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
Thursday, March 28, 2013
~ Political Parties ~
1.) Which political party do you most identify with? Why? Are there things in the party platform with which you disagree?
I identify most with the Democratic Party. Starting with the economy, I agree with the Democrats that the national debt needs to be paid down, something needs to be done to secure Social Security and the Medicare program. America also needs to invest in American innovation, and open new markets to American made products. I also agree that we need to continue to pursue stem cell and embryonic research and look for treatments and cures for cancer, as well as other diseases, adding tot he length and quality of life that millions of Americans encounter and deal with. I agree with the Democratic party on facilitating the access for Americans with disabilities, same-sex couples should receive equal treatment under the law,racial and religious profiling is wrong and should be stamped out, same-sex marriage should be dealt with on a state level with no federal intervention, but as many Democrats believe, if government intervention is required, I believe they have as much right as any one else to love and marry who they choose. I support changes to the Patriot Act, such as the tightening of restrictions on money laundering, but loosening the library provisions, so as not to infringe on individual liberties. I agree that the tax shelter laws need to be changed so that corporate America can stop hiding behind them and avoiding their true taxation. There are many more issues that I agree with the Democratic party on. The list is too long to post here but I agree with them on issues regarding drugs, education, crime, tax reform, foreign policy, free trade, government reform, and many other topics and issues.
On the other hand, I have to say that there are issues within the Democratic Party that I don't agree with. I didn't agree with our government bailing out and lending money to corporations that have blatantly abused the tax system for years, and who paid millions in corporate bonuses to their CEO's, hosting elaborate company trips and "seminars" for upper management employees. I think these companies were mismanaged and the upper management were more interested in lining their pockets with profits and not worrying about the middle class Americans. These companies and corporations didn't deserve a bail out, and some proved their unworthiness by continuing to squander money that was granted to them through the bail out.Blatant abuse of the system!! I don't 100% stand with the Democratic view on abortion. I believe in the right to life, BUT I am understanding to abortion if there is a serious medical reason or something severely wrong with the child that is found with some of the advanced early detection testing. I'm not talking about mild retardation or anything like that. I'm talking about a no quality to life illness or handicap. Something severe. There are other issues that I disagree with on the Democratic party platform, but I won't list them all here.
2.) Does America need political parties? The Founders originally hoped that American politics would operate without needs of parties. Would that work today? Why?
Yes, I think Americans need political parties with political socialization. I think we need to know that their are others out there who think like "we" do. It gives a sense of belonging and agreement and let's us know that "we" are not the only ones who carry our individual thought process.
I, personally, don't think American politics could or would work without political parties. We would have no sense of direction when it came to electing our government leaders because there would be no organization for political platforms to get the word out to the voters and politics would be all over the board.
3.) Please research lesser known political parties. Which one do you most identify with? Why?
In doing this assignment, I looked into about a dozen different political parties and what they stood for. I was truly shocked by some and wasn't aware of their existence. I wasn't aware of the American Freedom Party or the American Socialist Movement, since both seem to be formed around modern day hate groups. These parties are built on the foundation of white supremacy and claim members of the former Neo-Nazi Party.
I feel that out of the parties I looked into that I identify most with the Citizen's Party of the United States, formerly known as the New American Independent Party. This party hold liberal, moderate and conservative positions depending on the issue. I agree with them on a lot of their liberal and moderate beliefs as they relate to the issues, and a few of their conservative issues. IN doing this assignment, I am definitely more interested in reading and learning more about some of the thrid party organizations in American government and I am extremely interested in learning more about this particular party, so I will be doing more reading about this political party.
*Blog Comments*
Mackenzie King
Tim Tunkel
Gabrielle Miller
I identify most with the Democratic Party. Starting with the economy, I agree with the Democrats that the national debt needs to be paid down, something needs to be done to secure Social Security and the Medicare program. America also needs to invest in American innovation, and open new markets to American made products. I also agree that we need to continue to pursue stem cell and embryonic research and look for treatments and cures for cancer, as well as other diseases, adding tot he length and quality of life that millions of Americans encounter and deal with. I agree with the Democratic party on facilitating the access for Americans with disabilities, same-sex couples should receive equal treatment under the law,racial and religious profiling is wrong and should be stamped out, same-sex marriage should be dealt with on a state level with no federal intervention, but as many Democrats believe, if government intervention is required, I believe they have as much right as any one else to love and marry who they choose. I support changes to the Patriot Act, such as the tightening of restrictions on money laundering, but loosening the library provisions, so as not to infringe on individual liberties. I agree that the tax shelter laws need to be changed so that corporate America can stop hiding behind them and avoiding their true taxation. There are many more issues that I agree with the Democratic party on. The list is too long to post here but I agree with them on issues regarding drugs, education, crime, tax reform, foreign policy, free trade, government reform, and many other topics and issues.
On the other hand, I have to say that there are issues within the Democratic Party that I don't agree with. I didn't agree with our government bailing out and lending money to corporations that have blatantly abused the tax system for years, and who paid millions in corporate bonuses to their CEO's, hosting elaborate company trips and "seminars" for upper management employees. I think these companies were mismanaged and the upper management were more interested in lining their pockets with profits and not worrying about the middle class Americans. These companies and corporations didn't deserve a bail out, and some proved their unworthiness by continuing to squander money that was granted to them through the bail out.Blatant abuse of the system!! I don't 100% stand with the Democratic view on abortion. I believe in the right to life, BUT I am understanding to abortion if there is a serious medical reason or something severely wrong with the child that is found with some of the advanced early detection testing. I'm not talking about mild retardation or anything like that. I'm talking about a no quality to life illness or handicap. Something severe. There are other issues that I disagree with on the Democratic party platform, but I won't list them all here.
2.) Does America need political parties? The Founders originally hoped that American politics would operate without needs of parties. Would that work today? Why?
Yes, I think Americans need political parties with political socialization. I think we need to know that their are others out there who think like "we" do. It gives a sense of belonging and agreement and let's us know that "we" are not the only ones who carry our individual thought process.
I, personally, don't think American politics could or would work without political parties. We would have no sense of direction when it came to electing our government leaders because there would be no organization for political platforms to get the word out to the voters and politics would be all over the board.
3.) Please research lesser known political parties. Which one do you most identify with? Why?
In doing this assignment, I looked into about a dozen different political parties and what they stood for. I was truly shocked by some and wasn't aware of their existence. I wasn't aware of the American Freedom Party or the American Socialist Movement, since both seem to be formed around modern day hate groups. These parties are built on the foundation of white supremacy and claim members of the former Neo-Nazi Party.
