The Court must decide what to do with a case involving a woman trying to poison her best friend at that time. Carol Bond was supportive when she heard that Myrlinda Haynes (her best friend at the time) was pregnant. Soon her mood darkened after finding out that her husband was the father. After Ms. Bond tried over two dozen times to poison Ms. Haynes putting the chemical on her car, door knob, and mail she went to the police. After the police offered no real help federal postal inspectors did. The federal postal inspectors video taped Ms. Bond stealing mail, and placing the poison. When it was time to charge Ms. Bond the prosecutor went for stealing mail, and unconventional weapons in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. In court Ms. Bond relied on the 10th Amendment after a unanimous three-judge panel of the federal appeals in Philadelphia. Ms. Bond has now been in jail for a little more than three years the Supreme Court might have summarily reversed the court’s decision. The Court will hear arguments from this case in the next couple of months and should have a decision by June.
The 10th Amendment is the main argument in this case. The 10th Amendment is an amendment that can help or hurt this case. When dealing with a case like this you must consider enumerated powers and implied powers. The 10th Amendment states “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people,” in some cases it’s hard to decide what is or is not in the Constitution. In some opinions it’s clear but the Court must decide.
This case was wrapped in drama, something you would see on a soap opera and it was intriguing. The case should be reviewed by the Supreme Court for obvious reasons. Information was mishandled in many ways by police and others. The police did no real research into this case the federal postal service did. The sentence was longer than the usual sentence. Instead of three months to two years she got six years. This sentence seems excessive.
A 10th Amendment Drama Fit for Daytime TV Heads to the Supreme Court
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith
The Tea Party is not in favor with the House cap-and-trade energy bill. This bill will create jobs in Indiana, reduce foreign oil imports, and address global warming. The Tea Party’s skepticism and denial of global warming are among the articles of faith of the Tea Party movement. All are wary though, of the Obama Administration’s plans to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. This will expand the governments’ authority in most parts of the economy. Some think the cap-and-trade bill, and the regulation of carbon dioxide is just a way to control more money. Anti-global-warming studies have claimed to show that policies like the regulation of carbon dioxide will have a negative effect on jobs and the economy. Some oppose government programs to address climate change all together. Only eight Republican votes were for the House cap-and-trade bill. Because some people are uncertain about the science of global warming they do not think it is wise to make changes in the nation’s economy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
The cap-and-trade bill and the carbon dioxide regulation may need further looking into because it may not be necessary to do if the global warming issue is not as big as some make it out to be. It might be a waste of peoples’ money to put in these programs, if it is not going to make that big of a difference in the end. For those who believe global warming is not real or are skeptical of it, these policies and regulations made by the government are scary. They do not want the government controlling more of the economy and taking more of their money.
This article showed me a different view on the issue of global warming. I still believe global warming is real after reading this; but the government should not be able to make policies so drastic that will possibly harm the economy even more, or cause job losses. There are more important things our money could go towards other than helping stop global warming, especially if it is not a huge problem. The national government should not have a huge part in programs linked to climate change because it just wastes our money. If they want to do something about global warming I am sure they can find a way without using our money.
The cap-and-trade bill and the carbon dioxide regulation may need further looking into because it may not be necessary to do if the global warming issue is not as big as some make it out to be. It might be a waste of peoples’ money to put in these programs, if it is not going to make that big of a difference in the end. For those who believe global warming is not real or are skeptical of it, these policies and regulations made by the government are scary. They do not want the government controlling more of the economy and taking more of their money.
This article showed me a different view on the issue of global warming. I still believe global warming is real after reading this; but the government should not be able to make policies so drastic that will possibly harm the economy even more, or cause job losses. There are more important things our money could go towards other than helping stop global warming, especially if it is not a huge problem. The national government should not have a huge part in programs linked to climate change because it just wastes our money. If they want to do something about global warming I am sure they can find a way without using our money.
Climate Change is Tea Party Article of Faith
A Ban We Don't (Yet) Need
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
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
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?
