8 to 10 facts:
1.) Enumerated power examples: ability to be married, ability to own property.
2.) Legalism of abortion was decided allowed by means of the Roe v. Wade case.
3.) The selection and appointment of a federal judge may be one of the most extensive backround searches ever done.
4.) The president appoint and selects a presidential cabinent along with his own judges.
5.) A check of the Legistlative branch on the Executive branch is the Congress not approving a presidential bill which is unconstitutional.
6.) Republican's strongly oppose the Liberal political view.
7.)The Brown v. Board of Edu. case was one which decided schools should not be segregated.
8.) There are sometimes some unrealistic but effective ways to get by in politics (in the show when the two men share drinks and the one was probably too intoxicated to make his best decisions); manipulation.
5 Q's:
1.) Is there really under no circumstance way to impeach a judge?
2.) What is the average supreme court judges pay?
3.) In the episode, what was the significance of the alcohol indulging scene?
4.) Has "rivalries" so to speak, amoungst political parties ever come to more than just a heated debate?
5.) Is there any really relevant court cases that are extremely wrong today that cannot be retried because of double jeopardy? (besides 2000 election recount and OJ Simpson case).
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Federalist 71
5 important quotes:
1.)"But such men entertain very crude notions, as well of the purposes for which government was instituted, as of the true means by which the public happiness may be promoted."
- I'm not sure whether to take this by means of government being the reason for public happiness or how public happiness can be either publically displayed or not. For example, with politics most people who are not happy with the way things in any form of government are somehow express their disproval via debating or petitioning.
2.)"Deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they entrust the management of their affairs."
- Basically this clarifies the belief of popular soveriegnty further because the community is going to choose individuals which they trust and believe will best carry out representation of themselves. The "conduct" may have been intended to mean the repression to rules of politics that this managment entrusted has to have a sense of in order to be successful.
3.)"It is a just observation, that the people commonly intend the PUBLIC GOOD."
- Lately I have noticed a reoccuring theme in the govt. class has been in relation to a "universal good", first with the "common good" essay, and now with the "Public Good" mention by Hamilton. Is there suppose to be some realization by me that the intentions of man are not always for the best of everyones benefit but soley and selfishly for the individual benefit of the individual... because that was already painfully obvious to me.
4.)"By the snares of the ambitious, the avaricious, the desperate; by the artifices of men, who possess their confidence more than they deserve it, and of those who seek to possess, rather than to deserve it."
- Once again there is a reference to the goodness of population and Hamilton begins to go hard on the hatred/animosity of whichever men in politics claimed right where they were wrong. By this I mean to relate back to the quote, he (Hamilton) is explaining that most of the time men are unfit for what the bring theirselves into, but no one is quite smart/man/cautious enough to admit it. **They do not necessarily deserve what they have, but they somehow manipulate to possess it.
5.)"We can with no propriety contend for a like complaisance to the humors of the Legislature."
-Short, sweet and to the point... not exactly. There really in my opinion in no concrete explanation for this quote, but i'm going to go for it. I think what Hamilton meant was that the rule of Legislation, along with all they stand for (their powers, rules and decisons) cannot be looked upon in a chartiable kind of way. Although it is believed that Legislators are in office because they deserve to be, the encouragement of powers or too much approve is not appropriate for the matters? idk.
5 analytical questions:
1.) Do you truely believe that that the method of rule and order in the US government is a "Common Good" effort?
2.) Can man rule other man fairly?
3.) Is there really even such thing as a government ruled by the people... considering in a way they are opposites (authority over authorized).
4.) What is the most plain and simple definition of the public good? Do you have a better way to acchieve/maintain the status?
5.) What are the most important parts to a government that rules under the goal of acchieving public happiness and a good community.. do they include the legislations rules?
1.)"But such men entertain very crude notions, as well of the purposes for which government was instituted, as of the true means by which the public happiness may be promoted."
- I'm not sure whether to take this by means of government being the reason for public happiness or how public happiness can be either publically displayed or not. For example, with politics most people who are not happy with the way things in any form of government are somehow express their disproval via debating or petitioning.
2.)"Deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they entrust the management of their affairs."
- Basically this clarifies the belief of popular soveriegnty further because the community is going to choose individuals which they trust and believe will best carry out representation of themselves. The "conduct" may have been intended to mean the repression to rules of politics that this managment entrusted has to have a sense of in order to be successful.
3.)"It is a just observation, that the people commonly intend the PUBLIC GOOD."
- Lately I have noticed a reoccuring theme in the govt. class has been in relation to a "universal good", first with the "common good" essay, and now with the "Public Good" mention by Hamilton. Is there suppose to be some realization by me that the intentions of man are not always for the best of everyones benefit but soley and selfishly for the individual benefit of the individual... because that was already painfully obvious to me.
