Facts/details:
1. The 2000 election led for calls to repeal the electoral college.
2. Hillary Clinton and Ronald Dworkin are advocates of reforming the electoral college.
3. Baker vs Carr declared that one person-one vote must prevail at state and local level.
4. After the 2000 election, the GOP gained control of all 3 branches.
5. Al Gore wanted to change the electoral college because he lost under it.
6. Gore pledged to abide by the "popular vote".
7. The author has a negative view of the Constitution.
8. Willam Rehnquist could retire knowing his successor would be a conservative.
9. George Bush would reject reforming the electoral college.
10. The author thinks the electoral college should be by-passed in future elections.
Questions
1. Would it be legal to by-pass the electoral college in future elections?
2. If Gore won the election but lost the popular vote, would he really step down?
3. Why does Gore think Americans would not want to go back to the times of Ronald Reagan?
4. Is Al Gore the same person who invented the internet?
5. Isn't the electoral college system fair now?
I do not think the electoral college needs to be reformed, the system now is fair and doing away with it would be unnecessary. I am also thankful for the electoral college because it made sure we didn't have Al Gore as president and that would have been a true nightmare.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
New York Times Budget Puzzle
We solved the deficit by 89% savings from spending cuts and 11% from tax increases. This shows that it is possible to solve the deficit without huge tax increases. Some of the easy cuts included eliminating earmarks,reducing the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and reducing social security benefits for those with high incomes. However, some of the cuts were more drastic such as ones involving medicare and federal workers.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Issue of the Week- National Debt
1. What country do we owe the most money?
The United States owes China approximantly 1.16 trillion. China practically owns us right now which doesn't make our country look too good. It worries me what actions China may take if we fail to pay them back.
2. Will raising taxes alone get us out of this?Creating a top tax bracket would not be fair, as the top one percent currently pays more in taxes than the bottom 90 percent combined. Doing this could cause wealthy americans to work less, decreasing govenrment revenue. The only way to get us out of this debt is by drastically cutting govenremnt spending.
3 Are any countries debts as high as the United States?
We have the highest debt. However, when comparing debt as percent of GDP, Japan and Italy are worse than us. Regardless, the United States is pretty bad.
Sources:
http://www.defeatthedebt.com/
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/01/28/the-10-countries-with-the-most-debt
The United States owes China approximantly 1.16 trillion. China practically owns us right now which doesn't make our country look too good. It worries me what actions China may take if we fail to pay them back.
2. Will raising taxes alone get us out of this?Creating a top tax bracket would not be fair, as the top one percent currently pays more in taxes than the bottom 90 percent combined. Doing this could cause wealthy americans to work less, decreasing govenrment revenue. The only way to get us out of this debt is by drastically cutting govenremnt spending.
3 Are any countries debts as high as the United States?
We have the highest debt. However, when comparing debt as percent of GDP, Japan and Italy are worse than us. Regardless, the United States is pretty bad.
Sources:
http://www.defeatthedebt.com/
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/01/28/the-10-countries-with-the-most-debt
Political Cartoon 2
1. Was the protester a bad choice for person of the year?
2. Was the navy seal team that killed bin laden considered?
3. Does "the protester" represent a specific group of protesters?
3 pending bills
1. H.R. 358: Protect Life Act
2.S. 1700: Medical Device Regulatory Improvement Act
3.H.R. 1676: Tanning Bed Cancer Control Act of 2011
H.R. 358: Protect Life Act
Facts:
1. Sponsored by Joesph Pitts
2. Amends the patient protection and afforadable care act to prohibit federal funds being used to cover any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services.
3. Gives federal courts jurisdiction to address violations of this.
4. Was passed in the house October 13th.
5. It was refferred to a senate committee October 17th.
Questions:
1. Why hasn't the senate made a decision on this?
2. Could this bill pass in the liberal senate?
3. Is federal funding of abortion currently illegal or restricted?
2.S. 1700: Medical Device Regulatory Improvement Act
3.H.R. 1676: Tanning Bed Cancer Control Act of 2011
H.R. 358: Protect Life Act
Facts:
1. Sponsored by Joesph Pitts
2. Amends the patient protection and afforadable care act to prohibit federal funds being used to cover any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services.
3. Gives federal courts jurisdiction to address violations of this.
4. Was passed in the house October 13th.
5. It was refferred to a senate committee October 17th.
Questions:
1. Why hasn't the senate made a decision on this?
2. Could this bill pass in the liberal senate?
3. Is federal funding of abortion currently illegal or restricted?
Sunday, December 11, 2011
President Research
President Ronald Reagan
Lessons from Reagan:
1. That "reaganomics" which involves reducing government spending, reducing taxes, and less regulation, is best for the economy. Reagan greatly improved our economy and his policies created 20 million jobs during his presidency.
2. Other countries can be intimidated. Reagan's "Star Wars" program showed the soviets they couldn't compete with America.
3.Parties can come back from political disgraces. After scandals with Nixon, Reagan reasured the public's faith in the republican party.
4. The president needs to be a strong leader who can build consensus. Reagan was blunt and said what needed to be said. He called the soviet union out for what it was, "an evil empire", in this great speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do0x-Egc6oA
5. “If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”
6. No matter how amazing of a president you are, haters are still gonna hate.
Sources:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/reagan.php
http://www.heritage.org/about/press/how-great-was-ronald-reagan-40th-president-place-in-history
Lessons from Reagan:
1. That "reaganomics" which involves reducing government spending, reducing taxes, and less regulation, is best for the economy. Reagan greatly improved our economy and his policies created 20 million jobs during his presidency.
2. Other countries can be intimidated. Reagan's "Star Wars" program showed the soviets they couldn't compete with America.
3.Parties can come back from political disgraces. After scandals with Nixon, Reagan reasured the public's faith in the republican party.
4. The president needs to be a strong leader who can build consensus. Reagan was blunt and said what needed to be said. He called the soviet union out for what it was, "an evil empire", in this great speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do0x-Egc6oA
5. “If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”
6. No matter how amazing of a president you are, haters are still gonna hate.
Sources:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/reagan.php
http://www.heritage.org/about/press/how-great-was-ronald-reagan-40th-president-place-in-history
Campaign Ad Analysis
ce1. He tries to make himself seem relatable by talking about his life and pretending he loves america. Also, sad music is played for "sympathy"
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
"Country I Love"
I don't think it is effective because it seems so cheesy and fake, but maybe it would be if you didn't know much about Obama.
2. The ad calls the candidate out on the contradictions between his words and his actions.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/type/backfire
"Riady"
I think it could be effective because people don't want their leaders to seem hypocritical and unsure of themselves.
3. The ad uses humor to point out some of the ridiculous things the candidate has said.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/type/backfire
"Really MD"
I think it is effective because it makes the candidate seem like a joke that no one would take seriously.
4. The ad draws attention to the candidate's past accomplishments.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
"Original Mavericks"
I think the ad is effective because it shows why the candidate would be good for president.
5. The ad is touching without going over the top.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1984
"Prouder Stronger Better"
I think it is effective because it shows voters what a difference Reagan had already made in America.
Conclusions:
1. Ads are persuasive.
2. Advertising does little to inform.
3. Ads alone are not very effective.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
"Country I Love"
I don't think it is effective because it seems so cheesy and fake, but maybe it would be if you didn't know much about Obama.
2. The ad calls the candidate out on the contradictions between his words and his actions.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/type/backfire
"Riady"
I think it could be effective because people don't want their leaders to seem hypocritical and unsure of themselves.
3. The ad uses humor to point out some of the ridiculous things the candidate has said.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/type/backfire
"Really MD"
I think it is effective because it makes the candidate seem like a joke that no one would take seriously.
4. The ad draws attention to the candidate's past accomplishments.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
"Original Mavericks"
I think the ad is effective because it shows why the candidate would be good for president.
5. The ad is touching without going over the top.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1984
"Prouder Stronger Better"
I think it is effective because it shows voters what a difference Reagan had already made in America.
Conclusions:
1. Ads are persuasive.
2. Advertising does little to inform.
3. Ads alone are not very effective.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Electoral College Reform
Facts/Details:it
1. The two main criticisms of the electoral college are that it is undemocratic and it is an unreliable device for selecting the President
2. Each state gets atleast two electoral votes, regardless of population.
3. Democratic voters are more likely than Republicans to mess up their ballot.
4. The framers of the Constitution did not forsee political parties.
5. The difference between Gore and Bush's popular votes was only 0.5 percent.
6. Reform to the electoral college would increase the liklihood of deadlocks.
7. There is no serious political movement to abolish the electoral college.
8. The point of having the electoral college is so that people with more political knowledge can make decisions over the average American.
