Unit 5 Current Events Post - The Battle Over Gun Policy

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/24/politics/gun-control-status/index.html

Recently in Virginia, three different candidates who are pro tighter gun control laws all won their first rounds of elections.  The National Rifle Association is aghast that the state of Virginia would even consider electing anyone who wasn't a complete 2nd Amendment advocate.  This recent turn of events in VA made it more clear that the fight over policies concerning gun control has moved temporarily out of the national government's visibility and into the hands of state governments.

The battle over gun policy has seen quite a few shifts over the years, especially recently due to the different tragedies that this country has faced having to do with gun violence.  The NRA has had uber amounts of control for a long time, and it is a prime example of a specialized interest group with a clear mission and avid supporters, thus helping it to have an extreme amount of influence over public policy.  This organization has strong lobbyists and its opinion never goes unheard when a case of new gun control policy is circulating.

According to the article, the White House is planning to conduct new studies involving the connection between gun violence and mental health, which is something that will be funded largely by grants donated by the National Institute of Health, an agency that is under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  In addition, the House Appropriations Committee, which is controlled by the Republican Party, has vowed that it will stop at nothing to see this research thwarted.

As you can see, the influences on gun control policy are extremely abundant from many different sources.  Executive agencies, interest groups, and even Congress are trying what they can to support their cause, whether it be in conducting research, rousing awareness from the public, using media articles, or providing funding.

The chart above shows how the debate over gun policy has become closer and thus more prominent over the years.

Unit 4 Part 4 Current Events Post - The Supreme Court Says No

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/us/politics/justices-decline-cases-on-gay-rights-and-campaign-finance.html?_r=0

Recently, the justices of the Supreme Court have denied hearing quite a few different cases, some of which involving gay rights, campaign finance, and lethal injections.  The gay rights case, Elane Photography v. Willock, has to do with a woman who has refused her photography services to gay and lesbian couples looking for a wedding photographer.  Though the Supreme Court said no to the case, Justice Bosson still wrote a letter stating his opinion on the matter.  The Supreme Court also declined to hear a case involving campaign finance; this case was compared to another extremely recent case, McCutcheon v. FEC.  Lastly, the Court chose not to hear two different cases involving lethal injections, both having to do with whether the inmate who is subject to the death penalty has the right to be made aware of what method will be used to end their lives.

According to the laws of the federal government's judicial branch, the Supreme Court can refuse to hear any case that is sent up to them through a cert petition.  It is okay--in fact, it is probably normal--for the many cases that make it through another round of appellate courts to not receive the writ of certiorari.  In the circumstance of the gay rights case, a Supreme Court justice sent his concurring opinion, which is something that may have helped to settle the issue.  The case dealing with campaign finance had a very closely related precedent in McCutcheon v. FEC, which could easily be the reason that the Supreme Court chose not to hear it.  Lastly, the cases involving lethal injections can be easily based upon a loose or strict constructionist viewpoint; these cases have to do with the Constitutional rights of the inmates in question, and those with conservative Constitutional views would have very different opinions than those with liberal views.  Like I previously stated, there are many different reasons for SCOTUS to refuse to hear any case.

Now, take a gander at the wrinkled but beautiful justices of the Supreme Court.

Unit 4 Part 3 Current Events Post - The Negative Side of Bureaucracy

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2014/03/26/bureaucracy/

This article points out pretty much every flaw you could possibly think of involving the federal bureaucracy in this country.  The author points out that leaders of organizations should be chosen based on their good qualities of leadership rather than their political knowledge.  His main point is that every single part of the bureaucracy slows down the process of implementation and action.  He sees each and every government organization under the bureaucracy as a hierarchy, where there are countless levels of management positions, and so it seems as though every manager has more managers to look to. He makes note of the barriers that stand in the way of taking risks or doing something new.  He is critical of everything that the federal bureaucracy entails, because he believes that the process of getting anything done is too slow and unsuccessful under the system our government currently has.

This photo (which was a comic shown in class a few days ago) pretty accurately shows the opinion of Gary Hamel, the author of the article; positions in an organization are like a hierarchy of "chairmen," a system that slows production and implementation.

 Gary Hamel was in a lot of ways correct about the many obstacles that have the ability to slow the federal bureaucracy.  Along with the issues pointed out in the article, there is red tape, or the forms and procedures required to receive bureaucratic approval.  Red tape is known to considerably hinder the approval process in every organization of the bureaucracy, including the departments in the Presidential Cabinet.  What Hamel fails to make note of are any suggestions concerning the restructuring or replacement of the bureaucracy.  Although the system can definitely be flawed, there are many things that have improved it to where it is today; for example, Clinton and Gore's National Performance Review made huge changes to the bureaucracy, making it run much more smoothly and cost less to the country.  Also, the organization of agencies into either the executive or regulatory category helps to keep the federal bureaucracy system in order.

 Author Gary Hamel is correct in comparing the federal bureaucracy to a maze, but he fails to recognize how difficult it would be to make the maze easier.  The only thing the government would be able to do to increase the simplicity of the maze would be to try and shift some walls.