Final Project Video Presentation

Here is a link to my video presentation: I found the easiest way is to copy and paste link and it should directly take you to the video! https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h9r6RxonG9HZg2c1TbvD1HmfI59xEX0G/view?usp=sharing

Foreign Policy

Foreign policy is defined as “a systematic and general plan that guides a country’s attitudes and actions toward the rest of the world. Foreign policy includes all of the economic, military, commercial and diplomatic positions that a nation takes in its relationships with other countries”. The American Constitution does not clearly specify exactly how to split foreign policy between the president and Congress. The President is Commander and Chief and therefore assumes much of the decision-making power when it comes to foreign policy making and members of Congress help shape the president’s decisions and still have the ability to limit the president’s powers. In regards to foreign policy, The Constitution gives the President the power to make treaties with other countries (these need to be approved by ⅔ the senate) and to make executive agreements with other heads of nations with no approval from the senate. Another way the President affects foreign policymaking is that the President is a symbolic head of our government and represents the face of our country to the rest of the world. The Cabinet helps recommend foreign policy decisions however the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense are the only cabinet members that work on foreign policy full time. There are multiple agencies that work with foreign policy such as: The Department of State, The Department of Defence, The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, The Agency for International Development, The Peace Corps, National Security Council and the Central Intelligence Agency. The Department of State is the government agency that works the most directly with foreign policy and maintains diplomatic relationships with almost two hundred independent nations. A part of the Department of Defence is The Joint Chiefs (chief of staff of the Army, the chief of staff of the Air Force, the chief of naval operations and the commandant of the Marine Corps); the job of The Joint Chiefs is to be key military advisors to the President including military decisions regarding foreign nations. Historically, America’s foreign policy has shifted dramatically in response to attempting to preserve national security. Initially, the founding fathers used isolationism as the foreign political policy. A policy of isolationism meant America avoided political involvement in world affairs in order to preserve American interests. As America began to trade more with a number of Asian countries, it slowly shifted to interventionism. Interventionism is defined as a country being directly involved with the affairs of another country. Once the first World War broke out, the United States tried to shift to a policy of neutrality in order to stay out of the war. However, the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 during World War II forced the United States to abandon their policies of neutrality and isolationism and join the war in order to protect America. After World War II the United States continued to follow the policy of interventionism and spent a lot of money and policy making trying to prevent the spread of communism (The Cold War) . The spread of communism was a major threat to democracy and started at the end of World War II in 1945 and continued to be a foreign issue that drove American policy making till the 1980s when the Soviet Union declared independence and the Communist Party lost almost all its power. After the Cold War the United states had created a reputation of being the defender of the “free world” and at this point U.S. foreign policy makers had to reevaluate America’s forign policy goals. In most recent decades, the foreign policy decisions that are being made have the same goal as our founding fathers, to protect America’s best interest. The horrific event of September 11, 2001 where America experienced a terrorist attack that killed 2,996 people, the United States foreign policy has focused heavily on The War On Terrorism. There are different types of terrorism: Local / Reginal terrorism, State-Sponsored Terrorism and Foreign Terrorist Networks. Local/reginal terrorism is often committed by extremists that desire to be freed from an oppressive government. State-sponsored terrorism is planned and sponsored by governments and foreign terrorist networks are nongovernement, hierachical terrorist organizations that plan terrorist attacks and members of the organization are dispersed globally in small units. As stated before, a lot of America’s foreign policy goals in the last decade of been directly a result of the war on terrorism. The Bush administration was resolved to hunt al Qaeda members and stomp out all its members immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This not only led to the war in Afghanistan but also a war on Iraq. United States Policy makers at this point were so focused on national security that they chose to engage in a preventive war which is not sanctioned by international law. The war on Iraq was a preventive war and the resolution created by the Bush Administration as reasons to go to war were allegations against Iraq that were later proved untrue. Many criticized the Bush administration’s decision to go into war with Iraq because it distracted the government from America’s primary threat -- al Qaeda. Another aspect of foreign policy that the United States has focused on is weapons and international policy around them. Countries have had to address the threat of nuclear weapons, biological weapons and chemical weapons. There have been many treaties regarding these weapons; these treaties are known as the United States Arms Control Treaties. The goal is for these treaties to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. A third foreign policy aspect the United States has focused on is trade and its direct connection to human rights. Globalization has caused the diffusion of commodities as well as ideas on a global scale. A lot of America’s commodities are outsourced from other nations. The World Trade Organization (WTO) was created to establish an arbitration panel that is responsible for dealing with international disputes over trade issues. An issue with international trading is that human rights are not treated equally by every government. What happens when America outsources clothing made in a country where children are being forced to work in factories to produce the clothing? Even though America has ruled child labor illegal, how does America handle trade in regards to countries with different ethics or has a government that opppresses its citizens rights? These are all questions that foreign policy makers have to answer. The United Nations was established after World War II and it’s job is to promote international cooperation and world peace. The General Assembly of the United nation is composed of representatives from every nation that signed the charter and each nation is entitled to one vote regarding decisions being made by UN policy making. Though many Americans are not fans of the UN because the conflicting political cultures and diverse views on human rights issues has made it difficult for the UN to reach a consensus on international problems; the positives of the UN is that even though it needs reform, the United States has been able to help the UN achieve world successes such as help eradicate smallpox globally. The United States history of foreign policy has always centered around trying to protect America's best interest and protect national security.

