Politico Test Prep 9 - May 12th, 2012

 

1) It takes the agreement of four judges to issue a writ of certiorari - an agreement to hear a case. The court will then hear testimony and rule on the constitutionality of a law.

2) Interest groups can have an impact by submitting amicus curiae - friend of the court - briefs. This allows them to express their opinion on cases that feature issues relevant to them.

3) I think out Supreme Court is above politics in the sense that many of the judges are able to set their party affiliations aside and judge laws fairly against the Constitution. That is the way it should be. However, politics does play a huge role in the Supreme Court, particularly the selection process for appointments. All appointments have to be confirmed by the Senate, and appointments can be denied as part of a political move against a president. In that sense, the judicial branch is not totally above the game of politics.

4) The Supreme Court is an important part of American government, perhaps the most important, ensuring that laws are upheld to the Constitution. If I were a justice, I would rule in favor of the Affordable Health Care Act. The Constitution exists to ensure that Americans are given their most basic rights - and the right to a healthy life is, in my opinion, a basic deserved right. Health care should not be reserved for those with the means to pay the excruciatingly high bills. Nobody should be denied because of their socioeconomic status. In terms of the Constitution, I think the bill is protected under the Commerce clause. Secondly, if this is being viewed as a tax (and I don't know that I necessarily agree with this view), it cannot be called into question until the tax has actually been collected - in this case, not until 2015. Having said that, it is not as if Congress would be forcing people to buy something that they do not need. That would be in violation. Say for example the government wanted to improve health by adding more fiber to people's diets, so they enforced everyone to purchase a certain amount of daily fiber. Since there are some people who do not need more fiber in their diet, this would be an unnecessary forced purchase, and would therefore be in violation. Health insurance is something everyone needs. It's much like auto insurance, which is technically a legal requirement, and nobody complains about that. And like auto insurance, if you are self-sufficient enough to not need health insurance, there are ways of not having to purchase it.

 

Politico Test Prep 8 - May 11th, 2012

 

1) The President's most important role is that of commander-in-chief. We saw the importance of this role just over a year ago as President Obama gave the go-ahead on the raid mission that ultimately led to the death of Osama Bin Laden. Under this role, many important decisions come down to rest on one person's shoulders - the president.

2) Chief-of-state seems like the least important role. While this has importance in foreign matters with meeting with foreign leaders, there are also many others who hold such meetings. On the domestic end, hosting championship sports teams certainly is not an important role.

3) Modern presidents are on a continuous campaign because their actions are always under heavy scrutiny by the media and the American public. To win a second term, presidents have to master many of the roles bestowed on them as president in order to be viewed worthy of an additional four years.

4) The president is a person of many distinct but equally important roles. There are so many facets to the job. The framers are probably turning in their graves as they see the modern presidency, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. In certain issues and in times of need, there needs to be one person with the final say to make important decisions. There has to be a figurehead for our government. Yes the scope of presidential power has broadened far beyond what the framers intended, but their principle wish - that no one person or group become too powerful - is being upheld.

 

Politico Test Prep 6 - May 9th, 2012

 

1) I would guess that governmental farm subsidies were first used to as to keep the agriculture industry strong by making sure farmers had the money to operate under tough economic conditions. This would ensure that farming - a very necessary industry - would not be lost to an economic downturn.

2) Some American industries that are also subsidized by the government include energy and oil, housing, finance, aerospace/defense, and food/beverages/tobacco.

3) Interest groups fight for their cause/interest to insure that it does not become negative affected by policy making. This is done by lobbying and getting information out to the public.

4) Public policy is a tough area given that in many cases, there are winners and losers. Certain policies affect one group positively at the expense of affecting another group negatively. For this reason, it is much harder to pass policy changes or new policy, because there are many interests that have a say in the matter.

 

Politico Test Prep 5 - May 8th, 2012

 

1) In the 112th Congress, the Democrats control the Senate and the Republicans control the House of Representatives. This has produced a great deal of gridlock, with many struggles between the two houses to get legislation agreed upon and passed.

2) The House is meant to reflect the wishes of the people, with a less deliberate process to create new legislation quickly. The Senate is to be a more deliberate process.

3) Only the Senate can ratify treaties or approve presidential appointments. It is also the only body who can try a president who has been impeached.

4) The trend of divided government has created a great deal of Congressional legislative gridlock in recent years. While this impacts the passage of legislation and efficiency of government, it also has a profound effect on Congressional elections. Now candidates can play to one of two messages - either noting their record of working to put down unpopular proposals, or stressing their hard work that would only fail because of partisan opposition. For Congressional freshman running for reelection, it is important to run a positive campaign that plays to what their voting base want in a representative.

 

Politico Test Prep 4 - May 8th, 2012

 

1) Building a successful campaign is dependent on a strong support base. Campaigns have to be strong for the 2+ years of work that goes into them. Messages have to be portrayed with consistency. They must stay on their message, and be careful to distance the campaign from media personalities who may try to associate a negative message with the campaign.

2) Radio and TV was a big factor in the shift from party-centered campaigning to candidate-centered campaigning. Now, candidates are able to portray their own individual messages and ideas. Parties also became more democratized, allowing for votes from regular party members, which lessened the need for party heads and elites.

3) Allowing party supporters to chose candidates has positives because it is more representative of the voting population. Many are not strictly party loyalists, but rather find a candidate to stand behind with a tendency to align with their party. Party supporters chosing candidates makes them more likely to get out and vote for their party/candidate. It can be negative, however, if the candidate does not fully align with the party platform or certain heads of the party. It also becomes tough if there is not a single candidate that a majority can stand behind.

4) Campaigning is important, and in the digital age, it is much more crucial than ever before. Information travels quickly, which allows for wrong information to spread as quickly as correct information does. For example, comments from campaign or party supporters can quickly become associated with a certain candidate, even if that candidate does not agree with that stance. For this reason, it is important that candidates make their messages clear, and are sure to distance themselves from statements that do not align with their beliefs or campaign.

