1. Read online bio's of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices. What do you find interesting about their backgrounds? Pick one of the Justices, read about cases this Justice has written (majority or dissent) and explain whether you agree or disagree with his/her judicial philosophy.
It seems that they all have been part of the government system before becoming a Supreme Court Justice and I think that's very interesting. For example, many were district attorneys. I chose John G Roberts Jr. because his biography stood out to me. He's from Buffalo, NY like I am. However, after reading about some of the majority cases, my opinion of him changed. For example, Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl was a pretty interesting case to read about. I do not agree with the outcome. It would take awhile to explain the case, but basically I think the adoptive baby girl should not have been taken away from her adoptive parents just because the father was of Indian decent.
2. Is Judicial Review a power that should be exercised regularly or sparingly? Why?
I think that judicial review is very important. I wouldn't say that it should be used regularly or sparingly... I would say that it should be used when necessary. I think it's important to review something to figure out if it is unconstitutional or not. It would definitely not be a good thing if there were a bunch of laws that were unconstitutional.
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 like the idea of living constitution better. Things change, people change, and society all together changes. I understand how important the original Constitution is, but America is FAR from what it was like in the 1700s. We are completely different and our views and opinions as a country are completely different.
Commented on:
1. Jared Griffith
2. Cassandra Kunsman
3. Kylie Corrigan
Friday, December 6, 2013
Friday, November 22, 2013
Chapter 13
1. Research federal agencies and explain which one you feel is the most important one and why?
I think that every federal agency is important and has a purpose in our society but if I had to choose one, I would pick the Council on Environment Quality. As I'm sure a lot of you know by now, I'm a huge supporter in protecting the future of our planet and making it a healthier place to live. I like that the CEQ works to protect the environment.
2. Which federal agency could be terminated with the least impact (if any) and why?
This is a difficult question, because like I said in question one, I think that every federal agency has a purpose. Gosh, this is hard to answer. I've been sitting here for ten minutes and I just cannot come up with one. I guess I'll say the Office of Foreign Missions. Even though I think that going to other countries can be important and times, I don't really think that our country is so consumed with our own problems that no one would really noticed if we terminated this federal agency.
3. Are any new agencies needed? In other words, if you were president would you create new agencies? If so, in what area(s)?
I'm not so sure that I could think of a new agency if I became president. I think that our country has a very large amount of federal agencies to the point where pretty much every topic you could think of is covered. Though I'm sure over time more issues will come up and more agencies will be made.
Commented on:
1. Megan Biggs
2. Brittany McCann
3. Nathan Tollett
I think that every federal agency is important and has a purpose in our society but if I had to choose one, I would pick the Council on Environment Quality. As I'm sure a lot of you know by now, I'm a huge supporter in protecting the future of our planet and making it a healthier place to live. I like that the CEQ works to protect the environment.
2. Which federal agency could be terminated with the least impact (if any) and why?
This is a difficult question, because like I said in question one, I think that every federal agency has a purpose. Gosh, this is hard to answer. I've been sitting here for ten minutes and I just cannot come up with one. I guess I'll say the Office of Foreign Missions. Even though I think that going to other countries can be important and times, I don't really think that our country is so consumed with our own problems that no one would really noticed if we terminated this federal agency.
3. Are any new agencies needed? In other words, if you were president would you create new agencies? If so, in what area(s)?
I'm not so sure that I could think of a new agency if I became president. I think that our country has a very large amount of federal agencies to the point where pretty much every topic you could think of is covered. Though I'm sure over time more issues will come up and more agencies will be made.
Commented on:
1. Megan Biggs
2. Brittany McCann
3. Nathan Tollett
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Chapter 12
1. What makes a great President (not which Presidents have been great) . . . what qualities are essential to greatness? Why?
I think that what makes a great President is his loyalty to our country. His passion and dedication to making sure that the United States of America is the best country to live in. I think it is a huge positive if he respects American citizen's money and doesn't use tax money on things that aren't extremely important. It's important for a president to listen to the American people's wants, to consider the majority's opinion and to respond to concerns.
2. Other than Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, which two Presidents have been the greatest and why?
I think that the two presidents that have been the greatest are Andrew Jackson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt got America out of the Great Depression with an extremely intelligent program (New Deal.) I think Obama could learn a lot from Roosevelt, especially about topics like creating new jobs. Jackson led American troops to victory against the Creek Indians at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend and against the British at the battle of New Orleans. He increased the power of the presidency and I think that's a huge accomplishment. Jackson was also known as the protector of popular democracy.
3. Research a President that you're previously unfamiliar with - list at least three things you learned. Was this President effective? Why or why not?
