Politico Prep 9
1. The supreme court reviews their cases from the Court of Appeals and the state supreme courts. After reviewing, the court decides which cases it wants to hear.

2. Interest groups can impact the justices by an amicus curiae brief, writing letters and sending emails, public protests and media advertisements. 

3. The Supreme Court is above politics, as it should be. Their rulings should be based solely on the Constitution, and shouldn't let outside politics tangle with that.

4. This prep was very useful because it explained a lot about the ins and outs of the Supreme Court and the process of how they rule. If I was on the Supreme Court, I'm honestly not sure how I would rule the health care law, because I can see both sides of it. I would also need to review the entire bill more closely in order to make a more educated decision.    

 

Politico Prep 8

1. I believe that the president as chief of state is the most important. This title takes into account his role as a foreign diplomat as well as something more local, as the head of the United States of America.

2. The least important title I believe is the chief of party. I feel that a president must bend and be flexible, not committing to the sole views of one party. Although he says he is one party, he must accommodate. Plus, I do not think the title sums up equally to any other title, such as chief executive. 

3. President's are said to have a "continuous campaign" because even when they are the incumbent in the white house, they are still campaigning, trying to hold on to their old supporters and gain new ones. 

4. I really liked this article because it pointed out how much the president really does, and how his titles are viewed. I feel that the founding fathers saw the president today, they would say that he has too much power and influence. 

 

Politico Prep 6

1. Government farm subsidies were originally part of the New Deal during the Great Depression, in order to protect farmers if their crops failed.

2. Environmental businesses will also be subsidized by the federal government. 

3. Interest groups will use lobbying in order to try and shape public policy, as well as using their members and supporters. 

4. I believe that it is much harder to implement public policy that has already been created. It is a large enough hurdle to get over when trying to get something enacted, and to change it afterwards is much more difficult.  

 

Politico Prep 5

1. Demographics: In the 112th Congress, there are 241 Republicans and 198 Democrats. The average age for Senators is 62 years and for the House 48 years. There are 91 women in congress, 44 blacks, 31 Hispanics, 13 Asians and one Native American. 

2. The House is meant to "reflect popular will" and pass legislation quickly, without many barriers are rules. The Senate is much more structured and passing legislation is slower than the house. 

3. The Senate is allowed the use of Filibusters, and they are also able to approve of the president's cabinet, whereas the House is not. 

4. In order for Freshman Congress members to be reelected, they must do things that benefit their local district. They should start projects that the people want done, so that their voters see that things are being accomplished.  

 

Politico Prep 4 

1. In order to build a successful presidential campaign, candidates must promote their self image. Also, the candidate "must employ a giant marketing campaign with the ultimate task of staying on message during more than two years of planning and execution."

2.  Campaigns have become for candidate-centered because of the importance of the media today. Presidents campaigns are mainly broadcasted and covered over the TV or radio, which makes the candidate's self image very important. Voters will remember face and appearance over campaign platforms.

3. The positive of letting party supporters vote in primary elections is that it is much more democratic. The negative is that just because these voters support a certain party does not mean that they are totally politically informed.  

 4. This article does a very good job pointing out how different elections and primaries are today. I do not think that it is fair that the candidate is held responsible for comments made by supporters. The candidate most likely may not even know the supporter, and just because the person supports the candidate's party doesn't mean that they are the most politically educated. 

 

Politoco Prep 3

1. The governemnt is more divided than it has ever been. Many controversial issues come into play, such as healthcare, where people either totally support it or are against it. THe nation has become more polarized, and swing voters are parting with either REpublicans or Democrats. The swing voters that are left are going to be crucial for one party or another. Every vote counts because the competition is so close.

2. Demographics: race, class, Gender, religion, Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, moderate, education

3. Suburban women: tax cuts, family values, low crime rates, education

4. I think this politoco article is important because it points out how divided out goverment truly is. I don't think I can say which way swing voters will vote. A lot of people don't want Obama reelected, but at the same time there are people that do not want Romney to be President. They are also very simliar. It's kind of a race of who American peiople can tolerate more.  

 

Politico Prep 2

1. Interest Groups are very important to democracy. Individuals have the constitutional right to petition: to voice their opinions about what they want. As a group, they are much more powerful and influential to accomplish what they want to see done in government. Interest groups can be dangerous because one interest group may have more influence or money than another group, and they may want something accomplished that does not benefit most others. 

