Bills from My Classmates

• S:1853: Postal Service Protection Act 2011 -- Kathleen
• S:1119: Trash Free Sea Act -- Peter
• S:1510: Clean Energy Financing Act of 2011 -- Hope

The bill I will use in my letter to my constituteint will be either, S:3621: Stop Online Piracy Act of 2011, or S:1108: 10 Million Dollar Solar Roofs Act of 2011.

Budget Puzzle: Solved!

• I saved $226 billion for 2015, and for 2030 I saved $95 billion
• 75% of the reducing came from tax increases 
• 25% of the reducing came from spending cuts
• In reflection, I would have thought this would be easy, but for each and every change I made I had to think about who it would affect, was it necessary, how are people going to react to this, is it worth it? Of all the choices that I made, few were easy, but the ones that were easy included: earmarks no more, carbon tax, millionaire tax, and reducing our nuclear arsenal. The hardest choices were ones like national sales tax, reducing troops overseas.
• I think that if i tried to put any of these proposals through congress it would not be close to working, I mean  why would we even be talking about reducing the debt if there was an agreeable way of easily reducing it. Maybe some of my ideas would go through, but the Congress we have now is divided and partisanship weighs heavy on every decision. And even if there were any compromise ( if there were we would have seen it already!) then it most likely would not be enough to reduce both the debt and the deficit.

Electoral College Reform: The Velvet Coup (Yes)

Facts:

1. Hillary Clinton voiced her opposition of the Electoral College saying, "I am going to try to do what I can to make clear that the popular vote, the will of the people, should be followed."
2.  The author believes that the people or citizens of our country are powerless to do away with the Electoral College.
3. The author thinks Bush v. Gore is an example of how the Electoral College can really change things even if the popular vote is won.
4. Around 700 amendments have been proposed that would reform or abolish the Electoral College.
5. Reformation of the Electoral College would mean that in essence the grip of federalism would be loosened and the people would vote as citizens of the United States, not a a citizen of one state or another, but all under common ground and for one, larger, purpose.
6. Abolishing the Electoral College would allow citizens to "reshape political institutions."
7. There would be a need to campaign in more than just the swings states if there were no Electoral College.
8. By arguing against the Electoral College, Al Gore, would change the campaign process. Campaigners would now consider every last vote, from anywhere and everywhere that they could possible obtain.
9. Gore would be against class war-fare, because of his position against the Electoral College and because of the state that he was the Senator of, Tennessee.
10. The author believes its time to reform and readjust the Constitution for our changing times.

Questions:

1. Do the original arguments for the Electoral College still apply in toady's time and to our culture?
2. Would the election of the President be pure democracy with out the Electoral College?
3. How would you go about changing the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College?
4. Is abolishing the Electoral College completely right or left, Republican or Democrat, or is it more of a personal opinion?
5. If Al Gore and George Bush switched positions would they be arguing for the other side or did Al Gore dislike the Electoral College before the 2000 election?

Terry Gross' Fresh Air: Interpreting the Constitution in the Digital Era

Facts/Details:

1. Constitution 3.0, a collection of essays of future technological developments that stress the Constitution and shows how the current Constitution is out-dated.
2. The Supreme Court is currently dealing with a case on the legality of the Police force placing a GPS tracking device on a car without a warrant. The biggest question is what is the difference of tracking for 10 to 100 miles compared to tracking for a month.
3. The GPS tracking case is possible one of the biggest steps or cases involving privacy, that our time faces.
4. Louis Brandeis, considered a visionary of both rights of privacy and rights of speech, realized, in a case from his own time, that it is not necessary to breaking into or have physical trespassing for the creation of an unreasonable search to occur.
5. Jeff Rosen believes that there is a necessity for translation of the Constitution. In his essay, in Constitution 3.0, he shows a story of a world at the time of 2025, where people have the ability to know what you are doing and where you are 24/7, via security camera and things like such.
6. The Fourth Amendment only prohibits the government from unreasonable search and seizure, meaning that a case against a company, like Facebook, would be very different compare to a case against the government.
7. Senator Ron Wyden, a democrat from Oregon, and Senator Josh Chaffetz, republican from Utah, proposed a bipartisan bill dealing with privacy rights and GPS tracking. The bill is called Geo-location Privacy and Surveillance bill, and it was created to regulate the global positioning devices used by the government.
8. Google Maps became controversial when it started taking 'street view' picture, because it is a possible invasion of privacy. In Germany the decided that they would not let Google because of their strict laws on data gathering.
9.  The lines regarding privacy, adhering or breaking, are very different between American and Europe, as the two have very different policies on data gathering.
10. In France the French Data Privacy Commissioner has said that there should be a legal right to "escape your past" and the content of your person, on the internet, its called the "right to oblivion".

Questions:

1.  As Rosen mentioned that Facebook is a private company, can Facebook be regulated by the Constitution?
2. In Jeff Rosen's Open World essay, what can we do about these private companies and corporations and can they be regulated/ held accountable if a corporation  can be viewed as an individual?
3. Can the existing Constitution deal with such matters like ones in Constitution 3.0?
4. Excluding the case, judge, precedents,etc. What can we do about internet privacy in general?
5. How far, privacy wise, are we able to stretch the Constitution or how far has the American government stretched the Constitution to fit new ideas, technology, etc?

Political Cartoon #3 12/12

Why are there coffins being dumped?

How could the higher ups of Dover AFB allow the discarding of soldiers remains to be in a landfill?

What should we do about the situation, should we pay the families for the disgraces, should the higher ups be fined or reprimanded?

Pending Bills: A Closer Look

S:1108: 10 Million Dollar Solar Roofs Act of 2011
facts/details:

1. The bill directs the Secretary of Energy to establish a program that provides competitive grants to local communities.
2. It uses the funds to also pay for training for use of the solar energy systems.
3. The bill allows the grants to be used for the development of solar energy projects and programs for the use of new strategies.
4. The goal is to establish solar energy systems in no less than 10 million properties by December 31, 2020.
5. Its purpose is to use funds for more standardized, efficient, and less expensive ways of providing solar powered energy systems.

Questions:

1. Will the program be active in all states?
2. Can a lone citizen apply for a grant?
3. With the money come from the Department of Energy or will it come from another source?
4. Will the amount of money or reformation of this bill be determined by the success of this bill, if so how?

HR: 3621: Stop Online Piracy Act of 2011

Facts:

1. The bill requires service providers,search engines, network providers, and internet ad services, to take "preventive measures" against pirated materials/ sites.
2. The bill allows service providers,search engines, network providers, internet ad services, domain registries, and domain resistors, to be "immune to liability" meaning they can take no blame, but this is only if they obey the act.
3. Permits entities to refuse sites that "endanger public health".
4. It expands the current criminal copyright offences to include: copyrighted works by digital transmission, and works intended for commercial use.
5. It expands the criminal offences of trafficking inherently "dangerous" goods which includes: counterfeit drugs and goods falsely identified as meeting military standard.
6. Requires Secretary of State and Secretary of Commerce to appoint the "intellectual" property attache to the assigned US embassy or diplomatic mission in a country in each demographic region covered by the Department of State.

