___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

May 13, 2012

AP Politico Test Prep #9

1.       The two types of process that the Supreme Court uses to decide its cases are original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction.  Original jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear a case for the first time. Appellate jurisdiction is when the court has the power to review a lower court’s decision.

 

2.       Because interest groups affect every aspect of the government system and the way it works including the decisions of the President, they have an impact on which justices are appointed to the Supreme Court since the President is the one who appoints them.

 

3.       The United States Supreme Court is above politics because once a justice is appointed; he or she serves on the court forever. Because of this life tenure, the justices do not have to necessarily worry about pleasing the public or popular vote because it is not a position that requires campaigning and reelection. Therefore the justices do not have to always remain faithful to their political party and its beliefs.

 

4.       I thought this article was interesting and gave me more of a deeper insight into the Supreme Court. If I was on the Supreme Court I would declare the healthcare law as constitutional because I believe that it is constitutionally fair and would benefit the greater good in America. 

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

May 10, 2012

AP Politico Test Prep #8

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

May 9, 2012

AP Politico Test Prep #7

1.       The greatest advantages of federalism include allowing Americans to feel closely connected to the government through their state and local governments and their officials. Another advantage includes giving states the rights to experiment with certain policies to see them as successes and failures. Federalism is also a way to ensure the separation of powers and prevent tyranny from arising. Some disadvantages of federalism include every state having their own policies regarding different issues. Another disadvantage includes a lack of accountability which can become a problem when something fails, who is to blame?

 

2.       Some laws that expand the federal government’s authority over states include interstate commerce laws, communication laws, food and drug administration laws, and currency laws.

 

3.       Some laws that have increased the states’ authority over national programs include gambling laws, liquor laws, gay rights laws, and voting laws.

 

4.       I found this article to be interesting because it related a lot to stuff that we talked about in class regarding federalism and the separation of powers among national, state, and local laws. I would rule the Arizona law to be constitutional because immigration is a major issue of the state and therefore should take the control of immigration out of the national government’s hands. Because not every state faces the same immigration problems as Arizona, I believe that the state itself is better suited to handle the problem locally rather than making it a national government’s problem. 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

May 8, 2012

Politico AP Test Prep #6

1.       Government farm subsidies were first used in order to stop an overproduction of crops in order to balance the economy. Because there was a surplus of specific crops, the government would pay the farmers an income that came out of tax payer money.

 

2.       Other American industries that are subsidized by the federal government for business purposes are the energy sector and transportation sector.

 

3.       Some techniques that interest groups use to shape public policy are gathering support by the general public through various ways. They often hand out flyers, advertise via the internet, radio, and television, and constantly spread their messages and beliefs through various forms of communication.

 

4.       I thought this article was interesting since I never really knew much about government subsidies.  I think that passing policy changes and implementing policy changes can be equally difficult depending on the individual policy itself. However, I think that it is overall more difficult to implement a change rather than getting it initially passed because more often than not, people don’t like change. 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

May 7, 2012

Politico AP Test Prep #5

1.       The demographics for the 112^th Congress:

          a.       Majority Republican in the House – 241 Rep, 198 Dem, 2 open seats

          b.      Majority Democrat in the Senate—47 Rep, 51 Dem, 2 Independent

 

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

 

3.       There are several powers that the Senate does not share with the House including interacting with foreign affairs (foreign policy/treaties), removing members, and conducting trials and impeaching government officials.

 

4.       I liked this article because it talked about a topic that is often brought up in class and one that we have spend a lot of time talking about. I would suggest to freshman members of congress in order to get reelected that they should focus on reminding the people in their districts all of the positive things that they have done.  Therefore, I would tell them to remain positive and not blame other people for everything not getting done. Honesty, integrity, and reliability will get them reelected.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

May 7, 2012

Politico AP Test Prep #4

1.       There are several important steps in building a successful presidential campaign including a good and reliable campaign staff, money, resources, and a strong message in order to gain support. A candidate must have a reliable staff in order to keep the campaign organized and on track. They also need tons of money in order to finance the campaign and to travel from state to state to spread their message and ideas.

 

2.       Campaigns have become more candidate-centered and less party-centered because the people are more concerned with the candidate’s individual personality. Because the parties have become so divided and issues have become more controversial, many people tend to focus more specifically on a candidate’s individual goals and beliefs rather than the parties’ as a whole.

 

3.       The positives of allowing party supporters to nominate candidates in primary elections is that it truly represents our democratic government, simply because it gives all Americans of voting age the chance to pick the leaders of their country. The negatives, on the other hand, could be that party supporters might not always vote for the best candidate. They often voter simply based on party or because they favor one candidate over another instead of choosing someone who will be most beneficial for the leadership position.

 

4.       I liked this article because I learned a lot about elections and campaigns and realized how much of an impact they have on the voting process. I believe that candidates shouldn’t be held accountable for what their supporters say to an extent because they have no control over what they say. However, If the supporter is influenced by the candidate in any way, I believe that the candidate’s campaign would be harmed. 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

May 3, 2012

Politico AP Test Prep #3

 

1. The number of "swing voters" this year is as small as ever due to the fact that more people are more closely tied to their specific party and less people are stcuk in the middle. Due to the extreme partisanship that exists between the Republicans and Democrats today, more and more people are more likely to associate with a specific party. Because Romney's and Obama's ideals are so extremely different, there are very few poeple who are left in the middle to be persuaded. There is more seperation between parties than ever before.

 

2. Some demographic factors that seem to influence voter behavior and public opinion the most are the locations and living enviornments that people live in. Peoples' race and social status also influence voter behavior and public opinion. These demographic factors often determine the party that a person is affiliated with and the way in which they vote.

 

3. Politicians use the message of equality between both men and women in order to persuade female voters to vote in their favor. They can also use the idea that the "soccer mom" has an impact and a voice in governement too by explaining the great roles and contributions that they can make towards the runnings of the government.

