Blogs I commented on:

Gabrielle Miller, Jessica Armes, and Albert Munoz

Chapter 14

1. Read online bio's of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices.  What do you find interesting about their backgrounds?  Pick one of the Justices, read about cases this Justice has written (majority or dissent) and explain whether you agree or disagree with his/her judicial philosophy.

I find it interesting that all U.S. Supreme Court Justices were all appointed to the United States Court of Appeals. Also most all of the Supreme Court Justices either went to Harvard Law School or Yale. They all seemed to graduate at the top of their class as well. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court since 1993. She focuses on women's rights and the feminist criticism of law. I agree with her judicial philosophy because she is for women's rights. She worked on various feminist causes. She also helped write the ACLU brief in Reed v. Reed of 1971, where the Supreme Court struck down an Idaho law that preferred men over women as executors of estates. Another case that promoted gender equity was Weinberger v. Wiesenfed of 1975, in which she represented a male plaintiff to demonstrate a particular law's disparate impact. After a man's wife died, Mr. Wiesenfeld received Social Security survivor benefits lower than those a woman would have received. The Court ruled that "[b]y providing dissimilar treatment for mean and women who are... similarly situated, the challenged section violates the [Due Process] Clause." Ginsburg was very persistent with her cases and made a lot of great efforts for women.

2. Is Judicial Review a power that should be exercised regularly or sparingly?  Why?

Judicial Review is the authority of courts to declare laws passed by Congress and acts of the executive branch to be unconstitutional. I feel that the courts are doing a good job with judicial review, therefore it should be used as it is, regularly. Judicial review has helped to strike down segregated schools in Brown v. Board of Education, as well as the anti-abortion laws of forty-seven states in Roe v. Wade, and to rule on the Michigan affirmative action cases. The Supreme Court also granted itself the power in the case of Marbury v. Madison. It seems that Judicial Review helps the nation, so that Congress does not make laws that are unconstitutional.

3. Is it the job of the High Court to apply the Constitution in light of the intent of the framers of the Constitution (strict construction) or should they interpret the Constitution in light of changes in society/technology (living Constitution)?  Why?

This is a very hard question to answer. I have done a little bit of research and some say that the Constitution is a living Constitution, because there has been many amendments made to it already. Different situation call for different answers, so sometimes it is better to use strict construction and other times it is better to use the living Constitution. I do feel though that times have changed since the framers were around, so the living Constitution may be better, because it would reflect a time of changes in society and technology.

Blogs I have commented on:

Chelsea Dunn, Jessica Armes, and Kristy Jones

Chapter 13 Blog

1. Research federal agencies and explain which one you feel is the most important one and why?

I feel that the Children's Bureau is the most important federal agency. It was the first federal agency dedicated to the welfare of children. It addressed some of the Nation's major social issues throughout history. The early emphasis was on infant immortality, dependent children, and child labor. Today the focus is on child abuse, neglect prevention, foster care, and adoption services. It is important to protect the young children, because they are our future. This federal agency was a very important role in our future.

2. Which federal agency could be terminated with the least impact (if any) and why?

All of the federal agencies seem to play an important role in today's society. I feel that none could really be terminated without causing a huge impact on how we live.

3. Are any new agencies needed?  In other words, if you were president would you create new agencies?  If so, in what area(s)?

I am not sure if any new federal agencies are really needed. There are a ton of federal agencies that cover all kinds of subjects. If someone presented me with an area that needed a federal agency, then I would give a great deal of thought, before creating a new one.

Blogs I commented on:

William Richardson, Brandi Lively, and Albert Munoz

Chapter 12 Blog

1. What makes a great President (not which Presidents have been great) . . . what qualities are essential to greatness?  Why?

There are many qualities that are essential for a President to be great. A president needs to be trustworthy, accountable, responsive to the needs of the people, caring, able to remain calm in stressful situations, make the right decision in situations, make sure the laws are equal, and be an overall a well-rounded person.

2. Other than Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, which two Presidents have been the greatest and why?

Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy have been great Presidents. Roosevelt was faced with problems as soon as he stepped foot in the office. First he had to deal with the depression. He declared bank holidays which closed all banks; they were then opened a few at a time with government help. He got congress to pass laws which helped farmers, small businesses and people who were about to lose their homes during that time. He changed the course of American government. He did so much and helped the U.S. out of this crisis. Kennedy was a very likable president, which his charismatic charm . He brought many teachers, writers, scientists, and different intellectuals into the government. His speech was great as he called for service to his countrymen. He also established the Peace Corps in order to help the undeveloped nations and was very devoted to working hard for new civil rights laws. He even diffused the tensions between two countries on the verge of war. He was very inspiring, even though he only served as the president for a brief period of time. In this little bit of time, he achieved a lot.

