-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 Tuesday, February 9
-Blog #2 due Tuesday, February 16
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/01/gov-greg-abbott-calls-for-constitutional-convention-to-take-back-states-rights.html/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/01/08/texas-governor-calls-for-article-v-constitutional-convention/
Governor of Texas Greg Abbott recently called for a convention to restore states rights. During a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Policy Orientation that drew approval from a very conservative audience, Abbott stated that he will ask lawmakers to pass a bill authorizing Texas to join other states calling for a Convention of States. He would like that this convention is held in Texas. For this effort to start, 36 states must be on board for Congress to finally act. Abbott’s plan has nine key proposed amendments which include -
Prohibit congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state.
Require Congress to balance its budget.
Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law.
Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law.
Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Require a seven-justice majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law
Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation.
His goal is to make congress take the constitution seriously again and make major changes so the states and the United States are restored. He stated “If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of … then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America” Abbott stated the only thing bad about this would be doing nothing and letting the federal government ignore the outcries for help.
This goes with our topic with Constitutional underpinnings because it is overviewing the foundation of the Constitution and questioning the Constitution on state rights. This exerts states powers in calling Congress for action. This topic shows how the states and the federal government can check each other's powers. We have to see in the upcoming months if other states will join Texas and help propose this convention for Congress to take action and question the Constitution.
Evan Delp - AP Exam Review Blog Post #2 (Constitutional Underpinnings)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-kasbeer/virtually-everyone-is-dis_b_9141796.html
This post by the Huffington Post essentially blasts the electoral college and states the reality, which is that “virtually everybody is disadvantaged in one way or the other by the way we elect our president.” The article’s author, Richard Kasbeer, specifically points to the 2000 Presidential Election of Bush vs. Gore. This election was extremely controversial because despite winning the popular vote, Gore lost the electoral vote and Bush was elected President. Ever since, many Democrats believe that the current system favors Republicans. Kasbeer also discusses how the electoral college lends a different disadvantage to many types of voters. For example, the opinions of voters in larger states are diluted because they count as a much smaller fraction of the whole. Additionally, voters in traditional red or blue states are at a disadvantage because candidates assume that their votes are guaranteed and therefore they never visit their states on the campaign trail. Furthermore, the current system makes third party supporters irrelevant and pretty much discounts their support entirely. In his conclusion, Kasbeer proposes changing the system to make each vote count equally.
This strongly relates to Constitutional Underpinnings because the electoral college is the compromise that both sides reached during the first Constitutional Convention. The framers were concerned about giving too much election power directly to the people, so they created the idea of the electoral college. Today, many people feel that it is an inaccurate and inefficient method of selecting the President of the United States, but a revision to the current process would need an amendment to the Constitution. Considering the amount of time that would be required to do so, it doesn’t appear as if a change will be happening anytime in the near future.
Constitutional Underpinnings Blog Post - Jaylene Everett
ReplyDeleteWhat is government?
The government is defined as the governing body of a nation, state, or community. The government of the United States consists of three branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial branch. The executive branch is run by the President of the United States. The role of the president is to negotiate with foreign countries, be the commander-in-chief, and appoint ambassadors. The president also has informal powers, which include suggesting laws to the legislative branch, who has the power of the purse, that the president would like to see in power. In recent news, President Barack Obama has suggested a law to the legislative branch: the US government wants to sharply increase the cybersecurity budget to protect our country.
