-What is government?
-What is democracy?
-Articles of Confederation
-Constitutional Convention
-Federalism
COURSE WEBSITE
https://sites.google.com/a/soudertonsd.us/hs-socialstudies-klimovich/ap-govt/constitutional-underpinnings
Requirements:
1. 2 links to articles after January 1, 2016 from credible NEWS source
2. 2 Paragraph reflection
-Paragraph #1- What happened?
-Paragraph #2- How does this issue reflect the themes of our unit?
-include specific themes and vocab
HW GRADE- 10 pts every blog.
DUE DATES:
-Blog #1 due Wednesday, February 3
-Blog #2 due Wednesday, February 10
The Supreme Court issued an unexpected injunction this Tuesday when it temporarily blocked the actions of President Obama’s plan to limit emission from coal-fired power plants. This likely not the last time the case will be heard in the Supreme Court, as the order was issued while the case is being heard in an appeals court. The 5-4 decision is unprecedented – the Court had never before granted a request to halt action before its legality was decided. Twenty-Nine states have joined in suing the E.P.A., rebuking the proposed regulation which would require states to make severe cuts in emissions from coal-fired power plants- currently our nation’s largest contributor to pollution. The states would face a reduction deadline in 2022 and full compliance by 2030. The States have challenged the authority of the E.P.A. to enforce such a regulation, and arguments will be heard in the Court of Appeals for D.C. on June 2. They have found standing on the argument that money has already been appropriated for the regulations, making this a power grab by the E.P.A. to restructure states’ power grids. Answering the calls of the states, the Supreme Court has quickly halted the action. The justices expressed deep divide and interest over the topic, likely landing it before our nation’s most revered bench in the near future.
ReplyDeleteThis issue lends its hand to many facades of our constitutional underpinnings unit, including checks and balances (particularly judicial review), the bureaucratic theory of government, and the struggle between federal and state power. Judicial review is firmly embedded within this issue as the case currently finds itself in the D.C. Court of Appeals while already finding itself mixed up with Supreme Court Justices. The courts will ultimately decide the legality of President Obama’s proposal, checking his power to issue regulations on climate change. The E.P.A. being the agency to carry out the regulations brings to mind the theory that it is bureaucracy and its employees which shape policy and control the government. Finally, this issue is centered on a struggle between Federal and State powers. The states fear the reach of the E.P.A. and its potential ability to make further regulations on energy. They believe that the design of a state’s power grid belongs in the hand of each state, while the federal government believes the pressing issue of climate change is better remedied by federal regulation.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/supreme-court-obama-epa-climate-change/index.html#
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-obama-epa-coal-emissions-regulations.html?_r=0
http://www.ibtimes.com/marijuana-legalization-could-2016-be-year-federal-law-derails-cannabis-movement-2258515
ReplyDeletehttps://www.leafly.com/news/headlines/breaking-oregon-congress-members-push-for-progress-in-cannabis-ad
The articles presented here have information regarding the legalization of marijuana and the national/ state level effects of such legalization. The first interesting point is about the USPS announcing that advertisements about weed could not be sent through the mail; however, the USPS cannot deny a piece of mail due to its contents. A bill was recently introduced to US senate that would remove these postal bans so that in states where marijuana is legalized, legitimate cannabis businesses can function as others do: by advertising. It is also stated that the U.S. Controlled Substances Act still makes marijuana illegal at a federal level. As more and more federal agencies confront the issue, more disagreement and confusion over the federal/ state differences will arise. A Denver-based Fourth Corner Credit Union is also mentioned to have sued the federal district court for denying it the ability to become the first bank focused on marijuana industry. Federal action could either solve problems by making marijuana legal throughout the country or do the opposite and strike down on state laws for its usage.
