A federal judge from Florida expressed sympathy for a plantiff's claim that a mandate requiring Americans to carry health insurance is unconstitutional. He said the plantiffs had "most definitely stated a plausible claim" in calling Obama's new health-care law's mandate unconstitutional. The case is expected to go before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Florida case is one of about twenty cases challenging the overhaul. The insurance mandate is the main target. A question that is raised, however, is the question of would the whole law get struck down if the federal court finds the individual mandate unconstitutional? The Plantiffs argue the entire law should be invalid, while the administration that many other pieces of the legislation could stand without the individual mandate.
This article is both an example of federalism between the central government and states, and an example of mandates issued by the national government. If the states were not allowed to object to mandates such as this one, then the national government could do whatever they wanted, only needing their own approval. With Florida and nineteen other states opposing the mandate, it creates a more balanced debate as to what is best for the country as a whole. The national government felt it was necessary to issue a mandate on health insurance. Obviously some states have a problem with this, so they sue the national government for acting unconstitutionally.
Not all Americans should carry health insurance. If the people do not want to pay for their own health insurance, they should not have to. The option of having health insurance should be a choice. If a young, strong, and healthy adult feels comfortable with not being insured, then so be it. If a more cautious or sick person feels the need for health insurance, then there will always be the option of getting it. The states should win their case.
Judge Allows Challenge to Health-Coverage Mandate
Monday, October 25, 2010
States Suggest a Single Legislative Body
Some states in the United States are looking to transition from a bicameral legislature to a unicameral legislature. In 1937, Nebraska changed their government to a one house legislature to save money during the Great Depression. Many other states are now introducing bills to shrink the size of the state legislature to one house. This is due to the recession that has damaged many states' budgets. Jarret Gibbons, a Democratic state legislature in Pennsylvania, says that the transition could save $90 million a year.
Even with all the support for a unicameral state legislature, very few are willing to vote themselves out of a job. This is a suspect to why the bill has failed in a few states already. This movement is important because it could also affect the government in Ohio. This could have both positive and negative effects. A unicameral legislature would save money, but may damage the democratic process and efficiency of the state governments.
The cons of the proposed legislature outweigh the pros. Decreasing the amount of government officials would only decrease democracy in the states. People would have less say in their government with less officials to represent them. With only one house, there would be less checks on the one house less, increasing it's power. The states' legislatures should remain unchanged and another solution to save money should be proposed.
States Suggest a Single Legislative Body
Even with all the support for a unicameral state legislature, very few are willing to vote themselves out of a job. This is a suspect to why the bill has failed in a few states already. This movement is important because it could also affect the government in Ohio. This could have both positive and negative effects. A unicameral legislature would save money, but may damage the democratic process and efficiency of the state governments.
The cons of the proposed legislature outweigh the pros. Decreasing the amount of government officials would only decrease democracy in the states. People would have less say in their government with less officials to represent them. With only one house, there would be less checks on the one house less, increasing it's power. The states' legislatures should remain unchanged and another solution to save money should be proposed.
States Suggest a Single Legislative Body
Obama Coalition Is Fraying, Poll Finds
People are switching from Democrats to Republicans in the final stage of the midterm elections. 57 % of voter say that they will vote for candidates with little previous political experience and more than ¼ say that they will vote for candidates who have some views that “seem extreme.” The Democrats no longer have an advantage over the Republicans in being able to create jobs, and Republicans are seen to be able to better reduce the federal budget deficit. The public wants a compromise from both parties. Government spending is an important issue and they don’t know where to cut the budget, and social security costs are growing. The people are divided on repealing the health care bill. There are 14 states that do not have Senate this year.
There is more people that say they will vote for Republicans then Democrats. But the people favor the opinion of the Democrats more. The disapproval of congress is near the highest in history. Obama’s approval rating is below 50% and that is where Bill Clinton’s was in 1994 when Republicans took control of congress. Women switched from favoring Democrats to favoring Republicans in the latest polls. In the western U.S. more people say they will vote Republican this year and they voted for Democrats in the past. The Democratic House speaker is unfavorable and the Republican leader the majority have no opinion of him.