9. Members of congress are like "president-pickers".
10. Before the 2000 election, 1976 was the last year the popular vote was so close.
Questions:
1. Why were 2 percent of the ballots cast not counted?
2. Didn't Madison warn of factions within government, which is kind of similar to parties?
3. Could a direct democracy actually work?
4. Have any groups made real attempts to reform the electoral college?
5. Is there a way to reform the electoral college that would work better?
1. The two main criticisms of the electoral college are that it is undemocratic and it is an unreliable device for selecting the President
2. Each state gets atleast two electoral votes, regardless of population.
3. Democratic voters are more likely than Republicans to mess up their ballot.
4. The framers of the Constitution did not forsee political parties.
5. The difference between Gore and Bush's popular votes was only 0.5 percent.
6. Reform to the electoral college would increase the liklihood of deadlocks.
7. There is no serious political movement to abolish the electoral college.
8. The point of having the electoral college is so that people with more political knowledge can make decisions over the average American.
9. Members of congress are like "president-pickers".
10. Before the 2000 election, 1976 was the last year the popular vote was so close.
Questions:
1. Why were 2 percent of the ballots cast not counted?
2. Didn't Madison warn of factions within government, which is kind of similar to parties?
3. Could a direct democracy actually work?
4. Have any groups made real attempts to reform the electoral college?
5. Is there a way to reform the electoral college that would work better?
Monday, December 5, 2011
Taxpayers for Common Sense
Article 1:
http://taxpayer.net/resources.php?action=issues&proj_id=4765&category=&type=Project
Big Oil, Big Profits
1. Just 9 months into the year, ExxonMobil matched their total profits from all of last year.
2. The 5 big oil companies brought in $870 billion in profits between 2001 and 2010.
3. The president has called for an elimination or reduction of subsidies and programs supporting big oil.
4. Big oil continues to rake in heavy taxpayer subsidies.
5. Specific cuts could save taxpayers $15 billion this year.
Article 2:
http://taxpayer.net/resources.php?action=issues&proj_id=4992&category=&type=Project
If The States Can Cut, The Feds Can Too
1. The supercommittee only has to find 3% in deficit savings over 10 years.
2. 24 States have cut government spending by an average of 7.5% after inflation.
3. Failure to act by the end of the year means huge tax cuts put in place by President Bush will expire.
4. The Pentagon budget is still continuing to go up.
5. There's a planned 1.6% pay increase for service personnel in 2012.
http://taxpayer.net/resources.php?action=issues&proj_id=4765&category=&type=Project
Big Oil, Big Profits
1. Just 9 months into the year, ExxonMobil matched their total profits from all of last year.
2. The 5 big oil companies brought in $870 billion in profits between 2001 and 2010.
3. The president has called for an elimination or reduction of subsidies and programs supporting big oil.
4. Big oil continues to rake in heavy taxpayer subsidies.
5. Specific cuts could save taxpayers $15 billion this year.
Article 2:
http://taxpayer.net/resources.php?action=issues&proj_id=4992&category=&type=Project
If The States Can Cut, The Feds Can Too
1. The supercommittee only has to find 3% in deficit savings over 10 years.
2. 24 States have cut government spending by an average of 7.5% after inflation.
3. Failure to act by the end of the year means huge tax cuts put in place by President Bush will expire.
4. The Pentagon budget is still continuing to go up.
5. There's a planned 1.6% pay increase for service personnel in 2012.
Death Penalty Questions
1.) How many states have banned the death penalty, and how many states still have it?
The death penalty is currently legal in 34 states and abolished in 16 states. The most recent state to abolish the death penalty is Illinois.
2.) Why is the death penalty so expensive?
Most of the costs come from the inital trial, because the cost of the trial is usually a lot higher with cases involving death. Also, there are usually numerous appeals leading up to the death penalty. So the high cost is from the legal expenses rather than actually killing the person.
3.) What are the criminal offenses one needs to commit to receive the death penalty?
The death penalty is almost exclusively for the crime of murder. Some states have laws that allow the death penalty as a punishment for rape of a child, however anyone is yet to executed for this.
Sources:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000
The death penalty is currently legal in 34 states and abolished in 16 states. The most recent state to abolish the death penalty is Illinois.
2.) Why is the death penalty so expensive?
Most of the costs come from the inital trial, because the cost of the trial is usually a lot higher with cases involving death. Also, there are usually numerous appeals leading up to the death penalty. So the high cost is from the legal expenses rather than actually killing the person.
3.) What are the criminal offenses one needs to commit to receive the death penalty?
The death penalty is almost exclusively for the crime of murder. Some states have laws that allow the death penalty as a punishment for rape of a child, however anyone is yet to executed for this.
Sources:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Political Cartoon
1. Why does the media support occupy wall street, but look down on the tea party?
2. Does occupy lack a real political agenda?
3. Are occupy supporters anti-american?
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
PA's 2008 presidental election returns
Facts:
1. Barack Obama recieved 54.7% of the votes
2. The age group with the most voters was 25 to 44.
3. 85.6% of voters were white.
4. In Delaware County, 60.3% of the votes went to Obama.
5. In 2004, the votes were closer.
1. Barack Obama recieved 54.7% of the votes
2. The age group with the most voters was 25 to 44.
3. 85.6% of voters were white.
4. In Delaware County, 60.3% of the votes went to Obama.
5. In 2004, the votes were closer.
PA's congressional districts
1. The 19th district will become obsolete in 2013.
2. Our representative is Pat Meehan.
3. Our district also contains parts of Chester,Montgomery, and Philadelphia county.
4. The 1st congressional district is represented by Bob Brady.
5. The 1st congressional district has a overwhelmingly democratic majority.
6. Before the 2000 census, Pennsylvania had 21 congressional districts.
7. The 9th congressional district is represented by Bill Shuster.
8. The 9th congressional district is considered a safe seat for republicans.
9. The 9th congressional district is the most republican district in PA.
10. The 6th congressional district is represented by Jim Gerlach.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
How Washington Works
Facts/Details:
1. 3.5 million people live in the Washington metropolitan area.
2. Politicians try to balance out time between their home states and Washington.
3. Congress works a short week,Monday afternoon to Friday morning.
4. The addiction to gaining power in politics is called "Potomac fever".
5. Politicians often do not have very deep friendships.
6. The department of housing and urban development is pronounced "HUD".
7. Congress often uses opinion surveys to stay in touch with voters.
8. Newcomers form alliances to gain power.
9. Members of congress are friends with those outside of their political party.
10. People treat the word "politician" as a synonym for hypocrisy.
Questions:
1. Why did Carter have such a negative view of Washington?
2. Do all politicians really have a need to gain power?
3. What makes working in Washington so appealing?
4. How can Washington be disconnected from the country when everything they deal with has to do with the country?
5. Are opinion surveys as effective as meeting with constituents?
6. Why do people view politicians so negatively?
7. Is it awkward that members of congress are friends with those who openly disagree with their views?
8. Is it hard to gain any power in Washington without succumbing to all the political games?
9. How often do members of congress need to be in Washington?
10. Does the author accurately describe Washington?
1. 3.5 million people live in the Washington metropolitan area.
2. Politicians try to balance out time between their home states and Washington.
3. Congress works a short week,Monday afternoon to Friday morning.
4. The addiction to gaining power in politics is called "Potomac fever".
5. Politicians often do not have very deep friendships.
6. The department of housing and urban development is pronounced "HUD".
7. Congress often uses opinion surveys to stay in touch with voters.
8. Newcomers form alliances to gain power.
9. Members of congress are friends with those outside of their political party.
10. People treat the word "politician" as a synonym for hypocrisy.
Questions:
1. Why did Carter have such a negative view of Washington?
2. Do all politicians really have a need to gain power?
3. What makes working in Washington so appealing?
4. How can Washington be disconnected from the country when everything they deal with has to do with the country?
5. Are opinion surveys as effective as meeting with constituents?
6. Why do people view politicians so negatively?
7. Is it awkward that members of congress are friends with those who openly disagree with their views?
8. Is it hard to gain any power in Washington without succumbing to all the political games?
9. How often do members of congress need to be in Washington?
10. Does the author accurately describe Washington?
Saturday, November 19, 2011
How Birth Control and Abortion Became Politicized
Facts:
1. Earlier this year, the House voted to defund Planned Parenthood.
2. The first birth control clinic was opened in 1916 by Margaret Sanger.
3. Margaret Sanger was a socialist and feminist.
4. Sanger was actually opposed to abortion.
5. The Constock Law made information about contraception illegal.
6. The court first ruled against Sanger in violation of this.
7. In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control league.
8. Sanger wanted to control families from becoming too big.
9. Sanger was a eugenicist, like the nazis. hmm
10. Eugenicists believed only the "fit" should reproduce.
11. Woodrow Wilson was also a eugenicist...why does this not surprise me?
Questions:
1. How were so many abortions performed back then if it was illegal?
2. If Sanger was against abortion,why does Planned Parenthood perform abortions now?
3. How did we go from birth control being illegal, to birth control being the norm AND abortion being legal?
4. How much money do abortion doctors make?
5. If birth control is now easily available ,why are there still so many abortions?
6. Anyone that is for abortion wasn't aborted. Who is supposed to stand up for the millions of babies who aren't given a chance to speak up for themselves?
