Last Post

I decided to do a little research on Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who had attended Yale and had a pretty normal upbringing, and found that his philosophy is on the conservative side, but with a bit of a liberal streak showing up in sometimes surprising cases. For example, he wrote a dissenting opinion on the United States v. Rybar, in which the government had banned private citizens from owning submachine guns, and in which Alito disagreed on the decision, stating that such a ban violated the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment- a pro-gun stance that is widely seen as a conservative ideal. However, in the case of death row inmate Michael Taylor, he voted against the state of Missouri’s request to strike down the stay of execution so that Taylor could be executed, a move seen by some conservatives as a more liberal stance. For the most part, I would, like many people, wither agree or disagree with his philosophy on a case by case basis. There are some cases in which the more conservative view is appropriate, and then there are others in which a more liberal view is appropriate- but for the most part, I can agree with his philosophy on most cases.

Judicial review is a power best used on a regular basis. If laws are passed by Congress or the president that could have the potential in being unconstitutional and thus unjust, then the Supreme Court should scrutinize every law to make sure that it is within constitutional parameters of the government. As well, this can prevent possible problems in the future that arise from the laws, and can save millions of dollars in legal fees that never even have to happen if the Supreme Court exercises its right of judicial review regularly.

I believe that the High Court should interpret the Constitution in reference to the changes in society and technology, on the basis that society has changed drastically since the time of the Framers and that there are far more issues that need to be addressed than there were before. The population has grown and the United States have become something more than what the Framers could have possibly dreamed of, and the rest of the world has changed as well, with globalization increasing amongst many world countries. The United States has become deeply rooted in foreign problems as well as domestic problems that were not seen as the government’s business during the Framer’s era. As well, in interpreting a living Constitution, the Court may also help the government’s laws adapt to the ever changing whims of society.

I commented on Gabriel Miller, Melissa Ray, and Ashley Pelfrey’s blogs.

Bureaucratic Natures

I feel that the while many of the government agencies serve a critical purpose, perhaps one of the most important is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In a time of increasing health problems such as diabetes and obesity, as well as new (and old) diseases like the swine flu and malaria still circulating the globe, the CDC is there to help provide and promote new information about all sorts of medical problems, as well as suggest possible solutions or point out signs and symptoms of when you should probably go see a doctor. It is a very helpful tool for people who do not understand certain health risks that can be associated with certain activities, and can help guide them in their decision making in either decreasing or preventing their possibility of having a certain medical problem, or can also be used to help guide them through fixing a medical problem or how to live with it.

In relation to the least needed federal agency that the government can do without, I would have to suggest in eliminating the Voice of America, which is responsible for broadcasting news about the United States to the people abroad. While this is all hunky dory, I feel that with the technology today that even if the people abroad were remotely interested in the daily affairs that are going on in the U.S. that they will simply go to Google news, or any news source on the internet, which would mean that the elimination of the Voice of America agency would have little impact.

It seems like many of the agencies listed have little sub-agencies that cover just about anything that the government can cover, which also means that I cannot really think of any agency at the moment that could be created.

I commented on Gabriel Miller, Tim Tunkel, and Jessica Tucker.

Presidential Greatness

For many people there are different definitions of measuring presidential greatness, but there are several common themes found in people who rate which presidents are the greatest and why. First off, people look at common leadership skills, such as the clarity of the president’s vision of policy, his ability to communicate with the public and government officials, as well with foreign politicians, his negotiation skills- meaning if he gives up too easily to others demands, is too stubborn to listen to reason, or can be sane enough to compromise or stand their ground when needed. Presidents are also rated due to how effectively they use their presidential powers overall. Obviously not everyone can encompass these aspects, but having strength in three out of four isn’t bad. People look for charisma and honesty, as well as intelligence and a fierce devotion to America. As well, it can be due to one historic moment in time that will forever define their presidency that determines how great they are, as during times of crisis the president is expected to be able to take control swiftly and solve the problem efficiently.

According to C-SPAN Historians Presidential Leadership Survey, the other two greatest presidents, as ranked by the American public, are distant cousins Franklin D. Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt. Franklin Roosevelt has been ranked as one of the greatest due to his steady and calming presence during the worst period in American history- the Great Depression- as well as being the main president for most of World War II. He had a clear vision to help out the Americans in a policy called the New Deal, which created a large amount of jobs, as well as expanding the government’s role in the economy to help regulate it to make sure that nothing as terrible as the stock market crashing ever happened again. He also helped create Social Security, something still enjoyed by millions today, and was also a more personal president to the public, creating the fireside chat which was a radio address to the public in which he would explain his reasoning for his actions. He was truly one of the few who had an everlasting reach in American government, and from my  point of view set a high standard for every president after him. Concerning Theodore Roosevelt, he was an adventurous man, one whose accomplishments included a creating a strong and firm foreign policy, in where his famous phrase “walk softly and carry a big stick” rings true today, as well as his ability to create new reforms for the nation. He also made sure that the government was more regulatory in big business matters so as to protect the working class people, and was a president deeply imbued in international politics as well. Plus, Teddy Roosevelt rode a moose- who could want anything more in a president?

