Week #13 Global Warming

            Perhaps one of the most contested scientific debates of all time, the global climate change proposal holds that man-made greenhouse gases are altering the climate of earth.  The Kyoto Protocol was created in 1997 and was an agreement designed to reduce greenhouse gases by 2008 to well below what the worldwide admissions were in the 1990s. However, the document never received authorization in the U.S., thus America has yet to join the worldwide effort to seriously reduce its carbon footprint.  While global climate change has garnered a lot of support from renowned scientists across the world, it has received almost as much criticism as well. There is no dispute that the earth is gradually growing warmer, however the debate lies in whether humans are to blame or not.  The issue is unlikely to reach a complete consensus any time soon.            

            Arguing for the case of global climate change in the text Taking Sides, is author Gregg Easterbrook.  He states that while there are some good to global warming – like longer growing seasons, the bad outcomes will outweigh the good.  For instance, equatorial disasters will increase – like diseases in countries around the equator, the sea level will rise – completely wiping out some small landmasses, and the melting ice glaciers will alter the biology of the sea.  There also could be severe altering of global agriculture production.  Global warming is unpredictable, thus rainfall could potentially not fall where it is needed in major agricultural areas, causing mass starvations.  True, most of the effects of global warming are only projections made by credible sources – but taking the chance on allowing global warming to persist isn’t worth the potential outcomes. As for a solution, the U.S. is not the leader.  By refusing to sign onto the Kyoto agreement (because it would grant the U.N. some authority over America’s emissions) the agreement, which was created in part by U.S. President Bill Clinton, has lost its significance.  If one of the world’s biggest industry nations refuses to sign onto an agreement it helped create, why should other countries sign the Kyoto?  Thus, the U.S. must reconsider its position on greenhouse gas emissions to forge the path for the rest of the world.

            Looking from a different standpoint, many scientists still call global warming a hoax, or don’t contribute humans as the main cause.  Author Larry Bell states that global warming and temperature fluctuation is just another cycle of earth’s atmosphere – cycles that have been occurring for millions of years.  He goes so far as to explain that global warming is a hoax, made up by people who stand to gain from policy changes, like alternative energy companies, the U.N. and other regulation agencies.  However, on May 30, 2008, The Telegraph published an article citing a petition, which thousands of scientists had signed – claiming that greenhouse gases such as methane are actually beneficial for the atmosphere.  On February 13, 2013, Forbes stated that there is no general consensus on whether global warming is really happening, and if it is, there’s not a consensus in the scientific world on who is causing it.  Why should there be action taken regarding global warming if the experts can’t even agree on the issue?

            On a personal level, I do believe in global warming – or at least the fact that cleaner energy needs to start becoming the norm.  Greenhouse emissions do produce some gases that are normal to our atmosphere, however it creates an off-balance structure of these gases.  The Huffington Post on July 22, 2009 stated that the famous petition of scientists claiming global warming is nothing to be concerned about was not credible.  The reason being, only 0.1% of those signatures came from climatologists, the rest were from credible sources- but who were claiming knowledge outside their field of expertise.  For instance, while most of the signatures had PhD following the name, a lot of those doctorate degrees are in medicine, not in climate expertise areas.  Global warming is an issue my generation and the next especially will have to face head on – because this generation isn’t taking it seriously…. yet.  

Week #12 Affirmative Action and Race and Gender in American Politics

Affirmative Action

            There’s no doubt America has a lengthy history of discrimination against minorities, both on racial and gender lines.  But is it possible to fix wrongs that span hundreds of years?  Enter affirmative action, a popular –but controversial policy that attempts to right the wrongs of American history.  Affirmative action works similar to a quota system – although courts have consistently ruled that quota systems are illegal. Basically, the policy requires that a certain amount of jobs or educational positions be given to historically oppressed groups and minorities.  It’s difficult to find a person who would deny the fact that if possible, wrongs should be righted, however affirmative action could potentially penalize innocent people.

            However, affirmative action could further the discussion surrounding minority treatment.  This blog, in effect, is even furthering the discussion of this issue.  Because of affirmative action, many people will become aware of racial issues that may not have been aware before this policy. Many opponents to affirmative action contend that racial blindness would be a better substitute. In the course textbook, Taking Sides, author Glenn C. Loury argues that racial-blindness is not possible in the workplace or education, nor should it be necessary.  He states that personal identities are intricately entwined with race as well as other factors.  Thus, racial blindness is a superficial ideal.   The success of diversity depends first on getting diversity into the workplace and educational institutions. 

            Opposing affirmative action is author Walter E. Williams.  He asserts that civil rights leaders fought against the use of race when hiring for jobs, or admittance into public universities.  But today, civil rights activists fight for the use of race.  His main argument against affirmative action is that it is a zero-sum game.  With affirmative action, one person’s gains directly result in another’s loss.  When more black students are admitted to a college to fill a quota, it directly matches admission lost by whites and other groups who academically may have had better SAT scores in the application process. Williams argues that race should be taken out of the equation, and test scores should speak for themselves.  He also states that affirmative action could result in racial resentment. 

