| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

JESSICA P

Page history last edited by jphares@... 11 years, 10 months ago

14 May 2012    

Politico Test Prep #9

 

1. First, clerks of the Supreme Court filter out all the petitions being sent in, and then send the more interesting ones to the Justice that they work for. After that, the Justices discuss the case, and if it recieves four votes to be moved forward, than the case will be resented to the entire Supreme Court. It usually chooses issues which are controvesial and far reaching, and also cases which could clear up many misunderstandings throughout the lower courts within the states.

2. Interest groups can try and persuade the president to choose a certain candidate, or to contact Senators to tell them why they should or  shouldn't agree to appoint an individual as a Justice.

3. I think it is above politics, because the decisions being made aren't those which are split beween a Democratic and Republican vote, but are based on the interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is meant to be a bipartisan document, meaning it doesn't appeal to any political idealology specifically, therefore other than presidents and Senators deciding on a Justice, politics shouldn't come into play all that much in the Supreme Court.

4. I would rule it as Constitutional, only because there are many other things the government forces us to buy, such as car insurance, that hasn't had as much opposition as the health care bill. If they rule this as unconstitutional, then the Supreme Court should reevaluate other laws that are close to the same thing as the health care one.

 

14 May 2012

Politico Test Prep # 8 

 

1. I think the role of Cheif Executive is most important.

2. I think the role of Cheif of Party is least important.
3. It means that, especially in their first term, presidents are always worried about being reelected, and so they try to keep a good image and make themselves seem like powerful, inspiring figures so America can feel confident about voting them in for another term in their next election.

4. I think they would say that the president is too involved. He is more like a "king" figure than they wanted. They expected Congress to be the dominating branch in government, and the fact that it isn't so today would really disappoint them and probably irritate them a lot.

 

8 May 2012

Politico Test Prep #6

 

1. They were first used to control the amount of crops being grown so there wasn't an over surplus which would both harm the farmers and the economy. 

2. Some industries include transportation and energy. 

3. They send lobbyists and ask their members to contact Congressmen to try to persuade him or her to pass or not pass a specific bill. 

4. I think it's more difficult to implement them, because people are so used to having things a certain way, and they fear they they may not get the same benefits as they would if the law was discontinued. 

 

7 May 2012

Politico Test Prep #5

 

1. The 112th Congress consists of 242 Republicans and 193 Democrats. There are 363 men, while there are only 72 women. There are 362 Caucasians, 42 African Americans, 24 Hispanics, 6 Asians, and one Native American. The Congress has 249 Protestants, 133 Catholics, 9 Mormons, 4 Greek Orthodoxy, 3 Christian Sciences, 1 Eastern Orthodoxy, 27 Jews, 3 Buddhists, 2 Muslims, one Atheist, and 3 unstated.

2.  The House is usually more representative of the people than the Senate, and they are less formal with their rules and ways of passing legislature. They are meant to pass legislation through quickly, and have strict times for debating because of the many representatives. The Senate is the more formal part of Congress, and there aren't any limits for how long an individual can debate, and can even hold up legislation for days, and because of this it is usually much harder for bills to pass through here than through the House. 

3. The Senate chooses the pro tempore, has sole power to try impeachment, they have unlimited time of debate, and non-germane amendments can be introduced. 

4. I think it's difficult to state which strategy the congressmen should use, because I think it depends on the demographics of where that House member is representing. I think he needs to figure out which one would best appeal to his voters, and use that. 

 

7 May 2012

Politico Test Prep #4 

 

1. Reaching out to all types of people, and making the campaign  and even the campaign slogan relate to not just one demographic, but all demographics within the US. I also think it's important to do small acts to show the voters that the candidate cares about them. Whether this is doing a bit of community service, or highlighting a bill they passed that helped or positively affected his voters.

2. It's become more candidate centered because many US citizens have stopped identifying themselves with a certain party, so not people are voting on character and past experiences rather than having complete confidence in their party's choice.

3. The positives are that they are dedicated to what they think is best for their party, the are probably very informed of the candidates and their history, and they are the ones voting, so they should be the ones to choose who they see fit to lead the country. However, the negatives are that they may be too radical in their ideals. For example if there individuals are Republican, they may be more conservative than the average Republican, and so the average Republican most likely dislike this candidate.

4. I think there's a very fine like to where the candidates should and shouldn't be accountable for such actions. For one, they shouldn't be because they specifically didn't say these things, and that's not fair to the candidate to think they are. But at the same time, if the candidate has endorsed the supporter before, I think  so because there's a relationship between the two people, and if the candidate agrees with the supports views on one thing unrelated to the candidate, what makes the voters think that the candidate doesn't agree on that controversial phrase?

 

3 May 2012

Politico Test Prep #3

 

1. I think it's because the country is so polarized and divided. I think many people agree with what Obama has been doing and want to keep him in office for another four years to see the country progess to his agenda, while another side of the country completely disagree with Obama and his plans, and want to see someone new take over the country. I think before, especially in the 2008 election, people wanted to see what the candidates had to offer before voting, but now, people have already chosen their side, and they're going to stick with it.

2. Women, middleclass individuals, African Americans, and some Latino groups vote Democratic, while Southerners, upper class individuals, and business owners are mostly Republican.

3.They resonate with them by appealing to family values, women's rights, and religion, though this mostly depends on where they live geographically.

4. I think that these swing voters will mostly vote Democratic, because that's how individuals in those specific demographics have voted historically, but I also think a small percentage will vote Republican.

 

2 May 2012

Politico Test Prep #2

 

1. Yes, interest groups are fundamental to a democratic society, because it allows the people to channel their needs and cares through a single strong association, which is able to argue with Congress to get what its supporters want. It is a way to channel popular support into a more organized way so Congress is able to do all it can to supports their voters. It can become dangerous when interest groups twist the message about what its members want, or when these interest groups aren't necessarily promoting what the majority of what its members want. 