Politics and The Media

The media has always been a part of influencing American politics however over the past decades media's role in politics has become increasingly noticeable. When our country was first founded, politicians would write pamphlets and articles to inform citizens of their political agendas. Candidates even back then might slander each other if they had opposing opinions. However, technological advances have significantly changed how politics is influenced. In addition to newspaper and printed information, first the invention of television changed how Americans absorbed politics and the internet followed. These forms of media impact what Americans think about politics or reflect what Americans think about politics depending on who you ask. I argue though that the media does both. Television, newspapers and articles posted on the internet by well known, reputable sources are assumed to inform the public on political information or take a stance on a political view. Having reputable sources publish political news in my opinion is the media telling Americans what to think. The internet however is also a space where anyone can post their views or create a blog which is referred to as citizen journalism. Citizen journalism is Americans posting media that reflects what Americans think. Citizen journalism is a form of democracy because it supports the first amendment and allows space for the voices of citizens (whether their political stance aligns with majority or minority opinion) to be represented. However, the drawback of citizen journalism is that there are no enforced professional or ethical standards that are required before citizens publish information. Therefore most information posted on the internet has to be read with skepticism and not taken at face value. Fact checking is very important because the lack of standards means a lot of political news can potentially be inaccurate or unverified. However, I would also say that even political news on television can be manipulated even though it comes from a political source. As the text mentions, television has influenced politics because it brought to life political issues and exposed Americans to politics inside their living rooms. This took away a level of detachment Americans may have felt by just reading the news because Television is a visual experience. Many candidates have spent millions or billions of dollars on TV campaign ads or ads that are posted on media. This is because Americans spend an increasing amount of time using technology. Anything an individual spends time on becomes a part of their reality and political campaigns use this to their advantage. Political advertisers use different strategies; positive advertising, attack ads, issue ads or even negative political advertising. In my opinion, these television acts impact America's politics not because of the content in the ads but the emotional reactions Americans have to these ads. Politics in the media is more about manipulating the emotions of voters rather than objectively focusing on political news. This brings me to the point that media has always been subjective however I do believe that especially over the last decade confidence in the media has decreased a lot. Once it is realized that more often or not there are biases that heavily influence the political news being publicly reported, the harder it is to believe the information being relayed (you would hope). For example, you can watch ABC News and Fox news the same day and still hear different headlines as well as different information about the same headline. In the recent election, the candidates used many campaign ads and media played a huge role in the months leading up the election. Candidates not only publicly attacked each other and had their own televised ads but the news sources also seemed to take very biased sides. For example, fox news glorified Trump and if fox news is the only media source an individual watched, they would have a whole separate understanding of Trump, his policies and opinions and national crisis’ (like the COVID 19 pandemic). Media is growing and becoming a mixture of not only professionally researched political news but bias political news and though it supports the idea of democracy where minority and majority voices can be represented equally, it does make Americans vulnerable to being manipulated or given false news if they do not fact check the media.

Bureaucracy

A bureaucracy is a complex administrative system to organize and manage a country or a company using a pyramid-like hierarchy. This means that in a bureaucracy each person reports to a person of higher position and that this form of organization always each person to focus on a specialized expertise. In regards to the American government, the federal government’s head of bureaucracy is the President and the executive branch is the bureaucracy. Within a bureaucracy each position has a function and the power to act is granted to a position rather than a person. A bureaucrat describes an individual that is an official member of a bureaucracy and works for a department within the bureaucracy. There are four major types of structures within the bureaucracy of the federal government: executive departments, independent agencies, independent regulatory agencies and government corporations. Every department within the executive departments were created by Congress and met a government need that arose and required a department to focus on a specific policy area. An example of one would be the Education department that focuses on federal programs and policies as well as policies to aid education and coordinate educational research. Agencies that are independent have a single function and are not a part of a department. An example of one would be the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). There are also independent regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) that have a specific function to create, implement and regulate a specific public policy to protect the public’s interest. The U.S. Postal Service is an example of a government corporation and is the largest government corporation that exists. Government corporations do similar services handled by the private sector and do charge for services however taxpayers foot the bill if the government corporation loses money. In regards to elections, our country depends on bureaucrats to do their jobs in order to have a successful election process. For example, in the election, mail men/women had to effectively do their job in the U.S. Postal Service in order to allow mail-in votes to be voted accurately. An important ideal of bureaucracy in our government is neutral competence --- where federal bureaucrats use their skillset to fulfill their job without being influenced by political issues. This ideal is imperative to having a successful election. This past election was very heated for many political issues not only tied to traditional political ideologies but issues also directly linked to humanitarian issues. If federal bureaucrats let these issues sway them from doing their jobs, the election would have not successfully happened. An unsuccessful election would mean that democracy would have not been upheld if the majority’s will was not reflected in the outcome. Many americans were aprehensive this past election because the liberal and conservative parties seemed more poloarized than ever. Our federal bureaucrats that continued their vital day to day jobs, without being swayed politically especially the days after the election when our country was anxiously waiting the outcome of the election should be acknowledeged.