2. NRA- National Rifle Association - protecting the constitutional amendment to bear arms.

    AARP - protecting the rights of the retired and elderly

    National Right to Life Committee - protecting the rights of unborn children.

3.  When trying to influence public policy, there has to be large numbers. Members of different interest groups that really want something accomplished should write letters and make phone calls to government officials and encourage others to do the same. 

4. It is important to understand interest groups, because they are examples of living democracy and everyone is going to be affected or contacted by an interest group at some point in their lifetime. I think it is a smart idea to have former members of Congress on board with interest groups. If the interest group has a goal they want to achieve or accomplish, they need connections, and a former member of Congress has an automatic in.  

 

Politico Prep 1

1. Pre-Civil War time, the South was generally Democrat and the North was generally Republican. These party affiliations changed after the civil war, when the Southern whites switched to become Republican. Southern Republicanism is still current in 2012. The North over time has become more and more Democrat. 

2. District lines can be drawn by the government that do not favor the moderate politician. These lines will group a majority of voters together that do not support a certain candidate. 

3. Majority of Pennsylvania's representatives are Republican. 

4. The topic of this article is about the increased partisanship in Congress. This increase in partisanship is too complicated and it makes government become too divided; it is not good for Congress. It will cause more gridlock and not as much will be accomplished, which will frustrate the representatives' supporters in their home district. 

 

 

Meredith Madness! Sarah Hammer & Chelsea Rovnan

 

Miranda vs. Arizona:

1. Facts: In a variety of cases, suspects were interrogated and no legal officer had informed them of their rights prior to questioning. Also, suspects were signing inculpatory statements without notifcation of their rights to counsel. Because of the ignorance of many legal officials, suspects felt as though their freedom was being restricted, and their constitutional rights were not fully in effect.  

2. Constitutional question: "Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?"  

3. Decision/impact: The decision of the Court was as follows: 5 votes for Miranda and 4 votes against. The Court stressed police warnings to suspects, such as warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations. Citizens have to be read their rights.

 

Commonwealth vs. Hunt

1. Facts: In 1839, the Boston Journeymen Bootmakers' Society ordered a strike against all employers who hired non-union members. The society's leaders, one being Mr. Hunt, were arrested for accused conspiracy. Mr. Hunt argued that his organization to strike was lawful. 

2. Constitutional Question: Is the right for unions to strike legal? 

3. Decision/impact: Commonwealth vs. Hunt legalized the existence of trade organizations. This case created legitimacy for trade unions. Also, trade unions are not criminal or conspiring if they are not violent or take part in illegal activities. 

 

Lemon vs. Kurtzman 

1. Facts: In 1971 the Supreme Court ruled that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act violated the First Amendment. This act stated that the state Superintendent of Public schools could reimburse nonpublic schools for the salaries of teachers teaching secular material with secular textbooks. Many believed that this violated the Separation of church and state.  

2. Constitutional Question: Does government funding of private, religious schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? 

3. Decision/impact: (Wikipedia Copied)

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion

If any of these were violated, it would be unconstitutional under the first amendment. 

 

Oregon vs. Smith

1. Facts: Alfred Smith and Galen Black, members of a Native American Church and counselors at a drug rehab facility, were fired for ingesting a drug that is part of their religious ceremonies. This drug was considered illegal in Oregon without the defense that it was being used for religious purposes. Smith and Black were denied unemployment pay by the state because their record said that they were fired from work because of "misconduct."

2. Constitutional Question: Could the state deny someone unemployment benefits for the use of peyote, even if it is for a religious purpose?  

3. Decision/impact: The court ruled that the denial of unemployment benefits was permissible. There is a lot of controversy concerning the decision; does it interfere with personal religious freedom, and does it conflict with other state and government laws. 

 

Abington School District vs. Schempp 

1. Facts: Edward Schempp filed suit against the Abington School District to prohibit a Pennsylvania State law that allowed the public schools to read and study portions of the bible in their public education. The lay required each public school to read at least 10 Bible verses a day in the schools. He stated that it violated the rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

2. Constitutional question: Is Bible reading in public schools unconstitutional?

3. Decision/Impact: The court ruled 8-1 that Bible reading in public schools was indeed unconstitutional. The State or government can not force a belief on the American public. It is a violation of the First Amendment. 