3. Research a President that you're previously unfamiliar with - list at least three things you learned.  Was this President effective?  Why or why not?

Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th president. He began to reform the federal government and at the same time improve civil service to get better workers. He carefully looked at every bill the congress passed and vetoed many of them he thought were not beneficial to the country. He boosted the navy by getting them the best ships as well. When a railroad strike in Chicago interfered with the mail, he sent the federal troops at once to clear up the matter. He worked hard and honestly throughout his term.

I posted on the following Blogs:

Ian Price, Albert Munoz, and Jessica Armes

Chapter 11

1. Who are your Senators and your Congressman?

The Senators of Tennessee are Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker. The Congressman are Phil Roe, John J. Duncan, Jr., Chuck Fleischmann, Scott DesJarlais, Jim Cooper, Diane Black, Marsha Blackburn, Stephan Fincher, and Steve Cohen.


2. Reserach the areas they champion and find one you support.  What is it and why do you also support it?

I support Bob Corker on improving health care in America. Because all Americans deserve to have access to high-quality private health insurance that is both affordable and transferable between jobs. A lot of Americans cannot afford health, therefore many lack the health insurance they need to keep their family healthy and protected. Corker wants to improve health care by joining Senate colleagues in  in authoring the Every American Insured Health Act, which is a bill to provide all individuals access to health insurance that is both affordable and portable, and deeply rooted in the private market.

3. Find an issue one of your Senators or Congressman champions that you disagree with.  Why do you disagree?

I disagree with Ron Paul on how he voted no to the amber alert. He did not want to make it a federal alert. The amber alert helps missing children be found. Amber alerts is an alert system for missing children, make available additional protections for children and set stricter punishments for sex offenders. It would help a lot of children make it back home it everyone adopted it. I do not quite understand why he even voted against it.

Blogs I comment on:

Brandi Lively, Ian Price, and Gabrielle Miller

Chapter 10

1. Read Bush v. Gore in the text.  Do you agree with the majority or the dissenting opinion?  Why?

I agree with the dissenting opinion. It is not right to just go by what machine had counted, because the machine will not read a ballot unless the chad- to be punched out by the voter- is completely removed. A hand count might have been able to determine the voter's intent from a "hanging" or "dimpled" chad- indented but not sufficiently punched out so as to break off or even break the corners. Also the decision of the deadline for the recount, made it impossible to recount in such a short time. Therefore the Florida's recount procedures violate the equal protection clause, because of the insufficient time to conduct a recount.


2. Is the ability to fundraise too important in elections?  In other words, are good candidates prevented from running because they cannot raise the needed funds?  Can/should something be done to correct this if it is a problem?

Fund raising is too important in elections. Good candidates are prevented from running because they cannot raise the needed funds. The amount of money required to wage a competitive contest for a seat in Congress is formidable, and it gives an advantage to those who are personally wealthy and able to make good use of personal or business connections. Something needs and should be done to correct this problem. It is not fair to everyone running.

3. Why is there such voter apathy - in other words, why is there often such low voter turnout for elections?  Is there a way to rectify this problem?

Not everyone has the inclination or the desire to vote. Failure to vote has real implications for the political process, it affects which representatives govern and make laws. Data suggest that those who are most likely to vote tend to be better educated, better paid, and older. There are some modest race and gender differences. Compared to the other democracies, turnout in the United States is near the very bottom. One reason the turnout is low has to do with rules for voting. Another reason has to do with the convenience of voting. Many younger people tend not to vote as well. Also there has been a decline of party organizations. Also another reason for the low turnout is the increasingly harsh tone of political campaigns. Maybe if voting was made more convenient and the government tried to appeal to everyone instead of just the older, more educated people the turnout would be much higher.

I posted on the following blogs:

Melissa Ray, MacKenzie King, and Gabrielle Miller

Chapter 9 Blog

1. Which political party do you most identify with?  Why?  Are there things in the party platform with which you disagree?

I do not particularly identify with either, it would be hard to choose. But I guess I agree more with the Democrats, it is just according to what is going on at the time. The Democrats believe similarly with me because they believe in equality, fight for education, support freedom of speech, fight for a clean environment, support technology, use economic responsibility, use fair taxes, fight for working America, support health care, support women's right to choose, support multi-cultural system, and support real campaign finance reform. It makes me glad they fight for equality and education, because many take this for granted. The Republicans on the other hand are more conservative, I agree with a few things they do as well. It is just according to what is going on in the world, and more about the issue instead of what a particular party believes. 