 

4. I think this article is very interesting because it describes the undermined importance of the swing voter. I believe that the Democrats will gain more swing voters because the Republican party was so divided during the primary season. Because it took them a long time to gain an offical republican candidate, many republicans lost trust within their party and tended to lean more Democratic because of the party's stability and favor of Obama. Overall I believe that because there were many possible Republican candidates, the Republican party became torn and could not agree on one candidate to take the nomination, therefore leaving more Republicans to become swing voters.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

May 2, 2012

Politico AP Test Prep #2

 

1.  Yes, interest groups are extremely fundamental in a strong Democracy.  They allow individuals to unite together in support of a specific cause or belief. Because there is power in numbers, interest groups allow people with common beliefs to come together in support of their cause and raise money toward that cause. Interest groups are extremely beneficial to the government because they motive government officials to support their causes and enact laws that will help America as a whole. However, this is where interest groups can become dangerous. Sometimes, not always, interest groups can support a cause that is detrimental or harmful to America as a whole.

 

2.  -American Civil Liberties Union - defends the rights and liberties guaranteed to all people by the Constitution

     -The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare - advocate for Social Security and Medicare for all Americans who seek a healthy and secure retirement

     -National Coalition for the Homeless – helps low-income families across the country

     -Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation – promotes means of eliminating homophobia and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation

     -National Association for the Advancement of Colored People - ensures the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination

     -National Rifle Association – opposes anything anti-arms and defends Second Amendment rights

     -People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals – ensures ethical treatment of animals   

3.     Interest group techniques that seem to influence public policy the most is support of the public and the everyday American. If an interest group can gain enough support from people outside of the federal arena, they will have a much greater chance at influencing public policy. Another technique that interest groups use to influence public policy is too gather money and funds from those who support their beliefs which inevitably allows them to expand their message to more and more people which will, in turn, influence policy making.

 

4.  I found this article to be interesting because I was unaware of how interest groups were hiring former members of Congress to persuade those members currently in Congress. I think that this idea is very practical because former member of Congress know the ins and outs of the system works and the specific techniques that need to be used in order to get things done. I think that it is very smart of interest groups to hire former members of Congress in order to get their messages across.  

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

May 1, 2012

Politico Test Prep Questions #1

 

1.       Traditionally, the broad-based coalition of Democrats includes minorities, like African American and Hispanic, the average working-class, women, and much of today’s youth. The traditional broad-based coalition of Republicans is predominately the male population, including those who are white and are closely attached to their religious beliefs. It also includes the upper class along with those who tend to live in less urbanized cities. These coalitions have gradually changed over time just like everything else. As new ideas and beliefs develop and change, so does party affiliation among Americans. However, even though these coalitions have changed here and there over time, they, for the most part, have remained relatively the same until now.

 

2.       Some 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 is by another, more party-affiliated liberal or conservative representative to move the district boundaries to be in favor of themselves or another closely affiliated party member. By realigning the district boundaries, the moderate representative would most likely end up in a district that is either extremely liberal or conservative which would result in the extremely liberal or conservative member gaining the popularity of the people.

 

3.       Pennsylvania 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 to be extremely interesting because it taught me a lot about party affiliation and how changes within the party have occurred over time and continue to occur today. I never heard of the Blue Dog Democrats until I read this article and found their story and their relation to party affiliation in regards to reelection to be very educational. I think this article can teach a lot about how the coalitions of both Democrats and Republicans are greatly affecting elections and our government system.  I greatly disagree with increased partisanship in Congress because I feel that it prevents very important and necessary bills and laws from being passed and enacted.  I believe that the too often deadlock within Congress can hurt the country as a whole. 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Meredith Madness: Hayley Hanuscin and Alexandria McNamara

 

Case: Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)

Facts: The New Hampshire legislature wanted to make Dartmouth College a state university rather than keeping it a privately funded institution. The legislature revised the school’s charter, giving control to the governor instead of the trustee appointments. A law suit was filed against William H. Woodward, who sided with the trustees.

Constitutional Question:Did the New Hampshire legislature unconstitutionally interfere with Dartmouth College's rights under the Contract Clause?

Decision/Impact: The Supreme Court decided that the school’s charter was between private parties and therefore, the government could not interfere. Chief Justice Marshall said that the term “contract” referred to transactions involving individual property rights, not to “the political relations between government and its citizens.” Therefore, Dartmouth College remained a privately funded institution with only one vote against that decision in the Supreme Court.

 

Case: Baker v. Carr (1962) 

Facts: Charles W. Baker, along with many other angry Tennessee citizens, said that the government had ignored the 1901 law that stated that the seats of the state’s General Assembly could be apportioned. Baker said that Tennessee’s new reappointments paid no attention to the state’s economic increase and the changes in population across the state. Baker filed his suit against Joe Carr, the Secretary of State of Tennessee.

Constitutional Question:Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment? 

Decision/Impact: The Supreme Court decided that there were no questions to be answered and that the legislative appointment was a justifiable issue.  Justice Brennan provided past examples through which the Court arbitrated constitutional violations that related to states’ actions, affairs, and officers through which business is conducted. Justice Brennan also concluded that the 14^th Amendment of equal protection which Baker and the Tennessee citizens brought about in this case deserved judicial evaluation.

 

Case: Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 

Facts: Dollree Mapp was convicted of possession of obscene materials, including books, magazines, and photographs, after her home was unlawfully searched by police for her apparent housing of a fugitive involved in a recent bombing. Mapp pleaded her case on her right to freedom of expression. She claimed that the police did not have a search warrant and should not have arrested her or entered her home.  

Constitutional Question:Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? (May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?) 

