Political cartoon, the third.

1.) Does this accurately portray the immigration laws of the US?
2.) Would most Americans agree with this?
3.) Does this have religious connotations, or just political?

Political cartoon response.

I think that Jeremy's response to the Newt Gingrich cartoon was a good one, and no I don't think that the American people take Gingrich seriously as a candidate. He may not be running for President just for book sales, but I do think that he sees it as a publicity thing. But have his book sales gone up just because he's running for President?

Terry Gross interview.

Facts/details:
1.) The GPS case has the potential to be the most important case of the decade.
2.) The Patriot Act expanded the amount of surveillance the government could do without a warrant.
3.) Twitter was pressured by Senator Joseph Liberman to remove pro-Taliban tweets.
4.) The government believes that the Fourth Amendment only bans warrantless searches of private spaces, while a GPS device is just an extension of basic human surveillance.
5.) Germany's security services have broad discretion to seize a lot of data, to engage in warrantless monitoring, but they can only use what they find for terrorism cases and they can only share it with the police in terrorism cases or violent crimes.
6.) Rosen's new book is a collection of essays that imagine new technological developments that stress constitutional laws.
7.) The fourth amendment prohibits the government from unreasonable searches and seizures.
8.) Some judges say there was a physical trespass when the police put the GPS device on the car without a warrant.
9.) Jeffrey Rosen is a law professor at George Washington University.
10.) Access to Google was blocked in Turkey for a long period of time.

Questions:
1.) Should boundaries for protection and privacy be set up?
2.) Is it possible for this country to follow the examples of other countries- security wise?
3.) What the government do about the loopholes with Google, Twitter, etc?
4.) Why is Europe so strict on privacy laws?
5.) Should we assume we're being monitored 24/7?

Electoral college reform number 2.

Facts/details:
1.) The existence of the electoral college usually undermines third parties, which are unlikely to win electoral votes.
2.) In reality, it is the electors who elects the president, not the people.
3.) Change that takes place in accordance with Article V is licensed change, whereas real change means a departure from any such arrangement.
4.) The smallest number of electoral votes a state can have is three, the District of Columbia also has three electoral votes.
5.) The votes tend to exaggerate the popular strength if the majority party.
6.) It was ruled in 1962 in the case of Baker v Carr by the supreme court that,"one person-one vote must prevail at the state and local level."
7.) Around 700 amendments have been proposed that would reform or abolish the Electoral College.
8.) If Al Gore and George Bush switched positions would they be arguing for the other side or did Al Gore dislike the Electoral College before the 2000 election?
9.) Abolishing the Electoral College would allow citizens to "reshape political institutions."
10.) Candidates don't even have to campaign in states where they know their political party is favored.

Questions:
1.) What is difficult about creating a law to set more limitations on the electoral college?
2.) What happens if the electoral unexpectedly votes one way and the media already announced the other candidate to be the president after the popular vote?
3.) Would the election of the President be pure democracy with out the Electoral College?
4.) Would states with more electoral votes be against a change?
5.) Is it fair for a candidate to win the popular vote, but not the electoral votes?

I think that the electoral college is unfair system imposed on the voters of the US. It makes it so that the individual votes of the people aren't heard. It also makes it impossible for independent parties to get their candidates elected, which I find annoying.

Political cartoon, again.

1.) What does this say about the way people view Obama?
2.) Would there be any point in occupying DC?
3.) How would believers in the Occupy movement feel about this cartoon?

President research, James Monroe.

Sources:
1.) http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/jamesmonroe
2.) http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/served/monroe.html
3.) http://www.americanpresidents.org/presidents/president.asp?PresidentNumber=5
4.) http://millercenter.org/president/monroe
5.) http://www.ashlawnhighland.org/jamesmonroe.htm

Campaign ad analysis.

Six techniques employed in ad campaigns:
1.) Showing images of chaos, riots, and fighting was used in Nixon's campaign against Humphrey and Wallace in 1968:
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1968
It wasn't totally effective, but I think it appealed to people's fear of insecurity and violence.
2.) http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1984/supermarket#4383
Humour was employed in this ad, it wasn't really serious, the consumer could just watch it and be entertained by Reagan.
3.) http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964
At the time, there was a fear of nuclear attack so making a commercial with an atomic bomb detonation would persuade people to vote for Johnson's side.
4.) http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1952
The fun animation and catchy little jingle makes people want to watch. The cute little animations make people feel happy and comfortable.
5.) http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1996
This ad reassures the voters that America is stronger than it had been in the past. This is successful because it reminds people that America was prosperous in the past and it shows the possibility of a bright future.
6.) http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1984
This ad wasn't super effective, it tried to compare past America with present America.

Three assertions:
1.) Political ads are not completely effective because it does not give 'proper' insight of the candidates to the viewers.
2.) Ads don't inform people, it persuades them.
3.) President ad campaigns is "paid propaganda that distorts the democratic process."