 

Politico Test Prep 3 - May 3rd, 2012

 

1) The number of swing voters this year is "as small as ever" because American politics is as partisan as ever. The country is divided in that there are many groups that identify most clearly with a specific candidate. While the higher-income crowd would obviosuly favor Romney, many women, lower-class people, and students would shy far away from him. Also, the strengths and weaknesses of Obama and Romney as people actually makes it easier for a person to pick on candidate to align with, as these similarities make it easier to judge either candidate mainly on politics.

2) Demographics such as socioeconomic status, gender, and others influence voter behavior and public opinion based on each candidate's policies towards these issues. For example, those with a higher income will tend to support Romney while the lower class and the college students will favor Obama. Women are tending to favor Obama because of some of Romney's policies towards issues like abortion. The LGBT community, as another example, finds Obama more friendly to their cause. Demographics influence voter behavior and public opinion depending on how the policies of the candidates align with the beliefs of the voting individual.

3) A suburban woman would probably be in the upper socioeconomic classes. With that in mind, Romeny might tailor his message towards them in regards to retaining tax cuts for wealthier Americans. However, as they are women, certain issues are more relevant to their politics than that of men. There has been a lot of talk in the media about a "war on women." While Romney would deny that his proposed policies create such a situation, Obama is more aligned to women's rights.

4) With these two candidates in particular, the swing voters, though considerably smaller a population than usual, are very important. Elections are won on swing voters and the battleground states. I believe that because of their openness to different groups of people and their support of lower classes in a time when there is too much wealth disparity in the country, the Democrats hold an advantage because their policies can appeal to a wider range of people.

 

Politico Test Prep 2 - May 2nd, 2012

 

1) Interest groups are fundamental to a strong democracy because they fight for certain rights and issues that mean something to different groups of people, or that the government might not usually spend a lot of time looking at. They can be dangerous because of the influence they can have.

2) Some of the largest interest groups include the NRA, which promotes gun rights; PETA, which promotes animal rights; and Veterans of Foreign Wars, which promotes veterans' rights.

3) Interest groups need information. They need to find the sort of information that supports their causes, and get it out efficiently to the voting base. It is also important to have good spokespeople to promote their causes, even hiring former government officials who may still hold some sort of influence.

4) Although potentially dangerous in some ways, interets groups are an important part in democracy and the legislative process. Interest groups need to get information out effectively and influence members of Congress, even if it means hiring former members of Congress. This is a wise tactic, for many of these people have access to current members of Congress and a certain level of influence.

 

Politico Test Prep 1 - May 1st, 2012

 

1) Traditionally, the Democratic party was made up of mostly Southerners (Solid Democratic South) and Republicans were the Northerners. Over time, this has has become the opposite.

2) Gerrymandering could be used to place a moderate in a district that would feature voters who would mostly reject the moderate candidate.

3) A majority of PA's representatives are Republican, as Pennsylvania is a mostly Republican state (with the exception of Philadelphia, it's largest city, which is mostly Democrat).

4) The increased partisanship in Congress is an impediment to work being done and things being accomplished. Deadlock occurs, and politicians are unable to come to a compromise or decision. This is a negative, as it not only prevents from accomplishments, but also creates a negative/overly competitive atmosphere in Congress.

 

Meredith Madness

Partner: Emily Gumpper

 

Case: Marbury v. Madison

Facts of the Case: Case came as a result of William Marbury and others being appointed to government positions created by Congress in the final hours of the John Adams administration. These appointments were never finalized, thus prompting Marbury and the other appointees to sue for their jobs in the Supreme Court.

Constitutional Question: Are Marbury and the other appointees entitled to their appointments? Is a lawsuit the proper way of going about answering that question? Is the Supreme Court the proper place for Marbury to get his demands.

Decision/Impact: Yes to all three questions. Marbury was found to be entitled to his appointment, with lawsuit having been a proper way to securing that entitlement. The Supreme Court was solidified as being deemed the proper place for Marbury to get his demands. Under the Judicial Act of 1789, the Supreme Court had complete jurisdiction over the courts and the right to review any act of Congress in reference to the Constitution. This established the power of judicial review.

 

Case: Adkins v. Children's Hospital

Facts of the Case: Congress passed a law in 1918 that guaranteed a minimum working wage to women and children employed in Washington, D.C. 

Constitutional Question: Does Congress have the right to regulate health, safety, or wages to protect the rights of individuals, even if this should prevent them from conducting their affairs without legislative interference? 

Decision/Impact: Fearing that upholding of this law would mean giving Congress or the states too much police power, the Supreme Court ultimately found the law to be unconstitutional. It was believed that Congress had enacted a very vague law that only set the minimum wage without regards to methods of payment, hours of work, and other working conditions. The Court also feared that if Congress could set minimum wage laws, then it could also attempt to enact maximum wage laws.

 

WINNER: Marbury v. Madison because it established one of the most important powers of the Supreme Court, judicial review.

 

Case: Reno v. ACLU

Facts of the Case: The constitutionality of two parts of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The legislation criminalized sending of "obscene or indecent" messages or of information which describes sexual/excretory organ functions in a way that was considered indecent by community standards. 

Constitutional Question: Did these provisions violate the 1st and 5th Amendments by being to broad/vague in their definitions of internet activity that should be criminalized?

Decision/Impact: Because the Act failed to accurately describe the material it wanted to criminalize, with no specific timing or target individuals mentioned, the legislation was in violation of the 1st Amendment. The Court did not explicitly address any issues regarding the 5th Amendment. This would be the Supreme Court ruling in regards to the internet and materials/messages therein.

 

Case: Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition

Facts of the Case: The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) prohibited "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," and any sexually explicit image that is "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" that depicted "a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." An adult entertainment trading association known as the Free Speech Coalition challenged this law, saying that its provisions were too broad and thus inhibited speech that would otherwise be protected under the 1st Amendment.

Constitutional Question: Is the CPPA in violation of 1st Amendment rights by inhibiting freedom of speech and being too broad so as to limit language that is neither obscene or able to be considered child pornography?

