Politico Test Prep May 11

 

1. The Court uses original jurisdiction in hearing a case for the first time. It uses Appellate jurisdiction in hearing cases of a lower court. It uses Appellate jurisdiction when two courts issue differnt rulings.

 

2. Interest groups can persuade the President to choose a more liberal or more conservative judge. They can also try and persuade Senators to block certain appointments.

 

3. For the most part i would say our United States Supreme Court is above politics. There are many decisions made 9-0 or with a strong majority. I think the different ways judges act based on judicial activism or retraint can add to the politics but they are still interpreting the Constitution just in different views. I think the Court is fine the way it is, sort of above politics but also sort of involved.

 

4. The article was interesting in the ways it showed more about the Supreme Court. I would have to rule in favor of the law because i believe it is promoting the general welfare of our nation. Healthcare is essesntial to modern day life, it's not fair for some people to not get health coverage because of wealth.

 

 

Politico Test Prep May 10

 

1. I think the role of chief legislator is most important. I think its most important because the President does seem to be the driving force behind most landmark legislation. He also has the power to veto legislation if he disagrees with it, that is an enormous power because it is almost impossible to get enough votes to override. Commander in chief is a close second but the funding of the army as well as declaring war is vested in Congress.

 

2. I think the least important is the chief of party. I think this because Presidents do not always agree with most people in their party and tend to be more moderate. That is why they were elected President.

 

3. I think political scientist saying Presidents are on a "continuous campaign" means they are always thinking of reelection if it's their first time. They also travel the country more and try and get their ideas across. They also campaign to try and have their legislation passed through Congress and get popular support behind it.

 

4. I think the framers would say the President has much more power now than they had envisioned. They tried designing for the President to have little power as to avoid another monarchy. They would be shocked to see how much power he has in legislation as well.

Politico Test Prep May 9, 2012

 

1. A great advantage to federalism is the fact that it adds to the seperation of powers. It also connects the citizen on a more local level to government services. It would be difficult for the federal government to handle some of the things states deal with and can change state to state. The fact that laws vary state to state can also be seen as a disadvantage. While you are still in the United States there can be severely differnt laws or punishments for them. A problem also ensues when states try making laws that go against national law.

 

2. The healthcare reform act greatly increased national authority in the area of health insurance which used to be left to the states.

 

3. Recently several states have either passed legislation for or against gay marriage, this greatly increases their power over the national government to decide this issue.

 

4. I don't think the Arizona law is in violation of the Constitution. Arizona is doing its job to protect its boarders which is a problem in that state. As long as the detained arent held beyond a reasonable time without being under arrest the Court will rule in favor of Arizona.

 

Politico Test Prep May 8, 2012

 

1. Farm subsidies were first used during the great depression through the Agrircultural Adjustment Administration (AAA). They were used to pay famers to limit distribution and growth of crops.

 

2. The government subsidises oil companies, housing, student loans, and green energy.

 

3. Interest groups will try and urge lawmakers to vote certain ways and push their policies forward. They try and show the benefits of their program far outweighing the cost of it.

 

4. The article was interesting because i didn't know that much money was given to farmers through subsidies. It is interesting to note the government encourages flex fuel cars which use corn, that is why the corn market has grown so much. I think it is much harder to pass policy changes because there can be fierce opposition across party lines. You can always use the courts to enforce laws if it comes down to that.

 

 

Politico Test Prep May 7, 2012

 

1. Currently in the House of Representatives there are 241 Republicans, 198 Democrats (including5 Delegates and the Resident Commissioner), and 2 vacant seats. The Senate has 47 Republicans,

51 Democrats, and 2 Independents, who caucus with the Democrats. The average age of a member of the house is 56.7 The average age of a Senator is 62.2 The overwhelming majority hold a college degree. Most are some denomination of Christian. There are 74 women in the house and 17 in the Senate. There are 44 African Americans in the house and none in the Senate. There are 26 Latinos in the house and 2 in the Senate. there are 9 Asians or Pacific islanders in the house and two in the Senate.

 

2. The house is much more controlled by the Rules Committee. The Rules committee determines who will speak when and for how long, it also determines what topics will go to a vote. The Senate has no limit on speaking which can lead to a fillabuster.

 

3. The Senate can not create revenue bills. The Senate confirms all appointments by the executive and also ratifys treaties. 

 

4. The article is a good way to review for the upcoming test. For a freshman running for reelection i would try and show the good things that were done for the constituents. There is also the option to run for Congress by running against it.

 

Politico Test Prep May 4, 2012

 

1. In order to run a succesful presidential campaign you must first be mentioned. Once mentioned you should begin to fundraise. With enough money you should try and have an organized ground staff to help spread your message.

