Logic of the News

Republican Opponents Attack Romney’s Record

hjghassell — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:16:34 +0000

Central to any campaign is the candidate’s message about why people should vote for him or her. Candidates and their campaign managers create messages on the basis of their theories about how different groups of citizens will respond to the message. At the same time, campaign slogans and messages are often chosen opportunistically, based on the vulnerabilities or strengths of the candidate and his or her opponent (see Getting Out the Message, pp. 530-534). As this article points out, Mitt Romney’s message about his entrepreneurial leadership ability to turn the economy around, has also given opponents the opportunity to criticize him about his record of laying off workers during his time working at Bain Capital. Romney’s argument that he is best suited for the presidency because of his business background has invited his opponents to rebut that argument and to emphasize their own credentials in other areas (see Negative Campaigning, pp. 534-535).

President Threatens Veto Over Detainee Provision in Defense Bill

hjghassell — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 21:44:23 +0000

In order to establish a balance of power between the branches of government and to ensure that no one branch of the new government would engage in tyrannical actions to the detriment of a minority, the founders gave the president the power of the veto. However, the founders did not give the president the right to implement his own personal policy preference in lieu of the vetoed legislation thus making the presidential veto power a bargaining tool in the legislative process (see The Veto, pp. 340-344, The Veto Game, pp. 342-343, and Federalist No. 51, pp. 86-89). As this article explains, this is exactly what is happening as Congress debates a provision in the defense authorizations bill that would require certain terrorism suspects to be held by military authorities instead of local or federal agents. In this case, President Obama objects to a GOP –lead provision and has threatened to veto the defense bill if the bill contains the provision in it. However, those in favor of the proposition do not believe that President Obama would actually veto the entire bill and the other important authorizing provisions in the bill and are willing to risk such an opportunity. Also of note is that the provision also has drawn opposition from groups who believe it would treat a subsection of the population differently and infringe upon the rights of suspected criminals (see Criminal Rights and National Security, pp. 229-232).

Congress Stops Further USDA Regulation of School Lunches

hjghassell — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 04:25:35 +0000

Amongst all the news about Congress calling pizza a vegetable is a good example of checks and balances between the branches of government in practice. The federal government was specifically designed to separate power into separate branches and give each branch the authority to interfere with actions of the other branches. In this way the founders attempted to limit the ability of one branch to take unitary action that might be detrimental to the interests of another (see Federalist No. 51, pp. 86-89). Thus, as this article explains, while the executive branch has the power to oversee the Department of Agriculture, Congress still attempts to control the bureaucracy it has created in many different ways. One of those ways is through the power of the purse and which allows it to forbid money to be spent to implement regulations that it dislikes. Though the president and the executive office may have appointed the head of the USDA and have encouraged the implementation of these regulations, in this case, it was Congress who was able to control bureaucratic action (see Methods of Congressional Control, pp. 394-398, The Presidency and the Bureacuracy, pp. 398-402, and Powers of Congress, pp. 250-251).

Mississippi Ballot Measure to Challenge Abortion Right

hjghassell — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 17:43:20 +0000

Unlike governments in Europe or elsewhere, the United States is an example of federalism. Under this system, rather than having one level of government (either state or national) having primary authority, the two levels of government share authority over a range of issues (see American Style Federalism, pp. 98-101). As this article explains, this is exactly the argument anti-abortion proponents are attempting to use to pass anti-abortion legislation in Mississippi. While the Supreme Court has ruled in Roe v. Wade that a woman’s decision to end her pregnancy is within the sphere of privacy, it did not limit the right of government to impose some limits or restrictions on the procedure (see Abortion-Rights Foes Secure State-Level Restrictions, p. 124 and Childbearing Choices, pp. 233-235). The complicating matter in all of this, however, is the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause which states that in areas where the Constitution has granted power to the national government to make legislation, even in areas where it shares responsibility with the states, but not in areas that are left to the states, the national government’s laws and constitution have the ultimate authority. Thus while voters may approve the passage of the ballot measure in Mississippi, the ultimate decision may come down to whether the the U.S. Constitution can be construed to recognized personhood as beginning at conception (see The Supremacy Clause, pp. 104-105).

Groups Mobilize to Lobby Obama Administration over Keystone Pipeline

hjghassell — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:24:00 +0000

When writing in defense of the newly written constitution, James Madison argued that the new national government would control the potentially negative effects by increasing the number of competing minority factions. Essentially, he argued, that the larger the government’s constituency was, the less likely it was for any one particular faction or special interest to control government action. He argued that competing interests would work against each other to prevent any one group from controlling a majority that would allow them to tyrannize the minority (see Federalist 10, pp. 84-86, and The Pluralist Defense of Interest Groups, pp. 617-618). While all special interests are not always equally represented, as this article explains, the conflict over the construction of the Keystone Pipeline from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf Coast has pitted two strong interests against each other. Both groups have a large array of resources and are mobilizing using both insider and outsider tactics to enact their preferred policy (see What Do Interest Groups Do?, pp. 628-636).

