Constituent Letter

To Greg Vitali:  
  My name is Abby M. and I am a student at Haverford High School. My peers and I will be the next generation to begin voting and leading this country, which is why I strongly believe it is important for us to start voicing our opinions now. I would love for you to really consider what I am going to say in this letter and hopefully, you will see the benefit of the  H.R. 2359: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011.
     The cosmetic industry in our country is hardly struggling; in fact, it is worth nearly $50 billion. As such a large industry, it seems to me that there should be more federal regulations on what companies produce, how they produce it, and what exactly goes into developing the product. As it is, the cosmetic industry is essentially self-regulated.
     Although there are certain guidelines companies must follow, there are definitely loop holes that, while may lead to more revenue for the company, endanger millions of consumers. For example, companies are still able to use chemicals in their products that have been directly linked to cancer. These same chemicals are actually used in a number of baby shampoos! In addition, we are also subjected to hormone disrupters in our fragrances and lead poison in our lipsticks.
    Under our current law, the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938, the FDA can not even require companies to conduct safety tests or require product recalls if something is found to be dangerous later on. As we enter 2012, it seems that a law made 74 years ago is likely to be outdated when pertaining to such a fast-paced and growing industry.
     In a society where we are so concerned with using cosmetics, it is difficult to simply spread awareness about the contents of many of these products; people will tend to use these items regardless simply because they do not understand the risk. Because of this and the impending health threat, I believe there are simple changes Congress can make in terms of what cosmetic companies can produce.
    That being said, I am asking you as a constituent to please vote in favor of the H.R. 2359: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011. This law would close up numerous holes by reducing the number of toxins in everyday products such as shampoos, soaps, and moisturizers. Ingredients that have been linked to birth-defects and cancer will officially be banned from products and labeling loopholes will be eliminated so that consumers will understand exactly what they are purchasing. By not only allowing but actually enforcing data sharing among companies, animal testing will be significantly reduced because tests will not have to be repeated.
     The dangers of the cosmetic industry affect all of us- men, women, and children of all ages. Please consider co-sponsering the H.R. 2359: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 and help keep Americans safe. Thank you so much for taking the time to read this letter.

Pending Bills Continued and Constituent Letter Choice

S. 174: Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention America Act
- A bill to improve the health of Americans and reduce health care costs by reorienting the Nation's health care system toward prevention, wellness, and health promotion.
status: Referred to Committee.
*Selected by Emily F.


S:1108: 10 Million Dollar Solar Roofs Act of 2011
facts/details:
-The bill directs the Secretary of Energy to establish a program that provides competitive grants to local communities.
*Selected by Michael K.


 S. 977: A bill to fight criminal gangs
*Selected by Sondra G.


Bills I looked at:
S. 1458: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
H.R. 3359: Traveling Exotic Animal Protection Act
 H.R. 2359: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011
*I have chosen  H.R. 2359: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 as the basis of my constituent letter.

Political Cartoon Week of 12/12

Do you think the author feels optimistic about the presidential candidates?

Who are the people represented in the cartoon?

What is the main message of the cartoon?

Terry Gross Interview

Interpreting The Constitution In The Digital Era

Facts/Details

1.  None of the existing amendments give clear answers to the most basic questions we're having today.
2. Ginsburg said we do have an expectation of privacy in the whole of our movements, and therefore when the police are going to engage in long-term surveillance, they should have a warrant.
3. Because a lesser invasion was unreasonable at the time of the framing, Brandeis said the court should translate the Constitution and recognize that you don't need a physical trespass to create an unreasonable search.
4. We can't rely simply on judges enforcing the existing Constitution to protect the values that the Framers took for granted.
5.  There's a bill pending in Congress right now that is a bipartisan geolocational privacy bill.
6. In the US, there is no expectation of privacy on the street.
7. We can be permanently tarred for one mistake we made on the Internet. 
8. The French data privacy commissioner has said that there should be a legal right to escape your past on the Internet. He calls it the droit a l'oubli, the right to oblivion.
9. We regulate private-sector data gathering much less vigorously than Europe does because we don't have a tradition in America of protecting a right to dignity.
10. Google has been under a lot of pressure - in particular from Senator Joseph Lieberman - to remove terrorist videos on the Internet.

Questions

1. How do you draw the line between surveillance and real-time view of public space?
2. Does America's view of privacy differ from those of European countries?
3. What is protected when you put something on the internet?
4. In the US, do we have an equivalent to the European privacy commission?
5. Should government do more to regulate what goes on the Internet, or does this violate our right to free speech? 

Should The Electoral College Be Abolished?

Facts/Details

1. The electoral college is not a college and never meets as a single entity, but it greatly influences the character of the parties, the nominating process, and the outcome of an election.
2. The existence of the electoral college usually undermines third parties, which are unlikely to win electoral votes.
3. Not only does the Electoral College triple the political clout of voters in the seven least populous states that elect just one member of the House, it doubles the clout of those in six other states that elect two members of the House.
4. George W. Bush was the first Southern conservative since before the Civil War.
5. Gore proposed that regardless of the outcome in the Electoral College, he and Bush should abide by the popular vote. 
6. The electoral college meets every four years.
7. Change that takes place in accordance with Article V is licensed change whereas real change means a departure from any such arrangement. 
8. The law cannot prevent a candidate from voluntarily withdrawing from the race.
9. Gore believed that the Electoral College favored small of large states, whites over blacks and Hispanics, and farmers and ranchers over subway riders and commuters in crowded urban and suburban districts. 
10. Ten states as of the year 2000 account for 54% of the US population. 

Questions

1. Why did we decide to use the Electoral College in the first place rather than using only the popular vote?
2. How are electors chosen?
3. When was the Electoral College established?
4. Would it be legal for both candidates to ignore the Electoral College and decide to follow the popular vote?
5. Must electors vote for the candidate who won their state's popular vote?

