Friday, June 29, 2012

Supremely Historic Day




Yesterday's 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court to affirm the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) was so historic that Political Warrior has come out of summer holiday to share some thoughts. First, my guy Chris Matthews said exactly what I was thinking when I stayed with the breaking news on SCOTUS blog and saw that the Individual Mandate was to be upheld by the deciding vote of conservative Chief Justice John Roberts.

Surprising, yes. But like Chris said, the Chief Justice's decision gives me faith to continue to teach government and politics.....not just politics.  It also gave me, like the Harball host, faith in my religious teachings of social justice. The Chief Justice is one of several Catholics on the highest court in the land. Chris Matthews thinks he may have thought about his belief in social justice that made him rule the Afordable Health Care Act not only constitutional, but right. Interestingly, Roberts is one of 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court. He and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor upheld the law. Catholic dissenters were: Alito; Kennedy; Scalia and Thomas.
________________

SCOTUS blog, linked above, and Oyez.org, had the most accurate account of yesterday's historic decision. Other media outlets, not so much. CNN and Fox News broke the decision as the Individual Mandate being struck down. The Youdia has made for an historic photoshopped picture, appropriate since all Democratic presidents since Truman (remember seeing "Dewey defeats Truman") have been trying to reform healthcare in the U.S., the only industrialized democracy with so many of its citizens not currently covered by health care. (Thanks to WV AP Govt grad and former YG Governor Janesh Rahlan for sending me the pic!)






________________________

Several AP GOPO terms were in play yesterday. So as the Supremes used their judicial review to determine whether the policy under 'Obamacare' was constitutional, think about these that AP students should be familar with.

Congress Powers: While the adminstration expected to be upheld under the Commerce Clause (Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce) which is where the federal government has had its influence expanded greatly over the last 50 years (Interstate Highway Act), or the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Chief Justice found the the grounds to uphold the law by the Power of the Purse the authority to regulate taxing and spending.

Despite the fact that many conservatives criticize some liberal justices' decisions as being judicial activist (legislating from the bench) when Roberts sided with the four liberals he was using judicial restraint (letting what the lawmakers passed stand). As SCOTUS blog wrote:

"The Affordable Care Act including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding."

The Medicaid part of the decision may be a limiting of fiscal federalism, or marble cake federalism. On the Medicaid funding part, mandate is when the federal government makes the states comply with a policy. An unfunded mandate is when the federal government makes the rule but doesn't show the states the money. Traditionally, the federal government uses carrots (fiscal benefits) or sticks (holdbacks or penalties) to get states to comply with national policy. It will be interesting to follow what Republican state governors decide to do about federal monies scehduled to come their way as part of the now consitutional Affordable Health Care Act. Sarah Palin called on all governors to"be tough" and  opt out of the Medicaid expansion. She also earlier tweeted, "Obama lies; freedom dies." Really?!?


Melissa Hart of the Byron White Center for Constitutional Law Studies also broke the High Court's decision down in valuable way for AP GOPO students, and all of us, Really.

"The Supreme Court majority acted exactly as we expect courts in our system to behave--with appropriate judicial restraint. By upholding the ACA as a valid exercise of congressional power, the Court showed respect for its co-equal branch of government and for the our nation’s Constitutional structure. The decision was a victory for the rule of law in our country."
________________________

BTW, this week The Supremes also struck down most of the contraversial Arizona Immigration Law, but left the provision that local law enforcement can still stop someone and ask them to present their papers (this may be challenged after someone has been detained because of being "paperless." I guess, I was wrong, and were are not all trying to Go Green that way). Anyway, IL Congressman Luis Gutierrez made just the beginning of some good political theatre on the floor of the House of Represenatives this week. CSPAN was "Must See TV."



By Thursday afternoon, by party lines GOP lawmakers in the House of Represenatives took the historic, but theatric step of voting Attorney General Eric Holder in "Contempt of Congress" over the "Fast and Furious" ATF plan that was charged as "walking" arms to Mexican drug cartels, which eventually led to the death of an ATF agent. Terms to use here: subpeona (Congress's power to use oversight and demand documents from the executive branch); executive privlage (president's power to keep information privlaged for issues of national security); special interests (like the NRA that vowed to fund opponents and place any lawmaker that did not vote against the Attorney General on an anti-gun legislator scorescard). This again is the difference between governing (or enforcing the law, which the ATF is supposed to be doing) and politics (which, according to the linked article below, is all that's went on yesterday afternoon on Capitol Hill)

The Truth about the Fast and Furious Scandal




Friday, May 18, 2012

Let's Play Hardball: What's your Super PAC say about public money to renovate your ballpark?



The old hidden ball trick. Tom Ricketts, chairman of the Cubs, quickly tried to distance himself from a Thursday New York Times story that linked Joe Ricketts, the patriarch of the family that owns the Cubs, with a political-action committee aiming to smear President Obama. It created an unwelcome backdrop for the city's most anticipated baseball weekend in otherwise long and lousy seasons.

