http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?action=issues&proj_id=5000&category=&type=Project
Toomey: Ban earmarsk forever facts:
1.) Pat Toomey and senator Claire McCaskill wish to ban earmarks perminately forever.
2.) AN earmark is when certain specific things such as funding for an interest group (or even another bill) are made in order to get more votes on the bill to pass it.
3.) Earmarks are closely related to logrolling, which is the "If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" approach of manipulation in legislation.
4.) Toomey is somewhat hypocritical for he had requestion 12 million dollars in earmarks for Lehigh businesses.
5.)"For years, earmarks played a role in fueling the overspending in Washington and undermining the integrity of our legislative process," said Toomey, R-Pa. "We cannot afford to allow Congress to resume earmarking and playing pork-barrel politics with taxpayer dollars." proves that it takes away from the sincererity of the whole process and steals the money of those who fund it and besmits them.
http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?action=issues&proj_id=4994&category=&type=Project
Barney Frank article facts:
1.) A very far liberal democratic legislator, Barney is the first openly gay member.
2.) After 16 terms in the HOR B.Frank plans on retiring and possibly becoming a lobbyist, staying in Washington.
3.) Expendures for military budget are over a trillion dollars more than they should be.
4.) It would take 100 billion each year for 10 years to get back to the correct budget, lowing some debt and repaying what we already owe.
5.) In the Pentagon spending budget, military still spends over 43% of what it is allowed, which in Barney's opinion is one of the more significant causes of our huge debt.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Pending Bill
H.R. 2129: Drunk Driving Repeat Offender Act of 2011.
Co-sponsered by Bob Filner (D- CA51)
Progess: has so far been referred to a committee
This is basically a law which is going to be proposed to prevent future offenses of previously cited drunk drivers. The idea of giving repeat offenders a more severe punishment is a good idea but may prove hard to offend. Basically the bill is saying (as an amend to the previous version) that any repeat offender of driving under the influence will have a breathalize like machine on their vehicle to measure BAC level and determine whether the car will start to let the person drive. Honestly, i thought this already existed because i heard of someone else having to use one of these and i thought it was rather funny. Some negative parts to this bill could be the issue of privacy, but that would be quickly negated by the arguement that no one should be allowed to drive under the influence. Next is the fact that the device could be too noticable and show others that the person was a past DUI offender, which could also be a violation of privacy. The repeat offense Bill is a solid way to keep these people who continue to make this mistake off the road.
Co-sponsered by Bob Filner (D- CA51)
Progess: has so far been referred to a committee
This is basically a law which is going to be proposed to prevent future offenses of previously cited drunk drivers. The idea of giving repeat offenders a more severe punishment is a good idea but may prove hard to offend. Basically the bill is saying (as an amend to the previous version) that any repeat offender of driving under the influence will have a breathalize like machine on their vehicle to measure BAC level and determine whether the car will start to let the person drive. Honestly, i thought this already existed because i heard of someone else having to use one of these and i thought it was rather funny. Some negative parts to this bill could be the issue of privacy, but that would be quickly negated by the arguement that no one should be allowed to drive under the influence. Next is the fact that the device could be too noticable and show others that the person was a past DUI offender, which could also be a violation of privacy. The repeat offense Bill is a solid way to keep these people who continue to make this mistake off the road.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Political Cartoon Posts
Nov. 28th
Cartoon #5
Q's:
1.) What budget would the "sprinkles" represent?
2.) Is the government actually doing a decent job on cutting back on spending, or is it a hald effort for the public's satisfaction.
3.) The cartoon depicts Obama as the one "cutting back" is this an unfair role for him alone?
Cartoon #4
Q's:
1.) How significant have political parties become to modern voting society?
2.) So if the firsts of presidents didn't have political parties to classify them... how or why did they develope?
3.) Should the political parties be banned as unconstitutional.. maybe as its relation to factions.
Cartoon #1
Questions:
1.) When lobbyist take control of an interest group, is the group really sincere?
2.) What are some examples of groups being puppeted by lobbyists?
3.) Which interest groups have been changed according to lobbyist influence... is the change for the better or worse?
December 6th
Cartoon #2
Questions:
1.) DO you think the baby has an special representation?
2.) What is the main message you recieved about Obamacare?
3.) Does it come off to seem as if even medical specialist (such as the Md) are bothered by Obama's efforts.
December 12th
Cartoon #3
1.) Is it fair to place all the blame of debt on Obama considering he was elected into this time of debt?
2.) Does this debt make for an easier election decision or should candidates try to back down until the issue cools down?
3.) If "Rex" represents debt, why do you think the whitehouse would allow for such a rediculous additive to come with the presidency?
Cartoon #5
Q's:
1.) What budget would the "sprinkles" represent?
2.) Is the government actually doing a decent job on cutting back on spending, or is it a hald effort for the public's satisfaction.
3.) The cartoon depicts Obama as the one "cutting back" is this an unfair role for him alone?
Cartoon #4
Q's:
1.) How significant have political parties become to modern voting society?
2.) So if the firsts of presidents didn't have political parties to classify them... how or why did they develope?
3.) Should the political parties be banned as unconstitutional.. maybe as its relation to factions.
Cartoon #1
Questions:
1.) When lobbyist take control of an interest group, is the group really sincere?
2.) What are some examples of groups being puppeted by lobbyists?
3.) Which interest groups have been changed according to lobbyist influence... is the change for the better or worse?
December 6th
Cartoon #2
Questions:
1.) DO you think the baby has an special representation?
2.) What is the main message you recieved about Obamacare?
3.) Does it come off to seem as if even medical specialist (such as the Md) are bothered by Obama's efforts.
December 12th
Cartoon #3
1.) Is it fair to place all the blame of debt on Obama considering he was elected into this time of debt?
2.) Does this debt make for an easier election decision or should candidates try to back down until the issue cools down?
3.) If "Rex" represents debt, why do you think the whitehouse would allow for such a rediculous additive to come with the presidency?
2008 election district returns
5 facts:
1.) PA voted in favor of Obama with a 54% favor.