            As a white woman, affirmative action could stand to benefit me when looking for jobs after college.  But I don’t want a job that would be offered to me as a way to fill a quota of women in the workplace.  I don’t want handouts; I want to earn the job because my skills supersede the skill sets of another person.  But historically, women have not undergone the extent of inequality as minorities have. On a racial level, no one can deny the centuries of wrongs that have occurred towards minorities.  If affirmative action is a way to right even a fraction of those wrongs, I can’t deny the rightness of the policy. 

Race and Gender in American Politics

            In U.S. Congressional history, there has been a disproportionate amount of white, male congressmen to minorities and women elected into office.  On May 10, 2013, The Pew Research Center released a set of statistics showing that by 2060, only 43% of the voting population will be white, versus the 85% voting now. Mother Jones on November 20, 2012 stated that only 19% of congress is women, and that number isn’t projected to rise any time soon. 

            With the two-term election of the nation’s first black president, hopes were high that more blacks would win elections for top offices.  But, that hasn’t been the case, according to USA Today on January 20, 2013. “The Obama Effect” created a ripple among potential minority candidates, but it hasn’t produced any outcomes.  The article goes on to state that since Obama’s first presidential election in 2008, there was just one black state governor, five years later that number hasn’t changed.  In the Senate there were no elected senators in Obama’s first year as president, and there still aren’t any today.  In the House of Representative, 39 blacks held elected seats five years ago, just 42 are in elected office today.  The previously cited Pew Research Center holds that one reason for disproportionate representation of blacks and white is that fewer black voters show up at the polls.  But that trend is changing.  The last few presidential elections have seen the largest black voter turnout in American history, due to President Obama.  While there isn’t a way to immediately fix the lack of governmental representation of blacks, the future could hold better-contested elections by people of all races. 

            Concerning gender equality in the highest elected offices, the U.S. lags behind most of the rest of the world.  The previously cited Mother Jones article states that just 19% of all congressional officials are women in the U.S., whereas in Sweden 43% of the legislature is women, and in Rwanda over 50% of legislature jobs are held by women.  But NBC News on June 8, 2013 argues that many women are discouraged from running for public office because of stereotypical gender roles.  Women face more hardships in the candidate race than men do.  Typically, women still have to raise their children, and take care of their families on top of holding public offices; typically men play a lesser role in the family setting.  The media also plays a large role in discouraging women from running for office.  At times, too much attention is paid to what women candidates are wearing, versus their platforms for office.  And women must appear tougher on issues than men so that their demeanor is not interpreted as weak.  

Week #11 Gun Ownership

           The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The controversy surrounding this amendment has only been a recent development.  After several mass shootings occurred the last few years, gun rights activists have tried to limit or regulate the sale of guns and ammunition.  This has scared many gun owners, and has created the illusion that the government is trying to take guns away from the American people.  However, the ambiguousness of the Second Amendment provides very little guidance on this issue.  The Huffington Post on January 16, 2013 states that the last part of the amendment is often read without taking the first part into consideration.  Paying attention to only the last part of the amendment implies that no matter what, the American people have a right to own guns.  Adding in the first half of the amendment, it would appear that the only reason to bear arms would be to keep a militia – a point which is now mute since the federal government has its own military and doesn’t need a people’s militia. 

            From a gun-rights standpoint, The New Yorker published an article on April 19, 2012 citing the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller. Justice Scalia wrote for the majority ““The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”  In this interpretation, Scalia disconnects the two halves of the Second Amendment, and advances the idea that all Americans possess an inherit right to own guns. And this feeling is echoed within the majority of the American public.  The articles states that in 2008, a poll reported that almost two-thirds of Americans believe the Second Amendment defends their right to own a gun. 

            From a regulation activist standpoint the previously cited Huffington Post states that based only on the text of the Second Amendment, it does not guarantee unlimited individual rights to gun ownership.  The text could mean just a certain gun, and not all arms, thus regulation would be justified.  The previously cited New Yorker article states that the United States by far has the highest rate of civilian gun ownership – even double the rates of the second country.  But the U.S. also boasts the highest worldwide homicide rate of any developed country. From this viewpoint, it would appear that some sort of regulation and/or more extensive background checks are needed to avoid future tragedies comparable to Sandy Hook, Aurora and Virginia Tech. 

            On a personal level, I believe there is no way the government will ever be able to completely take away the guns of each American.  There would be a revolution before that happened. So discussing the banning of firearms is a mute point.  However, with the tragedies surrounding gun violence, I am in full support of further regulation and more extensive background checks.  While there will never be a solution to this issue that will please everyone, it is important to consider the greatest good for the greatest number of people.  If regulating guns would keep a firearm out of a dangerous individual’s hands’ longer, and even red flag police forces if they tried to buy a gun, then regulation of guns has served its purpose.  

