Terry Gross Interview- "Interpreting the Constitution in the Digital Era"

Facts:

1. New technologies such as GPS monitors that can track your every movement, brain scans that can see lies forming in your brain, and advancements in genetic engineering that may soon allow parents to engineer what their children will look and be like are challenging the Constitution in many ways.
2. These technologies challenge things like personal vs. private space, freedom of speech and our own individual autonomy.
3. The United States v. Jones Supreme Court case is considering whether or not policemen need a warrant from a judge before attaching a secret GPS monitor to a car to track a suspect around the clock. 
4. This is related to the 4th Amendment's right of the people to be secure in their houses, persons, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures (will it be violated?).
5. An argument is the 4th Amendment only bans searches without warrants in private spaces and the GPS is an extension of human surveillance. 
6. Rosen believes this "GPS case has the potential to be the most important privacy case of the decade. 
7. The Olmstead v. United States case ruled that neither the 4th nor 5th Amendment protects defendants against having personal converstations wiretapped by federal agents.  
8. The Katz v. United States case overruled the previous court case and extended the 4th Amendment to include all areas where person "has a reasonable expectation of privacy."
9. The Constitution 3.0 provides hypothetical scenarios and addresses questions about security, freedom of speech, privacy, and the constitutional right against self-incrimination.
10. The first time the constitutionality of wiretapping was decided in court was in the 1920s with Justice Brandeis. 

Questions: 

1. How is one defined to being a "suspect," where federal agents may be allowed to wiretap his/her private conversations?
2. Do people really have much privacy anymore, since the government has the ability to use such technology to wiretap, track people's specific locations, and having all access to the internet?
3. Will Congress create a new bill regarding this issue?
4. How serious is this issue for everyday citizens?
5. Should citizens have to worry about the things they say or do in public, since there's a chance federal agents may be listening to your conversations?

Classmates' 3 Pending Bills

1) Abby Marco- H.R. 2359: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011: To amend title VI of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to ensure the safe use of cosmetics, and for other purposes.

2) Eli Pollock-S. 1500: Ensure Children Have Health Care Act: This bill would allow health insurance companies in a state to cover children in other states. 

3) Rachael DiNicola- Senate 1660: American Jobs Act of 2011: A bill to provide tax relief for American workers and businesses, to put workers back on the job while rebuilding and modernizing America, and to provide pathways back to work for Americans looking for jobs.

I will use S. 1500: Ensure Children Have Health Care Act for my constituent letter. 

Electoral College Reform Article

Facts:

1. Voters are often unaware, but the president is not directly elected by the people; they are elected by electors. 
2. Election Day is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
3. The electoral college has a great influence over the character of parties, the nominating process, and the outcome of the presidential election. 
4. Each state has a number of electoral votes equal to its membership in Congress.
5. There is a total of 538 electoral votes.
6. The electoral college usually undermines third parties, which are unlikely to win the majority of electoral votes.
7. In the case Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court declared that one person-one vote must prevail at the state and local level (not federal).
8. The electoral college triples political power of voters in the seven least populous states that elect just one member of the House.
9. In addition, the electoral college doubles power of six other states that elect two members of the House.
10. About 700 amendments were proposed and introduced in Congress over the last two centuries.

Questions:

1. Why don't third parties get as many electoral votes?
2. Have any third parties come close to winning the majority of votes?
3. If the electoral college were to be reformed, who has the power to do this?
4. Do other countries use a similar method as our electoral college?
5. How can the electoral college be reformed to satisfy those wanting to get rid of it?

My Opinion: I think the electoral college system should be reformed so that the people have a more direct voice in choosing the President of the United States. Many may be unaware that their votes go to electors, and not the candidate themselves. The electoral college system should be reformed because, obviously, there is much room for error, though I do not think it should be completely removed because bringing a completely new voting system may bring our country to chaos, if many are not satisfied with such a quick, radical change.

National Debt

1. How much does the national debt cause each person, approximately?

     As the debt continuously fluctuates, the approximate cost of debt per U.S. citizen is $48,316, or $134,136 per taxpayer. Hopefully, this will decrease, though it depends on the national debt. Many congressmen have different plans and opinions on how the federal government should limit their spending in order to lessen the debt. Whose ever plan we may follow, it will take years to get rid of this debt; yet it may never be completely gone. 

2. Who or what do we owe money to?
The U.S. is in debt for over $15 trillion, thus many may be asking this question. The chart below shows the amount of money the U.S. owes to various institutions as of 2010. Still today, the majority of the national debt is to various foreign countries. This makes sense because of all the resources and products we get from foreign countries. Next comes the portion that the federal government owes U.S. individuals and institutions (not run by the federal government). The federal government has borrowed much money, and has yet to return it all (plus interest). 

3. Was there a time in our nation's history when we had virtually no debt?

This may seem impossible because the federal government continuously spends, borrows, and also get money, but yes, this has occurred only once during Andrew Jackson's presidency. When he first became president, the national debt was up to $58 million. He saw debt as "a moral failing" and wanted to get rid of it. To do this, he sold much of the Western land that the federal government owned. Jackson blocked every spending bill he could. For example, "he vetoed programs to build national highways," because "he considered these to be unconstitutional in the first place, but bad policy in the second place." Jackson was able to pay off the entire debt within six years. The government actually started to take in more money than it was spending (though this later backfired and caused a depression).

Sources:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/04/15/135423586/when-the-u-s-paid-off-the-entire-national-debt-and-why-it-didnt-last
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2011/0204/National-debt-Whom-does-the-US-owe
chart from: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-04-13/markets/30049049_1_china-debt-click

Political Cartoon #3

1. Should this issue be dealt with on a state or national level?
2. Is there any solution to prevent accidents due to the use of cell phones and other technology while driving?
3. Is this becoming that big of a concern for Americans?

New York Times Budget Puzzle

1. How much did you save?
2015: $693 billion
2030: $1, 379 billion
2. What % came from tax increases? 60%
3. What % came from spending cuts? 40%

Reflection: 
Some of the easier choices in this activity was to reduce funding for the military and foreign affairs. I think this should be reduced because the U.S. has spent and gave so much money to foreign countries, but we should now focus on domestic affairs and fix our economy and other issues. It was difficult to decide cuts for healthcare and social security because these are important issues people have many complaints about. This task would be much more difficult when votes and compromises are required because cutting certain groups would make them and their supporters upset.

