The EU and Devolution

The EU

The Labour Party believes that involvement in the EU is crucial for success. More involvement would lead to economic stability and easier adaptation to globalization. The Labour Party also believes involvement in the EU will help Britain become a strong world leader. Involvement in the EU will strengthen the ties between Britain and other European nations needed to make Britain stronger in this time of economic turmoil and globalization. Heavier British participation in the EU would benefit the entire world. As a world leader, Britain would be able to tackle pressing issues such as immigration and climate change, and money would go to important causes such as relief from world-wide diseases and the war in Iraq. Involvement in the EU would also help boost Britain's economy. Many people's job depend on interconnected trade of the world. The EU is a powerful unit in economic policy-making, and if Britain becomes a leader in the policy-making, their economy would be revived to an equal or better state than before. While the Labour Party sees the EU as an advantage, the Conservative Party believes the EU is deleterious to Britain. To the Conservative Party, the EU means giving up control. The Conservatives fear a change in how government is run and how policy is made. The Conservatives believe participation in the EU does not let Britain be the strong world power it could be and does not give the British people their political voice.

The Labour Party and Devolution

The Labour Party believes that the voice of the people is crucial for a strong state. However, in order for the people's voice to be heard, they must control over their own lives, they must be empowered. Devolution will give the people this empowerment. Devolution breaks down the government and give back power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This makes the government more accessible to the people. Along with devolution, direct elections for city mayors are also introduced. Labour believes that devolution has been a successful key in strengthen the British government. Devolution exemplifies important British qualities such as communities, tolerance, and self-improvement. The Conservative Party is more unstable on the issue of devolution. In 1997, they opposed the devolution of Wales and Scotland, but supported that of Northern Ireland. The devolution of Scotland has made David Cameron fear the separation and independence of Scotland. He wishes to keep the two countries together as one. However, the Conservatives now do not want to reverse any of these reforms of devolution. The Conservative Party believes in decentralization, or the transfer of power from the central government to the people and institutions. They believe this idea is effective because it gives the people more direct control and gives them a stronger voice in the government.

The Treaty of Lisbon was signed on December 13, 2007 by the European Union member states. The treaty consists of a number of amendments to the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community. The treaty makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding.

Implications of British History

Britain's extensive history can help us understand where Britain sits today in the world. Kesselman asks, "Is Britain a world power or just a middle-of-the-pack country in Western Europe?" This question, as we can see from complex British history, is not an easy one. There appear to be arguments for both sides of the spectrum.

Britain's role in the Industrial Revolution supports it's stance as a world power. In the mid-18th century, Britain experienced a rapid expansion of manufacturing production, as well as technological innovation. Because of this shift from dependency on agriculture to production and markets, there was heavy pressure for democratization. Britain transformed and became the dominant power of the international order. This history suggests that Britain is a strong world power, just as the history of the British Empire does. Because Britain was engaging in overseas commerce, there grew a dependency on foreign markets, which in turn, fueled rapid British expansion across the globe. By 1870, British trade represent 1/4 of the total trade in the world, and the British Empire under Queen Victoria encompassed 1/4 of the world's population.

Britain, also, was the first nation to develop a securely functioning parliamentary democracy, which is still successfully in tact today. Britain had great influence over the democratization of the rest of the world because of it's extensive global empire. The idea (that we all know and love) that democracy rests on the supreme authority of the legislature is based upon fundamental British politics. How this legislature is embodied in the government is entirely up to the state, but the British parliament has been incredibly successful in the ruling of the UK. This leadership and innovation of democracy suggests that Britain is a top tier, functioning world power.

The decolonization of Britain's empire, however, defined the changing relationship to the world of states. During the twentieth century, Britain was no longer a "1st tier" power. The formal British Empire began to shrink during the interwar period of 1919 - 1939 as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand gained independence. Colonies in Asia, Middle East, and Africa pushed for independence during and after WWII. This empire dissolved in the 20 years after 1947, when India and Pakistan gained their formal independence. The dissolve of this powerful empire essentially refuted any claim Britain had on being a world power and top player in world politics.

To further support the claim that Britain is just 2nd tier, is the fact that Britain is second fiddle to the United States in their special relationship. In those desperate times after September 11, Tony Blair was quick to jump to the aid of the US, to support them in a war, which many of Britain's European neighbors did not support. Ties with the US created tension between ties with German and France as well as with the Middle East, and Britain faced high security risks by participating in the war. This weakness supports the idea that maybe Britain really has fallen behind many of it's European neighbors.

Though the strong British Empire of the 18th century challenges the isolationist ideas of Britain, there is historical evidence to suggest reasons why British government struggle with dealing with the EU. Britain is an island, and is surround by water, which, for years, cut the state off from it's European neighbors. Not only did this give them a sense of security, but it also provided a sense of individuality, an idea that "we can do it ourselves." Though Britain's heavy involvement in international trade of the 18th century might suggest otherwise, Britain was isolated from it's neighbors long before this trade emerged, giving time for ideas of isolation to become heavily ingrained in the state.

Many instances today support traditional British isolationist mindset. Britain has a very aloof relationship with the rest of Europe, allowing it to fall behind fast-paced European changes. While the rest of Europe agreed upon one currency, the Euro, Britain remained separate from this decision, keeping with the pound. There is, as well, a rift over the war in Iraq. While Britain has thrust itself into supporting the US, neighbors of the UK, such as Germany and France, are strongly opposed to the war. These isolationist tendency lean towards the conclusion that Britain is no longer the world power it once was.