Interests Groups

Interests groups have formed historically in response to change. These groups are created and organized by people sharing a common objective and can indirectly or directly influence American government policymakers. The American Constitution protects the right of groups to organize themselves, peacefully assemble and petition the Government to reconsider grievances. There are many types of interest groups that exist in America. There are interest groups that represent particular industries, environmental issues, labor interest, agriculture interests, consumer interests, senior citizen issues, professional interests, business interest and labor interests. These interests groups can represent private good as well as public goods. The difference is that a public good does not diminish the rest of the citizen's use of the good. A private good is defined as a good that once one person consumes them, no one else can consume the same good. For example, national defence is a public good and just because one citizen is protected doesn't take away protection from other citizens. An example of a private good would be a phone, when you are using your phone it means nobody else can use it simultaneously. This is important to understand because some interest groups advocate for policies or issues that will benefit others that do not participate in the interest group. There are also interest groups that seek policies that may only benefit the people in the interest group. For example, the oil industry may have a interest group that advocates for better policies that specifically benefit the development of oil as a energy resource in order to protect their own profits. While an environmental industry group may advocate for policies that protect an area from pollution but in the big picture, all citizens of the area will benefit from a healthier environment. Oftentimes, interest groups have a bad reputation because historically lobbyists from specific interest groups have used financial power or powerful political connections to influence congress members. This is concerning because regulating lobbyists has proven difficult and leads to many citizens feeling that interests groups do not have a equal voice. This is more a fact than a concern because the power of an interest group not only is determined by the issue they are advocating for but the financial support they receive. However, interest groups are also a form of representation where ideally anyone regardless of profession, gender, race and economic background can organize themselves in a way in which they can participate in the government system. In other words, average people are given the opportunity to join a interest group that reflects their interests or concerns. By joining an interest group, citizens are given a platform in which they can voice their views on policies to government officials. Not only are interest groups specialized on a particular issue, they also can bring public awareness to a policy issue and address detailed information about a policy that public officials can use when making policy choices. Another benefit of interest groups is that they are not apart of political parties. Political parties are generalized organizations focused on winning elections, operating the government and creating policies. In contrast, interest groups are focused on specific policy issues and are unlikely to divide divide the nation. Pluralist theory views interest groups as an aspect of a decentralized structure of government and makes space for each individual's interest to be presented in the policy making process. This theory also believe that interest groups can't dominate the political process because there are so many interest groups within America. The goal of a democracy is for the voices of the people to be represented in the government system and interest groups are a form of representation for the voices of average citizens to be heard.

Congress

The US congressional representation is organized in a unique way because it has a bicameral legislature. This means there are two separate chambers that make up Congress, The House and The Senate. This ideally balances out power between The House which represents the people as a whole and The senate that represents the states. The number of representatives in The House from each state is determined by the state’s population, therefore larger states have more House seats. Every ten years the U.S. The Census Bureau takes a census of the population in each state and this census determines if seats need to be reappointed. Every state regardless of population receives at least one house seat. The goal of this is that the population of each state is represented accurately in congress. The Senate is organized differently and each state only has two senate seats to fill. Popular representation of people is ideally reflected in The House and state representation is reflected in The Senate. Both The House and The Congress are a part of the legislative process. If legislation is introduced separate committees (usually subcommittees) the House and the Senate review the bill and if the bill is not pigeonholed and instead approved it will be reported to the full chamber. The idea is that the subcommittee can approve, add new amendments or draft a new bill before it reaches the full chamber. Floor debates are conducted differently in the House than the Senate because there are many more House members than members of the Senate. The bill will get voted on and if the bill word for word is passed in both chambers, the conference committee will create the final compromise on the bill before the bill is sent for presidential approval. The goal of this process and having both popular representation and state representation when creating new legislation. Ideally this would mean that any bill passed serves the interests of the American people (or the majority of people) as well as the state’s interest.

