Which one is the only branch that gets the job done?

          Today I found an interesting article that relates called Is a lifetime appointment for Federal judges logical? by Cody Jones, which is a critique to the article Life tenure for federal judges: Should it be abolished? by Edward Lazarus. Cody Jones point that the current method through which justices are selected is flawed, and the government of US needs to think about a solution. Cody's critiqued is directed to a liberal audience, since his comments tend to be progressive.

          Cody says that judges should not be appointed for life. He argues that the current system closes the doors for judges that may be more qualified for the job. He also says that judges are biased (which I do not believe they are) because they are appointed by the president to represent the interest of the party in power and help with the presidential agenda. He also points that life tenure gives the judges a lot of power that makes them complacent. Cody proposes that the judges should be appointed by the mutual agreement of congress and the president, instead of the president and approved by the senate, so the judges are not biased. He proposes that the job tenure should range anywhere from 10-20 years because this will allow the constant entrance of new judges and will avoid complacence.
          In my opinion this is a very complicated topic with no evident answer. I agree with his statement that this is a very powerful branch where people wants the more talented judges in the country, if they are the ones who are going to approve the law. I particularly believe that this is the most powerful branch, even with more power than congress, since the judicial branch can overturn any law by declaring it unconstitutional (I see it as a very passive aggressive branch). However, contrary to Cody, and I surprised myself about having such a conservative point of view about this topic, I believe that justices have to have live tenure in office, and I do not believe that the House should be included. A constant flow of judges may avoid all the things that Cody mentioned, but it also bring inexperienced people who had not dealt with law or cases at national level, with such a long term consequences. Part of being a good judge is having a lot of experience, and 10-20 years is nothing in this kind of career. I believe that judges may get a little complacent, but not at the point of not carrying about what they are doing, since they can be impeached and lose their job.
          The reason why the House should not be included dates back to the writing of the Constitution. Only the senate has equal state representation (2 representatives) and they hold more years in office, so they are the only ones who should have an opinion in this matter. The House changes too often, the representatives have unequal votes, and those legislators are interested in other matters. History has proved that when the House has a majority party that is against the presidential party, nothing gets done. It would be the end of US if the only stable branch that the country has, and serves as a moderator, gets involved in all the conflicts between the Executive and the Legislative branches. 
         The only thing that I do not like about the current system is that judges rule about what is fair for the US people, but citizens have not say so about who is placed in office. However, I understand that if people voted to elect a justice, the branch will end like the House, which legislators' only care about being reelected and do only small scale decisions that will pay them with reelection. Even if it takes us (the people) to vote for a representative, that votes for the president, that then appoints the justices, that is better than us voting for then and getting a truly biased judicial branch.

Is This Some Kind of Joke?

          If you watch any bit of Tv or even the Yahoo 'joke' of news, you must have realized that president Obama has been all over the place talking about the federal student loans interest rates. For those of you who have not heard about it; on July 1st the interest rates of the federal student loans could double to a 6.8%. This interest rate is actually really low compared with the average credit card, however, many people are concerned about the change.
          As a student, I depend on Financial Aid to pay for my education and I fear that the outcome of this possible change may interfere with my future. Let me break down the fears I share with many other people:
          1  -  6.8% is a very low rate compared to a credit card, but a student loan adds up fast and it      cannot be paid immediately. In other words, if you have any student debt, you know that you can only pay for interests while you are studying, but cannot start to pay your debt until you graduate. This means that as time passes the interest you pay grows and so does you debt, which takes longer to pay because when you graduate you have to pay the interest plus the imaginary house that you owe.

          2  -  The tuition rates are rapidly increasing by semester. It is obvious that the more tuition you pay the bigger gets your debt. Some people are already stretching their budget in order to get some education, and this small 3.4% extra could be a boundary that they cannot afford. 

          3  -  A bachelors degree does not guarantee you a job anymore. We are familiar with the stories of students who graduated, but did not find a job on their field of study, and ended spending more that half of their minimum wage salary in paying for student loans. Also, the graduate students who did find a job, but it took them almost a decade to pay for their debt.