1. Earlier this year, the House voted to defund Planned Parenthood.
2. The first birth control clinic was opened in 1916 by Margaret Sanger.
3. Margaret Sanger was a socialist and feminist.
4. Sanger was actually opposed to abortion.
5. The Constock Law made information about contraception illegal.
6. The court first ruled against Sanger in violation of this.
7. In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control league.
8. Sanger wanted to control families from becoming too big.
9. Sanger was a eugenicist, like the nazis. hmm
10. Eugenicists believed only the "fit" should reproduce.
11. Woodrow Wilson was also a eugenicist...why does this not surprise me?
Questions:
1. How were so many abortions performed back then if it was illegal?
2. If Sanger was against abortion,why does Planned Parenthood perform abortions now?
3. How did we go from birth control being illegal, to birth control being the norm AND abortion being legal?
4. How much money do abortion doctors make?
5. If birth control is now easily available ,why are there still so many abortions?
6. Anyone that is for abortion wasn't aborted. Who is supposed to stand up for the millions of babies who aren't given a chance to speak up for themselves?
Lost in Detention
Facts/Details:
1. Secure Communities was created to enforce illegal immigration.
2. About 400,000 immigrants were detained/deported this year.
3. The number of illegals found has increased during Obama's presidency.
4. ICE stands for US Immigrations and Customs enforcement.
5. Many republicans do not support immigration reform.
6. 4.5 million children in the US have parents that are undocumented.
7. The US has 250 detention centers.
8. ICE has enlisted the help of local law enforcement to identify immigrants who have committed crimes.
9. 46% of illegals belong to a family.
10. The Obama Administration has made the program mandatory.
Questions:
1. Aren't those who are deported still here illegally?
2.Isn't it kinda ironic how liberals are all about the idea of giving handouts to poor people and saying like " no one out there doesn't have a job because they are lazy. everyone wants to to work", but then they claim illegal immigrants do the jobs that Americans aren't willing to do?
3. What happens if the deport number is not reached?
4. Can someone who is deported come back here legally?
5. Isn't the fear of Secure Communities a good thing?
1. Secure Communities was created to enforce illegal immigration.
2. About 400,000 immigrants were detained/deported this year.
3. The number of illegals found has increased during Obama's presidency.
4. ICE stands for US Immigrations and Customs enforcement.
5. Many republicans do not support immigration reform.
6. 4.5 million children in the US have parents that are undocumented.
7. The US has 250 detention centers.
8. ICE has enlisted the help of local law enforcement to identify immigrants who have committed crimes.
9. 46% of illegals belong to a family.
10. The Obama Administration has made the program mandatory.
Questions:
1. Aren't those who are deported still here illegally?
2.Isn't it kinda ironic how liberals are all about the idea of giving handouts to poor people and saying like " no one out there doesn't have a job because they are lazy. everyone wants to to work", but then they claim illegal immigrants do the jobs that Americans aren't willing to do?
3. What happens if the deport number is not reached?
4. Can someone who is deported come back here legally?
5. Isn't the fear of Secure Communities a good thing?
Committees
Pat Toomey is in many committees and subcommittees including, Committee on Banking,Housing, and Urban Affairs,Committee on the Budget, and Committee on Commerce,Science,and Transportation.
Committee on Banking,Housing, and Urban Affairs
1. The committee was formally established in 1913.
2. Deals with matters related to: banks,price controls, deposit insurance, export promotion and control, federal monetary policy,urban development, and mass transit.
3. The current chairman is Tim Johnson.
Committee on the Budget
1. Was established by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
2. The committee has jurisdiction over the Congressional Budget Office.
3. The chairman is Kent Conrad.
Committee on Commerce,Science,and Transportation
1. This committee covers a lot of different issues related to commerce,science, and transportation.
2. The current chairman is Jay Rockefeller
3. There are 7 subcommittees.
Committee on Banking,Housing, and Urban Affairs
1. The committee was formally established in 1913.
2. Deals with matters related to: banks,price controls, deposit insurance, export promotion and control, federal monetary policy,urban development, and mass transit.
3. The current chairman is Tim Johnson.
Committee on the Budget
1. Was established by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
2. The committee has jurisdiction over the Congressional Budget Office.
3. The chairman is Kent Conrad.
Committee on Commerce,Science,and Transportation
1. This committee covers a lot of different issues related to commerce,science, and transportation.
2. The current chairman is Jay Rockefeller
3. There are 7 subcommittees.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
The West Wing: The Stackhouse Filibuster
Connections:
1. The purpose of a filibuster is to kill a bill.
2. When the filibusters over, there is a vote to end debate.
3. This is called a cloture vote.
4. In a filibuster, you keep the floor as long as you can hold the floor.
5. The filibuster strategy has been around for over 150 years.
6. Filibusters can only occur in the Senate, due to the speaking limits in the House.
7. The person doing the filibuster can not stop talking or sit down.
8. People can ask them questions to help.
Questions:
1. How long was the longest filibuster?
2. How often do they occur?
3. Do filibusters usually succeed in killing the bill?
4. How do senators feel about filibusters?
5. Has anyone ever tried to ban filibusters?
1. The purpose of a filibuster is to kill a bill.
2. When the filibusters over, there is a vote to end debate.
3. This is called a cloture vote.
4. In a filibuster, you keep the floor as long as you can hold the floor.
5. The filibuster strategy has been around for over 150 years.
6. Filibusters can only occur in the Senate, due to the speaking limits in the House.
7. The person doing the filibuster can not stop talking or sit down.
8. People can ask them questions to help.
Questions:
1. How long was the longest filibuster?
2. How often do they occur?
3. Do filibusters usually succeed in killing the bill?
4. How do senators feel about filibusters?
5. Has anyone ever tried to ban filibusters?
Monday, November 14, 2011
Issue of the Week
1. How long does the process take to become a legal citizen/ why didn't those illegal immigrants just apply for citizenship before?
The United States actually has one of the least strict immigration policies, making it easier for people to just sneak in than go through the legal processes. The process includes waiting for an immigration visa, and then waiting on a list with other people from the country they're coming from. I think we need to have stricter consequences for those who enter the country illegally, while making the process to come here legally more convenient. That way, coming illegally will not seem like the easier option.
2. What happens if illegal immigrants have children that were born in the US? Are they (the children) also considered illegal immigrants?
Children of illegal immigrants are considered citizens. This is because of the 14th amendment which should be repealed. The amendment was originally created to ensure children of slaves would still be considered US citizens, however we obviously don't have that problem anymore.I think Glenn Beck gave the best 21st century interpretation of the 14th amendment saying,
All persons who successfully sneak into the country will be allowed to stay indefinitely. All crimes committed by those lawbreakers (i.e., identity theft, fraud, and tax evasion) will be ignored. These non-American Americans will be afforded free health care at emergency rooms, free education,, and special in-state tuition deals at colleges, not afforded legal citizens. All children born of these lawbreakers shall immediately become citizens of the United States. Any person attempting to thwart this revision of Section I will be labeled racists, hatemongers, xenophobes, and all-around bad people."
This is pretty relevant to what the 14th ammendment now means.From most of the things I found it seems that you can still be deported if you have a child in the US, but it makes it a lot harder.
"3.What are the repercussions that employers that hire illegal immigrants are faced with?
There are both civil and criminal penalties for hiring illegal immigrants. However, it seems this crime often stays under the radar. It is also hard to prove that someone knowingly hired one. I think this is almost as much of a problem as the immigrants themselves. Illegal immigrants come into this country knowing they can probably find someone willing to hire them. Employers don't mind because they can pay them so cheap, but if this is cracked down on more, they would be less likely to hire aliens.