2. Does America need political parties?  The founders originally hoped that American politics would operate without need of parties?  Would that work today?  Why?

It does seem that America need political parties because without them everything would be a mess. I don't think American politics today would be able to operate without them, because we are so use to them and have used them for so long. It helps to know that there are others out there that support the same values you do. Political parties make more of a voice to the government, rather than just one person. 

3. Please research lesser known political parties - which one do you most identify with?  Why?

I most identify with the light party. They are dedicated to "Health, Peace, and Freedom For All." They seem like they actually want to make a difference in people's life for the better. They have a seven point program which addresses and serves to resolve our current socio-economic and elogical challenges. It seems they are trying to do good honest work and want to make America better.

Blogs I commented on:

I commented on the following blogs: Mackenzie King, Kristy Jones, and Gabrielle Miller.

Chapter 8

1. From figure 8.1 in the text, select one of the interest groups and do some research on their issues and beliefs.  What did you learn?  What did you find interesting?  Do you agree/disagree with their positions on issues? Why?

The National Education Association represents public school teachers and other support personnel, faculty, and staffers at colleges and universities, retired educators, and college students preparing to become students. It is also the largest professional organization and labor union in the United States. There has been much criticism against the NEA and other teachers unions for allegedly putting the interests of teachers ahead of students and for consistently opposing changes that critics claim would help students but harm union interests. The NEA has often opposed measures such as merit pay, school vouchers, weakening of teacher tenure, certain curricular changes, the No Child Left Behind Act, and many accountability reforms. I agree with them about the issues at hand. I plan on becoming a teacher and I am using 4 years of my life to be a teacher, the least the government could do is strengthen tenure. Most jobs have securities and teachers need security too. NEA opposes weakening tenure and I do too.

2. Find an interest group with which you associate (positively).  What is the name of the group and what do you find persuasive about their position on issues?

The National Education Association (NEA) is an interest group that I associate well with. I plan on working in the school system as a teacher and this group seems to try and do their best helping out teachers as well as students. They promote the No Child Left Behind Act, increase education fund, dropout prevention, and lowering the achievement gap. It is great what they promote and are very persuasive about their issues.

3. Do interest groups have enough/too much/the right amount of power in the political system?  Most believe it's a fine-line balance between freedom of speech for the groups and keeping unfair persuasion out of government.  Where is that line and when is it crossed?

I feel that interest groups have just enough power in the political system. Interest groups provide a louder voice than one person alone can. Interest groups can keep citizens informed about he direct impact of policy on their lives, and with that information, constituents can better hold their elected officials accountable for those policies. The line of balance is crossed when interest groups go as far as when they go on a riot and destroy property to try to get government to listen or when they cause disruptions in meetings.

I commented on the following blogs:

Melissa Ray, Gabby Miller, and Jessica Armes

Chapter 7

1. Does objectivity still exist in the media's coverage of politics?  Of the major news outlets (CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, NPR, NBC, etc.), which are the most objective and which seem to have the most bias?

Objectivity still exists in the media's coverage of politics, but there is always going to be subjective judgments, personal values, and prejudices. When some one is announcing an issue, they will let you know the facts; But they will also put in their point of view and let you know what they feel about it. Many major news outlets are biased. The news medias that seem the most biased are fox news and MSNBC. People who listen to the conservvative network Fox are going to have a different viewpoint than those who listen MSNBC. CNN seems to be the most objective of all the major news outlets.

 2. How does talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, etc.) affect your view of politics?  Why?

Talk radio does not really affect my view of politics, because I usually do not listen to talk radio in the car. I prefer to listen to music, but if I do hear about an issue then I go with what they say. When I go to tell my mom or husband about the issue, they feel a different way, due to who they listened to. Sometimes we hear different stories and it gets turned all around. Talk radio sometimes does not give all the fact, instead they give their own viewpoint with partial facts. 

3. Is media objectivity important?  Why or why not?

Media objectivity is important, more media networks need to be more objective and less biased. I would rather hear about the facts of an issue or news piece, than listen to someone's opinions with partial facts. It is important for the media to remain object, so the public is informed correctly and be able to make their own judgment about the issue at hand with all the facts and no person opinions of the media. 

Blogs I posted on:

I posted on Melissa Ray's blog, Gabrielle Miller's blog, and Tim Tunkel's blog.

Chapter 6

1. Polls:  http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/  Is American news media too dependent upon polls?  Is it appropriate for news agencies to create polls and then report on them?  Why or why not?