Decision/Impact: Yes, the Supreme Court found that these provisions in the CPPA were too broad, and thus were unconstitutional by inhibiting freedom of speech as granted in the 1st Amendment. The CPPA was found to be inefficient in that it did not define obscenity and would also prohibit speech that wouldn't be considered a crime and would not produce victims. It was in conflict with two previous decisions on the issue, Miller v. California and New York v. Ferber.

 

WINNER: Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition because it was more impacting, having the chance to rebuke two previous decisions or uphold them. It seems to be a more thorough look at the Constitutionality of anti-child pornography laws.

 

Case: New York Times v. Sullivan

Facts of the Case: A full-page ad was published in the New York Times which claimed that the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr. for perjury in Alabama was an attempt to halt his efforts of encouraging African Americans to vote. The commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama, feeling that this allegation towards his police force personally defamed him and harmed his image, sued the newspaper. Under Alabama law, the commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, did not have to prove that he was harmed and thus won the suit. The New York Times sued back.

Constitutional Question: Did Alabama's libel law not requiring that Sullivan prove the ad to have harmed him or be false infringe upon the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and press?

Decision/Impact: First Amendment protects all publications and statements, even if they are false or made to be malicious to public officials. This established the standard for malice that has to be met by a publication before being considered defamation and libel.

 

Case: Gratz v. Bollinger

Facts of the Case: Jennifer Gratz was an applicant to the University of Michigan, but was denied admission. The university had an admissions policy of affirmative action, which Gratz argued was in violation of either the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Constitutional Question: Did the University of Michigan's racial preferences in admission violate either the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Decision/Impact: The Court held that their policy violated both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

 

Case: Wallace v. Jaffree

Facts of the Case: Alabama law allowed for teachers to hold religious prayer services and related activities on a regular basis within the classroom.

Constitutional Question: Did this Alabama law violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause? 

Decision/Impact: Because the law did not have any secular purpose and merely wanted to establish religion in schools rather than retain absolute neutrality towards religion, the law was found to be unconstitutional for violation of the First Amendment.

 

Case: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey

Facts of the Case: Pennsylvania legislation on abortion was amended to include provisions that required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to having an abortion. A minor required the consent of one parent, and a married person had to inform the husband of her intentions. These provisions were opposed by abortion clinics and physicians.

Constitutional Question: Could a state place these provisions on abortion without violating the right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade?

Decision/Impact: The Court upheld the Roe v. Wade decision, though in this case it was a close vote. The Court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement, claiming them to place an undue burden on the person seeking an abortion.

 

 

 

 

Federal Workers Under Siege Politico.com Article - Response

 

     Bureaucrats have come under attack of the Republican party. Seeking to downsize government and decrease spending in order to control the nation's deficit, a great deal of legislation has been proposed in order to cut the federal payroll and trim down the federal workforce. Republicans in the Senate have proposed a ten-percent reduction in the federal workforce over the next three years, and Republicans in both the Senate and the House have worked to extend a salary-freeze for government workers. They believe the size and payment of this workforce to be too extensive, as the number of government employees has slowly but steadily grown. Democrats and federal workers unions, however, see the situation much differently, feeling that Republicans are unjustly attacking the nation's workforce. Many feel that Republicans are attempting to cut federal bureaucrats as part of their Tea Party-esque desire to weaken federal programs and downsize the federal government. Although legislation that is overly harmful to federal bureaucrats, such as an extension of the salary-freeze, is unlikely to have much effect with a Democratic president and Senate, it is reasonable to fear that those legislation could become part of a larger package that must be passed.

     Bureaucracy is a necessary part of the federal government. Sure, in some cases the federal workforce may be too extensive, but most of those jobs are largely needed. They should not be attacked because they are an easy target. In our failing economy, cutting necessary jobs seems to be the equivalent of punching oneself in the face. It won't do any good and we'd only be hurting ourselves. These members of the federal workforce cannot be that considerable of a burden on the economy, as they have been in a salary-freeze for over two years while our economy continues to decline and the deficit increases anyway. Republicans argue that if federal bureaucracy were a workforce, they'd cut so many jobs and people would be on the streets, and it would be better to pay more money to the core of our federal workforce. Maybe that's a good idea in theory, but particularly in today's economy, it is much more beneficial to keep as many jobs as possible. It's much more beneficial to give as many people as possible a meaningful and effective job that pays, rather than cut jobs and give more money to those who are lucky enough to not get cut. It's not a bad idea to cut some completely unnecessary jobs, but many bureaucratic jobs are necessary for the smooth flow of government. It's a laugh that people argue that federal workers are making an average salary of $74,311 a year, hardly enough to support most families comfortably. Considering the work that federal employees do, that is a relatively small price to pay. 

 

Lanahan 36 - Response

 

     Bradley Patterson discuses one of the least known, but perhaps most important positions in Washington. The chief of staff is charged with every aspect of the White House, from the most mundane concerns to some of the most important. This position is one that is difficult because the person must be everything to a president, a go-to person. However, it is important that the chief of staff maintain good relationships with the many people he works with, because it is his or her job to reject their numerous requests on behalf of the president. Patterson notes that there are seemingly two traditions concerning the chief of staff: Republicans, who following Eisenhower's model believed in a good chief of staff in the White House, and Democrats, who were not keen on the idea of a chief of staff following Nixon's presidency and scandal. The Democratic tradition, however, ended with Clinton's presidency, and since then the chief of staff has become an essential person in the modern-day White House. There are a number of principles that a good chief of staff must follow. He or she needs to be able to adapt to the pressure of public life in Washington. They must have support from not only the president, but also the president's spouse, the vice president, and the vice president's spouse. They should be someone who is close to not only the president, but to those who ran that president's campaign. They must have a high level of control over the activities of White House staff, and keep the policy centers of the White House together rather than working independently. Other than these larger concerns in the running of the White House, the chief of staff is also charged with the finer points of White House life, such as the president's schedule or what issues are presented to the president.

