POLITCO PREP!!!! 3

1) I think that there are so few swing voters in this election because of the fact that Obama has two groups in America that are basically opposite extremes. A lot of people really hate Obama but there is also a large number of people that love him. So the people that really hate him will obviously not vote for him and the group that loves him will. Same thing goes for Mitt Romney.

2) There is definitely one major demographic factor that affects voters the most and that is that fact that there is a divided government. This divided government has seriously stalled the passing of many acts that the president or Congress has tried to pass.

3) Politcal messages that politicians use to resonate with suburban women are more liberal messages since women tend to lean more to the left. They would send out messages about liberal stances on abortion and more gun control.

4) I think the topic of this politico is very intersting because it really makes you realize that there are a lot of political extremes among the people of America. I think that Democrats will have the advantage in attracting swing voters in this election because of the fact that they have incumbency on their side.

 

MEREDITH MADNESSSSS!!!!!!!

Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade took place in 1973. It had a companion case that was also decided on the same day: Doe v. Bolton. The Court later rejected Roe's trimester idea. The Constitutional question under fire was concerning the 14th amendment. The Court thought that outlawing abortion would infringe on privacy under the due process clause of the Constitution. The Court decided that outlawing abortion would do exactly that and they legalized abortion up to a certain extent. The extent is that it is outlawed if the baby is capable of living out of the womb without artificial aid.

Johnson v. McIntosh

Johnson v. McIntosh took place in 1823. It was presided over by the great John Marshall. This case is a staple of the first-year American law school curriculum. This case set forth that only Congress could negotiate with the Native American nations of America. The outcome of this case was that M'Intosh won. He won because the court claimed that he had to rights to the land because it was given to him by congressional action. The result was that idea that the United States earned the right to "extinguish" the Indians of their title.

Ex Parte Milligan

Lambden Milligan was sentenced to death by by a military commision in Indiana during the Civil War. He was accused of being disloyal. Milligan wanted release through habeas corpus from a federl court. The Constitutional Amendment in question was the the 5th Amendment. In the end, the Court ruled in favor of Milligan. The Court decided that trial of citizens by presidentially-made military commisions was unconstitutional.

Ex Parte Endo

Ex Parte Endo was a Supreme Court desicion that was handed down on December 18, 1944. This was the same day that the settled on Korematsu v. United States. Mitsuye Endo, the plaintiff, was sent to an internment camp after being evacuted from Sacramento, California in 1942. Endo argued that it was unconstitutional to detain an American citizen that the government itself conceded was a loyal citizen. In the end, the Court went in Endo's favor. This case helped reopen the West Coast to people of Japanese ancestry.

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

This case was Title Two of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It forbade racial discriminatino in places of public accomodation. Heart of Atlanta Motel refused to serve African Americans which violated Title Two. The Constitutional question was whether Congress overstepped the Commerce Clause in allowing hotels to choose their customers. In a nine to nothing ruling against the motel, the Courts decided that the law only applied to large enterprises that had a direct effect on interstate flow of commerce and people. Thus, it was concluded that the Heart of Atlanta Motel had no right to choose their customers as they pleased.

Cherokee Nation v. United States

This Supreme Court case was based upon a complaint by the Cherokee Indians against the government of Georgia. The Cherokees complained that Georgia passed laws discriminating against them within their boundaries. The Supreme Court could not hear the case since the Cherokees were an independent nation. The Courts decided that the Cherokee nation was a dependent one and that a case on their behalf could not be held on these merits. 

TInker v. Des Moines

This court case was centered around teenagers. John TInker(15), Mary Beth Tinker(13), and Christopher Eckhardt(16) chose to wear black armbands in protest to the Vietnam War during the Christmas season. When the principals of the school district found out their intentions, they asked them to remove them or face suspension. When asked to remove them, the children refused and were suspended until after New Years Day. The Constitutional question in this case was did the school district violate the children's first amendment right to freedom of speech by prohibiting the wearing of the armbands. In a 7 to 2 vote for the Tinkers, the Supreme Court ruled that the school district did in fact violate their first amendment right to freedom of speech. 

