Deep Docket

When first reading my article I had began to like the ideas of what the new term was willing to focus on. It states that the new term will focus more on consequential constitutional issues such as, campaign contributions, abortion rights, affirmative action, public prayer and presidential power. For example the case with abortion and usage of medication has taken a detour due to the fact that the court needs some clarification. So the whole idea is that this new term of justices should shape our governmental system.

Texas University’s Race Admissions Policy Is Debated Before a Federal Court

This article was actually very interesting to me, because it talked about a process that I have just recently finished: the application to college process. I certainly think that affirmative action, or admitting more people from racially minority groups, can be a good thing. However, because of affirmative action, colleges tend to accept minority students over students in the majority race simply because of their race, and not because of their grades, test scores, or extracurriculars. I believe that this way of trying to end racism, is actually, racist itself. Admitting a student into college because of his or her race is racist. Diversity is very important in colleges and universities and one thing I am looking forward to in college is meeting all different kinds of people from all over the world. However, I personally think that school's policies on affirmative action should be reformed.

Court Stuff

This article was a tad bit concerning to read. Reading about the fact that there are vacant seats in the courts is crazy to think about. We need all the seats to be filled to make sure that justice is served. One part that stuck out to me the most was “The prestigious and important United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit offers a particularly striking example of Republican obstructionism. The 11-seat court rules on most appeals from federal regulatory agencies and has exclusive jurisdiction over national security matters. It has four vacancies; the last time the Senate confirmed someone to the court was 2006.” To read that a court that deals with national security has four vacancies is scary. National security is one of the most important issues in our nation. There is no reason to have vacancies on an issue like this. Honestly there is no reason for this, everyone should want to help. This is just too important to have vacancies. 

Justices Weigh Constitutionality of New York Town’s Prayers

This article was about a current supreme court case deciding whether or not a town in New York's prayers before town meeting are unconstitutional. I believe that the town's prayer is unconstitutional, because they are being said at a government event to a public audience, and they are openly advocating christianity, which is against the establishment clause. However, I see why this could be a difficult case for the Supreme Court because, as the article mentioned, the supreme court has an invocation to God before their meetings and they have made decisions before about similar issues that could be conflicting. For instance, the article mentioned a case where a town in Nebraska's prayers were upheld, but at the same time in US History I had to study a case where public prayers before high school football games were deemed unconstitutional, so this will be a difficult case for the Supreme Court.

Recent issues with Health Care Law

One big issue that is raised right away when reading and listening to the news on the Health Care Law is the fact that some Democrats are hesitant to vote for the Health Care Law. The democrats reasoning for opposing the law isn't because they think it's a bad idea. The certain Democrats that are against the Law now are just afraid of losing their seat. Those democrats are particularly the ones that won in areas where Obama isn't really popular. Another issue that is raised when talking about the bill is that its affecting those who have been buying the health care from the individual market. With the fixes it wants the those people who have plans that expiring this year to buy from policy holders. My prediction on the issue is that this Law will be denied mainly because it is losing interest from the people and also the democrats who once supported it.

Health Care

            In the future I think that Obama will have to come back on this bill and reformat it. President Obama promised people that their plans will be grandfathered into the new policy when in fact, it will not be. I think that in the future, the bill will be re written. I believe that when it is re written, President Obama will not have as  much say as he once did based on his performance in this most recent draft. I think that both sides will come together to figure out a way to make sure that people already covered are still safe and those who are not finally get the insurance they are seeking. I do believe that the original bill that President Obama proposed will be thrown away. President Obama has done too much damage with his false promise that the only thing they should be looking to do is starting over. I think that President Obama will lose credibility because of this bill that even caused a government shut down. 

Healthcare Post

After reading my article, I got the sense that the author thought that Obama's "keep your healthcare if you like it" promise came as a result of misinformation and miscommunication. On the one hand, he meant to say that the 95% of people with insurance from their employers/medicare/medicaid could keep their coverage, and that he thought a grandfather clause would cover the other 5% who wanted to keep their coverage. However unlikely I think it is that he was not 100% informed on this law, I also realize that he wasn't actually the one writing the law, because it was probably different congressmen and their staffers writing the law, which could explain any misinformation on his part. I don't think he was flat out lying; however, the way that this is being portrayed to the public is making it seem like he flat out lied.

