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?
Monday, October 31, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)