Politico Prep #9 May 14, 2012

1. Describe the process that the Supreme Court uses to decide its cases.

     The court decides which cases it decides to hear through appellate jurisdiction, original jurisdiction, and the rule of four.

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

     The can use a variety of different things such as protests, advertisements, reaching out to Congress, and gaining the public's support.

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

     I think it is and that it should be that way because there needs to be that one branch that decides whether something is constitutional or not, not just make up laws.  They need to make sure the Constitution remains a living breathing document and that our country still refers to how it was intended many years ago.

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

     I liked it because it helped with a more in depth view on the Supreme Court, plus the Supreme Court is what interests me the most in politics.  As of right now I don't know too much about the health care law but I can tell I don't really like it.  My opinion could change with more information but I deem it as unconstitutional.

 

Politico Prep # 8 May 10, 2012

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

     I think the role of Commander-in-Chief is most important because the country's safety depends on that.  That is part of what controls whether the country is at war or not and what actions the country as a whole should take in response to something.  I think all the roles are very important but this role seems slightly more important to me.

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

     I think chief of state is slightly less important than all the others.  Although it does involve meeting with foreign diplomats, it also involves hosting championship teams at the White House which seems a little trivial in comparison to the other powers of the president.

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

     By saying modern presidents are on a "continuous campaign" means that they are constantly trying to gain support of the public people.  During their first term there is always the possibility of re-election, but even during their second term they are still campaigning.  Maybe not for themselves but for another member of their party who they are endorsing for the upcoming election.  Public support is key to having a successful presidency.

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

     I really liked it because it helped me refresh what I knew about the presidency and the different roles.  Also the questions really helped me when it came to importance and what each role actually covers.  I think the framers of the Constitution would be completely shocked by the modern presidency.  They never expected parties or campaigning to this degree.  Everything is completely different and I think they would be very confused.  However, I think they would be proud that the Constitution and its powers still hold true.

 

Politico Prep #6 May 8, 2012

1. Explain why governmental farm subsidies were first used?

     They were first used during the Great Depression to limit how much crops were distributed and produced.  It paid farmers so that there would not be a surplus of crops.

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

     Transportion, green energy, and trade promotions are some of the industries that are subsidized by the federal government.

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

     They use people like celebrities in their promotions to reach out to the public.  They also use other ways to reach out to the public and also lobby their ideas to Congress to persuade them to write a bill.  The more they spread their idea the more likely it is to get their bill passed in Congress.

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

     I thought it was informative and I did learn something from it.  It is much much harder to implement policy changes because more is involved.  Passing it just involved Congress whereas implementing it requires a bunch of support from the public.

 

Politico Prep #5 May 7, 2012

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

     In the Senate, there is 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans and 2 Independents and in the House there is 242 Republicans and 193 Democrats.

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

     The House is much more elaborate and there are strict speaking floor rules whereas in the Senate it is much simpler and the rules are more lax.  They have filibuster whereas the House does not.

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

     The Senate has the ability to try and impeach a president, and they also have the filibuster whereas the House does not have the ability to those things.

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

     I found it very informative and worth-while.  I would recommend fresh ideas so that it reaches out to more people, not just the same things over and over again.  Also I would recommend getting their name out there especially amongst younger votes to enlarge their supporters range.

 

Politico Prep #4 May 7, 2012

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

     There are a lot of steps in building a successful presidential campaign, most importantly: raising money, having a catchy slogan, acquiring the necessary tools, maintaining a budget plan, having a trustworthy staff, and having a strategy.

2. Explain why campaigns have become more candidate-centered and less party-centered.

     Recently, people have been voting more with who they like as a person than they do with party identification.  More people deciding not to stay firmly in one party but vote for a candidate based on platforms.

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

     The positive side of this is that it allows people's voices to be heard more and more.  However, they could be nominating a person based on what is good for a small minority of people instead of a majority of people.

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

     I really liked it and found it interesting. Absolutely not do i think that candidates should be held accountable for comments made by supporters because they have no control over what they say.  Everyone has freedom of speech.

 

Politico Prep #3 May 3, 2012 In class

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

     I think that they're as small as ever because more people are firmly decided on their political stance.  There aren't as many people who could vote either way because they agree much more towards one side.  More people have decided which way to lean in the upcoming election.

