S. 242: Guardians of Freedom Act of 2011
S. 1025: National Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act of 2011
S. 1228: Combating Military Counterfeits Act of 2011
These are from Alex Ramos.
I would like to write about the H.R. 1299: Secure Border Act of 2011 bill.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
National Debt
If we continue to accumulate debt at the rate that we are, how much debt will America have by 2020? There are some rather scary projections about the United States national debt in 2020. One report says 20 trillion dollars. "By 2019, the national debt will increase to nearly 70 percent of GDP, up from 48 percent this year, the White House predicts." These numbers are far too large and need to be solved. Another source says 90 percent of GDP. The numbers vary but there is one thing in common, they are huge.
Why does it have to be cut spending or increase taxes, why cant it be both?
I think this is mainly based on political ideology. The perfect balance would probably be a mixture of both, but extremes on both ends do not want to give up any ground and "give in " to the other side. There is only two ways to lower the debt bring in more money or spend less, so the rest is up to you to decide what the best way is to lower the debt while not destroying the economy or hurting the quality of life too much. (I do not have any sources for this because it doesn't serve well for sources)
What is a good balance between spending cuts and tax increases that will lower the debt?
I think this is also an opinion based question so sources would not help prove the point. Different people have "facts" for both sides, so really it is other's opinions. I think the best balance would be about 75% spending cuts and 25% tax increases. I think this because if there is spending cuts the money that is in the free market is the same, but if there were tax increases there is less money to be spent by the people.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/aug2009/debt-a28.shtml
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/?page=all
Why does it have to be cut spending or increase taxes, why cant it be both?
I think this is mainly based on political ideology. The perfect balance would probably be a mixture of both, but extremes on both ends do not want to give up any ground and "give in " to the other side. There is only two ways to lower the debt bring in more money or spend less, so the rest is up to you to decide what the best way is to lower the debt while not destroying the economy or hurting the quality of life too much. (I do not have any sources for this because it doesn't serve well for sources)
What is a good balance between spending cuts and tax increases that will lower the debt?
I think this is also an opinion based question so sources would not help prove the point. Different people have "facts" for both sides, so really it is other's opinions. I think the best balance would be about 75% spending cuts and 25% tax increases. I think this because if there is spending cuts the money that is in the free market is the same, but if there were tax increases there is less money to be spent by the people.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/aug2009/debt-a28.shtml
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/?page=all
Political Cartoon
Do the Occupy "members" take everything the government does for granted?
What is the symbolism between the large ships and the small person?
What affect has Occupy really had?
Electoral College Reform
1. Americans have trouble grasping the fact that the president is elected by the electoral college, not the popular vote.
2. Election day is always the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
3. Most times the winner of the election can be determined that night, but the 2000 election took 36 days.
4. The electoral college never meets, it is not a single entity.
5. The existence of the electoral college usually undermines third parties.
6. If there was no electoral college, a president would be more likely to have less than 50% of the votes.
7. There has been at least 700 proposed amendments to change the electoral college.
8. Hilliary Clinton was the most recent. (as of the time that this was written)
9. Both candidates could promise to only go by the popular vote to bypass Congress.
10. Ten states account for 54% of the population as of 2000.
1. Will there be any real changes to the electoral college?
2. The author often says "we", who does this represent?
3. Has any candidates ever talked about only using the popular vote?
4. How would changes in the electoral college affect the number of voters on election day?
5. Should area be a factor in electoral votes? Alaska would mess that up though.
I think the electoral college should be abolished. Then the candidates would have to focus on more areas than the swing states. Also, the real voice of the people would be heard.
2. Election day is always the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
3. Most times the winner of the election can be determined that night, but the 2000 election took 36 days.
4. The electoral college never meets, it is not a single entity.
5. The existence of the electoral college usually undermines third parties.
6. If there was no electoral college, a president would be more likely to have less than 50% of the votes.
7. There has been at least 700 proposed amendments to change the electoral college.
8. Hilliary Clinton was the most recent. (as of the time that this was written)
9. Both candidates could promise to only go by the popular vote to bypass Congress.
10. Ten states account for 54% of the population as of 2000.
1. Will there be any real changes to the electoral college?
2. The author often says "we", who does this represent?
3. Has any candidates ever talked about only using the popular vote?
4. How would changes in the electoral college affect the number of voters on election day?
5. Should area be a factor in electoral votes? Alaska would mess that up though.
I think the electoral college should be abolished. Then the candidates would have to focus on more areas than the swing states. Also, the real voice of the people would be heard.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Budget Puzzle
How much did you save? 2015- 418 billion, 2030- 1.268 trillion
What % came from tax increases? 16%
What % came from spending cuts? 84%
Choices that were easy were increasing the age of Medicare and Social Security. The easiest was capping Medicare growth starting in 2013. A harder decision was to cut the number of troops to 30,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Congress has to have people vote on everything and many times it is a very slow progress. It could also be overturned by a future Congress.
What % came from tax increases? 16%
What % came from spending cuts? 84%
Choices that were easy were increasing the age of Medicare and Social Security. The easiest was capping Medicare growth starting in 2013. A harder decision was to cut the number of troops to 30,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Congress has to have people vote on everything and many times it is a very slow progress. It could also be overturned by a future Congress.
Terry Gross interview
1. People can be tracked by technology, like cell phones.
2. There are no amendments that say anything about technology.
3. There have been questions about the GPS's that police can put on the bottom of cars.
4. The 4th amendment is used right now to answer the technology question.
5. In the past, if it was in public surveillance were allowed.
6. Some say that a trespass does not have to be physical to need a warrant.
7. There was talk of Facebook or Google streaming cameras, which could allow people to "stalk" other's every move.
8. Facebook is not covered by the Constitution because the Constitution is for government.
9. The Constitution was written in a time of no cell phones or cameras, so some say it needs a translation to modern day.
10. There was an outcry in Germany when Google tried to record for street view shots.
1. Will there be any amendments to resolve this issue?
2. Will the GPS case set a precedent?
3. Will Google or Facebook ever stream surveillance?
4. How do most people feel about surveillance?
5. How many lives have been saved because of surveillance catching terrorists?
2. There are no amendments that say anything about technology.
3. There have been questions about the GPS's that police can put on the bottom of cars.
4. The 4th amendment is used right now to answer the technology question.
5. In the past, if it was in public surveillance were allowed.
6. Some say that a trespass does not have to be physical to need a warrant.
7. There was talk of Facebook or Google streaming cameras, which could allow people to "stalk" other's every move.
8. Facebook is not covered by the Constitution because the Constitution is for government.
9. The Constitution was written in a time of no cell phones or cameras, so some say it needs a translation to modern day.
10. There was an outcry in Germany when Google tried to record for street view shots.
1. Will there be any amendments to resolve this issue?
2. Will the GPS case set a precedent?
3. Will Google or Facebook ever stream surveillance?
4. How do most people feel about surveillance?
5. How many lives have been saved because of surveillance catching terrorists?
Dwight Eisenhower
1. If you have military experience, use it to your advantage.
2. Always remember that the you have a lot of power regarding the Supreme Court. (He elected Warren has Chief Justice and regretted it.
3. A good character will help in global issues, as well as domestic.
4. Strong leadership can protect a country.
5. Do not be afraid to use your weapons to your advantage.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/character/essays/eisenhower.html
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAeisenhower.htm
http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/Ike/ike.htm
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/dwight_eisenhower.htm
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Cartoon
Who does the man of the left represent?
Why is this ironic?
What do you think should be done about Iran and nuclear weapons?
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Campaign Ads
This ad uses repetition. I personally thin this works, but not for this ad. The ending line was powerful also.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1984
This is a great ad. This is a true ad on what would happen if the Ayatollah could vote. I think this is good because it brings in big world issues to an ad.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1980
Using creative names for themselves and flashing facts across the screen. I think this is a little funny just because they are saying they are mavericks.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
The drums and flashing colors and facts are used in this ad. I think it is effective.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1996
The music and voice in the background. I think this is effective.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
Listing many great things in a row. I think this is effective.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
Overall, political ads do very little to actually inform the voters. I agree with this, ads show 30 seconds of facts that more than likely distorted in some way.
They said that they found the ads are persuasive. I also agree with this because many people vote solely based off of TV ads, which is pretty sad.
