New Hampshire Republican Primary Debate!

Welcome to our first class visit to the "blogosphere" of the semester! Since we're finishing up our unit on Elections & we're about to start looking at the process of campaigning, and since this will obviously be a story we follow throughout the semester, I thought a great topic for our 1st blog assignment would be the Republican debate that was held in New Hampshire (a key early primary state!) this past Tuesday evening, October 11, moderated by Charlie Rose. In case you didn't get to watch it live or recorded on TV (which I imagine applies to most of you!), click the topic title link above to watch online video of the entire debate--it runs about 90 minutes, and while I encourage you to watch the whole thing, if you can at least watch an hour or so of the debate, that should be enough for you to be able to thoughtfully participate in our discussion. After you watch the debate, please consider the following questions:

• What were your overall general thoughts/reactions to each of the candidates?



• Whom did you like and whom did you not like? Why?



• Who stood out to you the most? Who do you think did well in the debate and who didn't do as well? Why?



• Was there one line or one moment from the debate that really stood out to you? If so, what was it and why?

Remember, your assignment is to post TWO comments to the blog by the end of the day next Monday, October 17. Maybe you want to look at some previous topics and comments posted by last year's students to get a sense of about how long your posts should be; I don't have an exact minimum length in mind, but generally I would say a decent-sized paragraph would be required for you to adequately express your opinions and address all of my questions.

Your first post should be your answers to those questions I've posed above, and then your second post (this can be a couple days later if you want) needs to be a response/comment/agreement/disagreement on something that one of your classmates has posted. These second comments can be shorter than your initial answers to my questions in your first comment, but they do still need to be somewhat substantial with some thought put into them; simply saying "I agree with ________" or "________ is wrong in what she says" won't get the job done! Also, I hope at this point I don't need to tell you (though I will anyway!) that while I want you to passionately and enthusiastically express your opinions in this forum, please be sure to be respectful and appropriate in your comments, both about the Republican candidates as well as about the comments and opinions of your classmates.

Last thing: please make to sure to post your thoughts as "comments" on a continuing thread within and below this same topic--please DO NOT submit a "new post" which will appear at the top of the blog's home screen. The right way to do it is to click on the link down below where it says "0 comments" or "12 comments" or " 67 comments" in pink font--this will take you to a text box where you can post your own comments.

I look forward to seeing what you all have to say--good luck and have fun!

--Silvy :)

Supreme Court justices on Constitutional Interpretation

For this post, since we're smack-dab in the middle of our Judicial Branch chapter, I thought it would be great to hear from a couple of our current Supreme Court Justices--one liberal and one conservative. If you click above on the title link of this post, it will take you to a 13-minute video clip of an interview that Chris Wallace of Fox News conducted with Justice Stephen Breyer. The two links below will take you to Part I and Part II--each about 12 minutes long--of an interview that the CBS program "60 Minutes" conducted with Justice Antonin Scalia. (If you want, you can skip the first 4 minutes or so of Part II, as this deals more with Scalia's personal life and his childhood).

• http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4448191n&tag=related;photovideo


• http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4448193n

Since we have referenced this in class, you should be well aware by now that Justice Breyer is one of the reliable liberals on the court, advocating a philosophy of Judicial Activism, while Scalia is very much a conservative justice, the epitome of Originalism or Strict Constructionism. As you watch these interviews and have these two very contrasting interpretations of the Constitution and the role of judges explained for you, please consider the following questions:

• In general, do you find yourself agreeing more with Breyer's (and Ginsburg's) assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution, or with Wallace's (and Scalia's) notion that we should go by the exact wording of our Constitution? Why? How does this connect with our discussion in class about the different types of judicial interpretation and ideology?


• Do you agree with Breyer's explanation of the 2nd Amendment? Or do you more agree with the interpretations of the Supreme Court (against which Breyer dissented) that led to handgun bans being overturned in the past year or two? Why?