 

Muller v. Oregon (1908)

Facts: The state of Oregon had enacted a law limiting women to ten hours of work in factories and laundries. Melville W. Fuller was the Chief Justice at the time. The phrase “freedom of contract” does not appear in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Constitutional question: Does the Oregon law violate a woman’s freedom of contract implicit in the liberty protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Decision/impact: The Court decided that the law did not violate the Constitution. Owners of factories and laundries said that there was no reasonable connection between the law and public safety, health, or welfare. This case legitimated a view of women as being inferior to men, supporting sex discrimination.

 

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Facts: Earl Warren was the Chief Justice at the time. Gideon was a man charged in Florida for a crime. He couldn’t afford to hire a lawyer and when he requested that the Florida state court to supply him with an attorney, it refused. Gideon received 5 years in a state prison.

Constitutional question: Did the state court’s failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Decision/impact: The Court’s decision: 9 votes for Gideon, 0 against. The Court claimed Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney. This resulted in an overruling of its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. 

 

Schechter v U.S. (1935)

Facts: Charles E. Hughes was serving as Chief Justice at the time. Section 3 of the National Industrial Recovery Act played a huge role in this case. It gave the president the power to make codes to regulate weekly employment hours, wages and the minimum age of employees.

Constitutional question: Did Congress unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the president?

Decision/impact: The decision: 9 votes for Schechter Poultry Corp. and 0 against. The Court found that Section 3 violated the Constitution. It claimed that the law didn’t really establish rules/standards to evaluate industrial activity.

 

Case: Swift vs. United States (1905)

Facts: In this case, Swift & Co. vs. United States, meat dealers in Chicago decided not to bid against one another in an attempt to control prices. This was also known as a “meat trust,” which also made railroads charge them extremely low rates. The government disapproved, calling it “an unlawful economic monopoly.”      

Constitutional question: Did Congress have the authority to regulate the meat trust under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act?

Decision/impact: The Court ruled that the Commerce Clause secured that it was constitutionally just. It gave the congressional power to regulate the meat trust. The Court saw this action as “a direct attempt to monopolize commerce.” 

 

 

Case: Reynolds vs. United States (1878)

Facts: As secretary to Mormon Church leader Brigham Young, George Reynolds challenged the federal anti-bigamy act. He believed that his First Amendment rights were being inflicted upon (freedom of religion). Having multiple marriages at the same time, the practice of bigamy, is part of the religious practices of the Mormon Church. 

Constitutional question: “Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice?”

Decision/impact: Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite was serving at the time and the Court decided that it did not violate the First Amendment’s free exercise clause. It proclaimed that the statute can punish criminal activity without taking religious beliefs into consideration. The Court said that the First Amendment didn’t protect religious practices considered to be criminal.

 

 

Case: Schenck vs. United States (1919)

Facts: Edward D. White was serving as Chief Justice at the time of the decision. Schenck was charged for “attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment.” It was during World War I when Schenck sent out these circulars to draftees.

Constitutional question: Are Schenck's actions protected by the First Amendment’s free speech clause?

Decision/impact: The Supreme Court decided that Schenck was wrong. Even with the First Amendment, Congress has and had the right to prevent evil doings such as this one. They concluded that during wartime, “utterances tolerable during peacetime” must and can be punished.  

 

 

Case: Lochner vs. New York (1905)

Facts: It was decided be Fuller Court, when Melville W. Fuller was serving as Chief Justice. New York (state) enacted a statute giving bakers a limited amount of working hours. It said bakers could only work 60 hours or less a week or 10 hours a day.

Constitutional question: “Does the New York law violate the liberty protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment?”

Decision/impact: The conclusion was as follows: 5 votes for Lochner and 4 votes against Lochner. The Court decided that the New York law was invalid. New York’s law violated “freedom of contract” and not to mention it was a labor law, which is one in which the state should not interfere with.

 

Engel v. Vitale

Facts: Many New York families complained that the words "Almighty God" in the beginning of a public school prayer was unconstitutional. It violated the Establishment Clause and it should be taken out of the public school system. At first it was upheld to be constitutional, until the American Jewish Committee and other organizations declared otherwise. 

