Guest Blogger: Brennan Arendt

For the past week we have been performing our own Brave New World Plays. We have been looking into various trends that could spiral out of control. At the beginning I thought that it would be difficult to think of modern day trends just like Huxley did but it turned out that there are many different trends now that could lead to dire consequences. My group performed our skit on pollution, but I know that many groups performed skits on technology. It is freighting to think of how much technology could change our lives for the worse. By being so obsessed with new technology people may begin to lose social interaction leading to people hardly ever interacting face to face with each other because they do not know how. The whole point of the skit, I believe, was to show us that many trends can lead to negative impacts later on and we need to be sure to be aware of these negative impacts and to work against them, as well as teaching others that the paths their on could lead to destruction. Last week and this week I also enjoyed watching the plays about the various cabinets. It’s amazing the different jobs that each cabinet has and also how they all work together to try to make America the best place it can be. Another cool thing about these skits was how creative some of our fellow classmates are. They turned what could have been a boring lecture into something entertaining as well as informative.

Guest Blogger: Kelsey Hanson

In class we have discussed and viewed the congressional district lines of Minnesota. After doing some research, I have found that if the governor and the legislature cannot agree on district lines, they will be drawn by the judicial branch. Many states have avoided this issue by having an independent redistricting commission, Minnesota not being one of the 12 states which have done so. In the last 4 redistricting session 3 of the times we have need the judicial branch to step in and it appears that it will now be 4 out of 5. States such as California, Arizona, and Washington all have found independent redistricting commissioning effective and just.
Some organizations such as, Draw The Line, have tried to give the general population a larger say by gathering opinions and hosting open debates. This group has republicans, democrats, and independents strive to get to best and most truthful results. The opinions and maps given to the 5-judge panel by organizations can substantially help, while allowing people to exercise their democratic rights. By having a small group of all parties, that are willing to compromise and not looking to gain votes themselves, the best redistricting is created. When it’s purely bipartisan the two sides will always be polar opposite. Another group was created by the GOP called Minnesotans of Fair Redistricting was formed to persuade the court with the help of prominent legal figures. First though, these citizens are educated on the purpose and process of drawing the legislator/ congressional lines. In this way, the people have more say in this process, hopefully avoiding uneven districts and gerrymandering. With the deadline of February 21 coming faster than the judges may expect, hopefully the opinions and maps drawn by the citizens can provide the state with the crown option.

Guest Blogger: Kjirsten Savage

The past few days we have been working on our cabinet presentations. Each group creating a PowerPoint Presentation and a skit to teach the class what their department is responsible for. The power points represent what their department stands for and informs us of some of the offices within the departments, along with telling us who the current secretary of the department is. Today (Thursday Nov. 17) we were fortunate to have a speaker come to talk to us about depression and suicide. Mr. Decker and Mr. Thompson stressed that they are available to talk to and call if you are having a difficult time, both academically and emotionally. Their phone numbers and email addresses are on the Syllabus and the Summer reading booklet. Or you are welcome to come talk to them privately. In English we were allotted time to work with our groups on our Brave New World 2 presentations, which will be happening this coming week. With your skits, make sure you show a present time (2011) example of the trend being focused on. This present time section is a good chunk of the grade. Continue writing and revising your Brave New World essays. They are due on Tuesday the 22nd of November. Proposals were handed back. Mr. Decker made a note on many papers to make sure to answer ‘so what’ on your trend. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask.

Eric Decker 507.358.6869

Guest Blogger: Tricia DeWeerdt

On Friday, due to Mr. Decker's unfortunate absence, we spent the entire class learning about different parts of the Executive Department through various skits and songs. The Agriculture rap/song taught us that the Agriculture Department will ensure that everyone in the United States has an abundant and safe food supply to the best of their abilities. The Justice Department's rap/song gave us three general ideas of how the Justice Department is involved in federal law enforcement, the supervising of federal ocurts, and prison rule. Labor entertained us through various mini skits that came to the basic message that they make sure laborers are treated fairly by their employers and not taken advantage of. Energy brought in three super heros to show that they want everyone in the United States to have enough energy but that it is also as efficient as possible. Finally, Homeland Security rounded out the day with a skit informing us that we are protected from terrorist attacks and will receive help during national disasters. All of these were fun and informative and really lent insight into how the Presidential Cabinet functions and how they help to make sure various areas that the government deals with has help and ensures that it runs as smoothly as possible. It seems impossible to imagine a President not having so many advisors around who specialize in various areas. George Washington was extemely intelligent in beginning this trend and it's good to know that all subsequent president's also viewed this group of advisors as imperative.