Worcester v. Georgia

In September of 1831 Samuel Worcester and several other people were indicted by the Supreme Court for living in the limits of the CHerokee Nation without a license. They were indicted under an 1830 act passed in Georgia entitled "an act to prevent the exercise of assumed and arbitrary power by all persons, under pretext of authority from the Cherokee Indians." Worcester argued that this decision violated the Constitution and treaties between the United States and the Cherokee nation. The Constitutional question was whether Georgia had the right to regulate intercourse between citizens of the state and members of the Cherokee nation. In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia violated the Constitution, treaties, and the law of the United States. Further more, John Marshall concluded that all intercourse between the Cherokee nation and the United States must be controlled by the government of the US.

 

3/12/12

Federal Workers

Seung Min Kim

     In this article, Kim discusses the situation of the cutting of the federal work force by Congress. The members of Congress (mainly Republicans) say that the salaries and size of the federal workforce is to large for the government to handle especially when the national deficit is expected to reach 1 trillion dollars for the 4th consecutive year. They say that the money that won't be spent on the federal work force will go to homeless benefits, tax cuts, and a transporation bill. This transporation bill would cut the federal workforce by 10% and also increase federal pension by 1.5%. The money saved would also be put to use by replacing the the Pentagon's budget cuts in 2013. Republicans claim that a large federal workforce is not necessary in a time of financial misfortune. Democrats think that its a ploy for the Republican anti-government sentiment backed by the tea party movement. Democrats view this as a way for Republicans to weaken federal programs. Obama combatted this by signing a law that would require federal workers to put 2.3% of their pay into their pensions.

     I think that cutting federal jobs is a very poor decision. It would create more unemployment which will just make the economy worse. Employment rate needs to go up not down. If it increases then the economy will go up. Federal workers do a good job and their jobs should not be at risk of being lost.

 

 

2/13/12

Lanahan 33

     In Cronin and Genovese's discussion of the presidency in their narrative of the president, they highlight 9 paradoxes that occur in the presidency. They discuss how the president in seen by the American people.They give examples of these paradoxes. These paradoxes have their origins in what the American people think the president should be like. The American people generally want the complete opposite of what they ask for in a president.

     Cronin and Genovese basically said that the American people are stupid. They want something and want its opposite at the same time. They want an "average" citizen but the people they are voting for are far from average. They want someone they can relate to but the people voting are the 99% while the people they're voting for are the 1%. They're just ignorant to the fact that they will never truly get what they want in a president.

 

1/29/12

Clear Congress Project

I learned something actually very significant from looking at this website. From the chart that appears, it seems that only a few member of Congress actually support popular legislation. Most members of Congress only "cosponsor other's legislation". That was very surprising to me. I guess most members of Congress follow that Trustee set of thinking when in Congress. I also learned, now i may be mistaken, that it seems that members of Congress are almost scared of sponsoring popular legisation themselves. It seems like they don't want to risk anything. They'll follow up strongly when someone does stand up for some legislation but besides that, they won't do much.

 

12/6/11

Lanahan 74

 

     James Caesar and Andrew Busch examined the election of 2004 in terms of "red states" and "blue states"; red for republican, blue for democrat. These groups are based on the ploitical and moral ideas of American citizens. Not all states are either red or blue, some are both. Caesear and Busch show how the Republican party has advanced over the past several years which, inturn, has made local and national elections much more interesting. They also said that more and more Americans are becoming "red" over "blue", which is leading to a Republican rally. There are a few large issues that dominate political thinking in terms of being a Democrat or Republican; there are: capital punishment, abortion, taxation, etc. They also brought up polling saying that it is pretty innacurate in terms of gauging what the people want.

     Its surprising that the whole red and blue idea was thought of so late. It always seemed like a prevelant thing. Those red and blue maps are very good gauges on the political sides that are most popular in certain states. They show them on TV and they seem to be right most of the time. The whole thing that Americans are becoming red over blue is shocking. When I heard that the majrity of Americans are conservative over liberal I was stunned. It didn't seem that way. Thats probably very true now considering that Obama is not very popular with most people. The ideas that dominate political thinking are quite obvious. Those are the main issues people have been concerned with for a while. The comment about polling was right on target. The American people are very fickle about ideas so polling is not always accurate.

