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)?