President Obama Vetoes Health Care Repeal Bill

By NBC News

Link: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-vetoes-obamacare-repeal-bill-n492881

Summary: This article is aimed at President Obama's veto of a bill that was to repeal the Affordable Care Act or, Obama Care back in January. Republicans supported the bill and the legislation was also set on defunding Planned Parenthood. President Obama came out saying that Republicans have tried to get rid of Obama Care over 50 times in the past. He said that rather than fighting political battles to better the lives of Americans, they are using there time to undermine an important piece of legislation rather than make progress. The House voted 240 to 181 to repeal the act, almost borderline to the party-lines. The Senate was able to pass an act to attack Obama Care because Republicans used the process of budget reconciliation that prevented a filibuster by Senate Democrats. Repealing the act continues to be a goal of the Republicans, and they won't stop until President Obama has left office. 

Class Relations: In class, we have been discussing the executive branch, and more importantly, the powers of the president. One of the president's main powers is the presidential veto. He is able to stop a bill if he chooses, and it is very hard to overturn that veto, due to the majority needed by the House and the Senate. President Obama's veto against the Republican's attempt to repeal Obama Care is a perfect example of a president exercising his powers. 

My Thoughts: I believe what the president did was right. I am tired of hearing Republicans go after Obama Care and the fact that they waste so much time and energy to do so. The Affordable Care Act has been nothing but helpful to Americans. It has provided over 11 million people in this nation with affordable healthcare. What could people possibly have against that? We need to stop trying to rid the country of the most beneficial things we have to offer the nation and help Americams in other aspects, like improving the environment, reforming the campaign finance system, and improving education standards for the nation. Let's stop trying to destroy what we have, before we realize we can't function without it. 

This is for last week's blog post

Obama's Immigration Order Overreaches: Our View
By Editorial Board of USA Today


Link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/17/daca-dapa-us-v-texas-obama-immigration-executive-orders-editorials-debates/83160384/

Summary: In an effort to make way on immigration reform, President Obama passed an executive order to aid over 5 million undocumented immigrants from being deported. This order was instituted towards the end of Obama's 2nd term. The policy seemed too extreme, according to many, and was said to be passing the right things in the wrong way. Republicans didn't even see it as a good thing at all, and now the order is being challenged in the Supreme Court. When President Obama  leaves office in January of next year, a Republican president would rescind the order anyway, making it tough for immigration policy to even make way without having serious backlash and problems getting past Congress; order or not. Undocumented immigrants should be a problem left to Congress to evaluate and solve.

Class Relation: During class, we have been discussing two topics as of late: the presidency and the bureaucracy. The executive order by president Obama is perfect for what we have been going over in class. We have looked at how the president can pass an executive order to get something done quickly and effectively without consent of the House or Senate. We have learned about the presidents who have used the most and least executive orders during their time in office. Obama's executive order on immigration is a clear example of orders carried out by the president.

My Opinion: I think the people at USA Today are wrong to say Obama's executive order was done in the "wrong way." For decades, our country has had very big problems with letting immigrants enter, and live peacefully in this country. It is our responsibility as a nation to take in people escaping hardship, famine, natural disasters, and economic problems in other countries worldwide. You might hear or think that the immigrants coming in to this country are terrorists or rapists or drug lords or even people coming to "take our jobs and money." This is not true. While there are immigrants coming in that do do harmful things and cause trouble once they have made it into the U.S., it is an extremely small number compared to all those coming in to do good and to help our nation grow. Those who come in and work for lower wages are actually strengthening the economy and making life better for every American. I feel they should be paid equally, but for now, America is prospering from people coming in to feed their families and go to work. Who are we to deny these people that right? Who are we to deport them and send them back to only tragedy and hardship. The least we can do as a nation is allow them to stay in our country and work and live and feed their families, because that's what America should be all about.

A Historic Lame Duck Appointment

Obama’s Supreme Court Nomination in 2016 is Reminiscent of 1801

Link: http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-04-01/why-republicans-really-oppose-obamas-supreme-court-nomination

Summary: Since the death of Antonin Scalia, President Obama has nominated the Chief Judge of the Washington D.C. District Court of Appeals, Merrick Garland. This appointment is vaguely familiar of the appointment of Justice John Marshall in 1801 by John Adams. John Marshall was appointed in an election year, like Garland, and was nominated by a president soon to leave from unpopularity, who would not earn a second. Adams was voted against by the people which rejected him and the Federalist Party,however Adams didn’t bat an eye when nominating Marshall. Marshall was an Anti-Federalist who favored a strong central government, and despised Jefferson and the Federalists. The Senate confirmed Marshall unanimously just five weeks before Thomas Jefferson was to be inaugurated. "More than anyone else, Marshall turned the Supreme Court into an independent and co-equal branch of government, and the final arbiter of what was and what was not constitutional. Under his leadership, the Supreme Court became a major player in defining the American nation.” Marshall voted in many important cases including the famous cases of McCulloch v. Maryland and Marbury v. Madison. He was known for giving the federal government more power at the expense of the states. Marshall is one of the many reasons why Republicans with a string sense of history will oppose Garland’s nomination. 

