First of all, sorry I've been away for so long! School has started and I have been so incredibly busy! But I've gotten some pressure lately from people to start writing again, so here we go. I want to shift directions, though, and make a fresh start. Now that I am enrolled in Political Science courses here at OCU, I am very interested in the way our government works. While current issues are still very important to me, and I have still have opinions on them, I would like to use this space to discuss, for lack of a better term, political science topics. I still want feedback, now more than ever. Your input is crucial. A discussion of our government's structure and the way things happen in it is crucial, especially at this point in time, with some many exciting things happening in Washington D.C. I hope everyone is mildly interested in this new direction, and you all are willing to discuss with me.
I really want to talk about the Supreme Court right now. Now, my motive is that tonight in my Politics of Law class, our entire conversation centered on the nomination process of the Supreme Court, and what those who have a hand in the selection of justices should look for in candidates. We also looked at who or what exactly a Supreme Court justice represents. In the American government, everything originates at the Constitution. However, at times, the Constitution is intentionally vague in its wording. The Founding Fathers purposely wrote it this way so that it would be a living document that pertained to all ages, not just the one in which they lived. Because of this, a body is needed to interpret the way the Constitution is written and apply is to society. This body is the Supreme Court. The way this is done is through judicial review. Cases are appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court rules on them based on their interpretation of the Constitution. The law that the case concerns in either upheld by the Court or declared unconstitutional. If no particular law is concerned, then a precedent is set for future matters concerning the issue. The Supreme Court has no official way to enforce its rulings, but it understood that you go along with them out of respect for the Constitution. If you disagree, you can attempt to bring another case that concerns the law in question, and attempt to get it heard. Now, this summer, the big controversy was over judicial activism. This is where the court is not just interpreting law, but instead making policy. My opinion is that this is splitting hairs. I guess technically the act of making precedent could be interpreted as policy making. However, the precedent can be overturned if an official law is passed. Until then though, the duty of the Court is to establish a precedent that is as good as policy, in effect. Also, I suppose the act of declaring something unconstitutional could be considered policy making, in a way. Do you see the point I'm getting at here? The outrage over the idea of the court making policy is absurd. The job of the Supreme Court is to rule on these laws and ideas. If it overturns a law, in effect, it creates a "policy". The Court has no way of writing a law into effect; that power is granted solely within the Congress.
The other big controversy surrounding the Sotomayor confirmations was the idea of personal bias and a candidate's background. It is impossible to peel away one's personality from one's self. It is who you are. Of course, anytime a Supreme Court Justice makes a ruling, that person is going to draw upon their own experiences to help them understand the impact their ruling will have on people. This is why we have nine justices, and not just one. The variety of opinions and experiences will allow the body as a whole to make the correct decision. This idea is one explored prominently in philosophy. You cannot take off the "rose-colored glasses" through which you see life. Your personality, which is shaped by your life experience and background, has a hand in everything you do. This is what creates opinions and individuals. A variety of opinions and ideas on the Supreme Court is a good thing! We want the Constitution interpreted in a way that doesn't cater to one group or another. If you have nine people who are the same gender, same race, same religion, same age, same background, then the way they interpret is obviously gonna lean in a certain direction. But if you have nine different people, and those people bring their ideas and experience and customs to the conversation, then the debate over laws will be more nuanced and far-reaching, and the correct ruling will be made, because all opinions have been heard and all viewpoints have been consulted. Remember, the Constitution is a living document. It is not static; it does change. It changes because we as a people change, and the way we look at this great document changes. Thus, we interpret it differently than America in 1878 did, differently than America in 2145 will. American society and the Constitution must adapt to each other; it is not a one way street. It one or the other does not adapt, then no progress can ever be made. If we still thought the way our Founders did, then slavery would still be practiced, and women would not be allowed to vote or hold office. It is absolutely crucial to our survival as a nation. And it is what makes America such a great country: while others are mired in Medieval ways of life, we are constantly flowing forward and allowing ourselves to become a better people.
I just want to address one more issue. The biggest part of our conversation in class tonight centered on who does the Supreme Court represent? I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court represents nobody. They are not voted in. They don't favor one group over another. The argument was made that perhaps they represent the people. However, if this was the case, then they would never rule in favor of the government in a matter. It is absolutely crucial that they do not have a particular constituency. Their job is to interpret law not based in what the general populace is, but what is right by the Constitution and for our country as a whole.
