In the article, Obama: Education key to economic success, it discusses how Obama thinks that Republicans will cut the spending used for education. He specifically told his audience, which happened to be in Albuquerque, New Mexico, that they needed to think about education when they planned to vote. The president said that in order for the young people to be successful in the future, they needed to be educated. While speaking, Obama learned quickly that education was not a top priority for the citizens, which is not something he can control.
A high school class wrote to President Obama talking about education. They were concerned about the reward for their “good work” in the classroom. The class’s thoughts were that even if they do get good grades that it would not help the fact that there are not many hobs available for them. Obama has tried to save jobs for teachers and is working on making it easier for students to attend college. He is doing this by “closing tax loopholes.” Obama said that making change is hard and the Republicans are risking the “hope and change” the young longed for in the 2008 election.
This article greatly deals with federalism. It is mainly about education and President Obama’s opinion on what needs to be done. Technically, Obama and the rest of the federal government have little say over what happens in the education in the states. It is a right granted to the states to decide their standards and regulations dealing with education. However, the federal government has control over the amount of money granted to the states for education purposes. The recent Race to the Top competition awarded nine states and the District of Columbia with money to use toward education. The states that won are Massachusetts, New York, Hawaii, Florida, Rhode Island, District of Columbia, Maryland, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio. Race to the Top is a way the federal government influences the states to get what they want done.
Education is something that needs a lot of work. There should be a national test given at the beginning of ninth grade and at the end of twelfth grade to ensure that students are learning. States should also all require the same standards. This would guarantee that all students are taught the same material. I think education should be controlled more by the federal government. Doing this would be good for the whole country in the long run.
Obama: Education key to economic success
Monday, October 4, 2010
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
Federalism within the Tea Party
Health care issues were recently discussed at a Tea Party rally in Lincoln, Nebraska. Called the "Restore America Rally", this event not only discussed issues with health care but also the reducing of state spending. One of the objectives requested was for the attendees what the event called "a patriot's pledge" which advocated the reducing of state spending. As for health care, this rally was primarily against the health care reform law and wished to end it. Brochures were distributed the rally participants. The director of this rally, Bob Bennie accused President Obama of being a communist, along with the audience's agreement. His wish was for the destruction of liberal and progressive reforms. Bennie state Fox News' Glenn Beck as being his primary influence. Bennie also made the statement that the time to stop this reforms will be in November at the elections.
This article relates in the way of federalism in the way that the health care reform law was passed in the federal government. The people of the state of Nebraska are trying to end this law. The people of Nebraska going against the federal government is an example of state vs. national government conflict. Federalism is composed of atleast two layers of government. Since one layer is conflict with another, it shows that federalism is in place.
I don't know where to start my reaction. First off, it's credible to have an argument against something such as a health care reform bill. You have your right to support what you wish. To describe the president as a communist, that is quite another. Bob Bennie shows his true ignorance at this rally. Also, to call for the destruction of progressive/liberal reforms is just pure insanity. Just because you may not support something, you shouldn't put it down at every chance. When he explains that Glenn Beck is one of his influences, it puts the puzzle right together. On his show, Glenn beck is notorious for his absurd and nonsensical content. It just goes to show that people out there are being fed information from delusional individuals without thinking for themselves.
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
Federalism in Schools
President Barack Obama has been closely related with how each class room is run. President Obama also has implied each school to lengthen school days and the whole year in general. President Obama wants new teachers that are more qualified in teaching our nation`s youth. This is not an easy task or an inexpensive one but he is quoted saying “money well spent.” Still most states cannot afford this change, they need resources. Mayor Scott Smith of Mesa Arizona says "It comes down to the old bugaboo, resources. It costs money to keep kids in school,” he is also quoted saying "Everyone believes we can achieve greater things if we have a longer school year. The question is how do you pay for it."
The article below gives more information on this plan to elongate school years and how it has worked out for states that have tried this plan. This plan is a good plan even though it may not be a very popular one but since when has our government shot for the popular title. This will further educate our youth in ways unimaginable. It could give a boost to the future economy we could be talking about our next president do you want a highly educated one or another George Bush.
This issue is a very hot issue right now. From Race to the Top to President Obama wanting to hire 10,000 new teachers in the next two years in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and math. The national government would really love if all of this would happen but when it comes to capital they fall short. The state government makes up this lack but they are strained as well so when it comes to this topic we may be waiting for quite a while.
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
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Changing the Constitution
As the framers wrote the Constitution and fought for its ratification they clearly envisioned a time and place where the supreme law of the land would have to be changed. As Jefferson himself stated, "The Constitution belongs to the living and not to the dead." In fact, it took but two years after ratification for the first ten amendments to be added.
You will now look at this process to change the Constitution. Respond to the following prompt...
1) How can the Constitution be changed? Please detail the formal and informal methods. Explain the differences between the two methods, the steps involved in the formal amending process, and the several ways to change the Constitution informally while providing examples.
2) Detail how the Constitution has been transformed as a result of the events on 9/11.
3) Finally, explain the claim that the Constitution is a flexible document.
You will now look at this process to change the Constitution. Respond to the following prompt...
1) How can the Constitution be changed? Please detail the formal and informal methods. Explain the differences between the two methods, the steps involved in the formal amending process, and the several ways to change the Constitution informally while providing examples.
2) Detail how the Constitution has been transformed as a result of the events on 9/11.
3) Finally, explain the claim that the Constitution is a flexible document.
Monday, September 13, 2010
The Ratification Battle
As the table and map above reveal, acceptance of the Constitution was not universal. Many opposed its ratification and formed strong political opposition to its passage.
Waging battles throughout the states these Anti-Federalists saw tyranny in the Constitution. In their eyes the Constitution represented a betrayal of the revolutionary principles the nation had declared 11 years before and just finished fighting for a mere four years prior.
