Summary: Massachusetts had tried to ban gay marriage on June 9, 2006. However, they fell short by 18 votes. The majority believed that this was an attempt to distract the nation from the other immpending issues and that it was unconstitutional to divide the population. They didnt agree with the past beiliefs that marriage should be established between people of opposite sexes, in which several states imply to their citizens. Even though other states have banned gay marriage, or at least have laws against the issue, they believed that it was unneccessary to provide a law banning gay marriage.
How it connects to Federalism: This article relates to federalism because it shows that states have the right to make their own decisions. Even though several states have made laws banning gay marriage, Massachusetts doesn't have to go along with the other states choices.
Why it is important: I believe that this is important because I think that gay marriage should be legal in all states and that it should be your personnal choice. I agree with the courts on this because they are using their right to independence. They understand that other states don't agree with this issue, but thanks to Federalism, they have the right to make that decision on their own.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/a_ban_we_dont_yet_need.html
Showing posts with label Federalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federalism. Show all posts
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Can the Concept of Federalism be Saved?
In this article, Thomas Mitchell states that America is falling away from federalism, and argues that "America is becoming less American...less independent, less prosperous, and less free. He goes on to state that the growing power of the central governmant is destroying Federalism. He uses ObamaCare and federal aid to education and mortage alleviation as examples. Mitchell believes that the government can't accomplish anything, and when it attempts to, it pushes the U.S. deeper in to debt ($13 trillion). Finally, he states that our federal system worked well, untill the 20th century, when the New Deal was passed.
This article relates to federalism due to the fact that federalism is the topic of discussion. It reflects that bombardment of grants given to the state is centralizing policies and power, thus making the national government stronger.
Federalism is missing the bullseye. The U.S. is centralizing its government via grants given to the states, allowing them to control more and more. If this continues, we will have ventured so far from federalism, other countries will laugh at our foolishness. We will no longer be a free nation; those who are ignorant will feel free, but that is simply because they are ignorant. Rather, we will be so strongly and strictly regulated by our national government that they will know how many calories we consume on a daily basis. America needs to get back on track, and fast.
Can the Concept of Federalism be Saved?
This article relates to federalism due to the fact that federalism is the topic of discussion. It reflects that bombardment of grants given to the state is centralizing policies and power, thus making the national government stronger.
Federalism is missing the bullseye. The U.S. is centralizing its government via grants given to the states, allowing them to control more and more. If this continues, we will have ventured so far from federalism, other countries will laugh at our foolishness. We will no longer be a free nation; those who are ignorant will feel free, but that is simply because they are ignorant. Rather, we will be so strongly and strictly regulated by our national government that they will know how many calories we consume on a daily basis. America needs to get back on track, and fast.
Can the Concept of Federalism be Saved?
Monday, October 4, 2010
Can Federalism Solve America's Culture War?
According to Andrew Sullivan, "The whole point of federalism is that different states can have different public policies on matters of burning controversy--and that this is okay." David Brooks argued in his New York Times column that each state should regulate abortion however the state wants and Roe v. Wade was political poison. The Court "set off a cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness that has poisoned public life by taking the issue away from legislatures. David Gelernter said, "An era where deep and fundamental moral questions divide the nation is in need of a revival of federalism. Federalism supplies the expansion joints that make America supple rather than brittle; make it a bridge that can ride out hurricanes without falling to pieces, that can sustain enormous twisting, turning, and tearing forces without cracking." All three of these men are theoretically right, but what we need to keep in mind is that since the Progressive era, and particularly since the New Deal, Americans have forgotten the practice and virtues of federalism.
A federal approach could very well worsen the cultural issues, as demonstrated in the Terry Schiavo case. Federalism only works when jurisdiction is clear, and cultural issues create murky jurisdiction. For example, let's consider abortion, if Roe v Wade were overturned, the states could pass all kinds of regulations reflecting many opinions. That might release a certain amount of cultural steam and cause us all to pick sides.
This article relates to federalism because it is discussing the possibility of federalism being the solution to this cultural war America is undergoing at the moment.
This particular article was very interesting to me because I never thought that the idea of federalism was discussed anywhere but the classroom in current times. It is also very intriguing to see how federalism effects all of the different issues that are hot right now. I never understood the importance of the system until reading this article.
Can Federalism Solve America's Culture War?
A federal approach could very well worsen the cultural issues, as demonstrated in the Terry Schiavo case. Federalism only works when jurisdiction is clear, and cultural issues create murky jurisdiction. For example, let's consider abortion, if Roe v Wade were overturned, the states could pass all kinds of regulations reflecting many opinions. That might release a certain amount of cultural steam and cause us all to pick sides.
This article relates to federalism because it is discussing the possibility of federalism being the solution to this cultural war America is undergoing at the moment.