Constitutional Question: Is it constitutional for state officials to compose a school prayer in public schools?

Impact/Decision: The decision was that it was indeed unconstitutional. It violated the Establishment clause and the separation of Church and state. This court decided that any issue of religion in a public school would be declared unconstitutional.  

 

Fletcher vs. Peck 

Facts: After the Revolutionary war, Georgia claimed the Yazoo lands, which was an Indian reserve west of its own territory. Georgia cut up the land and sold it, and was later revealed to be part of a scandal because it was being sold to speculators. Fletcher tried against Peck, but there was collision when it was discovered that they both were land speculators.

Constitutional Question: Is land speculation and were the bribed contracts of the Yazoo land act unconstitutional? 
Decision/Impact: This was the first time that the Supreme Court ruled a State law unconstitutional. It strengthened the importance and security of legal contracts. Also, it established that the Native Americans on this land did not technically own it, and therefore had no say to keep it.    

 

Plessy vs. Ferguson

Facts: After the Civil War there were still many hostilities from the whites against the blacks. Whites wanted to be separate from the blacks, and there are many different examples that exemplify this universal white feeling. Plessy from Louisiana brought this case to the Supreme court after he claimed that he was being denied his 13 and 14th Amendment rights by being forced to ride on a train with separate black and white train cars.

Constitutional Question: Is separate but equal constitutional?

Decision/Impact: Courts ruled against Plessy 7-1. The Court decided that as long as the whites and blacks were "separate but equal," there was no Constitutional harm done. This would remain to be the constant until Brown V. Board  almost 60 years later. 

 

Webster V. Reproductive Health Services 

Facts: The State of Missouri passed a law stating that all life beings at conception and unborn children should have protected rights of safety, health and well being. This case allowed for the state to legislate in an area that was previously covered by Roe v. Wade, and for the state to provide funds that went against abortion. The Missouri court struck down the laws provisions, and denied their enforcement.

Constitutional Question: Was it constitutional for the state of Missouri to go against a previously established Supreme Court law concerning abortion?

Decision/Impact: The court did not spend much time deciding whether this law was constitutional or not, because many of its aspects were already debated over and established in Roe V. Wade. Abortions up to 20 weeks are constitutional, and after 20 weeks is unconstitutional. This case really displayed that Roe v. Wade has the final word.  

 

 

 

Seung Min Kim "Federal Workers Under Seize" 3/12/12

Kim's article is about budget cuts and cutting the federal work force. The Republicans are treating the government bureaucrats as "punching bags," trying to cut the number of federal employees in order to save money to pay for payroll tax cuts, unemployment benefits, etc. The Republican's main goal is to stop the budget cuts said to hit the Pentagon in January 2013. The Democrats take the opposite side and are fighting to maintain the federal work force, even though Obama recently signed a bill stating that employees would pay part of their salary in their pensions. There is very little chance that the Republicans would succeed in making this bill a law; there are too many Democrats in Congress and a Democratic President.

 

I completely side with the Democrats. The federal work force makes up for a large majority of hard working Americans. Its unusual to think that some of these government jobs, that should provide a sense of security, are at risk of getting cut. The cutting of these jobs creates job loss which has a negative effect on the economy. There must be other ways to look for budget cuts where it doesn't totally cut off the income for many others.   

 

 

 

Lanahan 36 - Patterson    2/15/12

In Bradley Patterson's The White House Staff, Patterson explains how crucial the chief of staff is to the life of the president, both business and personal. Everything that goes to the president goes through the chief of staff first; the COS is arguably the most important person working for the president. He/She has to have a knowledge of the public life in Washington, a familiarity with the operators of the presidents campaign, the president's schedule maker and approve, and, above all, this COS must also have approval from the president's wife, vice president, and the vice president's wife. It is an incredibly stressful and pressure-filled job; the President and his administration simply could not operate without the chief of staff.

 

The President's chief of staff in undeniably the unsung hero of the White House. He/She is to the president as a manager is to a famous singer or actor.  It was very interesting to read about everything the chief of staff does, and it is rather remarkable. The COS must be the master of everything Presidential from personal matters, to public matters, to political matters.  The COS has en enormous responsibility, and at the same time, has a lot of control and influence. The president could not operate without his chief of staff. 