2020 Election Week

Election week of 2020 was filled with a lot of emotions such as doubt, fear, bewilderment, frustration and ultimately some relief. As I was looking at the votes being counted during the poles for each presidential candidate it was interesting to see how many voters (a small percentage) chose to vote for third party candidates. In Chapter 7 of the text it talks about the United States perpetuating a two-party system, a precedent that is believed to be a result of the first major political division that happened between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The two-party system that continues to prevail and prevailed this past week is also influenced by election laws and institutional barriers. This election week was not different from previous elections in the fact that the focus was on the democratic candidate and the republican candidate. The shocking part to me during the election this week was how close the popularity vote percentage wise were between the two candidates especially in the swing states. To me it was shocking because for me this election was beyond politics, it felt like to me people’s votes were also a reflection on how they felt about sexism, systematic racism and honestly human decency. I was relieved by the results. Historically, this election was a big deal because our first woman Vice President was elected and she is also the first person of color to be in that position. Her speech last night was amazing and all I can say is she opened doors for lots of future girls. She also brought hope to women such as my grandmother that the future will be brighter. My grandmother is an immigrant from India who has dedicated her life to making a better future for her own three daughters and six grandchildren. After hearing Kamala Harrris speak last night, she cried with happiness seeing a half indian, half aftican american woman be elected Vice President. When it comes to California state props, I was thrilled that prop 17 passed and that felons can vote once again. I do not believe in stripping human rights away from criminals. Felons in particular never made sense to me because once they have served their time in jail or prison there is no justification to continue to be punished once “justice has been served”. I was disappointed to see prop 22 pass that allows Uber and Lyft to classify employees as independent contractors. This was very frustrating to see because it allows the companies to be exempt from California Labor Laws and not give their employees health care benefits etc. I was not surprised by the outcome because this prop was backed by business oriented liberals and the commercials for this prop blasted every tv channel and media suggesting prop 22 was in the drivers best interest. The commercials advertised that if the prop passed it would allow drivers to continue to “work on their own time” but the truth is that was just a distraction. These commercials were funded by companies that had a personal interest in not having to provide benefits to employees. The five topics I would like to talk about in my final project for this class would be: The electoral vote and how it works Systematic racism within the history of our government Separation of church and state regarding the public school education system Why the United States is a democracy (historical information) What is federalism?

Elections

Reading chapter 8: Public Opinion and Voting and chapter 9: Campaigns and Elections was very interesting especially because the chapters were relevant with Election day a few days away. One thing I learned was there has been an increase of non voters over the last few years according to the text. I thought this was relevant because I believe this led to the outcome of the last election. The Pew Research center did a survey to determine why so many people chose not to vote. The survey’s results showed 70 percent of nonvoters didn’t vote because they felt uninformed about the candidates and 40 percent of non voters didn’t feel they had a duty to participate. Another option chosen by many nonvoters was that they felt their individual vote wouldn’t make a difference. All of these answers are answers I’ve heard from people that explained why they didn’t vote in our last election. These reasons are also reasons I’ve heard many say is why our current president is in office and it has been stressed by many that for participation is needed by every voter in this next election if they want to see a different outcome. Was shocked how many non-voters felt they were not well informed on the candidates. To me, that large of a percentage of people not feeling informed is very problematic in a country that relies on democracy to steer our country. Without voter participation, it is unlikely our government system will represent the people. My personal opinion is that a lot of confusion has to do with media which is talked about in chapter 9 of the text. Finally, I do believe that in our recent presidential debate that was broadcasted on TV, there is no doubt that the people were robbed from being informed and learning about the candidates. Instead, the debate was ego driven and didn’t allow the people to gain information but left the door open for more confusion. A lot of the media covering the candidates this year has not focused on informing the people but rather playing into the chaos by false news. Something that surprised me in chapter 8 was when the text was talking about geographic regions it mentioned that most white southerners were democrats because the Civil War and the outcome of it was blamed on republicans. For me, that was the last thing I was expecting to read. All the information I’ve gained over the years suggested that the south was a republican hotspot. Another surprise was reading that 45 percent of Americans consider themselves moderates and only 21 percent liberals and 35 percent as conservatives. This was news to me because if almost half of Americans consider themselves moderates, why is every election centered around liberals and republicans? In this current election climate there is an intense feeling of us versus them between the liberals and conservatives. This idea of “Us v.s Them” may not be new but the intensity of this concept has grown this year. Not only with elections happening but with a call to action by the movements such as Black Lives Matter that have also put our government officials under a microscope on whether they have every citizen's best interest at heart or if it’s limited to the wealthy and white individuals. In the text it talks about voter suppression and this has happened in this 2020 election. Some states not allowing mail in voting during a pandemic or making voting centers limited in areas that have more residents of color. In chapter 9 the text talks a lot about the expense of campaigns and how over the years, campaigns have become more expensive. One reason for this the text points out is front loading primaries. When primaries are rushed, it doesn’t give candidates time to raise money for their campaign on the road. The initial idea is that candidates would begin their campaign road and if more people liked their stances, the more money they could gain along the campaign trail to propel them. Now, primaries are being pushed to sooner dates which results in only the financially abundant candidates can stay in the race. The text states “the fear is that an accelerated schedule of presidential primaries will likely favor the richest candidates”(p.200). The reason this stood out to me because I feel that it says a lot that our current president is not a career politician but is considered one of the wealthiest people in America. Even though the text talked about the ways campaign donations are regulated, there are also legal loopholes, soft money and independent expenditures that make regulating campaign money seem more like an ideal. It was also a surprise to me that the text states half of a candidate's endorsements come from television advertisements. This surprised me mostly because I am in the younger generation and my personal experience is that most of the canidational information I’ve seen has actually come from social media platforms. Though I have learned about the electoral college once in school before, I learned a lot by reading about it in the text. The electoral college is a group of electors chosen by voters of each state. These electors represent the people of their state in the election. I didn’t realize that voters didn’t directly vote for candidates but instead the electors that will cast the vote. The number of electors from a state is equal to the number of state representatives in both chambers of Congress which was also news to me. Most states except Maine and Nebraska use the “winner takes all” system while crediting the votes during an electoral college. This means that the majority of the votes is the state's choice of candidate. I have heard many people call the electoral college an outdated system. I don’t feel as if I am informed enough to say that however I do think it says a lot that I only learned about the electoral college once in my whole k-12 education. This relates to this coming election because based off the last election, the electoral college does not necessarily depict the popular vote. Hilary Clinton won the popular vote last election but lost because of the electoral college. Regardless of my own political preference, it seems odd to me that we conduct two types of voter representation that result in opposing numbers. It seems that if popular vote and the electoral college don’t align there means something is wrong with the system.

