Ignorance of the Basic Values of Our Country Issues

     This marks the second week we have been studying the Constitution. What has been interesting in studying this revered document is that the Constitution is still entirely relevant and whats more, it's the supreme authority on what goes in the U.S., even though it is over 200 years old. The Constitution continues to support or condemn the happenings in our country.

     The recent terrorist attack on Paris is proving to be causing wider and wider ripples. On Monday, December 7, a statement was released by Donald Trump that he is "calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". Cue the presses.

     Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, categorized this statement under "disqualifying" for the GOP presidential candidate. He also called out the other Republicans, declaring they needed to revoke their support of his candidacy. He said, "If they are so cowed by Mr. Trump and his supporters that they are not willing to stand by the values enshrined by the Constitution, then they have no business serving as the president of the United States themselves."

     Other responses to Trump's statement were of the same negative light, though more moderate that Earnest. House Speaker Paul Ryan said "what was proposed was not what the party stands for or the country stands for", and other candidates such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio also criticized the proposal.

     What has made the statement so scandalous, even more so than Trump's many other offensive remarks, is that this one is starkly unconstitutional. In the First Amendment, our country's dedication to religious equality is enumerated. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Should this statement become law, it would most definitely be in respect to a religion; banning a specific religious group from anything is quite in respect to them. They will also certainly not be able to freely exercise their religion in our country if they are banned from entering it.

     Aside from this, which is altogether sufficient to prove it unconstitutional, Trump's proposal would also be unconstitutional even disregarding the religion factor. In his statement, Trump proposed denying any Muslim entry into America. He did not include a provision for Muslims who were citizens of the U.S. and were returning from an out of the country trip. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states "nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Not allowing a person to freely reenter their own country, and therefore withholding their property from them, would be unconstitutional. Unless Trump plans on giving every Muslim a legal hearing. And I don't think he does. 

     So it is obvious that this proposal of Trump's could never make it very far. Whether or not he does is still in the air. In any case it is a comfort to know that our Constitution, set in place so long ago, will continue to protect our rights no matter what religion we are.

Click below to read an article about this event:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/white-house-press-secretary-slams-disqualifying-trump-comments-n476351

Inherent Issues

     In our government class this week we have begun studying the Constitution. While the original constitution itself is over 200 years old, throughout the history of the U.S. there have been many amendments to the constitution. The actions required to make these additions are still occurring today.

     Yesterday, Dec.3, the Senate voted on two new amendments proposed by Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Dianne Feinstein. The new legislation was put forward in response to the San Bernadino shooting Wednesday, Dec. 2. Manchin's was a push to expand back ground checks on the buyers of guns bought online or through gun shows. Feinstein's was also a push for more thorough background checks, focusing primarily on those on the terror watch list. Neither amendment was accepted. They needed 60 votes, but Manchin's was short 10 votes, and Feinstein's lacked the support of 6. It was supposed that the recent tragedy in San Bernadino might help to pass these new measures, but it was not enough to sway those critical senate votes. Very similar legislation was proposed after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary as well, but was voted on with very similar results.
     The Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, a Republican, countered the Feingold amendment with his own measure, seeking to institute a 72 hour delay for those on the terror watch list who wished to purchase a firearm, which could become a permanent delay if a judge found probable cause to do so. His argument was that Feingold's amendment was unconstitutional. His own was 5 votes away from passing. Sen. Rand Paul (R), proposed a measure that would allow concealed carry licenses in D.C. Every Democratic vote was against it, 54 to 45.
     The House as well is stirring over the gun control topic. Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, is asking that House Speaker Paul Ryan put together a committee for gun safety, and for the House to vote on the same amendments the Senate recently voted on.