 

12/06/2011

Lanahan 73

     Walter Dean Burnham was a pioneer in the feat of explaining American voting habits. He noticed that the American people would realign an election, in other words, change the maority power. This happens when people want social and economic change in the US. These elections are driven by really high passions, which is seen with really high voter turnout. He backs up his words by talking about the elections of 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, and 1932. These realignments happen at about the same time, once a generation or every thirty to thirty-eight years. Third Party revolts are another sign of realignment elections. The third party revolts are linked to stress issues in the socioeconomic system. 

     I'm not surprised that Burnham was one of the first people to study American voting habits. No one ever really thinks about it. The things he talks about are so obvious but people rarely think about them. The elections that he used to back up what he was saying were very useful in his explanation. I guess American do these realignments quite unknowingly even though its clear that what they are doing is having a major change.     

 

12/2/11

Republican or Democrat?- Who needs it?

I don't know if I will be the only who says this but I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I don't see the point to being completely one-sided about political issues. In a way, its being close-minded. I'm not saying that everyone that has chosen to be Republican or Democrat is close-minded, I'm just saying that I have not taken sides. I will choose candidates that I think will be best for the job. I would have voted for Obama because I thought he would be a better leader for the country. If the Republican candidate was a good honest man that I agreed with then I would have voted for him. I just don't see the point of always sticking to one side of an issue or issues.

 

12/1/11

PIVEN and CLOWARD

     In Why Americans Dont't Vote, Piven and Cloward explain that even when the government has tried to make voting easier, the public still won't vote. They discuss the project known as Human SERVE. This project tried to make voting registration easier which would in turn get more people to vote. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 was pushed, requiring that voter registration be available through social welfare organizations such as WIC,  through driver’s license registration/renewel, and through mail. Even with more registered voters, voting did not really increase. This was because of other factors like lack of trust in the power of their vote and a decline in party advertising.

     It's quite surprising that the public still won't vote even with more of the public being registered. That proves that the number of registered voters does not have an effect on voter turnout. It must be something else. People do not care that much. If the importance of participation in government was stressed more than maybe there would be an increase. The government should not make strict laws considering people participaition but the government should definitely advertise the importance of participating more. Put out commercials and fliers. something that has to catch the eye of the public. Once they have some attention drawn towards electoral partcipation then the number of voters will increase.

 

11/16/11

LIPPMANN

 

     Wlater Lippmann is an American journalist of the 20th century. He wrote a book, his most famous book in fact, "The Phantom Public". In this book he taks a critical stand on the role of Americans in government. He claims that the public is ill-informed and the choices they make will be bad because they do not consider consequences. He notes that only during times of crisis is when people will take part in government. He says the government can use the American lack of voice to promote their own ideas. Later he does state that expecting anything more of Americans would be a mistake.

     Lippmanns criticizms of the American public not takeing part in government are valid. We don't really know what is going on and we don't care. The public does take more interest in times of crisis and thats when the public makes good choices. but besides that, people mainly stay misinformed. In the end, Lippmann was somewhat critical of the American Public.

 

11/16/11

V.O. KEY

     In V.O. Key's "Public Opinion and American Democracy", Key tries to explain the link between Public Opinion and government leadership opinions. The leaderships opinions tend to be overstated in order to attract people. Key said the solution to this is opinion dikes. A dike is a wall that prevents river flooding. These opinion dikes would control politicians like dikes do water. The public should creat opinion dikes to set a boundary in which the government may move.

     Every politician exagerates. THey promise huge changes and great benefits. this is all to attract people to them and their party. Their tactics work because so many people fall for them. Opinon dikes are definitely needed in society like Key said. Opinion dikes will prevent politicians from becoming too powerful. Because our nation has so many people who can's see through a politicians lies and will be easily manipulated, we need a checking system on politicians. Politicians wouldbe controlled because theycan't stray too far away from the people if they want reelection. or election. We need opinon dikes in order to keep cecks and balances alive.