Even though politically the Obama Administration would need to do something to appease people who are angry about having their coverage taken, I ultimately think this is just various congressmen using this to criticize Obama for their own political gains. When you look at the big picture, the people who couldn't keep their coverage would actually be getting better coverage, and in the long run wouldn't have to pay more for emergency medical expenses. Ultimately I believe that if the Obama Administration can keep any significant legislation from being passed to change the law it will be effective and will eventually work out. Granted, the website issues didn't cast Obamacare in a good light, and then all of the current issues with politics surrounding the law are not working out, but in the end it will be beneficial for everyone and hopefully people would look favorably on the law in the 2016 election. At the same time, health care is going to be a big issue in the next elections (presidential or otherwise) so whatever stance politicians take will have to be very clear cut because of how divisive this law has become.

The Health Care Law's Effect on Politics

Just a few weeks ago, it seemed that the Democrats were in control. With a majority of Americans blaming the shutdown on Republicans, and the seemingly inevitable split in the Republican party between the Tea Party supporters and the Republicans opposing the Tea Party, it wasn't crazy to think that the Republicans could lose their majority in the House, and the Democrats would continue to control the Senate and the Presidency. Now, it isn't so likely. With Obama admitting that his "if you like your healthcare, you can keep it" promise would not be fulfilled, the Affordable Health Care Law is in shambles. Now, like the first article dictates: "(the) Republicans found their voice". All Republicans could join together in protesting the Affordable Care Act, while the House Democrats split themselves. Now the Democratic Party is slowly dividing, and a house majority in the near future seems unlikely. However, anything can happen in the next few weeks. Things changed so quickly in these past few weeks, so who's to say it won't happen again moving forward?

Gerrymandering

I really liked this article because, aside from the fact that it was very well written and logical, the writer brought up many great points that I think people should pay more attention too. It was pretty funny for me to read because my mom is pretty liberal, and while my dad is also a liberal he is less so than my mom, and they both prefer different news channels in the morning. My mom is a die-hard ABC fan and my dad doesn't care that much, but would prefer FOX or CNN (mostly because he thinks good morning America only does "housewife stories" which I sort of agree with, but besides the point). We always end up switching back and forth and its interesting because they will be talking about the same issues but in a completely different manner and using/not using completely different information, which can really skew the average person's view. I feel like since most Americans will not actively try to get their information from multiple sources, so when sources become very polarized, so does the nation, and I can see how this affects how polarized our politics have become. You could even say that this indirectly contributes to things like the government shut down because that was caused by a minority (the Tea Party) who won't even really face much trouble in their home districts since, because of gerrymandering, all of the people in their districts will be staunchly Tea Partiers! I think this points out a large flaw in our system and while news sources becoming "gerrymandered" isn't that big of an issue over all, it does point out a big flaw in our democratic process that really needs to be changed for the good of the country.

Lena Washington

When watching this video I was expecting something radical or something unique, yet instead there just a women sitting there stating who she was voting for. She also states these reasons why she is voting for Ike. For example she loves that he was willing to help in the Korean War so that's why he has her vote. And she also states that she believes that he can give the country lasting peace. And so I felt this commercial was very straightforward. In my opinion it gives the viewers the opportunity to vote who they favor but in a way it also tells them that Ike is good in these specific ways.

Gerrymandered article

This article was definitely something I had expected to hear about the media because it is scene everyday by the people to inform those who wish to be informed. What I had also learned was that our Dailey news is to please the extremists since representatives have been gerrymandered into safe districts. This definitely not the reason why I don't read the news as often but it may certainly be the reason why I am so critical and decisive when picking which news media to listen to, watch, or read about. I had not recognized what has been going on in the media but now I think it is time to pay attention and to also look at specifically how the media is portraying its news to the people.

gerrymandering response

After reading this article, everything that I knew about the media was confirmed. I previously knew that new shows and things like that were either one way or the other. It did remind me how we honestly don’t have many places where both sides are presented. We either have MSNBC (the very Democratic station), or FOX (the very republican. My parents and my friends and I have often talk about the fact that media now is either one side or the other. What I find slightly annoying is the fact that there isn’t one place that is middle ground that presents both sides equally without bashing one or the other. I think that this is because people once they have their opinion, are very hard headed and don’t want to change it. They don’t care what the other side has to say, they just wont hear it. People are just too stuck in their ways to consider another opinion that isn’t their own. 

