Politico AP Government Test Prep

May 1, 2012

 

1. Groups that traditonally make up the broad based coalition of Democrats are African Americans, Latinos, Women, and Young Adults. Most often these people fall into America's middle class or poor category. As for the broad based Republican coaltion, it includes businessowners, and while middle aged men. These people fall into America's wealthy category. These coalitions have changed over the years. The best example I can think of is, when the South converted from being a majority Democrat to a majority Republican.

 

2. The best strategy I can think of in redistricting in order to gerrymander a moderate representative into a district that is less favorable to his/her prospects is changing the boundaries of each district and placing that moderate representative in a district where the people oppose his/her ideals. To ensure that the moderate representative does not win, his/her opponent will be a candidates whose ideals are favorable to his/her prospects.

 

3.  Robert Brady: Democrat

     Chaka Fattah: Democrat

      Mike Kelly: Republican

      Jason Altmire: Democrat

      Glenn Thompson: Republican

      Jim Gerlach: Republican

      Pat Meehan: Republican

      Michael Fitzpatrick: Republican

      Bill Shuster: Republican

      Tom Marino: Republican

      Lou Barletta: Republican

      Mark Kritz: Democrat

      Allyson Schwartz: Democrat

      Mike Doyle: Democrat

      Charles Dent: Republican

      Joseph Pitts: Republican

      Tim Holden: Democrat

      Tim Murphy: Republican

      Todd Platts:  Republican 

 

4. I enjoyed reading the politico article because it taught me a lot that I had not known before. We always hear about minor party splits but the article about the Blue Dog Democrats is much more impactful. The Blue Dog Democrats are on the verge of losing their exsistence which will be huge for the upcoming elections and it will effect the winner of the race.  I disagree with the increased partianship in Congress, because it wastes a lot of time. Americans vote candidates into Congress in order to get things done, and if they can't agree they are failing Americans. They need to put their differences aside and do what is best of the American people as a whole.

 

Baker vs Carr

 

Question: Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?

 

Facts: Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored. Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state.

 

Conclusion: The Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue.

the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation.

Clinton vs. Jones (1996)

 

Questions: Is a serving President, for separation of powers reasons, entitled to absolute immunity from civil litigation arising out of events which transpired prior to his taking office?

 

Facts: Paula Corbin Jones sued President Bill Clinton. She claimed that President Clinton made several sexual advances towards her and becuase she denied him she was punished by her state supervisors. Clinton wanted all matters suspended due to his presidential immunity. The judge denied Clinton's request for immunity but said their would be no trial until after Clinton's Presidency.

 

Conclusion: No. In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that the Constitution does not grant a sitting President immunity from civil litigation except under highly unusual circumstances. The Court said that even though an Executive position is a high honor is does not exempt the president from judicial process.

 

Reynolds vs. United States (1878)

 

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

 

Facts: George Reynolds, secretary to Mormon Church leader Brigham Young, challenged the federal anti-bigamy statute. Reynolds was convicted in a Utah territorial district court. His conviction was affirmed by the Utah territorial supreme court.

 

Conclusions: The Supreme Court decision was unanimous, the statue can punish criminal activity without regard to religious beliefs. The First Amendment protected religious belief, but it did not protect religious practices that were judged to be criminal such as bigamy. No religion could be exempt from the laws.

 

Hammer vs. Dagenhart

 

Question: Does the congressional act violate the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment?

 

Facts: 

The Keating-Owen Child Labor Act prohibited the interstate shipment of goods produced by child labor. Reuben Dagenhart's father disagreed with this legislation and wanted to sue on behalf of his fourteen year old son because he believed his son should be allowed to work in the textile mill even if he was only fourteen.

 

Conclusion: In a 5 to 4 voter Mr. Dagenhart won the case, because the Supreme Court said the production was not commerce, and thus outside the power of Congress to regulate.  The regulation of production was given to the states by the tenth amendment.  The Constitution slightly changed the intent of the framers: The Tenth Amendment does not say "expressly." The framers purposely left the word expressly out of the amendment because they believed they could not possibly specify every power that might be needed in the future to run the government

 

McConnell vs FEC (2003)

 

Question: Does the "soft money" ban of the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 exceed Congress's authority to regulate elections under Article 1, Section 4 of the United States Constitution and/or violate the First Amendment's protection of the freedom to speak?

 

Facts: John McCain and Russell Feingold wanted to reform the way that money was raised and spent during political campaigns in the passing the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act of 2002.  Key provisions to the bill included a ban on unrestricted ("soft money") donations made directly to political parties,and on the solicitation of those donations by elected officials, limits on the advertising that unions, corporations, and non-profit organizations can engage in up to 60 days prior to an election, and restrictions on political parties' use of their funds for advertising on behalf of candidates. In May a three judge panel ban the idea of the restriction on "soft money" but upheld the restrictions on advertising. These rules were folllowed until their could be an official court hearing by the Supreme Court.

 

Impact: In a five to four vote the justices voted no to both questions. Supreme court said no to the ban of "soft money" because in most cases soft money is used to register voters and increase voter turnout. The court also said the restriction on free speech was minimal and was justified by the governments interest in preventing any type of corruption from these contributions. The court also found that regulation was necessary in order to ensure that groups did not circumvent the law. The Court also rejected the idea that Congress exceeded it's authority.

 

Bush vs Gore (2000)

 

Question: Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution by making new election law? Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution?

