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?
Monday, October 31, 2011
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.
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?
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?
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?
Sunday, October 30, 2011
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?
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?
Thursday, October 27, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
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".
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".
Friday, October 14, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, October 10, 2011
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)
Thursday, October 6, 2011
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.
"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.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
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.
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.
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?
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?
Monday, October 3, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)