     In governing, the well recognized positions such as the president and vice president or speaker of the House are not always the most important people. Government is also composed of many less publicized figures whose work is essential to life in Washington. The chief of staff is the prime example of this. In a way, the chief of staff is the glue that holds the executive branch together. They have to make sure that White House staffs are working together and working efficiently. They are called to be close to the president and close to those around him, while maintaining a good relationship with all of the people he will have to play "bad cop" to for his or her boss. The chief of staff is also like a good friend, able to read the emotions of a president - whether anger, frustration, or exhaustion - and how they relate to a certain decision or discussion. Finally, the chief of staff is the manager of the president. The chief of staff has to decide which presentations or proposals are worthy of the presidents time while also setting his daily schedule - in a way, deciding what should or should not be a priority for the president on any given day. In the modern era where there is so much going on in government and in the world, the chief of staff is easily one of the most, if not the most, important position in the White House in terms of keeping things together. It just goes to show that there are many people who are important to the flow of government, and these people often work behind the scenes.

 

Lanahan 35 - Response

 

     Kenneth Mayer discusses the power of executive orders, a power less visible and less checked that gives the president a great influence beyond what is directly allowed them through the Constitution. Without any consultation from Congress, a president can issue an executive order capable of shaping policy. This shows that the presidential power has more too it than meets the eye, and goes beyond what power a president can have through persuasion. Executive orders can be used as a legislative measure, to declare national emergencies, or even as a way to combat a Congress that does not work with the president. Though many believe that executive orders can lead to a dictatorial/totalitarian rule, Congress does retain the power to determine the legality of the order, looking into particular executive orders to check the limits of the president's independent power. Mayer cites many examples of the use of the executive order. For example, the Louisiana Purchase occurred through an executive order, though the term wasn't really in use at the time. During his impeachment, Bill Clinton used executive orders to prove that he was still capable of executing his office effectively. From 1936 until 1999, most executive orders were used for executive branch administration (creation of boards/commissions, for example) and civil service (service appointments, retirement exemptions, matters with federal personal, for example). It has also been used in matters of public land, defense and military policy, foreign affairs, war and emergency powers, labor policy, and domestic policy. The phrase "stroke of a pen" has come to refer to this power of the president to make policy by their order rather than by the legislative process.

     The power of executive order is an important staple of American government. There are many checks and balances and other legislation that limit one person or one group from becoming too powerful, yet there is also a chance for the president to make a quick and necessary decision in times when such action is needed. The president should have the power to declare national emergencies when necessary and restrict travel, impose martial law, and seize transportation networks or communications facilities. In times of excessive gridlock, a quick decision might need to be made on a certain issue, and a president has to be able to be a strong leader and do what is best for the country when it needs it. This, however, in no way imposes dictatorship or totalitarian rule. Congress retains the ability to investigate whether an executive order is legal or not. This maintains that no one president becomes too powerful as the framers wished, yet still allows for swift action when it is needed.

 

Lanahan 33 - Response

 

     Thomas Cronin and Michael Genovese describe the many images that a President portrays and the accompanying contrary image - a paradox surrounding the presidency. Because of these conflicting images of how a president should act and execute his office, it is no surprise that presidents are so cruelly judged by the American public. The most obvious example of this is the expectation that the president should be an every-day American, but must also be a remarkable person. The paradoxes surrounding the presidency are ones of conflicting expectations, wanting certain presidential behaviors at certain times, and the contradiction between democracy and leadership. The first paradox is that Americans want a powerful president who is effective, but such power causes suspicion on abuse of power. It is something to be both praised and feared. The second paradox is that Americans want a president who is both Superman and every man - a visionary hero yet also a common man. They need to be like the American people, but at the same time better than them. The third paradox is that the American people admire someone who is a down-to-earth person, yet also want a tactful, even borderline-ruthless president. As much as being humble and modest is admired, many of the presidents who have been seen most favorably in history have been vain, crafty people. The fourth paradox is that a president who is bipartisan and can usher in a second "era of good feelings" would be admired, but the presidency needs a crafty master politician who can play the game of politics. They are called to be both above politics and highly political. The fifth paradox is that Americans want a president who brings unity, but the president has to be able to make a stand and do what seems best for the nation, even though these unpopular/controversial decisions can break this unity. The sixth paradox is that Americans want a bold president that can think on their own, but also expect one that will submit to the public. The seventh paradox is that Americans admire a president who is a strong, confident leader yet despise anyone who comes off as being remotely arrogant. Presidents have to be gutsy and aggressive, but cannot be too dictatorial. The eighth paradox is that a good campaigner does not make for a good president. We want someone to run as a "Washington outsider," yet these outsiders remain as such and thus cannot get anything accomplished. The ninth and final paradox is that the presidency is too strong at some times while being too weak at others. The office is too strong given its power to begin nuclear war, and a general fear of tyranny. However, in times of debt and deficit, we find the president too weak.