This new plan calls for $3.1 billion to update the outdated IT infrastructure within our government. In the past couple years, the American government has faced security breaches that resulted in the theft of data, including social security numbers and fingerprints. With the new IT structure, called the Information Technology Modernization Fund, America’s data will become more secure. In addition, a Cybersecurity National Action Plan will help consumer’s protection when online. The creation of this program is just another example of how the US government works in our daily lives.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3031360/us-government-wants-to-sharply-increase-spending-on-cybersecurity.html
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-02-09/doj-breach-overshadows-cybersecurity-budget-plan
http://nashvillepublicradio.org/post/five-quotes-help-explain-tennessees-constitutional-convention-debate#stream/0
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2016/02/04/tennessee-legislature-joins-wacky-call-for-constitutional-convention
There has been a call for another constitutional convention, the first since 1787. Tennessee just became the fifth state to join the fight for another convention with 34 states in favor being required to hold this meeting. This push was created by Tea Party members and conservative republicans wanting to tweak the existing constitution. These tweaks would require a balanced budget, add term limits, and give much more power to the states. Supporters believe that the federal government is abusing power and that the distribution of it needs to be reevaluated. Most oppose this new convention as the initially proposed issues could lead to more overhaul than intended, such as manipulation of the amendments; once the convention is in session anything can be changed. The worry is that those issues are just a means of entry into altering others. Also, the manner in which to select representatives and to hold this convention are not defined, so guidelines would have to be drawn up before such an event could be held.
The constitution is the document that defines our government and the constitutional convention is the event where the document is defined; the constitutional convention is what underpinned the constitution. These articles discuss the creation of another convention to amend the document that governs our nation. It would change how the government functions, such as power distribution and civil liberties. The amendments may be modified and new limits may be set or retracted. The convention would alter how everyday life functions. It has the potential to be a turning point in our nation’s history if it were to occur.
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/opinion/2016/01/25/governments-role-nd-amendment/79326332/
ReplyDeleteThis article talks all about the role of the government in the second amendment. The author believes that there should not be any change to the amendment and that everyone should have the right to keep and bear arms. This means that nobody can be denied a gun and it will be equally hard for everyone to get a gun. One thing he/she mentions is that not a lot of people read or know about the entire second amendment. He goes on to say that it says “ A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
In my opinion, because of the history of gun violence in this country, that we should not keep this amendment how it is and change it so it is harder to get guns. Our founders of America wouldn't want what is happening now. If they knew what was going to happen if the wrong people get guns so easily, then surely they would not have written it this way. The would want to make sure the guns are only given to the right people and change it to make America a safer place for its citizens. I understand changing one of the first amendments would not be an easy or simple thing to do while not 100 percent of the people agree to it, but if it is right and it decreases shootings is it not worth the time and effort.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/greg-abbott-texas-rubio-constitutional-convention/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-01-08/texas-governor-joins-gop-calls-for-constitutional-convention
Texas governor Greg Abbott has outspokenly called for the first Constitutional Convention in more than 200 years. Abbott has tried to gain Republican support for his cause and – according to various sources – wants to use his position as governor of the largest Conservative nation in the United States to his advantage. Abbott is not the first Republican lawmaker to propose a Constitutional Convention. Presidential candidate Marco Rubio has also declared that a convention would happen under his purview if he was elected president but, according to the article on CNN.com, his statement has yielded little interest for other candidates for Republican voters alike. Rubio has said that he wishes to add amendments to the Constitution which would enact term limits on federal legislators and Supreme Court justices (the article on usnews.com claims this is in a bid to limit the power of the Court). What’s more, these amendments would grant more power to the states individually reducing the power of the federal government.
Though the issue of Constitutional underpinnings has always been a relevant one and a divisive issue amongst Democrats and Republicans, Abbot and Marco’s joint goal is by far the most extreme lengths which any lawmaker has gone in recent memory to change the method of operation of the country. Abbott’s urging of states to join his collation has resulted in five others joining in the campaign with Tennessee being the most recent. Should the convention become a reality and the wishes of these lawmakers come to fruition, extreme new checks-and-balances would be implemented on the government and it may significantly alter the most basic operations of the United States government which have been in existence for nearly 200 years.