 

Facts: On December 8, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand 9000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all "under-votes" (ballots which did not indicate a vote for president) because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt. George Bush and Richard Cheney wanted the Supreme Court to review this.

 

Impact: With a  5-4 vote, the Supreme Court decided that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. The Supreme court believe even if the recount was fair in theory it was unfair in practice.

 

Oregon vs Smith (1990)

 

Question: Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes?

 

Facts: Two Native Americans were fired from their job for ingesting peyote a powerful hallucinogen which they said was apart of their religious ceremony. They filed for unemployment in the state of Oregon and were denied of it because of their misconduct. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that while Oregon drug law prohibited the consumption of illegal drugs for sacramental religious uses, this prohibition violated the free exercise clause.

 

Impact: In a 6 to 3 vote the Supreme Court decided that an individual's religious beliefs do not excuse him/her from obeying a  valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. If the government allowed exceptions to valid laws based upon religious beliefs it would call for exceptions from other civil obligations as well.

 

Federal Workers Under Siege

Kristen Long-Politico

March 12, 2012

 

     Many are concerned about the increasing rate of full time federal jobs. It has become a battle between Democratic and Republican leaders as to if the increase is good or bad. The Republican party believes the number of fedeal jobs needs to be cut back. They believe their are way to many people occupying federal jobs and it is adding to America's already tremendous debt. The democrats on the other hand believe that the Republic party is behaving with an anti-government attitude and not understanding the importance of federal jobs. Over the past few years their have been several bills both to cut back on federal jobs and promote federal jobs. With both parties dead locking on the issue neither method has gotten too far. One thing both parties can agree on is that American debt is out of control and they need to stop adding to it.

     After reading this article, you see that both sides make a valid point. The democratic party is right in saying that federal jobs are very key to keep America running smoothly, but like the Republicans said we don't need to keep increasing the number. I tend to agree more with the Democractic party more on this particular issue because I believe that over Republican leaders are being very selfish. They have the nerve to complaing about how there are too many federal employees and thats more and more salaries to pay, well if they cared so much about the America debt why don't they take a pay cut. A majority of Repbulican and Democratic leaders are making atleast a six figure salary, so for anyone of them to complain about federal employee's salary is ridiculous. The American people are struggling enough many losing their jobs and struggling to pay the bills, how can the government take anymore jobs away from people. Before taking away anymore jobs from people they should consider how tragic it would be to lose their own job. Yes I understand we cannot keep adding to the number of federal employees because our budget just can't afford that but the American people can not take anymore job cut backs. I don't understand why the republicans are complaingng so much, a percentage of all American salaries goes to the federal government, including federal employees, so therefore the government is making money of federal employees salaries. So the answer is no we cannot cut back on federal jobs right now, those employees need that money to survive and we Americans need them because those are the people who actually care about the people and well being of this country.

 

 

The White House Staff: Chief of Staff #36

Bradley Patterson

February 15 ,2012

The White How Staff: Chief of Staff makes us aware of the real importance of the President's Chief of Staff. The Chief of Staff is the presidents backbone, he or she is the go to guy when the president is available. They keep track of the president time and assist the president in just about everything the president does. Not only does the chief of staff have to be on good terms with the president and the rest of his staff, but with the presidents spouse, the vice president and his wife. Ensuring good relationships with these people is a necessity in doing a successful job. A perfect quote Patterson uses to describe the chief of staff is "The chief of staff is the system manager: boss of none, but overseer of everything. He or she doesn't have an official authority over anything but he or she does just about everything. A chief of staff is many times under appreciated by his or her president, seeing them as nothing more than hired hands. Everything that comes into the White House must be viewed by the Chief of Staff, before entering the presidents office and leaving the White House all together. He or she is involved in every aspect of the presidents life. The biggest problem with a chief of staff, is allowing for the job title to get the best of their ego.

Reading this passage really opens your eyes to the importance of the Chief of Staff. They are like the behind the scenes producer of the presidency. Everything done in the White House is overviewed by the Chief of Staff. The chief of staff really have no official authority but his or her power is exercised everyday. Everything they do is hidden behind the president's name, which is often why most people forget about the chief of staff. The chief of staff does a lot of work and receives no credit. Many Americans see a majority of the work done in the White House as the work of the president and vice president. After reading this passage it seems almost as if the chief of staff does the work of the president and the vice president. The presidency would be at such a loss if it wasn't for the chief of staff and yet it is a job that goes unappreciated. After reading this passage I respect the job of the chief of staff so much more.

 

With the Stroke of a Pen #35

Kenneth Mayer

February 15, 2012

 

With the stroke of Pen discuess the executive power of the president to issue an executive order. An executive order is a directive issued by the president directing the executive branch in fulfillment of a program. These executive orders are a tool which the president uses in order to carry out the functions of his office. The executive order allows the president to ignored the checks and balances of the other two branches of government. Often times Congress, in an attempt to protect their own authority will issue an investigation of a particular executive order. Many view the idea of an executive order as dictatorship. It is an unaccountable power that allows the president to ignored public opinion and the ideals of the Constitution. Executive orders have been very popular in the presidency because every president has issued one and most of them issued many executive orders during their presidency. An example of an executive order would be the president declaring a national emergency, which gives he/she the power to restrict travel, impose martial law, and seize property, transportations networks, and communication facilities. This is just one example of how drastic these executive orders can be, many are less complicated. Mayer explains that their are eighte categories of executive orders. They are civil service, public lands, war and emergency powers, foreign affairs, defense and military policy, executive branch administation, labor policy and domestic policy. Over the years the popularity of many has increased while others have decreased depending on the particular time period. But in order to understand more about the presidency you need to understand the idea of executive order.