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

     Demographic factors that seem to influence voter behavior are where the person lives because if a person lives in an all Republican neighborhood, it is more likely they will agree with that side because they are exposed to it more.  Also race and age come into play.  We see African Americans and young people mainly vote Democratic because they hear the Democratic side from those who are close to them.

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

     They can focus on public opinion polls that deal mainly with suburban women and see what issues they care the most about.  They can also get a feel of how these women think.  Once they obtain that information they can micro-target and focus in on these women to try to persuade them to vote for them.

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

     Like usual, I found the topic interesting and informative because it offers insight into the upcoming election and how some people may vote.  Also, swing voters play a major role in every election but in this election they seem to be more important than ever because Obama and Romney seem to be neck and neck.  I think it is kind of hard to say which side will have the advantage over attracting swing voters.  I think the Democrats might have the advantage thought because women seem to fit more into the swing voter category, and women generally tend to lean Democratic.  Also because Democrats are more liberal, they may be able to attract better educated people for their liberal views on certain topics.

 

Politico Prep #2 May 2, 2012

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

     Yes they are because it is how people join together in order to make their opinions heard by Congress.  Interest groups help people connect to their government.  They can be dangerous though because they may want something that could harm America as a whole country and they might be too powerful in promoting that idea.

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

     Some of the most influential interest groups are AARP, which promotes the welfare of senior citizens; AFL-CIO which promotes unions; and the National Rifle Association which promotes gun ownership.  There are also many many more very influential groups.

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

     Some techniques that seem to work well are hiring people who can speak out in favor of their group such as celebrities or well-known athletes and by having different promotions that help get more people involved just as giveaways, etc.

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

     I thought it was very informative and gave a good look into interest groups.  I think it's good that they hire former members of Congress to influence former Congress members because the purpose of interest groups is to be heard in Congress and help shape public policy and getting an inside step into Congress through former members is a good way of doing just that.

     

 

Politico Prep #1 May 1, 2012

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

     The democratic coalition is usually women, African Americans, Hispanics, and the younger population whereas the Republican coalition, the more conservative side, is made up of large business workers, and more religious people.  The South used to be Democratic and the North republican, but that has reversed and is now the other way around.

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

     A strategy that can be used is to redraw the lines of the district so that it includes more of the opposing party.  This way there's a broader view of ideals in one area.

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

     PA's two senators are Robert Casey and Patrick Toomey.  Casey is a Democrat whereas Toomey is a Republican.  For our state's representatives in the House, more are Republican (12) and the other 7 are Democrats.

4. What do you think about the topic of this POLITICO article? What’s your opinion about the impact of increased partisanship in Congress?
     I thought the article was very interesting and informative.  It was interesting to read about the Blue Dogs, because I never heard of that, so I really learned something from it.  I always thought that having opposing views in Congress is a good thing, but this article taught me otherwise.  Instead its worse because its harder for things to be passed and agreed upon.

     

 

MEREDITH MADNESS with Jason Amado

Roe v. Wade

     Facts: Roe v. Wade occurred in 1971 in a Texas courthouse when a Texas resident named Roe wanted to have an abortion, which was illegal at the time.  It was heard and decided by the Burger Court.  It was argued twice, once in 1971 and again in 1972. 

     Question: The constitutional question was whether or not the Constitution allowed women the right to choose if she wanted to end her pregnancy through abortion or not.

     Decision: Their decision was made in January 1973.  7 votes were in favor of Roe and 2 votes against.  46 state laws were affected by this ruling, which gave women the right to terminate their pregnancy and was protected by the 14th Amendment.

 

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

     Facts: Salim Hamdan was Osama Bin Laden's former chauffeur and was captured and imprisoned by U.S. military forces.  He filed for a writ of habeas corpus, but received a court hearing by a military tribunalthat stated he was an enemy combatant before the court ruled on his petition.  The petition was later granted on the grounds that he needed a hearing to decide whether he was a prisoner of war by the Geneva Convention, but then was reversed because Congress authorized the establishment of a military tribunal and the Geneva Convention was not to hold up in federal court. 

     Question:The constitutional question was should the rights of the Geneva Convention be protected in federal court through the petition of habeas corpus.  

