Increased Public Support for Trump Impeachment

https://morningconsult.com/2019/09/26/voter-support-for-impeachment-grows-amid-ukraine-scandal/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/upshot/impeachment-polling-Trump.html

With the recent news of an impeachment inquiry on Trump, public opinion polling is important to gauging the current political climate. One poll by

Morning Consult highlights that, out of 1640 registered voters, there has been a 7% increase in overall voters favoring impeachment and a

6% decrease in voter disapproval of impeachment within the last week. Not surprisingly, there is a stark divide between Democrat and Republican

stance. Within the span of a week, Democrats increased their approval of impeachment by 13% while Republicans increased by 5%, with a majority

still disapproving impeachment, as shown by the graph above. Even with this new scandal, Trump has a 42.1% approval rating (FiveThirtyEight

link above).

These poll results seem logical. After all, the recreated transcript of Trump’s phone call is out in the open and the event leading up to the phone call

(Trump freezing financial aid) seems all too convenient to be a coincidence. 

Of course, these results are not the absolute fact. There is a margin of error (+/- 2% in this case) that can skew the data and public opinion will

change as more information disseminates through mass media. Since this impeachment inquiry only recently began, people have not had the

time to form solid opinions nor have they received enough information to make a final judgement. The media coverage on Trump’s reactions,

Congress’s decisions, and other politicians’ opinions in the coming weeks will be important influences on public opinion. 

What other questions or information could polling companies ask to better gauge public opinion? What do you make of this data?

Honk

Watch your back, hooman. This post is not the serious Gov Post you're looking for.

On September 20th, 2019, the Untitled Goose Game, magnum opus of this console generation, nay, of our generation as a whole, released on PC and Nintendo Switch.

And it.

Is.

Amazing.

Boasting such innovative features as a dedicated honk button (!!!), the ability to freely terrorize a town of hapless humans, and impeccable goose waddling animation, this game's got game of the year in the bag, no doubt.

However, I have to wonder whether the sadistic nature of some of the game's goals won't have a negative impact on the minds of the American youth. God forbid, if this generation of impressionable children were to be exposed to UGG's infectious schadenfreude, I daresay the fabric of American society may fall apart. Well, that is if the American government doesn't tear American society apart before this terrifying goose can get its omniscient, feathered wings on it.

Questions:
1. Honk? Honk honk honk honk? Flap. Flap? Flap honk. Honkity?

2. Is this Game of the Year material? (Who am I kidding. Obviously.)

3. How much sleep is too little sleep? Time sensitive question. Geese are currently honking around my cranium on a path in the shape of an inverted mobius strip.

Fake News! "Americans' Trust in Mass Media Edges Down to 41%" Gallup Poll Shows

Here Are Your Numbers
(Well, the class is on a bit of a public opinion bender. I mean, that's the current unit after all.)

A recent Gallup poll has found that American public opinion on the trustworthiness of Mass Media (things like news meant for mass consumption) has taken a dip over the past year, casting some doubt over the steady recovery since 2016. Of course, 2016 saw an extremely contentious presidential race, with rhetoric being slung around about the "fake news media," so it's not like that dip to 32% was unexpected. However, what could be causing this most recent dip?

Mass Media informs a lot of the actions voters and politicians take, providing an easy avenue for keeping citizens up to date on current events and potential policy and subtly spinning public opinion of policy issues. I find this trend of decline in public trust in mass media somewhat concerning. On one hand, mass media has never been perfect, but I find it hard to believe that it's been "deteriorating" as a decline like this would suggest. I believe the American citizen has just become gradually more cynical about the reliability of mass media news; whether or not that's warranted, I don't think I'd be qualified to say (a.k.a. I have no idea).

On the other hand, I'm also concerned about what this distrust means for voter behavior in the processes of American government. We'd prefer an informed citizen, and Mass Media is one of the most successful ways to get relevant information out to the voter base. If this many people think Mass Media news is fundamentally untrustworthy, I'm not sure if this would create a healthy amount of skepticism or if it would cause the average American to be uninformed for the fear of being misinformed. My hopes are on the former.

Questions:
1. What could possibly be causing a dip in Americans' trust in Mass Media in 2019?