     Many do no like the idea of the president having his own power, the executive power. But in reality, giving the president an executive power is a great idea. We elect the president to be the overall leader of this country we trust that he or she has the utmost best interest for the people of the United States. As the highest figurehead in the United States the president deserves his or her own power that only they have the power to control. Yes, the checks and balances implemented by the Constitution are necessary for our government but at the same time our system is a slow moving process. Laws take years to go through congress and the president before they are ever passed and most of the time they don't even make it throught the system. There are some occassions where the president must react and they need to react quickly. They don't have time to wait for a particular bill to go through both houses and be approved. The executive order is the whole reason why we elect our president, it is an opportunity for them to show their real power in a time of need. The president doesn't use an executive order to benefit themselves, it is for the men and women of this country. If you look at the eight different categories of executive orders, they are all key issues that the president must have a say in as leader of this country. Every president the United States has ever had has used an executive order and America is still a democracy not a dictatorship. So those who fear that executive order will lead to a dictatorship don't have to worry about that. An executive power is the president exercising his power when time is limited.

 

 

 

The Paradoxes of the American Presidency #33

By Thomas Cronin and Michael Genovese

February 13, 2012

 

The Paradoxes of the American Presidency perfectly demonstates the feeble mind of the American people. We expect so much from a president with such limited powers. Cronin and Geovese list nine different paradoxes of how Americans view of their president. People hold some different ideas for the president, and what may have been a positive quality in one president turned out to be a negative quality in another president. Every image we expect of our president has a contrary image that would lead to a downfall. We view the president as our ultimate figure head with ultimate power but in reality our constitution is built with checks and balances to prevent the president from gaining too much power. We want a president who we can feel comfortable with in the presidency but we never want he/she to feel too comfortable in the presidency. Some example of the paradoxes include a strong popular president to solve our problems yet we are so worried about the use of power so we place limits on the presidents power. We desire a "common man" president yet we look for extraodinary qualities in our president, we want our president to be above everyone else besides ourselves.  We want a president who cares and is compassionate yet we admire someone who have guts and will be ruthless. We want our president to be "above politics" yet the presidency is most political office in the American system. We want our president to bring about unity while that requires him to make unpopular decisions to better the country which seperates us. We expect our president to be a leader for us to follow yet we expect him to follow our demands. We want a leader with confidence yet we hate a president who is arrogant. The person who runs for president must be prepare to be a totally different person in office because the jobs are very different. And finally, sometimes our presidency is too weak and other times its too weak,. This back and forth with our president has lead Americans to really question, what do they really want in a president.

     The Paradoxes of the American Presidency hits the ideals of the American people dead on, we Americans are never satisfied. There are so many examples throughout history that exemplify these paradoxes mentioned in the passage. For example, we want a president who is a so called "common man" yet when Herman Cain ran for the presiential nomination many loved him but his downfall to many was that he had no political experience.  Another example is that we want a president who is honest, yet Barak Obama and his colleagues knew where the terrorist was for a whole year before killing him and not a single American knew. We want a president who is "above politics" but the moement a president goes against his political party, his/her people feel betrayed. We want a president who can unify us yet, we are country built on many different opinions and one president can never satisfy them all. Americans put a lot on the shoulder on one particular person, whose power is so limited. Every thing the president does is checked by one of the other branches of government. The whole American system with their president explains the idea of a democracy, power of the many. We want a president who can be just like us but who has superman qualities at the same time. This is what makes the power of the presidency so important, so much is expected of you.

 

 

The Clear Congress Project

January 29, 2012

 

To be honest, I found the whole idea of the Clear Congress Project very confusing and hard to understand. With everything so close together it was hard to really understand the chart. Some things I learned from the website did shock me a little bit. I was shocked to find out that the Democratic party had less bipartisan members in Congress than the Republican party. I just always assumed the Republican party was so stuck on their beliefs that it was almost impossible for them to come to a middle ground especially with the republican party. But in reality, after looking at the chart there is not one democratic member on the republican side of the graph but their are a few republican members on the democratic side.  Also both independent members of Congress are strongly democratic, which makes me wonder, why are they not apart of the democratic party? One thing that didn't shock me was that those that have had a biggerr say and more involvement in Congress are less bipartisan.

 

Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics

December 5, 2011

 

In Walter Dean Burnham's piece "Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics" Burham discusses the art behind politics. Politics is something that cannot be explained because it is forever changing, based upon who is in power and what issues are at hand. Not only does politics change periodically but human nature as well, which explains why politics must change on a regular basis. Burham has developed his own theory as to how politics work when it comes to elections. Burham's believes American follows a political sysmtem in where specific party systems are in power for several years until a critical election changes the coarse and a different party system takes over control. The changes that occurs from one party system to the next is often very dramatic bringing in the fresh modern ideas of the new party and throwing away the outdates policies of the former party. Burham also believes these critical elections occur with a "uniform periodicity", meaning each party system holds power in office for a similar amount of time. Burhams entire belief on critical elections is due to the fact that politics and social issues are constantly changing. Depending on what is going on the world depends how involved people choose to be in politics and how involved they want the government to be.  Burham's idea on critical elections includes a four step process. Basically, this disruption of critical elections are due to a need for a change in the system.

