October 31, 2005

Am. Gov't - Texas Case

Class, on your last position paper, we addressed the issue of "expanding lower courts' jurisdiction" - and we came to the conclusion, that this can be done - because the Constitution allows Congress to "ordain and establish" these courts. We spoke about Congress allowing federal courts to hear cases like Terri Schiavo's. Please read this article, and compare it to the Schiavo case. When doing do, please try to reconcile for yourself the following: Congress can get involved in case like this; the Constitution allows that. Should Congress get involved in case like this? Is it different than the Schiavo case? How much did/does partisan politics have to do with the Schiavo case, in a way that it may not here?
 This is not directly related to our discussion this week; but let's spend some time on it.

Am. Gov't - President Ford

The Presidency of Gerald R. Ford

Gerald Rudolph Ford Jr. was, in many ways, the perfect choice to restore America's broken confidence after Richard Nixon. Straightforward and honest, a man of recognized decency, he traced his personal qualities back to his Midwestern childhood. Raised in Grand Rapids, Michigan, by his mother and stepfather, Ford didn't learn that he was adopted until he was almost fifteen. "My stepfather was a magnificent person," he remembered, "and my mother equally wonderful. So I couldn't have written a better prescription for a superb family upbringing."

Ford grew up to become an outstanding football player, serving as captain of his high school team, then playing all through his years at the University of Michigan. At Yale University, where he attended law school, he worked on the side as a football coach. When he returned home at the end of World War II, in which he served overseas as a navy combat officer, it was with a new feeling for public service. "I came back a converted internationalist," he recalled, "and of course our congressman at that time was an avowed, dedicated isolationist. And I thought he ought to be replaced. Nobody thought I could win. I ended up winning two to one."

"I had just taken the oath of office along with all the other freshmen and this man walked up to me and he said, 'I'm Dick Nixon from California. I welcome you here in the House Chamber.' That was January of '49."

For twenty-five years, Ford served in the House of Representatives, specializing in military matters and the budgeting process. He was appointed Minority Leader in 1964, with his highest ambition to become speaker of the House. In 1968, he watched fellow Republican Richard Nixon become elected president alongside Spiro Agnew. Four years later, in the midst of Nixon's reelection campaign, Ford learned about Watergate.

"I was dumbfounded by the stupidity of the Watergate break-in," Ford later said, "and on the Monday following that break-in, or perhaps it was Saturday night, I had a meeting with John Mitchell, who was then in charge of Nixon's campaign. 'Well,' I said to John, 'did the President, did the White House, did you know anything about this stupid break-in?' And John looked me right in the eye and said, 'Absolutely not.' So on that
assurance I took the firm stand that it was not a White House-conceived or -executed operation."

Even as the Watergate controversy was heating up, Nixon's vice president was in his own trouble. During the summer of 1973, it was disclosed that Spiro Agnew had received bribes from building contractors while he served as governor of Maryland. To escape prosecution, he was attempting to make a plea bargain. "About two days, maybe one day before the story broke," Ford recalled, "Nixon invited me to come down to the executive office in the old executive office building. I had no reason to know why I was being called.

"I was minority leader. He asked me to come down there, and for an hour and a half, we sat there and talked very informally-reminisced about our long friendship. It was a strange conversation. I finally got a call to come to the floor of the House immediately, for a vote. So I left. I got on the floor and two or three of my colleagues on the Republican side grabbed me and said, 'Agnew's resigning.' That was the first real knowledge I had that he had taken that action."

Ford suddenly knew that Nixon was considering him as a replacement for Spiro Agnew. Nixon's preference would have been John Connally of Texas, but support for a Connally appointment did not exist in Congress, and Nixon knew it. He would be forced to do what party leaders had so often done at traditional national conventions: look for somebody who could command a majority, somebody safe. The search for a compromise led directly to Gerald Ford.

"Well, that night I was home with Betty," Ford remembered, "and about eight-thirty after dinner I got a call from Mel Laird and Mel said, "I'm down at the White House. Would you accept the nomination for vice president if it was offered?" And I said I guess I would. I knew if I was offered it I would accept it but I never thought that being vice president would lead to being president."