The issue of something like legalized marijuana brings up many questions about the power of state and federal government levels. As is seen with the growing support for weed legalization, more states are considering making it legal, despite the US controlled substances act which bans such drugs. This example shows the power of the states to create laws regarding intrastate commerce and Obama’s/federal government’s hands off policy for the issue. Going along with the ruling for Gibbons vs. Ogden, the federal government has jurisdiction over the interstate commerce and the states have jurisdiction over the intrastate commerce. The USPS banning, but not enforcing the bans, any cannabis ads in newspapers is another interesting point. WIth the addition of the bill proposal to senate aiming to annihilate these bans in marijuana-legal states, questions about federal power arise. Despite the fact that the USPS cannot enforce their warnings, the cannabis business owners worry that they cannot advertise like any other business thus preventing success. It has resulted in a bill proposal that would cause the federal government to allow advertisements for businesses within states that have marijuana legalized. One should think, however, that this proposal will not go far considering a federal bill controlling intrastate commerce would go against the Gibbons vs. Ogden supreme court ruling (Intrastate commerce= state jurisdiction, interstate commerce= federal jurisdiction). Sooner or later, the playing field for weed legalization and federal and state differences will be leveled; it is most likely that a defined federal stand will be made in opposition or support of marijuana use. When and if the federal government makes a stand, it would be an obvious display of federal assertion of power; however, one could argue that if a ruling is made in favor of legalization, the power of the federal government is reduced because they are giving in to state pleas.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35534612
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/09/president-obama-proposes-19-billion-nasa-fiscal-2017/80053964/
In recent news President Obama has been working vigorously to create and improve the electricity in Africa. One of Obama’s biggest reasonings for wanting to install this is the fact that ⅔ of Africa is without power. Foreign Affairs has backed up Obama by saying that it would tremendously decrease the deaths from toxic fumes and other chemicals that come from charcoal. These deaths are double what HIV and Malaria put up in a year. Congress has also said they will push to improve it into 2017 even after Obama leaves office. Obama has also recently declared a 19 billion dollar budget to NASA this upcoming year. This is a .3 billion decrease from last year due to the fact that Obama wants to cut 840 million dollars out of space exploration. These actions have caught heat from the Republicans. They stated by decreasing budget it makes a Mars mission nearly impossible. NASA doesn’t seem to miss pleased as they stated they are very positive about reaching Mars by 2030. Although they have just had their budget cut they are pushing for 90 million more for a research project of building an expanding space base for astronauts to live for long durations at a time.
The first topic deals with the presidency topic that we covered because Obama couldn’t put these actions into place until he got them passed by Congress. In the article it stated that it has been 2 years in the making and finally got passed by both houses. The president also used his bully pulpit to convince people that the support of Africa is important because they need necessities to be able to live. Also he used his ideology because of having one of his parents from Kenya that is an important part to him. The NASA program deals with the presidency because he has some say when it comes to funding organizations. Also the president runs committees and other government organizations so he is in charge of when it comes to setting budget. Also along with it he wants to cut some of the space budget out for the overall good of the nation which is his rightful duty.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn January, Texas governor Greg Abbott made a speech in which he suggested that the United States should hold another constitutional convention. The convention would aim to pass nine specific amendments created by the governor that would increase state power over the federal government, as well as “fix the cracks in our broken Constitution.” This is an idea that even presidential candidate Marco Rubio believes should happen to “reduce the size and scope of the federal government.” The specific amendments listed in the “Texas Plan” would require Congress to pass a budget, allow a ⅔ majority of States to overrule Supreme Court decisions, and require a seven justice majority in certain Supreme Court cases, as well as several other changes.
ReplyDeleteThe main issue that Governor Abbott is attempting to address is the division of power between the state and federal level. Gov. Abbott believes that the state governments should have more power defined in the constitution. His solution involves severely limiting how the federal government can change state laws, even going so far as to prohibit the bureaucracy and other federal agencies from preempting state laws. His plan would also give states the power to overrule certain actions of the federal government, such as Supreme Court rulings federal legislation, provided a ⅔ majority of States agree.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/greg-abbott-texas-rubio-constitutional-convention/
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/08/tx-gov-proposes-constitutional-convention-would-give-states-power-to-overturn-federal-law.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ibtimes.com/marijuana-legalization-could-2016-be-year-federal-law-derails-cannabis-movement-2258515
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/pot-news/judge-rules-nevadas-medical-marijuana-registration-program-constitutional
Both of these articles specifically spoke of a very common topic today: the legalization of marijuana. Because approximately 23 states plus the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana, with some being more strict than others, it is clear why this topic frequently makes national headlines. The first article speaks mainly of Colorado, and events there that are starting to stir up the cannabis industry. It stated that a federal judge decided to dismiss a lawsuit that aimed to form a marijuana credit card union. As well as the court ruling, the USPS declared it illegal to send any marijuana advertisements through the mail. The second article spoke of the legalization of this drug in Nevada, and the processes that this state has gone through to reach this decision. This article highlighted a court case questioning the legality, in which they ultimately ruled it legal within the state. The judge included in the decision that any problems should be addressed with state legislators, and not the judges, as they are just interpreting the laws.