Guest Blogger: Kristimari Kaiya

In the past few days we have been working on finding trends in today’s society and have developed futuristic applications to explain what the world would be like should the given trend advance. Although I know this assignment is not meant focus on patterns Aldous Huxley expressed in his novel, Brave New World, I could not help but think of the current issues that pertained back to his predictions as I worked on the assignment; and so with this interest in place, I continued on to do a little research on what it is we want or believe in that could eventually lead us to in creating such a desolate society, for it is safe to say that few who have read Brave New World would want such an existence. The most frequent answer I encountered pertained to our innate desire for a certain level equality and a world rid of most painful. Even with our varied political social preferences, it is still safe to say that to a certain extent, we all are working for a sense of a peaceful communal harmony with others, which may be established through making everyone equal, or just having everyone be satisfied with their positions in life. Wasn’t this probably the original intention of the forefathers of Huxely’s dystopian society? We may not have any evident movements today that work towards an extreme social reformation, but the idea in all of us is enough to give a case for a possible outcome in the future. As for our desire to wish away pain in our life, this notion is not just limited to wanting immediate relief from physical discomforts, it expands further to our dislike of situational unpleasantness we have to live with, such as say, paying taxes. It may appear to be petty irritations, but they still pertain back to our dislike of pain discomfort; seeing as we have had the ability so far to eliminate certain inconveniences in our lives, who is to say our society will push it further in the future? Perhaps the outcome will not be as extreme as the Brave New World, but it still leaves an unsettling room for an unprecedented form of society.

Guest Blogger: Matt Broman

I learned today about the different kinds of “hats” the President wears while in office and made me think about the different “hats” I wear. For instance, I have a student hat, captain for hockey hat, and a son hat (listen to mother’s rules). This got me thinking that my roles as an individual are right up there with President Obama! I mean I have three hats, while the President has 7. My hats are pretty basic, with the exception of captain for hockey role, but I am not even the head leader for the team so I wouldn’t even count that. On the other hand, President Obama has many hats that are very complex and important. The power that I have with my “hats” is slim to none. As for President Obama? Let me name a few. First, Chief Executive hat, he has a tremendous impact on laws being passed, the option to fire/elect new officials of the executive branch, and appoints federal judges. The President also wears a hat called “Head of the State” which is considered a ceremonial role. Such as, throwing the first pitch at a baseball game or honoring veterans. Another hat the President wears is the Chief Diplomat hat. This means he consults with other countries on specific topics. I consult with the coach after practice… I think that matches up with President Obama! Ok… maybe not. So next time you think you have a lot of pressure or think you have a lot of powerful roles, maybe you should overview all the “hats” the President wears and maybe think again.

Guest Blogger: Dylon Jamison

It occurred to me this evening one of our “hypnopaedic” sayings of 2011 directly contradicts one of the main ideas of Brave New World. After a particularly horrible separation, one might be consoled and made happier by the saying “It is better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all”. The majority of people in Brave New World would immediately mark you as a heretic if you said this; the concept of subduing emotions and no delayed gratification means love doesn’t have a place. However, if everyone belongs to everybody, and if love means happiness and everyone is happy, then they are loved. Or are they loved none of the time? Their lifestyle ensures that they feel no strong emotions, neither good nor bad, and this means that there is no loving, no heartbreaking, and no feeling, only being. My general conception of love is being with someone whose company one really enjoys, and being faithful to that person. In Brave New World, their promiscuity does not fit this definition, and so I would say they are neither loved nor loving. In their world, it is better to have never loved at all (partly because it’s impossible due to conditioning, and partly because it would be socially unacceptable), but which do you so suppose is better in our society? Have we begun to track towards their normal, or are we breaking away?