Questions:

1. What happens to the sites like YouTube that oppose this bill, will they be held liable?
2. What does this bill say about dealing with foreign sites out of the control of the US government?
3. How many congressmen are in support of this bill (are they the same guys who made tomato paste a vegetable) ?
4. Does Congress realize that this will basically "ruin" the internet as we know it because the internet is for the most part people sharing things as in music, pictures, etc?

Lessons Learned from FDR

Lessons:

1. A great start: When beginning a presidency the President needs to make a strong push to show both Congress and the American citizens that they mean business. Right at the beginning of his first term as President, FDR came out with the "New Deal" which was one of the biggest economic reforms our country has ever seen.
2. Necessary risks: FDR, during his presidency, took many risks that could have proved to be dangerous for the economy and the country. Many plans within the " New Deal " were risky and could have possible made the situation worse, instead of becoming better. But the risks became necessary as seen in the huge rise in GDP, the drop in Income Equality, and the drop in unemployment.
3. Isolation: Though many people disagree isolationism has its benefits. With FDR this is seen in WW II where he refused to join the war, even though he thought that the US needed to be the leader of the "peace-loving nations". By doing this he also held true to the American people, who did not want America to be involved.
4. Term limit: Even though most Americans would have voted for FDR a fifth time, it showed that even the government should not be run by a single ideology or person, who could possible not address issues that another candidate would have addressed.
5. Lastly a good Judgement: Roosevelt had brought the United States through the war, though he did not live to see it's end, his decisions were very key in  providing the best results possible with the least amount of damage to the US. As seen in the fact that the USA was one of the only nations in the world to come out with a higher standard of living than at the start.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#cite_note-80

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch22.htm

http://www.gvsu.edu/hauenstein/franklin-roosevelt-as-a-leader-130.htm

http://www.biography.com/people/franklin-d-roosevelt-9463381

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009010206/forgotten-math-pre-wwii-new-deal-saw-fastest-drop-unemployment-rate-american-h

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth

Campaign Ads: What Works the Best?

• One of the first techniques I noticed was the word "change", it was used mostly by the party that was not in office. As seen in multiple ads, the word change was used if the economy or US foreign relations were bad.

• Jimmy Carter South: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1976
• Gerald Ford Change:http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1976

• Another really big tactic is blame, blaming other politicians, especially the President before. The tatic usually involves the candidate saying that they would fix mistakes made by others.
• John Kerry "Mistakes were Made (Web)":http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2004
• Barack Obama "This Year": http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
• Out of the Party, as in the candidate speaks of being outside of the party and working for the voter, you, and not there party.
• Adlai Stevenson "Peace is Non-Partisan":http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1956
• John McCain "Original Maverick":http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
• Speak of Family, show that your an American! Show the American people that you are not just the candidate, but a family person who care blah blah blah. It gets the attention because it warm the heart of the people.
• George Bush "Family/ Children":http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1988
• Also a major factor is the tone or attitude of the commercial itself. It can "shed" light on a situation or scandal that involves one of the candidate. The darker and more serious ads tend to be about our problems, while the lighter joyful ads focus on nationalistic ideals.
• John McCain "2013":http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
• The last technique I will discuss is words used, as it seems like there are words used to specifically darken or lighten the mood. Like change, is usually good, while debt makes is bad or less hopeful.
• Ronald Reagan "Inflation":http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1984

1. In battleground states the lack of advertising heavily affects the voters decision.
2. More advertising alone will not produce better results, there is a need of policy and ideology advertising.
3. The regulation of campaign finance would equal the bias causing a better "fair" vote. 

Electoral College Reform: Should the Electoral College Be Abolished?

Facts:

1. The two-party system, that was unseen by all, except George Washington, became the destruction of the Electoral College.
2. The original Electoral College was meant to choose the best candidate, not the Democrat or Republican that won the most states.
3. The arguments for the Electoral College were that it was supposed to balance the powers of the states that were screwed by the Constitution, and confiding the election of the President to Congress.
4. The Electoral College is unbalance in a democratic sense, because each state gets two votes no matter their population.
5. The Electoral College can also choose the "wrong" President, in a sense that it can mess up the President with the most votes by the people, instead of choosing the candidate who won the public opinion, they choose the candidate who gets the most states. Just like the 2000 election, which i think we can all agree Bush wasn't the best President this country has seen.
6. The original Electoral College's logic may seem odd to us, but it was intended that people of a higher intelligence  than the average American citizen at the time, would make the better choice.
7. The Electoral College makes it so the Candidate only needs to visit the swing states, and can ignore the states which vote one way because of this two party system.
8. The electors are had picked and not elected, how ironic.
9. There are laws the require an elector to vote for the candidate who selected them.
10. There have only been 10 electors that have violated their pledge to a candidate.

Questions:

1. Would the author support an new system, party wise, in hopes of balancing the Electoral College?
2. Does the author see the majority of American are unfit to select their President?
3. How would the author changed the system so the 2000 election occurred differently?
4. Are there any reforms that the author would agree with or do they think that the Electoral College is not the problem?
5. How should we, as voters,citizens, etc. feel about the Electoral College?

Political Cartoon #2 12/6

1. How ignorant, according to the cartoon, would you say Fox News is towards proven theories like global climate change?
2. Would you say this is bashing Fox News or pointing out that they do not acknowledge scientific fact?
3. Why are Fox News viewers generally less informed compared to political comedy shows, like The Daily Show or people that do not watch the news?
4. Why does Fox News go against scientific fact such as global climate change, is it because of their own theories?

Link to Polls about viewer knowledge:http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/

Umm not really sure this a great cartoon, but it shows that people can be affected by media for better or worse, and that political bias also affects the media which in turn the people.

Two Articles from Taxpayers For Common Sense

Article 1: The Department of Energy FutureGen Initiative
link: http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?action=issues&proj_id=5002&category=&type=Project

• FutureGen was a multi-million dollar project aimed at building and operating the first coal powered zero emissions power plant.
• The plant was intended to produced hydrogen and electricity from coal, while capturing the harmful CO2 emissions and storing them underground.
•  The first FutureGen project was canceled in 2008 due to the prices in the economic market.
• In 2010 the project was taken up again, but instead of building a whole new plant the $1 billion dollars would go to an oil-burning plant that would be re-designed so the plant had the ability of "advanced oxy-combustion".
• As of now the company Ameren, that supported the porject, is backing out causing a lose in the money being spent on the project.

Article 2: Pet Rock Budgeting

link: http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?action=issues&proj_id=5008&category=&type=Project

• Instead of cutting spending in certain places, the Super Committee is too busy fighting over whose programs gets cut.
• Many things like NASA and earmarks have been discussed within the committee; we already know what happened to NASA, which is odd because it was one of the only extremely popular programs with in the system.
• The defense secretary says that the Pentagon is doing its part, but there is still evidence to show that the defense budget will go up in the next ten years, and not down.
• The members of the committee do not want to touch tax expenditures, at all.
• The article talks of how the committee has not done nearly enough and there should be more cuts and less wasting time.