2.) In the 2008 election. the Liberal parties Bob Bar won about 20,000 votes himself... a mere .3%
3.) The white vote was split by both candidates (obama and McCain) but Obama stole
SW and NE philadelphia, crutical places needed for McCain's triumph.
4.) Hispanics and Blacks voted in favor of Obama, overwhelmingly .
5.) Joe Biden was a senator from Deleware.
1.) PA voted in favor of Obama with a 54% favor.
2.) In the 2008 election. the Liberal parties Bob Bar won about 20,000 votes himself... a mere .3%
3.) The white vote was split by both candidates (obama and McCain) but Obama stole
SW and NE philadelphia, crutical places needed for McCain's triumph.
4.) Hispanics and Blacks voted in favor of Obama, overwhelmingly .
5.) Joe Biden was a senator from Deleware.
19 districts
facts:
1.) Before the 200 cencus there was 21 districts in PA, after there was 19 like now.
2.) Redistricting due to population cencus changes is called reapportionment.
3.) First congressional districts rep. is Robert Brady.
4.) Havertown is in the 7th district.
5.) Chester, Deleware, Montgomery and Philadelpia county are all in the 7th district.
6.) Majority of the states reps are Republican.
7.) Part of each of the counties in the 7th district, are also in the first and second.
8.) Bill Shuster won a 70% republican vote in his election as a representative
9.) Bill Shuster is the representative in the "safely-republica" ninth district.
10.) Our 7th is the home of several major colleges and universities, including Widener University; Swarthmore College; Haverford College; Villanova University; Bryn Mawr College;Penn State Brandywine; Delaware
County Community College; and Cheyney University,
1.) Before the 200 cencus there was 21 districts in PA, after there was 19 like now.
2.) Redistricting due to population cencus changes is called reapportionment.
3.) First congressional districts rep. is Robert Brady.
4.) Havertown is in the 7th district.
5.) Chester, Deleware, Montgomery and Philadelpia county are all in the 7th district.
6.) Majority of the states reps are Republican.
7.) Part of each of the counties in the 7th district, are also in the first and second.
8.) Bill Shuster won a 70% republican vote in his election as a representative
9.) Bill Shuster is the representative in the "safely-republica" ninth district.
10.) Our 7th is the home of several major colleges and universities, including Widener University; Swarthmore College; Haverford College; Villanova University; Bryn Mawr College;Penn State Brandywine; Delaware
County Community College; and Cheyney University,
Monday, November 28, 2011
3 death penalty questions
Justin- 1.) When was the death penalty first instated and who was the first victim?
Answer: For a while, "As far back as the Ancient Laws of China, the death penalty has been established as a punishment for crimes. In the 18th Century BC, the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon codified the death penalty for twenty five different crimes, although murder was not one of them. The first death sentence historically recorded occurred in 16th Century BC Egypt where the wrongdoer, a member of nobility, was accused of magic, and ordered to take his own life. During this period non-nobility was usually killed with an ax."
Peter- 2.) What are the methods of execution of a prisoner?
Most commonly used (Also primary choice) would be lethal injection, but there is also electrocution, gas chamber, hanging, and firing squad in U.S. history. These methods make me quake but they are all rather extreme and rarely used (especially in modern times) there was only one recorded fire squad execution and few of the other weird ones, also only premitted in the most extremist of states (death-penalty wise). The more modernly accepted method is the lethal injection which is still sort of harsh.
Nataley- 3.) When is the death penalty used?
In our country, the death penatly can only be used for "willful murder" which i guess is clearly murdering someone to the first degree. I guess this means that if someone has either admitted to murder or has been caught red handed killing someone? Or maybe if they are unquestionably guilty, there really should be a definate way to figure out if a person is guilty before they execute them. Otherwise there could be someone killed who was indeed innocent! such as in the crucible with the salem witch trials.
http://library.thinkquest.org/28172/ddeathpe.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/history.html
Answer: For a while, "As far back as the Ancient Laws of China, the death penalty has been established as a punishment for crimes. In the 18th Century BC, the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon codified the death penalty for twenty five different crimes, although murder was not one of them. The first death sentence historically recorded occurred in 16th Century BC Egypt where the wrongdoer, a member of nobility, was accused of magic, and ordered to take his own life. During this period non-nobility was usually killed with an ax."
Peter- 2.) What are the methods of execution of a prisoner?
Most commonly used (Also primary choice) would be lethal injection, but there is also electrocution, gas chamber, hanging, and firing squad in U.S. history. These methods make me quake but they are all rather extreme and rarely used (especially in modern times) there was only one recorded fire squad execution and few of the other weird ones, also only premitted in the most extremist of states (death-penalty wise). The more modernly accepted method is the lethal injection which is still sort of harsh.
Nataley- 3.) When is the death penalty used?
In our country, the death penatly can only be used for "willful murder" which i guess is clearly murdering someone to the first degree. I guess this means that if someone has either admitted to murder or has been caught red handed killing someone? Or maybe if they are unquestionably guilty, there really should be a definate way to figure out if a person is guilty before they execute them. Otherwise there could be someone killed who was indeed innocent! such as in the crucible with the salem witch trials.
http://library.thinkquest.org/28172/ddeathpe.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/history.html
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Abortion Intreview
10 facts:
1.) Abortion was started as a way to help married women control the sizes of their families.
2.) If a fertilized egg was to be protected under the constitution's bill of rights, abortion would be a crime of murder.
3.) Sanger was one of eleven children and grew up to become a doctor.
4.) Giving out information about birth-conrol, is infact illegal.
5.) Some called Sanger a Eugenecist, which is considered a person who convinces the poor not to have anymore children.
6.) One essential arguement for pro-choice was that child birth was very dangerous.
7.) The U.S. maternal mortality rate rose to 13 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2004, according to statistics released this week by the National Center for Health Statistics.
8.) The rate was 12 per 100,000 live births in 2003 — the first time the maternal death rate rose above 10 since 1977.
9.) America's first birth control clinic was opened in 1916.
10.) Planned parenthood has FEDERAL FUNDING, clearly showing they are pro-choice.
Q's
1.) Isn't pro-life more so a Catholic belief and therefore a violation of the Constitution?