I was not very familiar with Herbert Hoover, the 31st president. I learned that he served as the head of the U.S. Food Administration, he promoted partnerships between government and business under the rubric "economic modernization," and he believed in the Efficiency Movement. I think that his presidency was effective but could have been more effective. He was in office during the start of the Great Depression and I don't think he handled the situation very well. American citizens were looking towards the government to help with the horrible situation, but Hoover had a kind of "every man for themselves" attitude. He should have stepped up and been a stronger leader.
Commented on:
1. Cassandra Kunsman
2. Dexter Pelfrey
3. Nathan Tollett
I think that what makes a great President is his loyalty to our country. His passion and dedication to making sure that the United States of America is the best country to live in. I think it is a huge positive if he respects American citizen's money and doesn't use tax money on things that aren't extremely important. It's important for a president to listen to the American people's wants, to consider the majority's opinion and to respond to concerns.
2. Other than Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, which two Presidents have been the greatest and why?
I think that the two presidents that have been the greatest are Andrew Jackson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt got America out of the Great Depression with an extremely intelligent program (New Deal.) I think Obama could learn a lot from Roosevelt, especially about topics like creating new jobs. Jackson led American troops to victory against the Creek Indians at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend and against the British at the battle of New Orleans. He increased the power of the presidency and I think that's a huge accomplishment. Jackson was also known as the protector of popular democracy.
3. Research a President that you're previously unfamiliar with - list at least three things you learned. Was this President effective? Why or why not?
I was not very familiar with Herbert Hoover, the 31st president. I learned that he served as the head of the U.S. Food Administration, he promoted partnerships between government and business under the rubric "economic modernization," and he believed in the Efficiency Movement. I think that his presidency was effective but could have been more effective. He was in office during the start of the Great Depression and I don't think he handled the situation very well. American citizens were looking towards the government to help with the horrible situation, but Hoover had a kind of "every man for themselves" attitude. He should have stepped up and been a stronger leader.
Commented on:
1. Cassandra Kunsman
2. Dexter Pelfrey
3. Nathan Tollett
Friday, November 8, 2013
Chapter 11
1. Who are your Senators and your Congressman?
The Tennessee Senators are Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander. My Congressman is Jim Cooper.
2. Research the areas they champion and find one you support. What is it and why do you also support it?
Bob Corker is like me in the fact that he believes the government spends too much money. He thinks the government funds should be capped and he has been trying really hard for the rest of Congress to join him in his goal to cap spending at a sustainable level. I really like the fact that Jim Cooper is a big supporter in cleaning up the environment. He believes in using solar power and cutting back on things that contribute to pollution. He is a cosponsor of the Clean Water Protection Act which is very important because it cuts back on water pollution. He believes in protecting endangered animals just like me. He also believes in cracking down on prescription drug abuse laws because it's a serious problem in Tennessee and I agree with that.
3. Find an issue one of your Senators or Congressman champions that you disagree with. Why do you disagree?
I have searched and searched and cannot find anything that I disagree with in regards to Bob Corker. He's an all around good Senator and I think he's doing an awesome job representing Tennessee. I really like Jim Cooper, so it's hard for me to admit that I don't agree with his choice to vote for the Affordable Health Care Act. I don't like the concept of universal health care.
Commented on:
1. Brittany McCann
2. Dexter Pelfrey
3. Kylie Corrigan
The Tennessee Senators are Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander. My Congressman is Jim Cooper.
2. Research the areas they champion and find one you support. What is it and why do you also support it?
Bob Corker is like me in the fact that he believes the government spends too much money. He thinks the government funds should be capped and he has been trying really hard for the rest of Congress to join him in his goal to cap spending at a sustainable level. I really like the fact that Jim Cooper is a big supporter in cleaning up the environment. He believes in using solar power and cutting back on things that contribute to pollution. He is a cosponsor of the Clean Water Protection Act which is very important because it cuts back on water pollution. He believes in protecting endangered animals just like me. He also believes in cracking down on prescription drug abuse laws because it's a serious problem in Tennessee and I agree with that.
3. Find an issue one of your Senators or Congressman champions that you disagree with. Why do you disagree?
I have searched and searched and cannot find anything that I disagree with in regards to Bob Corker. He's an all around good Senator and I think he's doing an awesome job representing Tennessee. I really like Jim Cooper, so it's hard for me to admit that I don't agree with his choice to vote for the Affordable Health Care Act. I don't like the concept of universal health care.