 

2. Campaigns are more candidate- centered because the people have much more of a say in selecting the candidates to represent their party now. With primary elections and voters either far left or right voting it is a much harder sell. The voters are going to select who they want to represent their party. In the old days it was more of political elites determining a party's candidate and that candidate running on the party's standpoints. We can see today there are different factions within the party's such as the Republicans with the Tea Party movement. This allows the voters to elect who they want as the candidate for their party.

 

3. The positives of allowing party supporters to pick their candidates is the fact that the voter is getting more of  a say. A potential negative could be the fact that only those supporters to the far left or right vote and it could make it more difficult for more moderate voters to support that candidate in the general election thus hurting the party.

 

4. I don't think candidates should be held responsible for things that their non paid supporters say. You can not control what people say about you or others so why be held responsible.

 

Politico Test Prep May 3, 2012

 

1. Swing voter's are small as ever this year because the country itself is so divided. There is a gap politically just as i mentioned yesterday.

 

2. Most white southerners typically vote pro republican regardless of income. African Americans typically vote pro democrat. Traditionally higher income Americans vote Republican. the more education people have there is more of a chance for them to be swing voters.

 

3. Democrats are using the message of a Republican "war on women" to get to get them to resonate with them. The so called war focuses on the womans right to choose. The Republicans can focus more on the traditional family values and morality to attract women voters who are also mothers.

 

4. I think alot about how the swing voters will turn has to do with events leading up to the election. If gas prices can continue to decrease and the economy can create job growth Obama has a better chance with these swing voters focusing on the economy. If it continues to tank romney will have a better shot.

 

 

Politico Test Prep May 2, 2012

 

1. Interest groups are a vital part of a democracy, they allow individuals to join together for a certain cause and try and lobby Congress to vote the way they want. Interest group with large member support have a way of impacting law making in a much stronger way than if they had to do it individually. The danger is interest groups of large corporations with a lot of money lobbying for something with not so popular support.

 

2. The NRA is a large interest group which tries to ensure protection of the 2nd amendments right to the right to bear arms. AARP is an interest group that promotes the welfare of those over 50 years old. The American medical association promotes healthcare issues. Planned parenthood lobbies to ensure the protection and upholding of Roe v. Wade.

 

3. The technique that works best for influencing public policy is getting its members involved if there are a lot of them. For example if AARP asked all of it's members to write their legislators to vote a certain way it could play a big impact. Also an interest group can back a certain candidate for office thus many members might follow their lead.

 

4. I think hiring former Congress members to interest groups is a good idea. It is a way to help interest groups get an edge on certain issues. As long as there is no corruption or money involved it seems logical. A problem could be if a law maker votes a certain way on an issue but than is promised a job with an interest group after his term. That would be corruption.   

 

Politico Test Prep May 1, 2012

 

1. The Democratic coalition has traditionally been blue collar workers, union workers, latinos, African Americans and women. The Republican coalition traditionally consist of more rural males, a focus on religion, more pro business.  The coalitions have changed because the voters from the South who used to be strong democratic voters have changed to the Republican party.

 

2. State legislature's can use gerrymandering to create congressional districts with a high majority of one party or the other, thus weakening a moderates chances of getting elected.

 

3.Senator Bob Casey is a moderate democrat, Senator Pat Toomey is a conservative republican.

 

4. The article was interesting to me because i had never heard of the blue dogs, and didn't really know there was such a thing as a conservative democrat. The increased partisanship in Congress just shows a further divided nation. I think when it comes to politics when people disagree it can get nasty. The partisanship just echoes the thoughts and ideas of a dividing American electorate.

 

 

Meredith Madness- partner Taylor Howard

 

 

  

Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)

 

Facts: In 1816 The New Hampshire leglislature attempted to change Dartmouth college a privately funded institution into a state University. The legislature changed the school's corporate charter giving trustee appointment power to the Governor.

 

Question:  Did the New Hampshire legislature unconstitutionaly interfere with Dartmouth College's rights under the contact clause?

 

Impact: The Court held that the corporate charter qualified as a contract between parties and the legislature couldn't interfere. The fact that the government had commissioned the charter did not make in into a civil institution. 

 

Scott v. Sanford (1857)

 

Facts: Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) and in an area of the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After returning to Missouri, Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. Scott then brought a new suit in federal court. Scott's master maintained that no pure-blooded Negro of African descent and the descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution.

 

Question: Was Dredd Scott free or a slave?

 

Impact: The Court ruled Scott was a slave because no one except a citizen of the United States could be a legal citizen of a state. Therefore since Scott was not technically a citizen he would stay a slave. The Court also declared the Missouri Compromise illegal attempting to end the fight over slavery once and for all.

 

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

 

Facts:  Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested for distributing copies of a "left-wing manifesto" that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action of any form. Gitlow was convicted under a state criminal anarchy law, which punished advocating the overthrow of the government by force. The New York courts ruled against gitlow saying anyone who advocated the doctrine of violent revolution violated the law.

