporting an individual person rather than a group. Each candidate has an image and more people are attaching themselves to the name of an individual person based on who they think he or she is. 

3. What are the positives and negatives of allowing party supporters to nominate candidates in primary elections?

     The positives of allowing party supporters to nominate candidates in primary elections would be that it allows the people to let their voices be heard. It gives them the chance to nominate the one they find to be the best fit. The negatives of doing this would be that the party supporters may only be nominating the candidate strictly because of his or her party identification. Also, the party-supporters might not be representative of the majority. The candidate the loyal supporters choose may not be the best choice out of the whole bunch.

4. What do you think about the topic of this POLITICO article? What’s your opinion about candidates being held accountable for comments made by supporters?

     This article was kind of interesting. It was neat to read about certain instances where candidates were pulled into things because of what their supporters said. I think it’s unfair to hold candidates accountable for what their supporters say. They can’t control what other people are going to say or how they feel. Therefore, I don’t think that candidates should be held responsible for comments made by supporters. 

 

Politico AP Government & Politics Test Prep #3

May 3, 2012

 

1. Why do you think the number of swing voters this year is “small as ever”?

     I think that the number of swing voters this year is "small as ever" because of certain issues, such as the war in Iraq and healthcare. The country itself is very divided because you have so many people who are attached to one party or the other. Not that many people are staying in the middle anymore because they decide to go with a political party. Swing voters can make or break an election and therefore are crucial. It truly is a fight for the "persuadeables." 

2. Explain the demographic factors that seem to influence voter behavior and public opinion the most.

     Some demographic factors that would influence voter behavior and public opinion the most would be factors like race, age, sex, class, religious beliefs, education level, whether or not one is married so their relationship status, whether or not they have a family and if family is important to them.

3. What political messages do candidates use to resonate with suburban women?

     Candidates use certain political messages to relate to and connect with suburban woman, such as improving education for their children, cutting down taxes, valuing the family and appreciating family life, as well as trying to cut back crimes in order to assure more safety. 

4. What do you think about the topic of this POLITICO article? Will Democrats or Republicans have the advantage attracting swing voters in 2012?

     Yet again, I learned a lot from this POLITICO article. It talked a lot about how crucial swing voters votes are because there are so few of them these days. The country and its government are split. The candidates are going to be fighting for the support of the swing voters now more than ever. I think Obama and the Democrats might have a better shot at gaining more of the swing voters' votes. Swing voters might just side with the Democrats and vote for Obama because he has had four years of experience. However, that can go both ways. People could very possibly vote for Romney to get some fresh blood and ideas in there. Who knows?  

 

Politico AP Government & Politics Test Prep #2

May 2, 2012

 

1. Are interest groups fundamental to a strong democracy? If so, how? How can they be dangerous?

     Interest groups are fundamental to a strong democracy. Democracy is all about the people and letting people’s voices be heard. Interest groups allow them to do just that. American society and the government encourage a multiplicity of interest groups because of our freedoms, such as the freedom of speech, freedom to petition and freedom of assembly. America was once described as a group of joiners, people willing to support a group such as an interest group based on their ideas/beliefs. The social atmosphere of interest groups is like the saying “there’s a lid for every pot” because there are so many interest groups out there that an individual is bound to find at least one they can see themselves becoming a part of or supporting. Interest groups allow for a tangible difference to happen. Therefore, people join them because of their faith in its work to make a change/ have an effect. They can be dangerous because sometimes people join for the wrong reasons. Interest groups just want the numbers to say that they have X amount of members. Truthfully, there are people that join interest groups for other reasons than the cause. Plus, since there are so many interest groups, there’s the problem of having too many voices at once which can make it hard to hear.   

2. List some of the most influential interest groups.  What interests do they promote?

     -American Medical Association (AMA): “To promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health.”

     -National Rifle Association (NRA): protect the 2nd Amendment- right to bear arms; all about gun ownership 

     -AARP: there to support senior citizens ages 50 and up- “dedicated to enhancing quality of life for all as we age.”

