Does the media undermine the government?

The media is both good and bad for our government. First, the media is a great tool for Americans to use daily. The media keeps us up to date with all types of news as well as keeps us informed of all the popular issues of the day. Without the media, people would not know what to think and would not be aware of what is going on around them, especially in other countries or in other places in the USA. The media is definitely essential in everyones lives now, but, it still plays a somewhat disturbing role. The media, since everyone turns to it for their news and information, is able to frame the way they wants things to look. If the media wants someone or something to look bad, they can choose what stories they want to report and their attitude toward the news. For example, if a news station is against the Iraq War, they would report the number of Americans that were killed rather than the successes we have had during the day. Another example of media framing government is in the election process. The media can frame Barack Obama to be a national hero who is going to come into office and "rescue the nation," even though this may or may not be true. Also, the media can make up false stories to get people to believe something that is completely untrue, something that CBS did a few years ago when they made a false document that would have led people to believe that George W. Bush had the minimum amount of military service. The media could have ruined the election for George W. Bush even though the reason would have been a lie. Also, the media can call for certain reforms to be made, which leads the population to cry out for these reforms as well. The bailout bill was heavily covered by the media which caused many people to become interested in it. There was great pressure by the media and the people for Washington to pass the bill quickly. Only time will tell if this was a good decision or not, but either way, the media played an enormous role in creating it. It is very clear that the media plays an important role in our society. I am not sure that media undermines government, but it definitely plays an important role in what our government does.

Does Voting Matter?

In modern times, many people question the importance of voting. Some wonder if voting even matters at all. People hear on the news that one particular candidate is in a clear lead, and so they won't vote for their candidate because they think he will lose. Voting is definitely important. First, America needs as close to 100% participation in order to achieve the highest approval. If only 50% vote, that means that only have of the country's opinions will be accounted for. If only 25% of the country gets what they want, there will be many angry Americans. Also, if no one votes for a losing candidate, then there shouldn't be an election at all. The reason that candidate might lose is because everyone gives up on him. If everyone who supports him comes out to vote, then that candidate has clearly a better shot at winning. Voting is very important in America. Despite the popular belief that your vote doesn't count, voting is still essential. Everyone in America should vote because it does matter.

Bush and the Bailout Bill

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081003/ap_on_go_co/financial_meltdown

At long last the bailout bill has passed... but if George W. Bush meant anything to Congress could it have been completed faster? The answer, in my opinion, is yes. In about a month a new election is going to take place, meaning Bush's power is soon to be at and end. Also, it is a well known fact that Bush's approval rating in America is one of the lowest in U.S. history. To add to it all, Congress is a Democratic majority now. Why should Congress listen to Bush? About a week ago George Bush addressed the nation on the severity of the crisis and requested that Congress act quickly to pass the bill. Instead of getting Congress pumped up to quickly pass the bill, Congress took their time as they reluctantly amended the bill in conference committees. As it says in the article, Bush warned America of the worst economic depression since the Great Depression, and yet still he could not get Congress to act swiftly. This, without a doubt, has to do with his lack of approval, respect, and credibility in Congress. If this was seven years ago, I would not be surprised if the bill was completed within two days of Bush's speech. Bush's main role in the bailout bill was signing his name in order to pass it; other than that he was essentially a lame duck.

Senate vs. House Powers

The Senate is given a special power by the Constitution. They are allowed to approve or reject appointments by the president as well as accept or reject treaties. In the Bush era, the Democratic minority in the Senate has shot down many bills, showing the power of the Senate to reject treaties and laws. Also, when Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, the Senate began to accuse him of cronyism. Bush was essentially forced into withdrawing her nomination and instead bringing in Samuel Alito. Another major power of the Senate is their power to impeach. If they find the president, vice president, or other executive officials guilty of treason or bribery, they can bring him before Congress and try him. This has happened several times in U.S. history. Examples include Richard Nixon, Andrew Johnson, and Bill Clinton.