"Gerrymandering" Reflection

After reading this article, it becomes clear to me just how separated the two political factions are in America right now. I'm pretty sure it hasn't always been that one party loves a specific news channel and despises another, and yet the people in the other party likes the exact opposite. For me, personally, I don't really get my news from a specific source, but most of my knowledge about current events comes from either chatting with classmates or from when my mom has the daily show or the colbert report on TV. I like to get information from both sides of the spectrum and make my decision then. However, it seems like most people nowadays, or at least the people that the article mentioned, won't consider anything the other side seems to say. The question I seem to be wondering now is: what would today's media look like if the Fairness Doctrine was still intact today?

Newtwon Reflection

I thought that this documentary was really interesting. I really enjoyed that it was super balanced, and not clearly leaning to one side. I love the fact that they spoke about the fact that having guns in our society is, in fact, very bad. Allowing guns in our society can lead to really bad events that we have witnessed over the past 10 years. Another reason I liked this documentary was the fact that it did point out some of the pros to allowing guns in our society. It points out the fact that having things like guns can give people a sense of comfort and security in their everyday life. Personally, I don’t know where I stand on this topic. Living in the North Shore area, I don’t really have a sense of what people go through. I don’t know what it is like to not be able to walk out of my door everyday with confidence knowing that I will walk back into the same door at the end of the day. 

"Newtown: Guns in America" Reflection

I thought that this video was extremely informative and it was very well balanced. It showed both sides of the issue and the pros and cons of their arguments. What I thought was most interesting was the contrast between gun violence in rural and urban communities. In the video, it was clear that shootings of other human beings are much more popular in the urban communities, whereas in more rural areas, guns are lots of times for hunting and gaming purposes. I live in a suburb which isn't in a city and it also isn't in the middle of nowhere, so while I am pretty safe walking alone at night in Winnetka, I also am not in an area where people are allowed to hunt animals. Being in the middle of this issue is very difficult for me because I can't really decide which side I belong to. While I do think that tighter restrictions on guns will certainly decrease the amount of mass shootings, is it really right to take away the guns that have been in certain families for generations and generations?

Reaction to "After Newtown: Guns in America

I thought this was an interesting documentary because it stated many opinions on the situation in America to bare arms. After watching most of the film I agree with one of the ideas that was stated in the documentary which was to allow people to keep their weapons if they are hunters or if the weapon came with their job. I believe that this will cut down on the deaths in the U.S. Yet another interesting thing about this documentary was that it was able to persuade me into believing that it is legal to bare arms, since I do believe that people deserve the right to bare arms but to save lives we also need to take away weapons from the people that are killing people.

Reaction to "After Newton"

I thought this was a really interesting movie because I liked how it looked at the role that guns have played in American culture. It's not something that would have occurred to me before, but guns really have been in America since our colonial days, and they've been vital to both our independence and westward expansion. Guns are so ingrained in our culture that it's hard to even notice them, so it makes sense that there would be both the Second Amendment in our constitution, and that there would be such a large debate over gun rights today. I think an interesting question this brings up is whether or not guns are really necessary in our society today, especially compared to the early days of our nation. I personally believe that guns are not necessary in modern America, because by this point our nation's military relies on a lot more than guns to win wars. Guns won't protect us from the tyranny that the founding fathers intended them to (which is why we have the Second Amendment). These days all guns do is cause violence. Then again, it will be a hard battle to rid our society of guns because of how important and central to American identity they've been for so long.

