Comment on ONE topic from the list below:
1) What do you think about legalizing medicinal marijuana? In the context of federalism, what do you think about the federal govenment having the authority to prevent states from legalizing medicinal marijuana?
2) Select a topic in the news this week, tell us about it, and why it is important to you. It must be a national news story and it must be political in nature. Provide either an internet link or information regarding the news source (which newspaper, which newscast, etc.) so we can learn more if we are interested.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
On Monday the Supreme Court handed down a decision deregulate finance reform as defined by the Mccain-Feingold law. The majority in the 5-4 vote ultimately seeks to overturn an earlier decision that limited campaign spending by corporations, unions, and money sent to PACs. So, the 30 days before a primary election and the 60 days before general election prohibitions of the law on election advertising do not apply when the advertising does not advocate voting for or against a particular candidate. Therefore, political advertisements that portray a political candidate in a particular light on any issue or expose said candidate’s actions votes or stance on a particular issue and are paid for by anyone are legal to air in the aforementioned restrictive times before an election or primary. To some this becomes a first amendment issue “free speech” and not an election problem. But the meat of the issue here is whether television advertising before an election can indeed sway voters thereby “buying” an election. As a psychology major I know there is little scientific evidence that television advertisements do work in the late days before an election. Of, course the exception to that would be the “Willie Horton” ads aired by the Senior Bush in his election battle for the Presidency with Dukakis; many believe that this was proof that it works. Most psychologists are not convinced. We believe that people we not comfortable with Dukakis anyway. But, if it were true, and it could be, then big soft money could again steal the hearts and minds of the American voter in the weeks and days before the election. This article is located on the front page of the US section of The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/washington/26scotus.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1182858369-XVOD3P39kxoagAOnVXkE7g
Putting this note regarding writing assignments in the blog because Bb email is not functioning properly for some reason...
Please note that you will only complete TWO writing assignments during the session. You have options available for each chapter. Please check the syllabus for due dates and which chapters are eligible for each assignment.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Dr. Patton
On Thursday June 28, 2007, President Bush asserted executive privilege, rejecting Congressional subpoenas demanding documents and testimonies in the firing of U.S. attorneys. Citing “executive privilege – the right to withhold confidential information affecting national security (Textbook 366),” the President took a course of action that is surely headed for showdown in Congress.
The issue of the latest executive privilege comes as a result of Senate investigations in the firing of 9 US attorneys and whether the firing were politically motivated. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said after the issuance of the latest White House refusal as, “a further shift by the Bush administration into Nixonian stonewalling and more evidence of their disdain for our system of checks and balances. This White House cannot have it both ways. They cannot stonewall Congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper occurred.”
Senator Leahy by invoking “our system of checks and balances,” into his speech, brings up the fact that our Founding Fathers placed “the elaborate system of divided spheres of authority provided by the U.S. Constitution as a means of controlling the power of government. The separation of powers among the branches of the national government, federalism, and the different methods of selecting national officers are all part of this system (Textbook G-2 ‘glossary’).” The White House in their “disdain for our system of checks and balances” seems to me to be politically motivated and to get answers to questions of what is going on in the government.
President Bush and his executive branch do have political powers and there is a limit to those powers, it is the problems of how those powers are used, that is questioned. Presidential counsel Fred Fielding said, “Presidents would not be able to fulfill their responsibilities if their advisers were in fear of being commanded to Capitol Hill to testify or having their documents produced to Congress. The president has frequently, plainly and completely explained that his position, and now his decision, is rooted in a need to protect the institution of the Presidency.”
From how I read the statement from Presidential counsel Mr. Fielding is one of “What is the President trying to hide?” and “Is it really the need to protect the institution of the Presidency, or is it really the need to protect the actions of President Bush?” However, this is the partisan political nature of myself that brings these up. I see in this current debate over executive privilege and the Bush White House as another misuse of powers and the making of another Watergate. I hope that is not the case though.
