May 11, 2012

1. Describe the process that the Supreme Court uses to decide its cases. In order for a case to pass, it needs to get a vote of 5:4 or higher (e.g. 6:3, etc.)

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

I don't know if they can affect the justices appointed flat out. However, they can certainly affect the decisions they make once they are appointed through lobbying, testimony, etc.

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

I think that nothing is above politics, but the Supreme Court is the closest anything can be. The main way they are affected by politics is in the appointment process, in which case, the appointees aren't the ones directly involved with the politics; they are the victims of it.

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

I would vote for it. It is a law that would help many Americans and I believe that it should be passed.

 

May 10, 2012

 

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

I think that the president's role as commander in chief is the most important. There is a great deal of sway associated with the name alone that gives the position more power than it should/is meant to have. I believe that it's important for the role of president to maintain the image of a general: someone who is willing to go to war, fight and die for their country while leading others to the ultimate goal of protecting the people of America.

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

I don't see any of the president's roles as not being important or one being overly less important than the others. If I had to choose one aspect of the presidency that I would change it would probably be the presidential veto. I believe that it can be troublesome. If Congress and the president work together, there should be no need for the veto.

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

Presidents don't simply campaign in election years anymore. Everything they do, every decision they make becomes a part of the campaign and everything is governed by that overwhelming fact.

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

I think that, given the times, the framers would approve of the presidency. America has evolved over the years since the framers and will continue to evolve. Given this fact, it stands to reason that the presidency should evolve with the country. 

 

May 9, 2012

 

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

advantages: local and federal government have open communication and work easily with one another

disadvantages: local government feels it's under the thumb of the federal government

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

The nationwide alteration in teen driving laws and policies (no more than x amount of passengers, etc.)

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

There has been a push for states to have the greater power i healthcare (http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/07/lawmakers-push-to-give-states-more-power-in-health-care/)

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

I would rule the law unconstitutional. Arizona truly overreached here. If there is new policy on immigration it should stem from the core of the central government. If states can rule on such controversial topics, it takes America back to the Constitutional Convention as opposed to moving into the future.

 

May 8, 2012

 

1. Explain why governmental farm subsidies were first used?

Farm subsidies were first used in order to control the amount of crops that were grown in the country and to avoid surplus.

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

Transportation is a main subsidization of the government.

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

Interest groups lobby to push new legislation through for their specific causes.

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

I think that passing policy and implementing it go hand in hand. You cannot do one without the other.

 

May 7, 2012

 

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

It's a large mix: good portion men, good portion worn; different races, religions, ethnicities.

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

The House has more strict rules on how legislation can be passed; Senate not so much. Senate also has the option of a filibuster as a way to prevent legislation from being passed in a timely manner.

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

Senate has the ability to work on a treaty with the President while the House doesn't. 

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

Well, they already have a leg up because they are running for REelection. It's always easier for an incumbent to retain their seat. The best thing they can do is continue to do whatever they're doing while keeping a low profile.

 

May 4, 2012

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

The most important steps are: zeroing in on what the people want and figuring out how to best advertise your campaign in alignment with what the people want to be accomplished.

2. Campaigns are more candidate centered now because it’s all about the candidate and what they will do in the following 4 years. Elections have supposedly transcended party politics.

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

Positives: you find the candidate that people will support

Negatives: you find the candidate that can’t do the job

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

I don’t think that candidates should be held accountable for what their supporters say. The candidate may speak for the supporters but that doesn’t mean that the supporters can speak for the candidate. 

 

Mary 3, 2012

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

     I think people have aligned themselves more with one party over another because of the poeple who are running and their positions on key matters. Also, many people are willing to vote for someone because they don't like the opposing candidate.

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

     The home is where everything begins and that can be the start of your public and political opinion. Besides that, you will find more hispanics, african americans and young people be Democrats than Republicans. You will also find more people who are business ownersand CEOs aligning with Republicans over Democrats.

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

     Many politicians appeal to the woman's sense of worth: you are more than a soccer mom. you are a voter and a citizen of the United States. vote ___________.

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

     I think that Democrats will have the advantage over swing voters because of their more liberal outlook.