Rethinking Fiscal Federalism
The article I read was discussing how increased spending on health care is severely limiting the amount of money the states are getting. With more and more money being spent on health care, there is less money to give to the states, for things like education, and transportation. It’s almost impossible to tackle any of these large national priorities without considering how reforms would be put in place in states. State and local health expenditures have more than tripled since 1980, which means that state governments have to spend more money on health care, and less on other things. States have to make cutbacks, which will just hurt the economy even more. The relationship between the states and the federal governments needs to improve in order to start repairing the budget.
This article relates to federalism because it is focusing on how the federal government controls what the state governments spend their money on, and how much they get. A specific quote from the article that emphasizes federalism is, “While states could use more flexible federal funding to respond to local circumstances, states’ resistance to federal mandates is sometimes disingenuous,” This shows that the state governments are not exactly cooperating with the national government on the budget.
This is important because without money from the national government, then the state governments cannot do anything, and if the state governments have no money to spend, then a lot of people are going to suffer because of this. And if the state government doesn’t cooperate with the national government, then the national government will not give the states any money. The national government pretty much controls what they state government’s do, so the state government must work together with the national government in order for things to get done.
In a Crisis, Rethinking Fiscal Federalism
This article relates to federalism because it is focusing on how the federal government controls what the state governments spend their money on, and how much they get. A specific quote from the article that emphasizes federalism is, “While states could use more flexible federal funding to respond to local circumstances, states’ resistance to federal mandates is sometimes disingenuous,” This shows that the state governments are not exactly cooperating with the national government on the budget.
This is important because without money from the national government, then the state governments cannot do anything, and if the state governments have no money to spend, then a lot of people are going to suffer because of this. And if the state government doesn’t cooperate with the national government, then the national government will not give the states any money. The national government pretty much controls what they state government’s do, so the state government must work together with the national government in order for things to get done.
In a Crisis, Rethinking Fiscal Federalism
Judicial activism against Arizona
This article states that U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton, has blocked critical aspects of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law. And, because of this situation, this will cause efforts to take more action and work harder in order to find a solution to Obama administration’s unwillingness to take action on this issue. According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, 55 percent of back the Arizona law and 58 percent disapprove of Obama immigration policies. Also, a Pew Research Center poll shows that 63 percent think immigration reform is important and only 36 percent back the Justice Department’s suit against Arizona. Judge Bolton ruled, “It is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws. But, Attorney General Eric H. Holder has suggested that this is a deceptive statement because, if Arizona had passed a law that defined U.S. citizenship, then federal supremacy would have applied, but the case did not deal with pre-empted law but with parallel enforcement. The law did not deal with defining who broke the laws, but what to do when police apprehend these criminals. Another case like this (Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 1983), states that, “although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens." The court then stated that, “federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of federal immigration law, and that concurrent enforcement is authorized when they do not impair federal regulatory interests." This case took a notion that the federal government would be immediately irreparably harmed by Arizona identifying previously detained illegals is unsustainable. And, another Supreme Court case (Muehler v. Mena, 2005); ruled that police could question suspects detained for other crimes about their immigration status even if they had no reason to believe they were illegals. But, the court overturned this and said that this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
This is related to Federalism because it is a classic example of the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy clause states that the national government is supreme over the state governments, if constitutional. This article shows an example of how national government is more superior over the state governments by not allowing Arizona to pass the immigration enforcement law. And, it shows that the Supreme Court interprets that law and how to handle it by not letting them pass the law, which in the long run could help the state and the country.
This issue is important because the immigration numbers are increasing more and more every year. And, the article simply stated how the police would handle such people, not to assume that they are immigrants. The national government seemed to have called the wrong notion because law enforcement is a state power and the Supreme Court denied this power to Arizona. This article shows unconstitutional powers.