I found these articles titled “Bush asserts executive privilege” by Terence Hunt at Yahoo news http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070628/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_subpoenas;_ylt=AhSppKMSGnzBXcVzWRcabtys0NUE
and “White House Rebuffs Congress in Firings Inquiry” by Anahad O’Connor at the “New York Times” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/washington/28cnd-bush.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
I personally believe that the legalization of medicinal marijuana is an idea to consider. This is another hot topic, but marijuana is being used illegally all over the world. I think that the government has larger battles to fight than the issue regarding marijuana. I personally know several addicts that have fought the addiction of prescription pain medication that happens to be legal. I feel our government should press further into these issues with doctors prescribing pain medication that is labeled highly addictive. This issue is one that is not discussed often. I think the real issue is the other drug wars, that are more addictive and life treating than marijuana. I've heard horrid stories of the increased violence and theft for these chemically controlled substances on the news you hear more about than you do marijuana related violence. I believe that the control of it can be more manageable if it is legalized, and this would free up the DEA to investigate more chemically controlled substances. I feel that this is a federal issue and should be shared by both state and national governments. Marijuana is not my biggest concern when it comes to drugs. The government needs to put the investigations of marijuana on the back burner and start worrying more about these highly addictive and life threatening drugs that are related in many more law breaking situations than marijuana has.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision which struck down school integration plans in Louisville and Seattle. Details can be found in the Time article at: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1638327,00.html
Arguments both in favor and against the ruling can be found in the article so I won't bore you all with those points. I choose, instead, to offer my take on the situation. In 1954, the Supreme Court issued its' Brown v. Board of Education decision. In essence, the decision outlawed schools using race as a means for segregating students. While I applaud Louisville, Seattle and the numerous other school systems that seek to achieve racial diversity within their schools, I must refer to the Constitution. To paraphrase, it is the responsibility of the states to oversee the education of its children. No, I am not advocating racial segregation by any means. For states that have traditionally exercised segregation prior to Brown v. Board (and afterwards) the Supreme Court decision in 1954 intended to bring an end to the practice of "white schools" and "black schools". What happened, though, may not be in some of your memories. I refer to the large number of cross town bussing initiatives that were used to achieve a racial balance in schools. I can remember all the hullabaloo associated with those measures. In some cases, bussing created more tension than the previous segregation prior to Brown v. Board. And those tensions tended to arise in areas not normally associated with racial segregation. Here's my stand. States are charged with educating our young people. Race should not play a part in determining where a child may go to school. In Ohio, we have a policy of open enrollment. Parents may send their children to the school of their choosing, within a few parameters, none of which is associated with race. Similar polices should be adopted by all states. Here's why. Despite our very best intentions, race will always play a role in determining where some people live. Sure, economic condition of the family plays into the equation, which unfortunately, determines the amount of funding a school receives as well. The idea of a "local" school should be just that, local. If a family chooses where it is to live, the local school should be where the children go. If the local school doesn't measure up, open enrollment at another school should be an option. Here's where the states can make it better. Mandated equal funding and monitoring. I know that's a hard pill for some to swallow, but until a system of equal funding for all schools is achieved and accountability of the school is under the scrutiny of the state, racial diversity will come in at the bottom of the food chain. We have created our own problem. Our Constitution is based on certain equalities. I don't believe that we can force people to be equal based on race. I believe we can allow the "opportunity" to be equal racially, but if some choose not to be equal, let them be where they want to be, white, black, red or green. In this case, the state must take the responsibility to educate our young people within the guidelines of the Constitution. Only with equal funding will we begin to see a certain measure of racial diversity. By the way, equal funding is a matter before the Ohio Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see where this all ends up.
Democrats are still pressuring President Bush with withdrawing the troops and ending the war in Iraq. In July, the Senate will vote on the proposal from Democrats to start withdrawing troops. They need 60 votes for the proposal to go into effect beginning with the withdrawal of troops 120 days after passage. The Democrats know that this is a very tough process and they are not sure if it will pass, but they are willing to push as hard as they can for it because they know stopping the war is the best thing to do and they feel that the American people are behind them. Some Democrats claim that the Republicans are starting to show signs of changing attitudes. As one Democrat put it, "I feel that I -- and just not as a senator, but as a person -- have a moral obligation to do what I can to stop the death and suffering. And I think by pushing a withdrawal date, it does just that," Reid said (CNN.com).
This article is important to me because I have some people in my life directly affected by this war. My sister’s boyfriend is in the Marines and is scheduled to deploy to Iraq in October. It is a very hard time and is something that is going to be a struggle to deal with. I feel that there are too many deaths and we need to pull our troops out. My best friend’s fiancé is also in the Army and I have seen first-hand what she has gone through. Too many innocent lives are being destroyed over there and it needs to stop. Even with troops that do come back from Iraq, may not come back the same because of what torment they go through with over there.
Article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/29/iraq.usa.reut/index.html
Perhaps John Stuart Mill influences my opinion heavily, but I believe that people should be allowed to do as they please. Mill’s Harm Principle states the exact same thing. He writes in his essay On Liberty "that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." He also writes that people have “the freedom to pursue tastes and pursuits, even if they are deemed ‘immoral,’ as long as they do not cause harm.” I do think that Mill meant physical harm, and yes, smoking marijuana does harm others emotionally (family and friends). But, according to Mill’s principle, smoking tobacco would be illegal because of the second hand smoke, wouldn’t it? I do not see any real harm in letting those who are in pain (or honestly anyone over 18) smoking marijuana. Alcohol is just as damaging to a person as marijuana, and anyone over 21 can drink it. Yes, drugs of any kind are not good, but isn’t the government’s control over what we do to our bodies equally bad? I agree with Mill’s opinion of government in general. He writes, "the people who exercise the power are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised". I completely agree.
