Federalist #78

1. "And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws." This is a nice idea of what a court should be, however courts such as the Warren, and Berger courts obviously show one sided rulings. 
2. "that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution;" I feels as though they may not be the most dangerous but definitley the most countreversial. Sometimes rulings  infringe on the rights of others and most people would pick a different verdict in some cases. 
3. "The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing." The constitution is manipulated so far sometimes it seems like it amounts to nothing but a blockade on personal agendas. 
4. "That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws." This is one of the best things incorporated into this paper. I agree that justices should serve for life this way they do not serve just to get re-elected by make rulings based on true thought. 
5. "But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws." The country is founded on partial laws, Alexander Hamilton is very hypocritical.

Questions:

If Alexander Hamilton was alive today would he say that the Constitution is respected or abused today?

What court cases would Hamilton agree/disagree with?

Is abortion not a clear violation of the unalienable rights such as "Life"?

Should a hate speech clause be amended into the constitution ?

Why did the Constitution say all men all created equal but not insure the rights of all people?

Reading on Supreme Courts Ruling in 2000 Recount

FACTS:

1. Court was under leadership of William Rehnquist
2. Court showed minimalism 
3. Court presented a unanimous decision in Bush vs. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board
4. Court presented 5-4 decision in Bush v Gore 
5. 6 Justices were unwilling to accept Bush's major submission, that Florida supreme court produced unacceptable change in Florida law 
6. .5 members of the court accepted the equal protection agreement
7. Gore losses case overall
8. Supreme Court Ends recount

Questions:

How could Florida supreme court make unacceptable changes in law?

Why did the Supreme court end the recount?

Why did the Supreme court hear the case only to deny Gore?

Was Democracy achieved?

What would the supreme court do different next time?

The Common Good

The essay on the common good talks about the innate idea of human goodness. It raises the questions do we all have an innate desire to do well? It answers yes and says that our participation to do things such as park cleaning fuels our common good and it is in everyone to do good. However with the attitude people have today of individual freedom common seems to be obsolete. In todays world everyone seems to be out for there own good and the personal good. Americans especially have an idea of individualism, families hardly stay together anymore. Will the common good remain is the question? This stood out to me.
With the common good comes the common bad that silently battle each other. People who clean up parks know that there battle is against the polluters of the world but all they can do is pick up after them. I think it is necessary for America as a nation to believe in the common good. If the common good is believed in, people will continue to feed it and it will flourish. People must help grow the common good by getting involved in their communties and working as volunteers in the world. We must speak for those who have no voice, get jobs available to those who have know money, hope to those who have none, and freedom to those who are slaves in their nations.
I believe Madison would believe strongly in this essay except for the part that says that individual freedoms has lead to the decline in the common good. Madison would probably agree in the idea of human good as well as encourage it.

Denmark HealthCare In Relation to American Healthcare

Denmark is one of the few countries in the world that has universal healthcare. It costs about $3,000 a year for a population of 5,000,000 people in there country. Everybody in the country is covered to get medical attention only photo i.d. is neccasary. In America healthcare costs around $7,000 and 20% of the country is uninsured. In Denmark the cost is 9.8% GDP, currently here in America it is 16%. If America was to adopt this system no one can really know what the cost in taxes would be per family. Denmark pays only $3000 a year but their population is 5,000,000, Americas' is 300,000,000 who knows if the cost would be an extra $5000 per person or not. The bases of Obama Care should be made clear to the public so we may understand the bill and possibly accept it.

Facts and Questions on Recount VIdeo

1. Both political committees were massive
2. George Bush passed a bill in Texas allowing for the counting of dimpled chads
3. George Bush did not allow for the counting of dimple chads in Florida
4. Supreme court voted to end the recount in Florida
5. The recount ordeal went on well past the election close date
6. Did Gore ever have a chance?
7. If the recount was allowed to continue what would have been the outcome?
8. If Gore won would would America be like today?

The Future of Healthcare

America is a capitalist nation as are its people, many who are in debt and are not satisfied with their current salary. Many of the liberals of the U.S. would kill for healthcare however do not see the economic reprocussions of healthcare. Heres a potential story of what would happen:
John works as a carpenter for a labor union in Philadelphia. Carpentry can get dangerous and his healthcare plan covers next to nothing. The good thing for John is the U.S. just passed Obamacare and there is unified healthcare now in effect up and running. John has the best health care he has ever had. John gets his pay check which already gets a portion taken out for social security, retirement, and medicare. John and the other workers noticed there is quite a larger portion taken out of their check the reason is the new health care plan. The same thing occurs with every other worker in America, the government workers would be okay because they recieve cost of living increases except Barack Obama canceled cost of living increases this year 2011. The workers in the unions at supermarkets protest for minimum wage increases the governors of U.S. all agree to make up for the price of health care. The supermarket corps can not afford to pay everyone the new rate of minimum wage and lay off part of the staff. Less money gets put into the economy and the government has to pay out unemployment to all the laid off employees which leads to a triple dip recession. We may not have any money in with the heatlhcare plan or be able to pay off debts but will have our health and the millions of people not paying for it will have theirs too and thats good I guess. Now is not the time for health care ten, twenty years down the road when the debt is paid is when we should start talking about healthcare not now we can't afford it!