• Do you agree with Scalia's explanation of the flag-burning issue? Do you believe that the 1st Amendment protects the right to burn an American flag and that, as Scalia says, "it was not up to [him]?" Or do you feel that the Court should have stepped in and prohibited flag-burning?


• Please feel free to elaborate on any other thoughts, opinions, comments or reactions you had to these two interviews, these two Justices, or these two contrasting judicial philosophies.

Remember, you need to post TWO (2) comments to the blog. The first post should be your responses to these questions after you watch the videos, and the second post should be a response to something posted by one of your classmates. Both comments need to be posted by the end of the day on Monday, April 4th. Good luck--I look forward to reading your comments!

Federalism & Health Care

Welcome to our 1st blog assignment of this new semester! Since we're just finishing up our work on Federalism, what the Federal Government has the power to do vs. State Governments, etc., I thought a perfect (although perhaps not terribly easy to understand) topic for this first assignment would be the controversial new Health Care Reform law that President Obama and the Congress enacted last year. As with many of the issues we mentioned in the past week (gun control, civil rights, gay marriage, even illegal immigration), for our purposes the debate isn't simply "do we think what the law does is GOOD or BAD?" (there are strong opinions on both sides of that when when it comes to Health Care), but rather "do we think it should be the FEDERAL Government who takes care of this or should it be up to the STATES?"

For this assignment you will be looking at some information on a website as well as watching two different short video clips. Click on the title of the post above ('Federalism & Health Care') to go to a website which presents some basic information about the issues involved in the Health Care debate, as well as some arguments for and against the law. Read through those 'pros and cons,' and I encourage you to watch some of the video clips or click on some of the PDF links, as well, for statistical data and other additional information. After looking at the pros and cons, consider the following questions:

• Of all the arguments given on either side, with which one do you AGREE the most strongly? Why?
• Of all the arguments given on either side, with which one do you DISAGREE the most strongly? Why?
• I realize the Health Care bill is a very complex and confusing thing and you may not feel like you know a lot about it (I freely admit to not completely understanding it myself), but based on what you've read and what you've heard, what are your general thoughts about this law, or in a larger sense, about the role of the federal government in providing access to health care for its citizens?

You're also going to watch a couple of video clips by clicking on the links below. The first is a Fox News interview with Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia who, on behalf of his state, is suing the federal government over the health care law, claiming it is unconstitutional. The second clip is an MSNBC interview with Thurbert Baker, the Attorney General of Georgia, who completely disagrees with Mr. Cuccinelli and therefore is not taking part in the lawsuit being brought by several states against the federal government.

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4300526/virginia-ag-on-health-care-lawsuit-ruling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inJq8kSumsA

The main issue is the so-called "individual mandate," which requires that all Americans buy health insurance, just like how you're supposed to have auto insurance if you drive a car. There are other controversial parts of the law, but this is the provision that's getting the most attention; the question is: does Congress' power to "regulate commerce" include a power to regulate a "lack of commerce?" In other words, can the government force a person to engage in commerce (buying insurance) if the person hasn't already done so?

I realize that these and other legal points made in the interviews may be confusing, but I think several of the issues or concepts that were brought up should have sounded familiar, so let's keep the questions relatively simple and straightforward:

• What terms or concepts did you hear in either video clip that sounded familiar based on what we've been discussing in class for the past week or so?
• Who do you think made the better argument, Mr. Cuccinelli ("the law is unconstitutional") or Mr. Baker ("the law is constitutional")? Why do you say this?

Your TWO (2) comments on this topic must be posted by 11:59 PM Pacific Time on Tuesday, February 22. Your 1st post should simply be your responses to the questions I've posed after looking at the 'pros and cons' website and watching the videos. The 2nd post should be a response/agreement/disagreement to one of your classmates' comments. Please be sure that all your comments are appropriate and respectful; you can criticize someone else's ideas or arguments, but any sort of personal attacks will not be tolerated. Good luck and have fun--I look forward to reading your comments! --Silvy :)

Supreme Court

Winter break is coming up, but we have a little blog business to do before we go on vacation! Since we're currently working on the judicial branch, for this posting we have a couple of Supreme Court-related things to look at and comment on.

