A resource for John Marshall's Advanced Placement English and Government class. Woo-hoo!
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.
posted by erdecker @ 12:16 PM
31 comments
Enchanted April at Roc Rep Jan 2016 (Sound Design). Donnybrook's Dilemma Murder Mystery Jan 10 (Donnybrook actor). Valentine's Murder Mystery at Plummer House Feb 13 (actor). Ole and Lena in Love at Rochester Sons of Norway March 19 (Director).
31 Comments:
Since 2007, the Senate Historical Office has shown, Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters more than 360 times, a historic record. This many filibusters leads to gridlock and a decrease in progress in congress. Do you think that there should be a limit on how many times a party can filibuster in a period of time?
-Sarah Leichty
I certainly think that there should be a set number of times a party can filibuster in a period of time because it dramatically slows down the progress that could be made towards actually solving the nations problems. Filibustering only hurts the attempts of others to make changes to improve the nations well being.
Cetainly filibustering dramatically decreases the productivity of congress and thus must be stopped. However, instead of limiting the amount of time a filibuster can go on, what if we just made sure that the filibuster has to stay on topic? That would change the tactic of filibustering from that of stalling for time to that of overwhelming the senate with information about the topic.
another issue: congress makes decisions on a wide variety of topics. Although committees and subcommittees help increase the amount of knowlege the ultimate writers of a law have on a subject, congressional representatives simply do not have the knowlege or background of a bill that it's proposers have. Can congress still make well informed decisions without this background?
Another issue: Is pork barrel spending (money towards federal projects, grants, and contracts available to cities, businesses, colleges, and institutions) being used incorreclty in order to buy votes of legislatures? Would it be worth cutting this spending in order to help save the government money in the long run?
I researched Michaela's topic a bit and found a source about congress using "consultations" to make decisions. The website www.businessofgovernment.org writes that, "The Government Accountability Office (GAO) works for Congress and is a big proponent of performance-informed decision making." The article goes on to describe a report that the GAO has put out on how Congress can effectively use performance information produced by federal agencies to make better decisions. Furthermore, the report includes examples of congressional committees using performance information to help guide their decision-making process. The examples include decisions on key issues such as immigration, HIV/AIDs, and "improper payments." Part of GAO’s overall findings were that when agencies worked with Congress in a consultative fashion, there was a higher degree of congressional engagement when using performance information.
-Sarah Leichty
I heard that Congress was thinking about creating a Facebook page, so I decided to look it up:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/congress?fref=ts
Do you think this will be an effective way for Congress to reach out the voters?
Should the government support democracy abroad if the country isn't accepting it?
Wesley Cammon
There should be a limit on the amount of times a party can filibuster. If they abuse the ability to stall and force the opposing party to agree with them. They should make some rules about filibustering to limit it for the parties.
Congress creating a Facebook page will be effective to some extent. I'm sure people aren't going to get on everyday just to see what congress has posted. But on the other hand there are people who will, probably older people who are really into politics though. I don't think it will help them appeal to younger crowds.
I think the money used for pork barrel spending should be cut. If legislators are using this money to buy votes and bribe people they obviously haven't done enough in office to gain votes. Also they have financed the dumbest things.
http://www.investinganswers.com/education/global-economic-crisis/13-most-absurd-pork-barrel-spending-projects-2010-1583
I had a question: if congress can keep proposing bills, even after they have been shot down, can they just make small changes to it until it gets passed?
I think that yes they can keep proposing the same bill with small changes. The bill will only pass when those small changes start to become larger changes that appeal to the majority of congress.
Wes, even though the older generations are starting to use social media more and more, don't you think they would continue to use the news as a resource more than Facebook? Yes, people would be getting information directly from Congress, but I feel as if the older generations will continue to rely on CNN, NBC, and the like.
I feel like this is aimed more at our generation, although it doesn't seem to me like that is going to be a great outreach, either.