My Reaction to the Obama Article

I agreed with everything Obama stated in this article, but what I just felt that he was just saying it to please his audience. I agree that the gun laws and restrictions should be stricter. What was not surprising was that the Senate yet again rejected the idea of making the laws stricter. In this article it seemed like Obama had just repeated himself over and over again, which is frustrating because instead of talking about lets go out and do something to finally prevent events like this from happening ever again. I think Obama should have been more like Mr. Gray because in his quote which was highlighted in the article seemed more radical and I believe that's the way Obama should have gone when presenting his speech. Overall the main idea which was to have gun restrictions and to prevent guns from getting in the hands of criminals and mentally unstable people is definitely the right thing to do no matter what the Senate says.

"Do We Care Enough?"

I Personally really liked President Obama’s speech. I thought that it was well written and had a really great message. The part of the speech that stuck out to me most was the fact that President Obama didn’t make promises that he might not be able to keep. At the memorial service in Sandy Hook, he said he along with others, would do everything in their power to stop gun violence and get a handle on gun control in the nation. Whether or not he gave his all, sadly, nothing changed. In this speech however, I really appreciated the fact that he didn’t make another vow to stop this. I loved that President Obama pointed out the fact that “Our tears are not enough,” he added. “Our words and our prayers are not enough.” If Americans want to honor the 12 men and women who died at the Navy Yard, he said, “we’re going to have to change. We’re going to have to change.” This points out the fact that we, as a nation, have to be more willing to really try and get things to change. We cant just sit back and hope that something will change and everything will work itself out. It is time for all of us, not just President Obama, to stand up and try to make change happen. 

The New Normal

I think that this article really gets to me. I remember after the Connecticut shootings, I was nearly in tears of how someone could possibly kill 20 innocent children, but after the shootings in D.C., I simply stopped and thought about it for a few seconds, and then I moved on. I think that it really discourages me that I, like many other Americans, had a similar reactions. My thinking was: the killing of 13 adults isn't as bad as killing 20 children, right? I couldn't believe I was thinking that. I think Obama certainly addressed the issue the right way. There is no possible way that this is should be acceptable and the new norm of America, but what really makes me angry is how even though these shootings keep happening, change to gun control laws have yet to come. Obama has been preaching change for a long time now, but with Congress being unable to change the current laws, it is extremely unsure of when that change is to come. This is not the first mass shooting America has suffered, and it won't be the last, unfortunately. The only question now is how many shootings is America willing to suffer before it becomes too much to bare?

Reaction to NYT Article

I agree with the sentiment that people don't care enough about these mass shootings, and that at this point mass shootings have become a new 'normal'. Personally, when I first heard of this Navy Yard shooting, aside from an initial thought of "Really?" I had no real reaction, emotional or otherwise. I kind of just got on with my day.

That's definitely not OK, but I don't think I'm the only one who felt this way. I think that we've become very numb to violence in our society because of how widespread it has become. Even when President Obama does the whole "These are people, not statistics" thing, no one has a real emotional reaction any more. It's infuriating and horrifying, almost as infuriating and horrifying as the shootings themselves.

Americans should care more about things like this. Although there are definite positives to our political system, there are also definite negatives, one of which being that when something as necessary and proper as stricter gun control is in a bill in congress, it gets voted down. I believe that if the ubiquity of mass shootings these days doesn't want to make Americans ban guns, there's pretty much no hope for us in the light of gun violence.

Obama's speech was frustrating because he wants to save the people of Syria but yet he is willing to bomb Syria. There must be another solution because with the bombing of Syria it could lead to many innocent victims becoming injured or worst case scenario dead. He states that this is the way to show other countries that nuclear weapons are not allowed, but as i stated before there are many different ways to go about this situation. And what about the safety of the American people, Barack Obama puts the American in danger once he attacks Syria. Overall i feel this was a terrible decision by Barack Obama because we must try to keep innocent people from being killed.