     It is very clear, and reasonable, that gun control is a hot topic right now. Amendments were very quickly proposed in response to the shooting. Though this is a very appropriate time to address the issue of gun control, it will not be rushed. Both parties in Congress have their own firm beliefs on this very polarizing topic. While the constitution is said to be living and breathing, it seems to shuffle and wheeze when it comes to change.
     And it was designed this way by the framers. One important aspect to an instrumental framer, James Madison, was that the government not be subject to the passions of the people. The representative democracy that is our government acts as a buffer to the immediate and strong opinions of the people to moderate them into more constant opinions through the congress members. Should the citizens of San Bernadino been the ones to vote on these new amendments, the result might have been much different.
     This is not to say that the Senators or Representatives are void of ardent viewpoints. These people voted into their offices are often quite passionate in their opinions as well. But the framers accounted for this, too. The diversity of our country, and subsequent diversity of our Congress, leads to a large group that balances out new measures. Our government is not in such a condition that it would be overtaken by an ideological group, such as the early Articles of Confederation might have been. So any new amendment has to obtain a substantial amount of support before any action is taken. This is a security against impulsive decisions, but also a point of contingency to those struggling to pass their proposals.
     So our living, breathing constitution will hold it's breath for a while longer, until a greater majority of congress is ready to back these new amendments.

Click here to read up on the event:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/03/senate-democrats-to-force-gun-control-votes-in-the-wake-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/

Fear Issues

     As we transition in AP Gov this week from interest groups to the Constitution, we have the opportunity to write about anything in the news. Arguably the most prevalent event in political news at this time is our policy concerning Syrian refugees, so that is what this is about, with a highlight on our government.
     A CNBC article written Wednesday, November 18 demonstrated how many states are opposed to any more middle eastern immigrants, primarily Syrians, arriving in the U.S. The issue is that the states cannot do very much about restricting immigration, because the relocation of the refugees is a federal operation. Included in the article was a map of the United States(shown below) that showed the results of an analysis done by the Big Crunch, (affiliated with CNBC) on which states were open to accepting Syrian refugees and which were opposed. A scant 10 of 50 are not opposed to accepting refugees. (8 state's decisions were pending.) In light of this, the State Department has announced they will keep their plans to accept 10,000 refugees next year.

     Today, Thursday Nov. 19, the House may vote on a new act proposed Tuesday by Texan Rep. Michael McCaul. (It is interesting to note that although Texas has 242 Syrian refugees living within it's borders, the state is now opposed to accepting more refugees.) The act is called the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act of 2015, or SAFE for short. If it were approved a Syrian refugee would have to be unanimously approved by the FBI, Homeland Security, and the director of National Intelligence after background checks conducted by all three. All of this has arisen due to the recent terrorist attacks in France.
     Just as with any other issue Congress is trying to solve, there are two sides. The conservative side, in the words of Rep. House Speaker Paul Ryan, says it's "Better to be safe than sorry". They are worried a terrorist could easily slip in among our many refugees, and devastate the U.S. like the tragedy in Paris. On the liberal side, the screening process is already incredibly in-depth for refugees- only 1% of the global population of refugees is recommended for resettlement in the U.S. Fear of what may happen can't impede on the potential aid we could be giving to these refugees.
    Over the summer I was privileged enough to make the acquaintance of a Syrian woman who had been relocated in Louisville. She spoke of terrible violence and killing, some for no reason other than lack of a better alternative, because the country is so in shambles. It is people like her that felt blessed to be here, but are now surely questioning our government. First saved, and now scorned? Their brothers and parents and friends are still trying to seek asylum here, but now they and their people are distrusted more than ever. Many refugees have great respect for our government- our systems put into place to aid people are very impressive. Now they are seeing another side of the U.S.
    So the country is at odds, split between two sides. However, this split appears to be leaning towards the conservative viewpoint. In the mechanics of our government, the state reps will supposedly vote for what they feel reflects the views of their constituents. If the country is preoccupied by fear at this moment, naturally the majority of views will reflect a more fear- driven response; keep out potential threats.
     The article on CNBC expected Congress to have quickly voted on the SAFE Act before Thanksgiving. It is still unknown whether the Syrian refugees seeking sanctuary in our country will have our acceptance to be thankful for this year.