Taxpayers for common sense.

First article: Coal Industry Profits
http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?action=issues&proj_id=4984&category=Energy&type=Project
Five facts/details:
1.) Since 1789, the federal government has provided tax subsidies to domestic coal suppliers in order to ensure the competitiveness of the industry.
2.) Rio Tinto Energy America, one of the largest coal suppliers in the world, has increased its net income nearly four-fold since 2008.
3.) CONSOL Energy’s CEO J. Brett Harvey took home $20.1 million in 2010, over $8 million more than 2008.
4.) Congress should end coal tax subsidies now for an energy source that’s had literally hundreds of years to develop.
5.) Coal prices have steadily increased since 2002.

Second article: Farm Bill Fiasco
http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?action=issues&proj_id=4938&category=Federal%20Budget&type=Project
1.) Super Committee charged with reducing deficit by $1.2 trillion.
2.) Members of USDA know that cuts are coming to Agriculture when the current Farm Bill expires in 2012.
3.) President Obama proposed $33 billion worth of savings from agriculture.
4.) The Farm Bill is a massive piece of legislation Congress passes about every five years to create, continue, or modify hundreds of programs relating to agriculture.
5.) The Super Committee needs to stay focused on its job—reducing the deficit—and savings from mandatory spending programs like agriculture should be part of it.

Electoral college reform.

Ten facts/details:
1.) Electoral college is an unreliable device in selecting the President.
2.) Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and lost because of the electoral college.
3.) Nationwide, 2% of ballots were not counted.
4.) Electoral college is outdated and unnecessary.
5.) If Presidents were elected by popular vote, a national recount might have been necessary in 2000.
6.) Framers of the Constitution most likely wouldn't have been in favour of the Electoral College.
7.) All states select the President by popular vote.
8.) An amendment should be made, one that focuses on the shortcomings of the electoral methods and preventing "runaway" electors.
9.) In this system, the only possible deadlock is a 50/50 split in popular vote in a state.
10.) Each state's electoral votes should be cast for the winner of the popular vote for President in that state.

Five questions:
1.) Is there any hope for electoral college reform in the near future?
2.) Do many people believe that the electoral college system is a foolish system?
3.) How long would it take for an amendment to make it through Congress?
4.) Who created the electoral college systems?
5.) How many elections would have had a different outcome if there was no electoral system?

You fix the budget puzzle.

1.) In 2015 I saved $594 billion, and $1629 billion by 2030.
2.) 40% was from tax increase.
3.) 60% was from spending cuts.
4.) I didn't really have a hard time making any decisions because I have such strong opinions. I made decision as if this was an ideal world in which all these decisions could be realistically passed. It was be nearly impossible to pass all these through Congress.

Pending bills.

1.) S. 1489: Health Care Provider and Hospital Conscience Protection Act
- Introduced August 2, 2011
2.) H.R. 2543: Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act
- Introduced July 14, 2011
3.) H.R. 3130: Heartbeat Informed Consent Act
- Introduced October 6, 2011

Further research on Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act:
Five details:
1.) To direct the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe rules prohibiting deceptive advertising of abortion services.
2.) Federal Trade Commission would be required to regulate advertising for abortion.
3.) Places that do not provide abortions can not make it seem like they do.
4.) Places that do provide abortions services can not make it seem like they don't.
5.) Unfair and deceptive act or practice is illegal.

Three questions:
1.) Will this bill be able to get through Congress?
2.) When will the topic of abortion become less controversial? Will it ever be?
3.) How often does this confusion occur?

2008 Pennsylvania election returns.

Facts learned:
1.) Obama was the overall winner of the state.
2.) Obama won over McCain by 10%.
3.) In Philadelphia, Obama was the clear winner.
4.) White vote was split in PA, but the Hispanic and Black vote went to Obama with an overwhelming majority.
5.) 5th straight election in which Democrats won Pennsylvania.

Political Cartoon

1.) What does the giant shoe represent?
2.) Are the people under the shoe a good representation of the people who are a part of the Occupy movement?
3.) Is this an accurate depiction of what's going on in New York?

PA's Congressional districts.

1.) PA's 19th Congressional district was represented by Todd Russel Platts, a Republican.
2.) In the 2000 census, the number of districts decreased from 20 to 19, and in 2010 it decreased again from 19 to 18.
3.) There are 7 Democratic district representatives.
4.) We're in the 7th district, along with Chester, Montgomery, and Philadelphia counties.
5.) Part of Delaware and Philadelphia counties are in the 1st Congressional district.
6.) Parts of Montgomery and Philadelphia counties are in the 2nd district.
7.) Geographically, the 5th district is the largest.
8.) Towards the center of the state, the districts are primarily white and Republican.
9.) In the movie State of Play, Ben Affleck played a Congressman who represented the 7th district of Pennsylvania.
10.) The population in the 7th district is 646,522.