Political Economic Systems

Unsurprisingly, I mostly agree with liberalism as the best form of an economic system. I believe people should be able to spend and earn money freely, without many restrictions. I believe people should be responsible for their own economic behavior and well-being, and the government should not interfere too much with this freedom. However, I do believe there should be a good balance between how much freedom the people have and how many restrictions the government sets. Finding this balance may be tricky, but if found, it will lead to, in my opinion, a very successful, economically strong nation. Acting freely with money (earning or spending) will lead to competition, which leads to innovation, which produces capitalism, or the system of production that is based on private ownership and free markets. Capitalism, in my opinion, with that right balance, is the key to a healthy economy. Taxation is an area where I'm conflicted. Liberalism states that taxation should be kept to a minimum, but I feel that things are never as simple as that. Now, I don't think people should be taxed everywhere, right and left, but certain taxes are important and helpful. This is an area, again, that needs a careful balance in order to produce success.

I agree that, as the book said, the government should act like a "watchman," overlooking the activities of the economy, making sure they don't get out of hand, but not interfering unless absolutely necessary.

Iran Current Event One

Iran Agrees to Nuclear Inspection

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/04/iran-nuclear-weapon-inspection (from google news)

After talks and discussion, Iran has agreed to allow UN inspectors to inspect the uranium enrichment plant near Qom. The agreement of this inspection also came during suspicion of alleged Iranian attempts to design a nuclear warhead that would be mounted on long-range missiles. UN inspectors demanded immediate access into the plant, but Iran insisted that the inspection be not until October 25^th. The US and France had insisted that the inspectors be granted access to the facility two weeks after the discovery of the plant. The UN feared that waiting until the 25^th would allow Iran time to conceal key information about its design and ultimate purpose. After talks in Tehran between the UN and Iran, there is prospect of diplomatic resolution of the dispute over Iran's suspect nuclear programs. Relations are moving towards cooperation. US and Iranian officials engaged in first diplomatic, direct talk in thirty years, since the Islamic Revolution. Iran had broken the International Atomic Energy Agency rules in not notifying the agency earlier about the Qom plant. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed ELBaradei, however, did not propose any penalties. Though they did agree to inspection, Iran did not agree to completely free and “unfettered” inspection of the nuclear facility at Qom. They insisted they had “sovereign” rights to pursue all aspect of nuclear technology. However, the UN and the US worried about Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Iran has sufficient information to be able to design and produce and nuclear bomb using enriched uranium

Iran is feeling the pressures of a world in constant globalization and democratization. Iran is being watched by states all over the world, both strong and weak. It is hard not to break under that kind of pressure. This enrichment plant and alleged nuclear warhead is Iran’s way of answering to the pressure of the global environment that surrounds the state. As the world grows “big and bad” around them, they must compete to grow with it. Nuclear warfare is an easily solution for this unstable state. Because of its instability, Iran is possibly feeling insecure in this fast paced world, compared to the powerful states of the UN. With nuclear technology, Iran can bump up its status, in a way, and become more of threat to the rest of the world. Iran is letting everyone know that they are not a state to be taken lightly. But what does this mean to the rest of the world? Understandably, the UN was upset upon discovery of Iran’s enrichment plant and plans for a nuclear warfare. One launched missile from the unstable state could mean disaster. The states of the UN are feeling the current pressure of the globe right now as well, and Iran’s focus on nuclear technology is just another fear and pressure to add to the plate. The US and Russia are arguing for tougher sanctions on Iran, but could that lead to dangerous tensions? Just as things as always are in politics, this is a grey area.

Political Culture

Political Attitude and Ideology

Political Attitude I, personally, find it difficult to just pick one attitude: radical, liberal, conservative, or reactionary. If I absolutely had to choose one, however, I would consider myself a liberal. The idea of evolutionary transformation makes sense to me - I don't think change needs to happen in terms of a revolution, but I feel small, gradual changes within the system could be beneficial. Overthrowing a government sounds very negative, very violent, whereas gradual changes are positive and healthy. However, staying stuck in "old ways" is never healthy. As times change, I feel that the government needs to change with it. Though many people are skeptical of change, staying static is never good for a government.

Political Ideology Liberalism is the ideology that makes the most sense to me. I believe the public should hold most of the power over the government, so that everyone has a say in how the government works. Everyone should be free to make decisions and choices. However, I do believe that the government needs to protect the people. The people shouldn't have some much power or free reign that the government has no control and the state collapses. However, I believe the public has the right to make their own political decisions and control their own economic affairs without great government intervention.

Blog Post 9/22

According to O'Neil, ethnicity "refers to specific attributes and societal institutions that make one group of people culturally different from others... attributes include language, religion, geographical location, customs, and history, etc." Now, based on this, I suppose I would be considered a Caucasian America. I share many of my attributes with many other caucasians. However, I find I can specify my ethnicity even more and consider myself a caucasian "New Orleanian," wherein I share many attributes with caucasians as well as with other New Orleanians. New Orleans has its own state of mind - its own customs and traditions that many other people, other caucasians do not have.

National identity, says O'Neil, is "defined as an institution that binds people together through a common set of political aspirations, among which the most important is self-government. National identity is a sense of belonging to a nation." Based on this definition, I consider myself an American. I believe I belong to the nation of America. I agree with American ideas of politics and government. O'Neil continues on to say that national identity also encompasses the ideas of freedom and equality. In this case, I find myself being a feminist, which I believe is a nation within a nation. This nation of feminists believes in equal rights for women, and I, being a woman, think this is incredibly important.

