Post #7 (5/22/17) Unit of Study: Public Policy

Trump Bans Refugees and Citizens of Seven Muslim Countries

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-refugees.html?module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Politics&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=article

On January 24th, 2017 newly inaugurated President Donald Trump signed an executive order to put a 120 day ban on refugees and citizens from seven Muslim countries from entering the US. The countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen; the order will also ban Syrian refugees from entering America indefinitely. President Trump claims the order is solely for the purpose of protecting America and its citizens from "radical Islamic terrorist;" however, the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Lebanon which do not appear on the President's banning list. Trump has also created a religious test for refugees coming from Muslim countries as he wants to allow Christians and other religious Middle Eastern minorities to have more priority than those associated with the Muslim religion. Many human rights activists have said that Trump's order is just a way to discriminate against a specific religion. This refugee ban has caused a lot of controversy within America as well as internationally.

Just within a week of his inauguration President Trump signed one of the most controversial executive orders which put a 120 day ban on refugees and citizens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen from entering the United States. The order had another layer where Syrian refugees were banned not only 120 days but for as long as the US saw fit. Despite the fact that Trump says this ban is for the safety of the American people from Islamic terrorists, the banned countries do not include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Lebanon which are the home countries of the 9/11 attackers. The exclusion of these primary terrorist countries paired with the religious test Trump wants to put in place to ensure Christians and other Middle Eastern minorities are priority, strongly proves that Trump just wants to discriminate against Muslims. The religious test is not about making sure minorities get treated fairly; in fact the US accepted 37,521 Christian refugees in 2016 while 38,901 Muslim refugees were accepted which means the number of Christian refugees accepted are almost equal to Muslim refugees. These Middle Eastern refugees just want to seek out safety as their countries face terror and violence everyday. It is unconstitutional to refuse safety and care to those in desperate, life-threatening situations. Compassion is what helps heal hurt, not rejection. This relates to public policy in that Trump's order on immigration and the nation's safety affects the all the American public. Since public policies created around safety are some of the most important it does not seem right that Trump can sign an executive order on that type of policy. 

Post #6 (5/17/17) Unit of study: Constitutional Underpinnings of US Government

Obama's Plan Military Plan to Defeat ISIL Requires Congressional Checks and Balances 

https://www.thenation.com/article/presidents-plan-military-action-requires-congressional-checks-and-balances/

In September of 2014, President Obama gave a speech outlining his military plan to increase US involvement in Iraq and Syria in order to "degrade and destroy and ultimately destroy ISIL." Though 61% of Americans are against US troops being stationed in Iraq and Syria, his plan would have the US in charge of mobilizing an alliance of multiple countries in military actions to take ISIL out and would involve 475 US soldiers being deployed to the Middle East. The number of US troops stationed on the ground in Iraq would then be around 1,700. More than 70% of Americans believe President Obama should go to Congress for approval yet Obama avoided asking for congressional approval in his speech. In fact he said, “I have the authority to address the threat from ISIL. But I believe we are strongest as a nation when the President and Congress work together. So I welcome congressional support for this effort in order to show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger.” This goes directly against a main component of the Constitution which is checks and balances and separation of powers within the branches of government. The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the sole power to debate and vote on war as well as the power of the purse to say how much of the budget is given for military action. If important aspects of the Constitution cannot be respected and followed then US democracy is threatened. 

If the president disregards checks and balances and separation of powers then the United States is no longer the democracy that the founding fathers intended it to be. Checks and balances ensure that no branch of government is abusing its powers as does separation of powers. Congress checks over the president's military actions by having the power to declare war and make the national budget: therefore, when Obama does not seek out congressional approve to take military action against ISIL he is going against the Constitution. Even if President Obama decided to carry out his plan, within 60 days he would need to gain approval from Congress to continue deploying troops and have them declare war as the War Powers Resolution Act mandates. It would be intelligent of Obama to get congressional approval before taking action against ISIL not only because so many Americans are against troop deployment to Iraq and Syria but also because the Constitution requires checks and balances. This relates to class in that it deals with how checks and balances helps make up the type of democracy the US is. Without checks and balances the branches of government could easily abuse their powers. 

Post #5 (5/8/17) Unit of Study: Political Beliefs and Behaviors 

Keep the Electoral College or Adopt a More Direct Democracy?

