Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

The landmark Supreme Court decision that changes the landscape of voting

Origins about the case: Is a case dealing with the 1st amendment. The main idea of the case is about the regulation of campaign spending by corporations. Citizens United is suing FEC because of BCRA (which is bipartisan camping reform act). BCRA was attempting to regulate campaign contributions. The BCRA applied restrictions some of them were preventing corporations and labor unions from giving money from their general treasuries to broadcast. Other restrictions are that corporations have to reveal who they are with political ads, and a disclaimer when a political ad is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support.

Citizen United’s Argument	FEC argument
The 1st Amendment was violated by saying corporations couldn’t give money from their general treasuries to broadcast ads. The restrictions of disclosure of donors and disclaimers (if candidate didn’t authorized ad) is unconstitutional	That no Constitutional right were being violated because McConnell v. FEC already set the precedent.

Begging the questions: 

·         Are corporation’s people?

·         Did the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell solved all constitutional challenges? 

·         Do the BCRA's disclosure requirements hinder an unconstitutional right of freedom of speech

The Decision:

5 votes for Citizens United, 4 votes against

What does this mean?

This court ruling will mean that corporations will now be able spend freely on political campaign ads. There will be no restrictions on them. Also corporations won't have to reveal who they are so they can give to money to candidates without anyone knowing who they are. 

(Citizens United v. FEC in a more entertainting way)

sources: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/publiced_preview_QandACitizens.html

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205

Everything needed to be known about torture

The Pros and Cons about Torture

The origins of Torture: 

Torture was first use in 530 AD by the Romans and ever since the world has use it. It was first used for criminal punishment. Over time torture has evolved to be use as a way to get information out about secret plots or animation about terrorist group. The use of torture really ramped up after 9/11, Americans were scared and didn't feel safe. In reaction to 9/11 the use of torture was authorized by Bush and the CIA and the military were using now more then ever. The question of should torture be use didn't pop up until the Abu Ghraib Prison incident. The Abu Gharib torture incident is the CIA and the Army committing hideous acts against their detainees, humans rights violation. More information can be found in this link: Torture at Abu Ghraib. Even with incident exposing how torture can become so hideout, it is still like that elephant in the room. For this article I planned on listing the pros and cons of both sides and for the reader to decide if torture should be use or not.

The Pros:	The Cons:
Information received is used for a variety of purposes	Torture impractical and ineffective
Obtain information a timely fashion	Information may be false
May receive information not even asked for	High rates of attrition in the interrogators
Can prepare for an attack	Torture methods are immoral
Terrorists deserve punishment for the extra pain and misery they caused	Widens the anti-American view
	A chance of a detainee being innocent
	Other non-torture methods are just as effective

(Here is a clip of Jon Stewart talking about the use of torture)

All the information is needed to know about torture, now it is time to decide:

sources: http://thejusticecampaign.org/?page_id=175
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/10/torture-at-abu-ghraib
http://www.debate.org/torture/

Landmark Supreme Court Decision: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores

Supreme Court Case: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores

Facts about the Case: 

1.     The Green Family is the owners and operates Hobby Lobby Inc. and is of a strong Christian Faith

2.     They have a desire to run the company under the Biblical precepts

3.     Because of their religion the Green Family feels it is immoral to pay for contraception 

4.      Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), employment-based group health care plans must provide certain types of preventative care, such as FDA-approved contraceptive methods. 

5.      There is exemptions available for religious non-profit institutions there is none for for-profit institutions 

6.      The Green Family sued Kathleen Sebelius who is the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, challenging her on paying for health care plans.

7.     The Green Lawyers argue that the health care plan covering paying for contraception is a violation of the Freedom of Religion Clause (under the 1st amendment) and The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)

The question that the case is based on:

Does the RFRA of 1993 allow for-profit organizations to deny employees health care coverage of contraceptives?

Are corporations humans or not? 