I decided to do a little research on Chester A. Arthur, the 21^st president of the United States.  Some of the interesting things that I learned about him was the Arthur had originally been the vice president to the 20^th president, James Garfield, when Garfield was suddenly assassinated by a disillusioned man, and came into presidency after his death. President Arthur was also responsible for several civil service reforms, such as the Pendleton Act. He was also signed the Edmunds Act, which made polygamy illegal in the United States and also barred polygamists from being able to hold governmental offices. Concerning Native Americans, Arthur also wanted to give individual Native Americans their own land in an allotment system, but such an idea was struck down by Congress.  In all, I would say that President Arthur was an effective president. He was able to efficiently get many positive reforms passed, and had no huge events happen during his presidency, but seemed like a generally well respected individual, even if he is not seen as a notable president like Abraham Lincoln or moose riding Theodore Roosevelt.

I commented on Ashley Pelfrey, Albert Munoz, and Gabrielle Miller’s posts.

Representatives and Stuff

My Senators are Republicans Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander, while there are nine Congressmen representing Tennessee. Phil Roe, John Duncan, Marsha Blackburn, Diana Black, Stephen Fincher, Scott DesJarlais, and Chuck Fleischmann are all the Republican representatives, with only two Democrats- Jim Cooper and Steven Cohen. My Congressman is John Duncan.

 One area that I support that many other Congressman and Senators support is the continuing growth and efficiency of the education in not just Tennessee but in the whole nation. I support for every reason that everyone else supports in expanding education, as we all want a better education system and curriculum to be taught to our kids, for schools to always have the supplies they need, to create a more comfortable and receptive learning environment, and more up to date and innovative teachers, all geared toward providing the best education and giving every student the opportunity to maximize their abilities and intelligence.

One issue that I disagree with is Jim Cooper’s support of the Affordable Care Act, also popularly known as Obamacare. The bill is not very concise and leaves many questions unanswered that will only be solved as the program is implemented, and so not many of us really know if it will have a positive or negative effect in the long run. And while I understand that a big part of it is giving healthcare insurance to people with pre-existing conditions that were previously denied, which is a great thing indeed, I work in the medical field and I see the people that are already on programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and TennCare that are definitely abusing the program. In regards to paying a bill, the government will find every single way that it can to not pay your bill, just like a private insurance company, and if they have to foot it, they will only pay the bare minimum. I and my fellow coworkers have been constantly hounded by our billing department to always be on top of paperwork, and we are always quick to scramble and change to follow the ever-changing rules that Medicare produces, but it is never enough. People cannot always foot the rest of the bill either, and much of the hard labor that we do goes unpaid. In short, this Obamacare is more than likely just going to become another Medicare, and hopefully people won’t be too surprised when they figure out that their doctor visits and ER visits won’t be totally free.

                I commented on Ashley Pelfrey, Gabrielle Miller, and Brandi Lively’s blogs.

Elections and Voting and Pudding

In regards to the 2000 presidential race between Al Gore and George Bush, I am more inclined to agree with the majority opinion, but only because of the fact that the four counties that Gore requested a recount in did not complete the recount by the deadline, which was December 12^th. The officials conducting the recount should have known of the deadline and been quick and efficient about it so as to declare the presidential election winner, but instead seemed to take their time. I concede the fact that it would have been quite difficult to determine some voters actual chosen candidates if there were multiple “dimpled” chads, and I can’t see it being quite realistic- or legal- to call up the person and ask them who they voted for. They may just change their mind right over the telephone. Other than that, there is the possibility that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bush simply due to partisan loyalties, or hey, maybe they just wanted for the presidential election to be done and over with.

I feel that fundraising, while important to help finance a campaign, has started to take precedence over more qualifying attributes- namely, a competent and smart candidate. It seems as though instead of actually just focusing on understanding and dissecting a candidate’s stance on important issues, that we must also feel as though they can be popular enough to raise numerous amounts of money to help their campaign and to be given the possibility to be elected into office. And while I understand that fundraising is important to fund the political ads and get the word out, I just get so tired of hearing how much money somebody raised in an excess of millions that could be used for much better things. We could say that there is no mandatory amount of money to be raised, but then people really would question on whether or not the person is actually quite serious about winning an election if he cannot raise up a good chunk of money.