Sources:
http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4925092_us-immigration-process-work.html
The United States actually has one of the least strict immigration policies, making it easier for people to just sneak in than go through the legal processes. The process includes waiting for an immigration visa, and then waiting on a list with other people from the country they're coming from. I think we need to have stricter consequences for those who enter the country illegally, while making the process to come here legally more convenient. That way, coming illegally will not seem like the easier option.
2. What happens if illegal immigrants have children that were born in the US? Are they (the children) also considered illegal immigrants?
Children of illegal immigrants are considered citizens. This is because of the 14th amendment which should be repealed. The amendment was originally created to ensure children of slaves would still be considered US citizens, however we obviously don't have that problem anymore.I think Glenn Beck gave the best 21st century interpretation of the 14th amendment saying,
All persons who successfully sneak into the country will be allowed to stay indefinitely. All crimes committed by those lawbreakers (i.e., identity theft, fraud, and tax evasion) will be ignored. These non-American Americans will be afforded free health care at emergency rooms, free education,, and special in-state tuition deals at colleges, not afforded legal citizens. All children born of these lawbreakers shall immediately become citizens of the United States. Any person attempting to thwart this revision of Section I will be labeled racists, hatemongers, xenophobes, and all-around bad people."
This is pretty relevant to what the 14th ammendment now means.From most of the things I found it seems that you can still be deported if you have a child in the US, but it makes it a lot harder.
"3.What are the repercussions that employers that hire illegal immigrants are faced with?
There are both civil and criminal penalties for hiring illegal immigrants. However, it seems this crime often stays under the radar. It is also hard to prove that someone knowingly hired one. I think this is almost as much of a problem as the immigrants themselves. Illegal immigrants come into this country knowing they can probably find someone willing to hire them. Employers don't mind because they can pay them so cheap, but if this is cracked down on more, they would be less likely to hire aliens.
Sources:
http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4925092_us-immigration-process-work.html
PA's electoral votes
Facts:
1. Senate majority leader Dominic Pileggi raised a plan to change the way we award our electoral votes in PA.
2. Nebraska and Maine have abandoned the winner take all system.
3. This plan in favored by republicans.
4. The new plan would award electoral votes by congressional district.
5. The concept of awarding electoral votes by district has been around since the 1950's.
6. A canidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.
7. Wisconsion is looking to adopt a similar plan.
8. According to the Constitution, states may award electoral votes as they see fit.
9. A non-profit group, Al.l Votes Matter is pushing this plan.
10. This group has close ties to the Pennsylvania GOP.
Questions:
1. Is the change favored in Nebraska and Maine?
2. Why would this hurt our national power?
3. How popular is this plan?
4. Would this be difficult to pass?
5. Do any democrats support this plan?
Saturday, November 12, 2011
John Boehner
John Boehner, Speaker of the House
Facts/Details:
1. He represents Ohio's 8th Congressional district.
2. Boehner's republicans have slashed 1 trillion or so from the budget over the next decade.
3. Boehner wrote No Child Left Behind.
4. He disagrees with many of Obama's policies.
5. He has shifted the debates in Washington over to spending less.
6. He does not exercise authoritarian power.
7. He has not changed much since he won control of the house.
8. He served as House majority leader into 2007.
Questions:
1. Why has Boehner been struggling to influence the House?
2. How conservative is Boehner?
3. Does Eric Cantor have more power than Boehner?
4. Does Boehner have the support of tea party members?
5. What bills has Boehner sponsored?
Friday, November 11, 2011
Is the US House too small?
Facts:
1. The House of Representatives has been at 435 members since 1911.
2. In 1911, the country was a third of its current population.
3. In 2009, a group filed suit in Mississippi calling for the enlargement of the chamber's population.
4. For the first 13 decades of its history, the houses population was ever-expanding.
5. The average US congressional district now contains roughly 640,000 citizens.
6. The argued number of how many seats the House should have is 650.
7. This figured is based on the "cube root law"
8. The House of Representatives is seen as the "people's house".
9. Most support for a higher number of House seats comes from Democrats,women, and African Americans.
10.Public opinion on the issue of expanding the house is: 60% want to keep it the same, 20% want fewer seats and 20% want more seats.
Questions:
1. If more seats are added, won't our taxes increase?
2. Do a significant number of Constituents truly feel underrepresented?
3. Isn't the house already really big? I mean the Senate only has 100 members.
4. Is gerrymandering the bigger problem?
5. Would this lessen the power of the Senate?
I do not think the House is too small. I feel the current size is acceptable because it has been working fine for a long time with 435 members. I think 435 is enough so that everyone is represented. It's not like anyone isn't in a congressional district. Also, expanding government never leads to anything good.
1. The House of Representatives has been at 435 members since 1911.
2. In 1911, the country was a third of its current population.
3. In 2009, a group filed suit in Mississippi calling for the enlargement of the chamber's population.
4. For the first 13 decades of its history, the houses population was ever-expanding.
5. The average US congressional district now contains roughly 640,000 citizens.
6. The argued number of how many seats the House should have is 650.
7. This figured is based on the "cube root law"
8. The House of Representatives is seen as the "people's house".
9. Most support for a higher number of House seats comes from Democrats,women, and African Americans.
10.Public opinion on the issue of expanding the house is: 60% want to keep it the same, 20% want fewer seats and 20% want more seats.
Questions:
1. If more seats are added, won't our taxes increase?
2. Do a significant number of Constituents truly feel underrepresented?
3. Isn't the house already really big? I mean the Senate only has 100 members.
4. Is gerrymandering the bigger problem?
5. Would this lessen the power of the Senate?
I do not think the House is too small. I feel the current size is acceptable because it has been working fine for a long time with 435 members. I think 435 is enough so that everyone is represented. It's not like anyone isn't in a congressional district. Also, expanding government never leads to anything good.
Open Secrets Response
Pat Toomey:
Net Worth: 1,770,062 to 4,900,999
Rank: 46th in Senate
Assets: 44 totaling 2,020,062 to 5,001,000
Liabilities: 100,001 to 250,000
Michele Bachmann:
Net Worth: 112,018 to 1,704,998
Rank: 186th in House
Assets: 18 totaling 862,018 to 2,055,000
Liabilities: 2 totaling 350,002 to 750,000
I don't think either of the people I am following make a ridiculous amount of money. I am surprised Michele Bachmann doesn't make more money considering she is running for president and that can cost a lot.
why does this matter:
I agree with the author that the people have the right to see what their politicians are making. However, I don't think it is a big deal if they are rich. Members of congress are usually people who have been successful in their careers, so it is expected that they make a decent salary. The only thing I think is relevant about this is seeing their business transactions because it is important to see how much ulterior motives can come into play in politics with the support of special interest groups and what not.
Net Worth: 1,770,062 to 4,900,999
Rank: 46th in Senate
Assets: 44 totaling 2,020,062 to 5,001,000
Liabilities: 100,001 to 250,000
Michele Bachmann:
Net Worth: 112,018 to 1,704,998
Rank: 186th in House
Assets: 18 totaling 862,018 to 2,055,000
Liabilities: 2 totaling 350,002 to 750,000
I don't think either of the people I am following make a ridiculous amount of money. I am surprised Michele Bachmann doesn't make more money considering she is running for president and that can cost a lot.
why does this matter:
I agree with the author that the people have the right to see what their politicians are making. However, I don't think it is a big deal if they are rich. Members of congress are usually people who have been successful in their careers, so it is expected that they make a decent salary. The only thing I think is relevant about this is seeing their business transactions because it is important to see how much ulterior motives can come into play in politics with the support of special interest groups and what not.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Due Process
Facts:
1 Exoneration is when a person who has been convicted of a crime is later proved to have been innocent of that crime.
2. Eye witnesses can be unreliable.
3. Only 5% of criminal cases have biological evidence.
4. The ineffective assistance of counsel claim is often used as a proxy for new evidence.
5. There are 55 innocence projects in the United States.
6. Barry Shneck was on OJ Simpson's defense team.
7. Texas has more executions than any state.
8. A person given the death penalty may wait up to 25 years to be executed.
9. 2 to 3 percent of those in prison are estimated to be guilty.
10. One innocence project is called last resort.
Questions:
1. How often are innocent people found guilty?
2. Is DNA evidence reliable 100% of the time?
3. How can the risk of error be reduced?
4. Why does it take so long to execute someone?
5. Why is the system flawed so that innocent people are found guilty, yet many guilty people are found innocent?
1 Exoneration is when a person who has been convicted of a crime is later proved to have been innocent of that crime.
2. Eye witnesses can be unreliable.
3. Only 5% of criminal cases have biological evidence.
4. The ineffective assistance of counsel claim is often used as a proxy for new evidence.
5. There are 55 innocence projects in the United States.
6. Barry Shneck was on OJ Simpson's defense team.
7. Texas has more executions than any state.
8. A person given the death penalty may wait up to 25 years to be executed.
9. 2 to 3 percent of those in prison are estimated to be guilty.
