West Wing: The Supremes

Facts:

1. The president appoints judges to the supreme court.
2. There is a committee to help pass the judges.
3. Opposing parties are usually a roadblock in selecting new judges.
4. One example of an enumerated power is marriage.
5. Judges that are appointed are usually similar to the judges that are replacing.
6. A moderate judge is usually picked for the supreme court.
7. The right to choose to have an abortion was legalized in Roe vs. Wade.
8. Judges can be asked to retire so their seat can be filled with someone else.

Questions:

1. How long does the president usually spend searching for a new justice?
2. Do most justices serve for life, or decide to retire?
3. Would a president actually ever pick a judge from the opposite party?
4. Would it be a good thing if more liberals were introduced into the supreme court?
5. Can a judge be removed from the court?  

Federalist #78

Quotes

1. "The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judge magistracy is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government." This is saying a reason why judges should serve for life, they know what goes on in the courtroom and are able to stay orderly and composed. If judges were up for election the rotation would cause disorganization in the courtroom constantly.
2. "They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather then by the ones which are not fundamental." This is telling you how much the judges resort to the Constitution for laws. It's the basis of everything and it is a key tool  that the judicial branch has as a power.
3. "And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments." I like this because it says that alone the judiciary branch has no power to violate any citizens liberties, but in  combination with another branch everything could potentially be compromised, the judiciary power has more power then it appears to have.
4. "There is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." This is saying that without a separate unbiased, branch of government protecting our liberties they would be compromised.
5. "The courts must declare the sense of law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead if JUDGEMENT, the consequences would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body." This states that if the judges just began to do their own thing and not resort to the constitution which is the basis of the whole government then everything would fall apart. Judges need to put aside their personal feelings and decide what is or is not just based on the constitution. 

Questions

1. Before judicial review how was the judicial branch incorporated with checks and balances?
2. Theoretically, if congress approved a law that WAS constitutional, but the court disagreed with it because of possible negative consequences is there anything the court can do to stop the bill?
3. Do you think that the job of protecting civil rights falls solely under the judicial branch's responsibility? 
4. If Madison were alive today do you think he would change any aspects of the judiciary branch?
5. What does Madison believe to be the strongest branch in government?

Update on Congressman Pat Meehan

Recently Congressman Meehan has introduced a bill to amend the International Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the amount allowed as a deduction for start up expenditures. Also a bill for WMD intelligenceand Information Sharing Act of 2011

The Common Good

     Personally i believe that the goal of common good will never be achieved. Due to type of country we are in values change everyday, more and more people begin to speak up about what they value and the huge gap between those in poverty and those who are wealthy beyond belief will be a huge road block to achieving the common good. In order for it to happen Nations around the world would together have to prioritize what they think are the most important things whether it be education, health, or the environment is anyone's guess.
      Values between everyone are different. What people prioritize are completely different based on the culture they are accustomed. Every person is different there are so many cultures throughout the world, and even if a common good was decided on within the United States, i still do not think it could be accomplished. People are not willing to put aside their differences and try to work together for a common good. People don't want to go out of their way and do anything difficult, they are focused on themselves. I believe the common good is an idea that everyone tries to work for, but it will never happen, it's simply a goal  that throughout time will always try to, but never will, be accomplished.

Recount

Questions

1. Butterfly ballots were confusing, why aren't ballots regulated by the state or national government?
2. Why would a candidate concede?
3. Is it ever possible for someone to revote under certain circumstances?
4. Has electronic voting become more popular/
5. Do you believe that the supreme court acted correctly?
6. Do you think the deadline should have been extended in the first place?
7. Do you think that it is right that Gore should have been able to take back his conceedment even after calling Bush?
8. Do you think it would have turned out differently if the recount was finished?
9. Were the names on the felons ever fixed so that the correct people could vote? 

Comments

1. A difference of 0.5% or less triggers an automatic recount.
2. Palm Beach's ballots were confusing.
3. 20,000 people were turned away from voting in 2000 because they had names similar to felons.
4. After 12/12 Florida legislators can award the 25 electoral votes to either party.
5. There was a 5-4 supreme court ruling to stop the recount.
6. Some counties in Florida counted dimpled chads while others did not.
7. Angry protesters swarmed buildings where recounts were taking place.
8. Florida has 25 electoral votes. 