Death penalty question.

Aaron's question:
Who can watch the process while the inmate is being killed?
It varies from state to state in the US, but it seems that immediate family can attend, a religious leader, police officers, guards and wardens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty#Debate

Emily's question:
What if someone sentenced the death penalty really didn't commit the crime? Think about the boy in the orange jacket. What if he was sentenced to the death penalty and no one had read his story to help him.
This actually seems to happen in the United States, people are put on death row and then can either be acquitted of the crime, or appeal. Sometimes there are people put to death whose cases have become a topic of debate, and there are cases in which the guilt of the person have been heavily debated.

Bridgett's question:
Have there been Supreme Court cases in the attempt to abolish the death penalty?
There have not been any cases that have opposed the death penalty altogether, but I could find a list of Supreme Court cases concerning different aspects of the death penalty:
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/latzer98.html

How Washington works.

Ten facts/details:
1.) "Inside the beltway" is a term people in Washington use to describe the core of government.
2.) President Carter once said that Washington was an island "isolated from the mainstream of our nation's life."
3.) Washington is different but not isolated from the rest of the country.
4.) Congress works from Monday afternoon to Friday morning.
5.) When the White House changes presidents, most of the political staff in Washington changes.
6.) People who work in the executive branch or Congress catch "Potomac Fever," the addiction of wielding power.
7.) Personal relationships in Washington cut across party and ideological lines.
8.) Washington has it's own particular jargon that separates it from the rest of the country.
9.) The people viewed as political leaders outside of Washington are different than the real political leaders inside Washington.
10.) People in Washington tend to only think about politics.

Ten questions:
1.) What makes a person want to only do politics for the rest of their lives?
2.) Why is Washington such an addictive place to work?
3.) Why aren't outside people more in tune with what goes on in Washington?
4.) Is Washington really in tune with what goes on in average America?
5.) Is Washington too much of a different world than the rest of the country?
6.) Are there really good friends who are on separate sides of the political spectrum?
7.) How does Hedrick Smith know so much about Washington?
8.) Will Washington ever become less cliquey?
9.) Wouldn't things run better in Washington if it was less separated from the rest of the country?
10.) How old is this information?

West Wing episode - "Filibuster."

1.) Senator Stackhouse had been filibustering for hours.
2.) White House staff have to stay put until the vote.
3.) Filibustering is a grueling process.
4.) Senator was reading from a recipe book.
5.) While filibustering, you can't stop speaking, you can't lean or sit or drink.
6.) They were debating over the "Family Wellness Act."
7.) Vice President is directly in charge of the Senate but doesn't do much with it.
8.) People have to stay in Senate for as long as the filibuster goes on.
9.) A senator can yield for a question without yielding the floor.
10.) Contesting bill until they added assistance for children with autism into it.

Personal finance of a Congressperson.

Corrine Brown, D-FLA

Net Worth: From $-12,998 to $20,000
Rank in House: 408th in House
Assets: 2 totaling $2,002 to $30,000
Liabilities: 1 totaling $10,000 to $15,000
Transactions: 0
Agreements: 1
Compensation: 0
Income: 0

Due process film.

1.) Luis Kevin Rojas was arrested and convicted of murder at 17.
2.) He was mistakenly identified as the murderer because of the colour of his jacket.
3.) There was no DNA exoneration.
4.) Eye witness testimony is not always correct and viable.
5.) Mother and daughter Priscilla and Leslie Chenowith worked to free Rojas from prison.
6.) They succeeded although they were inexperienced lawyers.
7.) Lenny Farinola, a teacher of Rojas', joined in the fight to free him.
8.) Barry Scheck's "Innocence Project" got involved.
9.) Rojas was exonerated and released after 4.5 years in prison.
10.) The law system in the US cannot always be trusted.

Supreme court justices.

1.) Why is the Supreme Court so predominantly Republican?
2.) Will any of these people step down?
3.) Will the Supreme Court ever be predominantly female?
4.) What is the average age on the Supreme Court?
5.) What is the Advisory Panel on Financial Disclosure Reports and Judicial Activities?
6.) Will Ruth Bader Ginsberg retire soon?
7.) Who is the oldest Supreme Court Justice?
8.) Who will probably be the next Justice to die?
9.) Why are so many of them from the northeast?
10.) Why are they mostly from New York and California?

Illegal immigration questions.

Justin's question:
How do they know Americans will want to take over the jobs that the illegal immigrants had?
In my opinion, I don't think that there are a lot of Americans who will want to take over the jobs that were held by illegal immigrants. Most if not all of them held jobs that involved a lot of physical labour, such as crop picking. Jobs that were a lot of work but did not require any specialised training. I think that it's a pipe dream of politicians to want to kick all the "illegals" out and put "hard-working Americans" in the jobs the immigrants once held. There are fewer and fewer "hard-working Americans" with every genereation. This country is riding on the back of menial labour performed by mostly illegal immigrants.