I feel that out of the parties I looked into that I identify most with the Citizen's Party of the United States, formerly known as the New American Independent Party. This party hold liberal, moderate and conservative positions depending on the issue. I agree with them on a lot of their liberal and moderate beliefs as they relate to the issues, and a few of their conservative issues. IN doing this assignment, I am definitely more interested in reading and learning more about some of the thrid party organizations in American government and I am extremely interested in learning more about this particular party, so I will be doing more reading about this political party.
*Blog Comments*
Mackenzie King
Tim Tunkel
Gabrielle Miller
Friday, March 22, 2013
~ Interest Groups ~
1.) From Table 8.1 in the text, select one of the interest groups and do some research on their issues and beliefs. What did you learn? What did you find interesting? Do you agree/disagree with their positions on issues? Why?
I choose the NEA (National Education Association) as my interest group to research. I learned that they are now at 3.2 million members, which makes it the largest union in the United States. The NEA believes that every student in America, regardless of family income or where they reside, deserves a quality education. They believe that individuals are strengthened when they work together for the common good. The NEA feels that if they advocate collectively that they improve both their professional status, as well as the quality of public education. They believe that partnering with parents, families, communities, and other stakeholders in our children's education is essential to the quality of education that our children get. Public education is the gateway to opportunity, and the cornerstone to our republic. Public education is a vital part of building respect, dignity, and equality in our diverse society, and it teaches students the skills to be informed, involved, and engaged in our society as well as American democracy. The NEA believes that all students have the human and civil right to a quality public education that develops their character, independence, and potential.
I found it interesting that the NEA has stepped forward in preparing our youth for being productive adults by associating themselves with many other agencies. They have started to incorporate basic life skills into the education of our children, such as teaching them how to shape their financial futures, informing our youth on how to participate in our democracy and use their voice to vote, and educating them on alternative power sources in order to focus on a more "green" society. In doing this they are informing our children how to function productively as they become adults and enter our society. I feel this is one of the reasons so many people in the younger generations have taken part in the last couple of Presidential elections.
I definitely agree with the NEA on their issues. I think they have a wonderful plan set out for the futures of the children of this country and support them 100%. I am currently raising my 6 year old grand-daughter so this is an area of great importance to me, and to know that the NEA is working collectively with families and communities in order to educate her is of the utmost importance to me. I think schools should teach our children and grand-children the basics of life, because not all parents do it in the home. I think the NEA has recognized this and are taking positive steps to make up for what some children are not taught in the home, which better prepares them for society.
2.) Find an interest group with which you associate (positively). What is the name of the group and what do you find persuasive about their position on issues?
An interest group with which I associate with, as a former member, a union wife, daughter, and grand-daughter, is LIUNA (Laborer's International Union of North America). I have been involved with different union activities since I was a child. LIUNA works hard to get out and find work for their members and their families. They expect their members to make a sincere commitment and be active in the monthly union meetings, and they want their members to actively voice their opinions and vote, as well as being involved in local and some national charities.
LIUNA members make more money per hour regardless of their gender and regardless of their ethnic background. They offer classes in every state and provide valuable learning in skills such as Radiation handling, HAZ-MAT handling and safety, as well as OSHA training to learn safety and procedures in case of an emergency on a job site. They also offer classes to further basic and advanced skills training. Most of these classes and training programs are federally funded and offered to union members at no cost, and allows them to gain certificates and additional job qualifications. This training allows employers to compete with higher productivity and quality work, and workers earn more money and work in much safer environments.
LIUNA members are also better able to care for themselves and their families during the health care crisis in America. Statistics (census bureau) show that 82% of LIUNA members have health care coverage and LIUNA is constantly working at the forefront of the battle for health care solutions and ways to reduce costs to it's members. LIUNA members also have a defined pension and security plan for a secure retirement.
I agree with their position of taking care of their workers and their union families. In being the wife of a LIUNA worker, I feel a better about my families future, when we reach retirement age because I know that we will have a solid retirement income and will be better able to live and keep some form of quality to our lifestyle with health benefits and financial security, as well as death benefits that would take care of my family if something were to happen to either me or my spouse.
3. Do interest groups have enough / too much / the right amount / of power in the political system? Most believe its a fine line balance between freedom of speech for the groups and keeping unfair persuasion out of government. Where is the line crossed and when is it crossed?
My views on the power and influence in our political system change depending on which group you are talking about. I feel that some groups, such as the NEA, the AACSE, and the AFT have just enough power on the political system and their decisions to make educational changes for the youth of America. I feel these are some of the interest groups who are making positive strides toward building a better future for the youth of this country and that they are attempting to teach our children how important participating in politics and democracy has become.
Other groups such as the drug and healthcare groups have gained far too much influence, in my opinion. The cost of medical care and medicines has gotten outrageous and so many Americans have been left out along the way. I feel that most of these groups are driven by pure greed and profit, and that many people in America have been left by the wayside with no medical coverage and unable to pay the cost for escalating doctor's fees and medications that they truly need. I personally know people who cannot afford the medications they need to maintain a healthy lifestyle due to the rising costs of their medications. I think that is wrong, no matter how you look at it.
There are still other groups that maintain just the right amount of power to influence positive changes for our citizens. So in answering this question, it would depend on what interest group we would be talking about.
There is a "fine line" that can be crossed when it comes to persuading the officials of our government and I feel that this line is crossed when it comes to healthcare in this country. I also feel the line is crossed when it comes to the gas and oil industry, as well. I think they are better able to influence our politicians because of the amount of money they are able to throw around and in some cases are able to buy politicians. It is a known fact that since the formation of our American government that there has always been some form of corruption in political offices nationwide and most of it has to do with money and the influence that money carries with our politicians.
*Blog Comments*
Gabrielle Miller
Albert Munoz
Tim Tunkel
I choose the NEA (National Education Association) as my interest group to research. I learned that they are now at 3.2 million members, which makes it the largest union in the United States. The NEA believes that every student in America, regardless of family income or where they reside, deserves a quality education. They believe that individuals are strengthened when they work together for the common good. The NEA feels that if they advocate collectively that they improve both their professional status, as well as the quality of public education. They believe that partnering with parents, families, communities, and other stakeholders in our children's education is essential to the quality of education that our children get. Public education is the gateway to opportunity, and the cornerstone to our republic. Public education is a vital part of building respect, dignity, and equality in our diverse society, and it teaches students the skills to be informed, involved, and engaged in our society as well as American democracy. The NEA believes that all students have the human and civil right to a quality public education that develops their character, independence, and potential.
I found it interesting that the NEA has stepped forward in preparing our youth for being productive adults by associating themselves with many other agencies. They have started to incorporate basic life skills into the education of our children, such as teaching them how to shape their financial futures, informing our youth on how to participate in our democracy and use their voice to vote, and educating them on alternative power sources in order to focus on a more "green" society. In doing this they are informing our children how to function productively as they become adults and enter our society. I feel this is one of the reasons so many people in the younger generations have taken part in the last couple of Presidential elections.