Just after Ford became vice president, Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor, was fired, and the White House scandal became even more heated. In the midst of congressional talk of impeaching Richard Nixon, Ford suddenly found himself also in the line of fire. "It was very, very uncomfortable," he recalled. "I disagreed privately with some of the actions that were taken by the Nixon White House. I never had good relations with Haldeman and Ehrlichman and Chuck Colson. My personality, my background didn't fit with them. So I felt that President Nixon was getting some bad advice. And it was a very narrow path for nine months. If I was critical of Nixon, the press and the public would have said, well, he was trying to undercut Nixon so he will get the job. On the other hand, if I stayed too loyal it might appear that I was supporting somebody who was involved in this very unwise action. So I had to go down this narrow path of not supporting him too much or not criticizing him too frequently. It was not a pleasant experience."

On Thursday, August 1, 1974, Ford received a phone call from Alexander Haig telling him there was a "smoking gun"-evidence that Nixon was involved in the Watergate cover-up. "Al Haig [asked] to come over and see me," Ford remembered, "to tell me that there would be a new tape released on a Monday, and he said the evidence in there was devastating and there would probably be either an impeachment or a resignation. And he said, 'I'm just warning you that you've got to be prepared, that things might change dramatically and you could become president.' And I said, 'Betty, I don't think we're ever going to live in the vice president's house."

Am. Gov't - Position Paper #3

Change in syllabus; as we're spending the next two weeks studying the Presidency, I'm going to wait until the end of that unit before giving you the last position paper. This will ensure you have both previous papers in hand at that time, and it will also present a good starting point for the exam prep. After that, which will be early November, we'll regroup, and get ready for the exam. You will have all the concepts from the position papers' model answers handed to you in the form of a review list, and we will re-visit each item one by one. The exam will then best be thought of as a confirmation of what you already know, and are confident you already know.

Am. Gov't Link - the Presidency

Class, please take a look at this for Tuesday -- Thanks, Pete

October 30, 2005

IR - International Parliaments

Here's something of interest - you can take a look at C-SPAN'S links of other countries' Parliaments by clicking here .

Inside the White House

We have all seen pictures of the President in the Oval Office. This diagram shows you where the power actually is. As we begin our two week unit on the Presidency, we should emphasize the nature of the power in these small rooms; it is in these rooms that the agenda for a country is set. The Oval Office, as we see below, is not actually in the White House; rather, it is in a small suite of offices called "The West Wing". Although everyone in the White House complex works for, and at the pleasure of the President, only the most senior aides walk the halls among the President and Vice President. Of the three thousand people directly working for the Executive Office of the President, there are fewer than two hundred in the busy and fast paced halls of the West Wing.

Harry Truman famously stated, "The Buck Stops Here" - meaning that the President is ultimately accountable for the Administration. But no President can have their hands in every item that comes toward the government; which means - power is delegated. Each President must choose a staff who will be capable of understanding power and politics, who can advise him as to how best to explain the actions of the government to the people, and finally, who will shape the country's policy. Look through the list of names of the people working in the West Wing of the White House; who do you recognize? Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, Dick Cheney - they are all within footsteps of the President.

Trust, savvy, and competence are what keep an administration afloat; yet Presidencies are confronted with the unexpected, each day, for dealing with the unexpected is the nature of the job. Second terms are historically unkind to Presidents; why do you think that is? FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and now Bush - all were tainted by scandal in their last years in office. It is enough to make one envy the esteem that the public holds for JFK, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George Bush Sr. - the esteem of course comes only when history, not the electorate - makes its judgment.

Over the next two weeks, we must spend our time getting to know these Presidents; the President is the 'indispenable person' in the US government, and each President leaves a mark on the history of the government, and the country.