Class Connections: The unit in class that we have been focusing on of late has been the judiciary, or the judicial branch of the U.S government. Specifically, we have been learning about the Supreme Court. John Marshall, who is the main person of importance in this article, has been a major figure we have studied because of his importance in shaping the Supreme Court, and the national government. Marshall, through many different cases, gave more power to the national government over the states in situations that included interstate commerce, taxation, and more. We have also talked about the death of Justice Scalia and how President Obama is having a difficult time due to the Republican majority in the House and Senate. 

My Opinion: I personally think that Republicans are causing too much commotion and creating pointless problems in the nomination of the successor to Antonin Scalia. President Obama has the power and the authority to present a candidate for the SC who will act on the needs of this country. I think it is the job of Congress to stop the commotion and agree on Judge Garland. The only reason why they won’t have Garland elected is for petty personal matters concerning the fact that the candidate will bring a liberal majority to the Court. It is definitely a little bit ridiculous. 

A Championship in 1966 Was a Step for Integration

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/sports/ncaabasketball/a-championship-in-1966-was-a-step-for-integration.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FCivil%20Rights&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection

Summary: In 1966, the Texas Western basketball team defeated Kentucky in the NCAA Tournament. It was a monumental upset in college basketball history and is considered a prominent step in integration in college sports, but also in general. Led by Coach Don Haskins, the team went 28-1 in regular season but were still considered an extremely unlikely team to win a game in the tournament, much less win the tournament itself. Don Haskins started live African American players in the historic game against Adolph Rupp and his all white team of players. This was the first time a starting team included all five black players in history. It was truly a turning point in the fight for civil rights in the athletic spectrum.

Class Connections: This article is related to our class because its sole purpose is to shed light on a significant event in the battle for civil rights during the 1960s and 70s. We have discussed major leaders of peaceful demonstration like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, but we haven’t talked about major events in places such as sports or music. This article talks specifically about the achievements of the Texas Western team winning over the racist Adolph Rupp, definitely a defining moment for civil rights for black people. 

My Beliefs: I think that it was historic what Don Haskins did back in 1966. I personally am a strong believer in civil rights for African Americans and other minority groups in the world, so I really appreciate the game against Texas Western and Kentucky because it is so important in terms of integration in college sports. To judge someone by the color of their skin makes no sense in my mind, and shouldn’t affect other people as well. Racial inequality is still a big problem in this country and we need to come together as a people in order to end this injustice. 

TV ad blasts Trump’s business ties to criminals

Link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/3/donald-trumps-business-ties-criminals-blasted-tv-a/

Summary: A super PAC that is known to be conservative recently released an ad that condemns Donald Trump for having ties to drug dealers, convicted felons, and other people who have been involved in wrongdoings. This ad is from America Future Fund, and is part of the GOP’s escapade to prevent Donald Trump from becoming the Republican nominee in 2016. The ad is related to remarks Sen. Ted Cruz made about Trump not releasing his tax returns, which could reveal mafia ties and other illegal business. This super PAC does not back Cruz, though, and ran ads against him as well in Iowa. AFF has also attacked Trump on his university, saying that it has scammed many of its students. The newest ad though, entitled, “Best Negotiator,” highlighted Trumps relations with three men; one, a former senior advisor of Trump who became a convicted stock scammer, a helicopter pilot who turned a convicted felon, and a once real estate worker who took part in trafficking ecstasy. “He claims that as a businessman, he will bring in the ‘greatest minds,’ the ‘most talented’ people,’ and ‘the best negotiators.’ But the more Americans learn about Donald Trump, the more they realize that he will really bring in people who are just like him: morally bankrupt frauds,” American Future Fund adviser Stuart Roy said in a statement.”

Class Connections: In class, we have lately been discussing the media and how they influence politics. We also discussed super PACs, both of which are the main point of this article. We talked about how ads are used by politicians and interest groups to influence the general public on certain issues and political figures. This article talked about an ad released by a super PAC that attacked a particular candidate, one form of how ads are used in order to inform the voters of the U.S. 

My View: I believe that ads are fine to be used for and against candidates in elections as long as they are truthful. Many ads we see today are not true and are often vague and barely scratch the surface of certain political issues and candidates problems. It would be hard to regulate the quality of information in campaigns, but the system could be made better with some simple changes. The government could institute laws that force PAC leaders and interest group leaders to require checks in the information that is used in advertisement of campaigns. There are many things that could be done, and with the insane make-up of this election, there might need to be rules and laws instituted quickly.