Citizenship is a person's relationship to a state. Citizens "swear allegiance to that state, and that state in return is obligated to provide rights to those individuals or the members of the group." Being a citizen also comes with certain responsibilities, such as paying taxes. I consider myself an American citizen. I abide by laws set in place by the government, and when I am older and no longer a minor, I will oblige and fulfill my responsibilities (such as paying taxes) as a citizen.

Stability

When thinking about the world and determining an approach to classifying it’s many states for comparison, I decided not to look at what type of government each state has, but whether or not whatever system a state uses is working. The stability of the state is what is important to me for classification. So, I divide states into three groups: strong stability, average stability, and weak stability. To me, it is important to look at the success or failure of a state and a state’s government. States can be compared to other states in their group to see which aspects of government worked towards success (or failure) for one, and failure (or success) for another. The aspects of the states I considered when putting states into each category was the legitimacy of governments, the cooperation of the public/society, and the economic standings of the state. But still, many other aspects of the state (besides the three I just listed) can be taken into consideration when comparing states based on stability.

For example, I placed the United States and Chine in the “strong stability” group. When the United States is compared to China, it is seen that these two states have very different types of government. The US is an advanced democracy, while China is an authoritarian regime. And yet, both of these states are successful using their own methods. According to FactBook, China’s economy is a market-oriented economy that plays a major role in the global economy. China supports state-owned enterprises that are important to “economic security” and looks to foster globally competitive national champions. China had one of the strongest economies in the world. And even during the current global economic turmoil, China has pulled through and remained one of the most stable states in the world. Similarly, the United States, before these hard times, had one of the most stable economies. And just as China, the US has faired better than many states that are now struggling. Compared to each other, the US and China are both very stable, even though the ways they govern and maintain this stability are very different.

This same strategy can be applied to other countries in other groups. Details of failure and success in states can be analyzed for comparison. We can look at certain aspects of government that failed in certain states, and hypothesize whether or not other ways of governing (that may have failed in a different state) would succeed in those unstable states.

Russian Theater

Russia’s best theater productions come to St. Petersburg

http://www.russiatoday.com/Art_and_Fun/2009-09-16/russias-best-theater-productions.html

In St. Petersburg, the best performances from all across Russia will be on show at the Golden Mask festival. All of the performances showing have either been nominated or won the Golden Mask theater award. The performances will run through October 8, all crafted by either theater masters or new, young directors. The general director, Maria Revyakina, said St. Petersburg is “a very demanding city; people here always need to see new, bright productions.” Actor Evgeny Mironov believes the festival is an essential part of Russian society. All types of performance arts are going to be at the festival, such as drama, opera, ballet, musicals, and puppet theater.

Actor Evgeny Mironov said something that rather intrigued me. At first glance, it can seem that this article wouldn't be very relevant to class and our discussions. But Mironov's quote, "It is known, for example, that in America, during the Great Depression, art, and first of all theater, managed to take society away from the deadlock, having given people a new strong, courageous and successful hero. Now, good theatrical performances for us are a unique chance to escape the banality surrounding us,” made me think about the importance of theater in relation to Russia's current political climate. As seen in one of my previous articles, violence is heavy in Russia at this time. Just as Americans did during WWII, the Russians are now hold on to their culture during these hard times. But this festival can also be connected back to our conversation about semi-authoritarian governments. As Americans, we think that being a democracy is perfect, and everyone wants to be a democracy, just like us. However, if we take a careful look at the whole world, many states and their public are perfectly happy with the situation their in. Russia's transitional democracy is very corrupt. Putin fixed the elections of 2008 and put himself as Prime Minister. As Americans, we think "how can anyone be happy with such a government?" The Golden Mask festival is a perfect example of how well the Russian people actually are doing under their government. Grand events such as festivals would be difficult to organize in a state where its people were unsettled with the government. The Russian people don't know any different then the government they have. They like Putin, he makes the feel secure. And in their security, culture and society can thrive. Once stability is lost, culture may be lost with it.

Failed States

Whether or not the state has "failed" is determined by the state's stability. The states which are most exposed or at risk during times of crisis are the weakest. Weak states are at risk of collapse with just one crisis. An interesting aspect of determining a states stability is the direct correlation between parliamentary power and a state's risk of failing. The graph shows that the greater the parliamentary power, the less at risk the state is of failing. It is interesting to see that the United States, though definitely stable, is not one of the most stable. The country has the reputation of being "the best" or the "greatest." But in this graph, it seems to be just average. In fact, the map of the failed states shows that, though the US is stable, it is definitely not as strong as it could be. The weaker the nation, the greedier the leader. Many leaders of weak nations earn money in any way they can - both legally and illegally. I believe a nation will be weaker if a leader's only drive for success is greed for money. For example, North Korea's leader, Kim Jon Il is accused of counterfeiting millions of US dollars in order to keep his state's destitute economy from total failure. Many states, to compensate for failing economies, try to compensate with inflation. Though economists say that inflation can help move along economic growth, too much inflation can be trouble. As seen in the graph, states with the greatest amount of inflation are also the weakest, the ones at most risk for failure.

From this site, one could assume that the most stable states would be the ones with the most solid democracies. A solid democracy would have a strong parliament selected for the people, and by the people. It would have honorable leaders with the county's best interest in mind. Strong leaders and parliament should give the county a good, strong, well run economy, though this doesn't necessarily always correlate. However, when crisis hits hard, a solid democracy would be able to deal with it better than a government laced with corruption.

