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.