This particular article was very interesting to me because I never thought that the idea of federalism was discussed anywhere but the classroom in current times. It is also very intriguing to see how federalism effects all of the different issues that are hot right now. I never understood the importance of the system until reading this article.
Can Federalism Solve America's Culture War?
In a Crisis, Rethinking Fiscal Federalism
California’s budget will cause the Los Angeles Unified School District to cancel most of its summer programs. Almost 900,000 children will be out of health care if the state’s welfare program gets cut. There are 47 other states that are projecting deficits, and the total could add up to $200 billion. An alternative is needed in Illinois concerning the increase in income taxes and deep service cuts. The media tells each state’s difficulties in its politics and economic circumstances. The real problem is bad partnership between the national government and states. States and local governments are invisible compared to the national government. They give money for almost every public service. It is impossible for the national government to know how programs will work without considering the states and local governments. The basics of federalism are forgotten in Washington. The debate over the stimulus plan is an example of this. Officials argued that funds given to states and local governments should be cut back to avoid cutbacks and layoffs. Health care is a heated debate that concerns federalism. The federal government must address two important ideas. Medicaid is killing states and local budgets. States cannot spend health money well. Health expenditures have tripled since 1980 in state and local governments. There are more and more uninsured Americans. Policies will be more effective if more attention is given to the state and local governments because that is where most policy begins. States and localities need more support from the federal government but they also need to know how to spend their money wisely. States do need more money from the government to respond to local interests but they also should not resist national mandates because they can be helpful. Federal budget debates should be expanded to include the national budget. The division of roles and resources should be scrutinized over the different levels of government. People live in cities and states and not just the United States.
In this article federalism is the main topic. It talks about how states are not receiving enough money to spend on their programs. The national government is deciding to not give funds to the states because they believe that the states do not spend it well. States are not getting enough federal funds to give health care to all of their citizens. The national government believes that funds should be cut back to avoid layoffs and cutbacks. Health care is a heated debate that is an example that can be linked to federalism. States believe that they should be receiving more money to be able to pay for health care. The national government has the power to give money or to not give the money to the states. States are spending a lot of money on programs and the national government are not giving them enough money and it causes the states to have huge deficits.
The national government should give more money to the states. States are trying to implement programs that will help the economy and they can’t do that without the proper amount of funds. Most policies originate in the states and if more money is given to the states then maybe more policies could be made and the national government could have more ideas on how to handle certain issues. States should also try to do what the national government tells them to do so they will be able to receive more funds to make more programs.
In this article federalism is the main topic. It talks about how states are not receiving enough money to spend on their programs. The national government is deciding to not give funds to the states because they believe that the states do not spend it well. States are not getting enough federal funds to give health care to all of their citizens. The national government believes that funds should be cut back to avoid layoffs and cutbacks. Health care is a heated debate that is an example that can be linked to federalism. States believe that they should be receiving more money to be able to pay for health care. The national government has the power to give money or to not give the money to the states. States are spending a lot of money on programs and the national government are not giving them enough money and it causes the states to have huge deficits.
The national government should give more money to the states. States are trying to implement programs that will help the economy and they can’t do that without the proper amount of funds. Most policies originate in the states and if more money is given to the states then maybe more policies could be made and the national government could have more ideas on how to handle certain issues. States should also try to do what the national government tells them to do so they will be able to receive more funds to make more programs.
Federalism
This article is about a Texas representative who is trying to pass a bill that would make the National Guard available upon request. The bill, National Guard Border Enforcement Act is a bill trying to get passed that would allow states that are on the U.S.-Mexico border to call upon 10,000 National Guard troops to help defend the border against crime. The bill would make the federal government pay for the troops, but the troops would be under the governor. States on the border are tired of the federal government not doing their part to protect its people and are tired of having to pay to protect themselves. They believe the “war” on our southern border is a serious problem and the federal government needs to step in to help.
This article is related to federalism because it talks about a conflict between the state and national governments. The state governments want the national government to pay for protection against the southern border. The federal government says that they already provide protection so any extra the states must pay for. The states believe that there isn’t enough protection and that they shouldn’t have to pay to be protected. This is a good example of federalism because it shows how the governments are clashing to see who should pay for what services. The states want the national to pay for protection, but the federal doesn’t think it is needed.
The federal government should have to pay more for protection along the borders. They may not have to pass this bill, but if the states want more protection, they should have it. There are quite a few problems along the Mexican border and we do need more regulation and protection against it. The states shouldn’t be able to control the National Guard, but they do deserve more protection. They shouldn’t have to pay for protection.