 

Lanahan 35 - Mayer   2/15/12 

In Lanahan 35, Kenneth Mayer explains that the most powerful action of being president is not being persuasive, but being able to issue an executive order. Even with the separation of powers, Presidents still have an edge by using the "tool" of executive power. Throughout history, it is executive power, not persuasion, that is used most often to get done what the president wants done, without the interference of Congress or the courts. With the "stroke of a pen," presidents can make executive policy; this policy, in the words of the Supreme Court, is more so presidential legislation.   

 

With the ability to apply executive power, presidents definitely have an enormous amount of power: possibly more power than what was originally intended by the founders. With this power, the president has the power to make a final decision without the consent of Congress or the courts. Although the separation of powers always seems to somehow balance out, this executive power I feel is a violation of the separation of powers, even though it is considered completely legal. As stated in the reading, Article II of the Constitution was left vague, giving the Presidents some leeway to exercise their power.    

 

 

Lanahan 33 -  Cronin & Genovese    2/13/12

In Lanahan 33,  the paradoxes of American politics is described. Americans are the "people of paradox" and have conflicting ideas of what the American government should be, specifically the President. Americans want the president to be a strong leader, but not a leader that takes too much power on himself: someone who is confident, but does not let their ego get in the way of the presidency. They must always maintain a perfect, super-human balance. What then, is the vision of the presidency? How does one get a sense of it when it consists of so many contradictions? 

 

I completely agree with the fact that the image of the presidency is so contradictory. It's not possible for one man (or woman) to be the perfect super-human, even though Americans believe that the president should be so. I know it is not possible, however, I look to the president to be this hero figure anyways. The presidency is no doubt contradictory, but that will never change. The Constitution does not help to clarify things either. It seems as though that the only way the president will receive an overwhelming approval rating is if they do the impossible, which is what many Americans seek.   

 

Clear Congress Project

At first, I was very confused as to what the graph was trying to explain. As I looked into it a little more and read what my other classmates have posted, I've learned a little bit more about the workings of Congress. Although it was altogether a collective graph, it was a closer, individual look at the members of congress. It pointed out individual efforts as opposed to the things that other members simply take credit for. It was interesting to see that the Republicans were much more bipartisan, but then again, as Maddie pointed at in her work space, Democrats lack loyalty in presidential elections. I did find it very interesting, and I liked the way it was specifically broken down.   

 

 

Lanahan 75 - Earl and Mearle Black 12/5/11

 

The Blacks discuss the turn of the South party popularity from Democrat to Republican. The "Solid Democratic South" has had a change of heart. Originally, around the 1960's and before, Southern whites would vote strongly democratic, because they were racist and supported laws that were for segregation. The "Big White Switch" occured when Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, a northern Republican, actually opposed the Civil Rights act. Although many thought the day would never come, the southern democrats became Republican for that election, and since the 1980's, the number of southern Republicans is on the rise. This is credited largely to President Regan. Although Republican, his views closely sided with the views of the southerners.

 

It is shocking for the southerners to switch parties, especially when they were so staunchly Republican. However, just as Burnham stated, politics, party polularities, voter turn out and minorities are always changing. In a few years or few decades the Southerners may very well be Democratic again; after all, they did originally become Republican because of the views of one man, verses the views of an entire party.

 

 

Lanahan 73 - Walter Dean Burnham 12/5/11

 

Professor Burnham is one of the first to try and explain why certain presidential elections throughout the course of American history have made significant impacts on the nation's economic and social directions. He explains how this can be because of polarization within parties, and among parties themselves. Party polularity will fluxuate, and minority groups will become majority (and later on, vice versa). Also, it is consistent period of time between when these significant impacts take place; it is an adverage of 38 years, or one every generation. During this time of "intensity," voter turnout also happens to be on the rise. Burnham calls this process the "critical realignment."

 

It is no surprise that the nation goes through periodic change; it is a normal process for the United States. Just look at the Constitution for example; it is very flexible, and there are all sorts of ways in which it can be interpreted. Times are constantly changing, which makes it necessary for economic and social currents to change as well. The fluxiation of party popularity reflects this.  