     Many of these paradoxes are interesting and true insights on the complexities of the American presidency. Others are just either common sense or not really overly complex concepts or presidential aspects. The first paradox is rather deep. Americans like a powerful president, but when does power become too much? A good president should be able to see the fine line between power and too much power. They need to be bold and active leaders, yet also know their limitations. The second and sixth paradoxes are not what I'd call paradoxes per se, or perhaps at least not unreasonable paradoxes or overly complex facets of the presidency. It is not unreasonable to want a president who is a great leader but also a common man, for the two go hand in hand, especially in terms of the American presidency. For a person to be a great leader, there has to be a connection with the people he or she leads. We expect that from every leader, not just the president. Cronin and Genovese are not really making any groundbreaking points here, rather just stating the obvious. It's a part of human nature that is not unique to our expectations of the presidency, and it is far from an unreasonable expectation. The third and seventh paradoxes are all about understanding limitations. Confidence and cockiness are distinctly different. The president is expected to know the difference and the American people hold the president accountable for it. The fourth and eighth paradoxes also go hand in hand. The office of the president calls for someone who can be both highly political and yet nonpartisan. He or she can be an "outsider" to Washington in terms of being above partisan politics, but true outsiders, ones who cannot play the game of politics, are sure to fail. This is obvious. Root for the underdog or the newcomer all you want, but they have to be able to bring it. The sixth paradox reminds me of the desire for people in Congress who represent the people, but also can make the tough decisions on what is best for the people whether they understand the issue or not. This again is what makes a good leader. Besides, it's relatively rare that a president makes a decision that causes such a great disunity. Nobody can be pleased all of the time. The best a president or any leader can do is ensure that he or she does what is best for the nation as a whole, or at least positively affects the most people. The ninth and final paradox speaks to the fickleness of the American people. Again, not everyone will be pleased all of the time. When things get accomplished, people are apt to say that the president overextended his powers. When it is harder to get things accomplished and problems solved, the president is seen as weak. This is a difficult paradox to overcome, but doing so is also limited by the Constitution. The complexities associated with the American presidency mirror those of humanity in general. Cronin and Genovese aren't really saying anything groundbreaking here. They seem to give paradox a negative connotation, but it is not necessarily a bad thing. They do point out that understanding these paradoxes are needed to understand the president, but then again understanding some of these paradoxes is necessary to understanding people in general anyway. It's hard to judge the presidency just as it's hard to judge everyday people. Americans tend to over-analyze and overreact to government too soon, when in many cases it is only in hindsight that we see the results that speak to what makes a good president. Above all, the president is mere human. Yes he or she is placed in the position of Superman, but there is nothing overly deep and complex about the fact that he or she can be seen as every man as well.

 

Lanahan 74 - Response

 

     James Caeser and Andrew Busch write to explain the "red" and "blue" divide in American politics as a description that is not incredible accurate. Following the 2004 elections, a map was released outlining states that voted largely Republican ("red") and those that voted largely Democratic ("blue"). Although this would suggest that America is a divided society in political ideology, that is not necessarily the case. Caesar and Busch question the sources of this map, citing the fallibility of exit polls and the way they posed their questions. Because the polls split up foreign policy issues such as the Iraq War and Terrorism and also considered moral issues, and certain circumstances surrounding these issues favored George Bush, it gave the impression that America was greatly divided, but more in favor of Republicans. The piece also challenges the notion that America is split between a "red America" that is small-town and dominated by religion and a "blue America" that is more secular and urban. It is not that clear cut, and it is not as if these two stereotypes do not meet.

     The piece makes a solid analysis to make the case that America is not as divided as it may seem. Caeser and Bush point to issues such as the War on Terror, which Bush had began and had considerable early support on. Women began to side more with Bush, feeling that he was better suited to protect from terrorism, and therefore better suited to protect families. It is apparent then that political elections and trends are not necessarily an issue of one part versus the other or what party is more represented, but an issue of who the American public sees as the better candidate for office. While people may choose to align with a certain political party, an arguably large majority will put partisan issues aside to select the candidate that they feel is deserving of office. America is too complex to define as being "red" or "blue."

 

Lanahan 75 - Response

 

     Political science siblings Earl and Merle Black analyze a shift in Southern politics from being strictly Democratic to more open with Republican ideals. For the most part, Southerners sided with the Democratic party over issues of race and civil rights. With support for and the election of Republican Ronald Reagan as president in 1980, Southerners find more appealing qualities within the Republican party. This is a huge change from years such as in 1950, when there were no Republican senators from the South, and only 2 of the 105 Southern representatives were Republican. For many decades, the Democratic party was not simply the dominant party in Southern politics, but the only party considered. Now as the region is becoming more diverse and is growing, competitive two-party politics that dominates modern American political culture has expanded to include the South.

     The Black siblings provide a close look at the shift in political culture in the South. First, voting began to change. Southerners found themselves able to identify with, and subsequently vote for, more Republicans than they had in the past. A generation later, party identifications also began to change. Still, the South is not necessarily slanted towards Republicanism now. Because of growing, diverse population, the South has been able to embrace two-party politics so as to align with modern American politics. A rise in middle classes in the South has also made this change possible. For various reasons, the political culture in the South is more diverse than ever before. This is a great thing for America as a nation. No longer is one section of the country disproportionately slanted towards one party affiliation, and no sectional conflicts remain. The South has been transformed into an area of competition between Republicans and Democrats in order to gain favor, and it is this competition that is a key characteristic and necessity of American politics.

 

I am a...

 

     I am a pro-life Democrat. I am a firm believer in social freedoms and equality. As people, we all deserve equal opportunity for happiness and success, regardless of age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation/gender identity, or religion. Every person deserves affordable schooling. The LGBT community deserves the same rights and freedoms to marry as anyone else. Women should have access to birth control. I do differ from many of my Democratic peers in that I do not support abortion in any way. While many Democrats call for abortion to be safe, legal, and rare through denying laws that allow the government to make decisions on abortion, promoting knowlegde of sexuality and reproduction, and encouraging adoption, I believe that abortion should only be considered in extreme circumstances, such as in rape. I believe that if one is responsible and mature enough to reproduce, they are similarly enabled to raise a child. It is not our right to play God. The unborn deserve our protection because they are humans from the point of conception. I support embryonic stem cell research to an extent. While I do not believe it should be used unethically, I recognize that research of stem cells has the chance to save lives by curing diseases or otherwise reducing suffering. I believe that every person deserves affordable health care. There should be no caps on benefits, and insurers should not be able to drop coverages when the people they insure get sick.