Decision/Impact: The Supreme Court did not focus on the 1^St Amendment issue and said that “all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the 4th Amendment], inadmissible in a state court." This case was notorious because it required the exclusion of all illegally obtained evidence at all levels of the government. It also troubled the Court in determining when and where the exclusionary clause could be used.    

 

Case: Gitlow v. New York (1925) 

Facts: Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested for distributing handouts that supported called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and other forms of action. Gitlow was convicted of anarchy for trying to overthrow the government, but argued that since no action was actually taken, he should not have been penalized. However, the New York courts said that anyone who attempted violent revolution dishonored the law.  

Constitutional Question: Is the New York law punishing advocacy to overthrow the government by force an unconstitutional violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment? 

Decision/Impact: The main question asked was, “Does the 1^st Amendment apply to the states?” The Supreme Court decided that yes, no state should deny any citizen their liberties and rights (14^th Amendment). However, a state may forbid speech and publication if they have the possibility to conflict with public safety. Under the “dangerous tendency test”, the legislature may declare that an entire speech or publication is so dangerous that it should be prohibited, but this decision can be upheld if no danger is present at all. 

 

Case: Oregon v. Smith (1990)

Facts: Two Native American counselors working at a private drug rehabilitation center ingested peyote as part of their religious ceremony. They were fired and they filed for unemployment compensation. They were denied benefits because their dismissal was considered "misconduct". They lost in state court but the Supreme Court returned the case to the Oregon Courts. The Supreme Court concluded that while the Oregon drug law prohibited the consumption of illegal drugs for sacramental religious uses, this prohibition violated the free exercise clause.

Constitutional Question: Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes?

Decision/Impact: The Supreme Court held that an individual's religious beliefs do not excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law. Allowing exceptions to every state law affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." The Court passed this decision with a 6-3 vote.

 

Case: Clinton V New York

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

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

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

 

Case: Clinton V Jones

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

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

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

 

Case: Reynolds V United States

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

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

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

 

Case: United States V Nixon

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

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

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

 

Case: Scott V Sanford

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

Question: Was Dred Scott free or slave?

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

 

Case: Bush V Gore

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

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

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

 

Case: Hammer V Dagenhart

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

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

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

 

Case: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)

Facts: Black children were prohibited from attending the same public schools as white children under certain laws of segregation that separated the children according to their race. Both white and black schools approached equality in terms of buildings, curricula, qualifications, and teach salaries.  This case was decided together with Briggs v. Elliott and Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County.

Constitutional Question: Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?

Decision/Impact:Yes. Despite the equalization of the schools by "objective" factors, intangible issues foster and maintain inequality. Racial segregation in public education has a detrimental effect on minority children because it is interpreted as a sign of inferiority. Separate but equal is inherently unequal in the context of public education. The unanimous opinion sounded the death-knell for all forms of state-maintained racial separation. 

 

Case: Brown v. Board of Education II (1955) 

Facts: After its decision in Brown I which declared racial discrimination in public education unconstitutional, the Court convened to issue the directives which would help to implement its newly announced Constitutional principle. Because racism was still a problem in public schools, the Supreme Court decided to attack the issue again. They requested further argument on racial discrimination and inequality within the public schools. 

Constitutional Question: What means should be used to implement the principles announced in Brown I? 

Decision/Impact: The Supreme Court held that the problems identified in Brown I required varied local solutions. Chief Justice Warren conferred much responsibility on local school authorities and the courts which originally heard school segregation cases. They were to implement the principles which the Supreme Court embraced in its first Brown decision. 

 

Case: Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 

Facts:  After the Watergate scandal, Congress attempted to search out political corruption by restricting financial contributions to candidates. The law set limits on the amount of money an individual could contribute to a single campaign and it required reporting contributions above a certain threshold amount. The Federal Election Commission was created to enforce the statute. 

Constitutional Question: Did the limits placed on electoral expenditures by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech and association clauses? 

Decision/Impact:First, it held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against unscrupulous practices. Second, the Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment. Since these practices do not necessarily enhance the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them did not serve a government interest great enough to warrant a curtailment on free speech and association. 

 

Case: McConnell v. FEC (2003)

Facts: In early 2002, a many years-long effort by Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold to reform the way that money is raised for--and spent during-- political campaigns culminated in the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002. Its key provisions were a) a ban on unrestricted donations made directly to political parties and on the solicitation of those donations by elected officials; b) limits on the advertising that unions, corporations, and non-profit organizations can engage in up to 60 days prior to an election; and c) restrictions on political parties' use of their funds for advertising on behalf of candidates. The campaign finance reform bill contained an unusual provision providing for an early federal trial and a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, by-passing the typical federal judicial process. In May a special three-judge panel struck down portions of the Campaign Finance Reform Act's ban on soft-money donations but upheld some of the Act's restrictions on the kind of advertising that parties can engage in.

Constitutional Question: Does the "soft money" ban of the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 exceed Congress's authority to regulate elections under Article 1, Section 4 of the United States Constitution and/or violate the First Amendment's protection of the freedom to speak? Do regulations of the source, content, or timing of political advertising in the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 violate the First Amendment's free speech clause?

Decision/Impact: The Supreme Court answered "no" to both questions in a 5-to-4 decision written by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens. Because the regulations dealt mostly with soft-money contributions that were used to register voters and increase attendance at the polls, not with campaign expenditures, the Court held that the restriction on free speech was minimal. The Court also rejected the argument that Congress had exceeded its authority to regulate elections under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution. The Court found that the law only affected state elections in which federal candidates were involved and also that it did not prevent states from creating separate election laws for state and local elections.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

March 12, 2012

Online Article—Seung Min Kim

 

The article “Federal Workers under Siege” by Seung Min Kim analyzes the constant increase in the federal workforce between the fiscal years of 2006-2010. It describes the growing argument within the American government concerning the controversy of whether or not to continue to increase or reduce the amount of workers in the federal government. Min Kim describes the great disagreement between the Republicans, who want to cut back on American jobs within the federal government, and Democrats, who want to keep the number of federal employees on the rise. Many Republicans believe that the country doesn’t have the money to spend wastefully on government jobs and that there are just simply too many workers within the federal government that are receiving money that they believe the government could use for a more practical cause.  However, Democrats on the other hand view the situation completely differently. They believe that Republicans are just trying to attack federal employees ever since the GOP takeover of the House.