There will not be much time to come up for air during these four class periods; as background information for the lectures, please familiarize yourself with Chapter 11 in the textbook; that's the foundation. Specifically, we need to know about impeachment, succession, the evolution of the Presidency, the role of non-elected aides, separation/sharing of powers, Presidential-Congressional relations, the fluid roles of the President, the President in wartime, public affairs, and finally, a President's legacy. Your textbook and the newspapers are the place to start. To make these points of reference more real to you, please look at the current Bush Administration, and compare it to the second term of President Clinton's. The topics we address are current events, and relevant to today's governing of the United States, but it is just as true, that questions of power, tend to repeat themselves. People like Macchiavelli and Locke and Jefferson and Franklin understood constants of human nature; the framers undertook to create a system of good government, based upon both ideals and raw power politics. Please keep this in mind as you read.

Remember - our job in this course is to make sure that the next time you vote, you do so with a clear understanding of what's at stake, and what role you play in all levels of government.

Thank you,

Pete McRoberts

1: Linda Gambatesa, Oval Office Operations
2: Personal Secretary and Personal Aide to the President
3: Scott McClellan, White House Press Secretary
4: Pamela Stevens, Assistant Press Secretary
5: Erin Healy, Assistant Press Secretary
6: Steve Hadley, Deputy National Security Advisor
7: Condoleezza Rice, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
8: Richard B. Cheney, Vice President
9: Jonathan Burks, and Veronica Vargas Stidvent, Assistants to the President for Policy
10: Joseph Hagin, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations
11: Harriet Miers, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy
12: Andrew H. Card, Chief of Staff
13: Dan Bartlett, Communications
14: Mike Gerson, Speechwriting
15: David Hobbs, Legislative Affairs
16: Eric Pelletier, Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs
17: Steve Friedman, Economic Policy
18: Keith Hennessey, Economic Policy
19: Suzy DeFrancis, Communications
20: Dina Powell, Presidential Personnel
21: David Leitch, Deputy Counsel
22: Margaret Spellings, Domestic Policy
23: Kristen Silverberg, Domestic Policy
24: Karl Rove, Senior Advisor to the President
25: Israel Hernandez, Assistant to the Senior Advisor
26: Alberto Gonzales, Counsel to the President

October 26, 2005

Position Paper #2 Model Answer

The following notes are 'model' answers to position paper #2; these are not necessarily answers I am expecting from you, as there are more details in these model answers than there are points available. I will use these as a base by which to grade your papers; but if you have given a correct or novel answer, which is not in the model, don't worry - you will get your credit.
I have included Google search terms as well; none of the search terms had the quotes when I did the searches. Feel use the internet as a supplement to your notes and your readings, a well-placed search can take you to an encyclopedia or a primary source - such as the rules of the Senate or a current article. My point with highlighting the Google searches, is to show you that you can add to your notes and readings through targeted research on the internet. Plagiarism is a concern; I do not expect any of you to knowingly take someone else's ideas and pass them off as your own, but you want to be careful, as accidents can happen. To that, I encourage group study, but be sure and do the writing independent of your classmates. For example, on the previous position paper, there were two students, writing almost verbatim, the same answer to a question. An instructor will have no way of knowing whether that is an instance of those students finding the same source in a book or the internet, or, students simply duplicating each others' work. Rule of thumb - if you are quoting something you find, put the actual citation - i.e., where you found it - in the text of the document. If you and a classmate are doing each others' work, then you have intentionally plagiarized, and you will both fail the course.
 As a matter of housekeeping, you should always keep in mind, that academic papers are the sole way that you communicate with an instructor. Whether it's a beginning course, or a PhD level class, you can always add care to make sure that your instructor sees you as an intelligent student. Anymore, every line of work will require professional writing. Any program you are in at Hawkeye will require that you can clearly explain detailed concepts to someone else. Whether it's a boss, a colleague, or a dissertation advisor, that's the point here. To that, be sure you keep a level of professionalism throughout each piece you write. Think of each document you write as advertising for yourself. Do not write a professional document like a letter to a friend; phrases like, "Well....", and "...I guess..." are entirely out of place and will result in a poor grade. Email/IM terms, such as using "u" in place of "you" will result in failure. If there is a question you are having trouble with, rather than put that in your answer - setting yourself up for failure - just email me, and I'll help you find what you need.
 Remember, " You are in college to hone your mind into a reliable thinking machine that will serve you well throughout the rest of your life". (Citation: http://www.georgetown.edu/honor/plagiarism.html#getstuff )