Political Cartoon

1. What is being represented in Obama's actions?

2. Who is affected by these actions?

3. Why did the cartoonist choose this setting and theme to depict his message?

President Research

Abraham Lincoln


Lessons Learned:

1. As the saying goes, "Honesty is the best policy." Lincoln was a trustful man and helped many people throughout his life. He was known for many acts of kindness from his heart, not money. This characteristic would help any president gain support from the people.
2. There's always a solution to a conflict. During his presidency, one of the biggest events Lincoln had to deal with was the Civil War. Though this was a long-term, widely-spread conflict, he still acted to help create a solution. At the time, he did not African American slaves were not equal to white Americans, he passed the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing all slaves of the Confederacy (only 10 states).
3. Success may be found with hard work. Though Lincoln experienced a rough childhood, as his mother died when he was only nine years old and being alienated from his father, he still received and continued with his education. Lincoln was known to be an avid reader who did his schoolwork by a candlelight; he even took time from work to read Shakespeare and other classic literature.
4. Criticism should not be taken as too seriously and adversely. Because Lincoln often spoke against others with his beliefs, he was criticized for going against others' beliefs and his policies. Yet, he still continued his actions with determination and passion. Criticism should be used to help an individual become a better person.
5. Don't be afraid to fight for your beliefs. Lincoln had many opponents who disagreed with him. Regardless, he argued for what he believed was right and, in many cases, won debates with rightful justifications. Having this characteristic, Lincoln helped unite the North and South during the Civil War and settled disputes between African Americans.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/abrahamlincoln
http://millercenter.org/president/lincoln
http://www.biography.com/people/abraham-lincoln-9382540
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/abrahamlincoln/p/plincoln.htm
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h837.html

Campaign Ad Analysis

Propaganda Techniques:
     1. Simple and short: Creating a short and simple allows the audience to easily understand the message you want them to remember. A candidate would not want to create an ad that's too long because the audience would get bored and pay less attention, and may not want to vote for him/her. This ad is only 30 seconds long and shows short, brief phrases that concern the audience, persuading them to vote for Obama in order to fix these problems.

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008/embrace

     2. Use of music/catchy jingle: As this ad demonstrates, incorporating a rhythmic and repetitive message in an ad catches attention from the audience and simplifies complicated issues. Repetition and rhythm of a jingle or music also helps people remember things better, thus, I feel this ad was effective in using this technique.

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1952/ike-for-president

     3. Positivity: In this ad, Obama shows how he's struggled in the past, but stayed positive regardless his let-downs. Showing this positivity is effective in relating to the people and how he will help them in the future as president. 

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008/country-i-believe-in

     4. Scare tactics: This tactic is often used against the candidate's opponent to prevent something from happening that may affect the people negatively. This ad "scares" people by saying Bush would significantly raise taxes, but I don't see this ad to be as effective as others may be.

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1992/scary

     5.Humor/sarcasm: Kerry is criticized and made fun of, making him seem unfit to be president. Humor and sarcasm is often used to make the opposing candidate seem silly and unprofessional, obvious reasons the people do not seek in a president.

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2004/john-kerry-international-man-of-mystery-web

     6. Focus on families/children: Along with similar ads, this shows care and concern for children of future our generations. This brings sympathy because people always want the best for their children and family comes first. This technique is used effectively because it shows the care of Bush for his family and mentions the connections he has with other people; people want a president that will care for them and respond to issues that need to be solved.

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1988/familychildren

Conclusions of the Study:

1. Advertising does little to inform voters, only persuade.
2. Treatment of individuals is exploited and used in campaigns that affect the people.
3. More advertising will not produce a "better" result.

"Electoral College Reform" article

Facts:

1. The electoral college is criticized for being undemocratic and that it is an unreliable device for selecting the President (i.e. Florida's experience).
2. The electoral college is "malapportioned" because each state gets two electoral votes, regardless its population, in addition to votes equal in its delegation in the House.
3. The Supreme Court required that state senators be elected from districts of equal population.
4. People typically don't add the number of votes that all the Republican and all the Democratic senatorial candidates receive in an election and compare the totals.
5. A pure democracy is not only undesired in our country, but also, unattainable; we have a flawed government system.
6. Having an election of the President by the House of Representatives (if no candidate received the majority of electoral votes) is the most democratic component of the governmental structure, which was created at Philadelphia in 1787.
7. In the 2000 election, the difference of votes between Bush and Gore was only 0.5%.
8. The Constitution leaves the manner of selecting electors to state legislatures, placing no limitations on the electors' choice among candidates.
9. The 2000 election was so close that only 3 of 538 electors could swing the election.
10. Gore would have had a plurality, but not majority, of the appointed electors, so the House would have chosen the President.

Questions:

1. If there is no doubt Gore really won in the 2000 election, why do people still question if he may have lost?
2. What does "hoi polloi" mean? 
3. What would the Founding Fathers' reaction be towards the Electoral College today?
4. How can the Electoral College be changed to lessen the possibility of a candidate losing the majority vote, when they should have gotten it?
5. What happens if two candidates tied between three candidates? Would the House have to vote between those two candidates?

Two Articles

Good Times Bad Times
http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?action=issues&proj_id=3791&category=Bailout&type=Project
Facts:

1. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) will cost taxpayers between $66 billion and $105 billion; this may decrease depending on the return for federal shares in insurance American International Group (AIG).
2. About 600 banks with about $65 billion in federal funds are unable, or unwilling, to pay back their TARP funds.
3. In the past two years, 279 banks have failed, the quickest pace since thousands of banks closed from 1982 to 1993.
4. Taxpayers have made $2 billion in profit.
5. Wall Street analyst, Meredith Whitney, predicted that the state government would be next for a trillion-dollar Washington bailout.

Get Over Yourselves

http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?action=issues&proj_id=4951&category=National%20Security&type=Project

Facts:

1. A "super committee" consists of 535 lawmakers representing 300 million Americans.
2. The government's play is to find at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.
3. For revenues, tax loopholes and breaks must be eliminated, so some people and corporations will pay more taxes.
4. Cuts to discretionary spending can result in short and long term savings.
5. The government may be improved by making smart, targeted cuts that serve to prioritize government spending.

Pending Bills

1. H.R. 358: Protect Life Act- To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion services under such Act.
Status: This bill has passed the House and will next be voted on in the Senate

2. H.R. 1002: Wireless Tax Fairness Act of 2011-To restrict any State or local jurisdiction from imposing a new discriminatory tax on cell phone services, providers, or property.
Status: This bill has passed the House and will be going into the Senate.


3. H.R. 1299: Secure Border Act of 2011- To achieve operational control of and improve security at the international borders of the United States, and for other purposes.
Status: This bill was considered in committee which has recommended it be considered by the House as a whole.

I will now examine H.R. 1002: Wireless Tax Fairness Act of 2011 further.
Details Learned:

1. Congress finds it is appropriate to exercise congressional enforcement authority of the commerce clause, section 5 under the 14th Amendment in order to ensure that States do not discriminate against providers and consumers of mobile services by imposing new selective and excessive taxes on such providers and consumers.
2. The federal legislature finds congressional action is necessary to prohibit imposing new discriminatory 
3. taxes on providers and consumers of mobile services.
4. The term ‘mobile service’ means commercial mobile radio service, as such term is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, or any other service that is intended for receipt on, transmission from, or use with a mobile telephone or other mobile device, including, but not limited to, the receipt of a digital good.
5. The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study, throughout the 5-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, to determine how and to what extent taxes imposed by local and State governments on mobile services, mobile service providers, or mobile property, impact the costs consumers pay for mobile services.

Questions:

1. If this becomes a bill/law, what are consequences of breaking it?
2. What is the purpose of the Gao Study of Section 5 of this bill?
3. How do States or Congress start implementing a new tax? (do they have to go through a process/get permission?)