 

I believe that this controversy should examine the pros and cons of each argument because I believe that each side has a good point. Along with the Republicans, I believe that there are an extremely high amount of people working for the federal government, therefore receiving government salaries and benefits. At a time when the budget is extremely tight, I feel that the government should cut down on the amount of workers that hold federal government positions. However, that leads to another problem, unemployment. The country is working extremely hard to cut the unemployment rate, so by cutting federal jobs, the government is increasing the unemployment rate. Therefore, I’m torn in the argument because I do feel that there are an excessive amount of workers within the federal government that are receiving government funds, but at the same time, the unemployment rate would increase if the government were to cut their jobs.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

February 15, 2012

Lanahan –Patterson

 

Bradley Patterson analyzed the significant importance of the president’s right hand man—the chief of staff. He explained how the president’s chief of staff is ultimately responsible for every aspect of the White House, including minute and pertinent issues. Patterson said that it is extremely vital for the chief of staff to be very close with the president but also to remain in connection with the people whose requests he or she must answer or deny on behalf of the President. Patterson went into great detail about the specific jobs that the chief of staff is responsible for, including being familiar with Washington D.C. life and holding control over every activity of the White House staff. He also explained how the chief of staff is responsible for scheduling the president’s day from a monthly to an hourly basis and also how the chief of staff must never lose connection with Congress. Many other responsibilities that Patterson described include reviewing all papers that come through the Oval Office, accompanying the president on all journeys, and convening White House meetings among many other things. Overall, Patterson enforced the utter importance for a president to have a reliable and honest chief of staff.

 

Patterson was very accurate in his description and analysis of the importance of the White House chief of staff. The chief of staff really is responsible for running the White House and making sure that every little thing from pouring the president’s coffee to planning a foreign policy trip across the globe runs smoothly and perfectly. The chief of staff should be recognized more often for keeping things organized and making sure that everything regarding the White House’s and the president’s affairs runs without problems. Overall, Patterson thoroughly went into detail and explained the great importance of why a reliable, dependent, and honorable chief of staff is needed to make sure that the executive branch has the least amount of imperfections as possible.  Patterson also explained how it is also extremely important for the chief of staff to keep good relations with Congress and the Supreme Court in order to ultimately get things done within the federal government. As Patterson stated, a chief of staff can make or break and entire presidential administration.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

February 15, 2012

Lanahan –Mayer

 

Kenneth Mayer attacked the common myth that presidents don’t have any power other than those stated in the Constitution. Conventionally, many believe that the president is restricted greatly through the separation of powers and checks and balances by Congress and the Supreme Court. However, he revealed that in fact, presidents have great influence beyond the powers stated in the Constitution, including the power to persuade and the right to enact an executive order. Mayer described executive orders to be “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.”  Mayer said that executive orders are extremely vital in the process of getting things accomplished within the executive branch. Some argue that these powers that are not legally defined in the Constitution can lead to a dictatorship or a totalitarian government, but Mayer revealed that both executive orders and the power to persuade are both key elements in giving the president some power and freedom to a certain extent.  

 

Overall, Mayer was pretty accurate in his analysis of presidential powers that exist beyond those physically written within the Constitution. His detailed explanation of the executive order proved that it is extremely important for a president to have the ability to do certain things on his or her own, without necessarily the approval of Congress of the Supreme Court. Particularly in today’s government with the extreme bipartisanism that exists, it can be extremely difficult for a president to get anything done especially if he or she doesn’t have the support of Congress. Therefore, executive orders give the president some freedom to an extent to act on policies and agreements regarding civil service, public lands, war and emergency, foreign affairs, defense and military, executive branch administration, and labor and domestic policy. As Mayer also said, executive orders and the power to persuade, along with several other unwritten powers, play a great role in the expansion of presidential powers.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

February 13, 2012

Lanahan-Cronin and Genovese

 

Thomas Cronin and Michael Genovese, two prominent political scientists, examined the paradoxes of the American Presidency and analyzed the many images that the American people hold of their president. They stated that Americans “admire presidential power, yet fear it.” This statement sums up most of the passage simply because each of the nine paradoxes that they presented braches off from presidential power in some way or another. Some of the paradoxes that they analyzed involved how Americans strive for a powerful president but look down upon n overwhelmingly strong centralized government. Another popular paradox stated was that Americans search for an everyday, common-man president but also look for someone who resembles a superhero with outstanding performance. For the most part, every single one of the paradoxes mentioned by Cronin and Genovese show the contradictions that lie within the minds of the American people. At times Americans want one thing, and then at an instant’s moment, they want the polar opposite. Cronin and Genovese then presented the idea that because the American people hold so many expectations and demands of the president, they cannot be upset or angry when two-faced behavior by the president emerges.