 

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

 

Impact: The Supreme Court ruled that the first amendment and 14th amendment of the Constitution do apply to the laws of the states. It had overturned a previous ruling in which the bill of rights only applied to the federal government.

 

Brown v. Board II          

 

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

 

Facts: The Supreme Court wanted to issue directives to implement it's newly found Constitututional principle in Brown v. Board I. The Court requested further discussion to ensure the law would be followed and issue relief.

 

Impact: Earl Warren urged local school authorities to move toward full compliance with "all deliberate speed." The case also led to bussing of segregated children to schools across town in order to create desegregated schools.

 

Buckley v. Valeo

 

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

 

Facts: Congress wanted to end corruption in elections and make a law restricting financial contributions to candidates. It would set a limit on the amount one individual could give to a candidate. It also created the federal election commission.

 

Impact: The court declared limiting individual contributions did not violate the first amendment because the limitations "enhance the integrity of our system of representative democracy".

 

United States v. Nixon (1974)

 

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

 

Facts: The special prosecutor appointed by Nixon and the defendants sought audio tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in the Oval Office. Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena claiming "executive privilege," which is the right to withhold information from other government branches to preserve confidential communications within the executive branch or to secure the national interest.

 

Impact: The Court declared neither the seperation of powers or the need for confidentiality of high-level communications can sustain absolute presidential privilege. The Court decided for due process of the law and fair administration of justice there should be no absolute presidential privilege.

 

Clinton v. New York City (1998)

 

Facts: The city of New York along with health care unions and a hospital association was challanging Bill Clinton's use of the line item veto which  relinquished the Federal Government's ability to recoup nearly $2.6 billion in taxes levied against Medicaid providers by the State of New York.

 

Question: Could the President cancel certain portions of bills under the Presentment clause of article 1?

 

Impact: The Court ruled that bills passed by Congress must be entirely approved or vetoed. If not the President had the power to amend the bills as he chose thus having him violate what the founders wanted in "finely wrought" leglislative procedures.

 

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1994)

 

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

 

Facts: Black children were denied admittance to schools white children attended often based off of segregation laws. There was "equality" in terms of the buildings, teachers, sallaries, curricula, and qualifications.

 

Impact: The court ruled despite equilization of schools by "objective" factors there were many intangible issues that fostered inequality. Segregation made the minority students feel inferior. Separate but equal is inherently unequal in the context of public education. The 9-0 decision ended all forms of state maintened racial segregation.

 

Mapp v. Ohio (1960)

 

Facts: Mapp was convicted of possesing obscene materials after an illegal search by a Police officer.

 

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

 

Impact: The court brushed aside the first amendment issue and declared any evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution could not be used in court. This was a big decision by the court's because it would now exclude illegally obtained evidence on all levels of the court.

 

 

Seung Min Kim Federal Workers Under Siege      March 12, 2012

     The article talks about the growing increase in federal jobs over the past few years. It has grown from around 1.6 million in 2006 to 1.8 million in 2012. Republicans have been trying to cut the work force in order to fund bills such as the the payroll tax cut,  jobless benefits and a transportation bill. The article poses the question as to whether or not the workers are just a scapegoat for republicans anti government fervor. Rep. Gerry Connoly of Virginia where many federal workers live said that they are just being used as a punching bag by the GOP. Republicans are extending the current pay freeze of government workers as well as increasing the percentage of money paid to their pensions in order to save money. Republicans say they do this to tame the oversize federal workforce as well as to ensure compensation is more in line with the private sector. In 2006 there were 5.4 government workers for every 1000 Americans, over the last 6 years the number has grown to 5.9 government workers for every 1000 Americans. Republicans compare it to a business saying that we have no money and too many workers, if the government was a business the people would be on the street. Democrats see it differnt; they see it as an attack on government by the Tea Party in the house. Democrats in Congress tried passing a bill that would only affect newly hired workers pensions but it wasn't  backed in Congress. Democratic Senator Ben Cardin said it's not right that the federal workers are being used to offset programs, he said they have done their part to reduce the deficit. The National Treasury Employees Union put a report out deeming 20 bills that it calls "harmful" to federal workforce. It seems the bills are unlikely to pass with a Democrat as President as well as a Demorcrat controlled Senate. The fear is that the workforce will be trimmed as part of "must pass" bills such as to fund the government. The Union is helping fund several Senators up for reelection.  Larry E King who just retired from the U.S. forrest service after 34 years argues they are an "easy target" for lawmakers. They don't fight back but it doesn't make it right.

