Nuclear Nightmare-North Korea(1/5)

This video which was made in 2009 talks about North Korea's revived nuclear weapons program. The video begins by telling the viewers that North Korea has successfully conducted its second nuclear test despite new restriction put in place by the United Nations Security Council. The video also explains how North Korea's weapons program has received international opposition and specifically from the USA, South Korea, and Japan. Because of this, the UN security council unanimously passed a resolution which allows for the inspection of cargo vessels and airplanes headed for or leaving North Korea which are suspected of carrying weapons and nuclear technology. In closing, the video states how North Korea claims if there is any move by another nation to infringe on there land or rights, then there will be extreme consequences.

Lanahan Reading: Judicial Review

1.     Why is judicial review democratic?

Judicial review is democratic because it provides for a check on the legislative and executive branches. Also, judicial review makes sure that the majority does not have full control to do whatever they want.

2.     Please cite one case that proves the democratic nature of judicial review.

Brown vs. Board of Education

3.     Why is judicial review not democratic?

Judicial review is not democratic because the American people never have a voice as to who is put on the Supreme Court to make decisions. Also, often times the Supreme Court is made up of elites who attend highly prestigious schools and who do not represent the diversity of America.

4.     Please cite one case that proves that judicial review is not democratic.

Roe v. Wade

5.     What is one thing you agree with in this article?

I liked when the author explained that the majority and the government should not disrupt certain parts of American life.

6.     What is one thing you disagree with in this article?

I couldn’t really disagree with anything.

Robert Bork: Supreme Court Nomination Hearings from PBS NewsHour and EMK...

Bob Bork

            In 1987 after the moderate Lewis Powell retired, President Reagan sought to replace him with a much more conservative justice. Which makes sense due to the fact that Reagan was a conservative and wanted someone with his same philosophy in the court. His choice was Robert Bork. From the announcement of the nomination, there was much skepticism and concern that surrounded Bork. During the Senate hearings Bork was torn apart. One of the most vocal critics of Bork was liberal Ted Kennedy. Kennedy accused Bork as being someone who would “force women into back-alley abortion, make blacks sit in segregated churches, and allow rogue police to make midnight raids on houses.” Kennedy didn’t stop there either. He also called out Reagan saying, “He [Reagan] should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans.” In response Bork told Kennedy none of what he said was the truth and that it was ridiculous to say such things. Although what Kennedy said probably wasn’t true it was enough to convince the Senate and the American people that Bork shouldn’t be a Supreme Court justice. In the end the Senate rejected Bork’s nomination and Bork got Borked.


Source: www.nytimes.com/.../the-bork-hearings-bork-s-testimony-ends-with-panel- still-deeply-split.html



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ffTtOMIJAk&feature=related

Combat In Afghanistan

This short video from 60 minutes talks about the War in Afghanistan in 2008. In the video it is explained how the US and its allies are beginning to experience more attacks from enemy forces. The video also explains how it is extremely difficult to fight this war because the US and coalition forces do not know who is on which side. In many ways this is very similiar to the Vietnam War in this instance. The video goes on to say how it is also difficult to fight the war because of the geography in Afghanistan. In some places it is desert and very dry and humid, while in other places it is extremely mountainous and very hard to navigate.

Supreme Court

1. How did the judicial philosophies of Justice Brennan and Rehnquist differ?

                Justice Brennan and Justice Rehnquist were very different in their political philosophies. Justice Brennan is far more liberal while Justice Rehnquist is more conservative. Justice Brennan believes that it is his responsibility to protect the minority from the majority. Just as these two justices are on two different ends of the political spectrum when it comes to ideologies, Justice Rehnquist believes that it is his responsibility to let the majority to do what they need to do.

2. Which justice do your personal beliefs align most with? Why?

           

I would have to side with Brennan on this issue because I believe the minority should always have some say in the political process. This philosophy also helps to protect democracy.