Death Penalty: The Answers

Questions and Answers:

1. Why do we spend an excessive amount on this system?
• It seems that the only reason we spend the amount is for the death of whoever we are dealing with. As I researched I found that in California alone taxpayers are paying almost 140 million dollars a year for death row. It has also been show and proven many times that it is less expensive to put someone to in jail for Life without Parole. The real reason for the costs are the legal procedures that have to be taken, which are required by the Constitution. Though why would the constitution have so many rules and procedures for death penalty (many because its wrong?). From a study in Los Angeles, it was found that of the last 11 executions in the past 27 years they spent over $250 million on each person. I think the spending is 'justified' by the 'results' but even then when we start comparing the amount of money spent to the actual results we are still left with the need for the reason of this excessive spending.
• Source: https://death.rdsecure.org/article.php?id=42
2. Has there been any Supreme Court cases that have tried to abolish the death penalty?
• Yes there have been many court cases dealing with the death penalty. Considered one of the most important cases, Furman v. Georgia, changed the view of the death penalty, within courts. This case declared that the death penalty went against the Eight and Fourteenth amendments, because it was seen as a form of cruel and unusual punishment.
• Source: http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=001769
3. Can it be considered cruel and unusual punishment, and what is cruel and unusual punishment in the first place?
• As seen in my previous question, the death penalty is in some cases considered cruel and unusual punishment. As for Americans we can only wonder, but there are polls on whether Americans agree or disagree with the death penalty. In a poll taken in 2011, adult Americans for the most part agree with the death penalty, with around 60% saying they think it is justified. While 28% opposed it an the other 12% were undecided. This question seems to be more opinionated, but i was able to get some facts at least. I Do wonder what Children think of the death penalty?
• Sources:http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=001769
  http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/Rasmussen_Reports_DP_Poll.pdf

I left this topic with still many questions like: Can you justify the killing of a murderer?, How many countries do not use capital punishment?, what are the main reasons for the penalty of death?, and Is it one person that decides?. It almost seems like the decision of putting someone to death is like playing "god(s)".

Pennsylvania's 2008 Elections

Facts:

1. Delaware County was very Democratic, party wise, as the percentage of votes for Barack Obama were over 80% in 2008.
2. The heavily populated, urban, areas voted more Democratic, and not Republican.
3. Despite spending almost three times longer campaigning in Pennsylvania John McCain's efforts were in vain, as Obama took victory at about a 10% margin.
4. Sen. Joe Biden, now VP, helped Obama by campaigning in PA were he was born, hoping to gain more voters.
5. Democratic voters, not counting the registered just those who voted, now out number Republicans by over one million. This isn't too surprising considering there are around 15% more Democratically registered voters than Republican voters.

Pending Bills!

Bills:

• HR: 2865: 9/11 Memorial Cross National Monument Establishment Act of 2011
• status: Referred to a Committee
• purpose: to erect a cross memorial at the National 9/11 Memorial Museum
• reason of picking: At first i thought it was a cool bill to memorialize 9/11, but I soon realized it could be offensive to victim's families because of the cross and how it can represent a religious purpose.
• HR: 3261: Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)
• status: Referred to a committee
• purpose: to prevent theft of US online property
• reason for picking: I dislike the bill, not the piracy part, just the fact that piracy is almost how the internet runs, and the pirates are everyday people some doing it unknowingly.
• S:1108: 10 Million dollar Solar Roofs Act of 2011
• status: Referred to a Committee
• purpose: to get the tools necessary for the production/ use of solar panels to local communities.
• reasons for picking: I love this bill! The idea of providing solar energies to communities around America is cool, reducing our carbon foot print little by little!

Pennsylvania's Congressional Districts

Facts:

1. The 2010 census lowered the amount of Cong. Districts of PA, from 19, to 18.
2. Our district, the 7th, is represented by Pat Meehan, who has just recently been elected beating out Joe Sestak.
3. Republicans currently hold 12 of the 19 districts, by hold I mean are represented by which doesn't neccessaryly mean that the people are all the same party.
4. Four of the Congressional districts had a change in representative in 2010.
5. In 2011, this past year, there was thoughts of redistricting, which could have possible went against the Pennsylvania Constitution.
6. The Delaware County area was named after Thomas West, 3rd Baron De La Warr, who governed the English colony of Virginia.
7. It is confirmed that of the 19 Rep.s 16 of them will be running for reelection in 2012.
8. Pennsylvania's electoral votes are base on the congressional districts and all the votes go towards the winner of the state.
9. PA has had 19 Congressional districts since 1833.
10. The 19th district of Pennsylvania will be obsolete when the 113th Congress' term starts in 2013.

Political Cartoon 11/29/11

1. Why is Newt Gingrich being singled out, is it because he leads the Republican party in public opinion?
2. Can Newt Gingrich even be considered a democrat?
3. How would/ should Gingrich respond to this cartoon, with denying that he is being called a democrat or should he create stricter policies to be closer to the Republican party?

This was really funny because the way i see it, Newt Gingrich is very, very far from being a democrat or liberal. A quote to prove my point, "I have two grandchildren... I am convinced that if we do not deceivingly win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secularist atheist country, potentially one dominated by Radical Islamist and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

Death Penalty: Three Questions

For this weeks issue we are doing the death penalty, I chose three questions about the topic that I hope to answer after I finish researching:

• Why do we spend an excessive amount on this system?
• Has there been any Supreme Court cases that have tried to abolish the death penalty?
• Can it be considered cruel and unusual punishment, and what is cruel and unusual punishment in the first place?

How Washington Works

Facts:

1. Many government officials eventually settle in Washington, because of the time they spend there.
2. Some government officials even catch "Potomac Fever", which is the addiction to the political power that they hold, and when they leave office, most, become lawyers or lobbyist and stay in Washington.
3. Though many of the congressmen debate and quarrel in actual Congress, many of them, whether conservative or liberal, are good friends outside of the Capitol building.
4. Many politicians go to/ strive for Washington because they are motivated by a sense of public service. Of course one must also consider that all of this is written by/ endorsed by politicians.
5. The officials in Washington live, eat, and sleep politics. It is apparent throughout their everyday life.
6. Newt Gingrich sees politics as a game that is as fun as can be.
7. Politicians naturally bind together as an act of self defense, so they are not crushed for their individuality.
8. No individual politician can work as a lone wolf, because they need the support of others to make their ideas, bills, etc. heard.
9. Washington itself is viewed as a whole different "world". It seems like a foreign place to many, even those who have familiarized themselves with it.
10. Washington is very open and welcoming to incoming politicians, because Washington is made up mainly of people who come from different places.

Questions:

1. What would Washington be like to a normal citizen, is it viewed differently by politicians?
2. What political ties does the author have?
3. Would it be fair to say that the author can speak for all politicians, most, or not many?
4. Can this book be view as a illegitimate view/ source on politics because of the age of the book and the time period that it was published in?
5. Is the whole book a bunch of quotes? or is it just this chapter?
6. How was this book taken by the public?
7. Has relationships between congressmen of different parties lessened due to the divide, that is growing larger, between the Democratic party and the Republican party?
8. Are the views of Washington different from current politicians to former politicians?
9. Have any politicians endorsed this book?
10. Has this author written any other books on the subject of Washington?