The Federalists strongly disagreed with the Anti-Federalist interpretation of the Constitution. In their mind this new document and the government it sought to create was a reasonable response to the uncertainty plaguing the nation.
As the two sides waged a tireless battle throughout the states contrasting visions of the proper role of government emerged. Consider this development as you respond to the prompt.
Who was right in the ratification battles? As you answer this question make sure to consider and detail both sides of the debate. Make sure you explain the Anti-Federalist opposition and the Federalist responses to the criticisms cast against the Constitution.
The Constitution and Government
The Constitution clearly established a governing structure that many admire and many others despise. You will not weigh-in on this debate. Please consider the following questions in the prompt below:
How does the constitutional structure of the United States Government promote individualism?
How does the constitutional structure encourage political stalemate?
What are the advantages of the constitutional structure?
What are the limitations of this governing structure?
Consider these as your respond to...
How does the governing structure created in the U.S. Constitution affect the role of government? Make sure you have a clear thesis or argument that is supported with evidence.
How democratic is the U.S. Constitution?
When the framers of the U.S. Constitution gathered in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 they looked to create a new national government. Responding to the growing economic, social, and political uncertainty of their time, these 55 men generated one of the most momentous documents ever written.
This document, fashioned in the heat of 109 days, came to spell out and define the governmental structure of the United States. Yet debates over its intentions and meanings still rage today.
Central to these debates is the issue of the document's democratic nature. Did the framers want to create a democracy? Or, did they wish to limit the powers of the majority? Did the framers look to fashion a democratic model to protect and represent the wishes of the public? Or, did they seek to establish a governing structure that would limit and prevent so-called "mobocracy" from taking hold?
These are the questions you must consider as you answer the prompt below:
How democratic is the U.S. Constitution? In your answer provide a clear thesis and argument. Additionally, cite evidence explaining how the document both limits and promotes democratic principles. Use this evidence to defend your own argument.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
The National Debt
The federal government's or "national" debt is reaching historical levels. The federal government now borrows more money to pay for programs than ever before. Estimates show that this year's deficit will reach 1.4-1.5 trillion dollars and contribute to the seemingly uncontrollable growth of the debt.Because of the growing size of the debt a fierce political debate has arisen over how to best deal with this problem. Republicans and Democrats in Congress are currently battling over how this issue should be addressed.
You are going to investigate this controversy and comment to this post by doing the following:
1) Define the words debt and deficit. How are they different? How are they related?
2) Read the attached articles (by clicking on the active links below) and summarize what you learn about the debt and deficit from these articles. Your summary should be based entirely on the articles found below and should not be a list of facts. I expect the summary to be written in coherent paragraphs.
What They're Not Telling You
The 'Tipping Point' of American Debt
Out of debt: A tax increase is no way to start
Wikileaks Controversy
In recent days secret government/military documents have been leaked and released by the website Wikileaks. This release of documents concerning the War in Afghanistan has created a controversy and debate. This debate is centered on the proper role of the media and its relationship with the government. In this debate are some critical questions: When should the media report stories? What information is off limits? What does the public have a right to know about war? Can a democracy exist when its government keeps secrets?You are to consider these questions as you read the attached articles below. After reading the three articles you are summarize the articles' points in a comment to this post in the following fashion.
What support for Wikileaks' actions is offered? What opposition to their actions is given? Finally, what does this current issue say about the need for the mainstream media? Please note, I am not looking for your opinion. Your answers should be based totally on the articles found below.
The acticles can be accessed below by simply clicking on the active links.
Thank God for the Whistle-Blowers
Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange Is a Fraud
WikiLeaks' data-dump reporting simply makes a case for the existence of the mainstream media
Monday, June 7, 2010
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Get Rid of the 17th Amendment?
Some advocate getting rid of the 17th Amendment? Why? What are the implications?
Read to learn more.
Read to learn more.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Veterans Day
Different Thoughts on Veterans Day:
What we owe our warriors
Dulce et Decorum Est - Wilfred Owen (1917)
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!–An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime...
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,–
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
The veterans agenda
'My crew thought I was dead'
What we owe our warriors
Dulce et Decorum Est - Wilfred Owen (1917)
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!–An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime...
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,–
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
The veterans agenda
'My crew thought I was dead'
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Which would you be?
The generals in this political conflict were Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton looked at the emerging nation and saw great commercial potential. In Hamilton's eyes, the United States' future was directly tied to industry and trade. Through the construction of global trading networks, close commerical ties to Britain, and support for emerging industries a solid economic foundation could be laid. With such a vision Hamilton believed it was necesary to have a powerful and active central government that could protect and promote such economic progress.
Jefferson, with great assistance from his political right-hand James Madison, took a contrary view. In Jefferson's mind, the foundation of a stable and free democracy lay not in commercial interests but rather in the yeoman farmer. Jeffersonian ideals were based on this notion of agarian republicanism. Republican ideals were best promoted and protected when power was rested in the independent farmer who was bound to his land through his labor. Thus, for Jefferson, government should be closely tied to this population. Anything that broke this principle was a direct threat to democracy and a promotion of tyranny.
Now, whose vision was correct? You are now tasked with defending one of the two visions as the correct political philosophy for the United States. In your defense make sure you discuss governmental power (where should power rest and what are the government's proper responsibilities), foreign policy, and constitutional interpretation. Remember to keep a 1790s perspective.
So...are you are Hamiltonian Federalist or a Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican?
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Problems in the Parties
Do Republicans have a problem with moderates?
GOP pick sparks revolt on right
Do the Congressional Democratic Leaders have a problem with each other?
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid at odds over war
GOP pick sparks revolt on right
Do the Congressional Democratic Leaders have a problem with each other?
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid at odds over war
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)