Commented on:
1. Brittany McCann
2. Dexter Pelfrey
3. Kylie Corrigan
Friday, November 1, 2013
Chapter 10
1. Read Bush v. Gore in the text. Do you agree with the majority or the dissenting opinion? Why?
I would have to say that I agree with the majority. I feel as though states could find some way to go behind the federal government's back in order for the candidate they favor to win. I think the federal government should keep track of all of the election machinery and make sure it is in great working condition and then send it all off to the states. It's important for the federal government to be consistent with each individual state election process.
2. Is the ability to fundraise 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 absolutely think that the ability to fund raise is too important in elections. I think that Ralph Nader would be a phenomenal president, he just doesn't have enough financial support. I think it is very sad that the candidate who can raise the most money is, more times than not, the winner. For example, the amount of money that Obama received from Oprah Winfrey is completely unfair and he had the upper hand because of money he received.
3. Why is there such voter apathy - in other words, why is there often such low voter turnout for elections? Is there a way to rectify this problem?
I think that not enough people care about politics. I asked several people in the younger generation (current middle schoolers and high schoolers) about their opinion on politics and you'd be surprised how many said "I do not really care." I don't think enough schools are teaching the importance of voting and being involved in the local and federal community. I think if more teachers and parents educated their younger peers on politics, there could be a major difference in turnout once they're older enough to vote.
Commented on:
1. Cassandra Kunsman
2. Nathan Tollett
3. Donna Spradlin
I would have to say that I agree with the majority. I feel as though states could find some way to go behind the federal government's back in order for the candidate they favor to win. I think the federal government should keep track of all of the election machinery and make sure it is in great working condition and then send it all off to the states. It's important for the federal government to be consistent with each individual state election process.
2. Is the ability to fundraise 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 absolutely think that the ability to fund raise is too important in elections. I think that Ralph Nader would be a phenomenal president, he just doesn't have enough financial support. I think it is very sad that the candidate who can raise the most money is, more times than not, the winner. For example, the amount of money that Obama received from Oprah Winfrey is completely unfair and he had the upper hand because of money he received.
3. Why is there such voter apathy - in other words, why is there often such low voter turnout for elections? Is there a way to rectify this problem?
I think that not enough people care about politics. I asked several people in the younger generation (current middle schoolers and high schoolers) about their opinion on politics and you'd be surprised how many said "I do not really care." I don't think enough schools are teaching the importance of voting and being involved in the local and federal community. I think if more teachers and parents educated their younger peers on politics, there could be a major difference in turnout once they're older enough to vote.
Commented on:
1. Cassandra Kunsman
2. Nathan Tollett
3. Donna Spradlin
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Chapter 9
1. Which political party do you most identify with? Why? Are there things in the party platform with which you disagree?
I was raised in a Republican household mainly because my family members are mostly business owners or doctors. My family never agreed with taking from the rich and giving to the poor and they definitely didn't agree with lowering doctor's pay because of universal healthcare. I didn't know any better and I always looked down on Democrats. As I got older, I started to become my own person and stopped identifying with a party. I consider myself an independent. I am this way because I agree with some things that the Republicans support and I also agree with some things that Democrats support.
2. Does America need political parties? The founders originally hoped that American politics would operate without need of parties? Would that work today? Why?
Personally, I do not think that America needs political parties. It separates people, which causes unnecessary turmoil. Too many close friends and close family members argue about politics and in my opinion, it's a waste of time. I think that political parties are just a way for people to be against each other instead of coming together as one and focusing on real issues. I think the government is starting to have way too much control, and if people weren't so absorbed with which party is right and which party is wrong, they'd notice and actually start to do something about it. I think that American politics would be just fine without parties because like I said, people would have more time to focus on the big issues.
3. Please research lesser known political parties - which one do you most identify with? Why?
After doing some research, I'd have to say that the Peace and Freedom party stands out the most to me. They seem to care about real issues. They dream of a nation where everyone is equal. Where everyone has food on their table and clothes on their back. I agree with this and it would be interesting to see this party become more popular. I love the fact that they want to see the Earth treated better and they want things to be done in order to reduce pollution. They support Ralph Nader, as do I.
I was raised in a Republican household mainly because my family members are mostly business owners or doctors. My family never agreed with taking from the rich and giving to the poor and they definitely didn't agree with lowering doctor's pay because of universal healthcare. I didn't know any better and I always looked down on Democrats. As I got older, I started to become my own person and stopped identifying with a party. I consider myself an independent. I am this way because I agree with some things that the Republicans support and I also agree with some things that Democrats support.
2. Does America need political parties? The founders originally hoped that American politics would operate without need of parties? Would that work today? Why?