They also said that these ads will not make "better" democratic results.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1984
This is a great ad. This is a true ad on what would happen if the Ayatollah could vote. I think this is good because it brings in big world issues to an ad.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1980
Using creative names for themselves and flashing facts across the screen. I think this is a little funny just because they are saying they are mavericks.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
The drums and flashing colors and facts are used in this ad. I think it is effective.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1996
The music and voice in the background. I think this is effective.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
Listing many great things in a row. I think this is effective.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
Overall, political ads do very little to actually inform the voters. I agree with this, ads show 30 seconds of facts that more than likely distorted in some way.
They said that they found the ads are persuasive. I also agree with this because many people vote solely based off of TV ads, which is pretty sad.
They also said that these ads will not make "better" democratic results.
Electoral College
1. Malapportionment is in many governments, including the United States.
2. The Electoral College was ideal when it was made because it kept the balance among the states without giving the election of the President to Congress. This way the people had more power.
3. If the electoral college were replaced by direct election, more independents could have a chance to win.
4. If three of Bush's electors voted for Gore, the vote would have been 269 to 268 in Gore's favor. This could be an example of why to switch.
5. Washington was the only one who foresaw a two party system.
6. The Electoral College makes it so the candidate only needs to visit the swing states.
7. Richard Nixon would have beaten Kennedy if there was a popular vote.
8. Gore would have won if there was a popular vote. He got .5 million more votes than Bush.
9. Since 2000, many states have passed laws requiring electors to honor their pledge to the candidate who selected them.
10. The electoral college shows how the Founding Fathers wanted to put a bumper in between government and citizens.
1. Madison warned of factions, did he think political parties would come about?
2. Will there be a slow change towards popular vote for president?
3. How would changes affect who runs and the results of future elections?
4. What can be changed to ensure that candidates must focus on all states?
5. Will PA change soon?
2. The Electoral College was ideal when it was made because it kept the balance among the states without giving the election of the President to Congress. This way the people had more power.
3. If the electoral college were replaced by direct election, more independents could have a chance to win.
4. If three of Bush's electors voted for Gore, the vote would have been 269 to 268 in Gore's favor. This could be an example of why to switch.
5. Washington was the only one who foresaw a two party system.
6. The Electoral College makes it so the candidate only needs to visit the swing states.
7. Richard Nixon would have beaten Kennedy if there was a popular vote.
8. Gore would have won if there was a popular vote. He got .5 million more votes than Bush.
9. Since 2000, many states have passed laws requiring electors to honor their pledge to the candidate who selected them.
10. The electoral college shows how the Founding Fathers wanted to put a bumper in between government and citizens.
1. Madison warned of factions, did he think political parties would come about?
2. Will there be a slow change towards popular vote for president?
3. How would changes affect who runs and the results of future elections?
4. What can be changed to ensure that candidates must focus on all states?
5. Will PA change soon?
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Political Cartoon
What does the car stuck in the mud symbolize?
Do you agree with this cartoon?
Will this car begin to move?
Taxpayer Issues
http://taxpayer.net/resources.php?action=issues&proj_id=4993&category=&type=Project
In 1978 there was an investment tax credit for those who bought solar power or windpower systems.
Both parties have been trying to find ways to use alternative energy, mostly tax deductions.
Government subsidies to not allow the cheapest way of energy to show.
Huge amounts of tax dollars are spen subsidizing oil and other energy.
Most of the Republican candidates said they would let the free market choose the next best energy source, not let the government choose it for the people.
http://taxpayer.net/search_by_category.php?action=view&proj_id=4781&category=National Security&type=Project Short article but still good.
Tracking money in the Pentagon is diffucult, so enemies cannot find it.
The Defense Department spends roughly 1 billion dollars each day.
The defense department employs 3 million world-wide. That is more than any other corporation.
Ronald Reagan once said, "defense is not a budget issue: You spend what you spend."
The Defense Department spends half of the money the government spends.
In 1978 there was an investment tax credit for those who bought solar power or windpower systems.
Both parties have been trying to find ways to use alternative energy, mostly tax deductions.
Government subsidies to not allow the cheapest way of energy to show.
Huge amounts of tax dollars are spen subsidizing oil and other energy.
Most of the Republican candidates said they would let the free market choose the next best energy source, not let the government choose it for the people.
http://taxpayer.net/search_by_category.php?action=view&proj_id=4781&category=National Security&type=Project Short article but still good.
Tracking money in the Pentagon is diffucult, so enemies cannot find it.
The Defense Department spends roughly 1 billion dollars each day.
The defense department employs 3 million world-wide. That is more than any other corporation.
Ronald Reagan once said, "defense is not a budget issue: You spend what you spend."
The Defense Department spends half of the money the government spends.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Pending Bills
H.R. 1299: Secure Border Act of 2011
This has passed committee and is going to be looked at by the whole House.
S.512: Nuclear Power 2021 Act
This has passed committee and is going to be looked at by the whole Senate.
H.R. 358: Protect Life Act
This has passed the House and will go to the Senate.
Further examination is for H.R. 1299.
1. This was put on the Union calendar on Nov. 10th 2011.
2. There would be an increase in border police.
3. Some infrastructure would also be built to stop illegals from entering the country.
4. Actions will be taken within 180 days of this passing.
5. UAV's and other sensors would be added to protect the border.
6. There would be more communication throughtout police departments in the country to help solve this
problem.
1. What would the cost of this be?
2. Where would the money come from?
3. Are there states that would get more help than others?
This has passed committee and is going to be looked at by the whole House.
S.512: Nuclear Power 2021 Act
This has passed committee and is going to be looked at by the whole Senate.
H.R. 358: Protect Life Act
This has passed the House and will go to the Senate.
Further examination is for H.R. 1299.
1. This was put on the Union calendar on Nov. 10th 2011.
2. There would be an increase in border police.
3. Some infrastructure would also be built to stop illegals from entering the country.
4. Actions will be taken within 180 days of this passing.
5. UAV's and other sensors would be added to protect the border.
6. There would be more communication throughtout police departments in the country to help solve this
problem.
1. What would the cost of this be?
2. Where would the money come from?
3. Are there states that would get more help than others?
Monday, November 28, 2011
Pennsylvania in 2008 Election
In 2008, 54.7% of the voters voted for Obama.
In 2004, 51% voted for John Kerry.
John McCain won more districts, but less of the popular vote.
Only 1.1% of people voted for someone other than Obama or McCain, in 2008.
Only .6% of people voted for someone other than Bush or Kerry, in 2004.
In 2004, 51% voted for John Kerry.
John McCain won more districts, but less of the popular vote.
Only 1.1% of people voted for someone other than Obama or McCain, in 2008.
Only .6% of people voted for someone other than Bush or Kerry, in 2004.
Pennsylvania's 7th Congressional District
The Four counties are Delaware, Philadelphia, Montgomery, and Chester. (All part)
The district has 646,522 people living in it.
This district is 98.56% urban and 1.44% rural.
Since 1833, there has been mostly Republicans representing the 7th district.
Pat Meehan got 55% of the votes to win over Lentz.
There are many colleges in this district.
Pennsylvania's 7th district was in a movie called State of Play.
The median income of this district is $56,126.
There has never been a member of the House from Havertown.
This area could be affected by redistricting soon.
The district has 646,522 people living in it.
This district is 98.56% urban and 1.44% rural.
Since 1833, there has been mostly Republicans representing the 7th district.
Pat Meehan got 55% of the votes to win over Lentz.
There are many colleges in this district.
Pennsylvania's 7th district was in a movie called State of Play.
The median income of this district is $56,126.
There has never been a member of the House from Havertown.
This area could be affected by redistricting soon.
Death Penalty
1) Do other countries use the death penalty?
There at least 59 other countries that do use the death penalty. Some use it more often than others.
2) How much does it cost to put someone to death?
The cost for death penalty trials are more money than life in prison trials. There is not an exact number because each case if different. Also, appeals cost a large amount of money. Some will keep appealing just to stay alive, even if it has been proven that they are guilty multiple times.
3) What are the methods of execution of a prisoner?
Lethal injection is the main method in the United States. However, some states allow the prisoner to choose how thy are executed. There are still rare occasions where the electric chair is used. Since 1976 there has also been 3 hangings and 3 deaths by firing squad.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=capital-punishment-by-lethal-injection
http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter1.html
There at least 59 other countries that do use the death penalty. Some use it more often than others.
2) How much does it cost to put someone to death?