4.)"By the snares of the ambitious, the avaricious, the desperate; by the artifices of men, who possess their confidence more than they deserve it, and of those who seek to possess, rather than to deserve it."
- Once again there is a reference to the goodness of population and Hamilton begins to go hard on the hatred/animosity of whichever men in politics claimed right where they were wrong. By this I mean to relate back to the quote, he (Hamilton) is explaining that most of the time men are unfit for what the bring theirselves into, but no one is quite smart/man/cautious enough to admit it. **They do not necessarily deserve what they have, but they somehow manipulate to possess it.
5.)"We can with no propriety contend for a like complaisance to the humors of the Legislature."
-Short, sweet and to the point... not exactly. There really in my opinion in no concrete explanation for this quote, but i'm going to go for it. I think what Hamilton meant was that the rule of Legislation, along with all they stand for (their powers, rules and decisons) cannot be looked upon in a chartiable kind of way. Although it is believed that Legislators are in office because they deserve to be, the encouragement of powers or too much approve is not appropriate for the matters? idk.
5 analytical questions:
1.) Do you truely believe that that the method of rule and order in the US government is a "Common Good" effort?
2.) Can man rule other man fairly?
3.) Is there really even such thing as a government ruled by the people... considering in a way they are opposites (authority over authorized).
4.) What is the most plain and simple definition of the public good? Do you have a better way to acchieve/maintain the status?
5.) What are the most important parts to a government that rules under the goal of acchieving public happiness and a good community.. do they include the legislations rules?
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
2000 Election: Supreme Court Decision
8-10 Facts:
1.) A Minimalist Democratic view is one that is more conservative or moderate.
2.) A Subminimalist Democratic view is one of a more liberal or modern view.3.) In the unanimous 5-4 to stop the recount, majority of the more conservative judges.
4.) There were a total of 3 other interventions by the Supreme Court in the 2000 Bush v. Gore election.
5.) Petition for Writ of Certiorari. (informally called "Cert Petition.") A document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court. It includes a list of the parties, a statement of the facts of the case, the legal questions presented for review, and arguments as to why the Court should grant the writ.
6.) The Supreme court (Federal) clearly trumped Florida's Supreme court (State) in their decision to stop the recount; demonstration of checks and balances.
7.) Voters who had marked their election cards with "dimples" producing 'chad' ballots, were considered treated unfair when the votes did not count.
8.) One merit claim by the Supreme court was that, "Six Justices were unwilling to accept Bush's major submission.." claiming Florida Supreme court had mad an unacceptable change in Florida Law.
9.) Reason for inequality in voting; voting ballots differ from county to county, for instance, some use the "butterfly ballot", while most others do not.
10.) Butterfly Ballot- A butterfly ballot is a type of punch card ballot in which the candidates and issues are displayed on both sides, with a single line of numbered marks to punch which runs down the middle. This design can get confusing, especially for harried voters or voters with poor vision. **Not the best choice for elderly voters of Florida's counties**
5 Questions:
1.) Why wouldn't the Florida Supreme Court hold out further arguement that the disclusion of their voter's votes in the election was extremely unconstitutional?
2.)What "irreparable harm" was Bush administration so worried about? Did they believe they didn't actually legitimately win the election..?
3.) Wasn't there a considered bias for the overwhelmingly minimalist/conservative nature of the Supreme Court Judges?
4.) After physically seeing the "Butterfly Ballots", why would anyone ever think such as set up was an appropriate method for gathering presidental votes! Come on people it is for something as important as the Presidental election of the US! STEP YOUR GAME UP.
5.) As for the "Remedy" section, is there any said/set consequence (maybe a new law that should be debated) that is required to be passed due to the legitimacy of the wrongness of the Supreme Court? Or does the decision get to go on without any further consequence because of the Double Jeopardy laws?
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
"The Common Good"
What is the significance of having 'ethics of individual rights" in connection to "ethics of the common good"? Is the connection meant to relate to the common good as in the ploitical world or in the actual so called "goodness" of a culture/society as a whole. Basically, the article begins claiming social rights can relate to rights that are assumed equal and fair for everyone, which is by obvious means the best way to go. In the article it is mentioned as specific examples of these "common goods" are, "... parts of the common good include an accessible and affordable public health care system, and effective system of public safety and security, peace among the nations of the world, a just legal and political system, and unpolluted natural environment, and a flourishing economic system." This to me shows that they are basically precautions made to to ensure the well being and protection of the American people, the most important of issues on the governtment. It is also mentioned that solid health and positive education/educational influences are important to maintain this so called "common good" in equillibrium with actual individuals rights and minipulative political minipulation. There is doubt in my mind that the "common good" would appear solely off of the betterness of the country and individual citizens who make up the population, because that would be niave of me to believe because of the minipulative nature of most politicans. Past events where there had been corruption and minipulation in government have proven that not all acts/bills/laws passed and said constitutional by the system are for the best of the people necessarily as much as they are for the betterment of say economy or government budget. For instance the taxes being raised on property maybe won't be best for individuals because they are losing income, but are best for the counrtry as a whole with proper spending and planning by the government with the money. My thoughts are still confused on the rest of the essay but I remain confident in my newly found opinion on the "common good".