     Decision: It was decided by the Roberts Court in 2006 with 5 votes for Hamdan and 3 votes against.  The decision was that Congress did not authorize the military commission, and the Geneva Convention could be enforced in the Supreme Court.  The trial was voted as illegal.

 

Betts v. Brady

     Facts: In Maryland, Betts was charged for robbery and was unable to afford his own attorney.  He requested that an attorney be assigned to him, but that request was denied by the judge.  In his trial Betts pled not guilty while arguing his own case.

     Question: The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel, so the question is whether denying Betts request for an attorney went against the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

     Decision: It was decided by the Stone Court in 1942.  The court answered no to the question; it did not go against the Constitution to not provide Betts with an attorney.  The right to counsel just prevents the state from interfering in the defendent's request for representation; the state is not required to give it to him.

 

Korematsu v. United States

     Facts:In response to WWII, a Presidential Executive Order gave the military the right to exclude Japanese citizens from areas that were seen as important national defense areas.  Korematsu was a person of Japanese ancestry who stayed in California and violated this order.

     Question: Did the President and Congress go against their war powers in implementing this exclusion act?

     Decision: 6 votes were in favor of the United States and 3 were against.  It was decided in 1944 by the Stone Court.  The court ruled in favor of the U.S. for the reason that the safety of the country was more important and outweighed Korematsu's rights.

 

Gibbons v. Ogden

     Facts: The state of New York gave two steamboaters the right to operate on New York waters, but laws were created elsewhere that created friction causing fees to be paid for water navigation.  A businessman who did business between New York and New Jersey challenged New York for making him obtain a permit to navigate on its waters.

     Question:  Did New York violate authority that was given to Congress regarding interstate commerce?

     Decision: Decided by the Marshall Court in 1824, 6 votes were for Gibbons, the petitioner, and 0 against.  New York's licensing requirements was inconsistent with a congressional act.  The right to determine and oversee commerce belongs to Congress and not the many states that are involved.

 

Barron v. Baltimore

     Facts: In this case John Barron sued the city of Baltimore for depriving him of the waters he needed for his business.  Large sand deposits had developed which took away the deep water he needed.  He wanted the city to repay his financial losses.

     Question: The question was whether the 5th Amendment allows for a state as well as National government to take away private land from an individual without compensation to the owner.

     Decision: This case was decided by the Marshall Court in 1833, just days after the argument was heard.  The decision was made without hearing the Baltimore argument.  Marshall decided that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in  this case because the 5th Amendment is not applicable to the states.  7 votes were in favor for the Mayor and none against.

 

Munn v. Illinois

     Facts:Munn was the petitioner in this case with Illinois as the respondent.  In this case, the state of Illinois established maximum rates for use of grain warehouse and elevator rates.  Arguments began January 1876.

     Question: The main question was if the state-imposed rates Illinois set deny the warehouse and elevators owners equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

     Decision: 7 votes were for Illinois and 2 were against.  The Waite Court decided, in March 1877, that states can regulate private property when it comes to the common good.  The legal provisions of the case was the 14th Amendment as well as the Illinois Warehouse Act of 1871.

 

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

     Facts:At the University of California Medical School, Allan Bakke (white; age 35) applied for and was denied admission twice.  The school had reserved places for minority races before the start of the admission process, and they were left open for minority students only.  Bakke, who felt as though he was more qualified for the school based on GPA and test scores than those who were of another race sued the school saying he was denied solely on race.

     Question: Did the University of California go against the 14th Amendment as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in denying Bakke twice from the school?

     Decision: A split vote resulted in this, with ending up with 5 votes for Bakke and 4 against.  The legal provisions were based on Equal Protection, and the decision rested on the Burger Court in 1978.  Bakke was admitted entrance into the medical school because of the court's decision.  The 4 judges who voted against Bakke thought that the use of race was permittable in the admission criteria for the school.  The court minimized opposition of the white community towards equality while also extending advantages for minorities through affirmative action.

 

Snyder v. Phelps

     Facts:Matthew Snyder was a deceased marine who's family filed a lawsuit in response to the protests that the Westboro Baptist Church put on at Snyder's funeral.  Richard Bennett, U.S. District Judge, gave the family $5 million in damages, but that was later argued saying that the 1st Amendment protects the rights of freedom of expression in religion.