Texas Wants Guard Troops At State's Call
This article is related to federalism because it talks about a conflict between the state and national governments. The state governments want the national government to pay for protection against the southern border. The federal government says that they already provide protection so any extra the states must pay for. The states believe that there isn’t enough protection and that they shouldn’t have to pay to be protected. This is a good example of federalism because it shows how the governments are clashing to see who should pay for what services. The states want the national to pay for protection, but the federal doesn’t think it is needed.
The federal government should have to pay more for protection along the borders. They may not have to pass this bill, but if the states want more protection, they should have it. There are quite a few problems along the Mexican border and we do need more regulation and protection against it. The states shouldn’t be able to control the National Guard, but they do deserve more protection. They shouldn’t have to pay for protection.
Texas Wants Guard Troops At State's Call
Schools Struggle to Feed Kids Healthy Food
In this article a mother is outraged about what kind of foods her children were given the choice to eat, so she got involved. This San Francisco school mother helped the principal remove "junk foods" But this act is very expensive, the government repays schools $2.74 for every meal but that did not cover the cost so the schools had to raise the money themselves. Most schools don't meet USDA regulations with their lunches simply because it is very expensive. As a result of poor food children are more likely to gain weight. The school in San Francisco that this article is based on had a test run, bringing in vegetables and fruits and other healthy alternatives and found out quickly how costly it really was.This is all a part of the National School Lunch Program, who say childrens education money shouldn't have to be compromised to feed children well. First Lady, Michelle Obama, supports the "Chefs Move into Schools" program to help educate children about nutrition. The mother working on this project is happy to have an apple and to be moving in the right direction for healthier school lunches.
Education is left up to the states to regulate but this article shows how the federal government gets involved. They provide grants and money to schools for not only lumches but educational needs as well, even though the states are left to deal with education regulations, they cannot do it on their own. Which is shown in this article.
I believe the government needs to help schools more. Children are obese and over weight partly because of what is being served at school. The mother in this article is trying her best to bring healthier alternatives to schools and i applaud her for her efforts. If only every school district had the same motivations. All the programs like the first lady's and others are wonderful, they are very much so needed. But my question is if school lunches don't meet USDA regulations shouldn't the government be more involved? They are the one's who implement these regulations. Over all this article is very inspiring and i believe it would be good for our school district to read this article and make some changes.
Schools Struggle to Feed Kids Healthy Food
Education is left up to the states to regulate but this article shows how the federal government gets involved. They provide grants and money to schools for not only lumches but educational needs as well, even though the states are left to deal with education regulations, they cannot do it on their own. Which is shown in this article.
I believe the government needs to help schools more. Children are obese and over weight partly because of what is being served at school. The mother in this article is trying her best to bring healthier alternatives to schools and i applaud her for her efforts. If only every school district had the same motivations. All the programs like the first lady's and others are wonderful, they are very much so needed. But my question is if school lunches don't meet USDA regulations shouldn't the government be more involved? They are the one's who implement these regulations. Over all this article is very inspiring and i believe it would be good for our school district to read this article and make some changes.
Schools Struggle to Feed Kids Healthy Food
Arizona Laws are at it Again
The main question between Arizona state and federal lawsuit has been whether or not it is right for the government to keep state from making state laws that goes against federal authority. The lawsuit is worried about the “potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations most often raised by immigration advocates.” The lawsuit provided reasons why the laws made by Congress must take preference to any passed by a state Legislature.
The law in Arizona requires that any person that may be suspected of being an immigrant, they have to provide documentation. By having about no immigrants in the state prevents any fighting problems. The federal government wants to block the law from becoming active. The main focus will be about balancing power between the states and the national government. The issue centers upon a disagreement that says “federal law trumps state law.” The lawsuit goes on to say that states cannot make immigration policy or make laws that contradict with the federal immigration laws.
Two professors support the Arizona law by saying that it only prohibits conduct that is illegal under federal law and that that state can have ability to protect its residents. However, the courts have rule that the federal law is the supreme law of the land. Since it states that any state law that conflicts with a federal law is "pre-empted", or done away with.
This situation dates back to the founding fathers. However, because the Obama Administration is filing the claim, it increases credibility and develops more of a chance that the law will be turned down. If the high court doesn't issue a broad ruling on states' rights to apply laws on immigration in that case, the case will be filed on account of justices.
Federalism is the distribution of power and policy between the two or more levels of government (in this case, the national and the state). This relates to federalism because the state and the national government have a conflict about who has what power. Although it is stated in the Constitution that states cannot make laws that are against the federal, Arizona continues to argue that it is needed to protect its citizens and prevent combat issues. It is argued that the state law is only violating rules that are already illegal under the federal law. Again, the main focus results in balancing power between the states and the federal government.
