http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/02/wolf_posts_double-digit_lead_o.html
A Democratic businessman from York County named Tom Wolf was recently noted to be near the front of the Pennsylvania governor election race. It is believed that Wolf will be the frontrunner in the race against current governor Tom Corbett, a Republican. In a recent Franklin & Marshall College poll, Tom Wolf drew 36 percent support. He also received 44 percent support from his own party, with only 3 percent expressing an unfavorable opinion of him.
Tom Wolf has been recently very intelligent about his race toward the governor's mansion, beginning his political campaign in the form of advertising earlier than his opponents. I personally have seen a few of these ads, and they have not only made people aware of the reelection on the horizon, but have pointed out his strengths. With the slogan "A Different Kind of Leader," he successfully draws his audience in by saying that he is ready for positive change in PA. These ads are persuasive and capture the attention of the viewer, making them a great move on Wolf's part in order to become the frontrunner in the reelection. Wolf's campaigning proves that he is taking advantage of the two-party system; his definite opponent Corbett is a Republican, and if people are unhappy with what he has done while in office, they will automatically be drawn to the fact that Wolf is a Democrat, which generally means that he will make some decisions that oppose Corbett's. Tom Wolf realizes that it can be difficult to run against the incumbent candidate, and in turn he has begun to make some very smart moves in his campaign.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Unit 2 Current Events Post - New Bill on the Table in Kansas
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/02/14/what-the-hell-just-happened-in-kansas/
There is a new bill circulating around the Kansas House of Representatives that is based on the premise that heterosexuals are experiencing discrimination from homosexuals. As conservative Rush Limbaugh puts it, heterosexuals are "under assault by the 2 to 5 percent that are homosexual." This new bill would entitle businesses and individuals to refuse service, accommodations, interactions, and more to anyone who identifies themselves as having a connection with a gay marriage or similar arrangement.
Kansas lies on the right side of the political spectrum. It is labeled as a red state, meaning that the majority of people who reside there are conservatives, and its representatives are mostly Republican. This bill makes sense in the aspect that it is in accordance with the beliefs of Staunch Republicans and other political typology groups that identify with the Republican party. But the bill brings up some of the core American values. The issue of equality is extremely closely connected to the bill: is it a proper display of equality in America to deny services to specific citizens? The bill also questions the definition of liberty: who should be entitled to complete economic and cultural freedom? Some of stated that this bill is a modern version of Jim Crow laws; if the bill can deny services to gays, it may end up being used as an excuse to keep gays from voting in the state of Kansas, therefore increasing the success of the Republican party.
In a way, Kansas is ignoring public opinion results. Public opinion polls have recently suggested that the public's views on gay rights is shifting in the favor of gay equality. In this sense, Kansas' House of Representatives is moving in the opposite direction of national public opinion.
This bill is the new foundation for a gay equality argument that has the potential to be long-lived. The Kansas House of Representatives is fighting discrimination with more discrimination, and it will be interesting to see if Republicans will be willing to openly oppose this discriminatory bill, even if they are against gay marriage and the gay rights movement.
There is a new bill circulating around the Kansas House of Representatives that is based on the premise that heterosexuals are experiencing discrimination from homosexuals. As conservative Rush Limbaugh puts it, heterosexuals are "under assault by the 2 to 5 percent that are homosexual." This new bill would entitle businesses and individuals to refuse service, accommodations, interactions, and more to anyone who identifies themselves as having a connection with a gay marriage or similar arrangement.
Kansas lies on the right side of the political spectrum. It is labeled as a red state, meaning that the majority of people who reside there are conservatives, and its representatives are mostly Republican. This bill makes sense in the aspect that it is in accordance with the beliefs of Staunch Republicans and other political typology groups that identify with the Republican party. But the bill brings up some of the core American values. The issue of equality is extremely closely connected to the bill: is it a proper display of equality in America to deny services to specific citizens? The bill also questions the definition of liberty: who should be entitled to complete economic and cultural freedom? Some of stated that this bill is a modern version of Jim Crow laws; if the bill can deny services to gays, it may end up being used as an excuse to keep gays from voting in the state of Kansas, therefore increasing the success of the Republican party.
In a way, Kansas is ignoring public opinion results. Public opinion polls have recently suggested that the public's views on gay rights is shifting in the favor of gay equality. In this sense, Kansas' House of Representatives is moving in the opposite direction of national public opinion.
