Full Faith and Credit is Full Faith and Bull****

So… in chapter 3 there is a mention of a section of article IV of the constitution that ensures judicial decrees and contracts made in one state will be binding and enforceable in any other state, this is called the full faith and credit clause.

BUT, even as the book mentions, a state can refuse to honor same-sex marriage contracts, and even as the book states this "poses interesting constitutional questions".

As tacky as this is I'm going to refer to the Merriam-Webster definition of marriage which states "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law"… now my previous use of bold text in the definition of full faith and credit probably makes a bit more sense! Why can't a same-sex couple that gets married in same-sex marriage legal Massachusetts not be recognized as a married couple in their home-state of Texas? This is not only discriminatory… but it is unconstitutional. 

Because the 10th amendment hands over all rights not given to the national government to the state governments, marriage is handed over like a worthless penny laying on the street for the states to choose as they please.

Of course either way a gay couple that has been together can still have more love than a legally bound Las Vegas pair (as represented by the political cartoon above)…but this can become an issue in situations like if one partner is sick and the other wants to visit them in the hospital, or in situations where a couple wants to adopt a child.

In a related current case, the illegality of gay marriage and it's lack of recognition between states has caused controversy in "Adar vs Smith"… this is not just some textbook case, this is a current case that is relevant to our time. After legally adopting their Louisiana-born child in the state of New York, Oren Adar and his partner Mickey Smith were told by the Louisiana state registrar that she would not issue a new birth certificate for their child, because Louisiana does not recognize adoption by unmarried parents. Eventually this was seen to have violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment but  the attorney against the couple stated that "she did not have to honor an adoption from another state that Louisiana would not have granted under Louisiana law if the couple had lived and adopted there"… A U.S. district judge ruled that this conduct did not comply with the full faith and credit obligation and the parents were issued a birth certificate with both names as parents. In this case full faith and credit was pulled through… but why hasn't it been taken into account for recognizing the sacred union between two lovers?

Until somebody else sues for this right, Full Faith and Credit will not be able to fufill it's current and relevant purpose in this century, causing myself to believe that full faith and credit its just full of…………….

(in the most polite way possible)

GARY WANTS SOME MC'LUVIN TOO!

Rico Suave at his finest

As an aspiring journalist I am FED UP with the lack of media coverage for the Libertarian Party's Presidential nominee Gary Johnson! YES I love Obama, but listen here as I steal the words from someone who critiques how the '08 election went *cue whiny voice* "Most of the young kids voted for Obama because they thought he was young and cool"… K! So in this election the man who early on was sweeping the college campuses was actually the oldest man in the race ….. SO WHAT HAPPENED? Was Ron Paul and his message of "ReLOVEution" just a phase among college students and potsmokers alike? 

I think these are some questions that nominee Gary Johnson should be asking, because to this day there are still people who will make their Facebook statuses and tweet "RonPaul2012". The media attention on Ron Paul wasn't even that strong for a man who has been running since 1988. BUT the media drought for Gary Johnson has gotten so strong that his main fundraising goal on his official campaign page states "LET'S GET GARY ON TV!". With a political advertisement that makes him seem like the messiah to America.

So who is Gary Johnson?

Well, Gary Johnson is the former Republican governor of New Mexico from 1995-2003. He has had over 750 vetoes in office and got the nickname "Governor Veto". He holds fiscally conservative  views such as "slashing" government spending on programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; but holds socially progressive views like same-sex marriage, drug decriminalization, and pro-choice when it comes to a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. 

He is not my candidate, he may not be everyone's candidate, but I believe it is unfair to the lack of TV publicity he gets. This goes for many other third-party candidates… how can they get more airspace? 

Of course the media gives the people what they want by showing the candidates most relevant to the viewers but in a media-dominated world, AIRSPACE MEANS EVERYTHING, just look at the amount of money spent in battle-ground states on commercials by the democrats and republicans and compare it to set states, you get a difference in millions of dollars. 

So all I am saying is, we need to demand for more coverage of MORE candidates like Gary Johnson… because at this moment there is another Gary that has much more consistent media coverage than him…..

