Obama ramps up pitch on economy
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-economy-20100922,0,6216828.story
There is no direct quote from the constitution in Article 2 that conects to this article, but article 2 is about the president. This article is about the president making a decision to focus on one problem for right now.
With six weeks until the midterm elections, President Obama has decided to focus on the number one issue, economy. The democrats blame the republicans for this economic problem. Polls have proved that the way that Obama approaches the economy will determine the outcome. At a finance dinner, Obama strongly blamed the republicans, as he referred to them as "the other side", for driving "the economy into the ditch, and we've been down there and putting on our boots, and it's muddy, and it's hot..." He also said that the republicans have been "standing there, slipping on a Slurpee". He is implying that now since, he, a democrat has been elected in office, the republicans are just sitting around waiting for them to fail. The republicans hhave made points to try to bring Obama down. They've pointed out that the stimulus has still not created enough jobs. Also, that we are in need of more tax cuts. A poll has resultedd in 40% of people believe that Republicans are better capable of dealing with economy. 38% believed the democrats were better. 49% of people that believe that jobs were most important believed the Democrats were better and the Republicans had 33%. I agree with Obama when he says that Bush drove us into a ditch and now all the Rebublicans are doing is sitting back watching us. My reasoning is because the article states, " Republicans are outside the political mainstream because they refuse to engage or compromise in helping develop legislation."
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Executive Branch
Pentagon tells gays to stay quiet
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1010/Pentagon_gay_troops_wise_to_stay_quiet.html?showall
Constitution Connection
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia"
A federal judge ordered a policy called "don't ask, don't tell" which bans members of the military to reveal their sexuality. Basically, if you are gay, you can not tell anyone. Now the pentagon is warning their members of this policy. The directive from Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley expresses that the court should take back this law because it may and possibly could have "adverse consequences" meaning that the service members would oppose of this policy. The article proves that the DADT (don't ask, don't tell) policy is a violation of the members first amendment right.Phillips, the judge who ordered this policy, tells the government to be careful when passing this policy because many troops may be intimidated and feel that they are being banned of exercising their right of free speech. Phillips is raised with the question of whether or not the military will have to start kicking members out because of revealing their sexuality.
I think that the policy of not being allowed to reveal their sexual orientation is completely ridiculous. I don't agree with this policy because for one, it bans members from using their first amendment right, which all Americans are entitled to. are entitled to. My second reason is that because of this policy, more than 13,000 gay service members were discharged. "http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/28/sunday/main6340788.shtml"
I think that it will not only affect the gay members emotionally but it will also affect the military. I think that the number of gays that were discharged will increase and it will be difficult to find members to join. Today, its already difficult for the military to recruit members. I think that gays that are interested in joining but know of the DADT policy will not be as excited about going.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1010/Pentagon_gay_troops_wise_to_stay_quiet.html?showall
Constitution Connection
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia"
A federal judge ordered a policy called "don't ask, don't tell" which bans members of the military to reveal their sexuality. Basically, if you are gay, you can not tell anyone. Now the pentagon is warning their members of this policy. The directive from Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley expresses that the court should take back this law because it may and possibly could have "adverse consequences" meaning that the service members would oppose of this policy. The article proves that the DADT (don't ask, don't tell) policy is a violation of the members first amendment right.Phillips, the judge who ordered this policy, tells the government to be careful when passing this policy because many troops may be intimidated and feel that they are being banned of exercising their right of free speech. Phillips is raised with the question of whether or not the military will have to start kicking members out because of revealing their sexuality.
