I wanted to say thank you to the class for freely sharing your thoughts and opinions. I know that is hard for some people to do, but I appreciate all of you that have taken the time to read and post on my blog this semester. I also enjoyed reading all of your blogs throughout the semester. Thank you!
I also want to Thank You Professor Whaley!! I have learned and retained a tremendous amount of information from this class under your direction, and you have actually peaked my interest in a lot of things that I really didn't pay attention to before. I don't think I could have had a better Professor for this class, and this quickly become one of my favorite classes this semester. I have enjoyed having you as my Professor and Thank You for the learning experience! It's been a pleasure!
Friday, May 3, 2013
~ The Judiciary ~
1.) Read online bios of the US Supreme Court Justices. What do you find interesting about their backgrounds? Pick one of the Justices, read about cases this judge has written (majority or dissent) and explain whether you agree or disagree with his/her judicial philosophy.
In reading the bios about the Supreme Court Justices, I learned that those who are nominated and confirmed to sit on the benches are all extremely qualified, well-educated and know the ins and outs of all kinds and divisions of law. They are all well-educated and each has years of experience on the many different court levels in this country. Some of them started their journey to their Supreme Court seats by being law clerks and moving up the ladder form there. Many of them received their law degrees from Harvard: John G. Roberts, Elana Kagen, Antonin Gregory Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Gerald Breyer. The remaining Justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor, were Yale educated. All of the Justices hold multiple degrees and some of them graduated "cum laude" status. Some of them, Anthony Kennedy, John G. Roberts, and Elana Kagen, are professors of Law in addition to their seats on the Supreme Court. All of them have United States Court of Appeals experience before being nominated and confirmed as Supreme Court Justices.
I read some of the written opinions of Sonia Sotomayor, who is one of the newest members of the Supreme Court Justices, and found that for the most part, I agree with her decisions. I read Hodge v. Kentucky, which was a dissenting opinion for her, and I agree with her dissent. Hodge was a Tennessee man who murdered a Kentucky Doctor and his daughter and stole $2 million dollars from them and went on a lavish spending spree from Kentucky to Florida with his girlfriend, who happens to be a Roane County native, her two children, and two additional accomplices in the crime. The issue brought before the Court involved Hodge not being properly represented at his sentencing hearing by an attorney, and information regarding how he was raised in an extremely abusive home, being introduced to drugs, prostitution by his mother, alcohol and extreme brutality. He was often injured in beatings he would receive from the men on his mothers life, as well as watching his mother beaten many times and being afraid to check her because he was scared she was dead. Hodge filed the petition because he received the death penalty in the case and he felt all of this should have been brought to the attention of the court during his sentencing hearing, but wasn't. He claimed ineffective council for the sentencing hearing. The Court of Appeals denied the petition and agreed with the original ruling on the case, and felt that the same sentence would have been imposed if the information was shared. Hodge filed with the Supreme Court and they upheld the lower court decision. Sotomayor and 2 other Justices didn't agree with the majority vote and voiced her opinion through a dissent where she argued that there was no way of knowing whether the sentencing would have been the same or not because, basically, no one could decide how the minds of the jury would have voted if they were aware of the horrific years of abuse that Hodge was subject too. I agree with her on this dissent. One person on the jury could have made the difference in life or death in this case, and without hearing the additional evidence at the time of sentencing, how can we know how a jury would have voted. I also feel that the jury may have felt that Hodge had some sort of mental issue or possibly even an old head injury that could have caused his train of thinking. He was involved in a lifetime of crime starting as a juvenile around the age of 12. Before this age, he was described as a good kid, who was often quiet and a bit on the shy side. Maybe something happened when he was at the age of 12 that all of a sudden changed him. Maybe a head injury, and possibly rape, as it was reported that one of the boyfriends was raping and molesting one of Hodges' sisters. I think the jury should have been made aware of the years of extreme abuse that Hodges suffered, because I am sure it could have affected him in such a way, or he could have had a head injury from one of the beatings to cause him to change.
2.) Is Judicial Review a power that should be recognized regularly or sparingly? Why?
I think that Judicial Review should be used on a regular basis. It is part of the "checks and balances" system that this country is based on, so that one branch of government doesn't become too powerful and over take the other branches of our government, putting our government out of balance.
3.) Is it the job of the High Court to apply the Constitution in light of the intent of the Framers of the Constitution (strict construction) or should they interpret the Constitution in light of changes in society/technology (living Constitution)? Why?
I think it is the job of the High Court to interpret the Constitution, both, as a living Constitution and as a strict construction, but respect our basic rights as citizens. I don't think it is reasonable in this day and time to expect anyone to view the Constitution under strict construction due to the growth in population and all of the technological advances. I do believe that the both methods should be used in interpreting the Constitution, but their should be a fine balance when doing so, and our basic rights as American citizens should be protected at all costs. I feel that using both ways to interpret the Constitution is another way of keeping a "checks and balances" system in place within the court systems.