First of all, click on the title link above and it should take you to a Yahoo! News story about the Supreme Court and detainees at the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Read this article, and think about the following questions:

• What connections do you notice between this story and the readings we did from "The Nine," especially when it comes to the issue of the Judicial Branch attempting to limit the exercising of power by the Executive Branch?
• I realize you may not know the details or circumstances of the specific cases of particular detainees, but do you agree with President Obama's plan to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay? Or do you more fall in line with President Bush's policy that the prison should remain open and these 170+ detainees should stay locked up in Cuba?
• On a related note (and again obviously understanding that you may not be familiar with the specifics of certain cases), do you agree with the law passed by the House that would prevent detainees currently being held at Guantanamo from being transferred to the United States? (The idea is that if Guantanamo is closed, it's not that the detainees would go free; they would just have to be moved to other maximum-security prisons in the U.S. Many have said they wouldn't want these detainees transferred to their state, so by passing this law, Congress has potentially made it harder for the prison to be closed.) What do you think the Supreme Court should do?

In addition to reading this article, I'd like you to watch a very interesting 13-minute video clip. It's a one-on-one interview on Fox News Sunday between host Chris Wallace and Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. There's a chance that a link to this video clip will appear on the side of the screen when you're reading the Yahoo! News article ("Justice Stephen Breyer on FNS"), but if not, you can get to it by clicking on the link below:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/index.html#/v/4456313/justice-stephen-breyer-on-fns/?playlist_id=86913

As you watch this video, please consider the following questions:

• Do you agree with with Breyer's assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution, or more with Wallace's notion that we should go by the exact wording of the Constitution? Why? How does this connect with our discussion in class of the different types of judicial interpretation and ideology?
• Do you agree with Breyer's explanation of the 2nd Amendment? Or do you more agree with the interpretations of the Supreme Court (against which Breyer dissented) that led to handgun bans being overturned in the past year or two? Why?
• When Wallace asks Breyer about President Obama's comments at last year's State of the Union regarding the Citizens United decision, do you agree with Chief Justice Roberts' statement that it was "troubling," or did you find yourself agreeing more with Breyer's explanation of the situation? Why?

Remember, you should post two separate comments to the blog. The first should be your answers to as many of the above questions as you can, and the second posting should be a response to the comments of one or more of your classmates. You have until the end of the day Friday, December 17th to post your comments. Good luck, have fun, and Happy Holidays!

Media Bias, 2010 Elections

Since we're having to skip over some of the material in Chapter 15 ("The Media"), and since we're coming up on Election Day 2010, I thought the topic of Media Bias would be a good one for our next blog discussion.

With 24-hour TV cable news, talk radio, newspapers, magazines, and of course the Internet, there is a tremendous amount more that fits under the category of "The Media" than there was even 10-15 years ago, and it's certainly unrealistic to think all (or even most) of it is always going to be completely objective in how it presents the news, but what people see, read, and hear (and FROM WHOM they see, read, and hear it) is going to have a HUGE impact on their ideas and their opinions.

But WHERE exactly is the bias? And how exactly does it manifest itself? The reality is that anyone may see bias if a story is presented with a viewpoint different from their own, but since the media is becoming an ever-increasing part of our daily lives, it's still very important to examine it in more detail AND TO TRY TO BE AS OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE WHILE DOING SO!

First, you're going to do a little reading. The title link above (where it says "Media Bias, 2010 Elections") will take you to a 'Google Docs' screen with an article that will present both sides of the debate: one claiming that there is a bias in the media toward the liberal point of view, and the other claiming that there is a bias in the media that leans toward the conservative point of view.