Current Event 2

Russia Power Company To Mine Uranium In Mongolia

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/business/energy-environment/26ruble.html

On Tuesday, Russia’s nuclear power company, Rosatom, won a concession to mine uranium in Mongolia. Rosatom will form a joint venture, and Russia will be able to produce a quarter of their total current uranium output from a deposit in Mongolia. Rosatom is supported heavily by the United States. The US encourages commercial availability of Russian enrichment services. Fifty percent of the fuel used to dilute weapons-grade uranium in the US’ nuclear power reactors is provided by a subsidiary of Rosatom. Because this fuel agreement between Russia and the US is due to expire in 2013, the demand for mined uranium is increasing. A further incentive to secure mining rights is the Russian fervor to maintain a market share in the US. Russia, itself, is lacking in it’s own natural uranium source, and they are on a land grab around the world to secure stakes in mines in order to continue long-term business.

According to Freedom House, Russia is classified as “not free.” Though their government is technically a democracy, the corruption of their leaders has driven the Freedom House to give them low scores of 5 and 6, instead of the ideal score of 1. This corruption of a technically “democratic” government should bare warning to the United States. The corruption this large state is surely to affect our own nation. That being said, is this relationship between Russia and the United States based on nuclear power a good, solid relationship? Or is it one that could turn out to be a possible threat? Upon reading this article, I was startled to discover the United State’s heavy reliance on Russia for nuclear fuel, and the reliance of Russia on the US’ markets. This alliance is one very different that the tones of the cold war, where the two nuclear nations were ready to bomb the other at any given moment. Also, it seems Russian’s reliance on the market for uranium and nuclear fuel is a suggestion they are encouraging, once again, nuclear warfare. In an attempt to expand their market, Rosatom is making more and more stakes in uranium mines. This reliance on uranium for economic expansion could make some people draw the conclusion that the second Cold War is on it’s way.

Section 4 Blog Post

1. The US does a fairly good job at follow the "fair and free" election condition. Everyone who is registered is encouraged to vote in elections so as to elect the person they think is best for the job, instead of someone inheriting an office of government. However, I do find some flaws in our system. I do not believe the electoral college is the most effective form of selecting leaders. Considering members of the electoral college don't have to vote for the candidate the state which they are represented voted for, it's as if the public doesn't really have to vote at all. For example, in the election of 2000 between Al Gore and George W. Bush, Al Gore won the popular vote among the public. Usually, the candidate who wins the popular vote wins the election, but the electoral college had different plans and G.W. Bush became the winner of the 2000 election. Because of the electoral college, I feel like the voting process for the public isn't really "free or fair" at all.

2. Anyone is free to organize and be a part of any political party they want in the US. However, the US isn't the ideal subject for this condition. There are two main parties - Democrats and Republicans - and others parties do not get equal attention or opportunity as these to do. Also, in our government, one of these parties is in the majority while the other is in the minority. The majority party changes everyone so often, so one party isn't always the minority. This may seem fair, however, the minority party never has as much influence as the majority party does. There is much conflict over the issue, especially when the condition states that the minority party should have adequate rights of contestation.

3. America prides itself on being the "land of the free" where "all men are created equally." According to the constitution, the US follows closely the condition of democracy that all citizens possess civil and political rights. This is generally true, but there have been many issues in the past that do not follow this condition. Women and blacks didn't have the right to vote and weren't considered "equal" until at least 200 years after the constitution was written. Still today there are people in the US who don't consider certain people their equal. Ridding the country completely of racism and prejudice would be a very tough task, but the government, over the last 200 years, has made it's effort.

4. The judiciary condition is represented very well in the US. Though things in the judiciary system are always been tweaked a changed, the overall procedures of the system are very close to the qualifications of the condition. Though some judges could be biased based on their political parties, I understand that it is hard to be complete void of some sort of bias.

Prompt 8/31/2009

Upon reading both intros, I discovered that comparative government was a social science - something I'd probably known before but of which I hadn't been consciously aware. I am used to taking strictly history classes, but comparative government is something very different. I enjoy learning history and about events that occurred in the past, but I'm excited to learn about current events in a different way than I have in previous history courses. Comparative government is the study and comparison of countries in similar situations. These studies begin with a hypothesis to come to a conclusion as to why a country is the way it is. The singular country, however, cannot be examined alone. To draw a truly educated conclusion, this country must be compared to others in similar situations. Learning the skills to make hypothesis and conclusions about current events today is very exciting to me.

I think this course will teach me to understand politics (and the world) much better than I do now. It will teach me not only to know current events, but to really understand them and try to figure out why they are happening. This skill, however, is easier said than done. From reading, I've learned that comparative politics is a particularly challenging and unsure science. The inability to have controlled variables - like a natural scientist in a lab - makes conducting "comparative" experiments difficult and challenging. Dealing with something so fickle as politics will definitely prove to be a great challenge in this course.

Suicide Bomber Rams Truck Into Police Station in Russia, Killing 20

On Monday, a suicide bomber drove a truck filled with explosives into the police headquarters of Nazran, the capital of Ingushetia. The explosion killed twenty people and wounded many more. This most recent attack undermines the already doubted authority of the populist president Yunus-Beck Yevkorov who has decided to combat rebel violence with a softer approach. In response to this attack, President Medvedev ordered that Ingushetia’s interior minister be fired and that the interior minister, Rashid Nurgaliyen, to strengthen Ingushetia’s polices forces. This attack is a sign to leaders that Yevkorov’s experiment in reconciliation with opposition leaders has failed.