     Question: Does the 1st Amendment protect protesters from the liability of intentionally causing the deceased family's distress?  Should freedom of expression in religion still stand?

     Decision: It was decided on March 2, 2011 that the First Amendment does indeed protect protesters at a funeral from liability.  8 vote were in favor of Phelps, the respondant in the case, with only 1 against.  The majority of justices believed that the 1st Amendment rights should not stop because it was a marine funeral.    

 

 

March 12, 2012 Politico Article

      In the Politico article, Federal workers under siege, Seung Min Kim discusses the plan Republicans have drawn up in order to cut budgets such as cutting the federal workforce.  Kim describes how the federal bureaucracy has been under the fire of Republicans before but never quite like this.  Republicans have made up a plan that would cut the workface and therefore cut the number of federal employees.  Kim also goes on to say that this plan is highly unlikely and also outrageous.

     This plan is indeed highly outrageous.  By cutting the number of employees in the federal workforce, the unemployment rate will skyrocket leaving many more Americans out of work and struggling to survive in today's economy.  A better plan has to be proposed that will benefit many people instead of harming them like this plan unintentionally will do.

 

February 15, 2012 - #36 Bradley Patterson from The White House Staff: [Chief of Staff]

     The Chief of Staff is often seen as someone who is just there to give support to the president, the first lady, the vice president, and the V.P's wife.  However, Bradley Patterson, a long time observer of politics, goes much more in depth about the Chief of Staff position.  The Chief of Staff is first and foremost the president's manager.  He is the overseer of everything, which entails a lot.  He presides over scheduling, meetings, papers, presentations, basically everything.  Patterson discusses both Bill Clinton's and George W. Bush's chiefs of staff and what each person meant to the president.  Bush had stated that a chief of staff should be someone the president trusts greatly, since almost everything falls into their hands.

     The position of chief of staff is a very impressive one.  Being the overseer of everything the president must do and say, there is a lot on their plate.  But, even though they do those things, they are still seen as someone who is just "there" by many people.  It is a demanding job but often there is no recognition for it.  Also, if they make one slip up, that is the end of their career.  They have so much riding on them.  It has a lot of pressure and requires a lot of determination and strength in many ways.

 

February 15, 2012 - #35 Kenneth Mayer from With the Stroke of a Pen

     It is a known fact that in the American political system, Congress actually holds more power than the President.  The framers wanted it to be this way so that no one person would have an immense amount of power.  That is why the system of checks and balances was put in place, and why the President at first glance does not hold a lot of power.  However, Kenneth Mayer discusses the idea that presidents do in fact have a lot more power that it originally appears.  The executive branch of government has the unwritten power of "executive orders."  "With the stroke of a pen", the executive branch is able to have great influence over something and shape policy significantly.  He does not need congressional consent for this, therefore making the president all the more powerful.  Mayer compiled groupings of issues, categorizing them in different ways to show how these executive orders worked, and what they can alter.  The types of orders he compiled were civil service, public lands, war and emergency powers, foreign affairs, defence and military policy, executive branch administration, labor policy, and domestic policy.

     People are very mistaken then, when they say that Congress is the most powerful.  Formally, they are.  With the system of checks and balances, there is no denying that.  However once you throw executive decrees into the mix, it changes the name of the game.  The president is taken to a new level, all while staying in the lines drawn out by the Constitution.  The president must be strategic about it, but even so executive orders are still possibilities and greatly change and adapt government structure.

 

February 13, 2012 - # 33 Thomas Cronin and Michael Genovese from The Paradoxes of the American Presidency

      Political scientists Thomas Cronin and Michael Genovese go deep into the complex world of the presidency and how it is viewed by many Americans.  They divulge 9 paradoxes that show the fine line of what kind of president America wants and does not want, and then go further to give examples of each one.  The paradoxes range from wanting someone who is like the average American, but smarter, wealthier, and all around better, therefore making them actually higher than the average American, and even to a powerful president, just not one who is too powerful, but when it comes down to important issues, maybe too powerful is a good thing.  The paradoxes range all over the spectrum to say what a president should and should not be like.