2. This is the party split data on the issue:

Fascinating. Even before 2016 when Trump pressed the "fake news" narrative, Republicans seemed to trust mass media much less than Democrats, and Independents run in between the two. What could be the cause of this discrepancy between parties? What could this mean for how these voter bases behave in political processes like elections?

3. Could this distrust perhaps be healthy for America, and in what ways? In what ways would it be unhealthy?

Question for my sake: Where would you get your information on current events and potential policy if not from Mass Media?

Antonio Brown allegation

 

After his “controversial departure from the Oakland raiders” to the patriots, Antonio Brown was released by the patriots 11 days later. Some of his stats were from 2011-2016 8,210 receiving yards and 50 touchdowns. And is known as a "superstar wide receiver"

It’s not the first time Antonio Brown is in the news. This starts back in 2017 after the incident of violating the league policy and live streaming the Pittsburgh celebrating their win over the chiefs. Later that month facebook told Brown and paid him 244,000 to record, and was fined 10,000. December 2018 throwing a football at his QB, causing him to be benched for the next game but as the last time, he was in a steelers jersey. At the beginning of the year, Brown was very boastful in his statement “ I don’t even have to play football if I don’t want” and I don’t even need the game. I don’t need to prove nothing to anyone if they wanna play they going to play by my rules”. In addition in his mind, he thought about money and was earning 17 million dollars annually. And with the deal signed for the raiders to pay him 50.13 million in the next 3 years.

Enough about his past, Antonio Brown was accused of sexual assault and rape on former trainer Britney Taylor. Britney told she was raped on three incidents of sexual assault from 2017-2018 (i won’t go in-depth of what he was accused, I will leave a link of what he did) Ultimately the statement of “innocent unless proven guilty” probably toyed in his mind. Since after his 11th day of a patriot player he was released.

Do you think his arrogant personality caused him to ruin his career?

After being released, do you think he should ever get a pro contract again?

Sexual assault is still one of many problems the U.S still faces today, what should the U.S do better/ improve to decrease the sexual assault allegations?

https://haaslawpllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/1_Complaint.pdf

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/antonio-brown-timeline-how-he-wore-out-his-welcome-in-pittsburgh-oakland-new-england-and-where-he-goes-from-here/

Summit 2019

As you know, last Monday the united nations met to discuss the climate problems we are facing today, unless you have been living under a rock and never realized. What makes it worse is that the U.S states pulled out of the Paris agreement, making it other countries to clean out our “ 38.5 million tons of trash(2018) ” according to the plastic pollution coalition.

Some climate problems we have seen in recent years are the ever-increasing heat and global warming, hurricanes, longer droughts as seen in California 2016-2017, and heat records were broken continuously, the last one in France, Britain, and the Netherlands last July.

As you know Greta Thunberg participated in the Summit, she stated: “the eyes of all future generations are upon you”. 65 countries have stood up to this problem and announced to “achieve net-zero emissions by 2050”. While fund managers “aim to get to a net-zero portfolio of investments”. This means to reuse energy.

Some countries have also taken action, prime minister Narendra Modi of India to increase their share of renewable energy, and chancellor Andela Merkel of Germany to proposed a 60 billion plan to reduce greenhouse gas emission by 2030

Something I found interesting was that our trash was being imported to China and letting them solve our issue. But also blaming China and other countries to take climate change “seriously”. Towards the beginning of the year, the Chinese government cut back imported trash, because it was getting too expensive to recycle. It also endangers the health and resources of Chinese residents.

Questions:

What should we as a community help out the environment

Do you think we as one of the wealthiest nations be solving global warming issue

What would you start doing differently to help out?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/09/25/new-un-climate-report-massive-change-already-here-worlds-oceans-frozen-regions/

https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/blog/2018/10/4/us-plastic-recycling-rate-projected-to-drop-to-44-in-2018

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/03/13/702501726/where-will-your-plastic-trash-go-now-that-china-doesnt-want-it

Honduras Agreement with the U.S

    

On Wednesday the Trump administration signed a deal with Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez. This deal made it so that it gives U.S immigration authorities to send back people to Honduras who didn’t apply for asylum. In order for someone from Honduras to get apply an asylum, they will need to go to a nearby country (Guatemala or El Salvador) and stay there until their requests is accepted