"meow….."

How does a president's view of government affect public policy?

So I came across this question posed in the textbook with this political cartoon…….

(Not the best picture of Barry but it will do……)

….So of course as a self-admitted and publicly obvious Obama fanatic and Reagan dissaprover (ignore my use of something that is not a word), this caught my eye and really made me pose the question that was heading the cartoon in my head "How does a president's view of government affect public policy?" This brings us to the topic of Progressive Federalism (YAY DEFINITIONS) which is the movement that gives state officials significant leeway in acting on issues normally considered national in scope, such as the environment and consumer protection. 

The answer to the question is simple but even as a Obama-er is somewhat astonishing…a president's view of government has A LOT to do with public policy! The reason why this is even somewhat disturbing has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians or anybody… it has to do with the way our system is formatted. 

Although we have a seperation of powers that is supposed to keep all the powers in check, who the president is and what their viewpoints are, has much to do with how public policy will be run although they are not the ones making the laws. This is due to their positions as figure heads.

Of course the word figure head is loosely used in this sense because it is nothing like the way my darling Russian government is run …….

But of course, in this day and age, the President does have a lot more influence than the framers probably intended them to do so.

But of course, there is nothing wrong with either more or less government, it is more on how it is run. I mean under the Obama administration as the book states, California and other states have been allowed to impose stricter limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks than those established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA OR DIE!!!), so although there may be backlash from auto companies we are taking care of our mother Earth a little bit more!

Going back to the Reagan era, our former Mister President went on to famously say " this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden." A viewpoint he supported in many of his policies such as his tax cuts including cutting the top individual tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent and the corporate rate from 46 percent to 34 percent. Tax cuts like these and small government policies are standpoints that continue to this day to make Reagan the quintessential Republican that most Republican politicians aspire to be. 

But…….there is no way we can discuss how public policy is affected by a president's view without mentioning not one person, but an entire party whose mantra speaks screams sings and cries small government…the Libertarian party.  A libertarian is one who believes in limited government and no governmental interference in personal liberties. Although currently the race to the average viewer of CNN may be all about Willard and Barack, there is another man who has publicized the party very much in the 2012 election, Ron Paul. BUT, what many of those Paul-fanatics don't realize (a term that probably isn't appropriate now that Paul Ryan is the VP nominee for the Republican party) is that Gary Johnson is actually running on the ticket. If Gary Johnson won the presidential race, his public policy's would mirror the image of less is more, in terms of government. What is different though is that his cuts would come from places like 43% less funding for military expenditures. 

Although it is the textbook poses the question "How does a president's view of government affect public policy?", the answer can be better found in the current events. 

OBAMA'S ON TV Y'ALL

So I think that I have made it very clear that I am a huge huge huge HUGE fan of our President Barack Obama… but this week he had an amazing sit down with another one of my favorites, David Letterman, to chat about the election and what is going on. This was very important due to the fact that David Letterman is a very popular show and this was a very great opportunity for Mr. President to get his name out there a little further.

ABOVE:A small clip from the episode COURTESY CBS

A topic that was interestingly chatted about was the remark that Mitt Romney made at a private fundraiser saying that "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." and so on…. 

A remark that was brought to the attention of the media by Mother Jones magazine, this "47% Remark" caused an outrage among many over social networks like Twitter and Facebook. But Obama supporters decided to milk this comment for what it was, campaign gold. A comment like this can be very useful in future debates, advertisements (obviously the campaign is on its A game releasing an ad like this so short after the release of the video) , and just general speeches. 

For now though, we got the chance to see what Barack Obama could come up with to counter this statement on the show to which he responded with his own remarks like “If you want to be president, you have to work for everyone" and "When I won in 2008, 47% of the American people voted for John McCain. They didn’t vote for me and what I said on Election Night was:  ‘Even though you didn’t vote for me, I hear your voices, and I’m going to work as hard as I can to be your president."  To which of course, Barackers rejoiced. 

Of course we can all agree that the comment was of course spun up by the media to be more than it should have been, unfortunately for Mitt that is, but this is another lesson in campaigning that no matter how early or how late it is in the election, you must always be careful with what you say… and have a couple people proof read your speech beforehand….

