Gun Control

Tuesday will be an influential day for the Supreme Court. One of the biggest cases in many years will come in front of the justices, and the topic of choice will be a controversial one - gun control. The Court will aim to decide two major issues: whether strict state and local gun control laws are unconstitutional becuase they might violate the "right to keep and bear arms," and whether an individual's right to own a weapon extends beyond federal jurisdiction. Diane Latiker supports a law in Chicago that prohibits the owning of a handgun, while Otis McDonald is fighting this very law in court. The main purpose of the law currently is to try to prevent violence between people. Handguns are the most easily hidden firearms, making them perfect for violence in small crimes. For this reason, the Supreme Court decision could have a large impact on whether or not violent crimes are related to gun control. The main reason that the Supreme Court is trying this case now is becuase the Court at this time has a conservative majority. The conservative views of the Court might outweigh the liberal views on this desicion, ultimately creating a precedent with less gun control than currently noticed. This is a good issue to go to the Supreme Court, because it needs to be decided. It will be interesting to see what happens. The link to the article is here.

No Legislation for 2010

It is only February in the new year of 2010, but still almost no large decision has been made by Congress yet this year. The scary thing is that this trend could carry for the rest of the year. Some political scientists and political observers of the legislative scene say that the gridlock that is now being experienced could continue all of the way until the mid-term election. This is because both parties cannot get a solid grip on any issue, and neither party will side with the other on any matter that is debatable. The democrats are not afraid to take chances that might alienate the voters, because they know that their time is ending in Congress if no changes are made in our government. However, republicans know that if the democrats don't do anything until the mid-term elections, they will likely lose the incumbent race for reelection. This means that if the republicans make it so that nothing happens in Congress for the rest of the year, the republicans will gain many a number of seats. Then they will attempt to follow their own plan for Congress. This is not good news for any American that wants to see change in the important issues of the nation. One party wants to change things, but not for the right reasons. The other party does not want to change things, also not for the right reasons, however. It's basically one giant stalemate in which neither side has their head screwed on straight. They do not realize that what they are going on each side looks bad to the general public. It's only a matter of time before we have a third party enter the equation, if the two that are here cannot pick up the slack of their ideals.

Important Census

The 2010 Census Can perhaps be considered one of the most important in recent history. With public support of President Obama well below 50 percent, it does not take a stretch of the mind to believe that the public will not reelect some of his Democratic counterparts in the 2010 midterm elections. Why does the Census tie into this? Because with the Census comes redistricting and reapportionment. This means that a truly nonpartisan process ends up become extremely partisan - it is truly a battle to see how much representation certain parts of the country should have. This battle translates into a battle for House and Senate seats between the two parties in the U.S. In a sense, this could either be really bad for the Obama administration, or extremely good. If redistricting favors democratic populations, then Obama bad popular support might not turn into a bad turnout for the democratic party on election day. However, if redistricting favors republican populations, the Obama administration will lose even more seats in the House and Senate than they are already going to. This would translate into disaster. I feel that it is quite the coincidence that the Census fell on probably one of the most important mid-term elections in recent history. With a republican majority in the House and Senate, and a democratic President, it's likely that we could see stalemate for the next two years. The link to the article is here.

Applied Miranda Rights

One of the precedents set under the Miranda vs. Arizona case is the fact that a criminal has the right to know he has the right to an attorney , and they have the right to remain silent until a lawyer is present. In a recent criminal case, Michael Shatzer was questioned for the first time during an investigation, but denied answering any questions until he had an attorney present. The case soon went cold, and Shatzer sat in jail for another three years. When more information on the case was found, police soon went back to question Shatzer. This time, he waived his right to remain silent, but was not told of his right to an attorney. The police said that since he had known he could have an attorney present three years ago, he did not need to be read that right once again. The first court of appeals held that the court could not use Shatzer's confession because he had not known the right to an attorney. The Supreme Court overruled this, however, by saying that Shatzer never specifically requested an attorney for the second interrogation; the Court figured that Shatzer would remember he had the right to an attorney, even if the police did not read it to him for a second time in three years. In my opinion, Shatzer could have forgotten about his right to an attorney during the three year period, because three years is quite a long time. The police should have read him all of his rights again in order to keep all fairness the same.

