Symposium 6th hour
Feel free to post great questions or leave amazing comments that you didn't get a chance to make during our time on Wednesday. You may post right up until 3:03 on Thursday the 8th of Nov.
Mr. Thompson
A resource for John Marshall's Advanced Placement English and Government class. Woo-hoo!
27 Comments:
We know that the franking privileges for Congressmen allows them to use postal services for free, but what are their expenditures? What do they actually have to pay for on their own?
- My-Linh Vo
What is the purpose of censuring a Congress official? How does this benefit the other members of Congress as well as our country? Does this really achieve anything, or is it just an official way of "calling someone out" for a sense of self satisfaction?
- Sarah Owens
I looked into this idea of censure when researching for the symposium and found that the members of Congress censured lose their committee chairs, so it isn't just a "calling out", it does have effects. The purpose of censure is to express displeasure concerning conduct of a member or a presiding officer. While this doesn't seem that it would achieve anything in itself, it is the warning that would come before suspension, removal, or further action. Making the warning public can affect the member being called out and the relationships between that member and others - discouraging similar behavior in the future from that particular member as well as others witnessing. This discourages actions such as neglect of duties, bribery, and misconduct.
-Melissa Parry
Censure is a warning to show disapproval, but it appears that if there are more serious problems, fines, suspension, and expulsions could be taken into consideration. For example, in the Senate, a simple majority/two-thirds majority vote could be taken to remove a senator from office.
- My-Linh Vo
This Censure also works as a way of showing voters what some elected officials are doing wrong. This way people won't vote for them in the future. Censure can be used as a way to rid congress of immoral senators and representatives.
~Grace Allen
We have talked about congress' lack of productivity and we've decided it is due to the bipartisan House and Senate, but I heard that Clinton also had a bipartisan congress, yet he was able to get lots of stuff passed. How is our congress different? Who is really to blame for congress' lack of productivity? President? Congress themselves? Founding Fathers?
In your own opinion, is it too hard or too easy to pass a law? Please explain why and how to change the system in order to appease you.
Since we have a colored President, this question doesn't really ever gets thought about, although there are instances of racism still alive in our country. Is there a committee or group that deals with the issues of prejudice and racism in Congress? If yes, what is it called? If not, would you think that it'd be beneficial to have one present in Congress?
- My-Linh Vo
Do representatives/senators ALWAYS vote the way the party they are associated with tells them to? Or do you think there is ever times where republicans/democrats either approve/disapprove of a bill or topic and vote on personal opinion rather than party? I sure hope so, otherwise to me it seems as if the representatives are puppets of their party.
-Aaron Grad
Do you think that it's strange that even though the VP of the US is constitutionally defined as the President of the Senate, they usually slight on their senatorial duties and leave them to the Senate majority leader? What causes them to do this in the first place?
-Aaron Grad
IN REPLY TO LARSEN:
I personally agree with the level of difficulty to pass a law. In my opinion if it was any easier to do so, there would be many laws that might not be 'necessary and proper.' Another reason I think that the process to pass a law is sturdy in it's process is that it is a perfect example of checks and balances as it prevents one branch from passing any laws that may be overly beneficial to one group and detrimental to another. I wouldn't change a thing about our lawmaking process.
-Aaron Grad
Because congress is not as diverse as the US population, congress is a substantive representation of the people, not a descriptive. Why do congress spend so much money on campaigning if it doesnt guarantee a win? Is spending so much money good or bad for the economy? Why do PACs have to help with campaigning? How is a caucus different from a committee? How are Congressional assisstants/staff chosen?
--Emily Sands
How do they decide who will draw the district lines for each state?
--Kaitlyn Zander
What are the qualifications to run for office in the House of Representatives and the Senate?
--Kaitlyn Zander
Requirements~
Senate:
1)Must be 30 years old
2) U.S. citizen for the past 9 years.
3) At time of election must be an inhabitant of the state.
House:
1)Must be 25 years old
2) U.S. citizen for the past 7 years.
3) At time of election must be an inhabitant of the state.
--ClaireO
Why do you think that if the presidential race were to be 269-269 that the House gets to choose the President and the Senate chooses the vice president?
--ClaireO
So one of the powers of congress is "Power to conduct oversight proceedings". What exactly is that?
Also if the tie comes in a predidential race the house gets to deside president. specifically the majority leader chooses the president and the minority chooses the V. My question is why would the entire house just vote for who they want as the President, vice president duo?
I also have a question regarding succession, if the president should be removed from office the vp takes the role as president. Well who becomes the new vp then? does the senate vote for a new senate leader/VP?
~Barry Sawyer
What do you believe would happen if every time a party got presidency, they got the minimal advantage in the House? Do you think this would help get things done?
If the VP were to take office, then the Speaker of the House would take his place, who in this case is John Boehner.
--ClaireO
I think that this is because with the house of reps you get more of a representation of the states and there is a larger number of them therefore the vote is a lot better than the senate.
Censuring seems like an exaggerated way to warn someone. By taking them out of their seat, wouldn't that hurt the country because now they have to find someone to fill the spot? Or would it be good because there'd be one less person going against decisions?
-kelli tobin
Even though Clinton had a bipartisan congress, our congress today probably still isn't getting done because of it being bipartisan. There are probably different people in congress now and they are less able to compromise. The congressmen today stick to their decisions more.
That comment above is my comment.
Kelli tobin :p
The house represents the people and since this democracy is based on what people want it makes sense because the people's views are represented for president instead of senate.
Kelli t
Why are people ok with gerrymandering? Wouldn't it be better if senators had a set amount of time to speak for a bill? Then, even though one party's bills may be accepted more often, at least something would be passed in congress.
Kelli tobin
In response to ashlan's question, I don't think having the president's party have minimal advantage in the house would make decisions come faster because bills need to be signed off by house, senate and the president. So having differing views in any of those areas can ruin a bill.
Kelli tobin
How do you tell if censoring is being used correctly? For all you know the person being censored my be silence because they are aware of corruption. If they are censored it will reflect badly on them and make their words ineffective if they were to reveal the truth. No one will believe them because since they are the censored one they must of have done something wrong.
Naima Yusuf
Post a Comment
<< Home