National Debt Answers

National Debt Q & A

1. Which other countries are experiencing national debt the way the US is?
     One other country that is experiencing difficult economic times is Greece. Due to uncontrolled government spending, Greece has suffered its most severe debt crisis since becoming a democracy. The government was able to spend beyond its means, leadings to anger among Greek citizens.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/266284/20111213/deal-greek-debt-swap-talks-source.htm


2. What's the difference between debt and deficit?
     The national debt is the net accumulated borrowing by the federal government. Essentially, it is the difference between all of the money we as a nation have ever spent and the total revenue we have made.

     The annual federal budget deficit is the amount that our federal government borrows each year. So, it is the difference between what the government spends and what it makes in revenue in one year. Each year the deficit is added to the existing debt.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm


3. What are some ways to reduce national debt?

•  Curb government expenditures. 
• Increase taxes.
• Increase the labor force.
• Cut the current deficit.
• Decrease logrolling.
• Raise taxes on the wealthy and on big businesses.

New York Times Budget Puzzle

How much did you save?
In 2015, I saved 400 billion.
In 2030, I saved 714 billion.

What % came from tax increases?
45% of the savings came from tax increases.


What % came from spending cuts?
55% of the savings came from spending cuts.

I had a hard time deciding where to cut spending in areas such as medicare and social security. I decided against raising the retirement and social security age. The easiest decisions for me by far were the military cuts. I cut funding for weapons, cut troop sizes, and chose to pull most troops out of the Middle East by 2015.
Although the decisions made in terms of social security, health care, and medicare will undoubtedly earn me votes from the Democrats, these choices combined with the military decisions will probably lose me Republican votes.

President Research- Carter

Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/jimmycarter

http://www.cartercenter.org/news/experts/jimmy_carter.html

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/carter-bio.html

http://millercenter.org/president/carter

http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/jec/chron.phtml

Lessons to be learned from Carter's experiences as President:

1. Is it important to remove racial barriers when trying to unite a group of people.
2. We must work towards the advancement of human rights.
3. After  President's time in office is up, he or she should still continue working for change in some way, therefore leaving a legacy behind and giving the presidency a good name.
4. It is hard to govern as an outsider (he was a peanut farmer from Georgia- did not fit the stereotype).
5. A President must make compromises in order to get things moving in Washington.
6. Carter often disdained the news media, which became a major disadvantage for him. A President should respect and work with the media.

Electoral College Reform

Facts/Details

1. Electors can vote for a candidate who is not in their same political party.
2. The winner of the popular vote is not necessarily the overall winner (for example, Gore v. Bush)
3.  Republicans often win more states overall, but Democrats often win more big states.
4. Electoral college defenders argue that without the electoral college, candidates will spend all their time trying to rack up big victories in big cities with big media, ignoring the rest of the voters.
5. Historically, the electoral college leader has also tended to be the popular vote leader.
6. The electoral college makes it easier to represent minorities and enhance their involvement.
7. The electoral college encourages a two party system.
8. The electoral college is a system set up by the framers of the Constitution in Article 2, Section 1, and then altered by the 12th Amendment.
9.  The electoral college avoids the possibility of a recount of the entire nation.
11. Some of the larger states leaning in one direction could completely over power a large portion of the country.  The electoral college provides some balance to this.

Questions:

1. Would the outcome of a presidential election likely to be different if we voted by a general population vote rather than an electoral college vote?
2. What proposals have been made to change the Electoral College system?
3. How are electors selected?
4. Where/when does the electoral college meet?
5. How many times have we had a president who did not win the popular, but still won the electoral college?

Campaign Ad Analysis

Techniques used in the ads:

• Celebrities: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1980/pres-ford

         Ford speaks out on behalf of Reagan. Although Reagan did win the election, I'm not sure if this ad contributed much to his success because Ford lost the previous election, so he may not have been the most credible source.

• Relating to the "simple folks" or average person: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1992/milwaukee

       In this, we hear from a handful of average citizens talking about their problems and how Clinton will be able to help them out. Hearing from everyday, normal people probably proved to be effective.

• Positivity: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1992/we-can-do-it

         Clinton said, "I won't you to believe we can do it." These are the things people want to hear; they want a convincing voice telling them that they can make things better for them. This was most likely very effective. 

• Scare Tactics: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1980/podium

          This ad uses startling facts about the nation's downfalls in economy, housing, and employment to scare people from voting for Carter. I think this ad was effective because it made people blame Carter and fear what would happen if he served a second term.

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

              I think this technique was effective because it was catchy and cute, which probably caught people's attention. Also, kids probably liked it, making it  common household conversation. 

• Cardstacking: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/accomplishments

               Johnson talks about all of the good things he has done and plans to do, but nothing that he has done bad. This ad probably was effective because it highlights so many successes.

Assertions on campaign ads:

1. Overall, advertising does little to inform and very little to change a person's opinion. 
2. More advertising does not produce a "better" democratic result.
3. Research suggests that the presidential candidate who can raise and spend the most money does tend to do better in the polls. 
4. Advertising is a paid propaganda that distorts the democratic process.

Political Cartoon Week of 12/5

1. Do you think the author is more liberal or conservative, and why?

2. What do you think is the purpose of this cartoon?

3. Are there any symbols in this cartoon? If so, what are they and what do they represent?

Death Penalty Answers

 1. On average, how long are inmates held on death row before they are put to death? 

           Prisoners often stay on death row for years before their execution. In fact, most deaths on death row are actually from natural causes because of the long wait. 

 2.  Is it more expensive to imprison someone or punish them them with the death penalty?
         Life imprisonment is usually cheaper because of the appeals process of sending an inmate to death row.    According to Amnesty International, death row is more expensive. 
 3. How many states have banned the death penalty, and how many states still have it?

      Sixteen US states (plus DC) have banned the death penalty. Pennsylvania is not one of these states, although it is very rare that someone is put to death in PA. 

