West Wing Episode

Connections: 
1.  The President has to appoint the new justice.
2.  Congress has to confirm the President's choice.
3.  They try to pick justices that are a part of their party, but will be confirmed by Congress.
4.  The executive branch has to be ready with potential candidates in the event of the death of a justice.
5. The executive branch also tries to pick a moderate.
6.  Deals are made to appoint justices.
7.  The majority in Congress determines what the executive branch chooses. 
8.  Justices can choose to retire. 

Questions:
1.  Are the right choices made by these deals?
2.  Can we trust the appointments that come out of these deals?
3.  Is there  a way to get out of any possible bad appointments?
4.  Should there be another agency that checks these appointments?
5.  Should moderates always be appointed to judges?

Federalist #78

"In unfolding the defects of the existing Confederation, the utility and necessity of a federal judicature have been clearly pointed out."
In my opinion this is important because they are tell the reader that due to the lack of this branck the Confederation was weak.
"According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices during good behavior..."
This is an interesting quote because it makes you wonder if judges can be removed of office today if they were doing something that is not classified as good behavior. 
 "The experience of Great Britain affords an illustrious comment on the excellence of the institution."
This is an interesting quote because it has the founding fathers commenting on their former enemies way of deciding the law has to be improved upon.
"But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society."
This is important because they are stating that the independence of the judges is a way the public can be protected against any government that may encroach on their rights.
 "The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. "
This is stating the judges' calls have to maintain justice and must not go on the bases of they want. 

Questions:
How long would a judge have to be in office for him to shed any party affiliation and if one does not and it reflects in their decisions should they be removed?
Who judges the justices' behavior and who defines whether it's good or not?
Will this branch alone create a better government than the Articles of Confederation?
Is it good to put a lot of independence in one branch that also is check against the other two?
Should there be an agency created to check the judges and make sure they base their decisions on judgement and not will?

2000 Election Reading #2

Facts:
1.  Court gave a prompt anc conclusive ending to the chaotic election
2.  On November 13th Katherine Harris announced that the statutory deadline of November 14th was final
3.  Bush raised three federal challenges to the Florida Supreme Court's decision
4.  Florida Supreme Court with a vote of 4 to 3 said that there was a manual hand count required by state law.
5.  Equal protection played a big part in the court's decisions
6.  Justices had to be careful they were not considering anything else, but the law whn making their decision
7.  Bush won with a vote of 5 to 4
8.  Court's opinion had no basis in precedent or history

Questions:
1.  How will the courts deal with this if the problem ever arises again?
2.  Should the decision have gone to Congress?
3.  Should the recount of continued?
4.  Would the Republicans be worried of how it would look if conservative judges ruled in Bush's favor?
5.  Will this case set a clear precedent for any future cases?

The Common Good

I believe that the author has defined the problem to the ideology of the common good.  It is a system we would like to have, but in reality the system doesn't suit our individual interests.  The common good does exist, but as the author said it exists on many different levels, and in the end to common good can only be defined by the individual.  The individual alone can decide what he or she does for the community and for society in general.  Madison tried his best when drafting the Constitution to keep in mind the common good of the country, but the document itself which promoted the public fell under criticism from different politicians and to get the Constitution to be finally passed a Bill of Rights, that outlined the freedoms and liberties of the individuals not the common good had to be included.  So in conclusion the people try to benefit the common good, but most are unwilling to give up personal goals to achieve it.

Second Politician update

Michael Castle a republican, was present at 109 or 1% of 11,825 roll calls between January 5, 1993 to December 22, 2010.  Castle succeeded Thomas Carper, and he preceeded the current democrat representative, John C. Carney Jr.  He has sponsored 244 bills and 15 of these bills were enacted. Castle's top campaign donation during 2007- 2008 was between $3,193,155 and $8,773,000. 

Recount Facts and Questions

Facts:
1.  Gore retracted the concession he gave Bush
2.  The Supreme Court ruled to stop the recount
3.  People were not sure whether or not to count dimpled ballots
4.  The ballots were hard to read to begin with
5.  The deadlines given for the recounts were unrealistic
6.  Katherine Harris was uneasy about permitting any recounting being done past the deadlines
7.  Some counties would not recount the ballots by hand. 
8.  The ballot counting machine can sometimes read ballots differently than they originally did.

