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.

Comments on Questions of the Constitution

From Ben N :  In the case of lower class Americans, why is “the land of opportunity” not an apt name America?

I think that "the land of opportunity" is not an apt name for "the great" America. Unlike all the promises immigrants hear, what they find is a society where the rich get richer and the poor get, not children, but poorer. This is all because of the giant black hole, otherwise know as our capitalistic economy. While many people, in America, live better and have higher happiness rate, the only big opportunity is for the top 5%,in income, of our country.

From Nataley :  Has our confidence in our government gone down, since our economy has?

I think that our confidence in the U.S. government has gone down, not because the economy has gone down, but the fact that the government fails to bring the economy, successfully, out of recession. We know that the economic collapse was not, entirely, the government's fault, but when we need someone to blame all the fingers point towards our government because they have not fixed the problem. When the government takes on that blame and doesn't take the initiative to stop political battles and the need to stop the other party at all costs, so that they can raise the economy, that is when our confidence in them can be lowered.

Federalist Paper # 51

Questions:

1. Could there have been more/ less checks and balances, proposed by Madison that would have made our government better?
2. Would it have been possible for the government to have set up sub-governments within each other so that the people would have as much representation as possible?
3. If Federalism wasn't the case in America would the government be corrupt with huge breaches of power?
4. What would Madison think of the branches of government in today's society, and their role in each other's problems?
5. If Madison could see the "America" that we live in today would he think that most of his principles could still apply?

Quotes:

1. It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others
   I took this quote because I thought it describes well, what Madison thought about the workings of Checks and Balances and the different jobs followed through by the different branches.
2. But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.
   This quote admits that their system is not perfect, and I think that it shows that they were willing and accepting towards change.
3. 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 selected this quote because I like the wording and how he uses it to explain that humans need government and organization. I also like it because it came off, to me, sounding like he was almost saying, that humans could not be ruled by/ as angles so they made government.
4.  In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people.
   This quote is cool because it sums up, for the most part what he was saying.
5. And happily for the republican cause, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the federal principle.
   I really like this part of the paper, it was the very last sentence. I think it is really cool because he is saying," And that, folks, is how our system of government works."

Federalist Paper # 10

Federalist Paper # 10
   Questions:

1. Madison uses word like "Faction" and "Party" in his writing, is he using the two interchangeably or does he have two set definitions for both of the word?
2. Which method does Madison prefer, removing the cause or controlling its affects?
3. In this paper id Madison saying that he is against large parties or factions?
4. How and where, in the Constitution, does it it allow for the destruction of the liberties of a faction?
5. Does Madison ever use his "first remedy" or suggest the use of it?

  Quotes:

1. There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
   I chose to use this quote because I think that it represents one of the main points that Madison was trying to get across. This quote also peaked my interest be cause of the idea that you can "destroy the liberty" of something, like a group or political party.
   
2. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail.
   I picked this quote because I think that this quote can be related to what happens in our government today; the fact that this idea has not changed in the 200+ years of our government, that I think is cool.
   
3. to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose
   I selected this portion of the paper because it came to me as almost ironic. The fact that Madison is stating that it is good for the actual people to have their voices pronounced, when he and the rest of the delegates who wrote the constitution were not elected by the "people."
   
4. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.
   I took this quote because its described the thinking that was going on during the creation of the Constitution, but no longer applies to today because our government is a two party system.
   
5. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest?
   I chose this question as a quote because I liked how Madison was questioning the inner workings of his own ideas.
   

Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances, within Magazines

The separation of powers, and checks and balances is like a magazine, the magazine is made up of many different articles written by the reporters, looked over and edited by the editors, and the sponsors who pay for the magazine and advertise in it, they also get a say in whats written. As a reporter you can write the report the way you want, but the subject is determined by the editor and what is happening. As an editor you decide what is written and you pass on articles/ reports that can be used. Finally, as a sponsor you pay for the magazine and you can deem certain things that can be put in the magazine you sponsor.

Political Cartoon: Current Event/ Current Subject

What does elephant lock mean and why is it important?

Is it only Republicans who are opposed to Obama's Healthcare reform?

Should Obama keep trying to compromise with both parties, or should he try and stick with his own party and try to gain a majority vote without compromise?