Tristan's question:
Is there underlying racism (or xenophobia) in this immigration debate?
Unfortunately, yes there is a certain amount of xenophobia in this debate, depending on the stance and personal biases of the people arguing. There will always be people who are xenophobic, afraid to integrate with people that aren't completely like them. I don't know if you could call it racism in this instance, but xenophobic is definitely the proper term. Because there are people who reject other nationalities and ethnicities blending into their white societies, there are of course going to be politicians who have these unfortunate views. But the sad truth is that the debate will never be able to occur without the underlying tones of xenophobia and fear of integration.

Liam's question:
Wouldn't it be a better move to help illegals go through the process to gain citizenship.. or do we not want them in our country at all, even if they were legal citizens?
Personally, I believe that immigrating into a country illegally is probably more dangerous and more trouble than it's worth. If a person has been in the country long enough to have had a fmaily and secure a job, they should not b a bale to live here without having to pay taxes or becoming a citizen. They should not immediately deproted, but merely assissted in the process of becoming a legal citizen. Maybe if the immigration laws were less strict and xenophobic and the process of becoming a US citizen was less intimidating and ridiculous, then immigrants who would have otherwise entered illegally would go through the process.

And another thing, I hate the argument that people make about how the process to become a US citizen should be grueling and and xenophobic, just because "our ancestors had to cross an ocean in horrible conditions and go throught the ordeal at Ellis Island to become a citizen." There's a reason it's not longer the late 1800s or the early 1900s. It's called progess, people. No one should be objected to such terrible conditions and such fear. Or should we also force all immigrants to live in filthy ghettos where their children die of disease and starvation? There's a reason why people want to emmigrate out of their awful conditions and come to America, we've got this great reputation. But ironically, the way we treat the people who seek a better life in America seriously downplays the reasons people want to live here.

Roe v. Wade reading.

Ten facts/details:
1.) According to Texas law, life begins at conception.
2.) Some people believe abortion falls under marriage law.
3.) The later the abortion is performed, the higher the risk.
4.) Some people believe life begins when the fetus is capable of life outside the womb.
5.) Appellant and some amici aruge that a woman can terminate her pregnancy at any time and for any reason.
6.) The privacy right involved is not absolute.
7.) Abortion is not considered as a federal issue.
8.) Supposedly, the strict abortion law was created in the Victorian era to discourage sexual conduct.
9.) When most criminal abortion laws were created, the procedure was very dangerous.
10.) Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions are as low or lower than normal childbirth.

Five questions:
1.) What constitutes life in national law?
2.) Who gets to decide for a woman whether or not she can have a child?
3.) What about the women incapable of raising/supporting children in states with strict laws?
4.) Why are individual states able to make it nearly impossible for a woman to get an abortion?
5.) What constitutes a human life?

West Wing episode - "Supremes."

Connections:
1.) Two members of the Supreme Court needed to be replaced.
2.) The President had to appoint new members, and he primarily looked for a member of his party.
3.) The President couldn't just go with a hardcore Democrat because that would upset the Republicans.
4.) He had to pick a very conservative candidate to even out his choice of a very liberal woman as Chief Justice.
5.) The woman had some things she was hiding about her past and the press would dig it up, and conservatives would use it against her.
6.) The President's staff convinced the Chief Justice to step down so they could appoint a liberal Chief Justice he would agree with, in order to maintain control of the Supreme Court.
7.) Oftentimes, judges will die of old age, or they step down from their post.
8.) The President's staff did a lot of searching and looking and finding for the President.

Five questions about the program:
1.) Why were anti-abortion activists protesting outside the White House?
2.) Why did the Justice die if he was so young?
3.) Is it okay to replace a Republican with a Democrat?
4.) Why is racial tensions such a huge factor?
5.) Why does Roe v. Wade keep getting brought up?

Checking in on my Congress people.

Bob Casey Jr.:
On October 20, he helped introduce a resolution honoring the life, service, and sacrifice of Captain Colin P. Kelly Jr., United States Army.
On October 25, he introduced a resolution H
onoring the lives, work, and sacrifice of Joseph Curseen, Jr. and Thomas Morris, Jr., the two United States Postal Service employees and Washington, DC, natives who died as a result of their contact with anthrax while working at the United States Postal Facility located at 900 Brentwood Road, NE, Washington, DC, during the anthrax attack in the fall of 2001.

Corrine Brown:
Helped pass through the Senate, a resolution to constitute the minority party's membership on certain committees for the One Hundred Twelfth Congress, or until their successors are chosen.
In July she helped introduce the Marine Mammal Protection Amendment Act of 2011.

Federalist number 78.

Quotes:
1.) "According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR; which is conformable to the most approved of the State constitutions and among the rest, to that of this State."
Judges appointed cannot have too many marks against them and be generally well-behaved.