Model Answer:
1. General Peter Pace, US Marine Corps
(Google search for "Joint Chiefs of Staff").
2. Chief Justice of the United States
(Google search for "Chief Justice").
3. A supreme court justice can leave office three ways; retirement, death, or impeachment. Justices are appointed for a term of 'good behavior', which in practice, means, 'life'. But, as with every federal officer, the a member of the House of Representatives may file articles of Impeachment, which means, the House is accusing the officer of an 'impeachable offense'. If the House votes to impeach, then the question goes to the Senate, where that body can either vote to convict or acquit.
Extra credit: Samuel Chase was impeached, but not convicted. Points also given for impeachments in other branches, such as Clinton, Johnson, the Nixon process, Agnew, etc.
(Google search for "impeachment supreme court justice").
4. The Constitution creates the entire Court system in Article III, Section I, the Supreme Court, and other 'lower' courts that Congress may 'from time to time ordain and establish'. Congress can decide which types of cases the lower courts can hear, as it did in the Terri Schiavo case; Congress essentialy opened up federal courts to hear a case like hers - 'expanding the courts' jurisdiction'. Congress can not expand the Supreme Court's jurisdiction; its entire authority is spelled out in Article III, Section II. Marbury v. Madison - the case 'creating' judicial review - came about when Congress granted the Supreme Court more power than the Constitution allowed. As a result, the Court nullified the law, and Judicial Review was born.
(Google search for "can congress expand the jurisdiction of a lower court")
5. Upon a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the President may choose a replacement. The President formally nominates a candidate, and then the nomination goes to the US Senate; the Senate must advise and consent to a nomination. In practice, that means the President sends the name to the Senate, the Senate sends the nomination to the Judiciary Committee, and then hearings are held by the Judiciary committee to determine a nominee's fitness to serve. The nominee must pass a vote of the committee - either with an endorsement or a simple vote - and then his/her name will be considered by the Senate as a whole. If the Senate passes the nomination, then the Justice is confirmed and may take his/her seat on the court.
(Google search for "nomination process supreme court").
6. As a member of the Judiciary committee, you will hear the nominee first. You are entitled to vote against a nominee, or, you are also entitled to threaten a filibuster. A filibuster means that you will hold up the proceeding by speaking idefinitely. There is no requirement that you speak about refer to the nomination, the Senate, or anything, only that you keep talking. You can raise this at any time, either in the committee, or, once the nominee passes the committee, you can raise it again during debate by the full Senate. In response to your filibuster, the a Senator may interrupt you, by 'invoking cloture'. If a Senator invokes Cloture, the entire Senate votes on your filibuster. Cloture requires 60 votes to pass. It cloture 'carries', your filibuster may not continue. This is often used when a nominee might have a simple majority of Senators supporting him/her, but does not have 60 - it is a stalling, delaying tactic, which under Senate rules, each Senator is entitled to.
(Google search for "filibuster supreme court").

October 25, 2005


The Nixon video for Am. Gov't and the Kennedy video for IR are now available to check out for a 2 hr. period in the library. For the Am. Gov't students, the Nixon video is quite important and is therefore required.
 Just ask at the front desk for the proper video, and you'll be all set -

Veterans' Day

 As is the case each year, Hawkeye will be hosting events to honor Veterans' Day. In the next few days, please let me ask you for your input as to what we may do. There will be displays and such at HCC, and I'd like to make sure that we take part. If you're interested, please let me know in class. Thanks -

October 24, 2005

Plame Investigation

 The special prosecutor has implied that the Plame investigation will end this week; please look here for background.Additionally, here is the website of Special Counsel Fitzgerald. Please familiarize yourself with it briefly. If indictments are made, we are going to spend some heavy time on this - so this is homework. Thanks -

Am. Gov't/IR Video

To all of my sections:
 For anyone who missed the Nixon video in Am. Gov't or the "Thirteen Days" video for IR, both videos will be available in the library on reserve as of Tuesday. You will be able to watch them in the breakout rooms. You will be asked to sign-in, you can keep the video in the room until you are finished, then check it back in. Viewing of the video is required - as always, be sure and take good notes.