In Tennessee, the House of Representatives voted in favor of calling for another constitutional convention along with Alabama, Alaska, Florida, and Georgia. These states are hoping to balance federal and state power and balance the federal budget. They are also trying to limit congressional terms. In order to hold a convention, 29 additional states must vote in favor of this. There have only been 17 changes to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights and amendments have to be approved by 38 states to be ratified. It is a prediction that a constitutional convention will be held before next summer. Conservatives are concerned that changes will be made to the first and second amendments at the convention, and therefore rights regarding religion and guns will be compromised. Democrats are worried that rights for minority communities will be neglected. The overall goal of the convention is to create amendments that do not have to be approved by Congress.
ReplyDeleteThis is related to the Constitutional Underpinnings Unit because it stems from federal versus state powers. Creating amendments to the Constitution is normally a federal power, but states also have this power as long as the majority of states are in favor of it.
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/04/465593798/rewrite-the-constitution-several-states-are-trying-to
http://knoxblogs.com/humphreyhill/2016/02/04/house-votes-59-31-for-considering-u-s-constitution-change/
ABC News. ABC News Network, n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.
ReplyDelete"What the Constitution Has to Say about the Supreme Court Vacancy." TheHill. N.p., 16 Feb. 2016. Web. 16 Feb. 2016.
On February 13, 2016, Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia passed away at his home in Texas. Many of his health issues and concerns were kept from the general public. Scalia had been to his doctor three times in the week leading up to his death. There are now questions as to who will take his place on the Supreme Court and who will get to appoint that person. Many prominent Republicans, including those in power in the Senate and those running for President, believe that the next President should get to chose the next justice. Democrats believe that it should be the current President, Obama, who should get to pick who takes Scalia’s place on the Supreme Court. The Constitution does not clearly define the matter at hand and it is leading to a lot of debate as to who should appoint the next justice.
This relates to Constitutional underpinnings because in the Constitution, it does not clearly state
that if an election is coming up, weather the current President or the next President should pick the next justice. This is now leading to much debate and confusion in Congress, Obama, and the Presidential candidates. If this issue was clearly stated in the Constitution, there would not be this problem. The Democrats believe it should be the current President that picks the next justice, because Obama would select someone who would vote the way he would like them to vote. The Republican candidates believe that the next President should get to chose the next justice so that they possibly get to chose the next justice.
Supreme court Justice Antonin Scalia recently passed away, and there has been a lot of debate regarding whether or not a replacement for him should be nominated this year. This article discussed Hillary Clinton’s opinion on the subject, reflecting on the justice’s accomplishments as well as the republicans plan to wait to nominate a new judge until the next president takes office. Clinton claimed that they have no right to prevent a nominee from being presented, as the constitution simply says that when there is an open position on the supreme court, the president picks a new justice, and the senate approves them. She also stated that the republican’s actions were disrespectful to Scalia, who was a strict constitutionalist, by not doing what was clearly written in the constitution. Hillary Clinton continued to refute arguments of republicans who say there isn’t enough time to replace Scalia, by reminding everyone that the longest argument for approving a nominated justice was 100 days, and Obama has 340 days left in office.
ReplyDeleteThis article relates to constitutional underpinnings, as there are very few requirements, guidelines, regulations, and roles for the Judicial branch established in the constitution. There were no age, citizenship, residency, or law experience requirements for a person to become a justice, and to be initiated as a judge on the supreme court, a president simply has to nominate them, and they must be approved by the senate. This established checks and balances between the three branches, as the president can take part in the judicial branch by nominating the judges, and the legislative branch checks the executive branch by accepting the nominated person as a justice. Because the constitution has few details regarding the rules of when a president can nominate a new justice, it leaves room for interpretation, as seen in this article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/15/clinton-republicans-are-ignoring-the-constitution-by-ruling-out-scalia-replacement-this-year/
http://www.journalgazette.net/blog/political-notebook/Democrats-seeking-LGBT-protections-as-amendments-11510435
ReplyDeletehttp://thegavoice.com/lgbt-non-discrimination-amendment-fails-in-public-accommodations-bill-hearing/
After the major advances for the LGBT community, state Representative Taylor Bennett proposed an addition to the law that protects discrimination in society. Over America's history, minorities have gained many rights, and this politician thinks it's time for the LGBT community. He tried to add sexual orientation, gender identity, disability and sex to the list of those protected in the constitution. This proposal was quickly shut down with a vote 4-6, however, it is going to be brought to the full House Judiciary Committee, which could receive a different verdict.