     Burnham's idea of a critical election seems a bit outrageous. He makes it seem as though every so many years a great phenomeon occurs and the entire political system is changed completely. For as long as I have lived, I have never noticed an extreme change in politics ever, where I felt that the entire system was different. I agree that over the years America has faced difficults, such as the Civil War, the Great Depression and even today with 9/11 that has changed the country as a whole. These issues have changed America in so many different ways not just politics, so you can't place these issues for a reason behind a critical elections. These issues changed the beliefs of Americans, not the policies in government.  It is also very un realistic that these 'critical elections" would occur periodically. Americans cannot predict the way in which these "interruptions" will be presented to America, so for Burnham to say that critical elections occur every so many years, is wrong. Basically, Burnham's view on politics and the political world is very organized and his ideas on the way in which it works do not add up. Like it says in the intro, there is no clear cut theory on the way in which politics works, it is unexplainable. Also, for Burnham to say that every so many years a certain party system comes to power is false. For as long as many of us can remember America has had two major political parties, Democrats and Republicans. Occassionally, Americans are presented with a third political party like for example the Independent Party, but for the most part Americans are either democrats or republicans. Democrats and Republicans have both been around for many years built by their beliefs. Therefore, it is wrong to say that every so many years a different party system comes to power and changes the whole political system, for the most part our political system is based on the the beliefs of democrats and republicans. Fate predicts what will happens to Americans and our governmental system, not critical elections.

 

The Rise of Southern Republicans by Earl Black and Merle Black

December 5, 2011

 

In Earl Black and Merle Black's piece "The Rise of Sothern Republicans" the brothers dicuss the "Great White Switch", the switch of white southerns from the democratic party to the republican party. The brothers believe the switch was initially made because of issues such as race and civil rights. Today, many southerns are still drawn to the republican party because of republican conservative beliefs on the power of the federal government, taxes and family values. For years the democratic party was a supreme power in both the north and the south. As for the republican party, it was a broadly based northen party. The Republican party really didn't have a voice until 1994, when it won both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952. This was the beginnings of the republican party's voice in politics to ultimately win elections in the white house and congress. Before 1980, republicans had almost no voice in politics, especially in the south. Before the "Great White Switch" politics in the south was defined by racism. Politicians in power were all about protecting white supremacy. Starting with the Goldwater versus Johnson campaign,more southen whites voted republican than democrat and ultimately during the Regan presidency more southern whites identified themselves witht he republican party rather than the democratic party. With the rise of souther republicans, it gave way for competitive two party politics in the south. Many credit Ronald Regan for bringing about the strength of the republican party to what is has become today, due to his successful years in office. Thanks to Regan, America now has a competitive two party competition in almost every election.

     Seeing how much politics has changed in the past thirty years is shocking. It seems like America has always had a competitive two party system between democrats and republicans. Personally, it is better to have a competitive two party system because that is what being a democratic country is all about. People need options that is what is means to be a democracy. If we lived in a country where everything was done under democratic beliefs our society would be very close-minded. The "Great White Switch" is a prime example of how fickle the American people are. For years it was almost a guarentee that the democratic party would come out on top in any election. But today, any public election is a serious race that involves campaigning. With the transition of Southern white democrats to southern white republicans, not only has the entire south changed, but the entire political world as well. Elections are take more serious and candidates are chosen on a more competitve scale, ensuring the Americans select the best candidate to do the best job. Many associate the "Great White Switch" to former republican president Ronald Regan, but we cannot forget that during the election of Goldwater versus Johnson many southerns began voting republican. The voice of the republican south has changed the entire outcome of American elections. This change in the south has had a positive affect on politics, making elections much more difficult and encouraging only the best candidate to run.

 

 

Democrat or Republican?

December 1, 2011

 

I am a Democrat. I was born into a Democratic family being raised with two democratic parents. My entire life I have seen government in the same light as my parents. Growing up in a middle class family, it makes sense that I am a democrat because I believe the democratic party best represents the average american. Like the democratic party, I believe government was established to help the people and provide people with the best lifestyle possible , whereas the republican party believes people should help themselves. The democratic party represents a majority of Americans, whereas the Republican party represents the rich. The democratic party stands for the interests of all working class families, equality of opportunity and justice for all. The democratic party is about recognizing Americans who wake up every morning and work hard, instead of just letting the wealth take control. The United States of America was built from the bottom up with the hard work and dedication of individuals, which is why the democratic party refuses to let the rich have total control and make their own rules. Being apart of the democratic party, all voices are heard not just some. Democrats truly care about Americans and they want to fix this country not just for right now but for the long term as well.