Killer Not Heard by Supreme Court

In 1999, Paul Powell killed a 16 year old girl in the state of Virginia, but was only convicted of raping the girl's 14 year old sister when he was taken to trial. He was put into a long prison sentence. Thinking that he had somehow escaped the death penalty, Powell decided to brag about what he had actually done. Powell thought that because of the double jeopardy clause in the constitution, the state could not take him back to court for the same crime. This is true, but in the letter, Powell admitted to killing the 16 year old girl, a crime that he was not fully on trial for during the first go around. So the courts took a look at the entire case again (taking the new confession into account), and convicted Powell of rape and murder - he was thus sentence to death sometime in the near future. Powell appealed his case to the Supreme Court, because he thought that he was unjustly tried do to the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. This is partly true, but the crime tried was partly different. For this reason the Supreme Court recently refused to hold a hearing for Powell's case. In this light, Powell now sits on death row, awaiting his turn for the lethal injection. The Court denied the appeal because of the fact that Powell's letter was basically a straightforward confession to guilt. After all, with the truth out in the public, it's hard for the courts to protect a lie. The truth must ultimately be heard if it is a truth. The link to the article is here.

Palin Continues to Talk

After Sarah Palin lost the 2008 election as the vice presidential candidate with Senator McCain, she resigned as the governer of Alaska. However, she continues to be an influential force in the actions of the GOP. With all of her free time, she seems to be making speeches at almost every important conservative convention possible. In May of this year, May 14th to be precise, she plans to speak at the National Rifle Association (NRA)'s annual meeting. The NRA, interestingly enough, is one of the most influential interest groups in the United States. By the transitive property of government, with Sarah Palin as the keynote speaker, Sarah Palin is therfore one of the most influential people in American government. Not suprisingly, she is currently one of the most, if not the most requested speaker in the United States of America. If this at all reflects what the public would think about her running for the White House in the 2012 election, it can be seen that there is almost no stopping her. With all the help that she will get from speaking at the NRA meeting in South Carolina (South Carolina is an early state in the primary elections), its almsot as if she will walk into the White House position. Then we might just see how downhill the world will go with her writing on her hand.

Poll - People Dissatisfied with Democracy

A recent poll done by CNN revealed that most people in the United States are dissatisfied with the way that democracy is working in our country. In my opinion, this is something that people should not say when regarding a poll. If you live in the United States, you should know that our democracy is so complicated that almost nothing gets done in a noticeable amount of time. But what people need to realize is the fact that this is the same democracy that unites us into one people, and protects all of our civil liberties and civil rights. The only reason that nothing seems to get done is becuase of our system of checks and balances. However, if these checks and balances were taken away, our freedoms would be threatened in the process. For this reason, if people are dissatisfied with the way that democracy works in the United States, perhaps they should move out of the United States. And I do not say this to be interpreted in a mean way - after all, this is probably what I'm going to do once I finish being a river guide/ski bum. Preferrably these people could move to a more effective democracy, and then it would be one less person cogging up the United States' system. After all, perhaps I will meet these people another country some day. That would be ironic.

Legislation Relying on Polls

This last year, the Democrats proposed a unique health care plan for the United States. The plan started out with a popularity that was over 50 percent in the polls. However, with confusion over the bill, that popularity soon dropped below 50 percent, and the current support for the bill is below 40 percent. Basically, Congress can do whatever it wants with the legislation it creates. However, if the public does not approve of decisions, the legislators will never get reelected at the state level. For this reason, public opinion is important in determining what Congress will pass. The goal of the Congress in the next year will be to raise the popular support for the health care bill so that it can be passed in some form in the future. Congress believes that the numbers in the polls must be raised by approximately five to ten percent in order to justify passing some kind of health care bill that looks like the Democrats' plan. So in reality, when I say that it will be the goal of congress to raise the support for the bill, it will really only be the Democrats trying to raise support. The Republicans will be doing the exact opposite, trying to shoot down any attempt to raise public support. One thing is for sure in this matter: if nothing happens in the next year, support for the both the Democrats and the Republicans will fall like a rock. Something must be done - even if it's not what everybody in the world wants or supports.