I definitely agree with the NEA on their issues. I think they have a wonderful plan set out for the futures of the children of this country and support them 100%. I am currently raising my 6 year old grand-daughter so this is an area of great importance to me, and to know that the NEA is working collectively with families and communities in order to educate her is of the utmost importance to me. I think schools should teach our children and grand-children the basics of life, because not all parents do it in the home. I think the NEA has recognized this and are taking positive steps to make up for what some children are not taught in the home, which better prepares them for society.
2.) Find an interest group with which you associate (positively). What is the name of the group and what do you find persuasive about their position on issues?
An interest group with which I associate with, as a former member, a union wife, daughter, and grand-daughter, is LIUNA (Laborer's International Union of North America). I have been involved with different union activities since I was a child. LIUNA works hard to get out and find work for their members and their families. They expect their members to make a sincere commitment and be active in the monthly union meetings, and they want their members to actively voice their opinions and vote, as well as being involved in local and some national charities.
LIUNA members make more money per hour regardless of their gender and regardless of their ethnic background. They offer classes in every state and provide valuable learning in skills such as Radiation handling, HAZ-MAT handling and safety, as well as OSHA training to learn safety and procedures in case of an emergency on a job site. They also offer classes to further basic and advanced skills training. Most of these classes and training programs are federally funded and offered to union members at no cost, and allows them to gain certificates and additional job qualifications. This training allows employers to compete with higher productivity and quality work, and workers earn more money and work in much safer environments.
LIUNA members are also better able to care for themselves and their families during the health care crisis in America. Statistics (census bureau) show that 82% of LIUNA members have health care coverage and LIUNA is constantly working at the forefront of the battle for health care solutions and ways to reduce costs to it's members. LIUNA members also have a defined pension and security plan for a secure retirement.
I agree with their position of taking care of their workers and their union families. In being the wife of a LIUNA worker, I feel a better about my families future, when we reach retirement age because I know that we will have a solid retirement income and will be better able to live and keep some form of quality to our lifestyle with health benefits and financial security, as well as death benefits that would take care of my family if something were to happen to either me or my spouse.
3. Do interest groups have enough / too much / the right amount / of power in the political system? Most believe its a fine line balance between freedom of speech for the groups and keeping unfair persuasion out of government. Where is the line crossed and when is it crossed?
My views on the power and influence in our political system change depending on which group you are talking about. I feel that some groups, such as the NEA, the AACSE, and the AFT have just enough power on the political system and their decisions to make educational changes for the youth of America. I feel these are some of the interest groups who are making positive strides toward building a better future for the youth of this country and that they are attempting to teach our children how important participating in politics and democracy has become.
Other groups such as the drug and healthcare groups have gained far too much influence, in my opinion. The cost of medical care and medicines has gotten outrageous and so many Americans have been left out along the way. I feel that most of these groups are driven by pure greed and profit, and that many people in America have been left by the wayside with no medical coverage and unable to pay the cost for escalating doctor's fees and medications that they truly need. I personally know people who cannot afford the medications they need to maintain a healthy lifestyle due to the rising costs of their medications. I think that is wrong, no matter how you look at it.
There are still other groups that maintain just the right amount of power to influence positive changes for our citizens. So in answering this question, it would depend on what interest group we would be talking about.
There is a "fine line" that can be crossed when it comes to persuading the officials of our government and I feel that this line is crossed when it comes to healthcare in this country. I also feel the line is crossed when it comes to the gas and oil industry, as well. I think they are better able to influence our politicians because of the amount of money they are able to throw around and in some cases are able to buy politicians. It is a known fact that since the formation of our American government that there has always been some form of corruption in political offices nationwide and most of it has to do with money and the influence that money carries with our politicians.
*Blog Comments*
Gabrielle Miller
Albert Munoz
Tim Tunkel
Friday, March 8, 2013
Thursday, March 7, 2013
~~The News Media and The Internet ~~
1.) Does objectivity still exist in the media's coverage of politics? Of the major news outlets (CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, NPR, NBC, etc), which are the most objective and which seem to have the most bias?
Personally, I don't think a lot of objectivity is shown in the media coverage regarding politics. Most of the news I watch see either lean to the liberal side of things or the conservative side. There seems to be no in between, especially with our current government. Some news agencies blame the Republicans, saying they are unwilling to pass a budget unless it's stacked in their favor. Other news agencies blame the President for not working with the Republican house, and wanting the entire bill his way or he won't accept it. I haven't saw any good objective reporting on why this budget isn't passed. I think it's due to faults on both sides. Both sides need to give in on some of the issues, meet in the middle and work together toward putting a budget in place for this country. The citizens of the United States will be the one's who suffer over the budget issue, because it won't be the politicians who suffer when detrimental programs collapse due to lack of funding not being there. Our military will suffer and the overall safety of this country will suffer due to monies not being set aside. Our safety while flying will be put in jeopardy due to cutbacks in airport security personnel. There will be much needed program cutbacks, such as unemployment extensions, and this could quite possibly affect the loans and monies available to people who are attending school in order to further a career or change careers altogether. These are just a few of the things affected by having no budget passed and in place for this country.
When it comes to the major news outlets, I feel that most of them lean one way or the other. FoxNews is totally conservative. They lean to the right on everything they report. Rush Limbaugh is one of the main personalities associated with the Fox networks, and he is an extreme conservative. MSNBC reports more on the liberal side. I think NPR is more conservative biased. It used to be said they were on the liberal side, but in recent years the statistics even show they are more biased to the conservative way of thinking. If I had to pick a news outlet, I would have to say that I view CNN as being more "middle of the road" when it comes to reporting political stories and issues.
2.) How does talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, etc.) affect your view of politics? Why?
I really don't have an "answer" one way or the other for this question because I honestly don't watch these type of Infotainment shows. So, in saying that, they don't affect my view on politics at all. In reading a little about these shows and what is covered on them and how it is covered I can see why they are able to sway people who watch them who really don't know what they need or want to do.It's hard for media to sway me on issues. I take an issue, such as gay rights, and think it through for myself and form my own opinion about it. Once that's done, it's hard to change my mind, because I'm more interested in looking into ways of solving the issue than I am the political parties involved and their right or left wing ideas. I, personally, want to see the issue worked on and resolved instead of turning it into a "party" issue.
3.)Is media objectivity important? Why or why not?
I believe media objectivity is very important. I think they should tell the stories based on the issues and not based on a certain parties perspective. America is a democracy and we all have the freedom to express our thoughts and ideas, which we do at the voting polls. However, I think some of the politicians are more in tune with the "party" name and reputation than solving the issues and the news media pounces on this in order to make a story.