Pending Bills

1.   S. 1458: Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012: Bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.
      Status: This bill was considered in committee which has recommended it be considered by the Senate                           as a whole.

2.   H.R. 3359: Traveling Exotic Animal Protection Act: To amend the Animal Welfare Act to restrict the use of exotic and non-domesticated animals in traveling circuses and exhibitions.
        Status: This bill is in the first step in the legislative process.

3.   H.R. 2359: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011: To amend title VI of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to ensure the safe use of cosmetics, and for other purposes.
        Status:  This bill is in the first step in the legislative process.


I have chosen to examine H.R. 2359: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 further. 


Details of the bill:

1. Designed to give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authority to ensure that personal care products are free of harmful ingredients and that ingredients are fully disclosed.
2.  It will also help the cosmetics industry by fostering the development of the safer products American consumers are demanding.
3. Phase-out of ingredients linked to cancer, birth defects and developmental harm.
4. Elimination of labeling loopholes by requiring full ingredient disclosure on product labels and company websites, including salon products and the constituent ingredients of fragrance.
5. Required data-sharing to avoid duplicative testing and encourage the development of alternatives to animal testing.
6. Creation of a health-based safety standard that includes protections for children, the elderly, workers and other vulnerable populations.

Questions:

1. Will the bill require companies to test every product?
2. How will the bill impact small business? How about big business?
3. What does the bill say about animal testing?

Political Cartoon 11/29

1. Does the author think the congressional Super Committee?

2. Do you think this committee will be successful, or is it likely to become gridlocked?

3. What would the author predict for the future in regards to the Super Committee?

2008 Presidential Election Returns

Pennsylvania's 2008 Presidential Election Returns by District

1. Obama won 54.7% of the votes, while McCain won 44.3%.
2. The candidates split the white vote, but Obama was the overwhelming choice among blacks and Hispanics.
3. Obama's victory marked the fifth straight presidential election in which the Democrats carried Pennsylvania.
4. Democrats now outnumber Republicans by more than 1 million in PA.
5. McCain spent nearly three times as many days campaigning in Pennsylvania as Obama did. 

PA's Congressional Districts

PA's 19 Congressional Districts

1. Delaware County is split into two different congressional districts- District 1 and District 7.
2. Our district is represented by Pat Meehan, a Republican.
3. The 14th district is made up solely by Allegheny County.
4. 7 out of the 19 districts are represented by a Democrat in Congress.
5. 12 out of the 19 districts are represented by a Republican in Congress.
6. Most of the districts follow a boxy shape, which shows they were probably not gerrymandered.
7. Philadelphia is split into 5 different congressional districts.
8. All 19 districts have about the same number of people living in them.
9. District 5 has the most number of counties in it (17).
10. Some districts have more counties in them and are larger in area, but this is because the counties have fewer people.

Death Penalty Questions To Answer

 1. On average, how long are inmates held on death row before they are put to death?


 2.  Is it more expensive to imprison someone or punish them them with the death penalty?


 3. How many states have banned the death penalty, and how many states still have it?

How Washington Works

Facts and Comments:

1. Political parties have a social impact: most politicians fraternize mainly with colleagues from within their own party.
2. Very few politicians go home to retire or make money. Most stay in Washington and become lawyers, lobbyists, or consultants. 
3. The city and its suburbs are encircled by a 64-mile freeway loop known as the beltway. The political community of Washington talks as if that beltway formed a most separating the capital from the country.
4. Each city has variety, while Washington in spite of its growing world of art, theaters, opera, and symphony has only one passion: politics.
5. Very few politicians admit in print how much they really want public recognition.
6. Washington gives politicians a feeling of being at the center of things, therefore making them feel powerful.
7. Practically everyone in political Washington has come from somewhere else.
8. "Potomac fever" = the incurable addiction of wielding political power of feeling at the political center.
9. Washington is very open to newcomers.
10. Political Washington is a special community with a culture all its own, its own established rituals and folkways, its tokens of status and influence, its rules and conventions, its tribal rivalries and personal animosities. 

Questions:

1. Because Washington isn't represented in Congress, do the people feel disconnected from the rest of the country or left out of decisions?
2. Is Washington different than other cities or is it merely isolated?
3. How many people living in Washington do not work in politics at all?
4. Do politicians get along outside of work? Are they friends even if they are from different ends of the political spectrum? 
5. Do citizens of Washington feel excluded from the country?
6. Do families of politicians make sacrifices to live in Washington and to be a part of the limelight?
7. What about Washington causes narcissism? 
8. Does the author suggest that politicians join the government for the wrong reasons?
9. Do political titles bring power or do they just suggest an idea of power?
10. Do politicians come to Washington already with the narcissistic attitude, or does such a trait develop as one becomes an insider?

How Birth Control And Abortion Became Politicized

Facts/Details Learned

1. The first birth control clinic in the U.S. opened in 1916 and was operated by Margaret Sanger.
2. At this time, it was illegal for Sanger to give out information on contraceptive options, which angered poor, young women. 
3. Passing out such information was illegal under the 1873 Comstock Law, which prohibited the distribution of any printed information deemed obscene.
4. Nine days after opening her clinic, Sanger was arrested after an undercover cop came in and requested a pamphlet about STDs and contraceptives.
5. On appeal, the court ruled that is would be permissible for doctors only to talk to women about contraception, which allowed Sanger to open up clinics across the country.
6. In 1936, a federal appellate court removed contraception from the obscenity category.
7. The Griswold v. Connecticut ruling established that the Constitution protected a right to privacy, which meant that contraceptives were legal.
8. By the late 1960s, Richard Nixon was pushing Congress to increase federal funding for family planning. In 1970, he signed Title X into law.
9. 1973- Roe v. Wade made abortion legal.
10. Sanger's American Birth Control League was renamed the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Questions

1. Is it right to make these types of issues so political? What would happen if there were no laws on birth control, abortion, and other similar moral issues?
2. Is interest in birth control a result of the growing population concerns or because it is a way to minimize abortions?
3. Are there federal regulations on the number of abortions someone can receive?
4. Are all forms of birth control legal now?
5. Why wasn't Sanger allowed to distribute information on contraceptives? Did this violate her right to free speech?
6. If abortion were illegal, isn't it likely that people would still find ways around it by looking into more dangerous an illegal methods?

