Course Evaluation

I would appreciate it if you would give me some honest feedback about our class this semester. What were your likes and dislikes? Provide any constructive criticism and/or suggestions.
You may respond to this blog using the anonymous option.

Also use the following link to complete a brief survey= Click here to take survey

Who should Obama nominate?

With John Paul Stevens announced retirement at the end of this Court term, who should President Obama appoint to take his place? Republicans have warned him that they might filibuster his nominee if he chooses someone too liberal. Below are links that provide information on some of his potential choices. Read over them and indicate which you think would be his best choice.

Diane Wood
Merrick Garland
Elana Kagan
Pamela Karlan
Kathleen Sullivan

This article reviews some of the potential candidates when Justice David Souter retired last year and was replaced by Sonia Sotomayor.

The Federal Deficit: What to do?

The federal budget has not been in surplus since the first years of this decade. With a recession and governmental stimulus packages and other entitlements, the deficit (and with it the debt) are rising. What should be done to bring the budget into balance? Or should we worry about a deficit during bad economic times?

If you were the budget "czar' what you do? Cut spending? If so, what spending would you cut? Raise taxes? What taxes would you raise? Or would you introduce new revenue streams?

What should be the role of government? What should it provide to its citizens?

If you were

...a member of a local school board, what would you target as a cut from the school budget?

Assume that you are a member of a local school board facing a multi-million dollar shortfall in your budget. Your local governing body has provided all the funding it can. You are faced with the unenviable task of having to prioritize the items in your budget that must be cut. What would be the three or so items that you would eliminate from the school budget?

Keep in mind that personnel costs constitute the largest single expenditure in any school budget.

Lifetime Tenure for Federal Judges?

Article III of the U.S. Constitution states that judges should serve their offices during good behavior. In essence, federal judges serve their appointments to the bench for life. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 makes the case that the judiciary is the weakest of the three branches because it has neither control of the purse (legislature) nor energy (executive). Thus, to maintain its independence and allow it to be a co-equal branch of government, judges must be granted lifetime tenure. Operating without fear of retribution, judges, Hamilton argues, can render objective decisions that serve the interest of the law.

An opposing view was exhibited by Brutus in Anti-Federalist 78-79:

"There is no power above them, to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself."

The question then is, should judges serve for life? Is it important for judges to be above the political wrangling that takes place in the other branches of government? Or should they be held accountable on a periodic basis? Should there be a certain term of office for judges? Or would this subject the judiciary to too much political pressure?

Electoral College

No aspect of the U.S. Constitution has been subject to more efforts at change than the electoral college method of selecting the president. While there are many proposals for change, such as the district method, proportional method, and the most popular, direct election, none have generated enough support yet to warrant changing the Constitution.

Where do you come down on this issue? Should we maintain the status quo or is there a preferred method of reform?

What to Make of Sarah Palin?

In the summer of 2008, the country was introduced to Sarah Palin when Republican presidential candidate, John McCain tapped her to be his running mate. The then Governor of Alaska was a relative unknown at the time. Since that time she has become the center of attention among many conservatives and Republicans who see her as presidential timber and Democrats who view her with a degree of scorn.

Most recently, the former governor, has written a best selling book, joined Fox News as a news analyst, and served as the keynote speaker at the Tea Party Convention. Many speculate that these moves have been designed to keep her in the public eye as she positions herself as a GOP favorite to oppose President Obama in 2012.

Washington Post political reporter David Broder recently wrote that Palin is someone who needs to be taken seriously:

Blessed with an enthusiastic audience of conservative activists, Palin used the Tea Party gathering and coverage on the cable networks to display the full repertoire she possesses, touching on national security, economics, fiscal and social policy, and every other area where she could draw a contrast with Barack Obama and point up what Republicans see as vulnerabilities in Washington.