How Birth Control And Abortion Became Politicized

Facts:

1. The first birth control clinic opened in 1916 by Margret Sanger.
2. At a young age she defined herself as a socialist.
3. The first usage of birth control might have been in the 1850s which started when rubber was first vulcanized.
4. Sanger is arrested for opening up her birth control clinic even though she was only giving out information about the subject.
5. Many women in the 1910s, who used clinics, had illegal abortions. There was even a estimate of as many as 1 out of 3 pregnancies ended in abortion.
6. Sanger was apposed to abortion and that's why she opened up her birth control clinic, because she wanted to show women a different route. Instead of preventing the birth, she wanted to prevent the conception or dangerous births.
7. Sanger, in an appeal, had a court rule that it is possible for a doctor to talk to a woman about abortion and birth control.
8. Margret Sanger founds the American Birth Control League in 1921.
9. Comstock act made it illegal to talk, write or publish anything haveing to do with abortion or birth control.
10. Sanger was a eugenics, meaning she believed her "race", white people, were better that other "races"
11. A survey in the 1970 was taken and it found that there were many members of the Republican party within the American Birth Control League, it was found odd because Republican ideology tends to lean to be more conservative.
12. The birth control movement started as a liberal reform, but then went to a more conservative one, when it got involved with eugenics.

Questions:

1. Was eugenics against women's rights, or the women's rights movement?
2. Were there any other key women figures in the birth control movement?
3. When is the earliest know use of birth control/ abortion?
4. If we looked at Sanger today how would we classify here, what party, ideology,etc would she belong to?
5. Did Sanger's views change as she got older? or were her views solid throughout her life?

Committees!

I checked the committees for both of my representatives, this is what I got:
Pete Stark:

• Committee on Ways and Means

Bob Casey:

• Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
• Committee on Foreign Relations
• Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
• Special Committee on Aging
• Joint Economic Committee

Here are some Facts that I've learned about the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Joint Economic Committee:

1. The chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations is John Kerry.
2. The C.F.R.'s latest action was involving a nuclear-weapons-free-zones treaty.
3. The C.F.R. was founded in 1819 and had such accomplishments as the purchase of the state of Alaska.
4. The Committee on Ways and Means is the oldest in the US.
5. The Committee on Ways and Means is the main tax writing committee in the House of Representatives.
6. The Committee on Ways and Means has six subcommittees, Pete Stark is on three of these, and he is a ranking member on two of them.
7. Bob Casey is the Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, which Senator Pat Toomey is also a member on.
8. The J.E.C. was established in 1946 by the Employment Act of 1946.
9. The J.E.C.'s last hearing was held yesterday, Nov. 16, and the topic was job creation and its involvement with the infrastructure of America.
10. From what I have researched not many of these committees see much action each month, but they all seem to be significant.

               

Frontline: Lost In Detention

Facts:

1. The thinks that allowing the importation illegals immigrants, into America, hurts the public.
2. Obama pushed for the deportation of illegal immigrants so he could gain the favor and support of the Republican party, and possible convince them to vote for reform on illegal immigration.
3. The new anti-illegal immigration system, which was supposed to deport serious criminals, started to deport immigrants right away, even if they were not involved in serious criminal activity.
4. ICE has a quota of 400,000 illegal immigrants to deport each year they try to, "You pick up whatever you can," meaning that ICE goes for whatever they find not only serious criminals.
5. Roxana was force to leave behind five of her children when she was pulled over without a driver's licence and she was found out to be an illegal immigrant from Mexico.
6. The conditions within the detention centers were not good.
7. So far more than 1million illegal immigrants have been deported under Obama's new policies.
8. There were many claims of abuse within the detention centers for illegal immigrants, much of the abuse reported was related to racism. There were also around 170 cases of sexual abuse reported.
9. Detention centers for illegal immigrants has become the fastest growing incarceration system in the country with over 250 centers already running.
10. This video was biased and did not show the actual criminals, but described stories of mistakes or wrongs within the system.

Questions:

1. How many illegal immigrants that have been deported have been from mexico?
2. How should we feel about Canadian illegal immigration and Canada's "brain drain"?
3. Has Obama gotten a positive response from the Republican party because of his changes to the system, has there been any compromise on immigration reform?
4. What kind of organization is ICE, are they a police like group, or can are they closer to an FBI type organization?
5. How does ICE deal with children left behind by their illegal parents?

Issue of the Week: Illegal Immigration

For the issue of this past week, we had Illegal Immigration. I chose three questions that really got me thinking: when did the problem of illegal immigration first become a big issue, how will inflation affect products produced by illegal immigrants, if those immigrants are deported, and what are the advantages and disadvantages economically that we face when hiring illegal immigrants?

When did the problem of illegal immigration first become a big issue?
Immigration to North America has been present from the time it was found and settled on. Immigration was current throughout America's history, but in the 20th century it started to boom. From the 17th to 18th century it is suspected that as little as 400,000 people immigrated to the United states. Then from 1836 to 1914  30 million immigrants crossed over from Europe. From the information I found immigration has been around for, well forever, but only in the past half century have we really made it a problem.


How will inflation affect products, produced by illegal immigrants, if those immigrants are deported?
Apparently yes, from what I've seen, it seems to be thought all around, that if the illegals were deported, assuming the company hires American citizens, then the prices of the products will rise. Just like we saw in the video on the new bill in Alabama, there were no workers, and those that were working on the farms did not wan to work at the same prices that an illegal immigrant would accept. It seem that if the farmers were to hire American workers they would have to raise the workers pay, causing a raise in the cost of the vegetable, or what ever product is being made/ produced.

What are the advantages and disadvantages, economically, that we face when hiring illegal immigrants?
There are both advantages and disadvantages to having and hiring illegal immigrants. For the most part illegal workers are paid less because they do not have the same rights as an American citizen. The products produced by the illegal are significantly less then those produced by a legal American citizen. This can be seen as both an advantage and a disadvantage. While it is good that the product can be a lower prices, sometimes even at the risk of the illegal workers health (which most Americans could care less about), it can also be seen as a bad thing because it takes the job from the citizen and lowers the wages, so that citizen cannot compete with the company hiring the illegal worker. So can we say that it is an advantage to hire illegal workers, while we enjoy the fruits of there hard under paid labor, or do we say that it is a disadvantage and tell them to leave the "land of opportunity"?

source:
(this isn't all of them i couldn't find some of them)
http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/12/immigrants-dont-need-a-friend
http://geekpolitics.com/illegal-immigrants-problems-and-solutions/
http://money.msn.com/investing/would-a-us-default-mean-disaster-jubak.aspx
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/05/immigration.php

The Electoral College: Does Our Vote Count?