** Blog Comments**
Gabrielle Miller
Ashley Pelfrey
Albert Munoz
Personally, I don't think a lot of objectivity is shown in the media coverage regarding politics. Most of the news I watch see either lean to the liberal side of things or the conservative side. There seems to be no in between, especially with our current government. Some news agencies blame the Republicans, saying they are unwilling to pass a budget unless it's stacked in their favor. Other news agencies blame the President for not working with the Republican house, and wanting the entire bill his way or he won't accept it. I haven't saw any good objective reporting on why this budget isn't passed. I think it's due to faults on both sides. Both sides need to give in on some of the issues, meet in the middle and work together toward putting a budget in place for this country. The citizens of the United States will be the one's who suffer over the budget issue, because it won't be the politicians who suffer when detrimental programs collapse due to lack of funding not being there. Our military will suffer and the overall safety of this country will suffer due to monies not being set aside. Our safety while flying will be put in jeopardy due to cutbacks in airport security personnel. There will be much needed program cutbacks, such as unemployment extensions, and this could quite possibly affect the loans and monies available to people who are attending school in order to further a career or change careers altogether. These are just a few of the things affected by having no budget passed and in place for this country.
When it comes to the major news outlets, I feel that most of them lean one way or the other. FoxNews is totally conservative. They lean to the right on everything they report. Rush Limbaugh is one of the main personalities associated with the Fox networks, and he is an extreme conservative. MSNBC reports more on the liberal side. I think NPR is more conservative biased. It used to be said they were on the liberal side, but in recent years the statistics even show they are more biased to the conservative way of thinking. If I had to pick a news outlet, I would have to say that I view CNN as being more "middle of the road" when it comes to reporting political stories and issues.
2.) How does talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, etc.) affect your view of politics? Why?
I really don't have an "answer" one way or the other for this question because I honestly don't watch these type of Infotainment shows. So, in saying that, they don't affect my view on politics at all. In reading a little about these shows and what is covered on them and how it is covered I can see why they are able to sway people who watch them who really don't know what they need or want to do.It's hard for media to sway me on issues. I take an issue, such as gay rights, and think it through for myself and form my own opinion about it. Once that's done, it's hard to change my mind, because I'm more interested in looking into ways of solving the issue than I am the political parties involved and their right or left wing ideas. I, personally, want to see the issue worked on and resolved instead of turning it into a "party" issue.
3.)Is media objectivity important? Why or why not?
I believe media objectivity is very important. I think they should tell the stories based on the issues and not based on a certain parties perspective. America is a democracy and we all have the freedom to express our thoughts and ideas, which we do at the voting polls. However, I think some of the politicians are more in tune with the "party" name and reputation than solving the issues and the news media pounces on this in order to make a story.
** Blog Comments**
Gabrielle Miller
Ashley Pelfrey
Albert Munoz
Thursday, February 28, 2013
~~ Public Opinion ~~
1.) Is American News Media too dependent on polls? Is it appropriate for news agencies to create polls and then report on them? Why or why not?
I don't believe that American News Media is too dependent on information gathered from polls. I think it is good that news agencies choose to do these types of things because it gets the issues at hand more attention from potential voters. It stirs them up and gets them talking about and discussing issues, which in turn gets them involved with the issues important to them and makes them use their voice and and freedom of speech to express their agreement or disagreement on the current issues at hand. It spreads the word on the issues to a much broader audience which allows for more participation from the public when it comes to voting and supporting or standing against various issues.
2.) How important is political party identification to you (e.g. as a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc.)? Was it more or less important to your parents or grandparents? Does it seem more or less important to your friends? Why or why not?
Political party affiliation is not as near as important to me as the issues at hand. I tend to follow the issues I am interested in more than I follow the parties because the issues are responsible for our rights and responsibilities at citizens of the United States. Both my parents and grand-parents were very dedicated to the party of their choice. It was often talked about in our home as I was growing up, especially at election time. It was hammered into my head what political party I should be affiliated with until I came to voting age, and then I was basically told who they wanted me to vote for based on political party. It was never issues, and always about the parties themselves. Of course, with that being said I registered under the opposing political party, but I cast my votes based on issues and not to party dedication. Even though I am registered as one political party I still have the right to vote for candidates form other political parties that are on the ballot, and often due. I vote for who I agree with more on certain political issues rather than party dedication. In speaking with my friends, they seem to be more issue related as well, regardless of what political party they are registered to vote under. I think this is because our society as a whole is becoming more and more aware of what is going on in the world around them in this day and time and realize that the views of politicians are wide spread. Just because I vote for a certain politician doesn't mean that I agree with everything they bring to the table either. It just means that I agree with them on more of the issues I find important than other candidates and I think they would be the better person to do the job.
3.) Do you feel that your opinion of politics is more influenced by economic issues or by social issues? Why?
I find that my opinion of politics is based on both. Both are important to me. Of course, in trying economic times, your opinion becomes stronger on issues regarding money. In times when the economic situation is good, you focus more on the other issues at hand, such as right's, gun issues, abortion issues, Social Security issues, or any other issues that are important to me at the time. So many things influence what is important to me. My son is in the service so I am always interested in issues dealing with war and military deployment. I have friends in the gay and lesbian community, so when those issues are brought up, they are important to me because it affects the life-style of my friends. It's all based on a combination of so many different things.
Blog Comments:
Rachel Bunch
Ian Price
Brandi Lively
I don't believe that American News Media is too dependent on information gathered from polls. I think it is good that news agencies choose to do these types of things because it gets the issues at hand more attention from potential voters. It stirs them up and gets them talking about and discussing issues, which in turn gets them involved with the issues important to them and makes them use their voice and and freedom of speech to express their agreement or disagreement on the current issues at hand. It spreads the word on the issues to a much broader audience which allows for more participation from the public when it comes to voting and supporting or standing against various issues.
2.) How important is political party identification to you (e.g. as a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc.)? Was it more or less important to your parents or grandparents? Does it seem more or less important to your friends? Why or why not?
Political party affiliation is not as near as important to me as the issues at hand. I tend to follow the issues I am interested in more than I follow the parties because the issues are responsible for our rights and responsibilities at citizens of the United States. Both my parents and grand-parents were very dedicated to the party of their choice. It was often talked about in our home as I was growing up, especially at election time. It was hammered into my head what political party I should be affiliated with until I came to voting age, and then I was basically told who they wanted me to vote for based on political party. It was never issues, and always about the parties themselves. Of course, with that being said I registered under the opposing political party, but I cast my votes based on issues and not to party dedication. Even though I am registered as one political party I still have the right to vote for candidates form other political parties that are on the ballot, and often due. I vote for who I agree with more on certain political issues rather than party dedication. In speaking with my friends, they seem to be more issue related as well, regardless of what political party they are registered to vote under. I think this is because our society as a whole is becoming more and more aware of what is going on in the world around them in this day and time and realize that the views of politicians are wide spread. Just because I vote for a certain politician doesn't mean that I agree with everything they bring to the table either. It just means that I agree with them on more of the issues I find important than other candidates and I think they would be the better person to do the job.