3. What interest group techniques seem to work best when influencing public policy?

     When influencing public policy, interest groups each do their own thing. Some interest groups have their own lobbying arms while others hire. Interest groups will write legislation in order to follow through with their political agenda and they will use lawsuits/litigations to get their point across. Interest groups especially use lobbying techniques in order to gain public support. They use two types of lobbying:

• grassroots: members organize and send out emails, calls, etc. to government officials.
• institutional: hire people or a firm to government officials 

4. What do you think about the topic of this POLITICO article?  What’s your opinion about interest groups hiring former members of Congress to influence current members of Congress?

     Honestly, I think it’s brilliant. Reeling in former members of Congress is not only beneficial, but it’s also smart. Basically, getting someone who has played the game before and knows how things work in Congress to be on your side is as valuable as a secret weapon. I completely agree with the fact that hiring someone that knows the game of politics like “the back of their hand” is a smart move to make.

 

Politico AP Government & Politics Test Prep #1

May 1, 2012

 

1. Which groups traditionally made up the broad-based coalition of the Democrats? Which groups traditionally made up the broad-based coalition of the Republicans? How have these coalitions changed over time?

     Usually, the groups that traditionally make up the broad-based coalition of the Democrats are African Americans, Latinos, women and a decent amount of young people. On the other hand, Republicans are seen as being more conservative, or “old-schooled,” so the groups that tend to make up the coalition of the Republicans would be businessmen, workers and very religious individuals or groups. Depending upon the times and situations, sometimes people favor one party more than the other because of how they are handling the issue. Most of the time, you hear people say that the North is more Democratic now then it’s ever been, especially since  it used to be so Republican.  

2. Describe the strategies that can be used in redistricting in order to gerrymander a moderate representative into a district that is less favorable to his/her prospects.

     A strategy that could be used in redistricting in order to gerrymander a moderate representative into a district that is less favorable to his/her prospects would be to have the lines go further out in different directions so that the district would contain more of the moderate representative’s opponents’ support system. Therefore, the area’s not all in favor of one particular party. 

3. Analyze your home state representatives. Where do they fall on the political spectrum?

     Jason Altmire (a Pennsylvania Representative) is a Blue Dog or in other words a conservative Democrat. Representative Tim Holden is also a conservative Democrat. More of the Representatives tend to be favoring the right because I saw that more of the Representatives are actually Republican rather than Democrat.

4. What do you think about the topic of this POLITICO article? What’s your opinion about the impact of increased partisanship in Congress?

     This POLITICO article was really informative. I found it interesting because it helped me to see that partisanship isn’t really good for Congress’s sake. At first I thought it was a good thing, but the more and more I read about it, the quicker I realized how much more difficult it can be to get stuff done with everyone on different pages and what not. I never heard of the “Blue Dogs” before, nor did I know that they’re endangered. This article covered a lot of different topics, but it mainly focused on the Blue Dogs and their existence and the impact partisanship in Congress can have. 

 

Politico Article: Federal Workers Under Seige 3/12/12

 

     Seung Min Kim goes into detail about workers and how so many of them are losing their jobs due to debt. With the country in debt, jobs needed to be cut and the federal workforce got the short end of the stick. Republican members of Congress were claiming that there were just “too many of them,” referring to the federal workers. The chart above the Kim’s article displayed “the number of nonseasonal, full-time, permanent, federal employees has slowly been growing.” This cut has caused some conflict and debate in Congress.

 

     It doesn’t seem to make sense in cutting off jobs because it’s almost like a direct hurt to the economy. With people out of work, more problems arise. I feel like taking jobs away from people isn’t the solution at all, it’s almost like we’re going in the opposite direction of where we want to go.  

 

Lanahan #35: Kenneth Mayer From: With the Stroke of a Pen

      This Lanahan reading is all about the power of the executive. It explains and points out that orders made can have great impact, so much so in order to change policy. Mayer quells the common misconception that the president is weak. He denies that the president doesn’t do much or doesn’t have the power to do much. The president uses his authority to the fullest advantage. Executive powers are showed as being a political “instrument of secret government.” In regards to the title, Myer explains the phrase “with the stroke of a pen” by the following definition: “by executive order; action that can be taken by a Chief Executive without legislative action.” Another thing that Mayer discusses in this excerpt is the separation of powers. He talk about this “separated system” as one that “puts both formal and informal limits on what presidents can do.