 

"Where Have All the Voters Gone?" by Martin Wattenberg

November 27, 2011

 

"Where Have All the Voters Gone"? is piece written by Martin Wattenberg which brings to attention the lack of public acknowledgment on politics in the younger generations of Americans. Wattenberg explains how much todays voting in elections is highly represented by citizen ages sixty-five and up whereas voters from ages eighteen to twenty-nine continue to drop. It seems to be a miscommunication between society and it's younger people. Wattenberg describes how in the 1970's people were very informed about politics because it was published all over television on "broadcasted channels" that everyone watched. Now a days more channels are "narrowcasted" toward it's specific viewer. For example, Wattenberg says a person who loves sports, will watch ESPN and a person who loves music will watch MTV or VH1. Today's society has undergone a serious socialization expierence which is why we choose not to vote. Today people are more concerned with their day to day lives that sitting down to even watch the news is difficult sometimes, let alone politics. Social issues have become a top priority rather than politic issues, has seen by the survey of college kids in 2002 where only twenty-six percent of students said keeping up with politics was a major priority.  Although Wattenberg does blame young people for their lack of interest because it is due to the way they were brought up, he does not blame politicans either. He explains that politians know who their voters are and who isn't voting therefore when in office they will protect the people who actually get out their and vote. Those who chose to stay home on election day, are ignored. Wattenberg reminds young people that someday we will become the older generation and if we don't begin to get informed are government will fall apart. American was built as a democracy so it's people could have a say, and currently such a small a low amount of people choose to have a say.

     After reading Wattenberg's piece any young adult in America's society should be worried. This country was built on Individual freedoms and rights and as young adults we can not let that go to waste. Our founding fathers worked hard to build this country so all could have a say and to make our government as perfect as possible, and we are now taking that for granted. Wattenberg is totally right in saying that politics isn't as key to the American society as it was for previous generations, but that does not make it right for the young people to just sit back and watch this country fall. What is going to happen when the voters of ages sixty-five and up die, who will vote then? American prides itself in being a country of of freedom where all can have a say, yet our young people are so ignorant to this freedom to vote. In order to fix this government needs to become more prevelant in the school system because young people aren't being brought up into government anymore. Instead on of learning in social studies about everything that has happend to America since it's birth kids need to be informed about todays America. I'm not saying history should be totally ignored but the curriculum needs to be split so kids have the chance to learn about present day America so when they are of age they can become and active member of society. Young adults are ready to get involved when issues are brought to their attention as you saw in Wattenbergs piece when he says that many young people are involved in some kinds of community or charity work. Also, us young people don't realize it but we are being ignored by our government and we have no one to blame for this but ourselves. Why should government officials cater to our needs when we are too ignorant to take ten minutes of our time and vote. The issues us young people face aren't even being considered as political issues therefore we are not being represented. Our vote does matter and what we say may not seem so important right now, but one day we will be the leaders of this nation and we are expected to take that role, ready or not. Like Wattenberg says, those who vote set the agenda, and those who don't vote get ignored.

 

"The Phantom Public" by Walter Lippmann

November 16, 2011

In Walter Lippmann's piece "The Phantom Public" he reveals the truth about most United States citizens, we are uninformed. He believes citizens are too busy in their day to day lives to be able to focus on all the issues that take place in the government. Not only are they too busy but in all honestly the people aren't even interested. In using his analogy of the fat man trying to be a ballet dancer, he is telling the government you can't force the people to be interested because it just won't happen. That is why the U.S. government needs leaders who are well informed and know what is necessary in order to keep the American government in a positive direction. Lippman believes people only care in times of true crisis and as the crisis is resolved public opinion is gone. People are too busy in their lives and cannot be expected to be well informed on every issue that takes place in the U.S. The people will only care when it will affect them directly, like in a time of crisis. Lippmann tells the government that it is impossible to expect more from the public because they are uninterested. Lippman thinks that issues shouldn't be placed all upon the people nor all up the government leaders but rather the individual organization the issue affects. Those organization and interest groups solve the issue because they know what exactly it is about. But overall, Lippmann believes public opinion should only be need in a time of crisis.

     Lippmann speaks very honestly about the American people when he says that they are very uninformed and uninterested. Now more than ever people are voting less because they have no idea what exactly is going on. The people have no one to blame for that but themselves, many Americans today are beyond lazy when it comes to politics. But in the end, thats how people are and there really is nothing the government can do about it. It is the job of the people to pick responsible and worthy candidates to lead this country but really thats all the American people can provide is their vote. It is the job of the elected political official to know what is going on in the country and to find out what exactly is best for the people. As long as the elected political official goes along with the status quo and keeps the people satisified ,there will be no argument from the people. The people of America only complain or step up in times of true crisis. For example, currently in the news there has been a lot of public opinion about the struggling economy. The reason behind all this public opinion is because people are losing their jobs and without an income they are struggling to pay their bills. This is a major crisis the United States is facing, therefore the people are choosing to get involved. Lippmann's idea that the duties of this country should not be placed upon just the people or just the government leaders but rather the individual organizations is a true statement. Although it seems correct, the idea that is would actually work is very unlikely. Too many officials and interests groups have too much to say is this country. Government leaders would never allow for decisions to be made on the basis of individual organizations, even if the issue affected them directly.

 

"Public Opinion and American Democracy" by V.O. Key

     In Key's piece "Public Opinion and American Democracy" you get a better understanding of how the political system works. The people elect a political official who they believe is a well qualified individual who will do what is best for the United States in America. Key explains that elected officials are so worried about public opinion and being re elected back into office that they will not do anything to rock the boat on public opinion. This prevents them from making any strong changes in government that may or may not cause a negative result from the people. So ultimately in this American democracy the people do hold much of the power, because the leaders fear the consequences they may face due to any severe changes. Key recognizes two groups as the main source to government decision making and those are the elites and the mass influence. The elites are those who are well informed and use any sort of power they may have to persuade the majority of people to agree with them and vote their way. And it is the mass influence with which government officials abide by.