A brief summary about Honduras problem. Honduras has one of the biggest crime and gang violence and civilians often stuck in the crossfire. Some of the biggest gangs are “mara Salvatrucha y Los barrios 18” and other smaller gangs. Some civilians make imprudent decisions of allying with one group or asking them a favor and pay the price if not complying. I don’t mean to get anyone sad or anything, but in 2014 a 13 year old was abducted where she was raped and tortured before they (a gang) killed her and buried her on the floor, for her parents not holding up their end of the deal. Apart from the violence, poverty is extremely bad in Honduras, more than 60% of the population live under poverty and many people receive less than 1.90 U.S per day.

Many people from Honduras come to the united states to get away from the violence.

Approximately over 250,000 thousand Honduran migrants filled protection claims in the past 11 months, but after the incident of the Honduran president participating in a supposed “drug dealing” to support his presidential campaign back in 2013 the trump administration has enforced immigration.

Should the U.S be intervening with the current state of Honduras

Do you think the U.S has the right to dein an asylum for those who are facing hardships in their country/ how should the U.S be dealing with this type of situation

Since this was put out on Wednesday, and hundreds of immigrants migrant to the U.S. How should Hondurans be treated when they arrive at the frontier, should they be dein of an asylum? 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/us-announces-asylum-deal-with-honduras-could-send-migrants-to-one-of-worlds-most-violent-nations/2019/09/25/cca94a86-dfb6-11e9-8fd3-d943b4ed57e0_story.html


https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/honduras/overview

Impeachment!?!

I'm really trying to avoid superfluous screen time but yesterday was absolutely bananas and it is time to pay attention. Here are two good sources to put the current scandal into context:

A timeline of events

The YNTKs of impeachment including a connection to the Federalist Papers

h/t Ms. Sadlon

From my perspective, "it's deja vu all over again" -- Yogi Berra

About a week before I started my professional teaching career in San Jose, then President Bill Clinton testified to a Grand Jury and admitted to the nation that he had regular sexual contact with a former intern named Monica Lewinsky, despite previously stating that he did not have "sexual relations" with her in a public statement and in sworn testimony. A few days into the school year, I got a call from my admin asking if I could host a TV crew later that day doing a story about how this awkward story was being handled in civics classes, so I improvised a rambling recitation about Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon and the constitutional language about 'high crimes and misdemeanors" and the bicameral process and so on. I wish I had a tape of the broadcast, I was on camera for about 5 seconds and my hair was the most out of control bushy it could possibly be, but it was definitely cool to be trusted to represent the school / district / profession in that way before receiving my first paycheck. 

Between the Presidential primaries and the Ukraine scandal, it looks like we are set to have one of those heady years in Gov class. Crazy times. If one of this week's bloggers doesn't write about the impeachment inquiry, you can use this as an open thread until someone does.  
PSHa! Janet posted while I had this window open. The field day has begun! Go comment on her post however.

Aww Shoot, Here We Go Again: Trump Suggests Ukrainian President Dig Up Dirt On Biden, House Announces Impeachment Inquiry.

A Nice Long Sampler Of The Stuff That's Been Going Down
Justice Department Transcript Of The Spicy Conversation
Mr. Silton's going to have a field day with this one, if not on the blog, then definitely during class. Prepare yourself. Buckle down. This one's spicy.

This story has been utterly eclipsing the news cycle, by the way. It's been insane. Here's the long and short of it.

On July 25th, President Trump had a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and, as you can read in the Justice Department Transcript of the call, unsubtly prodded him to contact Rudy Giuliani and investigate a potential scandal involving Joe Biden and his son. No papers were signed, but Zelensky verbally agreed. Additionally, a week before this conversation, President Trump ordered the freezing of hundreds of millions of dollars of financial aid to Ukraine (funding for the purpose of fending off Russia). There is currently no solid evidence that these two events are linked.

On August 12th, an anonymous whistleblower filed a complaint to the intelligence community. The exact contents of this complaint are still unknown but its general gist of a shady promise over the phone with a foreign leader got out on the 19th of September.