This case is an important and critical case. It will demonstrate the power that the Constitution holds and will show the results of states over excising their power. The states should not have the upper advantage against the federal government because their reasons and support is weak. Unlike the states, the federal government has proof and evidence that what their law will bring is inaccurate. Yes, it may limit the immigrant population in Arizona, but states cannot enforce laws or establish their own immigrant policy in a way that will interrupt the federal laws already set in place. This court case will be used throughout history as an example of debates when states and the national government argue over the power that it is given. The states think that they have a chance against the federal government because they cannot limit the protection among the residents of Arizona. The federal government however has a huge advantage because it is being filed by the Obama Administration and because this problem has circulated throughout U.S. history, with the majority of the results ending the same way.
Feds Vs. State Again in Suit Against Arizona Law
The law in Arizona requires that any person that may be suspected of being an immigrant, they have to provide documentation. By having about no immigrants in the state prevents any fighting problems. The federal government wants to block the law from becoming active. The main focus will be about balancing power between the states and the national government. The issue centers upon a disagreement that says “federal law trumps state law.” The lawsuit goes on to say that states cannot make immigration policy or make laws that contradict with the federal immigration laws.
Two professors support the Arizona law by saying that it only prohibits conduct that is illegal under federal law and that that state can have ability to protect its residents. However, the courts have rule that the federal law is the supreme law of the land. Since it states that any state law that conflicts with a federal law is "pre-empted", or done away with.
This situation dates back to the founding fathers. However, because the Obama Administration is filing the claim, it increases credibility and develops more of a chance that the law will be turned down. If the high court doesn't issue a broad ruling on states' rights to apply laws on immigration in that case, the case will be filed on account of justices.
Federalism is the distribution of power and policy between the two or more levels of government (in this case, the national and the state). This relates to federalism because the state and the national government have a conflict about who has what power. Although it is stated in the Constitution that states cannot make laws that are against the federal, Arizona continues to argue that it is needed to protect its citizens and prevent combat issues. It is argued that the state law is only violating rules that are already illegal under the federal law. Again, the main focus results in balancing power between the states and the federal government.
This case is an important and critical case. It will demonstrate the power that the Constitution holds and will show the results of states over excising their power. The states should not have the upper advantage against the federal government because their reasons and support is weak. Unlike the states, the federal government has proof and evidence that what their law will bring is inaccurate. Yes, it may limit the immigrant population in Arizona, but states cannot enforce laws or establish their own immigrant policy in a way that will interrupt the federal laws already set in place. This court case will be used throughout history as an example of debates when states and the national government argue over the power that it is given. The states think that they have a chance against the federal government because they cannot limit the protection among the residents of Arizona. The federal government however has a huge advantage because it is being filed by the Obama Administration and because this problem has circulated throughout U.S. history, with the majority of the results ending the same way.
Feds Vs. State Again in Suit Against Arizona Law
Arizona's Immigration law.
In Arizona, the Governor Jan Brewer signed an immigration law into effect on Friday April 23, 2010. This law has some major critics, such as President Obama. This immigration law makes it a crime to fail to carry valid immigration documents. It also gives the police broad powers to detain anyone suspected of being in Arizona illegally.
There has been a huge political debate on this issue. President Obama has strongly criticized the bill saying that it “threatens to undermine basic notions of equality that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so vital to keeping us safe.” The Mexican Foreign Ministry said that it is worried that this law will limit the rights of its citizens and relations with Arizona. The law goes into effect by August, and court challenges are expected immediately.
Mr. Russell Pearce, a state senator, has several provisions on the bill. It requires police officers to detain people “only when practicable”, like if it doesn’t hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment. It also makes it a misdemeanor to fail to carry the proper immigration documents, and it also allows people to sue the state and local governments if they believe that the immigration law is not being enforced. 48 states have proposed or enacted hundreds of bills about immigration since 2007, which was the last time the federal government tried to reform the immigration law.
Immigration, normally a federal issue, has been taken into the hands of the states. Now the state of Arizona has enacted a law more harsh than any of the others, granting the police the ability to demand that immigrants show proper identification. This law blurs the line between state and federal power to enforce immigration restrictions. This law allows the state of Arizona the ability to do what only the federal government can do, limit immigration. This law came about because of the national governments inability to control illegal immigration. Does this mean that when the national government can’t fix a national issue that the states can take power into their own hands?
If a state can make a law discriminating against immigrants what can’t it do? If state doesn’t like a national law and they want to change it only within their state they can just make a law overriding the national law? What happened to NATIONAL SUPREMACY? How can the national government just stand by and allow immigrants to be discriminated against? Granted some immigrants are here illegally and they deserve to be thrown out until they can get enough money to come here legally. (Read: Quit devoting your life to hopping fences, crossing rivers and bridges, and get a job.) But I still think that the federal government should be the ones held responsible for kicking out Senor and Senora Fence Hoppers, not the states.