 

     Honestly, I think the whole system of the separation of powers is fine. I don’t see the president’s work “behind the scenes” as being sneaky. Our president giving out orders that may reshape policy is a good thing. We want our president to take charge, don’t we? Isn’t that what we want him to do? Sure, we don’t want our president abusing his or her power, but using (what is found to be) a tool that can help shape things for the better isn’t necessarily the worst possible thing, either.

 

Lanahan #36: Bradley Patterson From: The White House Staff: [Chief of Staff]

      “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.” Bradley Patterson points out that, basically, the Chief of Staff is in charge of everything. He refers to the position as the “system manager.” The job seems to be a very demanding and tiring one. The Chief of Staff has to have the support of the president, the first lady, the vice president and his wife, too. Like any position, the Chief must maintain a respectable manner and stature especially through communication with the people listed above. 

 

     I never knew the Chief of Staff’s job was that involved. It sounds like he is basically the president’s right-hand man. I had no idea that the Chief is the one who decides on who gets to have meetings with the president, in order to make sure his time  is being used up for a good reason. It almost sounds like the role of an agent who does absolutely everything for their client (actor/actress, etc.). Not only am I surprised with how detailed the job description is, I never knew just how important this job is to government. This reading helped me to realize just how significant of an impact the Chief of Staff can have on our government and the way things work. 

 

 

Lanahan #33: page 212 Thomas Cronin and Michael Genovese From: The Paradoxes of the American Presidency

     In this Lanahan reading, the two political scientists Cronin and Genovese explain how we, as the citizens, hold many images of the president and expect them to live up to our high expectations. It seems to relate back to a Lanahan reading we did earlier in the year, which we actually had a Fishbowl on. The reading we previously did discussed Americans' want for their president to me an "ordinary man," or everyday man, but also a "superman" at the same time. Lanahan #33 points out that the presidency is a very complex institution, one not easily summed up into one example. Therefore, the reading provides us with 9 examples of paradoxes that could be applied to the presidency. The reading also discusses the importance of opposites, as well as the balance needed to be kept between them in order to work. For example, on page 214 it reads: "Presidents and presidential candidates must constantly balance conflicting demands, cross pressures, and contradictions."

 

     This reading was a great explanation of the many contradictions we tend to have in regards to the president and his or her power. After reading this excerpt, the ideas, such as having "a common man" represent our country while also being the hero, all made sense. Another thing that I found to be extremely beneficial was the information given in regards to the framers lack of description for the presidency. I completely understand the framers' reasonings behind leaving "the presidency imprecisely defined." It's understandable that they were afraid of being seen as giving too much power to the president. If I had to choose one sentence from this passage to sum it up in its entirety it would be the following, found on page 213: "Rather than seeking one unifying theory of presidential politics that answers all our questions, we believe that the American presidency might be better understood as a series of paradoxes, clashing expectations and contradictions."     

 

Clear Congress Project January 29, 2012

This site was probably like nothing I’ve ever seen before. What really struck me as impressive was how interactive the website was. As soon as I opened it up, I moused over one of the dots on the chart to click on it and saw a man’s picture and the last tweet he sent out. I thought it was pretty cool how the site kept its viewers informed about each member, even if their recent activity was on a different website, such as Twitter. It was really easy to search for people, too. The little search engine box helped me to find members that seemed to be hidden under the rest of the dots on the chart. I found it interesting that there was a large cluster of blue (Democratic) dots towards the left, while I think I saw a large grouping of red (Republican) dots closer to the middle. However, the Republican dots were well-represented, or better represented for saying that its members sponsor “Popular Legislation.” More red dots were above, or at least close to being above, the middle line than the blue dots. It was also interesting to find that the 2 Independents were more to the left. I would have thought they’d be more towards the middle. Overall, I thought the site was very interesting and being a visual learner, it really helped me to understand Congress better.