Not only does this bombing shock people all over the world, but it also raises the question of Russia’s national security and how well they are dealing with violence. How to deal with rebellion is a complicated question. The recent bombing and violent acts show that it is not easily handled with a soft touch or with reconciliation. However, how much strength should be given to the police department before internal corruption begins? How much power is too much? Brute force is not always the best way to handle violence – fire is not always best fought with fire.

Schwirtz, Michael. “20 Die In Suicide Bombing in Russia.” The New York Times. 17

August 2009. The New York Times. 23 August 2009. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/world/europe/18russia.html>.

The Women's Crusade

Men have been the economical, political, and social leaders in many different cultures for centuries. Until the twentieth century, women were considered only as housewives and mothers, as though they were got good enough to lead and work. And though in many cultures, this view as changed, in places such as Pakinstan, India, and China, these stereotypes of women as cooks and child-bearers still hold true. In these families, men are in complete control over their wives, over money, over their children. And yet, women seem to have a better grasp at dealing with these things. Though men try to tell the children what to do, mothers are the ones who truly raise the children. When men get ahold of money, they will spend it on frivolous things -- alcohol, prostitutes, and other luxuries. Women would be much more careful by spending money on education, children, or saving. They tend to prioritize, while many men are merely greedy.

On the Ivory Coast, both men and women grow crops for a profit. When the men's crops have a good year, they spend the majority of their money tobacco and alcohol. However, when women's crops have a good harvest, women spend their profit on food and nutrition. Children are healthier when women prosper versus when the prosper. If women are always this prosperous, the quality of life in these regions could improve greatly. Not only would poverty become less of a problem, but children would live longer and health would improve.

In China, woman are now finding work in factories. During the Industrial Revolution, working in a factory was seen as exploitation, but in for impoverished women in China, it is empowering. Many of them are the breadwinners of the family. Chinese men are doing more domestic chores and daughters are becoming more valued. Not only do urban families settle for a daughter, they may prefer one, for she is more likely to take better care of her parents in their old age.

It is also interesting to notice that men don't seem to think women deserve education, but when women are educated and empowered, the can contribute greatly to their community. If more women are educated, instead of either dying young or being enslaved, many failing countries could become stronger and more prominent. The best hope for these countries right now is not going to war or bombing their enemies, but the education of it's women.

Men's fickle attitudes towards women are surprising to me. Saima Muhammad was a woman who's life was falling apart until she became self-sufficient and took the initiative to begin her own embroidery business. Her husband was unemployed, so she took it upon herself to become the support of her family. Before her business, Saima's husband would beat her and treat her as though she were totally irrelevant. He was even contemplating taking a second wife who would possibly bear him a son, since Saima had only given him daughters. When Saima went to the Kashf Foundation to get a $65 loan to start her business, she became the main supporter of the family. Her self-sufficiency earned her a great deal of respect from her husband. Saima's story proves that if more girls are educated in Pakinstan, India, and China to become business women and earn a salary, less families will suffer from poverty, leading ultimately to the reversal of poverty in those counties.

Before reading Three Cups of Tea and this article, I would not have thought women's education would be so crucial to improvement of these countries. Of course, I have always thought women should be treated equally and deserved education. Everyone deserves a chance to learn and succeed. But reading these two pieces have opened my eyes to since such a simple solution to a huge problem. Putting money in the hands of men has proven ineffective. However, when women are in control, they are more responsible. The education of women could change the poor state of these countries forever. And when the issues in these countries begin to improve, the United States' relationship with these countries will improve.

Religion

In the constitution, the First Amendment gives US citizens "freedom from religion." There is debate, however, about how religion should be dealt with in terms of government. The separatist view says the government should avoid complete contact with religion and should not endorse religious activities. The accommodation view says the government can support religion and associated activities. 

In the 1960's, the Supreme Court took a more separatist view during cases. In Engel v. Vitale, the constitutionality of the practice of praying each morning in a public school was challenged. Though the prayer had been developed by Protestants, Catholics, and Jews jointly, many parents still challenged the practice using the court pathway. The Supreme Court declared that a religious practice indicated improper government endorsement and pressure on religious belief. 

Gag Orders

There are many forms of gag orders, but the most common is a trial judge's order that no participant in a case can talk to the news media about the case. These participants include the parties, lawyers, law enforcement officials and witnesses. Judges insist gag orders are necessary to protect the parties of the trial and preserve the fairness of the trial. Gags orders were approved in the 1966 Supreme Court case Sheppard v. Maxwell. Sheppard, accused of murdering his wife, was released from custody because of massive publicity surrounding his case. This great publicity denied him his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.The  Supreme Court criticized that the trial judge should have gagged the participants of the Sheppard case to protect his rights. There were no standards, however, set for imposing an order. There still are no tests in lower courts for gag orders today. 

In my opinion, gag orders are a grey area. I believe in the protection of a person's right to a fair trial, however, I also believe in freedom of speech -- freedom of participants to talk to who they like and for media to gather the information they like. The release of certain information can be harmful to the protection of the party of the trial and to maintaining the fairness of the trial. But a gag order seem like a very harsh way to protect the rights of the parties of the trial. There should be a middle ground for confidentiality and the right to a fair trial that would also accommodate the first amendment. 