The Midterm Congressional election is important because all the seats are up in the House and 37 seats are up in the Senate. It is a battle for who is going to take control of the House and the Senate. Who ever wins the election will have to work to get the national deficit reduced. They will have to do something with social security and the health acre bill. What happened depends on which party has control over the House and the Senate.
Republicans are going to when more sets in the House and in the Senate. Neither party has an advantage over the other. The same thing will happen that happened in 1994 when Bill Clinton was President. People are changing from Democrats to Republicans because the Democrats are not doing what they want them to do and think the Republicans can do a better job.
Obama Coalition Is Fraying, Poll Finds
There is more people that say they will vote for Republicans then Democrats. But the people favor the opinion of the Democrats more. The disapproval of congress is near the highest in history. Obama’s approval rating is below 50% and that is where Bill Clinton’s was in 1994 when Republicans took control of congress. Women switched from favoring Democrats to favoring Republicans in the latest polls. In the western U.S. more people say they will vote Republican this year and they voted for Democrats in the past. The Democratic House speaker is unfavorable and the Republican leader the majority have no opinion of him.
The Midterm Congressional election is important because all the seats are up in the House and 37 seats are up in the Senate. It is a battle for who is going to take control of the House and the Senate. Who ever wins the election will have to work to get the national deficit reduced. They will have to do something with social security and the health acre bill. What happened depends on which party has control over the House and the Senate.
Republicans are going to when more sets in the House and in the Senate. Neither party has an advantage over the other. The same thing will happen that happened in 1994 when Bill Clinton was President. People are changing from Democrats to Republicans because the Democrats are not doing what they want them to do and think the Republicans can do a better job.
Obama Coalition Is Fraying, Poll Finds
Shouting Fire Review
In the HBO documentary, Shouting Fire, director Liz Garbus addresses the controversies surrounding the fundamental rights contained in the First Amendment.The film focuses on both historical and modern day examples of how this amendment has been used to define society and political debates.
The film's thesis seems to point to the changing interpretations of this amendment as the rights contained in it have undergone varying expansions and contractions.
Based on your reading, class discussions, and viewing of this movie you are to write a review of the film. As you write this review there are a number of things to keep in mind.
1) Don't simply summarize the movie. Instead you are to critically analyze the stories and information contained in it.
2) Your review should focus on the questions raised and answers provided as to First Amendment debates.
3) Make sure your review includes the historical examples provided in the film along with addressing the modern day issues.
4) Finally, make sure your review has a clear thesis or argument.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Hypocrisy
Hypocrisy
Republican Congressman Pete Sessions criticized the Democratic stimulus bill and called it a waste of trillions of dollars. He claimed it was more about stimulating the government and political allies rather than the economy or jobs. However that did not stop him from seeking the stimulus money. He wrote to Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, seeking 81 million dollars for a rail project in Carrollton, a suburb of Dallas, Texas. When asked about the letter he claims that he would not let his objection to the bill prevent him from asking for stimulus money for the suburb in Texas. He was not alone, many Republicans and conservative Democrats who have spoken out against the stimulus money have also sent letters asking for a handout.
The GOP has had several leaders of the anti-stimulus movement ask for stimulus money. They include Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Mike Pence, Pete Sessions, Lamar Alexander, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers. They all have sent letters to Washington asking for stimulus money sent to fund projects. Even John McCain has sent letters asking for money for an energy department funds. He also sent three more letters promoting stimulus applications. These letters have met controversy among tea party activists who are saying that the officials should not accept money that they do not agree with.
The conservative democrats also have hypocrites in their midst. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, James E. Clyburn, and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid have wrote letters requesting funds for a variety of projects. This “change of heart” in bout parties is called “Lettermaking” has allowed people to gain funds they don’t approve of.