America news media could never be too dependent on polls. Polls are a major way to voice our public opinion. It will give the most accurate opinions, even though there could be a small percent error. It is appropriate for news agencies to create polls and then report on them, because it lets us know what their opinion is on the matter at hand. It also gives us a little more inside on the situation.


2. How important is political party identification to you (e.g. as a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc.)?  Was it more or less important to your parents & grandparents?  Does it seem more or less important to your friends?  Why or why not?

Political party identification is not important to me. Different situations call for different answers and different factors influence my decision other than political party identification. It is not very important to my parents and grandparents either, I guess this is one of the influences that makes me not care for political party identification. It does seem a little more important to my friend due to the influence factors around them. 

3. Do you feel that you opinion of politics is more influenced by economic issues or by social issues?  Why?

Social issues and economic issues influence my opinion in several ways. Economic issues greatly influence my opinion, when money is down I focus more on the economic issues. I am always concerned with the government and how they spend their money. The issues I always look out for is scholarships and college financial aid when it comes to economic issues. Social issues greatly influence my opinion as well. I will always have a strong opinion about abortion, gay rights, gun laws, and equality. 

I commented on the following people's blog:

Melissa Ray, Amber Waters, and Brandi Lively

3. The issue of sexual orientation

The government has not done much to support discrimination of sexual orientation. A majority of Americans favor some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples, only four states and the District of Columbia have legally recognized same-sex marriage and another five recognize civil unions. It is pretty much up to the state to decide whether to allow same-sex marriage and their to decision whether to recognize it or not. Barack Obama opposes federal recognition of same-sex marriage, yet Republican former Vice President Dick Cheney supports it. The legality of same-sex marriage legality may increase over time, due to most younger people accept same-sex marriages.

2. The issue of gender

I think the government has done to a lot to reduce the instances of gender discrimination. The government has come a long way such as: now we have the right to vote and own property without a man. Another big change was the Equal Pay Act, which prohibits employers from paying different wages for the same job on account of sex. The government tends to excuse more woman for the crimes they have done and tend to give more sentences to men. There are some instances where men and women are still discriminated, but there is really nothing more the government can do. Woman are discriminated (most of the time) as being a child care taker and the man (most of the time) holds down the job of the household.

1. The issue of race - does the government do too little or too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination? Why or how so?

The government has come along way since slavery, the Ku Klux Klan, people of color being harassed  and segregated areas in the states. Government seems like they have done all they can to reduce the instances of racial discrimination. It all started with the creation of the fourteenth amendment which prohibits states from denying any person the equal protection of the law. It also makes all people born in the United States citizens of the United States. Today, the government does not allow discrimination in businesses, schools, and in court. On a job application it always states that they will not discriminate and the questions about color is optional to answer. I personally think government has done a good job on reducing the instances of racial discrimination.

Blogs I have comment on

I commented on the following blogs: Amber Waters, Melissa Ray, and Amanda Strange.

3. Criminal Procedure: Are defendant's rights crucial to our system of government? Why or why not? Many argue that defendants have too many rights - do you agree? Why or why not?

Defendant’s rights are crucial to our government. Without these rights, people would not have much privacy in their own homes or businesses. They protect the manner in which the police conduct investigations, the procedures used at trial, and the punishments that may be given following conviction. There does seem to be too many rights for defendants, though. If a policeman found evidence that someone broke the law, even if the evidence was found in violation of the Fourth Amendment, then they should be able to use that evidence in court. Too many people get away with crimes due to the fact of too many rights given to defendants. The exclusionary rule allows guilty people to go free simply because the police made the mistake of not getting a warrant. 

2. Freedom of Religion: Is separation of church and state necessary? Why or why not?

Separation of church and state is necessary. In schools, if there was no separation of church and state, there would more than likely be an overall religion for everyone. One religion would most likely be favored over another, or even religion over no religion. Also if there was a favored religion, most students would feel embarrassed and would probably would try to avoid school. If you put that into a bigger area such as state, the same would happen. The state would probably favor a certain religion more than the other, and expect everyone to follow that religion. Many people would be very angry and it would cause a lot of disruptions and chaos.

1. Freedom of Speech: How important is it? Does the freedom go "too far"? What areas of speech should not be protected?

Freedom of speech is very important because it gives everyone a chance to voice their opinion. Without freedom of speech, the government would get to make all the decisions. Freedom of speech also lets us give our opinions about the government without legal trouble. Sometimes our freedom of speech seems to go too far and certain ones should not be protected. I do not think it is right for a person to go as far as saying "bomb" on a plane as a prank or hate speeches. Everyone should have the right to voice their opinion as long as it does not get to out of control.