2.) "The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws."
This quote outlines the importance of having good behavior in a major public office. It's a judge's job to serve society, and society should be represented by a well-behaved person.

3.) "The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. 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."
The Judicial Branch should be the weakest of the three, because they are unable to make decisions for the country or start anything drastic. The goal of the judiciary branch is to keep the other two branches from getting too powerful.

4.) "It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority."
The Judicial branch was designed to keep the people happy, so that the citizens of the US could challenge a ruling made by the legislative branch. Congress can't just impose a ruling onto the people.

5.) "Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former."
People, the citizens, are the ones who are really in charge of the government. In Hamilton's ideal form of government, the government would live to serve the people.

Five questions:
1.) Did Hamilton ever have an inkling that things in this country could ever get so out of hand?
2.) Does Hamilton's idea of the Constitution allow for the expansion of the ideas involved in governing the country?
3.) What would Hamilton say about the modern day Judicial branch?
4.) Do the people have as much as a say in government as Hamilton thought they should?
5.) Do people realize that the Judicial Branch is less powerful than the other two branches?

2000 Election reading, anti-stopping.

Eight to ten facts/details:
1.) Rehnquist's court was minimalist.
2.) The Supreme Court's decision ended the post-election chaos.
3.) The Supreme Court over-ruled all of the state of Florida's authority over it's citizens.
4.) Bush v. Gore is the fourth Supreme Court intervention in the outcome of a presidential election in Florida.
5.) Seeking certiorari, Bush raised three federal challenges to the decision of the Florida Supreme Court.
6.) Certiorari is when the federal Supreme Court tells a state Supreme Court that they will review their case.
7.) December 8, Florida Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 majority that a manual recount was required by state law.
8.) December 9, Supreme Court issued a stay of the decision of the Florida Court.
9.) The Court's decision lacked history or precedent.

Five post-reading questions:
1.) Why couldn't more people on the court think like Sunstein?
2.) Can the Supreme Court make decisions these days without precedent?
3.) Is it lawful for the US Supreme Court to disregard a state Supreme Court's decision?
4.) What would have happened had Florida kept counting?
5.) Did Gore really win?

The common good.

The idea of a common good in a society has probably been around as long as the idea of a society itself. People generally want to do what's best for everyone, but more often than not what's best for everyone overall may not be what's best for individuals, once you break it down onto a personal level. I thought that the short article was well crafted and brought up some very major points, and did a good job of arguing for both sides.
Personally, I'm biased towards the side of a common good, a more socialized way of living. I feel as though sometimes it's more important to put the needs of the people around you before your own needs. In a society in which everyone helps each other and thinks of community before self, everyone will benefit.
Granted, this is a very idealistic way of thinking, because it goes directly against this country's principle driving factor: capitalism. Capitalism is a disgusting system that does allow people to better themselves and push forward, but only if they're very lucky or very driven. Capitalism on the whole is a system that aims to keep the people on top of the income bracket at the top, and keep the low people low. There is very little room for improvement in a system like this, basically you stay at the level you were born at, and can either go up a little or down a little.
This type of economic system means that unfortunately, most Americans (at least the Americans in charge, the rich Americans) will never go for a type of "common good" system, because it would mean lowering themselves for the sake of others. I can keep dreaming and say that sure, one day America will care for the common good. But as long as there are rich people, there will always be poor people. And very few rich people stop and ask themselves, "How am I doing so well in the first place?"

2000 Election film, Recount.

Eight to ten facts learned:
1.) Gore was only a few hundred votes down and not all votes were counted.
2.) The bits of paper punched out of ballots are chads.
3.) A chad that is not broken off all the way is a hanging chad.
4.) It took over a month to accomplish the recount, which was stopped and never finished.
5.) Originally, Al Gore resigned his candidacy but then took that back when he was informed of the trouble in Florida.
6.) Members of the Republican Party protested violently outside places where the recount was taking place.
7.) In a 5-4 majority, the US Supreme Court ordered Florida to stop the recount.
8.) Gore won the national popular vote but not the electoral vote, but he would have possibly had Florida had the recount still went on.
9.) A lot of the debating and action taken was accomplished by the members in the opposite parties close to the two candidates, but not by Bush and Gore themselves.

Eight to ten questions:
1.) Who decided to use butterfly ballots?
2.) Who first noticed the trouble in Florida?
3.) What would have happened had Gore not withdrawn his resignation in time?
4.) Was the Supreme Court conservative heavy?
5.) How do Bush and Gore feel about this movie?
6.) Was everybody accurately represented or was this a liberal-sided exaggeration?
7.) How factual is this movie?
8.) If the Republican party was so confident that Bush won, why were they so vehemently against recounts?
9.) Why do we go by electoral votes and not popular vote?
10.) Why doesn't everyone whose eligible vote?