These articles, and the legalization of marijuana, really all relate back to state versus federal powers. In the case of Colorado, although the business has appeared profitable and growing, it has now hit a wall: the federal government. Ultimately, the Constitution created federalism in the United States, which divides the power of the country between the federal and state levels. Through the Supreme Court case Ogden v. Gibbons, the court interpreted and ruled that the state government can regulate intrastate commerce (within their state), but ultimately the federal government controls interstate commerce (among multiple states). And although the advertisements presented in the first article may have only been mailed within the state of Colorado, the USPS is a federal bureaucracy, and thus follows federal law. According to the U.S. Controllable Substance act, marijuana is entirely illegal in all of the United States. But for now, President Obama and the rest of the federal government has attempted to leave these decisions to states and have not challenged any of the legalizations. Sometime within our country’s future, the ultimate decision will be ruled on the legalization of this drug; the federal government, holding the most power, will make the final decision dealing with the legality of it.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/greg-abbott-texas-rubio-constitutional-convention/
ReplyDeletehttp://uspolitics.einnews.com/column/310592702/constitutional-convention-anyone-we-could-have-one-soon
As of recently, the Republican parties throughout America, and specifically in Texas, have rallied behind Marco Rubio’s plead to hold a “new” constitutional convention, an event that has not happened since the 1980s and is right now being heavily favored in not only the House and Senate, but the state governments as well. To acquire the permission to hold such a meeting, thirty-four (34) states need to be in favor in order to concentrate on making proposals to change the Constitution; currently twenty-seven (27) states agree to hold a meeting either later this year or possibly next summer, depending on the results of the Presidential Election. Furthermore, the executive branch will have absolutely no control in the course of this convention if an agreement to hold the meeting is reached; the executive branch can only make suggestions as to what should be changed or added to the Constitution, but their power is ultimately barred by Article V in the US Constitution. The conflict mainly at hand is the argument that Texas wants a more distinct separation in federal and state laws/powers, citing these issues as if the federal government was overusing their abilities, as many Republicans are infuriated as a result of previous actions made from the judicial and executive branch.
Legally, they have the right to declare a convention to discuss these problems; however, Texas is attempting to not only go over the actions of an executive order, but bypass a Supreme Court decision, which could declare their intent to have a meeting unconstitutional. Nevertheless, since all US states are entitled to the Article V clause, their meeting, once approved, could give them some hope in changing the Constitution in order to separate the powers of the state and federal law even more. This proposal would not only change the idealism behind the Founding Father’s federalism, but would severely cut ties with Texas and the federal government as a whole.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-price/is-federalism-practical-t_b_6605718.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-bernick/dont-amend-the-constituti_b_9088050.html
Both of these articles above deal with the conservation of the constitution as well as the progress over time of how it has been amended. the first article listed describes the word Conservative and the meaning behind it. The message it’s actually trying to get across is that there’s not much left for conservatives to “conserve” and that the states exclusive powers have been washed away over time. In the second article, a more biased approach, speaks to people wanting to fix the government's overbearing powers. Says simply that if enforce the current constitution, the government would actually become less powerful, and the states would gain more power.
These two articles relate directly to what we have learned in class, primarily in the earlier units, but still relevant. Both articles relate to the changing constitution as well as federalism being relevant today. as our government is ever changing, americans fall into conservative or liberal parties. these articles reflected on the meaning of those words today and the approach needed to be taken in order to better apply your opinion in the ever changing US.
http://blogs.rollcall.com/news/rubio-constitutional-convention/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ocregister.com/articles/convention-703010-constitutional-states.html
Marco Rubio, along with several other Republican figureheads, is proposing the idea of a modern-day Constitutional Convention to lessen the power of the federal government. While campaigning in Iowa in late December, Rubio said, “One of the things I’m going to do on my first day is office is I will put the prestige and power of the presidency behind a constitutional convention of the states.” In addition to Rubio, two other participants on the primary race have voiced their support for the movement. John Kasich and Mike Huckabee both think the idea of a modern Constitutional Convention would be very beneficial for a government with so much controversy. With Rubio’s recent ascension in the polls, this issue has seen itself gain more and more prominence with the right-wing.