May 2, 2012

 

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

     Yes, interest groups are fundamental to a strong society because they give a voice to the minorities in society. I don't think that they can be dangerous on a large scale, but they can cause discrepancies in congress and society.

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

     AARP: the interests of the elderly

     Green Peace: promotion of a healthy environment

     PETA: protection of animals and how they should be treated ethically

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

     Lobbying is used frequently and seems to get the message across.

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

     I think it's a good article. I think it's a good business move to hire former members of Congress, but not the most ethical tactics.

 

May 1, 2012

 

 

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

     Democrats: the solid, Democratic South

     Republicans: business men/owners

     The South isn't limited to simply being Democratic now. More southerners have branched out onto the other side of the      spectrum. Business leaders are still generally moderate conservatives.

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

     Gerrymandering can be put to a vote which can end unfavorably for the reps prospects.

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

     The majority of the PA state reps fall on the right.

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

     I think that the article has a lot of founding and the issue should not be ignored. I believe increased      partisanship to be a huge issue, but a constant one in Congress. I believe that the issue should not be      allowed to stew, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. 

 

MEREDITHMADNESS(3).xls

 

Court Cases: Marygrace and Diana

 

Roe .v. Wade (1973):

The case questions the constitutionality of Texas abortion laws. The law was that abortions were illegal unless they were perscribed for a doctor due to the mother's health. A pregnant, single woman (Roe) challenged the law because it was against the 9th and 14th amendments. The companion case to Roe v. Wade is Doe v. Bolton. The final decision of the case declared that the Texas abortion laws were unconstitutional.

 

Johnson v. McIntosh (1823):

The case calls to question the right of aboriginal people to keep their land after it is taken under sovereignty. The origins of the case lie with Thomas Jefferson and his purchase of land from the Piankeshaw native american tribe. The result of the case stated that private citizen could not purchase land from the Native Americans.

 

Ex Parte Milligan (1866):

This case is a result of unlawful imprisonment, a direct violation of the 4th amendment dealing with "cruel and unusual punishment". The case revolves around the suspension and procurement of a writ of habeas corpus; also involved the use of military tribunal while civilian courts are still operating. The results of the case stated that military tribunal held while civil courts are in operation is unconstitutional.

 

Ex Parte Endo (1944):

This case dealt with the legitimacy of removing people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast. The plaintiff, Mitsuye Endo, was evacuated from Sacramento, CA in 1942. Handed down on the same day, Korematsu v. United States and Ex Parte Endo deal with similar constitutionality questions such as the issue with due process and the fifth amendment. The court decided that Ex Parte Endo would be sent to the California court.

 

Barron v. Baltimore (1833):

This case deals with the application of the Bill of Rights to state governments. Primarily a fifth amendment issue, the case revolved around John Barron suing the Mayor of Baltimore for negligence in street construction which lead to damage to Barron's wharf in Baltimore Harbor. The court ruled in Baltimore's favor.

 

Munn v. Illinois (1877):

This case deals with business regulation, in particular agriculture and corporate rates. This is a fourteenth amendment issue. States had been allowed to run and organize corporations as they saw fit. The courts ruled that, due to the nature of the businesses and their services to the whole country, the regulation of the business would fall to the federal government. 

 

University of California v. Bakke (1978):

This case deals with the separation of 16 seats (of 100) in the University of California medical class for non-white students. This is a fourteenth amendment issue. The courts stated that while affirmative action was constitutional, race quotas were not. This practice was declared unconstitutional. 

 

Snyder v. Phelps (2011):

This case deals with the constitutionality of public protest at a funeral. This is a first amendment issue. The case was against Phelps, the founder of the WBC, who protested a marine's--Snyder's son--funeral. The courts ruled in Phelps' favor stating that, as long as the WBC was on a public sidewalk, they were within their rights because their speech was related to public issue.

 

 

Budget Cuts

March 12, 2012

 

In the article written by Seung Min Kim, the matter of federal jobs is discussed. Both sides of the spectrum are reported: the Democrats are for keeping existing jobs and Republicans are for reducing unnecessary jobs. Republicans believe that the money used to fund the unnecessary jobs and salaries could be better used elsewhere, while the Democrats believe that reducing jobs would be more detrimental in the current economy.