2000 Election reading.

Five pre-reading questions:
1.) What will the main argument be in support?
2.) Isn't stopping a recount unconstitutional?
3.) What about all the people whose votes won't count?
4.) Isn't this just dirty politics?
5.) Will I be persuaded at all?

Five facts/details learned:
1.) Al Gore was four electoral votes short of the 270 needed.
2.) Republicans argued that a manual recount was unlawful.
3.) The case Bush v. Gore was a 5-4 majority in favor of Bush.
4.) Robert H. Bork seems to be die-hard conservative.
5.) Rehnquist was in support of Bush.

Five post-reading questions:
1.) Why would the US Supreme Court deny that American citizen's votes should be counted?
2.) Why did the Supreme Court even take the case?
3.) Wasn't the Florida Supreme Court aware of recount laws?
4.) Why did Florida use butterfly ballots if they're so confusing?
5.) Why was a hand recount so difficult to orchestrate?

Health care number two.

The indecisiveness in Washington is costing American jobs. Weeks have passed since President Obama sent his American Jobs Act to Congress, but the Republicans refuse to even look at it.

President Obama’s American Jobs Act is exactly the type of solution that we need — a bill full of ideas that both parties should support. It is a deal that creates jobs by lowering taxes and investing in our future. And, the best part: It is fully paid for.

We need relief for the middle class now. It’s time for our politicians to get over politics and help put Lawrence, northeast Kansas and America back to work.

Health care number one.

President Obama has called for sweeping health care reform and charged Congress with coming up with a program for it. It's a good idea but it's important to expect a tough political fight.

One of the biggest issues is whether or not to include a new public plan option to compete with private insurance plans. Many Republicans dismiss it as “government-run health care” and a step toward “socialized medicine.” Democrats find the idea inviting.

A new public plan — to offer citizens more choices, keep the private plans honest and, one can hope, restrain the relentless growth in health care premiums and medical costs — seems worth trying.

Any new public plan would constitute only part of a much broader effort to provide coverage for 46 million Americans who are uninsured and many more who may soon also be uninsured. Other major parts under discussion include strengthening employer-provided coverage, expanding existing public programs like Medicaid and creating a national health insurance exchange where people without employer coverage, small businesses and possibly others could buy policies at inexpensive group rates from qualified private plans and from a new public plan.

I for one, find President Obama's job bill to be a step in the right direction. There is something seriously wrong with the healthcare system in the US right now, and it needs to be fixed.

What are my representatives up to?

Bob Casey Jr:
He helped pass a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 95 Dogwood Street in Cary, Mississippi, as the "Spencer Byrd Powers, Jr. Post Office".
He voted on a concurrent resolution authorizing the use of the rotunda of the United States Capitol for an event to present the Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to Neil A. Armstrong, Edwin E. "Buzz" Aldrin, Jr., Michael Collins, and John Herschel Glenn, Jr., in recognition of their significant contributions to society.

Corrine Brown:
She helped pass a resolution recognizing the religious and historical significance of the festival of Diwali.
She voted on a resolution recognizing the importance of cancer research and the contributions made by scientists and clinicians across the United States who are dedicated to finding a cure for cancer, and designating May 2011, as "National Cancer Research Month".

Faction?

Madison's definition of a faction in Federalist paper number 10 is a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interest of the community. This sounds good enough to me, but it did raise some questions.

1.) Is it good to have a minority/majority or is it better to be equal?
2.) Is every person living in the US represented in Madison's idea of a faction, or is it just people like him?
3.) Are your ideas just a little bit idealistic?
4.) What is the "permanent and aggregate interest of the community?"
5.) Would Madison still feel this way if he lived in the modern world?

To me, a faction is a particular group of people who feel very strongly and the same about an important issue.

Congress people.

Local representative:
Bob Casey Jr.
Senior U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania (D)




Other representative:
Corrine Brown
U.S. Representative for Florida's 3rd Congressional District (D)

My ideology.

The political ideology survey that I took gave me the answer I was expecting, a moderate liberal. I guessed that it would either be that or be leaning a bit more to the left. It also informed me that I would probably identify the most with the Democratic Party and the Green Party, both of which are true. Two government officials with the same ideology as me are the members of the House of Representatives Corrine Brown (D - FL, 3rd District) and Shelley Berkley (D - NV, 1st District).

Opinions on questions.

Justin Juliano's first question:
"When writing the constitution, who did the founding fathers have in mind as "We the people", when not everyone was in favor of the constitution?"
Personally, I believe that the founding fathers mostly had themselves in mind when they were writing the Constitution. Themselves and people at their level of stature, white men who owned land were the people most thought of.

Eli Pollock's third question:
"Would it be better for a constitution to give us all our laws, or give us principles those laws should adhere to?"
I think that it would be a better idea if the Constitution acted as a guideline as opposed to a strict set of laws. There will always be people who disagree on how to interpret the text of the Constitution, loose constructionists and strict constructionists. If we used it as more of a guideline, it would most likely cause less tension.