2.) How does this story relate to Roe v. Wade?
3.) When was the first abortion executed?
4.) How far along is too far along for an abortion?
5.) How far can sex education go in schools, but still remain constitutional?
6.) Why don't doctors come up with a better method of child delivery than C-sects?
7.) What is the most expensive birthcontrol, (condoms, the pill ect.) have ever been?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/ns/health-pregnancy/t/more-us-women-dying-childbirth/#.TsWwRTAxgkk
1.) Abortion was started as a way to help married women control the sizes of their families.
2.) If a fertilized egg was to be protected under the constitution's bill of rights, abortion would be a crime of murder.
3.) Sanger was one of eleven children and grew up to become a doctor.
4.) Giving out information about birth-conrol, is infact illegal.
5.) Some called Sanger a Eugenecist, which is considered a person who convinces the poor not to have anymore children.
6.) One essential arguement for pro-choice was that child birth was very dangerous.
7.) The U.S. maternal mortality rate rose to 13 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2004, according to statistics released this week by the National Center for Health Statistics.
8.) The rate was 12 per 100,000 live births in 2003 — the first time the maternal death rate rose above 10 since 1977.
9.) America's first birth control clinic was opened in 1916.
10.) Planned parenthood has FEDERAL FUNDING, clearly showing they are pro-choice.
Q's
1.) Isn't pro-life more so a Catholic belief and therefore a violation of the Constitution?
2.) How does this story relate to Roe v. Wade?
3.) When was the first abortion executed?
4.) How far along is too far along for an abortion?
5.) How far can sex education go in schools, but still remain constitutional?
6.) Why don't doctors come up with a better method of child delivery than C-sects?
7.) What is the most expensive birthcontrol, (condoms, the pill ect.) have ever been?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/ns/health-pregnancy/t/more-us-women-dying-childbirth/#.TsWwRTAxgkk
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Frontline- "Lost In Detention"
Facts:
1.) 20% of immigrants in Illinois county jail were considered "undocumented"
2.) Obama deported over one million illegal immigrants in the time of his presidency
3.) Illegal immigrants and workers are often paid less than minimum wage
4.) For instance, the legal american workers taking the places of illegal immigrants picking veggies, made money per bucket.
5.) 400,000 illegal immigrants will be deported in the year 2011
6.) There are four and a half million legal american born citizens with illegal immigrant parents
7.) About 36% of illegal/undocumented immigrants are deported with family
8.) These illegal immigrants were found and deported by authorities at times, when they weren't even doing anything wrong (changing lanes without a turn signal)
9.) The united states alone has 250 detention centers for these cases of illegal immigrants facing deportation
10.) Despite efforts of politicans in Southern states, the economy of their agriculture depends on the back breaking labor of the illegal immigrants low waged work.
Q's:
1.) How much on average would an illegal immigrant make for (X) amount of (Y) kind of work?
2.) What happens to children who are illegally in the country but with parents that became legal?
3.) What is required in the process to become "legal" in the US.
4.) Why are southern states jocking against the illegal immigrants work/labor which mostly benfits them?
5.) Economically, how much money would or could be lost if all of the illegal immigrants were forced from the country... completely leaving the labor to legal citizens?
1.) 20% of immigrants in Illinois county jail were considered "undocumented"
2.) Obama deported over one million illegal immigrants in the time of his presidency
3.) Illegal immigrants and workers are often paid less than minimum wage
4.) For instance, the legal american workers taking the places of illegal immigrants picking veggies, made money per bucket.
5.) 400,000 illegal immigrants will be deported in the year 2011
6.) There are four and a half million legal american born citizens with illegal immigrant parents
7.) About 36% of illegal/undocumented immigrants are deported with family
8.) These illegal immigrants were found and deported by authorities at times, when they weren't even doing anything wrong (changing lanes without a turn signal)
9.) The united states alone has 250 detention centers for these cases of illegal immigrants facing deportation
10.) Despite efforts of politicans in Southern states, the economy of their agriculture depends on the back breaking labor of the illegal immigrants low waged work.
Q's:
1.) How much on average would an illegal immigrant make for (X) amount of (Y) kind of work?
2.) What happens to children who are illegally in the country but with parents that became legal?
3.) What is required in the process to become "legal" in the US.
4.) Why are southern states jocking against the illegal immigrants work/labor which mostly benfits them?
5.) Economically, how much money would or could be lost if all of the illegal immigrants were forced from the country... completely leaving the labor to legal citizens?
Committees: Pat Meehan
Pat Meehan is in the following 3 committees:
1.) Homeland Security Committee-
i.) Peter T. King is the chairman (10th term in H.R.)
ii.) The Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence passed, by voice vote, H.R. 2764, the “WMD Intelligence and information Sharing Act of 2011,” and H.R. 3140, the “Mass Transit Intelligence Prioritization Act.”
iii.) Meehan is the Chairman of counterterrorism
2.) Oversight and Government Reform Committee-
i.) Main idea of committee is the oversight of virtually everything government does – from national security to homeland security grants, from federal workforce policies to regulatory reform and reorganization authority,
from information technology procurements at individual agencies to government-wide data security standards.
ii.) Basically an "all seeing eye" above even the government.
iii.) A sort of spin off of checks and balances within the legislative branch.
3.) Transportation and Infrastructure Committee-
i.) Meehan supports the creation of jobs in SEPTA.
ii.) Meehan co-authored legislation to encourage savings for home ownership.
iii.) Meehan says, "Our national transportation infrastructure is the backbone of the American economy. A safe and secure approach to best utilize a complex system of air, land, and sea modes of transportation remains the highest priority. It is imperative that we focus on securing our rails, roadways, and airspace."
http://meehan.house.gov/committee-assignments/
1.) Homeland Security Committee-
i.) Peter T. King is the chairman (10th term in H.R.)
ii.) The Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence passed, by voice vote, H.R. 2764, the “WMD Intelligence and information Sharing Act of 2011,” and H.R. 3140, the “Mass Transit Intelligence Prioritization Act.”
iii.) Meehan is the Chairman of counterterrorism
2.) Oversight and Government Reform Committee-
i.) Main idea of committee is the oversight of virtually everything government does – from national security to homeland security grants, from federal workforce policies to regulatory reform and reorganization authority,
from information technology procurements at individual agencies to government-wide data security standards.
ii.) Basically an "all seeing eye" above even the government.
iii.) A sort of spin off of checks and balances within the legislative branch.