     Is there even a person who begins to have all these traits?  The answer to this question is most likely no.  These paradoxes not only show how complex the presidency is, but how fickle the American public is, where they cannot make up their mind.  They want a perfect person, but a perfect person does not exist.  Overall they need someone to run their country and keep it safe, but they cannot be too powerful and run the country too much.  Where is the line drawn?  However, like the authors state, we can not remove these paradoxes from the presidency.  It would be impossible.  The best Americans can do is to get out their checklist to see which candidate best fits their criteria and which candidate falls most in line with their perfect view in the paradoxes.

 

January 29, 2012 - Clear Congress Project

     I really liked this website and how it broke everything down.  It was a bit confusing at first, but once I got used to it I got a lot of information out of it.  I found it really interesting that democrats stayed on their side of the spectrum, while some republicans were actually pretty far on the democratic side.  Also, I found it interesting that those who are Independent sided more on the democratic side.  I also liked how you could split it up between Representatives in the House and those in the Senate, and men vs. women.  You could really get a good idea of how individual people viewed different legislature.  Even though the lines to show connections was kind of confusing, it was good to see.  I also liked how it would show the selected person's latest tweet.  That added an interesting touch to the whole thing.  Overall I liked it and found it interesting.  I liked how it really helped with the understanding of everything.

 

December 5, 2011 - Earl Black and Merle Black from The Rise of Southern Republicans

      Two political scientists, siblings Earl Black and Merle Black discuss the changing south, and how a once strong democratic part of the country became staunch republicans, and is not as solid as it once was.  Being southern experts, the Black siblings researched as to why this is.  Some of the conclusions they reached were that the south changed due to civil rights, race, religion, gender, and economic status and now lean more conservative, or republican, than ever before.  The Black's also describe that the changes are due to influence by the different beliefs of political candidates.

     The South is not the same as it once was; just like all things it has gone through changes, especially radical ones.  This goes to show that nothing is set in stone, even something as strong as a democratic south.  Beliefs of people are subject to change, based on different factors, like race, religion, gender, etc. played on the south.

 

December 5, 2011 - James Ceaser and Andrew Busch from Red Over Blue

     James Ceaser and Andrew Busch discuss in their piece the voting patterns of individuals through colors, in this case red and blue.  They rely specifically on the elections in the years 2000 and 2004, when the colors were most in effect.  They describe red as Republicans and blue being Democrats.  They describe how after the 2004 election in which George Bush was reelected, the map that tracked the votes was predominately red.  This was because after the September 11th attacks, many people viewed Bush as the most able person to protect the country.  With Bush being a Republican, the map was mainly red.  The red also describes the beliefs of people.  Ceasar and Busch say how it is not always cut and dry, with the colors of red and blue.  There is often purples and fushias, since people agree here and there with the beliefs of the two different parties.

     Colors are a good representation of the views of people, since it is able to show across the country on maps what many people side with.  However like Ceasar and Busch said, that line often gets blurred, because there are many individuals who agree with both parties depending on the subject.  When it comes down to the actual elections, yes, red was predominately shown because Bush was seen as the most plausible choice for president.  In the future, the map may be more blue, depending on the circumstances at the time.  The colors will be forever changing based on the perception of the people.

 

December 5, 2011 - Who Am I?

     I am a Republican...I think.  Before this class of AP Government & Politics, I had no idea, and to be honest, I still am not entirely sure.  By joining this class my hope was that it could help me out in discovering my political voice and opinion, and I have been on the right track in doing so.  I say I am a Republican, but in all actuality, that is only because I think I am leaning that way.  I agree with some of the Republican ideals, and it goes the same for Democratic ideals.  For example, my religion plays a bit in it.  Republicans go against abortion, but Democrats believe it is up to the woman to decide.  I believe abortion is always wrong, therefore side with Republicans.  However when it comes to homosexual marriage, democrats, being liberal, allow it, whereas republicans do not.  In that situation I side with the Democratic view.  However I lean back to the Republican side with other things.  Democrats believe that welfare is the way to go and that it is okay.  I believe that welfare is okay, but only under specific requirements and limitations.  The Republican belief is more like my view on the issue.  I, in general, tend to be more conservative than liberal, so that is why I think I am a Republican.  This is only a preliminary belief of mine, so only time can tell with positiveness if I am in fact a Republican.