3.) Do you feel that your opinion of politics is more influenced by economic issues or by social issues? Why?
I find that my opinion of politics is based on both. Both are important to me. Of course, in trying economic times, your opinion becomes stronger on issues regarding money. In times when the economic situation is good, you focus more on the other issues at hand, such as right's, gun issues, abortion issues, Social Security issues, or any other issues that are important to me at the time. So many things influence what is important to me. My son is in the service so I am always interested in issues dealing with war and military deployment. I have friends in the gay and lesbian community, so when those issues are brought up, they are important to me because it affects the life-style of my friends. It's all based on a combination of so many different things.
Blog Comments:
Rachel Bunch
Ian Price
Brandi Lively
Thursday, February 21, 2013
~~ Civil Rights ~~
On the Issue of Race; Does the government do too little or too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination? Why or why not?
On the issue of race, I think it takes a delicate balance of government interaction in order to regulate laws made to protect race. I believe this country has come a long way with racial discrimination, especially in the last 50 years. I feel that in some areas the government has done what they needed to do in order to protect people of different races from being discriminated against. In others, I feel they have left the door open for people of minority races to receive "special" treatment.
The government has set quotas that have to be met with many employers on a certain percentage or a certain number of people from different races being hired in to satisfy the government restrictions even when they are not qualified to get the job. If these quotas aren't followed, all the person has to do is go to the court system and file a racial discrimination suit, where in most cases they win, lots of times, without the courts even looking at the fact that they were not qualified for the job. Don't get me wrong; there are a lot of white people not qualified for jobs that they apply for, but I think someone should be hired based on qualifications and ability to do the job, rather than to meet race quotas set into place by the government. I also feel that in some cases and areas of the United States, that so many rights are put into place that there is some reverse racism going on. This is not equal treatment.
I do feel that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's was what this country needed. We need to keep in mind that blacks were brought to this country to be used for a purpose and were considered property when this country was in the building stages and this went on for many years. They did not ask to be brought here, and were brought here against their own free will. My belief is that no human being should be subjected to this type of treatment and that no human being should be considered property. President Abraham Lincoln made the right decision by signing the Emancipation Proclamation and freeing the slaves, although it caused a war and many more years of terror and suffering for the black people of this country. Many were being persecuted throughout the years just because the white man felt they were the supreme race and never looked at blacks as being human being that deserved the same basic rights that he had.
The government took a big step forwards in the 1960's by passing the Civil Rights Act. This gave minorities the right to vote, the right to be a citizen, the right to education, and the right to go out and make a living for your family and own property. These are all basic rights that should be given to every American citizen regardless of the color of their skin.
I feel that even though we have all these laws and rights in effect that we still have a ways to go where racial discrimination is concerned. As much as we, as Americans, don't like to admit it, there are still parts of the United States with very deep racist roots. I think the government will still have issues that arise form time to time in the future regarding race that they will need to address. I think we may also see some issues regarding reverse racism in the future due to some of the laws and regulations currently in place.
On the Issue of Gender; Does the government do too little or too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination? Why or why not?
On the issue of Gender, I think women have gained some of the rights in recent years that should have been in place all along. I do feel the government has done some of the things that needed to be done regarding women but still have some work to do. Women are still viewed as the weaker or "less capable" gender which is obvious when comparing salaries of men and women. The majority of men in a same exact position as a woman, and doing the exact same job as woman, are paid higher salaries and wages across the board. Even though this country has put laws into place to keep this from happening, companies are passing out employee handbooks warning against discussing salaries and wages among employees and threatening such things as suspension and being fired if it is found out that it has been discussed among co-workers, citing it is a breach of privacy in order to do this because the contract is between the company and the employee. These are just ways of keeping individuals from finding out the salary differences. Also, sexual harassment is rampant in many of the work places, especially in and around this area. I have been on jobs where this was a major problem and it even created a hostile work environment where charges were filed and it is still going through the system and headed to federal court. I know of others in this area who deal with it on a day to day basis, and it's not always a one sided thing. Women can harass too. I think the government still has some work to do in this area of discrimination.
On the Issue of Sexual Orientation; Does the government do too little or too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination? Why or why not?
On the issue of sexual orientation, I feel that everyone has the right to be with who they want to be with regardless of gender. My point here is if you agree with it and want to do it, you will.If you don't agree with it, and you aren't interested in being with a same sex partner, you won't. Every person has the right to be happy and live the life of choice here in the United States. I don't think the government needs to regulate what we do in our own private homes in the privacy of our own bedrooms, and I don't think the government should be in charge of matters of the heart. That is between individuals. I think gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals and transgenders should have the same right as a man and a woman have when it comes to being together. I do feel that the government needs to work toward stopping discrimination against people of different sexual orientation and give then the right to live as they please, and I think the states should be made to recognize these relationships and marriages just as they would one between a man and a woman. People who don't agree with them and their choices don't have to deal with these couples. It's that simple. I do think there is more government intervention coming in these relationships and eventually they will gain the right to marry and be recognized.
Blog Comments:
Brandi Lively
Amber Waters
Ashley Pelfrey, commented on 2/23/13 **
On the issue of race, I think it takes a delicate balance of government interaction in order to regulate laws made to protect race. I believe this country has come a long way with racial discrimination, especially in the last 50 years. I feel that in some areas the government has done what they needed to do in order to protect people of different races from being discriminated against. In others, I feel they have left the door open for people of minority races to receive "special" treatment.
The government has set quotas that have to be met with many employers on a certain percentage or a certain number of people from different races being hired in to satisfy the government restrictions even when they are not qualified to get the job. If these quotas aren't followed, all the person has to do is go to the court system and file a racial discrimination suit, where in most cases they win, lots of times, without the courts even looking at the fact that they were not qualified for the job. Don't get me wrong; there are a lot of white people not qualified for jobs that they apply for, but I think someone should be hired based on qualifications and ability to do the job, rather than to meet race quotas set into place by the government. I also feel that in some cases and areas of the United States, that so many rights are put into place that there is some reverse racism going on. This is not equal treatment.
I do feel that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's was what this country needed. We need to keep in mind that blacks were brought to this country to be used for a purpose and were considered property when this country was in the building stages and this went on for many years. They did not ask to be brought here, and were brought here against their own free will. My belief is that no human being should be subjected to this type of treatment and that no human being should be considered property. President Abraham Lincoln made the right decision by signing the Emancipation Proclamation and freeing the slaves, although it caused a war and many more years of terror and suffering for the black people of this country. Many were being persecuted throughout the years just because the white man felt they were the supreme race and never looked at blacks as being human being that deserved the same basic rights that he had.