Since then, a transcript of the conversation has been released by the Justice Department, Rudy Giuliani has been on television stating that it's okay for the President to withhold aid in exchange for investigating Biden, Trump has claimed there was no "quid pro quo" in his call and the aid was withheld due to corruption in Ukraine, and Nancy Pelosi, Democratic speaker of the house, has announced an impeachment inquiry (basically an investigation into the events in question). The House seems to have a majority in favor of impeachment even before the inquiry has run its course. The Senate, currently Republican controlled, has had a number of members express their disapproval of the impeachment. Remember that impeachment requires a majority vote from the House, and then the actual trial requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

(There's Opinion coming up, so here's the disclaimer: I have bias.)

The way I see it, unless some key evidence is revealed in the Impeachment Inquiry beyond these allegations, Trump, even if voted to trial by the House with the knowledge we have now, will not be convicted. The Senate is on his side, and, ultimately, there is no solid evidence that this conversation was actually an abuse of aid money, and we have no evidence of actual Ukrainian interference beyond verbal assent. Do I think his actions so far are incredibly suspect and incriminating? Absolutely. Do I think the Dems in the House should gather some more solid evidence before voting to impeach? Also absolutely. Well, I mean, that's what the Impeachment Inquiry is for. The Senate will need more convincing for a two-thirds vote to convict the President of their party, and a House impeachment vote without a Senate conviction would only fuel the "witch hunt" narrative.

It's strange how my opinion on the matter has been based on partisan control of the House and Senate, isn't it? Congress is bicameral, and it's split like this in such a partisan political culture, and the President is somebody like Donald Trump who breaks political conventions left and right and leaves lawmakers scratching their heads like, "Wait, was that legal?" When the situation is like this, it's hard not to think in donkeys and elephants.

Questions:
1. Has this potential impeachment become an overly partisan issue? If so, what does that mean for the state of America's political culture and the American governmental system? If not, why not?

2. If President Trump's behavior here goes without conviction, what kind of precedent would that set for American government in the future?

3. CSMonitor puts a lot of weight on how this problem looks to the voter, how certain spins of these events can be "easily grasped" by the public, and how those in favor of impeachment are framing the conflict in a way that is "easier for voters to understand." How does public opinion affect the outcome of this debacle? How do voters affect it?

Extra. How spicy is this conflict on a scale of ten out of ten to two thousand out of ten?

Tensions At The Border Over Asylum Seekers

Article

Asylum seekers at the southern border have recently found themselves bused off to border cities and left on the streets with little to no guidance. This poses a serious humanitarian concern, no question, but it also serves as an interesting case study in Federalism and, potentially, manipulation of public opinion.

This has been a bit of an ongoing crisis, starting in March with the first wave of migrants brought into San Antonio with "no warning." The migrants were often sick, tired, and penniless after detainment by Border Patrol, and, at the time, with Federal funding left in the dust trails of ICE buses, local governments began expending their own resources. Border city governments have spent "at least $7 million over the past year to care for thousands of undocumented migrants released after being detained by the federal government." Apparently, city leaders of both parties have been describing it as something of an "unfunded mandate."

Congress did take action back in July to reimburse local communities, but as of now that money has not reached them, and if the Federal response to the migrant crisis of 2014 informs our predictions for this present problem, they may not receive funding for another year or so.

I found this little dysfunctional interaction between the Federal and local tiers of our government an interesting demonstration of Federalism in the modern day. ICE, a federal agency, got into hot water over immigrant detainment at the border, and thus has passed on the problem, without initial funding or warning, to local governments. In this way, despite the issue not being an official "unfunded mandate," the spirit of the Federal government forcing (if not in writing then by honor) other tiers of government into an action (supporting undocumented immigrants) without support makes it a fairly reasonable comparison. Additionally, I have suspicions about the initial wave of released detainees without proper warning or funding. It seems like a bit of an engineered crisis; drive undocumented asylum seekers into unprepared border communities, let those border communities tank without Federal support, and spin public opinion with rhetoric around asylum seekers tanking border communities. However, I am left leaning, and in favor of accepting refugees and asylum seekers, so I might hold some bias on this case.

Questions:
1. It's the Federal Government's duty to process these asylum seekers, but whose duty is it to see to their health and well-being while they're on American soil?