Obama's Plea to the Nation

I personally don't know which side of the argument I am on. On the one hand I disagree with President Obama in saying the United States should intervene, but then on the other hand I do agree. One of the main reasons I disagree is the fact that innocent people have died already and I fear that more could die if we get involved. President Obama spoke about the children who have died and my question is if we don’t want more to die why should we intervene and maybe make matters worse for the people living in Syria? On the other hand, I agree to an extent with what President Obama is saying. He compares what happened and the use of gas to things like the Holocaust during World War II. This struck a chord with me. This was one of the most horrific events that has ever happened in our world’s history so why wouldn’t we do everything in our power to make sure this doesn’t happen again. Also he brings up the fact that if we don’t intervene, groups like al Qaida might see that we didn’t react and take it upon themselves to also use them. Honestly I’m not really sure how I feel. I agree with Mr. Curren in saying that I keep going back and forth with this. I will say that I really did like that President Obama had congress postpone the vote to see how the situation play out now that they have joined the chemical weapon group that will not allow them to use it.  I sincerely hope whatever choice is made turns out to be the right choice….

Obama's Speech

Obama's speech was ultimately, in my opinion, rather disappointing. If he wants to send a message that America does not tolerate the use of chemical weapons he should have done it a long time ago. Now, this isn't necessarily completely his fault since Congress has been taking so long to make a decision on the matter, but taking three weeks to do anything is just ridiculous and makes the United States look bad. He, and congress, should have made a definitive decision weeks ago. Now, the United States just looks bad from all angles, and this whole deal with Russia is really just a way for us to avoid conflict and save face. This whole mess really goes back to whether or not people are going to follow the rules set for them. In Syria's case, they used chemical weapons, breaking an international law. In Obama's case, he decided to follow the Constitution and get Congress's approval on a military strike. His speech, as well as this whole matter in general, showed some definite weaknesses in our political system, and in our place in the international community as a whole.

Obama Pleads for Americans to Act

President Obama gave a speech last night about the attack on Syria and he answered a few questions but left some unanswered. He responded to those who believe that they don't want Americans involved in another Iraq or Afghanistan by stating firmly: "I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria". He answered another question about whether a "pinprick" strike would do anything to combat the use of chemical weapons. Obama responded by saying "The American military doesn't do 'pinpricks'. Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver... A targeted strike can make Assad think twice before using chemical weapons." There were, however, pressing questions that were left unanswered. One of the questions unanswered was why, when over 100,000 people were dead before the use of chemical weapons, did the United States not act? Another was if the United States does this attack, won't innocent people, including women and children die? In this way, Obama's speech was a bit disappointing. At the end, Obama did leave the American citizens with a suggestion. He asked them to watch some of the videos online that show Syria using chemical weapons on their citizens. He then pleaded for Americans to preserve the ideals that we hold dear to our country, and join him in his quest for committing a strike on Syria.

Are we entering a new era of isolationism?

President Obama laid out his case for intervening in the Syrian conflict during his address to the nation on Tuesday night.  Throughout his speech, he addressed many of the counterarguments voiced in recent days from representatives in Congress, political commentators, and from letters sent to him by the American people.  He recognized that the country has grown tired of war after long and bloody conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He also attempted to assuage the fears of many that the United States has become the world's policeman.   Ultimately, he announced a delay in the Congressional vote authorizing the use of force so he could pursue a possible diplomatic agreement requiring that Syria dismantle its chemical weapons stockpile.

What struck me the most about President Obama's address was his reference to a speech made by Franklin Roosevelt on the eve of World War II.  In it, FDR tried to convince a nation with a long history of neutrality and isolationism to get involved in the fight against fascist tyranny.  That conflict brought a dramatic shift in US foreign policy that saw the United States taking a lead role in global affairs throughout the Cold War and beyond.  However, could the reticence of the American people towards an attack on Syria be signaling an end to this trend?  Bill Keller wrote about this in his recent column in The New York Times.  The rise of the Tea Party has even impacted the Republican party, which has promoted a hawkish view of American foreign policy since the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

Time will tell if we are indeed witnessing a shift in US foreign policy...

The following editorial written by Ross Douthat and published on September 4.  Please read it and post your thoughts.

Syria and the Constitution

After President Obama’s surprise weekend announcement that he would seek congressional approval before ordering a strike on Syria, there was a flurry of commentary praising the president for taking a step back on the march toward ever-more-expansive executive power. “It may well be the most important presidential act on the Constitution and war-making powers,” wrote Walter Shapiro, “since Harry Truman decided to sidestep Congress and not seek its backing to launch the Korean war.” Dan McCarthy suggested that the president “has chosen the occasion of a war that over 50 percent of Americans oppose to teach a civics lesson,” that this partial self-limiting is “perhaps the best thing he’s done as president,” and that a Congress that voted down the Syria authorization would be serving notice to the public and to future administrations “that Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution is still in force.”