 

Democrat:

I am a democrat, because my views most closely relate with the democratic party. I am much more liberal than conservative. I believe that Democrats are more for equality of all people, where as Republicans cater more to the rich. I do not believe in giving the rich all of the tax breaks, because it has not helped the lower classes like they hoped it would. I am a believer in the democratic stances of gun control, social welfare, healthcare for all Americans, and their attempts to create more jobs, especially for middle class citizens.

There are some things that I disagree with in the democratic party however; when it comes to religious matters, i would consider myself more conservative. I am pro life and I do not support gay marriage.

 

Lan 82 - Martin Wattenberg - Where have all the voters gone?

 

In Wattenberg's Where have all the voters gone, Wattenberg analyzes the political apathy of America's youth voters. He shows that since the 1960's, the votes of young people have significantly gone down. He does not blame politicians, however, for this trend downfall. Wattenberg acknowledges the fact that politics and policies in general are geared more toward the older generation (such as the matters of Medicare), and also that there are more distractions with the media than there were 50 years ago (now there are hundreds of tv channels instead of 3 broadcasting networks.) Politics has fallen on the list of priorities for America's youth. 

 

Wattenberg is totally right when it comes to the youngest generation of voters in American today. Although their votes do count, politics is just not as important in their lives as it used to be. As mentioned in the reading, youth was more involved in the 1960's because, for example, they were dealing with drafts. Also, the media is not what it used to be. Instead of the 3 TV broadcasting networks, there are hundreds. When a debate in on a certain channel, it is not going to have to same draw to be watched as it used to. There is too much media in today's world, and it is taking away from educating youth about politics. In addition, the matters being discussed in the world of politics appeal, most of the time, to the older generations. However, if the government is going to start getting involved with student loans and more educational matters, it is certainly best for the youth to get on the ball and start educating themselves more. 

 

 

 

 

Walter Lippmann - The Phantom Public 11/16/11

 

Walter Lippmann is an American journalist who wrote in the beginning of the 20th century. In his book about public opinion, The Phantom Public, he states that the American citizens are uninformed and ignorant to what is going on around them in politics. He does for a moment include that most of the things that the government decides is in seclusion away from the American people, therefore excluding them from furthering their knowledge of what type of government action is going on. He makes mention that when it comes to voting, government expects these citizens to be "omnicompetent:" to know everything. This of course he marks as unattainable, because citizens simply do not care to get to know all of the facts and issues, and they are not included enough. He does however blame the American people for not doing enough to promote the common good, and criticizes them on being so picky about politics, when really they do not know all that much about it.

 

Lippmann's views on the American people are accurate. The American people are not informed enough, and need to be better educated. Whether it is pure laziness, blatant ignorance or results of being secluded, they do not know as much as they should. It is true that it is not entirely the people's fault, although that does not get them off the hook. Government actions are often done in seclusion, and most of the time they really do not consider the opinions of the citizens.  Is it maybe because the government does not trust the opinions of most Americans because they are uninformed? Really, it is a continuous cycle that would be extremely hard to break. Sure, it is easy to say that American citizens need to be more informed, but that requires a willing collaborative effort of both the government and the citizens. Will America ever have that strict form of cooperation?

 

V.O. Key "Public Opinion and American Democracy" 11/16/11

 

V.O Key, a professor at the University of Texas, explores the many features of American politics and the opinions of the American people. He suggests that in order for a politician to rise from the masses, he must be suggesting something big and radical, trying to give himself the upper edge of power. Most times, these promises that politicians make have absolutely no depth; they are just said to put the politician on top, deceiving the American public. V.O blames the politicians for having too much influence, and that the American people should have ways of keeping them in-check (in Key's words: opinion dikes). At that point however, who really has more power and influence? 

 

Politicians did not get a somewhat untrusting resputation for nothing. To get ahead, a lot of them make promises that they will not follow through with. However, I still do not believe that the American people should put up dikes against them. The American people have enough power with their vote, and if a politician is willing to run for the nation, they are willing to run for the people. That is enough to keep them in check. In the case that they deceive the American people, the system of checks and balances will keep them in check. Really, thats what this nation is - a system of checks and balances. Every aspect of the American political opinion and the public opinion feeds off of one another.