Personally, I do not think that America needs political parties. It separates people, which causes unnecessary turmoil. Too many close friends and close family members argue about politics and in my opinion, it's a waste of time. I think that political parties are just a way for people to be against each other instead of coming together as one and focusing on real issues. I think the government is starting to have way too much control, and if people weren't so absorbed with which party is right and which party is wrong, they'd notice and actually start to do something about it. I think that American politics would be just fine without parties because like I said, people would have more time to focus on the big issues.
3. Please research lesser known political parties - which one do you most identify with? Why?
After doing some research, I'd have to say that the Peace and Freedom party stands out the most to me. They seem to care about real issues. They dream of a nation where everyone is equal. Where everyone has food on their table and clothes on their back. I agree with this and it would be interesting to see this party become more popular. I love the fact that they want to see the Earth treated better and they want things to be done in order to reduce pollution. They support Ralph Nader, as do I.
Commented on:
1. Dexter Pelfrey
2. Brittany McCann
3. Donna Fox
Monday, October 14, 2013
Chapter 8
1. From figure 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?
The interest group that I selected from figure 8.1 was National Education Association (NEA). Their website states that they "are committed to advancing the cause of public education." This is definitely something I agree with. I think that public schools should be set to higher standards just like the NEA. I also agree with their opinions on equality in education. I think every single child should have equal education. What I found interesting was their opinion on public education and democracy. Their website says "public education provides individuals with the skills to be involved, informed, and engaged in our representative democracy." I really liked the way this was worded and it was definitely interesting.
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?
My absolute favorite interest group is Greenpeace. I've become very involved with their goals and missions. They are the largest direct-action environmental organization in the world. They believe in stopping forest destruction, cleaning oceans, cutting down on pollution, and basically anything that preserves the beautiful Earth. I really love that they make it clear that they will always refuse funding from the federal government and that they are committed to nonviolence. I think that even more people should become involved with Greenpeace!
3. Do interest groups have enough/too much/the right amount of power in the political system? Most believe it's a fine-line balance between freedom of speech for the groups and keeping unfair persuasion out of government. Where is that line and when is it crossed?
I think that interest groups don't have enough power in the political system. I think that most interest groups have amazing goals and are filled with people that have a large amount of ambition. I think that groups like Greenpeace could really help if they were heard more in politics. I think that more laws that would protect the Earth and the environment would be passed if Greenpeace were heard more. I think that the line gets crossed when interest groups hold too many protests outside of federal buildings. If interest groups are constantly pushing Congress to change laws or do something differently, I think that then, interest groups are going too far and are crossing the line.
Commented on:
1. Nathan Tollett
2. Casandra Kunsman
3. Donna Spradlin
The interest group that I selected from figure 8.1 was National Education Association (NEA). Their website states that they "are committed to advancing the cause of public education." This is definitely something I agree with. I think that public schools should be set to higher standards just like the NEA. I also agree with their opinions on equality in education. I think every single child should have equal education. What I found interesting was their opinion on public education and democracy. Their website says "public education provides individuals with the skills to be involved, informed, and engaged in our representative democracy." I really liked the way this was worded and it was definitely interesting.
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?
My absolute favorite interest group is Greenpeace. I've become very involved with their goals and missions. They are the largest direct-action environmental organization in the world. They believe in stopping forest destruction, cleaning oceans, cutting down on pollution, and basically anything that preserves the beautiful Earth. I really love that they make it clear that they will always refuse funding from the federal government and that they are committed to nonviolence. I think that even more people should become involved with Greenpeace!
3. Do interest groups have enough/too much/the right amount of power in the political system? Most believe it's a fine-line balance between freedom of speech for the groups and keeping unfair persuasion out of government. Where is that line and when is it crossed?
I think that interest groups don't have enough power in the political system. I think that most interest groups have amazing goals and are filled with people that have a large amount of ambition. I think that groups like Greenpeace could really help if they were heard more in politics. I think that more laws that would protect the Earth and the environment would be passed if Greenpeace were heard more. I think that the line gets crossed when interest groups hold too many protests outside of federal buildings. If interest groups are constantly pushing Congress to change laws or do something differently, I think that then, interest groups are going too far and are crossing the line.
Commented on:
1. Nathan Tollett
2. Casandra Kunsman
3. Donna Spradlin
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Chapter 7
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?
I do think that objectivity still exists in the media's coverage of politics. I think that certain news channels try to convince people to vote for a certain person or to think a certain way about specific political parties. I think that Fox is definitely the most objective and the most bias. Fox, to me, seems to be republican based. They seem to favor republican candidates and laws. I watched Fox during the previous election process and I noticed they had more negative things to say about Obama.