10. One innocence project is called last resort.
Questions:
1. How often are innocent people found guilty?
2. Is DNA evidence reliable 100% of the time?
3. How can the risk of error be reduced?
4. Why does it take so long to execute someone?
5. Why is the system flawed so that innocent people are found guilty, yet many guilty people are found innocent?
Monday, November 7, 2011
Justice Stevens
District of Columbia vs Heller
Facts:
1. A landmark ruling that held the 2nd ammendment protects an indivual's right to posess a firearm.
2. This case occured in 2008.
3. Justice Stevens was in the dissenting opinion.
4. This court case questioned the constitutionality of a DC handgun law.
5. The decision was a 5-4.
6. The court referred to the 2nd ammendment in their decision.
Questions:
1. Will this ruling apply to other similar gun control laws?
2. What were DC's gun laws following this ruling?
3. Will this be the last of 2nd ammendment related court cases?
4. Isn't the 2nd ammendment so clear in it's intent that not much interpretation is needed?
Sources:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Facts:
1. A landmark ruling that held the 2nd ammendment protects an indivual's right to posess a firearm.
2. This case occured in 2008.
3. Justice Stevens was in the dissenting opinion.
4. This court case questioned the constitutionality of a DC handgun law.
5. The decision was a 5-4.
6. The court referred to the 2nd ammendment in their decision.
Questions:
1. Will this ruling apply to other similar gun control laws?
2. What were DC's gun laws following this ruling?
3. Will this be the last of 2nd ammendment related court cases?
4. Isn't the 2nd ammendment so clear in it's intent that not much interpretation is needed?
Sources:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
The Supreme Court Justices
10 Facts/Questions:
1.John Roberts took his seat as Chief Justice on September 29,2005.
2.Antonin Scalia is from New Jersey and is married to Maureen McCarthy, I wonder if we are related?
3. Scalia was nominated by President Reagan.
4. Anthony Kennedy was also nominated by President Reagan.
5. Clarence Thomas was nominated by George HW Bush.
6. Thomas was the 2nd African American to serve on the supreme court.
7. Thomas had very controversial confirmation hearings.
8. Ruth Gingsburg was nominated by President Clinton.
9. Sandra Day O'Connor was the first female on the supreme court, was this a big deal?
10. The most recently appointed member is Elena Kagan, who was appointed in summer 2010.
Friday, November 4, 2011
3 Court Cases
Ford vs Wainwright (1986):
Alvin Ford was a murder who was sentenced to death in the state of Florida. While on death row, he began expressing symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. This case addresses the issue of whether the mentally ill can receive the death penalty. The court ruled that the 8th amendment prohibitts the execution of the insane. I don't think it should matter since he wasn't insane when he committed the murder. I understand why someone with serious mental problems should not be executed, but this seems to get taken advantage of with every convicted murder using the insanity defense anymore.
Reno vs ACLU (1999):
In this case the court decided to strike down the Communications Decency Act, saying it violated the first amendment. The act was an attempt by congress to regulate explicit content on the internet. The court only ruled against the anti-indecency provisions of the act and it was eventually passed. This stood out to me because with the growing popularity of the internet, I am surprised there has not been more supreme court cases regarding the "laws" of what people can do online.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs Casey(1992):
This challenged the constitutionality of several PA abortion laws. Such as informed consent,spousal consent,parental consent,and a 24 hour waiting period. The court ruled that the laws were constitutional except for the requirement of spousal notification. It stood out to me because this is specific to Pennsylvania.I can't believe minors in some states can get an abortion without parental consent. It seems like this would lead many to get an abortion just to avoid telling their parents =/
Alvin Ford was a murder who was sentenced to death in the state of Florida. While on death row, he began expressing symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. This case addresses the issue of whether the mentally ill can receive the death penalty. The court ruled that the 8th amendment prohibitts the execution of the insane. I don't think it should matter since he wasn't insane when he committed the murder. I understand why someone with serious mental problems should not be executed, but this seems to get taken advantage of with every convicted murder using the insanity defense anymore.
Reno vs ACLU (1999):
In this case the court decided to strike down the Communications Decency Act, saying it violated the first amendment. The act was an attempt by congress to regulate explicit content on the internet. The court only ruled against the anti-indecency provisions of the act and it was eventually passed. This stood out to me because with the growing popularity of the internet, I am surprised there has not been more supreme court cases regarding the "laws" of what people can do online.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs Casey(1992):
This challenged the constitutionality of several PA abortion laws. Such as informed consent,spousal consent,parental consent,and a 24 hour waiting period. The court ruled that the laws were constitutional except for the requirement of spousal notification. It stood out to me because this is specific to Pennsylvania.I can't believe minors in some states can get an abortion without parental consent. It seems like this would lead many to get an abortion just to avoid telling their parents =/
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Roe vs Wade
10 details:
1.The Constitution doesn't specifically mention any right to privacy.
2. The court looked to the 9th and 14th amendment while making their decision.
3. The court decided the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision.
4. States can still regulate abortion.
5.Illegal abortions are not as dangerous as they were before the development of antisepsis.
6. Morality rates for women undergoing early legal abortion are as low as the rates of normal childbirth.
7. This morality rate increases as the pregnancy gets further along.
8. Roe vs Wade took place in 1973.
9. If the state is interested in protecting fetal life after viability,it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period.
10.Viability is usually placed at 7 months, sometimes earlier.
5 questions:
1. If I wanted to murder someone, would I be free from prosecution because I have a "right to privacy"? No? Then how is this any different?
2. Should we even be worried about a women who goes out of her way to get an ILLEGAL abortion's safety?
3. I wonder, out of the number of women who have gotten abortions, how many of them have had more than one?
4. Should someone who has an abortion be trusted with children later in life?
5. Be it considered a zygote,embryo,or fetus, isn't it still a human life?
1.The Constitution doesn't specifically mention any right to privacy.
2. The court looked to the 9th and 14th amendment while making their decision.
3. The court decided the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision.
4. States can still regulate abortion.
5.Illegal abortions are not as dangerous as they were before the development of antisepsis.
6. Morality rates for women undergoing early legal abortion are as low as the rates of normal childbirth.
7. This morality rate increases as the pregnancy gets further along.
8. Roe vs Wade took place in 1973.
9. If the state is interested in protecting fetal life after viability,it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period.
10.Viability is usually placed at 7 months, sometimes earlier.
5 questions:
1. If I wanted to murder someone, would I be free from prosecution because I have a "right to privacy"? No? Then how is this any different?
2. Should we even be worried about a women who goes out of her way to get an ILLEGAL abortion's safety?
3. I wonder, out of the number of women who have gotten abortions, how many of them have had more than one?
4. Should someone who has an abortion be trusted with children later in life?
5. Be it considered a zygote,embryo,or fetus, isn't it still a human life?
Monday, October 31, 2011
West Wing: The Supremes
Connections:
1. Roe vs Wade is mentioned, a court case we learned about in class.
2. The 14th amendment is mentioned.
3. The issue of judicial activism is brought up.
4. Affirmative Action was decided on in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.
5. We learned about how justices are appointed to the supreme court.
6. Someone claims homosexual rights are an equal protection violation. We learned about the Equal Protection Clause.
7. The open position is usually filled by someone similar to the retired justice.
8. The president doesn't select controversial candidates.
Questions:
1. What role does the judiciary committee play?
2. Why do they say affirmative action will be back in a few years?
3. Are judges that lean extremely to one side often appointed?
4. What positions do justices often hold before being appointed to the supreme court?
5. Has a justice ever been impeached?
1. Roe vs Wade is mentioned, a court case we learned about in class.
2. The 14th amendment is mentioned.
3. The issue of judicial activism is brought up.
4. Affirmative Action was decided on in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.
5. We learned about how justices are appointed to the supreme court.
6. Someone claims homosexual rights are an equal protection violation. We learned about the Equal Protection Clause.
7. The open position is usually filled by someone similar to the retired justice.
8. The president doesn't select controversial candidates.
Questions:
1. What role does the judiciary committee play?
2. Why do they say affirmative action will be back in a few years?
3. Are judges that lean extremely to one side often appointed?
4. What positions do justices often hold before being appointed to the supreme court?
5. Has a justice ever been impeached?
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Federalist #78
1. "Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them."