2. AARP, which supports the elderly and their rights, the NRA, supports the second amendment, the AMA, which supports physicians, and the NEA which represents teachers. 

3. Some strategies are grassroots politics, where the interest group will ask a certain percentage of its members to email or call a congressman to ask them to either support or go against a certain bill. Another way is through litigation, where an interest group will sue the government for going against that interest group's agenda. For example, the Sierra Club would sue the government for building on land where a certain kind of bird was endangered. Lastly, another technique would be using celebrities to promote their message by performing in commercials, wearing tshirts, etc. 

4. I honestly don't think it's a problem if retired congressmen present themselves in front of their former colleagues to lobby an idea. The idea is no worse than asking celebrities to promote the interest group's message. I think it's actually a really good idea, as long as clean politics are happening (which is pretty much an oxymoron). I think that this type of lobbying could become very corrupt, however, it's unfair to make it completely out of the question because I think a lot of positives could come from it, too. 

 

 

1 May 2012 

Politico Test Prep #1

 

1. Originally, Republicans were in support of civil rights for blacks, while Democrats were not. For example, during the Civil War, the Republicans were in the North while the Democrats were in the South. Over time, a dramatic shift occurred where the South started to become more Republican while the North became more Democrat. In modern times, Democrats consist of African Americans, women, those in labor unions, most minority groups, and those who are middle and lower class. The Republican party, however, now consists of business owners, those who may have a strong affiliation towards a certain religion, and those in the upper class. 

2. Those who draw out the districts could gerrymander one where there are more extremists, or a larger abundance of either party so he doesn't appeal to many of the voters. 

3. After looking back at the Clear Congress Project site, I noticed that there seems to be a lot more Republican representatives than Democrat. 

4. I thought the article was alright, but I feel as though they could have described the topic more clearly. However, I think that this increased partisanship is not good for either voters or politicians. If Congressmen are moderate, they should try to keep them with moderate voters, or else there's an imbalance between both voters and representative. The voter doesn't really want the representative in office, and the representative may not really want to be the head figure of this district. 

 

3 April 2012

Judiciary Cases

 

(1)Miranda v. Arizona
    Facts: Several cases before Miranda v. Arizona, such as Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart, individuals were persecuted and questioned without the authorities reciting the rights of that individual.
    Constitutional Question: Does the practice of police interrogating individuals without outlining them their rights to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the fifth amendment?
    Decision: Yes, it does. In modern times, police officers who are arresting an individual must recite the rights of that individual to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination.

(16)Commonwealth v. Hunt - Massachusetts

    Facts: The case dealt with the right of labor unions to exist. Prior to this case, there existed a decision Commonwealth v. Pullis which stated that any labor union which attempted to create a unionized workplace would be charged with conspiracy.

    Constitutional Question: Do labor unions have the right under the first amendment to organize strikes?

    Decision: Yes, it is constitutionally sound for a labor union to organize a strike, so long as the acts of the members during the strike were not illegal. I.E. rioting and the like.


(8)Lemon v. Kurtzman
    Facts: There was controversy in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island about whether or not the state government could give aid to non-secular schools for teachers’ salaries, books, and other educational materials.
    Constitutional Question: Does this violate the first amendment because the government is giving aid to religion affiliated institutions?
    Decision: Yes it is against the first amendment. A school can only receive aid for secular purposes that does force the  state government to entangle itself in religious affairs as long as it passes the Lemon Test.

(9) Oregon v. Smith
    Facts: Alfred Smith and Galen Black were fired for their ingestion of peyote as part of their religious practices and were refused unemployment compensation because they were dismissed for what the state deemed as “misconduct.” They filed suit over their right to unemployment.
    Constitutional Question: Does the ingestion of drugs for religious reasons offend the first amendment right to freedom of religion?
    Decision: No, it does not. Illegal action for religious purposes defeats the purpose of the law. Reference Reynolds v. U.S.(Side note, killing someone because your religion says its okay doesn’t make you immune to the law.)

(5) Abington School District v. Schempp
    Facts: Students in Pennsylvania public schools were required to read at least ten verses of the Bible each day, and after they finished they would have to recite the Lord’s Prayer. Students could be exempt from these activities with a written note from one’s parents. This is similar to the Murray v. Curlett case, whereone family of professed Atheists openly opposed this rule that was established in public schools in Maryland
    Constitutional Question: Does requiring students to perform these exercises in a public school setting go against the First and Fourteenth Amendments which are there to protect an individual’s freedom of religion?
    Decision: The courts found these actions to be unconstitutional and states that they were in violation of the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Currently, students are not forced to engage in any religious ceremonies in their schools, and prayer is prohibited in all public institutions.

(12) Muller v. Oregon
    Facts: Curt Muller was convicted of violating Oregon labor laws for having his female employees work for more than 10 hours a day at his laundry business. This law was enacted to protect the health of Women.  He was fined $10 and appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, then to the US Supreme Court. There was a similar case, Lochner v. New York, in which a law limiting the number of hours a baker could work was invalidated.
    Constitutional Question: Is it just to uphold Oregon’s state law in light of the 14th amendment's “liberty of contract” clause? Is it just to uphold Oregon’s decision to limit the number of hours a woman can work a day while upholding New York’s decision to remove a limitation of male bakers?
    Decision: Yes, on the basis of “the difference between the sexes” and a woman’s role as child-bearer. (FEMINISTS BEWARE!)


(4) Gideon v. Wainwright
    Facts: Gideon was tried in court for breaking and entering, but couldn’t afford a lawyer to defend him. He requested one by the court, but the court refused to provide him with one. He was then forced to defend himself, but lost and was sentenced to five years in prison.
    Constitutional Question: Did the court’s failure to present Gideon with a lawyer prevent him from having a fair trial that is protected for all individuals under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?
    Decision: Those who are unable to afford a lawyer have the right to be represented by an attorney provided by the court. This overturned the previous ruling of Betts v. Brady which stated that criminals only had the right of a guaranteed council as a fundamental right. One judge said that having a lawyer isn’t a luxury, but a necessity.