     In our current economic state it makes absolutely no sense to cut the federal workers. Its kind of ironic Republicans want to cut the workers to help pay for unemployment insurance. The same workers being cut would just get unemployment benefits. Also with the GOP claim that President Obama has done nothing to help the economy and stimulate job growth its hypocritical to cut jobs. Why should government be more in line with the private sector, do they want Americans to earn less money overall why one boss gets rich. These employees are hardworking Americans and they should not lose their job to help fund certain projects. Cutting jobs would only hurt our economy even worse and it is the absolute wrong decision.

 

Bradley Patterson      The Whitehouse Chief of Staff          February 15, 2012

     Patterson talks about the importance of the President's chief of staff. The chief of staff is the only person other than the President who can form his administration into a coherent set of institutions. The chief is system manager boss of none, but overseer of everything. The chief of staff must be familiar with life in Washington and know how everything works there. The chief must have support from the President and his wife, and the Vice President and his wife. He must be familiar with the people who helped out on the campaign, he has to make the tough decision of who to choose for certain jobs. He has to have controll over all of the other staff, someone who could inspire the staff and be able to walk in with respect. The chief of staff attends all meetings including national security with the President. The chief of staff reviews all presentations before the President sees them. The chief of staff controls the Presidents everyday schedule making sure that one principal event gets the attention, he also controlls who the President sees in his office. He reviews everything coming in and out of the Presidents office and can assign deputy chief of staffs to deal with certain areas. The chief of staff will often spend time on capital hill negotiating for the President.  He is sure to keep everyone else on the staff involved so they don't feel disempowered. The chief of staff will often make decisions for the President that he knows not to bother to ask, sometimes he might ask just to make certain but will often decide for himself. The chief of staff must be able to recognize a command given out of anger, frustration and lay it aside. The chief of staff or a deputy chief of staff goes on each presidential journey. The chief of staff convenes whitehouse meetings. Finally the chief of staff runs the risk of becoming insensitive to the prequisites and privilegesa that necessarily accompany this status. One slip could cost him his job and reputation.

     The Whitehouse chief of staff is a lot like the manager of a celebrety. Like any great manager he will make sure he knows everything and everyone he's dealing with. He plans the schedule, plans who will see him and makes sure he knows everything thats going on. It's interesting how close he can get with the President to be able to judge a decision as being made in anger. There is also the trust that comes with allowing him to make decisions on his own. The President better be able to trust and rely on his chief because without a competent one it could make his job a lot harder than it already is.  

 

 

 

 

 

Kenneth Mayer           With the Stroke of a Pen          February 15, 2012

     Mayer talks about how it is conventional political wisdom to think the President is weak. His only power is the power to "persuade". One form of their power most overlooked is the power of executive order used by President's from the beginning. They have used the power to make momwntous policy choices. create and abolish government branch agencies determine how leglislation is implemented as well as anything in their constitutional authority. Some President's use the power to "make laws". A President can declare national emergency which gives him power to restrict travel, impose martial law, seize property, and communication facilities. Congress probes the executive orders making sure it's legal. It's a way for Presidents dealing with a Congress controlled by their rival party. Bill Clinton used executive orders to show he still was capable of governing. He would govern by the "stroke of a pen". Kennedy debated against Nixon saying he wouldn't sign an executive order banning discrimanation in housing and federal employment. In 1962 Kennedy signed that order. Critics say that the executive power can lead to a totalitarian state and dictatorship. This is not entirely true because the courts can challange the orders to see if they follow the Constitutions guidelines for the President to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". Some executive orders have been knocked down because they violated that most notably Youngstown.  The court also said that executive orders can not conflict with Congressional statutes because Congress's statute takes precedence. The President can sign executive orders in these areas; Civil Service, Public land, War and emergency powers, foreign affairs, Defense and military policy, Executive branch administration, Labor policy, and Domestic policy. In a random sample of around 5800 ordersfrom 1936-1999 only 3.8% affected domestic policy and only 5.4% affected labor policy. The greatest percentage was executive branch administration which dealt with things such as creating boards, commisions, transfering power from agency to agency, establish citizen awards, organization of the office of the President, law enforcement, commemorative orders, and contracting. This accounted for 25.5% of the orders. In the early 1900's there was a higher percentage of public land acts, during the 1940's and 50's there was an increase in war and emergency acts due to WWII and the Korean war. In closing Mayer points out you can not find the President's power in the Constitution you must look at other things and Executive orders is somewhere to start.

     Mayer's view on Executive orders takes on a positive tone and it is merited. The President must have some way to do something in case of emergency which is exactly what the war orders can do. There are still limits which is a good thing. For instance although the President can try and make laws if there is no constitutional merit the courts will block it. An order can not supercede our Congress and go over the President's limits. To say it will lead to a dictatorship is false because it's been around since the beginning and hasn't led to that yet. There are still checks which make sure that will not happen. All in all it's a good way for our President to be able to get things done and not just be a figurehead.