We learned about the committees in class, where congress is divided into more specific groups that focus on a certain topics. This committee is also a more specific groups that focuses on these issues that concern the LGBT community. Now that there is a disagreement, this issue is being taken to a larger group with more authority. If shut down in this area of the government, this bill will probably have a lot more work to do before it gets passed.
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/14/10989416/elizabeth-warren-supreme-court
ReplyDeletehttp://townhall.com/columnists/frankturek/2016/02/16/scalia-defended-democracy--liberals-subvert-it-n2119959/page/full
Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Sunday that Republicans who don't want President Barack Obama to nominate a successor to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia risk threatening "our democracy itself."
In a short, sharply worded statement, Warren said she couldn't find the section of the Constitution that tells presidents not to nominate justices "when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic president." Scalia died suddenly on Saturday, opening a vacancy on the court.
"Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did," said Warren, a former Harvard Law professor, in a statement on her Facebook page. "Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself."
This event directly relates to our unit of constitutional underpinnings and the supreme court in that we learned that the president can nominate a justice to the supreme court in the sudden absence of one of them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/21/a-constitutional-convention-could-be-the-single-most-dangerous-way-to-fix-american-government/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2016/01/26/voices-constitutional-convention-greg-abbott/78849240/
Texas governor Greg Abbott has recently called for a second Constitutional convention to occur. The idea behind this is to bypass an ineffective Congress and to roll back a perceived overreaching government. This proposal is clearly partisan and would put the US in uncharted territory. There are no guidelines for a convention about voting or delegates. It is unlikely that a convention will happen, given that 34 states (a 2/3 majority) must request one in order to convene, and any legislature to come out of it must be ratified by 38 (a 3/4 majority).
Although the 229 year old document could not possibly account for all of the situations and dilemmas that modern America presents, the Constitution has held strong since its creation, and amendments have been made as necessary. The founding fathers made each of the branches to check each other and they made it purposefully difficult to change the Constitution without a strong majority. In an increasingly partisan world, modern politicians often lack the insight and vision for all people that the founding fathers had.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/a-new-constitutional-convention/article/2000805
ReplyDeletehttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/_liberals_and_conservatives_are_teaming_up_to_call_a_new_constitutional.html
Recently, Texas governor Greg Abbott has called for a second constitutional convention. He claims that the federal government is abusing its power, and a convention is needed to restore the rights of state governments. Despite the fact that the movement is being headed by conservative Republicans, there are a few notable Democrats at the helm as well, including Lawrence Lessig. The leaders of this proposal for a new convention -- known as American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) -- claims that they only want to pass an inactive Congress and act for the good of the states. According to the Constitution, states CAN change the Constitution, but it requires 2/3 to do so -- therefore, 34 states are needed to host a convention. However, the hope might not be so farfetched. 27 states have called for a convention to discuss a balanced budget amendment, which puts Abbott only seven states short.
While the idea of a new Constitution Convention might not be so terrible, it all depends on who is running it and what they plan to do with it. Once the Constitution is open, there's the possibility that much more than a balanced budget amendment and returning some power to the states might happen. There's a strong possibility that we might end up with a completely new Constitution.
1.) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35588937
ReplyDelete2.) http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/opinions/scalia-supreme-court-future-chemerinsky/index.html
Recently, Justice Scalia has passed away, and a large debate has taken place about whether a replacement should be instated before Obama leaves office. Obama himself wants to nominate a candidate for the senates approval. however most of the other government officials want to wait until a new president is elected from the up coming elections. Also, the officials that sided with Scalia were wary about how little evidence proved that Scalia died from natural causes. Some people even thought all the way back to the assassination of JFK (who was murdered in Dallas) and considered the very slight but possible chance that Justice Scalia was in the same way, killed. But this was just a speculation.