         After considering all this points I think: What does Congress or Republicans think that we students should do in order to get some decent education? Join the army? Not everybody has the courage that takes to fight a war,  and not everybody is physically able to do it. Do we have to work several jobs, so we can pay out of our pockets? Again, not everybody can work overtime and study at the same time, while keeping an outstanding GPA. Maybe they just expect us to pay for our student debt for 20 years, after we postponed the normal life that we dreamed after our graduation. The life where we owned a house, and built a family because our education gave us financial stability.

       It really bothers me how Obama, Congress, and the Republicans are fighting about how could they fund a the possible extension of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. Obama wants to extend the act by increasing the taxes of the wealthy class, while republicans have found the excuse to cut the budget of the Affordable Care Act. Then, Congress is considering the possibility of cutbacks in the Pell programs, while Democrats had proposed the Stop the Rate Hike Act, which ends unwarranted tax subsidies to big oil and gas companies. I feel that the way that politicians are handling this matter is a joke. What are their priorities? For me is very clear that in this situation the priorities should be in this order:

        1  -  Keep the country healthy, so the population can grow and be functional. For this reason, not budget should be taken from the Affordable Care Act.
        2  -  Keep the population educated, so your country can keep evolving. For this reason education should be as affordable as possible.

        To increase the economical burden over the lower and middle class while the rich fill their pockets it should not be a priority, so if money has to come from somewhere in order to maintain those two priories, I think the rich and oil companies should pay higher taxes.

        For now, I am happy because at least they all agree with the fact that the College Cost Reduction and Access Act should be extended, however, I am afraid that this could not go in effect if they do not find a fair common ground.

This is the Cross that Ms & Ms Smith Carry

          If you have read my previous posts, you know that Ms and Ms Smith are a same-sex couple that has been slowly gaining legal marital approval among the US. Today, I found an interesting article that relates to the journey of the Smiths as I was reading my classmates blogs, so I decided to share it. The name of the article is Gay Rights Vs. Religious Liberty by Allison Frueh. It is clear that Allison sympathizes with the cause and journey of same-sex couples who are fighting for the same rights of heterosexual couples, so this article's target is a liberal audience. I decided to share it because I think her article can be seen as an extension of the one I wrote previously

          Allison argues that there is a thin line between when heterosexism is justified or not by religious freedom. To support this argument Allison provided the example of a business owner who refused to offer services to a gay couple, based on the argument that such action was against christian believes. The contradiction in this story is that the owner was sued, and fined under the charges of discrimination even when she has freedom of religion. Even when I think this is a perfect example of a contradictory situation involving religion and homosexuality, it would have been more completed if Allison provided a link with more information about the story. I believe she did a great job trying to keep a neutral tone on her statements, for this shows how insightful she is and reaffirms her desire to find common ground in this matter. I agree with Allison's opinion that it is not wrong for a pastor to refuse his religious services based on sexual preferences, because he has the constitutional right to exercise his religion as it is established. However, I would have liked her to explain why this scenario can be compared with discriminating job applicants, even when the scenarios are very different and apply to different laws like the constitution or federal law. I understand her comparison and agree with it, but some kind of explanation would have helped readers who are not well informed about politics to understand the analogy. Allison ends her article stating her believe that "Businesses that hold themselves out as public accommodations should be ready and willing to serve everyone. Anything else is discrimination." which I think is a superb sentence to summarize and clearly state her opinion.

          I completely agree with Allison's point of view through the article and would recommend everybody to read it, as well as the original story. I would like to end my critic with a question: If worshipers have freedom of religion, does that exempt them from following other laws?

"Obamacare, the Good, the Bad, and the Myths"

           Much stir has been created since the president of the United States, Barack Obama presented his Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. Surveys have revealed that public opinion is divided in two groups, the supportive and unsupportive (the majority). Those against the Act have raise false concerns: Is the Act constitutional? Is the Affordable Health Act copying the European's Public Health, or is the US turning communist? Most of the uninformed population has been blinded by the immediate answers to these questions; not seeing there are more layers beneath the surface.