October 20, 2005

Am. Gov't/IR - Current Event

Am. Gov't -The plot thickens! Read on.
IR - Interview with Angela Merkel here.
      Special on North Korea here.

October 19, 2005

Am. Gov't - Current Events

You should click here for a piece on Harriet Miers and here for a piece on Tom DeLay. Class, please be aware, we are an equal opportunity course here! These articles are both about Republicans, but please rest assured, I am looking for news about everyone. Read on and be prepared to discuss next week, during our Congressional chapter.

October 17, 2005

Current Event

Mrs. Laura Bush and the First Lady of Bulgaria, Mrs. Zorka Parvanova, visit the Library of Congress at 11:00 am ET.

October 16, 2005

Position Paper #2 Comment

If there are any position papers that have not yet been turned in, you must see to it that they are in my mailbox in the Black Hawk department office by Monday, 17 October. I am missing a few yet, and once I post the model answers on the site, ideally Monday evening, then I can no longer accept any more papers from you for the reason, that once I post the answers, they are displayed for everyone to see. If you have any questions, please email me. Thanks. Pete

October 13, 2005

Am. Gov't - FEMA lateness shocker


> October 12, 2005
> Agency 'Caught Unawares' By Marital Meltdown
> In the latest setback for a troubled government agency, the Federal
> Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) acknowledged today that it had been too
> late to save the marriage of singers Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson.
> At a press conference in Washington, D.C., a red-faced R. David Paulison,
> the interim chief of FEMA, admitted that the agency had been "caught
> unawares" by the celebrities' marital woes.
> "I thought everything was fine with them," Mr. Paulison told reporters.
> "The first I got wind that they were having troubles was late Tuesday
> morning."
> Once the FEMA chief learned that Ms. Simpson and Mr. Lachey were on the
> rocks, it took the agency a full twenty-four hours to dispatch an
> emergency marriage counselor to their home in Los Angeles, but by then it
> was too little, too late, FEMA's critics charge.
> Those same critics allege that amid the turmoil in the agency in recent
> weeks, someone had allowed FEMA's subscription to Us Weekly to lapse.
> At the White House, President Bush expressed surprise that the marriage
> between the stars of MTV's "Newlyweds" was coming to an end: "Who could
> have guessed that Nick and Jessica's wedding vows would be breached?"
> For his part, FEMA's Paulison said that the agency had learned its lesson
> "the hard way" from the Nick and Jessica breakup and would be better
> prepared the next time: "We are going to be monitoring Ashton and Demi
> very, very closely."
> To unsubscribe to this e-mail list please paste the following URL:
> http://www.borowitzreport.com/contact.asp?email=pete@mcroberts.com into
> your browser address bar or forward this message to
> "remove@borowitzreport.com".
> www.Borowitzreport.com
> Waste Someone's Time: Forward to a Friend:
> http://www.borowitzreport.com/email_form.asp?email=pete@mcroberts.com&rec=1236
> SUBSCRIBE TODAY! Free Email Updates, click the link below or paste it
> into your browser.
> http://www.borowitzreport.com/subscribe.asp
> Catch Andy's historic first-ever Iowa performances at the University of
> Iowa in Iowa City as part of the New Yorker College Tour!
> Monday October 17: Andy appears with the cast of Second City at Englert
> Theatre, 221 E. Washington Street, 9 PM
> Tuesday October 18: Andy performs an hour of standup at Lunchtime at Java
> House
> 221 ½ E. Washington Street, 12 noon
> ***ANDY IN NYC - OCT 26***
> Andy hosts the Eureka Non-Partisan Comedy Show on Wednesday, October 26
> featuring comedy superstars Tom Shillue, Aziz Ansari, David Rees and much,
> much more! At the Laugh Lounge, 151 Essex (bet, Rivington and Stanton);
> 8:30 PM.