Qualities of a Supreme Court Justice

There are a few different things I would like to see in a Supreme Court justice. I don't think a law degree or serious experience as either a lawyer or an employee of the federal government is absolutely necessary when considering a justice candidate. I don't think, however, that experience in some sort of hard working career or job is necessary. I believe a candidate needs the experience of a job that has taught them hard work and has helped them shape informed opinions about our country and life in general. However, I also think a candidate needs to be lenient with his or her opinions. A candidate needs to be open to listening to the different facts of a case so they can pass a democratic judgement that is not necessarily based solely on their previously shaped opinions. Personally, a justice's political affiliation is not as important to me as it is to others, considering I consider myself moderate and an independent. However, I do think I would try to pick a justice who's values are closely aligned with mine, for I may trust their judgement more than a candidates who's values are completely different. 

Model Congress Wrap Up

The current process of legislation was put in place over two hundred years ago by the US’ founding fathers. It was created with democracy in mind and with the idea that the public’s voice needed to be heard. Justice and efficiency were also aimed for when the Constitution was drawn. Everyone’s opinion mattered, as well as a job well done for the betterment of the country. It cannot be said the legislative process is entirely fair or effective, though it would be wrong to label the process completely ineffective as well. The legislative process has been set up with such diligence that it has lasted the US for over two hundred years, however there are still issues, which make the process somewhat undemocratic.

            In many aspects, the legislative process of the Congress is very effective and has worked for the passed two hundred years. The founding fathers framed the process so each political party would share equal power. Though one party can dominate at a certain time, the minority party still has somewhat of a voice, as was seen in our model congress, when the Republicans successfully filibustered, or held the floor for as long as possible, only yielding to other Republicans. This defeated the Reproductive Rights For All Women Act. Also, one party is not forever the majority party in power. Democratic elections are held, where the public can directly decide who they would like to represent them in Congress. Because of the elections of new Congressmen, power in the Congress changes and flip-flops between the different parties. During the legislative process, bills are put up for debate and vote, instead of being directly sent to the president. This debate and vote is a democratic procedure. Simply because the public does not vote on the bills directly does not mean the process is any less democratic. The public voted for the Congressmen that would represent them. The people put their faith in the representatives to make decisions they would agree with during the process. The long history of the country shows that even through the roughest of times, the same legislative process has remained in place. Though there may have been small changes, changing the process in its entirety has never been a question.

            Though the legislative process is mostly effective and has survived for over two hundred years, there are still some issues. During debate in Congress, the minority party has a chance to exert some power with the filibuster. Filibustering is useful when preventing amendments from being added to bills on the floor, however, it can also prevent the voting process for a very popular bill. As seen in McGehee’s model Congress, the Reproductive Rights For All Women Act was defeated because of the Republican filibuster. However, this was a very popular bill among the Democrats. The lack of a vote for RRAWA did not give it a just chance in Congress and it’s complete defeat was somewhat undemocratic. This can be said for any and all filibustering. To improve the legislative process, a different method for hearing the minority party’s voice should be created.  There is also a possibility that one party can hold the majority for a long period of time, giving the minority party a very limited voice. This should not be considered undemocratic, for the majority and minority changes eventually. However, it would be appropriate to call the lack of voice for the minority party as ineffective. One party will have total say while it is the majority, however, there should be some way for the minority party to have a voice. As afore mentioned, however, a way more democratic than filibustering. Another rather undemocratic procedure of Congress is the addition of earmarks to a bill. Earmarks are funds that are direct to a specific program or recipient. However, to add earmarks to a bill, there is no Congressional debate or public overview. The unquestioned adding of funds to a bill is undemocratic. Because there is no oversight to the addition, these earmarks can be used by Congressmen as awards to campaign contributors or even bribes. This part of the process needs to be changed. Either earmarks are done away with completely, or there is some sort of Congressional hearing before they are added on to a bill. Though the legislative process has held strong for two hundred years, it is not hard to miss some of its flaws.

It is impossible to say the legislative process is either completely effective and just or completely ineffective and unfair. Claiming either extreme would be inaccurate. The legislative process is effective and just in certain aspects. It has lasted to two hundred years and gives the public a voice. However, there are certain issues that have yet to be worked out, thus creating kinks in the system. Like the meat packing conflict in USDA: Inspected, the legislative process is not black or white, but it is a gray area. It is not perfect, yet it is not completely useless. It has worked for the US, however, for two hundred years. There is no reason it can’t continue it’s efficient work (with a little tweaking) for many more years to come.

Work Cited

“Earmark FAQ.” Sunlight Foundation. April 2008. Sunlight Foundation. 29 April 2009. <http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/earmarksFAQ/>.

Eligibility

All women will be eligible for RU - 486 (with parental consent for minors and a prescription from doctors) under this bill. Women with medicaid who cannot afford to buy their own contraceptives will eligible to receive birth control and the Plan B emergency contraceptive, as well as RU - 486. 

Terms and Benefits

1. All women receiving low cost health insurance from Federal Medicaid will be eligible.
2. Birth control, RU 486 abortion pill, and Plan B emergency contraceptive will be completely covered by Medicaid, with or without prescription.
3. Consultation with patient's primary physician is required for RU 486 abortion pill.

4. Parental consent is required for a minor patient before she can receive RU 486.  
5. States will be required to comply with this act in order to receive Federal Medicaid Funding.

Rights For All Women Act

Rights For All Women Act

This bill ensures reproductive rights for all women, including those who could not previously afford it, by covering Plan B emergency contraception, the RU 486 abortion pill, and any other birth control contraceptive under Medicaid.