House of Representatives: Committees

Andrew Roberts of New Jersey is a member of the following two committees in the House:

• Committee on Armed Service

1. Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
2. Subcommittee on Strategic forces

• Committee on Education and the Workforce

1. Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training
2. Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions 

The other Congressman I follow is Bob Casey. Aside from the two above, I also decided to research the 

Ethics Committee.

1.  The Committee on Armed Service was created by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.
2. The committee chairman is Republican Buck McKeon from California.
3. This committee funds and oversees the Department of Defense.

1. The Committee on Education and the Workforce oversees education and workforce programs that affect all Americans, from early learning through secondary education, from job training through retirement.
2. This committee oversees the No Child Left Behind Act.
3. This committee also deals with pension and retirement for workers.

1. Unlike the rest of the committees, the Ethics Committee has an equal number of members from each party.
2. Agrees on a set of rules that regulate what behavior is considered ethical for members and conducts investigations when behavior violates these standards.
3. The first issue this committee ever handled was in 1798, when Rep. Lyon of Vermont was accused of gross indecency after he spat on Rep. Griswold of Connecticut.

Frontline: Lost In Detention

Facts/Details Learned

1. Numbers of illegal immigrants are higher under Obama than Bush.
2. There is little to no support for immigration reform on the Republican side.
3. 195 thousand immigrants were removed last year.
4. ICE checks fingerprints and assesses if a person is a citizen.
5. Less than 20% of illegal immigrants have been convicted of serious crimes.
6. 400,000 = target deport numbers per year.
7. The Secure Communities program was set up to target and deport dangerous criminal immigrants.
8. Secure Communities was set up with the intention of reducing racial profiling.
9. State and local jurisdictions cannot opt out of this program.
10. ICE = U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement

Questions

1. Are illegal immigrants ever caught and allowed to stay?
2. Are immigrants not being held for crimes still placed in prison-like facilities?
3. Are legal immigrants detained if they commit a crime?
4. What are the negatives and positives of Secure Communities?
5. What happens if the deport target number are not reached?

West Wing Episode: Filibuster

Facts/Details Learned

1. Voting can begin as soon as filibuster is over.
2. During a filibuster, the person cannot stop eat, sleep, sit down, or stop talking. 
3. If multiple people are involved in the filibuster, they can take turns talking.
4. The person can only yield for a question.
5. They do not have to even talk about the bill- they just must continue talking.
6. A bill must have 60 votes to pass in the Senate.
7. Cloture means the ending of a debate.
8. Filibusters give more power to individual Senators.
9. This is a method of holding up legislation.
10. Many Senators want new laws to minimize the effects of filibusters because they are becoming more common.

Questions

1. How often do filibusters occur in Congress?
2. Are filibusters usually successful?
3. Does the House experience something like this, too?
4. Where did this term come from?
5. When was the first known filibuster in the US Senate?

Illegal Immigrant Questions

1. Why do some immigrants opt to come to the US illegally rather than legally?

• There are only a certain number of immigrants allowed to enter the country per year. The one who do not make the cut usually do no just give up; they choose to enter the country illegally. Some come illegally because it takes too long to file for citizenship, and their situation calls for immediate action. Others like illegal immigration because it means they do not have to pay taxes.

2. Would our country likely face immediate financial problems if all the illegal immigrants left due to the empty jobs? Or, would the situation improve?

• At first, our economy would probably collapse a little because there would be huge gaps in industries such as farming and factories where the illegal immigrants mostly worked. Americans will not want to fill in these positions because they are not used to this type of back-breaking labor, because they would be underpaid, and, sometimes, because the are overqualified. Eventually, the economic situation would likely improve.

3. Do young illegal immigrants attend school?

• Children of illegal immigrants are allowed to attend public school because public schools do not ask citizenship questions upon enrollment; they only ask residential questions to prove that the student lives in their district. As long as the student lives in the district, the school is required to teach them. However, if the child of an illegal immigrant chose to never attend an American school, it would fly under the radar because nobody knows the child exists in the country. 

Electoral College Votes

Facts/Details Learned

1. Currently, we have a "winner takes all system," but this is being petitioned to be changed.
2. One electoral college vote would be awarded for each of the state's congressional districts, and the winner of the popular vote would receive two more.
3. With the 2012 election expected to be close, this system would likely benefit the Republicans more than the Democrats. 
4. Our representative, Pat Meehan, has opposed the change. 
5.  It only takes six defections in the Senate, or 11 in the House, to stop the bill.
6. Democrats have won PA in the last 5 presidential elections, but the state has always been very competitive.
7. This new voting system could potentially reduce overall voting turnout. 
8. This bill has also been introduced in Wisconsin. 
9. This bill could mean that one candidate could win the state but actually receive fewer electoral college votes than the other candidate. 
10. A secretive nonprofit group called All Votes Matter has been pushing the electoral vote scheme since May. All Votes Matter has close ties to the Pennsylvania GOP

Questions

1. Was the bill proposed by Democrats, Republicans, or a mix of both?
2. Has this system of voting been successful in the other states that use it?
3. Would this new system reduce our power in elections?
4. What are the negatives and positives of this bill?
5. Could this piecemeal electoral college voting system have a huge impact on the outcome of the presidential election?

This bill was proposed by Sen. Pileggi

John Boehner

Facts/Details Learned

1. He failed to cut a multitrillion-dollar deficit-reduction deal with President Obama.
   
2. He had to pull his debt-limit bill from the floor at the eleventh hour before reviving it with concessions to conservatives.
   
