Jason Cannon
Unit 1-3
I read one article on this from the BBC and one from the Herald Sun. The Herald Sun had more info and also seemed more biased. Their information was mostly the same.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24178690
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/us-republicans-vote-to-defund-obamacare-risking-government-shutdown/story-fni0d2cj-1226724237350
Synopsis:
On October 1, the government will shut down unless temporary budget plans are set up. The House of Representatives (largely Republican) passed a bill that would allow the government to avoid shutdown as well as stopping the Obamacare funding. The Senate said that they would reject this bill, and the President said that he would veto it if it made it to him. The articles also talk about the debt ceiling needing to be raised soon, but I will focus on the House's bill.
Detailed Analysis:
Harry Reid said that the "Republicans are simply postponing for a few days the inevitable choice
they must face: Pass a clean bill to fund the government, or force a
shutdown." The Republican Speaker of the House said, "The American people don't want the government shut down, and they don't want Obamacare." The article on the Herald Sun said that the Tea Party was the major cause behind the part in the bill about defunding Obamacare.
This current event is a great example of checks and balances. Even though the House of Representatives passed a bill, that bill will not go into effect unless it passes both the Senate and the President. In this situation, the bill will not even make it through the Senate. This system causes government stalemates to occur often. If the House of Representatives will not allow a new budget bill that still funds Obamacare to pass, then the government could be in shutdown for a while. I think that the House is fine to want to get rid of Obamacare, but compromise needs to be reached in order for the government to keep functioning. It may not be too smart for the House to be super stubborn on the needed budget bill.
The two party political system is also demonstrated in this current event. The Republicans in the House and the Democrats in the Senate disagree and cause issues like this to arise. These disagreements are good for our nation and keep each party in check. I think that the Republicans should be able to disagree with the Democrats on the issue of Obamacare and that they can attempt to pass bills to stop it. But there comes a point in which compromise has to be reached in order to keep the government running (literally). It seems to me that the Republicans in the House are trying to fight a losing battle by trying to get rid of it on this bill. I still think they should still fight it, but not in this particular way.
If it is true that the Tea Party was the cause of the part of the bill defunding Obamacare, then this current event also shows how powerful aggressive factions are in political parties. Just like we talked about today in class, factions have the power to greatly influence a party to do what it was not planning to do (as the Herald Sun says the Tea Party did).
Friday, September 20, 2013
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Doubts raised about independence of White House panel on NSA privacy
September 14, 2013
Jason Cannon
Unit: Federalism (expanding power of federal gov, constitution)
Synopsis:
A committee was formed by President Obama to look into the NSA and determine if its acts are constitutional and if it is helping the gov and not hurting the people. This committee has received lots of criticism because of the members assigned to it and because of its inability to potentially do anything. President Obama apparently said that the committee would be made up of outside sources, but four of the five members of the committee have worked in the government and/or intelligence related jobs.
Detailed analysis/comments:
As I read the fact that this committee was going to try to determine the constitutionality of the NSA's acts, I wondered how they, or anyone could do that. Many issues today could never have been projected 200 + years ago when the constitution was written, and so luckily the constitution was left somewhat open in terms of the national governments power by the "necessary and proper" clause. But this also results in much controversy regarding what is "necessary" for congress to carry out its powers and what is "proper" in carrying out those powers. I think that this uncertainty favors the national government because they can claim that anything they are doing is "necessary and proper." By saying this I do not mean that the national government should not have powers that are not specifically stated in the constitution. I recognize that things have changed drastically and the national gov needs to do several things through the "necessary and proper" clause. But I do think that the constitutionality of something is very difficult to determine based on how much things have changed and the many different interpretations of the constitution. How far should the government be able to go to protect the country? Are they violating individual rights by invading their cell phone/internet privacy? These questions are very difficult to answer with the constitution.