     As for economic issues, I support a mixed economy with progressive taxation and no corporate welfare. A mixed economy allows the government to be involved so as to help prevent an economic downturn or recession and protect from problems with unemployment, while still giving freedoms to corporations and protecting the free market system. A progressive system of taxation means that the tax rate should increase as the taxable base increases. Basically, a situation such as in the proposed Warren Buffet Tax is ideal, in which tax rate should be relative to how much taxable money a company or individual has. This is NOT socialism or an attack on business and the rich as the Republicans would like you to believe. A progressive tax does not punish the rich or take away from them. A million dollars taken in taxes, for someone who say is a multi-millionaire, is NOT going to make or break them. They are not being punished for their success, but rather they are held to a higer standard of giving back to and helping to fund their government for the betterment of the nation. Every person or business has the right to equal opportunity to improve their situation. For this reason, big business should not be babied as much as Republicans would like. Companies do not deserve tax breaks or other treatments that show favoritism. They do not need this sort of treatment. While wealth does not need to be spread equally as, say, a socialist government would call for, there needs to be an equal opportunity to acquire wealth. This is why I would support President Obama's American Jobs Act. It is time to start opening up chances for everyone, and not reserving them for corporations and particularly not for large corporations. The poor and middle class should not have to suffer, although that is not to say they should be given a "free handout." The system of welfare, when used correctly, is beneficial to society. It is abused, but that is not to say it should be abolished. Rather, the system should be regulated more to ensure that people who truly need and deserve support are getting it.

     All people should be able to come to America for opportunity. That was the basis for our nation, and it should continue to be so today. Immigration then cannot be limited, but regulated properly. There needs to be a clear set path for immigrants to become legal citizens and secure the benefits and opportunities that are allowed them as Americans and as humans. Immigrants need to have the right documentations, or at least clear a background check, work hard, and pay the taxes that are asked of them. Employers should not be able to recruit undocumented or illegal immigrants to exploit them. Businesses should hire legal workers and thus give them equal pay and benefits, while limiting outsourcing jobs to other nations to avoid costs.

 

Alabama Literacy Test

 

26/68 or about 62%.... My answers (wrong answers are bolded):

 

1.      Trial By Jury

2.      False

3.      Fair trial and jury by peers

4.      –

5.      January 15^th

6.      Proposed change

7.      Lifetime

8.      Nine

9.      Yes

10.  I plead the 5^th

11.  35 years

12.  In God We Trust

13.  False

14.  Judicial review

15.  The president

16.  6 years

17.  2

18.  Executive

19.  Federal

20.  Population

21.  Cruel and unusual

22.  True

23.  State and federal

24.  Russia

25.  Federal

26.  True

27.  Militia

28.  Population and electoral college

29.  Electoral college

30.  Pennsylvania

31.  Legislative

32.  True

33.  Vice President

34.  True

35.  Another state

36.  No

37.  Trial by jury

38.  False

39.  Congress and the House

40.  Congress

41.  –

42.  Congress, state

43.  Constitution

44.  Judicial

45.  True

46.  Coin money and make treaties

47.  –

48.  ¾s

49.  9

50.  Murder

51.  False

52.  –

53.  The House of Representatives and the Senate

54.  The branch they are given to

55.  10

56.  Supreme court

57.  Chief Justice

58.  President

59.  Congress

60.  Electors

61.  Override a presidential veto

62.  Governor of his original state

63.  President

64.  President

65.  Different persons if they so chose

66.  Congress

67.  Congress

68.  States

 

 

Lanahan 72 Response

 

Why Americans Still Don’t Vote shows that while many attempts have been made at increasing voter participation, Americans are still not voting. Piven and Cloward outline a number of things that have been done as part as an electoral reform project called Human SERVE. The project attempted to reform voting registration in an attempt to encourage participation through ease. 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. While this reform tore down historic barriers to voter registration that had keptvoting down by minorities and the poor, voter registration increase did not necessarily increase participation. This is due to factors such as voters not having faith in the power of their vote and decline in party efforts to attract voters.

It’s sad to see that despite so many efforts in reforming voting registration, voter participation has not increased. It is sad to see that people are losing faith in the power of their vote. It is sad to see that political parties are not seeing the need to attract those who do not normally vote. As the piece points out, the right to vote and the exercising of that right is a core symbol of democratic politics. Many things have been done to make registering easier, but it is not enough. People will not come to vote if they do not believe in its power, no matter how easy it is to vote. While making registration easier is a good first step, it has to go farther. The voting public need to be assured that their vote matters, and that it makes a difference. This can happen through better work by the political parties. The piece points out that the parties see non-voters as “carbon copies” of voters, and that their vote does not make a difference. This is discouraging to democracy. Parties should do more to attract non-voters. While they consider them to be carbon copies of voters, and while this may be the case, it is not to say that those votes do not matter or will not make an impact.

 

Beard - Response

 

     In An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, Charles Beard argues that the Founding Fathers had an economic agenda while drafting the Constitution, and that the document is structured to meet their personal financial interests. Beard bases this assertion on what he calls survey of the economic interests, determining that the majority of the Constitutional Convention's members were lawyers and did not hold the interests of the farming or mechanic classes as being important. Because he cites many Convention members as having significant personal property in terms of land, money, manufacturing and shipping lines, or slaves, Beard makes the assumption that these members were disinterested. Beard sees the members as practical people who were able to merely create a stable foundation for government based on their fundamental economic interests.

     I find Beard's assertions to be overly assuming, and rather unfounded. I suppose it is somewhat reasonable to assume that because the large part of the Constitutional Convention's members were wealthy mean, they would be motivated by economic factors and their personal financial interests. However, such assumption would have to be backed up by reasonable facts. It is not enough to say that such was the case in the drafting of the Constitution solely based on the economic standing of the members of the Convention. There is no language in the Constitution that favors the wealthy, whether in terms of money, land, or slaves, over the poor. There is no evidence given that would suggest that the framers were only interested in their own financial interests. Rather, it is clear that the driving force behind the Constitution and its drafting was a concern for national cohesion and security and the economic interests of the entire country. These men did not draft a document that created a stable foundation because their practical nature as successful men allowed them to do so, but rather because they were intellectuals who could set personal agendas aside in favor of the greater good and best interests of the people who would be served by the government. 

 

Powers

 

1) The President (Executive Branch) has the power to veto any law, but the Legislative Branch can override these vetoes with a majority vote.

2) The Executive and Legislative Branches may pass legislation, but the Judicial Branch can review whether or not a piece of legislation is Constitutional or not through Judicial Review.

3) The Judicial Branch has the power of judicial review, but the Executive Branch appoints the judges.

4) The Executive Branch can appoint new judges, but seats cannot be taken away without good reason.