(13) Schecter v. U.S.
    Facts: Schecter Poultry Corp. was hit hard by regulations placed on them by the National Industrial Recovery Act, part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation. This case is also known as the “sick chicken case” because the government claimed Schecter sold sick chickens.
    Constitutional Question: Does Congress have the right to impose such regulations under the Commerce Clause of the first article of the Constitution?
    Decision: No, Congress’s use of their powers was invalid and unjust, overstepping their boundaries.


(6) Swift v. United States
    Facts: A “meat trust” was established between major meat companies that stated that these companies wouldn’t cause great competition of prices by keeping them static instead of increasing or decreasing them to control prices. This trust also tried forcing railroad companies to offer these mear companies lower than normal rates to ship their product. The U.S. government got involved and tried to stop the trust.
    Constitutional Question: Does Congress have the authority to intervene in this meat trust under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act?
    Decision: Yes, it does have this right to regulate such a trust. This is because the trust is disrupting the economy by making a monopoly through the pricing of its goods, which is affecting commerce. Because it is affecting commerce, the government can intervene and stop such a trust. The court also made a clear distinction between manufacturing monopolies, which indirectly affect commerce, and and sales monopolies, which are intended to affect commerce.

(11) Reynolds v. United States
    Facts: Reynold, a proud Mormon and Bigamist, agreed to serve as the defendant in a test case to be brought before the U.S. Supreme Court. He was indicted and convicted of bigamy and served two years hard labor in prison and was fined $500.He appealed to the Supreme Court.
    Constitutional Question (the main one anyway): Could Reynolds use Religious Duty as a defense for Bigamy under the first amendment?
    Decision: No, reynolds could not. The ability of a person to marry only one other person as been around since King James I of England, whose law ours is based on. Also, if the government allowed polygamy as defended under Religious Duty, it would leave arguments open for human sacrifice and the like.


(3) Schenck v. United States
    Facts: During World War I, a man passed out flyers with his disagreements about the war. On these flyers were encouragement to oppose the war, and to support alternative and peaceful ways to work things out between the nations. This man was then arrested and charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act, because of his actions to shake up individuals and possibly obstruct war efforts.
    Constitutional Question: Is Schenck protect by the free speech clause in the First Amendment?
    Decision: No, he is not protected, because he is obstructing war efforts, and could cause more of a danger to the nation than anything. Some phrases that can be used during times of peace are allowed to be prohibited during times of war if it is an issue of national security.

(14) Lochner v. New York
    Facts:law in New York limited the number of daily work hours to 10 and hourly work hours to 60 of a Baker, to protect his health. Lochner was indicted on the charge of wrongfully requiring an employee to work more than 60 hours a week. he was fined $25 for his first and $50 for his second offences.
    Constitutional Question: is it just under the implicit  “liberty of contract” of the fourteenth amendment’s due process clause to regulate the number of hours an employee is allowed to work?   
    Decision: No it is not just. The law was ruled invalid. ref. Muller v. Oregon. sexism.

(7) Engel v. Vitale
    Facts:  The Board of Regents for the state of New York City wished to offer an optional prayer in public schools to be said every morning. Because it was voluntary, supporters hoped this would be a compromise instead of taking prayer out all together in public institutions.
    Constitutional Question: Does the reading of a voluntary prayer in public schools still violate certain parts of the First Amendment?

Decision: Yes, it does, no matter if the prayer is voluntary or not. There should still be a separation of Church and State, and by New York offering to have a voluntary prayer, it is “approving” one religion over another. This was one of the kick off points of ending prayer and all religious affiliated actions with any type of relationship with the government.


(10) Fletcher v. Peck
    Facts: After the Treaty of Paris, Georgia claimed possession of the Yazoo lands that would later become the states of Alabama and Mississippi. This land was split up and sold, one parcel eventually wound up in the hands of a Mr. Peck who then sold it to Mr Fletcher. Fletcher then sued Peck because he did not technically own the title to the land; the indians did.
    Constitutional Question: Could the contract of sale be terminated even though it was illegal, under the Contract Clause of the first article, section 10, of the constitution?
    Decision: The contract was upheld. The Yazoo land act was ruled unconstitutional (first time a state law was ruled unconstitutional.). The ruling helped create a precedent for the sanctity of legal contracts.


(2) Plessy v. Ferguson
    Facts: This law was first established in Louisiana, where separate railway cars were produced for blacks and whites. Plessy, who was half black, half white, sat in a “whites only” car, and was arrested because he refused to move.
    Constitutional Question: Does Louisiana's racial segregation go against the constitution which gives blacks equal protection to whites because of the Fourteenth Amendment?
    Decision: The state is within constitutional boundaries because segregation does not necessarily mean discrimination. This decision allowed communities to separate blacks from whites under the conditions that such facilities, buildings, etc. would be separate-but-equal.

(15) Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
    Facts: Missouri passed a law which held a clause in its preamble stating that “the life of each human being begins at conception” and “unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and wellbeing.” This clause  along with the statute forbid government funding of abortions among other things. A lower court struck down the law.
    Constitutional Question: In light of  Roe v. Wade could a state law prohibit government funding of abortion?
    Decision: Yes, the supreme court overturned the lower court’s decision, saying it had no conflict with Roe v. Wade and states could allocate funds favouring childbirth over abortion, if they so chose.

 

12 March 2012

 

     The article Federal workers under siege published by Politico discussed the growing amount of workers in the federal bureaucracy and the Republican's desire to cut their jobs from the budget because the country is in so much debt, and the best place to pull back from is the workers. The Democrats oppose these actions, and claim these are just reactions from the tea-party and their anti-government stance. The bureaucracy has been growing immensely since the beginning, and it is absorbing more and more federal money. The government has already frozen the pay role from a few years ago, but this doesn't seem to be enough to keep the country out of debt. With Democrats both in charge in the Senate and the White House, any of these measures to restrict these workers most likely will not pass through, but there are ways for Republicans to get through the system by forming a must-pass package. 