Tom Corbett

Facts:

1. In early September Senators Tom Corbett and Dominic Pileggi proposed the idea of getting rid of the winner-takes-all policy that Pennsylvania takes with their electoral college votes.
2. The new plan would be to award one Electoral vote per Congressional district, the winner of each district gains the vote.
3. According to Pennsylvania's vote in the last election Obama would have beaten John McCain by a small margin (you know what they say, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, with Alabama in between).
4. Both parties are, for the most part, opposed to this idea.
5. The Republican side thought it would be good, at first, because they realized that Obama could have gotten on 11 votes from Pennsylvania, instead of 21. But they then realized that it could backfire because there is a possibility that Obama could turn many of the districts blue.
6. Under this new system the state-wide campaign fund, of Obama, would be used in each district instead of using it on the state as a whole. This would increase voter turnout. Also the Republican party realized that if Democratic voter turnout is increased then there is an much higher chance that they will lose, because of the 201 million registered voters in the US, 72 million are Democrat while 55 million are Republican. (this is an est. made in 2004 so the number must be higher, here a link http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/neuharth/2004-01-22-neuharth_x.htm ).
7. GOP Rep. from New York is fighting the liberal push of a direct popular vote for the President, getting rid of the Electoral College entirely (yeah!).
8. The Democrats are against this even though it could possible create a greater turn out of Democratic voters.
9. This was called "vote manipulation," which is funny because this would be a clearer way for peoples votes too actually count, while both sides say that its bad and that it changes your vote, while the actual electoral college has the control of "your" vote.
10. Dem. Dalyn Leach says that this is rigging the election and it is not good. (I completely disagree)

Questions:

1. Do both sides see this as bad because it would give more power to the people?
2. If there was a poll, public opinion, how well would this idea be perceived?
3. Has President Obama said anything on this?
4. How were the processes in Maine and Nebraska changed?
5. Would this be seen as a liberal concept or a conservative concept, also would it be seen differently by both sides?

John Boehner

Facts and Details:

1. He considers his "biggest regret" the passing of the multitrillion-dollar deficit reduction deal with President Obama.
2. He feels that in his past year, in office, that the most important thing that has happens was the transition from talk of spending, to talk of cutting spending.
3. Boehner is no longer in threat of being overtaken by those who can be considered his rivals, like Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy.
4. Hard-line Conservatives believe they help him out when they tell him "no."
5. He seems to be unchanged by the pressures he faces as the Speaker of the House.
6. Many Conservatives want Boehner to compromise less with the President.
7. He believes that in 2012 the House will be mainly stay the same and still be in the sane place by the next election.
8. Many Republicans think that as his term goes on, his job will get harder.

Questions:

1. Will someone be running against John Boehner, in his district?
2. Is there a term limit for the Speaker of the House?
3. Can John Boehner be viewed as having the same ideology as Obama, when looking at how they try to get things done?
4. Would the GOP rather have someone who tries to compromise with both parties, or someone who sticks with their party's ideology?
5. Will John Boehner go back to being a Rep. after he is no longer Speaker of the House?



John Boehner

House Size: Is Bigger Better?

Facts:

1. For 130 years the House was in constant growth, but in 1911 its size was finally limited, to 435 representatives.
2. Since 1911 the amount of citizens, our population, has gradually increased to be three times what it was.
3. Rein Taagepera calculated the "best" amount of representative there should be using the "cubic root law" and they got 669 representatives.
4. Representative Jim Clyburn, D South Carolina, thinks that it is tough enough representing 600,000 people and that there should be more representatives.
5. Brian Ferderick polled a public opinion on the matter with results that showed that citizens are not in big support of raising the House's numbers. He polled: 20% for increase, 60% for the House to stay the same, and 20% for the House to decrease. Though he also polled a second time changing the wording so that it said there would be more representation for minorities and 33% vote for an increase.

Questions:

1. If there were more representatives wouldn't the amount of power they held decrease significantly?
2. Is there any extremely under-represented districts (e.g. a district that has a representative that is D while 49% of the district is R)?
3. How much higher would the House's numbers be raised, three times like the population or maybe by the "cubic root law,"?
4. Has there been any significant bills to reset the number of representative, decrease or increase?
5. How do the members of the House feel, do they want it, or do they dislike the idea because it would take away from their power?

Opinion: Well my take on this is almost a neutral one, while I would think it is great that there is more representative for the people, meaning better rep., it would also take power away from each district. In the end I do feel its current size is too small, but I would not like to see a drastic increase, maybe one that takes place. But then again I'm also not a big fan of states in general. My opinion on the size is if we are going to have representatives for each district/ region, we are going to have to do it right by representing to the best of the government's abilities.

Open Secrets

Pete Stark: He is the "poorest" member of the House, Congress, or Government in general, as of 2009. This is because his minimum net worth, in 2009, was at $-24 million, and his maximum net worth was a little over $1 million. Though this has all changed in recent years as he has paid off his debts, as of 2011. For his current position, 2011 to 2012, and next campaign in 2012, he has raised $92,271 and has spent $82,815 of it. As for his "cash on hand" he has around $544,000.

Bob Casey: He is the 84th "richest" in the Senate, with a minimum net worth of $160,020, and a maximum net worth of $578,000, this is as of 2009. In recent years this has changed and Casey has raised over $6.5 million ans spent about $3.1 million from his 2007 to present, all for his candidacy in years to come. The website said that he had $3,746,669 in "cash at hand." It seems to me that has his next election comes closer he has been focusing a little more of his attention on that while also gaining more support from his state.

Why does it matter?

I think that the amount, on a personal level, that a politician make does matter, because their is a possibility of it influencing their decisions within the court. Though there are cases where the politician is not influenced or they do not have an extreme amount of money, like John Kerry, he gained an enormous amount of donations, though he also has gain a lot in his own finances. I feel as though the politicians that are in our government have been re-elected many times based on their amount of money that the have gained because they can use it on their campaign. I think that our government should have representative that have closer ties to the actual people. The whole idea that when our government started it was mainly: male, white, rich, etc. and the fact that it, for the most part, still applies to our government bothers me because the majority of Americas do not fall in to that category.

Due Process

Facts/ Details:

1. Kevin Rojas was mistaken by an eyewitness to a murder, for being the murderer, because of a similar colored sweatshirt.
2. A mother-daughter lawyer team decided to help Kevin in his situation, because they could see that the charges had a lack of DNA evidence.
3. Prof. Lesley Risinger and her mother proved Kevin Rojas not guilty, without using DNA evidence.
4. Barry Scheck works as a lawyer to help prove convicted peoples innocent. The project is called Innocence Project.
5. Barry Scheck has had over 270 people who were innocent freed.
6. There was a movie adaption of one of his cases called Conviction, which was based on his case involving Kenneth Water's conviction
7. Barry Scheck find the proof for his clients through mainly DNA.
8. Quincy Spruell was wrongly convicted of murder and served 24 years in jail, till he was proven innocent.
9. Quincy Spruell confessed to the wrong crime and was never given the chance to explain the wrongdoing of the police.
10. NJ defense attorney thought that Quincy was wrongly accused.