(John Oliver on Last Week Tonight takes a in depth look more at the court case)

Conclusion:

5 votes for Hobby Lobby, 4 votes againstHobby Lobby has right to denied employees health care coverage containing contraception

Analysis: 

This court case is all about if corporations are people. As you can tell by the decision the Supreme Court Justices are in favor of them being people. This ruling can set a precedent that may not be good at all. For-profit corporations may now start denying federal laws declaring that there is a religious reason behind it. If corporations are people this ruling isn't fair. Humans don't have a right to deny where some of their taxes go, so why should corporations be able too? The Supreme Court Justices may have made a wrong decisions in this case. 

sources: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_13_354 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.

Earmakrs what they are now and history of them

All About Earmarks 

Definition of Earmark: An item that is attached to usually a bill that directs approved funds to be spent specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or fees.

History of Earmarks: The first use of earmarks was in 1789 in the Light House Act. Congress passed a building stating federal funds will go to helping build lighthouses all across the Atlantic coast. Interests groups also have a say in these earmarks. In that Lighthouse Act being passed an interest group in Philadelphia. Another example of an earmark was in the Bonus Bill in 1817. Senator John C. Calhoun put in the bill that money should allocated for public works projects. Earmarks have been used for over 200 years. To show the significance in earmarks from 1994 to 2005 the spending in ear marks increased from $218 million to $500 million. That just shows the amount of earmarks there has been.

Benefits of Earmarks, Why are they used so much: There’s is a number of reason of why earmarks are use. The biggest reason of all is that it stops gridlock. It does that by getting the opposition to vote for a bill that may be not in their party's favor. This happening has allowed Congress to get work done and agree upon things. Another way it may help is that a Congressmen could go back to his home district or state and be like look what I have done for our district or state and this can help them get re-elected. This keeps the wheels on Congress churning. 

What are Earmarks today:  As far as earmarks today go earmarks are dead. Congress has banned the use Earmarks in 2007. Also President Obama has said in his State of the Union Address that he will veto any bill with an earmark attached to it. 

Conclusion on Earmarks: The congress today has the highest disapproval rate than ever before. The reason behind that is because they never get anything done. Congress is always battling over bills and end up in gridlock. The reason behind this is because why would a Congressmen vote in favor of the opposition party bill if he has no benefit to him/her. Earmarks solved that problem, it kept congress going.  Now Congress is just being stopped every other bill and can't get anything done. Ridding bills of earmarks seemed like a great idea but now in plain sight, that decision does not look so good. Earmarks should be brought back to Congress just with regulation so they don’t get out of hand.

(little more information on earmarks)

sources: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/13/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-congress-used-earmarks-200-years/ http://www.rollcall.com/news/the_congressional_earmark_ban_the_real_bridge_to_nowhere_commentary-235380-

Barack Obama: The Partisan President

Partisanship throughout the Government

The Facts of Partisan During Obama Presidency

• Almost let Department of Homeland Security shutdown
• Republicans letter to Iran
• Benjamin Netanyahu invited to speak without President Obama consent
• The House has voted on Affordable Health Care Act 54 times in 4 years
• Government shutdown from Sep 30 to Oct 17 (first government shutdown since Clinton Administration
• GOP wants to fight Obama immigration order
• They are no passing laws (on the far right, the lowest bar is the 112th congress which is today congress

• Gallup reported that the approval rate of Congress is only 10%
• The chart measures the congressional polarization (distance between two parties) by looking to see who votes together and how often. Shows most polarize Congress since Reconstruction era

Analysis:  During Obama time in office he has faced partisan like never before. The numbers back that up. This partisan has caused gridlock throughout the whole government. Congress has not been able to get anything done. Republicans and Democrats are just too focused on canceling each other out instead of getting worked done. It has caused the shutdown of government for a short period. The two parties tend to forget that we are one nation. George Washington Farewell Address has warn us of political parties and this is one major result of this. It's time for the Republican and Democrats to stop being too right-winged or left-winged, respectively. 

(The video is of Obama giving his state of the union address and the disrespect Republicans show during)

sources:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/13/13-reasons-why-this-is-the-worst-congress-ever/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/obama-partisanship/

Electoral College good or bad?