     Obviously there are two sides of this argument, but it's difficult to choose just one to defend. Bureaucracy is slightly out of control, and it should be limited, but only limited and not stopped completely. If it is taken away completely, as the article said, programs can be stopped and come necessary projects or legislation will be impossible to push through. Everything would be more out of control than it already is. However, it is overly bloated, and can use some slimming down. The money going to all these government workers can instead go towards the programs being introduced by the agencies, or other federal programs. The bureaucracy continues to grow, and this growth doesn't seem to be doing many positives, so America maybe should pull back a little, and see how the affects of a slightly smaller one work out. 

 

 16 January 2012

 

     Kenneth Mayer's With the Stroke of  Pen, explores the usage of executive power in the past. The definition of an executive order is fluid, and tends to change from president to president. Essentially, an executive order is a power that allows this branch to pass certain legislation, or make certain decisions without the input of Congress. There are certain loopholes and blanks in the Constitution that allow these types of actions to be taken. Congress tends to restrain it, though, by holding investigations, because if not then the position may become a presidential dictatorship. There are many types of executive orders that include a broad base of issues, but the most basic ones include civil service, public lands, war and emergency powers, foreign affairs, defense and military policy, executive branch administration, labor policy, and domestic policy. The amount of executive orders and which types of orders are issued depends on the time period and what is happening in the world involving the United States.

                There are both pros and cons to executive order. If Congress can’t unify and agree on a piece of legislation that should be hurried through to be passed, then this is a great power for the president to have by allowing him to make the choice he thinks is best. However, this type of power also takes away from the separation of powers, and the article states that Congress has limited control over these executive powers, in the wrong president’s hands, such a power could be dangerous. It’s also not necessarily “fair” in that it’s not including other branches of government to decide what should and shouldn’t be passed. There’s much grey around the issue, and one cannot perceive it as just black and white.

 

                The White House Staff: [Chief of Staff] written by Bradley Patterson discusses the unknown importance of the Chief of Staff. Not many presidents know how to properly utilize this individual, and most of the time they end up mistreating him. The chief doesn’t necessarily need to be a politician, but it needs to be someone who knows their way around Washington and can get anything the president needs done. There are certain responsibilities the Chief of Staff has to maintain to become effective which include: becoming familiar with the pressures of public life in Washington, controlling the president’s schedule, checking which papers enter and leave the president’s office, dealing with Congress to some certain extent, and many more.

                Jobs like these are always overlooked, whether it be the Chief of Staff, or the plumbers who fix toilets. One can see that even in politics individuals are constantly overlooked by their powerful boss. This isn’t to say that their employer is being arrogant and cocky about having more limelight, but there definitely is a greater difference in society about the amount of respect and recognition given between the two. Does the president have a lot on his agenda that he must get done? Absolutely. But, if it weren’t for the Chief, the one who does all the so called small and mundane work, nothing in the executive branch would ever get done. 

 

13 January 2012

 

     The Paradoxes of the American Presidency written by Thomas Cronin and Michael Genovese discuses the paradoxical relationship the American people have with the presidency. Most leaders all over the world at any time period must deal with paradoxes and ironies to some degree, but what makes his or her a truly great leader is in how they encounter the situation to balance these current feelings. Powers and feelings towards the presidency "expand and contract" according to the situation at hand. This is mostly due to the Constitution, which laid out the rules for the presidency, but made vague remarks in the second article as to not make the position seem like a monarchy. With this ambiguity then allows the president to become a strong leader during a crisis, however; if there is no crisis, for the most part, the American people do not want the president to be in such a powerful position but to be checked by the other branches of government. Most citizens ask too much from the presidency, and the issues that they want him to fix, or the things they want him to accomplish are way out of his reach. If the American people gained a better understanding of what the executive branch is meant to do, maybe there would be less paradoxes and there wouldn't be as much conflict with what the ideal president should be. For the most part, the paradoxes of American citizens involving the presidency are: the want for a powerful leader, yet there must be checks on this leader; Americans want a 'common person' for president, and yet they want someone professional and extraordinary; Americans want a warm and caring politician, and yet want someone who is persuasive and manipulative; Americans like when the president claims to not have a political party, and is 'above it', but the executive branch is nothing but partisanship; Americans want a president who will unify the nation, but also make decisive and unpopular decisions; Americans want a president who will lead them, but they also want a president who will take into consideration the concerns of the people; Americans want a self-confident president, but become suspicious and do not like cocky and arrogant presidents; those who win elections may not make good leaders; Americans believe that the presidency is strong sometimes, and weak at others. 

     These paradoxes ring true among the American people. One can see this through Herman Cain, the Republican presidential candidate for the 2012 election. He was a 'down-to-earth' man; a non-politician. He was the CEO of a major pizza chain company, and was thought to be a regular guy just like anyone else. This is what the American people claim to want to see; someone from the population take charge; however, no one took him seriously. He didn't even make it to the Iowa caucus in January. He was considered a joke throughout the United States for even trying to become president. And why is that? This was the citizens' chance to ultimately change the system, but they refused to do so. Americans also claim they want to be assured that their president is human; that he's not some party robot. If this is so, why was Rick Perry's stumble in his debate ridiculed and made fun of relentlessly? It's only showing his human qualities. Is it that Americans want to see these human qualities in positive ways, such as having a sense of humor or being a good parent, but negative qualities such as forgetting a part of one's speech shows poor leadership? The fact that there are so many paradoxes is neither a good thing or a bad thing, it's just the way it is, and the passage was correct in explaining that American may truly never get rid of these assumptions. As the authors state, there are paradoxes all over the world, and no matter how uncomfortable we need them to make sense of the world

 

 

27 January 2012

 

     This site was interesting with all the different features it had and it was really informational. Only a small percentage of Congress are bipartisan, though there is a wide range of partisan and bipartisan individuals, and it's not completely polarized. There is also a very large percentage of Congress that do not sponsor popular legislation. Senators tend to cosponsor other's legislation, and though more Congressmen may do the same, they are less polarized and more individuals sponsor popular legislation. Most women in Congress cosponsor legislation, while men are are more scattered about with how they sponsor legislation. I liked this chart a lot, but I wish there was a way to find clear percentages of different factors of those in Congress, like what percentage is Republican/female/etc. I also think it should incorporate a feature where one could identify the job, religion, and level of education of the Congressmen and Senators. 