 

Lanahan #75: Earl Black and Merle Black From: The Rise of Southern Republicans

     Sibling political thinkers Earl and Merle Black talk about the South's dramatic change from being a blue state to a red state. The two political scientists discuss the switch and what may have caused such a change. They explained that the switch from Southerners voting Democratic to Republican is "due initially to the issue of race and civil rights." The South, being the largest region in the United States of America, is a pretty big deal when it comes to politics. Due to factors like "economic class, religion, and gender," the South began leaning closer and closer to the right. The South is very changing. It's support fluctuates a bit and there is no doubt that their jump was from being predominantly Democratic to Republican demonstrates that. The Black political scientists expressed that a candidate and his or her views can influence a change as well. For example, on page 534 of Lanahan Ronald Reagan was discussed: "Reagan's Republican platform disavowed busing and abortion, ignored the Equal Rights Amendment, demanded prayer be allowed in the schools, and advocated family values." If one were to feel strongly one way or another on these issues, their stance would dramatically affect their decision of which party to side with. 

 

Lanahan #74: James Ceaser and Andrew Busch From: Red Over Blue

     In this selection, political experts James Ceaser and Andrew Busch discuss the 2004 election, as well as the topic of red states vs. blue states. The red states represent the states that predominantly vote Republican while the blue states are predominantly Democratic. The main reason why some states are red and why others are blue come down to one thing: attitudes on moral issues. The authors also point out that there are some areas that come across more of a purple or fuchsia color. This is because some red states may share similar views with the blue states and vice versa. The reading talks about the Republican Party and how it has picked up speed or dominated over the past couple of years/elections. After all, the passage states that conservatism "has gained enormous ground." They also went on to explain that more and more Americans "chose red over blue." Now obviously, they are referring to the "red vs. blue" metaphor, not "what's your favorite color?" The Republicans are the ones responsible for starting the maps with red states and blue states depicted on them. When it comes to choosing a party, Americans tend to focus in on the political party's stance on a few major issues, as stated in the excerpt from Red Over Blue: "Over the years, electoral analysts have identified four major policy dimensions: the economy, welfare issues (health, education, etc.), national security, and what has variously been called 'social' or 'moral' concerns..." An additional topic that was brought up was polling. They talked about how polling is not a true representation of what the public thinks. This ties in with what we have previously learned in class because they said that "the way questions are posed in the polls" affects the answer given, therefore altering the results. Another pattern that has been spotted is that more religious individuals are likely to vote Republican while more secular-minded individuals are likely to vote Democratic. Whether one agrees with this statement or not, is up for them to decide. However, "By contrast, the Republican victories in 2004 were real, even if not huge, allowing Republicans to be able to claim the status of being, for the moment at least, the majority party."

 

Although I share some views with the Democratic Party, my stances on major issues predominantly coincide with that of the Republican party. Therefore, I'd have to say that I'm a conservative Republican. Like I said there are some issues that I strongly agree with the Democrats like gay marriage. The Democrats make a good point when it comes to the issue of gay rights because the way I look at it is quite the same as the way the Democrats put it, too. However, I'm more of a conservative with most things. I especially agree with the Republicans on the issue of abortion. Whether the Democrats call it pro-abortion or pro-choice, it all results in the same thing: the destruction of a human life. Do I think abortion should be taken into account for certain circumstances like rape? Absolutely. However, the Republicans share a lot of views similar to that of the Catholic Church and since I'm Catholic and go to a Catholic school it's just easier for me to put myself in the Republican category because I feel as though a lot of their stances on issues are similar to that of the Catholic Church's standpoints, as well. That is why I'm pretty sure I'm Republican as opposed to Democrat, at least as of now.  

 

Lanahan #82: Martin Wattenberg From: Where Have All the Voters Gone?

     In this selection, Martin Wattenberg talks about young non-voters. He focuses on "young non-voters" along with "the changing nature of the mass media." Wattenberg went on to describe young people today as individuals who are uninterested in politics, stating that "They don't want to touch it." Some young people today feel that they can't and won't make a difference in politics so they have the attitude of "why even bother?" There is little concern for government and politics among young people. Also, there's not much of a positive outlook on the whole concept of politics. The following statement was found on page 593 of Lanahan #82: "It is only when it comes to politics that young people seem to express indifference about getting involved." He said that some of his students claimed that government hasn't affected our generation like it has previous generations. 