 

Upon consideration, the Democratic argument appears to be sounder. In a declining economic climate, America needs any job available. The country functions because each government agency works together and feeds off of each other. If certain agencies were to lose a considerable amount of jobs or to shut down completely, it is a distinct possibility that the entire system will collapse. 

 

Bradley Patterson; Lanahan p. 239

February 16, 2012

 

In The White House Staff: [Chief of Staff] Patterson discusses one of the most understated roles in Washington, the president’s chief of staff. The chief of staff is the go-to man; the one to keep all the wheels turning in the president’s political machine. If a person wanted to get anything done in regards to the president and the presidential agenda, they would have to go through the chief of staff. The fact is, the president has enough to worry about with, you know, running the country, so he has the chief of staff to keep him on track. Not only does the chief of staff keep the president on track in his own office; the chief of staff keeps the president on track in regards to congress, as well.

 

Patterson couldn’t be more correct in his observations of the president’s chief of staff. The chief of staff is a vital part of the president’s daily workings. It if the chief of staff that keeps the president on point and it is the chief of staff that keeps the president on reasonable terms with congress. Maybe it is because of the chief of staff that anything can be done while under a divided government. Or maybe it is because of the chief of staff that gridlock is kept to a minimum. The reality is that nothing would get done without the chief of staff. The chief of staff is the one to know everything about the presidency and the president’s working relationship with America and the rest of the world. The chief of staff can truly make or break the presidency; a daunting thought for such an intricate role in government. 

 

 

Kenneth Mayer; Lanahan p. 231

February 16, 2012

 

In With the Stroke of a Pen Kenneth Mayer discusses the amount of power that the president possesses. In this excerpt, Mayer makes it clear that, while there is a clear separation of powers and a system of checks and balances seen in the Constitution, the president also has powers not enumerated in the document. Mayer also makes it clear that a main source of power for the president lies in his power of persuasion. Mayer gives even more backing to the claims of the power of persuasion made by Neustadt, but instead of giving examples of presidents who wield the power, Mayer speaks of the powers wielded. Mayer discusses how the President can change the face of foreign and domestic affairs “with the stroke of a pen”.

 

Mayer is correct in his overall assessment of the presidency. The fact of the matter is that if the people want the president to have power, he will. Yes, there are stipulations to that claim, but in a general sense, it’s true. If the president is able to persuade the people and his other counterparts in government, there’s no limit to what he can do with his position. A truly great president would be able to use his power of persuasion in such a way that what he wanted would happen through the correct channels and efficiently—as seen with Linden B. Johnson at the beginning of the Vietnam War. Despite what is written in the Constitution, the president has a great deal of power and can achieve many things if he goes about it in the right way.

 

 

Thomas Cronin and Michael Genovese, Lanahan p. 212

February 13, 2012

 

In The Paradoxes of the American Presidency, political scientists Thomas Cronin and Michael Genovese discuss the main views of the President held by his fellow Americans. Cronin and Genovese also take the time to illustrate a symmetrical contrary image. The first pair is the desire for a strong and powerful president, but suspicion in centralized leadership and abuse of power. Lincoln and FDR are cited as presidents that overcome this idea because of their ability to produce an effective end result. Other oxymoronic pairs follow: common man, yet heroic and individual; decent and caring, yet ruthless and manipulative; nonpartisan/bipartisan but a master politician; unifying president through controversy that leads to separation; “programmatic leadership” vs. “democratic leadership”; self-confident but suspicious of arrogance; good campaigning tactics don’t equal good governing tactics; and finally, strong yet weak. The final thought of the excerpt is for the benefit of accepting the paradox in order to understand the presidency.

 

Government, in its simplest form, reflects the life and time it lives in. Due to this, the American presidency is one of the most paradoxical and incomprehensible bodies of government. This isn’t for lack of communication, but rather is an outcome of the preconceived notions of the American people of what the presidency should and should not be. Cronin and Genovese attempt to shed light on some of the ideas of the president that Americans hold so that the reader may understand why they can’t understand the presidency. In math, a student can learn how to multiply if they have an incorrect explanation in their head. Just as in math, a student of politics cannot understand the presidency if they have the wrong concept in mind. It is understandable where these images come from, but in order to learn and comprehend what the president does and can do, it is important to see the paradox and then attempt to see past it.