3. Boehner and the Republicans have used the leverage of controlling the single chamber of Congress to cut one trillion dollars from the budget for the next decade.
4. Member of the Republican party
5. He has been leader of the House since 2006.
6. There seems to be frustration with him because he does not accomplish much.
7. He has a reputation of always voting "no."
8. Represents Ohio's 8th Congressional District.

Questions

1. Does Boehner have any plans to work with the President and the Senate, rather than against them?
2. Boehner often calls for the creation of more jobs, but does little to make this happen. How does he suggest we create more jobs?
3. Who elects the Speaker of the House?
4. Is he well-liked in the House?
5. Has he impacted the Congress in a major way?

Is the House of Representatives Too Small?

Facts

1. Research shows that as districts get bigger in population, constituents are less likely to report that they had contact with their member of Congress, less likely to think their member would be helpful, and less likely to favorably evaluate their member of Congress.
2. Our House has less members than both the British House of Commons and the Germans Bundestag, and Germany has 80 million people and Britain has 60 million people. 
3. Only about 20% of people support increasing the size of the House, whereas 60% are in favor of keeping it the same and 20% favor decreasing the size.
4. When asked whether they would support increasing the House to improve representation of minorities and women, support goes up to 48%.
5. Most support for a larger  House comes from Democrats, women, and African Americans.

Questions

1. How do Representatives go about trying to keep in touch with all the people (nearly 640,000 citizens each) that they represent?
2. In what ways would having smaller districts and more Representatives benefit the people?
3. Could a larger House slow down progress?
4. What is the argument for not wanting a larger House? Is one reason the possible tax increase that would result from this change?
5. Do minorities feel as if they are represented in our current House?

Personally, I do not think all of our diverse population is fairly represented in government. In larger districts, the minorities do not have a representative to reflect their needs, which tend to be overlooked in our current House. I think we should increase the size of the House to better include all people, but not so drastically that our taxes totally shoot up. 150-200 additional members of House would do our country well due to the ever-growing population that deserves to be fairly represented in government.

Representatives' Personal Finances

Robert Andrews
Andrews has a net worth of between $66,005-$206,000, ranking him 346th in the House. He has a total of 5 assets that total between $81,005-$216,000. He has had one liability of between $10,000-$15,000.


Bob Casey
Casey's net worth is from $160,020-$578,000, ranking him 84th in the Senate. He has a total of 14 assets of between $160,020-$578,000. He has had three transactions totaling $45,003 and $150,000.

One reason why knowing members of Congress' personal  finances is important is because we are able to get a better idea of where many of their opinions are coming from. For example, it might be harder for someone who is very wealthy to accurately represent many common Americans. With millionaires forming nearly 50% of our Congress, this is often the case. It's not that these millionaires are bad Senators or Representatives, but how can we expect them to totally understand the perspective of something they have never truly experienced?

Due Process

Facts and Details:

1. Eyewitnesses can sometimes be unreliable.
2. only 25% of cases have biological evidence.
3. Kevin Rojas, a high school senior, was wrongly accused of murder because the claims of witnesses were untrue.
4. After four years in prison, a mother-daughter team fought for his case and won. 
5. DNA plays an important role in trials, but they are developing ways to prove people innocent without it.
6. Quincy Spruell served 24 years in prison for a murder he did not commit.
7. Texas has more executions than any other state. 
8. A group called Last Resort deals with the innocence of prisoners. They usually do not have DNA to work with.
9. A person sentenced to death can potentially wait 25 years before being executed.
10. There are 55 innocence projects in the United States.

Questions:

1. How much are the claims of eyewitnesses considered in a trial? 
2. What is more crucial to a trial: eyewitnesses or DNA?
3. After an innocent person is released from prison, is the case forgotten or do the search for the rea criminal?
4. How could we prevent the sentencing of innocent people? How could be change or system?
5. How many people a year are found innocent after being kept in prison?

Justice John Paul Stevens' 10 Most Important Supreme Court Decisions: Atkins vs. Virginia

ATKINS VS. VIRGINIA

Facts of the case:

1. Supreme Court ruled that executing mentally retarded people is unconstitutional. 
2. In a 6-3 majority, they used the 8th amendment to back up their votes.
3. The court used cases such as Coker vs. Georgia and Enmund vs. Florida as precedents.
4. Georgia was the first state to outlaw the execution of mentally retarded people.
5. Atkins had an IQ of 59, therefore reinforcing the idea that he was mentally retarded and could not be held accountable for his violent crimes. 
6. The case had only one witness- a forensic psychologist.

Questions:

1. How much do witnesses matter in Supreme Court cases? Are their testimonies taken into a lot of consideration?
2. Are there other types of citizens who are exempt from the death penalty besides those with mental retardations?
3. Did the public react positively or negatively to the ruling?
4. Is it a federal law that mentally disabled people cannot be executed? 

Supreme Court Justices

1. John G. Roberts, Jr. is the Chief Justice. He served as a law clerk to the Rehnquist court and practiced law in Washington.
2. Antonin Scalia is an associate justice. He was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1982. He was nominated to the Supreme Court by Reagan.
3. Anthony M. Kennedy is an associate justice. He was a member of the California Army Nation Guard and took part in two committees of the Judicial Conference in the U.S.
4. Clarence Thomas is an associate justice. He became a Judge to the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1990, then Bush appointed him as an associate justice to the Court.
5. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an associate justice. She played a major role is launching the Women's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. Clinton appointed her to the Supreme Court.
6. Stephen G. Breyer is an associate justice. He served as a member of the Judicial Conference of the U.S. and of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. He was appointed tot he Court by Clinton.
7. Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. is an associate justice. He was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1990. George W. Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court and he took his seat in 2006. 
8. Sonia Sotomayor is an associate justice. Before being nominated to the Court in 2009 by Obama, he served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 
9. Elena Kagen is an associate justice. Obama nominated her to serve at the 45th Solicitor General of the U.S. Later, he also nominated her to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court.
10. A few recently-retired associate justices are Sandra Da O'Connor, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens. 