And it also became politically inconvienent for the Ricketts family, who are trying to secure public funding to help renovate Wrigley Field. Awkard. And probably a loser in this town. If you are gonna ask for public money, how can you rail against big government?

Obama's White Sox won Friday. Cub Daddy Ricketts will have to wait till next year, they should start getting used to that. It is also starting to offend the real Cub fans that want leadership focused on bringing a World Series winner to Chicago.

As David Haugh reported in the Tribune:

"No Cubs fan wants to hear about a "Ricketts Plan,'' unless it involves improving the bullpen and the bunting.



If a Ricketts man seeks to unload millions to oust somebody critics think has done a lousy job long enough, my guess is season ticket holders would prefer he target Alfonso Soriano instead of President Barack Obama.
The last thing anybody at Wrigley Field cares to consider on a sunny day at the City Series is whether buying a Bison Dog or souvenir bat indirectly funds a "super PAC'' planning racially divisive attack ads during a presidential campaign.

Yet Thursday's New York Times report linking Joe Ricketts, the patriarch of the family that owns the Cubs, with a political-action committee aiming to smear Obama created an unwelcome backdrop for the city's most anticipated baseball weekend in otherwise long and lousy seasons.


Immediately, damage control included the elder Ricketts stressing he has no direct involvement with the Cubs and rejecting any notion he sought to revive the 2008 controversy over Obama's relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Ricketts' daughter, Laura, a local champion of gay rights on the Cubs board, issued a statement supporting Obama and her right to disagree with her father. Ricketts' son, Tom, the face of the Cubs as their chairman, quickly distanced himself from any potential PR wreckage too.


"I repudiate any return to racially divisive issues in this year's presidential campaign or in any setting — like my father has,'' Tom Ricketts said in a statement.


The Cubs should be so instinctively defensive on the field.


Those looking for fun at the old ballpark might find a more politically charged arena than usual. And you thought the NATO summit was the only place in town debating geopolitics.


Wrigley usually represents a no-stress, non-partisan zone, a place where you praise Castro and everybody knows you're talking about the shortstop, not the dictator. A place smack dab in the middle of a Cubbie-blue state but where Obama still will get criticized for being a Sox fan, if his name comes up at all.''


















Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Hans Rosling shows the best stats you've ever seen


 
For those of you that took AP stats today, after AP comparative yesterday, maybe Political Warrior should have introduced you to Professor Hans Rosling yesterday. Interesting food for thought in this classic, induling the short-sighted phrase, "As Nigeria goes, so goes Sub-Saharan Africa.
 
Gapminder desktop

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Finish the Filibuster?




Maybe a reason some of you wondered about what Congressional Conference Committees do is the continued filibuster use in the Do-Nothing Congress. Comment if you agree or disagree with my guy, Chris Matthews.

BTW, from the US Senate glossary:

conference committee - A temporary, ad hoc panel composed of House and Senate conferees which is formed for the purpose of reconciling differences in legislation that has passed both chambers. Conference committees are usually convened to resolve bicameral differences on major and controversial legislation.




Monday, May 14, 2012

Power Breakfast Tomorrow, 6:30 AM



Tonight, after 9 pm, I will check the blog and try to simulcast social media discussions run at CitizenU and Politico Prep, which I expect to have on-line discussions going on hopefully not too late into the night.

I will be here on-line tonight simulcasting the discussion. Hopefully I will not be talking to myself in the comment section.....but you are not using the Youdia to prep, hopefully you will studying the old fashion way. It still works. Review the terms on the review power points on our Google Docs page and the Country blogs on our Thought Hive.

Remember, US test is at 7:25 AM tomorrow (Rm 156 by the pool; 6:30 breakfast review in Rm 262). I will bring muffins, donuts and fruit. Post if the comment section if you can bring anything to share with the group for our Power Breakfast. Also wear your college T-shirt to make you feel good about the tution money you are going to keep from them next fall!

Again, for U.S.
-- 60 MC questions, 45 minutes

-- 4 Free Response Questions (more than enough time) 100 minutes

(About a 1/2 hour break for lunch)

Comparative test is at 11 AM

-- 55 MC questions, 45 minutes

-- 8 FRQs, 100 minutes



Saturday, May 12, 2012

It's Mother's Day on Sunday

Even Putin loves his mother.*

Don't forget about Mom on Sunday. Maybe you could spend some quality time with her reviewing for the AP Exam. I'm sure it would mean a lot to her. ;)

*Mother not guaranteed to love Putin

The Queen's Legislative Agenda



(From Teaching Comparative blog)
I know, you didn't think the British Queen had a legislative agenda. But she stood in front of both houses of Parliament and the TV cameras this week and announced her government's list of priorities, most of which will become law. Do you remember what's going on here?


Queen's Speech 2012 Explained by the Prime Minister's Office

A Transcript of the Queen's Speech

Queen's Speech 2012 at-a-glance: Bill-by-bill from the BBC