This is related to Federalism because it is a classic example of the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy clause states that the national government is supreme over the state governments, if constitutional. This article shows an example of how national government is more superior over the state governments by not allowing Arizona to pass the immigration enforcement law. And, it shows that the Supreme Court interprets that law and how to handle it by not letting them pass the law, which in the long run could help the state and the country.
This issue is important because the immigration numbers are increasing more and more every year. And, the article simply stated how the police would handle such people, not to assume that they are immigrants. The national government seemed to have called the wrong notion because law enforcement is a state power and the Supreme Court denied this power to Arizona. This article shows unconstitutional powers.
Virginia AG Cuccinelli: Obamacare Ends Federalism
The federal government is being sued by 20 some states for issuing the healthcare bill that requires all citizens to purchase health insurance. The federal government does this because they claim it as commerce. Nearly half of the states disagree. The government has been denied when opting to toss out Virginia’s suit before trial begins. Virginia’s Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, is one of the leading powers in the fight against Obamacare. He is quoted saying that if the federal courts win the suit it is, “an elimination of federalism as we've known it for 220 years in this country.”
This article is related to federalism because it is about the blending of state and national government. The national government is using the power of the Commerce Clause to try to get citizens to purchase insurance. State governments are suing saying that insurance is definitely not commerce, but a product used in healthcare. The federal courts are to decide if the bill is constitutional or not. If the bill is found unconstitutional in one state’s suit, it will most likely be found unconstitutional in all states.
The states are absolutely right in this case. Insurance has never been considered commerce until now, so why make everyone buy it. Sure, it is a wise decision to have at least some form of insurance, but some people get by just fine not having insurance. The insurance game can be risky, with bankruptcies, clauses that the agencies make so they can’t cover you at times, and even qualifying for it can be difficult. If you asked me I would say that today, insurance agencies are pretty corrupt, and Obama should work on fixing them before his administration mandates hat we have to buy something like that.
This article is related to federalism because it is about the blending of state and national government. The national government is using the power of the Commerce Clause to try to get citizens to purchase insurance. State governments are suing saying that insurance is definitely not commerce, but a product used in healthcare. The federal courts are to decide if the bill is constitutional or not. If the bill is found unconstitutional in one state’s suit, it will most likely be found unconstitutional in all states.
The states are absolutely right in this case. Insurance has never been considered commerce until now, so why make everyone buy it. Sure, it is a wise decision to have at least some form of insurance, but some people get by just fine not having insurance. The insurance game can be risky, with bankruptcies, clauses that the agencies make so they can’t cover you at times, and even qualifying for it can be difficult. If you asked me I would say that today, insurance agencies are pretty corrupt, and Obama should work on fixing them before his administration mandates hat we have to buy something like that.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Suit on Health Care Bill Appears Likely to Advance by Alexandra Poffenberger
Suit on Health Care Bill Appears Likely to Advance
Twenty out of fifty states are filing lawsuits against the federal government for their new health care bill. The federal judge in this case, Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court, said "at the close of a two-hour hearing that he leaned toward denying the federal government's motion to dismiss the lawsuit." If the dismiss was approved, then it would clearly support that the states do not have the right to challenge the laws that federal government makes. However, now the whole situation is being taken into court and becoming a debate.
The federal government claims that the states do not have the right to sue because they have no been hurt by the new health law by any way. After this was stated, two individuals and the National Federation of Independent Business joined this lawsuit. Therefore, this statement would be proven wrong.
Commercial "activity" can be regulated by Congress. One question debated in this article is whether or not choosing not to have health care is considered commercial activity or not. Judge Vinson argues, "You're trying to turn this word upside down and say activity is really equivalent to inactivity." However, different judges throughout the states hold different view points on this subject.
The Commerce Clause in Article I of the Constitution allows Congress to "regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce." The states then argue that insurance goes above and beyond what the clause has ever been able to do before, and the federal government is trying to stretch it further than it's ever been used to argue against.