The government took a big step forwards in the 1960's by passing the Civil Rights Act. This gave minorities the right to vote, the right to be a citizen, the right to education, and the right to go out and make a living for your family and own property. These are all basic rights that should be given to every American citizen regardless of the color of their skin.
I feel that even though we have all these laws and rights in effect that we still have a ways to go where racial discrimination is concerned. As much as we, as Americans, don't like to admit it, there are still parts of the United States with very deep racist roots. I think the government will still have issues that arise form time to time in the future regarding race that they will need to address. I think we may also see some issues regarding reverse racism in the future due to some of the laws and regulations currently in place.
On the Issue of Gender; Does the government do too little or too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination? Why or why not?
On the issue of Gender, I think women have gained some of the rights in recent years that should have been in place all along. I do feel the government has done some of the things that needed to be done regarding women but still have some work to do. Women are still viewed as the weaker or "less capable" gender which is obvious when comparing salaries of men and women. The majority of men in a same exact position as a woman, and doing the exact same job as woman, are paid higher salaries and wages across the board. Even though this country has put laws into place to keep this from happening, companies are passing out employee handbooks warning against discussing salaries and wages among employees and threatening such things as suspension and being fired if it is found out that it has been discussed among co-workers, citing it is a breach of privacy in order to do this because the contract is between the company and the employee. These are just ways of keeping individuals from finding out the salary differences. Also, sexual harassment is rampant in many of the work places, especially in and around this area. I have been on jobs where this was a major problem and it even created a hostile work environment where charges were filed and it is still going through the system and headed to federal court. I know of others in this area who deal with it on a day to day basis, and it's not always a one sided thing. Women can harass too. I think the government still has some work to do in this area of discrimination.
On the Issue of Sexual Orientation; Does the government do too little or too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination? Why or why not?
On the issue of sexual orientation, I feel that everyone has the right to be with who they want to be with regardless of gender. My point here is if you agree with it and want to do it, you will.If you don't agree with it, and you aren't interested in being with a same sex partner, you won't. Every person has the right to be happy and live the life of choice here in the United States. I don't think the government needs to regulate what we do in our own private homes in the privacy of our own bedrooms, and I don't think the government should be in charge of matters of the heart. That is between individuals. I think gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals and transgenders should have the same right as a man and a woman have when it comes to being together. I do feel that the government needs to work toward stopping discrimination against people of different sexual orientation and give then the right to live as they please, and I think the states should be made to recognize these relationships and marriages just as they would one between a man and a woman. People who don't agree with them and their choices don't have to deal with these couples. It's that simple. I do think there is more government intervention coming in these relationships and eventually they will gain the right to marry and be recognized.
Blog Comments:
Brandi Lively
Amber Waters
Ashley Pelfrey, commented on 2/23/13 **
Thursday, February 14, 2013
~~ Chapter 4... Civil Liberties ~~
1.) Freedom of Speech: How important is it? Does the Freedom go "too far?" What areas of speech should not be protected?
I believe that Freedom of Speech is a very important liberty that we are fortunate to have in this country. It allows us to have a voice in all aspects of our lives, government, religion, etc. We have the ability to speak out about issues whether we think they are right or wrong. We are able to be heard when it comes to our government and leaders. Many countries do not have this day to day right that we, as Americans, seem to take for granted at times. I do feel that freedom of speech is one of the rights that we need to defend and keep because it is essential to the growth of this nation.
I think that on some occasions freedom of speech does go "too far." It's like anything else... some people carry the right itself "too far" and use it to harm others or use it to cause violence or rioting, or even share important things such as military secrets and defense plans or other high profile information that should never be shared. In these instances, I think they should be dealt with on a one on one basis, using the laws that are put into place to deal with these situations. "Voice" can be a mighty sword if it is backed by the wrong mindset or someone who is looking to do harm to others or our nation. This is where the line should be drawn and the necessary steps should be taken to stop and keep this type of behavior from happening.
I personally believe that some sort of laws or restrictions should be set on Campaign Finance for politicians. I think this is an area that has gotten way out of hand over the last several years. In my opinion, campaign finance allows huge companies and corporations to "buy" certain politicians and stack government in their favor.
2.) Freedom of Speech: Is separation of church and state necessary? Why or why not?
I feel that separation of church and state is necessary. I feel if we don't keep this separation, we would end up having a government chosen and ran religion, that could lead to a ban on religions that aren't readily accepted. I just do not believe that anyone should be able to tell us who to worship or how to worship. Freedom of religion is one of the basic building blocks of this country, and should be a protected right.
3.) Criminal Procedure: Are defendant's rights crucial to our system of government? Why or why not? Many argue that defendant's have too many rights-- do you agree? Why or why not?
I believe that a defendant's rights are crucial to our system of government. I don't think anyone's freedoms or life should be put in jeopardy without the system being absolutely responsible for proving that person is guilty. It's been proven that innocent people have been sent to prison and have lost out on years of their lives. It's also been proven that innocent people have been executed. No one can give those years of life back to them that they have missed out on, and no one can give the innocent life back to those that have been executed. I don't think that defendant's have too many rights because of these situations. I think our judicial system is built to protect both the defendant's, as well as the victim's rights, and for the most part does a great job, especially in this day and time. With all the advances in forensic science there are fewer mistakes made when prosecuting individuals, and that proving guilt or innocence has almost become a precise science, and leads to almost fool proof convictions. I know if I were ever on trial for something, or a family member of mine was ever on trial for something, and I knew without a doubt that I was innocent or that my family member was innocent that I would want all of those right's available to me and hope that it would be able to prove innocence.
Blog Comments:
Ashley Pelfrey
Amber Waters
Amanda Strange
I believe that Freedom of Speech is a very important liberty that we are fortunate to have in this country. It allows us to have a voice in all aspects of our lives, government, religion, etc. We have the ability to speak out about issues whether we think they are right or wrong. We are able to be heard when it comes to our government and leaders. Many countries do not have this day to day right that we, as Americans, seem to take for granted at times. I do feel that freedom of speech is one of the rights that we need to defend and keep because it is essential to the growth of this nation.
I think that on some occasions freedom of speech does go "too far." It's like anything else... some people carry the right itself "too far" and use it to harm others or use it to cause violence or rioting, or even share important things such as military secrets and defense plans or other high profile information that should never be shared. In these instances, I think they should be dealt with on a one on one basis, using the laws that are put into place to deal with these situations. "Voice" can be a mighty sword if it is backed by the wrong mindset or someone who is looking to do harm to others or our nation. This is where the line should be drawn and the necessary steps should be taken to stop and keep this type of behavior from happening.