 

6 December 2011

 

                The Rise of Southern Republicans by Earl and Merle Black is about how politics shifted from a Democratic to a Republican view and what factors came into play during this shift. Before, during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the South had a majority of Democrats, and there was little fighting room for the Republicans. For the most part, Republicans made up the Northeast, Midwest, and West, but because the South takes up so much land and political power, all these territories were equal to it. During this period, the Democrats were mostly racist white men who opposed to the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act and did as much as they could to keep their power while forcing blacks out of the political spectrum. This turn in politics happened for several reasons. For one, the South was leaving its agrarian society to become more business and large company oriented. People of the South also kept their strong Christian roots, and over time, some of the Democratic policies went against their beliefs, such as their pro-choice stance and their promotion of the Equal Rights Amendment. The initial change happened when Senator Barry Goldwater, a senator who opposed the Civil Rights Act, became the Republican presidential nominee. He attracted many racist Southern whites, and because of this, many began voting Republican. Also, because the South is so integrated in family values, religious life and prayer, and against civil rights, Reagan attracted a lot of its population, too. He knew how to pull them in for their votes, and he easily won over the South for his presidential elections. Over time, the gap between Republicans and Democrats started closing, and now in modern times, they’re about equal.

                This article is a perfect showing of how politics is fluid, dynamic and ever changing. It shows how political views can change over time, and they’re not restricted regionally or state-wide. Yes, this does discuss the rise in the South, a specific region, but it also mentions that both political parties currently equally exist among this area, and there’s not necessarily a divide. It mostly explains how there was a rise in Republicanism. This parallels with the article Red Over Blue with the broad idea that states can be identified regionally with their political affiliation, but in some cases, they can drastically change over time. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

     The article Red Over Blue by James Ceaser and Andrew Busch talks about how political parties are regional. In 2000, a picture was published in the New York Times where all the states that were Democratic were blue while all the states that were Republican were red. This was to show that political parties were found regionally throughout the United States and to give a visual as to which states were more Democratic or Republican. However, some of these states may only reflect that party by a fraction of a percentage, and doesn’t represent the other party fairly. Because of this, some states became a fuchsia or a purple, which would show the mixture of the two parties in these states. He explains this idea through both the 2000 and 2004 elections, emphasizing where the population was polarized in some topics or areas, and less polarized in others. He explains that this polarization is fluid and fickle; some states vote more Republican in one year for presidential elections, and these same states vote more Democratic in other years. He explains that the 2004 election was a significant one, because Bush had to hold on to his presidency with a predominately Democratic Congress and such, but he held on to it, and was able to place more Republicans in important positions during his time. In this essay, the authors also explain that moral issues were supposed to be a major issue among the America people, but because the questions were asked and set up in a biased way, it made the polls give a false reflection of the worries of the American people. The authors also discuss the realignment theory, in that when I major even happens, or when every few years pass, a major shift in political thinking occurs. They counter this idea by bringing about the incident of September 11, in saying that this was a major and drastic event that occurred in our nation, and yet nothing changed whatsoever with political thinking.

     This argument is disagreeable for several reasons. It is not reasonable to polarize states and claim that they are all of one party. It gives the view that America is made up of only two parties, and it brings about a prejudice on the state. As the article shows, too, that some of these states can change. It’s not practical to label one state as a blue state, and then a year later, label that same state as red. It doesn’t allow for the flexibility in some people’s minds that politics can be fluid, and it leaves a stigma for years. Also, in September 11, there was a major shift in thinking. After the attack, many individuals developed a strong feeling of nationalism that hadn’t exists in many years. A lot of things changed, such as a stronger national security. Caesar and Busch are undermining the incident. Also, there was a major shift during the depression in the 1930s, where a drastic change in the wealth of the people altered the peoples’ minds to believe in welfare systems and social security. So yes, the realignment theory can be supported, but one has to delve deep to find examples for it. 

 

 

I am a Democratic liberal for several reasons. For one, I believe that each individual should have equal opportunity to get ahead in life, no matter their social status, and the government should help individuals in the lower classes because they need all the assistance they can get. I believe in taxing the rich more because if they have the money, it is their responsibility to help individuals that need it. It's not fair for an impoverished African American child living in Kensington to make very little of his life because he does't have the same choices and opportunities as a wealthy white kid living in Bensalem or some other suburb. Democrats are hard workers and aren't for allowing people to take the easy way out of life, but they understand how difficult life can be and are supportive of programs and assistance to help these individuals get out of the run-down cycle of poverty or mediocre middle-class and make something of their lives. Obviously they don't want to steal from the citizens to favor the poor, and it's not the Democrats' fault when people take advantage of the system. I am also in favor of labor unions and a minimum wage, for without this, big business Republicans would be taking all the jobs away from Americans or giving them only pennies for an hour. Or, as they have already done, would be shipping all their jobs to China or some other Eastern country. I am pro-choice because abortion is not a black and white issue, and has many many shades of gray, and in some cases, it is a necessary. Also, because of this, I am in favor of embryonic stem cell research; yes, there are other types of stem cells, but embryonic are the best to use because they are the easier to manipulate and change. There is so much to be found with stem cells, and there are so many disease we could treat; think of the brain disorders medicine could treat, such as Parkinson's and other diseases. I believe in same-sex marriage because there is absolutely no reason why homosexuals should have the same marital rights as their straight peers. They don't get the same visiting rights in hospitals, or the same tax benefits, and the list goes on. Yes, they can have partnerships, or civil unions, but the name is not judged the same in society; if they're marriages legally and socially, then call them that. However, I am not in favor of universal healthcare; our nation has the best medicine and technology because there is so much money going into hospitals. If there wasn't, and the government we're paying funds for healthcare that aren't even close to what individual clients pay now, we wouldn't be on top anymore, and research and technological innovations would take much longer, if at all. If the government were to give just as much money to hospitals as individuals and insurance companies, then I would agree with that, too because everyone should have the right to improve and fix medical problems. I have thought long and hard for the past few years, deciding which party I belong to, and finally decided that these are the main factors as to why I am a Democrat. 