After you read those few pages, please click on the links below to watch some video. The first one is about a 15-minute clip from the "Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC. Ms. Maddow does not make any effort to hide her liberal views and she is not shy about criticizing Republicans, but I found this clip particularly interesting because, as a liberal, she is criticizing the media for being biased toward Republicans in their coverage of the upcoming midterm elections.

The second link below is an 8-minute segment from the "Sean Hannity Show" on Fox News, with Mr. Hannity interviewing Karl Rove, who was the chief political strategist for President Bush. This is a good clip because it addresses (from a very conservative viewpoint, of course) many of the issues that have arisen with negative advertising in this election season. It will also tie in nicely with our discussion in class about the financing of political campaigns and who it is that pays for commercials and contributes to candidates.

The final clip is also from Fox News, this one a 6-minute clip from "The O'Reilly Factor." The host, Bill O'Reilly is interviewing conservative commentator Bernard Goldberg, and this clip will provide an interesting counterpoint to the Maddow clip, because while they also discuss the media being critical of President Obama and the Democrats, they begin with the premise that this is unusual, and that normally the media has a decidedly liberal bias.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/39731775#39731775

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/index.html#/v/4369711/rove-responds-to-dnc-attack-ad/?playlist_id=158694

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html#/v/4369671/is-left-wing-media-turning-against-liberals/?playlist_id=87253

After reading the article and watching the video clips, answer these questions:

• In the reading, which of the two sides did you find more convincing? Why? Were there ideas/arguments in either article (or both!) that you agreed/disagreed with? Which ones?
• What were your thoughts on the Rachel Maddow video? Obviously you're just seeing her side of it, but do you agree with her overall point that the media has helped or been more favorable to Republicans in this election season?
• What were your thoughts on the two Fox News videos? Even though you may not have all the context if you haven't been paying as much attention to the media covering politics as O'Reilly's or Hannity's primary audience, what did you think of Mr. Rove's response to the charges made against him in that DNC ad? Did you agree with Mr. Goldberg's comments on the media's treatment of President Obama and the Democrats? Why/why not?

Remember, your first post should be answers to the above questions, and then sometime later, after having read what your classmates have said, please post another comment in response to one of your classmates. Both of your comments need to be posted by the end of the day on Wednesday, October 27. Have fun--I look forward to reading your comments!

Jobs & The Economy: A Town Hall with President Obama

Here is our first topic for this semester! Sometimes we will be linking to articles, essays, statistics, or some combination thereof, and sometimes--like for this discussion--you'll be watching some video. On September 20, President Obama participated in what's called a 'town hall' event with voters in Washington, D.C. At these events, the President will take questions not only from the host/moderator, but also from audience members; 'average voters' who have questions about how government policies might affect their daily lives. In this case, the focus of the town hall was on the economy and unemployment.

First of all, let me say that I do NOT expect you to be able to fully comprehend all of the fancy economic terminology and references the President uses, nor do I expect you to be able to keep straight all of the numbers, percentages, dollar amounts, or statistics that he mentions (I'm not sure I'd be able to do it myself!). Even if some of the specific facts may go a bit over our heads, however, many of the larger ideas addressed in these questions and answers relate directly to some of what we have been discussing this week, namely the ideological debate about the proper role of government and in particular the question of how active our government should be when it comes to the economy.

The entire video is about an hour long. If you are able to watch the whole thing I would love it, but I'm asking only that you watch at least 30 minutes of the coverage. It can be the first 30 minutes, the last 30 minutes, 30 minutes starting somewhere in the middle, 15 minutes from the beginning and then another 15 minutes from the end; it's totally up to you! A few highlights I might suggest, however:

• Between about 15:00-20:00, there is some great discussion about government involvement/intervention in the economy, how 'free' should the 'free market' truly be, etc.
• Around the 24:00 mark, the President brings up the issue of the 'Bush Tax Cuts' that we discussed in class earlier this week
• Between about 40:00-45:00, the host brings up what by now should be a familiar topic--the Commerce Clause--and asks about how it's been used to justify expansion of the powers of the federal government
• During this same segment, the President also addresses the issue of the Tea Party Movement and some of the intense opposition to him and to his policies (if you're not sure what this is, don't worry--we will certainly be discussing it as the November elections get closer!)