Cooperative Federalism:The Marble Cake

It may sound like a delicious treat that you want to avoid during a strict diet, but the marble cake that is referred to by political scientists is much less delicious but still very beneficial.  In Layer Cake Federalism, all powers and roles are strictly separated and clearly defined. Layer Cake Federalism's seperation of layers comes from the 10th amendment, which gives all powers not granted to the national government over to the state governments.

Although this may sound like a tasty piece of cake, I do not completely agree with this system. Layer cake Federalism, also known as Dual Federalism, creates a seperation that could supress different progressive movements such as the civil rights movement for African-Americans or the LGBT freedom's movement. I believe this because when you create a clear divide between the nation and the state for any reason, the divide runs deeper than just the filling in the cake. For example, with LGBT rights, because the 10th Amendment gives questions of marriage to the states, a couple that gets married in a state where Same-Sex Marriage is legal may not have their union recognized by another state in which it is not legal. This lack of across the board policy can create harsh discrimination and is very harmful.

Although it is a good thing to define powers, there should be room for each side to fight for the rights of human beings.

The shift to a more Marble Cake Federalism or Cooperative Federalism, where there is an intertwined relationship between the national, state and local governments, began with the social programs of the New Deal. Social Welfare programs such as the New Deal and Lyndon B Johnson's Great Society allowed for more intervention with local governments but also allowed for cities and smaller governments to get more exposure. With these programs we saw great improvements in harsh times like the Great Depression. But advancements made for this type of federalism were strongly opposed to in the 1970's and 80's by Republicans who were adamantly against big government.

In summation….THE MARBLE CAKE IS DELICIOUS!

Campaign Fundraising

          So far to date the Republican and Democratic parties have combined raised over 10 million dollars. 10 million dollars on hate ads and god knows what else. The one thing that this does bring me to is the 2010 Supreme Court case "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" which upheld that the government could not restrict how much money corporations donated to political campaigns. This case decision was a turning point in the amount of influence corporations have over our government in the public eye. Obviously there is no doubt that lobbyists and corporations play an enormous role in United States politics, it has been this way since the dawning of our nation and peaked during the Industrial age with big railroad giants like Cornelius Vanderbilt. But the influence of businesses who send most of their jobs over to different countries is dangerous.   
     The reason for my concern about these large scale businesses donating money to political campaigns is that most of these corporations have a sense of false patriotism. These businesses with their as of 2010 UNRESTRICTED donations claim to be all for "making jobs" and "helping the private sector" while they don't nessicarily specify for whom. That is because they can't, the only economy that most of these businesses are helping to grow is the Chinese economy, because that is where the majority of our big scale corporations like Wal-Mart have taken their workers base from. 

    This has been much parodied about in the media from comedians referencing to how much products we receive from the country. There is no doubt that it is impossible to own a home that does not have a single product that states on the label "Made in China". The most recent and popular media parody came from the comedy movie "The Campaign", starring Zach Galifinakis and Will Ferrell. In the movie a set of brothers called the "Moch Brothers" whose names uncoincidentally mirror the names of the American billionaire Koch Brothers, (thought it was a funny representation of them). What this brings me to is that not only did the movie portray the two as crazy men who wanted to buy a local election in order to have this small district sell their local lands to China in order to make a factory, but made them look like total fools, and the Koch brothers were not having it and fired back to "The Campaign" star Zach Galifinakis (see video above; courtesy to CurrentTV).  The movie itself may have been all fun and games but there is much truth to the satiric nature of the film, it is dangerous to allow businesses run our country from the back door.

      What this has to do with is beyond just who to vote and what propositions to vote yay or nay to, this all has to do with what I mentioned in my previous post,  education for voters. Because endorsements are key in any election, it is important to see who those endorsements are from, and what interests might the candidate serve for those people who are endorsing, whether it just be because they like the candidate, or whether it may be a key business move. Because endorsers can often serve as figure heads for people who aren't familiar with the candidate but are with the business or actor, it is important for voters to learn who to trust and why or why not they should trust them.