Political Cartoon

1. How might the illustrator feel about GOP debates?

2. What does the "Energizer Bunny" represent?

3. Why did the cartoonist show this in a person's home?

Pennsylvania's 2008 Presidential Election Returns

Facts:

1. Obama won and received 54.7% of counted voting casts, whereas McCain only won 44.3% of the votes.
2. Obama's victory made this the 5th straight presidential election where Democrats won over Pennsylvania.
3. As Joe Biden attempted to win over votes of conservatives in Scranton, northern PA, Obama said many small-town Pennsylvanians "cling to guns or religion" because they are bitter about their economic plight (PA has almost 1 million licensed hunters).
4. McCain spent about three times as many days campaigning in Pennsylvania as Obama.
5. Election overseer groups reported various problems at polls around the state, such as malfunctioning machines, understaffed polling places, and poorly trained election workers.

Pennsylvania's Congressional Districts

Facts:

1. The 1st Congressional District primarily consists of central and South Philadelphia, the city of Chester, Philly's International Airport, and small sections of Delaware County.
2. PA's 3rd Congressional District is 94.4% White, 3.5% Black, 0,5% Asian, 1.3% Hispanic, 0.1% Native American, and .1% other.
3. The 4th Congressional district has a slight Democratic registration edge, though it was voted for Republicans in several elections over the past decade, including for President George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.
4. The 7th Congressional District is 98.56% urban and 1.44% rural.
5. PA's 8th Congressional District is represented by Republican Mike Fitzpatrick, since this year (2011).
6. Republican Lou Barletta has represented the 11th Congressional District since 2011, the first Republican to do so in almost 30 years.
7. The 13th district has been represented by Democrat Allyson Schwartz since 2005; it has been heavily Republican in the past, but is now more Democratic because of demographic changes and redistricting.
8. The 16th Congressional District is one that has been accused of being the result of gerrymandering; it's predominantly suburban and rural, facing issues of suburban sprawl and economic development vs. the need to preserve farmland.
9. The 17th Congressional District is located in the central part of PA and has been represented by Democrat Tim Holden since 2003.
10. The 18th Congressional District consists mainly of southern suburbs of Pittsburgh and is predominantly white and a wealthy area, though it has a diverse range of suburbs.

The Death Penalty

1. When was the death penalty first instated and who was the first victim?
The death penalty can be traced as far back as to the Ancient laws of China, used as a punishment for crimes and the death penalty coded in the Roman Law of the Twelve Tablets in the 5th Century BC. As Britain influenced colonies around Europe and Asia, colonists that broke away from the British may have brought this with them. The first recorded execution in "America" was of George Kendall of Virginia in 1608 (some sources said 1607). He was accused of plotting to betray the British to the Spanish. The first legal execution was in 1622 of Daniel Frank for the crime of theft. Throughout history, death penalty laws and offenses have continuously changed, with various levels of strictness. Each state has their own rules against or for the death penalty, even today.

2. Is it more expensive to imprison someone or punish them with the death penalty?
Before any research on this question, easily, I thought it was much less expensive to use the death penalty than imprisoning them for life. However, I found I was completely incorrect. Though many states vary in costs for the death penalty, the death penalty is generally more expensive than life imprisonment. This is mainly because selecting members of the jury is a much longer process than other trials (because it takes months to be questioned on if he/she is for or against the death penalty), whereas a general murder trial may be completed in a couple of days. Death penalty cases are also longer because defendants have the opportunity to present additional information those of a murder trial cannot. With longer trials come more money, necessary to pay all members involved. Thus, it might actually be easier to imprison a criminal for life than to sentence them to death.

3. What other countries have the death penalty?
Countries across the world have various rules for the death penalty. The map below is a simpler way to show which countries may still use the death penalty. Countries in red have the death penalty, those in green use it under rare "special circumstances," those in orange have, but have not used it in at least 10 years, and countries in blue do not have this capital punishment. From this information, I wonder if people may consider this factor when deciding where they may want to live? Also, what may one conclude or infer about countries with or without the death penalty?

Sources: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/history.html
http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://deathpenaltyblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/08/what-makes-the-death-penalty-s.html
http://ourtimes.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/executions-in-2008/
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/map-which-countries-use-the-death-penalty/241490/

"The Power Game-How Washington Works"

Facts/Details:

1. In the summer of 1979, President Carter described Washington as an island "isolated from the mainstream of our nation's life."
2. Many people believe Washington is disconnected from the country.
3. In Washington, Congress works from Monday afternoon to Friday morning, to give them more time with constituents and hold their connections with their voters.
4. In midterm elections, one or two dozen new congressmen and senators publicize new messages from the country for the old hands.
5. Taking a job in Washington may affect one's lifestyle in buying homes, raising children, worrying about parking places, and street crime.
6. Newcomers expand their fame and political power by making alliances, joining groups, getting appointed to committees, making contacts with the press, and having friends in the administration.
7. Politicians seem to make very few deep friendships because almost every relationship is tainted by gaining power.
8. Elliott Richardson, a Republican from Boston, held four cabinet positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, but failed when he attempted to be in the U.S. Senate.
9. Many politicians, lobbyists, lawyers, experts, consultants, and journalists are all attracted to having a career in Washington.
10. Politicians see New York State Congressman Jack Kemp as less influential than Trent Lott of Mississippi, the House Republican whip.

Questions: 

1. Who is the author referring to when he says "old hands"? (page 90/ fact 4 above)
2.  How would you define "jargon"?
3. Why is it that people see politicians as corrupt, even though they are trying to, for the most part, improve our society?
4. Do other countries differ in methods of making themselves well-known in the world of politics?
5. How might politicians be "less corrupt" if this problem is caused by money, and money is always related to politics?
6. How many college students decide they want to become a politician and work in Washington?
7. How does Washington attract so many people? What makes it so appealing to others?
8. At what age do politicians usually start working in Washington? Retire?
9. Is working in Washington more or less stressful than other careers?
10. How much influence do politicians really have on citizens of our country?

Terry Gross Interview- "How Birth Control and Abortion Became Politicized"

Facts:

1. Opponents argued granting rights of person-hood to a fertilized egg would make abortion a crime and outlaw certain forms of birth control.
2. Margaret Sanger operated the first birth control clinic in the U.S.
3. The first birth control clinic opened in 1916.
4. Sanger came from an Irish, Catholic family; she was one of 11 children
5. Sanger helped deliver baby when she was 8 years old; her mother died of tuberculosis.
6. During her time, it was illegal to distribute information, mail, or write about contraception.
7. Sanger expected to get arrested when she opened her clinic because she was going to give out information about birth control, even though it was illegal.
8. 41% of women who received care never used contraceptives; out of these women,an average had at least 1 abortion.
9. Sanger was accused of being eugenic.
10. Madison Grant and Paul Popenoe were eugenics; they believed the population can improve by only letting the biologically "fit" to reproduce.

Questions:

1. Have there been more or less abortions after the Roe vs. Wade case, making abortion legal (protected by the Constitution)?
2. Were there more women that agreed with Sanger,opposing abortion, or did more women disagree?
3. Why was Sanger not allowed to give out information about contraception, even if women wanted it?
4. How do other countries handle the issue of abortion?
5. What are risks of having an abortion? Any risks of use of contraceptives?
6. Is it expensive to have an abortion?