Guest Blogger: Bryan Kotschevar

It occurred to me this evening one of our “hypnopaedic” sayings of 2011 directly contradicts one of the main ideas of Brave New World. After a particularly horrible separation, one might be consoled and made happier by the saying “It is better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all”. The majority of people in Brave New World would immediately mark you as a heretic if you said this; the concept of subduing emotions and no delayed gratification means love doesn’t have a place. However, if everyone belongs to everybody, and if love means happiness and everyone is happy, then they are loved. Or are they loved none of the time? Their lifestyle ensures that they feel no strong emotions, neither good nor bad, and this means that there is no loving, no heartbreaking, and no feeling, only being. My general conception of love is being with someone whose company one really enjoys, and being faithful to that person. In Brave New World, their promiscuity does not fit this definition, and so I would say they are neither loved nor loving. In their world, it is better to have never loved at all (partly because it’s impossible due to conditioning, and partly because it would be socially unacceptable), but which do you so suppose is better in our society? Have we begun to track towards their normal, or are we breaking away?

Guest Blogger: Melissa Angus

Hear that familiar sound of a slide whistle, raising in pitch? That's our budget unit. So far we've talked about taxes and all the loopholes they provide for people with the money to work around them. Loopholes for the rich? What a concept! Of course, we also talked about Social Security and the question of raising the age to actually benefit from SS. Plus, we discussed the possibility of the percentage paid to SS being raised, due to the Baby Boom era finally cashing in. Though, it doesn't help that SS is dipped into when there is money to be paid. I assume we are entitled to this entitlement if we pay into it; that's why it's an entitlement, correct? Hopefully there will be some left when I come of age.
Health Care had it's own dialogue as well; who could forget the mandatory expenditures Medicare and Medicaid? Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor. But those aren't the only mandatory expenditures our budget puts money into. No, don't forget Security and Non-Security. Those get their share, too. Plus, we have so many other expenditures, not enforced by law. These include our education spending. Legally, you don't have to be educated. And I suppose we could cut back on education spending, as long as the elderly don't mind being taken care of by a doctor who isn't quite sure if the scalpel is that sharp thingy, or that one, or protected by a lawyer who isn't quite sure about the law, but is positive that it was something along those lines.
Surplus: a word for something we haven't had in a long time. Money left over from what we budgeted for our country this year? Since when? Deficit is a word I remember much more clearly. The amount of money spent over the limit in one year. $5 one year and $5 the next. That doesn't just come out to $5, mind you. According to debt, the accumulation of deficits, $10 is the amount we owe. And isn't it grand, the amount we owe?
I loved learning about our budget, taxes, and all the money we spend here in America. If you didn't gather how I felt from this blog, then by golly, I did you a grave disservice by writing this blog without the correct amount of love I feel. Hopefully, you got my message.

--Sophia Goodner, Hour 6/7

(Here is my blog. I attached the file as well as copying and pasting it in the message space. Though, you can see that. Hope that all I needed is in there.)

Guest Blogger: Sophia Goodner

Hear that familiar sound of a slide whistle, raising in pitch? That's our budget unit. So far we've talked about taxes and all the loopholes they provide for people with the money to work around them. Loopholes for the rich? What a concept! Of course, we also talked about Social Security and the question of raising the age to actually benefit from SS. Plus, we discussed the possibility of the percentage paid to SS being raised, due to the Baby Boom era finally cashing in. Though, it doesn't help that SS is dipped into when there is money to be paid. I assume we are entitled to this entitlement if we pay into it; that's why it's an entitlement, correct? Hopefully there will be some left when I come of age.
Health Care had it's own dialogue as well; who could forget the mandatory expenditures Medicare and Medicaid? Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor. But those aren't the only mandatory expenditures our budget puts money into. No, don't forget Security and Non-Security. Those get their share, too. Plus, we have so many other expenditures, not enforced by law. These include our education spending. Legally, you don't have to be educated. And I suppose we could cut back on education spending, as long as the elderly don't mind being taken care of by a doctor who isn't quite sure if the scalpel is that sharp thingy, or that one, or protected by a lawyer who isn't quite sure about the law, but is positive that it was something along those lines.
Surplus: a word for something we haven't had in a long time. Money left over from what we budgeted for our country this year? Since when? Deficit is a word I remember much more clearly. The amount of money spent over the limit in one year. $5 one year and $5 the next. That doesn't just come out to $5, mind you. According to debt, the accumulation of deficits, $10 is the amount we owe. And isn't it grand, the amount we owe?
I loved learning about our budget, taxes, and all the money we spend here in America. If you didn't gather how I felt from this blog, then by golly, I did you a grave disservice by writing this blog without the correct amount of love I feel. Hopefully, you got my message.

