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?
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Federalist #78
Questions for Hamilton:
- 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?
- Do justices have any other responsibilities besides interpreting the law and deciding court cases?
- 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)?
- 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?
- Do their political beliefs affect their decisions in court cases (if they are conservative vs. liberal)?
"...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?
Thursday, October 27, 2011
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?
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?
Monday, October 24, 2011
"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.
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.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
2000 Election Film
Facts from the film:
Questions:
- Katherine Harris is the Secretary of State of Florida during the 2000 election.
- Bush won the election in a 5 to 4 ruling of the Supreme Court, when the recount was ordered to end on December 12th.
- During the recount, 175,010 ballots had to be examined in 67 counties.
- Democrats believe that Gore lost 8,000 because of the mistakes in the ballots.
- The recounts mainly focused on 61,000 "undervote" ballots, ballots that didn't have a distinct vote for either candidates.
- Gore advisers pushed to count "dimpled chads" in the recount.
- 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.
- Before the recount, Bush was certified as the winner of the election, just by 537 votes.
Questions:
- Who decides if a county should have a recount?
- How many times do they run ballots through machines if they get a different number each time?
- What made citizens realize they voted incorrectly?
- How long does it take to recount votes?
- In this situation, would the federal government deal with issues states may not be able to solve?
- How could they have reduced error in the voting process?
- Who partakes in recounting the votes?
- 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?
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?
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
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
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
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
"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.
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.
Monday, October 10, 2011
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.
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)
Thursday, October 6, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Federalist #51
Questions for Madison:
- Is it truly possible to distribute power equally between various branches?
- How would the U.S. be different if checks and balances did not exist?
- 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?
- Can the people "check or balance" the three branches of government?
- 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:
- Although women did not have many rights in your time, did you ever consider what their opinions may be about the government?
- How would the government be different if the Constitution was based more on the New Jersey Plan?
- What if the Constitution was created based on a democracy, instead of a republic?
- 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"?
- 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.
"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:
- The Constitution delegated few powers to the government, and most to the states.
- Gray wolves were brought to Yellow Stone National Park in 1973, after the Endangered Species Act was passed.
- Farmers believed dogs and wolves were a threat to people.
- The people of Idaho wanted to remove wolves from their State because they've killed their livestock and deer.
- All citizens of the United States have a say about public land.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- In the past, poverty was dealt with by the communities; however Franklin Roosevelt proposed the New Deal and helped the poor.
Questions:
- Did people in Idaho ever move/think of moving to get away from the wolves?
- Would it be against the government's morals to bribe/threaten a state?
- How might states be "rewarded" for doing what Washington asks?
- Should the people have a say in what to do with the endangered species?
- What made the government suddenly want to help the poor, since they didn't really help before?
- How does the government determine the standards for the poverty line?
- Is there a state that is considered to have 'the most' poor people?
- What factors may cause states to have more or less poor people?
- How did the people of South Carolina feel when the government threatened to take away their highway funds?
- What would the people of South Carolina do with the wolves in their state? Did they just want to extinguish/kill all of them?
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
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?
Monday, October 3, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)