I personally believe that some sort of laws or restrictions should be set on Campaign Finance for politicians. I think this is an area that has gotten way out of hand over the last several years. In my opinion, campaign finance allows huge companies and corporations to "buy" certain politicians and stack government in their favor.
2.) Freedom of Speech: Is separation of church and state necessary? Why or why not?
I feel that separation of church and state is necessary. I feel if we don't keep this separation, we would end up having a government chosen and ran religion, that could lead to a ban on religions that aren't readily accepted. I just do not believe that anyone should be able to tell us who to worship or how to worship. Freedom of religion is one of the basic building blocks of this country, and should be a protected right.
3.) Criminal Procedure: Are defendant's rights crucial to our system of government? Why or why not? Many argue that defendant's have too many rights-- do you agree? Why or why not?
I believe that a defendant's rights are crucial to our system of government. I don't think anyone's freedoms or life should be put in jeopardy without the system being absolutely responsible for proving that person is guilty. It's been proven that innocent people have been sent to prison and have lost out on years of their lives. It's also been proven that innocent people have been executed. No one can give those years of life back to them that they have missed out on, and no one can give the innocent life back to those that have been executed. I don't think that defendant's have too many rights because of these situations. I think our judicial system is built to protect both the defendant's, as well as the victim's rights, and for the most part does a great job, especially in this day and time. With all the advances in forensic science there are fewer mistakes made when prosecuting individuals, and that proving guilt or innocence has almost become a precise science, and leads to almost fool proof convictions. I know if I were ever on trial for something, or a family member of mine was ever on trial for something, and I knew without a doubt that I was innocent or that my family member was innocent that I would want all of those right's available to me and hope that it would be able to prove innocence.
Blog Comments:
Ashley Pelfrey
Amber Waters
Amanda Strange
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Chapter 3 ~ Federalism
1.) In my opinion a strong national government is required for our country, with certain powers and decisions left to the individual states. I think both forms of government should work together for the good of all people. In having a strong national government, we are better able to protect our nation from domestic and foreign enemies. Having a strong government enables our representatives and congressmen to work together with other national and state government officials to set in place laws in this country for the protection of our people. A strong government is also able to protect our rights and freedoms as individuals, just like some of the founding fathers of this country envisioned.
2.) Republican President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) was a supporter of New Federalism for the national government of our country which began again with the Nixon Administration (1969-1974). He felt that the government was not the solution to problems in our country, but that the government itself was the problem. He cut back on categorical grants, which were monies form Congress to the states that had to be spent in specific categories, and put into place block grants. These block grants were monies from Congress to the states that had to be spent in broader categories. He limited the restrictions on these grants allowing the states more control over how the money was spent. At the same time, he also eliminated general revenue sharing.
In my opinion, this was an appropriate shift because in doing this, President Reagan dissolved the general revenue sharing program which was too lenient, and he done away with the categorical grants which were too strict and put into place a system of grants to the states which held some accountability for monies they were granted, but didn't allow the national government total control on how thew monies were spent. In doing this, he let the states decide where the money was most needed for the betterment of the people within the state.
3.) Regarding education, I feel that the state and local governments should be in charge of educating the children in their communities with limited power from the federal government. I feel the educators in our state and communities know our children and families better than the federal officials do and are better aware of the traditions and community compositions than the people in our federal government because most of them don't live here. I think the federal government should monitor how education is working in individual states and communities and have some sort of system in place to step in and assist if something doesn't seem to be working.
Blog Comments:
Amber Waters
J. Albert Munoz
Gabby Miller
2.) Republican President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) was a supporter of New Federalism for the national government of our country which began again with the Nixon Administration (1969-1974). He felt that the government was not the solution to problems in our country, but that the government itself was the problem. He cut back on categorical grants, which were monies form Congress to the states that had to be spent in specific categories, and put into place block grants. These block grants were monies from Congress to the states that had to be spent in broader categories. He limited the restrictions on these grants allowing the states more control over how the money was spent. At the same time, he also eliminated general revenue sharing.
In my opinion, this was an appropriate shift because in doing this, President Reagan dissolved the general revenue sharing program which was too lenient, and he done away with the categorical grants which were too strict and put into place a system of grants to the states which held some accountability for monies they were granted, but didn't allow the national government total control on how thew monies were spent. In doing this, he let the states decide where the money was most needed for the betterment of the people within the state.
3.) Regarding education, I feel that the state and local governments should be in charge of educating the children in their communities with limited power from the federal government. I feel the educators in our state and communities know our children and families better than the federal officials do and are better aware of the traditions and community compositions than the people in our federal government because most of them don't live here. I think the federal government should monitor how education is working in individual states and communities and have some sort of system in place to step in and assist if something doesn't seem to be working.
Blog Comments:
Amber Waters
J. Albert Munoz
Gabby Miller
Friday, February 1, 2013
~ Chapter 2: The Constitution ~
1.) The Articles of Confederation only granted Congress powers that were extremely limited and very weak in nature. There were no separate executive branch and no established judicial system, although they had the power to establish judicial panels and an executive committee with a rotating president, there were none in place to build a solid foundation for our country. There were no funds coming in, so the nation's debts were going unpaid, damaging their credit. Economic growth was stunted due to states taxing imports coming in from other states.
The Constitutional Convention of 1787, and the coming together of fifty-five delegates working together and debating different ideas made them realize that there were many compromises to be made in order to unify all of the states, so they went to work in order to create a structured national government, and came up with The Constitution of the United States. This was a much stronger and structured document because it created a three branch government, giving each of them their own separate and specific powers, and putting into place a checks and balances system for each branch of government to limit the other branches, so that one branch could not become more powerful than the others. They also gave authority to the people over their government, by having direct authority to choose who ran their government by allowing them to vote people into office. Certain tasks of government were even passed on to the state governments in order to prevent a concentration of power.
The Constitution created a much stronger government. If we did not operate under Constitutional law in this country today, I believe we would live in a very chaotic society. Our nation would be in economic ruin. The United States territory would probably be several different divided nations instead of one nation under one national government. We would not be protected by a strong military from our foreign enemies and the crime rates in this country would be out of control.
2.) Article I: In reading Article I of the Constitution, I was not aware that when Representatives and direct taxes were apportioned that Indians not taxed were excluded and that there was still a three-fifths rule of any kind still in effect. I was also unaware that if any bill was not returned by the president within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it is presented to him that it shall become law as if he had signed it, unless Congress by adjournment prevent its return, in which case it would not become law.
Article II: In reading Article II of the Constitution, I was not aware of the actual voting process of the electors regarding the presidential election.
Article III: In reading Article III of the Constitution, I did not know that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over all matters in all cases affecting Ambassadors, Prime Ministers, and Consuls.