Hamilton believes the judiciary branch will be the weakest of the three.
2. "And it proves, in the last place, that liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments."
I think Hamilton is saying that the judiciary branch wouldn't have enough power to take away people's liberties unless it worked with the legislative or executive branch to do so.
3. "According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR; which is conformable to the most approved of the State constitutions and among the rest, to that of this State."
Members of the judiciary branch hold office unless they do something wrong.
4."The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution."
The Judiciary branch shouldn't be influenced by the other two branches.
5."A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."
Judical decisions should be made based on the Constitution.
Questions for Madison:
1. Do you think the Judical branch is still the least powerful?
2. Do you think the supreme court justices holds more power than originally intended?
3. What would you consider "good behavior" of the justices?
4. Do you agree with the way the Judical branch runs today?
5. Are justices biased to their political beliefs over the Constitution.?
Hamilton believes the judiciary branch will be the weakest of the three.
2. "And it proves, in the last place, that liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments."
I think Hamilton is saying that the judiciary branch wouldn't have enough power to take away people's liberties unless it worked with the legislative or executive branch to do so.
3. "According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR; which is conformable to the most approved of the State constitutions and among the rest, to that of this State."
Members of the judiciary branch hold office unless they do something wrong.
4."The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution."
The Judiciary branch shouldn't be influenced by the other two branches.
5."A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."
Judical decisions should be made based on the Constitution.
Questions for Madison:
1. Do you think the Judical branch is still the least powerful?
2. Do you think the supreme court justices holds more power than originally intended?
3. What would you consider "good behavior" of the justices?
4. Do you agree with the way the Judical branch runs today?
5. Are justices biased to their political beliefs over the Constitution.?
Michelle Bachmann Check-up
Michelle Bachmann
Recently sponsored bills:
H.R.86 : End Tax Uncertainty Act of 2011
H.R.87 : To repeal the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
H.R.87 : To repeal the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
H.R.849 : Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Order Without Law
Facts:
1. During Bush vs Gore, Willam Rehnquist was chief justice.
2. Bush vs Gore was the fourth intervention by the US supreme court over the outcome of the
presidental election in Florida.
3. Katherine Harris announced the deadline for recounts was final and would not extend November 14th.
4. On November 21st, the Florida Supreme Court required her to extend the deadline for the recount.
5. The US Supreme Court issued their decison December 9th.
6. The Equal Protection Clause influenced the court's decision.
7. Wealthy counties machine counts have a 2% higher success rate than poor counties.
8. In national elections, different states use different machinery.
Post-Reading Questions:
1. Is judical minimalism used to avoid confronting big issues?
2. Should the court have applied it's decision,based on the Equal Protection clause, to all elections?
3. Was it wrong of the Florida Supreme Court to force the Secretary of State to extend the deadline?
4. What made the US Supreme Court decide to hear the case?
5. Are manual recounts more or less effective?
1. During Bush vs Gore, Willam Rehnquist was chief justice.
2. Bush vs Gore was the fourth intervention by the US supreme court over the outcome of the
presidental election in Florida.
3. Katherine Harris announced the deadline for recounts was final and would not extend November 14th.
4. On November 21st, the Florida Supreme Court required her to extend the deadline for the recount.
5. The US Supreme Court issued their decison December 9th.
6. The Equal Protection Clause influenced the court's decision.
7. Wealthy counties machine counts have a 2% higher success rate than poor counties.
8. In national elections, different states use different machinery.
Post-Reading Questions:
1. Is judical minimalism used to avoid confronting big issues?
2. Should the court have applied it's decision,based on the Equal Protection clause, to all elections?
3. Was it wrong of the Florida Supreme Court to force the Secretary of State to extend the deadline?
4. What made the US Supreme Court decide to hear the case?
5. Are manual recounts more or less effective?
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
The Common Good
I believe the "common good" is a cute idea, but unrealistic. This actually sounds like the ideology behind communism. You are always going to have lazy people, who are more than willing to let others pick up their slack. I say this because I know some of these people first hand. With the loss of incentives, you would see even more people who realize whether they carry their weight or not, they're still going to get the same benefits. Humans are by nature competitive. We want people to see us be successful and we want to reap the benefits of our success. So when you take away the competition, what is the motivation? I'd be a lot less likely to be doing this assignment right now,if it didn't count towards my grade and was just going towards "the good" of our class. The big reason this idea will never work is because citizens will never work as hard to support random people, as they would for themselves or their family. And, why should they? People need to learn that the world doesn't owe them anything.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Recount
Questions:
1. Did they know the butterfly ballots may pose a problem?
2. Is it realistic for the Florida to do a state wide recount?
3. Why is florida's supreme court dominated by democrats?
4. Why is the deadline so important?
5. Is the law relevant since they're in Florida, not Texas?
6. Why are they called dimplochauds?
7. How was the election so close that is came down to Florida?
8. Could this happen again?
Facts:
1. The Supreme Court stopped the recount.
2. Florida had 25 electoral votes.
3. Bush offically won Florida.
4. One of the factors in the Supreme Court was the Equal Protection Clause.
5. The ruling was a 7-2 vote.
6. Katherine Harris, the secretary of state had the power to stop the recount.
7. The butterfly ballot confused many voters.
1. Did they know the butterfly ballots may pose a problem?
2. Is it realistic for the Florida to do a state wide recount?
3. Why is florida's supreme court dominated by democrats?
4. Why is the deadline so important?
5. Is the law relevant since they're in Florida, not Texas?
6. Why are they called dimplochauds?
7. How was the election so close that is came down to Florida?
8. Could this happen again?
Facts:
1. The Supreme Court stopped the recount.
2. Florida had 25 electoral votes.
3. Bush offically won Florida.
4. One of the factors in the Supreme Court was the Equal Protection Clause.
5. The ruling was a 7-2 vote.
6. Katherine Harris, the secretary of state had the power to stop the recount.
7. The butterfly ballot confused many voters.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Health Care Blog 2
For my 2nd health care topic, I chose to explore how Obamacare will effect the health care professionals. As someone who aspires to go into the medical field, I'm surprised I haven't looked more into this before. The issue most doctors seem concerned about is that they will be subject to a lot more government regulation. They're going to have to be dependent on unreliable government reimbursement for their medical services. This is leading many doctors to consider no longer accepting government health programs.
I also learned Obamacare, or any kind of socialized medicine will cause the salaries of doctors to drop. This is terrible because with medical school being so expensive, doctors usually need that high salary to pay off their debts/loans. This is frustrating to me. Although money is not a sole reason to enter the medical field, having a comfortable salary is definitely something that is expected. I don't think we should value the people responsible for saving lives any less than we do now.
I also learned Obamacare, or any kind of socialized medicine will cause the salaries of doctors to drop. This is terrible because with medical school being so expensive, doctors usually need that high salary to pay off their debts/loans. This is frustrating to me. Although money is not a sole reason to enter the medical field, having a comfortable salary is definitely something that is expected. I don't think we should value the people responsible for saving lives any less than we do now.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
2000 Election Reading
Pre-Reading Questions:
1. Has a recount on a presidential election ever happened before?
2. How long could an election stay undecided?
3. Are the votes usually as close as they were in Florida?
4. Why wasn't there a statewide standard for each county?
5. What made the supreme court agree to hear this case?
Facts/Details
1. Republicans stated the deadline for reporting the vote was Tuesday, November 14th.
2. The supreme court decision was decided with a 5-4 vote.
3. Florida had 25 electoral votes.'
4. The "butterfly ballot" was used in Palm Beach County.
5. Al Gore won the popular vote.
Post-Reading Questions:
1. Did the Florida court violate Article 2, Section1, Clause 2, of the Constitution?
2. How long would a total recount have taken?
3. How they decide which counties would be recounted?
4.Who was right, the Florida court or the us supreme court?
5. Have any measures been taken to make sure this doesn't happen again?
1. Has a recount on a presidential election ever happened before?
2. How long could an election stay undecided?
3. Are the votes usually as close as they were in Florida?
4. Why wasn't there a statewide standard for each county?
5. What made the supreme court agree to hear this case?
Facts/Details
1. Republicans stated the deadline for reporting the vote was Tuesday, November 14th.
2. The supreme court decision was decided with a 5-4 vote.
3. Florida had 25 electoral votes.'
4. The "butterfly ballot" was used in Palm Beach County.
5. Al Gore won the popular vote.
Post-Reading Questions:
1. Did the Florida court violate Article 2, Section1, Clause 2, of the Constitution?
2. How long would a total recount have taken?
3. How they decide which counties would be recounted?
4.Who was right, the Florida court or the us supreme court?