 

28 November 2011 

 

     In Where have all the Voters Gone, Martin Wattenberg discusses how television has affected the young voting population. He claims that past generations were forced to watch political television, and because there was nothing else on, they resorted to watching debates and speeches. With the popularity of cable television, however, everything has changed, and people can now watch something other than a presidential speech, avoiding politics as much as they wish. Before the nineties, there was no channel that allowed one to watch sports, documentaries on history, or cartoons all day; there were only about five stations that broadcasted very similar shows. With this variety in contemporary society, children aren't growing up with politics in their everyday life as their parents and grandparents did, which is the reason for their lack of interest. Most young people also make the claim that politicians aren't reaching out to them as they do to their parents' generation, but politicians are countering this opinion by saying that because the new generation isn't voting or isn't interested in politics as the other ones, they aren't going to waste their money attempting to attract them. The new generation also claims that they aren't as interested in politics as they should be because the government hasn't done anything for them since the Vietnam war; again, politicians are stating that because the younger generation isn't interested in politics and isn't involved, they are going to push their agenda to the back to place more pressing issues of the older generation before them. The younger generation needs to give the government it's time, energy, and interest to expect anything from them.  

     Most of this argument is completely invalid. Young people throughout the years have had a steady lack of interest in politics and voting, and there's no need to blame cable television for that. Though it may be a catalyst for the great decrease, it is not the prime reason. Young people are too caught up in school, social lives, and just finding themselves that for the most part they just don't put politics at the top of their priorities. Most young people are carefree and indulge in this frivolousness by only caring about themselves and what's centered around them. It has more to do with the fact that most just don't find it interesting, and there's so much going on in their late teens, early twenties to really spend time keeping up with politics. Society over the past few years has also trained most young people to believe that they are nothing special, and there are millions of people in America, and this one person's single vote isn't going to matter at all; there are other people that will go out and do their job for them, so they don't vote. As the statistics can tell, once these individuals start getting stable jobs and lives, and aren't running around anymore as in their previous years, that they start to become interested in these politics. Now these individuals need to pay taxes, are off their parents' insurance plan, and need to figure out their own economic situation. This is where the government starts to come into play with welfare, universal healthcare, the list goes on, and because of that, people turn their attention to what they really need, and that is why the interest of politics increases in people as they get older. 

 

16 November 2011

 

     In Walter Lippman's The Phantom Public, the relationship between the public and political matters is discussed. He noticed that the public is at a distance from worldly matters, and there are only a few individuals who are actually aware as to what is currently happening. He also states that, even though he claims to be well informed and keeps up with such matters on a daily basis, he still doesn't exactly know every detail of what is going on. He uses the example of a play to explain the public's interest in national affairs in that they only show up in the third act, so the they already have very little information as to what is happening, and then they leave as soon as they figure out who the hero and villain are. Also, in some abstract ways, it is difficult to identify a single public opinion, because there are so many versions of what should be done that it's difficult to find a general standpoint. Most of the public opinions arise when a disaster occurs, or when something important is happening, but during all other times, they remain in the background with a small to almost unheard voice. 

     The ideas of Lippman are true in their entirety. One can notice that most of public opinion arises when some disaster occurs, or when the government does something the public dislikes. Looking back at September 11, before the crash happened only a small percentage of the public truly knew and understood what was happening in the nation, but once the Twin Towers fell, most people began getting involved and started making their opinions heard. Now, after almost eleven years later, many of these people have become dormant again.. They reverted back to their old states of confinement from the rest of politics because either it's too difficult to keep up or it's not interesting to them. Some find this a problem, because these people are voting on presidencies and senators, and if they don't know what or who they're voting for, how can they put credible candidates in office that will keep the United States strong and powerful? 

 

     In V.O. Key's Public Opinion and American Democracy, he discusses the relationship between the common American man and the political elite. He states that it is not the man that should fear the elite, but vice versa. The American people are full of opinions, and to keep them content, the elite consider their opinions and change the government as they see fit. The public also keeps the elite from changing everything to benefit them, and it's almost in a much broader sense, a form of checks and balances within society. Lastly, the amount of activism within a community for some topic will also influence the government to change it's policies to react to the public opinion. This view was quite the opposite of that of Lippman's, who claims that the average person has absolutely no power over political patters in the US. 

     The view of Lippman is more agreeable than that of Key. Though, the public opinion is heard in some parts in politics, for the most part, it doesn't affect much. Though there are many polls out there that measure the opinions of the average American, the people who are being polled are a very small percentage of the nation, which is an unfair representation of "what the people really want". One can see that through election outcomes over the years not many people are being involved in politics, and there's no way that only a very small amount of Americans could greatly affect the policy making and such that Key defended for. Most American's are willingly not involved, and Lippman's claim that either American's don't have the time or are uninterested in such matters is more understandable and more represented with the data given. However, I think the input of activism in this essay was the only accurate part, for activists do much more and become more involved that the average America, and they represent an entire population as a whole to restrict the actions of the elite. Overall, though, Key's essay doesn't have many facts to back up his claims, and he does have some good points, but most were feeble and weak. 