 

 

Clear Congress Project

I find it interesting that the Democratic Party—you know, the liberals—tend to stay to their side of the spectrum. In fact, the majority of people who cross the bipartisan line into the other side of the spectrum are our conservative friends in Congress. The most surprising member of Congress is Sen. Olympia Snowe. She is the most liberal member of the GOP according to this project. She stretches into Democratic areas in cosponsoring legislation written by other members of Congress. However, when it comes to sponsoring popular legislation, the Democrats are more active than the Republicans. On a whole, it appears that the Democrats are more active in legislation, but that their activity is more party based. The Republicans are more spread out in the legislation that they sponsor.

 

 

James Ceaser and Andrew Busch, Lanahan p. 516

 

            The terms “red” and “blue” in reference to states is nothing new to the American people. These colors have come to mean Republican and Democratic, respectively. However, what makes a state red or blue and is there a middle ground? This is exactly the topic that political scientists Ceaser and Busch attack in Red Over Blue. They discuss the terminology at length and delve into why states associate with one party. As talked about in class, voting and the party system develops at a young age in the home and develops as we grow through schooling and community. Ceaser and Busch prove this to be true. They go into topics such as class division and moral issues and show a clear divide in the American people and their ideologies. However, they also go into areas of mixed political agendas and loyalties (fuchsia and purple) where the voting proves to be Repocratic* (more Republican with slight Democratic nuances) or Demublican* (more Democratic with Republican accents). This sheds light on many Americans hesitancy to settle on one distinct party, as depicted with the class’ defense of their party choice, and puts forth a rebuttal to the view of American being a clear, bipolar political entity. On a whole, the excerpt shows that American is changing and so is her political definition.

 

*I made up these words to expand on the “purple” and “Fuchsia” theme.

 

 

Earl Black and Merle Black, Lanahan p. 527

 

            This commentary almost is a sister article to Red Over Blue in the discussion of changing ideology in red and blue states. This excerpt gives a more focused look at the changing dynamics of the American South. Previously, the South has been views as primarily blue, but in recent history has been shifting more to the right. The trend started with President Reagan and has thrived with the South giving continual support to Republican candidates. However, was the “solid Democratic south” always Democratic? Yes, but not in the sense we know it to be Democratic today. After all, the South was in favor of slavery and fought a bloody war over it. How can the crime of human trafficking be seen as liberal or Democratic? So, maybe it’s not the individual’s ideology in the South that has changed. Perhaps, it is the party line on a whole that has been rewritten.

 

 

I am a Democrat. Deirdre told me that I'm really a closeted Republican because I have the overall view of a Republican: what you work for is what you get; nothing more, nothing less. However, when it comes to individual issues, I am fully Democrat. I believe in the welfare system as it is. yes, it has it's flaws and yes, people abuse it, but on a whole, welfare does it's job and helps countless Americans. I am a firm believer in gay marriage because when it comes down to the nitty gritty, love is love and everyone deserves a chance at true happiness. If that means a guy marries another guy, so be it. On the topic of abortion, I am pro-choice. Yes, there is life inside of that woman, but that life does reside in HER body, not the body of the male Republican in congress. Sorry bud, you don't get a vote on what I do with my body. That being said, if I were every in the position to get an abortion, I wouldn't. Yes, I am pro-choice, but it needs to be acknowledged that pro-choice is not synonymous with pro-abortion. I am pro-choice and if ever put in that position, I would choose life. I am very liberal with my ideology, and that's because I was raised in a democratic household where everyone had the right to their own opinion, no matter what it was. I believe that the Democratic Party holds similar ideals as me and so I associate with this particular party.