     Under Key's ideas the American government does nothing in respect to the minority and that is untrue. Our government is made up of checks and balances, judicial review and many other resources in order to ensure all voices are being heard. In today's society the communication between the people and government leaders is very poor. So for Key to say that public opinion has a strong influence on political leaders and there decision making, seems untrue. In present day America the people's approval rating of the government is very poor and overall the public has very little confidence in the government. When voting for a political leader today, it has become less about about what the politican can do for you and more about how corrupt their opponent is. Politics is more like a game, politicans are in it to win it and upon victory it becomes less about what the people want and more about their own personal opinion. Yes this seems wrong, but in reality it really isn't to a degree. Like Lippmann said in the previous passage, the American people are poorly informed so how can a political leader who has studied government trust the opinion of people who know almost nothing about the issues of the government. Key believes that often in times of disaster is expected that the public is the solution but he believes it should be put in the hands of our leadership. In saying this he is correct, the people elect officials to keep our nation flowing and in a time of crisis it is their job to prove the role as a prominent leader of our nation. In order to have a more perfect government their needs to be better communcation between the people and our elected officials about the issues at hand.

 

Charles Beard "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution"

October 23, 2011

 

"An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution" is Charles Beard's interpretation of why the Framers wrote the Constitution the way they did. Beard believes the Framers motivation in writing the Constitution was to benefit their own economic prosperity. He takes a look at the Framers, wondering if all fifty-five lived the same economically. Considering the jobs of the framers did vary from person to person it seems very unlikely that all of the same shared the same economic interests. We all know that not all fifty-five men men agreed upon the final written constitution. Beard wonders how the votes for or against the Constitution went, was there no line of property division or was it the economically wealthy for the Constitution and debtors against the Constitution. Did the men with more of an economic interest overrule those who werent as involved in economics. Did those wealthy economist take advantage of the Constitution as a way to enhance their own interest. If so, wouldn't that make our Constitution unfair, the document upon which our country was built and is still used today. Beard points out the irony in it all, the framers believed that man was encouraged by his own selfish interest, yet the Constitution was built upon the framers economic self interest. As a country of justice and equality is that really what our Constitution means or was it just what was more convient for the framers.

     After reading Beard's piece, you are alittle taken back by the attitudes of the framers. Our whole lives we are taught to believe that the framers were all about justice and equality and they wrote the Constitution to ensure that all had a voice. Although Beard's piece makes many valid points and it does make you question the legitamacy of the framers, he doesn't neccessarily seem totally correct. The Constitution has been apart of the American government since 1787 and it is what has set America apart from all other nations. Everything we do in our day to day lives is guided by our rights given to us in the Constitution. If our Constitution was built upon the selfish economic interest of the framers it may have worked in 1787 but it most certainly would not have lasted up to present day 2011. A majority of the Constitution discusses the rights of people and the specific powers of each branch of government, not issues such as property and wealth, which Beard believes is the main motivation as to why the Constitution was written. Beard tells us a majority of the framers were lawyers, meaning they had a strong understanding of the law and knew better than most Americans how the government should work. Sure,some of the framers used some of their own biased when voting on issues to be put in the Constitution but at the end of the day everything had to be agreed upon by the majority. In America we live under a republic where all over the age of eighteen have the right to vote, but the final decision ends with the majority. The Constitution has been in affect for a number of years, it's safe to say we can stop questioning its legitimacy.

 

Taylor Howard

Constitutional Powers

October 21, 2011

 

1. Congress can pass laws. (Executive with the veto)

2. The president can veto a law passed by Congress. (Legislative)

3. The President has the power to declare war. (Legislative)

4. The President can appoint judges. (Legislative)

5. Congress and the President can declare laws. (Judicial with judicial review)

6. The President can replace his Vice President. (Legislative)

7. The Judicial branch is in charge of the courts. (Legislative)

8. Neither house of the Senate may ajourn for more than three days without the others consent. (Legislative-bicarmel)

9. Both Houses of the Senate meet to make an agreement on policies. (Executive)

10. The Judicial branch interprets the Constitution. (Legislative)

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

 

Taylor Howard and Alexandria McNamara

October 20, 2011

 

The framers of the Constitution were a group of fifty-five men, who had strong educational backgrounds. A majority of them were lawyers and a few were doctors and merchants. The ages of the Framers ranged from twenty-nine to eighty-one. Not every framer to the Constitution signed the final document in 1787. The group of men were made up of all different religious backgrounds, the most common was episcopal. Most were natural born citizens to the United States, only eight were born outside of America. The Convention was made up of men from all thirteen colonies except Rhode Island, some colonies had more representation than others. At each convention no more than thrity-eight men showed up at a time

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

 

 

Eugene Rostow "The Democratic Character of Judicial Review" #42

October 16, 2011

 

     In Eugene Rostow's piece "The Democratic Character of Judicial Review" he defends the Supreme Court's right to use Judicial Review, while many believe it to be antidemocratic. Rostow says that Judicial Review protects the minority. There are some issues that should not be controlled by the majority, rather by Constitutional Amendment. Therefore, Judicial Review is actually what makes our country democratic, giving voice to the majorites and minorities. The Supreme Court is abiding by the beliefs that this country was built upon in the United States Constitution. In saying that Judicial Review is undemocratic Americans are giving the President, Congress and state legislatures control of what the Constitution means. In having a Judicial Review, Hamiliton says the people are superior to both judicial and legislative power. People often misinterpret the idea of a democracy, its not simply about having the right to vote but being held responsible for the representatives you put in power by your vote. Rostow doesn't look at Judicial Review as undemorcratic rather, he sees the Supreme Court as Constitutional mediators. The Supreme Court is on the side of the people, ensuring that the government isn't dominated by the President or Congress.