The Patriot Act

On Tuesday the United States Supreme Court hears cases about the controversial Patriot Act, and whether or not it violates people's freedom of speech and expression. The Patriot Act makes it illegal for any United States citizen to help a group deemed as a terrorist organization in any way. The interesting fact is that this not only includes aid in bomb making, combat training, etc, but that it also includes an American talking to a designated terrorist organization about how to resolve issues peaceably. The Humanitarian Law Project is involved in such activities. The president of the organization, Ralph Fertig, has been arrested the the United States government many times. He is arguing that the government has no constitutional right to punish somebody for promoting peace in an international incident. Perhaps the most complex part of this case is whether or not the actions of this organization and others like it actually do more harm than good. Even though they may be attempting to push peace, do their actions eventually endanger the United States. Endangering the United States seems to be the primary issue. In my opinion, a group should be able to talk to a terrorist organization in a peaceful manner as long as those talks do not endanger the United States in almost any way. The only problem is that this is a hard thing to judge and enforce. The link to the article is here.

Cadillac Health Care

As the government attempts once again to reform health care, President Obama made it clear recently that one thing should be included in the new plan. This is the inclusion of an excise tax on high-cost health care plans. The point of this tax is not really to make money for the government (the income would not actually be that great), but rather to make people look for the less expensive, untaxed health care plans. The idea is that when people have these less expensive plans, doctor visits may cost more than what people are used to; this is supposed to make both doctors and patients more conscious about what procedures and tests are done. If health care costs are not covered completely by less expensive insurance, people will think twice before flooding the emergency room with visits. In a way this makes sense, but to me it does not seem like a logical thing to do. The doctors are getting paid basically the same amount (now some of the cost is just out of the patients pocket), so why would they bother to change the examination and testing processes which they already have? I can see why the patient is more conscience of health care, because they are paying more, but the doctors have no incentive to change their practices. In this way, I think that all this tax would do is create more unneeded stress for the patient. I don't really think that a tax needs to be put in place to have patients buy cheaper health care, it just doesn't make sense. The link to the article is here.

Job Bill Passes

The last few months have been quite hard on Congress, and the Democrats in particular. Now, finally, the Democrats and the rest of Congress have something the cheer about - the passage of a jobs bill. The boost on hiring in the United States is expected to be modest, but the passage of the bill shows that a bipartisan agreement can actually be made on something. The GOP was planning to filibuster the bill, but five votes from Senate Republicans kept the bill from being filibustered; the bill ended up passing because of this. One of the key votes came from Republican Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, who is quite new to the legislative process. One of the only reasons many of the other Republicans voted against the bill was because of the "heavy hand" method Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada used. Otherwise, support for this bill was quite strong. This fact is a relief, because it shows that Congress can actually come to a decision on some pieces of legislation. One can only hope that this progress is a good sign for partisan relations in the time coming. One thing that this shows is the fact that a small number of votes in the Senate can make quite the difference - only a few people need to be swayed in order to create a majority. This thought makes a stalemate in the Senate all the more interesting. The link to the article is here.

Lawmakers on "Don't Ask Don't Tell"

The "don't ask don't tell" policy of the United States Military has been a law for almost seventeen years. For this reason, lawmakers are questioning what might happen if they lift the policy and allow gays to openly participate in the military. President Obama believes that if somebody wants to serve their country patriotically, they should not be limited to this right just because of their sexual orientation. The lawmakers do not see the policy as so cut and dry, however. Many Congressman want to talk to the service executives about what it would take to make the transition smoothly. Many of the service chiefs currently say that any plan to allows gays and lesbians to openly participate in the military must be thoughtfully executed. This entire issue falls into the realm of civil rights which we are learning in class. In essence, this issue is an example of a group of people (homosexuals) lobbying for their right to serve in the military of the country that they love. Of course, there are probably many gays and lesbians already serving time in the armed forces without openly admitting it. Withdrawing the "don't ask don't tell" policy would allow these people to openly celebrate what they have been doing for their country in a proper, truthful manner. It seems like a great possibility that this case makes it to the court systems in order to decide whether this civil right behind the decision applies in this situation. The link to the article is here.

Health Care Hang-Up

Going into the State of the Union address, President Obama's approval rating was less than 50 percent, and Congress's overall approval rating was much lower. One of the reasons for this was that fact that policymakers have not been able to pass a health care policy that most of the public agrees with. The bill that is currently in the Senate is quite different from the one that passed in the House a couple months ago, and Speaker of the House Pelosi says that the Senate version of the bill is unlikely to pass without change in the House again. Pelosi stated recently that a preferred option among many members of Congress may be to scale back legislation from the $1 trillion plan over 10 years that it is at the moment. The American people of tired of spending that does not result in a noticeable change, and the plan as it is could just be another piece of legislation along the lines of unwanted and/or unnoticeable change. It seems that it is truly a time, if not the time for legislators to step back and look at what they have done and what they need to do. Right now, it's not time to worry about reelection and the race for a majority (which seems to be the continual theme of Congress), rather, it is a time for reevaluation of what the American people actually want. Before spending $1 trillion of money that we don't actually have, and will have to borrow, Congress should make compromises between both sides and not just try to push one-sided legislation through the floor. The last thing we want to do is rely on China for more money than we already have to, and have that money pay for legislation that doesn't even do what it was supposed to do. Create promises, meet those promises, and borrow intelligently. The link to the article is here.

