Sonia Sotomayor confirmed by Senate: First Latina on the U.S. Supreme Court. August 6, 2009.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/08/sonia_sotomayor_confirmed_by_s.html
Article II, Executive Branch, Section 2
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate to...appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States"
Sonia Sotomayor will be making history as the first Latina on the U.S Supreme Court. She was Barack Obama's first nominee and was approved by a 68-31 Senate vote, in which nine republicans crossed party lines to vote for her.
This article demonstrates Article II, Executive Branch, Section 2 because it shows the president, Barack Obama, appointing, with the consent of the senate, a judge of the Supreme Court. What makes this article even more interesting is that history is being made. Sotomayor is the first Hispanic person to be a Supreme Court judge. She is not the first Hispanic woman, but the first Hispanic person.
I think this is really remarkable how the first Hispanic to ever be a Supreme Court judge is a woman. It makes me question why this hasn't happened sooner. Why did it take so long for a Hispanic person to be appointed to the Supreme Court? Im sure she wasn't the FIRST person to be qualified and fit for the job? However those questions dont matter as much now because there is finally a Hispanic person, and to make it even more historical, a woman, on The Supreme Court. I hope she does an excellent job.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Treated!
Senate Panel Approves Arms Treaty With Russia. September16, 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/world/europe/17start.html?scp=1&sq=obama%20makes%20treaty&st=cse
Article II, The Executive Branch, Section 2
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties"
In an attempt to rebuild relations with Russia after many years of tension, Barack Obama made a treaty called New Start (this means the "new strategic arms reduction treaty"). This treaty bars The United States and Russia "from deploying more than 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads or 700 launchers starting seven years after final ratification. It is also establishes a new inspecting and monitoring regime." It has been approved 14 to 4 by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and now, under the Constitution, must recieve a two-thirds vote when presented to the Senate floor.
This article demonstrates Article II, The Executive Branch, Section 2 of the Constitution because it shows the presidents right to make treaties,which in this case, Barack Obama did. It also shows the process in which a treaty is finally approved.
If I were a member of the Senate, I would probably approve of this treaty because tension between countries always spells trouble. If there is anything that can lessen this tension, I'm all for it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/world/europe/17start.html?scp=1&sq=obama%20makes%20treaty&st=cse
Article II, The Executive Branch, Section 2
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties"
In an attempt to rebuild relations with Russia after many years of tension, Barack Obama made a treaty called New Start (this means the "new strategic arms reduction treaty"). This treaty bars The United States and Russia "from deploying more than 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads or 700 launchers starting seven years after final ratification. It is also establishes a new inspecting and monitoring regime." It has been approved 14 to 4 by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and now, under the Constitution, must recieve a two-thirds vote when presented to the Senate floor.
This article demonstrates Article II, The Executive Branch, Section 2 of the Constitution because it shows the presidents right to make treaties,which in this case, Barack Obama did. It also shows the process in which a treaty is finally approved.
If I were a member of the Senate, I would probably approve of this treaty because tension between countries always spells trouble. If there is anything that can lessen this tension, I'm all for it.
Texas Law Slammed
A Yea For Gays.Monday, Jul. 07, 2003.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1005162,00.html
Article III, The Judicial Branch, Section 2
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority."
In 1998, an angry neighbor called the Houston police department reporting a disturbance next door. The end result was the arrest of two men and a fine of $200 for engaging in private homosexual conduct. The men were wrongfully arrested because at the time, there was a Texas law prohibiting private homosexual conduct. However, the arrest wasn't saw as wrongful until the Supreme Court stepped in.
The Lawrence vs. Texas case is an example of the powers of the judicial branch because it shows the Supreme Court enforcng the nations laws by saying what is and isn't constitutional. The Supreme Court, voting 6 to 3, threw out the Texas law on June 26, 2003. They claimed that it violates the "realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter."
I think that the Supreme Court was right to throw out this law in Texas. It shocks me that it was only banned seven years ago, however. I wonder how many other couples were wrongfully arrested for breaking this ridiculous law. It's a good thing that the judicial branch has the power to ensure constitutionality of laws because otherwise, this law would probably still be.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1005162,00.html
Article III, The Judicial Branch, Section 2
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority."
In 1998, an angry neighbor called the Houston police department reporting a disturbance next door. The end result was the arrest of two men and a fine of $200 for engaging in private homosexual conduct. The men were wrongfully arrested because at the time, there was a Texas law prohibiting private homosexual conduct. However, the arrest wasn't saw as wrongful until the Supreme Court stepped in.
The Lawrence vs. Texas case is an example of the powers of the judicial branch because it shows the Supreme Court enforcng the nations laws by saying what is and isn't constitutional. The Supreme Court, voting 6 to 3, threw out the Texas law on June 26, 2003. They claimed that it violates the "realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter."
I think that the Supreme Court was right to throw out this law in Texas. It shocks me that it was only banned seven years ago, however. I wonder how many other couples were wrongfully arrested for breaking this ridiculous law. It's a good thing that the judicial branch has the power to ensure constitutionality of laws because otherwise, this law would probably still be.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
"$$$"
Despite Soaring National Debt, Congress Goes on Spending Spree. May 26, 2010.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/26/despite-soaring-national-debt-congress-goes-spending-spree/
Article 1, The Legaslative Branch, Section 8, Clause 2
"The Congress shall have power to borrow money on the credit of the United States"
Despite the fact that the United States is $13 trillion in debt, Congress plans pass $300 million more before Memorial Day.
This demonstrates Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 because it shows the Congress borrowing money on the credit of the United States.