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/16/should-the-electoral-college-be-abolished

For decades the Electoral College has been an issue debated nationally by not only politicians but normal citizens as well with some being for it and some wanting to abandon it. In November of 2016 Yale Professor Akhil Reed Amar and Harvard Professor Charles Fried debated this very topic with Professor Fried arguing for the Electoral College and Professor Amar arguing against the Electoral College. Professor Fried's viewpoint focused on the US has a direct democracy as Senators, representatives, and members of the Electoral College are elected by the people; however, it is important for the President to not be elected directly by the people but through the Electoral College because it allows the states to remain a secondary component of government. To Professor Fried since the states have control over many things that affect the lives of normal citizens and they each have their own little political world it is important for the states and federal government to interact and the Electoral College provides a way for the two government components to do that. Professor Amar had the view that since the states choose their governors, which are basically the states personal Presidents, through direct popular vote with each person getting one vote that the US as a national should elect their President just as the states elect their governors. If the states don't use the Electoral College than some of the claims made against it must be true such as it's unfairness to rural areas and ineffectiveness in recounting is how Professor Amar sees it. He also believes that by having a direct election of the President states would want to encourage voting as voter turnout would effect how much of an impact the state has in the final results, unlike now where the Electoral College votes each state gets is set in stone and unchanging despite voter turnout. Professor Amar recognizes that there are many practical things to take into account such as recounting.

The Electoral College does provide the states a way to be another important layer of the government as well as another layer of checks and balances but it also strips away some of the direct democracy that the US strives for. If America really did want its people's opinions and views to be represented then the Electoral College would not exist and the President would be elected solely by popular vote. If the President was put into office directly by the people then it is likely that they would feel more accountable since they would know that the majority of the nation is expecting them to preform their job effectively and as they promised. Plus as Professor Amar pointed out states would care about their voter turnout because they would want to be represented in the final decision as much as possible. Not only would voter turnout increase due to states encouraging it but voters would feel a higher sense of political efficacy causing them to want to vote. A major drawback of the removing the Electoral College though would be that campaign spending would significantly increase as each person's vote is now equally important therefore, the candidates couldn't just focus on the states with the most electoral votes but maybe the states with the biggest populations. Even focusing on states with big populations candidates would have to visit more states and hold more rallies/conventions than with an Electoral College. This relates to class because it shows how the Electoral College may not be the best thing for the direct democracy that America wants. It also shows that maybe the Constitution is not accurate for all aspects of American at this point in time.

Post #4 (5/2/17) Unit of study: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

Protesters march in the US and Internationally in Protest of Trump taking Office

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/21/politics/womens-march-highlights/index.html

The marches for women's rights in the US as well as internationally brought up significant protest against Trump and his presidential win. The main march was located in Washington DC with thousands of people not just protesting against Trump but as well as supporting to Black Lives Matter, wage equality, and abortion rights. The protesters were not just women though as men and children joined in the march to show their support and belief that women deserve equality. It has drawn tons of attention as activist and leaders from organizations such as Planned Parenthood, NAACP, and the American Federation of Teachers have supported the protests as well as multiple celebrities like Madonna and Alicia Keys. The protests have remained peaceful as participants have stated they simply want "a respectful demonstration of democracy and expression of free speech," and one even saying she believes Trump will see how frightened the US women are and act upon it.

The women's rights marches do represent a real fear within the American women's heart of Trump stripping them of the rights they gained not too long ago. By protesters talking about how they want to peacefully exercise their rights under the First Amendment of Freedom of Speech and Assembly proves that women aren't wanting or trying to be aggressive and forceful, they simply just want their equality. Even today women do not receive full equality as they continue to get lower wages than men when being just as qualified and don't get to decide either or not abortion is right for them. Though no single amendment has ever formally declared it unconstitutional to discriminate against someone based specifically on gender, the Fourteenth Amendment ensures no single minority or group of people get discriminated against. It's Equal Protection Clause claims states cannot deny citizens protection/equality while it's Due Process Clause says states cannot make laws that take away civil rights of citizens. These marches prove that the Fourteenth Amendment isn't as effective as some may believe as women and many minority groups are denied civil rights and liberties through unequal pay and simply day-to-day discrimination. These women taking a stand and showing how they are willing to fight for full equality should not only open President Trump's eyes and the whole world's as well. This relates to class in that it shows how the Bill of Rights is still relevant though not completely sturdy as groups of people utilize  its rights like Freedom of Speech and Assembly to gain the equality it already promises but doesn't quite fulfill.

Post #3 (3/27/17) Unit of Study: Governmental Institutions 

Obama Vetoes 9/11 Bill, but Congressional Override Is Expected

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/24/us/politics/obama-veto-saudi-arabia-9-11.html?_r=0