Representatives' Committees

Robert Andrews' Committees:

• member of House Committee on Armed Services
• member of House Committee on Education and the Workforce (subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions)

Bob Casey, Jr.'s Committees (is part of more than listed below):

• In the Senate committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Casey is chairman of the subcommittee Production, Income Protection and Price Support; member of subcommittee Hunger, Nutrition, and Family Farms; member of Rural Revitalization, Conservation, Forestry, and Credit
• Is a member of the subcommittee on European Affairs
• Is a member of the subcommittee on Children and Families and Retirement and Aging

Facts:

1. Chairman of the Armed Services Committee is Bob McKeon.
2. McKeon completely banned earmarks within legislation of the committee.
3. McKeon has also forced every legislative proposal offered by a member to stand on national security merits in order to be adopted.
4. Chairman of the subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions is Phil Roe of Tennessee. 
5. This subcommittee has jurisdiction over all matters dealing with relationships between employers and employees, retirement security, employee benefits, and equal employment opportunities and civil rights in employment.
6. Andrews is a minority member of this subcommittee.
7. Debbie Stabenow is the Chairwoman of the committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
8. Casey is one of 11 majority members; there are 10 minority members.
9. In 1825, Senator Findlay argued agriculture was one of "three great branches of domestic industry" along with commerce and manufacturing. 
10. This committee focuses on commodity prices and income supports, trade, research, food safety, nutrition, and conservation.

"Lost in Detention"

Facts:

1. About 400,000 immigrants were detained/deported this year.
2. Under Obama's presidency, there has been a significant increase in finding illegal immigrants compared to presidency under Bush.
3. Federal, state, and local governments work together to find illegal immigrants, especially since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
4. In the previous year, 195,000 people were removed from the U.S. because of crimes they committed.
5. ICE is the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
6. ICE has offices in all 50 states and 47 other countries.
7. ICE's goal is to get 400,000 illegal immigrants every year.
8. People believe the government should reform the law because families are torn apart when American-born children lose their parents, when they are deported for being in the U.S. illegally.
9. 36% of undocumented people that live in the U.S. have a family and lived in the U.S. for 11+ years.
10. Three million immigrants have been detained in detentions, where they are kept until they are sent back to their originating country.

Questions:

1. Why has there been an increase of illegal immigrants just recently/the past couple years?
2. How could the government change the laws to protect children with deported parents?
3. How are harmless illegal immigrants found when they generally blend with U.S. citizens?
4. How do other countries deal with illegal immigrants within their nation?
5. What may cause ICE to find more or less illegal immigrants in our country?

West Wing: The Stackhouse Filibuster

Connections:

1. Once the filibuster is over, the Senate votes, called a cloture vote, ending the filibuster.
2. Rules of a filibuster are you cannot eat or drink anything, use the restrooms, sit down, or lean on anything.
3. In a filibuster, you are allowed to stall as long as you want, as long as you're able to and don't violate any rules.
4. The Special Needs Adoption Awareness program is a national campaign that provides information to the public, informing them about the adoption of special needs children.
5. The Family Wellness Act is a health bill that focuses on diseases that mostly affect children.
6. The filibuster has been a parliamentary strategy in the U.S. for over 150 years.
7. The word "filibuster" comes from a Dutch word, " ury geiter," literally meaning "freebooter," which they meant as "buccaneer."
8. The senator speaking in the filibuster may pause if someone asks a question.

Questions:

1. Is asking a question during a filibuster also considered a filibuster if it is stalling the bill even more, as it gives the original filibustering senator a break?
2. What other methods are used in the Senate to stall a bill, besides a filibuster?
3. What types of bills/situations would senators usually want to use a filibuster for?
4. Is it possible to stall the voting process in the House? If so, how?
5. Does the House or President have any say or action in the filibuster?

PA's System for Electoral College Votes

Facts:

1. In September 2011, Governor Tom Corbett and Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi suggested a plan to change the way PA awards it electoral votes of the winner-takes-all system.
2. The new system would include one electoral vote to be given to each state's Congressional district, and the winner of the popular vote would receive two more.
3. I PA had gotten rid of the winner-take-all system in 2008, President Obama would have bare beaten John McCain in a 11-10 vote, instead of taking all 21 electoral votes.
4. Democrats have won PA in the last five presidential elections, yet it still remains competitive. 
5. Giving two electoral votes to the state winner won't motivate candidates to campaign, as they should, to win the votes.
6. Changing the system would not create a significant improvement for society, and may even make matters worse for existing problems of the electoral college.
7. Republicans worried that Democrats would spend more money for resources in swing congressional districts that were won by them because it's possible to change the state's political standing.
8. The concept of awarding electoral votes by congressional district was introduced and followed by since the 1950s, when a republican senator and GOP Rep. wanted to fight the liberal push for direct popular election of President.
9. A secretive, nonprofit group called All Votes Matter has been pushing the electoral vote scheme since May in PA.
10. Between April and June, this group spent $77,700 to get support from legislation to actually implement this scheme.

Questions:

1. How is the Electoral College "broken"?
2. How could Congress improve the electoral college system on a national level?
3. Does Pileggi think his plan is more beneficial or useless for PA and why?
4. Would this plan change the political standing of several states or have no effect (if a state is democrat or republican)?
5. How might elections affect the economy?

John Boehner, Speaker of the House

Facts:

1. Boehner failed to cut a multi-trilliondollar deficit-reduction deal with President Obama.
2. He threatened defiant Republicans by taking away committee assignments, which lawmakers laughed at.
3. He believes it's important to discuss spending less money, not more.
4. Boehner and other Republicans use their power over Congress to cut about $1 trillion from the budget over the next decade.
5. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was once a rising rival.
6. No one characterizes House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy as a threat to Boehner
7. Representative of Arizona, Jeff Flake, believes Boehner attempts to have a more open process and open rules.
8. Boehner doesn't always seem too successful but is able to come back out from political defeats because of his consistency on the floor.

Questions:

1. How much power does Boehner (or the Speaker of the House in general) have over the House?
2. How might he demonstrate he is able to work towards making laws with Obama and Reid?
3. What could Boehner do to be more successful in passing laws and bringing more agreements in the House?
4. How does the Senate and President view Boehner?
5. Does Boehner have any major accomplishments as Speaker of the House?

Is the U.S. House too small?

Facts from article:

1. The House has consisted of 435 members since 1911.
2. Since 1911, the average population of U.S. Congressional districts has more than tripled, going from 200,000 to 640,000 citizens.
3. If the House were to increase in size, there would be 650 seats (taking the cube root of the U.S.'s population.
4. A poll showed about 20% of the public believes in increasing the size of the House, about 60% believe it should be kept as it is, and 20% thinks there should be less members.
5. Research finds members of larger districts may have a more difficult time connecting with and representing their constituents.

Questions:

1. Are illegal immigrants counted in the U.S. census? (Do they count in the U.S. population?) If yes, how might this affect the number of seats in the House?
2. What restrictions or rules may be added (or removed) if the number if seats in the House increases or decreases?
3. How did they determine there would be 435 from only 65 (in 1789) members of the House before?
4. Are there more advantages or disadvantages in having a larger House?
5. Does the size of the House have a significant effect on the economy(their pay, assets, etc.)?