I doubt that congress will be able to effectively use a facebook page. Facebook's momentum is spearheaded by the younger generation, yet the average age of a house member is 55 while the average age of a senator is 60 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15348258/ns/politics/t/grayest-congress/). While a facebook page might provide congress with a way to provide more information to the public, it is unlikely that congressmen would know how to best utilize it. Also, Facebook pages require a certain amount of interest in order to find. With approval ratings of congress so low, I don't think that very many peopl will be willing to find, like, and follow a congressional facebook page.
So this may be a stupid question, but in order for a bill to become a law, (we learned the whole process) it has to be approved by both houses and the president (long story short) blah blah blah, so then what? Do the states have to "approve of them? Do the member of congress come back to the states and explain them to their consitituants? Just curious...
Alicia
Why must the President be a naturalized citizen of the United States? Maybe there should be a year requriment instead of being born here?
Bryan Flanagan
Alicia, I believe that a law that is passed by the National Congress is added as a law that the whole Country must abide to. One the other hand, if a law is passed by any state Congress, only that state has to abide to what that law says. Only constitutional amendments must be ratified by all the states.
-Janek Walker
Connor, Yes, even if a bill is shot down midway through the process of passing it, they can send it back to the beginning as many times as they want to tweak it as much as possible for it to be passed. This process of sending the bill back to the beginning takes a lot of time, but it is very possible for it to happen.
-Janek Walker
I have a question that has been on my mind was is all the checks and balances on the congress totally necessary? I to agree with some checks and balances to limit the power of congress to the point where it seems like they get nothing done seems ridiculous.
Bryan, I have also wondered this but I also think that there should be a requirement on how long the candidate must be in congress before becoming a presidential candidate so they have time to learn and become acquainted with the system more.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree with Michaela that Congress probably would not be able to use Facebook effectively as there are some logistical issues such as what would be posted and how. I don't think Facebook's layout is optimum for informing younger people interested in politics especially when the Congress website is pretty good at keeping information available.
Why is gerrymandering legal? I'm aware that like the filibuster, it is a tactic that Congress can use to get party interests into the forefront but shouldn't the parties be more for passing laws that help the welfare of the general public rather than partisan interests?
As the new session of congress begins, many are calling it a "lame duck" session. Is it ethical for congresspeople to not attempt to get things done since they've been reelected for their last term? Why don't they have to do their best during every session?
Why is the House of Representatives allowed to recess whenever they want? Is the Senate also allowed to do this?
Nate,
I don't think that a presidential candidate necessarily should have been a congress member to do a good job in the executive position. While the experience is good, it also could be detrimental. If a candidate is not embroiled in the partisans divide they might have a more rational, and central leaning allowing the public's needs to be more fairly and quickly met.
On the negative side of filibuster limits, a party may work to pass extreme legislation after they have reached their limit. Having concrete limits to the number of filibusters may lead to abuse.
@Nate and Ekram,
I think a more personal experience with Congress would be beneficial to a potential President. Better understanding the workings of Congress -- as long as the candidate remains relatively bipartisan -- would be beneficial for knowing how to step across party lines and unite Congress.
Do you think that when trying to get elected, does the candidate want to appear as more of a common everyday U.S. citizen or more professional look?
In response to Adnan's question, I think that US voters want a little bit of both. We can see by past elections that some "common" candidates, like Sarah Palin, come off as a bit unqualified for the position. United States residents don't want a vice-president who can't name the jobs of the vice-president. The same can be true for a candidate who seems so "professional" that he is out of touch with the wants and needs of his constituents. Some opponents to Romney's bid for presidency took to citing Romney's wealthy status as a reason to not vote for him. The Washington Times posted an article titled, "Is Mitt Romney too rich to be president?" in which Diane Sawyer was quoted as asking Mitt if he was “too rich to relate to the American public.” Being rich doesn't mean that the American puclic won't elect the candidate, but if the public views the money as a barrier, the candidate won't have much luck convincing them otherwise. The candidate has to work to come off as open to the American public while having the status of a capable candidate who is intelligent and qualified.
-Sarah Leichty
Post a Comment
<< Home