The issue here is why they are saying that they do not approve of the spending then turn around and claim that they need a slice of the pie. They should assess whether they need the money themselves then stake their claim. If the official elected by your state is not in touch with the needs of your state then why is said official in office? If the official is speaking without thinking then he or she needs to stop. The way this is going we're going to end up with a congress that expresses its own views instead of the views of the people that it is supposed to represent. Is that not what the House and Senate are supposed to do, express the views of the people, not their party or their personal beliefs?
Republican Congressman Pete Sessions criticized the Democratic stimulus bill and called it a waste of trillions of dollars. He claimed it was more about stimulating the government and political allies rather than the economy or jobs. However that did not stop him from seeking the stimulus money. He wrote to Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, seeking 81 million dollars for a rail project in Carrollton, a suburb of Dallas, Texas. When asked about the letter he claims that he would not let his objection to the bill prevent him from asking for stimulus money for the suburb in Texas. He was not alone, many Republicans and conservative Democrats who have spoken out against the stimulus money have also sent letters asking for a handout.
The GOP has had several leaders of the anti-stimulus movement ask for stimulus money. They include Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Mike Pence, Pete Sessions, Lamar Alexander, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers. They all have sent letters to Washington asking for stimulus money sent to fund projects. Even John McCain has sent letters asking for money for an energy department funds. He also sent three more letters promoting stimulus applications. These letters have met controversy among tea party activists who are saying that the officials should not accept money that they do not agree with.
The conservative democrats also have hypocrites in their midst. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, James E. Clyburn, and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid have wrote letters requesting funds for a variety of projects. This “change of heart” in bout parties is called “Lettermaking” has allowed people to gain funds they don’t approve of.
The issue here is why they are saying that they do not approve of the spending then turn around and claim that they need a slice of the pie. They should assess whether they need the money themselves then stake their claim. If the official elected by your state is not in touch with the needs of your state then why is said official in office? If the official is speaking without thinking then he or she needs to stop. The way this is going we're going to end up with a congress that expresses its own views instead of the views of the people that it is supposed to represent. Is that not what the House and Senate are supposed to do, express the views of the people, not their party or their personal beliefs?
The Hope for a Third Party
In this article Peter Brown discusses a respective third party influence in recent and future elections. The Independent party is leading any other of the possibilities for third party. The leading hope for the independent party right now is former Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee running for governor of Rhode Island. Mr. Brown says "the chances for a non-Democratic or non-Republican governor seem to be fading.” We could be looking a long time for a candidate from a third party to be a main candidate for any major office.
Mr. Brown also discusses the Tea Party for candidates saying that “the Tea Party movement has been a major factor this election year, but generally is not running candidates for major offices.” In general the tea party is backing all the Republicans not themselves. He also discusses the fact that it is not impossible to be elected if you are from a third party. Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota from a third party. Also in Maine Angus King was elected governor for two terms as an independent. All of the best possibilities to be elected with the third party this year were high when the election started now most of the stars have fallen. Crist in Florida, the independent with the most promise lost all of his Republican backing when he left the Republican Party. There is very little chance the democrats will back him so he will not acquire the amount of votes he needs. Mr. Brown also was quoted saying “Some have suggested the sizable number of challengers to Democrats and Republicans this year might inspire a serious independent or third-party effort for president in 2012. Perhaps, but the evidence of this year’s campaign isn’t likely to provide impetus for such a run.”
The Independent party has tried to be elected for years but to no avail they have tried all the ways to get in office but have not yet succeeded. They have tried major figures in society and your average Joe but neither has worked. One day they hope to prevail.
Third party officials are trying very hard to get their name out to the people but for them there is very low funding and the Democratic and Republicans still outnumber them and will for quite some time. The Tea Party will not amount to anything more than a modern day Populist Party. Just a group with one real leader but will never accomplish anything major. The Independent party has the best shot to put a dent in the way Democrats and Republicans are used to going against each other but now they will have to face a third party. Things will be more interesting now there will be a third podium at the presidential debate and a third button to push on Election Day. The independents of the world now have a glimmer of hope in government now just to get them elected.