3.) Transportation and Infrastructure Committee-
i.) Meehan supports the creation of jobs in SEPTA.
ii.) Meehan co-authored legislation to encourage savings for home ownership.
iii.) Meehan says, "Our national transportation infrastructure is the backbone of the American economy. A safe and secure approach to best utilize a complex system of air, land, and sea modes of transportation remains the highest priority. It is imperative that we focus on securing our rails, roadways, and airspace."
http://meehan.house.gov/committee-assignments/
West Wing: Filibuster
Q's:
1.) Is there really a way to get anywhere in a filibuster besides stalling, because when you aren't arguing a point about the Bill, then there really isn't a motive for other senators to side with you.
2.) Can a Filibuster be count-filibustered? (haha)
3.) What are other manipulative methods in passing a bill in legistlation?
4.) How strictly are the rules reguarding filibuster professionality enforced (sitting down, seize of talking ect.)?
5.) Why wouldn't stackhouse mention to anyone in power of his grandchilds autism?
Facts:
1.) A bill cannot be passed without 60 votes.
2.) The longest known filibuster lasted a little over 24 hours.
3.) When holding stand on a filibuster, you cannot stop talking, sit down, relieve yourself, or even eat.
4.) For some odd reason, the filibuster can be based upon whatever the protester wishes to talk about.
5.) In the episode, Stackhouse was filibustering for a bill which would effect his son with autism, hence his motivation for the long filibuster.
6.) There are 100 members in the senate and if over 40 vote against a Bill it cannot pass (2/3) vote.
7.) Cloture vote can only occur if the senators are all prepared to vote; it may also result as the end to a filibuster.
8.) The only way to be relieved from the filibustering, is if a person is asked questions (rules are put on pause).
1.) Is there really a way to get anywhere in a filibuster besides stalling, because when you aren't arguing a point about the Bill, then there really isn't a motive for other senators to side with you.
2.) Can a Filibuster be count-filibustered? (haha)
3.) What are other manipulative methods in passing a bill in legistlation?
4.) How strictly are the rules reguarding filibuster professionality enforced (sitting down, seize of talking ect.)?
5.) Why wouldn't stackhouse mention to anyone in power of his grandchilds autism?
Facts:
1.) A bill cannot be passed without 60 votes.
2.) The longest known filibuster lasted a little over 24 hours.
3.) When holding stand on a filibuster, you cannot stop talking, sit down, relieve yourself, or even eat.
4.) For some odd reason, the filibuster can be based upon whatever the protester wishes to talk about.
5.) In the episode, Stackhouse was filibustering for a bill which would effect his son with autism, hence his motivation for the long filibuster.
6.) There are 100 members in the senate and if over 40 vote against a Bill it cannot pass (2/3) vote.
7.) Cloture vote can only occur if the senators are all prepared to vote; it may also result as the end to a filibuster.
8.) The only way to be relieved from the filibustering, is if a person is asked questions (rules are put on pause).
Thursday, November 10, 2011
PA's electoral college
10 facts
1.) 52% to 40%, voters prefer the present winner-take-all Electoral College system rather than the winner-by-congressional district proposal).
2.) PA has a winner take all, 20 vote electoral college which is looking to be changed.
3.) In two states, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, GOP legislators have introduced bills that would change how electoral votes
4.) A candidate needs 270 of the 538 to win the presidency
5.) If a candidate wins a congressional district, he or she would receive one electoral college vote. Whoever does best in the statewide race would receive two electoral votes.
6.) Even though Democrats have won Pennsylvania in the last five presidential elections, the state remains competitive
7.) Some believe that the reason for all buzz over the issue is because peoples more specific votes to win either partial or exact amount of votes in a state, can have effect on the winner of an election.
8.) Even in 2000, a split electoral vote count in Pennsylvania would have only added to Bush’s five vote victory over Gore.
9.) the most important part of the Democratic campaign strategy in Pennsylvania is to try to maximize turnout in Philadelphia and blue-trending southeastern counties.
10.) It only takes six defections in the Senate, or 11 in the House, to stop the bill (of partial electoral college vote usuage).
1.) Although the electoral college idea is legitimate and efficient, isn't it unconstitutional?
2.) It would be unconstitutional because it shows a unitary power of these electoral colleges which represents the govt. more than the people, right?
3.) Isn't it obvious that the 2000 election, (and all others with this method of voting used) aren't precise until every american is represented?
4.) Does every vote really count??
5.) If you live in a state where the overwhelming majority is one party (texas) wouldn't it be more fair to offer the automatically assumed state less electoral votes and also some spots for minority party supporters?
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/pennsylvania-electoral-college-all-votes-matter
http://pennsylvanianews.info/pennsylvania-top-stories/nervous-pennsylvania-gop-house-members-kill-electoral-college-change.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/17/a_really_bad_idea_111367.html
http://hellertown.patch.com/articles/what-to-watch-in-pas-electoral-college-debate
1.) 52% to 40%, voters prefer the present winner-take-all Electoral College system rather than the winner-by-congressional district proposal).
2.) PA has a winner take all, 20 vote electoral college which is looking to be changed.
3.) In two states, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, GOP legislators have introduced bills that would change how electoral votes
4.) A candidate needs 270 of the 538 to win the presidency
5.) If a candidate wins a congressional district, he or she would receive one electoral college vote. Whoever does best in the statewide race would receive two electoral votes.
6.) Even though Democrats have won Pennsylvania in the last five presidential elections, the state remains competitive
7.) Some believe that the reason for all buzz over the issue is because peoples more specific votes to win either partial or exact amount of votes in a state, can have effect on the winner of an election.
8.) Even in 2000, a split electoral vote count in Pennsylvania would have only added to Bush’s five vote victory over Gore.
