G-R-I-D-L-O-C-K-S

It is said that the US congress is the only true government that can govern. Unlike the systems seen in Japan and the British House of Commons, the US congress doesn't merely represent, but has the power to govern according to the constitution. As it has this unique power, congress is slow to move (when compared to the parliamentary systems). Often times debates will end up in what is called a gridlock. The primary source of this stalemate is a filibuster. For example, a bill can pass through the house easily, but when faced in the senate a simple 41 person minority can block the bill from passing on to the president. Such delaying tactics include cloture votes and measures such as reading out the entire bill (a long time when most bills are over five hundred pages). While gridlocks may seem the result of arcane rules, the have a valuable place in that they prevent decisions being made on a whim. Gridlocks can make legislators take a closer look at provisions in the bill that may or may not be suitable.

Courts or legislatures?i

While it can be said that the legislative branch has the greatest power of the government's three branches (i.e. legislative supremacy), I personally believe the judicial branch has the most power. I believe the reason is simple: judicial review. The process of judicial review allows the courts the power to look over (review) laws made by congress. If the court rules that a law violates the constitution, then the court essentially has the power to re-write the law. This "informal amendment" process is extremely significant because in a way the judicial branch can get the "last say". In terms of desegregation, the courts had the greatest impact on history. Since the ruling of Plessy vs Ferguson,  states were able to maintain segregated schools through the separate but equal principle. While Brown vs Board  was a benchmark case in that it declared separate but equal unconstitutional, it is more significant because it set a precedent for the changes that came in the following civil rights movements. I feel as if it isn't fair to criticize the court. Of course race relations would have worsened because the court is changing centuries worth of race relations. 

118-127

Selective incorporation can be described as a way of allowing portions of the bill of rights to be selected by through the states through the fourteenth amendment. This type of incorporation is clearly different from total incorporation,in which all of the rights listed in the first ten amendments are included...obviously. Prime examples of the differences in incorporation can be illustrated when looking at the following supreme court cases: Barron vs Baltimore , Gitlow vs New York , and Palko vs Connecticut. In Barron vs Baltimore, the supreme court ruled that the bill of rights applied only to federal situations and the states were able to hold their own constitutions without the provision of a bill of rights. However, a landmark case, Gitlow vs New York, reversed the barron case by using the due process clause. In a similar manner, the case Palko vs Connecticut used the due process law and 14th amendment to state that Connecticut was in violation of the law since he was accused of double jeopardy. 

Federalism, mandates, and devolution

An unfunded mandate is "a National standard or program imposed on state and local governments by the federal government without accompanying funding or reimbursement." Unfunded mandates became such a big problem in the early 90's that the Republican congress in 1994 created a new law called the unfunded mandates reform act (UMRA). Essentially, this law stopped all mandates that cost the state over 50 million dollars.Devolution on the other hand, is the practice of "delegating to the states more and more authority over a range of policies that had held up under national government authority, plus providing states with a significant potion of the cost." Therefore a a program is removed from a higher source of government to a lower portion. Personally, I feel as if devolution is more effective in reducing unfunded mandates. As the text illustrates, devolution allows individual states to try and see what works for them. So what might not be good for Tennessee might work out fine for California. So in this type of way devolution allows for more ability to change policies to see what system is right.

Blog #4: What involvement should US government (state and federal) have in a case like Terri Schiavo's.

The case of Terri Schiavo is a very interesting to look at because of the intricate legal process that followed after being her lifeline was removed. As a background,Terri Schiavo, a middle aged woman, was in a coma since the early 90's. In 1998, her husband made a decision to take off her feeding tube, an essential lifeline, so that she could die a "dignified death". A court order in March of 2005 finally ordered the tube to be removed after seven years of on and off court battles. It is at this moment where the parents of Terri appealed the decision fighting to keep their daughter alive. After this appeal, the case really takes off as it goes through a remarkable 26 court decisions in a matter of weeks. Personally, I feel as if the state should not have a decision in the matter. Yes it is nice to know that it is comforting that both federal and state governments are looking after the personal liberties of its citizens and protecting their rights, especially the 14th amendment concerning her due process rights in court. However, i feel as if the issue is more of a personal decision. And as a personal decision you have to "put yourself in the situation". Maybe it is just me, but what is the point of living if you aren't living a life. However, the point of the case is that it is able to test the balance of powers in the constitution. After losing in the courts (judicial branch), the parents appealed directly to governor Jeb Bush (Executive) only to be sent back to congress (Legislative) who was able to pass a new law. The case goes "full circle" and later ends up dying. I don't know about you but it sounds like a dignified death to me.

What are the similarities and differences between the Honor Code at MBA and the US Constitution?

As stated in the MBA handbook, the Honor Council at Montgomery Bell Academy was instituted in 1945 simply to " promote gentlemanly conduct". While this institution only has influence among faculty and students at MBA, there are many similarities that can be drawn to the US constitution. 

One of these similarities can be with the Supremacy clause in the constitution. This clause states that the national law has the power to override any state law. Similarly, the handbook states that the headmaster has the power to overrule any Honor Council decision. 

Another example illustrating the similarities between the Honor Council and constitution can be seen when electing officers for the Honor Council. The council is composed of twelve students elected by their classmates for a one year term. After each term a member may go up for re-election. Similarly, the constitution states that in the legislative branch a congress is to be comprised of a house of representatives and a senate. After winning an election,each of these bodies hold a two year and six year term respectively.

One key difference between the constitution and honor council is the process by which the system can be ratified. While the constitution has a means of being ratified through amendments, the honor code at MBA is set in stone, and has not undergone any serious changes. 

What is the pupose of government? Does politics support or impede that purpose?

According to American Government: Power and Purpose, Government can be defined as "the institutions and procedures through which a land and its people are ruled" (p.5). While the country we live in is a democratic republic, there are many other types including oligarchies,monarchies, authoritarian governments, etc. Even though there are many forms of government, one might wonder why we have government at all. The primary reason is simple a government is needed to maintain control As the British philosopher Thomas Hobbes points out, Governments are needed to prevent anarchy.By providing order over a people, governments are able to protect the liberties of its citizens. Also as the text illustrates, governments are necessary to provide public services. This can be exemplified by the roadways provided for transportation.