Questions:

1. If you do not commit a crime, and you a accused of being guilty, can you have the same hearing again proving you are not guilty, or would that be double jeopardy?
2. Can you be sentenced, then proven innocent, then proven guilty again on the same crime/ evidence?
3. Is there a way for the American Judicial system to lessen the amount of innocent people that get convicted?
4. Has there been any cases where a person has been proven innocent, then on a later date said they were guilty?
5. How many people in total have been proven innocent after their convictions?

Most Important Supreme Court Cases: Citizens United v. Federal Elections Comission

Facts:

1. Stevens wrote a 90 paged dissenting opinion against the ruling of corporations being viewed as individuals/ restriction on corporate donations, in accordance to the funding of elections.
2. Stevens thought that the ruling was an overreach of the court.
3. Its started when Citizens United produced an ninety-minute movie on whether or not Hillary Clinton would make a good President.
4. The main issue was whether it violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and if the act was restricting the first amendment.
5. Stevens thought that this decision would eventually ruin the democratic system of voting for our President.
6. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, sections 201 and 203 were declared unconstitutional, in this situation.
7. It was a 5 to 4 vote.

Questions:

1. Will the system change if corpoerations are allowed to donate/ use undetermined amounts of money to support/ pay for a candidates campaign?
2. What would a Court from 10, 20, or 50 years ago would have said about this case?
3. Does the US Constitution directly address this issue or is it interpreted?
4. Could there be a case in the future that deems this action unconstitutional our will this case set a precedent?

Sources:
US Supreme Court Media Oyez
Cornell University Law School
Huffington Post Stevens' Most Important Cases

10 Facts About Our 9 Justices

Facts/ Questions:

1. Many of the current Justices worked for/ under former Justices in the Supreme Court.
2. Two justices were nominated by President Obama, two were nominated by President Bush Jr., two were nominated by President Clinton, one was nominated by President Bush Sr., and  two were nominated by President Reagan
3. What is the Court more conservative or more liberal?
4. The current veteran of the Court is Antonin Scalia.
5. John G. Roberts took over the position of Chief Justice after William H. Rehnquist, who he served as a law clerk.
6. Antonin Scalia went to college in Switzerland.
7. Ruth Bader Ginsberg helped launch the Women's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.
8. Anthony M. Kennedy served in the California Army National Guard.
9. Elena Kagen became the 45th Solicitor General of the United States in 2009, before she was nominated by Barack Obama in 2010.
10. Before being nominated to the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia was a professor of Law at the University of Virginia, the University of Chicago, Georgetown University, and Stanford University.

US Supreme Court (2011)

Cases Three

As I looked through the current cases being decided by the US Supreme Court, there were three that reached out and grabbed my attention: Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals, Blueford v. Arkansas, and Roberts v. Sea-Land Services.
Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals: This case caught my attention because of the possible direct violation of the Constitution. This is a violation because Coleman was denied his rights to have a federal court review a civil court case, because the suit was against a state company. This was granted June 27, 2011, but has yet to be decided. My decision on this matter would be to declare the act of denying the review of a cases unconstitutional.

Blueford v. Arkansas: Also got my attention for its violation of the constitution. It seems like the court system was trying to try him twice on the same charges after the first case was dismissed by the judge. This case was granted October 11, 2011, with no decision as of late. My position on this is that they do not have the power to try Blueford on the same charges regardless of any decisions made by the Courts.

Roberts v. Sea-Land Services: This case was a hard one because it involved the breaking of a law, the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. Thought the case has decide that it was a non-legal action, the two sides are debating what the compensation should be, and how it should be decided. This case was granted September 27, 2011, but has yet to be decided. Where I happen to stand is on the fence, because the defendant, or the company that broke the law, has the ability to decide, but Roberts insist that they should pay him a different amount.

Roe v. Wade: Fire in the Court Room

Facts:

1.      Supreme Court went out of their way to say that they had no interest in the preservation/ abortion, but the legality of the whole situation.

2.      The Supreme Court stated that any state could regulate abortion, but cannot completely restrict it.

3.      The law was created to stop illegal abortions, because of a concern of women's health during the abortion.

4.      Morality rates in women were found to be significantly less during the first trimester compares to the morality rates of the other two trimesters.

5.      The Court argued that rights to an abortion can be found in: 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments.

6.      The Court's decision was not based on the life of the child, but the life of the parent.

7.      Viability has been stated at 24 to 28 weeks into the pregnancy

8.      The Court states, "If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother," implying that states can possibly prohibit abortion on a case by case basis.

9.      The decision was thought to need regulation, even with the right of privacy involved, some abortion situations/ cases must be regulated.

10.  More modern techniques for abortion were not commonly used until the 1940s and even then it was a tricky business.

Questions:

1.      As such a debated topic, if it were to somehow become illegal, what kind of punishment would be involved, for both parents, doctors, and others involved?

2.      As a guy I don't think I should have too much of a say in this matter (of course I still have an opinion), but what do women who have had an abortion, have to say on the topic of regulation of abortion?

3.      Where can we draw the line with matters like abortion, and say the government should or shouldn't have control over such an issue?

4.      Most people whom have a conservative ideology are for the death penalty, how can they be "Pro-Life" at the same time?

5.      Was Roe v. Wade considered a social matter or is it strictly about the health of the parent (according to the Supreme Court)?

The West Wing: The Supremes

Connections to actual Judiciary branch:

1.     The Justices-elect are seen talking about how their decisions on a case are based on the case and not their political ideology.

2.     The Appointment of a Supreme Court Justice by the president.

3.     The choice of the Justices are based on their views and if the Senate will pass them or not.

4.     The President's administration finds multiple candidates in case one is not confirmed by the Senate.

5.     The President does not directly pick the Justice, but has a list presented by his administration.

6.     A moderate Justice would be the best choice, but they wanted an even court.

7.     The President tries to have a justice picked who has view that are close to their own, so they are able to make an impression that will last longer than their presidential term.

8.     A vacant position is usually filled with someone similar to the previous justice.

Questions:

1.     Would such a liberal justice like, Evelyn Baker Lang, or would she be not even be considered?

2.     Does the president have the same amount of decision power as portrayed?

3.     Were the two justices who were appointed confirmed by the Senate?

4.     Would a Republican Judiciary comity really let such a deal happen?

5.     Do many justices act based on their ideology or are they more moderate/ go case by case?

Neither Force Nor Will: Federalist 78

Quotes:

1.  "It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment"
• I really love this quote, I think it completely sums up the power and proceeding of the Judicial Branch. As I see it the quote is saying that through only judgement the quote will make decision, not for or because of money and strength, but only under justice. I think this quote is important in the understanding of the Judicial Branch, because it shows that the judges are not bound by money, political power, or their party's ideology.
2. " It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority."
• I think that this quote shows the purpose of the Judicial Branch and it's role within the system of checks and balances. The quote is also accurate in the fact that the courts are different from the legislature, but also different from the people. Hamilton may possible be hinting to the power of judicial review with in this quote.
3. " It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both"
• I choose this quote because of the mixed opinions i had after reading it. When I read the quote I was unsure if I thought it true or not; in some cases the people have power in choosing the legislators and representatives who run the country, but as citizens we have not direct influence on decision making.
4. " It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter"
• I picked this quote because it questions the idea that the judicial courts can never threaten the liberty of our citizens. This quote is very important because of its misconception. Over the years of our existence there have been many instances in which the courts have threatened the liberty of more than just an individual. The greatest example of this would be, Plessy v. Ferguson.
5. "But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society."