 

November 27, 2011 - Martin Wattenberg from "Where Have All the Voters Gone?"

     Martin Wattenberg in his excerpt did some investigative research in order to find out the motives behind the reason why America's youth are not involved in politics like previous generations were.  He went on to say that it is unusual for such low numbers in the polls, because education levels are on the rise.  He researched that many college students were involved in community activities in high school, therefore disproving the idea that America's youth are apathetic in general.  It has to do with politics specifically that, in lack of a better word, scare or repel young adults today.  He went on to conclude that there are many reasons as to why America's young generation is apathetic when it comes down to topics such as politics.  Some of these reasons include that they feel politics doesn't pertain to them like it did during previous times such as the Vietnam War (the draft), and other wars.  Wattenberg believes that it mostly has to do with media.  The media has changed greatly over time, especially since the Vietnam War and even later after that.  There are more channels, so now the youth has more of an opportunity to watch something other than politics on television whereas in the past, with only CBS, ABC, and NBC, the choices were limited.  Wattenberg believes it is not the youth's fault, but the media's for not knowing how to broadcast, instead only narrowcasting to their audiences. 

     Watteberg's assertions are very much real.  The media does not know how to broadcast in today's coverage, therefore young adult's do not get informed, which then results in them feeling as though they do not matter when it comes to politics.  It is all one big domino effect, with each thing altering the next.  It all comes down to the media, and the narrowcasting it entails.  In order to change the outcome of numbers in the polls, the narrowcasting needs to become broadcasting to make the youth come out at least a little bit more.  Every little amount is able to make a difference.  Like Wattenberg says, "who votes does matter."  What he is saying that who votes gives the numbers and therefore gives the information, and the rest are indeed ignored.  The youth of America feels as though they are not heard.  They are not, and will not be until they come out in masses to vote and participate in politics.  "Those who vote set the agenda, and those who don't vote are ignored." 

 

November 16, 2011 - Walter Lippmann from "The Phantom Public"

     Walter Lippmann was an opinionated American journalist who in "The Phantom Public", criticized all Americans for their lack of knowledge of the government, and even more, their pretending of knowledge of government.  He believes that no one is able to have an opinion on every single political subject, because no one is able to divulge deep into the topic, or even seen the topic develop among other things.  He is not condemning these individuals, however, as one may think.  Instead, in his mind he is merely stating a fact that no one actually knows what is going on.  He acknowledges the fact that people may be aware of things that are going on, however he sees it more as they know that somehow, what is going on affects them in some way, but they are not too interested.

     Lippmann in a way does have a plausible point.  Many Americans do not know what is going on, instead know that whatever is going on in government somehow affects them.  He also has a point when he states that no one can know everything about every topic in government.  It's true, no one can know everything about anything.  Lippmann is however being a bit drastic when he states that these things apply to all Americans.  There is a good amount of Americans who do follow politics extensively. There is a happy medium, and that goes true to everything in life.  Every person is different, and to clump all Americans in the "Phantom Public" category is plain wrong.

 

November 16, 2011 - V.O. Key from "Public Opinion and American Democracy"

     V.O. was a professor who in his study tried to explain the relationship between the public and the political leaders in terms of opinions.  He believed that while public opinion is important, the opinions of political leaders, or lack thereof, weigh more.  He describes how political leaders are confined in a small box, with a fear of breaking out of that box.  This hinges off of public opinion.  Because of public opinion, political leaders are afraid to stray away from that opinion.  This  brings up Key's next issue on mass opinion, and how political leaders take those mass opinions as strict things that must be followed with no exception.  He goes on to say certain things in mass opinion probably aren't the most effective, such as polls.

     Political leaders should not be stuck in the confines of public opinion, and public opinion should not be measured by polls.  The opinions of both groups of people should balance on each other, keeping them both in check.  Political leaders rely too heavily on the opinions of the public, and therefore are too scared to try anything else, or even consider anything else, and that is not a productive way for anything.

 

October 25, 2011 - Charles Beard from "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution"

     Charles Beard, an American historian, divulges into the lives of the founders of the Constitution.  He digs deep into their lives to analyze their professions and demographics, especially their economic standings.  He uses these findings to try to figure out the state of the framers' minds as they were creating the document.  He explores how there was an array of people who agreed with the Constitution, as well as a large amount of the population who opposed it.  He tries to explore the reasons as to why people opposed it by taking a look at all these factors. 