     On the surface it seems like the Supreme Court has an unequal amount of power, but in reality they represent the power of all people. The Supreme Court is the only branch of government whose job does not allow them to vote at all based upon their own self interest. Their entire opinion is from a constitutional perspective and to ensure that both the majority and the minority are being benefited in any government decision. If we were to get rid of Judicial Review it would be a slap in the face of our Founding Fathers who wrote our Constitution in order to protect the rights and well being of all citizens. The Supreme Court is the office of government that most strongly works for the people and makes true the idea of a democratic government. Their job is to ensure the minority is protected but overall the majority remains in control. The Supreme Court is keeping up with the policies upon which out country was built upon.

 

Lani Guinier "Tyranny of Majority" #11

October 16, 2011

 

     In Lani Guinier's piece "Tyranny of Majority" she takes a greater look at what it really means by an American democracy. Guinier brings up the majority and the minority when it comes to voting and how there is always a winner and a loser. To her this is unfair and puts the majority in complete control while making it impossible for the minority to have their own voice heard. She brings up the example from the Sesame Street Magazine, where four children voted to play tag and only two children voted to play hide and go seek, so they played tag. Her son Nikolas, like her, believes they should play tag alittle bit longer but still include some time to play hide and go seek as well. To her its not about giving the minority power but instead giving them "equal opportunity to influence legislative outcomes." Her solution to this winner take all policy is to replace it with cummulative voting also known as Madisonian Majority, in which the majority does not dominate. Guinier questions the ideas of Americas true identity as a democracy, because a democracy is a government of the people, meaning all people. In her eyes, shes sees American democracy as a government of the powerful majority. Like her son Nikolas said, it's about taking turns, sharing the power and cooperating with each other when the others in control. With her cummulative voting each voter gets the same number of votes but it is their choice the way they organize them.

     Lani Guinier makes a very compelling argument in her idea of cummulative voting (Madisonian Majority) and how it is more beneficial for both the majority and the minority. Although her argument makes a very valid point, her idea of cummulative voting would not be possible in key elections, such as the Presidential Elections. Yes her idea of a cummulative election would work in a situation like the decisions about the music played at Brother Rice High School senior prom and the School Board Elections in Chilton County where you are voting for multiple songs or seats. In an election like these you can vote for a specific song or person for a seat more than once in order to increase their chances of winning. But in a presidential election where there are only two candidates, the idea of a cummulative election seems pointless. We must respect Lani Guinier for her great determination to ensure that all have equal rights and trying to propose her idea of cummulative voting to protect the minority, but unfortunately cummulative voting is not the answer. As a democracy we need to ensure that both the majority and the minority have an influence in government and at this day in age that is not happening.

 

 

 

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=government+for+the+people&um=1&hl=en&safe=active&biw=886&bih=370&tbm=isch&tbnid=P-spEtzLLA_nPM:&imgrefurl=http://cheezburger.com/shin0bi272/lolz/View/1883818752&docid=moh7IrojVMwORM&w=225&h=316&ei=NWWUTqCEuj40gGH6_moBw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=14805&page=5&tbnh=166&tbnw=108&start=20&ndsp=4&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:20&tx=57&ty=44

 

James Madison "The Federalist 10" #9

October 10, 2011

 

     James Madison's piece "The Federalist 10" discusses a very important issue that was present in government during his time and is still present in the U.S. government today. The issue here is factions, which Madison's describes as a single group trying to take control of politics. America was built upon a well-developed large government to ensure that the evils of factions would not take control of American policies. In order to prevent this overthrow by a faction, Madison believes there are two methods we must follow: "one, removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects" (Madison 10, pg.50). This was very much possible with a republican government, where our leaders represent the majority not just one faction. Factions are one of the evils created due to American freedom. Because people can think and believe whatever they want they are willing to express it and when others disagree it becomes war between the two opposing parties. And in the end, the victory of the fight between whose right and wrong becomes more important than whats better for the greater good of America. Madison believes factions began with the unequal distribution of property, those who have property against those without property. With a faction such as property and many other issues, the faction cannot be removed but instead it is the governments job to control it. In order to control factions, Madison believes it is key to have a republican government instead of a democratic government. A republic is stronger because it has representation for the people and with such a large group of people no one faction is ever in control. With a representative government the people choose the leaders who are put in charge, therefore it will be much harder for an undeserving candidate to get elected when the issues are for the greater good of the people.

     Madison's beliefs on factions are one hundred percent correct. Even in today's society factions are everywhere, people want power anyway they can get it and they will come together to try to overtake the government to agree on issues which they believe are necessary. In such a large country with so many people it is practically impossible for the government to put an end to factions, but instead it is their duty to control them. No one faction is allowed to interfere or influence government decisions. Sadly, today some factions do have some kind of a say in the way things go on in the government. The major faction present in todays government is big business. The flow of business and the way the economy is flowing has control over the way the government chooses to operate. This is a problem, because it totally goes against what Madison's "Federalist 10" says and it is not what the majority of people want. In America the government is a republic represented by the people, not just big business. For many years America was in great control of factions and people were happy, but in the last few years some factions have become prevelent in the political world and it shows. By having a republic government, issues such as factions are supposed to be easily prevented because its about the greater good of all not just one faction.