5) The Executive Branch appoints judges, but the compensation of the judges cannot be diminished.

6) The Executive Branch can appoint people to departmental positions, but the Legislative Branch reserves the right to approve or deny these appointments.

7) The Executive Branch can appoint ambassadors, but the Legislative Branch reserves the right to approve or deny these appointments.

8) The President (Executive Branch) is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, but the Legislative Branch must approve wars.

9) Either house of the Legislative Branch can propose legislation, but both houses must approve before it becomes law (because it is bicameral, the Legislative branch has its own system of checks and balances on itself).

10) The Legislative Branch can adjourn meetings, but neither house can adjourn for a period longer than 3 days without the approval of the other house.

 

Lanahan Reading 42 - Response

 

     Legal scholar Eugene Rostow presents a compelling argument in the defense of judicial review, the power of the Supreme Court to declare acts of Congress or federal and state laws as being unconstitutional. The view that judicial review is unconstitutional or undemocratic is to say that the Constitution should be held to mean whatever the President, or Congress, or state legislatures believe it should mean, allowing the Constitution to change with the changing needs of the country. Rostow refutes this, stating that the Constitution needs to remain fixed, ensuring the freedom of the people and a backbone to government. The Constitution must be interpreted as the Founding Fathers would have wanted it interpreted so as to protect certain facets of life as being untouchable by the government, except in the case where an amendment is needed.

     Rostow's defence of judicial review is completely accurate. For one thing, the Founding Fathers clearly believed judicial review to be in the best interest of the people from the very conception of the American government as we know it today. Secondly, they drafted the Constitution as a basis for the government as one that would protect the rights of the people. A Constitution with no authority governing how it is interpreted would not foster these rights, or any sort of order in American society. Yes, one can argue that it is undemocratic to have a set of people rule over how the literature of the foundation of our government is interpreted. However, these people exercise this power impartially as an extension of our system of checks and balances. In this sense, it does not allow one group to have complete control, but rather works to prevent such a thing from happening by limiting the powers every branch of government, whether at the state or federal level. Additionally, it is also not correct to say that a Constitution that is overseen by judicial review cannot grow with the needs of the people. This is where Amendments come in, which allow us to mend the Constitution when the people see fit, while also keeping it largely the same. The Constitution, then, is able to be used in a way that lets leaders govern most agreeably to the desires of the people and of the framers, while also being unable to touch aspects of life, such as speech or worship, that need not be affected by government.

 

Lanahan Reading 11 - Response

 

     Lani Guinier, a law professor, lost consideration for a role in the Justice Department over her unorthodox views on representative democracy in the United States. Affected by an experience at a young age in which she lost a girl scout hat making competition to a girl whose mother, a milliner, made the hat for her, she felt that many rules too negatively affect the losers of a situation. The outcome of the competition presented rules in which not everyone was encouraged to participate with an equal chance and do not offer any solace to the losers. She came to view politics in a similar light, as something that is "winner-take-all" and divides people rather than united them. Citing examples such as prom song choice that didn't reflect the desires of a school's African American population, Guinier writes that the system of voting was unfair to minorities, and simple racist. She backs up her ideas as being influenced by James Madison, who said that safeguards are necessary to protect other parts of society from a tyranny of the majority. In response to this, Guinier proposes a system in which people would have an equal number of votes, 10 for example, that they could distribute to whatever they most wanted to vote for.

     Sure this system would work for choosing songs to be played at a prom. Someone could place 10 votes on one song, another could split their votes among other songs. It would give some opportunity for the "minorities" of the school to have their desires reflected in the songs that would be played. But does this work for choosing representatives in political office? Absolutely not. In the political realm, it is not as if African Americans, or any other race, hold any less vote than their Anglo counterparts. If you meet the requirements for being able to vote in the United States, you hold an equal vote to that of any similarly-enabled citizens. I also find fallacy in the logic that politics is a system of winners and losers, and particularly in the idea that "losers" should stand to gain something. Cynically, you can look at our government as a system of winners and losers, but it doesn't have to be that negative. If you win an election, then you have been deemed by the majority as capable of holding office, and executing that office effectively. If you lose, then you have been deemed not ready, and isn't it better to lose an election than win and be ineffective? That would set our nation back. Secondly, I don't think our nation, particularly in the current era, is split up into categories or into majorities and minorities per se. Guinier, in the closing sentence, writes of the need to include blacks and whites, women and men, Republicans and Democrats, and people with "new ideas." As I previously mentioned, everyone has equal vote. It is not necessarily a system of winners and losers, for example in the fact that 9% of Republicans voted for Barrack Obama in the last presidential election. This shows that it is not so simple as Democrats beating Republicans. Even almost a tenth of Republicans saw Obama as the prime choice for President. Similarly, it is not so simple as blacks beating whites. Nearly half of white voters voted for Obama. The key here is that majority rule is, in a political situation, for the better. As evidenced, voting is not one group against the other, but rather the American people coming together to find leaders that most can agree on. Should a minority such as radicals stand something to gain, as Guinier's writings suggest they should? Absolutely not. I find Guinier's writings to be unfounded in the cries of racism, or tyranny of a majority. A majority in American politics is not one large group that has the same interest and outnumbers every other group; rather, a majority in American politics is a group of people from various races/cultures, backgrounds, or political affiliations who have come to a consensus on who will best represent us in government. That is not tyranny. As discussed in a past fish bowl, yes there are people who don't care and put silly write-ins on ballots, but those people never overcome the serious voters who are making an informed decision. In this sense, it is only fitting that the "majority" rules. Finally, I see a bit of irony in Guinier's use of James Madison to back up her ideas. The system she proposes, one in which even the losers stand to gain something, seems like total democracy in which every person has a say no matter what they propose. This is exactly the kind of system the Founding Fathers did not want.