I also did not know that no person could be convicted of treason against the United States unless there was testimony from two people for the same act, or a confession in open court.
3.) The Marbury v. Madison (1803) Supreme Court decision was very important because it brought to the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. This landmark case gave the Supreme Court the ultimate say in interpreting the Constitution. It gave more power to the judicial branch in the checks and balances system, and allowed them more power when it comes to limiting the powers of the legislative and executive branches of the government, making sure that they stay within the guidelines of the Constitution.
4.) In looking at the United States government today, I feel it is more like what the Federalists envisioned. The Federalists were open to change and evolving this country based on issues as they arose. They realized that this country needed a structured government and they realized the importance of separating the powers of our government into separate branches, allowing each separate branch it's own specific powers, but at the same time, they realized the importance of separating the powers and adding a system of checks and balances so that each branch could monitor what the other branches were doing, and keep one branch from gaining too much power over the others. Their visions and ideas are still outlined in our Constitution, which shows their strength and durability, but at the same time our Constitution holds gateways to allow change when and where it is necessary.
Blog Comments:
Tim Tunkel
Brandi Lively
Amanda Strange
The Constitutional Convention of 1787, and the coming together of fifty-five delegates working together and debating different ideas made them realize that there were many compromises to be made in order to unify all of the states, so they went to work in order to create a structured national government, and came up with The Constitution of the United States. This was a much stronger and structured document because it created a three branch government, giving each of them their own separate and specific powers, and putting into place a checks and balances system for each branch of government to limit the other branches, so that one branch could not become more powerful than the others. They also gave authority to the people over their government, by having direct authority to choose who ran their government by allowing them to vote people into office. Certain tasks of government were even passed on to the state governments in order to prevent a concentration of power.
The Constitution created a much stronger government. If we did not operate under Constitutional law in this country today, I believe we would live in a very chaotic society. Our nation would be in economic ruin. The United States territory would probably be several different divided nations instead of one nation under one national government. We would not be protected by a strong military from our foreign enemies and the crime rates in this country would be out of control.
2.) Article I: In reading Article I of the Constitution, I was not aware that when Representatives and direct taxes were apportioned that Indians not taxed were excluded and that there was still a three-fifths rule of any kind still in effect. I was also unaware that if any bill was not returned by the president within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it is presented to him that it shall become law as if he had signed it, unless Congress by adjournment prevent its return, in which case it would not become law.
Article II: In reading Article II of the Constitution, I was not aware of the actual voting process of the electors regarding the presidential election.
Article III: In reading Article III of the Constitution, I did not know that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over all matters in all cases affecting Ambassadors, Prime Ministers, and Consuls.
I also did not know that no person could be convicted of treason against the United States unless there was testimony from two people for the same act, or a confession in open court.
3.) The Marbury v. Madison (1803) Supreme Court decision was very important because it brought to the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. This landmark case gave the Supreme Court the ultimate say in interpreting the Constitution. It gave more power to the judicial branch in the checks and balances system, and allowed them more power when it comes to limiting the powers of the legislative and executive branches of the government, making sure that they stay within the guidelines of the Constitution.
4.) In looking at the United States government today, I feel it is more like what the Federalists envisioned. The Federalists were open to change and evolving this country based on issues as they arose. They realized that this country needed a structured government and they realized the importance of separating the powers of our government into separate branches, allowing each separate branch it's own specific powers, but at the same time, they realized the importance of separating the powers and adding a system of checks and balances so that each branch could monitor what the other branches were doing, and keep one branch from gaining too much power over the others. Their visions and ideas are still outlined in our Constitution, which shows their strength and durability, but at the same time our Constitution holds gateways to allow change when and where it is necessary.
Blog Comments:
Tim Tunkel
Brandi Lively
Amanda Strange
Monday, January 21, 2013
Hello, my name is Melissa Ray and I currently live in Rockwood, TN.
I am originally from the area and have lived here most of my life. I was raised by my wonderful grandparents in the Kingston area. I graduated from Roane County High School in Kingston in 1984, and shortly after moved to Cincinnati Ohio, where I lived and worked for 10 years. I moved back to the Roane County are in 1994, and lived in Harriman until 3 weeks ago.
I have my own small online business, called Classy Divas, where I sell womens clothing and acessories. I have a customer base of about 500 ladies from the Roane County and surrounding areas.
I am currently attending Roane State and studying to be a paralegal. I have always been interested in law, so I took this opportunity to attend school and get my education after leaving timeshare sales
due to the slow economy. I thought this would be the perfect time to obtain an education and pursue what I have always wanted to do.
I am currently married to my husband of 13 years. I have 2 wonderful children, a son who lives in Nashville who is a Sergeant in the Army National Guard; and a daughter who lives in Alcoa and who works in the Maryville area. I have a wonderful stepson and stepdaughter who live in the Roane County area. My husband and I are blessed with the love of 9 wonderful grand-children, one of them I am raising. Her name is Tatiyana and she has lived with me for the last 4 1/2 years. She is 6 years old and such a joy in my life.
I am also a dog lover and I am "Mommy" to 2 adorable toy poodles, Smokey and Gizmo.
I am taking this class in hopes of learning more about our government and how the different branches work, and to obtain more knowledge on how the American judicial system operates. I am also interested in gaining more knowledge of how the legislative branch of our government works and all the steps taken to make the laws of this country.
I am originally from the area and have lived here most of my life. I was raised by my wonderful grandparents in the Kingston area. I graduated from Roane County High School in Kingston in 1984, and shortly after moved to Cincinnati Ohio, where I lived and worked for 10 years. I moved back to the Roane County are in 1994, and lived in Harriman until 3 weeks ago.
I have my own small online business, called Classy Divas, where I sell womens clothing and acessories. I have a customer base of about 500 ladies from the Roane County and surrounding areas.
I am currently attending Roane State and studying to be a paralegal. I have always been interested in law, so I took this opportunity to attend school and get my education after leaving timeshare sales
due to the slow economy. I thought this would be the perfect time to obtain an education and pursue what I have always wanted to do.
I am currently married to my husband of 13 years. I have 2 wonderful children, a son who lives in Nashville who is a Sergeant in the Army National Guard; and a daughter who lives in Alcoa and who works in the Maryville area. I have a wonderful stepson and stepdaughter who live in the Roane County area. My husband and I are blessed with the love of 9 wonderful grand-children, one of them I am raising. Her name is Tatiyana and she has lived with me for the last 4 1/2 years. She is 6 years old and such a joy in my life.
I am also a dog lover and I am "Mommy" to 2 adorable toy poodles, Smokey and Gizmo.
I am taking this class in hopes of learning more about our government and how the different branches work, and to obtain more knowledge on how the American judicial system operates. I am also interested in gaining more knowledge of how the legislative branch of our government works and all the steps taken to make the laws of this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)