Last weekend professional wrestler Chris Benoit murdered both his wife and seven year old son then hung himself after placing Bibles next to the bodies of his wife and Child. He left no suicide note and is suspected of being under the influence of steroids and thought to be undergoing what is known as roid rage. For more info : http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN2634708220070627?feedType=RSS
At first glance, this story seems to be nothing but a tragedy, which of course it is, yet it also highlights a huge and growing problem in the sports and entertainment world. This is the problem of steroid use. Science has for many years known a about the physical advantages that it can give user but also about the negative side effects that it causes the body. Now we can see how these very terrible side effects use can harm others. Because steroids in crease the testosterone in an individual can cause a person to go in to what id call roid rage where a person becomes very angry and violent. However, the question here is not what steroids do to a person but what part dose the American Government has to play. In recent years, it has played a big part in the congressional hearings about baseball steroid use and such. I however feel that it is the responsibility of the corporations and leagues themselves to stop steroid and other drug use. I feel as if it is an over steeping of congressional power for our federal government to be involved. Yet, at the same time I feel that awareness must be given to people about the real dangers of steroid. It seems to me that the physical advantages are just not worth all the side effects. This story held a lot of personal meaning for me because my boyfriend is an avid weight lifter and trained with a guy who competed in many bodybuilding competitions. After sometime my boyfriend had to stop lifting with this individual because, his temper and anger became so bad. We latter found out hat this person was using steroid to increase his muscle mass for completions.
Bill,
I agree with you when you say that television advertising before an election can sway voters. I think it sways the voters that are not as informed though. To the person who is voting just because they can vote, they probably just go by television ads. To the person that is voting because they want to see a change and has researched and followed the candidates and know how they stand on issues, it may not sway them.
Everyone is titled to their own opion on the topic of legalizing medical marijuana. I believe the government has bigger problems to look at then this. Prescription pain killers can be very addictive for people who don't even abuse the drug. Studies have shown that marijuana isn't addictive but the government lables it as a gateway drug. So answer this, if someone is addicted to a painkiller due to a back injury and their prescription is empty what happens next. The individual will do what ever they have to do to get their fix. This may even be a "gateway" to a worse drug. So what I'm trying to get at is why not prescribe them a non addictive drug such as marijuana. The marijuana may be a "gateway" to worse drugs but the individual will have the choice to explore new drugs instead of trying to support the addiction that they no longer can get legally. The legalization of marijuana for not only medical reasons is also not a bad idea. If alcohol can be legal for someone over the age of 21 why can't marijuana. Again, marijuana is shown not to be addictive but alcohol is one of the most addictive drugs in America. The government says it can't be legalized because it causes bodily harm. Well so does cigarettes and guess what they're addictive. I'm not saying smoking marijuana is a good thing but there are alot worse things that are legal in America. It seems to me legalizing something that isn't addictive for medical purposes would make since.
I think that states should be able to legalize medical marijuana. In fact, I think that all marijuana should be legal. In my personal opinion smoking marijuana is no worse that drinking alcohol. I personally have never smoked marijuana, but I do not see effects any worse than what could come from drinking. I think there should be laws about using marijuana like there is alcohol. I think that once it is legalized the number of users will drop. But if smoking marijuana is a way that could heal a serious ailness, then I say let them grow it and heal themselves. If somebody just wants to come home from a hard day of work, I say let them smoke a little marijuana in the confines of there home. In terms of federalism, I think that the national government has the rights to regulate the growing of medical marijuana. National organizations test and approve these medical drugs, so why shouldn't the national government be in control of the production of medical marijuana? The national government is in control of the medicines in our country and I think it needs to stay this way. They should have absolute control over this situation with medical marijuana.
I personally believe that each individual state should have the right to determine whether they want to legalize the use of medicinal marijuana. How does the federal government feel they have the right to intervene on such a pety issue? Illegal marijuana being smoked by teenagers is what the concern should be, not whether or not, with a liscensed professional, it is used in a controlled environment for poisitive reasons. At times our government seems so illogical. It makes no sense that a person can be precribed xanax, lortabs, oxycontin, or many other controlled substances, but medicinal marijuana is somehow unethical. We need to begin creating a standard and sticking to it. If mind/body altering substances are unethical regardless the reason of use then they should never be legally used, but if the have some benefits to them under a controlled environment then they should all be avaliable for use under certain circumstances. However, if a black and white area is never created by our federal government, then i feel it should be an individual states right to decide these limits.
CNN posted on their website this week that Barak Obama raised 32.5 million dollars in the current fundraising cycle. He passed his opponents and is possibly the most ever raised in a quarter by the democratic party. This is a significant step in the direction for a non-white president. The idea of the presidency should be diverse. Seeing Barak and Hillary both campaigning is an incredibly positive inspiration for equality in our nation.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/01/campaign.money/index.html
Post a Comment