Arizona's Stringent law on Immigration.
There has been a huge political debate on this issue. President Obama has strongly criticized the bill saying that it “threatens to undermine basic notions of equality that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so vital to keeping us safe.” The Mexican Foreign Ministry said that it is worried that this law will limit the rights of its citizens and relations with Arizona. The law goes into effect by August, and court challenges are expected immediately.
Mr. Russell Pearce, a state senator, has several provisions on the bill. It requires police officers to detain people “only when practicable”, like if it doesn’t hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment. It also makes it a misdemeanor to fail to carry the proper immigration documents, and it also allows people to sue the state and local governments if they believe that the immigration law is not being enforced. 48 states have proposed or enacted hundreds of bills about immigration since 2007, which was the last time the federal government tried to reform the immigration law.
Immigration, normally a federal issue, has been taken into the hands of the states. Now the state of Arizona has enacted a law more harsh than any of the others, granting the police the ability to demand that immigrants show proper identification. This law blurs the line between state and federal power to enforce immigration restrictions. This law allows the state of Arizona the ability to do what only the federal government can do, limit immigration. This law came about because of the national governments inability to control illegal immigration. Does this mean that when the national government can’t fix a national issue that the states can take power into their own hands?
If a state can make a law discriminating against immigrants what can’t it do? If state doesn’t like a national law and they want to change it only within their state they can just make a law overriding the national law? What happened to NATIONAL SUPREMACY? How can the national government just stand by and allow immigrants to be discriminated against? Granted some immigrants are here illegally and they deserve to be thrown out until they can get enough money to come here legally. (Read: Quit devoting your life to hopping fences, crossing rivers and bridges, and get a job.) But I still think that the federal government should be the ones held responsible for kicking out Senor and Senora Fence Hoppers, not the states.
Arizona's Stringent law on Immigration.
race to the top
Massachusetts was awarded $250 million from the "race to the top". They were one of the ten that won money from the $4.35 billion competition. Massachusetts showed huge improvements from the first round of founding. The program aims to reward states that are changing educational programs and that overhauls failing schools. The other winners in the second round of the competition were: Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia.
They say the money would close the achievement gap between white students and students of color, students with special needs and students who do not speak English as their first language. Massachusetts was rejected in the first round of grants, which sent shock waves because it has one of the most rigorous academic standards in the country. this was because they did not want to change their standards, and they gave teachers to much say in what to do to failing schools.The American Federation of Teachers of Massachusetts, which supported the first application, reversed its position for the second round, outraged that hundreds of teachers in Boston were asked to reapply for their jobs at under performing schools in Boston.
The article deals with federalism because it deals with the federal, state and local governments being involved in education. In the constitution it states that education is a state and local government power. The federal government has found away around this. The federal government works with the state governments, to set national regulation that states have to meet to get extra national money, like the "race to the top money" in the article. They are not required regulations, so it does not violate the constitution.
It is a good thing that the federal government is making education an important topic. Money should not be what is changing state standards in education, the states should just change them themselves. Making the standards higher would better of the country in the future because there would be more smart people in the work force. It is also a good thing to see that national money is going to eduction change but it should not be the only thing changing it.
Mass. awarded $250 million in Race to the Top competition
They say the money would close the achievement gap between white students and students of color, students with special needs and students who do not speak English as their first language. Massachusetts was rejected in the first round of grants, which sent shock waves because it has one of the most rigorous academic standards in the country. this was because they did not want to change their standards, and they gave teachers to much say in what to do to failing schools.The American Federation of Teachers of Massachusetts, which supported the first application, reversed its position for the second round, outraged that hundreds of teachers in Boston were asked to reapply for their jobs at under performing schools in Boston.
The article deals with federalism because it deals with the federal, state and local governments being involved in education. In the constitution it states that education is a state and local government power. The federal government has found away around this. The federal government works with the state governments, to set national regulation that states have to meet to get extra national money, like the "race to the top money" in the article. They are not required regulations, so it does not violate the constitution.
It is a good thing that the federal government is making education an important topic. Money should not be what is changing state standards in education, the states should just change them themselves. Making the standards higher would better of the country in the future because there would be more smart people in the work force. It is also a good thing to see that national money is going to eduction change but it should not be the only thing changing it.