9/22 Blog

Stalemate is a problem that frequently arises in our legislative branch of government. Stalemate derives from the way our representation works in the House and Senate. The House represents the population of the United States. There are 435 members elected to the House and each state is represented. Since each representative is entrusted to represent its constituency things can get a little confusing. Each state wants different things which makes it difficult for 435 people to agree on something. The Senate contains 100 members with each state having two members. The Senate represents the elite in U.S. society rather than just the population. It is also difficult for the House (representing the population) and the Senate (representing the elite) to come to agreements as well. This is called a stalemate because no moves can take place when the two sides can never agree. Causes of these stalemates are various interests between the different constituencies and also disagreements between the elite and the lower population. While annoying and sometimes ineffective, I find that gridlock is an appropriate way to represent our people. The representatives do their best to voice the opinions of their people just as the Senate does their best to voice the opinions of the elite. This helps keep the United States intact and not subject to any radical change. Just because one constituency wants something does not mean that a change has to be made. Because of the difficulty passing legislation, you know that when everyone agrees on something it will be beneficial to everyone rather than just one person. I think that the ineffectiveness that stalemate creates is in fact what makes the legislative branch so effective. The fact that no major change can take place unless it is good for the whole country prevents us from radical change. This is what the U.S. government was always about.

Blog #6: Courts or legislatures?

If you look back on the history of desegregation in the United States, it is clear that the Judicial Branch and the Supreme Court made the greatest impact of all the other branches of government. I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court overused their powers in their ruling of Brown vs. Board of Education. This was such a HUGE decision because after the Court's ruling all the states had to allow all blacks to enter white facilities. This meant that the separate facilities made for African-Americans were basically a waste of money and it would also cost lots of money to help make this adjustment. Also, the Supreme Court's decision to assimilate blacks and whites into the same public facilities and schools would be a dangerous one. Whites were still VERY racist and were maddened even more by the blacks entering their society. Race relations would get worse after this decision. Many argued that this decision was bad for race relations and the Supreme Court made a mistake by letting it happen. At the time I can understand why people would believe this was a bad choice, but I believe that it was necessary to take action. Even though relations would be ugly at first, you have to take actions knowing that someday things will improve. Obviously over time problems have worked themselves off and we live in a generally equal society. The Supreme Court's decision, while incredibly unprecedented and controversial, was a necessary one and has turned out to be a very positive step in our history. Pursuing federal legislation would not be a good idea because they were very slow and reluctant to step up and make a decision. If we waited on legislation from Congress then we might even be segregated in TODAY'S society. It is a great thing that the judicial branch made this important step in the history of civil rights.

Selective Incorporation

Selective incorporation was a big issue in the mid-1850s in which the federal government questioned whether the Bill of Rights limited state governments as well as the national government. Could the Bill of Rights and the "privileges or immunities clause" be incorporated in the states as well? American federalism did a poor job of supporting incorporation. All the national government did was hold up incorporation as seen in the Barron v. Baltimore case of 1833. The city of Baltimore had disposed of so much sand and gravel into the water near Barron's wharf because of the paving of new roads. This brought the water level down and destroyed the value of Barron's land. Barron brought Baltimore to court saying that Baltimore broke the rights he had in the fifth amendment (right to property). The Supreme Court ruled that there is nothing Barron could do unless the national government took away his rights to property. This ruling made no sense. Why could a state or a city deprive a citizen of property? In Palko v. Connecticut, Palko was indicted on first-degree murder and also second-degree murder by a lower court. Connecticut was mad at the verdict and tried him twice in order to get a maximum sentence. Palko took Connecticut to court arguing that his rights to prevention of double-jeopardy were being denied. The Supreme Court claimed that double-jeopardy wasn't a right given to the states in the 14th Amendment. In Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court claimed that the right to freedom of speech was also decided by the states too. Basically, the government was saying that states could almost disregard the national Bill of Rights. This was a scary picture because people could flat out be denied their rights just because they lived in a particular state.