There is a lot of voter apathy in the United States, with a majority of it due to issues such as ethnicity, age, sex, and education. Women and Caucasian people tend to vote more than men or ethnic minorities, and as one gets older they typically get a little more involved (or at least concerned) with politics, while younger people are not so driven to become interested in politics. Education is another huge issue, as depending on one’s level of education they may think that voting is not all that important or are ill-informed of the issues and candidates at hand, or they may have a job that does not let them have the time off to vote, as U.S. elections are generally held during week days. Another thought is that people have become disenfranchised with voting and feel as though it is useless anyways. Indeed, even now my grandfather at the age of sixty-one recently told me that his vote feels like nothing, that it doesn’t really matter. General distrust of the government could be another reason for some as well.

I commented on Gabrielle Miller, Melissa Ray, and Amber Waters blogs.

Political Parties And You

I do not really strongly identify with any political party, as growing up politics were not a staple in my family life, and as an adult I find that trying to fit myself in the existing political parties are an unsavory option. However, I tend to be more conservative in my choices and political ideology, influenced by my choice of religion and past experiences.  As for opposing certain political party platforms, from the more conservative political parties (for example, the Republican Party) I tend to disagree with the issue of unions. I feel that unions have a special place in the workplace and that they protect the working man’s interest. Though it can become a great nuisance to businesses and even hinder their production, it is better to make sure that a worker is safe and happy, and the corporation is bound to reflect that.

I think that America does not need political parties so much as people naturally gravitate towards them. Everyone shall have opposing or similar views, and it is only natural that people will create a coalition of people with similar views to create a large and loud voice that can sway people’s opinions. I think that in today’s society that America cannot live without political parties. As said before, people are naturally and instinctively drawn to create groups to protect and promote their interests, and that it would go against a person’s instinct. Without the political parties, people would not feel as though their interests and opinions  and needs are not being heard or recognized.

One political party that I found interesting  and slightly attracted to was the Citizen’s Party of the United States. The political party has a mixture of all sorts of views, from liberal to conservative, but is mostly moderate in it’s platforms. The Citizen’s Party seems to represent a more middle class stance instead of trying to benefit and cater to more of the minor classes in America- that is, the wealthy and the outright poor.  To me, this party has potential, with many clear platforms, and has so many different views that it could draw in many moderates that are currently unaffiliated with any political party. However, its downside is that it is obviously not very well known, and that the opposing vies may work against it, as people who tend to be more politically invested tend to have strong views that can become polarized, and they may attack it as being wishy wahsy or trying to please people in only certain regions.

I commented on Jessica Tucker, Gabrielle Miller, and Albert Munoz’s blogs.

The Best I Can Do After Spring Break

The interest group American Federation of Teachers represents, obviously, the hard-working (and not so hard-working) teachers that we all know and love (or positively hate.) Their issues are the numerous complaints that we all hear about the current condition of many of the schools in America- the students aren’t learning anything, bad teachers are kept because they have tenure, and that are schools are becoming increasingly unsafe, even from its own students. Some of their chief beliefs are to create better methods for evaluating teachers, expanding and improving student’s curriculum, and improving schools in general to make it a better workplace for teachers and to give students a better learning environment, as well as a far more enjoyable school experience. There are far more beliefs and goals that they have in mind, and they have been fighting and striving for years to make them come true. I support many of their issues, like the ones mentioned above, as I know that our public schools are not in the best condition in every sense of the word, and I believe that our teachers need to be re-evaluated and a better curriculum system be put in place.

One interest group that I can identify with is the Accuracy in Media. Their mission is to play the role of the watchdog over the media, making sure that they do not get out of hand with their reporting and that the media reports contain no bias and that the stories are the complete and total truth, as well as exposing media outlets that lie in their reports. I think that this type of interest group is very needed, especially in a time where many of the news outlets have a political bias or twist the truth to fit their needs. Since the media wants so desperately to provide the public with grandiose stories of government corruption and scandal, there should also be a group to make sure that the media does not get out of hand.

I believe that every interest group has varying amounts of influence and power in the political system, and with most interest groups, I believe that they have enough power. I suppose the line that must be drawn as to how much power the interest groups have is when they are able to easily “influence” the government decisions in the areas that the interest groups are advocacies of.

I commented on Albert Munoz, Melissa Ray, and Time Tunkel.