2. Evidently, how our tiered government has dealt with this migrant crisis is evidence of a slight dysfunction. Is the balance of American Federalism to blame for local governments struggling under the weight of these migrants?

3. Do these circumstances seem to indicate manipulation of public opinion by the current administration (or am I just a paranoid nut)? If not, how might these events impact public opinion regardless, and subsequently impact future policymaking?

"Let's See Them Aliens": Civilians "Raid" U.S. Military Installation In Search For Alien Life

Source: TIME Magazine

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/us/area-51-raid.html

https://time.com/5682078/area-51-raid/

Disclaimer: This is my joke/unrelated to history blog post.

The Government has a lot on its hands. A trade war, a budget deficit, healthcare problems, you name it.
Whether the government is doing well to solve those problems… uh, let’s leave that for another day. Today,
let’s take a look at what the citizenry is up to.

Ah, yes. Raiding a U.S. military installation that was kept a secret for most of U.S. history.

The so-called Area 51 “raid” was first proposed early-mid 2019 in a Facebook event titled, “Storm Area 51:
They can’t stop all of us.” The event quickly gained popularity, eventually reaching two million people
committing to going.

Of those two million, around 3,000 actually showed up to “raid” Area 51 on September 20th. Their plan?
“Naruto” run (the act of throwing one’s arms behind their back, bending over, and running at high speeds)
to dodge the military’s bullets, storm Area 51, and save the aliens (among other things, like, uh...) trapped
inside. 

Contrary to what some believe, the raid on Area 51 was less of a raid and more of a community event. “Alienstock,” the eventual name of the event, was announced as a music festival that would take place on the site. Though there were guards in front of the gate, sources from the TIME article state that the guards were quite friendly. Guards and raiders alike partied, took photos, and had a good time.

In spite of the raid not turning out as expected, many were happy with how the event turned out. Raiders showed up with costumes joke protest signs, and lots of music and food. Lore surrounding aliens at Area 51 was a central theme of the event, with many calls to “see them aliens.”

So in spite of the fact that many thought that hundreds of people would die in stupidity and that this would end up becoming a humanitarian crisis, I personally am happy that the people who turned up didn’t cause too much trouble and had a good time. 

Question Prompts:

1. You wanna see them aliens? Or nah?
2. Knowing how the event really turned out in hindsight, would you have attended had you been given the chance?
3. What do you think of this whole debacle? Stupid? Wholesome? Both?
4. Do you personally believe aliens exist, inside Area 51 or not?

U.S. and Japan Sign Limited Trade Deal

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-japan/u-s-japan-sign-limited-trade-deal-leaving-autos-for-future-talks-idUSKBN1WA2D8?il=0

U.S. President Donald Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe recently signed a limited trade deal, which
opened Japanese markets to around 7 billion dollars worth of U.S. agricultural products, such as cheese, pork,
wheat and cheese. Although there was no official confirmation of the fact, President Trump reassured Abe that he
would not impose any Section 232 tariffs (refer to https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45249.pdf for more information -
essentially, section 232 of the 1962 “authorizes the President to impose restrictions on certain imports based on an
affirmative determination by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) that the targeted products are being
imported into the United States ‘in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national
security’”) on Japanese cars.

Other than the assurance that the U.S. will not impose Section 232 tariffs on Japanese automobiles, Japan received
reduced tariffs on agricultural (soy sauce, flowers) and industrial goods (steam turbines, musical instruments,
power tools).

An important impact of these new trade deals will most definitely be on U.S. farmers - a breath of fresh air in the
wake of the U.S. - China trade war, under which many farmers have been suffering. Repairing the damage done to
U.S. farmers, however, can only come with resolving the U.S. - China trade war; according to
(https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-agriculture-braun-column/column-japan-deal-nice-for-us-agriculture-
but-china-is-the-much-bigger-prize-braun-idUSKBN1WB003), U.S. soybean farmers are from a nearly nine
billion dollar drop in U.S. soybean exports to China. Whereas, U.S. exports to Japan have still been strong in
the past few years, even with the absence of a trade deal.

It’s interesting to note the amount of affect Federal commerce decisions will come to have on the states- as we
know, the Commerce Clause allows the Federal government to regulate commerce. In the context of a
recession, this can be a good thing, as the Federal government can use its powers to attempt to spur economic
growth. However, in the context of a trade war, there is much potential for state economies, not to mention the
people, to suffer, as tariffs upon tariffs are stacked upon the belligerents of the trade war.