The President's Role

The President of the United State has a number of roles they play while serving the country. A few terms that are often heard to refer to the President are "head of state" , "head of the government" , or "commander in chief". All these terms do refer to the President however they don't all have the same meaning. "Head of state" refers to the President's responsibility to participate in sybolic, ceremonial activities. An example of this is a President throwing the first pitch opening day for the Major Legue Baseball season. To be in thise role, it refers to the President having a responsibility of being the face and resprentative for the United States as a whole. The term "head of government" refers to the presidents role as chief executive. A President is granted the role as head of the executive branch of the federal government by the Constitution. An example of a President executing their role as chief executvie would be for them to make decisions on how to handle a national emergency such as riots (for example the BLM protests that were later described as riots). "Commander in cheif" refers to the powers the Constitution grants the President. The Constitution gives the President power to command the nation's armed forces. The President has the power to deploy the nations armed forces and shares power with the congress has the power to declare war and maintain the armed forces. And example of a President using their role as commander and chief is when they set up military governments to establish themselves in conquered land. There are a lot of articles that refer to Donald Trump's misues of his role as head of government. As stated before the head of government refers to the Presiden'ts role as chief executive and one example of this is the president has the power to "handle" national emergincies. A current national crisis has been the Covid-19 pandemic that has swept the globe. This article talks about a former head government's opinion of how Trump has handled his executive role as well as specifically how Trump has handled the pandemic. The reason I chose this article is because it aligns with my belief that it is a trusted job of a President to lead the people in times of crisis. And this responsibility of great magnitutde should not be taken lighly; the expectation of any President is that they make choices as well as speak to the public with their best interest at heart. In this article, the former head of the government's ethics office calls into question Trump's ethics. President's have posted on social media before however the author of this article points out the insanity in Trump's use of twitter. Specifically, the fact that Trump has been known to post tweets to the public that are misinformed. The example's used in the article are tweet's Trump posted about the Corona virus as the country began to shelter in place. One tweet was "Our Testing is the BEST in the World, by FAR! Numbers are coming down in most parts of our Country, which wants to open and get going again. It is happening, safely" which was not reflective of the reality of the state of America. Many citizens at this point were struggling to get tested for the virus as well as Covid-19 numbers in America were far worse than in other countries. I think this example is a misuse of Trump's role as a head of government; the people of the nation should be able to read his statements and be informed not misguided. Especially in a time of crisis where lives could be put at danger due to being misinformed. https://www.politicususa.com/2020/05/12/former-head-of-government-ethics-office-our-president-is-insane.html Whent it comes to Trump's role as the head of state, this article captures the reality of how seriously Trump percieves this responsibility. The head of state is the face and representative of our country. In this washington post article, the author talks about how 'The Crown' believes Trump is a weak head of state; this article caught my eye particularily because though this opinion is from another country's head of state, the United Kingdom has been an exemplary country when it comes to taking the role of the head of state very seriously. Though 'The Crown' is not perfect, there is an obvious sense of responsibility that comes with this symbolic role. When it comes to Trump, his actions do not suggest he see's his role as head of state as symbolic. As documented in the article, Trump's rhetoric rarely unites the people of our nation and his temperment and personality have been called into question. In my opinion, this is because he doesn't put this symbolic role's obligations before his own individualism. This in turn leads to him representing "who Trump is" to the world rather than "this is what the people of the United States want". As the article talked about, it says a lot that Trump picks and chooses which obligations to show up to; the behaviors do not reflect a strong head of state. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/25/crown-explains-why-trump-is-weak-head-state/ The last term, commander and chief, refers to the President's constitutional power to command the armed forces. The view of Trump's ability to be commander of chief has shifted from the Trump as a favorable choice to lead the forces to unfavorable. A lot of military leaders are concerned by Trump's behaviors as commander of chief. His behaviors have been characterized as unstrategized and unwilling to listen to experienced military officials' adivce as well as proffessional analysis. Throughout his term, Trump has criticized generals and other military officials; often blaming these people for military crisis. In addition to placing blame on others rather than taking responsibility as chief and commander, Trump has also involved himself in military areans that traditionally have run more independently. Trump's interventions have not been a overstep of power according to the constitution however they have caused tensions and chaos. https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-08-31/half-of-the-military-disapproves-of-trump-as-commander-in-chief-poll