Please, let me know what you think. What is the job of our Supreme Court? Are they fulfilling that job? Do they represent someone or something in particular? Remember, free and open discussion of our opinions and ideas is what sets our republic apart from other forms of society.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Checkin' In
Hey everyone! Sorry i havent written in a while. Things have been really busy with school, running, and the various organizations I'm in right now. But I promise to have something new up by Thursday night! Until then, I encourage you to watch the President's speech to the Joint Session of Congress tomorrow night. That is probably what a lot of my new post will be about.
Later!
Justin
Later!
Justin
Monday, August 31, 2009
Videos
Two videos tonight.
First, this is why Ted Kennedy was the best at what he did.
And this really cracked me up tonight when I watched it. Glenn Beck is an idiot.
First, this is why Ted Kennedy was the best at what he did.
And this really cracked me up tonight when I watched it. Glenn Beck is an idiot.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Senator Ted Kennedy: An American Icon
The news of the death of Ted Kennedy has saddened me more than I thought any public figure's death could. In recent weeks, I have been studying the Kennedy Family more and more, and in particular John, Robert, and Ted. These men fasciante me, and Ted's contributions to our nation are astonishing and epic. No man has made as great an impact on this country in the last century as Ted Kennedy. In his 46 years an a Senator, he has initiated an amazing amount of groundbreaking and society-shaping legislation. Many aspects of our society are the way they are thanks to the contributions of this great man. Some of these bills: the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the National Cancer Act of 1971, the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, the COBRA Act of 1985, the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Ryan White AIDS Care Act in 1990, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the Mental Health Parity Act in 1996 and 2008. Kennedy also was against the war in Iraq from the beginning, calling his vote against the war the best he ever cast in the Senate. He was a big supporter of education reform, and health care reforms, including the current push to get a public plan installed. Many Democrats beleive the debate over health care would be different and more successful if Sen. Kennedy had been there over the last few months, and it is sad he will not be around to see the final outcome of this current debate. Finally, Ted was a driving force behind raising the minimum wage above $7 and lowering the voting age to 18. Senator Ted Kennedy was a great, amazing man, and a true hero to myself. If I can ever make 1/100th of the impact that he made, then I will consider myself a success. American politics will never be the same, because of him and without him.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
A Shameful Chapter
I had a very interesting experience yesterday. Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn held a town hall meeting in downtown OKC, and I decided to attend, so I could experience what a town hall meeting was all about. First, a disclaimer: I have a lot of respect for Sen. Coburn, despute his far right beliefs. He does a lot of good work here in the state, and, generally, he stands up for what he beleives in, even if it is not exactly popular here in Oklahoma. He showed an ability to do this several times yesterday, such as when he defended his vote for the stimulus bill, and his personnel friendship with the president. Ok, all that said, I strongly disagree with him about health care. He does not support the public plan, but instead wants to reform insurance companies and continue with what we have. I obviously disagree with him on this, and when I had a chance to meet him afterwards, I told him this.
Anyways, I want to get away from the health care debate for tonight. This week has seen the unveiling of a lot of news concerning national security procedures during the Bush Administration. The revelation last week by former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge that the Bush Administration politicized the terror threat level is not unexpected, but still disgusting nonetheless. The fact that the former leaders of this country would use the threat of terrorism to win elections is absolutely abhorrent. This is something that you expect from totalitarian regimes in other countries that hold fake elections, not from the United States presidency. I wish it were possible to go after the people behind this in a court of law. But I guess we will just have to rely on the other big revelation this week to get Cheney and Rove. The CIA report on interrogation techniques is also disgusting. Prisoners were threatened with guns, electric drills, and threats to their families. Some torture even went so far that detainees were mentally scarred so bad that they can never defend themselves in a court of law, or were even killed. Is that what you want America doing to people? It disgusts me to think our leaders approved these things, and even praised the merits of torture. These things are all prohibited by U.S. law and the Geneva Convention. And what purpose did these methods serve? None at all. CIA interrogators have reported that detainees were more likely to turn over useful info when they were being treated well. Al-Qaeda officer Khalid sheik-Mohammad, who was tortured nearly to death, said in an interview that he often gave false info during torture, and when he was offered chocolate chip cookies, he finally turned over useful intel. KSM also said that Al-Qaeda actively uses U.S. torture to recruit young Arab men, because of the evil image it protects on the U.S. Now that we have proof that the Bush Administration authorized these tactics, it is a no brainer that certain officals should be prosecuted. Attorney General Eric Holder has appointed a prosecuter to try people and hopefully he will have the guts to go after those at the highest levels. All of this reminds me of the Nixon Administration. Richard Nixon once said that anything the president does is legal, and he has been roundly criticized for that statement for three decades. Isn't this basically the prinicple that President Bush and those around him operated on? Do you think anyone in the Bush Administration has actually read the Constitution. I just finished re-reading it for a class, and when I think about what went on in the last eight years, it makes me angry! The utter disregard for what our country truly stands for is absolutely insulting! What right did those people have to do just whatever they wanted while they were in office? We are not a totalitarian country. We are a country based on the rule of law, and nobody is above that law, not even the president, and especially not Bush, Cheney, or Rove. And as for the argument that these people were terrorists, so the treatment was justified is bull. All prisoners have rights. It is a key idea that we are built on. How can you claim to be defending our country when you are tearing down the laws that that country is built on!?! In fact, this is beyond an argument for the respect of our country. This is a moral issue. It is morally wrong to torture anyone, no matter how evil they are. I don't believe the Bible advocates torture. In fact, the Bible says to love your enemies. I didn't read a disclaimer under that that says, "Except for Muslim terrorists." Maybe if we spent less time doing these abominable things, and instead tried to reach out and make friendly relations with others, then we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism.