This bill is the new foundation for a gay equality argument that has the potential to be long-lived. The Kansas House of Representatives is fighting discrimination with more discrimination, and it will be interesting to see if Republicans will be willing to openly oppose this discriminatory bill, even if they are against gay marriage and the gay rights movement.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Unit 1 Current Events Post - The Minimum Wage Debate
http://www.chicagotribune.com/site/ct-minimum-wage-debate-biz-0202-20140202,0,7595101.story
The minimum wage debate has been a continuous topic of debate for years. President Obama is a supporter of raising the federal minimum wage to as much as $10.10 an hour from the current minimum wage of $7.25. The arguments between supporters of the raising of minimum wage and the idea's opponents can mostly be related to federalism and the United States Constitution.
Some people may use Constitutional arguments to their advantage in this debate. Many resort to the Elastic Clause, which is commonly referred to within debates involving the creation of new laws or standards. The Elastic Clause is nicknamed the "necessary and proper" clause because it states that Congress has the power to make any laws that are necessary for the continued success of the country. A posing question is: Is the raising of the minimum wage in this country necessary for the betterment of the economy?
Another part of the Constitution that provides an argument for opponents is the tenth amendment, which basically states that any powers not delegated to the United States federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states. Many people may argue that since the Constitution does not explicitly outline its control over small or local businesses--the majority of what would be affected by a raise in federal minimum wage--this power should be a reserved power, meaning that the issue should be decided upon within the states.
The minimum wage debate is an example of implied preemption, which is a concept of federalism that states that if state law differs from federal law, federal law automatically takes precedence. In the case of minimum wage, the higher wage takes effect. For example, workers in Illinois earn a minimum wage of $8.25 as decided upon by the state; since their state's wage is higher than the federal rate of $7.25, they can use it above the federal wage. However, states that believe in keeping a lower wage for workers would be forced by federal law to adjust their minimum wage according to the new law, due to the concept of implied preemption.
Small businesses believe, according to the article above, that "government shouldn't be weighing in on wages in the private sector." This stance can be closely compared to that of the Anti-federalists of the late 1700s. Small and local businesses are afraid to see the federal government taking too much control over what they believe is a personal issue. They do not want to be held to a higher minimum wage under the force of the federal government. This was the opinion of the Anti-federalists; they feared that the federal system would become much too controlling and would take away the individual rights of the states.
The main question of the minimum wage debate, when relating it to United States federalism, is: When should the federal government draw the line when it comes to their encroachment of powers reserved to the states? This question is not only asked today but was debated when Federalists and Anti-federalists fought over the future of American government. Thus, the minimum wage debate rages on.
The minimum wage debate has been a continuous topic of debate for years. President Obama is a supporter of raising the federal minimum wage to as much as $10.10 an hour from the current minimum wage of $7.25. The arguments between supporters of the raising of minimum wage and the idea's opponents can mostly be related to federalism and the United States Constitution.
Some people may use Constitutional arguments to their advantage in this debate. Many resort to the Elastic Clause, which is commonly referred to within debates involving the creation of new laws or standards. The Elastic Clause is nicknamed the "necessary and proper" clause because it states that Congress has the power to make any laws that are necessary for the continued success of the country. A posing question is: Is the raising of the minimum wage in this country necessary for the betterment of the economy?
Another part of the Constitution that provides an argument for opponents is the tenth amendment, which basically states that any powers not delegated to the United States federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states. Many people may argue that since the Constitution does not explicitly outline its control over small or local businesses--the majority of what would be affected by a raise in federal minimum wage--this power should be a reserved power, meaning that the issue should be decided upon within the states.
The minimum wage debate is an example of implied preemption, which is a concept of federalism that states that if state law differs from federal law, federal law automatically takes precedence. In the case of minimum wage, the higher wage takes effect. For example, workers in Illinois earn a minimum wage of $8.25 as decided upon by the state; since their state's wage is higher than the federal rate of $7.25, they can use it above the federal wage. However, states that believe in keeping a lower wage for workers would be forced by federal law to adjust their minimum wage according to the new law, due to the concept of implied preemption.
Small businesses believe, according to the article above, that "government shouldn't be weighing in on wages in the private sector." This stance can be closely compared to that of the Anti-federalists of the late 1700s. Small and local businesses are afraid to see the federal government taking too much control over what they believe is a personal issue. They do not want to be held to a higher minimum wage under the force of the federal government. This was the opinion of the Anti-federalists; they feared that the federal system would become much too controlling and would take away the individual rights of the states.
The main question of the minimum wage debate, when relating it to United States federalism, is: When should the federal government draw the line when it comes to their encroachment of powers reserved to the states? This question is not only asked today but was debated when Federalists and Anti-federalists fought over the future of American government. Thus, the minimum wage debate rages on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)