Response to 2000 election article

5 Pre Reading questions:
1. How dangerous were the riots actually versus how dangerous they were televised to be where the ballots were being counted?
2. How many total different types of ballots were in the state of Florida?
3. At what exact moment did the supreme court decide to step in.
4. What is the approximate total number of votes that were discounted?
5. Has the candidate with the majority votes, ever lost the election or was this the first time?

5 Facts/Details
1. There have been at least 3 other elections where the winning candidate received less popular votes.
2.  The US supreme court used Article III section 1, clause 2 of the constitution and Section 5 of Title 3 of the United States code to prove that the Florida supreme court violated the requirements by changing the final date for certification and the responsibilities of various state agencies.
3. Florida used several types of ballots including butterfly ballots that were very confusing to voters.
4. In the case of Romer Vs. Evans special voting rights were created for homosexuals.
5.20,000 voters were legally disqualified

5 Post Reading Questions
1. Do you believe the democratic party should have dropped out sooner to avoid chaos.
2. Did Al Gore run or plan to run for president again?
3. How does a flexible deadline work?
4.Did anyone expect an election could really get that close?
5. Do you believe the courts should have handled this differently?

Update on Senator Ryan

Recently Senator Ryan has voted yes to amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to facilitate recovery and beneficial use, and provide for the proper management and disposal, generated by the combustion of coals and fossil fuels. He also said nay to providing additional time for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection agency to issue achievable to issue achievable standards for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers, heaters, ect.  He voted nay to the United States, and Korea trade agreement. He also sponsored a bill stating to suspend the issuance of visas to nationals of Brazil until such a time as Brazil amends it laws to remove the prohibition on extradition of nationals of Brazil to other countries,  which was referred to the sub committee on Immigration policy and Enforcement. 

Faction Response

It is stated, by Madison, in Federalist #10, "By a faction i understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or interest, adversed  to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

       This describes a group of people united by a common interest. Whether it be a goal or common interest,it is a group of citizens who are trying to do something.

Questions

1. Would a group of protesters be considered a faction or does there have to be certain characteristics or numbers?
2. Could politicians create factions to back their campaign?
3. If a large group of illegal immigrants were united what Madison described as a faction, would it be considered a faction, because Madison clearly uses the word citizen multiple times?
4. What happens if factions become to large and powerful and start to hurt the welfare of other citizens?

My definition: 

A faction is a group of citizens, who can be minority or majority, that are united by a common passion or goal.
Today factions could be used to persuade voters or politicians in congress to vote a certain way.

Congressmen i'm Following

The first congressman i picked to follow is Tim Ryan (Democrat OH, 17th district). I picked him because based on my political ideology survey he shares similar out looks to me.

The second person i picked to follow is Pat Meehan (Republican PA, 7th district). I chose to follow him so that i would be following one democrat and one republican so that i could compare their ideas and outlooks.

Political Ideology

When i submitted my answers to the questions, i found out that i am a moderate liberal who agrees mostly with the democratic party, but also shares many views with the Green party. I find this rather funny because one of my parents is a democrat, and my other parent is green party. I guess it makes sense that i am a mix of that too because that's what i grew up with.

Constitution Questions

1. Do you think it is good that the articles and amendments are written vaguely or should they be more specific?
I think it's good that it is written vaguely, it leaves room for flexibility as the times and values of citizens change. It is left up to interpretation which helps to encourage debate about how people view it differently. It is a huge part of what makes America what it is. Also because it is so diverse it takes a long time to decide what exactly exactly what was meant by that so it seems like it could be a form of checks and balances too. Plus this means the constitution won't have to constantly be amended.

2.How has the Constitution been changed so few times over a long period?
I believe the founding fathers wrote the basic principles of government to be timeless. I think that they just included the core ideas of what they believed a government needs. Also because it included the ideas of the people that helped. The constitution was formed for every citizen and it still represents the citizens, just with a few minor adjustments.