October 12, 2005

Am. Gov't - makeup of the Supreme Court

Please take a look at this and give me your thoughts about this story, and the implications of it.

Am. Gov't: Breaking News Wed., October 12, 2005

Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:



October 10, 2005

IR Extra Credit

For five extra points, please tell me who the next Chancellor of Germany will be, and very briefly note what process put him/her into power.
You may hand-write or type it, but no more than a medium-length paragraph. Please hand in extra credit by the beginning of class, Tues. Oct. 11th. Thank you, Pete

October 05, 2005

IR - Current Events


Chancellor Schröder Flinches

The standoff between German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and would-be chancellor Angela Merkel continues. But on Monday, Schröder indicated he may be backing away from his insistence on the chancellery. Even the spin doctors are getting dizzy.

 It was just a couple of brief comments, but it was enough to land Chancellor Gerhard Schröder on German front pages for what could end up being one of the last times in his political career. "It's not about me personally," he told the press on Monday before a Social Democrat Party leadership meeting. "Rather, it's about my party's claim to leadership," Schröder said. "And that is something about which only the party leadership can decide.... I don't want to stand in the way of the continuation of the reform process I started or of the creation of a stable government in Germany."

Translation: Chancellor Schröder, who for the two weeks since the Sept. 18 general elections has been insisting that he should remain the country's leader, is changing his tune. Should he be the remaining hurdle to the SPD forming a governing coalition with Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU), then he would be willing to step aside should his party ask him to. In other words, Schröder has just paid his next installment on his way to retirement.

That, at least, is the way Germany's press chose to interpret Schröder's remarks on Monday. It didn't take long for SPD party chief Franz Müntefering to try and reverse the spin. He warned Merkel on Monday evening not to draw the wrong conclusions from Schröder's comments. "That would be a big misunderstanding and I can only warn (the Merkel camp) to see his comments in that light," Müntefering said. "We are entering the (coalition) negotiations with Gerhard Schröder as the candidate for the highest office in the government."

A long, slow retreat

Despite Müntefering's rebuttal, however, Schröder's comments are part of what has become a slow -- but constant -- process of retreat. On election night, the SPD's surprising results (34.3 percent of the vote despite pre-election polls indicating they would be lucky to break 30 percent) filled Schröder with confidence. Even though Merkel's CDU -- combined with its Bavarian sister party the Christian Social Union (CSU) -- received 35.2 percent of the vote, Schröder claimed that he should be the one to form the next government and that German voters clearly wanted him to remain chancellor.
While seemingly absurd, Schröder's claim wasn't out of the realm of possibility. Nowhere in German law is it written that the chancellor must come from the party with the most votes -- although it is a tradition that has anchored itself deep into Germany's political consciousness. And Merkel's party was in a shambles. Polls had predicted the CDU/CSU winning over 40 percent of the vote. Many interpreted the disappointing final result as a rejection of Merkel's coolly rational approach to tax and social reform.

And Schröder gambled that Merkel's party -- which never gave the impression it was 100 percent behind its candidate during the campaign -- would collapse into bickering and finger pointing as a result of her election disaster.

But that never happened. Schröder's strutting about like a peacock on national, election-night television united his political opponents behind Merkel. In doing so, he also goaded them, wittingly or not, to make Schröder's elimination their main goal. In the two weeks since, Schröder's insistence on the chancellery has become more and more difficult to sustain and he and his party may now be looking for a dignified exit strategy.

Schröder the party man

Already, Müntefering has indicated that the party may be willing to move ahead without Schröder if the need arises. And now, Schröder could be positioning himself for posterity -- to go down in history as a man who ultimately sacrificed himself for the good of his party. By insinuating himself into the coalition negotiations, Schröder's very presence could very well leverage an extra cabinet post or two for his party.

Which may also explain why Schröder is only very gradually distancing himself from his chancellery claims.
In the poker game of power, Monday's comments could be understood as call rather than a raise or a fold. It has become clear that Schröder has weak cards, but it is just as clear that he knows his opponents likewise don't have a fistful of aces.