The article then goes on to talk about how the issue is mainly stating how you must pay for your health care. The states continue to state that health care is not a commercial product, it is more of a service than anything. The states also argue that this issue is expanding the shared state and federal power. The federal will begin to pay for the health care but later on this will become some of the states responsibility to pay for.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The entire news article demonstrates various examples on how Federalism is being tied into the issue on health care. The states are declaring that the issue in general is unconstitutional. Reason being, Article I says Congress can regulate interstate commerce, but once again, the states argue in which health care is not a commercial product, it is more of a service. The main example would be the demonstration on how state power is going to become more restricted once the federal government hands over the ten percent of health care payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The states should be able to sue the federal government for one main reason. It is the states power the federal government planes on restricting. The so called "shared" power is being tightened and not equalized.
Federalism
This article talks about the new law being put into action in Arizona. The law is about illegal immigration. It says that if you are found illegally in the state of Arizona you don't have any rights. The federal government is not doing its job controlling the nations borders so the state of Arizona has to step in and do what they think is right. There are 460,000 illegal immigrants in the state of Arizona because the federal government had not fulfilled its duties. Even though the majority of Arizonans support the law it could still become invalid.
Police officers are now looking farther into the case before they accuse the people of being illegal immigrants. People are now saying that they cannot be searched without valid proof. This goes with the Fourth Amendment. Some people also say that the law is unconstitutional because of the 14Th amendment. The 14Th amendment provides equal protection under the law but prevents the government from basing action on race. Thirty percent of Arizona's residents are said to be Hispanics. The vast majority of police officers make good judgements about illegal immigrants.
I chose this article because i wanted to learn more about illegal immigration in Arizona. When i read it it sounded very interesting and it also tied federalism into it. It talks about how the national government is not doing its job on controls the United States borders so the states have to come up with their own idea. It also talks about the 4Th and 14Th amendment and how they tie into the illegal immigrants coming into and living in the state of Arizona. This article talks about the Constitution and how it questions some of the regulations of the Constitution. Also the article says that even though the majority of the state likes the article it still means it can be invalid.
The article was very interesting and some parts grabbed my attention. There are too many illegal immigrants living in Arizona and they need to be caught. The national government also needs to start doing a better job of controlling the borders. It is their responsibility. I can't believe there are 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona and 30% of the people who live there are Hispanic. Its also interesting that Arizona is question the regulations in the Constitution sometimes. The article was good but i do believe there needs to be more done about the illegal immigrant situation.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/opinion/columnists/george-will-immigration-law-is-one-that-arizona-can-live-with-677690.html?cxtype=ynews_rss
Police officers are now looking farther into the case before they accuse the people of being illegal immigrants. People are now saying that they cannot be searched without valid proof. This goes with the Fourth Amendment. Some people also say that the law is unconstitutional because of the 14Th amendment. The 14Th amendment provides equal protection under the law but prevents the government from basing action on race. Thirty percent of Arizona's residents are said to be Hispanics. The vast majority of police officers make good judgements about illegal immigrants.
I chose this article because i wanted to learn more about illegal immigration in Arizona. When i read it it sounded very interesting and it also tied federalism into it. It talks about how the national government is not doing its job on controls the United States borders so the states have to come up with their own idea. It also talks about the 4Th and 14Th amendment and how they tie into the illegal immigrants coming into and living in the state of Arizona. This article talks about the Constitution and how it questions some of the regulations of the Constitution. Also the article says that even though the majority of the state likes the article it still means it can be invalid.