 

Alexis De Tocqueville "From American Democracy" #1

October 6, 2011

 

     Alexis De Tocqueville came to America in May of 1831 to study more about the political phenomenon, American Democracy. Tocqueville learned as much as he could in his nine months of study on American Democracy and discovered that America had a government of it's own that no other nation had ever expierenced before. He found the American system to be very unique, all men (slaves and women not included) were created equal and all were given an equal oppurtunity from the very moement they came here. A key point Tocqueville makes is on the issue of money, of course America was like every other country in the fact that some were wealthy and some were poor, but regardless of your income, equality was still given to all. America was able to adapt to the idea of equality fairly quickly, simply because those who had come to America were unhappy with their home country and wanted a fresh start with freedom and equality. Every man had something in common, equal opportunity, men weren't looking to overule or empower one another they just wanted the opportunity of happiness and success. This is the primary reason why American Democracy worked, America wasn't about power and rules it was about freedom and equality, and no one was left behind. It was a nation of many, people from all across the globe. Tocqueville saw another key reason for the success of the American Democracy and that was its age. America was a new country filled with people from all across the world who had lived in countrys where their political systems had failed and people were unhappy. This was their time to start all over and learn from their mistakes in hopes to make a positive change and in America they had the freedom to do so. Tocqueville uses an analogy of a baby to explain this idea. When a baby is born we believe it should "enjoy the pleasures of childhood" but instead, birth is the time when you begin to build the true character of child because through a child is to be seen the whole man.

     Tocqueville's piece "Democracy in America" presents the key points to America's success.  America was a country of origin, and for the first time people were making decisions on how the government was going to work and it was all being written down. Although many today aren't as informed as they should be, still many know even now hundreds of years later the origins of America. This has been a key factor in the success of America, the fact that even today so many know exactly how America began. When America started it had a lot of other countries it could look to as examples not to follow due to governmental failure and unsuccess. Being a nation filled with so many different cultures also was a huge advantage, our horizons were broadened. Tocqueville was right, when he said equality was America's identifying mark, because no other nation before America presented all men with the same rights. America was smart from the beginning, giving all equality but setting limits by creating the U.S. Constitution to ensure that all were not just equal but happy. You can't build a great nation without the approval of the people and America never forgot about the people. In American Democracy everyone had a voice, rich or poor. Tocqueville makes many valid points as to why American Democracy was such a strong political system and clearly he was right because America is still standing today as one of the top nations in the world. Equality really was America's true identifying mark.

 

 

 

Richard Hofstadter "From The American Political Tradition" #8

September 22, 2011

 

     In Hofstadter's essay "From The American Political Tradition" he reveals the real message behind The United States Constitution. Many Americans honor the Constitution as a true mark of the freedoms each is given as a citizen. But in actuality the framers of the Constitution had their own motives in writing the US Constitution.  The men known as our Founding Fathers were believers in the theory of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes believed all people in the world only had themselves at interest and it was all against all. In order to keep peace he believed that a country should be governed by one supreme leader. So as followers of the ideals of Hobbes, the founding fathers also believed "a human being was an atom of self-interest." In the Constitution where it says all men are entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit and happiness", Hofstadter believers there is a misinterpretation.  In saying all men were endowed with the gift of liberty it did not mean democracy, but instead the right to enjoy your own private property. Hoftstadter also points out how the framers believed all humans as selfish but strongly believed in self-government. In other words, the framers believed it was impossible to change the nature of man so they wrote the Constitution in hopes to stablize it. Hofstadter believes that our Founding Fathers viewed self interest as the most destructive quality of man and in his opinion they underwrote the Constitution in hopes of controlling it.

     Is the Constitution really all its made out to be? After reading what Hofstadter has to say about the Constitution and its authors, it would make any American second guess it's legitamacy. Your whole life in grade school and high school your taught to believe that our Founding Fathers were heros who just wanted America and its people to prosper, but in reality there is a lot more to the Constitution most Americans don't know.  Why is it that the Founding Fathers believed their own people to be selish and untrustworthy? And if so why didn't they atleast try to put an end to human nature of man instead of just trying to stablize it? It seems as though they wrote the Constitution in hopes to make the people that mattered happy so they could run the government in way that pleased them.  The reason why I say "the people that matter" is because in the Constitution their were no laws against sexism and racism, when clearly those two issues were present in 1787 when the Constitution was written. The Framers of the Constitution were more caught up in issues like property and ensuring that no one branch of government gained too much power, instead of focusing on the real issue, the people.  Hofstadter even says it was those opposed to the Constitution who were active in ensuring our rights to freedom of speech, religion, press and etc. If the Constitution had been as significant as many Americans had believed it to be all these years, our freedoms wouldn't of had to been added into the first ten amendments. Yes, the Constitution is a very important document it forever will be but after reading Hofstadter's essay, The United States Constitution wasn't made with the absolute best interest of the people in mind. The Framers talk about the nature of man as selfish and untrustworthy, which is very contradictory because they in nature are men as well.