Somehow I doubt that it will work out this way. It would be a good thing for the country if the older constitutional norms regained some force – if we declared war in cases where we now issue so-called authorizations for the use of military force, and issued authorizations in situations where presidents of both parties claim the power to act with no congressional blessing whatsoever. But when a constitutional power atrophies, it’s extremely unlikely to be restored through the kind of last-minute, poorly-thought-out, and self-undermining approach that the White House has taken in this case.

If President Obama had, from the beginning of this debate, framed the possibility of a Syria intervention as something that would of course require congressional approval, and spent the days immediately following Assad’s deployment of chemical weapons reaching out to key congressmen to make sure the votes were there, and only when he was certain gone ahead and publicly called for a resolution authorizing strikes … well, then you would have had a precedent that future presidents might feel some pressure to actually follow, because it would provide both a public civics lesson and a blueprint for how to pursue the constitutional course to a politically successful conclusion.

But so far this White House is failing on both counts. The official “lesson” that the president’s words and choices are delivering is not one that actually elevates Congress back to its Article I level of authority. Rather, it’s one that treats Congress as a kind of ally of last resort, whose backing remains legallyunnecessary for warmaking (as the White House keeps strenuously emphasizing, and as its conduct regarding Libya necessarily implies), and whose support is only worth seeking for pragmatic and/or morale-boosting reasons once other, extra-constitutional sources of legitimacy (the U.N. Security Council, Britain, etc.) have turned you down. The precedent being set, then, is one of presidential weakness, not high-minded constitutionalism: Going to Congress is entirely optional, and it’s what presidents do when they’re pitching wars that they themselves don’t fully believe in, and need to rebuild credibility squandered by their own fumbling and failed alliance management. What future White House would look at that example and see a path worth following?

Ah, you might say, but if Congress actually votes the Syria authorization down, then future presidents will feel constrained by the threat of a similar congressional veto whether they want to emulate Obama or not. Except that it’s actually more likely that future presidents will look at a congressional rejection in the case of Syria and see a case for going to Congress even lessfrequently than recent chief executives have done. The lesson will be clear enough: Presidents who ignore Congress’s Article I powers (Clinton in Kosovo, Obama in Libya) get away with it, while presidents who respect those powers set themselves up for a humiliation. It would be one thing if Congress were clearly the assertive party here — if President Obama had gone to war without asking for authorization, for instance, and had then seen funding for the operation immediately cut off and articles of impeachment issued. But since nobody imagines that would have happened, a defeat here will look much like an unforced executive branch error, rather than a case of Congress breaking decisively with its ongoing tendency to abdicate to the other branches. And future administrations will act accordingly.

It is just possible, I suppose, that if Congress votes “no” on this resolution andthen the president unwisely goes ahead with strikes anyway and then the House impeaches the president for violating his oath of office (which I agree with Ramesh Ponnuru that he would have pretty clearly done) and then the whole thing spirals out into a wild constitutional crisis that leaves this administration permanently crippled, the end result of that crisis could conceivably reshape the White House/Congress balance of power on foreign policy, and leave future administrations more constrained.

But in that unlikely scenario, nobody will look back and say that President Obama deserves credit for crafting a civics lesson.

Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria

Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria

This article was about President Obama's decision to postpone a strike on Syria and allow Congress to vote on the decision. This is one of the biggest decisions that President Obama has made during his presidency because he is giving a choice to Congress. Congress has the option to either show their support for Obama and approve the strike on Syria, or, Congress can veto the strike and allow the problems in Syria to get worse. I think that this relates a lot to what we were talking about in class because we were talking about whether or not America is based on a few strong leaders, or movements and the public opinion as a whole. Obama's decision to take this matter to Congress is a way of asking for the public's opinion, which I think is so interesting. Instead of saying that he believes we should strike Syria, Obama voices his opinion and is now letting the public share theirs. Though Obama rallied hard for an attack on Syria, he is ultimately putting the decision up for vote. Even though presidents such as Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan have gone to war without permission from Congress, but because of the British vote, Obama thinks it wiser to let Congress have an opinion. I think what will be most interesting will be if Congress veto's the strike on Syria. Since, ultimately, the decision is up to Obama, it will be interesting to see if he will stand by the decision Congress makes or act of his own accord.