5. Have any measures been taken to make sure this doesn't happen again?
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Health Care blog post 1
Although I haven't always cared much about health care, I've been concerned with it lately. It really worries me that Obama is leading America towards a total government takeover of health care. This would not be good for many reasons. Back in 1961, Ronald Reagan warned us,
"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. . . . Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We have an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this. "
Even one of the greatest presidents ever, recognized the threat of this. I do not understand why people want government involved in health care so badly. Anything the government can do with health care, the private sector can do cheaper and more effectively. It is wrong to force Americans pay for government healthcare, especially when that money will have to go to people that can't afford their own health care. Giving free handouts to people who can't afford it on their own is essientally hurting them. It enables them and teaches them a lack of personal responsibility.
Another reason I do not agree with socialized medicine is because it will lower the quality of health care in America. If I hear one more person say we should model our health care system after europe's, I am going to be sick. When you look into the quality of health care systems in the UK, it is pretty scary. Sure everyone may be covered, but your chances of being properly treated are slim.
Example: The british government set a target mandating that patients be seen in FOUR HOURS. However, the emergency rooms still couldn't hit this target. Hospitals started keeping patients waiting in the ambulences, so they techincally wouldn't be waiting in the ER for four hours. ( there are a lot of other terrible statistics if you look into it)
Forgive me if I sound selfish, but I am not willing to compromise my quality of health care to that level just so everyone can have access to it.
"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. . . . Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We have an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this. "
Even one of the greatest presidents ever, recognized the threat of this. I do not understand why people want government involved in health care so badly. Anything the government can do with health care, the private sector can do cheaper and more effectively. It is wrong to force Americans pay for government healthcare, especially when that money will have to go to people that can't afford their own health care. Giving free handouts to people who can't afford it on their own is essientally hurting them. It enables them and teaches them a lack of personal responsibility.
Another reason I do not agree with socialized medicine is because it will lower the quality of health care in America. If I hear one more person say we should model our health care system after europe's, I am going to be sick. When you look into the quality of health care systems in the UK, it is pretty scary. Sure everyone may be covered, but your chances of being properly treated are slim.
Example: The british government set a target mandating that patients be seen in FOUR HOURS. However, the emergency rooms still couldn't hit this target. Hospitals started keeping patients waiting in the ambulences, so they techincally wouldn't be waiting in the ER for four hours. ( there are a lot of other terrible statistics if you look into it)
Forgive me if I sound selfish, but I am not willing to compromise my quality of health care to that level just so everyone can have access to it.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Pat Toomey Check-up
Pat Toomey
Recently sponsored bills:
S.163 : Full Faith and Credit Act
S.1290 : Spending Cap Act of 2011 S.1292 : Employment Protection Act of 2011 |
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Factions
James Madison defines a faction as a "number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Madison thinks the majority must rule to handle the factions.
My definition: A group of citizens who join together and are for or against the same thing.
Questions:
1. Are what Madison referred to as factions now political parties?
2. Did he feel factions could potentially be a problem?
3. Are factions necessary to represent the people?
4. What would our government be like without factions?
I think factions play a big role in politics today. It seems most people identify with a political party or at least some kind of political label. I think factions can sometimes be misguided, but are necessary.
My definition: A group of citizens who join together and are for or against the same thing.
Questions:
1. Are what Madison referred to as factions now political parties?
2. Did he feel factions could potentially be a problem?
3. Are factions necessary to represent the people?
4. What would our government be like without factions?
I think factions play a big role in politics today. It seems most people identify with a political party or at least some kind of political label. I think factions can sometimes be misguided, but are necessary.
Monday, October 10, 2011
2 Members of Congress
I am going to follow:
Pat Toomey
Republican
Pennsylvania
Senate
Michele Bachmann
Republican
Minnesota
House
Pat Toomey
Republican
Pennsylvania
Senate
Michele Bachmann
Republican
Minnesota
House
Friday, October 7, 2011
Constitution Questions
1. Is there too much qulifications and limitations in the government? Peter N.
I think there are not enough limitations on the government. It seems the federal government is always looking for new ways to get involved in citizens lives. I also feel the necessary and proper clause is taken out of context. Can't the government just deem any new thing they want to do "necessary and proper"?
3. Do you believe the founding fathers included religious ideas into the Constitution? Emily
Since the founding fathers were Christians, I think they definitely made decisions regarding the laws based on their morals and what they believed to be right. So indirectly, yes. I also think they wanted our government to be run on Christian beliefs while allowing everyone freedom of religion.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Political Ideology Survey
According, to the Political Ideology Survey I am a strong conservative. I'm not that surprised by this but it was still interesting to see the results. I hate to say that I'm someone that always sticks to their party, but the republican ideologies have always seemed like basic morals and common sense to me.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Federalist #10
Questions:
1. What are the mischiefs of faction?
2. How is someones liberty destroyed?
3. Why is a republic better for the minority than a direct democracy?
4. Would Madison still have the same view of women's place in government?
5. Are people always just concerned with their own self interests?
Quotes:
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
This seems to run true in politicians today.
"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity."
We will be biased if we try to judge ourselves because we want to believe we are doing the right thing.
"The public is disregarded in the conflicts of the rival parties."
All of the drama between political parties is put in front of the good of the people.
'"There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects."
Is this truely the only way this can be done?
"The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished."
Madison belives this can lead to the failure of government.
1. What are the mischiefs of faction?
2. How is someones liberty destroyed?
3. Why is a republic better for the minority than a direct democracy?
4. Would Madison still have the same view of women's place in government?
5. Are people always just concerned with their own self interests?
Quotes:
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
This seems to run true in politicians today.
"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity."
We will be biased if we try to judge ourselves because we want to believe we are doing the right thing.
"The public is disregarded in the conflicts of the rival parties."
All of the drama between political parties is put in front of the good of the people.
'"There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects."
Is this truely the only way this can be done?
"The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished."
Madison belives this can lead to the failure of government.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Federalist #51
Questions:
1. Does Madison have a somewhat cynical view of human nature?
2. Can government be trusted without regulation?
3. Why is it important for different departments to not be dependent on each other?
4. Is it possible to keep the majority from overriding the minority?
5. What are some disadvantages of a bigger central government?
Quotes:
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition"
Is this always necessary in government power?
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
I think he is saying that man is sinful in nature(not angels), so government is necessary to keep order.
"You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
Madison realizes that although the people may need to be controlled, we need to make sure government is also controlled and doesn't have too much power.
"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature"
Problems in government reflect the some of the simple problems that occur in human life.
"On ordinary occasions, it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness; and on extraordinary occasions, it might be perfidiously abused."
No two occasions have to happen the same way.
1. Does Madison have a somewhat cynical view of human nature?
2. Can government be trusted without regulation?
3. Why is it important for different departments to not be dependent on each other?
4. Is it possible to keep the majority from overriding the minority?
5. What are some disadvantages of a bigger central government?
Quotes:
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition"
Is this always necessary in government power?
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
I think he is saying that man is sinful in nature(not angels), so government is necessary to keep order.
"You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
Madison realizes that although the people may need to be controlled, we need to make sure government is also controlled and doesn't have too much power.
"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature"
Problems in government reflect the some of the simple problems that occur in human life.
"On ordinary occasions, it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness; and on extraordinary occasions, it might be perfidiously abused."
No two occasions have to happen the same way.
Political Cartoon
1.Is it unconstitutional to force people into buying health insurance?
2.Is this an example of the government over stepping their boundaries?
3.Will it be hard for the next president to repeal Obamacare?
Monday, October 3, 2011
Simile
Create and discuss a simile for the following concept- the American system of separation of powers and checks and balances.
The American system of checks and balances is like a business. The workers are like the legislative branch because they make the product. The customers are like the Judaical branch because they interpret how the product is going to be received. The owner is like the executive branch because they enforce everything. All three of them need to work together and have a say in decisions, or else the business will not be successful.