9.) the most important part of the Democratic campaign strategy in Pennsylvania is to try to maximize turnout in Philadelphia and blue-trending southeastern counties.
10.) It only takes six defections in the Senate, or 11 in the House, to stop the bill (of partial electoral college vote usuage).
1.) Although the electoral college idea is legitimate and efficient, isn't it unconstitutional?
2.) It would be unconstitutional because it shows a unitary power of these electoral colleges which represents the govt. more than the people, right?
3.) Isn't it obvious that the 2000 election, (and all others with this method of voting used) aren't precise until every american is represented?
4.) Does every vote really count??
5.) If you live in a state where the overwhelming majority is one party (texas) wouldn't it be more fair to offer the automatically assumed state less electoral votes and also some spots for minority party supporters?
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/pennsylvania-electoral-college-all-votes-matter
http://pennsylvanianews.info/pennsylvania-top-stories/nervous-pennsylvania-gop-house-members-kill-electoral-college-change.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/17/a_really_bad_idea_111367.html
http://hellertown.patch.com/articles/what-to-watch-in-pas-electoral-college-debate
John Boehner
1.) Boehner had to pull his debt-limit bill from the floor at the eleventh hour before reviving it with concessions to conservatives.
2.) He is the speaker of the house, he says "Work is Will".
3.) He wants to spend less money
4.) Failed to "pull the trigger" on a multi trillion dollar deal with Barrack Obama
5.) the deal involved "deficit reduction" in taxes I suppose
6.) Historically, he claims to have agreed with the way of the house
7.) Even a man of such authority in polotics, can forget the keys to his house sometimes
8.) He is not a very good leader, majority of his actions in control, tend to have kick-back to his power.
Qs:
1.) why is Boehner still the speaker of the house if he is so terrible
2.) Is he taken seriously to the rest of the HOR
3.) Even with his incumbency, will he be re elected into the HOR
4.) What are some examples of his works as a leader, "Blowing up in his face".
5.) Was the money lost in the multirillion dollar plan with Obama... where did it even come from?
2.) He is the speaker of the house, he says "Work is Will".
3.) He wants to spend less money
4.) Failed to "pull the trigger" on a multi trillion dollar deal with Barrack Obama
5.) the deal involved "deficit reduction" in taxes I suppose
6.) Historically, he claims to have agreed with the way of the house
7.) Even a man of such authority in polotics, can forget the keys to his house sometimes
8.) He is not a very good leader, majority of his actions in control, tend to have kick-back to his power.
Qs:
1.) why is Boehner still the speaker of the house if he is so terrible
2.) Is he taken seriously to the rest of the HOR
3.) Even with his incumbency, will he be re elected into the HOR
4.) What are some examples of his works as a leader, "Blowing up in his face".
5.) Was the money lost in the multirillion dollar plan with Obama... where did it even come from?
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Is the HOR too small?
5 facts:
1.) The HOR has had 435 members since 1911, over 100 years.
2.) The HOR started off with 65 members in its most vintage times of 1789.
3.) The HOR number of reps had changed due to change in population of the cencus, adding more members and hence, adding representation (Essential to Constitutionalism).
4.) The average U.S. congressional district now contains roughly 640,000 citizens, as opposed to about 200,000 in 1911.
5.) Ever since the cencus has revealed a larger population, the number of reps has not yet increased, showing mis/underrepresentation (reason for controversy on the issue).
5 questions:
1.) If the same people are basically being elected into the house of reps. due to imcumbency... why wouldn't they just add members to get new people on there?
2.) If most people in the HOR are wealthy, doesn't a trend appear that more wealthy people usually "earn" a spot?
3.) How many reps should there be in the house. according to the cencus population count?
4.) Even if there is room for 200 more seats in the HOR does it really make a difference if the 200 people were added... most of the reps have similar mindsets anyways...
5.) Would less people run for HOR if they weren't making decent money.. or even less if their power/authority was questioned and lessened because of additional representors activity..
Opinion: Definately not, 435 is a good amount, if not too many! We don't need to complicate things by adding more people and salaries to the simply misunderstood group, we just need more diversity and real people who are willing to properly represent EVERYONE in the US.
1.) The HOR has had 435 members since 1911, over 100 years.
2.) The HOR started off with 65 members in its most vintage times of 1789.
3.) The HOR number of reps had changed due to change in population of the cencus, adding more members and hence, adding representation (Essential to Constitutionalism).
4.) The average U.S. congressional district now contains roughly 640,000 citizens, as opposed to about 200,000 in 1911.
5.) Ever since the cencus has revealed a larger population, the number of reps has not yet increased, showing mis/underrepresentation (reason for controversy on the issue).
5 questions:
1.) If the same people are basically being elected into the house of reps. due to imcumbency... why wouldn't they just add members to get new people on there?
2.) If most people in the HOR are wealthy, doesn't a trend appear that more wealthy people usually "earn" a spot?
3.) How many reps should there be in the house. according to the cencus population count?
4.) Even if there is room for 200 more seats in the HOR does it really make a difference if the 200 people were added... most of the reps have similar mindsets anyways...
5.) Would less people run for HOR if they weren't making decent money.. or even less if their power/authority was questioned and lessened because of additional representors activity..
Opinion: Definately not, 435 is a good amount, if not too many! We don't need to complicate things by adding more people and salaries to the simply misunderstood group, we just need more diversity and real people who are willing to properly represent EVERYONE in the US.
Opensecrets
Darrell Issa (R of California) - richest member of Congress, $451,100,000 maximum value... 5 mill. liability
John Kerry (D of Mass.) - richest member of the Senate, $295,000,000 maximum value... he contributed almost 40 mill. in 2006 for campaigning
Those are rediculous amounts of money, would some of the legistlators who have so much money possibly use their wealth to maintain power? Is it fair that they not only have rediculous amounts of riches, but also power that can help them gain more wealth. Where did all of the money come from for both of these guys?.