Week #10 Legalizing Recreational Drugs and Marijuana

Legalization of Recreational Drugs

In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substance Act, which made illicit drugs illegal at the federal level. The question then arose: does this act supersede the powers given to Congress- without the existence of an amendment?  Or does the act protect the people from themselves? Drugs outlawed within the Controlled Substance Act include cocaine, heroin, opiates and marijuana.  It is estimated according to the text Taking Sides, that before this act was passed, less than one-half of one percent of the population used cocaine, heroin and opiates.  The use of marijuana is obviously quite a bit higher. 

            One major argument for the legalization of illicit drugs is that it would save taxpayers billions of dollars a year in incarceration expenses.  Author Bryan Stevenson contends that one in 31 adults in the U.S. is involved in probation, jail, prison and parole systems.  Over 68 billion dollars a year is spent on imprisonment costs.  He states that drug treatment and counseling programs are far more effective than incarceration in helping drug users beat addictions.  Racial discrimination also comes into play when talking about drug incarceration.  Communities of color have historically been targeted by law enforcement, and prison sentences are lengthier if caught with crack-cocaine (found in lower income areas) versus regular cocaine (found in more affluent areas).  Even though cocaine is more pure, and in effect more dangerous. 

            On the other hand, author Theodore Dalrymple argues that drugs should remain illegal because of the effect it has on a community and society at large.  Addiction affects not only the user, but also spouses, children, and entire neighborhoods.  He states that by legalizing these drugs that have been illegal for so long would create an uncontrollable waterfall effect. People would not be able to control their newfound freedom, and many would become addicts with socially undesirable effects. He acknowledges that we will never win the ‘war on drugs,’ but that shouldn’t stop us from trying.  Theft is illegal, but still happens, but no one advocates abandoning the law that prohibits thievery.  Thus, we should not abandon the law prohibiting illicit drug use. 

            On a personal level, I am an advocate for lessening prison sentences concerning drug use.  Far too many people are incarcerated for low level drug crimes- or for first time use.  I am all for reducing the number of inmates in the prison system that I pay taxes to support. However, I do not advocate for the complete legalization of drugs like cocaine, heroin and opiates.  The dangers those three categories pose to society and families are far too great to ignore.  But an increase in drug treatment versus automatic prison sentencing for possession or first time offenders should be imposed. Marijuana, on the other hand I feel differently.

            Marijuana Legalization

            Marijuana has a lengthy history of different feelings from the American people and policy makers.  “Reefer Madness” occurred in the 1930s, and thrust marijuana paranoia well into the last half of the 19^th century.  Recently though, marijuana acceptance has grown drastically. While still illegal at the federal level under the Controlled Substance Act, states have begun to legalize the drug.  According to the Huffington Post on June 29, 2013, 18 states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana use for medical purposes, and Colorado and Washington state have outright legalized it for recreational use.  And policy makers in D.C. have remained silent on the issue. 

            On August 28, 2012, the Huffington Post published an article in favor of legalizing marijuana, citing that marijuana is less dangerous and less addictive than alcohol and cigarettes.  Marijuana is less addictive, and when used incurs less injuries than alcohol.  It is also impossible to die of an overdose on marijuana, whereas it is possible to die from alcohol.  Legalizing marijuana could also not only save taxpayers money, but generate millions of dollars in tax revenue.  With the passing of Amendment 64 in Colorado, the state will generate about $12 million dollars annually in law enforcement savings, and earn about $100 million a year in tax revenue.  By getting marijuana off the streets and into a regulated business industry, it would make it harder for youth under 21 to get ahold of the substance. 

            On the other hand, The Daily Caller published an article on July 19, 2012 discrediting the marijuana legalization movement.  The author states that long term effects of marijuana use includes the loss of short term memory, slows reaction time, and although the study is not cited, the article insists that studies have proven that marijuana is more addictive than alcohol. On a societal level, statewide legalization of marijuana would create an even larger market for drug cartels.  Since the federal government has not legalized the drug, many reputable growers and manufacturers will abstain from the business for fear of federal troubles.  Thus, only those who partake in the business now underground will continue to do so, but legally. 

            On a personal level, I whole-heartedly believe marijuana should be legalized.  Too many friends and general members of society are in legal trouble for possessing small amounts of the drug.  It’s a crime that unnecessarily upsets lives that could have been productive members of society. It’s not the small use of marijuana that obstruct people from contributing to society, it’s the legal trouble that keeps good people out of certain jobs they would be best at.  On an economic level, legalizing the drug would only benefit states.  Already, Colorado has seen huge profit from Amendment 64.  Street gangs are pocketing money that could be going to support local governments and public structures.  Bottom line, the use of marijuana will always be a part of our society on a massive scale.  Legalize, regulate, and profit from an activity that will always be around.  