Unfortunately for Schröder, time is not on his side. The longer the face off between him and Merkel continues, the more ridiculous his position looks -- particularly following the election results in Dresden on Sunday (delayed two weeks because of the sudden death of a candidate just before the Sept. 18 vote) in which the CDU candidate soundly defeated his SPD opponent.

Still, the final move of withdrawing from the power struggle will likely only come when Merkel offers his party a large carrot. Only then can Schröder retire as the loyal SPD party member he would like his biographers to write about. And only then will Schröder have the chance to save face.

October 04, 2005

Am. Gov't - Current Events

Try this link for an editorial on Tom DeLay.

October 03, 2005

Am. Gov't - Current Event

Please read this article about the new
appointment to the US Supreme Court.

October 02, 2005


Week of 3 October

Due 10 Oct/11 Oct

You will notice this is different than the first one; for several of these questions, a simple short answer will suffice. For other questions, in-depth analysis is required. Many of these questions are based on current events, filtered through our own class discussion. You are free to use the internet and your textbook to look for answers, but all written answers must be your own work. If a question is worth two points, then I expect two separate concepts in your answer; eight points – eight concepts. Because of two points extra credit, you can receive up to 32 out of 30 points on this assignment. Although I had initially thought our second position paper would focus on the development of Judicial Review and the role of the court, I believe we have addressed those topics sufficiently in class, to allow us to now move on to the questions below.
Please provide your answers on no more than one typewritten sheet (or two double-spaced sheets) of paper. Model answers will be posted on the website for you to use as a study guide for your exams, toward the end of next week; therefore, late assignments will not be accepted without prior arrangements with me. Thank you and good luck.

1. Who is the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and what branch of the Military does he come from? 2 pts.

2. What is John Roberts’ current job title? (Careful, this is a trick question – do a bit of research about this, it is harder than you think). 2 pts

3. Explain the process by which a Supreme Court Justice may be removed from office. (Tip – do not simply give me the name of the process. Walk me through the process, from beginning to end. I have written this question deliberately open-ended). 6 pts. 2 pts. extra credit if you cite historical precedence, e.g., examples, for your answer.

4. Where is the Constitutional basis for ‘lower’ courts, and can the Jurisdiction of those courts be expanded or limited? If so, who does that? If this has happened in the recent past, please provide details. And can the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court be expanded/limited? If so, who does that? Explain your answer through the context of Marbury v. Madison. (Notice that this one question asks for up to eight separate points – please address each point in your answer, in order to fully answer the question. For example, a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to “can the jurisdiction of those courts be expanded or limited?” will not answer the question, and would not give you any points). 8 pts.

5. Please explain the nomination process for a Supreme Court Justice, from start to finish, emphasizing the Senate’s role. 6 pts.

6. Assume you are a US Senator, sitting on the Judiciary committee, getting ready for President Bush to nominate a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Assume that over the course of your research, you decide that you will not vote for the nominee. Not only that, you want to make every attempt to stop the nominee from being confirmed. What is/are your option(s), and at what stage of the process can you exercise it/them? Explain to me what this is called, and what your fellow Senators may do in response. 6 pts.

October 01, 2005

Am. Gov't - Extra Credit

To supplement your grades, as of the week of 3 October, from time to time, you will be eligible for extra credit. This is 'free' - it will be added to your current score and it is voluntary. For you to receive your credit, please type the correct answer and turn it into me no later than the second class period after I've assigned it. This is a good way for you to augment your position papers, and to also give you a better footing heading into the exam. This will replace the extra credit we had discussed about attendance and participation (too difficult to manage with 50+ students), and your weekly participation points will remain part of your grade.
 Extra credit questions will be posted on the website, and no late credits will be accepted. Remember, as always, in-depth, yet concisely written answers will get you where you need to be!
 The first extra credit question, for five points (due no later than the second class period this week), is:
"Who is Scooter Libby and why is he in the news this week?"