 

 

Thomas Cronin and Michael Genovese          The Paradoxes of the American Presidency     February 13, 2012

     The Paradoxes of the American Presidencytalks about how most Americans view the Presidency in many paradoxical ways. They argue that what may prove succesful in one area can prove to be a failure in other areas. The effective leader knows how to deal with the opposites and can use them to his or her advantage. There are some contradictions better left unresolved because in the current political climate it is easier to come to compromise rather than resolve the clashing expectations, they go on to cite the nine paradoxes of the President. Number 1 talks about the American demand for a powerful, popular leadership that solves our nation's problems. Yet we are suspicious of strong centralized leadership and the abuse of that power. Americans will support something if it goes well for the President but not if it goes bad, for example it's ok for secret covert operations if they work well. If they fail we are quick to jump and resent the secrecy and being deceived. Paradox number 2 says "we yearn for the democratic "common person" and also for the uncommon, charismatic, heroic, visionary performance." We want our Presidents to be like us but at the same time better than us. If the President gets too much better than us we criticize them. We believe anyone could be president but than they have to go through tough qualifications to prove their leadership. Carter emphasized his common man personality by talking about how he used to be a peanut farmewr and often introducing himself as such. Clinton had people view him as a Rhodes scholar and an ordinary saxophone player in his hishschool band. Paradox number 3 is that we want a decent just caring and compassionate President but someone who can be ruthless and even manipulative if he has to.  Polls show Americans want honesty and a just man as well as toughness. Eisenhower possesed both of these traits by being the tough 5 star war General but having a benign smile and reserved calming deposition. Another irony is what we look for in a Predident is what we complained about before, people said Carter was too nice, not an "S.O.B." the same trait that people complained about LBJ a decade before. Paradox number 4 is that we want a President above politics but the presidency is one of the most political offices in the system. We want the president to rise above party politics but also help get fellow party people reelected and also deal with interest groups. The President can not gain legislative victories without having a party to back him up in Congress. Paradox number 5 is we want a President who can unify us but must take firm stands on issues and make controversial decisons. This paradox sprang from George Washington who was above party politics and even saw it as a bad thing in his cabinet. He also had the country unified under strong leadership. Today since Presidents run with a party they must support the party's interest while in office. Paradox number 6 we expect our Presidents to provide bold visionary leadership and respond to the needs of public opinion majorities. We want them to lead us and listen to us. We want them to lead us but only to a certain extent, they can't go too far in one direction. Most Presidents have been conservative while in office. Paradox number 7 talks about Americans wanting a powerful self confident President but are suspicious of leaders who are arrogant and above criticism. We want the power to be spread about the three branches but also applaud Presidents who are aggressive and push Congress to pass their legislation. Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and the Roosevelts are regarded in the highest esteem among Americans. Paradox number 8 what it takes to be elected might not govern a nation. To be elected you need luck, money, and public relation strategies. Running the government is nothing like that. A good campaign does not mean a good President, most candidates appear more liberal or conservative in the campaign to appeal to voters. We want a fresh face as president but that brings inexperience. Paradox number 9 the presidency is too strong but sometimes too weak. The President has much more power abroad than he does at home, some Americans think he should do as much here but he can not. The President is too powerful when he has the power to wage nuclear war. He's too weak when it comes to balancing the budget, poverty, and other fundamental problems left unsolved. Most people thought LBJ was too stong in Vietnam but too weak on poverty, others thought the exact opposite.

 

     One thing comes to mind when speaking about all of these paradoxes, what can you do to prevent them or even make them go away? They are not going away any time soon and  are here to stay. Although contradictory some ideas make sense, we want a President who is honest and well respected but at the same time fierce and not afraid to be the bad guy. This is a good thing because he can be nice on the outside just as Eisenhower was but when it came to decision making he got things done. The notion of the "common man" seems out of touch because most of the people running for president are millionares and that is not so common. The image of a "common  man" can sell to voters but in reality they are not common at all. The paradox of being above government is almost impossible with the way politics is now adays and candidates run representing a party, theres no conceivable reason to think of the president as going above party politics and not recognize the party he ran for. Some of the paradoxes don't make sense in one view such as that. Finally the President being strong in certain areas and weak in others was intended by the Constitution. It gives the President controll of the military but Congress has the power to make laws here and be the most effective branch on a national level. 