--Sophia Goodner, Hour 6/7

Guest Blogger: Emily Sadeki

As we explore more and more of our government, the more frustrated I become. It seems that our politics today are centered not on the will of the people, but a constant competition between the two political parties. When creating districts, politicians manipulate the borders so that only certain people’s voices are heard. The people that are unfortunate enough to be in the minority party have little say in the matters of the state. Another frustrating component is the discussion about the candidates changing their views and tactics as an election goes on. Presidential candidates start out in the primaries acting as extremists within their parties, then after winning, they must swing back to the middle. It is a hard thing for me to wrap my mind around. Once you get into congress itself, the competition carries on. It seems as though it is a constant battle between democrat and republican, with little regard for what is best for the people as a whole. It seems as though politicians become so blinded by the ideas of their particular political party, they are unable to see the flaws in their own plans or the good in the plans of the other party. In reality, the right probably falls somewhere in the middle. It is easy to sit from the outside and criticize what our government has become, but we must realize that it became this way because the people allowed it. We have all labeled ourselves as either democrat or republican, even though we may not fully understand either. Many people have gotten their political affiliations from their parents and them from theirs. It is frustrating to watch the cycle continue and the line between the political parties grow deeper and deeper.

Guest Blogger: Emily Dillhunt

Let me first start out by saying… I’m no government buff. Government and it’s complexities confound me, probably a lot like I would confuse some others if I were to sit down and have a chat about Photoshop or the other tools I use in my art. But every once and a while, I have a brilliant moment where I understand exactly what’s going on and actually feel like I’m not that daft after all.
…This week wasn’t one of those moments. However, I did enjoy what we did in class today when we looked at the political campaign ads, which got me thinking about how exactly politicians go about attracting the popular vote, first by appealing to the extremists. After reading an article by Terry O’Neill titled ‘When Women Don’t vote, Extremists Win”, the tactic we discussed in class doesn’t look so great, when examined more closely.
The theory is that if you can get the extremists by tiptoeing out to the wingtip of your party, get their attention, and win their support, then you can scurry back to the safe midline, hopefully dragging them with you. But O’Neill’s argument calls for action: by appealing to the crowd who believes in taking away any and all rights to abortions in the united states ‘even in cases of rape, incest, or to protect a woman’s health”, eight or more candidates for the 2010 elections said that they would support that viewpoint. Even if these candidates aren’t specifically doing this to gather up extremists, it still made me realize something I hadn’t thought of in class.
When a politician appeals to the party members who are on the verge, they aren’t the only ones listening. If their political stance is more midline, and supporters surround them, isn’t it better to simply appeal to where they honestly stand than it is to stretch the truth so that you can stretch out of your reach and grab some extra support? There are people listening who, had that politician been completely honest, might agree with him, but now that the common ground between them is becoming distanced, might back up a little and back off? Sometimes to appeal to one group (like the always pro life supporters) a politician might loose the support of another group (such as the women’s rights activists). So isn’t it better to just stay where you have the support of the average-stancers, than it is to risk reaching out for the extremists? I don’t believe this is a very good tactic specifically for that reason, but it’s also something I would like feedback on so that I can take it a little more in depth.

((http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-oneill/when-women-dont-vote-the-_b_775374.html))

Guest Blogger: Vishvesh Dave

The Super Committee for a Super Problem

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/25/still-plenty-of-time-for-a-deal-super-committee-co-chair-says/

A “super committee” has been called upon to make a plan to stop the exponential growth of our debt, already topping $1.5 trillion. “But Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, said while he was "hopeful" the group would reach a deal by the deadline, he wasn't yet confident the weeks of discussions were developing the outlines of an agreement. “Hopeful is not confident," the number two House Democrat emphasized.” Our ever expanding debt is a growing concern that leaves the leaders of our nation in confusion. Later in the article, Hoyer stated that the best they can do is give the people of America confidence. How can they give us confidence when they don’t have any themselves? The 12 representatives hold a large part of our economic future in their hands, only 12. 12 people attempting to figure out how to reduce $1.5 trillion while the Republicans and Democrats fight about which jobs plan is better. Such a large problem should be attended by more than just 12 representatives while the other 423 just sit back and watch. Lastly, some questions to think on: Can we really diminish the monstrous amount of debt we owe to other nations? What about all the money that other countries owe to us?