The growing possibility of a third party is a real knock out to major parties such as Republican and Democrat. Third parties have not worked out in the past. They grow popularity then they slowly drift back to not being known at all. One slip and they are gone but if the Independent party keeps up the pace they are on a new third major party will be born.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Out-of-staters fuel fight over Arizona
The “tea party” faithfuls are most interested in protecting states’ rights and making sure the federal government lives within bounds set by the Constitution. There is said to be more than 11 million people estimated to be living in the
Importance:
This article deals with federalism and immigration. Federalism shows the separation of power between the national and state government. It shows that the national government has different powers than the state government and they should each be doing their job. The citizens of
Opinion:
Immigration affects the country in many ways. Immigration needs to be addressed and dealt with soon. It is ridiculous that over 11 million are said to be living in the
Global Warming and the Cap and Trade Bill
Why Climate Change Isn't much of an Issue
Since Democrats was unable to pass an energy and climate bill, they would now have to wait until 2011 or longer. Charles Cook of the Cook Political Report saw the Republicans in the House getting forty seats when only thirty nine is needed to have the majority. Democratic Governor Joe Manchin is trying to avoid any association that reduces the cap and trade bill to greenhouse-gases.
“In a new survey released by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 63 percent of Americans agree that global warming is happening. A plurality (50 percent) agrees that it's triggered by human activity, compared with 35 percent who say it's natural, and 7 percent who say it isn't happening at all.” How could some people say that global warming is not happening when the amount of ice in the polar ice caps decreases at a rate of nine percent per decade?
Switching to green energy sources and preventing deforestation are two ways to reduce global warming. However, over 50% of the people who responded said that increasing the fossil fuel tax would not help or they do not know if it would help. There are many ways that global warming can be reduced, the fact is that people do not want to change anything in their life to make that difference. With the cap and trade bill, a number of jobs will be lost. The unemployment rates are between 9 and 10 percent and economic growth is expected to be weaken for an amount of time. The only flaw that is mentioned about the cap and trade bill is that it decreases the number of jobs. Most people do not want this because of this reason only. They could at least try physically try it out and then measure the resulting factors.
Those who will be unemployed and might benefit from the shift don’t have much influence on the electorate because they are smaller. When an economy is either in a near-depression or underdeveloped, it’s harder to sell what are supposed to be “expensive environmental solutions whose benefits may not be seen for decades to individuals who are worried about their job today.” This can be an improvement to our global issue, but there are many who are not willing to take that chance. Job losses should not have been a factor in creating this bill. In fact, Obama created a bill just to provide more jobs to the people, but now is the government taking it back with a new bill?
Democrats Hold Out Some Hope
With the midterm elections coming up on November 2nd, the Democrats feel they have a lock to keep their majorities in the House and the Senate. Most people of the Democratic Party such as Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, have their hopes up. He said that "a shrinking enthusiasm gap" and a "new excitement" will be working towards the Democrats' liking. Even though the Democrats feel they will remain the majority, statistics are showing that they have a chance of becoming the minority in the House, and possibly have a chance to lose their nine seat majority in the Senate. Predictions about the future seats of the Senate and the House are kind of important. Being able to politically analyze the way the seats go in each chamber could help Congress prepare for the future of proposed bills, stimulus packages and such.
This article also expresses the Democrats' feelings towards the Republican Party's unwillingness to cooperate during Obama's first two years in office. The senior White House adviser, David Axelrod, is looking for some potential cooperation. Axelrod said that the Democrats would "look for common ground" and "continue to reach out" towards the Republicans. Axelrod also expresses his hopes that with a larger Republican presence in Congress "comes a greater sense of responsibility" in both the Senate and House. The ways the two parties can work together is a crucial factor of what will happen in Congress. Even if the Republicans take the majority in the House or in the Senate, the Democrats are willing to work with the Republicans to have something productive done in Congress, besides the little progress they have achieved during 2009 to 2010.