* Blog Comments *
Ashley Pelfrey
Gabby Miller
Albert Munoz
In reading the bios about the Supreme Court Justices, I learned that those who are nominated and confirmed to sit on the benches are all extremely qualified, well-educated and know the ins and outs of all kinds and divisions of law. They are all well-educated and each has years of experience on the many different court levels in this country. Some of them started their journey to their Supreme Court seats by being law clerks and moving up the ladder form there. Many of them received their law degrees from Harvard: John G. Roberts, Elana Kagen, Antonin Gregory Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Gerald Breyer. The remaining Justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor, were Yale educated. All of the Justices hold multiple degrees and some of them graduated "cum laude" status. Some of them, Anthony Kennedy, John G. Roberts, and Elana Kagen, are professors of Law in addition to their seats on the Supreme Court. All of them have United States Court of Appeals experience before being nominated and confirmed as Supreme Court Justices.
I read some of the written opinions of Sonia Sotomayor, who is one of the newest members of the Supreme Court Justices, and found that for the most part, I agree with her decisions. I read Hodge v. Kentucky, which was a dissenting opinion for her, and I agree with her dissent. Hodge was a Tennessee man who murdered a Kentucky Doctor and his daughter and stole $2 million dollars from them and went on a lavish spending spree from Kentucky to Florida with his girlfriend, who happens to be a Roane County native, her two children, and two additional accomplices in the crime. The issue brought before the Court involved Hodge not being properly represented at his sentencing hearing by an attorney, and information regarding how he was raised in an extremely abusive home, being introduced to drugs, prostitution by his mother, alcohol and extreme brutality. He was often injured in beatings he would receive from the men on his mothers life, as well as watching his mother beaten many times and being afraid to check her because he was scared she was dead. Hodge filed the petition because he received the death penalty in the case and he felt all of this should have been brought to the attention of the court during his sentencing hearing, but wasn't. He claimed ineffective council for the sentencing hearing. The Court of Appeals denied the petition and agreed with the original ruling on the case, and felt that the same sentence would have been imposed if the information was shared. Hodge filed with the Supreme Court and they upheld the lower court decision. Sotomayor and 2 other Justices didn't agree with the majority vote and voiced her opinion through a dissent where she argued that there was no way of knowing whether the sentencing would have been the same or not because, basically, no one could decide how the minds of the jury would have voted if they were aware of the horrific years of abuse that Hodge was subject too. I agree with her on this dissent. One person on the jury could have made the difference in life or death in this case, and without hearing the additional evidence at the time of sentencing, how can we know how a jury would have voted. I also feel that the jury may have felt that Hodge had some sort of mental issue or possibly even an old head injury that could have caused his train of thinking. He was involved in a lifetime of crime starting as a juvenile around the age of 12. Before this age, he was described as a good kid, who was often quiet and a bit on the shy side. Maybe something happened when he was at the age of 12 that all of a sudden changed him. Maybe a head injury, and possibly rape, as it was reported that one of the boyfriends was raping and molesting one of Hodges' sisters. I think the jury should have been made aware of the years of extreme abuse that Hodges suffered, because I am sure it could have affected him in such a way, or he could have had a head injury from one of the beatings to cause him to change.
2.) Is Judicial Review a power that should be recognized regularly or sparingly? Why?
I think that Judicial Review should be used on a regular basis. It is part of the "checks and balances" system that this country is based on, so that one branch of government doesn't become too powerful and over take the other branches of our government, putting our government out of balance.
3.) Is it the job of the High Court to apply the Constitution in light of the intent of the Framers of the Constitution (strict construction) or should they interpret the Constitution in light of changes in society/technology (living Constitution)? Why?
I think it is the job of the High Court to interpret the Constitution, both, as a living Constitution and as a strict construction, but respect our basic rights as citizens. I don't think it is reasonable in this day and time to expect anyone to view the Constitution under strict construction due to the growth in population and all of the technological advances. I do believe that the both methods should be used in interpreting the Constitution, but their should be a fine balance when doing so, and our basic rights as American citizens should be protected at all costs. I feel that using both ways to interpret the Constitution is another way of keeping a "checks and balances" system in place within the court systems.
* Blog Comments *
Ashley Pelfrey
Gabby Miller
Albert Munoz
Friday, April 26, 2013
~ The Bureaucracy ~
1.) Research federal agencies and explain which one you feel who is the most important and why?
Choosing which department is most important is a challenging question to me because after reading a little about all of the departments, it seems that all of them have importance and are needed.