2000 Election Reading

Pre-reading questions:

1. Was there a possibility the recount would finish?
2. So what if the recount finished even if Gore won those counties it would take to long to do all the counties.
3. Did Bush and Gore act correctly?
4. Who really won?
5. What would our world be like if Gore had been president?

Facts

1. Florida has 25 electoral votes
2. Rehnquist court decided the case
3. Court relied on Article 11, Clause 2 of the Constitution to decide case 
4. Many said the courts decision was a disgrace 
5. By stopping vote count in Florida, the U.S. supreme court used its power to act as political partisans 

Questions

1. Why not just have a total recount?
2. Why does America not have a nationalized voting system?
3. Are fake votes casted?
4. Does the U.S. government really care about voting system or just when things go wrong?
5. How can this be prevented from happening again?

Politician Tracker

The politician I chose to follow is Senator Robert Casey. He is from Pennsylvania he is a Democrat which is why I chose him. I am more conservative and I would like to understand more of the Democratic views.

What Casey Has Been Up Too

Some of Casey’s most recently sponsored bills include...

	S. 1239: Fallen Heroes of 9/11 Act
	S. 958: Children's Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2011
	S. 1623: A bill to provide a processing extension for emergency mortgage relief payments, and for other purposes.
	S. 1614: Computer Science Education Act of 2011
	S. 1565: National Opportunity and Community Renewal Act This is copied from the website government track which is good because each blue term has a link to explain each act. All the bills or acts Casey Votes on are good bills and I myself agree with them. Going in depth reading parts of the bills is really nice because one can get a real unbiased view of the bill.

Madison and Factions

Madison's definition of faction: A number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. 
               Madison states that rely on liberty as well as ignite liberty. He is against having too many factions, because too many factions cause too much disorganization in government, and in the voting process, as well disunity in the nation. 
1. Todays political parties are factions, would Madison disagree with having them?
2. Why does Madison have so many plans for destroying factions?
3. Are factions not essential to a free government?
4. Are factions more bad than good or visa versa?


Today there are many factions in the government such as workers unions, environmentalists, health care activists, democrats, republicans, and tea party members. They are all uniting today in the Occupy Wall Street movement to battle the government and the rich who get rich while everyone else is getting poor. The vast number of people and factions have united show how alone our power is not great but together we can demand answers from Washington and be noticed. Americans are taking back government through the factions they belong to today. 

Peoples History

The article shows different views and aspects of the peoples take one the Constitution. The most interesting and I felt, most honest view belonged to Charles Beard. He criticizes the Constitution saying that the document is said to represent freedom for all. The document however never mentions slaves, women, nor the lower class. Beard goes on to say that the document was very one-sided, written mostly by rich lawyers. It only concerns and protects most of the writers rights.
              This raises these questions:

• Should the U.S. Constitution have been ratified?
• Should the U.S. Constitution be re-written to include all persons in the U.S.?
• Does the Constitution speak for all people of the U.S. ?
• Does the Constitution only speak to protect the rights of those who wrote it?

Political Ideology

My Results:

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

You probably most agree with the views of the Republican Party. You may also be interested in the Libertarian Party. Your ideology is shared by the following Members of the House of Representatives:

Denny Rehberg (R - MT, At-Large)

Zach Wamp (R - TN, 3rd District)

Mario Diaz-Balart (R - FL, 25th District)

Rick Santorum Senator-PA

Political Ideology

My Results:

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

You probably most agree with the views of the Republican Party. You may also be interested in the Libertarian Party. Your ideology is shared by the following Members of the House of Representatives:

Denny Rehberg (R - MT, At-Large)

Zach Wamp (R - TN, 3rd District)

Mario Diaz-Balart (R - FL, 25th District)

10 questions/facts on video

Questions

1. Why not just breed wolves in reserves instead of in public Idaho grounds?
2. How could a federal agency expect a state to take over a federal project?
3. Is Idaho obligated to take care of wolves?
4. Is it legal for Idaho to remove the wolves?
5. Can state over-ride federal desicion?
6. How did the U.S. decrease drunk driving?
7. Why were people against cracking down on drunk driving?
8. Inncentives are pretty much bribes and aren't bribes illegal in government?
9. Is mandating fair?
10. If breathalizers are accurate, how can they contest whether there ok to use as evidence?