     There is an argument that states that the founders were self-interested individuals who solely looked out for how they would benefit from the document.  Beard investigates this and creates a list of the founders with information about them.  He cites that most were lawyers, some had a land claim, and some even owned slaves.  He focuses primarily on the economic standpoint, and therefore believes the only thing the founders focused on was the economical value of the document they were writing.  This is largely untrue.  Yes, the Constitution was written with some consideration to economics, but that was not the only purpose.  If it were, it would have failed within the first couple of years of its lifespan.  Instead, the Constitution holds true today, proving that the founders were not self-interested people; they wrote what they knew and did what they could, giving this country a strong belief to rely on.

 

October 25, 2011 - POWERS

1. Negotiates treaties (Executive), Ratifies treaties/can reject treaties (Legislative)

2. Can pass laws (Legislative), Can veto laws (Executive)

3. Can veto a bill (Executive), Can override the veto of a bill with 2/3 vote (Legislative)

4. Supreme Court Judges have life terms (Judicial), Can impeach Judges (Legislative)

5. Commander-in-cheif of army and navy (Executive), Declares war (Legislative)

6. Makes laws (Legislative), Checks if laws are constitutional (Judicial)

7. Judges can sentence a person (Judicial), Can pardon convicted people (Executive)

8. Can enforce taxes (Executive), Must approve taxes (Legislative)

9. Appoints own members (Judicial), Sets number of Justices in Supreme Court (Legislative)

10. Writes and enforces laws (Legislative), Decides how laws are interpreted (Judicial)

 

October 16, 2011 - #11 Lani Guinier from The Tyranny of the Majority

     Lani Guinier begins her piece with a memory from her Girl Scout Brownie days.  She recalls a contest in which another young girl won at making a hat, when Guinier even saw the girl's mother make the hat.  She felt so slighted that she resigned as a girl scout.  That memory met up with her later on in life, when looking at a magazine exercise with her son.  It was here when she was able to see into the mind of the ever so simple, perfect world of a four year old.  His answer to the question what game will the children play if one group with more children wants to play one game, and another group with fewer children wants to play another game was so simple, that even adults cannot comprehend it: take turns.  She took his knowledge and applied her to her own world, when thinking about elections today and the rule of the majority.  She saw these things as corrupt.  Most politicians think that the rule of the majority involves the interests of all; however, it is quite the contrary most of the time.  The rule of the majority often silences the minority group's say in matters of importance.  Guinier shows this when referring to a Chicago high school.  The high school for their prom based their music selection on the rule of the majority, who happened to be white.  Being the minority, the black students felt as though they didn't get heard or taken accounted for, so they prepared their own prom with their choice in music.  Also with stating her beliefs, she comes up with a few general solutions to the problem.  She believes that instead of the majority's rule be taken word for word as it is, it should be combined with the thoughts of the minorities - in other words, take turns as her son pointed out the children in the magazine should do.  She states "we cannot all talk at once, but that does not mean only one group should get to speak" and that is correct.  The voice of the minority cannot be eradicated, because they too make up one country.

 

October 16, 2011 - #42 Eugene Rostow The Democratic Character of Judicial Review

     There are many attacks on judicial review, and Eugene Rostow acknowledges these attacks in his writing.  In the process of acknowledging the attacks, he takes the time to defend judicial review, stating that it is indeed democratic contrary to popular belief that it is not.  He defends the issue by bringing up the separation of powers and how these separations take the precautions to make sure that no one branch gets more powerful than the next.

     It is unclear as to why individuals believe judicial review to be undemocratic.  However, if judicial review was not existent, some individuals would probably be complaining how the other two branches are too powerful, and they would nitpick to find reason as to why one of those would be undemocratic.  When looking at the big picture, the three branches working together in checks and balances work to our advantage, and in agreement with Rostow, are very much democratic.