Following Rob Andrews
*New Politican- Rob Andrews (D) 1st Rep. Of NJ
He is a very active member of the 1st Congressional District of New Jersey
What he has been up to:
"Robert Andrews has sponsored 560 bills since Jan 3, 1991 of which 553 haven't made it out of committee and 2 were successfully enacted. Andrews has co-sponsored 2,782 bills during the same time period. (The count of enacted bills considers only bills, and not resolutions, actually sponsored by Andrews and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.)"
2. H.R. 1809: Dental Coverage Value and Transparency Act of 2011
Rob plans to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ensure health care coverage value as well as transparency/calrity for dental benefits under group health plans. Such as job benefits...
He is a very active member of the 1st Congressional District of New Jersey
What he has been up to:
"Robert Andrews has sponsored 560 bills since Jan 3, 1991 of which 553 haven't made it out of committee and 2 were successfully enacted. Andrews has co-sponsored 2,782 bills during the same time period. (The count of enacted bills considers only bills, and not resolutions, actually sponsored by Andrews and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.)"
- A LOT OF BILLS
- Only 7 Passed?
- Almost 3,000 sponsored shows his activeness
- H.R. 3249: To recognize small employer benefit arrangements as employers, and for other purposes
2. H.R. 1809: Dental Coverage Value and Transparency Act of 2011
Rob plans to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ensure health care coverage value as well as transparency/calrity for dental benefits under group health plans. Such as job benefits...
Thursday, October 20, 2011
RECOUNT
8-10 Questions:
These questions are basically the same as the ones I produced for the "ISSUE 7" assignment
1.) How do the most modern voting machines work, can they be hacked?
2.) I feel like I have seen a more modern version of a movie that isn't "Recount", where the votes are on machines that get hacked... Am I delusional?
3.) Can human error, such as with the un-penetrated votes be trusted in later elections... can we risk trusting machines?
4.) With our growing population, is giving every American citizen over 18 the right to vote going to backfire at all?
5.) How much does one person's vote really count? To my understanding the only votes which count are the electoral votes which are based on majority of state.. not individual.
6.) Pertaining to the question above^ would it be really unnecessary to even go out and vote in a state that is overwhelmingly one party... does your vote really count?
7.) Are the votes from the 2000 election still in physical exisitance?
8.) If so^, has anyone bothered to do the recount on their own just to actually figure out who would have won?
9.) What was Gore's political position after the election? Vice President correct, did he really mind so much?
8-10 Facts:
1.) Around 175,000 of 6 million ballots were recounted in the 200 election.
2.) 20,000 votes were illegally disqualified.
3.) Case Gore v. Harris was a loss in court but repealed in appellate court.
4.) Gore's administration initially called for Recounts of votes in Palm Beach Florida.
5.) Initially the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide manual recount of the votes by means of 4-3 vote.
6.) Short after when the manual recounts were mid action, the U.S. Supreme court issued a STAY on the recount by 5-4 vote, haulting the election and awarding it to Bush.
7.) December 12th 2000, was the original recount deadline for Florida.
8.) Gore's administration, strategically, used the little time they had to recount on Countys which they believed would have voted for them, this was dubbed unfair.
9.) George W. Bush was originally elected to be President of the United States on November 27th, 2000 but not offically until after the recount dillemna on December 22nd, 2000.
ISSUE 7
Pre-Reading:
1.) Will something invovling a recount ever happen again?
2.) Has it ever happened to any extent before the 200 election?
3.) Did this event question the routes of federalism in our govt. with it's outcome?
4.) How is Gore doing today
5.) Where was the voting found most ineffective, besides Florida.
Facts:
1.) Al Gore fell only 4 electoral votes short of winning the 2000 election via the state of Florida's votes.
2.) Gore's party demanded a call for undervotes found in the voting ballods.
3.) Undervote: A vote where there was no detected vote for a president, probably caused by poor marking or misalligning of the ballod.
4.) After regular court and appeal court the Court's decision was unanimous on not continuing the recount and awarding the presidency to Bush.