• I took this quote because I think that it shows Hamilton's feelings toward the Judicial Branch's views of politics and society. I feel that the quote explains how judges must be apart of government, but separated in its own unpolitical category.

Questions for Hamilton:

1. How would you view the Court that we have today, would you view it as more or too powerful, or would you think that it is now equal to the other branches?
2. If you were to look at cases from our past would you think any corrupt and biased based on a justice's political ideology?
3. Do you think that the life term of a justice is an unfair advantage in the case of legislature in the executive department, because of the ability to leave an impression of your views with in the Court?
4. How would the government deal with a judge taking the liberties of a citizen away?
5. As a politician do you think that a new Justice should set precedents from the Court's past or should past precedents be ignored?

2000 Election: Handout Issue 7 part 2

Facts:

1. The Supreme Court intervened in the election four times.
2. Katherine Harris made the deadline for the recount Nov. 14, 2000, while the electors did not meet until the 16th of Dec.
3. Because of the absence of standards the Supreme Court deemed the manual recount unlawful.
4. Bush suggested to the court that because of the different standards it is impossible to recount with out the equal protection clause being broken.
5. Sunstein thinks that the Supreme Court should not intervene in electoral controversy.
6. Sunstein viewed the Supreme Court's decision as to minimal to decide the controversy
7. The Court's decision lack precedent.
8. Each county in Florida had different counting systems, in the case of the poorer counties their vote counting machines were lower quality than the richer counties, thus the equal protection clause could have been violated.

Post Reading Questions:

1. As a civilian would you be able to sue the state if you had proof that you were exempt from the vote or your vote was incorrectly represented?
2. Where would a future court stand on a matter similar to this would they use precedent or would they ignore the obviously confused court's precedent?
3. What would Bush say to the use of voters intent, because of his decision in his own state (also disregarding state legislature)?
4. Are the remedies that Sunstein proposed realistic or are they only hopeful?
5. Looking back would the court decide differently even though it was only supposed to be a decision based on law?

Check Up: The "New" Old Guy

I have decided to change the representative that I am following from John Lewis to Pete Stark. He is a representative for the state of California, a Democrat ( though many may say social Dem.), and he works for the House. A little background, he has had his Congressional seat since 1973, he is the only open atheistic Congressmen, and he represents the 13th District of CA.

• Update: As of today Stark had just introduced a new bill in front of the House, called the Save Our Climate Act, the bill includes a proposal to put a carbon tax (yeah!) on companies to cut back the use of fossil fuels. The carbon tax will steadily rise hoping to exterminate the use of fossil fuels and the huge carbon output of humans. The introduction statement to the bill can be found here.

Pete Stark

Pete Stark has become my favorite politician, if that is possible. He is an out spoken liberal who isn't afraid to get to the point, or to use fowl language.

"The Common Good"

The article, "The Common Good", speak, or debates, what really is the common good, and if there really is just one definition. The common good is one of the bases for political parties or faction, as most Republicans are against the common good, and Democrats are mostly for it. When viewing the anti-common good side I can help, but think that is goes against human progress. For someone to feel that they, through their work, should progress, while others who do not have the same opportunities can wither, is alien to me. My ideology is almost based on 'the common good' in which I think that we need to work as a species to all have a better quality of life. It wasn't Thomas Jefferson's idea to write the Declaration of Independence, it was a nation's. The role of government is to be the back bone of the push towards common greatness, to outline society's decision of working as a nation for the nation. This article was super liberal, which I found completely enjoyable. Also if my response is called communist, then you are wrong, the term is socialism.

Interview: Constitution Questions

I interviewed the center of my family's universe, my mother. I asked a few of the question that i myself had for the US Constitution. She answered them in turn and gave here opinion about each matter.

• Would the founding fathers agree with the Amendments that we have made to the constitution, both in recent years and right after?
• Her response was: the founding fathers would agree with many of the amendments made right after the constitution, but some of the more recent amendments the would not understand many of the amendments that have been made recently. Even in the 20th century, like the amendment dealing with equal rights of all sexes/ women's suffrage, for the most part they would have thought it weird because it goes against their ideology the accepted ideology of the time period.
• How long did the founding fathers expect the US Constitution would last?
• Her response: They might have been hopeful that it would go indefinitely, or last for many generations. But most likely they did not expect that it could have lasted to long and the opinion could have changed depending on which founding father it was.
• Is it fair that there are no actual requirements to be a Supreme Court Justice (besides appointment and confirmation)?
• Her response: no, it does seem very unfair, but the person has to be chosen by the president, whom needs to make decisions that will get him re-elected. So it is a bit unfair, but the President wouldn't appoint anyone unfit.

(some of these questions have been change from the original post to better fit to an interview)

2000 Election: Handout, Issue 7

Pre-Reading Questions:

1. What are the author's political views/ political ideology?
2. When was this written?
3. Was the author pro-Bush or did they think that the recount was purely unconstitutional?
4. Is there another side/ article that argues the Bush vs. Gore trial was decided unfairly?
5. Over all would the author, looking back on the Bush administration, agree or disagree with the statement:  It was a mistake deciding the Bush vs. Gore trial in favor of Bush?

Facts/ Comments about Article:

1. It seems that the author was bragging when he said, "Bush had, in practical effect, won seven to two," but is it right to say that Bush won by seven to two, it seem to be biased. (though my comment is also pro-Gore)
2. Gore was four votes short of the necessary 270 electoral votes.
3. Robert H. Bork represents, in the paper, the side that agreed with the decision of the Supreme Court
4. Cass R. Sunstein represents the side that thinks the Supreme Court's ruling was unfair.
5. Roberts sees a crack in the judicial system, saying that judges can be just as political as politicians
6. Roberts disagrees with the dimple/ intent being counted as a vote.

Post-Reading Questions:

1. Would Roberts have flip-flopped if Bush were on the losing side?
2. Did Roberts think the Supreme Court's decision was purely judicial or was there some political opinions that added to the decision?
3. Can all of Roberts arguments be taken in to account or do some of them, like the argument about the impossibility of the recount meeting its date, have to be looked over?
4. Is Roberts hypocritical when he says Gore had a win-at-any-cost temper, because the ignorance of the Republican side in regards to dimple chad, which George W. Bush agreed with?
5. What would Roberts say to a question asking about the list of criminals plus the list of similar names, of legal voters?

2000 Election: Recount

Facts from movie:

1. Possibly 200,000 possible voters never got to vote because their names were close to criminals names thus they were illegally ostracized from the election.
2. Al Gore retracted his concession to Bush after hearing what was happening in Florida
3. The Supreme Court ended the process of recounting Florida's votes
4. the Florida state Supreme Court passed the case of Bush vs. Gore to the US Supreme Court
5. there was great confusion over what was a vote and what was not a vote
6. The Republicans stated that they were against dimpled chads, though their candidate George W. Bush's state policy was that the intent of a vote, an dimple, counted as a vote.
7. In the trial Bush vs. Gore Bush won in a 5 to 4 split of the court.
8. The recount was ended one day before the deadline.