 

 

October 11, 2011

 

 

 

October 10, 2011 - #10 Michael Kammen from A Machine That Would Go of Itself 

     At face value, the Constitution is a piece of paper with words written on it that just so happens to be taken as powerful guidelines.  However, on a more metaphorical level, like Michael Kammen describes in his writing, the Constitution is much more.  Especially during the Enlightenment, when everything was seen with a scientific perspective, the Constitution figuratively took on the shape of a machine.  Many people viewed it as something that was unchanging, always running, and the words taken literally with only one understanding for all of time.  However, as time progressed, the Constitution was seen as more of an organism that needed to grow and develop with the times and ideas that were evolving.  Kammen describes this debate among political and scientific individuals who feel very passionately about their opinions.  Also, Kammen brings up another metaphor, this time in the shape of a "Star Trek" episode.  In this specific episode, there is a parallel between the "yangs" who revere the "Prime Directive" and the Yanks who are led by the Constitution.  In both cases, people admire these documents, pledge their allegiance and servitude to them while reciting the famous words, yet they have no idea what they are really saying. 

     When Kammen approaches both of these metaphors, he has a point.  Today, many individuals read the Constitution while failing to recognize the power behind the words.  The words have become meaningless, no longer having the same affect they did when the Constitution was first written.  Here is where both metaphors tie together.  Since the words that were used back then have no meaning the the generations of today and also the generations of the future, this is why the Constitution has to be seen as an organism, constantly changing to meet the needs of current and future Americans.  When it was first written in the late 1700's, the people understood.  Times have obviously changed since then.  Time is not an invariable.  It is constantly moving, resulting in the evolution of many things, especially the Constitution.  The Fathers of our great nation did not forsee into the future, since there was no way to.  They did the best they could, and now it is up to the current generations to take hold of the Constitution, and progress forward.

 

 

#1 Alexis De Tocqueville from Democracy in America

     In the world today, people come to America for many different reasons.  Family, economic, political - the explanations are numerous.  It was the same way many years ago, when America was in its prime.  In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville, a French aristocrat, traveled from France to the United States to learn about the ways of the Americans.  He, along with many others, was intrigued by politics of the United States, since a democracy in this form was rarely, if ever, encountered.  Instead of learning from afar, he traveled to catch a first hand glimpse into a world that was foreign to him.  Throughout the course of his studies, he noticed that Americans were all equal, and the behaviors of Americans were much different.  He took notice to a prideful attitude, and how people went about always wanting to better themselves, therefore, bettering their country.  When he returned to France, he wrote about his travels and experiences with awe and wonder.

     America is quite different from other countries, especially when the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were first adopted.  It is amazing that America is a rarity.   Democracy was not a common term, and that fact is realized when reading of Tocqueville's exerpt.  America was able to take something that was encountered in the past, and alter it in order to make it work for their specific needs and beliefs.  Being an American, it is hard to imagine living anywhere else, without the rights that are depended upon every day. With Democracy in America there is hope that more and more countries will do what America did and alter the definition of democracy in order to make it work for them.

     

 

#8 Richard Hofstadter from The American Political Tradition

     In “The American Political Tradition”, Richard Hofstadter brings up many good points about the Founding Fathers of our country, the people who, since their time, came to be revered and praised.  In reference to Thomas Hobbes, Hofstadter believes the Fathers of the Constitution to be selfish individuals full of self-interest.  He believes the Fathers to have the same theory as Hobbes, in that government should be ruled by one individual.  When discussing the different topics and quotes seen in the Constitution, Hofstadter argues that when the Fathers said “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, they are not talking about freedom as many believe.  Instead, the “liberty” aspect speaks of freedom when it comes to owning property. 

            Although Richard Hofstadter may have some good points, he is incorrect in some of his assertions, either in his words, or his take on someone else’s words.  Hofstadter states that the Fathers did not offer liberty to those Americans such as Negros; however, he fails to see that at their time, that was not a possibility.  In order for their government to take hold, baby steps were needed.  If the Fathers included more out of the norm, there may have been problems when this new government was introduced.  Not only this, Hofstadter claims that the Constitution states that people are not going to change.  In reality, the Fathers were not psychics, and were constructing a government in the best way they deemed possible.  They may have taken different views from Hobbes, just like they might have taken views from Locke or other political thinkers that came before them.  At the time, “liberty” may have meant owning land, but over the past 300 years, the term “liberty” has taken on new meaning in “freedom” which we today base our government on knowing what we know now.