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?

Political Cartoon #2

1. What is this political cartoon referring to?

2. Would you agree with this message? Why or why not?

3. Explain what "trickle-down economics" means. 

Checks and Balances

Simile that represents the American system of separation of powers and checks and balances:


The American system of checks and balances is like a flower in the sense that both are very delicate and could be easily damaged. The petals of a flower work carefully to protect the inside of the plant from harmful external forces, just as the system of checks and balances and the separation of powers are designed to protect one branch from becoming too powerful. The systems are in place to keep our government, and essentially the country itself, secure, stable, and just.