Week #9 Legal Drinking Age

Underage drinking is a widespread problem in the U.S. Since the 1980s, the legal drinking age has been 21 – enforced at the state level, but heavily encouraged at the federal level. The initial idea was to stop highway fatalities for young drinkers, according to TIME on June 6, 2008.  For most of the rest of the world, the legal drinking age is just 18.  For a country that legally recognizes people as adults at the age of 18 (they can vote and enlist in the military), strict discipline is imposed if anyone under the age of 21 is caught drinking alcohol. Legal trouble from MIP’s can span months, and keep kids from pursuing certain degrees in college. 

            The aforementioned TIME article describes a new insight to the drinking age debate.  Former Middlebury College President John McCardell Jr. is promoting the cause to lower the drinking age to 18 – by providing the youngsters with a license to drink if they complete 42 hours of education on the history, chemistry, psychology, and sociology of alcohol.  He argues that by bringing underage drinking out in the open, there would be less abuse of the drug.  Whereas now, underage kids are forced to drink behind closed doors completely unsupervised.  If out in the open, there would be less binge drinking, fewer untreated alcohol poisonings, and better supervision of new drinkers.

            However, against the cause of course is M.A.D.D., or Mothers Against Drunk Driving.  On September 14, 2012, PolicyMic published an article criticizing efforts to lower the drinking age.  They cited three main reasons to keep the legal drinking age at 21.  First, drunk driving is highest amongst 18-25 years olds.  M.A.D.D argues that if the age were lowered, even more drunk driving accidents would occur in the 18-20 year old range.  Second, with binge-drinking and alcohol poisonings so prevalent on college campuses already, the article contends that by lowering the drinking age, it would subject more kids to the harsh effects of alcohol.  Last, alcohol would only increase the impulsive nature of youngsters.  The potential for violent behavior would increase if more people had legal access to alcohol. 

            Personally, I do agree with lowering the drinking age.  As a minor, I hardly had any trouble getting alcohol.  But what endangered my safety the most was trying to hide it from my parents and law enforcement.  Rather than call my parents to pick me up from a party, I would drive home under the influence and hope I didn’t see any cops.  Minors are going to drink.  It goes along with the age.  I agree with John McCardell Jr.’s idea of educating people before allowing them to drink.  If I had known a sliver of the dangers alcohol poses, I believe I wouldn’t have engaged in binge drinking like I did.  Now that I am old enough to legally drink, I find that I don’t drink near as often as I did when it was illegal for me.  The risk factor is gone, and so is the major enticing elements that drinking provides.  By lowering the drinking age, the risk factor would be gone for thousands of kids, and so would a large portion of the dangers surrounding underage drinking.  

Week #8 Separation of Church and State

Referring to keeping religion out of the governmental structure of America, separation of church and state is a concept that has long been debated.  In the first Amendment, the Constitution proclaims that ‘government shall make no establishment of religion.’  However, as the Atlantic on June 15, 2011 states, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that there should be a separation of church and state, merely just that the government does not favor one religion over the other. However, there has long been a push to remove religion from every basic public event – like the pledge of allegiance in schools, or the inscription of the 10 Commandments on courthouses.  Religion makes people uneasy, and religion in government makes people even more uneasy. Unless it’s your religion of course.

            Justice John Paul Stevens argues for the separation of church and state in a Supreme Court case dissenting opinion.  Because allowing one religion to be more prominent than another in governmental places (like the Texas state courthouse), it could make people who practice other religions feel excluded. Since the government is supposed to represent every U.S. citizen, no one should be made to feel like an outsider in such public places. Stevens also points out that founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were wholly against including religion in governmental practices and structures because it could be used as an influence towards one side or another.

            On the other hand, Justice Antonin Scalia also uses the Originalist argument by stating that the United States has an intricate history with religion.  George Washington opened his Presidency with a prayer.  Technically, the Constitution does not demand a complete separation of church and state, since those words are nowhere to be found subsequently together. Scalia goes on to state that the main religions practiced – Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all have similar beliefs – such as the Ten Commandments seen on the front of the Texas State Courthouse.  Thus, when there is a clear majority for it, traditional structures should not be removed from society’s landmarks. 

            On a personal level, I agree with the separation of church and state.  If even one person feels excluded from basic governmental structures and programs, then whatever traditions or laws are in place are wrong.  All citizens share the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  If differing opinions on religions stands in the way of that basic right, then religion should be removed from the public equation and remain a private practice.  

Week #7 Same Sex Marriage and Abortion

Same Sex Marriage

Throughout United States’ history, the issue of marriage between people of the same sex has been a heated debate.  For the longest time, same sex marriage was illegal, however Hawaii pioneered the equal rights effort in 1996 when the highest court ruled there must be a compelling public reason to prohibit gay marriage.  The U.S. Congress responded with the Defense of Marriage Act that same year.  DOMA redefined the word ‘marriage’ and specified that it meant only between a man and woman.  According to Reuters on July 3, 2013, DOMA was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Windsor v. U.S. The ruling stopped short of mandating that same sex marriage be legal at the federal level.  It is now up to each individual state to allow gay marriage or not. 

