Health Care Vote Puts Democrats on Defensive
This article covers the debate and dispute on Health Care between Democrats and Republicans. It mentions a few Democrats and Republicans views of Health Care, but the article frequently mentions one democrat and one republican in particular. Tom Perriello is the representative for the democrats in this article, when the republican is Robert Hurt. In the beginning it talks about Hurt ripping into Perriello for voting for a “government-run Health Care.” And Hurt agrees with the complete opposite, he agrees with letting the Health law be preserved and taken care with private insurance companies and industries. Health Care has been a continuing debate between the House and Senate; it has also played a role in contests for governors and attorney generals. Independent groups have spent 108 million dollars since March to advertise against the law. When a poll was taken on the law it showed that the electorate remained split, with independents leaning against it. In many districts, democratic candidates have started to defend the law’s most popular provisions, most likely due to Republican attacks have left them no choice but to do so, this has helped though. Which did help them; it took an effect on September 23 when some new insurance regulations happened such as insurers had to start to cover children. Health Care will prominently remain a continuing debate for the House of Representative and the Senate.
The importance of the Health Care is that it keeps Americans healthy. It is also important to know Democratic and Republican point of views because it can help citizens get a better idea of what they want in the Health Care law, who they can agree with, and who citizens should vote for.
My reaction to this article was it was informing and can give people a better perspective and good idea of who they agree with, based on views of the Health Care law. This article made me realize that I agree with the Republicans and their views on the Health Care. I believe that the Health Care should be in the hands of private industries instead of the government because the quality would be better and there would be more of a variety and options. I enjoyed reading this article, it was very interesting.
Health Care Vote Puts Democrats on Defensive
Friday, October 29, 2010
Mentioning of Wars Lacks in Midterm Campaigns
With the midterm elections up for decision, Iraq and Afghanistan aren't among the most discussed topics whatsoever. This most definitely shows the importance of the elections. The reasons for the differentiation from wars comes from a plethora of reasons such as the economy or simply because other topics are considered more important at the time being. I am shocked and appalled by this. The wars, I would have thought, would be an utmost priority. We have been in the two wars for a while, and as it progresses, many people want to either leave the war effort or support it. For that reason, I had expected that candidates would pay more attention to it but I see that now, other subjects are being used to gain support.
-
As for the reasons for the drawn-away attention from the current wars, the economy certainly has its reasons for drawing observation. Political parties have made it a primary focus of their election and it was easy for this to overshadow the wars. Since the economic crisis' appearance, it has been and attention-worthy cause, thus playing a role in how seats may be chosen this November. It is important for us to focus on this, abandoning some notice for the war, in part because the economic crisis engulfs us. When a seat is chosen, part of the decision making is given to them. I must react in a supportive way to this thought. We must be able to make a well-informed decision for the issue at hand. I believe that once the economic crisis is over, we can then direct our attention to the war with Iraq and Afghanistan.
-
Competing views push the war out of focus as well. While varying numbers of people support and do not support the war, political parties would be safer with a more stable topic that all voters feel is important. While some people want to send troops overseas and some want to withdraw them from foreign territory, everybody agrees that a weak economy is a terrible thing. This is of importance because issues can get to the point. While at other times, foreign policy would be at the front of the policy agenda, this would enable for the economy to be at the front. Since the economy is here in the U.S. and not overseas, it would be beneficial for Americans. I must react in a way that I am fully informed of what the political parties are doing. It fully makes sense to bring the economy up front. Not only does it help their compaigns, it assists the wellbeing of all American citizens.
-
All in all, the war is going to be in the agenda. Though the economy is in terrible shape and of utmost concern, there will always be room for lesser objectives. The economy is the ideal thing to solve first, I feel. Once we are able to conquer its consequences and overcome them, the war shall be simple. You must eliminate the big problem to eliminate the smaller ones.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Obama Launches Initiative to Fight Domestic Violence
In 1994, current Vice-President headed the Violence against women act. On Wednesday, President Obama "an administration-wide effort to combat domestic violence. He plans to do this by providing greater protection, housing, and financial and health assistance to victims. This announcement is the result of First Lady Obama appealing to the women voters.
This strategy will gather Democratic support from the women voters, as well as those who have been affected by domestic violence. This strategical move will help strenghten the Democrats in the Mid-Term elections and impede the predicted power shift.
Obama Launches Initiative to Fight Domestic Violence
This strategy will gather Democratic support from the women voters, as well as those who have been affected by domestic violence. This strategical move will help strenghten the Democrats in the Mid-Term elections and impede the predicted power shift.
Obama Launches Initiative to Fight Domestic Violence
"We will not compromise"
We Will Not Compromise
Those are the words of John Boehner (a republican) when speaking about the President's agenda. According to the article, the Republican desire for the past two years (and in the future) is to "Block Obama at all costs." The Republican Party is anticipating taking the majority of seats in both the House and Senate with the election next Tuesday. With that, the Republicans will be try to”
to kill it, stop it, slow it down". It seems they will do whatever they can to take things in a new direction, even going so far as saying make Obama a one term president. As for the President, this is his response:
"So I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle are going to change their minds going forward, because putting the American people back to work, boosting our small businesses, rebuilding the economic security of the middle class, these are big national challenges. And we’ve all got a stake in solving them. And it’s not going to be enough just to play politics. You can’t just focus on the next election. You’ve got to focus on the next generation"
A prediction in the article says as Obama begins to moderate his goals, Republicans will cool their tones. Republicans seem to want more than just that. There will be no compromise until something drastic happens in favor of their goals, like the repeal of Obamacare. A recent poll says that voters would like to see Obama and democrats work with Republicans and not the other way around.
The importance of this article is evident. If Republicans take the house, then we will see drastic changes of the policy agenda. If this does not happen, things will stay the same. The future of the Obama administration is relying how the votes go in next Tuesday's election. It seems almost ironic about Republicans saying they will not compromise, but if they get what they want, yeah they'll compromise. It's sort of confusing.
I could care less if Obama serves one or two terms. I don't even care what direction the agenda even goes, but if I could simplify part of the President's quote up there it's focus on what's happening NOW, not in the next elections. I don't care how it happens, just get the job done.
Those are the words of John Boehner (a republican) when speaking about the President's agenda. According to the article, the Republican desire for the past two years (and in the future) is to "Block Obama at all costs." The Republican Party is anticipating taking the majority of seats in both the House and Senate with the election next Tuesday. With that, the Republicans will be try to”
to kill it, stop it, slow it down". It seems they will do whatever they can to take things in a new direction, even going so far as saying make Obama a one term president. As for the President, this is his response:
"So I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle are going to change their minds going forward, because putting the American people back to work, boosting our small businesses, rebuilding the economic security of the middle class, these are big national challenges. And we’ve all got a stake in solving them. And it’s not going to be enough just to play politics. You can’t just focus on the next election. You’ve got to focus on the next generation"
A prediction in the article says as Obama begins to moderate his goals, Republicans will cool their tones. Republicans seem to want more than just that. There will be no compromise until something drastic happens in favor of their goals, like the repeal of Obamacare. A recent poll says that voters would like to see Obama and democrats work with Republicans and not the other way around.
The importance of this article is evident. If Republicans take the house, then we will see drastic changes of the policy agenda. If this does not happen, things will stay the same. The future of the Obama administration is relying how the votes go in next Tuesday's election. It seems almost ironic about Republicans saying they will not compromise, but if they get what they want, yeah they'll compromise. It's sort of confusing.