 

 

Powers of the Branches

 

1. Legislative branch passes a law, and the president can either approve it or veto it. 

2. The judiciary branch understand and makes sure the laws are enacted, and the executive branch appoints the Justices in the court.

3. The Executive branch can veto a bill, and Legislation can override that veto by 2/3 vote.

4. The President is commander-in-chief of the Army, but only Congress can declare a war.

5. If the Legislative Branch does not like the way the Judiciary interpreted a law, they can create a new piece of legislation.  

6. The President can suggest laws, but Legislation must approve of them.

7. The Judiciary Branch has the power to sentence people, but the Executive Branch may pardon them.

8. Executive branch enforces taxes, but the Legislative must approve. 

9. Executive branch can make executive decisions, but the Judiciary can declare them unconstitutional. 

10. President proposes a budget, but the Legislative branch has control of it.

 

 

Charles Beard: 10/25/2011

 

Charles Beard is a historian who theorizes that the Constitution was founded on mainly economic reasons. He provides significant evidence to back it up; 5/6th of the Founders would benefit monetarily from the Constitution, many were in favor of slave trade and some were in favor of loaning money with interest. In addition, he says that the farmers and poorer citizens were not even considered.  

 

It's completely possible that the founders had their own economic interests in mind while writing the Constitution, however, it was certainty not the only thing they had in mind. If the Founding Fathers were all about being a Democratic Nation, with Democratic opportunities for every citizen, there is no way that the Farmers couldn't have been considered. After constant read-overs, ratification and checks of legitimacy, it is not possible that the poorer classes could have been over-looked. 

 

 

 

 

Reading 42, Eugene Rostow, the Democratic Character of Judicial Review. 

Summary:

In this writing of Eugene Rostow, a legal scholar, the theory behind the power of the Supreme Court is entertained and analyzed. He argues that the minority is protected from the "Tyranny of the Majority" through the ruling of the judiciary. Because the Supreme Court analyzes what is constitutional and what is not, it is guaranteed that all minority citizens will have the same rights of democracy.

 

Power is necessary. Without a firm source of power, the Constitution would be nothing but a written piece of paper. All three branches of Government are set up so they can balance each other out, and it is the job of the Supreme Court to determine whether the decisions the other two branches are making are Constitutional. Every citizen has the right to the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution; the point that Rostow is trying to get across is that no individual member of the Majority has more power than an individual member of the Minority. The Supreme Court acts on this and holds it to be true. Democracy talked about in this reading has nothing to do with who wins elections, but it is all about how every citizen has identical rights as another citizen; who gets put into power is not unconstitutional or undemocratic.  

 

 

 

 

Reading 11, Lani Guinier, The Tyranny of the Majority

Summary:

Lani Guinier, a Law Professor, was denied the opportunity to be considered for assistant attorney general for civil rights of the Justice department because of her outspoken, controversial views toward the American election system and interpretation of democracy. In the Tyranny of the Majority, Guinier's opinions are based off of her beliefs in Madisonian Majority;  Guinier attempts to fight for the minority vote, because she feels as though they are constantly being out-ruled and under-considered by the majority.   

 

To say that America does not have a true democracy is such a double-standard. Everyone has a right to vote, and everyone has the right to run for office. It is up to the people to decide who they want to be in power. By saying that the minority should get a chance to rule after the elected majority, to "take turns," is not exactly the best example of true democracy and Guinier claims it to be. If the "taking turns" policy is put in place, it is taking away the consideration of the people. Today, it is much more prevalent than even 10 years ago to see a Minority race (or whatever can be classified as minority) in politics. Politics is always changing; by changing the system of how elections and power works, it would be a change of the Constitution. Guinier's opinions are a little bit over the top. Just because it was suggested by the very respected James Madison does not mean that it is 100% fair, that it is going to work, or that it will settle well with the American people. There is a reason why Madison did not put it in his own Constitution. 

 

 

Legitimacy? Old School politicians wouldn't think so.