Court Cases

1. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (March 25, 1998-June 26, 1998) This case stood out to me because is dealt with the issue of gender equality and the harassment of women. Sometimes, I think this is an issue that is overlooked and it is good to see that such a common issue was able to make it to the Supreme Court. 
2. Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomle City v. Earls (March 19, 2002-June 27, 2002) I think this case is interesting because, as students, we can relate to feeling as though we sometimes sacrifice our rights a little bit when we enter school. I think it is good to test students for drug abuse if there is reasonable suspicion or evidence suggesting they might be using, but I do think this school district was wrong to randomly test innocent students. It violates one's right to privacy. 
3. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (October 13, 1987-January 13, 1988) This case caught my attention because it dealt with something I was actually wondering about with our own newspaper: censorship. I was curious as to whether there were limits on the things we could publish in our school paper, which is exactly what these students had a problem with. Certain things that they attempted to publish in their paper were taken out by the school district, which students argued violated their right to free speech. Do we give up these rights when in school?

Roe vs. Wade

Details of the case:

1. Modern abortion techniques have significantly reduced the likelihood of a woman's death during the procedure. This eliminates the claim that abortion is primarily a health issue. Now, it is more of a moral concern.
2. The Constitution does not explicitly mention any rights to privacy. 
3. The court mentioned that bringing an "unwanted" child into a family could cause harm, both physically and mentally.
4. the 14th amendment protects a woman's right to get an abortion.
5. Many people believe that life begins at conception, while others believe life begins after birth. To some people, abortion is similar to murder. 
6. The state has the ability to regulate the abortion procedure after the first trimester.
7. Saving the mother's life is a legal justification for having an abortion. 
8. Viability of a fetus is usually around 7 months. 
9. The case disallowed many federal and state restrictions on abortions.
10. 7-2 majority in favor of Roe. 

Questions:

1. What would a biologist have to say about this issue? When would they say life begins?
2. Do states ever have to ability to prohibit an abortion? 
3. If abortions were deemed illegal, do you think many people would simple turn to back alley abortions?  
4. How has this decision impacted society?
5. Could it be argued that abortion is not really a government issue, but rather a moral or religious issue?

West Wing Episode

The Supremes

1. The open bench position will usually be filled with someone similar to the old justice. 
2. The executive branch will no select super-controversial candidates.
3. We have a government based compromises. In the episode, the bench will filled with a conservative and a liberal to please both sides.
4. The judiciary council reviews new justices. 
5. The court performs best when balanced with different types of people. 
6. The president works with many people when he makes decisions. He has a team of administrators and staff. 
7. Justice's political views often shift as they serve on the court. Sometimes, strict left or right wing justices become more centrist.
8. The government sometimes shapes what they do around how they think the public will react, i.e. not choosing just a strict liberal or a strict conservative. 

1. Is there a deadline for selecting a new justice?
2. Who interviews prospect justices?
3. Can the president actually ask a justice to resign?
4. Does a president's nominee ever get rejected b the judiciary council?
5. Are there any sort of qualifications for being a justice? 
6. What positions do most justices hold before appointment to the Supreme Court?

Federalist #78

Important Quotes

1.  "It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."- This is important because it emphasizes the common view that the Judicial branch is the most passive, neutral branch. It does not really have power to make changes until given to opportunity to address them in a court case. 
2. "...the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them." - This quote reinforces the idea that the Supreme Court will probably never gain too much power because its sole purpose is to interpret the already-made laws of the Constitution. 
3. "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid." - This quote reflects the idea of the checks and balance system because it says that whatever the Legislative branch says does not always go; the other two branches have the ability to overturn their laws.
4. "They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental." - Judicial rulings are based solely on the Constitutional principles. 
5. "And that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security."- What does this mean? Is he saying he supports an unlimited term for justices?

Questions for Hamilton:

1. Would you say that you and Madison tend to share similar beliefs? You seem to be saying that a Bill of Rights is not needed, while Madison is a huge supporter of such a bill.
2. Do you support the life-long appointment of Supreme Court justices? Why or why not?
3. What do you mean when you refer to the "independent spirit of the judges?"
4. What would you say is the main purpose of the federal court?
5. Should a judge ever apply his or her opinion to the ruling of a case?

Representative Update: Bob Casey

BOB CASEY

Senator Bob Casey is a member of many different committees, including the Joint Economic Committee, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and Committee on Foreign Relations. Since 2007, he has sponsored 174 bills, but only 4 of them have made it out of the committee. Most recently, he has sponsored the Fallen Heroes of 9/11 Act, the Children's Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act, the Computer Science Education Act, and the National Opportunity and Community Renewal Act. This year he has introduced a number of bills, the majority of which seem to be for the Environment and Public Works Committee.

The past few weeks, Casey has been busy promoting the Education for Tomorrow's Jobs Act. 

2000 Election: Supreme Court Decision

Facts/Details:

1. The majority of the Supreme Court votes in favor of stopping the recount were from the most conservative justices.
2. The equal protection ruling had no basis in precedent or history. 
3. Bush v. Gore was actually the fourth intervention by the US Supreme Court in the outcome of the presidential election. 
4. There were a few different types of machine recounts. Some checked the arithmetic while others checked ballots.
5. Thirty states fail to specify concrete standards for manual recounts. 
6. Poor counties have older machines that count about 97% of the votes, while newer counties have machines that count about 99%.
7. Bush thought the Florida Supreme Court has broke the law, while Gore believed it was merely an interpretation. 
8. Six justices were unwilling  to accept Bush's major submission. 

Post Reading Questions:

1. What is a "minimalist ruling?"
2. What irreparable harm did the manual recount cause?
3. Has this ruling created a new precedent that has affected other elections?
4. Was the recount stopped due to lacking uniformity in recounting methods? Or were there other reasons?
5. Was it ever a consideration to simply continue using clear counting standards?