This article was helpful to me. I knew the Democrats held the majority in both parts of Congress, but I had no idea the majorities were in jeopardy. The midterm elections are important towards future policies in Congress. If the Republicans take the majority, maybe not as much action will be taken in Congress, for the fact that Obama is a Democrat. The opposing parties could have different opinions as they usually do. This election could also change things for the better, causing the Republicans and the Democrats to put their ideas together and cooperate on the future of the United States' current economic crisis.
Some Democrats Hold Up Some Hope
This article also expresses the Democrats' feelings towards the Republican Party's unwillingness to cooperate during Obama's first two years in office. The senior White House adviser, David Axelrod, is looking for some potential cooperation. Axelrod said that the Democrats would "look for common ground" and "continue to reach out" towards the Republicans. Axelrod also expresses his hopes that with a larger Republican presence in Congress "comes a greater sense of responsibility" in both the Senate and House. The ways the two parties can work together is a crucial factor of what will happen in Congress. Even if the Republicans take the majority in the House or in the Senate, the Democrats are willing to work with the Republicans to have something productive done in Congress, besides the little progress they have achieved during 2009 to 2010.
This article was helpful to me. I knew the Democrats held the majority in both parts of Congress, but I had no idea the majorities were in jeopardy. The midterm elections are important towards future policies in Congress. If the Republicans take the majority, maybe not as much action will be taken in Congress, for the fact that Obama is a Democrat. The opposing parties could have different opinions as they usually do. This election could also change things for the better, causing the Republicans and the Democrats to put their ideas together and cooperate on the future of the United States' current economic crisis.
Some Democrats Hold Up Some Hope
Justices to Hear Appeal Over Liability for Detention
In 2003, former star running back at the University of Idaho, Abdullah al-Kidd, was held in federal detention for sixteen days. He was left in a small cell for hours at a time, where he was sometimes shackled and naked. Mr. Kidd was held as a “material witness”. A material witness is normally used to hold people who have information about crimes that others have committed when people think that they will not come to court to give testimony. Mr. Kidd believes that the law was used to keep him because he was suspected for terrorist activities.
On Monday, the Supreme Court decided whether Abdullah al-Kidd may sue former attorney general, John Ashcroft, for what he thinks was an ”unconstitutional use of a law” that is used to hold material witnesses. Judge Milan D. Smith said that using the material witness law to inspect someone for other reasons would violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. However, since 9/11 the government is able to arrest and restrict citizens that they want to investigate or prevent them from communicating with the outside world. The judges decided not to rehear the case because the reasoning was “irrelevant so long as they followed the letter of material witness law”.
In this case, the Fourth Amendment comes into play. The Fourth Amendment states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” It is violated if Mr. Kidd was actually being held for suspected terrorist activities. This would mean they were holding him for one thing and investigating him on another, which would be an unreasonable search and seizure.
This case was very confusing and would have been hard to make a decision. More information needed to be given for the reasoning of Mr. Kidd’s initial detainment. His rights were violated when he was forced to stay in jail for sixteen days without an exact explanation. It was unfair that the Court decided not to hear the trial again.
Justices to Hear Appeal Over Liability for Detention
On Monday, the Supreme Court decided whether Abdullah al-Kidd may sue former attorney general, John Ashcroft, for what he thinks was an ”unconstitutional use of a law” that is used to hold material witnesses. Judge Milan D. Smith said that using the material witness law to inspect someone for other reasons would violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. However, since 9/11 the government is able to arrest and restrict citizens that they want to investigate or prevent them from communicating with the outside world. The judges decided not to rehear the case because the reasoning was “irrelevant so long as they followed the letter of material witness law”.
In this case, the Fourth Amendment comes into play. The Fourth Amendment states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” It is violated if Mr. Kidd was actually being held for suspected terrorist activities. This would mean they were holding him for one thing and investigating him on another, which would be an unreasonable search and seizure.
This case was very confusing and would have been hard to make a decision. More information needed to be given for the reasoning of Mr. Kidd’s initial detainment. His rights were violated when he was forced to stay in jail for sixteen days without an exact explanation. It was unfair that the Court decided not to hear the trial again.