Question Prompts:

1. Read over this (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45249.pdf) document, and look at some of the history behind the usage of Section 232. Should the presidency have this power? Or is this an overextension of the commerce clause?
2. With the new trade deal, President Trump has finally secured a win for U.S. farmers after they had suffered under the U.S. - China trade war! Did he really, though? What do you think the effect of the deal will be on U.S. farmers? 
3. The trade deal lifts tariffs imposed on many Japanese manufactured goods. Do you think this will hurt U.S. manufacturing jobs?

House Votes to Allow Marijuana Industry to Use Banks

Source: Rolling Stone

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/safe-banking-act-passes-house-marijuana-bank-bill-890525/

The House recently voted to give the marijuana industry access to banks, pushing the U.S. another step closer
towards legalization. 

Previously, banks that served marijuana dispensaries could be prosecuted for money laundering laws crafted under
the War on Drugs. This forced the marijuana industry to operate only in cash. Handling massive amounts of money
is, of course, extremely impractical, especially for an 11 billion dollar industry. 

The bill marks a turning point in federal attitude towards marijuana- although the bill makes no change to
marijuana’s federal legal status as a Schedule I drug, it is the first time the feds have taken a step to protect its
recreational status in some states.

This a great example of pluralism at work. Rep. Earl Blumenaur wraps things up pretty neatly-
“The states aren’t waiting for us. This is an $11 billion industry and growing. And it’s growing because
the people and the states are demanding it. We need to step up.” There is a clear coalition of interest groups
pushing for policies in support of the marijuana industry, as well as widespread public support among the people
themselves. 

Question Prompts:

1. Do you think this is pluralism gone too far? What would someone wary of hyperpluralism think of this debacle?
2. Is penalizing banks for serving the marijuana industry constitutional? Or do you think that it is an over-interpretation of the commerce clause?
3. Now that the bill has passed the house, it’s on to the Senate. What are some actions an individual or an interest group can take to greater the chance that the bill passes?

Massachusetts Bans Vape Product Sales for 4 Months Following Health Crisis

Mango-flavored JUUL pods/Source:JUUL

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/09/24/massachusetts-ban-all-vaping-product-sales-months-toughest-state-crackdown/

Massachusettts recently placed a four-month ban on the sale of vaping and e-cigarette products as part of

an effort to crack down on youth respiratory illness as a result of vaping.

The public health emergency was announced following at least 61 cases of potentially

vaping-related illnesses that were reported to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. 

Aside from the Public Health Emergency, other states have been focusing

on curbing the youth vaping epidemic. Many states have taken steps,

for example, to ban flavored vape on the grounds that flavors target the youth and get them

addicted to nicotine.

The ban, of course, has been met with criticism. Pro-vaping business claim

that the ban will create a black market for unsafe vaping products that aren’t held up to regular manufacturing
standards. Individuals claim that the ban will create a large influx of smokers, as people turn to the alternative to get their nicotine fix.

I find it interesting that Massachusetts was able to ban the sale of vape products in the first place.
Indeed, some interpretations of the commerce clause give the feds and state governments concurrent power
over state commerce. Of course, if the feds and state gov were to contradict, the feds’ decision would take
precedent.

Question Prompts:

1. What do you think of the argument that banning vaping will create smokers?
2. Propose a solution to solving the youth vaping epidemic.

"Friends" TV Show's 25th Anniversary!

(Graphic from gstatic.com)

Original Link 

      For my last post, I thought it would be nice to brighten up your day and bring some joy during this crazy time in our lives. Though I have no specific heartfelt/meaningful story to share (all the previous posts did an amazing job of expressing their interests/true selves) I do have something that will help you waste your time but still be meaningful. :)

     As many of you probably know, "Friends" is a TV show from 1994 that was a smash hit and a classic in our nation's history of entertainment. Though probably our parents have enjoyed this hysterical show, many people from our generation have also indulged the various episodes and have fallen in love with the characters as well. 