Again, you can watch whichever 30 minutes of the program you want, but as you're watching, I'd like you to consider the following questions:

• Which of the questions (either from the host or an audience member) do you think was the best (the most powerful, the most insightful)?
• Which of the President's arguments did you find the strongest, the most logical, or that with which you would be most likely to agree? Why?
• Which of the President's arguments did you find the weakest, the most illogical, or with which you disagreed the most? Why?
• In general, do you agree with President Obama's positions or explanations with regard to government involvement in the economy? Does it seem to you that he has the correct ideas for how to improve our economy? Why or why not?

As I said, I realize some of what is discussed will be confusing or use terms with which you're not totally familiar. Don't worry about getting bogged down in specifics or statistics, however, and just watch or listen for those larger ideas about what the role of government should be when it comes to the economy, especially when (like now) our economy is going through some tough times.

Based on the questions I've posed above, you all need to post comments to this blog at least TWICE by next FRIDAY, OCTOBER 1st. The first time you post a comment, it should be to respond to my questions after watching the video. If possible your second post should be a response to something another student has said in his/her post. You can agree, disagree, critique, further explain your positions, or take the opportunity to comment on a piece of the video other than what you discussed in your first posting. Regardless, PLEASE make sure that all of these comments are fair and respectful--we can vigorously debate and disagree, but personal attacks and insults are not acceptable!

Let me know if you have any questions, otherwise I look forward to reading your comments! GOOD LUCK,

Silvy

Supreme Court Vacancy?

Maybe we're jumping the gun here, but since we're working on the Judicial Branch, I thought this would make for a good next topic for our blog post. The link above is to an audio file, an interview on National Public Radio with Jeffrey Toobin, a Supreme Court expert and the author of The Nine, excerpts of which you read in class recently. Toobin recently did a profile of Justice Stevens, the most senior member of the Court and the justice whom many believe will be the next to retire, perhaps as soon as this spring. The interview is about half-an-hour long, so I don't necessarily expect to you to sit and listen to the whole thing, but much of what is discussed connects very well to what we've talked about in class, and at least you should pick out several minutes worth of the interview (beginning, middle, or end) to listen to.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/02/on-october-4-2010-elena-kagan-will-ask-her-first-question-as-a-supreme-court-justice/

The above link takes you to an article from February of this year, predicting whom President Obama might nominate to replace Justice Stevens if he does in fact retire. In the very first paragraph, where it talks about "media reports" and "blog posts," these are actually links to other articles. First and foremost please read the article, but I'd also encourage you to click on the "media reports" link, as there is a good 3-minute video which also looks at possible picks for an as-yet-nonexistent Supreme Court vacancy.

Based on your reading of the above article, your listening to the Toobin NPR interview, and/or your watching of that short video, please address the following questions:

• What stood out to you from these resources? What struck you the most when it came to Justice Stevens himself or what his possible retirement might mean for the Supreme Court?
• Do you think Justice Stevens will retire this year? What about Justice Ginsburg? Why/why not? Any thoughts on whom President Obama might select to replace them?
• Any other thoughts about the radio interview, the article, or the video?

Remember, each of you should make TWO (2) separate comments, preferably one about the interview or article itself, and another which responds to something posted by a classmate. Please try to have this second comment be something more than simply, "I agree/disagree with ___________." If possible, talk a little more about your own opinions/reactions and WHY you agree or disagree.

Remember also, please post your comments as part of the comment thread with this particular post; just "add a comment" and don't "publish a new post."

These two comments are due the same day as our Judicial Branch quiz, the last day before we go on Spring Break: Thursday, April 1st.