Bill of Rights Nessecity

     The Bill of Rights was a part of the constitution that was requested by anti-federalists in order for ratification. These rights are the first 10 amendments to the constitution which includes things like freedom of speech and religion.
      Although I would have myself been a Federalist if I was in existence at that time, I do agree and sympathize with the request for a Bill of Rights. Without a Bill of Rights we would have no guarantee that we would not have leaders overstep their boundaries. Without a Bill of Rights we wouldn't have established the civil rights of the people, before the actual "literal" civil rights movement of the 1960s. Without a Bill of Rights it would be very possible for somebody to expand the government for their own personal gain in order to grow their power and influence.

      The Bill of Rights is a group of Amendments that Americans should at least attempt to learn while living out in the hectic lifestyle out in the real world. All Americans should know what their rights are in order to protect those rights, to be able to put up a fight for what they believe in and for their freedoms.

The Uninformed Voter

          To this date I have registered 117 voters and have always stressed the fact that voting is a civil duty and a privilege. There is no doubt that voter registration has assisted in raising the amount of people voting in previous elections...

but voter registration is a double edged sword. That sword can bring on the worst of the worst, the tyrants of our country…THE UNINFORMED VOTER. *cue dramatic music*. The uninformed voter is the biggest terrorist to our country. This is because uninformed voters make uninformed decisions. 

          Uninformed may just have to do with being naive. Although 34% of Americans watch the news, there is a lot of power when having to do with what news channel they choose to watch. Fox news is famous for its conservative bias while one should also note that a Republican would probably not get caught watching Al Gore-Founded Current TV. 

          I saw an example of this weaponry the other day when I was doing voter registration and I met a man who referred to himself as a "Former Marine America Lovin' Redneck" and fought with my Organizing for America volunteers about why there should not be a BLACK president in the WHITE house. It's 2012 people! It is this sort of ignorance that harms our nation, in addition to people who believe that Obama has a war on religion just like former Republican presidential candidate, Rick Perry. 

          The only people who could save us from this wave of uninformed voters is the people themselves. It is the civic duty of all people who have the power to vote to make informed and educated decisions.  Whether that comes from watching and reading non-bias news or by fact checking bizarre information in the media, or even just willing to get to know the candidates platforms. But, if a person does not understand that, there is only so much you can do. You can't fix stupid.

Religious Faith and Religious Freedom

       Chapter One on page 13 referenced a much debated topic in the United States and even on a bigger scale, worldwide. This topic is the question of religious tolerance which not only considers how the yearning for religious tolerance brought many settlers to the Americas but what role religion plays in politics today with the reference to how "many Americans are quite comfortable with religion playing an important role in public policy". I believe that this is a very wrong and even dangerous standpoint for American citizens to have.
        Although our country was founded on the puritanical beliefs of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant "WASPs", those religious ideals should not be what guides our country in making decisions. The example the book gives is former President George W. Bush's frequent references to faith receiving a 60% approval rating. This is due to the fact that the wide category of "Christianity" is identifiable by 76-80% of Americans. But, think about if there was an Islamic or Jewish person running for office that had constant references to their religion, they would immediately be reprimanded for their words, just because their religions do not represent the majority belief.
       As much as we would like to believe that in the United States that there is a total separation of church and state there is not. Of course it is not as extreme as it is in some countries like Iraq or Pakistan, but religion and state are present as an unofficial coalition. For example, a family friend of mine that was 80 years old in 2000 when debating whether then candidate George W.Bush should be elected said "He will just cause wars like his father, no good will come of this", I was convinced that he and his wife would not vote for George W. Bush. Later on we asked which way he voted and he said "George W. Bush because my church told me to do it". These kind of atrocities sound rare but in reality actually happen often. That is why the Republican party never neglects to assert their "moral" beliefs while campaigning to ensure that they have church support, and if the churches follow by advocating for a candidate, to some people that voice may be as powerful as the voice of "god" himself.
      Although our constitution prevents us from a church run state, there is no guaranteeing that you can prevent a close unofficial bond between the two, which can then begin to infringe on our liberties.