Federal Judges

It seems quite sensible that Congress sets the pay for federal judges, however I do not agree with the fact that their income remains the same even after they retire. A federal judge may retire at age 70 if he or she has served for at least ten years. At the time of this retirement it is stated that they will continue to receive full salary for the rest of their lives. The same goes for a 65 year-old judge if they have served for at least fifteen years. I am all for giving hard-working federal judges benefits after they retire but I do not feel as though our government's money is being spent in the most wise way possible if we have to not only pay those federal judges in office full salary, but also those who have retired. I think there are plenty of other systems that could be worked out, that these judges would agree to, that would reward them for all their hard work without spending money so frivolously. This seems especially absurd that continue to receive full salary if they are on 65 years old because for most, they still have quite a bit of life left.

Presidential appointments

Though there has been much debate regarding whether or not the President must get approval from the Senate to remove his appointments, I think that that is the best way to go. I guess you could say because the president initially instated the appointment it may make sense for him to dismiss the appointment on his own, however I disagree. I believe that in order to keep to our checks and balances throughout the branches, the President, though he does overall hold the most power, shouldn't get to decide who is and who is not qualified on his own. It is important that the Senate be behind the president to back him up in his decision, or disagree if he is in the wrong. I believe this is truly the best way to make sure those who hold powerful positions in our government are honest and qualified individuals. If we only have the president making this decision, there could be cases of favoritism or possibly a misjudgment of character.

warrant-less wire tapping

While this topic appears that it could be debatable forever, I am pretty firm in my belief despite all the controversy. I think that under no circumstance should our government be allowed to wire tap in the absence of a warrant. Yes, it could lead to some conclusions or stop some sort of danger, but at the same time getting a warrant is not all that difficult and in no situation should it be avoided. Besides, if this were to not be an accepted principle, a new issue would arise as to when it is enough of an emergency to wire tap warrant-less and when a warrant is in fact necessary. Therefore, in saying that warrants are always and in every situation mandatory, a lot of confusion may be eliminated and both the government and the public will be on the same page.

"riders"

In my opinion the benefits of "riders" don't appear extremely obvious to me. Yes, i understand that these little "rules" and such tend to attach themselves to bills in order to have the opportunity to pass, however I'm not so sure they should be allowed this chance. It almost seems to me like if someone wants a "rider" passed, he or she should combine a bunch of them together to make their own bill rather than simply attaching them on to bills in order to be accepted. If a rider is not strong enough to stand alone and be accepted alone. maybe there is a reason for that. Now I'm not saying this is an extremely pressing manner especially since most riders that end up passing as a part of a bill just go unnoticed, however it is something to think about.

Filibusters

The idea of a filibuster sort of confuses me. I guess to an extent it is effective but it also causes to me to question whether what our members of Congress are doing is worthwhile or not. When i learned that in the history of our Congress one of the members filibustered for 15 hours by reading off recipes and other sorts or pointless material, I began to wonder if there is a "better" way to accomplish the same task. This method of extensive and chaotic distracting for as long as one can handle seems like a waste of time to me. I think our members of Congress should be able to discover a new method of "talking a bill to death," possibly without the talking aspect. Our country certainly has a lot of problems right about now and wasting time away on filibustering certain unpopular bills is not helping our country at all.

eminent domain

This particular power is rather interesting to me. It seems pretty unfair under any circumstance to be able to strip someone of their private property and put it to public use. Yes, it may be for a really good cause and could benefit the neighborhood or city as a whole for that matter, but that is not the point. Though eminent domain cannot be proven "legal" without providing due compensation it still does not seem like anyone truly gets the amount of money they really deserve. If the city government is taking away someone's home, the place they have lived their entire life, a small sum of money will for sure not make up for stripping them of their property and the life they have been able to build for themselves. This is just one of the many reasons I find it hard to accept the concept of eminent domain and simply take it for what it is, without question and slight disapproval.

whether or not congress is representative of the american population

 In my opinion, I do not view congress as entirely representative of the American people at this point in time. Yes, the individuals within Congress are for the most part the most qualified and great performers of their duties, but when it comes to reaching out to the American people and making themselves relatable that is not entirely the case. Yes, we can hope that no matter the comparison between the demographics and dynamics of Congress and the American public that these members will choose to reach out and do whatever they can to relate to the public, however it is up to the citizens to decide to listen. I'm not so sure that we have the best current balance in Congress for the American people to feel as though they are being fairly represented and if they have the desire to listen and want to speak up to such a different make up of people. A few particular examples I just learned about are that 17% of the American public is age 60 and older, while 40% of congress is, 13% of Americans are foreign born, while only 2% Congress is, and finally 51% of our population is women while only 17% Congress is female. These statistics really got me thinking about how the citizens of our country feel about this. Should they accept that this is the portion of our society that can afford to make it to Congress? Or should they be angry that the public is not being fairly represented?