In our course textbook, Taking Sides, author Theodore B. Olson argues that by not allowing gay and lesbian people to form the same relationships, and solidify them with marriage, we are excluding a huge part of our own society.  By allowing everyone to be married – on the conditions they wish – our society would become more stable.  Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and society, according to Olson. 

Several cases against same sex marriage follow along the lines of keeping the family unit wholesome. If gays were allowed to be married, they would raise children who would not be able to fit into society, if gays were allowed to be married, then what’s stopping a three-way marriage, or marriage to animals? Author Sam Shulman argues that marriage exists is to solemnize the connection of opposites, which alone creates new life.  Marriage is sacred and defined only within the limits of the ability to create new life.

On a personal level, I believe same sex couples should have the right to marriage. Marriage is a basic human right, and not something people should be excluded from.  I also agree that by allowing all humans to marry whom they wish, it would create a more stable society since marriage generally means two people are deciding to settle down. 

Abortion

In the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973, women were allowed more control over their bodies.  Abortion was legalized up until the third trimester.  Many conservative states tried to limit the amount of abortions happening by creating 24 hour waiting periods, requirements that abortions occur in hospitals, and informed consent laws. 

In the course textbook, Taking Sides, author Robert P. George furthers the pro-life debate by stating that most pro-life advocates do see abortion as a sin against God – but only because it is considered the unjust taking of an innocent life.  He also quotes a dissenting opinion in the Roe v. Wade decision – saying that a fetus development is continuous, it doesn’t become a human – it already is, just still developing.

But on a more liberal note, perhaps abortion could be viewed differently if we were to acknowledge how society reacts when a miscarriage occurs.  Author Mary Gordon explains that a 7-week-old baby (which could be aborted) is different than a 7-month-old baby because of what we call each death.  A death early in the pregnancy is a miscarriage, whereas a death late in the pregnancy is a stillbirth.  She goes on to state that while abortion is a regrettable matter, it should be legalized for various societal reasons – like poverty, and a better life for the child that is wanted versus not.

On a personal level, I take a definite feminist approach.  While abortion may be one of the hardest decisions a woman may ever have to face, the choice to abort or not is hers, not leading (mostly) male politicians. Especially in instances of extreme poverty, terminating unwanted pregnancies could potentially save a child and its mother a very hard life.  Without a doubt, where the mother’s health is at stake (defined as broadly as in Roe v. Wade) or in instances of rape and incest, the mother should be allowed to abort with reasonable ease.  

Week #6 Is Congress Dysfunctional? Campaign Financing

This post comes at a critical time in U.S. politics.  The government is currently shut down after both parties failed to come to an agreement on a budget.  The public approval rating of Congress is at a mere 11%.  Thus, begging the question, is Congress dysfunctional?

Lee Hamilton, a former representative argues in "Public Criticisms of Congress" How Congress Works,  that no, the inefficiency of Congress is by design. The original framers of the Constitution never intended Congress to be a machine, whipping out legislation at a rapid rate. Instead, Congress is supposed to cater to the American people's needs, but only after deliberate consideration of those needs.   Congress is not supposed to produce a new law or piece of legislation after every public cry of want.  They are only supposed to tackle the bigger issues that will stay around for years to come.

Columnist Ezra Klein argues the opposite.  He contends that Congress is very dysfunctional for several reasons.  First, even with a majority in Congress the last few years, and in Senate now, the Democrats cannot get anything passed.  Here's where the problem is, the minority can obstruct the goals of the majority.  Congress has become a political game.  While in the past, there used to be political factions within each major party (Liberal Republicans, Conservative Democrats), those are nonexistent now, thus coalitions cannot be formed to pass legislation.  It truly is all Republicans versus all Democrats now.  If the Democrats were to pass any piece of legislation, it would be a loss for the Republicans.  The same happens when Republicans are in power.  Since the minority can obstruct the progress of the majority, isn't the minority proposing new solutions? No.  The minority can obstruct all majority legislation, without proposing a different solution, and the blame for ineffectiveness will fall on the party with the majority power.  All that matters is that the minority gain the majority in the next election.

Klein also argues that the filibuster is used far too often nowadays.  Originally, the filibuster was created by mistake in the late 18th century.  In 2009, the Senate had to break more filibusters than the 1950s and 60s combined. Filibustering obstructs any progress of a bill, and clearly something is wrong is its being used that much more.


On a different note, people running for public office currently have the option of using public monies for their campaigns.  Few, however choose to use the money as it has become obvious that candidates can raise a lot more money on their own.  Big donors get around laws restricting the amount of money they can give to candidates by giving money to political parties (known as "soft money") or SuperPacs.  Whereas money given directly to the candidate is called "hard money."

Mark Green argues in "Change, For Good" in the 2002 book Selling Out: How Big Corporate Money Buys Elections, Rams Through Legislation, and Betrays Our Democracy, that adoption of public financing of campaigns would make elections more fair and open.  Spending limits should be set in place for elections so that it would allow officials to spend more time actually doing their jobs rather than spending most of their time fundraising for their next campaign.  If spending limits became a part of elections, they should not be set too high, because that would favor only certain candidates who could actually raise that much.  But if limits were set too low, that would favor the incumbents whose names are already well known from serving in office.