            The Obamacare requires that everybody in the US is insured, and those who refuse will pay a fine. Lawyers and Congress are trying to prove that this document is unconstitutional, because nobody should be obligated to pay for something they do not want. However, it is important to say that with the Act, the cost of health insurance plans will decrease and all insurance packages will provide Americans with free preventative care. Also, Americans with an annual income lower than 15k who cannot afford to pay for health care will qualify for Medicaid. Today, 30% of the Americans that make less than 36k a year are uninsured. Young adults will be able to stay under their parents’ health insurance until the age of 26, instead of the age of 18. In the present, 24.5% of all young adults between the ages of 18-25 are uninsured. Why do not they say that only 1% of all Americans (that can afford health care), do not want to pay for it? This issue reminds me of the abolition process before 1865. We all know slavery is a horrible thing, but before 1865 slaves were considered property. It seems unreasonable that somebody would find abolition unconstitutional, but the very few white farmers who owned slaves felt that they were being striped from their right to own property. When the 13th amendment was ratified, hundred thousand of slaves gained their deserved freedom, and nobody cared about the few selfish farmers who where "affected." Therefore, I understand that Affordable Care Act will be unconstitutional for that 1% that does not want health care, but what about all the other people who need it but cannot afford it. Taking all these facts into account, this Act does not seem unconstitutional to me. (here you can see your benefits)

            The Obamacare is not a copy of the European's Public Health, nor will it make the US communist. Obama has stated that he does not want to recreate the European's health program, so let me explain what is the main difference. First, the European societies found their public health care mainly by taxes. European countries have both public and private health care and services. It is not Obama’s intention to raise the taxes to cover for health care; on the contrary he is planning to create a set of tax credits that will help people to pay for insurance. US health care will still be founded by the cost of services provided by hospitals. On the other hand, the US is far from becoming communist. First, the Obamacare is not going to provide medical attention at free cost. Even if it did, what marks the difference between communism and capitalism is how these societies evaluate property, not their health care. Obama is trying to implement a health care system that will fit the needs of the American society and does not intend to copy the European Union, or goes against the economical principles of the country. 

            It seems to me that the American public needs to be more informed before they pick sides in this matter, otherwise many could lose the benefits of the Affordable Care Act. I support the Obamacare Act and hope that Congress focuses on the benefits that all (insured and not) will receive.

Joseph A. Califano does not like Austin on April 20th.

         Joseph A. Califano, founder of The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, wrote an article in replay to Pat Robertson’s marijuana support declarations. Here is the link to article called ‘Why Pat Robertson’s pot plan is a (bong) pipe dream,’ published today by the Washington Post, provides data that supports the point of view of an individual in favor of the war on drugs. This article was written to target conservatives, and in my opinion is an example of how media does not tell you what to think, but what to think about.

Mr. Califano argues that some of the reasons behind Pat Robertson’s statements are shallow and lack real evidence and support. He focuses his article from the perspective that the US already has problems with the two legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco), which are taking a toll on teenagers, and how marijuana would have the same effect. To support the argument, Mr. Califano offers a series of links that redirect the reader to a series of research sources and statistics. Even when the author does a good job backing some of his statements, I think due to some flaws in the focus and support of the article thesis, Mr. Califano was not able to present a convincing argument.

First, I think the attitude he adopted towards the issue on drugs was very radical, which offers a narrow approach to the topic and made the author seem short-sighted. Second, he compares the social repercussions of alcohol and tobacco to those of marijuana without mentioning that alcohol and tobacco may be legal, but much more dangerous for users’ health. Third, some of the information offered in the article is misleading. For example, Mr. Califano says that ‘Forty-six percent (6.1 million) of all high school students currently use addictive substances,’ which makes the reader think that marijuana is at the same level of other more dangerous drugs. When I read the full link he offered, I found that only 3.6 million students have tried marijuana, a statistic that includes addicts and one-time users whereas over twice as many students have tried alcohol. Fourth, Mr. Califano backs up some statements with predictions rather than facts. For example, he mentions that the world of illegal drugs like marijuana is violent, and how legalizing it will increase this violence. This particular statement makes me think about ‘prohibition’ and the intense gang violence that accompanied the dry period, while today alcohol is legal and regulated, and there is no violence related to its sale and distribution. Fifth and last, Mr. Califano alludes to the idea that legalizing marijuana will not imply some regulations; it seems like he thinks marijuana is going to be sold to everyone and everywhere like candy!