2. How does talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, etc.) affect your view of politics? Why?
I don't think that talk radio affects my view of politics. Sometimes on long car rides, I'll listen to NPR and just soak in what they have to say. I don't allow media to influence my political views. I'm very stern and stick to what I believe in. I do listen to things I don't agree with, though... and I'll respect a talk radio host's opinion.
3. Is media objectivity important? Why or why not?
Yes I do think that media objectivity is important. The news needs to be unbiased because what they are reporting (or at least should be reporting) is facts and things that are actually happening in the world.
Commented on:
1. Brittany McCann
I do think that objectivity still exists in the media's coverage of politics. I think that certain news channels try to convince people to vote for a certain person or to think a certain way about specific political parties. I think that Fox is definitely the most objective and the most bias. Fox, to me, seems to be republican based. They seem to favor republican candidates and laws. I watched Fox during the previous election process and I noticed they had more negative things to say about Obama.
2. How does talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, etc.) affect your view of politics? Why?
I don't think that talk radio affects my view of politics. Sometimes on long car rides, I'll listen to NPR and just soak in what they have to say. I don't allow media to influence my political views. I'm very stern and stick to what I believe in. I do listen to things I don't agree with, though... and I'll respect a talk radio host's opinion.
3. Is media objectivity important? Why or why not?
Yes I do think that media objectivity is important. The news needs to be unbiased because what they are reporting (or at least should be reporting) is facts and things that are actually happening in the world.
Commented on:
1. Brittany McCann
2. Robert Johnston
3. Dexter Pelfrey
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Chapter 6
1. Is American news media too dependent upon polls? Is it appropriate for news agencies to create polls and then report on them? Why or why not?
I don't think American news media is too dependent upon polls. I think that polls are a good thing because they show what Americans are thinking and what their opinions on current events are. I do think it is appropriate for news agencies to create polls and then report on them. I think it's a good thing to know what the majority of Americans are thinking on subjects like war and taxes. I like to see if the majority of Americans support Obama or disagree with the way he is running office. I think that the government would react a whole lot differently to potential bills and laws if public opinion wasn't able to be accessed so easily.
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 & grandparents? Does it seem more or less important to your friends? Why or why not?
Personally, I think that political party identification gets too heated. Too many people argue about politics and a lot of unnecessary turmoil is created. I was raised in a Republican household, so unfortunately I have heard a lot of negative things about Democrats, but honestly I don't really label myself as any political party. My parents and grandparents are really strong Republicans because they are business owners and doctors. As many of you know, the new healthcare bill reduces the pay of doctors. My friends are like me... they don't support one of the other. I agree with some things that Republicans believe in and I also agree with some things that Democrats say. If I were forced to claim a political party, I guess I'd say I was Independent.
3. Do you feel that you opinion of politics is more influenced by economic issues or by social issues? Why?
I do not feel that my opinion of politics is more influenced by economic issues or by social issues. I've always felt the same way about politics. Like I stated in question 2, I think politics causes problems between people that are completely ridiculous. I was friends with a woman who divorced her husband because they argued too much about politics... how sad! When there is a war going on, I'll always stick to my opinions on war. I'm not quick to change my beliefs based on current events.
Commented on:
1. Megan Biggs
2. Cassandra Kunsman
3. Donna Spradlin
I don't think American news media is too dependent upon polls. I think that polls are a good thing because they show what Americans are thinking and what their opinions on current events are. I do think it is appropriate for news agencies to create polls and then report on them. I think it's a good thing to know what the majority of Americans are thinking on subjects like war and taxes. I like to see if the majority of Americans support Obama or disagree with the way he is running office. I think that the government would react a whole lot differently to potential bills and laws if public opinion wasn't able to be accessed so easily.
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 & grandparents? Does it seem more or less important to your friends? Why or why not?
Personally, I think that political party identification gets too heated. Too many people argue about politics and a lot of unnecessary turmoil is created. I was raised in a Republican household, so unfortunately I have heard a lot of negative things about Democrats, but honestly I don't really label myself as any political party. My parents and grandparents are really strong Republicans because they are business owners and doctors. As many of you know, the new healthcare bill reduces the pay of doctors. My friends are like me... they don't support one of the other. I agree with some things that Republicans believe in and I also agree with some things that Democrats say. If I were forced to claim a political party, I guess I'd say I was Independent.