In class, we covered the original Constitutional Convention that took place in the country’s infancy. At that time, the event was used to share ideas about what principals and rules the country should be based on. In many respects, it would be beneficial to have another convention. This is primarily because things like technology and social issues have changes so much in the literal centuries between the original convention and now. It may be time for modern America to take a look at its elderly foundation and repair all of the evident cracks in it. It also makes a lot of sense for the republicans to take an interest in reforming the government so drastically. Most of the potential changes to the federal system would almost certainly be to transfer its power to the state level, and state’s rights is a fundamentally republican ideal.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/12/politics/u-s-to-restore-commercial-flights-to-cuba/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2016/01/26/cuba-us-ease-trade-restrictions-sales-to-government/79337896/
In recent news The United States government has been in sit down talks with the Cuban government. These talks are to work out business deals and also to create commercial flights between United States and Cuba. With the coming success of the commercial flights deal, Americans will finally be able to travel to Cuba for the first time in 50 years. Besides Jay Z and Beyonce Americans have been restricted from entering Cuba for nearly half a century. The new trade deals that will be set in place by the United States government Will only allow for goods and services to be exported to Cuba for the time being.
These deals with Cuba are a perfect example of how the government is constantly changing its policies to keep up the changing times. It also shows the progressiveness that our government is heading towards. These new deals with Cuba are helping to bridge the divide between liberals and conservatives as well. When a certain party has control over the entire government, the views of the dominant party begin to be reflected by the actions performed by the government.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/regulator-michigan-forced-flint-treat-water-36682028
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/10/manslaughter-charges-possible-in-flint-water-crisis-says-top-investigator/
For over a month, outrage throughout America has been sparked by the mishandlings of the water supply given to the resident of Flint, Michigan for the past two years. This is due to the fact that in April 2014, the state switched the water supply of the residents of Flint from the Detroit river to the Flint river. The whole incident was under state management at the time. The state officials defended that they switched the water supply and started drawing water from the Flint River to save a lot of taxpayer money. Last month, the media has garner a large amount of attention to how the local, state, and federal officials knew about the extremely high amounts of lead and bacteria within the tap water of the the city of Flint, but took no initiative towards fixing it. Currently, the FBI and the EPA leads the investigation of the whole crisis. Top investigators believe that there may be potential manslaughter charges against the state and local officials for neglecting the complaints of large toxicity of the water and choosing to take virtually no action to fix it.
The Flint, Michigan crisis pertains to one of the largest themes discussed within the Constitutional Underpinnings unit this year, which was the concept of federalism and its efficiency in handling crises. What is happening in these articles is they are displaying the process of dual federalism and the role it plays. Throughout the past two months there are countless protest in front of both Washington D.C. and the state legislature of Michigan. The local officials, state officials, and federal officials are now all using the “blame game” on each other to avoid more public scrutiny. State officials blame the federal government for being the ones who give them low budgets, which led them to perform such extreme measures of changing the water supplies to save money. The federal officials are blaming the state officials on the basis that it was solely their choice to change the water supplies. The EPA knew of the dangerous levels of lead within the Flint water but had little to no authority over it.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/federal-judge-says-texas-must-accept-syrian-refugees/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/20/senate-democrats-block-bill-restrict-syrian-refugees-entering-us/79063266/
One of the recent biggest debates in America right now is whether to allow Syrian refugees relocate to the states. Texas recently filed a state level law suit to keep Syrian refugees out of their state specifically back in the beginning of December. Many states followed en suite wanting to avoid the risk of taking in ISIS involved civilians and putting their states citizens in danger. Ultimately, the court justice overruled their lawsuit and two families of Syrian refugees were able to move in within days of the decision. Texas refused to drop the law suit and by that time the governor of Indiana had also taken action and tried to refuse letting Syrian refugees into his state. The federal government filed a legal response against Texas asking the courts not to agree to a temporary injunction that would keep Syrian refugees from settling within the state. A lawsuit was filed against the governor of Indiana to stop any movements he made against Syrian refugees. They stated that decisions concerning immigration and refugee resettlement are exclusively matters of the federal government and that any attempts to go against their word violates both the equal protection and civil rights laws.