Anyways, I want to get away from the health care debate for tonight. This week has seen the unveiling of a lot of news concerning national security procedures during the Bush Administration. The revelation last week by former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge that the Bush Administration politicized the terror threat level is not unexpected, but still disgusting nonetheless. The fact that the former leaders of this country would use the threat of terrorism to win elections is absolutely abhorrent. This is something that you expect from totalitarian regimes in other countries that hold fake elections, not from the United States presidency. I wish it were possible to go after the people behind this in a court of law. But I guess we will just have to rely on the other big revelation this week to get Cheney and Rove. The CIA report on interrogation techniques is also disgusting. Prisoners were threatened with guns, electric drills, and threats to their families. Some torture even went so far that detainees were mentally scarred so bad that they can never defend themselves in a court of law, or were even killed. Is that what you want America doing to people? It disgusts me to think our leaders approved these things, and even praised the merits of torture. These things are all prohibited by U.S. law and the Geneva Convention. And what purpose did these methods serve? None at all. CIA interrogators have reported that detainees were more likely to turn over useful info when they were being treated well. Al-Qaeda officer Khalid sheik-Mohammad, who was tortured nearly to death, said in an interview that he often gave false info during torture, and when he was offered chocolate chip cookies, he finally turned over useful intel. KSM also said that Al-Qaeda actively uses U.S. torture to recruit young Arab men, because of the evil image it protects on the U.S. Now that we have proof that the Bush Administration authorized these tactics, it is a no brainer that certain officals should be prosecuted. Attorney General Eric Holder has appointed a prosecuter to try people and hopefully he will have the guts to go after those at the highest levels. All of this reminds me of the Nixon Administration. Richard Nixon once said that anything the president does is legal, and he has been roundly criticized for that statement for three decades. Isn't this basically the prinicple that President Bush and those around him operated on? Do you think anyone in the Bush Administration has actually read the Constitution. I just finished re-reading it for a class, and when I think about what went on in the last eight years, it makes me angry! The utter disregard for what our country truly stands for is absolutely insulting! What right did those people have to do just whatever they wanted while they were in office? We are not a totalitarian country. We are a country based on the rule of law, and nobody is above that law, not even the president, and especially not Bush, Cheney, or Rove. And as for the argument that these people were terrorists, so the treatment was justified is bull. All prisoners have rights. It is a key idea that we are built on. How can you claim to be defending our country when you are tearing down the laws that that country is built on!?! In fact, this is beyond an argument for the respect of our country. This is a moral issue. It is morally wrong to torture anyone, no matter how evil they are. I don't believe the Bible advocates torture. In fact, the Bible says to love your enemies. I didn't read a disclaimer under that that says, "Except for Muslim terrorists." Maybe if we spent less time doing these abominable things, and instead tried to reach out and make friendly relations with others, then we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Our Line In The Sand
Just a quick call-to-arms on health care.
This morning on MSNBC, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) essentially drew a line in the sand. Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and until now, has been one of the few GOPers who it was thought could be counted on to help with health care reform. That all changed today. With rumors circulating DC that the public option is not a sure thing anymore, Grassley was asked if he would vote for a bill that didnt include a public option. Not only did he say no, he said that even if the bill was exactly what he wanted, he probably wouldn't vote for it.