John Samples argues the opposite in "Taxpayer Financing of Campaigns" from Welfare for Politicians? Taxpayer Financing of Campaigns in 2006.  He said that public financing of campaigns would force taxpayers to support  candidates that they don't necessarily want to.  Most Americans do not contribute to campaign funds.  Public financing of campaigns would not be fair also because the transfer of money from taxpayers to candidates and their select ideas and views.

Week #5 Constitutional Meaning and Excessive Presidential Powers

Written over 2 centuries ago, the Constitution is still the guiding light for the United States when it comes to just about every legal question.  However, did the framers intend for courts and judges to take their words literally? Or was it meant to be a living document that would change as the times changed?

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia claims in his speech from 2005, titled "Constitution Interpretation" that judges should take the framers words literally, and not allow the Constitution to change with the times.  His stance on taking the Constitution literally is known as being an originalist. Scalia argues that if the Constitution is allowed to change, then anyone could give whatever meaning they wanted to to the words in the Constitution. The Constitution would change to fit the needs of the people (especially judges, political parties, and lobbyists) and would lose its rigid structure of lawfulness. Scalia points out that the phrase 'substantive due process' was something added to help interpret the Constitution based on what the American people needed at the time.  Basically, the Court has the power to interpret the Constitution however they want in court cases because of the substantive due process phrase.  Another important tenant of Scalia's argument is that the Constitution grows and changes based on political needs.  The conservatives want abortion outlawed....ect.  The Democrats want abortion legalized ....ect.  Both groups of people interpret the Constitution differently based on what they personally want to see happen.  From an originalist standpoint, abortion is legal already, because outlawing the right to abortion would be unconstitutional.  There is no point debating it.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer argues in Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution also in 2005, that the Constitution should be interpreted on a case by case basis.  Breyer states that the framers of the Constitution barely agreed on including major points in the Constitution (like the Bill of Rights), that they wouldn't have all agreed on how to interpret each significant point.  Thus, judges shouldn't all interpret them the same way today either.  Justice Breyer also objects to the idea that all judges would rule based on their own personal agendas.  He claims that judges know the power of their decisions in making way for legal precedents, rules, standards and how each one would not only affect the country, but the world.  In very few cases would someone purposefully obstruct future proceedings for personal agendas.

However, as time has marched on, there has been an increase in presidential powers. Specifically in cases involving  military action, presidents have executed swift power moves by quickly implementing their decisions.  Overall, the Constitution is pretty vague when it comes to explaining presidential powers. Article II, Section 2 states, "(the) President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." The Constitution does not explain how the president should use those powers, just that they have the right exercise them.

John C. Yoo argues in Memorandum Opinion for the Deputy Counsel to the President in 2001 that the president should have unilateral war powers.  Yoo states that since power is there is a huge centralized power within the presidential role, it was meant for the president to exercise his powers swiftly especially when it comes to matters of national defense, foreign policy, and threats.  Since there is only one person in charge of the executive branch (versus multiple Supreme Court Judges, and hundreds of members of Congress) the framers intended for presidential actions to be made much more swiftly compared to any other branch.  Yoo goes on to argue that the Constitution resolves that any uncertainties within the executive power must be decided in favor of the executive branch. Hence, the Constitution is vague when explaining executive powers, thus when any issues arise, the power must be given to the executive branch.

On the other hand, Michael Cairo points out in the article "The Imperial Presidency Triumphant" published in Executing the Constitution in 2006, that within the last few presidencies the executive power has expanded far more than the framers had intended. He goes on to state that broad military powers were given to Congress (like raising a military, allocating funds, officially declaring war, and regulating commerce).  And the president originally was only supposed to nominate ambassadors, negotiate treaties, and direct armed forces (after war has been declared by Congress).  The Clinton and Bush administrations set a new precedent, elevating the power of the president when it comes to the Commander-in-Chief position.  They were involved in several wars and deployed thousands of troops, all without the official approval of Congress.

On a personal level, I do believe that the Constitution should be interpreted more literally than abstractly.  If we allow courts to interpret the Constitution differently based on the changing times, it makes it all too easy to make a decision based on personal feelings in the case, and create legal precedents that shouldn't be followed.  Court decisions should be based on the original meaning of the Constitution and by past precedents.
I side in the middle of the presidential unilateral power debate.  I whole heartedly believe that the executive branch should have the power to make swift decisions when it comes to foreign policy, foreign threats, and war (after all, we have seen just how impossible it is for Congress to come to an agreement in a timely matter).  However, I also whole heartedly believe in our system of checks and balances.  The executive branch needs another branch to oversee and check on its use and overuse of power.

Week #4 Is America Becoming More Unequal?