Cal-Berkely Bake Sale Fuels Debate over Affirmative Action

hjghassell — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:41:20 +0000

Civil Rights, unlike Civil Liberties, are rights that are secured through government intervention. During the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s mass demonstrations led by black southern preachers, most notably Martin Luther King Jr., called for the government to intervene and eradicate the policy of segregation in schools and businesses and to eliminate the preferential treatment of white citizens over blacks (see Coordination, pp. 12-15). While the government was able to address many of the demands regarding ending discrimination in schools and voting rights, the recourses to address past discrimination in employment are more controversial (see The Civil Rights Movement: 1960s, pp. 163-165). As this article explains, many of the policies of Affirmative Action, giving preferential treatment or consideration to groups who have been previously discriminated against is highly controversial and debated. While progressives argue that these measures are needed to balance out the inherent disadvantages present in society, conservatives generally consider these policies discriminatory and unfair (see The Era of Remedial Action: The 1970s to the Present, pp. 172-175).

Congress Objects to Justice Department Spending

hjghassell — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 21:22:11 +0000

As government has become involved in more and more aspects of American life it has also had to expand the apparatus of government. Government can only grow if elected officials were willing to delegate to bureaucrats authority to run government programs (see An Expanding Government, pp. 371-373). The goals and aspirations of the politicians, however, do not always align with those of the bureaucrats in charge of the programs that the politicians have set up. As this article shows, government agencies may have different ideas about how a program should be run, and the size of the budget necessary to run that program effectively. When the bureaucracy deviates from the preferred policies of Congress, methods such as hearings and investigations, reports, and other help members of Congress to force the bureaucracy to adhere to the policy preferences of Congress (see Delegation, pp. 31-34, Bureaucratic Culture and Autonomy, pp. 388-389 and Methods of Congressional Control, pp. 394-398).

Bachmann Attacks Perry on Interest Group Influence

hjghassell — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 04:28:16 +0000

In Federalist 10, Madison argued that a “factions” was a group of individuals who banded together to pursue selfish aims at the expense of the rest of the general public. While Madison argued that in any democratic government the presence of factions was inevitable, he believed that a large number of competing factions would limit the influence and effect of any one particular interest. In recent years the number of interest groups has continued to grow as the role of government has expanded (see The Logic of Lobbying, pp. 610-612, Federalist No. 10, pp. 84-86, and Why Have Interest Groups Proliferated, pp. 624-626). As this video portion of the Republican Presidential Debate suggests, the decisions of government actors, such as Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, can have a substantial effect on the profits of companies who supply certain products. While Gov. Perry argues that a small donation may not necessarily guarantee a favorable policy, it does provide access to decision makers and allows lobbyists to make their case when an issue of concern to an interest group arises (see Insider Tactics: Trafficking in Information and Cultivating Access, pp. 628-633, and The Politics of Access, p. 632).

President Obama to Present Job Plan in National Address

hjghassell — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:14:46 +0000

When President Barack Obama takes center stage this evening to present his jobs plan he will be attempting to address, in part, some of the problems that his Presidency has faced. With unemployment strongly on the rise, public opinion about President Obama has sunk to new lows. This, combined with the presence of divided government, has made it difficult for Obama to pass legislation dealing with current problems (see Unified Versus Divided Party Control of Government, pp. 338-340). As this article explains, Obama’s speech to the nation will attempt to restore the public’s faith in his ability to stimulate the economy and boost employment levels. While the plan President Obama presents may be new, the method of mobilizing public opinion is not. President’s routinely “go public” in attempts to promote their preferred policies to the general public and thus win over the members of congress who represent those individuals. As the President is able to shape the availability and debate over relevant information, not only will his job approval rise, but he will also be more likely to win re-election next year (see Information, pp. 474-477, Framing, pp. 477-479, and Mobilizing Public Opinion, pp. 344-350).

Greek Reliance Upon Good Will of Germany Reminiscent of Articles of Confederation

hjghassell — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:22:44 +0000

In addition to passing the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Second Continental Congress also drafted and sent to the states for ratification, the first American constitution, the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles of Confederation the national government was severely limited in its ability to act without the consent of the states. In the national legislature created by the Articles of Confederation each state was allotted one vote, and major issues like collecting revenue through taxes in order to pay war debts required an unanimous vote. Without a binding mechanism to fund expenses, the fledgling United States soon found itself in trouble (see The Conderation’s Troubled Peace, pp. 58-61 and The Prisoner’s Dilemma, pp. 15-19). This troubled situation is similar in some ways to the petitions of the Greeks to the European Union for help with their financial crisis. Without a national government authorized to transfer money to Greece, the European Union is dependent upon the good will of other sovereign states. The Constitution of the United States transformed the national government from a weak authority dependent upon the acquiescence of the individual states to a government with power to act independently without unanimous state approval (see The Great Compromise, pp. 65-69).