 

 http://www.google.com/imgres?q=sarah+palin&um=1&hl=en&safe=active&sa=N&biw=1024&bih=571&tbm=isch&tbnid=QxqK85qVFshEtM:&imgrefurl=http://www.topnews.in/usa/people/sarah-palin&docid=qbPfpFDGW5J8QM&w=512&h=338&ei=lGaUTtPoLKHi0QGI37GjCQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=593&page=2&tbnh=169&tbnw=204&start=21&ndsp=9&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:21&tx=130&ty=93

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reading 10, Kammen Summary:

 

"A Machine that would go of Itself" is a writing that shows many different sides of how people view and interpret the Constitution. Is it an on-going, mono-toned machine or is it ever evolving? Is the constitution meant to be experimented with; was it really intended to be the United State's framework? 

 

The Constitution can only be described as a machine in the sense that it has been a constant in the United State's government since the late 1700s. Yes, the purpose of writing the Constitution was to set a framework for the nation, however, it was of course a type of experiment. The framers of the Constitution tried to please everyone: no document is flawless. They experimented with the Constitution just like a student would experimented with a math problem by using an educated guess-and-check technique. The framers took what they knew and did the best they could to conduct the new-born nation. 

The Constitution is left up to interpretation. There have been many instances throughout the course of history where many different groups of politicians and philosophers in many different eras have interpreted in their own way. The constitution is a constant, but ever evolving to it's surroundings and conditions; It can suit many at a variety of different times. No matter how it is interpreted however, there is a common base: the well being of the nation always comes first. 

Summary:

Alexis De Tocqueville was a French aristocrat that came to America in order to study the scientific aspects of America's political and social structure. He was, however, like every other man that has stepped on American lands; he wanted a taste of America and its riches. These riches that he was most interested in were the institutions of a peaceful Democracy and a mutual equality for all citizens.

 

 

It is rather unusual, and at the same time incredibly reflective, to see how people of outside nations are so fascinated by America's ideology and political system. America was founded on the ideas of democracy and equality, something that is very foreign to other countries. America has built itself up, and has stated specific foundations that are written in both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. America had put into action something all nations would die for: freedom. Americans thrive on its policies and freedoms; without them, we in America would be lost. 
De Tocqueville is an example of a foreign (French) man that wants to experience the true America: to see what it is like to live the true American Dream. He notices that citizens born into America are automatically being oriented into the American character. This character is one of somewhat selfishness for the purpose of bettering oneself, one free speech and power, and one of a respect for all citizens as equals. It is mind-blowing that foreign nations consider Democracy and equality to be a "phenomenon." It can only be hoped that one day the world will know what it is like to live the American life, but in their own homelands. 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary:

Richard Hofstadter is a hostorian who believes that the Founding Fathers were not at all how the common person veiws them to be. He believes that the Fathers really thought that man was a selfish beast that needs controlling. Hofstadter is firm in his statements that the Fathers tried to take power away from the people, because they had no trust in them; in his opinion, this is why the Fathers were completely against a Democracy.

 

 

Hofstadter seems to be all the way over to the political left with his stance on Democracy, and is a bit crazy assuming that the founding Fathers did not trust the American men. In the instance of Shay's Rebellion, uprising has happened all throughout the course of human history. What was the Revolution? Was that not a rebellion? Weren't the Fathers fully aware and in agreement of the war againt Britain for their liberties and freedoms? It is the same concept, just on a smaller scale. Also, Hofstader contradicts himself. He fully agrees with James Madison throughout the entire writing. Wasn't he a Father? Madison wrote the Constitution and created the ideas of the new American Government, which includes checks and balances. "Government is nothing but a reflection of human nature." HUMAN nature, not just the nature of the less-powerful. The Fathers did not want a complete democracy because too much democracy without order would not be a government at all, it would be chaos. It would almost be back to the way things were when the Articles of Confederation were in play, which was a complete failure. By building a republic, the democratic influence is still heavily involved, it is just structured in a more orderly way.

If the Father's meant liberty as property, then so be it. If they were guaranteeing property, all of the citizens would be on board. The people want to feel protected by the government, while still being able to voice their opinion.
Liberty or "democracy" was not granted to Negros because it was not the social norm all accross the planet to give the slaves a say. The intent of the Fathers was not purposely malicious in keeping these rights away from them, it was just not was the accepted norm at the time.

Lastly, the Bill of Rights was probably not originally included not because the rights of the people were being taken away, but it was more important at the time to set up an effective government that would set a foundation for all of the rights to come.

The Fathers knew what they were doing.