Mass. awarded $250 million in Race to the Top competition
In Thousand gather for 'One Nation' rally in D.C. many things are discussed. "One Nation Working Together" was rallied at the National Mall. This gathering is connected with the tea party. The article relates it to the same anger that fueled the Tea Party Act is fueling the rally today. Schultz the talker at the rally blamed Republicans for "shipping jobs overseas and curtailing freedoms." The march was about the power of the people, and how the people should be standing up and fighting back." Ed Schultz borrowed Glenn Beck's "take back our country." in this speech. Schultz quoted "This is a defining moment in America. Are you American? This is no time to back down. This is time to fight for America." Most organizers are insisting that the rally isn't partisan. It's about job creation, quality education, and justice. However large organizations like AFL-CIO and Service Employees International Union are for the Democratic candidates. There's still a month left of campaigning and voters unhappiness is rising. Democratic organizers are hoping that the four hour program with speeches and entertainment will energize the activists that are crucial for the Democrats to retain their majorities in the House and Senate. Schultz said "They want to change this country." There are more than 400 organizations from labor unions, to faith, environmental, to gay rights groups there are partnered up for the event that is in a month. Sara Palin and Beck gathered near the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Martin Luther Kings Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech with a crowd and they urged to embrace traditional values. The rally was said to be nonpolitical, and was viewed as a protest against President Barack Obama's policies and the congressional Democrats. One organizer said that they started planning the event before Beck's rally and that the march Saturday isn't in reaction to it.
The article is related to federalism by the article trying the get the rally to keep the crucial votes for the Democrats to retain their majorities in the House and Senate. This also relates to getting America back to the way it use to be before we started shipping jobs overseas and fighting to get it back.
This article was really interesting and informative. It showed that someone was standing up for getting back the jobs that were sent overseas and getting them back to America. Schultz is trying to get America back to the way it was and fighting for American which most people should believe in. This article should change some peoples point of views.
Is health-care mandate constitutional?
Summary: The Obama Administration and Congress have proposed a new health care mandate stating that all citizens must get health insurance or be fined. In response many states have lined up to file lawsuits stating the mandate is unconstitutional. Under it, an 18 year-old citizen without health insurance would be listed as an interstate problem, such as a polluting factory. Many states are saying that it violates the 10th Amendment, stating that all powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution are left to the states. The last couple years, health care has become a national crisis, requiring a national, rather than state-by-state soloution. Although Federal Jurisdiction over health does not mean Congress is granted the freedom to use any and all means necessary to accomplish its goal. Rather, Congress would need to prove the failure of an individual to get health care creates a problem for interstate commerce. And to do this, congress has widely stretched the meaning of interstate commerce. Therefore, under this, an 18-year old citizen who has a car accident and needs medical care, it is the public that is likely to pay for it. So these acts by congress threaten the sancity of Federalism by congress instead of being decided among the courts.
How it relates to Federalism: This mandate threatens the original idea by the framers of the constitution and violates the 9th and 10th Amendment. It goes against a citizens right to privacy under the 9th amendment and states' rights under the 10th Amendment. The fact that the national government is issuing a mandate for healthcare takes away from the states' sovereign powers because the issue of health care is nowhere addressed by the constitution. With something like this in effect it only threatens to destroy federalism in the United States by giving the national government more power than the states.
Opinion: I completely disagree with the mandate because i do not believe that somebody else's issue of not having health care should rest solely on the public. It is every person's individual right to get health care rather than supporting other people's. I do not agree with the socialistic view this portrays and feel as though the federal government is getting to eager for more power. I believe that at the maximum it is a state issue rather than interstate commerce. This threatens the very existence of Federalism in the United States and takes away the states' sovereign powers, and gives the national government even more.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-03-31-column31_ST_N.htm
How it relates to Federalism: This mandate threatens the original idea by the framers of the constitution and violates the 9th and 10th Amendment. It goes against a citizens right to privacy under the 9th amendment and states' rights under the 10th Amendment. The fact that the national government is issuing a mandate for healthcare takes away from the states' sovereign powers because the issue of health care is nowhere addressed by the constitution. With something like this in effect it only threatens to destroy federalism in the United States by giving the national government more power than the states.
Opinion: I completely disagree with the mandate because i do not believe that somebody else's issue of not having health care should rest solely on the public. It is every person's individual right to get health care rather than supporting other people's. I do not agree with the socialistic view this portrays and feel as though the federal government is getting to eager for more power. I believe that at the maximum it is a state issue rather than interstate commerce. This threatens the very existence of Federalism in the United States and takes away the states' sovereign powers, and gives the national government even more.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-03-31-column31_ST_N.htm
Health Care Law Could Mean End of Federalism If It Is Upheld, Virginia AG Warns
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is suing the federal government to drop the federal mandate to purchase health insurance. Cuccinelli is only one of several state attorney generals who are suing the federal government on account of requiring to purchase health care. Virginia is different, however. The Virginia Health Care Freedom Act says that state residents cannot be required to buy health insurance. The Obama administration argues that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution allows the federal mandate. Cuccinelli argues that a victory for the federal government would mean the end of federalism, and that penalizing a state for not cooperating is unconstitutional.
