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)?