Read that last sentence one more time.
Even if we locked Sen. Grassley in a room and let him write a health care bill to his own liking, he still wouldn't vote for it. So why in the hell are Dems trying to craft a bill that Republicans would vote for? This proves it: the GOP isn't going to vote for any health care bill in any form. So a message to Democrats in our nation's capital: FORGET BIPARTISANSHIP.> Republicans have just announced their intention to not cooperate no matter what. We have the White House, a 70 seat majority in the House, and a 60-seat, filibuster proof majority in the Senate. We do not need the Republicans. They are basically quitting. So lets get this done. Put the public option in, along with whatever else we need, and pass the bill.
It feels to me like universal health care is slipping away quickly. When Congress reconvenes in September, they need to get to work and get it done before October. I encourage anyone reading this: contact your Democratic Congresspeople and let them know: if they cant get this done, maybe we need to get some people up there that actually want to do the job we sent them for. This is our big chance: do not squander it!
This morning on MSNBC, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) essentially drew a line in the sand. Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and until now, has been one of the few GOPers who it was thought could be counted on to help with health care reform. That all changed today. With rumors circulating DC that the public option is not a sure thing anymore, Grassley was asked if he would vote for a bill that didnt include a public option. Not only did he say no, he said that even if the bill was exactly what he wanted, he probably wouldn't vote for it.
Read that last sentence one more time.
Even if we locked Sen. Grassley in a room and let him write a health care bill to his own liking, he still wouldn't vote for it. So why in the hell are Dems trying to craft a bill that Republicans would vote for? This proves it: the GOP isn't going to vote for any health care bill in any form. So a message to Democrats in our nation's capital: FORGET BIPARTISANSHIP.> Republicans have just announced their intention to not cooperate no matter what. We have the White House, a 70 seat majority in the House, and a 60-seat, filibuster proof majority in the Senate. We do not need the Republicans. They are basically quitting. So lets get this done. Put the public option in, along with whatever else we need, and pass the bill.
It feels to me like universal health care is slipping away quickly. When Congress reconvenes in September, they need to get to work and get it done before October. I encourage anyone reading this: contact your Democratic Congresspeople and let them know: if they cant get this done, maybe we need to get some people up there that actually want to do the job we sent them for. This is our big chance: do not squander it!
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Good news: You cant yell over my blog!
So I was sitting on the couch, and I realized: I havent written a blog in, like, over a week! What have I been doing?!?!? Anyways, here it is.
The absolute hate and vitriol being displayed by the extreme right at town hall meetings in the last week is, frankly, quite scary to me. What ever happened to a peaceful discourse of ideas? Did right-wingers decide that yelling over anything being said is a way to spread your viewpoint? I think that this tactic is being used because these people have no ideas of their own. Their only plan of action is to oppose anything Democrats propose. They know if Democratic officials are allowed to explain the health care plan to people, then it will be accepted for what it is: a good and reasonable plan. When they are criticized, these people claim that democracy is being repressed. I'm sorry, but angrily yelling down people who disagree with you is not democracy. It's the politics of fear and intimidation, an art the Republicans seem to have mastered over the last decade. And it's not just the actually yelling that is stupid. They are yelling out things that are flat-out lies. First, the supposed "death panels." The claim is that the government is going to tell you when and how to die. First, this is absolutely ridiculous. Use your brains for half a second. The actual provision that this comes from is one that allows for the compensation of doctors who provide end-of-life counciling that their patients ask for. Somehow, this has been twisted into death for old people? What the hell? Did right-wingers even read the provision, or did they just see "end-of-life" and "patients" and just assume something? These are elected officials and educated people, right? Not, like, 5th graders or something? This is conspiracy-mongering at it's best, and God forbid that anyone do some fact-checking and find out what exactly the bill says. The best part about this? Two years ago, Sen. John Isakson (R-GA), who has recently criticzed this very thing, co-sponsored a bill that passed that contained the exact same wording as the new health care bill! Hypicrosy at work again.
Another lie: that the bill will fund abortion initiatives. This one is easy to prove: it is against the law for any federal funds to be allocated for abortion support. Read the Hyde Amendment. The health care bill says nothing about repealing the Hyde Amendment.
Goodness, that was easy to dispel.