Recent Supreme Court Nomination & The Most Recent 2020 Presidential Debate

There are three tiers for the federal court system. The lowest being the U.S. District Courts, the second tier is the U.S. Courts of Appeals and the third and highest tier is The United States Supreme Court. There is only one Supreme Court that exists in the United states, under Article 111, Section 2 of the constitution, it states that there is only one national Supreme Court. Within The Supreme Court there is one chief justice and eight associate justices, therefore in total there are 9 justices. When The Supreme Court reviews cases they do not usually hear evidence, rather they go over the written record of a case. Attorneys can present oral arguments before the justices being "a conference" where they discuss the case privately. The opinion of the Court is usually written by the chief justice if they are a part of the majority decision; a majority decision is established during the conference and is made up of 5 justices in favor. The Court's decision is written and may conclude concurring opinions or it may include dissenting opinions; the dissenting opinions however do not change the majority decision made during the conference. The Supreme Court Justices are recommended by many people (other judges, state political leaders, senators etc), however the president is the one that considers the recommendations and chooses the person that will be reviewed by The Senate to be approved. Historically presidents choose someone that favors their beliefs in order to leave behind a trace of “why” they were voted into office in the first place. Ruth Ginsberg, a supreme court justice, passed away as of last week. The presidential elections have already begun, however our current president Trump has already selected someone to be considered. Ginsberg was the second woman to be appointed to The Court and served for 27 years. She has done a lot of remarkable service over her time and including launches a Women’s Rights Projects. It is not customary to nominate a justice during an election regardless of this, Trump is nominating Amy Barret. She is a social conservative and stands on a lot of issues the exact opposite of how Ginsberg did. Barret is a danger to all women seeking equality and protection of their individual rights. For example, she wants to Roe v. Wade case, in which the Supreme Court’s ruling protecting a woman’s right to get an abortion. Many can say this is not a surprise that this is Trump’s choice as a justice because he is known for disrespecting women constantly. From his words and actions, it is easy to assume Trump does not want to encourage progressive women or allow the current movement for women’s rights to continue. The reason her being in The Court is bigger than just a conservative view. If she were able to create a national law, it would be used in the future as a precedent. I saw a quote this week how Ginsberg opened doors for other women to walk through, including women like Barret, and Barret is going to close all those doors behind her for future women. I agree with this, and think her presence in The Court will be detrimental towards future generations of women. Another hot topic of the week was the presidential debate. I was able to watch the recording and prior to watching it myself, it was impossible to ignore the recaps and memes that flooded social media shortly after it was over. I wish I could say I was dismayed, but I was not. Trump not only acted as if the rules of a political debate didn’t apply to him, he steam rolled the whole debate. It felt like a joke and it was selfish, the point of the debate from my understanding is for voters to understand both candidates' stances on important topics. I felt like it was hard to hear stances as a voter because of the gaslighting and personal attacks that went on throughout the debate. I can say Trump showed a lot of true colors, attacking Biden’s son, not being able to say white supremacy is an issue or say he is against it (when he told people to stand by it felt like a threat of civil war) and it’s ironic he made fun of Biden for wearing a mask so much and then tested positive for Covid-19 the next day. My biggest concern about Trump is he doesn’t believe he needs to serve according to the rules, that he uses psychological manipulation on the stand and doesn’t have any sense of remorse. It is already known that Trump is on good terms with tyrants like Putin and Kim Jung-un; to me it truly looks like he wants to follow their lead and is a danger to the American quest for freedom. I do not believe Trump has any intention to protect citizen’s rights or any human right because he does not feel his could ever be taken away regardless of how his choices affect others. The theme of the debate to me was unfiltered disregard for America’s people and ego to be invincible. Anyone that views the role of being a leader of people as a self serving title rather than a service position is a danger to society.

Should Wildfires in CA be regulated by state-federal regulations?

 Before diving into the topic of this post, it's important to understand what power the state government holds as well as the local governments powers as well in California. According to the United States Constitution-- "the powers not delegated to the national government by the Constitution 'are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people'." (Sidlow, p.391). Each state has their own state constitution, and the power to create their own amendments and are typically longer and more detailed than the U.S. Constitution itself. Amendments can be proposed to state legislation through the process specified in the state's Constitution; some states allow citizens to propose amendments which is called an initiative. California is one of those states that allows citizens to suggest a state amendment. This is a form of direct democracy and allows voters to have a direct voice in their government. There are three types of initiatives that can be made: legislative initiatives, direct initiatives, and indirect initiatives. Legislative initiatives are used for proposing new statutory laws within a state and uses a petition. Direct initiative goes directly on a ballet white a indirect initiative goes to the state legislature first and if passed goes to the ballot. Referendums are similar to initiatives expected rather than proposed by a citizen, its proposed by a legislature first and then presented to the voters of the state. 

Recently, the wildfires of 2020 have been more notable than previous years. Fires are a common occurrence in California however the amount of fires and size of these fires the past weeks have affected many Californians whether its losing homes, facilities, causing people health issues due to the unusually horrible air quality; to say the least the fires could not be ignored. 

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/27/649649316/fire-ecologists-say-more-fires-should-be-left-to-burn-so-why-arent-they

This article from NPR gives the perspective from ecologists why putting out fires can be detrimental. The truth is, California has always had wildfires (the problem may be the unintentional human started fires). Many of the recent fires started after a lightening storm swept through the west coast. These fires ecologist note are actually normal and healthy for California forests. In recent history the attitude towards fires has been fear and is met with the automatic response to put these fires out as fast as possible. Ecologists note that letting forests overgrow and not organically have fires actually makes them a bigger fire hazard and is unsafe. 