I believe there should not be more seats in the House. Sure the population has significantly increased, however, most citizens only vote in the presidential elections. Having a larger House would make things more difficult in agreeing on things and passing anything in general. Increasing the number of seats in the House may also call for more restrictions, rules, and regulations within the House because there'd be so many members to control and consider in the voting process. The House would seem to be much more crowded and chaotic than it already is 435 seats, so having 650 may just make things more hectic. 

Illegal Immigration

Jason P.- How many total illegal immigrants are in the United States? 
Using the latest government and private sources, research, and analysis of data, immigrationcounters.com provides an increasing number and costs of illegal immigrants. Though this continues to change (generally increasing) there are currently about 24,000,000 illegal immigrants in our country. In previous years, ICE has deported over 400,000 immigrants (which is there goal every year).

Rachael D.- Are there any advantages to the economy when hiring illegal immigrants? Or is it all disadvantages?
Some advantages of illegal immigrants are they help and contribute in the work of certain industries. Like all employers, the work these immigrants do help the company maintain their business. These business are mainly in construction, agriculture, hospitality, and tourism. Sure these people may be taking away jobs from the unemployed in our country, however, they most likely wouldn't want these jobs to begin with. Taxpayers may be unaware, but illegal immigrants pay taxes too. Many work illegally, but pay their tax returns and have identification cards assigned to them by the government.

Abby M.-Under what circumstances, if any, can the legal immigrants in our country be deported? 
Legal immigrants can be deported through many wrongful actions. A person may be deported if he/she violates the Immigration and Nationality Act or any U.S. law. If they were a non-immigrant and violated conditions of entering the U.S., he/she may be deported. If a person's conditional permanent residence is terminated, he/she may be deported. If one encourages or helps others in coming into the U.S. illegally, he/she may be deported. One may also be deported for failing to register or falsifying documents while entering the U.S., convicting criminal offenses, engaging in unlawful voting, or participating in any activity which may endanger public safety or risk national security.

Sources:
http://immigrationcounters.com/
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/jul/23/costs-benefits-illegal-immigration-unequal/
http://www.fundamentalfinance.com/blogs/illigal-immigration.php

http://immigration.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-deportation/immigration-deportation-overview.html

Representatives' Personal Finances

Bob Casey's net worth ranges from $160,020 to $578,000. He is ranked 84th in the Senate and has 14 assets totaling between $160,020 to $578,000. He's had three transactions, totaling $45,003 to $150,000.

Robert Andrews's net worth ranges from $66,005 to $206,000. Andrews is only ranked 346th in the House. He has five assets totaling in the range of $81,005 to $216,000. He's also had one liability totaling $10,000 to $15,000.

I completely agree with the author of this website. I believe it is important to know, or at least be aware of, congressional members' finances. Out of the one percent of millionaires in America, about 40 to 50 percent of them are members of Congress! Because of this, I wonder if they pay higher taxes too, if they are increased? These members generally don't worry about and aren't affected by the economy like other citizens are. From the information given, it seems like the congressmen would be able to get away with things (if any suspicion exists) because their reports are only filed once a year and it doesn't include all aspects of their financial disclosures.

Due Process Program- "Last Resort"

Facts/Details:

1. The U.S. has 55 innocence projects, funded by the government and based in law schools, within our country and seven international projects, including in the United Kingdom, China, and Australia.
2. According to Jim McCloskey, member of Centurion Ministries, there are thousands of innocent prisoners in America convicted for very serious crimes; to help, he has solved and freed 44 innocent prisoners in the last 31 years.
3. This group looks for people serving a long period of time in prison (i.e. for life), usually involved in murder and rape crimes.
4. The majority of their cases deal with non-DNA evidence cases, relying on information about claims of witnesses.
5. Most innocent people are convicted because of false confessions, lying of witnesses, and eyewitness false identification.
6. They often work for cases for 10-15 years.
7. There are many factors taken into consideration for identification such as DNA, fingerprints, eyewitness evidence, and other forensic science assets.
8. Texas has more exonerations than any other state.
9. It takes 25 years from the time of a death sentence to an execution.
10. It costs about $187 million more to keep someone on death row than in the general population, and costs an additional $400 million to build a new death row.

Questions:

1. Does the law now require real evidence before convicting a suspect for a crime?
2. In what ways could we prevent innocent people from being convicted?
3. Would people consider this issue to be under the states' or government's responsibility to act, if there are changes to be done?
4. Though people have may been proved to be innocent and are free from prison, do they find the actual criminals that committed the crime?
5. What happens if they exonerated a person they thought were innocent, but were really guilty of the crime?

Justice Stevens' Rasul v. Bush Case

Facts:

1. The American military has a base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
2. During the United States' War on Terror, four British and Australian citizens were captured in Pakistan or Afghanistan and transported to this base in Cuba.
3. The government argued that the federal courts had no jurisdiction to hear this case because the prisoners were not American citizens and were being held in territory that the U.S. did not have power over.
4. This court was dismissed after it was confirmed by the district court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia we did not have jurisdiction over this case.
5. It was ruled in a 6 to 3 vote that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to consider legal appeals filed to foreign citizens held by the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba.
6. Stevens wrote that the right to habeus corpus is not dependent on citizenship status, so the prisoners were allowed to challenge their suit claiming it was unconstitutional.

Questions:

1. Why were the prisoners in the Middle East sent to a base in Cuba?
2. How many military bases does the United States around the world?
3. Was there a reasonable cause for actually capturing these prisoners, or was it just because it was during the War on Terror?
4. Would this case be dealt with in a different manner if the prisoners were taken to the U.S. or a different country?

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_334

Current Justices of the Supreme Court

Facts/Questions:

1. John G. Roberts Jr., Chief Justice, was Special Assistant to the Attorney General, U.S.  Department of Justice from 1981-1982, Associate Counsel to President Reagan, White House Counsel's Office from 1982-1986 and Principal Deputy Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice from 199-1993.
2. Antonin Scalia was appointed Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1982.
3. Anthony M. Kennedy was nominated as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and took seat on February 18, 1988.
4. Clarence Thomas served as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, and as Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 1982-1990.
5. President Obama appointed both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
6. On average, what age do Justices normally decide to retire?
7. What do Justices do on a daily basis if they are not dealing with a court case?
8. Are candidates for justices suggested by the President's cabinet or the legislature if the president doesn't have someone in mind?
9. What qualities does the President look for while thinking about who to appoint as a new Supreme Court Justice?
10. How long does the process of appointing and confirming a new Justice take?

Court Cases

1) Brown v. Pro Football Inc.- 1995
The NFL Players Association, a labor union, negotiated a plan with the NFL. The NFL proposed a plan that would give the same pay to substitute players: $1000 weekly salary. The union disagreed and players were brought into an antitrust suit. This interested me because I don't normally think of football as a case that'd is necessary to be dealt with in court, especially one that reaches the Supreme Court. This case resulted in an 8 to 1 vote saying several employers are immune from a union anti-trust suit when the employers unilaterally impose terms on the union, as they bargain together.