I could care less if Obama serves one or two terms. I don't even care what direction the agenda even goes, but if I could simplify part of the President's quote up there it's focus on what's happening NOW, not in the next elections. I don't care how it happens, just get the job done.
The Bear Election
More than likely every midterm election is going to have something that drowns out local concerns. For example, in 2002, after September 11th, everyone was very alert and was more likely to participate. Reason being, the terrorist attacks and our safety was on the headlines for days, this tragedy opened many American's eyes for quite awhile. It is ridiculous that something as this has to happen to get the Americans more involved with their own government and aware of what is going on. Then in 2006, the majority of the people were angry at George W. Bush. There were many arguments complaining about the mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina and the policies in Iraq. Not everyone is perfect, as well as, not every one is going to be happy with the same procedurals as one another.
Today we sit here and think about the satisfaction of the citizens at the moment. One minute half the world is happy, and then the next, everyone wants a new President as a whole. Statistics show that the public is dissatisfied with the place of change, and are anxious about its economic future. However, we go back to 2006 and the citizens were not pleased with the Republicans. Therefore, Democrats were voted in to supposedly create change. Which has obviously not lived up to the citizens expectations. It's 2010 and once again we find ourselves wanting to change up the political status. Statistics also show many people are not pleased of the job Congress is doing. Due to this fact, as well as the number of seats open in the House compared to in the Senate, statistics are predicting that Republicans may take over the majority in the House soon.
Neither political party is at fault, it all leads back to where and when did this country go into debt and stop doing anything about it. That is all our worries today, the economy is one of the highest priorities at the moment. It's all about who will be in term in the right time and place. Whichever political party happens to fix our problems, will be re-elected many years to come. The Americans may have political party preferences, however, it always comes down to who saves the day. Once the Republicans take over, we will be right back into "maybe the Democrats can do better." It is and always will be a continuous process, it's just the way the process works.
This is significant for the government in many ways if you think about it though. If there was only one party then who would we look to for hope? As a whole we would give up, there would be no competition and the conflicting ideas would not exist as much. We would not have the opportunity of trying new ideas intending to help us get ourselves out of the problems we created. This is the main reason on having separation of powers and checks and balances, every process in use keeps us civil as a country and keeps us going. In conclusion, we need to do something about these continuous problems or were just going to keep creating them. Telling the Americans you can create change and direct us towards a new economic future is great, if your going to conquer that idea. If you don't do what the Americans elected you to do that's just creating more and more anger throughout the country and making more chaos.
The Bear Election
Today we sit here and think about the satisfaction of the citizens at the moment. One minute half the world is happy, and then the next, everyone wants a new President as a whole. Statistics show that the public is dissatisfied with the place of change, and are anxious about its economic future. However, we go back to 2006 and the citizens were not pleased with the Republicans. Therefore, Democrats were voted in to supposedly create change. Which has obviously not lived up to the citizens expectations. It's 2010 and once again we find ourselves wanting to change up the political status. Statistics also show many people are not pleased of the job Congress is doing. Due to this fact, as well as the number of seats open in the House compared to in the Senate, statistics are predicting that Republicans may take over the majority in the House soon.
Neither political party is at fault, it all leads back to where and when did this country go into debt and stop doing anything about it. That is all our worries today, the economy is one of the highest priorities at the moment. It's all about who will be in term in the right time and place. Whichever political party happens to fix our problems, will be re-elected many years to come. The Americans may have political party preferences, however, it always comes down to who saves the day. Once the Republicans take over, we will be right back into "maybe the Democrats can do better." It is and always will be a continuous process, it's just the way the process works.
This is significant for the government in many ways if you think about it though. If there was only one party then who would we look to for hope? As a whole we would give up, there would be no competition and the conflicting ideas would not exist as much. We would not have the opportunity of trying new ideas intending to help us get ourselves out of the problems we created. This is the main reason on having separation of powers and checks and balances, every process in use keeps us civil as a country and keeps us going. In conclusion, we need to do something about these continuous problems or were just going to keep creating them. Telling the Americans you can create change and direct us towards a new economic future is great, if your going to conquer that idea. If you don't do what the Americans elected you to do that's just creating more and more anger throughout the country and making more chaos.
The Bear Election
Job Losses Outweigh Obama’s Successes
Last December when the annual unemployment list was given to the white house for an early sneak peak, Federal officials were shocked to say the least. The job losses in the country have been declining for the past two years, but this report showed that in November that job losses had nearly stopped.
Today however this brief period of hope, seems to have been one of the worst things that could have happened to the country. Because the job losses nearly stopped the Obama administration slowed down the speed at which they were going to help since recovery seemed to have been coming.
This doesn't however mean that Obama and Congress have done nothing for the past two years. Possibly the best thing that Obama has done while in office is put the country back on track to a universal health insurance coverage.
The stimulus that was enacted in February 2009 was successful in some parts but not so in others. It did slowly start to put the economy back on the road to recovery, but there were some major flaws in the $787 million bill.
Unfortunately, the recovery of the economy is taking much longer than anyone had thought.
Unemployment and job losses are unfortunately one of the biggest problems in trying to get the economy back on track. It is important that the people and even more so the Federal officials in the White House know this so they can help all they can to fix this problem. Those of us who are fortunate enough to have jobs seem to look the other way; they think, "oh that will never be me," but then the harsh reality hits them if they get laid off. If the people are informed of what is happening in the economy, they can be more prepared if the inevitable happens to them.
The creation of the census jobs definitely helped pull the country up slightly. This is not enough to fix the problems in our economy, but it also makes me think, "what is a perfect economy, and is a perfect economy even possible?" Obama is doing the best he can in the situation he has been handed. He knew what he was getting himself into when he took the oath of office and is now expected to live up to the expectations of that.
Economy downfalls
Today however this brief period of hope, seems to have been one of the worst things that could have happened to the country. Because the job losses nearly stopped the Obama administration slowed down the speed at which they were going to help since recovery seemed to have been coming.
This doesn't however mean that Obama and Congress have done nothing for the past two years. Possibly the best thing that Obama has done while in office is put the country back on track to a universal health insurance coverage.
The stimulus that was enacted in February 2009 was successful in some parts but not so in others. It did slowly start to put the economy back on the road to recovery, but there were some major flaws in the $787 million bill.
Unfortunately, the recovery of the economy is taking much longer than anyone had thought.
Unemployment and job losses are unfortunately one of the biggest problems in trying to get the economy back on track. It is important that the people and even more so the Federal officials in the White House know this so they can help all they can to fix this problem. Those of us who are fortunate enough to have jobs seem to look the other way; they think, "oh that will never be me," but then the harsh reality hits them if they get laid off. If the people are informed of what is happening in the economy, they can be more prepared if the inevitable happens to them.
The creation of the census jobs definitely helped pull the country up slightly. This is not enough to fix the problems in our economy, but it also makes me think, "what is a perfect economy, and is a perfect economy even possible?" Obama is doing the best he can in the situation he has been handed. He knew what he was getting himself into when he took the oath of office and is now expected to live up to the expectations of that.