10/24/11

POWERS

 The Congress can pass laws (legislative)

check:The president can veto them (executive)

 

 The President can veto laws (executive)

check:Congress can overturn the veto with a 2/3 vote. (legilative)

 

President can appoint Judges and other governmental offices (executive)

check:Senate must approve them (legislative)

 

President and Congress pass law(executive/legislative)

check:Supreme Court declare law unconstitutional (judicial)

 

Supreme Court Judges have life terms (judicial)

check:Congress can impeach Judges (legislative)

 

The President is commander-in-chief of the navy and the army (executive)

check:Only Congress can declare (legislative)

 

Senate may remove executive and judicial officers (legislative)

check:Executive branch has power to grant pardons to convicted persons, except those impeached (executive)

 

Legislative may start investigations, especially against the executive branch (legislative)

check:Judicial branch determines how a law acts to compel testimony and the production of evidence (judicial)

 

Executive branch makes decrees or declarations—declaring a state of emergency—and circulate lawful regulations and executive orders (executive)

check:Judicial branch determines how laws should be interpreted to assure uniform policies in a top-down--hierarchy--fashion through the appeal process (judicial)

 

Executive branch appoints judges (executive)

check:Judicial branch polices its own members (judicial)

 

10/24/11

BEARD

     In this economic evaluation of the Constitutional Convention, Beard discusses the probable reasoning behind the creation of the Constitution. He discusses the kind of people that attended and their livlihoods. He then talks about a possible reasoning behind the Constitution. He implies that many of the people who were present during the making of the Constitution could benefit financially from its drafting. He then makes a list; its the survey of enonomic interests of the people present. He adds points that talk about everyone at the Convention. After the survey he goes on to say that he doesn't think the men were "disinterested" but he thinks the opposite of that. He believes that the writers of the Constitution based this document on the only thing that could be stable, fundamental economic interests.

     Beard's points that he states are very convincing. It is possible that the drafting of the Constitution was based mainly of economic benefits that would befall the writers. I is someting to take into consideration. Many people most likely already think that way. The Framers were very smart men and they knew how to get things to work for them so it is actually probable that the writers wrote a lot of those things because they knew they would benefit.

 

10/20/11

Jason Amado, Ant. Niccolo, Dan "duster" Nucero

The Framers of the Constitution consisted of 55 delegates. Those of whom came from every colony except Rhode Island. Most were natives of 13 colonies, only 9 were born elsewhere. Out of the 55 delegates no mmore than 38 showed up at one time. At least 29 swerved in the Continental Army, most held commanding positions. Almost all of these people had poloitical experience. They had strong educational backgrounds at good colonial colleges or abroad. The vast majority of the delegates were not wealthy. Of the 55 delegates, 49 were protestant and 3 were Roman Catholic. After the Constitutional Convention, most of the delegates were successful except for 7 who were left bankrupt. Dey wuh SMRT.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

10/17/11

Lanahan 42

     The author of The Democratic Character of Judicial Review, Eugene Rostow, was a legal scholar who analyzed the use of judicial review and how it benefits the United States. In this excerpt Rostow defends judicial review saying that in protects against and halts the process of tyranic majority. He goes on to say that judicial review is a staple of American law making and that it really benefits the minority. He implies that there are some things that using a majority vote will not work for and thats wen judicial review steps in and takes care of it. He says that a freely thinking and acting judicial court that can reject or approve laws is a desired object in many free areas.

     Judicial Review is very useful. It helps prevent the majority from completely ruling over rules and regulations. Without judicial review, the United States would not be as fair as it is today. Rostow really explained its usefullness in a way that would make sense to all people. Judicail review is so beneficial because it really levels out the playing field by making sure that a proposed law is not to harsh or overbearing.