 

Powers 

1. Passing a law (legislative), Vetoing (executive)

2. Passing a law (legislative), claiming it is unconstitutional (judicial) 

3. Veto (executive), two-thirds vote against veto (legislative)

4. Appoint judges (executive), impeach judges (legislative) 

5. Control army (executive), declare war (legislative) 

6. Spends money (executive), sets up budget (legislative) 

7. Writes laws (legislative), interprets them (judicial) 

8. Appoints judges (executive), controls judges (judicial) 

9. Chief Justice (judicial) presides over Senate (legislative) in presidential impeachment trial 

10. Vice President (executive) serves as President of Senate (legislative) though can only vote to break a tie. 

 

25 October 2011 

 

     In the essay, An Economic Interpretation by Charles Beard, the issue of the Founders true intentions are questioned. He claims that the authors of the Constitution had only their economic interests in mind, and they purposely wanted to leave out the lower class citizens to receive a better gain. He lists, describes, and gives many examples supporting this theory, including facts such as how a majority of the Founders were lawyers and had much personalty to their name. 

     Such a stance on the topic of the Constitution is completely wrong; the Founders did not write the Constitution by keeping their selfish intentions in mind. They wrote this to protect all citizens, and gave each individual the same equal rights. They did not base any part of their document on economic matters, and did not require one to have a certain salary to vote or participate in the government. The only way how one could see that Beard would be somewhat mislead was the Founder's ideas to set up a system where people couldn't directly vote for representatives such as the president because they didn't trust the lower class to be educated enough to understand the complexity of politics now. Even so, most people could agree to this belief, for the most part, they are correct. Though some did disagree to place in a Bill of Rights for more protection of individuals' rights, but in the end the Founders did comply, so there is very little proof beyond just written financial records for Beard's standpoint. 

 

17 October 2011 

 

     In The Democratic Character of Judicial Review, Eugene Rostow explains that without judicial review, there would be no branch of government to correctly interpret the Constitution, deciding what laws or other orders are constitutional and which are not. Politicians would be able to alter its meaning to their favor, and it would lead an entire nation in discord. Though some claim it is undemocratic in that there should be no check on what is constitutional and what is not, claiming that the president and Congress could do this on their own. However, doing this limits the ability of checks and balances, and there would be no branch limiting the power of the other two branches. The government should be restricted in what it does, because if not the nation would become a tyranny and would not allow the the people the freedom they deserve. 

     What Rostow says in his article is true: judicial review is a vital part of our government that should not be taken away. Without it, the government would be a complete tyranny, and politicians could take advantage of the Constitution because they would be the ones interpreting it. The Founding Fathers set up the three branch system on purpose so as to not allow America to become another monarchy: the political system they wanted to avoid most. Though this may be true, the Supreme Court could also interpret the document to their biases and favors, so only allowing them to review it could become problematic, too. So far, no one has thought of a better system yet, and not many problems have risen, so America might as well keep the branches and responsibilities as they are until a new way to govern the nations comes about. 

 

     In The Tyranny of the Majority, Guinier explains how when voting for certain matters, though the majority may have the right to "win" and have more power behind their vote, this doesn't mean that the minority's opinion should be excluded entirely. She believes in fairness, and although more people agree on a specific matter, that doesn't mean that the minority's ideas should be treated as obsolete and meaningless. There should be an alteration between the two decisions; the majority's decision should either be first or more frequent, and the minority should be less frequent. She illustrates us an example of the prom in Brother Rice High School in Chicago, where the white majority was the one choosing the song choices to be played during the dance because of their overriding black minority's song choices. Instead, the minority set up their own prom, allowing them to play the music they enjoy. She uses this example to show that, though the majority did get their choices picked, the minority also had a chance to take things in their own hands and get their choice, too. She relates this to politics in saying that everyone should have a chance to have their voice heard in politics, and in voting, it shouldn't be a decision between winner and loser, and only living by the rules of one party, race, or sex, but there should be a compromise between all so there is no elite and no official majority. 

     What Guinier stated in this excerpt is correct. Everyone should have a voice in politics, and not just the majority. Take, for example, the gay rights and same sex marriage issue. Obviously, the majority of America disagrees with the idea completely, and they persistently vote against it. However, why do they have the right to decide how other people live their lives? Why do they have the choice to limit the rights of a growing minority? Even when the polling numbers are close, the decision for same sex marriage is continually shut down. This isn't fair or equal at all. Though, maybe not the entire nation or state should allow the legalization of same-sex marriage, at least allow certain cities or counties to allow it. This would be a compromise by the citizens, because even though there are many that disagree with it, it wouldn't limit those homosexuals who do want the same legal rights and status as their straight neighbors. With this idea that the majority shouldn't exclude the minority, obviously democracy isn't the best form of government, however; it is the best way to discover what most of the people really want, and maybe give them a slightly louder voice, but not completely quieting the minority's voice either. 

 

11 October 2011

 

 http://www.google.com/imgres?q=civil+rights+act+1964&um=1&hl=en&safe=active&biw=1024&bih=403&tbm=isch&tbnid=O8CYrd8ilZno1M:&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lyndon_Johnson_signing_Civil_Rights_Act,_2_July,_1964.jpg&docid=RZeAa70UQec4DM&w=7000&h=4687&ei=ZWSUTuE6wfTSAZTCwIoI&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=577&page=1&tbnh=94&tbnw=146&start=0&ndsp=14&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0&tx=80&ty=48

10 October 2011 

 

     In Michael Kammen's A Machine That Would Go Itself, the idea of the Constitution being both a machine and an organic being is discussed. Some believe that the document is a machine, working on it's on without external help, and it's quite inflexible in it's content. The information in it are solid statements that shouldn't be experimented on, and to do so may have terrible consequences. Others think it is constantly changing in meaning and to adapt to modern times, and it's meaning is no where near the same as it was when it was being constructed. Society and it's government must develop, and the policies of the government must change for the well-being of how the people think during current times. It has served purposeful in its flexibility in situations such as the buying of the Louisiana Purchase, and if not for its ability to be interpreted in various ways, these great historical events that proved to be a wonderful benefit for out nation would have never happened. The author also compares the ignorance of the American population of what the Constitution's content is to that of a Star Trek episode, where the creatures on the planet follow a document their entire lives, however; they blindly assume what the content is without actually analyzing it. This is comparable to Americans, who vaguely understand what the document means, but never really got around to reading and questioning it, wondering what importance it has on them and their rights. 