 

Cronin and Genovese were extremely accurate in their detailed analysis of the contradictions and paradoxes that exist within the American people regarding the power of the president. So many people hold sold many different views and beliefs, that it is virtually impossible for the president to please everyone at one time. Therefore, the American people should not be upset or angry when the president does something that one might not approve of because he or she cannot simply suit the needs and wishes of all. Overall, the opinion of the power of the presidency varies from time to time. When the President is doing well and has high approval ratings, people want him or her to have the utmost power. However, when approval ratings decrease due to the president’s actions, many will argue that he or she has too much power. Basically, people have to except that the president is there to do what is best for the nation as a whole and that one cannot constantly flip flop from approval to disapproval or vice versa simply because the president did not suit that person’s specific need exactly. The American people have to be more open-minded when it comes to giving the president a chance and not so quick to jump down his or her throat for every single word or action.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Clear Congress Project

 

After looking at this website and reading the chart, I was shocked to see how few members of Congress sponsor popular legislation. I found this shocking particularly because Congress is supposed to represent the American people and their beliefs and they should be extremely active in enforcing what the people want rather than tentatively holding back. As the chart showed, many members of Congress are more likely to cosponsor other’s legislation rather than enforcing legislation on their own. I believe that this is a major flaw within Congress. How can anything ever get done if only a small few are brave enough to speak up and act on their own? I feel that this website reveals the truths within Congress that would otherwise be unknown to the American people.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

December 5, 2011

Lanahan – Earl Black and Merle Black

 

Earl and Merle Black, experts on southern politics, investigated the idea of the “Great White Switch”, otherwise known as the Southern switched from a Democratic to a Republican South. They explained the great transformation to Republicanism that has occurred in the South over the past several decades and the creation of two permanently competitive political parties. More than fifty years ago during the 1950’s, Republicanism was unheard of in the South and many southerners were strongly in favor of the Democratic Party.  However, Earl and Merle Black described how the 1964 presidential candidate Senator Barry Goldwater had a major impact on the South’s transformation to Republicanism. Both Blacks said that many southerners began to feel that the Republican Party was more “sympathetic to their economic interests” and that Republicans were more closely connected to religious movements. Also at this time, many southern whites were against the Civil Rights Movement and were supportive of racial segregation which became more widely supported by the Republicans over the Democrats. Over the past several years, especially since the Reagan election and other congressional and presidential elections, the South has grown to become two distinct political parties that contain a wide majority of white, conservative Republicans.

 

Earl and Merle Black were accurate in their assessment of the “Great White Switch” that has occurred in the Southern American States. Their research defends the idea that the South was not always the conservative South that it has become today. It was once a thriving Democratic portion of America that was in favor of racial segregation and other Democratic values. However, over the years as the Blacks stated, the American South has grown increasingly in favor of the Republican Party. They stated that Southerners hold religious values that they associate with the Republican Party and find that they more closely identify themselves with the Republican views on “governmental power, taxes, and family values.” Overall, Earl and Merle Black were correct in their research and interpretation as to why Southern Americans have drastically switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. The Party’s values along with modern presidential and congressional elections have greatly influenced this “Great White Switch.” 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

December 5, 2011

Lanahan – Burnham

 

Professor Walter Dean Burnham looked at various elections, specifically those occurring in 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, and 1932, and examined how these elections had “long-term changes in the social and economic direction of the nation.” He explained these changes as “critical realignments” that have occurred in specific time increments throughout America’s history and how these realignments have importantly impacted the growth and future of America’s political system. Burnham said that all of these “critical realignments” have several basic ways that made them different from any usual election. One of the biggest reasons, Burnham said, was the happening of an unusual occurrence or shock that escalated so greatly to the point when major government control was needed. That is when, he said, these major elections became crucial and vital to the American people. These occurrences resulted in a transformation of the general public and a reorganization of “voters, political parties, and the broad boundaries of the politically possible.”   Basically Burnham stated that “critical realignment” occurs mostly after a triggering event occurs and when American politicians need to make crucial decisions. Burnham concluded that American politics will stick with a successful regiment and routine until these routines are disturbed, thus when “critical realignment” most often takes place.

 

Professor Walter Dean Burnham’s interpretation of “critical realignment” is accurate in the sense that it most often occurs, or only occurs for that matter, when a sudden, triggering event occurs that requires extreme political involvement. As Burnham stated, many politics and branches of government seem to be content with their policies, routines, and regiments once they find one that seems to please the overall general public. Therefore, the only time they change or realign their work and actins only occurs when something catastrophic happens that requires their course of action. Like Burnham said, “critical realignments” only occur (as history shows) every so many years and usually have common, basic ways that lead to realignment. Overall, Burnham’s analysis of “critical realignment” and the reasons as to why it occurs periodically and ever so often in American politics proves extremely accurate when compared to particular events and their need for government action in American history.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

December 4, 2011

Why I am a Democrat

 

I am a DEMOCRAT because I feel that my personal beliefs, opinions, and values are most closely associated with those of the Democratic Party. Even though most children tend to follow in their parents footsteps in regards to which political party they associate with, I am not like my parents given the fact that they are both registered as Republican voters. I feel that I am more liberal and agree more with the ideals of the Democratic Party. I believe that the government should not be run by the social elite but rather by hardworking men and women whose work ethics build from personal morals and values. I believe that all American deserve a fair chance at embracing the American Dream, including the poor and the middle class. I also believe that I am more liberal when it comes to comes to healthcare and the country’s economy. I agree with the Democratic Party in the fact that all Americans should be given universal healthcare assured by the government and that the American economy should progress in a manner that is beneficial to all Americans and not just the social elite. Overall, I fell that I most connect with the Democratic Party because I believe that the government needs to defend the rights and justice for all Americans and not just those who are higher honored on the social ladder.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

November 27, 2011

Lanahan – Wattenberg

 