 

10/17/11

Lanahan 11

     At the begininning of Lanahan 11, the author, Lani Guinier, talks about her life-long ambition of becoming a civil rights lawyer. She said that she has always wanted to be this because she has a deep rooted commintment to fairness and equality. She explains the source of this commitment in a story of her younge days as a Brownie. As a Brownie she was involved in a hatmaking contest. During this contest, she witnessed the winner of the contest recieve unfair help from his/her mother. She then discusses rules and how shes wanted to change unfair rules and help make the losers "feel better". She then discusses a school that had 2 proms because of unfair rules. The band at the concert was going to play the top 3 most requested songs. The school was predominantly white so the black students felt that their song choices were already unfairly matched up against all the white students' choices. This was the segway into the discussion about "The Tyranny of the Majority".

     Guinier really makes a strong point in this excerpt from her book. Majority rule is not always fair. It sounds like its the proper democratic way but it is not. It is not the proper democratic way because the minority gets no say whatsoever. With the minority getting no say at all, that means that more people will go unhappy because their ideas dont have the same chance of being heard as the ones that are in the majority.

 

10/11/11

Picture of New School Government

 

I chose a picture of an old man carrying a baby because I see the government as old but with a few changes. This old man is olds and had plastic surgery(symbolizes change). I see the baby as all the problems that the U.S. has to try to fix all the time and how they're always there. The baby also symbolizes the naive American people that think that the government can actually fix everything.

10/11/11

Lanahan #10

     In this excerpt from Maichael Kammen's book A Machine That Would Go of Itself, Kammen discusses the mulitple metaphors used to describe the Constitution over the many years of its existence. Kammen used numerous quotes from people such as Holmes and Lowell and Tugwell. He also talks about how people have used the Constitution and bent it in ways that have greatly benefitted people. Being bent, Kammen explains, has been the way that the rules of the Constitution have been upheld and are capable of being in use even centuries after they were written down in the Constitution. Kammen then later dismisses the famous quote from James Russell Lowell which states that after the Constitution was put in order, it had seemed that the writers had "invented a machine that would go of itself". He refutes this statement by saying that if it were a machine (implying a rigid organism) then we would not be ble to bend it for it would not require any repositioning at all.

     Kammen's view of the Constitution is very close to the truth. It is not a machine that runs of itself because it is constantly being interpretted in different ways by different people and the rules are constantly being bent in order to keep up with the times. Therefore, the Constitution is not a "machine that would go of itself" because the bending and varios interpretations are needed for the document to still be fully relevent.  

 

10/6/11

Lanahan #1

     Tocquueville, in this exerpt from his book, discusses his travels from France to America and the nine moths that he spent interviewing people around America from coast to coast. In his interviews, he asked people questions about the government of the United States and he finally came up with a conclusion. His conclusion that he came to was basically the inspiration for the title of his book, Democracy in America. His conclusion was that everyone in America was born with equal rights and equal chances at attaining a good life. Although he noticed that there were class differences, he still believed that the Amerian form of government allowed everyone to have the same chances in life.

      Unfortunately, this view of the government giving everyonean equal chance in America is not true in today's world. Not everyone is born with an equal chance at gaining a good and prosperous life. One only has to look into the Ghetto and housing projects of major cities. Kids there are born everyday with a pitiful amount of crucial tools that people need to help them get to the goals of a good life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Tocqueville's vision is the one that people want to see, but in today's age, seeing his vision is quite hard. 

 

9/22/11

Lanahan #8

     In this reading from Lanahan, the author, Richard Hofstadter discusses the "Fathers" who wrote the Constitution. In this, he exaplains how the Fathers saw people as being very self-centered creatures yet the Fathers wanted people to govern themselves. He also explains a lot of the thinking that the Fathers had to do and how many contradictions they had to overcome.

     I can't say I know much about the Fathers so I'm going to be inclined to say I agree with Hofstadter in tis reading. I have heard that the Founding Fathers were stuck up so its not hard for me to believe that they viewed the average man as something bad. I must also agree with him that it must have been hard for the Fathers to overcome all the obstacles that come with trying to make a form of government.