     Wattenberg made another interesting point: the impact of TV. he explained how TV channels nowadays focus on one particular area of interest. He used the examples of MTV, VH1, ESPN and the History Channel saying how young people today can easily avoid watching programs about politics today. He backed this claim up with the following line: "...it has become much easier to avoid exposure to politics altogether by simply grabbing the remote control." As strange as this may sound, it's the truth. Wattenberg defended the youth by saying that it is "not their fault." His use of interesting and relatable examples helps his audience see why young people have a tendency to push politics away or forget about its importance. The passage couldn't have ended a better way: "Who votes does matter..." 

 

Lanahan #55: Walter Lippman from The Phantom Public      

     In Lanahan #55, Walter Lippman voices his opinion on the general public. The whole excerpt from Lippman's The Phantom Public provided in Lanahan is a criticism against those who only voice their opinion "only in time of crisis." Lippman focuses on, or targets, public opinion because he feels as if people don't even understand what's going on the majority of the time, yet when something goes wrong they are the first ones to complain or say something. The introduction of the passage contained the sentence "Opinions emerge only in time of crisis, and then fade quickly." This is especially relevant and noticeable today with things in the news like the happenings at Penn State University, the Occupy Movement and the harassment that Herman Cain is being accused of committing. Therefore, there are some very strong opinions flying about at the moment in regards to these latest news stories, as well as other topics. The author also went on to discuss that issues are handled and managed by "unnamed powers" who do work and make changes "behind the scenes." This was the author's way of showing that most citizens are left in the dark when it comes to politics, sometimes by their own lack of interest and motivation. Lippman also stated that man "does not know what is happening, why it is happening, [or] what ought to happen."

 

Lanahan #56: V.O Key from Public Opinion and American Democracy

     Unlike Lippman whom we have already discussed, V.O. Key does not blame the public. Instead, he blames the political leaders in his work Public Opinion and Democracy (Lanahan #56). As much as he would like to see the people's opinions have more of an effect, he believes that political leaders' opinions hold more weight, henceforth: have more influence. His purpose for writing the piece was to "explain the relationship between the people's opinions and the political leadership's opinions." He does not deny that both sets of opinions count. In fact, he goes into detail about his theory that says the public keep their leaders in check by voicing what's on their minds. He also explains that results of things such as polls and what not are not always the best representation of mass opinion. Just because 52% of the people who were surveyed agree with plan A doesn't mean that 52% of the public agree with plan A. It's not a true demonstration of what the people really want or how they feel. 

 

POWERS:

Ten Constitutional Powers with Checks:

 

1. The power of the president to veto a law- Executive

The ability to override the president’s decision- Legislative

2. The power to make laws- Legislative.

Determines if the law is constitutional or not- Judicial

3.  The president chooses the nine justices of the Supreme Court/Judicial- Executive

                  Can refuse or confirm president’s choice of judge- Legislative

4. Can call meetings- Executive

                  Decide if actions violate constitutional law- Judicial

5. Deals with cases in courts- Judicial

Can change the number and jurisdiction of the lower courts- - Judicial

6. Watches over own members of branch- Judicial

                  Power to use impeachment to remove judge from office- - Judicial

7. The president has the power to sign treaties with other countries- Executive

The power of the Congress to approve treaties -Legislative

8. Wishes to make a law-Executive

                  Power to refuse to pass a bill the president wants -Legislative

9. President can make appointments - Executive

                  The power to refuse to approve a presidential appointment- Legislative

10. Presidential power to act as head-of-chief and commander of the armed forces–Executive.

                        The power to impeach the president – Legislative.        