The article was very interesting and some parts grabbed my attention. There are too many illegal immigrants living in Arizona and they need to be caught. The national government also needs to start doing a better job of controlling the borders. It is their responsibility. I can't believe there are 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona and 30% of the people who live there are Hispanic. Its also interesting that Arizona is question the regulations in the Constitution sometimes. The article was good but i do believe there needs to be more done about the illegal immigrant situation.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/opinion/columnists/george-will-immigration-law-is-one-that-arizona-can-live-with-677690.html?cxtype=ynews_rss
Suit on Health Care Bill Likely to Advance
The article, "Suit on Health Care Bill Likely to Advance", was basically about the new health care bill that was proposed and why it is being challenged by 20 of the 50 states. The states are constitutionally challenging the bill. The bill would make it a law for people to have medical insurance. The debate on the bill is over whether Congress has the power to make people have health insurance or if that is too much power for Congress. Some say that it is not a part of the commerce clause which is what the people for the bill are saying. Requiring people to have medical insurance is not a power granted to Congress. The debate over the bill is fairly large and the outcome will decide our system if federalism. People for the bill say that is is not requiring people to have medical insurance but simply telling them how they have to pay for it.
The article relates to federalism in several ways. First, the states are constitutionally challenging the bill by saying Congress is using powers that they do not have, powers not granted to them in the commerce clause. This means Congress is interfering with states powers and the states are not happy about it which is why they are challenging the bill. "Our whole system of federalism rests on the decisions of this case," and this means that when a decision is made it will dictate the powers Congress does or does not have. What Congress is trying to do exceeds the commerce clause, which means they do not have the power to force health insurance upon people, that is a power left to the states because it is not mentioned in the Constitution. Another way the article is related to federalism is that the cost of the new program will be divided up between the federal and state governments, the federal government will initially pay for the entire expansion but eventually the states will be paying 10%.
I am not for or against either side of the bill. The states are right in saying that Congress is violating the commerce clause because nothing about medical care is in the Constitution. But after reading the article, the bill is just saying that the people have to pay for medical insurance in a certain way but they do not have to have it. It would be better if everyone paid the same way because then there could not be a debate on which way is better and what not. Overall, the bill should not be passed because it would just cause problems because people are going to disagree with what is being passed, just like any other new bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/health/policy/15health.html?scp=4&sq=federalism&st=cse
The article relates to federalism in several ways. First, the states are constitutionally challenging the bill by saying Congress is using powers that they do not have, powers not granted to them in the commerce clause. This means Congress is interfering with states powers and the states are not happy about it which is why they are challenging the bill. "Our whole system of federalism rests on the decisions of this case," and this means that when a decision is made it will dictate the powers Congress does or does not have. What Congress is trying to do exceeds the commerce clause, which means they do not have the power to force health insurance upon people, that is a power left to the states because it is not mentioned in the Constitution. Another way the article is related to federalism is that the cost of the new program will be divided up between the federal and state governments, the federal government will initially pay for the entire expansion but eventually the states will be paying 10%.
I am not for or against either side of the bill. The states are right in saying that Congress is violating the commerce clause because nothing about medical care is in the Constitution. But after reading the article, the bill is just saying that the people have to pay for medical insurance in a certain way but they do not have to have it. It would be better if everyone paid the same way because then there could not be a debate on which way is better and what not. Overall, the bill should not be passed because it would just cause problems because people are going to disagree with what is being passed, just like any other new bill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/health/policy/15health.html?scp=4&sq=federalism&st=cse
Federalism
Obama wants to increase federal spending by 6.2 percent next year. The money will go towards easier secondary school access, adult education, K–12 reform, and early learning. Also part of the money will be used to encourage states to work together on higher national standards as well as heighten the standards on curriculum and more meaningful tests. Also Obama wants there to be more flexibility with NCLB program in schools.
Education is normally refereed to as a state issue. But even though its considered state the national government plays a big role in it by spending money that goes towards education as this article shows. Also the president wants to encourage state standards, he is not making it national standards he is having states decide the standards, those are examples of federalism. This show the two parts of federalism working on the same topic. All because an issue may fall under state issue doesn't mean the national government can't help just as it does with education funds.
I'm glad to know that education is becoming a really important issue. I think we should higher standards to a national standard (even if it meant i wouldn't be making my A's). If the average American citizen get more education then it does now the better off this country will be in the future. I just feel that we fall to short to other countries when it comes to education and I'm glad more money is going to education.