Martin Wattenberg in Where Have All the Voters Gone? examines the reasons as to why the amount of young non-voters has increased dramatically over the past several years. Wattenberg says that he believes that the constant change in the nature of mass media is a major cause of lower levels in young voter turnouts. He says that the younger voting population in America is clearly “apathetic about political affairs”, whether it’s because they are unknowledgeable, they simply don’t feel that the government affects them personally, or because they feel the government is corrupt, young Americans are still not showing up at the polls. He explains the vast difference between the young voter turnout compared to the elderly population turnout, and describes how the great changed in the media have greatly impacted the younger population in a negative way dissuading them from participating in government affairs. Wattenberg gives the example of television stations and the change from 3 “broadcasting stations” (ABC, NBC, and CBS) to hundreds of “narrowcasting stations” (MTV, VH1, and ESPN) which has negatively impacted the amount of political knowledge and information that the younger generation is receiving from the media today. He states that in past generations, the only thing someone could watch was the political debate, a Presidential speech, or political convention. Nowadays, the media has grown greatly and has created more stations which limit the amount of political issues on the air and on the web. However, even though young voter turnout is at an all-time low, Wattenberg does not blame the generation itself. He explains that it is not their fault that they are not as exposed to political issues as much as maybe their parents and grandparents were, and that the young generation has not experienced any political issue that has affected them personally. Wattenberg also explains that it is not the politicians fault either. They cater to those who have interest in their ideas and agendas and are understandably less likely to assist those who can’t even go out and vote. Overall, Wattenberg doesn’t put the blame on one particular group for decreasing young voter turnout, but rather explains that something must be done in order from making the consequences and effects worse.

 

Martin Wattenberg is accurate in his analysis of young voters and their decreasing voting record compared to past generations. His explanation as to why young people don’t go out and vote is relevant to the young people of toady. The younger American population has grown to become more disinterested in American politics simply because they feel they know nothing, they don’t want to know anything, or they just don’t care. However as Wattenberg states, it is not their fault. Over the past couple of years, politics has not become a priority in the lives of young Americans. They feel that watching sports or their favorite reality show is simply more important than watching a political debate or a President’s State of the union address. WHY? Well in the American culture today, as Wattenberg says, young people have not been affected personally by the actions of government like generations in the past and don’t feel that their voices are being heard. However, as Wattenberg argued, the only way that the young voters’ voices are going to be heard is if they get out and vote rather than ignoring the issue as a whole. Overall, Wattenberg’s interpretation of why young voters do not vote is correct and as he states, it is the responsibility of the young voters to become informed themselves and make their voices heard!

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

November 16, 2011

Lanahan – Cronin

 

Thomas Cronin, a distinguished professor and political scientist, wrote about the great advantages and disadvantages of direct democracy in the American government and the reasons why direct democracy has become more prevalent in state and local affairs across the country. He references the root of direct democracy – initiative, referendum, and recall – and explains why many Americans feel that this is the best way to express their opinion and complaints regarding their government leaders and their propositions. Cronin goes into great detail about each of these three aspects of direct democracy and explains the powers that they bestow upon the American people as a whole. He describes California’s famous Proposition 13 as an example of how the American people had a direct say in their government through personally voting on a controversial tax decision that would cut their property taxes by at least half. However, even though Cronin believes that there are benefits of direct democracy, he describes how the overall majority of Americans respects their representative governments and strives more for a balance between the two rather than complete citizen control. Cronin then goes on to explain the downfalls of direct democracy stating that some fear it will lead to a tyrannical majority who are not well informed about the complicated political matters for which they are voting for or against. Overall, Cronin describes direct democracy as not being a “cure-all” but rather an “occasional remedy.” He believes that when the popular demand does not match the ideas of the government, direct democracy can be put to good use in order for the people to protect them.

 

Thomas Cronin is realistic and accurate in his analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of direct democracy in the American government. He references initiative, referendum, and recall as ways that the American people can have an active voice in their government and a more involved way to express their opinions and beliefs regarding their government leaders. It is most definitely true that direct democracy enhances every Americans’ civil rights and gives them more freedom to actively participate in government affairs. However, Cronin’s ideas about the disadvantages of direct democracy are also true as well. His idea that a direct democracy can lead to a tyrannical majority rule shows the possible outcome of a direct democracy overriding the representative and elected government. He also states that many citizens who participate in direct democracy are unaware and uneducated on the topics and issues of the government on a complicated level and therefore cannot make wise and knowledgeable decisions. Cronin’s idea that direct democracy should be used proportionally with representative government and that there should be a balance between the two is the best way of gaining a stable and thriving American government.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

November 16, 2011

Lanahan – Lippmann

 

Walter Lippmann, a respected American journalist attacks the idea of public opinion in his book, The Phantom Public, where he describes the role played by the average American in regards to the government’s decision making. He explains how majority of the American voting population are unaware and ignorant to many political issues of the modern world. He also describes the average American as being disinterred and very fickle in their political views. However, Lippmann describes that it is not solely the fault of the American people, but actually the fault of their own government. He explains how most of the government actions take place in a centralized system that is secluded from the American public. He describes how these hidden and behind the scenes powers make it difficult for Americans to be truly aware of the various and vast issues in the government. Lippmann also explains how many Americans decide to voice their opinion only when there is a crisis or major event through which they feel the need to suddenly voice their opinions which quickly dwindle once the matter or crisis is solved. Overall, Lippmann believes that the American people and their government are both somewhat at fault for not allowing the public opinion to be as beneficial as its potential.

 

Lippmann’s take on public opinion is very similar to the opinions of many other Americans. It is true that most American people are uneducated and unaware of the issues and ideas in the government today. Whether they are ignorant to learning about these issues or are just given limited access to gaining information, public opinion is not as effective as it could potentially be. Lippmann is correct when he says that it is not all the public’s fault, but rather also the fault of the elected government leaders who tend to shun the public and take matters solely into their own hands. Lippmann is also accurate when he mentions that idea that the majority of American people only become concerned with governmental actions when a crisis or catastrophic event occurs. During the pre-catastrophe and post-catastrophe time, they are unconcerned and pretty much don’t care about the government and their actions. Some argue that it’s because their ignorant, while others argue that it is simply because most people are uninformed. Overall, it’s the combination of both ideas that lead to a lack of progressive and changing public opinion in the American political system.   