   Recently, the show had its 25th anniversary and of course, Google had to do something to celebrate. So what did they do? They hid easter eggs on their searches. If you look up one of the main character's name from the show, you will see a little icon that pops up in their bio box. Once you click on that icon, the easter egg appears! 

      This is an example for Rachel Green - there is a little mannequin head with her icon hairstyle. Click on it, once you searched it, to find the Google surprise. 

     I hope this is something really fun that you have not known about previously and that it brought some great memories about the show/character personalities. :)

California law forces tax returns to be released in order to run in elections and the court reject it

(Caption from article) President Trump arrives in Los Angeles on Wednesday. On Thursday, a federal judge agreed to block the implementation of a state election law that would force disclosure of his tax returns. (Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

   Original Article

      This week, California stated that they want presidential nominees to show their tax returns in order to run. However, it is seemed to attack President Trump since many people want to have his tax returns revealed to the public. The ruling decided by the courts on Thursday was that California cannot force candidates to share their tax returns. 

       California Gov. Newson argued  that "The United States Constitution grants states the authority to determine how their electors are chosen, and California is well within its constitutional right to include this requirement." We learned in class that elections are part of state powers. So is it alright for states to ask Trump for his records?

       On the other hand, Trump's lawyer, Jay Sekulow stated that we "are encouraged that the federal court tentatively concluded that a preliminary injunction should be granted...It remains our position that the law is unconstitutional because states are not permitted to add additional requirements for candidates for president, and that the law violates the Constitution." 

   

   Another lawyer for Trump, Thomas McCarthy, argued that by setting this law into stone, it could lead to candidates having to be forced to share information about their mental and physical health. 

   Personally, I would be curious to see Trump's or any candidate's tax returns to help reinforce the realities of the wealth distribution in this nation. Perhaps this might help with business corruption, which is beneficial to our democracy as a whole. But the question still lingers - is this a violation of privacy rights? That to be honest, I am not entirely sure about.  

Has California, known to be democratic/liberal, gone too far? Or is it our right to know about Trump's or any candidate's tax returns?

Is Trump exceeding his presidential powers?

President Donald Trump greets Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh after the State of the Union address on February 5, 2019, in Washington, DC.

 Alex Wong/Getty Images

Original Post 

If you are interested, here is the pdf of the case

       On Tuesday, President Trump asked the Supreme Court if they could look into the case Selia Law v. CFPB or Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The content of the case is whether or not a federal team (or agency) can be led by one director that the President cannot remove under no circumstances. Moreover, this relates to the concept of the powers listed in the Constitution and the type of government it permits (checks and balances system).  

    Ian Millhiser, the author of the article, predicts that there is a small chance that the Supreme court will not allow federal agencies to have the immunity of not being removed by the president.  However, on the other side of the issue, it means that the president can remove this person from their position. This, in turn, relates to the amount of power the president can have and the idea of a "unitary executive," where all the control is in the president's hands; however, if there should be another lower official, who is answerable to the president, to take the decision in their hands as well. But this concept goes against this theory, making the court either give safety to the director position or simply be under president will. 

    The other interesting aspect is that this agency, CFPB, is led by one person and not a board of people. The president only has the right to remove the director if they show “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office" (Vox). Other conservative perspectives indicated that the CFPB cannot stand due to it not representing the "consent of the governed." 

This relates to our class discussion/lesson about what the Consitution tells what each branch has power to and uses the checks and balances systems to make sure that each branch has limited power. But by Trump being able to fire the director, does it tip the balance? Sure, the president has the power under the "unitary executive" but what if one person having this much power in one branch is simply too much? Should we break up this large power into smaller parts? I think it would be beneficial, but it would raise the question about the importance of the presidential position and what powers are deemed to be on the lower or higher end of the spectrum. 

     Also, has the CFPB director demonstrated qualities that should make him be removed from the office? I think not. Therefore, in my opinion, I believe that even if Trump wanted to remove this person from office, he would have a hard time since this goes against the law even if he holds all the executive power. This is where the concept of checks and balances or where the judicial branch limits the executive branch's power in order to not create a tyranny of the government. 

   

What should the supreme court do? Do you think that the CFPB should be under one person? Usually, however, many federal agencies have a group of people rather than one person. Is Trump trying to exceed his powers under the executive branch?