Guest Blogger: Tram Nguyen

“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made”
– Otto Von Bismark

This was the quote of the day in government. It’s an analogy, claiming that the process of passing a law is as messy as the process of making sausage. Law making may easily start with an idea proposed as a bill, but turning at bill into a law is a long and complex process.
A bill is like a painting and a song. It must be seen by many pair of eyes, and heard by many sets of ears to be appreciated and turned into a law. If the bill does not satisfy the majority, it may be revised and try once more to become a law.
The first step is the easiest, proposing a bill. Both the House of Representatives and senate are able to create bills. Thousands of bills are proposed and need to be organized to be sent to its specific committees in the house or senate. Committees are groups of members of congress that look at specific bills depending on its topic. These committees examine the bill and go through many hearings to decide whether it should be passed. With in these committees are subcommittees, which focus more on a specific part of the committee. For example, one committee might be Finances and Military, so a subcommittee might be Nuclear weapons, focusing on certain weapons. These committees tear every bit of info proposed into pieces, evaluating whether it is worth becoming a law. After the thorough evaluation of the bill, if the bill is acceptable, it will be passed on to be referred to by the whole house. This includes hearings and debates to persuade other congressmen to vote for the bill. Now, the bill can be recommitted and get sent back to the committees (if approved) or it can be voted on. This process is used in both the senate and the House of Representatives. Once the bill has been voted on, it is then sent to the president who may approve of the bill and sign it. If for some reason the president does not agree with it, the president may veto it. Once vetoed, the bill is sent back to congress, where it is voted on again. This time, it will take two-thirds of the votes to override the president’s veto. If it is signed by the president or overrides the veto, the bill then becomes a proper law.
This method of making laws may be “messy”, but I feel it is the best and most efficient way to pass laws in this country. Having many eyes and ears go through the proposed bill is also a good thing because it minimizes the chances of passing a bad law with mistakes. Sure it may take time, but it gets the job done in a more prudent way, being checked and carefully considered by committees. With committees, congress does not have to waste time reading every single bill, of which may not be eligible to be passed. Plus the process of sending it through different processes of votes along with allowing the president to veto and congress to override the veto prevents tyranny or a monarchy. The use of checks and balances in the process of making a law is fair because it requires more than one person to make a decision. Our country has been using this “messy” process for 112 sessions of congress, so I believe that creating a bill will always be like making sausages.

Guest Blogger: Jayden Shuster

Today in class we learned how a bill could potentially become a law. In the beginning of class we looked at two pictures. One was of the House of Representatives in their conference hall and the other was of sausage being made. Both of these pictures had shown the process of how something is made. Sausage doesn’t look very appealing when it’s being made; neither does a bill. It might not look satisfying in the beginning, but by the end it is looking pretty fine. A bill starts with one person introducing it, then a standing committee reviews it. If passed by majority then it is voted on by the House. If passed again it will be handed over the Senate and the same process will take place. This whole process can take months at a time, for each bill! One of the latest bills that has been made a law is the America Invents Act. This bill was addressed on March 29th of this year and was finally signed by the President as a law on September 15, 2011. Six months is a long time, but if the outcome of it is a law that makes sense and is necessary, then it is a six months I am willing to wait. The way our congress does things might be boring and seem pointless, but they are the ones that can change the rules that we follow.

Guest Blogger: Hannah Church

On Friday, we started a discussion in class about congressional committees. The main purpose of the committees is to control the congressional agenda and guide legislation. According to the text, “With more than 11,000 bills submitted by members every two years, some winnowing is essential. Every bill goes to a committee, which has virtually the power of life and death over it.” To cover the over 11,000 bills there are numerous committees, of all different focuses. Committees like the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee, the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, the Endangered Species Committee, and various others. Each committee is made up of both Republicans and Democrats. However, the numbers are not typically distributed evenly. The majority party sets the proportion of minority members to majority members. So the majority party has an advantage. Is this justifiable? Should the committees change so that the two parties have equal representation? It would be ideal if the committees were evenly distributed. That way, the majority wouldn't pass legislation purely because it would be in the interest of that party. In theory it would be beneficial, because the members would have to negotiate. That could mean more thought being put into each bill and better legislature going through. However, I also think the uneven committees can be justified. Legislation could standstill if the numbers were even. Each party would want the bills more suited to the principles of their party. As previously stated, the members could negotiate. There is a higher chance that the members would be stubborn, persistent to forward the legislation they want. With equal numbers, there would be a struggle to pass the bills that they are given; especially if each party wants to forward a different set of bills. That would be the the reason legislation would standstill. So, it would be fair if the committees had equal party representation however it would likely be too impractical.