Obama wants to increase federal spending by 6.2 percent next year. The money will go towards easier secondary school access, adult education, K–12 reform, and early learning. Also part of the money will be used to encourage states to work together on higher national standards as well as heighten the standards on curriculum and more meaningful tests. Also Obama wants there to be more flexibility with NCLB program in schools.
Education is normally refereed to as a state issue. But even though its considered state the national government plays a big role in it by spending money that goes towards education as this article shows. Also the president wants to encourage state standards, he is not making it national standards he is having states decide the standards, those are examples of federalism. This show the two parts of federalism working on the same topic. All because an issue may fall under state issue doesn't mean the national government can't help just as it does with education funds.
I'm glad to know that education is becoming a really important issue. I think we should higher standards to a national standard (even if it meant i wouldn't be making my A's). If the average American citizen get more education then it does now the better off this country will be in the future. I just feel that we fall to short to other countries when it comes to education and I'm glad more money is going to education.
Obama refuses to budge on Race to the Top education reforms
Obama is not planning on backing down with his "Race to the Top" plan anytime soon. President Obama is planning on using $4.3 billion dollars on this education plan. However, some democrats are even disagreeing with him. He has recently conducted many speech's, and met with many people, but some just are not convinced this is a good use of American dollars. Some argue the Race to the Top program is not the best thing to be doing in a recession. Obama said, "Race to the Top is the single most ambitious, meaningful education reform effort we've attempted in this country in generations."
The program has been doubted, and considered controversial for several reasons. Some of those reasons include the fact more charter schools would be built, teacher to student success test would be given, also drastic changes at some schools causing job losses. A civil rights group recently played out framework for this plan. They challenged the administrations original approach on this plan. Obama is also trying to push $10 million towards education jobs. Obama is asking for everyone to take a step towards the future and work with education together.
The federalism in this issue runs deep. National, state, and local governments are all playing a major role in this program. Some are working hard to get this approved, others are trying their bests to see the end of "Race to the Top". State governments are in the race to win this government bond. Local governments are fighting hard to get enough money to help their school become successful, all while the national government is having news conferences, meetings, and votes as to whether or not this will help our children in school. The three stages of government are working together to make the best decision for the country.
The "Race to the Top" program seems smart in some cases, and pointless in others. Would having students take a test to determine their teachers pay really be a fair judgement? No, other factors contribute to this. For example, a student could have a bad night at home, be sick, or not even show up to school to give the teacher a chance. An education plan is needed in our country, but is Race to the Top the right one? It could be, with a few minor adjustments. Rushing into this bill is unwise and bound to fail. Many more votes, discussions, civil rights meetings, and press conferences are needed before we come to a conclusion on this topic.
Back to 18?
http://reason.com/archives/2007/04/12/back-to-18/1
The drinking age has been at age 21 since the 1980’s when the mothers against drunk driving put it on the legislative agenda. By 1984 it won majority of congress. For the next three years every state had the choice to choose between adopting the standard or getting federal highway funding. Almost all states went with the standard of having the drinking age raised to 21 besides Vermont and fought it all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. The U.S has the highest drinking age in the world and most countries don’t have a minimum age or set it at 16 or 17 years of age. Supporters of the federal minimum argue that the brain continues to develop till age 21. High school students in countries who have the lowered the drinking age do better than U.S students on standardized test. Another drawback of this is an 18-year-old is mature enough to marry, to sign a contract, to go to war and vote but not mature enough to drink a beer. Supporters seem to think that the law has worked. Their main argument for this is that there has been a dramatic drop in alcohol related accidents since 1984.
This article is right in where it says that most 18 year olds can do major things like voting, going to war, and marry but can’t have a beer. I also believe that keeping the drinking age at 21 would lower alcohol related accidents but kids are still going to drink under age no matter what. They can also still be in the car with a parent who is drinking and driving and get in an accident. This article states that high school students in other countries that don’t have a requirement on drinking age do better on standardized test. That is shocking to me. If in one country the law is age 17 to drink, which would have teenagers still in high school taking the test but allowed to drink compared to in another country where teens aren’t suppose to be drinking I would think the higher test scores would be in the country of the drinking age at 21.