 

Chelsea Ann Rovnan

Response to Beard

10/23/11

 

            In “Economic interpretation of the Constitution” written by Charles Beard, we come to terms with the fact that every single member of the Convention had one thing in common: their individual economic agenda. In this excerpt, we meet Beard who expresses his opinion that economic advantages were the incentive behind the members’ actions. He explains that the members of the Constitutional Convention’s impelling motives were what they were going to get out of the deal, economically of course. It was basically a situation where they were putting themselves first even though they were trying to put the good of the country first. However, they still managed to do what they thought best for the nation, but deep down were looking towards their benefits. As much as I hate to use this expression, it was like a dog-eat-dog scenario where the framers voiced their opinions while keeping the benefits in mind. Beard states his belief that the men built the new government on fundamental economic interests. He was showing us that the men were considering what was economically more efficient for them. Beard goes on to say that the members of the convention “knew through their personal experiences in economic affairs the precise results which the new government that they were setting up was designed to attain.” Clearly, we didn’t have a bunch of dummies in there representing us. These men knew what they were talking about, regardless. Acts of selfishness? No, more like intelligence.

 

Chelsea Ann Rovnan

Lanahan #42: Eugene Rostow: The Democratic Character of Judicial Review

October 16, 2011

 

            Eugene Rostow shares his views on judicial review with his readers in Lanahan #42. Although some may argue that judicial review is not the way to go, Rostow thinks otherwise. In this entry, Rostow defends judicial review in many ways. He focuses on the topic of judicial review because he talks about the Supreme Court’s power and the system of separation of powers.

     Is judicial review constitutional? That’s the big question Rostow addresses. While some think it is not, Rostow thinks it is. He defends it by saying that it keeps a sense of order and balance in government. By having the Supreme Court review an act to see if it is valid first, gives us an assurance that an act is constitutional. Therfore, Rostow claims that judicial review is democratic even though most claim it to be undemocratic. Rostow makes a great point in this piece of writing. He really gets his reader to see the positives of judicial review. Along with getting his reader to see judicial review as beneficial, Rostow also shows that judicial review is indeed democratic.

 

Chelsea Ann Rovnan

Lanahan #11: Lani Guinier: The Tyranny of the Majority

October 16, 2011

 

            In Lanahan #11, we meet Lani Guinier. From the excerpt provided from: The Tyranny of the Majority, the reader comes accustomed with Guinier and her views. It becomes obvious that she “resisted the tyranny of the majority.” She explains her point by providing the reader with an example of when she was an eight-year-old Brownie who “realized that uniforms are only as honorable as the people who wear them.” Guinier became aware that not everyone is as respectable on the inside as they may appear to be on the outside. She came to this realization when she witnessed a hatmaking contest be rigged by a mother of one of her fellow Brownies. Even as an eight-year-old, Guinier could not stand for such unfair play and resigned from her Brownie group.

            She went on to explain that she felt as though “fair play means that the rules encourage everyone to play.” Guinier felt that rules tend to separate us into two groups: the winners and the losers. Working off of this example, she goes on to explain her statement by providing the reader with a scenario she experienced firsthand which involved her four year-old son, Nikolas. She describes the situation and shows the reader that even her son figured it out that both the majority and minority will receive some benefits. She agreed with the idea that the minority, or “losers,” should still get a say and still benefit somehow. In the entry, she brings up Madison, who was believed to have thought that “the majority may not represent the whole.” Guinier explains how she looks for “alternatives to simple, winner-take-all majority rule.” If it was up to Lani Guinier, we’d all take turns. She doesn’t see giving the minority a turn as giving them the power to rule, she just sees it as the minority getting an influence in decision making and that the majority would rule “more legitimately.” Lani Guinier also stated that: “where we have tyranny by The Majority, we do not have genuine democracy.” To her, having the majority possess complete power and influence “is just as much a problem of silencing minority viewpoints as it is of excluding minority representatives or preferences.” 

 

 

 

 

Chelsea Ann Rovnan

Lanahan #9: James Madison: The Federalist 10

 

         In Lanahan 9, James Madison shares his views with the reader through his popular piece of writing: The Federalist 10. The Federalist 10 is one of many essays included in The Federalist Papers, in which people like Madison and Alexander Hamilton expressed their political views under the name: Publius. Madison goes on to discuss factions and their existence in U.S. government, while also proposing solutions to the issue.