Historically, the United States has never been a fiscally equal country.  The incomes of its citizens has always been all over the board.  The period after World War II saw a time when equality was closest in history to becoming equal in the U.S.  (However, it wasn't even close) The 1950s and 60s produced a solid middle class, where most everyone had enough money to not only cover the costs of living, but could afford the extra 'wants.'

After the recession of the 1970s and 1980s, though, the income gap widened even more significantly.  Over the last 40 years, the middle class has been slowly disappearing.  The expenses of living have increased, but wages and overall incomes for the middle class have not.  Essentially, the people who identify as middle class today are living with much less than their parents did.

It must be noted, that overall, there has been a decrease of extreme poverty, and social conditions have improved, but incomes have not.

The wealth of the top 1% in the United States exceeds that of the bottom 98%.  Inequality is alive and present in one of the world's top first-world countries.
People who identify with the bottom 98% have voiced their concerns over the widening gap of wealth in the U.S. Since 2001, economic recovery has been weak by almost every measure of standard.  The one area where this doesn't apply is in corporate profits, which have seen a steady rise since the most recent recession.
Even though poverty has overall decreased in America's history, the U.S. still has one of the highest poverty rates for developed countries at 12.6% in 2006.  And that number has only increased in the 2000s.

On the other hand, corporations are needed to keep America running.  Since most of the wealth lies with 1% of the population, increasing taxes and trying to create equality could very well drive some of the wealthiest people out of the country.  The people who see corporations as a corner block of this country argue that living conditions for all citizens have overall improved.  There has been much progress in agriculture, construction and manufacturing, as well as in public health, nutrition, and in the longevity of life.
They also argue that since the need for physical capital has been replaced by human capital - the need for brainpower, there is greater access to good paying jobs for middle class - college educated people.  Social equality for people of different races, gender, religion, and sexual orientation has drastically improved also.

On a personal level, I come from a lower middle class family in central Nebraska.  Our main source of income is the family farm, and my mother's poverty-district teaching salary.  We never had more than we needed growing up, and money was constantly a source of stress for my parents.  My view point may be slighted in favor of the working class, because I have seen first hand the struggles poverty creates.  For me, hearing that some people live so lavishly and their incomes keep getting bigger, while the working class stays the same of diminishes, I get angry.  America is not equal.  Nor is it heading in the right direction concerning economic equality.  I acknowledge that the top 1% do pay the majority of the taxes, however, I also want to point out that their high level of taxes does not interrupt their carefree lifestyle.  Whereas a 14% income tax for my family nearly sinks us fiscally.

Week #3 The National Security Agency and Drone Warfare

National Security Agency:

Thanks to whistleblower Edward Snowden, U.S. citizens and the rest of the world now know more about how the U.S. government has been spying on its citizens and on people who have contact with its citizens.  The major question is whether or not this is legal, and will American citizens allow the spying for the sake of national security?

Since 2001, when the Patriot Act was passed under the Bush administration, the government has legally had the right to tap into Verizon cell phone towers to monitor who their customers are calling, the duration of the call, and essentially track where the call is coming from.  It's not certain how long this has been going on, but it's been arguably legal since 2001, and has been happening since 2006 when the first whistleblower on the issue emerged.

Here's what's good about the NSA:  Congress has been briefed.  The NSA seemingly has been open with Congress on its surveillance programs, so it's not just one man or one agency calling the shots.  To some extent, the NSA is still held liable to Congress.
It protects our freedom.  The age old argument now about 'keeping terrorists out of our borders' can be used.  After 2001, when national pride hit an all time high in the U.S. citizens may have willingly agreed to the surveillance by the NSA.  It's a matter of 'Well, I don't have anything to hide, and if you don't then why should you care if the NSA wants to look for terrorists and stop another 9/11 from happening?'  On that front, a sense of national security is ensured, though its undecided how accurate the NSA surveillance really is at catching the bad guys.

Here's what's bad: The government is spying on it's citizens! I think this statement can evoke enough of a bad taste in your mouth that I need not continue with my explanation.  Since when is the land of the free (freedom of EVERYTHING) home to a government that spies on its citizens 24/7 and can use that private information to incriminate them?
The NSA supposedly trashes most of the information is it doesn't seem useful, however, if there is evidence that a crime is about to occur, the agency can turn that information over to law enforcement and the citizen can be incriminated.  A citizen can be incriminated by information sent through a text message, said over a phone call to his brother, or emailed his cousin.  Think about that.  The privacy of citizens in the United States has disappeared.  And after a surveillance program this extensive has been in place for several years already, its highly unlikely the program and spying will ever stop.

So our privacy is gone forever.  Personally I have not been in favor the the NSA surveillance program since I first heard about it.  I am all for the rally syndrome and evoking national pride, but my feelings stop the second I know the government has infringed on my rights.  No, I do not have anything to hide, but as a U.S. citizen I shouldn't have to prove my innocence by letting the government 'listen in on my life.'   I am innocent until proven guilty - the right way.


Drone Warfare:

The United States has been moving it's military campaigns steadily into unmanned warfare since the drones were first used in 1995.
While drones offer the U.S. military an easier and arguably safer way to fight it's enemies, there are many controversies surrounding their use.