 

Martin Wattenberg, Lanahan p. 592

November 28, 2011

 

Wattenberg puts forth an expose on why the youth of America doesn’t vote. The main idea is that young Americans don’t vote because the current politics don’t involve them. In comparison to earlier generations, the youth of America doesn’t vote as much, and the main reasoning is this: American youth of the 1960s was more influences by the government with civil rights and the Vietnam War than the youth of 2011 is with the war in Iraq. Yes, the youth is still influenced, but not nearly as much as their parents were. The other main component is that news is no longer “broadcasted”, but is rather “narrow-casted”. Yes, there are still news stations such as ABC, NBC, and CNN, but there are also television channels that are geared toward a more select group, such as the History Channel and ESPN.

 

The American culture has become one of supply and demand tot eh farthest extent; the American people want what they want and will not be denied it. This can clearly be seen in the commentary supplied by Wattenberg. Americans don’t vote because they are selectively informed and they believe that American politics and government doesn’t involve them. They are sadly mistaken. Without the youth, the government wouldn’t bother pushing legislation such as the Obama job bill that will help the youth of America now and throughout the rest of their lives. The government also wouldn’t be trying to iron out immigration issues so that the youth will have a chance at Social Security and other rights that they are given as citizens. If the youth doesn’t care about the country, why should the country care about them?

 

Marygrace Urmson

V. O. Key, Lanahan p. 387

11/17/11

 

            V.O. Key writes in his piece “Public Opinion and American Democracy” about the political system and just how the American people factor into it. The public has a lot of power because they get to vote based on what they believe and what their opinions are. The candidates, however, don’t have as much power. Candidates are so preoccupied with getting elected or reelected that they are afraid to go against the political norm in any way, and therefore neglect to do anything in their political careers that they have a strong belief in. This example of candidates is mass influence at work. Mass influence in the sense that the people can dictate what a person who holds elected office does by the sheer fact that they are elected by the public.

 

            This aspect of mass influence is alive in America today. Take, for example, the revision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This is a piece of legislature that was put forward, voted on and passed. Now, because almost half of the American population doesn’t like the act, Congress has decided to revise it. Is that not counterproductive to what Congress’ goal was in the first place? Also, it is also evident that Americans vote based on their own personal opinions. However, isn’t that the point of voting, so everyone can have a voice based on what they believe?

 

 

Walter Lippmann, Lanahan p. 383

 

            Walter Lippmann writes in “The Phantom Public” a scathing report on the American people and how they are grossly uninformed. Lippmann states that the American people on a whole are disinterested and informed to the faintest degree. Lippmann makes a great comparison of the American people to audience members. He says that the American people are like those who come to a show in the middle of the third act and leave before the curtain goes down. All they are able to make out is who the hero is and who is the villain. This is an accurate analogy for the American people in regards to where they stand with matters of state and politics. On a whole, the American populace is uninformed, and when they are informed, they know just enough and once the issue is resolved, they forget about it. Lippmann alludes to the fact that there is no hope for Americans, and that the majority will always be in a state of ignorance. Lippmann states that the American people being fully informed would be something akin to a fat man doing ballet; it’s a nice thought, but it completely out of place. The American people don’t always know what’s going on and they don’t vote in every election from the primaries to the presidential election. However, this does not stop them from letting their voice be heard. With any luck, Americans will start doing more research before going to the polls or forming political opinion. Then they could start to prove Lippmann wrong.

 

Charles Beard

October 25, 2011

 

Charles Beard wrote on the main motivation that the Framers of the Constitution focused on while writing: economics. Beard offers an interpretation of the Constitution as seen through the critical, economic eye. Beard states that, while there isn’t good enough evidence to prove that the basis of the document was economics, it can be inferred from what we do know about the Framers that economics were in mind. Beard also goes into a survey of the Framers; what they had in common and goes on to illustrate how their similarities effected the final outcome of the document.

 

 Everything that is stated in the Constitution was torn apart in the convention and went through heavy revision and compromise in order to be ratified. The final product is pieces of the document that the Framers handpicked to be the basis of the American Government. The fact that the issue of slavery was barely touched should be evidence enough of this. It can be seen very easily where the Constitution became exactly what the Framers wanted it to be; a document that fit the needs of the people, but fit their needs even more. 