"whore" comment about Meg Whitman

Personally, I think this is only as big of a deal as people choose to make it. The words did not come directly from the mouth of Jerry Brown and even though yes, it may have been his wife, that does not mean it should directly reflect the opinions and thoughts of Jerry Brown. Yes, Meg Whitman is his competition and therefore he most like may feel like calling her a "whore" from time to time, however that is not what has happened. He has no control over what his wife says nor was he to know that he was still leaving a voicemail. If the media chooses to make a huge deal about this incident that I think they are wasting their time because clearly there is going to be hostility between the two candidates and obviously there will be name calling going on. If the media were to only highlight this incident and pretend like nothing else goes on behind closed doors, then it will seem quite obvious to the public how biased the news source is being. So yes, calling Meg Whitman a "whore" was disrespectful and uncalled for, however it is not the end of the world and through sincere apology and a lack of media attention this should easily blow over.

Prop 19

I cannot say it really matters to me either way if prop 19 which calls for the Legalization of marijuana is passed or not. However, I do feel as though the passing of this proposition within California could lend itself to far less issues surrounding marijuana and abusing the use of it outside of medicinal purposes. I know that if it is approved that does not mean people under then age of 21 will stop buying, selling, and smoking the marijuana but the whole situation will be much more controlled and much more public, therefore there will be a lower chance that people will feel the need to be so sneaky about it. I think this proposition would benefit our state in the big picture. I mean when I look at European countries that do not have a drinking age, it appears there are far less incidents where alcohol is at fault because children grow up with alcohol in their families, and they grow accustomed to the idea.By the time they are 21 it isn't a huge deal to them, and they aren't as stupid about it as Americans are. I think that by legalizing marijuana even tho the age min is 21 I think it is a similar idea because as long as it is legal within at least a portion of our society it will become less and less of a big deal, not to mention how the taxing of marijuana could benefit out economy.

bush tax cuts

I feel as though there is some truth is seeing the expiration of tax cuts in this way. I do not however beleive that the cuts were an uneccesary move because for many, taxes are out of hand. They take too much of someone's annual income and by creating tax cuts Bush gave our population a little break from the unaffordable reality. However, I can see how someone could view removing the tax cuts as simply putting taxes back to their original form rather than being considered an actual increase. I would have to say that I agree more with the fact that because our population is hurting so much financially, it makes perfect sense to make sure tax cuts do not expire quite yet. Everyone is feeling the financial deficit right now and by trying to help governement debt through the expiration of tax cuts does not seem like the smartest idea at this point in time. Both Obama's perspective and the perspective of the Republican appear to hold some truth in my opinion. Yes, it is quite clear that the top 3% of our population can afford to pay their taxes without the help of tax cuts much more than the other 97%, however at the same time I do not know if this is fair. By giving the top 3% of out population money it could also prove to benefit our country in the sense that we could have a better shot at stimulating our economy and reaching the economic growth that our society so badly needs. Our government was formed to promote equal and fair treatment in all aspects of social and political life. The best way to acheive this goal would be to not favor any particular class over the other and therefore, apply or not apply tax cuts to every class of people within our nation. Yes, this may prove much harder on a certain social class than another but it is the best way to acheive this just goal within our nation. Simply because one class of people receives higher pay than another, does not give our government the right to punish them for the hard work and effort. The decision as to where the weatlthier class spends its extra money should be left up to them and should not be forced into taxes in order to make someone else's life easier. I do not believe that the voting age should be any lower than 18. Already there are so many young people who choose not to register to vote and who opt not gain knowledge of the political world around them. By lowering the voting age not a big enough difference would be made for it to matter. There would still be an over abundant amount of teenagers who are blind to politics and unmotivated to become educated surrounding this issue. As far as resident aliens within our country I feel as though after having lived in our country for at least 6 years, one should be allowed to vote. Yes, it would make it much easier to just require a citizenship however at the same time is someone ha chosen to stay within our country for at least 6 years i believe that they deserve the same amount of rights as any other citizen should when it comes to political views. It would be a long and highly debated process to change this law, however the proposal of the idea would be the first step in order to acheive this necessary change. It should definetly be an issue voted on by the people with the majority vote as the final decision. Persons considered to be felons should not be granted voting rights. It should be left up to the state to dictate the duration of this voting "break" however i do feel as though striping a felon of their rights to vote should be fully accepted an supported because chances are they deserve much worse treatment than that.

blog 1

The family that I've been raised in has greatly influenced my political attitudes. I would not consider myself to be super involved in politics and therefore my only real attitudes towards politics come from my family and their preferences and opinions. My parents are registered as republicans but do not feel as though they need to be constricted by a particular party but rather they take the time to vote for the best candidate. My sister registered to vote right when she turned 18 which also got me thinking about how involved I should be in politics. I never really saw the "point" before or why it was necessary for me to be involved, but after discussing the importance behind the knowledge of those who run our state and our country I've come to realize that i should gradually become more aware of those in power. I need not to feel as though my vote won't make a difference or that my knowledge regarding political views will get me nowhere. My opinions regarding free healthcare within our country do not come from a particular source. Yes, I have read articles about our country's healthcare issues and yes, i have taken part in discussions regarding the same issue but i cannot say i fully agree with any source in particular. I feel as though free healthcare for everyone in our country would not be realistic. Depending on the income of a particular individual or family should affect whether or not they are able to be receive the benefits of free healthcare. The higher the income the less of a chance that a particular individual should receive this benefit in my opinion. I cannot say exactly the numerical value i would attach to this idea, however i can say that healthcare is a necessity in life. If a portion of our population cannot afford healthcare due to their minimal income, they should be given the opportunity to receive it for free at least until they are able to afford this necessity for themselves.