 

 

 

Earl Black/ Merle Black         The Rise of Southern Republicans           December 5, 2011

 

     The Rise of Southern Republicanstalks about how the South went from being the "strong Democratic South" to what it is today; mostly Republican. For years the South was dominated by white Democrats who supported racial segregation and racist laws. The tide began to stir toward becoming Republican when the Republicans chose Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater as their presidential candidate in 1964, he was one of the few Northern Senators who opposed the Civil rights act. With that nomination he drew votes from most of the racist white Southerners. He won the majority vote in the South the first for a Republican presidential candadate in the South. Since winning their vote in 1964 a Republican has never lost the Southern vote. Another factor was the rise of modern business and technology and the decline of the agrarian South. This has led to a more devleoped business sector in the South which helps the Republican stand. Also most Southerners are strongly religious and are more likely to support the "religious" Republicans. President Reagan had a lot to do with the rise of Republicans in the South, he organized all the white electorate and gathered the majority of conservative and moderate whites while just conceding the votes of liberal whites and blacks. Reagon had three priorities "lower tax rates, a stronger military force, and reduced government spending." These ideas mirrored the view of most Southern whites and thus began the great Republican South. Reagon himself was a former Democrat so he used that to his advantage to get what used to be the strong democratic South to turn their votes toward him and the Republican party.

 

     The Republicans were smart and knew exactly what they were doing by nominating Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater for President in 1964. This was their chance, one of their only chances ever to gain the Southern vote and break through the "solid South". There was no way the heavily racist whites of the South would support LBJ who wanted to pass the civil rights act. Why would the Republicans nominate someone against it when most Republicans were for it. The answer is simple, although they did not win the election no Democrat Presidential candidate has won the Southern vote, this has a large part to do with Goldwater. It was a stroke of Political genious to bring him into that election and bring the Republicans into the South. When Reagon used his tactics to align almost all the conservative white Southerners to his side the damage was done to the Democrats. The "solid democratic south" is no more.

 

 

 

 

James Ceaser/ Andrew Busch          Red over Blue          December 5, 2011

 

     In red over blue Ceaser and Busch talk about the use of coloring the states as red for republican and bluefor demorcrats. This was introduced on a map after the election of 2000 and showed President Bush winning most of the states and most states therefore being red states. Ceaser and Busch point out that although he had won those states the margin of the win might be a few percentage points and not all the people in that state are republican. The maps made its seem to be most of the country was republican or democrat and no in between. They later pointed out the use of purple or fuschia being used to show a state with red and blue. The maps made it seem the United States was seperated and divided. This was not true they argued because most states had a mix of red and blue. They talk about the rise of the Republican party after the 2004 election when Republicans held a true majority having a republican ruled house, senate, and president. This had to do with the Republicans and Bush being seen as the party that could best protect our nation from terrorism. In the 2004 election that was the issue most Americans were voting on, issues such as welfare and economic issues were 2nd and 3rd and did not help Democrats win. They downplay Burnhams view on critical elections and instead argue that realignment as a major change in the strength of two parties during a specified period of time. There was an event that sparked help to the Republican party and that was September 11th because they made themselves the party of Defense. Over a period of time the Republicans also used the issue of morals to draw on voters from Protestant evengelical sects, and the Orthodox Catholics and Jewish. Reallignment has taken place in the South now heavily Republican, and the North east now increasingly Democratic.

 

It is true that red and blue does not define our nation. Although there were more red states in the 2000 election that does not speak for all the people. A presidential candadate winning that state does not make that state a red or blue state. There is more to it than that such as who they vote for locally and who they elect to Congress. There was reallignment in 2004 with Republicans getting a majority in large part due to terrorism and the war in Iraq shaping people's opinion. That majority has vanished in 2008 with the Democratic President winning running a large part of his campaign to help establish Healthcare for all citizens. In the same way the Iraq war and Terrorism helped Republicans get a majority the health care debate helped the Democrats win the presidencey and now gave them a majority in the Senate. There has been no major reallignment because the pendulum is swinging back and forth based on whatever is currently on the mind of most voters.

 

 

 

I am a Democratbecause i consider myself liberal in my economic and personal belifs. Although i do not support abortion and am pro life, it is no reason to not be Democrat. I agree with their stands on social welfare and creating jobs. I disagree with the GOP stand to give tax breaks to the rich so that they use the extra money to "create jobs". This just hasn't happened. I support Gay marriage and believe every person should have an equal right in this country. I am for Gun control and do not think people need certain guns to "defend" themselves. I support the right to fair labor and the right to form Unions, the GOP is trying to get rid of the Unions. I do not support capital punsishment as many Republicans do. For all these reasons I am a Democrat.

 

Francis Fox Piven/ Richard Cloward      Why Americans still don't vote     November 27, 2011     

 

In Why Americans still don't votePiven and Cloward first talk about how American politics in the 1980's was being taken over by a "Republican/business/ Christian Right, and the new deal and Great Society programs that interested them were being threatned. It was their belief that the minorities and the poor who were the recipients of government programs were not voting. Therefore they worked to pass the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) in 1993 to register voters in welfare offices as well as registering people when they got their liscense, thus giving it the nickname "motor voter". By doing this they felt the poor would register and vote in favor of the Democrats and help support social welfare programs. Although registration did increase voter turnout however did not. Four years after the NVRA voter turnout had fell 2.8 percent. So just because people were registering they were not voting. Piven and Cloward go on to say why Americans don't vote. They argue that Americans do not feel a part of the process. They are no longer connected in a way they used to be. Americans don't believe their vote would do anything they "have lost their confidence in the effectiveness of their actions" Americans feel lobbyist and special interest money are forming a gap between what Americans think is important and what the national agenda is. Political parties have also stopped petitioning for people to get out and vote. In summary American people just don't feel their voting will make a difference, when the time comes and there is a new surge of protest accompanied by the rise of minor parties Americans will vote and the millions who don't now have a say will have their voices heard.