2) BMW v. Gore- 1995
Ira Gore, Jr. purchased a new vehicle from Alabama's BMW dealership, discovering the new vehicle had been repainted. Gore sued BMW for committing fraud and not informing him the car had been repainted. The Alabama Circuit Court awarded Gore with $4000 for the damages and $2 million in punitive damage. However, Alabama's Supreme Court ruled the punitive damages were "grossly excessive" and violated BMW's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Results were 5 to 4 vote for BMW. I found this case interesting because I agreed with the court that the man received a "grossly excessive" of $2 million! The Fourteenth Amendment's due process protected BMW because they were not aware of the severe punishment they'd be facing.

3) AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board-1998
Throughout history, monopolies have been broken in anti-trust suits to stop one company from dominating and taking over other corporations and small businesses. An example is the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and local exchange carriers (LECs), which regulate competitive business practices. In this case, AT&T challenged their constitutionality, along with other phone service providers. The case resulted in a 7 to 1 vote (1 undecided?) declaring the FCC has the authority to implement competition-inducing guidelines set out in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. This caught my attention because it didn't seem like a typical case, as it involved AT&T. At first I thought it'd be a major case involving a serious suit, but it was not. However, it may still be significant because it affects the economy and other businesses.

Roe vs. Wade

Facts/Details Learned:

1. A pregnant woman's privacy differs from others because she is carrying another life within her.
2. Texas believes life begins at conception and is shown through pregnancy, so a woman should be protected during and after conception.
3. A physician or scientist may determine when a fetus is viable, able to live outside the mother's womb; this is often seven months (28 weeks), or even at 24 weeks, through the pregnancy.
4. States believe in preserving and protecting the health of a pregnant woman,  whether she be resident or nonresident of that state, to protect potential human life.
5. After the end of the first trimester, the morality of abortion may be less than morality in normal childbirth.
6. A state may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent of preserving and protecting maternal health.
7. The "compelling point" is at the end of the first trimester; also at viability.
8. Article 1196 of the Texas Penal Code restricts legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother."
9. The statute is very broad and makes no distinction between abortion performed early in the pregnancy versus those performed later.
10. The majority of federal and state courts resulted in state laws being unconstitutional because of the vagueness or overbroadness of rights.

Questions:

1. How was the issue of abortion handled before this case?
2. How do physicians or scientists determine whether or not, and when, a fetus is viable?
3. If federal and state court laws are often said to be unconstitutional, shouldn't they change them? (Possibly make them more specific or fitting for modern interpretations)
4. How exactly do states "preserve and protect" the health of pregnant women?
5. Was it more common to have an abortion in the past, with risky medical procedures, or today, with modern medical techniques that are more safe?

West Wing Episode

Connections:
1. Marriage is an enumerated power (states decide laws).
2. Justices are usually replaced by the same gender/ ethnicity.
3. Candidates are interviewed to replace the conservative justice.
4. The president appoints the new justice, but others may suggest a person if he does not know who to choose.
5. Use of affirmative action to appoint a justice.
6. Reference of Roe vs. Wade- woman allowed to have an abortion was protected by the Consitution.
7. People have the right to privacy.
8. Consideration of conservative justice to be replaced by a moderate (could go either liberal or conservative in decisions).

Questions:
1. If a Supreme Court Justice is usually replaced by on of their same race/gender, wouldn't it be very exclusive (limit who can become a justice)?
2. Do the people believe a justice shouldn't be chosen based on their ethnicity, race, or gender, but on their experience and how capable they are of handling a court case?
3. Would one consider affirmative action as unconstitutional?
4. How long does the process of replacing a justice take?
5. Would it be more beneficial or a disadvantage to have a moderate justice, because their views may go either way?

Federalist #78

Questions for Hamilton:

1. If there is a conflict between the executive and legislative branch, would the judicial branch be able to step in to help solve the problem?
2. Do justices have any other responsibilities besides interpreting the law and deciding court cases?
3. We often say the power resides with the people, so do people have the power to control justices as well (though they are appointed by the executive branch)?
4. Is there a process justices go through if they are removed from their position, or are they just stripped from their power and they leave?
5. Do their political beliefs affect their decisions in court cases (if they are conservative vs. liberal)?

"...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 seems to limit the judicial branch's power of their actions. Because he includes "always", does he imply that the judicial branch may never be as involved in the government, as the executive and legislative branch?

"...all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices during good behavior." What would you consider "good behavior"? This may be difficult to judge, for there is no fine line to distinguish good from bad (though there are obvious good and bad actions one may have done).

"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." Because Hamilton believes the judicial branch is weakest of the three, it sounds as if they must rely on the executive branch to protect themselves. Though I wonder if Hamilton says this literally or about a judges's decisions.

"It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people." Because members of the judicial branch are appointed by the president, do the people have any say or power over the judicial branch as well?

"To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." Could a judge be chosen for a certain case because of the way they view/interpret the Constitution? What if there is a case a judge doesn't know how to deal with because there are no precedents to base their decision off of?

2000 Election Reading (2)

Facts learned from reading:
1. A minimalist generally says no more than necessary to decide a court case; this seems to limit actions and involvement of the judiciary in American government.
2. A subminimalist is someone who say less than what is required to justify a certain outcome.
3. The majority of the 2000 Supreme Court were conservative justices.
4. The Supreme Court justices voted 5-4 to resolve  the presidential election, not by unanimously voting.
5. President Bush argued that the manual recount violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses because there were no cleat standards to ensure equal treatment for the situated people.
6. On December 9, Florida's Supreme Court ruled, with a 4-3 vote, that a manual recount was required by state law; this made it unclear whether Bush or Gore would win.
7. During the 2000 election, William Rehnquist was the Chief Justice.
8. Five members of the Court accepted the equal protection argument (should count dimpled chads).

Post reading questions:
1. Why would the Supreme Court minimize their voice of a case (be minimalist or subminimalist) and how could they get away with doing this?
2. If a situation like this occurred again, would the federal government regulate the voting system/ use the same method to vote, to standardize the voting process?
3. Because this situation does not occur often, would their decision be used as a precedent in the future?
4. Were other states affected by this as well, or only the state of Florida and the federal government?
5. Is there any way to successfully count every vote during an election?

"The Common Good"

"The common good" is a very broad concept that may be interpreted in various ways. This idea originated back from the writing of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. A modern ethicist, John Rawls, defined it as "certain general conditions that are...equally to everyone's advantage." The "common good" has also been defined as "the sum of these conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment," by the Catholic tradition. As examples in the essay, the authors listed multiple political, economic, and social systems that may be referred to as part of "the common good." However, some may believe the common good does not exist. I agree, because our world is not perfect; however, it seems as though we still aim for this goal, in order to become a better nation.

A few examples listed were an accessible and affordable public health care system, peace among the nations of the world, and an unpolluted natural environment. Recently, health care has been a major issue, and still has not been resolved. Different plans have been proposed to solve this issue, such as universal health care (by President Obama), but one has not been laid out just yet. Next, people often wish for world peace, but this just seems impossible. Because each nation suffered from different foreign conflicts throughout history, it leaves nations continuously competing against each other, wanting to be "the best" in any way possible. There is also the desire to preserve nature and an unpolluted environment. This has become a more serious issue because of much deforestation, global warming, and various pollutions that have occurred throughout history and contributed to making this goal almost impossible. Factories and automobiles frequently pollute our air with the usage of gas, much sewage and waste pollutes water in different parts of the world, and the list goes on. However, with the desire to have the common good, people now try to save energy, recycle, and preserve land to protect the natural environment.