The cost for death penalty trials are more money than life in prison trials. There is not an exact number because each case if different. Also, appeals cost a large amount of money. Some will keep appealing just to stay alive, even if it has been proven that they are guilty multiple times.
3) What are the methods of execution of a prisoner?
Lethal injection is the main method in the United States. However, some states allow the prisoner to choose how thy are executed. There are still rare occasions where the electric chair is used. Since 1976 there has also been 3 hangings and 3 deaths by firing squad.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=capital-punishment-by-lethal-injection
http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter1.html
How Washington Works
Facts
Carter once said; "Washington is isolated from the mainstream of our nation's life." 90
Congress has a short work week so they can meet and spend time with their constituents. 90
Many say there is two worlds when in Congress, hometown and states. 90
To gain power in Congress, one must make alliances and join groups. 91
Very few politicians pack up and go home after their careers, they stay and still have influence. 91
There are many members of Congress who are friends that are not in the same party. 91
Most people in government could make more money elsewhere. 94
Elliott Richardson once said, "Washington is really, when you come right down to it, a city of cocker spaniels." 94
Some members of government think they are more important that they originally thought when elected. 96
Officials must think rationally when deciding how to interact with others, or they could lose power. 96 and 97
Questions
What is it like to first go to Washington for new members of Congress?
Could these alliances lead to fraud?
Could career politicians lead to fraud because of connections and experience?
Do people in government want power or attention?
Are there ego-manics in Congress? And how does this affect relations?
Carter once said; "Washington is isolated from the mainstream of our nation's life." 90
Congress has a short work week so they can meet and spend time with their constituents. 90
Many say there is two worlds when in Congress, hometown and states. 90
To gain power in Congress, one must make alliances and join groups. 91
Very few politicians pack up and go home after their careers, they stay and still have influence. 91
There are many members of Congress who are friends that are not in the same party. 91
Most people in government could make more money elsewhere. 94
Elliott Richardson once said, "Washington is really, when you come right down to it, a city of cocker spaniels." 94
Some members of government think they are more important that they originally thought when elected. 96
Officials must think rationally when deciding how to interact with others, or they could lose power. 96 and 97
Questions
What is it like to first go to Washington for new members of Congress?
Could these alliances lead to fraud?
Could career politicians lead to fraud because of connections and experience?
Do people in government want power or attention?
Are there ego-manics in Congress? And how does this affect relations?
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Terry Gross Interview
Facts
The first birth control clinic was started in 1916.
This clinic was opened by Margaret Sanger.
Sanger came from an Irish Catholic family. She helped deliver her mother's baby.
Many ways of contraception were illegal before.
Sanger was arrested for sharing information about contraception.
There are estimates that 1 in 3 fertilizations were aborted.
Sanger told the government what she was going to do before she opened the clinic.
The Griswold v. Connecticut ruling established that the Constitution protected a right to privacy, which meant that contraceptives were legal.
This information was only given to married woman, at first.
Sanger's American Birth Control League was renamed the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Questions
Will there be any new laws passed about abortion?
Did Sanger's Catholic background play a part in her ideas/views.
Why were ways of contraception illegal/expensive?
How has Roe v. Wade affected abortion today?
Is the population growth rate affected by this?
Do you think abortion should be legal?
The first birth control clinic was started in 1916.
This clinic was opened by Margaret Sanger.
Sanger came from an Irish Catholic family. She helped deliver her mother's baby.
Many ways of contraception were illegal before.
Sanger was arrested for sharing information about contraception.
There are estimates that 1 in 3 fertilizations were aborted.
Sanger told the government what she was going to do before she opened the clinic.
The Griswold v. Connecticut ruling established that the Constitution protected a right to privacy, which meant that contraceptives were legal.
This information was only given to married woman, at first.
Sanger's American Birth Control League was renamed the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Questions
Will there be any new laws passed about abortion?
Did Sanger's Catholic background play a part in her ideas/views.
Why were ways of contraception illegal/expensive?
How has Roe v. Wade affected abortion today?
Is the population growth rate affected by this?
Do you think abortion should be legal?
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Committees
Senator Pat Toomey is in the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. He is also in the Joint Economic Committee.
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee
1) Tim Johnson is the Chairman of this committee.
2) Formally established in 1913.
3) Jurisdiction includes, but are not limited to: banking, insurance, financial markets, securities, housing, urban development and mass transit, international trade and finance, and economic policy
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
1) Jay Rockerfeller is the Chairman.
2) They have jurisdiction in many areas, such as Coast Guard and engineering.
3) Pat Toomey is a minority member, meaning Democrats have the majority.
Joint Economic Committee
1) Bob Casey Jr. is the chairman.
2) This is made if both Senate and House members.
3) They are constantly trying to make the economy more stabilized and better than it is now.
4) Made of 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans.
5) Made of 10 House and 10 Senate members.
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee
1) Tim Johnson is the Chairman of this committee.
2) Formally established in 1913.
3) Jurisdiction includes, but are not limited to: banking, insurance, financial markets, securities, housing, urban development and mass transit, international trade and finance, and economic policy
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
1) Jay Rockerfeller is the Chairman.
2) They have jurisdiction in many areas, such as Coast Guard and engineering.
3) Pat Toomey is a minority member, meaning Democrats have the majority.
Joint Economic Committee
1) Bob Casey Jr. is the chairman.
2) This is made if both Senate and House members.
3) They are constantly trying to make the economy more stabilized and better than it is now.
4) Made of 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans.
5) Made of 10 House and 10 Senate members.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Filibuster
A filibuster was used to stop a bill from passing.
All of the press was waiting the filibuster out to see when it ends, and get the first story.
All of the people in the White House wanted to leave, but could not.
During the filibuster, the person can talk about anything. It does not have to be connected to the bill.
To stop a filibuster there needs to be a 3/5 vote. This is also called a cloture vote.
The longest filibuster ever, by one person, was a little over 24 hours.
The rules say there is not eating, drinking, sitting, or going to the bathroom for the person/people using the filibuster.
The filibuster can used to stall for more votes, or to annoy others into not voting for a bill.
Could there ever be a filibuster like this in real life?
Would a traditional filibuster even happen in today's Senate?
How accurate is West Wing when it comes to things that could happen in real life?
Was there any talk of removing the filibuster?
What was the shortest filibuster until someone changed their mind?
All of the press was waiting the filibuster out to see when it ends, and get the first story.
All of the people in the White House wanted to leave, but could not.
During the filibuster, the person can talk about anything. It does not have to be connected to the bill.
To stop a filibuster there needs to be a 3/5 vote. This is also called a cloture vote.
The longest filibuster ever, by one person, was a little over 24 hours.
The rules say there is not eating, drinking, sitting, or going to the bathroom for the person/people using the filibuster.
The filibuster can used to stall for more votes, or to annoy others into not voting for a bill.
Could there ever be a filibuster like this in real life?
Would a traditional filibuster even happen in today's Senate?
How accurate is West Wing when it comes to things that could happen in real life?
Was there any talk of removing the filibuster?
What was the shortest filibuster until someone changed their mind?
Lost in Detention
Facts
ICE is immigration and Customs enforcement.
More than 2 million illegal immigrants have been deported in Obama's time in office.
There has been 1,000 murderers deported in Obama's time in office.
Secure Communities helps deport illegal immigrants, who are breaking the law.
ICE has quotas that they are supposed to meet for the number of illegal immigrants being deported.
If the laws are broken, people should expect that they are enforced.
4.5 million have parents that are illegal immigrants.
There are 250 detention centers for illegal immigrants.
Kids are at danger when there parents are here illegally.
Obama has had more illegals deported than Bush did.
Questions
Are liberals mad at Obama for deported illegal immigrants?
Why do some think it is wrong to hold illegal immigrants in jail? It is just like any other law-breaker.
Why do illegal immigrants not apply for citizenship?
Why do some people feel like illegal immigrants should be protected in a country they do not belong in?
What is the future for illegal immigrants in the United States?
ICE is immigration and Customs enforcement.
More than 2 million illegal immigrants have been deported in Obama's time in office.
There has been 1,000 murderers deported in Obama's time in office.
Secure Communities helps deport illegal immigrants, who are breaking the law.
ICE has quotas that they are supposed to meet for the number of illegal immigrants being deported.
If the laws are broken, people should expect that they are enforced.