 

     Madison was more in favor of a nation that had many different groups of people. He thought it was better to have “a large and diverse nation.” In this writing, he goes into detail about some groups trying “to dominate the political process,” also know as: factions. He accepted the fact that completely wiping factions out of government would be pretty hard, but he didn’t give up there. Instead, Madison firmly believed that there were two methods to “curing the mischiefs of faction,” which were: 1. remove its causes and 2. control its effects.

 

     However, Madison also went on to criticize America’s two parties who “oppress each other other than to co-operate for their common good.” Madison understood that everyone has different opinions and outlooks on things, but he felt that it was important for members of parties to put differences beside them at times to fix problems at hand for the benefit of the nation as a whole. Clearly, Madison favored a representative government, or republic. He also explained that allowing people to possess too much power can also lead to confusion, or in his words: “the confusion of a multitude.” At times, Madison’s outlook seemed like a reminder to all that you’re never going to please everybody, because everyone has his or her own opinion on the matter at hand.

 

Chelsea Ann Rovnan

Lanahan #1: Alexis De Tocqueville: Democracy in America

 

            The author of the passage, Alexis De Tocqueville, was a French aristocrat who journeyed to the United States of America to learn more about the country’s government. After witnessing the political setup established here in America, Tocqueville was amazed. He saw it as unique and efficient. Tocqueville praised America in his writing as if he were placing the country on a pedestal. He admired that, even though two classes: poor and rich still existed, equality existed at the same time.

            Tocqueville’s astonishment of the way out government operated was one of complete respect and admiration. Throughout the excerpt from Democracy in America, the reader is able to fully grasp Tocqueville’s outlook on American democracy. He thought that equality was America’s “national virtue,” one in which deserved recognition. Tocqueville went on to claim that he was fortunate “to witness the natural and tranquil growth of society” for himself. He speaks highly of Americans saying that we are determined individuals who want to continue the democratic process while progressing and improving at the same time for the better. Tocqueville shared his great enthusiasm about American democracy and stated that me in America were “ more equal in strength, than in any other country of the world.”

 

Lanahan #8:

In Lanahan 8, Richard Hofstadter describes what the Founding Fathers were thinking when they assembled and created the United States Constitution. He goes into detail about what the group’s intentions were at the time. The reader can then further understand how these wise old men saw a human being: “an atom of self-interest.” Hofstadter goes on to explain that the human race was not trusted. “They did not believe in man,” therefore the thinkers of the Constitution were reluctant to place complete power on men’s shoulders. It’s not just that our Founding Fathers didn’t have complete faith in us; it’s just that they didn’t see our kind as being responsible enough to handle the pressures and tasks involved in maintaining an organized society without a set of guidelines to help us along the way. Hofstadter even uses a quote from General Knox where he compares a human male to an animal. The topics of ambition, balance, maintaining order, representation in government, and authority came up throughout this excerpt found in Lanahan.

 

            Although, Hofstadter had some good points throughout his piece and he provided some very interesting material, I do not fully agree with his outlook on the situation. As in the last paragraph of the chapter, he broadcasts his disagreement with the way the Founding Fathers handled things. Hofstadter does not like that the Fathers placed such little faith in the human race. By Hofstadter’s tone, the reader comes to think that he is a bit offended at the Fathers’ claim about men. The Fathers saw us as selfish individuals who would make decisions based on what they would get out of it. However, I do not disagree with our Founding Fathers. On the other hand, I do disagree with Hofstadter. Sure it would have been nice if the founding Fathers could have made “a change in the way men conduct themselves,” but unfortunately this wish is one that cannot be granted. Men will be who they are no matter what. Hofstadter thinks that the Founding Fathers should have done more “to put an end to this war.” He thinks that they just performed “merely to stabilize it and make it less murderous.” If one were to agree with Hofstadter’s claim, so be it. However, one cannot object that what our Founding Fathers drew up did help us out in some way, shape or form. Hofstadter alludes to Hobbes when he says “the Hobbesian war of each against all.” Hobbes believed that men are in constant competition with one another, fighting for survival. I agree with Hobbes and believe that Hofstadter took the Fathers’ conception of man a little too personally.