Pros:
Drones offer a tactful way to fight enemies without losing human lives in battle.  In the United States' War on Terrorism, the enemy isn't completely defined.  The U.S. isn't fighting against a recognized country who has an established military.  Instead, the U.S. is fighting an idea. Terrorists organizations are loosely held together.  They are not organized in the traditional sense of the word, and so the campaign against them must not be either.  The military can successfully strike at its enemies without losing a single American life in the fight.
Drones are cheaper.  The military spends millions of dollars training soldiers for the highest level of air force skill.  However, when a pilot gets shot down, all that money and training disappears with the life.
When a drone is shot down, the only thing lost is the machine (which is still thousands -maybe millions of dollars cheaper than an airplane).

Cons:
Has war become dehumanized? With a simple push of a button by a pilot harbored safely miles away from the battle, hundreds of lives can be taken - civilian and terrorist lives alike.
In 2008, the United States' killed a U.S. citizen in a drone strike in the Middle East.  This is the fourth known occurance.  The incidents beg the question; does the U.S. government have the right to kill its own citizens (even if they are collaborating with terrorist organizations) by a drone strike without a fair trial?
When targeting terrorist organizations in mountainous regions, drone strikes offer the easiest route to taking out enemy camps.  However, the enemy camps have caught on, and have begun bringing along innocent women and children.  Thus, innocent civilians are the collateral damage in a drone strike.

On a personal level, I feel torn.  I feel the common overwhelming sense of American Pride, and will support the military wherever they are sent.  However, there are times where I do not support those who are in control of the military.  Above all, the loss of an innocent human life is not acceptable collateral damage.  If there is any chance at all that an innocent life could be taken in a drone strike, I must admit that I am not in favor of the strike.  However, I acknowledge how drastically that would slow the war effort down, and may not be truly possible.
If it were me pushing the button, I wouldn't be able to do it. I guess I'm just glad that decision is in someone else's hands.

Week #1 Is America Exceptional?

McClay, W. M. (2006). The Founding Nations. First Things.

Zinn, Howard. (2005) The Power and the Glory: Myths of American Exceptionalism.  Boston Review.

During America’s rise as an international authority over the past century, American exceptionalism has become a debate that’s slowly losing its legitimacy.

The idea is simple; those that believe America is exceptional believe the United States is superior to other nations.  Whether it was accomplished with divine intervention or because events just naturally happened, since the late 1800s, the United States has flown by standards of greatness previously set by other countries.  The idea of exceptionalism also follows the notion that Americans have high moral standards.  

Author Wilfred McClay enthusiastically writes in favor of American Exceptionalism, referencing the strong history of the United States. He focuses mainly on the past, because the U.S. had a relatively quicker rise in status than most countries have had.  McClay also comments on the beginning of the United States:

            “A constitutional republic like the United States is uniquely grounded in its foundational moment, it’s time of creation….It requires of us a willingness to be constantly looking back to our initiating promises and goals, in much the same way we would chart progress ….by reference to a master list of resolutions.”

By creating a government and constitution that has the ability to adjust to modern times, the United States could arguably be considered exceptional…..if it were still the 1800s.  In modern times, the freedom argument is not a legitimate basis for argument of American Exceptionalism.  Nearly every first and second world country (with a couple exceptions) enjoy basic freedoms. So that’s not what makes America great anymore.

Author Howard Zinn boldly argues against American Exceptionalism.  He also uses American history to back up his claims.  The first big stain on American history happened shortly after the country was settled by Europeans; the massacre of American Indians. 

Furthermore, Zinn criticizes the size of the American military (with more than 10,000 nuclear weapons and military bases all over the world, the U.S. easily has the world’s most expensive army.)  He strengthens his argument by noting that with the belief in divine intervention coupled with a massive military, our leaders could easily throw out the norms of human morality.  His reasoning throws out the idea of American moral eliteness, something that deeply splits the ideology of American Exceptionalism. 

On a more personal note, I do not believe America is still exceptional.  I whole-heartedly believe at one time, the United States created an example for other countries to follow into the future.  However, America has slowed its advancements down to a crawl.  For issues like universal healthcare, free (or at least cheap!) education, and distribution of wealth, the United States lacks sorely behind the rest of the modern world. 

And as for morals, I believe with our outstanding military power, America does not hold itself to the standards that it created for the rest of the world.  Depending on the official approval of Congress later this week, the United States could be heading into another Middle-Eastern war.  The conflict in Syria is not America’s doing, however with a military the size of America’s, peace-keeping missions are arguably its duty to the rest of the world.  What makes this area blurry is that the United States hasn’t always gone into conflict with the utmost of moral intentions, thus credibility has been lost. 

The rest of the world cannot tell America no.  The United States is still the top world economy, and its military could easily crush almost any other military in the world. 

But if the rest of the world does not trust us (due to lost credibility, then do we really have a right, let alone duty to police other nations in the world?