These recent articles bring up the debate between federal v. state powers. Hines v. Davidowitz was a case from the 40's that challenged to define what the states had power to control and what the federal government did. In the end of the case it was decided that rules and regulations regarding aliens entering our country was a federal matter and that aliens were to be treated with equal rights. Article 1 and 6 of the constitution state that only the federal legislative branch has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and that their law about it is the supreme law of the land. This means the federal government could sue the states that filed lawsuits for going against their law.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34803-the-oregon-standoff-and-the-push-to-put-states-in-control-of-public-land
ReplyDeletehttp://nondoc.com/2016/02/12/u-s-v-texas-take-care-not-to-expand-judicial-power/
In recent news Oregon has been protesting for six weeks to put the decision about public land into the states rights. They were protesting to take control of the Malheur National Life Refugee. The reason for their recent activity is because after investigating the BLM, Bureau of Land Management they no longer trust the federal legitimacy. They believe that it isn't the government's right to own private land. These skewed views have caused the last four meetings to be stopped by the FBI. Another trending topic is the battle between Texas and Obama. After Obama got frustrated by the process with the immigration issue he sent a bill to Congress that got shot down. After the fact he privately told his homeland security advisor to tell her immigrant agents to act upon the failed bill. This failed bill tremendously increases the rights of a second class citizen. The problem that Texas has with this is because they agreed to give benefits to second class citizens they are giving out way too many benefits because the bill allows a lot more titles of second class citizen.
One of the biggest thing that we talked about in the first unit of this class is the balance between state and federal power, or federalism. The issue with Oregon and the federal govt is because the federal govt currently has control of private land and Oregon believes it should be a state decision. This causes trouble because there is a constant battle between state and federal rights. The Texas issue also goes off federalism because Obama created something with his federal powers that the states dislike. Also the fact that the law wasn't even passed causes a big deal because this is setting a national standard considering immigration is a federal issue. Federalism has been one of the biggest issues since our country was established and it will be interesting to see what other things come up within the next couple years.
As many people know, vaping is a new trend that has become very popular in the last couple of years. Congress just had a debate on whether vape should be allowed on planes and Congressmen Duncan Hunter was opposed to the idea. He pulled out his vape and blew a cloud in front of congress stating that it has helped him quit smoking. Congress also just sent a repeal to part of president Obama’s healthcare law. It passed through on Wednesday and Obama has made it clear that he will veto the appeal of the bill (not a shocker).
ReplyDeleteThis reflects to our unit because it is showing how congress attempts to put stuff through legislation towards the president but he veto’s a lot of the stuff that is proposed. This also demonstrates the struggle of getting something passed by both the House and the Senate.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/congress-send-obamacare-repeal-president-n491316
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/11/this-congressman-just-vaped-in-front-of-congress-to-prove-a-point-video/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/01/06/marco-rubio-constitutional-convention-balanced-budget-editorials-debates/78328702/#
ReplyDeletehttp://news.heartland.org/editorial/2016/02/04/constitutional-convention-can-be-limited-scope
This year’s presidential election process has seen its share of interesting ideas, and to this list we can Senator Marco Rubio’s idea to hold another constitutional convention to draft amendments to balance the federal budget and impose term limits on judges and members of Congress. Many people believe this convention will lead to constitutional mayhem, and even if it goes as planned, his proposals could poison our politics and cripple our American leaders in times of crisis. A convention would be difficult to control, mainly due to the fact that nowhere in the constitution is congress or supreme court given power to tell conventioneers what to do. As a part of the firestorm of republicans that was set off by Rubio’s idea, Noah Rothman said that Rubio’s idea is “a dangerous pander to one of the right’s worst ideas.”
In these two articles regarding Marco Rubio’s idea that seems to infuriate many people, you can point out clear conservative actions and beliefs. Marco Rubio has said on live television that he is a conservative and for those who didn’t know that, they might have already known that. Since conservative beliefs revolve around the idea of keeping the national government from being too powerful, it completely makes sense that Rubio would want to do something that essentially checks the ways and laws of government.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/cruz-legally-president-ivy-league-scholars-debate-36744131
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-01-27/ted-cruz-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-according-to-the-constitution
There is much controversy over whether or not Ted Cruz would violate the Constitution if he became president, because he was not born on American soil. The Constitution states in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 that “no person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The controversy in this situation is about the definition of “natural born citizen”, since the Constitution does not contain a clear one. Most people would interpret “natural born” to mean being born in the geographical United States. In this case, someone with parents who are illegal immigrants, but was born on US soil, would be constitutionally allowed to become president. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a mother who was an American citizen, and people think (Donald Trump) that he should not be allowed to be president because of this. This is showing how our constitution is not always clear about things.