 

Powers:

 

1.)    Congress makes laws.(Legislative)

          President can veto them. (Executive)

2.)    Congress makes laws and President approves. (Legislative/Executive)

           Supreme Court can declare them unconstitutional. (Judicial)

3.)    President vetoes laws. (Executive)

           Senate can overturn the veto with 2/3 majority. (Legislative)

4.)    President calls for war. (Executive)

          Congress declares war. (Legislative)

5.)    Congress declares war.  (Legislative)

           President can make treaties. (Executive)

6.)    President makes treaties. (Executive)

          Senate ratifies by at least 2/3 majority.

7.)    President appoints judges. (Executive)

          Congress approves judges. (Legislative)

8.)    President appoints judges. (Executive)

          Supreme Court polices its members.

9.)    President serves four year term. (Executive)

          Congress can impeach. (Legislative)

10.)  Supreme Court has a lifetime term. (Judicial)

           Congress can impeach. (Legislative)

 

Marygrace Urmson and Maddie Clifford

Framers Info

 

35 delegates were laywers or had benefitted from legal training. Some became judges. At the time of the convention, 13 delegates were businessmen, merchants or shippers. 6 were major land speculators. 12 owned slave operated plantatons or managed large farms.  There were 55 delegates in all. They were middle-aged, white men. by 1787, 41 delegates were or had been members of the Contenental Congress. Nearly all delegates had experience in colonial or state government, and the majority had held county and local offices. Most delegates were natives of the 13 colonies. They had strong educational backgrounds at some of the colonial colleges or abroad. Half of them had graduated from or attended colleges. Several were laywers trained in London. Most dies in their 60s. 49 delegates were Protestant, 3 were Roman Catholic. Among the Protestants, 20 were Anglican, 8 were Presbyterian, 7 were Congressionalists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Dutch Reformed and 2 were Methodiths.

www.wikipedia.org

www.thearchives.gov

 

Eugene Rostow, Lanahan p. 287

October 17, 2011

 

Rostow takes on the question of judicial review. He sees judicial review as a necessary part of the American system of Checks and Balances because, without it, the entire government fails to be one of democracy, and develops into a tyrannical governing body, which, by definition, looses all legitimacy to speak for the people. The question of legitimacy under the New School has been obsolete because legitimacy was put under the domain of the Judiciary Branch through judicial review. The goal of the Judiciary Branch is to determine what laws passed by Congress and the President are unconstitutional. This is a duty that they are sworn to do, whether they like it or not. Rostow insists that without judicial review, America will cease to be a democratic governing body, and will transform into an autocracy.

 

Rostow is trying to preserve the system of judicial review that was set up so that legitimacy would never be an immediate issue again. Also, a system that was created in order to ensure that no one group gained too much power. Rostow is completely correct in his belief that, without judicial review, American democracy would fall apart at the seams. To take away this power would be to disregard what the people want and to shatter any perceived notion of fair play in government.

 

Lani Guinier, Lanahan p. 62

October 17, 2011

 

Lani Guinier speaks of democracy on a whole and how the current system in place in America may not be what works best for the country. Instead, Guinier suggests an election technique that could possibly eliminate the feeling that the minority vote doesn’t count. The cumulative vote, a technique used in at least 30 states, is a system that allows every citizen to have the same number of votes to disperse among different issues as they see fit. Guinier sees the current system as ineffective and growingly totalitarian, as does Rostow.

 

Guiner developed a well thought out essay and backed ideas of what the democratic philosophy should be, but has failed in being. Guinier speaks of a “positive-sum”, or a policy of both the majority and minority being heard and exercising power, and “zero-sum” in which the winner takes all. Upon first glance, it would seem that Guinier simply doesn’t believe in a win-lose scenario, but on further examination, it is seen that she simply wants a better representative system. In truth, Guinier’s “positive-sum” system would be the way to do. Seemingly, this solution is the only way to make sure that every voice is heard in comparable ways. This seems as though it would be a good route for the American government to take.