The attitude of fear of fires has not always been the case, furthur back in history natives of the west cost did spiritual rituals where there were controlled burns of the forest to cultivate new growth. 

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-california-looks-to-what-tribes-have-known-all-along

The new settlers didn't understand the natives reasoning for fire being used as a tool and overtime used state legislation to ban controlled burns of the forest. I believe that the most recent events show that our state's choice to fear fire rather than embrace it as a natural part of our ecosystem is detrimental. I hope that these events and the more outspoken voice of people of color help amplify the voices of the natives and their knowledge of the earth. California should create an amendement to change the approach to wildfires and create more detailed laws that include the use of controlled burns. Local governments only exist because the state government allows them to; therefore if the state created a new amendment around fires, local firestations would have to follow the state laws. I think this would help California's ecosystem, restore back some respect to the natives that have been treated awfully by our laws, and also change our state's cultural attitude towards fire from fear to seeing fire as a tool.

Federalism

 The concept of federalism makes sense not only for the reality our founding fathers lived in, but also in the reality of America today. Our founding fathers had a personal experience with what it felt like to have a government where the national government's decisions were end all be all. There also seemed to be a lot extra steps for the colonists to feel heard by the British and even then, the British used the colonist more for their own benefits rather than giving the people the colonies of a voice. What took place may have been inevitable; the colonies had space away from the British rule and in turn were able to learn how to self govern even before the constitution was thought of. The ideal to make sure the voice of local government had a voice that could affect national choices makes sense and the idea that a national government still needs to exist to keep the American government strong was a great solution. America's choice to adopt federalism still is applicable today; as the text stated, our country is bigger than most, federalism allows such a vast country that has a melted pot of people to govern themselves in a way where one group doesn't have the ultimate voice. The voice of the people is what allows a democracy to thrive and remain a democracy. From personal experience, I can say that our states can feel like countries within themselves; though I grew up in California, I have a lot of family in Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin. I've spent a lot of time in all four places and the lifestyle, political perspective, and attitude towards certain social standards is very unique to each state. One of the drawbacks is that because states and local governments do have a powerful voice, it can slow down the national government from making decisions that may be in society as a whole's best interest. The other part of having strong local and state governments is what I previously mentioned; there is a lack of uniformity between states and it can result in laws/regulations in different states conflicting with eacother. 

The powers given to national government and/or state governments are outlined in the constitution. The text points out that though there is a outline written in the constitution, the outlines are still vague. The supreme court has to use their own critical thinking on how to interpret the constitution best; the states and national government have directly expressed powers and then the powers not defined allow the state and government have implied power. When it comes to local powers and their relationship it surprised me that the state government can veto any regulations created by local governments in their state. I was also shocked to learn how grants really worked. I never thought about how they could be used as bargaining chips as well as cause chaos rather than harmony. The example that stood out the most to me was the No Child Left Behind program; I remember when that was applied at my elementary school and I remember my parents getting notice about it. I also didn't realize as a child or even later upon reflection that these regulations forced schools in districts that were financially struggling to have even more financial instability to try and meet the national program's requirements. To me that seems inherently flawed, and if a national program beings, the national government wouldn't be working in the people's best interest by causing a local and state government stress. To me , it sounds like a good way for the national government to manipulate states the way the text suggested they already do with money. 

The constitution is open ended however I think though it can potentially lead to misuse of power the ideal was to allow elected officials that would be an accurate reflection of the peoples voice and would in turn interpret the constitution in the peoples best interest. The goal of federalism I believe is to facilitate the process of democracy.

The Declaration of Independence & The US Constitution.

 The U.S. Constitution was written to strengthen the country's government system and replace the Articles of Confederation. The turmoil between federalists wanted to make sure the rights of the minority groups were protected and the anti-federalists feared that the government would catalyze a government that could potentially encroach on personal freedom. Therefore the constitution was written under the condition that a bill of rights was also written. "It is the people who run the government and decide on the powers that the government can exercise. If the government exercises powers beyond those granted to it by the Constitution, it is acting illegally. The idea that no one is above the law, including government officers, is often called the rule of law."(p.38, Sidlow). This led to the principles of a limited government, popular sovereignty and federalism intertwined into the American government system. The federal system, central government and state governments have shared powers that allow them to use the principle of "checks and balances" that promotes each group and branch of government to be accountable to each other. Ideally this would stop one person, group or branch to cease power of the government system. The Constitution however can be openly interpreted and it's important to remember the constitution was written to protect it's citizens which at the time were limited to white men and women.  Slaves and natives to the land were not considered nor protected by the constitution. Another example of consequence as a result of the ambiguity of the constitution was during Bush's presidency. Bush attempted to cease power of the executive branch and used the power given to him in the constitution as commander in chief of our armed forces, to bring our country into a war that many citizens felt was wrong. Because the constitution protected Bush's right to lead America's armed forces, no other government branch could intervene and stop him from misusing his power.