This article relates to federalism because there is a conflict between the state government of Virginia and the federal government. The federal government is requiring the purchase of health insurance, and using the Commerce Clause as justification to do so. However, Virginia says that the federal government cannot lay a penalty on you for not cooperating. This, Virginia says, could give the federal government unlimited power.
In this situation, Virginia should win the court case. U.S. citizens should have the decision on whether or not to purchase health insurance. Health insurance should not be required by the federal government. The state government should be able to overrule the federal government in this situation. If the federal government wins the case, it could grant the federal government the power to enact any requirement and punish the states who do not cooperate.
Health Care Law Could Mean End of Federalism If It Is Upheld, Virginia AG Warns
This article relates to federalism because there is a conflict between the state government of Virginia and the federal government. The federal government is requiring the purchase of health insurance, and using the Commerce Clause as justification to do so. However, Virginia says that the federal government cannot lay a penalty on you for not cooperating. This, Virginia says, could give the federal government unlimited power.
In this situation, Virginia should win the court case. U.S. citizens should have the decision on whether or not to purchase health insurance. Health insurance should not be required by the federal government. The state government should be able to overrule the federal government in this situation. If the federal government wins the case, it could grant the federal government the power to enact any requirement and punish the states who do not cooperate.
Health Care Law Could Mean End of Federalism If It Is Upheld, Virginia AG Warns
State's Most Lagging Schools to get Funding
This article talks about what Maryland will do with their $250 million they received from Obama's education program "Race to the Top." Maryland's money will be majorly used to turn around chronically lower performing schools, according to Nancy Grasmick, the State Superintendent of Schools. RTTT funds will also be used to revise Maryland's assessments and curriculum based off of "Common Core Standards" that will make sure students are prepared for a college or career, Grasmick said. Technology will also be approved with the funding, such as having data to track students' progress during their K-12 years of school.
"Race to the Top" is a program created by the Obama administration to promote increasing standards of the education system. A pool of $ 3.4 billion was granted to nine final states and Washington D.C. Some states get more money than others, but all of the states have to follow the same requirements on what to do with that money. The schools must fix curriculum, teacher evaluations, technology and the overall increasing success of the students. All of the $250 million will be distributed over the course of four years.
RTTT is a project that has the core of federalism. Both the central and state governments have present powers in RTTT. The central government gives each state the grants and has requirements for what the states can and cannot do with the money. The states, on the other hand, have the power to decide how much money goes to each school and all other decisions, as long as the states follow the central government's requirements.
Maryland is being smart on how they are spending the money. Schools with low performances on average need the money more. It would seem like their curriculum needs to change sooner than a school that is chronically doing well. Grasmick is right. It is unfortunate for students to have to go to lower performing schools because of where they live. All students need to have the same opportunities as others, no matter where they live. Improved technology could potentially mean improved instruction towards students. Having data over a student's progression is a good idea so the students and teachers could see how someone has intellectually improved, and what else that student could improve on.
State's Most Lagging Schools to get Funding
"Race to the Top" is a program created by the Obama administration to promote increasing standards of the education system. A pool of $ 3.4 billion was granted to nine final states and Washington D.C. Some states get more money than others, but all of the states have to follow the same requirements on what to do with that money. The schools must fix curriculum, teacher evaluations, technology and the overall increasing success of the students. All of the $250 million will be distributed over the course of four years.
RTTT is a project that has the core of federalism. Both the central and state governments have present powers in RTTT. The central government gives each state the grants and has requirements for what the states can and cannot do with the money. The states, on the other hand, have the power to decide how much money goes to each school and all other decisions, as long as the states follow the central government's requirements.
Maryland is being smart on how they are spending the money. Schools with low performances on average need the money more. It would seem like their curriculum needs to change sooner than a school that is chronically doing well. Grasmick is right. It is unfortunate for students to have to go to lower performing schools because of where they live. All students need to have the same opportunities as others, no matter where they live. Improved technology could potentially mean improved instruction towards students. Having data over a student's progression is a good idea so the students and teachers could see how someone has intellectually improved, and what else that student could improve on.
State's Most Lagging Schools to get Funding
Federal goal is 47 to 62 mpg for cars by 2025
The Obama Administration took steps to require cars to get between 47 and 62 miles per gallon by the year 2025. This move supports states wanting to reduce auto emissions. The announcement was aimed at limiting the emission of greenhouse gases that are believed to relate to global warming. The action by the Environmental Protection Agency and Transportation Department begins a long rule making process. The proposals would narrow the gap between national and state approaches to fuel economy, as well as create more uniform standards for car makers. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could regulate new-vehicle without congressional approval as part of its legal mandate to both control greenhouse gas emissions and curb air pollution.