Overall, I think it is just human nature, people's competitiveness, our imperfections, and diverse beliefs (which may also lead to conflicts) that prevent us from really having a society where everyone is equal and have advantages from various social systems, institutions, and environments. Thus, "the common good" is merely a goal we dream of achieving, but is almost impossible because no one is perfect.

Checking in on Politicians (Robert Andrews)

Robert Andrews has been a U.S. Representative of New Jersey's First Congressional District since 1989. He has only missed 797 (6%) of 13,556 roll call votes since January 1, 1991. Andrews sponsored 560 bills since January 3, 1991 of which 553 have not made it out of the committee; only 2 were successfully enacted. He also co-sponsored 2,782 bills during the same time period. Some of his most recently sponsored bills include H.R. 3093: For the relief of Dmitry Efimovich Lyusin, H.Con.Res. 39: Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the freedom, security, and stability of Taiwan, and H.R. 1169: National Guard Technician Equity Act. Andrews is also a member of the House Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Healthcare Post #2

Although the topic of health care has created much debate and controversy, no solution has been created to end everyone's conflicts. Many complain of Obama's health care policy because they claim the federal government will take over health care, it may be too expensive to fund universal health care, or universal health care will take away from jobs of the insurance companies. So many people probably wonder "how can this be solved?" We may not have a perfect plan to solve everything, but there are ideas that may help.

Having the government take over health care would upset many people for various reasons. For one, workers of insurance companies would lose their jobs, which worsens the issue of unemployment. Next, this would give more power to the government, allowing them to control the procedures, tests, and prescriptions doctors give to their patients. Patients may worry about being neglected in the universal health care plan because they may have to wait to be seen if doctors see other patients with worse conditions, even if they should have been seen first. Having the government control all health care may also be troublesome because they would probably raise taxes to fund health services. If the bill for universal health care is actually passed, I think the government should have it run by the people, but they may fund it with taxes. These taxes should mainly be from the upper (rich) class and our country should spend less on the military. This way, the government would be able to spend that money on health care, and possibly also fund for the retired--social security. If this is successful, state/federal governments also shouldn't but school and education budgets (we, as students, are affected by this!).

As the conflict of health care continues, citizens must wait patiently for a solution. In creating a satisfying plan, the government must consider many factors: would they be able to fund it? How much money do people earn--would they be able to afford it? Would it be more beneficial or be harmful to the people of our country? We can only hope for the best outcome and solution to this major issue.

2000 Election Film

Facts from the film:

1. Katherine Harris is the Secretary of State of Florida during the 2000 election.
2. Bush won the election in a 5 to 4 ruling of the Supreme Court, when the recount was ordered to end on December 12th.
3. During the recount, 175,010 ballots had to be examined in 67 counties.
4. Democrats believe that Gore lost 8,000 because of the mistakes in the ballots.
5. The recounts mainly focused on 61,000 "undervote" ballots, ballots that didn't have a distinct vote for either candidates.
6. Gore advisers pushed to count "dimpled chads" in the recount. 
7. It took 36 days after the election to finally announce who the new president was, though people are still unsure about who may have actually won.
8. Before the recount, Bush was certified as the winner of the election, just by 537 votes.

Questions:

1. Who decides if a county should have a recount?
2. How many times do they run ballots through machines if they get a different number each time?
3. What made citizens realize they voted incorrectly?
4. How long does it take to recount votes?
5. In this situation, would the federal government deal with issues states may not be able to solve?
6. How could they have reduced error in the voting process?
7. Who partakes in recounting the votes?
8. If the mistakes were made in the 2000 election, is it possible a former president won from similar mistakes of counting votes incorrectly?

2000 Election Reading

Pre-Reading Questions:
1. What is a reasonable length of time for a recount to occur?
2. Could we ever find out if Gore actually won instead of Bush, or did Bush really win?
3. How many times has a recount occurred?
4. Who participated to help recount the votes?
5. Were the "recounters" more Democratic or Republican?

Facts/Details Learned From the Reading:
1. Palm Beach used the "butterfly ballot" in the 2000 election, placing the names of the candidates in two columns with the punch holes between them.
2. The 2000 election ended by a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court decision.
3. Ginsberg and Breyer are two of four activist liberal judges on the court who ignore the Constitution, substituting with their own extremely liberal social and cultural preferences.
4. The case of Romer vs. Evans created special voting rights for homosexuals.
5. Liberals view conservatives not as enemies, but as sexist, racist, and hysterical about homosexuality.

Post Reading Questions:
1. How could they improve voting methods, to reduce possible mistakes?
2. Would the results be different if the recount cutoff was on December 18th, instead of December 12th?
3. Can a Supreme Court justice be removed from their position for being prejudice in a court case?
4. Did people argue it would have been worth tolerating the stress for six more days to fully complete the recount and be closer to truly knowing the winner of the election?
5. What would happen if there was a tie in a presidential election?

Checking in on Politicians (Bob Casey)

Bob Casey Jr. has been a U.S. Senator since 2007. He is an active member in various committees and is chairman of the Joint Economic Committee. Casey only missed 4 of 1,519 roll call votes since January 8, 2007. He has sponsored 174 bills since January 4, 2007 of which 170 haven't made it out of committee and non were successfully enacted. Casey also co-sponsored 733 bills during the same time period. Some of his most recent sponsored bills are S. 1239: Fallen Heroes of 9/11 Act, S. 958: Children's Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2011, and S. 1614: Computer Science Education Act of 2011.

Healthcare Post #1

To better understand the topic of healthcare, I did some research about what Obamacare actually proposes, since I've heard many complaints about this plan. To begin, Obamacare focuses on three main components: an employer mandate, an individual mandate, and a government run healthcare system. The "employer mandate" forces and requires all employers to pay for health benefits for their workers. If they fail to do so, business owners will be given higher taxes. Although it may be beneficial for workers to have their healthcare paid for, people may see this as a disadvantage, especially business owners and employers, because raising taxes could reduce the number of workers to be hired if there is not enough money to support the workers and the business itself.

Next, Obamacare proposes an "individual mandate." With this overture, those without healthcare will be forced to be a part of an individual health insurance company. If not, you must join a government-run plan. This would create universal healthcare in our country, as President Obama wanted. Those against Obamacare, however, would argue that the government would then take over healthcare, and all the insurance companies would be removed from the market.

Obamacare also proposes a government-run healthcare system. With this plan, individual health insurance companies would no longer exist, as mentioned earlier. The government may then raise taxes to fund healthcare. Although this may be a misunderstanding. From another source, I found this may be false because the Affordable Care Act would make healthcare be controlled by the people, not the government. Families and individuals that don't have access to affordable coverage would be able to receive tax credits to help them purchase private health insurance. 