3. Do you feel that you opinion of politics is more influenced by economic issues or by social issues? Why?
I do not feel that my opinion of politics is more influenced by economic issues or by social issues. I've always felt the same way about politics. Like I stated in question 2, I think politics causes problems between people that are completely ridiculous. I was friends with a woman who divorced her husband because they argued too much about politics... how sad! When there is a war going on, I'll always stick to my opinions on war. I'm not quick to change my beliefs based on current events.
Commented on:
1. Megan Biggs
2. Cassandra Kunsman
3. Donna Spradlin
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Chapter 5
1. The issue of race - does the government do too little or too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination? Why or how so?
I think the government does too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination. In my opinion, I don't agree with all black colleges and the TV channel BET (black entertainment television.) If there were all white colleges and a television channel marketed towards just white people, there would be riots and constant arguments. I think the government is trying too hard to appease people who are not Caucasian. My daughter is biracial and I still hold strong to my opinion on this topic.
2. The issue of gender - same question as #1.
Honestly, I think the government is doing neither too little nor too much. I think they are handling the issue of gender discrimination very well. They have made the workforce more equal for men and women which was definitely a huge step towards gender equality. More and more we are seeing women holding CEO positions which was almost unheard of 30 years ago. I am very content with gender equality in the United States, although I do hope to see a woman win a presidential election.
3. The issue of sexual orientation - same question as #1 and #2.
I think with sexual orientation equality, the government is doing too little. I've always believed that people who are gay should have the same rights as people who are straight. Why should a homosexual be denied the same rights as a heterosexual person just because they don't love someone of the opposite sex? The government should have legalized same sex marriage a long time ago. Instead, they are allowing people to protest, holding up disgusting signs that say things like "homosexuals go to hell." And yes, I know that protesting is your freedom of speech, but maybe if the government treated homosexuals like normal people, there wouldn't be much disapproval and hate towards same sex marriage.
Commented on:
1. Brittany McCann
2. Nathan Tollett
3. Dexter Pelfrey
I think the government does too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination. In my opinion, I don't agree with all black colleges and the TV channel BET (black entertainment television.) If there were all white colleges and a television channel marketed towards just white people, there would be riots and constant arguments. I think the government is trying too hard to appease people who are not Caucasian. My daughter is biracial and I still hold strong to my opinion on this topic.
2. The issue of gender - same question as #1.
Honestly, I think the government is doing neither too little nor too much. I think they are handling the issue of gender discrimination very well. They have made the workforce more equal for men and women which was definitely a huge step towards gender equality. More and more we are seeing women holding CEO positions which was almost unheard of 30 years ago. I am very content with gender equality in the United States, although I do hope to see a woman win a presidential election.
3. The issue of sexual orientation - same question as #1 and #2.
I think with sexual orientation equality, the government is doing too little. I've always believed that people who are gay should have the same rights as people who are straight. Why should a homosexual be denied the same rights as a heterosexual person just because they don't love someone of the opposite sex? The government should have legalized same sex marriage a long time ago. Instead, they are allowing people to protest, holding up disgusting signs that say things like "homosexuals go to hell." And yes, I know that protesting is your freedom of speech, but maybe if the government treated homosexuals like normal people, there wouldn't be much disapproval and hate towards same sex marriage.
Commented on:
1. Brittany McCann
2. Nathan Tollett
3. Dexter Pelfrey
Monday, September 16, 2013
Chapter 4
1. Freedom of Speech: How important is it? Does the freedom go "too far"? What areas of speech should not be protected?
I think freedom of speech is very important. If people weren't allowed to say what was on their mind, I think that they would feel trapped. I think sometimes the freedom goes too far. For example, in Snyder v. Phelps, protesters were allowed to say how they feel, even though what they were saying was disgusting and extremely hateful, because it was protected by their freedom of speech. I don't think people should be allowed to protest such hateful things, but that's just my opinion. I think areas of speech that should be protected are opinions as long as they are not hateful. People should always be able to say that they don't agree with what the president is doing in office. I'm very glad that we are allowed to express our concerns with the government.
2. Freedom of Religion: Is separation of church and state necessary? Why or why not?
I do think that separation of church and state is necessary. If every school said a prayer in the beginning of the first class of the day, someone who wasn't Christian could feel left out, secluded, and uncomfortable. I think people should be able to practice any religion they want as long as they don't do it around other people that aren't the religion that they are. Honestly, I don't really agree that "nation under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance. In my opinion, it goes against separation of church and state.
3. Criminal Procedure: Are defendant's rights crucial to our system of government? Why or why not? Many argue that defendants have too many rights - do you agree? Why or why not?