Posts I Have Commented On

I commented on the following people's blog: Albert Munoz, Gabrielle Miller, and Amber Waters

2. National power increased during the Great Depression but then power began to shift back to the states (somewhat) during the Reagan administration? Why did that happen and is that shift appropriate?

The national power increased during the Great Depression because the stock market had crashed and the people wanted national action to aid the economy. The power, then began to shift back to the states during the Reagan administration due to the economy picking back up. The shift was appropriate, different situations call for different solutions. At the times national government is better, while other times prove that power to the states is better.

3. Education stirs much discussion relating to the issue of federalism. Should the national government regulate education or is it a matter best left to state and local governments? Why?

The national government should regulate education. Some states might regulate education well, while other states may do a poorer job, and therefore hurting the student in return. Also, some states cannot figure out their finances as well as others. The national government could set up standards that could be challenging and fund the schools, therefore helping students. In return this would better a nation.

1. Is a strong national government necessary or should the state governments have an equal share of power? Why?

State governments should have an equal share of power. If state governments had an equal share of power, it would put the government on a more people based level. If a national government becomes to strong it could turn in a communism, where the people would not have much control over their lives.

Post I have commented on

I commented on the following people's blog: Amber Waters, Gabrielle Miller, Albert Munoz, and it would not let me post on Elise Black (Golden) blog.

4. Looking at the United States government today, is it more like what the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists envisioned and why?

The anti-federalists envisioned the United States government today more than the federalists did. Even though the federalists supported the Constitution, they envisioned it more like Patterson's New Jersey Plan and the Articles of Confederation. The anti-federalists followed the Virginia Plan more, which is more like our government system of today. The anti-federalists also thought that national law should be over state law, which is much like our government today.

3. How important is the Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison and why?

The Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison is very important. The case helped to establish the power of judicial review. Judicial review is the authority of the Court to strike down any law passed by Congress if the Court believes the law violates the Constitution. When Thomas Jefferson became president, his new secretary of state, James Madison, refused to deliver the commission, thus keeping Marbury from assuming his office. Then, Marbury filed suit at the Supreme Court, believing that the Judiciary Act of 1789 expanded the Court's original jurisdiction to give the Court the authority to hear cases involving writs of mandamus. The Court in this decision thus granted itself the momentous authority of judicial review.

2. The first three articles of the Constitution establish/define the three branches of government - read these articles. What did you learn that you didn't already know about our government?

The legislative branch established a bicameral Congress, consisting of two chambers. The lower chamber consists of the House of Representatives, which is proportioned by population; and the upper chamber (the senate), which consists of two senators from each state. Bills to levy taxes have to originate in the House, but other bills may originate in either chamber. Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution limits Congress's authority to a listing, or enumeration, of certain powers in eighteen paragraphs; The Electoral College itself is chosen in a manner set by the legislators of each state. Under the executive branch, if no person receives a majority of the Electoral College vote, then the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state gets one vote. The Electoral College also chooses a vice president who presides over the Senate, casting votes in case of a tie. Under the judicial branch, the Constitution extends the authority of the federal courts to hear cases to certain classes of parties to a suit, cases involving the United States, ambassadors and other public ministers, suits between two or more states or citizens from different states, and to certain cases, most notably cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.

1. Why is the United States Constitution stronger than the Articles of Confederation? How would the history of the United States have been different if the country still operated under the Articles?

The United States Constitution is stronger than the Articles of Confederation because the Constitution has more structure and order. The Constitution also has a checks and balances system that states each branch has some power over the other two branches of government. The Articles of Confederation emphasized too much on freedom from national authority and not enough on order. If the United States still operated under the Articles, it would be in a bigger mess than it already is. The United States would have not been able to govern very effectively under the Articles. Congress would not have the authority to operate directly over citizens of the United States. Thanks to Shays's Rebellion and the delegates compromising on slavery between the north and south and representation on small and large states, the United States Constitution was made.

About Me

Hello my name is Ashley Pelfrey. My wonderful family includes my husband and beautiful baby girl. I am taking a lot of online classes due to the fact that I recently had a baby and want to spend as much time with her as possible. I hope to learn a lot about our government system in my American Government class. There is so much that I do not know about our government system and how it is set up. I hope to find out about who started our government system and how it affects people's lives. I plan on becoming an elementary school teacher. I hope to teach younger children because they are so ready and excited to learn new things.