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

October 21, 2011

Online Article – Beard 

 

     Charles Beard, an American historian, interpreted the true motives of the Founding Fathers and the reasons as to why some supported and opposed the Constitution. In “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution”, Beard looked deep into the minds of the framers of the Constitution and wanted to truly analyze the lifestyles that these men possessed during the time that they were founding the basic principles of the governmental system that is accepted in America today. Beard examined the proportions of men who were wealthy, who owned property and slaves, and who were associated with various economic groups and classes to see how they accepted or denied the principles that made up the Constitution. He discovered from his mere historical sources that those who were in support of the Constitution were the overwhelming majority of those who were in the economic and financial industries. At the same time, beard discovered that those who were non-slaveholding farmers and debtors were the overwhelming majority of those who opposed the Constitution. From the few facts the Beard was able to uncover, he came to the conclusion that those who have “economic advantages” who expected to benefit from the Constitution would be in favor of a government that would pertain to their needs first.

                Beard’s assumptions about the motives behind the framers who devised the Constitution for the new government of the United States were surprisingly correct due to the fact that little factual evidence is left from that time. Based on the knowledge that was available to him, Beard thoroughly examined the background information and lifestyles of the 160,000 men that made up the team of framers of the Constitution. After looking at each man’s profile and economic record, Beard’s discovery of a common pattern was inevitably true which revealed that majority of those men who were wealthy and involved in economic affairs, strongly supported the Constitution. Likewise, Beard revealed that those who were not as prominent in the financial world were not as quick to support the new American way governing. Overall, Beard took all of the information that is left about the framers and was clearly able to distinguish why certain men favored the constitution over others and why certain pieces of the Constitution were developed in the manner that they were back during the time of the framers.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

October 21, 2011

Constitutional Powers

1.  Pass laws (Legislature)

     Õ  Veto laws (Executive)

2. Supreme Court judges serve for life (Judicial)

     ÕAbility to impeach a judge (Legislative)

3. Veto laws (Executive)

     Õ  Override Veto (Legislative)

4. Ability to declare war (Legislative)

     Õ  Commander and Chief of the armed forces (Executive)

5. Ability to impeach a President (Legislative)

     Õ   Chief Justice sits as President of Senate during Presidential Impeachment (Judicial)

6. Appoints judges and executive department heads (Executive)

     Õ  Ability to approve department appointments (Legislative)

7. Appoints judges (Executive)

     Õ  Policies its own members (Judicial)

1. Emergency calling into session of one or both houses of Congress (Executive)

     Õ  President must, from time-to-time, deliver a State of the Union address (Legislative)

9. Ability to make treaties with other countries (Executive)

     Õ   Senate ratifies treaties (Legislative)

10. Makes decrees or declarations (for example, declaring a state of emergency) and promulgates lawful regulations and executive orders (Executive)

     Õ  Determines how laws should be interpreted to assure uniform policies in a top-down fashion via the appeals process, but gives discretion in individual cases to low-level judges (Judicial)

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

October 16, 2011

Lanahan – Rostow

 

Eugene Rostow, a prominent legal scholar of his time, wrote about the importance of judicial review in the Supreme Court and the unique power that it has to balance out the legal system and check to make sure that the actions of the legislative and executive branches and constitutional and beneficial to the American people. His believed that the view that judicial review was “undemocratic” was not an accurate interpretation of American politics and philosophy. In fact, Rostow felt that judicial review is a key part in the balance of American government and is what keeps any political party or faction from making decisions that are not in the best intentions of the overall common good. Rostow also stated that the process of judicial review is what keeps the American on track and what ultimately protects the American people. He believes that it is the responsibility of the voters to educationally elect representatives who will then appoint judges who will undertake the responsibility of protecting the people and their constitutional rights.  

 

Even though his article was written many years ago, Rostow’s ideas regarding the importance of judicial review in the American government are still accurate and valid today. The Supreme Court and their power to use the judicial review system is what keep the legislative and executive branches from enacting and supporting laws that are not completely beneficial to the American people as a whole. It also helps to prevent any one party of group in government from gaining too much power and excluding constitutional morals and values from their decision-making. Rostow’s belief that judicial review is an extremely vital part in the success and prosperity of the American legal system is still accurate and important in modern day politics. Even though some describe judicial review as being “antidemocratic” and giving the Supreme Court too much power,  Rostow argued that position by explaining that without this specific power given to the courts, many laws and ideas would be put into action that could potentially harm American society. Rostow’s article regarding the importance and efficiency of the judicial review system of the Supreme Court proves that judicial review is vital and pertinent in the success and prosperity of the American government along with providing what is best for all American people, both the majority and the minority.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

October 16, 2011

Lanahan – Guinier

 

As a law professor and an individual who is well-educated in American politics, Lani Guinier expressed her strong beliefs in the unfairness in the American voting system and even went as far to share her discernment about the inequalities that lie between the majority and the minority in the American political arena. Guinier described what she believed was corruption in the way American society carries out their election and voting system with regards to the selection of music for a prom to the presidential election or another of that prestige.  She believed that America has developed into a selected group of people, known as The Majority whose votes are the only votes that count. With that being said, she went on to describe how the minority’s voice is often ignored and excluded. Guinier felt that this process is extremely unfair and ignores the principles of the Founding Fathers who once said that all should be considered equal. From this conclusion, Guinier came up with the “principle of taking turns” idea which she expressed allowed all people in a racially divided society to have their voices be heard. This idea then developed into her beliefs in a cumulative voting system which would allow both The Majority’s  and The Minority’s, or the winner’s and the loser’s,  ideas and beliefs be taken into consideration and not automatically shut down or ignored.  