4.5 million have parents that are illegal immigrants.
There are 250 detention centers for illegal immigrants.
Kids are at danger when there parents are here illegally.
Obama has had more illegals deported than Bush did.
Questions
Are liberals mad at Obama for deported illegal immigrants?
Why do some think it is wrong to hold illegal immigrants in jail? It is just like any other law-breaker.
Why do illegal immigrants not apply for citizenship?
Why do some people feel like illegal immigrants should be protected in a country they do not belong in?
What is the future for illegal immigrants in the United States?
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Illegal Immigration
Why is it so necessary to fuss over this situation?
This is a big deal in the United States because these people are breaking the law. There are over 10 million illegal immigrants as of 2009. Those people are taking jobs that Americans could have. Also, these illegal immigrants do not pay income tax, so the federal and state governments are not receiving money that they would be otherwise.
Are illegal immigrants that great of a threat to our country?
This answer is close to the answer to the first question. These illegal immigrants hurt the United States economy, as well as just flat out breaking laws. These are law-breaking people who think they deserve rights in a country they are not supposed to be in. The economy is hurt because immigrants take jobs that Americans could have. Some say that Americas do not want those jobs, but give it time and the jobs will be filled.
If illegals are here for a certain amount of time without being caught, should they be allowed to stay?
Absolutely not, that is like saying if you murder someone and do not get caught for a certain amount of time, you cannot be punished. Illegal immigration is not as bad as murder, of course. This would be saying, come here and hide for a certain amount of time, and then you can stay for the rest of your life. They should be deported, and then able to apply for citizenship.
http://immigration.procon.org/
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0812/Obama-as-border-cop-He-s-deported-record-numbers-of-illegal-immigrants/(page)/2
This is a big deal in the United States because these people are breaking the law. There are over 10 million illegal immigrants as of 2009. Those people are taking jobs that Americans could have. Also, these illegal immigrants do not pay income tax, so the federal and state governments are not receiving money that they would be otherwise.
Are illegal immigrants that great of a threat to our country?
This answer is close to the answer to the first question. These illegal immigrants hurt the United States economy, as well as just flat out breaking laws. These are law-breaking people who think they deserve rights in a country they are not supposed to be in. The economy is hurt because immigrants take jobs that Americans could have. Some say that Americas do not want those jobs, but give it time and the jobs will be filled.
If illegals are here for a certain amount of time without being caught, should they be allowed to stay?
Absolutely not, that is like saying if you murder someone and do not get caught for a certain amount of time, you cannot be punished. Illegal immigration is not as bad as murder, of course. This would be saying, come here and hide for a certain amount of time, and then you can stay for the rest of your life. They should be deported, and then able to apply for citizenship.
http://immigration.procon.org/
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0812/Obama-as-border-cop-He-s-deported-record-numbers-of-illegal-immigrants/(page)/2
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Electoral College
Facts:
The Senate Majority Leader is Dominic Pileggi.
He wants the state to not use the winner-take-all system.
The new plan is to have each candidate win one vote for the Congressional district.
Most Democrats do not like this idea.
This will allow for more specific marketing for candidates.
The other two votes would be given to the candidate winning that wins the state.
Obama would have gotten only 11 electoral votes instead of the 21 and McCain would have gotten 10 electoral votes in the past election.
Lobbying groups do not have to disclose who donates money.
Wisconsin also proposed legislation that would switch the electoral college.
A candidate could win the state, but get more electoral votes. (Just like the nation's popular vote)
Questions:
Will this pass before the 2012 election?
How will campaigning change for the districts?
What effects will this have on future elections if this passes?
Should the nation switch to a system that allows for each district to have one vote?
How will this impact redistricting?
The Senate Majority Leader is Dominic Pileggi.
He wants the state to not use the winner-take-all system.
The new plan is to have each candidate win one vote for the Congressional district.
Most Democrats do not like this idea.
This will allow for more specific marketing for candidates.
The other two votes would be given to the candidate winning that wins the state.
Obama would have gotten only 11 electoral votes instead of the 21 and McCain would have gotten 10 electoral votes in the past election.
Lobbying groups do not have to disclose who donates money.
Wisconsin also proposed legislation that would switch the electoral college.
A candidate could win the state, but get more electoral votes. (Just like the nation's popular vote)
Questions:
Will this pass before the 2012 election?
How will campaigning change for the districts?
What effects will this have on future elections if this passes?
Should the nation switch to a system that allows for each district to have one vote?
How will this impact redistricting?
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
John Boehner
Facts:
1) Boehner thinks not drawing a good first spending-cut package was his biggest regret.
2) Boehner said there were “no surprises” during his first year has Speaker.
3) Republicans used the House to cut 1 billion in spending over the next 10 years.
4) Some say Boehner has been more transparent than other Speakers.
1) Boehner thinks not drawing a good first spending-cut package was his biggest regret.
2) Boehner said there were “no surprises” during his first year has Speaker.
3) Republicans used the House to cut 1 billion in spending over the next 10 years.
4) Some say Boehner has been more transparent than other Speakers.
House of Representatives
Facts:
In 1789, the House only had 65 members. This increased as population increased.
In 1911, there was a decision made to keep the members at 435.
The average Representative has a district with 640,000 citizens.
The minority is not represented as much as their population is.
If the number of House members increases, each loses power.
Questions:
How do the current congressmen feel about raising the number?
Will the number be raised in the future?
Would this just make the House less productive, due to more point of views?
Would this add millions of dollars to bills, because each member adds on "pork"?
How would this affect elections and districting?
I do not think the House should increase is side. This would decrease the power of each person in the House. Also, this would increase the disfunction in the House because more people want to state their ideas and opinions, which is good, but it would slow the process even more.
I do not think the House should increase is side. This would decrease the power of each person in the House. Also, this would increase the disfunction in the House because more people want to state their ideas and opinions, which is good, but it would slow the process even more.
Politician Fiances
Tom Coburn (R)
Total wealth rank in Senate is 49th.
Net worth is from $1,174,164 to $4,616,000.
Assets 122 totaling $1,174,164 to $4,616,000.
Numbers from 2009.
Pat Toomey (R)
Total wealth rank in Senate is 46th.
Net worth: from $1,770,062 to $4,900,999.
Assets 44 totaling $2,020,062 to $5,001,000.
I think this article has some good points and some points that are not so good. I do not think it is too much of a problem that the rate of millionaires is much higher than the average in America. If there was anything to blame about that, it would be the cost of campaigning. Congressmen are just like everyone else, so they should be able to have investments in companies. A few people invested in a company isn't going to change the whole Senate or House's vote on a bill that affects the company. I do think that the fiances should be entered in the computer. Virtually everything can be found on the Internet, and this should be part. Also, the Representatives house could be worth a lot of money, making it an asset. This means it should be added to the assets that the Representative has. The spouses income should not have to be reported, it has nothing to do with Congress.
Total wealth rank in Senate is 49th.
Net worth is from $1,174,164 to $4,616,000.
Assets 122 totaling $1,174,164 to $4,616,000.
Numbers from 2009.
Pat Toomey (R)
Total wealth rank in Senate is 46th.
Net worth: from $1,770,062 to $4,900,999.
Assets 44 totaling $2,020,062 to $5,001,000.
I think this article has some good points and some points that are not so good. I do not think it is too much of a problem that the rate of millionaires is much higher than the average in America. If there was anything to blame about that, it would be the cost of campaigning. Congressmen are just like everyone else, so they should be able to have investments in companies. A few people invested in a company isn't going to change the whole Senate or House's vote on a bill that affects the company. I do think that the fiances should be entered in the computer. Virtually everything can be found on the Internet, and this should be part. Also, the Representatives house could be worth a lot of money, making it an asset. This means it should be added to the assets that the Representative has. The spouses income should not have to be reported, it has nothing to do with Congress.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Due Process
Facts:
1) Witnesses can be very useful, and very harmful.
2) Two women who did not have law experience saved Kevin Rojas.
3) DNA could not be used to help Rojas.
4) Only 5% of cases can use DNA to determine the criminal in a case.
5) Last Resort is ran at Seton Hall.
6) There is no government programs dedicated to finding innocents in jail.
7) There are estimates of innocents in jail are 1-10 percent.
8) Last Resort freed 44 people in 31 years.
9) Eyewitnesses are a huge issue in the United States right now.