Democracy in America

10 Facts
1. Restrictions on law enforcement were put in place, such as the Miranda rights.
2. The constitution only delegated a few parts of the national government, the rest was left to the state.
3. The national government put grey wolves back into Idaho.
4. The Endangered Animal Act gives the national government power over decisions concerning animals on the endangered species list.
5. South Carolina was with holding from getting the machine that measures a persons blood alcohol level.
6. If a state didn't change the 1.0 blood alcohol level to .8 the government would withhold funding.
7. The federal government first became involved with poverty in the 1930's.
8. The state government is responsible for their welfare policies.
9. The state government is what is providing most of your everyday things.
10. The national government deals more with national security and foreign affairs.
10 Questions
1. How can you control states when they begin to create laws quickly and bordering states aren't, publicize laws so people who commute from different states are aware of the laws?
2. Do you think that all endangered animals should be put back into the wilderness even if there is a cost to citizens?
3. Who should be in charge of of the wolves, national or state government?
4. Can you refuse a breathalyzer test?
5. Do you think sobriety checkpoints are constitutional?
6. Do you think the national government should be able to penalize a state government for not changing their laws?
7. What is PA's policies for determining welfare, has it been altered since the economy collapsed?
8. Do you think it's fair that children lose their welfare if their parents aren't working?
9. Should there be some federal regulations for welfare policies?
10. Do you think that the national government should give some states more welfare funding then others?

Federalist #51

Questions
1. Does this state that there should bean electoral college, what was Madison's opinion on that?
2.Is there an ethical code that people elected in the government take?
3. Are there better ways to represent minorities in government?
4. Can a country be too diverse for a self government?
5. In your opinion can a country be to diverse?

"But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others." This is saying that the best way to keep people from gaining too much power is to make people want power so instead of trying to gain power, people just try to hang on to the power that they have.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
This is talking about human nature, that people naturally want power and want things for themselves, and if they didn't then we wouldn't need a government because there wouldn't be any problems.

"If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."
This is saying that if the majority formed a group to try to pass what they view is best for them, if this were a direct democracy then the minorities would be hurt because they wouldn't have the numbers to pass laws that they need.

"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights."
This is saying that if we really want to have a free government it's all or nothing. It's not that you have rights for some things but not others, because that wouldn't be free for everyone.

"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever had been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."
I chose this because it almost sounds like revenge that Madison is talking about. I think that people associate justice and revenge in similar categories and often have a hard time realizing if they are pursuing revenge or justice.

Federalist # 10

Questions

1. Do you think that sometimes the public good is disregarded because of conflicts of political parties?

2. Do political parties create factions to support their ideas, and attack the ideas of other political parties? 

3. It states that: "There are two methods of removing causes of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other by controlling its effects". In what ways can you control the effects of a faction?

4. It says that there are two ways to remove the cause of a faction, by destroying liberty or by giving every citizen the same passions, opinions,and interests, but wouldn't you consider both of these to be losing ones liberty?

5.How did the founding fathers use the constitution to prevent factions?

No man is allowed to be the judge of his own cause, because his interest in it would certainly bias his judgement, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. I picked this because it is saying that you can't always trust someones word. People lie everyday, so how can you trust them not to lie about something that is really important to them and effects them?

The effect of the first difference is, on one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views,by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. This is i believe saying that the opinions of the citizens is what is valued most, that what works best for the citizens will be what is valued and thought about in government.

 "And the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess "the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters."

This is saying that the citizens and the people who's opinions will be valued and protected in government are wealthy men who own land. That they are the center or root of the country.

"By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests."

This is stating that when you have to many electors and representatives, they will be to concerned with little things that effect the small area they represent, rather than the big picture.

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government."  This is saying that people naturally want to have power, and that it needs to be controlled so that a person can not abuse the power they have.

Political Cartoon 2

1. Do you think it is fair that immigrants have to take a test on American history, when many citizens born in the United states most likely don't know many of this information either?

2. Do you think that children should be submitted to testing on American history,or they should be let in with parents who have passed the test?

3. Do you think the border between the United States and government is guarded enough?

Simile

Checks and balances are like a rubber band, if someone tries to gain to much power or control the other branches will pull them  back.
Separation of powers is like parents, they have the authority to control their own children, but do not have any authority over others children.