In relation to the Constitutional Underpinnings unit, these two articles show how there are lots of elements to the Constitution that were not made very clear when it was written, such as how citizenship should be defined. The situation that the articles discuss is a classic example of how the Constitution contains elements that can be debated and interpreted in different ways.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/michigan/flint-water-crisis/2016/02/12/regulators-dismiss-dissenters-flint-water-crisis/80269996/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/flint-mayor-cost-replace-pipes/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/flint-mayor-cost-replace-pipes/
A now long-running issue in Flint, Michigan since July has been the Flint water crisis. Due to rusty pipes, the water had been intoxicated with seven times the safe limit of lead in usable water. Drinking, bathing in, and virtually any use of the water is now highly toxic and damaging to the health of Flint’s residents. Some argue that the solution of this issue should now be in the hands of the federal government to solve this issue because it is a hazard to the safety of the public. Miguel Del Toral of the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s Region said the state should
have required corrosion control treatments when the city began using Flint
River water a year earlier and that town may have much higher lead levels” than testing originally indicated because of a “pre-flushing” technique allowed by the state, essentially putting all blame on the state. The mayor of Flint, Michigan, said Tuesday she needs $55 million to remove lead pipes in the city beleaguered by a toxic water crisis. Officials say only $37 million has been approved thus far.
This crisis outlines the constitutional relationship between the federal government and the state, where the issue at hand is whether or not the federal government has an obligation to step in to solve the problem, and the state is doing all that they can to do it themselves, though they have made various pleads for the federal government's help. That relationship is what federalism is. Agencies whose responsibility it is to promote the public good: water utilities, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to name a few, seemingly do have that obligation to protect the wellness of the nation's citizens, but it seems like the outflow of resources that these organizations aim toward tend to look subjective.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/appeals-court-tosses-order-blocking-mississippi-executions-36840530
ReplyDeletehttp://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2016/02/10/stay-blocking-executions-mississippi-lifted/80187290/
A federal appeals court has reversed a stay that had blocked the state of Mississippi from carrying out executions. The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that a lower court judge ruled incorrectly in August when it blocked the state from executing prisoners. Judge Walker rejected arguments stated by death row inmates who argued this new drug was against their Constitutional rights. Recently the manufacturer selling the lethal injection decided to no longer sell Mississippi the drug so Mississippi resorted to a drug called midazolam that had not passed regulations with government to become an official lethal injection substance. The death row inmates desperately pleaded that the use of this drug on them could cause very slow painful deaths which violates their 8th amendment rights that states “no cruel or unusual punishments.”
This is an example of checks and balances where the court exercised its rights over the executive branch with regard to its treatment of prisoners. The lower courts originally ruled the use of the drug unlawful but as the case moved up to the court of appeals the ruling was reversed and the drug is now is now deemed constitutional and the claims of the death row inmates disregarded.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/politics/obama-executive-action-gun-control/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kyma.com/gun-control-laws-cause-different-opinions/
Within the recent years, gun control has been a contentious political debate topic and continues to win the attention of many including President Barack Obama. In a recent speech President Obama delivered, he discussed his desires for the future in gun control stating that the White House wants to expand and strengthen the background checks system. Remembering the Sandy Hook School shooting of 2012, Obama began to tear up over the tragic event and said there is a “sense of urgency” with this problem. Although Obama wants to “tighten the reigns” on gun control, he clarified that he is not trying to take away a citizen’s right to own a gun. However, he also stated that Congress must, “get on board” with his ideas for improving gun control. In addition to Obama’s speech, another article has congruent ideals for future gun policies. They agree that background checks need to be more thorough as well as adding a psyche evaluation to obtain a gun. This article stated that they believe that enforcing the laws already in place is a key component to fighting the never-ending battle in the war on gun control. Both articles address the same themes that although the right to bear arms is a civil right, there must be tighter rules and regulations in order to end the violence produced by these weapons.