5.) Previous Judge Robert H. Bork still to this day believes that if the Supreme Court had acted correctly then Al Gore would have overcame Bush and won the 2000 election, that makes me wonder...
Post Reading:
1.) Which ideas and methods of rule would Gore have brought to the table, how would he have changed the current America if at all.
2.) Did the way people voted (In Florida at least) change to a different method?
3.) When voting, is it now done electronically or do we still do paper ballots?
4.) How much more money did the Gore Administration essentially waste on the fight to win the Presidential race?
5.) Did Bush himself, even after his presidency terms (present day), ever comment on weather he had doubt of his election being leggitimate?
1.) Will something invovling a recount ever happen again?
2.) Has it ever happened to any extent before the 200 election?
3.) Did this event question the routes of federalism in our govt. with it's outcome?
4.) How is Gore doing today
5.) Where was the voting found most ineffective, besides Florida.
Facts:
1.) Al Gore fell only 4 electoral votes short of winning the 2000 election via the state of Florida's votes.
2.) Gore's party demanded a call for undervotes found in the voting ballods.
3.) Undervote: A vote where there was no detected vote for a president, probably caused by poor marking or misalligning of the ballod.
4.) After regular court and appeal court the Court's decision was unanimous on not continuing the recount and awarding the presidency to Bush.
5.) Previous Judge Robert H. Bork still to this day believes that if the Supreme Court had acted correctly then Al Gore would have overcame Bush and won the 2000 election, that makes me wonder...
Post Reading:
1.) Which ideas and methods of rule would Gore have brought to the table, how would he have changed the current America if at all.
2.) Did the way people voted (In Florida at least) change to a different method?
3.) When voting, is it now done electronically or do we still do paper ballots?
4.) How much more money did the Gore Administration essentially waste on the fight to win the Presidential race?
5.) Did Bush himself, even after his presidency terms (present day), ever comment on weather he had doubt of his election being leggitimate?
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Healthcare post 2
So the last post on healthcare related more so to my personal thoughts and experiances on healthcare, but now I will attempt at gathering some facts on healthcare bills and medicare statitics.
This information on the average costs of a ER visit (uninsured) would be back in 2008:
From: http://www.consumerhealthratings.com/index.php?action=showSubCats&cat_id=274
"Average expenses for a visit to the Emergency Room were $1265 in 2008, according to the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Median, or typical, cost was $569. For people ages 45 to 64, the cost was substantially higher on average ($1681). Uninsured people under age 65 averaged $1203 in expenses ($453 median), of which they paid about 47% out of pocket. While average cost for those age 65 and up was $1554, Medicare recipients paid only about 2% to 5% out of pocket. Median charges for children under age 18 were $351 to $412"
Specifically taking a look at the 18 and under range which pertains more directly to me, basically this source is stating that I would spend on average about $400 for an emergency room trip if i was uninsured, but say there was a family of poor economic income with five children...and let's assume at least four of them were sent to the ER in a year, that would cost $1,600 OR MORE alone.
American's need a bill that will atleast help with insuring everyone, every legal American should be insured in our country because the cost of healthcare is getting more expensive with the recession and the ability of medical personelle to advance profits.
This information on the average costs of a ER visit (uninsured) would be back in 2008:
From: http://www.consumerhealthratings.com/index.php?action=showSubCats&cat_id=274
"Average expenses for a visit to the Emergency Room were $1265 in 2008, according to the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Median, or typical, cost was $569. For people ages 45 to 64, the cost was substantially higher on average ($1681). Uninsured people under age 65 averaged $1203 in expenses ($453 median), of which they paid about 47% out of pocket. While average cost for those age 65 and up was $1554, Medicare recipients paid only about 2% to 5% out of pocket. Median charges for children under age 18 were $351 to $412"
Specifically taking a look at the 18 and under range which pertains more directly to me, basically this source is stating that I would spend on average about $400 for an emergency room trip if i was uninsured, but say there was a family of poor economic income with five children...and let's assume at least four of them were sent to the ER in a year, that would cost $1,600 OR MORE alone.
American's need a bill that will atleast help with insuring everyone, every legal American should be insured in our country because the cost of healthcare is getting more expensive with the recession and the ability of medical personelle to advance profits.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Following Pat Meehan: 1
Turns out my previous choice Allen Boyd of Florida actually stopped in 2010... I'll need to find a new 2nd politician to follow for a future post.
PAT MEEHAN:
"Patrick Meehan has sponsored 2 bills since Jan 5, 2011 of which 2 haven't made it out of committee and none were successfully enacted. Meehan has co-sponsored 66 bills during the same time period. (The count of enacted bills considers only bills, and not resolutions, actually sponsored by Meehan and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.) "
Bill 1: H.R. 3231 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the amount allowed as a deduction for start-up expenditures.