10) Out of the 44 people, 11 have been identified while the witness knew that the person was innocent.
Questions:
Is there really only 5% of cases that have DNA?
Did the government ever consider starting a section that investigates criminals who may be innocent?
How much can witnesses be trusted?
What will the Supreme Court decide about witnesses?
How many innocent people are in prison?
1) Witnesses can be very useful, and very harmful.
2) Two women who did not have law experience saved Kevin Rojas.
3) DNA could not be used to help Rojas.
4) Only 5% of cases can use DNA to determine the criminal in a case.
5) Last Resort is ran at Seton Hall.
6) There is no government programs dedicated to finding innocents in jail.
7) There are estimates of innocents in jail are 1-10 percent.
8) Last Resort freed 44 people in 31 years.
9) Eyewitnesses are a huge issue in the United States right now.
10) Out of the 44 people, 11 have been identified while the witness knew that the person was innocent.
Questions:
Is there really only 5% of cases that have DNA?
Did the government ever consider starting a section that investigates criminals who may be innocent?
How much can witnesses be trusted?
What will the Supreme Court decide about witnesses?
How many innocent people are in prison?
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Facts:
1) Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's former chauffeur challenged the military-ran Guantonomo Bay.
2) Hamdan won the case 5-3.
3) The district court granted Hamdan a writ of habues corpes, but the circuit court in D.C. overturned that decsion.
4) Geneva Convention could not be used in militry tribunials at the time.
5) This was in 2005 and John Roberts did not take part in this case.
6) The court said it was Hamdan;s right to know why he was in prision.
Questions:
1) Was this case judged narrowly?
2) Why did John Roberts not participate in this case?
3) What if the vote was 4-4?
4) Has there been changes to any laws because of this?
1) Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's former chauffeur challenged the military-ran Guantonomo Bay.
2) Hamdan won the case 5-3.
3) The district court granted Hamdan a writ of habues corpes, but the circuit court in D.C. overturned that decsion.
4) Geneva Convention could not be used in militry tribunials at the time.
5) This was in 2005 and John Roberts did not take part in this case.
6) The court said it was Hamdan;s right to know why he was in prision.
Questions:
1) Was this case judged narrowly?
2) Why did John Roberts not participate in this case?
3) What if the vote was 4-4?
4) Has there been changes to any laws because of this?
Supreme Court Justices
Facts:
1) John Roberts was a judge in the 2nd circuit court for about 2 years.
2)Scalia was nominated by Ronald Reagan.
3) Every justice has advanced degrees, and attended good colleges.
4) George Bush (the father)nominated Clarence Thomas.
5) Many justices were judges on the circuit courts before the Supreme Court.
6) Many also start as clerks earlier in their careers then move on.
7) The justices have many different positions through out their lives, mostly getting better as they go.
8) The court has three women, one African-American, and five white men.
Questions:
Who will be the next justice to step down?
Will there be more diversity on the Supreme Court anytime soon?
1) John Roberts was a judge in the 2nd circuit court for about 2 years.
2)Scalia was nominated by Ronald Reagan.
3) Every justice has advanced degrees, and attended good colleges.
4) George Bush (the father)nominated Clarence Thomas.
5) Many justices were judges on the circuit courts before the Supreme Court.
6) Many also start as clerks earlier in their careers then move on.
7) The justices have many different positions through out their lives, mostly getting better as they go.
8) The court has three women, one African-American, and five white men.
Questions:
Who will be the next justice to step down?
Will there be more diversity on the Supreme Court anytime soon?
Roe v. Wade
Facts:
1) States can regulate abortions to a certain extent.
2) States can only allow abortions in certain institutions, if they choose.
3) The Supreme Court does not agree that abortions should be allowed whenever, however, and wherever a woman wants it to happen.
4) Many state laws are "to vague" to be Constitutional.
5) Abortions are relatively safe for the woman.
6) The mortality rates for abortions (for the woman) and normal birth are around the same.
7) Risk continues as pregnancy goes on.
8) Privacy (according to the court) means the right to control one's body.
9) Roe v. Wade was decided by the Burger Court.
10) The 14th amendment was used in deciding this case.
Questions:
1) Why do some say babies are not alive until they are born?
2) Why can privacy be used as a reason to allow abortions?
3) Are most courts against abortion because they really are, or because of precedent?
4) Why is the woman the only part that people are concerned with?
5) If privacy is controlling one's body, then the body can be controlled and not get pregnant. (Excluding sexual abuse)
1) States can regulate abortions to a certain extent.
2) States can only allow abortions in certain institutions, if they choose.
3) The Supreme Court does not agree that abortions should be allowed whenever, however, and wherever a woman wants it to happen.
4) Many state laws are "to vague" to be Constitutional.
5) Abortions are relatively safe for the woman.
6) The mortality rates for abortions (for the woman) and normal birth are around the same.
7) Risk continues as pregnancy goes on.
8) Privacy (according to the court) means the right to control one's body.
9) Roe v. Wade was decided by the Burger Court.
10) The 14th amendment was used in deciding this case.
Questions:
1) Why do some say babies are not alive until they are born?
2) Why can privacy be used as a reason to allow abortions?
3) Are most courts against abortion because they really are, or because of precedent?
4) Why is the woman the only part that people are concerned with?
5) If privacy is controlling one's body, then the body can be controlled and not get pregnant. (Excluding sexual abuse)
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Court Cases
1: FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 2011
Fox is challenging the FCC's rules about vulgar language on television. Fox is saying the rules are a violation of the first and fifth amendments. This interested me because I do not believe the FCC should regulate the language used on television or radio. It is the viewer/listener's choice to watch the show or listen to that station.
2: Clark v. Arizona, 2005
Eric Clark killed a police officer during a traffic stop. A expert doctor said Clark was a paranoid schizophrenic fearing the world was being taken over by aliens. Clark wanted to use this expert's ruling for evidence, but the trial judge stated that Arizona law does not allow that to be the only evidence of insanity. If Clark was ruled insane, he would not form the necessary criminal intent. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Arizona. I think this is interesting because it was a case about punishment for a crime. Due process was a key issue.
3: Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 2001
Gregory Wersal was running for a spot on the Minnesota Supreme Court. There was a state law saying candidates running for a Judaical position cannot state their opinions about cases that are unsolved at the time. Wersal filed a claim saying he had to deny questions in public, making himself seem incompetent. I was interested by the name of the case. In a 5-4 decision the Republican Party of Minnesota won this case. The Supreme Court said the state law was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment.
Fox is challenging the FCC's rules about vulgar language on television. Fox is saying the rules are a violation of the first and fifth amendments. This interested me because I do not believe the FCC should regulate the language used on television or radio. It is the viewer/listener's choice to watch the show or listen to that station.
2: Clark v. Arizona, 2005
Eric Clark killed a police officer during a traffic stop. A expert doctor said Clark was a paranoid schizophrenic fearing the world was being taken over by aliens. Clark wanted to use this expert's ruling for evidence, but the trial judge stated that Arizona law does not allow that to be the only evidence of insanity. If Clark was ruled insane, he would not form the necessary criminal intent. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Arizona. I think this is interesting because it was a case about punishment for a crime. Due process was a key issue.
3: Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 2001
Gregory Wersal was running for a spot on the Minnesota Supreme Court. There was a state law saying candidates running for a Judaical position cannot state their opinions about cases that are unsolved at the time. Wersal filed a claim saying he had to deny questions in public, making himself seem incompetent. I was interested by the name of the case. In a 5-4 decision the Republican Party of Minnesota won this case. The Supreme Court said the state law was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
West Wing
Connections:
The president had to appoint the new justices.
There were many candidates, not just one person in mind to be the new justice.
The candidates were very blunt about why they thought they could not be passed by Congress.
There was a lot of politics involved in selecting the justices.
Before the two justices, the president was searching for a moderate.
The old seat on the court is filled with someone like the old justice.
There was strategy in stepping down from the Supreme Court.
There was a committee to help pass the appointed judges.
Questions:
Could there ever be a dramatic turn in the Supreme Court?
Do very far left or far right judges get appointed?
Will there every be a woman as the chief justice?
Do justices step down when the president asks them to?
How long does it normally take to replace a justice?
The president had to appoint the new justices.
There were many candidates, not just one person in mind to be the new justice.
The candidates were very blunt about why they thought they could not be passed by Congress.
There was a lot of politics involved in selecting the justices.