Questions:
1.  Should the Supreme Court of gotten involved?
2.  Was it right of Katherine Harris to be tough on extending the deadlines?
3.  How much time would be sufficient to recount the ballots?
4.  Will this case provide any precedents for any future problems?
5.  Was the Supreme Court decision based on political party lines?
6.  Should the all of the states have a regulated voting system?
7.  Should the government declare if a ballot with a dimple is a vote or not?
8.  Was it wrong of Gore to keep pushing for a recount? 

Election 2000

Prereading Questions:
1.  Should the recount of even taken place?
2.  Was it wrong of Gore to take back his concession?
3.  Should the Supreme Court of gotten involved?
4.  Should more time have been giving for a recount?
5.  Why were some counties so against a manual recount?

Facts/details from the reading:
1.  Florida's county election board use different methods for collecting votes.
2.  Neither cutoff dates for the recount would of been sufficient enough time.
3.  The assaults on the courts from the liberals were stunning.
4.  Liberals view conservatives primitives who are corrupt.
5.  Author believes that the courts are the heavy artillery for liberalism engaged. 

Postreading Questions:
1.  Should the courts get involved in any future elections?
2.  Should every state have a regulated voting system?
3.  How can the states stop any future voting flaws?
4.  Is it right for the political parties to call each other as primitive?
5.  Should Congress pass any bills that will give a clear solution for any future voting problems. 

Politician Update

Pat Toomey missed 4 or 2% of the role calls of 165 roll call votes since January 26, 2011.  He also sits on these commitees Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection, Housing, Transportation and Community Development, Securities, Insurance and Investment, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security, Communications, Technology, and the Internet, Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance, Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security, Senate Committee on the Budget, Joint Economic Committee.  Pat Toomey has also sponsored 7 bill since January 25, 2011.  Five of these have not made it out of comittee and none of them so far have been enacted.  He has also co- sponsored 58 additional bills.  Three of the bills Pat Toomey has sponsored include: S. 1578: End Unnecessary Mailers Act of 2011
 S. 1689: A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to require a comprehensive policy on reporting and tracking sexual assault incidents and other safety incidents that occur at medical facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
 S.Con.Res. 21: A concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2012 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2013 through 2021.
These are only a few of the bills Pat Toomey has sponsored. 

Faction Response

Madison describes factions as groups of people, both majority and minority who share a common impulseof passion or of interest.  He then goes into the ways how people can stop factions when they become too dangerous, these include removing its causes, controlling its effects, destroying its liberty which is essential for its existence, and give every citizen the same beliefs, passions, and interests. 

1.  Are factions good or bad?
2.  Who decides when a faction has become dangerous?
3.  How many people does it take to make up a faction?
4.  By destroying factions are you stripping away a citizens freedom of speech?

Faction- A group of people who are motivated by passions and who try to radically take control of the politics in the government. 

Factions today would be like our political parties, each stand for different ideals, but both fight each other to try and assume control of the government.  Also modern day factions try to push through bills that benefit their beliefs and supposedly the beliefs of the people they represent.  Today factions try and take control by gaining majorities in the three branches of the government, and they accomplish this by gaining the support of the people.

Representatives

Pat Toomey

 Michael Castle

Political Ideology

Many factors contribute to a person's choice of political party. Research indicates that the strongest factors are family and community influences. The platforms and positions of the two major parties can also have an influence, but these can change and evolve over time. For that reason, it is helpful to examine contemporary issues to be sure that your party preference matches your political ideology , or personal beliefs about government.

Based on your response to the questions on the political ideology survey, you are a moderate.

You probably identify with some of the views of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. You may also be interested in the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. Your ideology is shared by the following Members of the House of Representatives:

• Michael Castle (R - DE, At-Large)
• Lincoln Davis (D - TN, 4th District)

Response to Olivia's political cartoon

This cartoon is making fun of people who are against the foreigners immigrating into the United States, it is saying that they shouldn't be allowed to live in the country because they don't speak English, but in some cases foreigners speak better English than Americans do.  I think it is fair for immigrants to have to take a test on American history because they were born in different country and brought up with different ideas and if they choose to live in a new country they should know its history and its views on government. 

Response to Constitution questions

1.  Concerning Bridgett's question about the use of a modern day militia in my opinion they can be used for many things.  Some of them being to defend American soil, help the state's police with riots, or even patrolling the borders of our country.  The National Guard also has helped states during environmental disasters such as Hurricane Katrina.  I believe there is still a use for them and that they are a much needed part of our country's defense. 