PAT MEEHAN:
"Patrick Meehan has sponsored 2 bills since Jan 5, 2011 of which 2 haven't made it out of committee and none were successfully enacted. Meehan has co-sponsored 66 bills during the same time period. (The count of enacted bills considers only bills, and not resolutions, actually sponsored by Meehan and companion bills identified by CRS that were themselves enacted, but not if they were incorporated into other bills, as that information is not readily available.) "
Bill 1: H.R. 3231 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the amount allowed as a deduction for start-up expenditures.
- What is being amended in the income tax?
- Is it being inflated or deflated?
- What are the expenditures? for what?
- Does Meehan not trust homeland security?
- Will Homeland security have a budget decrease?
- More weapon of mass destruction business? What are they going to do?
- What are the other purposes, if it was up to Meehan would he completely rid of this security..
Blog Post 1 on health care
Although I am not the most educated on the heathcare system, I do have some personal connections that help me understand the severity of the problem. My family and I are currently having issues with CHIP, childrens health insurance for Pennsylvanians, which is caused by unemployment in my family along with the lack of health benefits for my guardian's job. My mom is currently trying to find a more effective job ironically in a hospital where better health insurance benefits are offered. To my understanding, I am currently either uninsured or loosely protected with health insurance which worries my mother and infuriates me. If i were to suffer extreme injuries in say a car accident (I recently started driving) would my family be able to realistically afford treatment for me?! I don't need to worry about that! I just need to figure out what Obama's healthcare bill is proposing exactly, because there has not been a clear unbiased explaination by anyone, so hopefully congress can figure it out. If my personal experiance is a big deal to me, It makes me wonder about how other Americans deal with the same problem, without the perks of having benefits from a job. I found these interesting statistics at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39215770/ns/health-health_care/t/number-uninsured-americans-hits-record-high/ :
In a reflection of the battered economy, the number of people without health insurance rose sharply last year to 50.7 million — an all time high — according to data released Thursday by the Census Bureau.
That pushed the rate of uninsured Americans to 16.7 percent last year from 15.4 percent in 2008, when there were 46.3 million uninsured. It was one of the largest single year increases since the Census starting tracking the figure in 1987.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Faction
Madison's definition: " By a faction, I understand a number og citizens, whether amounting to 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."
1.) Anything like a cult?
2.) Is it considered against the Constitution to particape in a faction, isn't it bad?
3.) Or is it like practicing the 1st amendment with freedom of speech kind of?
4.) When writing about theses factions, which ones were relevant in the US?
5.) Are political parties considered factions? How much more power does a faction have to gain in order to become anything more.. which would be considered bad or biased.
MY definition: From where I see it, a faction is basically a group of people with similar morals, thoughts, ideas and values coming together to strengthen the cause of a certain arguement in politics. I think a faction can be bad if it more so focuses not on an issue but the issue that is a group of opposing views by people.
1.) Anything like a cult?
2.) Is it considered against the Constitution to particape in a faction, isn't it bad?
3.) Or is it like practicing the 1st amendment with freedom of speech kind of?
4.) When writing about theses factions, which ones were relevant in the US?
5.) Are political parties considered factions? How much more power does a faction have to gain in order to become anything more.. which would be considered bad or biased.
MY definition: From where I see it, a faction is basically a group of people with similar morals, thoughts, ideas and values coming together to strengthen the cause of a certain arguement in politics. I think a faction can be bad if it more so focuses not on an issue but the issue that is a group of opposing views by people.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Congress members to follow
- Pat Meehan- PA 7th congressional district, Republican.. member of the (HOR)
Political Ideology Results
Many factors contribute to a person's choice of political party. Research indicates that the strongest factors are family and community influences. The platforms and positions of the two major parties can also have an influence, but these can change and evolve over time. For that reason, it is helpful to examine contemporary issues to be sure that your party preference matches your political ideology , or personal beliefs about government.
Based on your response to the questions on the political ideology survey, you are a moderate.
You probably identify with some of the views of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. You may also be interested in the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. Your ideology is shared by the following Members of the House of Representatives:
Based on your response to the questions on the political ideology survey, you are a moderate.
You probably identify with some of the views of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. You may also be interested in the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. Your ideology is shared by the following Members of the House of Representatives:
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Responses to Constitution questions
Mike K said, "1. Did the founding fathers originally think that there would be many amendments to the constitution or did they think it would stay as solid set of laws not to be changed?"