 

The idea of allowing people to register in welfare offices and when getting their liscense is a good idea to increase registration, but it fails to do anything after that. As seen in the years after voter turnout actually decreased. This doesn't have much to do with Americans not being a part of government or political parties. It also doesn't have to do with special interest. If the people wanted to make a difference and not have lobbyist run Washinton they would vote. In order to have your voice heard or even complain about government get out and vote. Special interest can only do so much with the officials we elect. More of the nonvoting has to do with American people not caring and being lazy. If Americans cared more and paid more attention to politics special interest and lobbyist could do little to change what the informed voter knows and who they will elect. There is no way to actually get more people to vote other than the person wanting to get up and actually vote.

 

Charles Beard      October 25. 2011

 

     Charles Beard is an American historian who writes about his theory of the Constitution being founded for mainly economic reasons. He sites facts that more than 5/6 of the delegates would benefit economically by the passing of the Constitution. He also brings up the point that not one represented the poor farmers class of people. Fourteen delegates were personally invested in land claims for speculation. There were twenty four delegates interestested in money loaned with interest. Fifteen were personally invested in the slave trade. These reasons he argues gave the framers an economic interest to pass the Constitution.

 

  If the framers only had economic interest involved why is the Constitution still around and legitimate today? Beard overlooks the fact the Constitution is the basis of our government and has worked since its ratification. If it were for economic interest of the framers, why make it so that it could last this long? Why would they ensure a sound government where no branch is too powerful and each has a check on the other. It is a theory that they were there for economic reasons and that is it. The Constitution serves as the center of our government today and will for years to come. It is a founding document that forms our government, not something made for economic interest of 55 men.

 

Powers

 

1) Congress passes law (legislative)

   -  President can veto (executive)

 

2) President vetos bill (executive)

    - Congress can over ride with 2/3 vote (legislative)

 

3) President and congress pass bill (executive, legislative) 

    - Supreme court can rule unconstitutional (judicial)

 

4) President assigns Justices (executive)

     - Senate approves (legislative)

 

5) President can request certain laws (executive)

    - must be passed by congress and senate (legislative)

 

6) President is commander and chief of army (executive)

     - Congress declares war (legislative)

 

7) President proposes budget (executive)

     -Congress has control of it (leglislative)

 

8) President makes treaties (executive)

     -Congress must approve (legislative)

9) Supreme court can declare law unconstitutional (judicial)

     -Congress can ammend Constitution (legislative)

 

10) President can act and make executive decisions (executive)

     Supreme court can rule unconstitutional (Judicial)

 

 

Michael Fiore, Charles Unruh, Jessica Phares

 

The framers were all white and somewhat wealthy. Most were well educated as lawyers and merchants. They were predominately Christian and in their 30s and 40s with a few younger and a few older. Most were natural born citizens. 

http://www.usconstitution.net/constframedata.html

 

Euegene Rostow      The Democratic Charter of Judicial Review      October 17, 2011

 

      Rostow is seeking to defend the use of judicial review because many people look at it as undemocratic. He points out the reason it was put in the constitution was to interpret the laws and protect the rights of the people such as life, liberty, and proprty. Those rights should never be put to the vote and the government has no say in them. The idea behind the judicial review is to make sure that those rights are not infringed upon by any autocratic ruler, or majority. People may argue that the Judges have too much power for being non elected officials but Rostow goes on to point out the other high ranking jobs that are assigned such as Generals and Admirals or the members of the Federal Reserve Board. He argues the Judicial review was not meant to be an active factor in decions by the executive or legislative but to preserve the boundries of Constitutional growth.

     Without the Judicial review it is easy to assume any law could get passed in this country without an impartial mediator stepping in to have a say for what is right. The Review is only used in cases that a law might infringe upon someones natural rights or those given in the Bill of Rights. It is up to the court to decide what is right or legal. If not for the Review any majority in power in government could easily pass laws infringing upon the people's rights. The Review serves as the only check on whether a law is constitutional and legal. By doing the Judicial Review they are helping to ensure all the rights of the people are met. They do not factor in on laws being passed unless it plays an infringement upon those rights. The Judicial review is needed if we wish to live in a Democratic society with the rights our founding fathers promised us in the Constitution. 