Since the question requires a specific answer, my "reasoning" makes me have to say the Department of Education. Here is the reasoning behind that answer... We are all born, and we all grow up and attend school and get an education. This education teaches us everything we need to know in order to live, work, and do all of the other things we do. Education is the foundation for everything. None of these agencies would be in existence or survive if we were not an educated people. In order to run all of these departments, this nation, our communities, and even our households, we have to have an education. Education is the key to unlocking everything in our world.
Just want to add that beyond education, I feel that the Department of Homeland Security would be most important at this time, with all of the unrest going on around the world and all the terrorist acts aimed towards the United States. But of course, people need an education in order to make this, as well as all the other departments run efficiently.
2.) Which federal agency could be terminated with the least impact (if any) and why?
In looking at all of the agencies and what they are responsible for... I really don't feel that we could terminate any of them. They all deal with key elements that are needed in our country in this day and time. They all deal with very important issues. One department could possibly be terminated if we looked at each individual category that a department dealt with and kept some the categories that were absolutely necessary and divide them up among other departments. Of course this would cause another whole set of issues, but I do feel that in dissecting some of the issues and breaking them down into what is completely necessary for the people to function and survive that some of the inter-departments (for lack of a better word) could be terminated if it became necessary for any reason. ** Hoping how I said that makes sense. I know what I'm trying to say but can't get it out correctly. **
3.) Are any new agencies needed? In other words, if you were president, would you create new agencies? If so, in what areas?
After looking through all of the agencies and reading a little about each one, I don't think at this time that any additional agencies are needed, or at least none that I can think of at this time. In looking at the breakdowns throughout the departments, they seem to cover just about any issue that would come up.
**Blog Comments**
Ian Price
Jessica Armes
Tim Tunkel
Choosing which department is most important is a challenging question to me because after reading a little about all of the departments, it seems that all of them have importance and are needed.
Since the question requires a specific answer, my "reasoning" makes me have to say the Department of Education. Here is the reasoning behind that answer... We are all born, and we all grow up and attend school and get an education. This education teaches us everything we need to know in order to live, work, and do all of the other things we do. Education is the foundation for everything. None of these agencies would be in existence or survive if we were not an educated people. In order to run all of these departments, this nation, our communities, and even our households, we have to have an education. Education is the key to unlocking everything in our world.
Just want to add that beyond education, I feel that the Department of Homeland Security would be most important at this time, with all of the unrest going on around the world and all the terrorist acts aimed towards the United States. But of course, people need an education in order to make this, as well as all the other departments run efficiently.
2.) Which federal agency could be terminated with the least impact (if any) and why?
In looking at all of the agencies and what they are responsible for... I really don't feel that we could terminate any of them. They all deal with key elements that are needed in our country in this day and time. They all deal with very important issues. One department could possibly be terminated if we looked at each individual category that a department dealt with and kept some the categories that were absolutely necessary and divide them up among other departments. Of course this would cause another whole set of issues, but I do feel that in dissecting some of the issues and breaking them down into what is completely necessary for the people to function and survive that some of the inter-departments (for lack of a better word) could be terminated if it became necessary for any reason. ** Hoping how I said that makes sense. I know what I'm trying to say but can't get it out correctly. **
3.) Are any new agencies needed? In other words, if you were president, would you create new agencies? If so, in what areas?
After looking through all of the agencies and reading a little about each one, I don't think at this time that any additional agencies are needed, or at least none that I can think of at this time. In looking at the breakdowns throughout the departments, they seem to cover just about any issue that would come up.
**Blog Comments**
Ian Price
Jessica Armes
Tim Tunkel
Friday, April 19, 2013
~ The Presidency ~
1.) What makes a great President (not which presidents have been great)... what qualities are essential to greatness? Why?
I think it takes a number of things to make a great president. In addition to the overall obvious qualities of being honest, trustworthy, caring, and having good basic moral qualities, I think the top reason a president would be great is his ideas and vision on policy, especially domestic policy. He needs to be open to what the people need and willing to be flexible in making policy decisions that affect the lives of the common people majority. I also think he needs to be smart when making use of his executive powers and making decisions about new and additional laws. He needs to be aware of the Constitutional rights that citizens are granted and form and develop laws around them so that the rights and liberties given to the people in the Constitution are not taken away. I think another thing that determines a president's greatness is his ability to communicate. Without good communication skills, he will not be able to convey a good message to the American people about his policy ideas. He must be a good communicator, either tot the citizens of the United States or in chambers at Congress. He must also be a good negotiator. Without negotiation skills, a president would not be able to convey his message or point to anyone, and would not be able to gain the public support he needs to win a a seat in the Oval Office. He also needs to be a good listener. He needs to listen to what the people think is important, so that he can figure out a way to help the American people when issues arise that need a response of some sort. These are just a few of the things I think make a president great. There are many others I could list.
2.) Other than Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, which two presidents have been the greatest and why?