In September of 2016, President Obama vetoed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act which would allow the 9/11 victims' families to sue the the government of Saudi Arabia for any role in the attack's plot. The President vetoed it due to his belief that the legislature "undermines core US interests". He also thinks passing this act of allowing individuals to sue a foreign nation for terrorism would overturn America's normal manner of the government as a whole singling foreign countries out as promoter of terrorism. It would subject government officials and military members to legal problems and also put United States resources in jeopardy of being taken away due to overseas lawsuits. Both 2016 Presidential candidates, Trump and Hillary, spoke in support of the bill even though Hillary had previously supported Obama's decision. Both the Speaker of the House and the president of the Senate have said they expect the veto to be overrode which requires 2/3 majority vote from Congress.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act would be the first act to allow individuals to sue a foreign nation for supporting terrorism as normally it's American government as a whole that picks out foreign nations as terrorist supporters. If Obama's veto is overruled by Congress a plethora of issues would open up for the US and its officials such as international lawsuits. These lawsuits would potentially cause the seizing of natural resources the US receives from overseas as well as put a strain on diplomatic relationships with other foreign nations. It is unfair to blame a whole nation for a terrorist attack that was not endorsed by their government; therefore, the President's veto should be withheld though it is unlikely. This relates to class in that it displays how even though the Executive branch has powers such as vetoing, the Legislative branch has powers that can overturn the Executive branch's decisions/powers. It provides a level of checks and balances between the branches of government to ensure no power is being abused.

Post #2 (3/24/17) Unit of Study: Governmental Institutions 

Racial Gerrymandering Issues within NC

http://www.wral.com/us-supreme-court-to-draw-lines-on-nc-gerrymandering-case/16297884/

The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing yet another federal case regarding the unconstitutional gerrymandering, the manipulation of district lines for political party advantage, of North Carolina. There have been multiple complaints accusing North Carolina Republicans of racially gerrymandering during Congressional redistricting. The purpose of the Republicans redrawing these lines is to get a political advantage which is perfectly legal: however, they have taken it a step too far by attempting to hoard the African-American and minority communities into just a couple districts thus leaving the surrounding districts majority Republican/white. In 2010 the districts were redrawn by Republicans but many critics have stepped forward and claimed those districts were based on race to protect incumbents of the Republican party. The legislatures were forced to redraw the districts in February and hold a new congressional primary in June to replace the March primary. These current districts are also being criticized but the Republicans of North Carolina are arguing that they have followed the redistricting rules that have been set at the time and shouldn't be punished for districts that don't follow laws established after the lines. 

The consistent racial gerrymandering in North Carolina proves the point that all types gerrymandering should be made illegal due to the multiple issues it raises. Even gerrymandering based on political affiliation results in unequal representation as either Republicans or Democrats get the advantage in every Congressional election. To really allow the people of the district to be heard and represented an independent, nonpartisan organization should be in control of redistricting that way no minority, political party, or race gets unequally represented. If gerrymandering continues, there should be stricter laws regarding racial redistricting and clearer guidelines on what is considered political gerrymandering and racial gerrymandering. NC's racial gerrymandering issues relates to class because gerrymandering is very prominent deciding factor in congressional elections and the Representatives and Senators elected hold very unique and strong powers that establish laws and keep the government/nation running; therefore, the people want to be represented as much as possible by the most efficient leaders. 

 Post #1 (3/17/17) Unit of Study: Linkage Institutions 

FCC Crossroad: Protection of Free Internet vs. Fast Lanes

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/07/opinion/van-schewick-net-neutrality/index.html

The FCC is faced with an issue on whether the new laws they create to protect the internet will or will not allow fast lanes. These potential fast lanes would enable internet service providers to levy access fees from internet applications. The access fees would pay for faster and more efficient service. Not only would big companies with the ability to pay be at an advantage over small businesses, but the average American would also suffer from this proposal. Millions of Americans agree that access fees should be banned; however, the only way for the FCC to ban fees would be to change the internet service providers (ISPs) as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. 

Despite the public's opinion, the FCC is looking to propose a law that divides the services the ISPs provide into two categories: "wholesale" service and "retail" service. Wholesale service would enable internet applications to reach consumers i.e. Google, Netflix while retail service would connect the average American to the internet. The FCC would then make a decision based on the specific case whether or not access fees are applicable to that case. The proposals would not provide internet protection instead it would raise the price of internet companies products and decrease innovation in the nation. An alternative to this route is for the FCC to change internet service under the Communications Act's Title II then take away all regulations that do not protect consumers while creating regulations that do provide protection through bans on discrimination and access fees.   
This issue of the FCC protecting the public interest or giving in to the fast lanes of internet services raises the question of whether or not the FCC really exists to keep the mass media in check. Since the FCC's main purpose is to regulate media and ensure that it is playing by the rules, I believe allowing fast lanes would eliminate the FCC's role as watch dog of the media instead replacing it with the media controlling the FCC through the power of wealth. Not only would the media be affected in ways such as a select few companies controlling the majority of the media but the American economy would also be harmed as small online businesses crumbled. Large companies would have superiority over small businesses eventually overpowering them completely and eliminating them. The FCC should be promoting the protection of American citizens' interests not of wealth companies. This all connects to class in that if the FCC grants fast lanes and the media becomes controlled by specific companies, a type of censorship would take place since those companies would be controlling what the public saw as important and holding back information that their views did not align with.