"Why Does This Matter" - There is a lot of conspiracy i feel, when it comes to this issues. I stand by the author on the issue because I myself feel as if the members of Congress should be expected to give up all of this information. We deserve to know that these already rich men and women, (making up majority of 1% Millionaires in America) are making a set amount of money that they choose even over the liabilities and such they are showered in. Money sadly, is sometimes power, making the who rich population of Congress almost unfair and unconstitutional.
John Kerry (D of Mass.) - richest member of the Senate, $295,000,000 maximum value... he contributed almost 40 mill. in 2006 for campaigning
Those are rediculous amounts of money, would some of the legistlators who have so much money possibly use their wealth to maintain power? Is it fair that they not only have rediculous amounts of riches, but also power that can help them gain more wealth. Where did all of the money come from for both of these guys?.
"Why Does This Matter" - There is a lot of conspiracy i feel, when it comes to this issues. I stand by the author on the issue because I myself feel as if the members of Congress should be expected to give up all of this information. We deserve to know that these already rich men and women, (making up majority of 1% Millionaires in America) are making a set amount of money that they choose even over the liabilities and such they are showered in. Money sadly, is sometimes power, making the who rich population of Congress almost unfair and unconstitutional.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
3 class questions on immigration
1.) Are illegal immigrants a real threat to our country? -Christina
2.) How do they know Americans will take the jobs/labor that immigrants (deported) leave behind? -Justin
3.) Are there any advantages to hiring illegal immigrants in the U.S. economy? Or is it all disadvantages? -Rachael
A basic theme of these questions is the real observation of, should we look at illegal immigration as such a negative thing or are certain individuals being too one sided or biased. CAN illegal immigrants be helping the economy and certain work fields ??
To me, it seems that the three questions i picked have more so to do with an opinion based on the previous theme^. From seeing all of these questions and reflecting upon them myself, i have noticed that there is really a strong argument in favor of the "unwanted" immigrants. It is true that they are in our country illegally and really should learn to get their papers to be here legally above everything... But we (Legal Americans) benefit a lot from their residency and labors done while in the country. For instance, they are doing jobs which generally, an American wouldn't want to do because the wages are far to low and the work is far too tiedious. These illegal immigrants take the work no problem because it is more money than what they would make in their country and also they are making an illegal amount of money at the lowest possible wages ! Legal Americans have to make atleast minimum wage at their jobs because it is the law, but these illegal immigrants do not need to even need to make anything because the government and law doesn't protect their wages. On the other hand, they really don't pay taxes to support our country so these wages are what really should be lowered to the smallest point. But people arguing that it is hard enough to get a job in this economy are wrong because the jobs worked by the illegals are far from ideal for the unemployed of America. Lastly, If the jobs that illegals work for the minimal wages which they earn were worked by Americans, the wages would legally have to be raised, in turn extremely spiking inflation and raising prices even more on things like food in the already struggling economy. Sometimes one issue should be left alone to help in defeating other, more importanted/relevant/big issues such as the well being of the economy and "recession" period of the American people.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/jul/23/costs-benefits-illegal-immigration-unequal/
2.) How do they know Americans will take the jobs/labor that immigrants (deported) leave behind? -Justin
3.) Are there any advantages to hiring illegal immigrants in the U.S. economy? Or is it all disadvantages? -Rachael
A basic theme of these questions is the real observation of, should we look at illegal immigration as such a negative thing or are certain individuals being too one sided or biased. CAN illegal immigrants be helping the economy and certain work fields ??
To me, it seems that the three questions i picked have more so to do with an opinion based on the previous theme^. From seeing all of these questions and reflecting upon them myself, i have noticed that there is really a strong argument in favor of the "unwanted" immigrants. It is true that they are in our country illegally and really should learn to get their papers to be here legally above everything... But we (Legal Americans) benefit a lot from their residency and labors done while in the country. For instance, they are doing jobs which generally, an American wouldn't want to do because the wages are far to low and the work is far too tiedious. These illegal immigrants take the work no problem because it is more money than what they would make in their country and also they are making an illegal amount of money at the lowest possible wages ! Legal Americans have to make atleast minimum wage at their jobs because it is the law, but these illegal immigrants do not need to even need to make anything because the government and law doesn't protect their wages. On the other hand, they really don't pay taxes to support our country so these wages are what really should be lowered to the smallest point. But people arguing that it is hard enough to get a job in this economy are wrong because the jobs worked by the illegals are far from ideal for the unemployed of America. Lastly, If the jobs that illegals work for the minimal wages which they earn were worked by Americans, the wages would legally have to be raised, in turn extremely spiking inflation and raising prices even more on things like food in the already struggling economy. Sometimes one issue should be left alone to help in defeating other, more importanted/relevant/big issues such as the well being of the economy and "recession" period of the American people.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/jul/23/costs-benefits-illegal-immigration-unequal/
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Due Process
10 facts:
1.) In 1992, a man called Kevin Rojas was sentenced for life for a crime he did not commit.
2.) The lead/reasoning for his conviction was the orange color of his jacket, and false witnesses.
3.) Many shocked witnesses/referrals in court (i'm not sure the people who testify against the defendant) weren't able to supply valid forms of evidence against Rojas.
4.) In a death sentence, there is a 25 year jail-time wait until the actual execution.
5.) Only 5% of cases use DNA to help figure out who is guilty is a crime.
6.) Rojas spent 4 and a half years in jail before the court figured out the injustice of their wrong decision.
7.) Since there was no concrete or DNA evidence in the case for lawyers to work with, they had to use many more methods of crime solving to figure out the case; which is probably why it took so long to get Rojas free.
8.) Groups working on cases such as the "Last Resort", often spend around 10 to 15 years on these cases.
9.) Centurion Ministries have freed 44 innocent people from false convictions in the last 30 years.
10.) Police, in their reports and initial actions of a crime, have overall the first and most influential judgement on the starting part of the case.
Questions:
1.) How does such a serious mistake in a crime happen in such a sophisticated court?
2.) Did Rojas receive anything for the time wasted in his life? After all, he was completely innocent.
3.) There has to be something to be done to achieve justice equilibrium with Kevin Rojas, how do you pay back hard time in jail, especially 4 and a half years worth?
4.) He was convicted by false information offered by "witnesses", don't they deserve to receive a punishment?