Economy downfalls
A constitutional amendment for every occasion? Congress seems to think so
Over the many years that the Constitution has been our supreme law of the land, only 27 amendments have actually made it all the way into our Constitution. That is, only 27 out of more than 10,000 proposed amendments have made it. Of those 10,000 only six others were approved by Congress but did not make it past the states. That number (10,000) seems really high, but if you look at how long our country has been intact, that may not be too many at all. It seems crazy that our constitution has only been changed 27 times, while the way we look at life changes almost every day. We shouldn’t really have the same amendments controlling us that were created in a time when TV’s were not invented yet and the Xbox 360 could not even be imagined in the most brilliant minds. Yet, only 0.27% of proposed amendments ever make it past Congress. That doesn’t seem proportional if you ask me.
The fact that only 27 amendments have been passed by Congress and the states truly shows how serious the amending process is. Yes, it is difficult to get an amendment passed because it requires a two-thirds vote in both houses and three-quarters of the state legislatures, but there is more to it. Once an amendment is ratified, it will be in our constitution forever. Even if another one is passed to cancel the original out, the writing will not go away. In my opinion, that is enough reason to scare many Congressmen to not pass many amendments.
There are currently about 40 amendments that are being considered by Congress. A notable proposed amendment deals with ensuring that children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants don’t automatically become U.S. citizens. It is still in Congress, but could one day make it to our constitution, if it beats the odds. This would be a great amendment to have, as long as it has some limitations. Too many illegal immigrants come to the U.S. just to have a baby to ensure its citizenship at birth. This shouldn’t be allowed. Some other amendments deal with same sex marriage and flag burning. Both of those things should be allowed. It is a person’s personal choice to get married to whoever they want to and they should be given the right to do that. If someone wants to burn an American flag, let them, it causes no harm to others and follows their personal beliefs, which are protected by the First Amendment.
This whole idea of this article is beyond important. It involves the future of our country and how it will be run. If an amendment was passed stating that Congress must tax people proportionately relative to their incomes, our country would be different. Or if an amendment was passed prohibiting our president from “entering into a treaty in which he would recognize as legal tender currency issued by someone other than the United States,” things would change. Whether the various proposed amendments are changes for the better or worse are up to Congress and the states. Congress and the states hold the true power in our country. They truly determine our future.
Tougher Laws for US to Guard Military Secrets
Wikileaks leader Julian Assange has released more than 400,000 pages of US documents about Iraq. Daniel Ellsberg commented saying that the Wikileaks release will more than likely encourage the US to pass new legislation to better protect US secrets. The article then went on saying that if Assange had leaked documents about British military operations, then he and his sources could be jailed under Britain's Official Secrets Act. President Obama is using the Espionage Act "as if it were a kind of Official Secrets Act." So, some leakers have been charged for leaking certain documents. The article then went on to say that Bradley Manning had been charged under the Espionage Act for leaking thousands of pages of secret Afghan war documents.
Most of the time the media receives First Amendment protections that leakers do not, which would make it possible for the leakers to be charged, but not the media source, which would still uphold the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. Although the Pentagon Papers case would argue that WikiLeaks is protected under the First Amendment. Also, a problem might arise if legislation was proposed that would make publishing secret documents that have been leaked by others punishable because Congress would oppose the movement. Also the article talked about how if restictions were placed on leakers that they must have some sort of defense avalible because if they leak documents that are seen as "dangerous" or "misconceived", they will not think twice about it, for the fear of prosecution. The importance of this article is to show how some things are protected under the First Amendment, and others are not, and how the freedoms granted can be interpreted in different ways. Also how the government can limit the freedoms granted in the First amendment.
I think that if the documents that Wikileaks drops threaten national security, then charges should be filed. But if the documents that are leaked expose lies that the government has told, or releases important information to the public then the leakers should not be charged because they are not threatening national security, and the public has a right to know some things.
Will WikiLeaks nudge US toward tougher laws to guard secrets?
Most of the time the media receives First Amendment protections that leakers do not, which would make it possible for the leakers to be charged, but not the media source, which would still uphold the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. Although the Pentagon Papers case would argue that WikiLeaks is protected under the First Amendment. Also, a problem might arise if legislation was proposed that would make publishing secret documents that have been leaked by others punishable because Congress would oppose the movement. Also the article talked about how if restictions were placed on leakers that they must have some sort of defense avalible because if they leak documents that are seen as "dangerous" or "misconceived", they will not think twice about it, for the fear of prosecution. The importance of this article is to show how some things are protected under the First Amendment, and others are not, and how the freedoms granted can be interpreted in different ways. Also how the government can limit the freedoms granted in the First amendment.
I think that if the documents that Wikileaks drops threaten national security, then charges should be filed. But if the documents that are leaked expose lies that the government has told, or releases important information to the public then the leakers should not be charged because they are not threatening national security, and the public has a right to know some things.
Will WikiLeaks nudge US toward tougher laws to guard secrets?
Shouting Fire
The movie Shouting Fire explores the First Amendment and shows what America thinks about freedom of speech. Everyone have a different interpretation and way of expressing freedom of speech. America is selfish. People don’t want their ideas limited but when it comes to other people its fine. There has been a percent increase in the amount of people who believe the First Amendment goes too far. Before 9/11 there were 20% of people who believed it went too far and after 9/11 there were 50%.
Its also interesting how individuals or groups can express their opinion and then a little later they can be jobless, suspended or arrested. One example is Ward Churchill. Churchill was a professor at the University of Colorado-Boulder. After 9/11 he suggested that the attack on the World Trade Center was not a senseless act and the United States brought it on them. This caused major controversy. Some people said he is committing treason for saying this. Churchill was then fired from being a professor. I do not understand this. We have groups protesting about dead soldiers from the war and people can’t express their opinion.
When the nation is at war or in a period of crisis, there is a difference on our civil liberties. The Patriot Act in which the Bush administration passed on the wake of 9/11 had restrictions on our civil liberties. It increased the government power to survey citizens. Today restrictions on free speech come from private sector. This is where organizations will react or overreact to speech and crackdown. In the past it is a different story. During the Vietnam War, World War II, World War I and the McCarthy era in the Cold War there were government hearings instead of what is done today. Marching against the war in the Vietnam War was said to be unpatriotic and the Pentagon Papers were a test of the First Amendment. Also a Nazi leader once said “Freedom exists to those who will fight for it.”
Debbie Almontaser, an Arab-American educator, was a principal in New York City at the Khalil Gilbran International Academy. This offered a dual language program where students can learn Arabic or English. The New York post twisted remarks she had made about the meaning of intifada or an uprising of pro violence. There was no libel and since it was protected Debbie was forced to resign as principal. This just shows that we do have freedom of speech in this country but in times of our country being threatened we don’t. Chase Harper, a conservative, white, Christian teen attends high school in California. He was suspended for wearing a shirt with a Bible verse and the words, “Homosexuality is shameful” to school. There was no proof that Chase was a distraction to the students that day and there had been no complaints but Chase was still suspended.
There were about 800 people arrested at the Republican Convention Center. They had planned to march from the World Trade Center to the convention center but that didn’t happen. After about five minutes they were stopped and arrested. This just comes to show how much the freedom of speech is restricted. You cannot incite violence, chaos, or disruption. You have to ask yourself where the line is drawn with restrictions on free speech. Garbus also talks about how the United States is going to be stuck with a court that’s unlikely to offer much in the way of protection for freedom of expression.