I guess I just really don't understand some of the opposition to health care. What really makes people think that government can't do as good a job as big insurance in providing coverage? I mean, the insurance corporations haven't exactly done a great job. I like this story: a conservative think tank recently issued a statement claiming that if we had public plan, like in Britain, then disabled people, such as physicist Stephen Hawking, would just be neglected and put down. Never mind the fact that Mr. Hawking is from Britain, and issued a statement saying that he would not be here without the great care provided by Britain's National Health Service. Once again, fact-checking: a good thing. Another example, as illustrated by Pres. Obama: government postal service has yet to drive public mail carriers like UPS and FedEx out of business. In fact, both companies are thriving due to the increased competition. So what makes you think the government will drive private insurance out of business? The only way this will happen is if the insurance companies refuse to adapt to the new landscape, in which case, good riddance! Adaption is key to survival.
The final point I want to make is about Republican legislators. Their calls that government-run health care cant work ring hollow, considering their own plans. Most Congresspeople are on government-run health care, and it seems to be working well for them. So the next time a Congressman wants to trash government-run health care, maybe that person should give up their own plan, if it sucks so bad. It's hard to kill something when it seems to be working so well.
Well, that's all I got for now. I'll try to get back sooner next time. And if you are reading this, please, leave your comments and ideas! I want to know what you are thinking, so I know what I need to address! Until next time!
The absolute hate and vitriol being displayed by the extreme right at town hall meetings in the last week is, frankly, quite scary to me. What ever happened to a peaceful discourse of ideas? Did right-wingers decide that yelling over anything being said is a way to spread your viewpoint? I think that this tactic is being used because these people have no ideas of their own. Their only plan of action is to oppose anything Democrats propose. They know if Democratic officials are allowed to explain the health care plan to people, then it will be accepted for what it is: a good and reasonable plan. When they are criticized, these people claim that democracy is being repressed. I'm sorry, but angrily yelling down people who disagree with you is not democracy. It's the politics of fear and intimidation, an art the Republicans seem to have mastered over the last decade. And it's not just the actually yelling that is stupid. They are yelling out things that are flat-out lies. First, the supposed "death panels." The claim is that the government is going to tell you when and how to die. First, this is absolutely ridiculous. Use your brains for half a second. The actual provision that this comes from is one that allows for the compensation of doctors who provide end-of-life counciling that their patients ask for. Somehow, this has been twisted into death for old people? What the hell? Did right-wingers even read the provision, or did they just see "end-of-life" and "patients" and just assume something? These are elected officials and educated people, right? Not, like, 5th graders or something? This is conspiracy-mongering at it's best, and God forbid that anyone do some fact-checking and find out what exactly the bill says. The best part about this? Two years ago, Sen. John Isakson (R-GA), who has recently criticzed this very thing, co-sponsored a bill that passed that contained the exact same wording as the new health care bill! Hypicrosy at work again.
Another lie: that the bill will fund abortion initiatives. This one is easy to prove: it is against the law for any federal funds to be allocated for abortion support. Read the Hyde Amendment. The health care bill says nothing about repealing the Hyde Amendment.
Goodness, that was easy to dispel.
I guess I just really don't understand some of the opposition to health care. What really makes people think that government can't do as good a job as big insurance in providing coverage? I mean, the insurance corporations haven't exactly done a great job. I like this story: a conservative think tank recently issued a statement claiming that if we had public plan, like in Britain, then disabled people, such as physicist Stephen Hawking, would just be neglected and put down. Never mind the fact that Mr. Hawking is from Britain, and issued a statement saying that he would not be here without the great care provided by Britain's National Health Service. Once again, fact-checking: a good thing. Another example, as illustrated by Pres. Obama: government postal service has yet to drive public mail carriers like UPS and FedEx out of business. In fact, both companies are thriving due to the increased competition. So what makes you think the government will drive private insurance out of business? The only way this will happen is if the insurance companies refuse to adapt to the new landscape, in which case, good riddance! Adaption is key to survival.
The final point I want to make is about Republican legislators. Their calls that government-run health care cant work ring hollow, considering their own plans. Most Congresspeople are on government-run health care, and it seems to be working well for them. So the next time a Congressman wants to trash government-run health care, maybe that person should give up their own plan, if it sucks so bad. It's hard to kill something when it seems to be working so well.
Well, that's all I got for now. I'll try to get back sooner next time. And if you are reading this, please, leave your comments and ideas! I want to know what you are thinking, so I know what I need to address! Until next time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