 

 

Lani Guinier      The Tyranny of the Majority      October 17, 2011

 

     The writing consists of a radical idea of how to get the minority more involved in the political process. Guinier believes that the majority rule is unfair towards minorities and they have no say. It is compared to a Chicago High School where the songs for prom were voted on by the students. Since it was majority white students their songs were picked and the blacks felt like they did not have a say. They protested and had their own prom with their music. Her idea to solve the problem of majority rule is cumulative voting. In the system of cumulative voting people get more than one vote and are able to spread out the votes among multiple candidates. For instance in the issue of the prom songs the students could vote for any song with a total of ten votes. They could use all their votes on one song or spread them out 5 votes for two songs. By doing this the votes are spread out and the minorities could vote together and still be represented. She thinks the same could be true for the United States government. If the votes were spread out no majority would hold power and control every aspect of government. The minority would have it's say.

     While the system of culmulative voting could sound good in theory or on a smaller scale it would never work in a country as large as the United States. Not to mention the fact it is goes against the Constitution and the way the framers made this country. It is an impractical system because the average citizen does not no much about politics as it is and adding more offices elected at one time would cause confusion. With so many people voting in so many differnt ways there is no direction of the government. By spreading out the votes nothing could get accomplished in government because they are all have different views. Minorities can have a say now as it is, if they all vote the same way. The way this nation works is the majority votes and then is represented. To say minorities have no say just isn't true, after all we have a black president.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Federalist 10     James Madison     October 10, 2011

 

    Madison was writing this paper to persuade the American people a Republican form of government would work. In the essay he writes about factions and how they are active in politics. There was no way to get rid of all factions but there was a way to control it's effects. In a pure democracy a faction could get too much power by controlling the system of government. The Factions would ignore the public good and most often try and fend for their own personal interests. If the factions were in control they would more then likely overlook the rights of the people and the common good. As Madison states no man can be his own judge because his own interest would bias his judgement and corrupt his integrity. The same can be said about Factions if they had power in a true democracy. This is why a Republican form of government works. it controlls the factions. In a Republican system the people vote for a small number of representatives to vote on national issues. Those elected officials vote on issues of the country. With a small group one state, faction, or religious sect can get too much power. For something to pass on a national level it would need majority of the elected officials not just a faction in a state. The Republican system is the only way to make sure the people have a say and no one group attains too much power.

     Madison is correct in believing a Republican form of government controlls factions. If there were not elected officials and just a pure democracy then any group of people could at any time hold too much power. For instance a religious institution with many followers could change laws favoring their relgion and infringe upon people's rights. Corporations could band together to make laws fringing upon worker's rights. There is no controll of factions in a pure democracy. In a Republic the people vote for elected officials to govern for them. This balances out the power because majority is needed to pass legislation. No one group can over power the other. The only way to get things done in a sense is to compromise. In compromising the needs of everyone can be met on common ground. If the people don't agree with decisions they can choose not to elect that person in the next term. The Republican form of government is most efficient kind.

 

 

The reading was about the writing of the Constitution of the United States.  It commented on how the founding fathers wanted to run the government. They wished to make sure that no one group of people could not get more power than the other. It could not be the rich trying to blunder the poor, or the poor blundering the rich. There had to be a system of checks to balance the government for all. The government was designed to control the masses. It should not be confused for liberty, to them liberty meant property. If all men had a right to property and a say in their government it would work. It is true that without a system of checks and balances it would be too easy for one group of people to get power. The founding Fathers did not want another monarchy, there needed to be a system where branches checked each other. Their belief in doubting the common man is also true because if majority of the people are poor they will over throw the rich or vice versa, their system would work.  They needed to worry about the country's future and could not worry about pressing issues about "liberty" like slavery. If they had worried about those issues then, the constitution may never have even been signed.

 

Alexis De Tocqueville was a French aristocrat who came to America in 1831 to study the new nation and see how it worked. In his studies he surveyed many people of many differnt backgrounds and class levels. He talked about how emigrants would come to this country all of differnt backgrounds and areas, and with differnt principals. They all had however valued the principals of true freedom. Unlike most other governments this government would allow for the poor to have a say and not be too dominated by the rich. He says that men in America are not consumed with money and there is no struggle between the rich and poor. He goes on to say that America is a Democracy where all men have the freedom and are equal in strength, he has seen no country like this and believes it to be the best form of government.

     De Tocqueville's point of the rich not controlling the poor may have been relateable in 1831 but it is most certainly relatable today. Sure, every person holds a vote which is equal but money plays a factor in who is elected. The rich can afford advertisements as well as money for a campaign. They are also more usually well known. Once in office lobbiest and labor unions can sway their vote to favor big business. The Democracy is there in a sense where officials are elected, but money changes who is in office and what they do. The system works til this day but there is an ever widening gap between the richest  of the rich and poorest of the poor.