The American system of checks and balances is like a business. The workers are like the legislative branch because they make the product. The customers are like the Judaical branch because they interpret how the product is going to be received. The owner is like the executive branch because they enforce everything. All three of them need to work together and have a say in decisions, or else the business will not be successful.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
10 Questions & Facts
Questions:
1. Why was the CIA codename for the plan "graystone"?
2. Why are people so against water boarding if it works?
3. Where is Guantanamo Bay?
4. Why is the NSA's budget a state secret?
5. Why didn't Obama decrease war efforts if he was against it?
6. Why aren't our security programs more effective?
7. Why are the intelligence agencies so hidden?
8. Is it unconstitutional for the government to override our privacy rights even if it's to protect us?
Facts:
1. Within 2 weeks of Afganistan the first phase of graystone was put into action.
2. Sadam Husseian was accused by the Bush administration of having wmds.
3. By spring of 2003, the us had attacked Iraq.
4. 3000+ were killed on 9/11
5. Obama called for no illegal wire tapping of Americans.
6. Obama continued with graystone.
7. DHS funded high-tech defense centers around the country.
8. Osama Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan.
9. CIA bought 480 private companies.
1. Why was the CIA codename for the plan "graystone"?
2. Why are people so against water boarding if it works?
3. Where is Guantanamo Bay?
4. Why is the NSA's budget a state secret?
5. Why didn't Obama decrease war efforts if he was against it?
6. Why aren't our security programs more effective?
7. Why are the intelligence agencies so hidden?
8. Is it unconstitutional for the government to override our privacy rights even if it's to protect us?
Facts:
1. Within 2 weeks of Afganistan the first phase of graystone was put into action.
2. Sadam Husseian was accused by the Bush administration of having wmds.
3. By spring of 2003, the us had attacked Iraq.
4. 3000+ were killed on 9/11
5. Obama called for no illegal wire tapping of Americans.
6. Obama continued with graystone.
7. DHS funded high-tech defense centers around the country.
8. Osama Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan.
9. CIA bought 480 private companies.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Interview
I decided to interview a close family friend, Gene. He has been friends with my mom since college, where he was a History/Political Science major. I knew he kept up with the issues going on in our country, and I figured he’d have a lot to say about some of the themes from Chapter 1. I started off asking him the simple question “what is the main purpose of government?” He answered that it is to fulfill God’s purpose for man and provide for the greater good of all. I definitely can’t disagree with that. He thinks our system of an indirect democracy works well, and does not believe a direct democracy would be any better. We went on to discuss the Constitution. I asked him how important is the Constitution and if he thought it should be strictly adhered to. He said it was extremely important and yes, it should be. However, when asked if he agreed with all the amendments in the Constitution, his answer was a lot less brief. He doesn’t agree with how the separation of church and state is used and taken out of context. He says the Founding Fathers only had the freedom of Christian religions in mind. I always thought the separation of church and state was taken a little too far, but I hadn’t thought about this before. Back then, other mainstream religions were not prominent in America. He believes there should be an amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. He also thinks an amendment should be added that “provides for the protection of life and puts abortion in extremely limited circumstances”.
I then asked him who should have more power, the federal or state government. He thinks the federal government should have more power or we’re not really a united country. He added that our strength comes from states being subordinate to the federal government. He thinks politicians definitely care more about getting reelected than making the tough decisions and compromise between parties is necessary. He says he would vote for someone outside of his political party if they were for the issues he cares about. When I asked him what makes a strong political leader, he said “the ability to build consensus and to deliver a concise message with specific goals”. To wrap up the interview, I asked him what current political issues were most important to him. He cares about the right to life, the right to bear arms, our economy, and education. I thought Gene had a lot of important things to say and I have more respect for him as a person after hearing his views.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
A People's History of the United States
A People's History of The United States, discusses the backgrounds of our founding fathers and their motives behind writing the Constitution. The author brings up that most of them came from wealth. This argues that the Constitution didn't reflect the interests of the majority of the population. It also talks about why some people opposed the ratification of the Consitution. I think the author speaks from a very anti-American point of view. He trys to claim that our founding fathers, the most influential people to American History, were pretty much just in it for personal gain. If that were true, the Constiution would not be the success that it is.
1. When speaking of Shay's Rebellion, Thomas Jefferson said that such uprisings were healthy for society. Do you agree that rebellion can be a good thing?
2. Is it such a suprise that the founding fathers came from money, like many of our political leaders today?
3. Why was the Sedition Act allowed?
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Political Cartoon
1. Does our two party system make it harder for things to be accomplished?
2. Is getting reelected more important to politicians than making real decisons?
Thursday, September 15, 2011
20 questions from the reading
1. Do politics still help people relate to each other, like Aristotle said? Or does it do just the opposite? 2. Are Americans unappreciative of democracy?
3. Should compromise between parties be looked down upon?
4. Do most politicians really care about the issues or it all about self-interest?
5. What was the Tinanmen Square massacre?
6. Is our skepticism of immigrants from Arab and Muslim countries justified?
7. Why did the Bush administration want to improve relations with Mexico?
8. Should we have harsher penalties on those who enter the country illegally?
9. Why was Canada involved in the agreement with the INS?
10. Does diversity benefit us?
11. Why do people born poor tend to stay poor? Can't anyone be successful if they work hard?
12. Does affirmative action lead to reverse discrimination?
13. Is one political culture realistic for the United States?
14. Where do we draw the line on the government's power?
15. Did the census used to be taken in person?
16. Does the census have much effectiveness?
17.Daniel Webster and Thomas Jefferson said that only educated citizens would be able to understand public issues and elect the right leaders. Should an education be required to vote?
18. If the founders wanted us to be united by the same religion, then why is talk of religion such taboo nowadays?
19. Why are other languages seen as such a threat to the English language?
20. What is the main purpose of government?
3. Should compromise between parties be looked down upon?
4. Do most politicians really care about the issues or it all about self-interest?
5. What was the Tinanmen Square massacre?
6. Is our skepticism of immigrants from Arab and Muslim countries justified?
7. Why did the Bush administration want to improve relations with Mexico?
8. Should we have harsher penalties on those who enter the country illegally?
9. Why was Canada involved in the agreement with the INS?
10. Does diversity benefit us?
11. Why do people born poor tend to stay poor? Can't anyone be successful if they work hard?
12. Does affirmative action lead to reverse discrimination?
13. Is one political culture realistic for the United States?
14. Where do we draw the line on the government's power?
15. Did the census used to be taken in person?
16. Does the census have much effectiveness?
17.Daniel Webster and Thomas Jefferson said that only educated citizens would be able to understand public issues and elect the right leaders. Should an education be required to vote?
18. If the founders wanted us to be united by the same religion, then why is talk of religion such taboo nowadays?
19. Why are other languages seen as such a threat to the English language?
20. What is the main purpose of government?
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Political Issues I care about
Over the past couple years, I've really taken an interest in politics. I think it's crazy that a lot of young people are apathetic to political issues that may even have a direct affect on them. I probably still don't know as much as I should, but I try to keep up with the problems going on in our country and know how I stand on them.
Obviously, a big issue right now is the economy. The government needs to make some serious spending cuts in order to reduce the national debt. One thing that would really help the economy is repealing Obamacare. Besides that it is unconstitutional, we can't afford it. Obamacare will actually hurt job growth, which is the last thing we need considering our current unemployment rate. We could cut spending in a lot of other areas, but I think Obamacare is something that is really hurting us as a country.
I also care about most social issues. One of the most important to me being the issue of abortion. I'm extremely pro-life. I find it sickening how easy it is for someone to get an abortion in this country, and I hope one day that abortion will be illegal .
I'm against any kind of gun control legislation. The right to bear arms is a basic consitutional right and I don't understand why anyone would want to take away their own rights. There are always going to be people out there with guns no matter what laws are passed. Gun control laws only hurt the law-abiding citizen, the criminals could care less about the law and are still going to find a way to get one. The more people that own a gun and are able to protect themelves, the less gun crime there will be.
There a lot of other issues that are important to me but those were kinda the first things I thought of.
Obviously, a big issue right now is the economy. The government needs to make some serious spending cuts in order to reduce the national debt. One thing that would really help the economy is repealing Obamacare. Besides that it is unconstitutional, we can't afford it. Obamacare will actually hurt job growth, which is the last thing we need considering our current unemployment rate. We could cut spending in a lot of other areas, but I think Obamacare is something that is really hurting us as a country.
I also care about most social issues. One of the most important to me being the issue of abortion. I'm extremely pro-life. I find it sickening how easy it is for someone to get an abortion in this country, and I hope one day that abortion will be illegal .
I'm against any kind of gun control legislation. The right to bear arms is a basic consitutional right and I don't understand why anyone would want to take away their own rights. There are always going to be people out there with guns no matter what laws are passed. Gun control laws only hurt the law-abiding citizen, the criminals could care less about the law and are still going to find a way to get one. The more people that own a gun and are able to protect themelves, the less gun crime there will be.
There a lot of other issues that are important to me but those were kinda the first things I thought of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)