Blog Proposition

Blog Proposition for Senators Gural and Bachaud

Insurance Coverage for Birth Control,

 the Morning after Pill, and Mifepristone

Mifepristone

• The abortion pill 
  
• Safe abortion - without dangerous or invasion surgery

Proposition

• To make available to women with a prescription
• Women under 18 need parental consent
• Woman must be within her first trimester of pregnancy to receive the pill
• Costs of the pill should be covered by health insurance
• Costs of other forms of birth control, including the morning after pill should be covered by insurance

Reasoning: RU - 486 is a less intrusive procedure than a surgical abortion. It should be available as a safer decision for women who wish to have an abortion. However, it should not be so available that it is passed around as easily aspirin. Restrictions to minors should include parental consent, and all women wishing to receive the pill should get a prescription from their gynecologists, after having received a proper check up. Health insurance should cover all costs of the pill, just as regular check ups are covered. Also, heath insurance should cover birth control and the morning after pill.  All women have a right to health care, and these medications  should be included in that right for any woman wishing to  use them. It is safe and practical and should not be denied, as long as the proper cautions are taken. 

Congress

I believe there is no black and white answer to this question. A Congressman cannot only act upon what their constituents want, nor can they act only based upon their opinions and what they believe is best. There should be a compromise between the two extremes. I believe that a compromise can be reached with either the Politico Model or the Conscience Model of legislating. With the former, a Congressman follows his own opinions and beliefs, until the public becomes seriously involved with the issues and he must heed their wishes. This makes perfect sense to me, for said Congressman's opinions were obviously liked enough by his public to get him elected. The majority of the public obviously trusts the Congressman to follow his beliefs (which were made known during campaign time), and they believe his opinions will lead to the best decisions for the district.  Similar to this Model is the latter, the Conscience Model of legislation. The Congressman will follow the will of his public for the most part, until there is a situation where he must follow his own instincts in doing what he believes is right for the district. I like this model as well. Again, the people obviously trust the Congressman's opinions and therefor trust his instincts and conscience, because they are the ones who elected him. And many times, the Congressman will have the knowledge the public does not, and can use that knowledge to make his own choice which will benefit the people. For example, Congressman Cao of Louisiana had to trust his own opinions on what he thought would be better for his district when voting on the Stimulus Package. Though the people thought he would vote yes, at the last minute, Cao trusted his own instincts and did not vote in favor, for he considered the other option to be better for the district which he represented. 

Points of View: Gay Marriage

Gay Marraige: Federal or State Issue?

I agree with Mr. Wilkinson, a constitutional amendment is not the way to go with the issue of gay marriage. The amendment would ban gay marriage, thus limiting the rights of homosexuals. The Constitution, however, is not for banning rights, but for reassuring the people's rights (along with a description of governmental organization). The Founding Father's did not imagine the Constitution suppressing the people, but rather granting equal rights. As Wilkinson comments, "[The Framers] did not envision our Constitution as a place to restrict rights or enact public policies."  Furthermore, the Constitution is composed of amendments and articles that the whole of the United States mostly agrees upon. The matter of same-sex marriage, however, is far to controversial at this day an age for an amendment to be put in place. Putting in place a banning amendment across the whole nation would only cause chaos and riot. Letting state law decide their stand on the issue would be less problematic. If a gay couple lives in a state where same-sex marriage has been outlawed, they could potentially move to a different state which would give them a marriage license. If found the hypocrisy of conservatives on the issue of this federal amendment to be quite ridiculous. Wilkinson says, "Conservatives who eloquently challenged the Equal Rights Amendment... for federalizing core areas of state law now support an amendment that invites federal courts to frame a federal definition of marriage and the legal incidents thereof." Matters of marriage have always depended on state law, so why should Conservatives' opinions change to be in favor the Federal Marriage Amendment, when they were so strongly against the Equal Rights Amendment? This hypocrisy greatly angers me for I feel as though the Conservatives are letting their prejudice get in the way of their politics. I  support state law for same-sex marriage mostly because I am a full supporter of same-sex marriage, and feel as though, if states can decide whether or not gay marriage is legal, then homosexuals will still have equal rights as any other American, even if they have to move to a different state. I could go into much more depth on why I believe that gay marriage is perfectly okay, and why it is rather idiotic, really, to ban two humans who love each other (even though they both have the same type of genitalia) from getting married. And though this is a constitutional vs. state government argument, my opinion on gay marriage has most likely shaped my opinion that this issue should be a state matter. If I were opposed to gay marriage, I might not mind that there would be an amendment banning it. However, it completely depends on the circumstances. Same-sex marriage being an issue for state government seems to make much more sense to me, but possibly, if there weren't so much controversy over the matter, a federal constitution might not be so ridiculous. However, our country is greatly divided on the issue, and I find it would be unhealthy for Constitution to become a greater matter of controversy than it is already. 

Federalism

HEALTH CARE !

When the constitution was framed, our founding fathers chose the path of a federal system of government, instead of a unitary system. This system meant that the government would have many levels or layers, such as for cities, states, and the country as a whole. However, the nation's government, the federal government, was not to have complete sovereignty over the state governments. This allowed each form of government to have it's own responsibilities and duties, and would also prevent tyranny later down the road.  This article about universal health care shows that the federal government does have the power of the states to pass a law ensuring people with health care. But it also shows that, during the Clinton Administration, the people had the power to come together to halt his efforts towards universal healthcare. This shows that, though the federal government does have great authority, it is not completely in control. It does not have complete sovereignty. 