The movie Shouting Fire explores the First Amendment and shows what America thinks about freedom of speech. Everyone have a different interpretation and way of expressing freedom of speech. America is selfish. People don’t want their ideas limited but when it comes to other people its fine. There has been a percent increase in the amount of people who believe the First Amendment goes too far. Before 9/11 there were 20% of people who believed it went too far and after 9/11 there were 50%.
Its also interesting how individuals or groups can express their opinion and then a little later they can be jobless, suspended or arrested. One example is Ward Churchill. Churchill was a professor at the University of Colorado-Boulder. After 9/11 he suggested that the attack on the World Trade Center was not a senseless act and the United States brought it on them. This caused major controversy. Some people said he is committing treason for saying this. Churchill was then fired from being a professor. I do not understand this. We have groups protesting about dead soldiers from the war and people can’t express their opinion.
When the nation is at war or in a period of crisis, there is a difference on our civil liberties. The Patriot Act in which the Bush administration passed on the wake of 9/11 had restrictions on our civil liberties. It increased the government power to survey citizens. Today restrictions on free speech come from private sector. This is where organizations will react or overreact to speech and crackdown. In the past it is a different story. During the Vietnam War, World War II, World War I and the McCarthy era in the Cold War there were government hearings instead of what is done today. Marching against the war in the Vietnam War was said to be unpatriotic and the Pentagon Papers were a test of the First Amendment. Also a Nazi leader once said “Freedom exists to those who will fight for it.”
Debbie Almontaser, an Arab-American educator, was a principal in New York City at the Khalil Gilbran International Academy. This offered a dual language program where students can learn Arabic or English. The New York post twisted remarks she had made about the meaning of intifada or an uprising of pro violence. There was no libel and since it was protected Debbie was forced to resign as principal. This just shows that we do have freedom of speech in this country but in times of our country being threatened we don’t. Chase Harper, a conservative, white, Christian teen attends high school in California. He was suspended for wearing a shirt with a Bible verse and the words, “Homosexuality is shameful” to school. There was no proof that Chase was a distraction to the students that day and there had been no complaints but Chase was still suspended.
There were about 800 people arrested at the Republican Convention Center. They had planned to march from the World Trade Center to the convention center but that didn’t happen. After about five minutes they were stopped and arrested. This just comes to show how much the freedom of speech is restricted. You cannot incite violence, chaos, or disruption. You have to ask yourself where the line is drawn with restrictions on free speech. Garbus also talks about how the United States is going to be stuck with a court that’s unlikely to offer much in the way of protection for freedom of expression.
Out-of-staters fuel fight over Arizona immigration law
Wyoming resident Timothy Mellon has a lot of support for Arizona’s attempt to battle illegal immigration through a new law that Gov. Jan Brewer signed in April. This law is now tied up in the court. Although money keeps pouring in from every state, Mellon has recently sent the largest donation of $3.6 million. People living outside Arizona are helping to frame policy in a state largely viewed as a laboratory for immigration reform. The Obama administration filed a lawsuit in July which mandates state and local police officers to determine the legal status of people stopped for other things. This lawsuit has boosted intervention from those living outside the state’s borders.
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 United States illegally. Arizona has become a laboratory where extremist immigrant measures will be tested. To prepare for the current debate, organizers from all over the country came into Arizona to teach people how to mobilize, teaching people their rights. This law has brought attention to the fact that there is a major immigration crisis in the United States that needs to be dealt with. If the US government begins to move forward on immigration reform, it would make the states look good.
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 Arizona stepped in and tried to do something about the immigration problem when the federal government would not. Arizona is trying to protect its states rights and make sure the national government stays within its own powers. Federalism helps to keep powers separated so one power is not absolute over the other.
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 United States illegally. The national and state government needs to figure out a way to both help out and reduce the amount of illegal immigrants in the country.
Wyoming resident Timothy Mellon has a lot of support for Arizona’s attempt to battle illegal immigration through a new law that Gov. Jan Brewer signed in April. This law is now tied up in the court. Although money keeps pouring in from every state, Mellon has recently sent the largest donation of $3.6 million. People living outside Arizona are helping to frame policy in a state largely viewed as a laboratory for immigration reform. The Obama administration filed a lawsuit in July which mandates state and local police officers to determine the legal status of people stopped for other things. This lawsuit has boosted intervention from those living outside the state’s borders.
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 United States illegally. Arizona has become a laboratory where extremist immigrant measures will be tested. To prepare for the current debate, organizers from all over the country came into Arizona to teach people how to mobilize, teaching people their rights. This law has brought attention to the fact that there is a major immigration crisis in the United States that needs to be dealt with. If the US government begins to move forward on immigration reform, it would make the states look good.
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 Arizona stepped in and tried to do something about the immigration problem when the federal government would not. Arizona is trying to protect its states rights and make sure the national government stays within its own powers. Federalism helps to keep powers separated so one power is not absolute over the other.
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 United States illegally. The national and state government needs to figure out a way to both help out and reduce the amount of illegal immigrants in the country.
Small Efforts Add Up in Colorado Senate Race
The Senate race in Colorado is between Democrat Michael Bennett and Republican Ken Buck. Mr. Bennett has his own secret weapon, his wife Ms. Daggett. Ms. Daggett is winning votes for her husband by reaching out to the community and visiting local facilities such as the Underground Bar, a local gay bar. Although Michael Bennett is the incumbent in this race he is positioned as the outsider from the White House since the primary elections but has managed to overcome Mr. Buck's economic message with focusing on local issues. Local issues being gay men and women not turning out to vote. He and his wife are partnering in targeting small groups to win the election. Ms. Daggett is focusing on female voters, they understand and can relate to her. Some even want her to run for office.
It is great that Mr. Bennett is getting the support and help from his wife. She can represent her husband to women and to be honest they will more than likely take to a woman better than an a man because Ms. Daggett can relate with them. Targeting small groups may be beneficial but it is going to take a lot of small groups to win an election. The husband and wife team targeted a large chunk of the Democratic party which was smart to do.
We live in a very diverse country, made up of various interest groups. We Americans all have the privilege of voting who we want into office, therefore Ms. Daggett targeting the group of women and homosexuals is very beneficial to their campaign. The article shows that America is made up of many different types of people and it is important that they all are represented.
Small Efforts Add Up in Colorado Senate Race
It is great that Mr. Bennett is getting the support and help from his wife. She can represent her husband to women and to be honest they will more than likely take to a woman better than an a man because Ms. Daggett can relate with them. Targeting small groups may be beneficial but it is going to take a lot of small groups to win an election. The husband and wife team targeted a large chunk of the Democratic party which was smart to do.
We live in a very diverse country, made up of various interest groups. We Americans all have the privilege of voting who we want into office, therefore Ms. Daggett targeting the group of women and homosexuals is very beneficial to their campaign. The article shows that America is made up of many different types of people and it is important that they all are represented.
Small Efforts Add Up in Colorado Senate Race
Shouting Fire, a great movie to show how America considers freedom of speech. Every one in this country believes in this freedom and expresses it but once an opposing group stands out all hell breaks loose. Through this movie I’ve noticed that if one group has different ideas we want to limit there freedom of speech but yet keep our own. For example Ward Churchill commenting on the 9/11 attacks by pretty much saying karma just hit us for all the deeds we have done in this world. People said he is committing treason by saying we had this attack coming to us, and Ward Churchill was fired from his job. So speaking of karma is treason but yet you have a protest group saying “thank god for dead soldiers”, talking about American troops, but yet there just practicing freedom of speech.