Obama's Helpful Attitude Towards Banks

During the attempt at health care reform, President Obama and the Democrats found themselves on the wrong side of the public's attitude; the people were disappointed. As the administration's agenda is shifting from health care reform to financial reform, they are hoping to not make the same mistake again. What is the key to not making this mistake again? Some say that the key is having a confrontational attitude about politics from the President, just as he did when addressing the wrongdoings of Wall Street and the banks. President Obama really let the banks have the full attack of people, as translated through himself. With financial reform, he needs to do this same thing. Obama needs to shift from a passive leader of a party that is somewhat divided on many issues, to a agitated aggressor of change in policy. If he adopts an attitude like that of Lyndon B. Johnson, it is quite possible that he could agitate the policymakers into actually making policy. This in-your-face style could make Congress choose sides quickly, creating change in a more effective manner. However, this effort could also ruin the President's hope of creating a bipartisan relationship between members of the government. If Obama pushes for decisive policymaking, it is likely that many congressman will just take the side of their entire party. This will allows for little discussion between members of the separate parties, leading to many disagreements and likely many filibusters now that the Democrats do not have a filibuster-proof majority. In my opinion, if President Obama treats issues with assertiveness and decisiveness, asking for a decision quickly, his popularity will rise because of the fact that something is happening. However, an effort such as this will for sure create even more tension between political parties than there already is. Honestly, however, he can't try to take a between route of moderation. Moderation is what he has tried, and it has really gotten him nowhere. Taking one, decisive action at a time is probably the only thing that will make the American people support him. The public does not like indecision. The link to the article is here.

Arms Deal With Taiwan

With many government programs being cut do to the effort to cut costs and reduce the deficit, its not hard to see why the United States made a deal with Taiwan regarding an arms deal. The United States is always in search of news ways to increase its revenue, and this is just what it is doing with a $6.4 billion arms deal with Taiwan. The United States is selling 30 Black Hawk helicopters, 112 advanced Patriot air defense missiles, a pair of mine hunting ships, and dozens of advanced communications systems to Taiwan. And which country is most against this sale? China. Actually, China's protest seems to have a reasonable root, which regards the legitimacy of Taiwan as a sovereign entity which should be able to buy arms. Interestingly enough, neither China nor the United States has recognized Taiwan as a sovereign nation. China complains that because Taiwan does have some sense of hostility towards the large, mainland nation, the arms deal actually interferes with their national security. The only thing that is good regarding the arms deal for China is the fact that it does not include F-16 fighter planes. These were the items that Taiwan wanted, and China fervently did not want Taiwan to have. In this sense, the United States compromised in its deal, to make both Taiwan and China have a positive image of the deal. It seems to me that this is a strange deal to push forward when we are already asking China to sign on to a more harsh policy regarding Iran and their nuclear weapons program. Why not wait until China signed on to the new policy regarding Iran before selling arms to Taiwan? If this ruins any kind of relations between China and the United States, much blame will be put upon the State Department. After all, when it comes to international relations, trust is often more important than making a quick buck for one's country. The link to the article is here.

Citizen Tube

Wednesday night during his State of the Union address, President Obama made it clear that he would focus much effort on openly communicating with both parties about future legislation, in an attempt to create a successful bipartisanship. However, he has even taken this one step further, but pledging to openly communicate with the public. Just another speech? No. He will be answering various questions posted on YouTube by interested citizens, part of a new project called Citizen Tube. He will gives his answers to various public questions on Monday. Some of the questions are about the normal stuff, regarding health care and the economy. However, the most popular questions among the videos are those addressing the legalization of marijuana, interestingly enough. There also also some random questions covering everything from UFOs to Scientology. Recently, regarding the most popular topic, President Obama said that legalization would probably not be the best idea, and also said that he was a little confused about the type of audience fore his YouTube questioning. So will Citizen Tube actually come across as a success? It really depends on the types of questions Obama chooses to answer. It seems that the main thing Obama can accomplish through this action is popular support. If the president shows that he is willing to support the common man and woman, the common man and woman will be more willing to support the President. Other than a slight gain in trust within the American People, it doesn't seem like many new, revealing truths will come out of this Citizen Tube effort. The link to the article is here.