Click here to read the article:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/18/syrian-refugees-opposed-issue-goes-to-congress.html

We-Don't-Have-Important-Issues-so-We-Have-to-Make-Up-Silly-Issues Issues

     Our focus the past two weeks in AP Gov has been interest groups. When first posed with the task of writing another blog on interest groups, I wasn't sure where to look. To be honest, after a while of browsing the (boring) political and economic news articles, I gave myself a break and just read some articles for fun. The first one I came across was about daily fantasy sports being banned in New York. Then, as I was reading, an interest group appeared like manna from heaven.

     Fantasy Sports for All is an interest group established to protect the rights of fantasy sports fans. The most recent attack on fantasy players' freedoms has come in the form of the New York Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman. On November 6th he placed a ban on daily fantasy sports sites on the grounds that they are a form of illegal gambling. Schneiderman also stated that "Daily fantasy sports are creating the same public health and economic concerns as other forms of gambling."
     Then on November 10th, Fantasy Sports for All organized a protest outside of Schneider's office in Manhattan. There were 300 fans and employees of some of the fantasy sports sites in attendance. Some such sites as FanDuel (based in New York) and DraftKings (based in Boston) were there, and many of the protesters held signs with slogans like 'Bench Schneiderman', and 'Schneiderman should focus on real problems'. The fantasy sports players feel that their activities are legal, and that because they pay taxes and get 1099's on their money, they should be free to spend it on whatever they want, including more fantasy sports. Due to the ban, approximately 10% of FanDuel's users would be unable to participate. One argument FanDuel presented against Schneiderman was that up until very recently, New York had no problem with the fantasy teams. However, because, "the Attorney General now realized he could get himself some press coverage" FanDuel says that Schneiderman has attacked the sites for publicity.
   
     And it is generating more attention for Eric Schneiderman (this blog has already mentioned his name 8 times). This issue has popped up as of late, and has only recently been generating such publicity. It was even mentioned in a GOP debate, when Jeb Bush was asked for his position on it. The members of Fantasy Sports for All, who have joined for purposive reasons, are very interested in this issue of daily fantasy sports. You can tell, because 300 were motivated to protest. (This is a perfect example of grassroots lobbying.) As a nation of joiners, it is not surprising that this group has generated so much interest. After all, it involves three things Americans love: money, sports, and arguing.
     However, ideological interest groups, specifically those whose members have only purposive incentives for remaining members, tend to sputter out quickly. As the protesters were holding signs reading 'Schneiderman should focus on real problems', they themselves proclaimed this dispute over daily fantasy sports to be of marginal importance. In a year when either the bans have been lifted, stricter, more wide-spread legislation has been passed, or everyone forgets about it, the  Fantasy Sports for All group will have little reason to remain in existence. In this case it will either have to keep riling people up about fantasy sports, or just accept it's demise.


Click here to read the article about it:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/13/news/fantasy-sports-protest-fanduel-draftkings/index.html?iid=SF_LN