Before the two justices, the president was searching for a moderate.
The old seat on the court is filled with someone like the old justice.
There was strategy in stepping down from the Supreme Court.
There was a committee to help pass the appointed judges.
Questions:
Could there ever be a dramatic turn in the Supreme Court?
Do very far left or far right judges get appointed?
Will there every be a woman as the chief justice?
Do justices step down when the president asks them to?
How long does it normally take to replace a justice?
Friday, October 28, 2011
Federalist #78
Questions:
Would you change anything to make the Judaical branch weaker?
What was your reasoning behind saying the Judaical branch would be the weakest?
Would you change anything about the court system today?
Should judges determine a case because of their own beliefs or just on the Constitution?
Do you think the Supreme Court is based off of political party too much?
Quotes:
"The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
This shows how Hamilton thought the Judaical branch would not have as much power as they do today.
"The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government."
This shows that Justices can serve for life as long they do not do anything completely wrong. This way they can focus on their job, not getting elected.
"They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental."
This shows that the judge's rulings should only be based on the Constitution.
"A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."
This is also showing that the Constitution is what the decisions of the cases should be based on.
"...the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them."
This is showing that the founding fathers believed the Supreme Court could not gain a lot of power.
Would you change anything to make the Judaical branch weaker?
What was your reasoning behind saying the Judaical branch would be the weakest?
Would you change anything about the court system today?
Should judges determine a case because of their own beliefs or just on the Constitution?
Do you think the Supreme Court is based off of political party too much?
Quotes:
"The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
This shows how Hamilton thought the Judaical branch would not have as much power as they do today.
"The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government."
This shows that Justices can serve for life as long they do not do anything completely wrong. This way they can focus on their job, not getting elected.
"They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental."
This shows that the judge's rulings should only be based on the Constitution.
"A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."
This is also showing that the Constitution is what the decisions of the cases should be based on.
"...the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them."
This is showing that the founding fathers believed the Supreme Court could not gain a lot of power.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
2000 Election
Facts:
1) There was a 5-4 vote to stop the election.
2) Katherine Harris said the Nov. 14th deadline would stay, but the Florida Sumpre Court said it had to be extended.
3) Most thought the United States Supreme Court would hear the case.
4) On Dec. 8th, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a hand recount in certain areas.
5) William Rehnquist was the chief justice at the time.
6) The voting machines in the United States count 97-99% of votes correctly.
7) Most voting machines are different in different states and even counties.
8) The equal protection clause could have been violated.
Questions:
Why does this article say that 99% is WAY higher than 97%?
Was it a bed decision to stop the recount?
How would the election have turned out if there was a full hand recount?
Were other government positions affected by this, we only hear about the presidential race?
Can something like ever happen again?
1) There was a 5-4 vote to stop the election.
2) Katherine Harris said the Nov. 14th deadline would stay, but the Florida Sumpre Court said it had to be extended.
3) Most thought the United States Supreme Court would hear the case.
4) On Dec. 8th, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a hand recount in certain areas.
5) William Rehnquist was the chief justice at the time.
6) The voting machines in the United States count 97-99% of votes correctly.
7) Most voting machines are different in different states and even counties.
8) The equal protection clause could have been violated.
Questions:
Why does this article say that 99% is WAY higher than 97%?
Was it a bed decision to stop the recount?
How would the election have turned out if there was a full hand recount?
Were other government positions affected by this, we only hear about the presidential race?
Can something like ever happen again?
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Politician Update 2
Tom Coburn is a Republican from Oklahoma. He has been a Senator since 2005 and is up for reelection in 2016.
He has missed 4% of roll calls since 2005.
He is a member in many committees such as Fiance and Homeland Security and Government Affairs.
Cobrun was part of 54 bills, 33 of which have made it out of committee and 1 has been enacted.
He was recently part of a bill to consolidate overlapping government programs, saving 5,000,000,000 dollars.
Coburns top contributor is Cummins-American Corp.
He has missed 4% of roll calls since 2005.
He is a member in many committees such as Fiance and Homeland Security and Government Affairs.
Cobrun was part of 54 bills, 33 of which have made it out of committee and 1 has been enacted.
He was recently part of a bill to consolidate overlapping government programs, saving 5,000,000,000 dollars.
Coburns top contributor is Cummins-American Corp.
Common Good
I think common good would be a great thing, but it is also much too difficult to achieve. When I hear common good, I think that everyone has the same benefits, or everyone can benefit from something. One quote that stood out to me was, "Maintaining a common good often requires that particular individuals or particular groups bear costs that are much greater than those borne by others." This is saying that the "rich" will have to pay for the other citizens, like if there was a nationalized healthcare system. In the environment, there would have to be very precise planning, to help make sure there is no waste in money. The costs of goods will rise if there are more environmental regulations, and during these hard economic times, I do not think anyone wants to see the cost of living rise even more. For common good ways of government to be successful, there has to be a stable economy and there also has to be a set plan before any actions are officially taken. This way citizens are not hurting for enough money to pay for the basics and having plans helps reduce waste. Common good could work well, but now is not the time.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Recount
Facts:
1) Katherine Harris was the Secretary of State for Florida.
2) Florida had 25 electoral votes.
3) Al Gore was almost ready to make his speech admitting defeat when he realized that the election was much closer than anyone knew.
4) The Supreme Court stopped the recount.
5) Only some counties recounted the votes.
6) Many counties did not re-run the votes, they just checked the numbers.
7) Butterfly ballots were used for voting, which caused many problems.
8) Many senior citizens were concerned that they voted for the wrong Candidate.
Questions:
1) How accurate was the portrayal of Katherine Harris?
2) Was this movie made to be a drama or a factual based movie?
3) How many people voted for the wrong candidate?
4) Is something like this possible to happen again?
5) Will there ever be an election this close?
6) How has the state laws changed to make sure that a recount can happen if needed?
7) What was the final vote count?
8) Does the losing candidate still concede before all the votes are in?
1) Katherine Harris was the Secretary of State for Florida.
2) Florida had 25 electoral votes.
3) Al Gore was almost ready to make his speech admitting defeat when he realized that the election was much closer than anyone knew.
4) The Supreme Court stopped the recount.
5) Only some counties recounted the votes.
6) Many counties did not re-run the votes, they just checked the numbers.
7) Butterfly ballots were used for voting, which caused many problems.
8) Many senior citizens were concerned that they voted for the wrong Candidate.
Questions:
1) How accurate was the portrayal of Katherine Harris?
2) Was this movie made to be a drama or a factual based movie?
3) How many people voted for the wrong candidate?
4) Is something like this possible to happen again?
5) Will there ever be an election this close?
6) How has the state laws changed to make sure that a recount can happen if needed?
7) What was the final vote count?
8) Does the losing candidate still concede before all the votes are in?
Bush vs. Gore
Pre-reading questions:
1) Did the Supreme Court do the right thing in stopping the recount?
2) What was the final vote count for Bush and Gore?
3) What new laws are in place to make sure this never happens again?
4) Why is the state deadlines so important when that state is going to determine the winner?
5) Why does the losing candidate conceded before they have officially lost?
Facts learned:
1) There has been four presidents that won the election, but lost the popular vote.
2) There was a 5-4 ruling to stop the recount in the Supreme Court.
3) It was a surprise to most people that the Supreme Court heard the case.
4) Katherine Harris made some decisions that many people were not happy with, like making the cut-off times shorter than some would have liked.
5) In the case of Romer Vs. Evans special voting rights were created for homosexuals.
Questions:
1) Will there ever be an election that close again?
2) What would the results have been if there was a full recount?
3) Can we trust the voting systems in the country?
4) Should Gore have conceded sooner to end the panic in the country?
5) Did the Democratic party do the right thing going to the Supreme Court?
1) Did the Supreme Court do the right thing in stopping the recount?
2) What was the final vote count for Bush and Gore?
3) What new laws are in place to make sure this never happens again?
4) Why is the state deadlines so important when that state is going to determine the winner?
5) Why does the losing candidate conceded before they have officially lost?
Facts learned:
1) There has been four presidents that won the election, but lost the popular vote.
2) There was a 5-4 ruling to stop the recount in the Supreme Court.
3) It was a surprise to most people that the Supreme Court heard the case.
4) Katherine Harris made some decisions that many people were not happy with, like making the cut-off times shorter than some would have liked.