We do notice that freedom of speech does get limited during time of war, for instance Debbie Almontaser from New York city had to step down from her position as principle of a Islamic school (did not teach religion) because at a convention of hers some one sold shirts saying Intifada (uprising) NYC. Intifada is commonly used in the Middle East to start up uprisings and after 9/11 I can see where the concerns come from. This won’t be the first time things like this happened, during WWII we took Japanese Americans and put them in camps because we don’t want to get the enemy confused with normal people. But a reporter did use words out of text from an interview with Debbie when she talked about the shirts so I honestly don’t understand how that did not go down as libel. Yes we have freedom of speech but sometimes it gets thrown under the bus when our country becomes threatened.
A teenager decided to put an anti homosexual statement on tap and tapped it onto his shirt and he was suspended from school. But yet there was no proof of him being a distraction in school or any complaints about the shirt, so why did he get suspended? Why should he get suspended when in Tinker v. Des Moines the trail let a group of students where black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War? Those arm bands did a lot more distraction then this shirt. Why can we let a student protest a war but not homosexuality?
Finally the Patriot Act and the freedom of privacy. Honestly during time of war and terrorism I strongly believe the government should extend powers to help catch these people who want to threat America. The government is not tapping every ones phone line just suspected people, so what is so wrong about that. I feel that privacy should be limited if it helps prevent another tragedy. You still have your right to privacy it’s just the American government wants to protect America.
Pretty much the thing I got from this movie is, people only want to hear there ideas and want to silence others, and that some people are just idiots.
We do notice that freedom of speech does get limited during time of war, for instance Debbie Almontaser from New York city had to step down from her position as principle of a Islamic school (did not teach religion) because at a convention of hers some one sold shirts saying Intifada (uprising) NYC. Intifada is commonly used in the Middle East to start up uprisings and after 9/11 I can see where the concerns come from. This won’t be the first time things like this happened, during WWII we took Japanese Americans and put them in camps because we don’t want to get the enemy confused with normal people. But a reporter did use words out of text from an interview with Debbie when she talked about the shirts so I honestly don’t understand how that did not go down as libel. Yes we have freedom of speech but sometimes it gets thrown under the bus when our country becomes threatened.
A teenager decided to put an anti homosexual statement on tap and tapped it onto his shirt and he was suspended from school. But yet there was no proof of him being a distraction in school or any complaints about the shirt, so why did he get suspended? Why should he get suspended when in Tinker v. Des Moines the trail let a group of students where black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War? Those arm bands did a lot more distraction then this shirt. Why can we let a student protest a war but not homosexuality?
Finally the Patriot Act and the freedom of privacy. Honestly during time of war and terrorism I strongly believe the government should extend powers to help catch these people who want to threat America. The government is not tapping every ones phone line just suspected people, so what is so wrong about that. I feel that privacy should be limited if it helps prevent another tragedy. You still have your right to privacy it’s just the American government wants to protect America.
Pretty much the thing I got from this movie is, people only want to hear there ideas and want to silence others, and that some people are just idiots.
Democrats Retain Edge in Campaign Spending
Millions of dollars are spent on campaigning by all parties in every election, but Democrats are on top in the 2010 Midterm Election. Democrats have outspent the Republicans by over 30 percent in the House races. Both parties are spending millions of dollars, but who comes out on top is based on fund-raising edge. The Democrats do have an advantage, incumbency. This means that they are defending their spot in Congress. They have this advantage because they have already held a seat in Congress, which means citizens are familiar with them. Challengers do not have that outside support that they may need to wim the election.
Although they may not have the outside support, if they spend money on campainging, they will havea chance. There are three parts of campaigning, money spent by candidates, money spent by party committees and money spent by outside groups. All are important, and if a person is going to win an election, they must out-spend their opponent. I would choose a person who has better campaigning. If I see their ads and commercials then I will know more about that candidate and therefore I would vote for them. If I went to a voting poll and recognized a name and then saw a name I have never heard of, I would vote for the one I recognized. It is essential that a majority of money is spent on campaigning, and that is why millions of dollars are being spent by both parties.
Campaign money is also spent on a certain type of advertising. They target certain audiences. They will put commercials on television channels that adults watch, because children do not vote. Although, I see commercials on the television channels I watch and they do not effect me. Candidates will not waste money to put on a commercial on Disney Channel, that would not make sense. The parties can also get money from donations.
Another thing candidates may do is attack the opposing party. If I were a candidate, I would do anything to win, even if it means bringing down my opponent. Some money goes towards commercials or advertisements that attack the opposing party, which makes sense. The candidate must say what they will change, but also what the other candidate does not have to offer.
The races that are currently going on are mainly for the Senate and House. This is a midterm election which happens in the middle of a President's term. There are also races for local government seats and there are issues in communities to be voted on. More money is actually being spent in the 2010 for the midterm election than was spent on the 2008 Presidential election.
All elections deal with government. Without elections, we would not have a government. Because we are a democracy, having elections is mandatory. To me, it may be the biggest part of our government because the people elected control basically everything. Citizens must pay attention to advertisements and make wise choices, if not, they may regret who becomes the leaders.
In reality, who leads our country and how it is lead is up to the citizens. Citizens should take advantage of the type of government we have, without it there would be plenty of unhappy people. Elections lead to government and government is what shapes our country.
Democrats Outspend Republicans
Although they may not have the outside support, if they spend money on campainging, they will havea chance. There are three parts of campaigning, money spent by candidates, money spent by party committees and money spent by outside groups. All are important, and if a person is going to win an election, they must out-spend their opponent. I would choose a person who has better campaigning. If I see their ads and commercials then I will know more about that candidate and therefore I would vote for them. If I went to a voting poll and recognized a name and then saw a name I have never heard of, I would vote for the one I recognized. It is essential that a majority of money is spent on campaigning, and that is why millions of dollars are being spent by both parties.
Campaign money is also spent on a certain type of advertising. They target certain audiences. They will put commercials on television channels that adults watch, because children do not vote. Although, I see commercials on the television channels I watch and they do not effect me. Candidates will not waste money to put on a commercial on Disney Channel, that would not make sense. The parties can also get money from donations.
Another thing candidates may do is attack the opposing party. If I were a candidate, I would do anything to win, even if it means bringing down my opponent. Some money goes towards commercials or advertisements that attack the opposing party, which makes sense. The candidate must say what they will change, but also what the other candidate does not have to offer.
The races that are currently going on are mainly for the Senate and House. This is a midterm election which happens in the middle of a President's term. There are also races for local government seats and there are issues in communities to be voted on. More money is actually being spent in the 2010 for the midterm election than was spent on the 2008 Presidential election.
All elections deal with government. Without elections, we would not have a government. Because we are a democracy, having elections is mandatory. To me, it may be the biggest part of our government because the people elected control basically everything. Citizens must pay attention to advertisements and make wise choices, if not, they may regret who becomes the leaders.
In reality, who leads our country and how it is lead is up to the citizens. Citizens should take advantage of the type of government we have, without it there would be plenty of unhappy people. Elections lead to government and government is what shapes our country.