For the first, I choose Dwight D. Eisenhower. He was a liberal Republican President, but he did so much when he entered office and served his terms, from 1953 until 1961, foreign and domestically.
On the domestic front Eisenhower expanded the Social Security program and he continued New Deal agencies in an effort to get the American economy back on track. He was effective in showing strong economic growth in this country throughout most of his presidency, except in 1958-59, when a small recession hit. He launched the Interstate Highway system. He also created DARPA , Defense Advancement Research Project Agency, which lead to the creation of the internet. He was successful with social issues. He signed civil rights legislation in 1957 and 1960 to protect the right to vote. He sent federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce federal court orders to desegregate public schools. He implemented desegregation of the armed forces in two years time and he made five appointments to the Supreme Court throughout his terms as President.
In foreign policy efforts, Eisenhower waged a war against Communism, Korea and corruption. In his first year as president he disposed of the Iranian coup and used nuclear threats against Korea in order to end the war with China. He implemented a New Look policy which gave priority to inexpensive nuclear weapons and brought about a huge reduction in funding to the military. Congress also passed his Formosa Resolution which enabled him to prevent Chinese Communist aggression against Chinese nationalist's and established a policy that the U/S would help defend Taiwan. Eisenhower also forced Israel, the UK, and France to end their invasion of Egypt during the Suez crisis of 1956. For the most part, the world saw peace during his years in office. Being an experienced five-start general in the Army during World War II and also being the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe gave him the edge of experience he needed in order to handle foreign issues and bring about more peaceful times.
Ulysses S Grant was my second choice as a great president. He was referred to as a Radical Republican. Grant was a war general at the end of the second half of the Civil War. he led the Union Army to defeat the Confederate Army in order to help put an end to slavery and Confederate nationalism. As president he led his party in eliminating slavery and Confederate nationalism. President Grant worked effectively to put an end to the Ku Klux Klan and protecting African-American citizenship. Grant was the first president to establish civil service reform and created a two-year federally funded Civil Service Commission in 1871. Grant's two consecutive terms as President stabilized the nation after the American Civil War and during the turbulent Reconstruction period that followed. He enforced Reconstruction by enforcing civil rights laws and fighting Ku Klux Klan violence. Grant won passage of the Fifteenth Amendment; giving constitutional protection for African American voting rights. He used the army to build the Republican Party in the South, based on black voters, Northern newcomers and native white supporters. As a result, African Americans were represented in the U.S. Congress for the first time in American history in 1870. Grant's Indian peace policy broke deadlock on Indian appropriations in Congress, with the creation of the Board of Indian Commissioners to make reform recommendations, that effectively curbed Congressional backing. Grant remained determined in keeping Indians from being exterminated from white settler encroachment or by the U.S. military. Grant's reputation as president by 1875 was at an all-time high for his previous veto of the Inflation Bill, the passage of the Resumption of Specie Act, and Secretary Bristow's successful raids that shut down the Whiskey Ring.
3.) Research a president that you're not previously familiar with-- List at least three things you learned. Was this President effective? Why or why not?
My president of choice to research was Harry S. Truman.
As a boy, Truman was interested in music, reading, and history, all encouraged by his mother, with whom he was very close—as president, he solicited political as well as personal advice from her. He got up at five every morning to practice the piano, which he studied twice a week until he was fifteen. Truman was a page at the 1900 Democratic National Convention at Convention Hall in Kansas City. His father had many friends who were active in the Democratic Party and helped young Harry to gain his first political position.
After graduating from Independence High School in 1901, Truman worked as a timekeeper on the Santa Fe Railroad, sleeping in hobo camps near the rail lines. He then worked at a series of clerical jobs, and was employed briefly in the mail-room of the Kansas City Star. He returned to the Grand-view farm in 1906, where he remained until entering the army in 1917.
Truman is the most recent U.S. president to not have earned a college degree. When his high school friends went off to the state university in 1901, Truman enrolled in Spalding's Commercial College, a Kansas City business school, but only remained a semester. In 1923–25 he took night courses towards a law degree at the Kansas City Law School (now the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law), but dropped out after losing his government job.
Upon assuming the presidency, Truman asked all the members of FDR's cabinet to remain in place, and told them that he was open to their advice, but laid down a central principle of his administration: he would be the one making decisions, and they were to support him.
In order to end the World War II, Truman authorized the atomic bombing of Japan. Although it was not known how devastating the explosions and the aftermath would be, Truman always stated that his decision to bomb Japan saved life on both sides; military estimates for an invasion of the Japanese home islands were that it could take a year and result in 250,000 to 500,000 American casualties. He also knew that the program could cost $2 billion, and so he was not inclined to forgo an alternative that might quickly end the war. Hiroshima was bombed on August 6 and Nagasaki on the 9th. When the Japanese were still slow to surrender, Truman ordered a massive conventional air raid on Tokyo for August 13; Japan agreed to surrender the following day.