 

 

October 11, 2011

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/12/dont-ask-dont-tell-lobbying.html

 

James Madison, Lanahan p. 49

October 11, 2011

 

As stated in the introductory paragraph, Madison’s work in Federalist 10 was written in order to speak out against factions in America. Madison’s main arguments in Federalist 10 are: either destroy liberty because “liberty is to faction what air is to fire”, or create a society where everyone shares the same opinions on everything. Clearly, both of these scenarios are impossible, this much Madison admits freely. So the question is, how does the government control factions? Madison answers this simply: large, representative government. A key point in this writing is that a large government would be able to control the growth of factions more than a small government, such as an individual state, could. The nature of this writing is why it was used to defend the Constitution.

 

Madison is correct in his assumption that a large government would be more successful in warding off factions. Due to the nature of factions, a group of citizens with interests that oppose the interests of the majority of people, a large government would be best to control them. The smaller the government, the more strength a faction can gain. If a faction were to gain enough power, then the beliefs of said faction would be able to spread like wildfire, from person to person, and the precepts of this nation would crumple around us. That is why a large, representative government is what works for the United States. There is too much of a possibility of factions popping up everyday for anything else to work. Madison was able to see America the way that it was and the way that it could be. He delivered a great amount of insight into this matter, among others, and that is why this country had a constitution to begin with. Factions always have, and probably always will exist, because to take away liberty is to take away the American way of life. Also, to make everyone believe the same things and to view everything in the same light, is to brainwash America on a whole and to take away the basic right of free speech. In light of all of these possibilities, Madison came up with the only possible government for America; a government that takes the people into account, but does what it has to do in order to keep the people of the nation happy while keeping everyone in line.

 

 

Alexis de Tocqueville: Lanahan p. 3

October 6, 2011

 

Alexis de Tocqueville came to America in the hopes to unravel the mystery of what made America so successful. Tocqueville, upon arriving in America was able to observe her defining mark: equality among the free people of the country. Tocqueville found that this unique quality, this freedom of equality truly set America apart from all other countries. Tocqueville also made a point to draw attention to the roots of a nation, a culture. He made it a point to state how foolish he thought it was to ignore where a culture or philosophy stemmed from. In his essay, Tocqueville shows his admiration of the American philosophy of democracy.

 

The key to American Democracy has been and always will be equality. Over the centuries, America has shown that she can change with the philosophies and outlooks of the people. Equality has spread from the Founding Fathers to every American citizen. Not only has equality spread, it has become a way of life. This has been made possible by acknowledging where we come from, the original plight of the American people and how our Founding Fathers fixed things. The American people have taken freedom and equality to a whole new level and continue to do so daily. America’s definition of equality changes every day. Take, for example, the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. By this, for lack of a better word, tradition being revoked, the American people have proven, yet again, that the world is constantly changing, and with it, so does the American view of equality. Tocqueville’s view of America was completely correct. He was able to see the potential of America from the beginning and this country proves him right with every stride it takes toward the betterment of freedom.

 

 

Richard Hofstadter: Lanahan p. 43

September 22, 2011

 

Richard Hofstadter highlighted the main thoughts of the Founding Fathers in The American Political Tradition. The first of these thoughts were based around liberty. Today, the word “liberty” is a broad term synonymous with freedom. To the Founding Fathers, liberty was not freedom in itself, it was more accurately a freedom; the freedom to own land. Stemming from this thought of liberty, Hofstadter segued into the topic of “Who governs?” The Founding Fathers had been instructed in the ways of Thomas Hobbes and his opinions on the “government of one.” While the Founding Fathers were comfortable with this philosophy, they wanted a government for the people and so the Continental Convention of 1787 was convened. The purpose of government, as seen by these men, wasn’t to create a political free-for-all. Quite the opposite, the goal was to create a structure in which there would still be opportunities when the best would rise to the top, simply with less bloodshed.

 

Hofstadter provides many valid points about the Founding Fathers. In bringing up what the Founding Fathers may have been thinking, he dashes some of the romantic thoughts that students have had in the past. By stating what was truly meant by “liberty”, Hofstadter really opens a door to the past; or rather a door to the views of the past. Along with this, Hofstadter alludes that the Founding Fathers didn’t want a government of the people, but rather a government for the people. This undertone allows the reader to see that, while creating a country free from tyrannical traditions, they still intended to hold a good bit of the power. In all, Hofstadter captures what the Founding Fathers truly said and gives a deeper look into the question of “Who governs?”