From this research, it is difficult for me to still decide which side to take. From the sources I've found, both sides seemed biased in the reading, so I am not sure how healthcare should be dealt with.


sources: http://www.atr.org/obamacare-a3568
http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/myths-and-facts#healthcare-menu

"Faction"

James Madison defines the word "faction" as "a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Madison seems to see factions as groups of people with different opinions concerning the government and were created for that purpose. He seems to loathe the creation of factions because of people's such diverse beliefs, which may cause conflicts of different parties; he describes methods to "curing the mischief of factions" and "removing the causes of factions."

Questions for Madison:
1. Why do you have such a negative look on factions?
2. Do you think factions are more beneficial or harmful to society/our government?
3. How were factions created? Could they be taken out?
4. Did members of factions act aggressively?
5. Did factions have a say in government?

My definition of faction: a group of people with similar interests, beliefs, and goals in the government

Today, example of factions may be the Republican and Democratic parties. These two groups both have their opinions about the government and the Constitution. However, they also have many different beliefs and interpretations. This allows people to categorize themselves into certain groups based on their beliefs in politics and society.

Two Members of Congress

Bob Casey, Jr. is one of the U.S. Senators of Pennsylvania and is in the Democratic Party.


Robert Andrews is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for New Jersey's first congressional district and is a member of the Democratic Party.

Political Ideology Results

Based on your response to the questions on the political ideology survey, I am  a moderate liberal.

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

• Robert Andrews (D - NJ, 1st District)
• Jay Inslee (D - WA, 1st District)
• Jim Moran (D - VA, 8th District)

U.S. Constitution Questions

Rachael asked: If we did not have a constitution would there be more or less chaos?


If we did not have a constitution, there would our country would probably be more chaotic. Without any rules or regulations from the government, people do whatever they want, as they please. This may lead to a dangerous environment, with criminals roaming throughout the country and having no rules to stop them. Without a constitution for the whole country to follow, each state may be forced to create their own rules and regulations, taking away unity of our country. Each state may then act as their own separate country.


Aaron asked: It has been such a long time since the constitution was written, why has there only been a few changes? Why hasn't it been fully re-written at this point?


There have been very few changes to our constitution because of the structure of our government. The power of our country have been divided between three branches, increasing diverse opinions and possible arguments. Checks and balances allow each branch to override the other if they disagree with a proposal, such as revising the Constitution. It probably hasn't been completely rewritten because it is a good basis of rules everyone should follow and because people may not feel the need to rewrite the entire thing.

Federalist #51

Questions for Madison:

1. Is it truly possible to distribute power equally between various branches?
2. How would the U.S. be different if checks and balances did not exist?
3. Do you think the people of the U.S. would ever be united enough to make decisions on their own, instead of giving power to government too?
4. Can the people "check or balance" the three branches of government?
5. What happens if there is conflict within one of the three branches? Can it not be reviewed by another branch at all?

" It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government." Is this suggesting that it is human nature for people to want to have power (which may be why we created a democracy)? If Madison believes the government is a reflection of human nature, how so?

" If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." I don't think we wouldn't ever not have a government because wouldn't that make us Communists? Plus, I believe the U.S. population is too great for everyone to agree on how the country should be run/to contribute in deciding what should be done on a national level.

"We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other -- that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights." The U.S. government has stressed on dividing power between various offices, branches, etc. However, how would things get accomplished if we had a direct democracy, where all citizens would vote on every law? 

"The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." Here, Madison seems to describe our government as a cycle of power and decision-making, which in turn, has an effect on its own position. Is it beneficial for the government to "control itself"?

"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit." How does justice bring an end to government and civil society? If it does, would it be wrong for people to say "justice is served" after a court case?

Federalist #10

Questions for James Madison:

1. Although women did not have many rights in your time, did you ever consider what their opinions may be about the government?
2. How would the government be different if the Constitution was based more on the New Jersey Plan?
3. What if the Constitution was created based on a democracy, instead of a republic?
4. Do you believe it is a part of human nature for people to, in a way, be corrupt because of "increasing distrust of public engagements"?
5. How did you compromise with different factions who strongly opposed your ideas?

"There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects." This seems like a reasonable statement that I agree with. However, I wonder how could you remove the cause of mischief if it already caused a problem? Also, is it really possible to prevent it from happening/causing mischief?

"There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests." I wonder how Madison believed you can 'give every citizen the same opinions..' because they may still form opposition towards the government. Here, Madison also suggests taking away one's liberty would remove the cause of a faction, but couldn't that worsen the case because the people may be angered by not having that certain freedom?

"As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves." I agree with these statements because your opinions greatly influence the decisions you make. These two factors will always come hand-in-hand and affect each other.

"With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens?" I think this statement is fair because it gives power to more individuals and forces us to have multiple branches of government.

"The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations." As this quote describes, it is significant for people to share political/public views, especially in those that are beneficial for our country and people. People's agreements will limit conflicts within our country.

Facts and Questions from "Democracy in America"

Facts:

1. The Constitution delegated few powers to the government, and most to the states.
2. Gray wolves were brought to Yellow Stone National Park in 1973, after the Endangered Species Act was passed.
3. Farmers believed dogs and wolves were a threat to people. 
4. The people of Idaho wanted to remove wolves from their State because they've killed their livestock and deer.
5. All citizens of the United States have a say about public land.
6. Idaho must create a plan of what to do with the wolves and the wolves must have a "stable" population, before they are to be removed from the state of Idaho.
7. The government would use the "stick approach," where the states would be forced to do what the government tells them or else state funds would be set back.
8. South Carolina refused to have a standard blood-alcohol concentration law because they enjoyed being able to live in a place where they have these freedoms; if they didn't create this law, however, their highway funds would be taken away.
9. Other citizens of South Carolina (and of other states) wanted a national standard of .08 being the legal limit as a blood-alcohol concentration law.
10. In the past, poverty was dealt with by the communities; however Franklin Roosevelt proposed the New Deal and helped the poor.

Questions:

1. Did people in Idaho ever move/think of moving to get away from the wolves?
2. Would it be against the government's morals to bribe/threaten a state?
3. How might states be "rewarded" for doing what Washington asks?
4. Should the people have a say in what to do with the endangered species?
5. What made the government suddenly want to help the poor, since they didn't really help before?
6. How does the government determine the standards for the poverty line?
7. Is there a state that is considered to have 'the most' poor people?
8. What factors may cause states to have more or less poor people?
9. How did the people of South Carolina feel when the government threatened to take away their highway funds?
10. What would the people of South Carolina do with the wolves in their state? Did they just want to extinguish/kill all of them?

Political Cartoon #2

• What does this cartoon suggest?
• Should students begin learning more about the political issues (shown on the white board) in school? Why or why not?
• How is education affected by these political issues?

The American System Simile

The American system of separation and powers and checks and balances are like children building a tower with building blocks. The children must work together to complete a task, just as the the executive, judicial, and legislative branches work together to control our country. If a child argues about which block to stack or who should place the next one, they would have to come to some sort of agreement. This is similar to checks and balances because if one branch disagrees with another, that branch has the power to override the other branch. Overall, the children must learn to work as a group to successfully build a tower with blocks; if not, the tower may remain unfinished or could even fall apart. Likewise, each branch of government must also be able to come to agreements in their decisions. If they fail to do so, they cannot achieve their goals, and America may become dysfunctional.