When I first read the article, I thought that Joseph A. Califano had some good points, but after reading the links offered and analyzing his statements I realized his argument was lacking in solid support. The overall impression I got from the article is that Mr. Califano wants the reader to envision marijuana decriminalization as chaos, and to not see marijuana as a drug with potential health benefits that is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.

The wolf in sheep’s clothing

The topic of the article, 'House Transportation Bill Technical Correction Would Strip Workers Of Pay Protections,' by Dave Jamieson, concerns the 'Transportation Bill' presented by John Mica, who is the Chairman of the House of Transportation, and what this bill represents to the working class. The target audience of Jamieson is the hard working man, who may think this bill offers him new job opportunities, when as the author proves, the bill is double-sided.

Dave Jamieson shows the credibility of his point as he addresses how the bill intends to increase the budget dedicated to the construction of highways and toll roads. Dave Jamieson remarks that the Republican Party is trying to 'sell' the bill, basing on the job opportunities that would be created when the bill gets passed. He also explains how the preferred method is to open the USA coasts to oil drilling, which it is not a surprise because traditionally road expenses have been partially subsidized by gas tax revenues. The second preferred method this bill proposes would be a cut in the budget dedicated to public transportation. This bill looks like a solid plan to restore the economy however, Dave Jamieson's article highlights some of the consequences that the bill could bring to the working public. For example, Railroad employees could lose their right to a minimum wage and will not be paid overtime, which in my opinion shows the hidden face of this bill.

Dave Jamieson argues that cutting the budget of public transportation would affect those who do not have their own means of transportation, and threaten the ability of the service to pay for maintenance and keep the service running properly. He also says that the industry could suffer, since railroad workers already work at minimum wages and the work is fiscally demanding an extenuating. 

The author focuses the article from a skeptical point of view; he does not seem to believe that this bill was written only to help the economy of the country. I agree with this point of view. I did some research, and the truth is that not many public figures including Ray LaHood, support the new Transportation Bill, which he called: "…the worst transportation bill I've ever seen during 35 years of public service." For now, the current bill of transportation will prevail, and Congress expects that in one or two years the new bill will go in effect. I really hope that this does not become one more bill that represents the interests of men in suits who seem to had never had a day of hard labor in their live and can not appreciate the efforts of the working class. So far, this bill looks to me like a masquerade that protects the interest of the wealthy under the appearance of rebuilding America’s infrastructure.

            

I now pronounce you Ms and Ms Smith.

Hello everyone, thanks for taking the time to visit my political blog.

          A couple of days ago, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the California State's Proposition 8 in violation of the 14th Amendment. Last Tuesday, the California court decided to repeal the proposition, which was passed with a 52% of the vote in 2008. On a different note, this past Wednesday, Washington became the 7th state to approve and certify same- sex marriage. Here is a link to an article, that offers more details about Washington's approval. Apparently it is too soon to cheer, since as the article mentions: 'Under state law, if opponents gather 120,000 signatures, the measure will be put to a public referendum before it can be enacted.' Same-sex marriage will be topic of debate during this year, since two states (NC and MN) will take their vote on May and November. 
         I think that every person who is a consenting adult, and would like to get married should have the 'natural right' to do it, not the legal right. I understand that religion can forbid gay marriage because this institution was created to control people, and it is protected by the first amendment. Government, on the other hand, was created as a commonwealth to represent and protect the interest of the people. Gay marriage should be as legal as falling in love. That is the reason why I pick this article and I think everybody should be informed about the topic. 
         

Louis C.K., comedian and actor.