     It is agreeable that the Constitution is comparable to a flexible living organism. If the document were to stay concrete and stoic, then this nation would have never lasted as long as it did. The ideas of the people not only changed from the eighteenth century to present day, and are continuing to change every few years. Interpretations change, and the popular opinion decides which side it may take for the next few years. Even so, during major crises, it is vital for the president, and other leading groups to take the constitution to warp it to their needs for a quick response to the issue. For the most part, the American people have no understanding of which parts of government have certain controls, and because of their blindness to politics, sometime politicians can change the meaning for their benefit. It is only until an intelligent bystander who understands such matters speaks up, then the population begins to get interested on these matters. Most Americans understand that the Constitution is just an outline for how our government is run, and some are content with only knowing that much, but they should get more involved in political matters, for this is their government, and it should conform to allow them liberty. If the people aren't aware of it's workings, then there is little point to a democratic republic at all. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6 October 2011 

 

 

     Tocqueville is saying is that most European nations have a government and ways of society by which they are unable to trace their roots back to the beginning and the reason why these things are or how they occurred. Because of this, they are unable to identify how their government either succeeded or failed. However, America is the only nation that is able to trace its roots on every matter, including character, government, etc. and because of this; the people in the nation are able to visualize the future of the country and identify how or what influences this. This nation, too, welcomes people from all over the world, and each individual is equal in the eyes of the government and society. The handling of money and land is so erratic; too, that it’s what moves this country, by not allowing one individual to hand down great estates to his children so there is an aristocracy, but it allows everyone a chance to gain a fortune in America.

     For the most part, what Tocqueville is saying is agreeable. During this period in history, America was the most democratic nation in the world, and it allowed equality for all. Though, some may find this statement as false, claiming women and slaves were oppressed from this freedom, but if one were to think about what the mindset of the people was back then, the idea that every property owner was equal was radical and astonishing compared to most parts of the world.  Looking at a present day view, though, this idea is absolutely false; though many organizations have received some kind of equality, America still has a long way to go before each person is equal in the eyes of the government. Also, his ideas on money and property are truthful, in that each person has the chance to gain a fortune in American, and there are no limits to what he is able to accomplish. 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      In Hofstadter's essay, the main idea portrayed is that the authors of the Constitution did not write the document based on liberty and rights to all citizens, but actually the

contrary: they wanted to give as little rights to the common man as possible. They base the document on Hobbes' view of man that each individual is vicious at the core and will do anything to get on top. This was the reason for a representative democracy, which was more rational because it was a median between laws being passed and the people voting on them, it could control the people if an issue such as an uprising occurred, and there would be limits of power because of checks and balances. The Fathers, however, did not associate democracy with liberty, but associated liberty with property. Because of this, they placed a higher value of the vote a person had based on how much land they owned. Some scholars think that the Fathers don’t deserve the praise they receive because they find them selfish aristocrats, while others think them just reactionists of the Revolution.   

                The views within this essay are agreeable. The Founding Fathers did try to eliminate the common man as much as possible from governmental rule not only by making this nation’s democracy a representative one by utilizing positions such as governors, senators, presidents, etc. This is understandable because for every person in a nation to vote on one standpoint could take an unnecessary amount of time. Also, this was the best form of government because allowing an ignorant common man the ability to vote would be irrational. If men weren’t completely aware of what was happening in the world, they may vote for a law that may cripple the nation or a politician who cannot lead well. However, the Fathers were more humble than the essay portrays them. They wanted to structure a government that was free of corruption of a king and it would allow the people to choose who governed, even though they only wanted them to play a minimum role in it. They were reactionists, for they wanted to avoid having a government similar to Great Britain as much as possible. They did try to fight vice with vice, and they did want to control this vice as much as they could, because they were correct in not attempting to ignore the nature of man. They were realists, not selfish aristocrats, who wanted what was best for the infant nation. The entire world was watching their every move, and to avoid embarrassment, they did what they thought would be best to design a government that would not only be strong, but be supported by the people. 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

Comments (1)

jphares@... said

at 10:27 pm on Sep 22, 2011

In Hofstadter's essay, the main idea portrayed is that the authors of the Constitution did not write the document based on liberty and rights to all citizens, but actually the contrary: they wanted to give as little rights to the common man as possible. They base the document on Hobbes' view of man that each individual is vicious at the core and will do anything to get on top. This was the reason for a representative democracy, which was more rational because it was a median between laws being passed and the people voting on them, it could control the people if an issue such as an uprising occurred, and there would be limits of power because of checks and balances. The Fathers, however, did not associate democracy with liberty, but associated liberty with property. Because of this, they placed a higher value of the vote a person had based on how much land they owned. Some scholars think that the Fathers don’t deserve the praise they receive because they find them selfish aristocrats, while others think them just reactionists of the Revolution.
The views within this essay are agreeable. The Founding Fathers did try to eliminate the common man as much as possible from governmental rule by making this nation’s democracy a representative one.This is understandable because for every person in a nation to vote on one standpoint could take an unnecessary amount of time. Also, this was the best form of government because allowing an ignorant common man the ability to vote would be irrational. If men weren’t completely aware of what was happening in the world, they may vote for a law that may cripple the nation. However, the Fathers were more humble than the essay portrays them. They wanted to structure a government that was free of corruption of a king and it would allow the people to choose who governed, even if they only wanted them to play a minimum role. They were realists, not selfish aristocrats, who wanted what was best for the infant nation.

You don't have permission to comment on this page.