Federalist number 51.

Five questions for James Madison:
1.) How is the separation of powers between the three branches assured?
2.) Based on their view of human nature, what kind of government did Madison or Hamilton say needed to be created?
3.) What exactly does "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition," mean?
4.) Why do you address defense so much?
5.) Why the pseudonym "PUBLIUS?"

Five quotes:
1.) "In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own;"
Summed it up nicely.
2.) "Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal."
Fact or opinion?
3.) "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.'
I can;t tell if this is religious or not.
4.) "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."
Grand over-arching themes of the paper.
5.) "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."
The very last line of the paper.

Federalist number 10.

Five questions for James Madison:
1.) Why is addressed to the people of New York?
2.) What exactly is your standing on majority vs. minority rights?
3.) What are the "mischiefs of faction?"
4.) Are you or are you not a fan of political parties?
5.) Should citizens all similar desires/passions or different ones?

Five quotes:
1.) "There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects."
What is a mischief of faction? I want to know.
2.) " A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice;"
Does he like all of these different opinions? I couldn't tell.
3.) "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 completely agree with this statement.
4.) "It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good."
Statesmen are not always the best choice.
5.) "In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried;"
He makes some good points, they're just buried.

Democracy in America.

Facts:
1.) Ben Franklin: "A republic, if you can keep it."
2.) Legislation passed to nationally strengthen DUI laws.
3.) Gray Wolves were re-introduced back into Idaho.
4.) Idaho passed legislation to get rid of wolves.
5.) Drunk driving is a national crisis.
6.) Battle between trial by jury and breathalyzer supporters.
7.) 0.08 BAC standard.
8.) South Carolina is opposed to national DUI standard.
9.) Legislation in Idaho didn't go through.
10.) MADD got involved in legislation.

Questions:
1.) Why was Franklin so cynical?
2.) Why is law the cornerstone?
3.) Why does Federalism have to be so complicated?
4.) Why were so many people so against the Endangered Species Act?
5.) Why are so many people in Idaho acting ridiculously?
6.) How come it was so difficult to punish drunk driving?
7.) Why would South Carolina senators refuse to adopt BAC machines?
8.) Why is welfare a state problem?
9.) How come so many people are able to have a free ride on welfare?
10.) Are people in favour of drunk driving?

Another political cartoon.

1.) Does this cartoon depict the sad truth?
2.) Have newspapers really become obsolete in the modern world?
3.) Do you think the age of the characters shows anything about nostalgia in the modern world?

Metaphoric.

The American system of separation and powers and checks and balances is a blanket. I say that because it's a means of protection, like a security blanket. It's a way to guard against one branch becoming too powerful and controlling the other branches, just like a blanket is a way to protect against cold.

Seedy underbelly of America.

Facts:
1.) Bush was willing to spend any money the US had after 9/11.
2.) Cofer Black was the man in charge of the CIA.
3.) CIA was put in charge of all anti-terrorism.
4.) Codename: "Operation Greystone."
5.) Bush was heard to have said, "I want the CIA in there first."
6.) May be a larger covert operation than any during the Cold War.
7.) Used harsh interrogation techniques, called "Stress and Duress."
8.) The US was fighting a global secret war in more than a dozen countries.
9.) Terrorist Surveillance Order gave NSA permission to intercept the communications of any US citizen without warrant.
10.) All budgets are kept secret.

Questions:
1.) Why would they work in such secrecy?
2.) Why did the war need to be declared?
3.) Why wasn't the Secretary of Defense called?
4.) How can we live in a country where one man has such absolute power?
5.) Why did "victory" happen so quickly?
6.) Wasn't anyone in the government against this?
7.) How can so many lives and so much power be put into the hands of so few people?
8.) Why were Dana Priest and her partner the only two looking for the secret locations?
9.) Why aren't American people made aware of what goes on in Afghanistan?
10.) How could the idea of our country being at war become so passe?

Different strokes for different folks.

So for my government interview, I chose to ask my mom some questions on immigration and religion. She and I get along on most things, but when it comes to politics, she and I can tend to butt heads. But I can give you the gist of what we talked about.
Firstly, I asked her if she believed the immigrant population in this country was too high, even though I already knew her answer. It was a resounding yes, and she went on to talk about how she believes the southern border of our country should be closed completely, and that no other people should be able to get in from places like Mexico or Latin America, unless of course they apply for citizenship and go through all the proper tests. She argued that because our ancestors had to go through Hell on Ellis Island, all immigrants regardless of where they're from should still be subject to such conditions. I disagree with that last bit, but I do think that the US should make a bigger deal of illegal immigration, and only let people into the country who apply and achieve citizenship. It just makes much more sense.
On the topic of church and state, I asked my mom whether or not they should be totally separated. She said that they shouldn't be totally integrated, but she does like the fact that her religion can play a small part in her government. (I say "her religion" because my mom's a Christian, and they're usually the religion that's catered to in this country.) She takes comfort in the fact that the currency she uses says "In God We Trust" and that every time her children have to pledge their allegiance to the country they have to say, "one nation under God." I, on the other hand, am all for the complete separation of church and state. It makes me uncomfortable to think that the government that I find myself to be a part of affiliates heavily with a faith I don't believe in.
Immigration and religion just may be two things that we'll never completely agree on.