5) In the case of Romer Vs. Evans special voting rights were created for homosexuals.
Questions:
1) Will there ever be an election that close again?
2) What would the results have been if there was a full recount?
3) Can we trust the voting systems in the country?
4) Should Gore have conceded sooner to end the panic in the country?
5) Did the Democratic party do the right thing going to the Supreme Court?
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Pat Toomey
I have been following Pat Toomey. He is a senator, his term ends in 2016. Pat Toomey has recently sponsored a bill that says, "A bill to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to consider the impact on employment levels and economic activity prior to issuing a regulation, policy statement, guidance document, endangerment finding, or other requirement, implementing any new or substantially altered program, or denying any permit, and for other purposes." This is good he is really thinking about the economy when deciding on any new bill. Toomey has missed 2% of roll call votes.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Factions
I think James Madison has a good point about factions. Madison recognizes that factions could become a problem in the United States. The members of the minority could be oppressed, if there is a majority faction that wants to take action. The federalist system makes a oppressing the minority very difficult to do.
How many factions do you think there will be?
Do you think that Republicans and Democrats are factions?
Do you think factions are kept in control today?
Would you change anything in the government today?
Do you think Federalist 10 is still true today?
I think a faction is a group of people who have a common cause and common ideology.
I do think both Republicans and Democrats are factions. I think they stay too loyal to the ideas they are supposed to have, instead of thinking for themselves.
How many factions do you think there will be?
Do you think that Republicans and Democrats are factions?
Do you think factions are kept in control today?
Would you change anything in the government today?
Do you think Federalist 10 is still true today?
I think a faction is a group of people who have a common cause and common ideology.
I do think both Republicans and Democrats are factions. I think they stay too loyal to the ideas they are supposed to have, instead of thinking for themselves.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Political Party
Based on your response to the questions on the political ideology survey, you are a moderate conservative.
You probably most agree with the views of the Republican Party. You may also be interested in the Libertarian Party. Your ideology is shared by the following Members of the House of Representatives:
Denny Rehberg (R - MT, At-Large)
Zach Wamp (R - TN, 3rd District)
Mario Diaz-Balart (R - FL, 25th District)
You probably most agree with the views of the Republican Party. You may also be interested in the Libertarian Party. Your ideology is shared by the following Members of the House of Representatives:
Consititution Questions
Does the Constitution today function as the supreme law of the land or do you think that it is just a document that outlines the way our country should be run and all current issues should not be influenced by it?
I think the Constitution is just an outline for modern issues. The document was written a long time ago, and times are changing by the second. As we know, the Constitution does not contain all of the issues in America. This means new laws have to be created with the Constitution’s guidelines instead of the supreme law of the land.
Is the Constitution based more on the founding father's opinions, or the citizens of the U.S.?
I think the Constitution was written based on the founding father's opinions, since it was written by them. All government officials use their own opinions to decide how they want to view an issue. People vote for the candidate they think most resembles them.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
"Democray in America"
Facts:
1) States would lose federal money if they decided to not do what the federal government wants the states to.
2) The Endangered Species Act allows government to protect animals.
3) Wolves were restored in Yellowstone National Park, even though many citizens around the park did not the wolves back.
4) All citizens can have a say about federal lands. (New York citizens can make decisions for land in Idaho)
5) The federal government can always out rule the state's government
6) Federal funds are often used as incentives for state governments.
7) South Carolina did not want to adopt a set rule for DUI's.
8) The national BAC level limit for driving is .08.
9) Clinton signed a deal to make states responsible for the use of welfare money.
10) Welfare success is very diversified throughout the United States.
Questions:
1) Did the federal government weigh all possible outcomes from placing the wolves in Yellowstone?
2) Has any state lost money because they did not change the way the federal government wanted them to?
3) How much sense of nationalism is lost with the states having a lot of power?
4) What would be the perfect balance of state and federal power?
5) Has there been talks about nationalising schools in America?
6) How can states with poor welfare systems learn from states that have better welfare systems?
7) Will we ever see the states have almost all the power.
8) Why was South Carolina so against the BAC regulation?
9) Is the federal government doing the right thing by threatening to take away money, or just creating even more friction between federal and state governments?
10) Is the federal government bullying the state governments?
1) States would lose federal money if they decided to not do what the federal government wants the states to.
2) The Endangered Species Act allows government to protect animals.
3) Wolves were restored in Yellowstone National Park, even though many citizens around the park did not the wolves back.
4) All citizens can have a say about federal lands. (New York citizens can make decisions for land in Idaho)
5) The federal government can always out rule the state's government
6) Federal funds are often used as incentives for state governments.
7) South Carolina did not want to adopt a set rule for DUI's.
8) The national BAC level limit for driving is .08.
9) Clinton signed a deal to make states responsible for the use of welfare money.
10) Welfare success is very diversified throughout the United States.
Questions:
1) Did the federal government weigh all possible outcomes from placing the wolves in Yellowstone?
2) Has any state lost money because they did not change the way the federal government wanted them to?
3) How much sense of nationalism is lost with the states having a lot of power?
4) What would be the perfect balance of state and federal power?
5) Has there been talks about nationalising schools in America?
6) How can states with poor welfare systems learn from states that have better welfare systems?
7) Will we ever see the states have almost all the power.
8) Why was South Carolina so against the BAC regulation?
9) Is the federal government doing the right thing by threatening to take away money, or just creating even more friction between federal and state governments?
10) Is the federal government bullying the state governments?
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Government Metaphor
The government American system of power and checks and balances is like a human body. A body needs many parts to survive, just like the House and Senate need each other to make laws and they both need the executive branch to finalize the law and enforce it. A human body also checks itself. The immune system oversees any problems that could happen, or if your body is cold you get goosebumps. Just like a body, the government reacts to other events that happen in the government.
Political Cartoon 2
Why does the text at the bottom ask which came first?
Does the "egg" or the "chicken" cause the other?
How do you think these two problems can be fixed?
Federalist 10 and 51
Federalist 10
Questions
What factional disputes did the Articles of Confederation struggle with?
Did Madison foresee a two party system?
How should the ratio of representatives be balanced?
Can there be too many factions?
Should property be redistributed to make land ownership more equal?
Quotes
"Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction."
I picked this quote because it lays out the main point of the whole paper, to control and break the violence of faction.
"The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished."
I picked this quote because this shows that Madison believes that factions have been the downfall of many nations.
"But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property."
I picked this quote because it shows what Madison believes is the biggest problem that fuels factions.
"By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests."
I picked this quote because the electors cannot get to invested in only there areas desires, but must look for the needs of the whole country.
"The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States."
I picked this quote because it shows how a republic can protect the country against individual state needs. This is important so the whole country doesn't move in the wrong direction because of a small area in the country.
Federalist 51
Questions
Does Madison see any new branches of government forming in the future?
Does Madison see any changes in the balance of power in the future?
Would Madison still agree that branches of government should still be as little dependent as possible from other branches with changing times?
Does Madison foresee any problems with a republic having all the power, leaving the people with none?
How can the minority not depend on the majority?
Quotes
"In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others."
I picked this quote because it shows that separate powers are needed to have a fair government.
"It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others."
I picked this quote because it says that each department should not have to depend on the other departments too much. I feel that this is untrue because the House and Senate need each other to pass bills.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
I picked this quote because it emphasizes that government is needed.
"In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government."
I picked this quote because it shows that a republic has all the power, and the people have none.
"If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."
I picked this quote because it addresses an important potential problem, that the majority could opress the minority if nothing is done to prevent it.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
"Secret America" Facts and Questions
Facts:
The government keeps everything on a need-to-know basis.
Coffer Black was leading the counter-terrorism unit.
The code for the raid of Afghanistan was Greystone.
The CIA lead the first covert war in Afghanistan.
The Taliban was defeated very quickly by the CIA.
The CIA had/has about 24 prisons in secret locations throughout the world.
Rumsfeld was not happy that the CIA was ahead of the army in Afghanistan.
JSOC could be used without the president being notified.
The NSA can now intercept any call, email, or text from anywhere in the United States.
Obama has used more drone attacks than ever before.
Obama has used more drone attacks than ever before.
Questions:
Why was there no prior plan to invade Afghanistan?
How much technology does the government have?
Why is the budget being hidden such a big deal to some people?
Why do people still believe that the government should be more transparent, when the man who said he would make it that way now knows that it cannot?