The Declaration of Independence was a powerful move made by the colonists to separate themselves from the British rule. Before reading the text, I didn't understand how much the British taxed the colonists and had never considered the issues of representation and inability to be able to afford taxes while building their own militia. The Declaration of Independence was very well written however it has discrepancies that do not align with the current state of 2020. Slavery grew into an industrialized industry, specifically in the south and it seems hypocritical for our declaration to claim all men were created equal. It also should be noted that woman were also not mentioned within this declaration. There are powerful sentiments in this document that I believe people in 2020 are still fighting for. There are many minority groups that are still fighting to be seen as equal to white, males in our country. A few include women, LBGTQ members, people of color and even people of certain religions that are persecuted by our current system. I do not believe hope has been given up; the first pilgrims came here with the American dream of freedom and the American dream today still reflects the hope that there will be freedom for all citizens. 

 I was born in India;  India's constitution was also made to replace the Government of India Act in order to strengthen the government. India's constitution declares sovereignty, secular and socialist principles and promises to uphold the liberty, justice and equality of all citizens. The Indian constitution became effective in 1950 and was influenced by other constitutions that existed in other countries across the globe. The constitution of India is very young, it has similar values to the U.S. constitution but my personal understanding and opinion of the Indian government is that it does not have a good "checks and balances" system. It is widely known that the government system in India is very corrupt, many are motivated by money and there is still an unspoken caste system that leads to many inequalities between citizens.

The Contours of American Democracy

 Learning about the outline of the American Government as well as about other government structures within the world other than democracy was very informative. I agree with the text that "People are not perfect. People need an organized form of government and a set of rules by which to live. ... They would need to create a process for making rules and a form of government to enforce those rules." (pg.3, Sidlow). Similar to the text, I can see that each community needs set, agreed upon principles to protect the society as a whole. I also believe that government is not only essential for the community but for the individual as well. For an individual to be able to function well in society and feel as if their rights are protected. Examples of this is an individual feeling protected after someone damages their property (regardless the reason a person is angry enough to damage property in the first place)and being able to report it and get justice without having to be violent back. Another example is law protecting an individual with a disability by allowing them to have an service animal regardless of a landlord's pet policy. These circumstances warrant protection and a government system can help protect the individuals quality of life as much as it protects the quality of a society. 

America is a unique country because it is filled with different cultures, religions, ethnicity and as the text suggested, the government is really the only "agreed upon" principles that our country's people have. I never understood the clear difference between politics and government. Sidlow defines politics and the process of resolving conflicts in society pertaining to public resources while government is made up of people and institutions that create and uphold societies rules. Though I  have heard in the past that democracy came into existence thousands of years ago such as in Athens, Greece, I did not know there were different forms of democracy (direct democracy, representative democracy, presidential democracy, parliamentary democracy). The principles of American democracy were characterized by Sidlow as five fundamental principles: equality in voting, individual freedom, equal protection of the law, majority rule and minority rights, and voluntary consent to be governed. Aligned with these principles are the ideas of liberty and equality that Americans value and are willing to fight for. As I read the text, I can agree those five principles encompass the American dream however I do not yet see that our current political state reflects those governmental goals because there are still minorities in our country that are fighting for our government to uphold those principles for them.

Who Am I?

 Hi! My name is Anisha, a senior undergraduate at NDNU, and I am pursuing a Bachelors in Liberal Studies and am enrolled in the teaching preparation program. My goal is to graduate in Spring 2021 and begin the grad program in the summer of 2021. Working with children has been an ongoing passion of mine for a decade; I started as a babysitter, became a nanny, volunteered to teach English in the middle east and have spent the last 5 years as an after school program manager. Undoubtedly, my favorite subjects in school have been history, math and language arts. Currently I have started my own enrichment program to aid children in this difficult time of Covid-19. Outside of education my interests consist of art, hiking (or anything outdoors), food, community service and pets ( I am getting a kitten in 3 weeks). When it comes to American Government, I am open to learning more. I have been really aware of the faults in our current government system, especially those that have been spotlighted over the last couple months. The issues that popular culture has been addressing are not new, but I truly believe COVID-19 has forced people to slow down from their busy lives and has given people a chance to stop being distracted from detrimental issues. The current president has also added fuel to the fire and it says a lot about the state of our country that a person with no political experience is making major governmental decisions. Before this first blog post makes me sound like I hate America, I do not. I was born in a third world country, adopted and saved from a life of not only poverty but growing up in a culture that does not value women or human rights. I see the privilege I have by being an American citizen that many seek desperately. America has a long way to go, our government is young and our country is huge. I am interested in learning more because I can't say I am super informed about the nitty gritty details on how our government functions. I do believe that the current system is founded on principles that served our initial founding fathers' culture and only benefited the American citizens that they recognized at that time (white, educated men).  The calamity of today (protests and movements and cries of injustice) is not new information, our grandparents were alive during segregation, alive when women got the right to vote.. our grandparents and parents were alive during the lessons on history we have learned in our classrooms today. And the truth is.. it's not history, those issues that are rooted in our current American government system and I look forward to uncovering more truths during this course.