Guest Blogger: Bektu Solomon

We’ve just started learning about the division of Congress in Government and a large portion of the lectures up to this point have been focused on districts and their election/campaigning process; how states are divided, how representatives are chosen, how parties try to gain majority through gerrymandering, etc. etc. I don’t know why I’ve never noticed this, but apparently there are 468 people (house and senate included) running for re-election or election EVERY two years. Mr. Thompson actually commented that house members are practically constantly campaigning because they’re up for election almost all the time. That comment sparked a little “aha” moment in my head at the time; I’ve always wondered how elections got so messed up and diluted, how they became more about slandering your opponent then sitting down and discussing the candidates’ HONEST agenda and position. I’ve found an answer! Or at least part of the answer. Candidates, especially in the house, are constantly in limbo; they’re always having to fight for their jobs. I know that the majority of the time the incumbent wins, but they still have to campaign which means that every 2 years 435 people from the house alone have to devise the quickest, most convincing argument as to why they should be allowed to stay in office and the voters have to choose over and over again who should represent them. Keeping this in mind the quickest and most foolproof way does seem to be slandering the opponent and avoiding questions regarding the actual issues. That way the candidate who dug up the most dirt about their opponent looks better in comparison and in the meantime he/she hasn’t had to make any promises he/she can’t, or doesn’t intend, to keep. The frequency of the elections also partially explains why the incumbent has a much higher success rate than newcomers. I haven’t been able to vote yet, but I imagine the process of truly understanding the political viewpoint of every candidate gets tedious, and having to repeat the process every two years is just annoying. You’d probably have to be a really dedicated or interested person to constantly stay up to date on the positions during every election and I get the feeling that most people are like me (uninterested in the positions of people who rarely tell the truth) which probably explains the whole incumbent thing. Basically, both the voters and the candidates like to take the easy way out. Which is why politicians lie and America is fat. Yay, for the election process!

Tempest

Hey APLGers! Post your short response to the pre-reading for the Tempest here.

Mr. Decker

The Plum Book

The Plum Book is a listing of over 9,000 civil service leadership and support positions (filled and vacant) in the Legislative and Executive branches of the Federal Government that may be subject to noncompetitive appointments. These positions include agency heads and their immediate subordinates, policy executives and advisors, and aides who report to these officials. Many positions have duties which support Administration policies and programs. The people holding these positions usually have a close and confidential relationship with the agency head or other key officials.

Do you know 9000 good people who you would be willing to appoint to position that would support you as President of the United States? Start making those connections so when you are President you can fill these valuble positions with capable and qualified persons.

Mr. Thompson

Keeping tabs on the President

This website lets you follow the progress of the President and everything that goes on in his place of business (aka the White House.

Spend a few free moments browsing all the stuff you get to do and the "hats" you get to wear as the president of the United States.

Mr. T

Review for Test

“CONGRESS”

50 multiple choice


Know your vocabulary

Organization of Congress (CHART)
Facts about Congress, House of Representatives and Senate
Membership Qualifications
Term of office Term limits
Method of selection Area they represent
Party representation Leadership ie. Speaker, majority leader etc.
ie. Majority party in each house

Committees
Types Influence
Purpose Choosing committee members
Actions

Congressional Powers - Be familiar with examples of the powers that are given to Congress, to the House and to the Senate.
Expressed/enumerated powers
Implied powers (necessary and proper clause or elastic clause)
Legislative powers- taxing and spending, foreign and domestic trade, foreign
policy, etc.
Non-legislative powers- choosing a president, impeachment and removal,
confirmation, ratification, proposal of amendments.
Power to investigate
Legislative oversight

“How a Bill Becomes a Law”
Know the entire process
Introduction, assignment to committee, committee work, referral to entire house
conference committee, presidential action, congressional override.

There will be some questions about our federal budget.
Vocabulary - deficit, surplus, debt, mandatory expenses, discretionary expenses,
revenue
Know the biggest expenditures and revenue sources in the budget.
Be familiar with recent trends when it comes to our gov’t’s spending, our
deficits and our debt.

Do well,
Mr. Thompson