2.  Regarding Ben's question about why the founding fathers made it difficult to change amendments because they didn't the liberties of the people to be subject to the whims of a political party or any branch of government.  They also assure that there is continuity in the nation regarding rights and liberties.  If the founding fathers made them too easy to change then amendments would constantly be changing in favor of whoever has a majority in the government. 

Federalist #51

Questions: 

1. Do you think three branches of government is adequate?
2. Do you think a federal government doubles the security of citizens' rights?
3. By giving the legislative branch more authority can the other branches effectively check it?
4. Do you think that the beliefs of different parties are protected under federalism?
5. In your opinion are the different branches of government independent from each other?

Quotes:

1.  "It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices."
This quote is interesting because they want them to be independent from each other, yet they still want them to be involved in their doings to check them.

2.  "In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."
This is interesting because it is saying that the legislative branch is more important than the others.

3.  "First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments."
This outlines the securities of a federalist system very nicely.

4.  "Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part."
This is interesting because it tells the reader that not only will they protected from any opposite views they might encounter. 

5.  "And happily for the republican cause, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the federal principle."
This is interesting because it is assuring the reader that a federal government can exist and can be capable of running a nation. 

Federalist #10

Questions:

1. Do they think political parties are a good or bad thing?
2. Why have the minority tax the majority?
3. Do they think people's passions should be different or the same?
4. If they are federalists why do they give examples of the flaws in a republic?
5. Do they believe that people should have equal property?

Quotes:

1.  "There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects."
This was an interesting quote because it seems like its trying to take away a person's right to protest against the government.

2.  "There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests."
I chose this because it makes me wonder whethe they are for or against factions in the government.

3.  "It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease."
I found this interesting because it is referencing the Article of Confederation and how there were flaws with it.

4.  "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity."
This, I thought was very true because there will always be bias when one's interests are involved.

5.  "The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects."
Does this mean that they can enforce laws that can hinder a person's efforts to protest, even by force?

Movie facts and questions

Facts:

1. National government imposes its will on the states.
2. Idaho argued that they should be able to decide on the return of wolves, not the national government.
3. States usually had the power to catch drunk drivers.
4. National government threatens the states by taken away funding if they do not accept national policy.
5. Devolution is when states take more power.
6. Poverty was growing even with welfare.
7. States are in charge of welfare policies.
8. Poor states can't help the people in poverty.
9. Mississippi covers less then 1/3 of children on poverty.
10. State governments provide most of everyday public services. 

Questions:

1. Should the National government be responsible for taking care of the wolves?
2. Why would the states go against national regulations?
3. Do national regulations really help?
4. Should states be pressured into a decision by the national government?
5. Should the national government be allowed to use carrot or stick methods?
6. Do you think the states should have more powers?
7. Do you think devolution happens a lot?
8. Should the National government in your opinion pass more regulations on issues that the states are usually in charge of?
9. Does the federalist system work effectively today?
10. Do you think the national government should give more powers to the states?

Simile

The American system of separation of powers and the checks and balances is like a maze, three distinct destinations with many different obstacles.  This is true because for a bill to be passed it has to go through two branches of government, the executive and the legislative.  The bill can't pass until both branches of the government can pass it and if its is passed it might be repealed by the third branch, which is the judicial branch, for being unconstitutional.  So the bill has to go through a labyrinth of processes before it can become a law.

 

political cartoon and questions #2

1. Do you think the feelings between the protestors and Wall Street will calm down soon?
2. Do you think this is an accurate view of the current view on Wall Street?
3. Do you think the people will ever fully trust Wall Street again?

Responses to Christine T's questions

Regarding question 17 I believe that American pride, no matter what the situation it is a good thing.  I believe this because we are a nation that supports differences and values many different heritages, but sometimes the people don't relate themselves with being an American citizen instead they associate themselves with their heritage and they become bitter with the nation.  When an incident occurs that makes people forget about their past and celebrate who they really are then I think that is better. 

Regarding question 18 in my opinion "E Pluribus Unum" is stating that the nation was founding by many different people and that they were able to come together and decide on one government to rule over all of them.  Also once decisions are made the entire country which is composed of many different states and ideas puts all of its energy in to achieving that goal an example would be fighting in World War II.