Question:

1. Would the Republicans agree with what the Democrat were trying to do if their positions were switched?
2. What was the exact percent/ number of vote difference needed for a recount?
3. How many people from Florida vote in the 2000 election?
4. Is it normally extremely hard to get a recount?
5. Are Jim and Chris really complete opposites or was their views dramatized for the movie?
6. What would happen if there was a situation like that of in the movie Swing Vote?
7. Should there be new machines/ ballots for future elections?
8. What would have happened if Gore won in Bush vs. Gore?

Health care x2: Canada vs. USA

For my second blog on health care I thought I would discuss the differences in view of health care, and the different systems between the Canadian Health care system, and the American Health care system.

The Canadian Health care system is a universal health care system which is composed of many provincial systems and on federal system. The type of universal health care that Canada has is single-player health care. Single-player health care is a type of health care were there is only one pool, run by the government, in which there is a multitude of sellers and one buyer, the buyer being the state/ government. Canada's system makes it so that their federal government provides the funding for the provincial governments, which in turn manage hospitals and, for the most part, the funding. The whole system is considered "socialized insurance", not medicine, because the doctors are in the private sector and not directly funded by the government. In 1984 the Canadian government passed the Canada Health Act, this bill made it so that all "insured persons" were fully insured, and it also made it possible for private delivery/ insurance, because the ban of private health insurance was deemed unlawful.

The American Health care system is a mixture of both privatized health insurance and public health insurance. The American Health care system is largely owned by the private sector, while the public sector still plays a minor, compared to the private sector, role. The public sector of American health care includes programs like: Medicaid, Medicare, TRICARE, CHIP, and Veterans Health Administration. As for the efficiency it is debated on how good/ bad it its, but many think that the efficiency of our health care system is not so good because of the amount of uninsured, but also the amount of money the American government spends on health care in general, compared to other countries.

As for which is better or worse it is really up to the citizens of each country to decide. In the end I would go with the Canadian system because it seems to know exactly what it is doing and has a definite direction, while our system seems to be politically torn with no definite direction. Though I do think the Canadian system is better, I wouldn't say thot ours is so bad, but we can only hope for a greater, possibly better insured, future.

Update: Politicians I'm Following

John Lewis- (House of Rep.- D) - John Lewis has recently praise the SSA's announcement that they will grant a 3.5% COLA or cost-of-living adjustment to the beneficiaries of Social Security. Lewis commented on how necessary this was to the senior of his county and why it has been so long awaited.


Bob Casey- (Senate - D)- Recently Bob Casey has had a lot of activity, especially in the past week. Casey has supported many bills with topics such as: drug restrictions, job creation, pipeline safety, and much more.
Bob Casey also spoke out against Senator John McCain's proposed amendment that would have eliminated jobs. He said,  “Our workers and our companies need safeguards …. and that's one of the reasons why trade adjustment assistance is so important.”

Health care, Health care, Health care

For my first blog on health care I thought I would explain the difference between the two main systems of health care, that our country is debating about, and which kind is better (of course this is just an opinion). The two main systems of Health care are Private Health care and Universal Health care.
The system of private health care is one in which an organization, separate from the government, provide health care and services to a population. Also called health insurance, it is use in many countries around the world (though these are not all the most advanced countries), as for the options it varies from system to system. It usually involves a contract/ insurance policy describing the exact services that the organization supplies for you in return for your money. Many Americans believe that this form of health care is the 'best' because they don't want to pay for others.

The system of universal health care is one in which a government organization will provide health care for every citizen of the population, while each citizen is paying taxes towards it. This is also called socialized medicine ( yes socialism, it has nothing to do with fascism besides the fact that they are opposite), it is called this because it is a socialistic idea in which only indicates that it is a form of modernized, or progressive medical care. This type of health care is provide for a set population ( ex: Sweden has universal health care, so every citizen is provided with it), or a certain eligible population. For the most part universal health care is also mandatory, though not in all cases. Most Americans disagree with universal health care or don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion, then again most Americans don't care at all.

As you could probably tell by the size/ content difference, I heavily favor universal health care over private health care. As I see it , it seems to me that everyone should have health benefits, whether you need them or not. It has been seen that the most progressive countries in the world have universal health care, also the fact that they are less religious and accept things like global climate change and evolution.

Factions: From Madison's Time to Our's

Madison's definition of faction, what was it and what did it mean?
According to Madison a faction is a group of citizens brought together by a common interest and/or belief. But is that always true, isn't it possible for a faction to be of non citizens or be joined together by not a common belief, but a common non-belief.
questions:

• Are faction solely for "citizens" or did Madison mean all peoples?
• What is formed first, a faction or a party?
• What do you mean by "adversed to the rights of other citizens," do you mean people against giving rights or the rights of a certain other people, or do you mean something else entirely?
• Can a community, region, state, country, etc. become a faction or does the term only encompass the peoples' interests and not the place they are?
• Were faction of high importance during the creation of the Constitution?

For my own definition of a "faction" I would say that it is a group of people, brought together by one common interest, value, moral, idea, etc. that is in someway politically based ( this is of course talking about a political faction).
I think that there are still faction with in our American governmental system and they do play a huge role. Most parties in our government today are either a faction or faction like in some way. Political faction have had huge amounts of influence with in our government; factions are the reason for sub divisions with in parties, because there are different beliefs outside of the parties core belief. Today one of the most well known factions is the Tea Party movement, TPM, whose main goal/ core belief is to get Obama out of office and replace him with someone who, in their opinion, is fit for the office of US President.

Response to Hope's "A Balancing Act"

In Hope's response to the Federalist Paper # 10, found here, she mentioned the quote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” She also made a comment about how she thought that Madison was inferring the fact that government is needed because men are not angles. I would agree with her interpretation of this quote, and feel that her comment, "I believe 'government' changes as the people change," very much applied to this quote. I also like the way she titled her blog according to the contents of the federalist paper.

Two Politicians

I chose the following politicians to keep track of:

Bob Casey Jr.,  Senator, Democrat, PA


John Lewis, Representative, Democrat, GA

Political Ideaology

Based on your response to the questions on the political ideology survey, you are a strong liberal.

You probably most agree with the views of the Democratic Party. You may also be interested in the Green Party. Your ideology is shared by the following Members of the House of Representatives:

Nydia Velázquez (D - NY, 12th District)

John Conyers, Jr. (D - MI, 14th District)

John Lewis (D - GA, 5th District)

I'm not really surprised; I could have predicted the result. :D

Response to Alex's political cartoon

In response to your second question, I think that this is an accurate view, unless there was no sarcasm, about how the investors at wall street make decisions based on "whats best", but it isn't what is best for the people, its what is best for the investors. As for the protesters i think this view also fits, because it shows the anger that the people have for the others down at wall street who are screwing the economy just so they can gain power, money, etc.