U.S. Won’t Sue to Reverse States’ Legalization of Marijuana

What was interesting about this article was that it states that all states must stabilize the production and the sales of marijuana. Now that it is legal it will definitely be hard to prevent minors from getting marijuana and also gangs. Now that it is legal it should be easier to sell to both gangs and minors, so with the legalization of marijuana its obvious that there were some regulations that were not thought about. What was also interesting was that the article states with the legalization is suppose to decrease the arrests each year. This is definitely a topic that I feel should be overlooked if they really want this to succeed. That's why this article was interesting. 

Democrats See Value in Texas in Candidacy for Governor

Democrat Wendy Davis of the Texas Senate became famous this summer for her 11-hour filibuster to combat a law which would ban abortions past 20 weeks, and would effectively close a large majority of abortion clinics in Texas. She is now being encouraged by the Democratic Governor's Association and other Democrats across the nation to run for the office of Texas governor in the next election. She already has $40 million in donations ready to be used for a campaign, because many Democrats see value in her candidacy even though it is more than very likely she would not win the election. This is because Democrats believe that her having a large campaign would mean that Republicans would have to divert more funding towards Texas elections, rather than swing states such as Ohio. This would also mobilize Texas democrats, experts say.
Personally, I thought this was a very interesting article both because I followed the Wendy Davis story fairly closely this summer and I also believe this story directly relates to our class discussion today. This story is a good example of American party politics, and how important public opinion is. Today we discussed how Hamilton and Burr were ruined by their remarks and actions against each other, yet here is an example of how Ms. Davis' remarks and actions have catapulted her to the spotlight, and a positive spotlight at that. I also think that this article is interesting because it is an example of party politics, something which we also learned about today. I think that should Wendy Davis decide to run for Texas governor, it will certainly be a very interesting race and one that should be followed closely. It is a perfect example of American democracy.

Obama gives the go-ahead for strike on Syria

Britain Says No, Obama Says Go Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad ordered an attack using chemical weapons against his own citizens last week that killed a few hundred protesters. The US and Obama have not yet decided if a strike on Syria will shortly follow. Great Britain has considered its options, and despite current PM David Cameron supporting the idea of a strike on Syria, the US's ally across the pond have abandoned the idea of bombing Syria. The decision has yet to be made whether or not the US will strike, but it seems most likely that the attack will occur. This article I found was extremely relevant to what we talked about in class today. George Washington's Farewell Address preached neutrality abroad, yet it seems clear that his mindset is a thing of the past. I am extremely interested to see how this unfolds.

Gay Marriages Get Recognition From the I.R.S

Kaitlyn Johnson
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/irs-to-recognize-all-gay-marriages-regardless-of-state.html?hp

This article discusses the new tax benefits that gay couples have just recently received as a result of the June Supreme Court decision. It has just been decided that legally married gay couples can now file for tax returns as “married filing separately” or “married filing jointly” just as a straight couple would do. Personally, I really enjoyed this article. Being someone who supports gay marriage, this shows me that there is a future for these couples. This shows that our country is moving that much closer to fully accepting gay marriage and treating gay couples equally. Though it may only be a small step forward, I believe that it is still a step in the right direction. What I think is so great is the fact that this may be the trigger to more benefits to gay couples in the United States. What I also like about this article is the fact that it shows how all three branches of the government works as a whole, and also how they work with the state governments as well. The new policy originates from the Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) ruling on a law passed by Congress (Legislative Branch). From there, it moves onto the Executive Branch, which enforces the Supreme Court’s ruling in agencies, such as the I.R.S and the Treasury Department. From there, each state has to decide how they will respond to what has just been passed. In some ways, this is an example of the government doing something that will hopefully create the path to acceptance.