 

Lani Guinier’s ideas regarding the unfairness in the American voting system and her beliefs that American is still a society who tends to disregard the minority’s opinion and voice is politically correct no matter who wants to disbelieve it. There is still racial tension in the American community even though the country technically embraces “equality.” No matter what The Majority Tyranny wants to believe, their votes are more heavily weighted and taken into consideration over the minority’s votes. Guinier was right on the money when she talked about unfairness and inequality and was correct when she stated that something needed to change in order for all votes to be weighted and viewed in the exact same manner. However, Guinier’s ideas regarding cumulative voting are a little farfetched and might not work as effectively as she may think on a state and even federal level.  Unless the American government can come up with an efficient way of handling a cumulative voting system, it is almost impossible for it to successfully work in an election where the entire country is involved. The idea of cumulative voting will only prove to be effective on a much smaller voting scale on less vital and important issues. Even though Guinier’s idea of cumulative voting may not be the best way to improve the American voting system, her ideas regarding the inequalities and unfairness are extremely important and should be looked at carefully in order to improve the voting system in a different way.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.zazzle.com/jefferson_big_governement_will_take_everything_button-145202277230489922

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

October 10, 2011

Lanahan – Madison

 

As one of the anonymous writers of the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym Publius, James Madison expressed his opinions on the American Government during the time of change and development after the enactment of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. In The Federalist 10, Madison attacked the idea of “factions” and the precautions that must be taken in order to prevent any majority or minority from becoming too powerful. He explained that those who are affiliated within a faction are “actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregated interests of the community.” This, he described, is an inevitable part of government that can harm and restrict the liberties, ideas, and opinions of the American people. Madison stated the differences between a republic and a democratic government, revealing to his readers the pros and cons of both. In conclusion to his interpretation, Madison believed that a larger, strong government is the best form of legislation to reduce the power of factions to the point where they do not hold all power and control. He concluded that the smaller, more elite form of legislation is prone to having selected individuals in command of basically every aspect of the government which in turn only harms the people and restricts their opinions.

 

James Madison’s interpretation of factions and the way that they affect the government were precise and accurate, even in today’s political arena. His idea that a group of individuals with factious attitudes can harm and detriment the overall good of the people is relevant in both past and present forms of American legislation. Even though factions can be beneficial in improving the government, most only have the motivation to achieve a particular goal that benefits the members of the factions themselves. That is why it is pertinent to limit factions and their accomplishments. Just like Madison stated, the American governmental style of democracy is the best way to reduce factious actions. By having a large number of individuals who have been elected to represent the people, there is less of a chance for a group to overrule another in order to benefit only themselves. Overall, Madison’s idea of limiting the power of factious groups was correct and was extremely important in American legislation in order for the government to run as smoothly as possible.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

October 6, 2011

Lanahan – Tocqueville

 

During a time when politics and government were at the height of change and evolution, Alexis De Tocqueville decided to explore a political system that was unlike that of any other government formation around the world.  He traveled to America and began searching deep into the core of the new phenomenon known as American Democracy. He discovered that the guidelines and rules that were established by the original colonies were working effectively compared to the political uproars occurring elsewhere in the world. Tocqueville realized that the key to democracy in America was the principle of equality among all. He established that the power was not given to those who were wealthy like in many other scenarios, but rather the power was distributed in a much more proportionate fashion. In American politics, Tocqueville described how all were given the same chance to prove themselves as worthy and admirable citizens and were not exiled because of their family’s history, financial status, or overall past. It was this key element that would allow America to grow, to prosper, and to become a dominant power in both domestic and worldly affairs over the course of the coming years.     

 

Tocqueville’s insight to the origin and beginnings of American democracy are accurate in the sense that America was one of the principal leaders in developing a democratic way of governing where all people were seen as equal. During a time of aristocracy and noble leadership, America’s initial venture to becoming a free nation where all people had unalienable rights was a noteworthy point in history. As Tocqueville described, the reason for America’s success can be traced back to the foundation of American government. The ideas of property ownership and personal wealth were not powerful enough to give one individual more power than someone who might not own as much property or might be part of the lower class on the social ladder. Because all emigrants who traveled to America were looking for personal freedoms and rights, it was easier for one person to view themselves as equal to another person. Overall, Tocqueville’s interpretation of American Democracy proved to be true regarding the prosperity and achievement of the American government regarding its ability to relate and suit the needs of its people.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

September 22, 2011

Lanahan – Hofstadter

 

As a knowledgeable man in the field of American history, Richard Hofstadter tackled the truths behind the motives of the Founding Fathers and searched deeply to interpret their true definition of Liberty and its relationship (if there even is any) to Democracy. He looked deep into the ideas of how the basis of the American government was founded and the specific guidelines and principles of this new establishment. He presented the idea,” Who governs?” and ultimately comes to the conclusion that the Founding Fathers connected Liberty with property ownership rather than with the twentieth century idea of Liberty meaning having freedom and personal rights. He often referenced Madison and other framers of the constitution by stating their beliefs that all American people, not just those who were lucky enough to own property, should be able to elect the people who represent and govern them along with those who make the laws of which they are forced to obey. It was from these strong beliefs that America has evolved over the years to become the nation which Madison had desired—a nation where all people had the Liberty to chose those to represent them in the authoritative world.

 

Hofstadter’s interpretation of the Found Fathers’ initiative and plan for the Constitution were accurate and to the point. His understanding of the Founding Fathers’ distinction between Liberty and Democracy explained how there was really no relationship at all. Hofstadter’s telling of how the American way of government has changed drastically over the years exemplified the importance of personal rights and the meaning of Liberty in society today. His analytical and in-depth researched enabled the American people to see the true basis of how the Founding Fathers designed the country and their plans for its prosperity. His research has effectively proven that the idea of property ownership does not have the credentials or the qualifications to give an American the right to vote or not to vote. It is the idea of being an individual and having the freedom to do as one pleases that gives America that special quality that is inevitably unique compared to many countries around the world. Because the basis of the American government is one of “Liberty”, Hofstadter took the original idea of the Founding Fathers and connected it to the changes with the idea of this word today. Through this connection, he was successfully able to examine the transformation of America from a country run by the rich or property owners to a country run by all.