Money Issues

     This week in AP Government we have been studying interest groups. Our focus, of course, has been interest groups in the U.S. (and there are a multitude to study- America was made for interest groups) but our country does not have a monopoly on them.
     A couple months ago Volkswagen, the biggest carmaker in Europe, admitted they had skewed the nitrogen oxide emissions tests. The company had inserted software into some of their diesel vehicles that showed emissions that were far less in the lab than they were in reality.  To add to this debacle, on Tuesday Nov. 3 Volkswagen announced that they have also been dishonest about the amount of carbon dioxide emitted, as well as fuel consumption levels. This is significant to every country that has approved the sale of Volkswagen vehicles, but it has an even bigger impact in Europe where there are fines given for excessive fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. The total costs of this scandal could be up to $38 billion in those fines, as well as lawsuits and vehicle refits.
     The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), an interest group which represents 118 European investors, published an open letter on Nov. 6 requesting to the European Union that it make the vehicle tests more rigorous. It also asked that they would either require each nation to carry out random, on-the-road tests, or to establish an EU authority to regulate the compliance with the EU standards. Many of the investors the IIGCC represents are shareholders in VW, whose shares have decreased 40% in value since before the big reveal in September. This drop in the share's value represents a loss of billions of euros to shareholders.
     The IIGCC is a european interest group, one that would be classified as an institutional interest group. This means that it represents not individual members, but rather a set of related groups. In this case, those groups are shareholders, and shareholders who have lost a substantial amount of money due to the shortcomings of Europe's largest vehicle producer.
     I like to imagine interest groups as a protective big brother. When the little siblings are threatened, the big brother steps in and take care of the situation, but not by beating up the perpetrator. Instead, he tells on them to his dad, and he is the one who really gets things done.
     So some of the IIGCC's plethora of little siblings complained about their plummeting Volkswagen shares, and the IIGCC told on VW to their "dad"- the European Union.
     There are several ways for interest groups to influence or "tattle" to get attention from the government. Some strategies include providing specific, exclusive information, motivating individuals to contact officials, donating money, and even organizing displays of civil disobedience. In this case the IIGCC wrote an open letter to the EU, and with the huge amount of money at stake, it is sure to be paid attention to.
     It is too soon to say if the EU will heed all of the requests set forth in the letter. On Thursday the 5th the EU did send out a letter to each nation asking them to become more broad in their investigations into the possible fraudulent emissions levels. This is a fine balance for the EU, as it is in most cases of this scale, due to the fact that national policy is heavily influenced by car manufacturers' own interest groups. We have studied in class that in the U.S., legislators and other government officials oftentimes will act according to their own thoughts and values, rather than what interest groups desire of them. However, that doesn't mean that interest groups cannot make an impact. We will simply have to wait and see if the IIGCC will be able to prompt some action from the European Union, or if the car manufacturers will win in this battle between the interest groups.

Click here for an article concerning the IIGCC requests:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/06/big-investors-seek-tougher-rules-on-car-emission-testing.html
Click here for an article with some additional information:
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/vw-pay-extra-taxes-owed-because-it-understated-co2-emissions-n458851

Jealousy Issues

It's an age old story; the once only child becomes an older sibling and is suddenly jealous of the attention the new baby receives. This same situation appears to be happening in grand scale with the states of New Jersey and Florida, with the Republican presidential race in the role of the new baby.
On October 29 two articles concerning republican presidential candidates were released, both serious requests. The first was addressed to Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, written by the Sun Sentinel. This article, “Marco Rubio should resign, not rip us off”, called for the resignation of the young Republican Senator. Some of their reasons included a source who is a friend of Rubio's saying that he hated his job, the 59 senate votes Rubio has missed, and the $174,000 salary that Rubio receives.  
The second article was written by the New York Times and entitled, “Gov. Christie, Time to Go Home”. The Editorial Board began by stating that it is the time of the campaign for the underdogs to drop out, and included Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey. The article described his performance in the recent GOP debate as “barely there”. It also listed a number of shortcomings on the Governor’s part that make him unfit to be president, including “his role in New Jersey’s budget crisis, betrayal on affordable housing and the interlocking scandals on his watch, from Bridgegate to ‘the chairman’s flight’”.  
Both Sen. Rubio and Gov. Christie's home states seem to feel forgotten, or at least the media is portraying them that way. In AP Gov we have been learning that the media has three main roles in the world of politics: gatekeeper, scorekeeper, and watchdog. The two articles exemplify the third role of the watchdog. 
I do not keep up with all the political news (I don't have time- I'm an AP student) but before this past week I don't recall hearing very much about Sen. Rubio lacking as a senator or as Gov. Christie just being unfit to be president. In this way the media has acted as the watchdog, bringing criticism and doubt upon the candidates. What is meaningful about this new development in the media is that many potential voters get their information about politics from the internet, and some who may not have previously thought badly of Rubio or Christie, or who may have even been in support of one or the other, could be having second thoughts.  
Both editorial stories are also on the sensationalist side. The Sun Sentinel Editorial Board claimed that Rubio is ripping them off for accepting a $174,000 salary when he is not doing his job. They portrayed him not only as a swindler but as a hypocrite, who criticized workers from the Department of Veterans Affairs for not doing their jobs. Of course, they also added in that he basically hates his job as a senator. In the New York Times the Editorial Board pointed to "interlocking scandals on his watch, from Bridgegate to ‘the chairman’s flight’”. These are all examples of sensationalism, using the most exciting, juicy details to snag a reader's attention. Unfortunately, it is these sensationalist tidbits that do draw readers in, and I would venture to guess more people will focus on these details than other objective information they may hear.  
There is not clear evidence that Rubio and Christie's home states are truly jealous of all the attention their respective candidates are giving to the race, or if it is simply the editorial boards of two newspapers who think so. Regardless, the news is out, and voters are reading, watching, and thinking.