History for the people, by the people.

So, as for the excerpt from Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," I loved it. It was biting and didn't dance around the fact that the country was founded for rich people by rich people. He made some excellent points, especially at the end when he noted that the founding fathers discluded half of the American population when they were writing up the Constitution - America's women. I may just have been all about that because I'm a feminist, but he still made an excellent point. It's been a sad story for women and minorities in this country since the very beginning, and only relatively recently have things gotten any better; within the past hundred years or so, women and black people have gotten the rights to vote. That took way too long.
As far as questions go, I would love to know here he got all of his sources. And I also wonder if people ever view him as too cynical? I can see how they would. And does he think that we should follow the Constitution with a loose construction or strong construction? My guess would probably be loose. Very loose indeed.

Political lols.

I found this political cartoon was very fitting of the theme of immigration and integration that comes up in our reading. The borders are growing thinner and the population gets larger; but what constitutes a legal US citizen is up to lots of debate.

Questions:
1.) Why do the words that the "Growing Hispanic Population" says have deeper meaning within this cartoon?
2.) Is there a reason why the two people are represented differently? Do their ages/genders/ethnicities have any meaning?
3.) Does the composition of the cartoon have any affect on the way it's taken in by the reader?

Let's play 20 questions.

1.) How are these passages supposed to allow us to step into a politician's shoes?
2.) Why doesn't everyone involve themselves in politics more?
3.) Why were so many Japanese people deported?
4.) Is there a fee or anything you have to pay to be deported?
5.) Do you have to get on a boat or a plane? Are they free trips?
6.) How many types of people have to be given such a thorough background check before entering the country?
7.) Why are people so afraid of some diversity in America? Isn't that what makes us great?
8.) Why is there such a great difference between opportunities given to different economic classes?
9.) Why do Americans tend to be skeptic and questioning about their government?
10.) Why do Americans have to be so suspicious of all Muslims, as if they're a threat.
11.) What is identity politics?
12.) Why do Americans tend to vary so much on so many points?
13.) What would happen to the economy if all illegal immigrants were deported?
14.) Why do differences in personal background create so many differences in political opinion?
15.) Will there ever be a politician everyone likes?
16.) Why does so much money get funneled into defense when it seems like we have nothing to defend ourselves from.
17.) Should there be more than two main political parties in America?
18.) Is it better to participate in politics or be indifferent towards them?
19.) What constitutes being "educated?"
20.) Is our current government any better than it was over 200 years ago?

Some political issues I care about...

Some political issues I care about? Hmmm. I suppose I would have to say the most quintessential ones, the issues that every bleeding heart liberal would say they care about.
First on the list of politic pet peeves: the food packing industry in the United States, and how unbelievable it is on the whole. I'm not saying that every means through which we get food is unsanitary and unregulated, but you'd be surprised how much we eat is unsanitary and unregulated. Granted, we've come a long way since the time of Upton Sinclair and The Jungle. But that's still no excuse for the gross torture and unclean conditions animals in the meat packing industry have to face. For example, on some "farms" chickens are forced to live in uncleaned coops, packed in so tightly that their wings can't develop due to lack of use. At this point, I'm probably getting the "crazy hipster, these aren't political issues" thoughts from some classmates and readers. But in a totally viable way, they are. The government is supposed to intervene on behalf of the consumer, and is supposed to regulate and inspect the factories in which meat production takes place. That rarely happens, in fact. The FDA is supposed to regulate inspections for any communicable diseases in meat processing plants. On the large scale, this doesn't happen. E coli? That nasty, potentially lethal sickness? Most cases in the US come from eating bad, spoiled, or unsanitary meat.
Second political issue I care about? Hmmm. It's one of the most controversial. Indeed, indeed, abortion. I find it absurd that in the 21st century, state laws concerning abortion vary so much. States like California and New York make it plain and simple: any woman who wishes to terminate an unwanted pregnancy may do so within the first 24 weeks. Easy, simple, fair. Other states, including the state of Pennsylvania, make it nearly impossible to terminate a pregnancy. In more conservative states, the only possible way for a woman to get an abortion is if her life is at risk. She's not even allowed to terminate a pregnancy caused by rape or incest. What a woman does with her body is her business, and if a fetus is only considered a person at birth, no, it's not murder.
I could go on, but I'd be impressed if anyone even made it this far. No disrespect to any person with opposite opinions. We can both be sure we're right, that's why we live in the US.