Democrats Outspend Republicans
2010 Midterm Elections
On November 2nd (and for weeks before) voters will head to the polls to cast their votes in the 2010 midterm elections. These elections will decide control of the House, Senate, 36 Governor's Mansions, and dozens of state legislative chambers. As a result, voters can radically change the course of the country and define the policy agenda. Yet will they?Will voters abandon the Democratic Party and give the Republicans control of Congress? Or, will voters demonstrate disgust with both parties and create a divided legislature? Will the new Congress, no matter its composition, work with the President or work to oppose him? Will 2010 really change anything?
These are questions being asked by many political analysts today. You will now weigh in on this debate. Using the provided readings respond to the following prompt:
What effect will the 2010 elections have on the nation's political system? Make sure to address both short-term and long-term effects. Additionally, your post must indicate evidence that you have read all four articles. You are expected to incorporate the arguments of all articles into your response and may consider quoting directly from them.
War Absent from Midterm Campaigning
For the past nine years the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been the main issue on the American foreign policy. Debates over the wars has been absent from this year’s midterm election campaigns. All over the country the Republicans have been trying to take control of Congress away from the Democrats. President Obama has also said nothing about the wars in his speech across the country. Obama briefly talked about the war in Iraq in his speech at Providence, Rhode Island. The citizens want to know how the candidates plan to handle certain issues. A major issue right now is the war. If the two parties tell the citizens their views on the issue of war then they may be able to get more supporters. Americans will support the party that they agree with. The parties will not be able to get support if they do not tell what their views are.
Both parties find that it is beneficial for them to not talk about the issue of war. Democrats are divided over the issue and believe that showing the public this will hurt their chances of being elected. The Democrats already have so many other problems that they have to worry about. Republicans agree with President Obama that more troops should be sent to Afghanistan. They do not want to talk about this with the public because they do not want the public to think that they are more or less allied with President Obama. The Republicans do not want attention to be taken away from the economy, which is a working issue for them. Even though both parties feel that not talking to the public about the wars is beneficial to them, they will not get the support of the people who want to hear about the war and what each party plans to do about it.
During the 2006 and 2008 elections the wars were major issues that were talked about while campaigning. In 2006, the Democrats used the unhappiness of the people with Bush’s decision to have war in Iraq to win control in the Congress. In 2008, Obama began to stick out in the Democratic party when he said that he opposed war in Iraq. Peter Feaver believes that right now the candidates should base their campaigns on the economy because it is such a huge issue. Republicans agree with Obama that more troops should be sent to Afghanistan but disagree that they should start coming home next summer. Democrats disagree with Obama over sending more troops to Afghanistan. During the 2012 election we will see if Obama made the right choice to send more troops to Afghanistan. If he made the right choice he could be reelected as president but if he made the wrong choice it could ruin his chances to be reelected.
In 2010 Campaigning, War is Rarely Mentioned
Both parties find that it is beneficial for them to not talk about the issue of war. Democrats are divided over the issue and believe that showing the public this will hurt their chances of being elected. The Democrats already have so many other problems that they have to worry about. Republicans agree with President Obama that more troops should be sent to Afghanistan. They do not want to talk about this with the public because they do not want the public to think that they are more or less allied with President Obama. The Republicans do not want attention to be taken away from the economy, which is a working issue for them. Even though both parties feel that not talking to the public about the wars is beneficial to them, they will not get the support of the people who want to hear about the war and what each party plans to do about it.
During the 2006 and 2008 elections the wars were major issues that were talked about while campaigning. In 2006, the Democrats used the unhappiness of the people with Bush’s decision to have war in Iraq to win control in the Congress. In 2008, Obama began to stick out in the Democratic party when he said that he opposed war in Iraq. Peter Feaver believes that right now the candidates should base their campaigns on the economy because it is such a huge issue. Republicans agree with Obama that more troops should be sent to Afghanistan but disagree that they should start coming home next summer. Democrats disagree with Obama over sending more troops to Afghanistan. During the 2012 election we will see if Obama made the right choice to send more troops to Afghanistan. If he made the right choice he could be reelected as president but if he made the wrong choice it could ruin his chances to be reelected.
In 2010 Campaigning, War is Rarely Mentioned
'Don't ask' case gains traction from '03 ruling
Homosexuality, one of the most controversial topics presented in the
The in a 1986, 1993, and 1995 case are more clear than the Laurence Decision. "Lawrence established that Americans have a constitutional right to engage in private, consensual homosexual conduct ‘Don't ask, don't tell' infringes on that right, punishing individuals who engage in that constitutionally protected activity." Mr. Woods said during his closing argument. Gay rights have increased since this policy was put in place. “President Obama has repeatedly expressed opposition to "don't ask, don't tell," which has put his administration in the awkward position of defending a law it opposes.”(Article). In 2008, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Government has important cases such as these daily. This policy specifically is controversial and causes debate between two groups of people. The Supreme Court has upheld cases for the “don’t ask, don’t tell law”. This makes someone wonder, is homosexuality a right? Is it okay to be homosexual yet private about it in the Military? These questions are often brought up. The government has a hard time deciding what a “right” is when it is not spelled out for them in the constitution. This case shows how officials can lean one way and others another. It makes for a hard decision. This case will continue until settled with an understanding from both sides.
Some of the comments made in this article struck me as useless. Does it really matter if you are in the military or not? Homosexuality is simple homosexuality. Why does this policy only cover people in the Military? It should be the same for every job and every situation if they are going to have this policy. It seems pointless to obtain it to one group. This is a rising issue, with more and more court cases. We need to settle this issue so as a country we can focus on more important things. It should not be effecting the people in our military and our country so much and so constantly.
Free Trade
Issues of trade are a big part of politics. They are especially important in the world today with all the countries of the world doing there best to operate. In the United States, citizens however are opposing free trade more than ever. To help ease the people's minds the democrats are running against free trade this fall. This is good so that American goods get protected and have a better chance when competing with foreign goods. Free trade is good for the fact that it eliminates taxes on imports and that way other countries don't tax the goods that we send to them. It is bad also because it doesn't give the same protections on American made goods that governmental programs provide. Even tough most of the public is opposed to free trade the White House shows no interest in the issue.
Two days after the mid-term elections Obama is going to finish talks about supposedly forming a free trade agreement with South Korea. He will be in Seoul discussing free trade. Democrats oppose this and when it comes to getting this agreement though congress most democrats are expected to vote it down. This is going to be an extremely difficult task for the Obama administration. When Obama campaigned for president he did it as a free trade skeptic much like previous president Bill Clinton, but unlike him Obama hasn't changed the unions or other progressive groups that claim trade pacts lower labor and environmental standards.
I do not agree with the idea of free trade because I believe in the protection of American goods. The government does a good job of accomplishing this protection through taxes, tariffs, legislation, and quotas. I think that Obama is using the free trade issue with South Korea to further relations. The only good I see that comes out of free trade is true supply and demand. it would make for a fair system of trade. Even though most people in our countryy are opposed to these ideas I feel they should give it a chance. A unified free trade sytem would be the most ideal.