I think that the policy of not being allowed to reveal their sexual orientation is completely ridiculous. I don't agree with this policy because for one, it bans members from using their first amendment right, which all Americans are entitled to. are entitled to. My second reason is that because of this policy, more than 13,000 gay service members were discharged. "http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/28/sunday/main6340788.shtml"
I think that it will not only affect the gay members emotionally but it will also affect the military. I think that the number of gays that were discharged will increase and it will be difficult to find members to join. Today, its already difficult for the military to recruit members. I think that gays that are interested in joining but know of the DADT policy will not be as excited about going.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Judicial Branch 1
Arena Digest: Kagan's Experience
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37078.html
Constitution Connection
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court"
This article is about many opinions about Elena Kagan being chosen by President Obama for the Supreme Court. Former U.S. attorney general and chair in public policy of Ronald Reagan does not feel secure with her apart of the Supreme Court. He points out some good points though. She has a limited experience with politics and no judicial experience. A professor at the University of Iowa stands behind Obama's decision and against the people that don't think she should have a slot just because she has no judicial experience. The professor says that the United States has never had a professional judicial training. The director of The Heritage Foundation, Rory Cooper believes that this decision should be made thoughtfully and not rushed. He gives details about the last time "America took a chance on a young, inexperienced Harvard elite without asking any tough questions". His strongest point is that although she has no judicial or litigation experience, she has been "a champion of Obama's empathy standard, which takes equality out of the courts and replaces it with judicial emotion". Opinions have also been taken from a liberal activist, a commentator and publisher, and Christine Pelosi (attorney, author and Democratic activist). I think that she should be given a chance. Some strong points have been made and she is definitely qualified. I say she is qualified because the constitution does not include that in order to become a member of the Supreme Court, you have to have experience in judging.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37078.html
Constitution Connection
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court"
This article is about many opinions about Elena Kagan being chosen by President Obama for the Supreme Court. Former U.S. attorney general and chair in public policy of Ronald Reagan does not feel secure with her apart of the Supreme Court. He points out some good points though. She has a limited experience with politics and no judicial experience. A professor at the University of Iowa stands behind Obama's decision and against the people that don't think she should have a slot just because she has no judicial experience. The professor says that the United States has never had a professional judicial training. The director of The Heritage Foundation, Rory Cooper believes that this decision should be made thoughtfully and not rushed. He gives details about the last time "America took a chance on a young, inexperienced Harvard elite without asking any tough questions". His strongest point is that although she has no judicial or litigation experience, she has been "a champion of Obama's empathy standard, which takes equality out of the courts and replaces it with judicial emotion". Opinions have also been taken from a liberal activist, a commentator and publisher, and Christine Pelosi (attorney, author and Democratic activist). I think that she should be given a chance. Some strong points have been made and she is definitely qualified. I say she is qualified because the constitution does not include that in order to become a member of the Supreme Court, you have to have experience in judging.
8th amendment
A chance for Redemption
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-11-13/news/bal-ed.juvenile13nov13_1_sentences-justice-kennedy-supreme-court
8th Amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
"109 people in the United States are now serving life sentences without the possibility of parole for crimes other than murder that they committed as juveniles." This article argues the fairness of charging adults and juvenlies the same way. A few of Florida's cases have tried to argue to the Supreme Court that it was unconstitutional to give juveniles a death sentence. They believe and proved that it was a cruel and unusual punishment and age should be thought of before making such decisions. I agree with Chief Justice Roberts. I also believe that a death sentence given to juveniles for a crime other than murder is extremely unusual. The 8th amendment states... "nor cruel and unusual inflicted". In this case the punishment is cruel.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-11-13/news/bal-ed.juvenile13nov13_1_sentences-justice-kennedy-supreme-court
8th Amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
"109 people in the United States are now serving life sentences without the possibility of parole for crimes other than murder that they committed as juveniles." This article argues the fairness of charging adults and juvenlies the same way. A few of Florida's cases have tried to argue to the Supreme Court that it was unconstitutional to give juveniles a death sentence. They believe and proved that it was a cruel and unusual punishment and age should be thought of before making such decisions. I agree with Chief Justice Roberts. I also believe that a death sentence given to juveniles for a crime other than murder is extremely unusual. The 8th amendment states... "nor cruel and unusual inflicted". In this case the punishment is cruel.