Personally, I think this is a delicate issue. Fox news calls it a "spending spree" but of course the country needs to spend money in order to function. If i were apart of politics in any kind of way, I would have no idea on what to do when it came to spending money, considering that the US is in debt, and in a recession.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/26/despite-soaring-national-debt-congress-goes-spending-spree/
Article 1, The Legaslative Branch, Section 8, Clause 2
"The Congress shall have power to borrow money on the credit of the United States"
Despite the fact that the United States is $13 trillion in debt, Congress plans pass $300 million more before Memorial Day.
This demonstrates Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 because it shows the Congress borrowing money on the credit of the United States.
Personally, I think this is a delicate issue. Fox news calls it a "spending spree" but of course the country needs to spend money in order to function. If i were apart of politics in any kind of way, I would have no idea on what to do when it came to spending money, considering that the US is in debt, and in a recession.
"Preparing for the Cleanup"
Oil tax increase would help pay to clean up spills. May 24 ,2010.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9FTDV7O1
Article 1, Legislative Brnch, Section 8, Clause 1
"The Congress shall have power yo lay and collect taxes"
To clean up the six million gallons of crude oil from the gulf oil spill, Congress has decided to raise the current 8-cent-a-barrel tax on oil to 32 cents a barrel. The increase is supposed to raise nearly $11 billion over the next ten years.
This demostrates Aritcle I, Section 8, Clause 1, because it shows the Congress's right to lay and collect taxes on oil, which is what it is doing so that the Gulf oil spill can be paid for. Obama and congressional leaders say that BP will be responsible for paying for the cleanup, and Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, says that "taxpayers will not pick up the tab."
However I feel that the price for gas will go up at BP gas stations, which means the people will be paying for it. When people realize that BP's gas cost more and the fact that many people are upset with BP, some people will stop buying their gas. My question is, will this tax raise actually raise $11 billion?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9FTDV7O1
Article 1, Legislative Brnch, Section 8, Clause 1
"The Congress shall have power yo lay and collect taxes"
To clean up the six million gallons of crude oil from the gulf oil spill, Congress has decided to raise the current 8-cent-a-barrel tax on oil to 32 cents a barrel. The increase is supposed to raise nearly $11 billion over the next ten years.
This demostrates Aritcle I, Section 8, Clause 1, because it shows the Congress's right to lay and collect taxes on oil, which is what it is doing so that the Gulf oil spill can be paid for. Obama and congressional leaders say that BP will be responsible for paying for the cleanup, and Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, says that "taxpayers will not pick up the tab."
However I feel that the price for gas will go up at BP gas stations, which means the people will be paying for it. When people realize that BP's gas cost more and the fact that many people are upset with BP, some people will stop buying their gas. My question is, will this tax raise actually raise $11 billion?
"Burned By Taxes"
Feeling burned: Tanning salon owners say health reform bill targets their business. September 1, 2010.
http://billingsgazette.com/business/features/article_e843126a-b133-11df-9e77-001cc4c002e0.html
Article 1, The Legislative Branch,Section 8, Clause 1
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes"
Tanning salon owners and tanners are "feeling burned" by the Congress's decision to impose a ten percent tax raise on indoor tanning.
The tax raise is not only supposed to raise more than $2.7 billion for the health care reform bill, but it is also supposed to reduce the dangerous amount of tanning done by Americans all across the country. Although tanners do not realize it now, this tax could potentially save their lives. "The International Agency for Research on Cancer found that the use of indoor tanning by those under age 35 can increase that person's risk of melanoma by up to 75 percent. Of the $1.8 billion spent on treating skin cancer each year, $300 million is spent on treating melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer." Therefore, melanoma is for the most part preventable, and because of tanning, too much money is spent on treating melanoma.
However, not everyone, tanning salon owners in particular, agrees with this. Julie Wegner, owner of two Sun Haven tanning salons in Billings, feels that she is being “singled out” and that this is a “sin tax.” Despite this disapproval, the tax raise still takes effect.
This is an example of the Congress’s power to lay and collect taxes because that is exactly what they did, even though many disapprove.
I do not think that this will reduce the amount of tanning that people do, but I do think that the money will be raised for the health care reform bill. Some people in America are so addicted to tanning, that of course, they will notice the tax rise, but they want care. They know the risks of getting melanoma, and if that has not stopped their addiction, nothing but seeking professional help will.
http://billingsgazette.com/business/features/article_e843126a-b133-11df-9e77-001cc4c002e0.html
Article 1, The Legislative Branch,Section 8, Clause 1
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes"
Tanning salon owners and tanners are "feeling burned" by the Congress's decision to impose a ten percent tax raise on indoor tanning.
The tax raise is not only supposed to raise more than $2.7 billion for the health care reform bill, but it is also supposed to reduce the dangerous amount of tanning done by Americans all across the country. Although tanners do not realize it now, this tax could potentially save their lives. "The International Agency for Research on Cancer found that the use of indoor tanning by those under age 35 can increase that person's risk of melanoma by up to 75 percent. Of the $1.8 billion spent on treating skin cancer each year, $300 million is spent on treating melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer." Therefore, melanoma is for the most part preventable, and because of tanning, too much money is spent on treating melanoma.
However, not everyone, tanning salon owners in particular, agrees with this. Julie Wegner, owner of two Sun Haven tanning salons in Billings, feels that she is being “singled out” and that this is a “sin tax.” Despite this disapproval, the tax raise still takes effect.
This is an example of the Congress’s power to lay and collect taxes because that is exactly what they did, even though many disapprove.
I do not think that this will reduce the amount of tanning that people do, but I do think that the money will be raised for the health care reform bill. Some people in America are so addicted to tanning, that of course, they will notice the tax rise, but they want care. They know the risks of getting melanoma, and if that has not stopped their addiction, nothing but seeking professional help will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)