I think for the most part that the Truman Presidency was a successful presidency because what the American people really wanted at that time was for the War to be over. Truman was successful in being able to do this.
**On a side note... In reading about Mr. Truman, there was so much information available and I only included a highlight about the main issue. I learned much more about this president. Very interesting assignment.
** Blog Comments**
Brandi Lively
William Richardson
Albert Munoz
I think it takes a number of things to make a great president. In addition to the overall obvious qualities of being honest, trustworthy, caring, and having good basic moral qualities, I think the top reason a president would be great is his ideas and vision on policy, especially domestic policy. He needs to be open to what the people need and willing to be flexible in making policy decisions that affect the lives of the common people majority. I also think he needs to be smart when making use of his executive powers and making decisions about new and additional laws. He needs to be aware of the Constitutional rights that citizens are granted and form and develop laws around them so that the rights and liberties given to the people in the Constitution are not taken away. I think another thing that determines a president's greatness is his ability to communicate. Without good communication skills, he will not be able to convey a good message to the American people about his policy ideas. He must be a good communicator, either tot the citizens of the United States or in chambers at Congress. He must also be a good negotiator. Without negotiation skills, a president would not be able to convey his message or point to anyone, and would not be able to gain the public support he needs to win a a seat in the Oval Office. He also needs to be a good listener. He needs to listen to what the people think is important, so that he can figure out a way to help the American people when issues arise that need a response of some sort. These are just a few of the things I think make a president great. There are many others I could list.
2.) Other than Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, which two presidents have been the greatest and why?
For the first, I choose Dwight D. Eisenhower. He was a liberal Republican President, but he did so much when he entered office and served his terms, from 1953 until 1961, foreign and domestically.
On the domestic front Eisenhower expanded the Social Security program and he continued New Deal agencies in an effort to get the American economy back on track. He was effective in showing strong economic growth in this country throughout most of his presidency, except in 1958-59, when a small recession hit. He launched the Interstate Highway system. He also created DARPA , Defense Advancement Research Project Agency, which lead to the creation of the internet. He was successful with social issues. He signed civil rights legislation in 1957 and 1960 to protect the right to vote. He sent federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce federal court orders to desegregate public schools. He implemented desegregation of the armed forces in two years time and he made five appointments to the Supreme Court throughout his terms as President.
In foreign policy efforts, Eisenhower waged a war against Communism, Korea and corruption. In his first year as president he disposed of the Iranian coup and used nuclear threats against Korea in order to end the war with China. He implemented a New Look policy which gave priority to inexpensive nuclear weapons and brought about a huge reduction in funding to the military. Congress also passed his Formosa Resolution which enabled him to prevent Chinese Communist aggression against Chinese nationalist's and established a policy that the U/S would help defend Taiwan. Eisenhower also forced Israel, the UK, and France to end their invasion of Egypt during the Suez crisis of 1956. For the most part, the world saw peace during his years in office. Being an experienced five-start general in the Army during World War II and also being the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe gave him the edge of experience he needed in order to handle foreign issues and bring about more peaceful times.
Ulysses S Grant was my second choice as a great president. He was referred to as a Radical Republican. Grant was a war general at the end of the second half of the Civil War. he led the Union Army to defeat the Confederate Army in order to help put an end to slavery and Confederate nationalism. As president he led his party in eliminating slavery and Confederate nationalism. President Grant worked effectively to put an end to the Ku Klux Klan and protecting African-American citizenship. Grant was the first president to establish civil service reform and created a two-year federally funded Civil Service Commission in 1871. Grant's two consecutive terms as President stabilized the nation after the American Civil War and during the turbulent Reconstruction period that followed. He enforced Reconstruction by enforcing civil rights laws and fighting Ku Klux Klan violence. Grant won passage of the Fifteenth Amendment; giving constitutional protection for African American voting rights. He used the army to build the Republican Party in the South, based on black voters, Northern newcomers and native white supporters. As a result, African Americans were represented in the U.S. Congress for the first time in American history in 1870. Grant's Indian peace policy broke deadlock on Indian appropriations in Congress, with the creation of the Board of Indian Commissioners to make reform recommendations, that effectively curbed Congressional backing. Grant remained determined in keeping Indians from being exterminated from white settler encroachment or by the U.S. military. Grant's reputation as president by 1875 was at an all-time high for his previous veto of the Inflation Bill, the passage of the Resumption of Specie Act, and Secretary Bristow's successful raids that shut down the Whiskey Ring.
3.) Research a president that you're not previously familiar with-- List at least three things you learned. Was this President effective? Why or why not?
My president of choice to research was Harry S. Truman.