Why do people assume money is being wasted?
When is the Homeland Security headquarters supposed to be completed?
How organized can such a large building be?
How much of communications is actually listened to by NSA employees?
How will all of this affect the 2012 election?
What dies the future hold for secret technolgy?
Friday, September 23, 2011
Interview
When I first heard about this interview, I immediately knew that I would be interviewing my uncle. He follow politics and government very closely, so I knew he could answer most any question. He believes that the founding fathers did a great job in writing the Constitution. He said, "If it was not written well, it would not have lasted this long." He also thinks that without government, this world would be chaos, which I think most people would agree with. Political issues he cares about are the environment, unemployment, and the dangers in the middle east, specifically Iran. He said the environment is important because the future of this planet needs to be sustainable, he also said that unemployment in the United States needs to be lowered. Iran is currently trying to make nuclear weapons, which is a huge threat to the United States. He believes that the American government has a few flaws, but in general it is set up well.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
A People's History of the United States
The reading says that the Constitution was written by only wealthy people. The United States government is the same way today, if anyone wants a chance at being elected to be in congress, they need money. No candidates with a chance at winning an election is poor, because running a campaign is expensive. One quote I do like is, "Government officials are not neutral referees but participants." This is true for the founding fathers, they were thinking about how this would affect there lives, as well as all Americans. I still think the authors of the Constitution still have the support of the American people now, if they did not, they would not be called the founding fathers. The bonds that were paid by the government helped insure people that this is a stable government that can lead this country in the right direction. The reason why most bonds were owned by a few people is because those people bought all the bonds from the original owners. Some bond owners did not think they would ever receive money for them, so they sold the bonds to "investors" for a cheap price.
1. What would have happened if there was a more balanced group of writers for the Constitution?
2. Why was the Sedition act passed?
3. What does the author suggest be done to make the government not run by wealthy people?
1. What would have happened if there was a more balanced group of writers for the Constitution?
2. Why was the Sedition act passed?
3. What does the author suggest be done to make the government not run by wealthy people?
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Political Cartoon
Why is it important for Americans to vote?
Why should people who do not vote, not be able to get mad at who is elected?
Why is it important for Americans to follow politics?
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Reading Questions
What would the founding fathers say about the political parties?
Why is there so many personal attacks in politics?
Why does the word politics have a negative connotation?
Why do people not like to follow government, since it affects them so much?
Why do well-off and poorer people not vote as much?
How do most southerners feel about the civil war now?
Do people in United States territories feel like they are part of the United States?
How can people not name their ancestry? I thought everyone knew that.
So, how accurate is the census when they give figures on ethnicites?
Has the United States government thought it did not have enough people voting?
When is there enough of being stubborn about an idea and having to come together to work to complete a goal?
What did the founding fathers see the country being like in 100 years after they wrote the Constitution?
Do we have to pass an exam on the Constitution?
How does the rest of the world feel about the Pledge of Allegiance?
Why don't all the states officially say English is the official language?
Is the law of speaking English in Iowa still a law?
Why does government exist?
How much money was spent on the 2010 census?
How can the census be changed to be more accurate?
Why is there so many personal attacks in politics?
Why does the word politics have a negative connotation?
Why do people not like to follow government, since it affects them so much?
Why do well-off and poorer people not vote as much?
How do most southerners feel about the civil war now?
Do people in United States territories feel like they are part of the United States?
How can people not name their ancestry? I thought everyone knew that.
So, how accurate is the census when they give figures on ethnicites?
Has the United States government thought it did not have enough people voting?
When is there enough of being stubborn about an idea and having to come together to work to complete a goal?
What did the founding fathers see the country being like in 100 years after they wrote the Constitution?
Do we have to pass an exam on the Constitution?
How does the rest of the world feel about the Pledge of Allegiance?
Why don't all the states officially say English is the official language?
Is the law of speaking English in Iowa still a law?
Why does government exist?
How much money was spent on the 2010 census?
How can the census be changed to be more accurate?
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Political Issues
There are many political issues I care about. To highlight a few I think border control, the environment, and defense are some of the most important. The government makes decisions that affect daily life for every American, so the decisions made are extremely important.
In 2009, there were 10.8 million illegal immigrants in the United States. These people not only do not pay an taxes, but they also receive some benefits from government sponsored programs, like Medicaid. The illegal immigrants will often work for less money than the tax-paying Americans living in the same towns. These jobs are being taken from American citizens by men and woman are in the country illegally, on American soil. If the border control is increased, the number of illegal immigrants will drop significantly. Making laws that give a police officer the right to ask for citizenship papers will also help the cause. Some say that gives the police officer a chance to abuse citizens who look Mexican, but asking for a piece is paper is not abuse. The only reason there would be any trouble is if the person was in fact an illegal immigrant, then appropriate actions would be taken.
Another important political issue is the environment. I believe every business and company should have to recycle. However, I do support President Bush and President Clinton in not signing the Kyoto Protocol. The second and third largest economies in the world, China and India, had far less restrictions if they signed the Kyoto Protocol. This would make those two countries have a much easier time to pass the United States economically speaking. Also, I believe the government should put a lot of effort into finding alternative energy sources. This would help in many ways, the two most important are the United States would no longer have to depend on other countries for oil and the alternative energy sources would be much better for the environment. The environment is a very important part of the government to consider when making new laws and deciding what to spend money on.
Defense is another extremely important political issue. Without defense, this country could lose a war against another powerful country in a short time. If the United States did not have powerful armed forces, other countries could shut off our oil supply. Some of the countries we get oil form, do not necessarily like the United States. Those countries know there is a good chance that if they turned off our oil supply, there could be a good chance of a war starting. If not a full war, the CIA would more than likely engage in stealth operations. Also, terrorist groups would have more attacks on the United States like those on September 11, 2001. It is not secret that Al-Qaeda hates America and would take any opportunity to hurt the country. To those who say that increased defense spending is not working, has there been another attack? The answer is no, there has not been another attack on United States since the increased security and defense spending. The National Security Agency has the right to see every email or phone call. This and the Patriot act have discovered many attacks, and more than likely some that the common people do not hear about due to classified documents. Defense the most important issue in politics.
The government has many important issues to consider before making decisions. Some of the most important issues that I care about are border control, the environment, and defense.
In 2009, there were 10.8 million illegal immigrants in the United States. These people not only do not pay an taxes, but they also receive some benefits from government sponsored programs, like Medicaid. The illegal immigrants will often work for less money than the tax-paying Americans living in the same towns. These jobs are being taken from American citizens by men and woman are in the country illegally, on American soil. If the border control is increased, the number of illegal immigrants will drop significantly. Making laws that give a police officer the right to ask for citizenship papers will also help the cause. Some say that gives the police officer a chance to abuse citizens who look Mexican, but asking for a piece is paper is not abuse. The only reason there would be any trouble is if the person was in fact an illegal immigrant, then appropriate actions would be taken.
Another important political issue is the environment. I believe every business and company should have to recycle. However, I do support President Bush and President Clinton in not signing the Kyoto Protocol. The second and third largest economies in the world, China and India, had far less restrictions if they signed the Kyoto Protocol. This would make those two countries have a much easier time to pass the United States economically speaking. Also, I believe the government should put a lot of effort into finding alternative energy sources. This would help in many ways, the two most important are the United States would no longer have to depend on other countries for oil and the alternative energy sources would be much better for the environment. The environment is a very important part of the government to consider when making new laws and deciding what to spend money on.
Defense is another extremely important political issue. Without defense, this country could lose a war against another powerful country in a short time. If the United States did not have powerful armed forces, other countries could shut off our oil supply. Some of the countries we get oil form, do not necessarily like the United States. Those countries know there is a good chance that if they turned off our oil supply, there could be a good chance of a war starting. If not a full war, the CIA would more than likely engage in stealth operations. Also, terrorist groups would have more attacks on the United States like those on September 11, 2001. It is not secret that Al-Qaeda hates America and would take any opportunity to hurt the country. To those who say that increased defense spending is not working, has there been another attack? The answer is no, there has not been another attack on United States since the increased security and defense spending. The National Security Agency has the right to see every email or phone call. This and the Patriot act have discovered many attacks, and more than likely some that the common people do not hear about due to classified documents. Defense the most important issue in politics.
The government has many important issues to consider before making decisions. Some of the most important issues that I care about are border control, the environment, and defense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)