     Facts

1. Wolves were introduced into Idaho around fifteen years ago.
2. U.S. use to not have a nation-wide adopted drinking and driving limit.
3. If states did not comply with with federal mandate the states lost funding.
4. States gave incentives to gain approval on mandates. 
5. Number of single parents increased in the 90's.
6. States control alchohol laws. 
7. States government controls welfare.
8. Concern for people in poverty came about during the Great Depression 
9. People complain wolves ruined livestock.
10. Bill Clinton made welfare a state issue.

Response to Political Cartoon

I viewed Coreys political cartoon on Chris Christie the New Jersey Govenor. His question was "Why, at the end, does the reader say, "He's Perfect!"". When the author says "He's Perfect" he is mocking and stereo-typing the Republican party as a bunch of arrogant, ill-tempered, bullies. 

Answers to questions about the Constitution

1. In writing the Constitution, were the founding fathers simply intending to protect their own privileges?
I would say so the Founding Fathers really only had concern for the rich, white, land owning males of America. Madison states in Federalist Paper Number Ten that only men with good character should elect officials to government. This quote shows how many of the Founding Fathers never really meant the women, blacks, and poor were included in the famous saying "We the People".

2. Did the founding fathers originally think that there would be many amendments to the constitution or did they think it would stay as solid set of laws not to be changed?
The Founding Fathers definitly made room for extra amendments and changes to be made added in the Constitution. The 18th ammendment letting the government be able to make any laws that are honestly neccassary to Americas well being is the answer to that question.

Five Questions and Five Quotes For the Federalist #51

     Quotes:

1. "Members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the legislative, judiciary, and executive magistracies the appointments should derive from the people"

       I chose this quote because today the president is able to make judicial appointments, I do not understand why the president should be able to make appointments if the federalist papers state not to?

     2. "It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on the of the others,". I chose this quote because it is interesting how Madison states the branches shall not be dependent on the other however they depend on each other by the system of checks and balances.

    3.  "Divide the legislature into different branches" This quote I chose because its gives an answer on why there is the senate and house. It explains why there is not just one branch of legislature.

   4.   "First in a single republic, all of the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; This being true why doesn't America become a direct democracy instead of having our power surrendered to a government that does not share all our concerns?

   5.   "In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights." If this is true why is religion in state institutions forbidden if those rights should be held sacred?

Questions

1.  What would Madison say about women having a say in government today?
2.  The federalist papers are for liberty and non-oppression but were the Founding Fathers not for the oppression of black people and women?
3. Is a federal republic possible?
4. How is justice the end of government?
5. How can justice possibly lead to the end of civil society?

  

Federalist # 10 Questions and Quotes

Questions to Madison:

1. Madison says the government is unstable, however isn't every new government unstable starting out?
2. Should there be no majority or minority in government just equal amount of Republicans/Democrats?
3. Would Madison have the government shut down today until the debt is paid?
4. Why is Madison against factions if they create new ideas and a diverse population of voting?
5. In Madisons oppinion which would be better Republic or Democrat?'

Quotes From the Federalist # 10

"And the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters." I selected this quote because it raises the question why would Madison be against other people then men voting  in elections. 

"The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished" I chose this quote because it reminds of the corruption, bribes, and self innitiative we have in our government today.

"The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise." Madison writes many things in the Federalist #10 that he goes on later to contradict; Why add them in if they will be self contradicted later?

"The public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties". It seems as though the publics good is never considered when political parties are involved.

"As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different oppinions will be formed." I chose this quote because I think it is the most representitive quote of America. The freedom to have different oppinions.

Political Cartoon Two

Does Congress just resmemble a bunch of money grubbers, poluters, and thugs that are harmful to America?
As much as we get frustrated with Congresses constanted bickering isn't that their job, to debate?
Would America be better without a Congress and if so what would replace it?

Simile/Metaphor

The checks and balances of the government are like a well balanced diet. Each food plays a certain part in our lives: Meat and fish are protein, Vegetables and fruit give us nutrients and potassium, and water of coarse keeps us hydrated. All these things working together keep us well balanced and healthy as does the 3 sections of the government. The three sections check and balance one another to assure that all sections of government maintain equal power.

The separation of powers is like a football team working together. The legislative are like the quarter back suggesting plays (laws). The executive is like the coach and confirms the plays(laws).  The president of the football team and the management serves as the judicial branch. If the coach or team makes many bad decisions they will make the decision to declare those acts as wrong.