As a boy, Truman was interested in music, reading, and history, all encouraged by his mother, with whom he was very close—as president, he solicited political as well as personal advice from her. He got up at five every morning to practice the piano, which he studied twice a week until he was fifteen. Truman was a page at the 1900 Democratic National Convention at Convention Hall in Kansas City. His father had many friends who were active in the Democratic Party and helped young Harry to gain his first political position.
After graduating from Independence High School in 1901, Truman worked as a timekeeper on the Santa Fe Railroad, sleeping in hobo camps near the rail lines. He then worked at a series of clerical jobs, and was employed briefly in the mail-room of the Kansas City Star. He returned to the Grand-view farm in 1906, where he remained until entering the army in 1917.
Truman is the most recent U.S. president to not have earned a college degree. When his high school friends went off to the state university in 1901, Truman enrolled in Spalding's Commercial College, a Kansas City business school, but only remained a semester. In 1923–25 he took night courses towards a law degree at the Kansas City Law School (now the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law), but dropped out after losing his government job.
Upon assuming the presidency, Truman asked all the members of FDR's cabinet to remain in place, and told them that he was open to their advice, but laid down a central principle of his administration: he would be the one making decisions, and they were to support him.
In order to end the World War II, Truman authorized the atomic bombing of Japan. Although it was not known how devastating the explosions and the aftermath would be, Truman always stated that his decision to bomb Japan saved life on both sides; military estimates for an invasion of the Japanese home islands were that it could take a year and result in 250,000 to 500,000 American casualties. He also knew that the program could cost $2 billion, and so he was not inclined to forgo an alternative that might quickly end the war. Hiroshima was bombed on August 6 and Nagasaki on the 9th. When the Japanese were still slow to surrender, Truman ordered a massive conventional air raid on Tokyo for August 13; Japan agreed to surrender the following day.
I think for the most part that the Truman Presidency was a successful presidency because what the American people really wanted at that time was for the War to be over. Truman was successful in being able to do this.
**On a side note... In reading about Mr. Truman, there was so much information available and I only included a highlight about the main issue. I learned much more about this president. Very interesting assignment.
** Blog Comments**
Brandi Lively
William Richardson
Albert Munoz
Friday, April 12, 2013
~~ Congress ~~
1.) Who are your Senators and Congressman?
The Tennessee Senators are Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander. My Congressman is Kent Calfee who serves the 32nd District of Tennessee.
2.) Research the areas they champion and find one you support. What is it and why do you also support it?
In researching Lamar Alexander, I found that his position on gun control is a little different than most Republican politicians. He feels that there needs to be gun control restrictions, but he feels that they need to be limited. I also feel that something needs to be done regarding gun control, but it needs to be done in such a way that it doesn't infringe upon our second amendment rights as citizens to bear arms. Senator Alexander has vowed to examine each and every proposal put before him to see if it strengthens or infringes upon a citizens Constitutional right to bear arms. I believe that something needs to be done, but that doing something that would infringe upon our given Constitutional rights is crossing the line. I think this is an issue that does require government intervention, but I think it also requires intervention at the law enforcement level. I do agree with background checks in order to purchase guns. The last thing I want is for the gun stores to open their doors for anyone to be able to walk in and buy guns and ammunition with no background check of any kind. The NRA has given Senator Alexander an A rating, which is good, because they agree with how he is handling the issues around gun control. In a press release posted this week on Senator Alexanders web site, he states,
“I’m always ready to defend and debate the Second Amendment constitutional
rights of Tennesseans. In fact, I look forward to sponsoring and voting for
amendments that strengthen those rights. To be unwilling to defend and debate
Second Amendment rights on the Senate floor would be like joining the Grand Ole
Opry and being unwilling to sing.”
The Tennessee Senators are Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander. My Congressman is Kent Calfee who serves the 32nd District of Tennessee.
2.) Research the areas they champion and find one you support. What is it and why do you also support it?
In researching Lamar Alexander, I found that his position on gun control is a little different than most Republican politicians. He feels that there needs to be gun control restrictions, but he feels that they need to be limited. I also feel that something needs to be done regarding gun control, but it needs to be done in such a way that it doesn't infringe upon our second amendment rights as citizens to bear arms. Senator Alexander has vowed to examine each and every proposal put before him to see if it strengthens or infringes upon a citizens Constitutional right to bear arms. I believe that something needs to be done, but that doing something that would infringe upon our given Constitutional rights is crossing the line. I think this is an issue that does require government intervention, but I think it also requires intervention at the law enforcement level. I do agree with background checks in order to purchase guns. The last thing I want is for the gun stores to open their doors for anyone to be able to walk in and buy guns and ammunition with no background check of any kind. The NRA has given Senator Alexander an A rating, which is good, because they agree with how he is handling the issues around gun control. In a press release posted this week on Senator Alexanders web site, he states,
“I’m always ready to defend and debate the Second Amendment constitutional
rights of Tennesseans. In fact, I look forward to sponsoring and voting for
amendments that strengthen those rights. To be unwilling to defend and debate
Second Amendment rights on the Senate floor would be like joining the Grand Ole
Opry and being unwilling to sing.”