To read the article about Sen. Rubio, click here:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/editorials/fl-editorial-rubio-bush-gs1028-20151027-story.html

To read the article about Gov. Christie, click here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/opinion/governor-chris-christie-time-to-go-home.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=1

Trust Issues

     This week in our AP government class we are learning about the media, so this blog is accordingly going to have a focus on the media. And government, because it's a government class.


     This blog also has a focus on a mysterious death. What I am referring to is the recent discovery of Jacqueline Anne Sutton, who was found dead in a bathroom stall of the Ataturk Airport in Turkey. Jacky Sutton, an English woman who worked for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting as the Iraq country director. She was on her way there to Iraq on October 17, but for reasons still unknown she got no further than Turkey.
     Aside from her friends and colleagues comments that Sutton was very confident and she did not seem to be in a suicidal state, all the evidence that the Turkish Agency revealed demonstrated that she was alone and there was no foul play involved.

     CNN author Tim Hume wrote two articles on this event- the first documented many examples of how the family and friends of Sutton could not believe she had taken her life. It also cast some doubt on the validity and truth in the Turkish investigation, including that the Turkish authorities would not give the reporters a comment.
     The very same day Hume released a second article on the topic stating that the family were now satisfied with the Turkish investigation, and although they would conduct their own private investigation, they no longer believed any foul play could have been involved.


      What stands out to me here is the public's perception of the media. It is significant to note that the peers of Jacky Sutton were quick to doubt and discredit the information released by the Turkish authorities. Although the majority of these people were from England (one example used in the article was an Australian organization), I think their response was similar to what it would have been in the United States, with maybe a lesser amount of aggression in the approach. It is very natural to people in societies like ours to question the media and it's accuracy. This perhaps follows the amount of freedom of the press a country can boast.
     In the Freedom House Global Press Freedom Rankings from 2013 (https://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Global%20and%20regional%20tables.pdf) the U.S. and the U.K. both ranked relatively high on the list- 26th and 34th, respectively. Compare this to to Turkey, for example (ranked 126th). The correlation may follow that if a country has more freedom of the press to report how they so choose, it also fosters a sense of distrust when regarding reporters.
     After looking at the evidence the Turkish authorities provided, Sutton's family concluded that she acted alone, but not before many colleagues had plastered over social media that they "did not believe for 1 minute" that Sutton might have taken her own life.
     According to Freedom House, Turkey is a country that is 'partly free' (The U.S. and U.K. are both rated 'free'). This would indicate that perhaps Turkish reporters do not have access to freely use information as in 'free' countries, and that the government may have a much stronger control over what is published than in the United States. In the example of this event, Turkish officials withheld any comments, something that overall I feel the U.S. would not be so quick to do. Just as Sutton's companions quickly jumped to the conclusion that the Turkish government was hiding something after not releasing a comment to CNN (and I will admit, I jumped to that conclusion right along with them) it was later revealed that the Turkish authorities had done nothing wrong in the least. They simply chose to be a bit more particular with whom they disclosed information.
     In short, the 'diarrhea of the mouth' (note: a graphic though effective dysphemism  I did not come up with) that the press and our government seem to have contracted when it comes to media has led the public to be very distrusting. It has also led us to employ a whole new form of media, social media, to air out our doubts.

To see the articles mentioned above, click here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/20/europe/turkey-death-jacky-sutton/index.html
or here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/21/middleeast/turkey-jacky-sutton-family/index.html