I definitely think that defendant's rights are crucial to our system of government because if defendants did not have rights, I think that a lot more innocent people would be incarcerated. I do not agree that defendants have too many rights. If someone who was wealthy was arrested for murder, they could afford a lawyer. If someone who was poor was arrested for the same thing, they also would be given a lawyer by the state. If they didn't have this right and an attorney wasn't given to people who couldn't afford one, it wouldn't be fair. Money shouldn't determine whether or not someone has the same rights.
Commented on:
1. Megan Biggs
2. Cassandra Kunsman
3. Robert Johnson
I think freedom of speech is very important. If people weren't allowed to say what was on their mind, I think that they would feel trapped. I think sometimes the freedom goes too far. For example, in Snyder v. Phelps, protesters were allowed to say how they feel, even though what they were saying was disgusting and extremely hateful, because it was protected by their freedom of speech. I don't think people should be allowed to protest such hateful things, but that's just my opinion. I think areas of speech that should be protected are opinions as long as they are not hateful. People should always be able to say that they don't agree with what the president is doing in office. I'm very glad that we are allowed to express our concerns with the government.
2. Freedom of Religion: Is separation of church and state necessary? Why or why not?
I do think that separation of church and state is necessary. If every school said a prayer in the beginning of the first class of the day, someone who wasn't Christian could feel left out, secluded, and uncomfortable. I think people should be able to practice any religion they want as long as they don't do it around other people that aren't the religion that they are. Honestly, I don't really agree that "nation under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance. In my opinion, it goes against separation of church and state.
3. Criminal Procedure: Are defendant's rights crucial to our system of government? Why or why not? Many argue that defendants have too many rights - do you agree? Why or why not?
I definitely think that defendant's rights are crucial to our system of government because if defendants did not have rights, I think that a lot more innocent people would be incarcerated. I do not agree that defendants have too many rights. If someone who was wealthy was arrested for murder, they could afford a lawyer. If someone who was poor was arrested for the same thing, they also would be given a lawyer by the state. If they didn't have this right and an attorney wasn't given to people who couldn't afford one, it wouldn't be fair. Money shouldn't determine whether or not someone has the same rights.
Commented on:
1. Megan Biggs
2. Cassandra Kunsman
3. Robert Johnson
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Chapter 3
1. Is a strong national government necessary or should the state governments have an equal share of power? Why?
I definitely think that a strong national government is necessary. If a national government wasn't strong and didn't hold a lot of power, states wouldn't really have anyone telling them what they could and could not do. I think that states would abuse their power and start wars with each other. They would be trading with each other and forming alliances that could be detrimental to the nation as a whole. The national government, in my opinion, keeps all the states at peace with each other.
2. National power increased during the Great Depression but then power began to shift back to the states (somewhat) during the Reagan administration? Why did that happen and is that shift appropriate?
During the Great Depression, people wanted national action to aid the economy. Roosevelt's nation-centered federalism was said by political scientists to resemble a "marble cake," with specific powers under both national and state authority. Voters began to display wariness about the powers of the national government. President Reagan sought to reduce the power of government and was an avid supporter of the New Federalism. He stated "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." He cut back on categorical grants, replacing them with more flexible block grants. He also eliminated general revenue sharing. State-centered federalism gained some traction, so I do think that the shift was appropriate. The people wanted more power to the states.
3. Education stirs much discussion relating to the issue of federalism. Should the national government regulate education or is it a matter best left to state and local governments? Why?
I think that the national government should regulate education. I think good standards could be kept better if the national government regulated every high school and college. I know that the high school my mom teaches at in Madisonville, Tennessee has a "no-fail rule" which basically means my mom isn't allowed to fail a student, even if they don't do most of their work. I think that if the government regulated the system, less "shady" things would be going on in our high schools.
Commented on:
1. Nathan Tollett
2. Brittany McCann3. t
I definitely think that a strong national government is necessary. If a national government wasn't strong and didn't hold a lot of power, states wouldn't really have anyone telling them what they could and could not do. I think that states would abuse their power and start wars with each other. They would be trading with each other and forming alliances that could be detrimental to the nation as a whole. The national government, in my opinion, keeps all the states at peace with each other.
2. National power increased during the Great Depression but then power began to shift back to the states (somewhat) during the Reagan administration? Why did that happen and is that shift appropriate?
During the Great Depression, people wanted national action to aid the economy. Roosevelt's nation-centered federalism was said by political scientists to resemble a "marble cake," with specific powers under both national and state authority. Voters began to display wariness about the powers of the national government. President Reagan sought to reduce the power of government and was an avid supporter of the New Federalism. He stated "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." He cut back on categorical grants, replacing them with more flexible block grants. He also eliminated general revenue sharing. State-centered federalism gained some traction, so I do think that the shift was appropriate. The people wanted more power to the states.