5.) What are other serious cases of false convictions? Are there any where the actual convict was found and forced to serve the punishment?
1.) In 1992, a man called Kevin Rojas was sentenced for life for a crime he did not commit.
2.) The lead/reasoning for his conviction was the orange color of his jacket, and false witnesses.
3.) Many shocked witnesses/referrals in court (i'm not sure the people who testify against the defendant) weren't able to supply valid forms of evidence against Rojas.
4.) In a death sentence, there is a 25 year jail-time wait until the actual execution.
5.) Only 5% of cases use DNA to help figure out who is guilty is a crime.
6.) Rojas spent 4 and a half years in jail before the court figured out the injustice of their wrong decision.
7.) Since there was no concrete or DNA evidence in the case for lawyers to work with, they had to use many more methods of crime solving to figure out the case; which is probably why it took so long to get Rojas free.
8.) Groups working on cases such as the "Last Resort", often spend around 10 to 15 years on these cases.
9.) Centurion Ministries have freed 44 innocent people from false convictions in the last 30 years.
10.) Police, in their reports and initial actions of a crime, have overall the first and most influential judgement on the starting part of the case.
Questions:
1.) How does such a serious mistake in a crime happen in such a sophisticated court?
2.) Did Rojas receive anything for the time wasted in his life? After all, he was completely innocent.
3.) There has to be something to be done to achieve justice equilibrium with Kevin Rojas, how do you pay back hard time in jail, especially 4 and a half years worth?
4.) He was convicted by false information offered by "witnesses", don't they deserve to receive a punishment?
5.) What are other serious cases of false convictions? Are there any where the actual convict was found and forced to serve the punishment?
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Supreme Court Justices
10 facts/details/questions:
1.) John Roberts was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2003.
2.) Antonin Scalia, "received his A.B. from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School, and was a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University from 1960–1961(about)".
3.) Anthony Kennedy served in numerous positions during his career, including a member of the California Army National Guard in 1961.
4.) Clarance Thomas married Virginia Lamp in 1987 and has one child, Jamal Adeen, by a previous marriage.
5.) Ruth Ginsburg was instrumental in launching the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.
6.) Stephen Breyer was nominated by President Clinton as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat August 3, 1994.
7.) Sam Alito Jr. served as a law clerk for Leonard I. Garth of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1976–1977, and was finally appointed in 1990.
8.) Sonia Sotomayor was nominated by Bush to the district courts and by President Obama to the Associate Justice position in the Supreme Court in 2009.
9.) President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to serve as the 45th Solicitor General of the United States and she was confirmed on March 19, 2009.
10.) Out of all nine of these justices, who is the most "valuable" to the Supreme court... for each political party
1.) John Roberts was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2003.
2.) Antonin Scalia, "received his A.B. from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School, and was a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University from 1960–1961(about)".
3.) Anthony Kennedy served in numerous positions during his career, including a member of the California Army National Guard in 1961.
4.) Clarance Thomas married Virginia Lamp in 1987 and has one child, Jamal Adeen, by a previous marriage.
5.) Ruth Ginsburg was instrumental in launching the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.
6.) Stephen Breyer was nominated by President Clinton as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat August 3, 1994.
7.) Sam Alito Jr. served as a law clerk for Leonard I. Garth of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1976–1977, and was finally appointed in 1990.
8.) Sonia Sotomayor was nominated by Bush to the district courts and by President Obama to the Associate Justice position in the Supreme Court in 2009.
9.) President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to serve as the 45th Solicitor General of the United States and she was confirmed on March 19, 2009.
10.) Out of all nine of these justices, who is the most "valuable" to the Supreme court... for each political party
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Atkins v. Virginia
Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
6 facts:
1.) verdict implied that execution of a mentally retarded person is a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment.
2.) The case claimed that mentally retarded person's lack of ability in areas of reasoning, judgement and control of impulses.
3.) Atkins was accused of abduction, robbery, capitol murder; determining his initial death sentencing.
4.) Jones, assumed instigator of this crime with Atkins, testified that Atkins had actually killed the man after they both confessed of the other crimes accused, Atkins did the same against Jones.
4 questions:
1.) His crime was pretty brutal and negatively driven, shooting a man 8 times after stealing majority of his money and abducting him, shouldn't the trail have been based off of the severity of the crime opposed to the mental state of the accused?
2.) If people with mental conditions more unstable, who are more likely to commit these messed up crimes, are allowed leigh-way in sentencing for these crimes isn't that dangerous?
3.) Exactly how "mildly mentally retarded" was Atkins? What specific qualities did he posses that would make the crime committed less severe from his character?
4.) Did this Jones character instigate Atkins to do what he wanted manipulating his knowledge and mentally retarded state? Did he have motive to kill this man and take his money?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-8452.ZO.html
6 facts:
1.) verdict implied that execution of a mentally retarded person is a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment.
2.) The case claimed that mentally retarded person's lack of ability in areas of reasoning, judgement and control of impulses.
3.) Atkins was accused of abduction, robbery, capitol murder; determining his initial death sentencing.
4.) Jones, assumed instigator of this crime with Atkins, testified that Atkins had actually killed the man after they both confessed of the other crimes accused, Atkins did the same against Jones.
5.) The case Stanford v. Kentucky was used as a precedent for this case.
6.) Atkins in fact held an IQ of 59 on a regular intelligence test; he had also plead to 4 prior crimes of robbery in the past..
4 questions:
1.) His crime was pretty brutal and negatively driven, shooting a man 8 times after stealing majority of his money and abducting him, shouldn't the trail have been based off of the severity of the crime opposed to the mental state of the accused?
2.) If people with mental conditions more unstable, who are more likely to commit these messed up crimes, are allowed leigh-way in sentencing for these crimes isn't that dangerous?
3.) Exactly how "mildly mentally retarded" was Atkins? What specific qualities did he posses that would make the crime committed less severe from his character?