The Common Good

After reading the essay, I decided that I do believe that a common good exists, or at least has the potential to exist. There are certain things in society that benefit everyone: an improved education system, good healthcare, and good public safety, for example. These things add to a community and help improve the quality of life. 


Still, I am not totally sure what exactly a "common good" is. To me, it seems to be something that benefits all people involved, but this is sort of abstract. I am not quite sure if it is possible to benefit all people because each person has a different idea of what "good" is. It could mean the more selfless point of view, thinking of everything as "ours" rather than "mine." 


One thing from the essay that especially stood out to me was the part that suggested the common good hinders one's right to individualism.  I don't agree with this idea; in fact, I think that the common good promotes individual rights because it helps all people live a better lifestyle where they have access to do the things they want. For example, working towards a cleaner environment advances everyone's healthy lifestyle, enabling them to be able to move forward with the things they want to do in life. 

2000 Election: Recount

Facts:

1. The Supreme Court ruled to stop the Florida election recount on December 12.
2. Al Gore retracted his personal phone concession to Bush on November 8th.
3. Bush beat Gore by only about 0.03%
4. Elections must be certified within 5-6 days.
5. Machine ballots can be flawed.
6. 20,000 voters were legally disqualified. 
7. Gore vs. Harris in federal court --> Gore lost.
8. At the time, Katherine Harris was Secretary of State of Florida. 

Questions:

1. Was Katherine Harris truly as evil as she is depicted in the movie?
2. Had Al Gore been expecting to win Florida?
3. What does "concede" mean in terms of voting and politics?
4. Did each county have different standards for recounting?
5. Are the machine recounts more accurate than manual recounts?
6. On what grounds did the Supreme Court stop the recount?
7. Is there even a possibility that the outcome could have been different has the recount been completed?
8. How could the recounting process have been made to be constitutional?

Healthcare Post #2

One thing that it seems nearly all Americans can agree on, despite what their political affiliation might be, is that it is crucial to make healthcare as affordable as possible for all people. No matter how much money a family has, I strongly believe that they should be able to access healthcare if they need it; they should not have to choose between paying for healthcare and, say, paying for food. However, I do recognize that it is not as simple as this, for the issue arises as to whether coverage should happen on a state level or a national level. To me, as long as everyone has access to a decent healthcare plan, it does not really matter if it is a state or national issue.


Although every person should have equal access to good healthcare, I really think this is important for senior citizens; specifically, older people have a harder time paying for good coverage. On one hand, I think raising taxes slightly would ensure that all Americans have decent healthcare; but, I certainly do not think high tax raises are the answer, for they would leave a bitter taste in the mouths of taxpayers. There should be an in-between. 
One question that always stumps me is if it should be a law that all Americans must have some sort of health insurance. Is such a law constitutional? It is moral? 

2000 Election Reading

Prereading:

1. Is there a chance that Gore would have won if the votes had been recounted completely?
2. Was the Supreme Court mostly Republican at this time?
3. Was Bush worried during the recount or was he fairly confident he had won?
4. Has there ever had to be a recount like this before?
5. How did the American public react to the idea of a recount?

Facts and Details:

1.  The Supreme Court backed their decision by referencing Article II, Clause II of the Constitution ("Each  state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors") and Section 5 of Title 3.
2. Voting was made difficult due to the use of "butterfly ballots."
3. Democrats argued that the State Law provided for a manual recount.
4. Republicans argued that the manual recount was unlawful.
5. The election was finally decided after the 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court. The recount had to stop and Bush was the winner. 

Postreading:

1. What would make manual recounting unlawful? How is it any less fair than the machine counting?
2. Have we since changed our voting methods to avoid such confusing ballots?
3. Was there a standard they could have made when deciding how to recount which outlined which ballots were counted as legal?
4. Who was actually doing the manual recounting?
5. Was the recounting stopped because of a lack of confidence in the counters?

Politician Update: Andrew Roberts

Robert Andrews has been representing the 1st Congressional District of New Jersey since 1989. Since being elected, he has only missed 6% of the role call votes. He is a member of the House Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Out of the 560 bills he has sponsored, 553 have not made it out of his committee and two have been enacted. Most recently, he has sponsored the following bills:

• To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand eligibility for concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans' disability compensation.
• Dental Coverage Value and Transparency Act of 2011
• National Guard Technician Equity Act
• Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the freedom, security, and stability of Taiwan. 

Healthcare Post #1

With the upcoming primaries and presidential campaigns, it is important to start learning about each candidate's perspective. One major issue that many Americans are concerned about is our nation's healthcare system. A front runner on the Republican side, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, has many ideas about our current healthcare system and has plans to change certain things if elected next year.

-If elected, Romney plans to repeal "Obamacare" in all 50 states as quickly as possible.
-He thinks that each state should have its own insurance plan as opposed to one, nationwide plan.
-He encourages private medicine.
-He has made a promise to secure Medicare and Social Security benefits for the current retirees (but does not say how).
-He is opposed to Medicare cuts.
-He does not support giving "free rides" to those who are able to pay for insurance and health car, but choose not to. This essentially means he will not approve of free hospital visits with the expectation that others will pay for it. (I wonder if this goes for all Americans, or just those who cannot afford insurance? If the latter, how will we decide who is capable of paying and who does not have to? He does not elaborate).
-He does support the effort to get every person some sort of coverage, at least of the most basic form.

http://www.issues2000.org/Mitt_Romney.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mitt-romney-defends-massachusetts-health-care-criticizes-obamacare/story?id=13590602

Questions for Romney about his healthcare plans:
-How soon do you think you could put your new plans into effect?
-How will you decide who gets federal coverage and who must pay for it themselves?
-How does your plan differ from Obamacare? There are a lot of similarities.