Time magazine's Joe Klein takes a somewhat different view:

The speech was inspired drivel, a series of distortions and oversimplifications, totally bereft of nourishing policy proposals — the sort of thing calculated, carefully calculated, to drive lamestream media types like me frothing to their keyboards. Palin is a big fat target, eminently available for derision. But I will not deride. Because brilliance must be respected, especially when it involves marketing in an era when image almost always passes for substance.

Recent polling data still suggests a bit of skepticism about what Sarah Palin has to offer:

VIEWS OF SARAH PALIN
Now 11/2009 7/2009
Favorable 26% 23% 23%
Not favorable 41 38 37
Undecided/
Haven't heard 32 37 39

Though among conservatives she is a very popular figure:

VIEWS OF SARAH PALIN
All Liberals Moderates Conservatives
Favorable 26% 16% 15% 46%
Not favorable 41 58 47 26
Undecided/
Haven't heard 32 25 37 27

How do you view Sarah Palin? Is she someone we should take seriously? Does she offer what is needed in Washington?

Time to Repeal the 22nd Amendment?

President George Washington established a tradition that lasted for a century and a half. That tradition was retiring from the office after two terms. That tradition was broken by Franklin Roosevelt when he was elected to a third term in 1940 and subsequently, to a fourth term in 1944. In reaction to FDR's tradition-breaking elections, a Republican controlled congress was able to propose and the states were able to muster enough support to ratify the 22nd Amendment that limits a president to two terms. Interestingly, since that time four different Republicans have been been elected to two terms. Only one Democrat has done so.

The argument presented on behalf of the amendment makes the case that this prevents one individual from becoming too powerful and restricts the growth of the executive branch. Opponents of the concept point out that the amendment denies the voters the opportunity of either expressing their dissatisfaction with the policies of the President or showing their support for them. They reason that if a president is doing a good job why should he not be allowed to continue to serve. Moreover, they fear that we may face a situation where the Constitution requires change when the nation may benefit from the current officeholder staying on during a national emergency or war.

Should the 22nd Amendment be repealed as an impediment to the people's democratic expression? Or is it good to institutionalize change every 4-8 years?

Should the filibuster be ended?

One major difference between the way the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives conducts their business is the existence of the Senate filibuster. In short, there is unlimited debate in the Senate, providing a minority of senators the opportunity to forestall the passage of legislation they oppose. The filibuster became a tool that opponents of the civil rights legislation in the 1960's used to slow down legislation that would have expanded voting rights, particularly in the South. In fact, Strom Thurmond unsuccessfully fought such a law when he filibustered for 24 hours. In more recent years, the filibuster has been used not only to grind the legislative process to a crawl but, to also prevent a president's nominees for judgeships and executive department positions to be confirmed. Democrats in the early part of this decade filibustered several of President Bush's choices for federal judgeships. With the Democrats regaining control of the Senate, Republicans have returned the favor in record numbers of filibusters against President Obama and his choices for judgeships and other administrative positions.

A cloture motion is need to end a filibuster. Cloture is successful when 60 senators vote to end debate. With the use of the filibuster on the rise, it has raised, the minds of some, concerns that the Senate has become inefficient and unable to conduct business in a timely fashion. The idea that the legislative process operates upon the principle of majority rule has been been replaced by the notion that nothing gets done in the Senate without a supermajority of 60 votes. With Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts, the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, effectively giving the GOP a veto over any Democratic legislative proposals even if they have substantial support. And, if and when, the tables are turned, the Democrats are likely to return the favor. As a result, there have been calls for reforming the filibuster, with some even suggesting it be eliminated. Should it be eliminated? Or is there some reform that can retain it as a useful tool without derailing the legislative process?

(Here are some links that you may find useful):

Debatepedia
Tom Harkin Interview
History of the Filibuster
Newsweek Article
Cloture Motions in the 111th Congress

One year later assessing Obama

"Will the public conclude that his policies worked, however much they may cost and however much they may entail more government intervention in the economy? Or will they regard his agenda as intrusive and ineffective big government? What steps may Obama take to alleviate public discontent over these first-year decisions?"

Read this article from the Washington Post and provide your assessment of President Obama's first year in office.