This topic relates to our class because we had an entire unit about how the justices live function with their jobs. We also talked about the powers of the president and how the president has authority to nominate the candidates for the selection of new Justices. Nobody else has the power to nominate people. So in the long run it really doesn't matter what the opposing parties think of Obama's decision, they can't stop him.
Bryce Collingwood
http://www.wlbz2.com/news/politics/obama-plans-to-nominate-justice-scalias-successor/42919743
ReplyDeletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/13/if-republicans-block-obamas-supreme-court-nomination-he-wins-anyway/
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently died, and it is the President's job to nominate the successor. President Obama plans to fill Scalia's empty seat. Scalia died while in the middle of many cases. There are many questions dealing with the current cases and if Scalia should cast a vote from beyond the grave. With Scalia's death, it makes the court very even. Not only an even eight people, but also a 4-4 split between liberals and conservative justices. Making most of the contrary cases upcoming, will likely end in a 4-4 tie. When Scalia was on the court he made the court a 5-4 conservative court. Obama has the ability to sway the court to a liberal court by nominating a judge; however the Senate says they will not approve any of Obama's nominees.
It states in the Constitution that it is the President's job to nominate Judges to the Supreme Court. However many people say that since Obama is currently a Lame Duck President, that he shouldn't be the one to nominate a Justice, that the court should remain until the next president comes in. But that is a whole 11 months until a new President is in Office.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/09/texas-gov-abbott-calls-for-constitutional-convention-proposes-constitution-amendments.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/articles/2016-02-04/pay-for-success-can-build-a-more-effective-government
Texas governor Greg Abbott has recently called for another Constitutional Convention to be held. He wishes to discuss new state protections that would nullify federal laws which would weaken the supreme court. He also wants to propose 9 new amendments some of which are requiring congress to balance their budget, allowing two thirds of a state vote to override the supreme court, and other amendments dealing with the increased power of the states. In other news, a new program called Pay for Success has been created which was made to try to help the government save money. They aim to control government spending by directing funding to what works and taking away funding from what doesn’t. They want to bring different government agencies together in order to tackle bigger problems. They focus on preventing problems in the first place rather than paying the expenses to fix them when it’s too late. This will help the government prioritize their spending wisely with their multi trillion dollar budget.
This relates to our unit because we just talked about how the government spends their money and what different agencies get what amounts of money. The Pay for Success plan would have tied into all of our debates and could have directed the funding towards our specific agencies. We also talked about the constitution and all the federal vs state power supreme court cases and how they are still debated to this day. There will never be a perfect balance in the government of federal vs state power.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/tennessee.joins.4.other.states.in.calling.for.constitutional.convention.to.bring.back.powers.to.the.states/79476.htm
ReplyDeleteLast year Tennessee’s Senate approved the resolution of the U.S Constitution and on Tuesday Governor Bill Haslam signed the House Resolution making Tennessee the fifth state in favor of calling a convention to amend the U.S Constitution. Tennessee, Alabama, Alaska, Florida, and Georgia want to bring back powers of the states and limit the federal government’s supervision. They also want to be able to create amendments that do not have to approved by Congress. Tennessee’s reason for supporting a convention are, “the federal government has created a crushing national debt through improper and imprudent spending" and "has invaded the legitimate roles of the states through the manipulative process of federal mandates, most of which are unfunded to a great extent." They also included that it is the state’s duty to protect the liberty of its people, particularly future generations, by proposing amendments to the United States Constitution through a Convention of the States.
This relates to the Constitutional Underpinnings unit because it involves the constant battle of State verses Federal power. The creation of an amendment is a federal power, States can only create an amendment if a majority of them are in favor.