When it Comes to Lobbying, One Group Stands Out 

Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-it-comes-to-lobbying-one-group-stands-out/

Summary: During this election year, one aspect of the political spectrum will remain a constant: money and lobbying. During April and June of 2015, the top three lobbyist groups; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Medical Association and Boeing, spent a record 14.4 million dollars on Capitol Hill trying to sway the minds of the nation’s lawmakers. However, the biggest spenders involved business corporations. They spent an estimated 86.6 million dollars in the three month quarter alone, according to MapLight. Big business spreading money into every crack and crevasse it can find is nothing new. "Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at centrist think-tank the New America Foundation, notes that 95 of the top 100 groups that spend money on lobbying represent business. Such organizations spend $34 for every dollar spent by labor unions, another interest group known for bending lawmakers' ears.” A lot of issues are being heard from lawmakers and politicians from these interest groups rather than from the consent of constituents. "Despite his organization's mission of shining a light on how money shapes politics, Daniel Newman, co-founder and president of MapLight, said that fixating on the exact dollar figures spent on lobbying can obscure the broader picture. For one, quarterly lobbying expenditures fail to capture the full extent of corporate influence. Companies like Google also flex their muscles by running their own PACs, funding think tanks and taking other measures to affect public policy.”

Class Connections: We have discussed lobbying and interest groups as of late in our class and that is the main focus of this article. It talks about how interest groups influence lawmakers and how groups lobby to get there information spread throughout Washington. We have talked about interest groups and lobbying and how they can be beneficial, but also how they can promote corruption and cause problems in politics. 

My Beliefs: I personally believe that interest groups and lobbyists take away from America’s system of freedom and Democracy. When corporations and big businesses are able to influence national lawmakers with money and information, I think it can lead to misrepresenting the people that these politicians should be representing. Corporations and special interests shouldn’t have a say in how laws are passed and carried out. I do believe, however, that groups can support politicians, if and only if they are giving reliable information, without money and incentives, to aid these higher ups in making informed and good decisions. This should be done only because of the enormous amount of laws and issues that theseCongressmen and women must vote on each year.

2/18/16

2/18/16 

Link to article: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-04/super-pacs-spoil-justice-kennedy-s-fantasy
Article Title:

Some Supreme Doubts on Super-PACs

Summary: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who helped create the modern campaign finance system, may be rethinking how he helped to invent the laws. He says “What happens with money in politics is not good.” To organize campaigns for the presidency and for Congress, it takes a lot of money considering the millions of voters in the country. For the 2016 election alone, total receipts have surpassed $300 million. "Politics generally doesn't lack hypocrisy, but the campaign-finance system all but mandates it.” In October of last year, Bloomberg Politics released an interview with Matt Murphy. Murphy was a longtime advisor for presidential candidate Jeb Bush before running a super PAC that is pro-Bush, and has raised over $103 million. Murphy said a document was released somehow and wound up in the hands of a reporter. It showed troubling signs for the organizational structure of Bush’s campaign in Iowa, during the caucuses. This document could have been an unintentional leak, But across the political landscape, the prohibition on coordination between campaigns and independent groups doesn't prohibit so much as inconvenience. For example, Carly Fiorina’s campaign doesn’t even arrange her campaign events, a super PAC does it for her. John Katich filmed ads for a super PAC supporting him, before his official candidacy. Justice Kennedy points out that disclosure is also a big problem in campaign finance. If contributions made by individuals were disclosed, the system would be much cleaner than it is now. We can only wait and see what will happen to the finance system in the future. 

Class Connections: This article is very relatable to our class for a couple of reasons. One, it talks about the campaign finance system in which candidates raise money for their presidential or congressional campaigns. We discussed several forms of how campaign financing is a problem, including soft money and independent expenditures; but we also discussed the ways in which the system has been reformed through the years, including the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Law and the laws and regulations passed by the FEC or the Federal Election Commission. The second connection can be made with the discussion about Super PACs. These PACs are ones that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations, labor unions, individuals, etc. so long as it isn’t coordinated with a campaign. The court case that allowed for the creation of these PACs was Citizens United vs. FEC, which SCJ Anthony Kennedy was associated with when it reached the Supreme Court. 

Personal View: I personally believe that their are a lot of problems with the way in which campaigns are financed in this country. I think that there should be regulations on the amount of money that organizations and PACs can raise for a candidate. The legislation in place has too many loopholes to work efficiently, and candidates are able to raise millions of dollars to fund their campaign because of this. This is one reason why I love Bernie Sanders so much. Sanders doesn’t use PACs and super PACs. He asks for individual donations to be able to fund his campaign, and many people look up to him for this reason. It is time that we stop allowing corporations and big organizations to sway the way in which our election system is carried out, it’s time to stop the millions of dollars flowing into campaigns. The system has to be cleaned in order for a functional campaign system, and ultimately, a better outcome for the election.