3. Education stirs much discussion relating to the issue of federalism. Should the national government regulate education or is it a matter best left to state and local governments? Why?
I think that the national government should regulate education. I think good standards could be kept better if the national government regulated every high school and college. I know that the high school my mom teaches at in Madisonville, Tennessee has a "no-fail rule" which basically means my mom isn't allowed to fail a student, even if they don't do most of their work. I think that if the government regulated the system, less "shady" things would be going on in our high schools.
Commented on:
1. Nathan Tollett
2. Brittany McCann3. t
Monday, September 2, 2013
Chapter 2
1. The Articles gave the states authority to wage war, establish alliances, and conclude peace. The states retained all powers not expressly granted to the Congress. Under the Articles, Congress did not have the authority to regulate commerce or any authority to operate directly over the citizens. Congress could not tax citizens or products, it could only request revenues from the states. The Articles made governing very difficult. It did not establish a judicial branch, or a separate executive branch. Popularly elected legislatures with no checks on their authority passed laws rescinding private debts and creating barriers against other states. There was too much turmoil, so a the Constitutional Convention was scheduled to revise the Articles. The United States Constitution is stronger than the Articles because there is more organization and ruling. There are three branches that are each responsible for different things and the states don't hold all the power. I think the history of the United States would be completely different if we still operated under the Articles. I believe that the states would constantly be at war with each other and there wouldn't be as much peace as there is today under the Constitution.
2. In the first article, it says that a Representative should be a citizen for seven years. I thought that you had to be born in American to be a Representative, so that is definitely something new that I learned. I also didn't know that you had to be living in the United States for fourteen years straight before you can run for president.
3. In Marbury v. Madison, The Supreme Court declared that, because the Constitution specified which types of cases the Supreme Court could hear, the section of the Judiciary Act that expanded the Court's original jurisdiction conflicted with the Constitution. The court ruled that the Constitution is supreme over the law. The court declared that the judiciary would decide such issues. I think that the Supreme Court is very important in the Marbury v Madison ruling because the Supreme Court would not order Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. The Court granted itself the authority of judicial review, the power to put down laws passed by Congress only on the grounds that those laws violate the Constitution. I think that it was a very momentous moment in history.
4. Looking at the government today, I would say that it is more like the Federalists envisioned it. The Antifederalists didn't agree that the ultimate law making authority should be in the hands of the national law, they thought it should be in the hands of the state law. Today, the law making authority is in the hands of the national law like the Federalists wanted and agreed with.
commented on:
1. Jared Griffith
2. Shana Butler
3. Megan Biggs
2. In the first article, it says that a Representative should be a citizen for seven years. I thought that you had to be born in American to be a Representative, so that is definitely something new that I learned. I also didn't know that you had to be living in the United States for fourteen years straight before you can run for president.
3. In Marbury v. Madison, The Supreme Court declared that, because the Constitution specified which types of cases the Supreme Court could hear, the section of the Judiciary Act that expanded the Court's original jurisdiction conflicted with the Constitution. The court ruled that the Constitution is supreme over the law. The court declared that the judiciary would decide such issues. I think that the Supreme Court is very important in the Marbury v Madison ruling because the Supreme Court would not order Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. The Court granted itself the authority of judicial review, the power to put down laws passed by Congress only on the grounds that those laws violate the Constitution. I think that it was a very momentous moment in history.
4. Looking at the government today, I would say that it is more like the Federalists envisioned it. The Antifederalists didn't agree that the ultimate law making authority should be in the hands of the national law, they thought it should be in the hands of the state law. Today, the law making authority is in the hands of the national law like the Federalists wanted and agreed with.
commented on:
1. Jared Griffith
2. Shana Butler
3. Megan Biggs
Sunday, August 25, 2013
A little bit about myself!
Hello, my name is Rebecca Zuchowski and I'm currently a sophomore at Roane State. I'm 19 years old and have a beautiful five month old daughter named Sophie. I'm a very outdoors kind of person. I love going up to the mountains and going on hikes or rafting. I'm pursuing a career in the nutrition field, although right now I'm not really sure what I want my job title to be. I'm leaning more towards becoming a Registered Dietitian. I love learning about the government and I always enjoyed discovering new things about it. It's such an interesting topic to me because it goes into such detail and the government really is what has made America what it is today. I hope I can learn more about what goes on "behind the scenes" in the government during this semester. I really look forward to starting this class!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)