Legislative 2
Tax dreams of drug decriminalization
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43946.html
Constitution Connection
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives
California may become the first state in the nation to legalize marijuana if Proposition 19 is passed. Proposition 19 is a case where California might legalize marijuana. Their strongest reason for legalizing marijuana in the state of California is because $1.4 billion could be generated for tax revenue. This amount is higher than the taxes obtained from tobacco products and alcohol. The only problem would be the difficulty trying to obtain taxes for this product in California. The number of marijuana growers in Califfoornia might increase but they probably won't grow large amounts at a time. The article states that usually marijuana cases are dismissed when its under a certain amount. Growers that strategize like this would know that they would be escaping state taxes and also federal sanctions. The marijuana growers would be even more likely to grow for themselves and avoid state taxes because they might know that there will be a state database with the dealers information and federal agents would be paying close attention to the taxes they bring in. There has not been very good experiences with this law. I think that this article had some good reasons for why not to legalizing marijuana in California. I don't think that this would be a good idea. Today, and im sure the prices are around the same in California, marijuana prices aren't that expensive and if the state begins to sell this product, they won't make much money. Most drug buyers have a designated dealer that they trust and buy drugs from. So I don't think that they will start to purchast their drugs from the state just because it's legal now.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43946.html
Constitution Connection
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives
California may become the first state in the nation to legalize marijuana if Proposition 19 is passed. Proposition 19 is a case where California might legalize marijuana. Their strongest reason for legalizing marijuana in the state of California is because $1.4 billion could be generated for tax revenue. This amount is higher than the taxes obtained from tobacco products and alcohol. The only problem would be the difficulty trying to obtain taxes for this product in California. The number of marijuana growers in Califfoornia might increase but they probably won't grow large amounts at a time. The article states that usually marijuana cases are dismissed when its under a certain amount. Growers that strategize like this would know that they would be escaping state taxes and also federal sanctions. The marijuana growers would be even more likely to grow for themselves and avoid state taxes because they might know that there will be a state database with the dealers information and federal agents would be paying close attention to the taxes they bring in. There has not been very good experiences with this law. I think that this article had some good reasons for why not to legalizing marijuana in California. I don't think that this would be a good idea. Today, and im sure the prices are around the same in California, marijuana prices aren't that expensive and if the state begins to sell this product, they won't make much money. Most drug buyers have a designated dealer that they trust and buy drugs from. So I don't think that they will start to purchast their drugs from the state just because it's legal now.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
10th Amendment
Don't Celebrate President Obama's Birthday
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40634.html
10th Amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
August 4th was President Obama's 49th birthday. To enlighten Obama, an activist group decided to celebrate Obama's birthday nationally. Although politicians, with the exception of Washington and Abraham, birthdays aren't usually celebrated, the OFA came up with great reasons to make this birthday national. I don't think that Obama's birthday should be national because it is not in the constitution and it can be some negative effects. There are some people who do not like President Obama and they might think that this celebration is useless.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40634.html
10th Amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
August 4th was President Obama's 49th birthday. To enlighten Obama, an activist group decided to celebrate Obama's birthday nationally. Although politicians, with the exception of Washington and Abraham, birthdays aren't usually celebrated, the OFA came up with great reasons to make this birthday national. I don't think that Obama's birthday should be national because it is not in the constitution and it can be some negative effects. There are some people who do not like President Obama and they might think that this celebration is useless.
5th Amendment
Double Jeopardized Turkey
The 5th Amendment Reads:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
This political cartoon is a great example of the 5th amendment. The turkey represents someone who is being charged with the same offense for a second time. Or in this case, being eaten for a second time. The turkey is holding a newspaper from November 24(which is inferred to be Thanksgiving) with the leading story being about turkeys being eaten on Thanksgiving. Now the action of this cartoon is happening on December 24 which is one day before Christmas. The turkey is bringing up the point that he was just being eaten on Thanksgiving and now Christmas. He thinks he is not being his 5th amendment right. Which includes Double Jeopardy. The judge replies "I get Double Jeopardy but can you prove you're a person which is just used as humor.
The 5th Amendment Reads:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
This political cartoon is a great example of the 5th amendment. The turkey represents someone who is being charged with the same offense for a second time. Or in this case, being eaten for a second time. The turkey is holding a newspaper from November 24(which is inferred to be Thanksgiving) with the leading story being about turkeys being eaten on Thanksgiving. Now the action of this cartoon is happening on December 24 which is one day before Christmas. The turkey is bringing up the point that he was just being eaten on Thanksgiving and now Christmas. He thinks he is not being his 5th amendment right. Which includes Double Jeopardy. The judge replies "I get Double Jeopardy but can you prove you're a person which is just used as humor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)