I feel that in writing the Constitution off of so little an amount of political minds, the writers of the document (Madison and company) knew that there ideas wouldn't be nationally accepted by all. The main thing is that there had to be a basis for these ideas to develop off of, if there wasn't, the amendments would just be simply original laws. Lastly, there are only 27 passed amendments, which is a phenomenally low amount for a nation document written 200 years ago.. by people with different views on politics than modern peoples.
Nat Parker said, "3. Do you think some parts of the constitution are not specific because the founding fathers could not agree on it?"
Basically the founding fathers didn't have the freedom to make the document as specific as they wanted personally because that would suggest bias and monarchical representation in a new government which was intended to be written by the people, for the people. The "broadness" of the Constitution is also the reason why we have political parties which help define our government because there are different factions of people whom wish to take different stances on parts of the Constitution too broad to be taken a specific way, so basically they are manipulating the document to benefit their personal desires, taking fair and free advantage of the flexibility of the Constitution.
I feel that in writing the Constitution off of so little an amount of political minds, the writers of the document (Madison and company) knew that there ideas wouldn't be nationally accepted by all. The main thing is that there had to be a basis for these ideas to develop off of, if there wasn't, the amendments would just be simply original laws. Lastly, there are only 27 passed amendments, which is a phenomenally low amount for a nation document written 200 years ago.. by people with different views on politics than modern peoples.
Nat Parker said, "3. Do you think some parts of the constitution are not specific because the founding fathers could not agree on it?"
Basically the founding fathers didn't have the freedom to make the document as specific as they wanted personally because that would suggest bias and monarchical representation in a new government which was intended to be written by the people, for the people. The "broadness" of the Constitution is also the reason why we have political parties which help define our government because there are different factions of people whom wish to take different stances on parts of the Constitution too broad to be taken a specific way, so basically they are manipulating the document to benefit their personal desires, taking fair and free advantage of the flexibility of the Constitution.
Political Cartoon Reaction...
I thought that this cartoon was a clever choice especially for the age groups considered in our class. Along with the developments of internet and social networks has come the repercussions. Basically in my own opinion, the way our generation has come to rely on technology and social interaction on websites such as facebook is really going to have a negative long term effect. If we continue to have this reliance on technology then eventually something may happen which will put the internet out of reach, also the social dependance is leading to awkwardness amongst our peers. But to answer the question on what the cartoon is saying about the generation of kids today is that were dumbing down, and our ideas of values, simplicity and especially politics, are becoming lessened by our cultural influence of modern technologies.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Video Clip on Federalism
10 Q's:
1.) Being legally impared by intoxication is different for different people on the BAC scale... so is it really fair to determine everyone on the same .08 standard?
2.) How is "freedom" really determined?
3.) What was punishment for killing endangered wolves?
4.) Why was the woman hating on the wolves so set against their existance.. personally?
5.) What is the set recovery number of the wolves that needs to be met to stop endangeredness.
6.) Is Drunk Driving now a federal law?
7.) If they can prove drunk driving is so statically dangerous why don't the have a zero tolerance policy? Does the repealed amendment of alcohol banding have to do with it?
8.) Is the taking away highway funds considered unconstitutional because of the minipulation of Federal desire?
9.) In government should it be better to live in fear, or respect of authority?
10.) Are wolves closely enough related to dogs that they can be used as household pets, or is that a rule against the endangeredment?
Facts:
1.) Famers wish to rid of wolves because they eat their livestock.
2.) People in Alaska feared walking to school unarmed because of wolves.
3.) There is no recorded human killing via wolf attack in America.
4.) States control driving laws.
5.) New driving law passed in PA; within 6 months of recieving your license you cannot have more than 1 passenger in the car with you.
6.) Federal legal alcohol limit is BAC of .08
7.) In 2002 Senator Hawkins introduced a bill which suggested the $6.5 million in funds that would be lossed if the DUI bill was not passed.
8.) MADD protested against the stopping of Drunk Drivers.
9.)There won't be a stop in the protection of wolves until the states develope safety plans for each of the facinities which the wolves are in.
10.) South Carolina is/was one of the states protesting again the BAC level limit federal law for all states.
1.) Being legally impared by intoxication is different for different people on the BAC scale... so is it really fair to determine everyone on the same .08 standard?
2.) How is "freedom" really determined?
3.) What was punishment for killing endangered wolves?
4.) Why was the woman hating on the wolves so set against their existance.. personally?
5.) What is the set recovery number of the wolves that needs to be met to stop endangeredness.
6.) Is Drunk Driving now a federal law?
7.) If they can prove drunk driving is so statically dangerous why don't the have a zero tolerance policy? Does the repealed amendment of alcohol banding have to do with it?