U.S. Money Stuggles

One of the biggest issues that governments across the world face daily is the issue of monetary security. With an ever growing debt, the United States is in this very boat, struggling to say above the surface. President Obama made it clear in his State of the Union address Wednesday night that a major goal of the years to come will be decreasing the federal deficit. In this effort, Obama already put a spending freeze on all government programs for three years. This freeze is estimated to save $10 to $15 billion by the end of 2011. But his was not enough for what Obama had in mind. He has proposed to cut approximately 120 government programs and agencies, saving roughly $20 billion a year. One such project that is likely to get cut is the Save America's Treasures programs, which works to restore historical buildings such as small town courthouses. However, even with these cuts, President Obama has still called for $200 million for security regarding the trials of suspected terrorist, such as the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks. This just shows that for each government program that is cut, something else that is equally important or more important comes up that must be paid for. So in reality, one must wonder about whether these cuts will really lower the deficit of the United States, or if they will just go towards new initiatives regarding the flailing country. Even if the debt is slowly lowered for the U.S., one must wonder what will happen once the agencies are reinstated - will be costs outweigh the revenue as it has throughout history, or will history change for the better? The link to the article is here.

Governmental Bipartisanship

In his State of the Union address Wednesday night, President Obama made a direct attack at the members of the GOP sitting on the right side of the auditorium. He gave them a promise that he would start having more frequent meetings with the GOP leaders to talk about issues, and relationships between political parties. Today, President Obama was in Baltimore talking to some leaders of the House Republicans while they were at there retreat. The subject of the talks was just this - bipartisanship in politics. While at the retreat, Obama attacked the Republicans for a "politics of no" that had developed within their ranks; this meant that Obama was pointing out his opinion that many Republicans were just saying "no" to some decisions just because they could, just because of party politics. The Republican countered by telling Obama that even though he spoke of bipartisanship and cooperation, he himself often pushed liberal ideas without really listening to what the GOP had to say. It was in this way that the President and House Republicans jabbed each other in a respectful, civil way. After all, being respectful and civil is what bipartisanship is all about right? If anything is going to get accomplished in this time of need for America, one party cannot either completely dominate or completely hinder the political agenda. The parties are not about to merge completely - far from it. However, all that it takes is a few members from each party listening to and caring about the other side's opinion. If interest is shown, then civility will be shown. This idea applies to the president himself as well. The link to the article is here.

Obama to Focus on Jobs?

As the State of the Union approaches, many people are wondering what President Obama is going to say regarding the country spiraling sharply out of control. The chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, says that Obama should focus his address on one major thing: jobs. He believes that when jobs are increased and bettered, the people of American will actually feel that something is getting done, and that government is not just in some kind of stalemate. Jobs are the first thing Alexander believes the president should work on, followed by the debt and terrorism. The middle of these focuses actually makes quite a bit of sense: if the United States is about to spend a great sum of money on some kind of health care plan in the near future, it seems that the president should first work on the national debt, so that people don't think the government is losing control of itself (which many people already think). If Obama creates jobs and lowers the debt in some way before the health care bill passes, many more people will be on the bandwagon of success, and will therefore support the health care plan. This seems to be one of the only plans for the success of Obama's speech tomorrow night. The link to the article is here.

Country Skeptical Before the State of the Union Address

With his polls dropping below the 50 percent margin, President Obama must think about ways to create hope within the American people during his State of the Union Speech. A recent pole from the National Public Radio reveals that more than 50 percent of Americans would vote Republicans if the mid-term elections were to happen today. This correlates to the similar statistic of over 50 percent of the American people being against the proposed health care plan. Obama truly does have much to address: The state of the economy, jobs within the economy, relations with other nations regarding climate change, and the state of the health care debate. President Obama can't trash a plan that has been worked on for over a year, but he also can't put through something that the people don't actually want; he has an issue on his hands. With this in mind, Obama can't just think about reelection strategy when he makes his speech - he needs to think about what will actually please the people. This will truly be the telling factor of how he is doing as Chief of State, actually representing the people. This speech will be crucial in deciding what direction the United States will go regarding many issues.