Louis Brandeis

                Justice Brandeis was the first person of Jewish descent to sit on the Supreme Court. Brandeis was a strong defendant of freedom of speech laws as well as issues dealing with right to privacy. Because of this Brandeis has a legacy of being one of the most influential justices in the history of the Supreme Court. He was labeled as a “crusader of social justice” by his peers. Brandeis University in Massachusetts was named in his honor.

Source: www.brandeis.edu/legacyfund/bio

1995 Government Shutdown

What specific issues led to the government shutdown in 1995?

The government shutdown took place in two parts. The first lasted five days in November 1995, until the White House agreed to congressional demands to balance the budget within seven years. But talks on implementing that agreement failed, and the second shutdown lasted 21 days, from Dec. 15, 1995 to Jan. 6. 1996. The main issue was the GOP demand that Clinton agree to their version of a balanced budget. In months of negotiations, Clinton had actually given a far amount of ground, infuriating Democrats on the left. He agreed to a balanced budget over seven years, to tax cuts, to changes in mandatory spending programs such as Medicare. But the two sides were remained far apart on the pace of spending cuts

Who "won" the government shutdown in 1995 and why?

Ultimately the Democrats won. The Democrats won because after weeks of turmoil, the Republicans finally cut a deal with the Democrats which actually didn’t make anything different than it was before. The Dems also won because the GOP shutdown of the government made the GOP look bad especially after they did not accomplish what they said they were going to do.

Why are we currently operating under a current resolution?

We are currently operating under a current resolution because Congress has yet to pass a new resolution for the new fiscal. Per protocol if a new resolution is not passed the federal government has a certain amount of time where it can operate under the prior year’s resolution. If an agreement is not reached for a new resolution in the allotted amount of time then the government is shutdown.

Judging by the specific events of the last month or two, do you think we will face another government shutdown?

In short I do not think that will face another government shutdown. During the shutdown in 1995 John Boehner was the # 4 Republican in House leadership and he experienced how detrimental the shutdown of the government was to the Republican Party. Now as Speaker of the House he is the unofficial leader of the GOP not just in Congress but across the whole country. It is his job to promote and represent the GOP in a positive and productive manner.

Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/lessons_from_the_great_governm.html

Locked in the Cabinet

1.  Summarize the article in your own words (not their summary:)

                Basically, the article was about a day in the life of the secretary of labor. The secterary explains his busy day and also describes the “bubble” that he works in. This bubble is something that protects him from contact with people from outside the department. The secretary despises this “bubble”. Ultimately, the article is a behind-the-scenes look at what it is like to be the secretary of labor.

2. What is one thing that surprised you in the article and why?

One thing that surprised about the article is how much protection the secretary gets. From the time he leaves his apartment to the time he goes home, someone is constantly with him. He even gets driven around. This surprised me because I didn’t think that cabinet members needed this much protection.

3. What is one thing that you agreed with in the article and why?

One thing that I agree with is how the secretary hates the “bubble” and wishes he didn’t need it. I would be very annoyed if someone was by my side shadowing me all day. I thought it was funny how the secretary got yelled at when he went for a walk and no one knew where he was.

4. What is one thing that you disagreed with in the article and why?

I really don’t think there is anything that I disagree with in the article because the passage was more or less about the secretary’s day in the life and he really was trying to make a point or shed light on any of his views.

A Government of Strangers

Summarize the article in your own words (not their summary:)

Basically, what the article discussed was what we’ve been talking about in class for the past few days. The article discusses how the President and his top appointments have a large amount of power, but much of the government is run by civil servants who are chosen by their merit exam score. Many of these civil servants make a career out of their work and unlike the President they remain a civil servant for decades.

2.

One thing that surprised me in the article was how some civil servants seem to disregard ethics when trying to get something done. For example, one civil servant already had bills drafted before any of the ideas and policies were even discussed.

3.

One thing that I agree with in the article is that there is widespread political sabotage throughout the government. I believe there is widespread sabotage because each separate agency has their own agenda of what they want to get done and this is one method to effectively execute their policies.

4.

One thing that I disagree with in the article is that there cannot be continuity between the incoming administrations and the bureaucrats. I believe if both sides work together there is a way to achieve continuity between administrations.