Electoral College:

The Good: 

1.      There is more power to the voters then direct elections

2.     When the popular vote is close this creates a clear winner

3.     Presidential candidates have to win the vast majority of votes, instead of focusing on metropolitan areas

4.     States with less population have just as much say in the vote as big ones 

5.     Make candidates to persuade states instead of individual voters

The Bad

1.     Any state that isn't a swing state can be ignore by the candidates

2.     Doesn’t establish the idea of one person has one vote, isn't much democracy

3.     Establishes the two party system, it is very hard for third-party candidates to run

4.     Creates the chance for the loser of the popular vote to win the electoral vote

5.     Chance for a tie, and what happens after that is bizarre

Analysis: The Electoral College should be here to say. Even though it takes away from the democracy, if everyone had one a single say in president the election would be long. In addition, candidates would focus on city areas and voters not in the cities won't have as much power. The candidates have to win the vast majority also. With America population growing it will only make the election process longer. In the end the electoral isn't a perfect but it isn't broken, so why fix it?

sources: http://www.sciencebuzz.org/topics/electoral-college-math/arguments-in-favor

http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/10-reasons-why-electoral-college-problem

The GOP confused on gay marriage?

GOP divided in the case of gay marriage

Gay Marriage is becoming a bigger problem every day. Now it is time for the Republicans to pick a side. Some of the Republicans are split on which way to lean for gay marriage. Even GOP candidates of presidential race are side stepping the question on gay marriage. The candidates claim it doesn't matter what they think and they have to follow the rule of law. Which is whatever the Supreme Court rules. With 78 percent of voters from ages 18 to 29 accepting same-sex marriage, the Republicans can lose lots of votes base on this view. This explains why Obama won 60 percent of the youth vote election in 2012 presidential race. This isn't good for the Republican Party because only 30 percent of them accept gay marriage. If a candidate accepts and think gay marriage should be legal, they will lose a majority of Republican politicians support and maybe even some Republican voters. This divide with the general public and the party candidates could cost them the presidential election. In New Hampshire and South Carolina the majority of Republican voters said either accepting gay marriage is totally unacceptable or mostly. In Iowa 47 percent of Republican voters said the same thing. With these percentages it brings back the point of losing votes. Republican voters can do one of two things. They can either vote for Democrats or not vote at all. 

Analysis: The Republican Party should pick a side on gay marriage. It is critical for them too. With the overwhelming majority of young people accepting gay marriage Republicans should try to win over their vote. When they lost the vote of young people in the last presidential election it was one many things that cost them. The GOP should be more worry about young people than old because soon enough they will stop voting but young people vote will stay there for a while. If the Republicans wants to win have a better chance of winning this upcoming presidential election they should accept gay marriage because that is the way to go right now.

sources: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/why-the-gop-is-tied-in-knots-on-gay-marriage/385133/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/17/gop-primary-deal-breakers-common-core-immigration-reform-and-opposition-to-gay-marriage/

February 17, 2015

Abortion? Pro-life? Pro Choice?

Abortion

Pro-Life Arguments: The number one reason that people believe in pro-life because they believe that it offends God, when a girl has a abortion. Also many people think that life starts as soon as conception happens. Since people believe that life starts as soon as conception then abortion is murder to the fetus.The fetus feels the pain of the abortion too according to some doctors. There are many other points but those are the main ones for Pro-Life people.

Pro-Choice Arguments: One major argument is the Roe v. Wade case in the supreme court. In that case the supreme court ruled abortion is a fundamental right to people. Another is that reproductive choices are women choices and no one else. Person-hood also starts after birth not when it is a fetus. These are the majors opinions of Pro-Choice people

Ruling of Abortion: I don't believe that abortion is right but in the end abortion should be a women choice and one else. One reason why is because the reproductive parts are women's  own and no one else. The argument of religion shouldn't suffice because the 1st amendment gives people freedom of religion and everyone doesn't believe in the same religion, also the country isn't a theology government. The point that stumps all point is the supreme court case Roe v. Wade the supreme court decided on what abortion should be done and that should be the final saying in all. Unless a bill is made making abortion illegal then everyone should follow what the supreme court has ruled. Abortion made not be right but it should be a option for all women.

source: http://abortion.procon.org/