Although the topic of gun control has become more prevalent in recent years, the “right to bear arms” originates from the foundation of the nation. The “right to bear arms” is a section of the second amendment which is a part of the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution. An underlying theme from the articles is the power the federal government is gaining over a citizen’s right to bear arms. This relates back to the issues that the Framers faced when writing the Constitution— having a strong central government while satisfying the want for the security of personal liberties and/or state rights. If reading this article from a “pro-gun” (freedom to own a gun) perspective, the article highlights the idea that a civil liberty is being “taken away” rather than taken care of and better managed. This thought process is similar to what the Anti federalists believed about the Constitution which included the idea that government was too controlling/ powerful through strong centrality and that there was no respect for personal liberties or rights (thus the creation of the Bill of Rights). Both articles reveal how past ideals (of the federalists and antifederalists) continue to influence the way the nation functions today.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/12/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-dishonest/
ReplyDeletehttp://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269299-trump-threatens-to-bring-birther-lawsuit-against-cruz
In the two articles provided above, both discuss the current debate on Ted Cruz’s citizenship. Many argue that since Cruz is not a US born citizen he does not qualify to run for president. Recently Trump has shined sever light on this issue through his six recent tweets on twitter all relating to Cruz being a liar. He talks a lot about Cruz making untrue comments about Trump and incorrectly citing what he has said. However it all goes back to this joke Trump made about “suing Cruz” for not being a natural born citizen.
Through the Constitutional Underpinnings Unit we learned that one of the requirements to be president clearly says you have to be a natural born citizen. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states “no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the president”. However this year’s election as already gone against this belief. Cruz technically isn’t a natural born citizen but is going in headstrong. This current event shows how some of the concepts of the constitution are a bit shaky and nowadays are being worked around.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article59299868.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.citylab.com/politics/2016/02/north-carolinas-tainted-2016-primary-election-racial-gerrymandering/461976/
The articles above detail the most recent developments in a twenty-year voting rights battle broiling deep within North Carolina. With a March 15th primary election looming, North Carolina's U.S. District Court ruled the 2011 redistricting of congressional district lines unconstitutional and in direct violation with the Voting Rights Act. After a 2010 GOP takeover, North Carolina's legislature engaged in heavy redrawing of congressional district lines - most pronouncedly in Districts 1 and 12, into which a large majority of African Americans were packed. GOP leaders were nearly immediately accused of racially-charged gerrymandering (as opposed to legal, partisan-politics-motivated redistricting) and the fourth case in two decades claiming voted dilution in North Carolina was brought before federal court this past fall. With a primary less than 40 days away, and absentee and early voters' ballots already cast, Republican Governor Pat McCrory and state lawyers have appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of overturning the federal court's decision and allowing the primary elections to continue amidst accusations of racial politics.
This issue has a finger in seemingly every democracy and Constitution-related pie, from voter rights to fair representation in government, Congressional gerrymandering, primaries, checks and balances, and judicial review. The plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court are posing this redistricting as not just a display of partisanship but a race-conscious way of further diminishing minority voters' place in American politics. This issue has been of particular relevance in North Carolina, where redistricting is following controversial legislation on Voter I.D. and early voting in the previous few years. Along with reflecting a debate over the Constitutional rights of government to represent its constituents, this issue also the judicial branch's role in determining this legal grey area. The Supreme Court will have the opportunity to yet again take on a hot-button issue and a case of national sociopolitical relevance - potentially checking the power of both the N.C executive and legislative branches, and once again defining what modern-day democracy in America looks like.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/us/obama-california-national-monument.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/12/466583045/photos-obama-declares-3-new-national-monuments-in-california-desert
Recently in the news Obama has been pointed out for many things he has done perhaps to leave a legacy for the people to remember him by. Most recently Obama, using executive action, has further protected land in the western deserts of the U.S. A California senator had begged Obama to do so since July of 2015. Republicans in congress call Obama out for his actions claiming that he is misusing the power, and that he put the land under federal protection without local consent or voice of approval.
This issue reflects the true process of government, you have a senator trying to get an executive action approved that would gain more support by her constituents, and a president who is trying to leave a positive legacy behind. In this way not only is the legislative branch and the executive branch interacting but they are positively working together, regardless of the external people in the opposing party who continue to hate everything the other party does regardless of what they actually personally believe.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/opinions/syria-candidates-should-discuss-ghitis/index.html
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/19/the-law-is-clear-states-cannot-reject-syrian-refugees/
It has been debated for a long time now, whether or not the United States should get involved in assisting Syrian Refugees. With life being almost unbearable in places like Syria, people are seeking help from outside countries in order to escape the misery. This has caused a major controversy in the United States and has developed a huge divide. While some states are more than happy to welcome these suffering people, other states believe that the United States should stay out of foreign affairs. They believe that the United States needs to focus on their own issues and problems before welcoming in new ones. However, some say that by helping the syrian people, we will form allies with other countries, and that we should use our elevated status to help those in need. This debate has formed due to the issue of state vs. national government power.
