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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)