 

New School of Government 10/11/2011

 

 

Source: Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20081124,00.html

 

Lanahan Reading 9 - Response and Reaction

 

     What has come to be known as The Federalist Papers is a collection of eighty-five essays published in various New York newspapers under the name of Publius, which consisted of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. This particular paper, Federalist 10, was written by James Madison. It discusses factions, a "number of citizens"..."who are united and actuated by some common impulse of action, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens." He finds this factions to be an inevitable existence in government as a result of the human tendency to put one's needs before that of another. Moreover, he provides the analogy of liberty being to factions what air is to fire - things that coexist and even fuel the existence of the other. There is the potential for factions because of our freedoms. Despite these freedoms giving way to these factions and the fact that other democracies have failed because of them, the United States government is able to control this in that it is a democratic republic.

     Many governments that have tried to be free and democratic have failed because of the existence of factions. Because, in the strictest sense, a true democracy is equal rule by the people with no set government body to provide a system of checks and balances, it is easy for one group to abuse its freedom and take control. In class this past week, there has been frequent mention of cases in which democracy was feigned, and the ruling power and influence was funneled to one particular person or party. For example, there have been many cases in history in which a nation proclaimed to be democratic, only to actually have one candidate or party on a ballot. The United States government is protected by such a thing happening, by one person or group becoming to powerful, because it is a democratic republic. In a republic, the people are represented by a group of chosen officials. These chosen officials are trusted to best decide the true interests of our country, despite what certain groups of people may be calling for. It is reasonable to think that perhaps one or more of these chosen officials might abuse this power and go against the public's wishes. Our system of checks and balances, however, ensures order in the legislative process by further preventing anyone from becoming too powerful or using their given power to betray the will of the people or what is best for the nation. Madison writes an accurate and compelling piece on why our government -  a democratic republic - is a superior system of government that prevents injustice. Yes, factions exist, but yes, there are many measures in place to control them.

 

Lanahan Reading 1 - Response and Reaction

 

     Alexis de Tocqueville was a young French aristocrat writing following a visit to the United States to study the country's system of democracy. He was surprised at the uniqueness of this system, one in which all people were equal regardless of monetary status, so long as they were not indentured or enslaved. De Tocqueville believes that this system of equality was considered the ideal way to run a nation considering the origins of the United States and how they came to be a nation, saying that "the circumstances which accompanied their rise affect the whole term of their being." He found America to be unique in that whereas most nations would not learn from, consider, or even know of their origins, America had been the "only country" in which its origin has contributed to a growth in society that will continue into the future of the states. The Founding Fathers of America, with their recognizing of their past under the British Crown, are able to see further into the "series of human events." In short, to the first Americans, nothing other than equality made sense. Despite the colonies and subsequent nation being composed of immigrants from various backgrounds, they were united in their situation of injustice at the hands of the British. These immigrants came to the colonies without a sense of superiority over one another. 

     This young Frenchman's analysis and observation on American democracy could not be more accurate. Given all that the colonists had went through and suffered under England, how could they make themselves into anything other than democracy, anything other than an equal society? The Founding Fathers of our nation were not ignorant of their origins and what they felt under Brtish rule. Rather, they were fully aware of it and used this knowledge to their full advantage in creating the perfect form of government, one in which no one person or group have control or supremacy, but empowered each individual. Those who originally came to the New World had one fundamental aspect in common - they were people in search of freedom and more opportunity. They wanted to be free of British rule, whether for want of opportunities to make a living, religious freedoms, etc. The American Revolution would not have been possible if these people were not united as one, that is to say that no one group could lead the charge. These people became one, and thus were all equal. They retained this equality even when becoming wealthy. Alexis de Tocqueville notes that there is no lack of lack of wealth or wealthy individuals, and yet equality has coexisted with wealth for "two succeeding generations." He comes to see this as the only sensible form of government, which we have seen to be true as many more democratic nations have risen up. The piece provides an excellent and accurate analysis of American democracy, how it came to be, and why it works. 

 

 

 

Lanahan Reading 8 - Response and Reaction

 

     Richard Hofstadter wrote to take a look at the true motives that drove the Founding Fathers to developing the country's political system. The Founding Fathers, he believes, had a very negative view of human nature that describes man as being selfish and untrustworthy. What the Founding Fathers truly hoped to accomplish was a government that allowed for "the interests and rights of every class" to be "duly represented and understood in the public counsels," as James Madison once said. This was their goal not because they believed that people were naturally good and could govern themselves, but that the people's natural selfishness would lead to one controlling power that took control. It is a system designed not to promote the free will and choices of the people, but to protect them from this and create a means for self-control for the people. The fear felt by the Founding Fathers was the "inevitable tendency of the rich and the poor to plunder each other." The government's aim was to control this human tendency and stabilize any wars between the classes. Their idea of liberty consisted not so much of freedom as it did protection of property. To them, liberty was freedom from monetary and currency issues, conflicts between states over issues such as trades, or the right to own property. What the contemporary American thinks of liberty, as a link to democracy, is actually in conflict with what the Founding Fathers truly believed, that liberty as linked to property.

     Hofstadter has the right idea of what the Founding Fathers really saw as democracy, as liberty, as the nature of humans. People are generally self-serving, focusing on their own needs and aiming to put down any other group or class that stands in their way. Throughout history, many dictators have taken control of countries, putting their own interests first. The government that the Founding Fathers envisioned was one that would prevent this via checks and balances on the different classes. Yes, their voices would be heard, creating the "self-government" model associated with democracy. Still, the checks and balances prevent from any one group's voice to rise and take over the others. Liberty shouldn't be the idea that people are free to do as they choose. That would be destructive. The Founding Fathers had the right idea of liberty as it being in terms of property. Their model of government ensured stability through preventing the rise of monetary issues, such as, for example, trade disagreements that could lead to war between the states. In a way, they created a government that convinced people to think that the government was for and by the people while actually controlling them and their selfish tendencies to ensure order. The government is a means by which people can be free, while still ensuring control over negative tendencies. The Founding Fathers do not deserve to be revered in the traditional sense of which they have been, as men who believed in the good nature of humans and therefore empowered them to be free. They do, however, deserve to be revered for their recognition of true human nature and creating a government in which people could be free, but not without control.