The drinking age has been at age 21 since the 1980’s when the mothers against drunk driving put it on the legislative agenda. By 1984 it won majority of congress. For the next three years every state had the choice to choose between adopting the standard or getting federal highway funding. Almost all states went with the standard of having the drinking age raised to 21 besides Vermont and fought it all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. The U.S has the highest drinking age in the world and most countries don’t have a minimum age or set it at 16 or 17 years of age. Supporters of the federal minimum argue that the brain continues to develop till age 21. High school students in countries who have the lowered the drinking age do better than U.S students on standardized test. Another drawback of this is an 18-year-old is mature enough to marry, to sign a contract, to go to war and vote but not mature enough to drink a beer. Supporters seem to think that the law has worked. Their main argument for this is that there has been a dramatic drop in alcohol related accidents since 1984.
This article is right in where it says that most 18 year olds can do major things like voting, going to war, and marry but can’t have a beer. I also believe that keeping the drinking age at 21 would lower alcohol related accidents but kids are still going to drink under age no matter what. They can also still be in the car with a parent who is drinking and driving and get in an accident. This article states that high school students in other countries that don’t have a requirement on drinking age do better on standardized test. That is shocking to me. If in one country the law is age 17 to drink, which would have teenagers still in high school taking the test but allowed to drink compared to in another country where teens aren’t suppose to be drinking I would think the higher test scores would be in the country of the drinking age at 21.
Restoring Federalism in Education: The Charter State Option
This news article was stressing the issue of ever growing federal involvement in education. With the No Child Left Behind many states have began to wonder if they can just avoid it all together. In doing so they would lose $582 million in federal funding, which is what is holding most states back. Arizona’s main issue with No Child Left Behind is they already have tests they use to measure kids education on a state level and by yearly progress. Adopting these new forms of testing would just make it confusing and impractical for the people of Arizona. An option that the states do have is to enter a chartering agreement with the U.S. Department of Education and they would receive the freedom and flexibility to control the federal funding and they would just have to keep achieving good results among students. The chartering option is good for states because it keeps a single accountability system and not a dual accountability system they would get with No Child Left Behind.
The main focus of this article is federalism. Education is a right that is guaranteed to states. States get the rights to control standards and processes of education. The states just have to make sure they are teaching to national standards and keeping kids up to date on the information that is crucial to them. So as expected with most legislation some people had a problem with No Child Left Behind. The federal government was tying education regulations in with federal funding to increase the probability of getting what they want. This has to violate states rights to control their own education. If the education standards are the same then they don’t need changed.
It doesn’t seem fair that the federal government can just tie huge issues like state education standards in with large sums of money. Of course most states are going to take the money to help fund programs. There has to be a limit on the federal governments influence over states by way of money. Arizona is doing what’s right by challenging what they feel as unnecessary actions. If states don’t fight back on issues the find unjust then what’s to stop the federal government from pushing the states around on future issues.
Restoring Federalism in Education
The main focus of this article is federalism. Education is a right that is guaranteed to states. States get the rights to control standards and processes of education. The states just have to make sure they are teaching to national standards and keeping kids up to date on the information that is crucial to them. So as expected with most legislation some people had a problem with No Child Left Behind. The federal government was tying education regulations in with federal funding to increase the probability of getting what they want. This has to violate states rights to control their own education. If the education standards are the same then they don’t need changed.
It doesn’t seem fair that the federal government can just tie huge issues like state education standards in with large sums of money. Of course most states are going to take the money to help fund programs. There has to be a limit on the federal governments influence over states by way of money. Arizona is doing what’s right by challenging what they feel as unnecessary actions. If states don’t fight back on issues the find unjust then what’s to stop the federal government from pushing the states around on future issues.