3.) Find an issue one of your Senators or Congressman champions that you disagree with. Why do you disagree?
In researching Bob Corker, I found that he does not support gay marriage, which I had already assumed, since he is Republican, and I definitely disagree with him on this issue. I think who you marry should be a personal choice and a private choice. Not everyone is the same and people just love who they love whether it is same sex or the opposite sex. They have different reasons for choosing a same sex partner and I personally know several people who are in same sex relationships due to abuse from relationships they have been in with the opposite sex. Some scientist have actually researched why people choose same sex partners and have provided research information that some people are just born that way, which leads me to ask the question... who could a hermaphrodite legally marry? Would they be violating the law by marrying a man? Would they be violating the law by marrying a woman? Corker believes that the state law in Tennessee regarding marriage is fine the way it is and he supports leaving the states in control of the laws regarding marriage. I disagree!!!
**Blog Comments**
Brandi Lively
Tim Tunkel
Albert Munoz
Brandi Lively
Tim Tunkel
Albert Munoz
Friday, April 5, 2013
Senior student seeking seat on school board - KFVS12 News & Weather Cape Girardeau, Carbondale, Poplar Bluff
Senior student seeking seat on school board - KFVS12 News & Weather Cape Girardeau, Carbondale, Poplar Bluff
Just wanted to share this with our class. It was also aired on our Local WATE News last night... I thought it was interesting and he reminds me of the individuals we read about when we start reading our chapters.
Just wanted to share this with our class. It was also aired on our Local WATE News last night... I thought it was interesting and he reminds me of the individuals we read about when we start reading our chapters.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
~ Elections, Campaigns, and Voting ~
1.) Read Bush v. Gore in the text. Do you agree with the majority or the dissenting opinion? Why?
I have to say in this decision, I agree with the dissenting opinion regarding the election recount between Bush and Gore. My reasoning behind this is that there was no December 12th deadline in Florida law. What the Florida Legislature "intended" to do, in my opinion, is not law.If there was no law on the books stating a deadline that the recount ballots should have been completed, then there should have been a deadline. I think we should have expected reasonable timing and that it was completed before the swearing in of a new president, but I think they should have allowed the recount. With 6 million voters, it was reasonable to think there could have been a 537 vote error in the count.... that's less than 1%, which is reasonable.
I think the the legislative branch was wrong for allowing the United States Supreme Court to step in and rule on this case, because the elections are administered under state law, and this should have been back to the courts in the state to decide. Once the power to do something is given to the state, I think it should have been left in their hands to make the final decision.
2.) Is the ability to fund raise too important in elections? In other words, are good candidates prevented from running because they cannot raise the needed funds? Can/should something be done to correct this if it is a problem?
I think that sometimes we do miss out on having additional candidates because of fund raising issues. There are always "front-runners" in every election, in many cases early in the process. A lot of this is due to press and name-dropping, and when people are hearing these "popular" names in the news over and over again, those are the names that stick in our heads when we begin to think about voting. Some candidates, I never hear about until it is time to vote. I think this is where the press has a lot of input and control over elections by getting certain names out there. Candidates gain voter's a lot of time based on popularity more than issues, and this allows for larger donations because everyone wants to be involved and the more popular start to gain momentum and financial support early. Someone whose name is lesser known steps in for financial contributions and doesn't get as much support as the well-known name. They are immediately put behind due to less publicity, which in turns put them behind in supporters and financial contributions. This causes many of them to fall short financially and they end up having to drop out of the race, in many cases before it gets off the ground.
I do believe something should be done about fundraising. I think the Obama campaign spent WAY more than was necessary in getting him elected. I think their should be spending limits put on campaigns in order to give others an equal shot at getting their issues and ideas for the United States out there.
On another note...I wasn't aware that a candidate could get matching funds from the government in order to campaign. Personally, I think this should not be done. I think people who are running for any office should be solely responsible for the cost of their campaign, with their own money and/or money form their financial supporters. To me, it just makes sense that someone isn't a strong enough candidate if they can't raise the funds needed to support and run a campaign. Just a thought I had on the subject.
3.) Why is their such voter apathy? In other words, why is there often such low voter turnout for elections? Is their a way to rectify this problem?
I think the main problem with voter turnout is that too many people don't think their vote makes a difference, and they have lost belief in our political and election systems. I hear it all too often, someone saying they aren't even gonna bother to vote because it doesn't matter anyways. If this is the thinking of one, it is also the thinking of many, and it continues to grow year after year. Now we have half the citizens, who are of voting age, not even bothering to go to the polls. I think another reason is that many are unable to make it to the poles in such a limited time frame, and that in some cases transportation or the ability to get to the polls is an issue.