Nutrition label on front of package
New York Times- Food Association Plans a Package-Front Label Showing Nutritional Data
In effect to the pressure of food regulators major food manufactures said they would develope a food labeling system that on front of the packaging highlights the nutritional facts such as: calories, unhealthy fats and sodium that many consumers want to limit. The Grocery Manufacturers Association said the labeling system would be introduced next year. The food and drug administration is developing guidelines for what will be on the front of packages. The labeling on the front of packages would inform and alert many consumers of the less-healthy products in packaged foods. A report from the Institute of Medicine called for the labels to show calories, saturated fat, Trans fat and sodium. Calories saturated fat, trans fat and sodium is the major health problems of obesity, diabetes and heart disease. The F.D.A statement said that their hope is to help consumers buy and shop for foods that will lead to a healthy diet.
This article will inform consumers on the nutritional products in the foods they are buying. The purpose of this article was to tell the readers that the guidelines on putting labels on the front would help them lead to a healthier diet. Also, showing the consumers the calories, saturated fat, trans fat and sodium of the front of the label might make the consumer think twice before buying the food knowing that these four nutritional standards are the major cause of obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
I think that having the nutritional standards highlighted on the front, or having better access to them rather than them hidden on the back of the package is a great idea. Consumers should really like this too knowing that the four main nutritional standards that they always look for will be on the front. Businesses’ packaging the food should not have a problem putting the nutritional label on front on the package if it would be beneficiary to its consumers by leading them to a healthier diet.
In effect to the pressure of food regulators major food manufactures said they would develope a food labeling system that on front of the packaging highlights the nutritional facts such as: calories, unhealthy fats and sodium that many consumers want to limit. The Grocery Manufacturers Association said the labeling system would be introduced next year. The food and drug administration is developing guidelines for what will be on the front of packages. The labeling on the front of packages would inform and alert many consumers of the less-healthy products in packaged foods. A report from the Institute of Medicine called for the labels to show calories, saturated fat, Trans fat and sodium. Calories saturated fat, trans fat and sodium is the major health problems of obesity, diabetes and heart disease. The F.D.A statement said that their hope is to help consumers buy and shop for foods that will lead to a healthy diet.
This article will inform consumers on the nutritional products in the foods they are buying. The purpose of this article was to tell the readers that the guidelines on putting labels on the front would help them lead to a healthier diet. Also, showing the consumers the calories, saturated fat, trans fat and sodium of the front of the label might make the consumer think twice before buying the food knowing that these four nutritional standards are the major cause of obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
I think that having the nutritional standards highlighted on the front, or having better access to them rather than them hidden on the back of the package is a great idea. Consumers should really like this too knowing that the four main nutritional standards that they always look for will be on the front. Businesses’ packaging the food should not have a problem putting the nutritional label on front on the package if it would be beneficiary to its consumers by leading them to a healthier diet.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
State Tea-Party Groups Splinter as Vote Nears
Evergreen Colorado, Tea party has the chance to make a huge push and win at the polls but instead of coming together they start fighting among themselves by accusing each other by saying lack of courage and betrayal. After all this a poll said Colorado had a 33% member participation but once the arguing started it dropped to 23%. The main issue for the fighting is the Tea party split apart on the issue of who they want for Governor. They originally sided with Republican Dan Maes, a self-employed businessman who has no political history. They felt that Dan Maes is the man who would fight the hardest but after questions were brought up about his experience some members changed sides and are supporting Tom Tancredo who is running on a third party ticket. People feel betrayed because of the flop and this will most likely be there undoing.
This relates to politics greatly. In Politics you have two or more sides wanting to win a position in the government. These groups split up the people and make them chose a side. This shows how politics can make people flop and switch sides. If the questions about Dan Maes never appeared the Tea Party would still be behind him in full strength but instead you have politics, people trying to switch people over to one's side so in result the Tea Party has been split.
The Tea party will make itself lose this election for Governor. You cannot expect to win if your forces are split apart when one's enemy is at full strength. If they want to win they must come together. After the political participation in the tea party dropped from 33% to 23% I feel like they should just start getting ready for the next election and work on coming together. Only by fighting as one force will show them victory in the polls.
Evergreen Colorado, Tea party has the chance to make a huge push and win at the polls but instead of coming together they start fighting among themselves by accusing each other by saying lack of courage and betrayal. After all this a poll said Colorado had a 33% member participation but once the arguing started it dropped to 23%. The main issue for the fighting is the Tea party split apart on the issue of who they want for Governor. They originally sided with Republican Dan Maes, a self-employed businessman who has no political history. They felt that Dan Maes is the man who would fight the hardest but after questions were brought up about his experience some members changed sides and are supporting Tom Tancredo who is running on a third party ticket. People feel betrayed because of the flop and this will most likely be there undoing.
This relates to politics greatly. In Politics you have two or more sides wanting to win a position in the government. These groups split up the people and make them chose a side. This shows how politics can make people flop and switch sides. If the questions about Dan Maes never appeared the Tea Party would still be behind him in full strength but instead you have politics, people trying to switch people over to one's side so in result the Tea Party has been split.
The Tea party will make itself lose this election for Governor. You cannot expect to win if your forces are split apart when one's enemy is at full strength. If they want to win they must come together. After the political participation in the tea party dropped from 33% to 23% I feel like they should just start getting ready for the next election and work on coming together. Only by fighting as one force will show them victory in the polls.
Why independent voters are abandoning the Democrats...
Article Publishing Date: October 25, 2010
Election Day is almost here, and there is an increasing amount of evidence that independent voters are abandoning Democrats and are favoring candidates from the Republican Party. This is a key reason that the GOP (Grand Old Party), is very likely to gain control of at least the House, if not both the Senate and the House.
The latest poll taken that confirms this was called the new Politico/George Washington University Battleground poll. The results were released Monday and they said that independents are favoring Republicans over Democrats by a fourteen-point margin. Also, there have been other polls that have released information confirming the evidence, such as the Gallup Poll. The Gallup Poll was released on Friday and it showed that only twenty-three percent of independent voters agree that “most members of Congress deserve reelection”. It also said that only twenty-one percent of Republicans deserve to be reelected, and fifty-nine percent of Democrats say that most U.S. representatives should be returned to office.
Some self-described independents say that they may have backed Obama in 2008, but now, they are not happy with much of what the Democrats have accomplished since then. It has also been confirmed by Politico/GWU poll, that sixty-two percent of independents have an unfavorable view of President Obama’s health-care reform legislation. And, another poll has showed that sixty-six percent of independents say that the administration’s tactics to spike the economy and get it going again are not working.
Over the past few weeks, Democrats have become more and more positive on this measure, but another Gallup Poll has confirmed that only thirty-three percent of overall voters think that incumbents deserve the win. Apparently, this has been the lowest percentage before a midterm election that Gallup has found in the past sixteen years. For example, in 1994, thirty-eight percent of respondents to a Gallup poll said that most members of Congress deserved reelection. Because of this, the GOP gained 54 seats that year, and their first House majority since 1954.
Chris Arterton, a professor of political management at George Washington University, stated that, “Unless some drastic event shakes up the present dynamics, we will be headed in what the Japanese would call a ‘twisted’ Congress, with the House under Republican leadership and the Senate under Democratic leadership” (The Christian Science Monitor).
After reading this article, I do believe that this would cause many conflicts in Congress, especially if Congress was divided between the two major political parties. If the House and Senate were divided, I believe that even less things would be accomplished because there would be many disagreements. And, because of this they would pay more attention to solutions in Congress then actually solving the problems nationally. This would definitely create a ‘twisted’ Congress.