Factions

Throughout the Federalist 10, Madison touches on something called factions quite often, which refer to the different political parties and factions that the new Constitution called for. Madison thought that factions would better represent the citizens, for minorities and women would have more of a say. He believed that factions would ultimately blur the line between majority and minority, rich and poor, and men and women; in other words, the playing ground would be leveled. One advantage, according to Madison in Federalist 10, of factions is that it prevents one group from becoming too powerful, working similarly to the checks and balance system.

Questions for Madison:

1. Could there potentially be any disadvantages of factions?
2. How will factions prevent the majority groups from dominating the minority groups?
3. What are the effects of factions?
4. Which groups of people do you think benefit most from factions, if any?

To me, factions seem the be groups within larger groups, such as the Democratic and Republican parties are sub-groups of the American government. These groups all have different political purposes that distinguish them from the other factions. In some way, factions seem to me to be sort of like clubs; the members work together to achieve a common goal.

In today's politics, our state governments are factions because there are smaller political administrations among one larger administration. Sometimes, these state factions have opposing views of the national government, so they must work to defend themselves and promote their own needs and desires. In some cases, each state has different laws because they are their own "group," and yet they are all part of the American government.
Another example of present-day factions are the different groups that compose the Republican Party. Although they share many beliefs, the conservative, neoconservative, libertarian, tea party, fiscal, and the social Republicans do conflict on some issues, such as foreign policy and the national debt.

Congress Members to Follow

One member of Congress I will follow is Representative Robert Andrews of New Jersey. He is part of the Democratic Party.

The second is Bob Casey, a Senator from Pennsylvania who is a member of the Democratic Party.

Political Ideology

According to the survey, I am a moderate liberal with many similarities and influences from the Green Party.

Democracy in America

Questions:

1. Would it be better for states to be in control of endangered species issues? Or does the federal government do a better job?

2. Is it right to "bribe" states?

3. Who decides when devolution occurs?

4. Which states have the best welfare systems?

5. Do local governments, state governments, or the federal government do more for our schools?

6. What types of things does Washington usually offer states for agreeing to their laws?

7. What are the differences between state and federal courts?

8. Which crimes are considered a state issue and which are federal issues?

9. Are local law enforcements (such as police men) controlled at the federal, state, or local level? 

10. Do public schools have their own governing bodies?

Facts:

1. The government has a legal obligation to restore endangered species. 

2. Washington often offers states money to do what they want.

3. 40% of highway crashes and deaths are caused by drunk drivers.

4. Drunk driving standard after sanctions:  .08.

5. Devolution says that power can shift in either direction.

6. Clinton transferred welfare reform to a state power.

7. We have 3 levels of government: local, state, and federal. 

8. All powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the state.

9. The local government must be granted power by the state.

10. Our nation became less centralized in the late 20th century because more powers were given to state governments. 

Response to Constitution Question

Olivia asked: Do you think when the founding fathers said that people have the right to bear arms they could have begun to imagine how powerful and accurate guns in the future might be, should people only be allowed to have certain guns and a certain number? 


I think that this amendment was put in place at a time when society was totally different. The average citizen did not really own weapons at this time; guns were used primarily to fight the wars. Unlike today, death by firearms were virtually nonexistent. The founding fathers most likely wrote this amendment to pertain to the militias, rather than the average citizen. 
It's hard to say who is allowed to have guns and for what purpose. Hunting guns are used for hunting, yes, but they are still dangerous. There is such a fragile, thin line here. I definitely do not want guns in the hands of the wrong types of people, but who is to say only officials can own guns and not citizens? I am sure many people have guns for the sole purpose of emergency protection, which makes it difficult to decide who should be allowed to own weapons. 

Answer to US Constitution Question

Stephanie asked:  Do you think it's good that amendments can be made or do you think the constitution should be left how it was originally written? 


Without a doubt, I think it is a very good thing that amendments can be added to the Constitution. As time progresses and we develop as a society with new technology, ideas, and knowledge, our guidelines to live by undeniably shift. We have to have the ability to adapt our Constitution to the constantly changing way of life we have, otherwise the document would eventually become somewhat irrelevant. If we could not make changes and additions, the Constitution's principles would no longer be able to effectively govern us, which could ultimately result in political chaos and feuding. 
There was no way for the founding fathers to really predict the future; they wrote the Constitution based off of the issues they experienced during that time period. For not knowing how our nation would transform and develop, they certainly did a fabulous job; however, I do believe that is it a wonderful thing that we are capable of adding amendments to fit our times. 

Federalist #51

Questions for Madison:

1. Should there be separation of powers within the state governments as well as the federal government?

2. Do you think there could ever be such a thing as too much separation of powers?

3. Would it ever be appropriate for one branch to get involved in another branch's issue?

4. What does it mean to counteract one faction with another faction?

5. In today's government, is it fair to say one branch does have more power than the other two? Or, do you think they are fairly equal?

"In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."- I wonder if this is still true and if it is a bad or good thing. 

"In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments." - What is meant by "two distinct governments?"

 "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part." - Is this saying that internal defense is just as important as external defense?

"And happily for the republican cause, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the federal principle." - This just makes me think about what federal principle could mean.

"...it is evident that each department should have a will of its own." - I like the way he says this. He makes a good point about how each branch should form their own opinions and not be swayed. 

Federalist #10

Questions for Madison:

1. What are some of your reasons for supporting a stronger central government?
2. Throughout our nation's history, do you believe our government has done a good job protecting against groups with interest contrary to the goals of the government?
3. Do you think internal or external factions are more of a concern in today's world?
4. What are the differences between a republic and a democracy?
5. What do you think are the roles of a state government?

'"There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects." - Is Madison saying that he thinks the only ways to prevent opposition is to control a person's liberties and freedoms?

"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." - I like the way he says this. It clearly explains why there needs to be a separation of powers.

"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." -This is a new concept for me. I always have used "republic" and "democracy" interchangeably.


"By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects." - I like this quote because it emphasizes the importance of how important it is to find the middle ground with many things pertaining to the design of a government.

"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction." - Does this mean that the term "democracy" only applies to a small society?