The white house released a written statement on this committee which said, "The review group will assess whether, in light of advancements in communications technologies, the United States employs its technical collection capabilities in a manner that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy while appropriately accounting for other policy considerations, such as the risk of unauthorized disclosure and our need to maintain the public trust." The words "other policy considerations" make it seem that it is not a matter of constitutionality, but a much lighter matter. When talking about the committee, Steven Aftergood said, "Basically, they're saying, 'Well how can we optimize surveillance while taking privacy in to account?'". The written statement by this White House makes me want to agree with this guy.
In the article it talked about many people being critical of the President's appointed committee, especially because he said that they would be outside sources. Many think that they will find nothing wrong with the actions of the NSA. I agree with their criticism and think that they make a great point. Those who have done work associated with the government's intelligence agencies are probably not those who would find something wrong with the NSA. It might make them look bad. The article pointed out, though, that the committee could surprise everyone and prove the criticism wrong. It also said that even if the committee does find something wrong with the NSA actions it would not be able to do anything. I think that the committee itself couldn't do anything, but by stating what they thought they could influence the president's decisions and the decision's of congress.
I don't have a solution to figuring out if what the NSA is doing is constitutional (and I don't know if there is a great solution), but I don't think that the answer lies in this specific five person committee.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/07/201463/doubts-raised-about-independence.html#.UjUvD39qmRN
Jason Cannon
Unit: Federalism (expanding power of federal gov, constitution)
Synopsis:
A committee was formed by President Obama to look into the NSA and determine if its acts are constitutional and if it is helping the gov and not hurting the people. This committee has received lots of criticism because of the members assigned to it and because of its inability to potentially do anything. President Obama apparently said that the committee would be made up of outside sources, but four of the five members of the committee have worked in the government and/or intelligence related jobs.
Detailed analysis/comments:
As I read the fact that this committee was going to try to determine the constitutionality of the NSA's acts, I wondered how they, or anyone could do that. Many issues today could never have been projected 200 + years ago when the constitution was written, and so luckily the constitution was left somewhat open in terms of the national governments power by the "necessary and proper" clause. But this also results in much controversy regarding what is "necessary" for congress to carry out its powers and what is "proper" in carrying out those powers. I think that this uncertainty favors the national government because they can claim that anything they are doing is "necessary and proper." By saying this I do not mean that the national government should not have powers that are not specifically stated in the constitution. I recognize that things have changed drastically and the national gov needs to do several things through the "necessary and proper" clause. But I do think that the constitutionality of something is very difficult to determine based on how much things have changed and the many different interpretations of the constitution. How far should the government be able to go to protect the country? Are they violating individual rights by invading their cell phone/internet privacy? These questions are very difficult to answer with the constitution.
The white house released a written statement on this committee which said, "The review group will assess whether, in light of advancements in communications technologies, the United States employs its technical collection capabilities in a manner that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy while appropriately accounting for other policy considerations, such as the risk of unauthorized disclosure and our need to maintain the public trust." The words "other policy considerations" make it seem that it is not a matter of constitutionality, but a much lighter matter. When talking about the committee, Steven Aftergood said, "Basically, they're saying, 'Well how can we optimize surveillance while taking privacy in to account?'". The written statement by this White House makes me want to agree with this guy.
In the article it talked about many people being critical of the President's appointed committee, especially because he said that they would be outside sources. Many think that they will find nothing wrong with the actions of the NSA. I agree with their criticism and think that they make a great point. Those who have done work associated with the government's intelligence agencies are probably not those who would find something wrong with the NSA. It might make them look bad. The article pointed out, though, that the committee could surprise everyone and prove the criticism wrong. It also said that even if the committee does find something wrong with the NSA actions it would not be able to do anything. I think that the committee itself couldn't do anything, but by stating what they thought they could influence the president's decisions and the decision's of congress.
I don't have a solution to figuring out if what the NSA is doing is constitutional (and I don't know if there is a great solution), but I don't think that the answer lies in this specific five person committee.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/07/201463/doubts-raised-about-independence.html#.UjUvD39qmRN
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)