Catherine Pileggi - Constitutional Underpinnings
ReplyDeleteThere has been a lot of talk in the 2016 Presidential Election. One topic that has caught everyone’s attention is the debate of whether or not Senator Ted Cruz is eligible to be president. The Constitution states that in order to be president you must be a natural born citizen. Many people are arguing that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen because he was born in Canada, however one parent was a U.S. citizen, so Cruz was automatically naturalized at birth. People are trying to break down the Constitution and figure out what exactly natural born citizen means. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, declared that natural born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England”, while aliens are “such as are born out of it.” Cruz is a U.S. citizen but since he was born in Canada, he is not natural born. The difficult part is trying to interpret what the Constitution means by natural born citizen. Until they can figure it out, it will still be up in the air whether or not Senator Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen and if he could be president or not, if he were to (magically) win the election.
This has to do with our unit in class because we discussed a lot about the Constitution and the meaning behind all the amendments. Many issues that have been brought to the Supreme Court have had to do with a violation of the Constitution because if interpreted liberally (strictly), it is very easy to violate. It is important to look further into the meaning of the Constitution. I believe the words of the Constitution are not set in stone and have “room for improvement”. The Constitution is clearly a huge part of the government system, without it there would be no foundation for the government to run on.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-01-27/ted-cruz-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-according-to-the-constitution
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html
http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/how-migratory-birds-could-save-the-paris-agreement-from-the-supreme-court
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stthomas.edu/news/religious-law-religious-courts-challenge-state/
The first article talks about how the federal government is stronger than the state government when it comes to foreign affairs and when the federal government says something then the states must follow as seen in the Missouri Vs. Holland case. The second article has religion being interpreted today in the sense that there is a difference between the church and the state and that difference is still being interpreted today.
Since the beginning of our country the constitution is in place so the laws can be made accordingly around the constitution. Today what can been seen as the struggle between the federal and state government, a struggle that has been going on since the beginning of the creation of the constitution. Religion in politics have also been called into the question of the constitution because of the first amendment allowing freedom of religion but some people have claimed that the government has hindered their freedom of religion.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/us/ferguson-justice-department-agreement-vote/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/justice-department-ferguson_us_56bba6c0e4b0b40245c52d0a
In recent news the government has decided to sue the city of Ferguson, Missouri. Over the past year many things have occurred in the city that has sparked national outrage. This originally started when Michael Brown, an innocent man, was shot dead. The government believes that the city is discriminating against African-Americans, an example would be that the city’s police was encouraged to stop African-Americans at stop lights to gain extra revenue. In hopes of reforming the city’s police enforcement and stopping unconstitutional police conduct; Attorney General Loretta Lynch has said that the government will “aggressively persecute this case, and intend to prevail.” This is also an effect of the city’s incapability of handling it on their own.
This issue reflects what we are learning because this is an example of the government having control over the states. The federal government gave the city an opportunity to fix their problem on their own but instead they didn’t neither did they take head to the negotiators when new terms were trying to be made. Therefore to take control and reform the police force themselves the government is suing the city for police misconduct. This shows an example of the government’s power and inevitability if the states can’t handle things on their own then the federal government will step in whether they like it or not. The country is meant to united on all things but if one city decides to do their own thing and treat people unfairly it is the government’s job to correct them before it leads to chaos.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/cnn-orc-poll-supreme-court-justice-hearing/
On February 13, 2016 Justice Anthony scalia died in Shafter, TX. His death caused much unrest in the us presidential election as well as a tug-o-war between the White House and the Senate. It’s sad his death caused brought more bickering between the political parties then the condolences from leaders of said political parties. Bernie sanders the first to acknowledge that somebody passed saying "While I differed with Justice Scalia's views and jurisprudence, he was a brilliant, colorful and outspoken member of the Supreme Court. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and his colleagues on the court who mourn his passing.”; however, his death does spark major political question. Should Obama Nominate a justice to the supreme court or should that be left to the next president. Either way there will be changes in all three branches coming soon.
This recent tug-o-war has increased the president's approval rating to 50% which helps him in his ability to bully pulpit. Another fact of the matter is that according to the constitution it is the president’s duty to nominate supreme court justices. so whether or not the republican senate will consider Obama's nominations.