Yes, I do believe there are ways to rectify the problem. I think the continuation of adding early voting, and additional days opens up the polls for more people to get out and vote. I think these early voting days should include some Saturday voting so that the people who can't afford to take off work can get out and vote. Maybe some polling places need to be kept open even longer and later hours since we are an around the clock working society now, not at every polling place, but certain precincts. I also think that adding different voting methods would help in getting more people involved in voting and the political process. I think cell phone voting, as well as internet voting would make a huge difference even when people feel their vote doesn't count. Just signing on to the internet is much easier for many and I think it would build participation. I also think cell phone voting would add more voters during elections times. If voting is made more convenient to the citizen's I think they would be more inclined to participate, whether they truly felt their vote counted or not because they wouldn't have to go out of the way to vote. It would be easily accessible.
** Blog Comments **
Albert Munoz
Gabrielle Miller
Mackenzie King
I have to say in this decision, I agree with the dissenting opinion regarding the election recount between Bush and Gore. My reasoning behind this is that there was no December 12th deadline in Florida law. What the Florida Legislature "intended" to do, in my opinion, is not law.If there was no law on the books stating a deadline that the recount ballots should have been completed, then there should have been a deadline. I think we should have expected reasonable timing and that it was completed before the swearing in of a new president, but I think they should have allowed the recount. With 6 million voters, it was reasonable to think there could have been a 537 vote error in the count.... that's less than 1%, which is reasonable.
I think the the legislative branch was wrong for allowing the United States Supreme Court to step in and rule on this case, because the elections are administered under state law, and this should have been back to the courts in the state to decide. Once the power to do something is given to the state, I think it should have been left in their hands to make the final decision.
2.) Is the ability to fund raise too important in elections? In other words, are good candidates prevented from running because they cannot raise the needed funds? Can/should something be done to correct this if it is a problem?
I think that sometimes we do miss out on having additional candidates because of fund raising issues. There are always "front-runners" in every election, in many cases early in the process. A lot of this is due to press and name-dropping, and when people are hearing these "popular" names in the news over and over again, those are the names that stick in our heads when we begin to think about voting. Some candidates, I never hear about until it is time to vote. I think this is where the press has a lot of input and control over elections by getting certain names out there. Candidates gain voter's a lot of time based on popularity more than issues, and this allows for larger donations because everyone wants to be involved and the more popular start to gain momentum and financial support early. Someone whose name is lesser known steps in for financial contributions and doesn't get as much support as the well-known name. They are immediately put behind due to less publicity, which in turns put them behind in supporters and financial contributions. This causes many of them to fall short financially and they end up having to drop out of the race, in many cases before it gets off the ground.
I do believe something should be done about fundraising. I think the Obama campaign spent WAY more than was necessary in getting him elected. I think their should be spending limits put on campaigns in order to give others an equal shot at getting their issues and ideas for the United States out there.
On another note...I wasn't aware that a candidate could get matching funds from the government in order to campaign. Personally, I think this should not be done. I think people who are running for any office should be solely responsible for the cost of their campaign, with their own money and/or money form their financial supporters. To me, it just makes sense that someone isn't a strong enough candidate if they can't raise the funds needed to support and run a campaign. Just a thought I had on the subject.
3.) Why is their such voter apathy? In other words, why is there often such low voter turnout for elections? Is their a way to rectify this problem?
I think the main problem with voter turnout is that too many people don't think their vote makes a difference, and they have lost belief in our political and election systems. I hear it all too often, someone saying they aren't even gonna bother to vote because it doesn't matter anyways. If this is the thinking of one, it is also the thinking of many, and it continues to grow year after year. Now we have half the citizens, who are of voting age, not even bothering to go to the polls. I think another reason is that many are unable to make it to the poles in such a limited time frame, and that in some cases transportation or the ability to get to the polls is an issue.
Yes, I do believe there are ways to rectify the problem. I think the continuation of adding early voting, and additional days opens up the polls for more people to get out and vote. I think these early voting days should include some Saturday voting so that the people who can't afford to take off work can get out and vote. Maybe some polling places need to be kept open even longer and later hours since we are an around the clock working society now, not at every polling place, but certain precincts. I also think that adding different voting methods would help in getting more people involved in voting and the political process. I think cell phone voting, as well as internet voting would make a huge difference even when people feel their vote doesn't count. Just signing on to the internet is much easier for many and I think it would build participation. I also think cell phone voting would add more voters during elections times. If voting is made more convenient to the citizen's I think they would be more inclined to participate, whether they truly felt their vote counted or not because they wouldn't have to go out of the way to vote. It would be easily accessible.
** Blog Comments **
Albert Munoz
Gabrielle Miller
Mackenzie King
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)