8.) Is the taking away highway funds considered unconstitutional because of the minipulation of Federal desire?
9.) In government should it be better to live in fear, or respect of authority?
10.) Are wolves closely enough related to dogs that they can be used as household pets, or is that a rule against the endangeredment?
Facts:
1.) Famers wish to rid of wolves because they eat their livestock.
2.) People in Alaska feared walking to school unarmed because of wolves.
3.) There is no recorded human killing via wolf attack in America.
4.) States control driving laws.
5.) New driving law passed in PA; within 6 months of recieving your license you cannot have more than 1 passenger in the car with you.
6.) Federal legal alcohol limit is BAC of .08
7.) In 2002 Senator Hawkins introduced a bill which suggested the $6.5 million in funds that would be lossed if the DUI bill was not passed.
8.) MADD protested against the stopping of Drunk Drivers.
9.)There won't be a stop in the protection of wolves until the states develope safety plans for each of the facinities which the wolves are in.
10.) South Carolina is/was one of the states protesting again the BAC level limit federal law for all states.
Federalist 10
Q's:
1.) Why is it that the federalist papers 10 and 51 are so popular/relevant?
2.) Is it correct to say that James Madison is on of the most impressive and political writers of the young America?
3.) Is there really no way to take freedom of speech too far? Ex. speaking of a bomb in an airport...
4.) How much shorter could this document be if Madison was less concerned on the same issues/believes over and over again?
5.) Would a faction against the rights be like rascists? the KKK or Nazi's? is that what Madison was advising against?
Quotes:
1.) "omplaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty."
I think this is important because it shows how specifics such as mentioned above are things that may tend to upset individuals; enough so that they can complain about it and attempt to lobby for changes. Also it further proves my point that you can never win in politics, one side is always upset and the other never quite satisfied.
2.By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to 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"
I brought this up again because I find it interesting that this article may have been writen way before the KKK (A faction against minorites) was developed. I guess there really was not true protection of the minorities because the KKK remained to famous for too long to be executed against by federal government.
3.) "There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects."
This quote gives more detail on the previous one, so there was advision against these factions but there was never a real law that made them illegal? What does the quote mean by mischief of a faction, does it mean this is how you find one or how you deal with one? The concept continues to confuse me.
4.) "The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."
The ladder metaphor which is used in explaining the differences between the republicans and democrats is helpful because it points out how there is extended rule of the people with the one but lesser shorter span on the other. But it also is confusing in the way that it doesn't exactly specifically distinguish between the 2.
5.) "A rage for paper money."
This quote stuck out to me because there is always a desire that holds superiority over other desires, for power. Money, is the most commonly found and concrete object that can lead to power, so people always have their goals of making large amounts of it and holding it above other things in importance. But paper money cannot just be printed without raising inflation, so is there any real shortcut to making it?
1.) Why is it that the federalist papers 10 and 51 are so popular/relevant?
2.) Is it correct to say that James Madison is on of the most impressive and political writers of the young America?
3.) Is there really no way to take freedom of speech too far? Ex. speaking of a bomb in an airport...
4.) How much shorter could this document be if Madison was less concerned on the same issues/believes over and over again?
5.) Would a faction against the rights be like rascists? the KKK or Nazi's? is that what Madison was advising against?
Quotes:
1.) "omplaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty."
I think this is important because it shows how specifics such as mentioned above are things that may tend to upset individuals; enough so that they can complain about it and attempt to lobby for changes. Also it further proves my point that you can never win in politics, one side is always upset and the other never quite satisfied.
2.By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to 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"
I brought this up again because I find it interesting that this article may have been writen way before the KKK (A faction against minorites) was developed. I guess there really was not true protection of the minorities because the KKK remained to famous for too long to be executed against by federal government.
3.) "There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects."
This quote gives more detail on the previous one, so there was advision against these factions but there was never a real law that made them illegal? What does the quote mean by mischief of a faction, does it mean this is how you find one or how you deal with one? The concept continues to confuse me.
4.) "The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."
The ladder metaphor which is used in explaining the differences between the republicans and democrats is helpful because it points out how there is extended rule of the people with the one but lesser shorter span on the other. But it also is confusing in the way that it doesn't exactly specifically distinguish between the 2.
5.) "A rage for paper money."
This quote stuck out to me because there is always a desire that holds superiority over other desires, for power. Money, is the most commonly found and concrete object that can lead to power, so people always have their goals of making large amounts of it and holding it above other things in importance. But paper money cannot just be printed without raising inflation, so is there any real shortcut to making it?
Federalist 51
Q's:
1.) What is the significance of "The Federalist" writings and why is there so many?