Restoring Federalism in Education
Federal government's role in public education
The article is about how much the national government should really intervene with education. Many people are split over the idea whether they should give funds to the school or not. Even people running for seats in congress such as Rich Lott and Marcy Kaptur were split over the issue. Right now education id mainly left to the state and local governments and right now the government gives 8% to K-12 schools. Lott believes that the national government has no role in education and that the money should be given to the states to decide where it goes to. Currently the national government gives money to school for lunch for needy children. Many schools agree that they need the money from programs such as No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. Springfield Local superintendent Kathyrn Hott thinks that every child should get equal opportunities in education and she accepts all the help that they can get from government. Hott says that it goes farther than just education, the money helps children eat and helping them secure health care.
This article is an example federalism because it deals with the federal, state and local governments being involved in an aspect of life, in this case education. The federal government has implied that education is a power of the state and local governments. But, the federal government has found a way to get around that. They give money to the states to help run their schools, usually the way that they suggest. Some will argue that the federal government s not allowed doing this and that it is unconstitutional. Others argue that it does not violate the constitution and that they are just trying to help schools in need. As it currently stands the federal government is allowed to grant money to the schools.
The federal government should be allowed to give grants to schools. The federal government should not be able to have control over what the money is used for. The schools should be in charge of what the money is used for because if the school is run correctly it knows what aspects of the school money needs to go towards. Every school needs money for different things and one of the only ways to get that money is from the government.
Federal government's role in public education
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 May Offer Abortion Solution
Aboration is always a hot topic wether your for it or againist it. In the court case Roe v. Wade aboration in the United States became legal and still is today. Polls today show that many Americans are against late-term aborations but support the morning after pill when prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, and stops a pregnancy. So the aboration policy is a very heated debate with many questions: When is it the right time to have the aboration? When the fetus can be seen? Is it the mother's right? Is it Wrong?
So who gets to say that this is legal? The Founding Fathers recognized the federal government is too clumsy to deal with such delicate matters. These issues are best delt with by the states. Then we can choose to live under laws that reflect our values. The Constitution framers left these "line drawing" decisions up to the states. So the best solution to abortion is to leave it up to the states. Then those who want to support abortion can live in a place that does that. And those who do not can live where there their tax dollars are not going towards something they do not believe in.
Overturning Row whould not "get rid" of abortions because you would still have people willing to go out and get an abortion. States would still be able to make their own laws for or against the subject.
Federalism allows people with different views to hold on to what they believe in. The Federal government can not just pass laws for somethings because they are state issues. So if you do not like the laws of one state you do not have to move there. If only it were that simple.
This article showed a different view on how abortions could be delt with. If every state could make abortions illegal the United States would be better, but it is not that way. So if the states could decide then your views could be mached.
Aboration is always a hot topic wether your for it or againist it. In the court case Roe v. Wade aboration in the United States became legal and still is today. Polls today show that many Americans are against late-term aborations but support the morning after pill when prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, and stops a pregnancy. So the aboration policy is a very heated debate with many questions: When is it the right time to have the aboration? When the fetus can be seen? Is it the mother's right? Is it Wrong?
So who gets to say that this is legal? The Founding Fathers recognized the federal government is too clumsy to deal with such delicate matters. These issues are best delt with by the states. Then we can choose to live under laws that reflect our values. The Constitution framers left these "line drawing" decisions up to the states. So the best solution to abortion is to leave it up to the states. Then those who want to support abortion can live in a place that does that. And those who do not can live where there their tax dollars are not going towards something they do not believe in.
Overturning Row whould not "get rid" of abortions because you would still have people willing to go out and get an abortion. States would still be able to make their own laws for or against the subject.
Federalism allows people with different views to hold on to what they believe in. The Federal government can not just pass laws for somethings because they are state issues. So if you do not like the laws of one state you do not have to move there. If only it were that simple.
This article showed a different view on how abortions could be delt with. If every state could make abortions illegal the United States would be better, but it is not that way. So if the states could decide then your views could be mached.
Federalism
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)