This article relates to federalism in the way the federal government is requiring all vehicles in all states to get at least 47-62 miles per gallon by the year 2025. This move supports states with timetables for reducing auto emissions. States who previously did not have much of a care for auto emissions now have to care, because the vehicles in their state must be more fuel efficient in the near future. If the fuel proposal is enacted then the gap between national and state approaches to fuel economy is narrowed.
The approach for cleaner air and less greenhouse gas emissions is generally a positive one, depending on who you talk to. Environmental groups will praise the proposal to control greenhouse emissions. Companies who make the cars may see a problem with the proposal, because more efficient vehicles have the potential to be more expensive to make. More expensive vehicles may drive potential customers away, resulting in less revenue. Both sides have a valid argument, although the environmental groups will most likely prevail.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/01/nation/la-na-epa-mileage-20101002
This article relates to federalism in the way the federal government is requiring all vehicles in all states to get at least 47-62 miles per gallon by the year 2025. This move supports states with timetables for reducing auto emissions. States who previously did not have much of a care for auto emissions now have to care, because the vehicles in their state must be more fuel efficient in the near future. If the fuel proposal is enacted then the gap between national and state approaches to fuel economy is narrowed.
The approach for cleaner air and less greenhouse gas emissions is generally a positive one, depending on who you talk to. Environmental groups will praise the proposal to control greenhouse emissions. Companies who make the cars may see a problem with the proposal, because more efficient vehicles have the potential to be more expensive to make. More expensive vehicles may drive potential customers away, resulting in less revenue. Both sides have a valid argument, although the environmental groups will most likely prevail.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/01/nation/la-na-epa-mileage-20101002
Health Care Law Could Mean End of Federalism If It Is Upheld, Virginia AG Warns
In Virginia, health care is a large topic of debate. Specifically about the federal mandate to purchase health insurance. The Virginia attorney-general, along with many other states' attorneys-general, are suing the federal government to drop the mandate. Virginia's case, however, is unique in the fact that the state passed a bill saying that no citizen can be required to purchase health insurance.
The federal government made a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, however, on August 2 a federal court ruled against it, allowing the state to continue. The federal government says that health insurance is included under the commerce clause, so therefore, they can create a mandate for it. On the other hand, Virginia is arguing that those who do not purchase health insurance are not participating in commerce, and therefore cannot be forced to participate.
This article has very much to do with federalism. It contains a heavy debate between the powers of the national and state governments when dealing with the commerce clause. The result of this debate will depend on how the Constitution is interpreted. If the judiciary believes in a stronger national government, they will most likely expand the commerce clause to include health insurance, favoring the national government. But if the judiciary prefers stronger state governments or a more restricted national government, they may very well take Virginia's side of the argument and dismiss the federal mandate.
In this case, Virginia holds the more valid argument. The national government should not have the power to force citizens to buy health insurance. Not all Americans can afford to buy it. yes, health insurance is a very important thing to have, but it is unconstitutional to force someone to have it. Forcing Americans to buy health insurance would be forcing them to participate in commerce, which is forbidden by law. It would be more understandable with something like auto insurance, which benefits not only the average American, but also anyone who their mistakes while driving affects. However, health insurance would only benefit the individual, not the nation as a whole.
Health Care Law Could Mean End of Federalism If It Is Upheld, Virginia AG Warns
The federal government made a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, however, on August 2 a federal court ruled against it, allowing the state to continue. The federal government says that health insurance is included under the commerce clause, so therefore, they can create a mandate for it. On the other hand, Virginia is arguing that those who do not purchase health insurance are not participating in commerce, and therefore cannot be forced to participate.
This article has very much to do with federalism. It contains a heavy debate between the powers of the national and state governments when dealing with the commerce clause. The result of this debate will depend on how the Constitution is interpreted. If the judiciary believes in a stronger national government, they will most likely expand the commerce clause to include health insurance, favoring the national government. But if the judiciary prefers stronger state governments or a more restricted national government, they may very well take Virginia's side of the argument and dismiss the federal mandate.
In this case, Virginia holds the more valid argument. The national government should not have the power to force citizens to buy health insurance. Not all Americans can afford to buy it. yes, health insurance is a very important thing to have, but it is unconstitutional to force someone to have it. Forcing Americans to buy health insurance would be forcing them to participate in commerce, which is forbidden by law. It would be more understandable with something like auto insurance, which benefits not only the average American, but also anyone who their mistakes while driving affects. However, health insurance would only benefit the individual, not the nation as a whole.
Health Care Law Could Mean End of Federalism If It Is Upheld, Virginia AG Warns
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)