According to the constitution, National government holds supremacy to each individual state’s government. This was settled in the Mcculloch vs. Maryland case. This means that it is the National Government’s right to allow syrian refugees into the country despite what each individual state believes. Also, the states have to follow the national government's opinion about this because this is what the constitution states.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/07/462274762/alabama-sues-u-s-government-over-plans-for-syrian-refugee-settlement
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alabama-syrian-refugees_us_568eb6f1e4b0cad15e63ddc3
On January 7, 2016, the governor of Alabama, Robert Bentley, announced that the state would be suing the United States Government on the violation of the Refugee Act of 1980, due to not consulting the states on the placement of the Syrian refugees in the states. The concern is due to an apparent lack of information of the refugees. a similar lawsuit occurred in Texas a month back in which they also sued to prevent the placement of the Syrians. Bentley says that the US gov. never responded to the three letters asking for more information on the refugees. Also the republicans states had stated in November of that year that they would bar Syrian refugees from entering their states. The reasoning for this behavior is the fear of the possible security risks that these republican states believe that the Syrian refugees pose.
Now this applies to the theme of check and balances in the way that the state of Alabama, and previously the state of Texas are challenging the actions of the executive branch and taking to the court so that the judicial review may be used. Now this also goes with the conflicts of state vs. federal power in which the federal government is trying to allow for the Syrian refugees to enter and live in all of the 50 states, but some of these states are resisting the government. Now Obama is trying to use his executive authority over the states to allow for the Syrian refugees to live here, but the republican states are causing some trouble and now are trying to sue to government of the placement of the refugees.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/07/462274762/alabama-sues-u-s-government-over-plans-for-syrian-refugee-settlement
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alabama-syrian-refugees_us_568eb6f1e4b0cad15e63ddc3
On January 7, 2016, the governor of Alabama, Robert Bentley, announced that the state would be suing the United States Government on the violation of the Refugee Act of 1980, due to not consulting the states on the placement of the Syrian refugees in the states. The concern is due to an apparent lack of information of the refugees. a similar lawsuit occurred in Texas a month back in which they also sued to prevent the placement of the Syrians. Bentley says that the US gov. never responded to the three letters asking for more information on the refugees. Also the republicans states had stated in November of that year that they would bar Syrian refugees from entering their states. The reasoning for this behavior is the fear of the possible security risks that these republican states believe that the Syrian refugees pose.
Now this applies to the theme of check and balances in the way that the state of Alabama, and previously the state of Texas are challenging the actions of the executive branch and taking to the court so that the judicial review may be used. Now this also goes with the conflicts of state vs. federal power in which the federal government is trying to allow for the Syrian refugees to enter and live in all of the 50 states, but some of these states are resisting the government. Now Obama is trying to use his executive authority over the states to allow for the Syrian refugees to live here, but the republican states are causing some trouble and now are trying to sue to government of the placement of the refugees.
Both of these articles discussed the legalization of marijuana, which is a very strong topic of debate at the current moment. The first article talks about thew problems legalization will face. It mentions how soon it will get to where it comes down to the federal law, which declares it illegal.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of marijuana really shows the powers that are invested within the federal government and within the states, and it also shows how they can hinder each other. With 23 states having legalized weed in some form, it seems like the movement is gaining ground. But the fact that it is federally illegal hold its back. Will it fall under this idea or will federal law change?
http://www.ibtimes.com/marijuana-legalization-could-2016-be-year-federal-law-derails-cannabis-movement-2258515
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/business/dealbook/as-marijuana-sales-grow-start-ups-step-in-for-wary-banks.html?ref=topics&_r=0
ReplyDeleteObama, and his clean power plan are getting are being tested by the supreme court as they try and stop what he started. The supreme court voted in 5-4 against it in an attempt to shut it down. Texas believes that Obama should have waited longer to enact the clean power plan in order to prevent global warming. The Supreme Court Justices voted against this due to the extreme costs and the bad worker conditions in these power plans. All in all the power plant wasn't shut down completely. The court decided that they would just stop the plant in the mean time to make necessary changes. In order to come to this ultimate decision the supreme court used a perfect example of checks and balances
In class we talked about checks and balances, in what it seems, almost every subject or chapter of ap gov, as they play a huge rule in the government. Here in this case the Court was checking the power of the president as they saw him using it in ways that many thought were unreasonable in his clean power plan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-obama-epa-coal-emissions-regulations.html?_r=0
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/10/clean-power-plan-ruling-texas-dodges-climate-actio/