does voting matter?

YES! Voting is important in a variety of different ways. While voter turnout was high throughout much of the first half of the 20th century, there has a decline in the number of people voting since then. The trend started after 1968 election. The main reason for this was because after the Eisenhower and Kennedy years where hope for change in the future was at an all time high. However, after a series of assassinations and disasters abroad (think Vietnam/bay of pigs) people began to lose faith in their government.
One significant theory to explain voter turnout is the median voter theorem, which states that candidates try to gain sway of independent voters in a tight election. This theory is important because voters conclude that there isn’t a difference if they go to the polls or not. As George Wallace said, “There ain’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two candidates.”
Another reason why people don’t show up at the polling stations is because it is often costly. Whether it is the personal registration requirements or the inability to miss work, a broad range of factors influence the voter turnout.
The most profound reason voting is important is because it is a form of mass involvement. As the text states, “Elections help preserve the government’s stability by containing and channeling away potentially more disruptive or dangerous forms of mass political activity.” This quotation illustrates that without the ability to cast a vote in a democratic election, people might be persuaded to throw a coup or send the country into anarchy. In a similar respect, voting puts pressure on incumbent officials to do well as, “his or her actions may provoke popular disobedience.

Are Interest Groups good or bad for democracy?

While Interest groups are often cast in a negative light, in general, they are good for democracy as they have many postives that outweigh the negatives. Interest Groups are individuals who organize together under a common goal. One noteable characteristic is that they do not seek office, but simply seek influence as they press the issues that are important to them.

The most influential ability interest groups have is the ability to lobby congress. Lobbyist for interest groups are able to give important policy information to members of congress. This fact is crucial to understanding the niche they play in Washington. As congressmen (and their staffs) live busy lives voting for different legislation all the time, there is not the ability to know or research all important information. Interest Groups come in as they are able to fill this gap because lobbyist are highly specialized in the subject they are pressing for. By providing networks and building close personal relationships, lobbyists are able to exert their influence on legislation. The concept of lobbying as a whole is important because while congressmen may or may not vote for the interest of the lobbyist, he is making a decision that is much more well informed than had he not met with him. Lobbyist can also perform task such as testifying before congress, emailing campaigns, writing letters/articles, and often times serving as a personal attorney to many congressmen.

A second reason why interest groups are important to democracy is because they mobilize public opinion. Interest Groups can get people involved through a varirty of different ways such as the following: Advertising, Grass Roots Campaigns, Protests (think SCLC in the 60's), PACs, Campaign Activism, and Initiatives and Referendums.

Interest Groups are vital to democracy for a variety of reasons. In sum, they make the government more accountable for its actions as they monitor government programs.While their voice is often heard through the public as they often times have huge bases of supporters (ex.NRA) , they wield much of their power through lobbying. As Ted Kennedy once said government wouldn't be anything without them.

bush's power

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/weekinreview/05baker.html

Who is who of congress

house    

speaker:Nancy Pelosi

majority leader-Steny Hoyer

minority leader-John A. Boehner

majority whip-Jim Clyburn

minority whip-Roy Blunt

 

Senate

Majority Leader-Harry Reid

Minority Leader-Mitch McConnell

Majority Whip- Dick Durbin

Minority Whip-Jon Kyl

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.