According to a Gallup poll, only thirty-three percent of overall voters think that incumbents deserve to win and be reelected into Congress. This means that there is a severe chance that the majority could be given back to the Republican Party, at least within Congress. This is because many people feel like there needs to be new government officials to try and fix problems happening within America. And, according to this pole, many people believe that there are problems happening within the Obama Administration. Or, these citizens just do not agree with what Obama’s Administration is trying to accomplish within the government concerning the economy, health care, etc.
This article is extremely important to be familiar with because, if America switches political parties once again, within a short period of time, other policies might change also. These policies will affect us as citizens greatly, such as education, big business, and the upper class. Citizens really need to pay attention to what is going on, especially with midterm elections taking place within the next couple of weeks.
Election Day is almost here, and there is an increasing amount of evidence that independent voters are abandoning Democrats and are favoring candidates from the Republican Party. This is a key reason that the GOP (Grand Old Party), is very likely to gain control of at least the House, if not both the Senate and the House.
The latest poll taken that confirms this was called the new Politico/George Washington University Battleground poll. The results were released Monday and they said that independents are favoring Republicans over Democrats by a fourteen-point margin. Also, there have been other polls that have released information confirming the evidence, such as the Gallup Poll. The Gallup Poll was released on Friday and it showed that only twenty-three percent of independent voters agree that “most members of Congress deserve reelection”. It also said that only twenty-one percent of Republicans deserve to be reelected, and fifty-nine percent of Democrats say that most U.S. representatives should be returned to office.
Some self-described independents say that they may have backed Obama in 2008, but now, they are not happy with much of what the Democrats have accomplished since then. It has also been confirmed by Politico/GWU poll, that sixty-two percent of independents have an unfavorable view of President Obama’s health-care reform legislation. And, another poll has showed that sixty-six percent of independents say that the administration’s tactics to spike the economy and get it going again are not working.
Over the past few weeks, Democrats have become more and more positive on this measure, but another Gallup Poll has confirmed that only thirty-three percent of overall voters think that incumbents deserve the win. Apparently, this has been the lowest percentage before a midterm election that Gallup has found in the past sixteen years. For example, in 1994, thirty-eight percent of respondents to a Gallup poll said that most members of Congress deserved reelection. Because of this, the GOP gained 54 seats that year, and their first House majority since 1954.
Chris Arterton, a professor of political management at George Washington University, stated that, “Unless some drastic event shakes up the present dynamics, we will be headed in what the Japanese would call a ‘twisted’ Congress, with the House under Republican leadership and the Senate under Democratic leadership” (The Christian Science Monitor).
After reading this article, I do believe that this would cause many conflicts in Congress, especially if Congress was divided between the two major political parties. If the House and Senate were divided, I believe that even less things would be accomplished because there would be many disagreements. And, because of this they would pay more attention to solutions in Congress then actually solving the problems nationally. This would definitely create a ‘twisted’ Congress.
According to a Gallup poll, only thirty-three percent of overall voters think that incumbents deserve to win and be reelected into Congress. This means that there is a severe chance that the majority could be given back to the Republican Party, at least within Congress. This is because many people feel like there needs to be new government officials to try and fix problems happening within America. And, according to this pole, many people believe that there are problems happening within the Obama Administration. Or, these citizens just do not agree with what Obama’s Administration is trying to accomplish within the government concerning the economy, health care, etc.
This article is extremely important to be familiar with because, if America switches political parties once again, within a short period of time, other policies might change also. These policies will affect us as citizens greatly, such as education, big business, and the upper class. Citizens really need to pay attention to what is going on, especially with midterm elections taking place within the next couple of weeks.
The Capital Reproduction Project
The article, The Capital Reproduction Project, is about states beginning to change their governments to a unicameral type of government. I think this could possibly be a good idea. It is a way to make the government run smoother, cut costs, and give the people more attention. This idea had been proposed by some states, (Pennsylvania, Maine, Kentucky) and has already been used in Nebraska since 1934. Representatives like Linda Valentino from Maine, are trying to push this through before 2010. This idea of unicameral government isn’t that far fetched. It is a great way to cut costs and cut out the dependency on political parties. Some believe it could save around $90 million a year by reducing the number of representatives and their staff.
This could be an important debate because it could change our state governments. If this was passed, it would make our state government smaller, closer to the people, and have the ability to pass bills faster. Unfortuneately, this bill proposed in states has been looked at as a “turf war”. Representatives look at this as a competition and wouldn’t want to vote themselves out of a job. What they don’t see is how this type of government could stop competition, party ties, and change the way people vote for representatives.
As it has been in Nebraska for 76 years, there are no political parties and candidates are nonpartisan. The average person is able to run for office because he/she doesn’t have to have ties to a party to have money to run. This could be a good thing because people would vote for people who have the same views as they do, not because of what party they are from. Ms. Valentino from Maine believes this unicameral government would be efficient and accountable. Although the bill hasn’t been passed in any states, it is still an idea. This could be an important change to our government if it would be possible to pass this bill. Not all state governments would have to change, but the ones that would could benefit their state in many different ways.
The Capital Reproduction Project
This could be an important debate because it could change our state governments. If this was passed, it would make our state government smaller, closer to the people, and have the ability to pass bills faster. Unfortuneately, this bill proposed in states has been looked at as a “turf war”. Representatives look at this as a competition and wouldn’t want to vote themselves out of a job. What they don’t see is how this type of government could stop competition, party ties, and change the way people vote for representatives.
As it has been in Nebraska for 76 years, there are no political parties and candidates are nonpartisan. The average person is able to run for office because he/she doesn’t have to have ties to a party to have money to run. This could be a good thing because people would vote for people who have the same views as they do, not because of what party they are from. Ms. Valentino from Maine believes this unicameral government would be efficient and accountable. Although the bill hasn’t been passed in any states, it is still an idea. This could be an important change to our government if it would be possible to pass this bill. Not all state governments would have to change, but the ones that would could benefit their state in many different ways.
The Capital Reproduction Project
Democrats Retain Edge in Campaign Spending
In this article, the Democratic, Republican, and third-parties have been struggling for control over the House. This fight has basically come down to who has the best way of raising funds for their "competitive races". For instance, the Republican Party has reported spending $79 million in the last few months. I feel this isn't the correct way to determine who will control our House of Representatives and Senate. I believe that it should be determined through cases and sessions together. I don't understand why everything in this world has to be based around money. But, I'm not a government-official, so my reaction should be different than someone who knows the in's and out's of politics. However, it does make sense to who really has the true control because according to their power, they would be capable of raising more funds.
The House has been holding "competitive races", where the parties spend and save in order to basically determine who runs the House. In these races, The Democratic Party has conserved and raised more money to spend than the Republican Party. This makes sense to me because I feel that according to the Presidents party, that party seems to control the House. Like when President Bush was in office, the Republicans controlled the House and Senate until 2007.
Who Controls the House?
The House has been holding "competitive races", where the parties spend and save in order to basically determine who runs the House. In these races, The Democratic Party has conserved and raised more money to spend than the Republican Party. This makes sense to me because I feel that according to the Presidents party, that party seems to control the House. Like when President Bush was in office, the Republicans controlled the House and Senate until 2007.
Who Controls the House?
Monday, October 25, 2010
Judge Allows Challenge to Health-Coverage Mandate
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)