2.) According to the note, the different branches shouldn't be able to break into different agencies... was this rule broken with the Executives CIA?
3.) Why is there such a fear of departments in the government becoming independent?
4.) What does the saying, "Ambition must be made to counteract Ambition" mean, in relation to the article?
5.) When James Madison wrote, "Government isn't always the greatest of all reflections of human nature" did he mean to say there are better methods to run order?
Quotes:
1.) "Ambition must be made to counteract Ambition"
Was this used to say that there has to be a certain goal, of more superiority in order to completely disreguard another goal? There has to be a better explaination for this politically, does it involve, for example a specific bill set out to get passed and and another bill set out to explain furthermore why the bill shouldn't be passed? I'm confused.
2.) "Government isn't always the greatest of all reflections of human nature"
Even though government is one of the best developed methods of controling masses of people living under similar nationality, there are still flaws to the system that clearly aren't humanly correct. Politicans can't be considered the best of the best morally.
3.) "Private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights."
I am interpretting this quote to mean that people would rather throw in their "2 cents" in politics and such for certain issues that will benefit them individually, rather than for an issue that is beneficial to the public. Keep in mind that I interpret the individual benefit not only as directly beneficial to the individual themselves but also a mark up to their favors in morals, or rights.
4.) "It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others."
I chose this quote because it clearly underlines for my understanding that each other branches or "departments" in government, although they all are set out to chech each other and make sure one another is doing their job okay, their role is to control their department by theirselves. For example, the legislative branch and congress may be able to control impeachment of the president (chose to or not) but that is a last resort, not their primary duty.
5.) " If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
Lastly, I chose this quote because it shows any interesting view on why else politics and government are so necessary. Not only is order needed to be controlled, there also needs to be the realization that man is not perfect and can not always be expected to do what is right, angles wouldn't need government because perfection doesn't encounter confliction.
1.) What is the significance of "The Federalist" writings and why is there so many?
2.) According to the note, the different branches shouldn't be able to break into different agencies... was this rule broken with the Executives CIA?
3.) Why is there such a fear of departments in the government becoming independent?
4.) What does the saying, "Ambition must be made to counteract Ambition" mean, in relation to the article?
5.) When James Madison wrote, "Government isn't always the greatest of all reflections of human nature" did he mean to say there are better methods to run order?
Quotes:
1.) "Ambition must be made to counteract Ambition"
Was this used to say that there has to be a certain goal, of more superiority in order to completely disreguard another goal? There has to be a better explaination for this politically, does it involve, for example a specific bill set out to get passed and and another bill set out to explain furthermore why the bill shouldn't be passed? I'm confused.
2.) "Government isn't always the greatest of all reflections of human nature"
Even though government is one of the best developed methods of controling masses of people living under similar nationality, there are still flaws to the system that clearly aren't humanly correct. Politicans can't be considered the best of the best morally.
3.) "Private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights."
I am interpretting this quote to mean that people would rather throw in their "2 cents" in politics and such for certain issues that will benefit them individually, rather than for an issue that is beneficial to the public. Keep in mind that I interpret the individual benefit not only as directly beneficial to the individual themselves but also a mark up to their favors in morals, or rights.
4.) "It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others."
I chose this quote because it clearly underlines for my understanding that each other branches or "departments" in government, although they all are set out to chech each other and make sure one another is doing their job okay, their role is to control their department by theirselves. For example, the legislative branch and congress may be able to control impeachment of the president (chose to or not) but that is a last resort, not their primary duty.
5.) " If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
Lastly, I chose this quote because it shows any interesting view on why else politics and government are so necessary. Not only is order needed to be controlled, there also needs to be the realization that man is not perfect and can not always be expected to do what is right, angles wouldn't need government because perfection doesn't encounter confliction.
Monday, October 3, 2011
similie Checks and Balances and Seperation of Powers
Checks and Balances are like customer feed back at a McDonalds, although efforts are made to give advice by consumers to keep customers happy and coming back for more.
The consumers, consumers acting to help, and food source all have to depend on eachother for the balance of organization in the fast food business. If one of the branches slacks than the other two need to step it up for the one before they all fail. Also for example, if McDonalds abuses their power by making crappy over-priced food then the consumers would check them by not purchasing from them.. this keeps order.
Speration of Powers is a lacrosse team, different members of the team such as the coach is the president (executive), the attack make most of the moves to win as the legislative branch, the referee is the judicial branch, all of their powers are distinguised and different.
political cartoon 2
1.) Is Obama really to blame for the rediculous unemployment today?
2.) What is the significance of the "Poll Slide" politically?
3.) Do you think Obama is scared to face the unemployment issue or does he have any control over it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)