Justices to Hear Appeal Over Liability for Detention
Obama’s Rally for Democrats in Final Push
On Sunday, October 17, President Obama appeared in Columbus and Cleveland, Ohio in order to rally support for Ted Strickland, the Democratic candidate for governor. Ohio was the first stop of many to come on the president’s campaign to support Democrats running for re-election across the nation. Across the country, political races are growing ever closer between the two parties as election day nears. However, in previous quarters, Democrats normally had the financial advantage, but the reverse is true for this election. In fact, Republicans have raised more money than the Democrats in almost half of the ongoing races.
The New York Times analyzed the competitive races and came up with the conclusion that Democrats had the cash-on-hand advantage in two-thirds of the races. Democratic candidates, on average, have about $475,000 in the bank. This easily surpasses Republican candidates who, on average, have less than $370,000 in the bank. Many Democrats have been spending a large amount of money in hopes of maintaining their seats, with about a quarter of them spending more than $1 million each just in recent months. This may not help so-called “career politicians” however, because according to California Republican Senate candidate, voters are getting tired of these sorts of politicians.
The article concerns a very critical point in time for the national government. The results of these elections will have a very large impact upon the outcomes of future government decisions and policies. With a nationwide Democratic majority, there will obviously come heavily Democratic policies. Also, President Obama will have more support for his plans of action in the future. However, if there is a Republican majority, the opposite will be true. Policies will be more Republican based, and Obama will meet more resistance when trying to set plans and policies into action. This election will have a large impact upon national politics and government, no matter the outcome.
Obama: Tax Policies Should Aid Investment, Not Overseas Jobs
President Obama stated in a radio address that he wanted to help strengthen the labor market. Americans will be glad to hear about this because it shows that the president is trying to improve the nation. Obama said he would improve the labor market by closing tax loopholes that send jobs overseas. This is important because many people seem to think that a lot of our jobs go overseas. Obama said that he would like to replace the tax loopholes with new policies that would let companies write off certain things. Some of these things were new equipment, clean-energy manufacturing, and research and experimentation. The president called these choices "common sense ideas." These ideas are smart considering they will help improve Americans jobs.
Obama uses this radio address every week to try and make his promises to America known. When Obama makes these announcements weekly it seems like he is trying to connect to the public. President Obama said that Republicans would rather reward companies who create overseas jobs than fight to close the loopholes. Republican Mike Pence said that the nation is struggling, families are hurting, and the administration plan has failed. He believes that the Republican party can fix America's problems more efficiently than the Democrats. What Mr. Pence doesn't realize is that Democrats haven't really been given much time to solve problems.
America's economy is in terrible condition and it is good to see that President Obama is trying to fix it as quickly as he can. People need to understand change does not happen over night and that just because it has not happened yet does not mean it never will. If the president's plan of turning loopholes into tax breaks works it will be beneficial to the country. President Obama made smart policies that will improve our economy. Once people start getting jobs back they will understand that they change they are waiting on has arrived.
Obama: Tax Policies Should Aid Investment, Not Overseas Jobs
Obama uses this radio address every week to try and make his promises to America known. When Obama makes these announcements weekly it seems like he is trying to connect to the public. President Obama said that Republicans would rather reward companies who create overseas jobs than fight to close the loopholes. Republican Mike Pence said that the nation is struggling, families are hurting, and the administration plan has failed. He believes that the Republican party can fix America's problems more efficiently than the Democrats. What Mr. Pence doesn't realize is that Democrats haven't really been given much time to solve problems.
America's economy is in terrible condition and it is good to see that President Obama is trying to fix it as quickly as he can. People need to understand change does not happen over night and that just because it has not happened yet does not mean it never will. If the president's plan of turning loopholes into tax breaks works it will be beneficial to the country. President Obama made smart policies that will improve our economy. Once people start getting jobs back they will understand that they change they are waiting on has arrived.
Obama: Tax Policies Should Aid Investment, Not Overseas Jobs
A 10th Amendment Drama Fit for Daytime TV Heads to the Supreme Court
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)