4.) Did this Jones character instigate Atkins to do what he wanted manipulating his knowledge and mentally retarded state? Did he have motive to kill this man and take his money?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-8452.ZO.html
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
3 court cases of interest
1.) Waller v. Florida (1969-1970)
Had to do with double jeopardy because a man was found guilty of 2 crimes and tried and imprisoned for 180 days because of them. Afterward the same crimes were filed for another court but the case was decided that the supreme court said if a trial is tried in municipal court then there can't be a second trial under any circumstance with the law of double jeopardy. The concept of double jeopardy has interested me ever since i gained knowledge of the O.J. simpson case.
2.) Penry v. Lynaugh (1989)
A man accused of capital murder was trialed to be put to death, but the complication was that he was proven mildly mentally retarded and said to have had the brain competance of a 6 year old. In the state of Texas where the death penalty is most commonly practice, it was said that killing the man was unconstitutional via his 8th ammendment rights. He was only sentanced for life in jail, but in my opinion if he was only as competant as a 6 year old, it might have been right to charge him a little less harsh, but on the other hand he did commit capital murder which is messed up. This case interested me because it was similar to the case we did in class with the other mildly mentally retarded man.
3.) United States v. Drayton (2002)
Basically a bus was stopped by two police officers searching for drugs and weapons, each member of the bus was asked to be searched and in the end 2 men were caught smuggling illegal cocaine strapped to their inner thighs. The trail was brought to the court under a search and seizure charger claiming that the officers never informed the men on the bus of their right to deny the search without a warrant, and although they gave their concent (regrettedly) they were still found guilty under the basis that the 4th ammendment doesn't require officers to tell those being searched that they have the right to deny a search. In my opinion I feel as if the officers should have had a warrant to search the whole bus itself, but then again the bus driver works for public transportation companies and it wouldn'tbe smart for an innocent bus driver to deny government authority consent to search their bus.
Had to do with double jeopardy because a man was found guilty of 2 crimes and tried and imprisoned for 180 days because of them. Afterward the same crimes were filed for another court but the case was decided that the supreme court said if a trial is tried in municipal court then there can't be a second trial under any circumstance with the law of double jeopardy. The concept of double jeopardy has interested me ever since i gained knowledge of the O.J. simpson case.
2.) Penry v. Lynaugh (1989)
A man accused of capital murder was trialed to be put to death, but the complication was that he was proven mildly mentally retarded and said to have had the brain competance of a 6 year old. In the state of Texas where the death penalty is most commonly practice, it was said that killing the man was unconstitutional via his 8th ammendment rights. He was only sentanced for life in jail, but in my opinion if he was only as competant as a 6 year old, it might have been right to charge him a little less harsh, but on the other hand he did commit capital murder which is messed up. This case interested me because it was similar to the case we did in class with the other mildly mentally retarded man.
3.) United States v. Drayton (2002)
Basically a bus was stopped by two police officers searching for drugs and weapons, each member of the bus was asked to be searched and in the end 2 men were caught smuggling illegal cocaine strapped to their inner thighs. The trail was brought to the court under a search and seizure charger claiming that the officers never informed the men on the bus of their right to deny the search without a warrant, and although they gave their concent (regrettedly) they were still found guilty under the basis that the 4th ammendment doesn't require officers to tell those being searched that they have the right to deny a search. In my opinion I feel as if the officers should have had a warrant to search the whole bus itself, but then again the bus driver works for public transportation companies and it wouldn'tbe smart for an innocent bus driver to deny government authority consent to search their bus.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
ROE v. WADE (1973)
10 facts:
1.) This was the case which decided abortion as a choice was constitutional.
2.) One said reason prochoice prevaled was because there was no marriage involved with "illicit sexual conduct".
3.) A prolife arguement was that the abortion procedure itself was very dangerous.
4.) Due to abortions being illegal in the past, the professionalness had also downgraded leaving many illegally done abortions mortal for the female.
5.) Prochoice rebutted the arguement with the fact that modern abortions were safer with new medical technology.
6.) Legally done abortions with modern technologies in early stages of pregnancies are equal or less mortal than pregnancy deaths.
7.) Another Prochoice opinion was that in the Catholic faith, life is sacred and living from the second of conception... meaning abortion was potentially murder.
8.) That reasoning^* was not plausable by means of the constitution because religion has no means or say to be involved in government.
9.) " District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." -Right to Privacy.
10.) The case took place in Texas; this was one of the most controversal benchmark court case of all time to this day.
Questions:
1.) So was the "father" with the woman attempting to get the abortion a factor in the case?
2.) How does the Catholic faith so harshly and boldy band abortion if there was not really such a thing back when the religion was being developed?
3.) Has the case had any repeals or amendments to it or whatever to change any of the final verdict?
4.) On the topic of right to privacy, although the right cannot be said "absolute" is there any way to really judge how private something may be constitutionally?
5.) What does Roe have to say about the subject now? Is she still pro choice? How has her life been?
1.) This was the case which decided abortion as a choice was constitutional.
2.) One said reason prochoice prevaled was because there was no marriage involved with "illicit sexual conduct".
3.) A prolife arguement was that the abortion procedure itself was very dangerous.
4.) Due to abortions being illegal in the past, the professionalness had also downgraded leaving many illegally done abortions mortal for the female.
5.) Prochoice rebutted the arguement with the fact that modern abortions were safer with new medical technology.
6.) Legally done abortions with modern technologies in early stages of pregnancies are equal or less mortal than pregnancy deaths.
7.) Another Prochoice opinion was that in the Catholic faith, life is sacred and living from the second of conception... meaning abortion was potentially murder.
8.) That reasoning^* was not plausable by means of the constitution because religion has no means or say to be involved in government.
9.) " District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." -Right to Privacy.
10.) The case took place in Texas; this was one of the most controversal benchmark court case of all time to this day.
Questions:
1.) So was the "father" with the woman attempting to get the abortion a factor in the case?
2.) How does the Catholic faith so harshly and boldy band abortion if there was not really such a thing back when the religion was being developed?
3.) Has the case had any repeals or amendments to it or whatever to change any of the final verdict?
4.) On the topic of right to privacy, although the right cannot be said "absolute" is there any way to really judge how private something may be constitutionally?
5.) What does Roe have to say about the subject now? Is she still pro choice? How has her life been?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)