PROP 8 !

This article about Proposition 8 is another great example of federalism in the US and the balance of powers. Proposition 8 was an amendment to California's own constitution, banning same-sex marriages. It was not the responsibility of the federal government. However, when protests arose and people greatly disputed the proposition, the federal government became involved. Review of the constitutionality of this proposition went to the Supreme Court. The state government of California has the power and authority to pass amendments to it's own constitution, without needing the help or permission of the federal government. However, when needed, the federal government has the power to intervene, and the Supreme Court has the authority to review the constitutionality of the amendment. 

Points of View: The Constitution

It is not hard to see the major flaw in Beard's argument about the Constitution. He argues that the Constitution was created undemocratically, in an undemocratic society, and that it was created only for personalty interests, i.e. money, public securities, manufactures, and commerce. However, Beard has little to none evidence to support this thesis. The evidence he does have is second hand and most likely picked to specifically support his case. It seemed as though Beard drew his thesis from bitter feelings of the upper elitist class. It was easy for Beard to connect the problems of the current US back to the selfishness of the framers of the Constitution. It is ridiculous of Beard to say that only the elitist upper class was in favor of the Constitution, and all other American's were opposed to the document that would only benefit that upper class. It was also ridiculous of Beard to conclude that the framers wanted to only benefit themselves and ignore the rest of American. Many times, yes, framers made decisions that would benefit them, but that also meant these decisions enhanced the situations for people in other classes as well. Evidence shows that the constitution was not only a product of the upper class, but of the farming middle class as well. Beard stated that men with personalty interest greatly outnumbered men with realty at the convention, but Brown shows that to be simply not true. Beard argues that many farmers with realty interests did not vote, however, because they were disenfranchised. Browns counters, saying that, in reality, men with realty could very well vote, they were just uninterested. Also, Beard's  idea that property was the main concern of the framers was partially incorrect. Property was not the only concern. Both property and the people's rights concerned the framers, and not just for themselves, but for all of America. It is safe to say that, while Beard has a strong argument, it is an opinion and is founded on an "act of faith", as Brown puts it. Beards thesis does not convince me and cannot be called a historical analysis. 

Overturning Prop. 8

Proposition 8 is a California amendment banning same-sex marriages and questioning the validity of about 18,000 already existing marriages. Many opponents of this proposition argue it's constitutionality, and the conflict has been taken to the Supreme Court. Firstly, this approved proposition demonstrates the principle of Federalism. California's state government exercised it's power and authority by passing this amendment to their own constitution, without the help or need of the federal government. Federalism is the idea that the federal government has it's own set of responsibilities, while state governments handle others. It is not the federal government's responsibility to handle amendments to the California constitution. The Supreme Court analyzation of the constitutionality of this amendment also exercises the principle of the Checks and Balances system. The Supreme Court is limiting, or "checking", the power of California's government. The judiciaries can invalidate the act of Prop 8, if they find it was not a constitutional act. Finally, this article demonstrates the idea of a fixed system open to change. First, Proposition 8 was an amendment ratified in California, which was changing the legality of same-sex marriage. Now, with the Supreme Court review of the amendment, there is a possibility that the amendment will be overturned, much to the pleasure of Prop. 8 opponents. The system of government remains the same, but the passing of Prop. 8 and the possible overturn of it shows that laws are malleable. 

LINK TO ARTICLE !

REVIEWING PROP. 8

Abortion

For a while, I have been seriously concerned with the issues of abortion. I'd like to start off by saying I am not "Pro-Abortion." I, personally, don't think I would ever get an abortion, unless the circumstance was absolutely dire. I don't necessarily encourage abortions, either. I am "Pro-Choice." I feel like it is a woman's decision whether or not she gets an abortion, not the government's choice. The government should not have control over a woman's body. It is my body, I can do what I like with it. If I am allowed to poke holes through it and tattoo ink across my skin, I should be allowed to have an abortion if I so wish. I understand the argument that taking a young life is horrible, and I agree. I don't believe aborting a fetus that actually looks and resembles a human is right. However, I believe abortions are perfectly fine during the first trimester of pregnancy, when the baby is still an embryo - merely a sack of cells. 

The Circumstances which surround the pending abortion must also be taken into consideration. Will a fifteen year old girl really be a fitting mother for an infant? Should a rape-victim have to raise a child which would remind her of her attacker everyday? What if the woman's life and health is at risk during a pregnancy and an abortion is the only safe way out? There are circumstances in which a baby would be least healthy for the woman's physical and mental stability. Furthermore, making abortion illegal is potentially as dangerous to a woman as an abortion is to an unborn child. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and if women can't turn to a clinic abortion, they man attempt to perform the abortion themselves. This is very dangerous and potentially lethal. Death by home abortion is easily preventable if women have the option of a clinic abortion. Taking the option of a professional abortion away not only stifles women's rights, but takes away a woman's security blanket as well. 

I completely believe it is up to the woman  whether or not she goes through with the pregnancy. It is the woman's choice. She should not have the right to decide taken away from her. I fully support the Freedom of Choice Act, which would protect and guarantee women in coming generations the right to a choice. I must make this clear again: I am not arguing for the right to abortion, but rather, I am arguing for a woman's right to choose and the control over her own body. 

LINKS !

Planned Parenthood
Prochoice.org
Pro-Choice

PRESIDENT'S VIEWS ON ABORTION !

Obama's Views 

On the Issue

THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT !

Freedom of Choice Act