Here, the people rule.

2010-04-16T13:51:00.001-05:00

Ooh! Blogging from my blackberry? Welcome to the '90s...let's have some fun!

Paul Newman's Obit

2008-09-28T23:22:00.001-05:00

This line was in Paul Newman's obituary today: "He loved drinking beer
and playing elaborate pranks on friends." Could one want anything better
to be said in remembrance?

Tony Blair on Jon Stewart

2008-09-20T14:42:00.002-05:00

See it here.

pete@mcroberts.com has sent you a message.

2007-05-06T16:39:00.001-05:00

The following email has been sent to you by pete@mcroberts.com
Interesting article about Gordon Brown, who will soon become the British Prime Minister upon Tony Blair's resignation. I am really interested in the way the leadership election will look!
GORDON BROWN'S POLITICAL CAREER
By Christopher Adams, Political CorrespondentPublished: April 30 2007 22:17 | Last updated: April 30 2007 22:17
When Gordon Brown takes over from Tony Blair as prime minister at the end of June – as, barring a catastrophe, is certain to happen – he will still be something of an enigma for many British voters.
Within a few weeks, and after serving a decade as chancellor of the Exchequer, the deliberative strategist who made the Bank of England independent, shaped many of Labour's social and economic reforms and kept the pound out of the euro, will finally become the government's frontman.
This article can be found at:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/394b7cf4-f703-11db-86b0-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=5f5b5ef8-b209-11db-a79f-0000779e2340,_i_email=y.html
"FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of The Financial Times.
Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2007

Study Guide

2007-04-27T18:34:00.000-05:00

Class,
Here are about 30 basic themes. This list is not exhaustive, but should serve as a reminder to you as to where we have gone. Thank you,

Pete

2007 Study Guide

Intro to American Gov’t

“Events, dear boy, events”

History

1) Framing of the Country – Escape from Central Gov’t

2) “Tyranny of the Majority” – changing nature of that term

3) States as Key Players; they are the central feature of the Constitution, and the national government derives from them

4) The Civil War Amendments’ greatly expanding the power of the federal government

5) “State Action” requirement of constitutional violation, and the ONE exception to that

6) Locke/Jefferson – roots of political theory

7) Parliament/Monarchy – roots of political practice

8) Conception of equality and how it has changed from 1789 to 2007

Courts

1) Establishment of Judicial Review – facts and aftereffects. Be prepared to detail specifically the facts leading up to the suit being filed. You should know who Marbury was, who Madison was, and who Marshall was.

2) Explain why the suit was filed in the Supreme Court, instead of one of the ‘lower courts’ Congress established.

3) Explain the difference between Appellate and Original Jurisdiction as it relates to MvM and the Judiciary Act.

4) Explain the political tension the court was under (remember – John Marshall was appointed by Adams, who was just defeated by Jefferson). Explain the ‘two bad alternatives’ assumed that the court was under, and explain the ‘third option’ invented by Marshall. And be sure to use its proper name (Hint: J_______ R________).

5) Difference between ‘state courts’ and ‘inferior/lower courts’

6) Describe the meaning of ‘good behavior’ and what it might mean in our context.

7) The Vice President typically presides over the US Senate. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice does. Why do you think this is?

8) What is John Roberts’ job title?

Congress

1) Nature of House v. Senate – which body represents what constituency?

2) Two Chambers compared to England’s Parliament (will also be an ‘executive/presidency question). Why do we have a separation of powers? (Remember English/Colonial history here!)

3) What is the appointment process and how is it similar to passing a bill?

4) How are Senators elected? How were they elected, and why?

5) How are Members of Congress elected, and what process, held each ten years, determines how districts are set up? We spoke recently about an early reference to that process involving slavery and taxes. Be prepared to discuss that reference.

6) Who is the leader of the House of Representatives and who is the Leader of the Senate? Which position do you feel is more important?

7) Explain what processes a Senator can use to prevent something being passed.

Presidency

1) Who elects the President, and how are they chosen?

2) What does the popular vote determine in the several states?

3) What body determines the manner of elections for federal office?

4) Who won the popular vote in the year 2000?

5) Who won the popular vote in the year 2004?

6) Name the only two Vice Presidents in history (that we know of…I hear Walter Mondale has a mean temper) to have shot a person while in office.

7) What is the group of people who collectively make up the Executive Branch called, and who hires and fires them?

8) In Iowa, describe our process for selecting candidates for President

9) Be prepared to offer your analyses of the differences between the six top candidates for President from both parties

Finals Schedule and Other Info

2007-04-09T23:12:00.000-05:00

Class, we are on the home stretch. I hope that this schedule helps you prepare for this next full month. I have every faith that each of you will do a good job, not only on your exam, but during these weeks in which heavy participation is required.

Please note that there are two schedules listed below, one for the Tues/Thurs AM course, and one for Tues PM. Also please note that the Tues/Thurs class will meet in Black Hawk Hall as we ordinarily would on Tues AM, but will then move to our new room in Grundy 203. For the Thurs. PM class, there is no change.

Also please note that although I make every attempt to check my email once a day, that is no longer the best way to reach me. If you have a question, please feel free to call me locally at 961-1260. I encourage you to do so when you have a question.

Now, let’s get started!

Tuesday/Thursday:

Tues 10 Apr: Written M v M questions (see below) and finish The Bill discussion.

Th 12 Apr: Talk about M v M

Tues 17 Apr: Ch. 11 (The Presidency)

Th 19 Apr: M v M paper due, discuss study guide

Tues 24 Apr: I hand out study guide

Th 26Apr: Discuss exam

1 Apr: Oral Exam

8 Apr: Final Exam

Tues Night Class:

10 Apr: Ch. 11 (The Presidency)

17Apr: Bill Discussion (I will also hand out written questions for Bill paper)

24 Apr: Oral Exam Study Guide

1 May: Discuss Oral Exam, turn in Bill paper

8 May: Oral (Final) Exam

For Tuesday, 10 Apr AM Class, please use the following as a guide for your Marbury v. Madison written assignment. This is not a series of questions, rather a reminder as to main issues we’ve discussed. Please give me a two page, single spaced paper, with five questions you have raised during our discussions and through the reminders below. Then, answer them! Your paper should have no more than one inch margins and have 12 point font. You have a lot of leeway with this – simply put, spot issues, describe them, then answer the questions you have raised in the context of our classroom lectures and your own thoughts.

As a reminder,

Facts:

History and Constitutional Basis for the Supreme Court

Constitutional Limits on the Court’s Power

Facts Behind Marbury v. Madison

The Change in the Court’s Power

How does a case reach the Supreme Court and how is it decided?

Analysis:

Persuasion – then and now – what’s the power of the court?

What does Judicial Review really mean?

The majority on the Court has changed several times in the past years. As a result, decisions made in the past – were they done today – would turn out differently. As a result, the Court clearly has the power to change the law at their discretion. Do they? If so, why, and if not, why not?

Internet and Politics!!

2007-03-04T19:06:00.001-06:00

Sweet home Al-Obama!?

http://www.myspace.com/goreobama08

Anne Frank

2007-02-15T23:57:00.000-06:00

Class,
Please read this article and we'll talk about it next week. Thank you,

Pete

CIA Stuff

2007-02-13T22:33:00.001-06:00

Whoops. Thoughts?

Mitt Romney

2007-02-13T06:40:00.001-06:00

Tell me, what do you think of this candidate - most recent
of MANY running for President!

Al Gore

2007-02-13T06:38:00.001-06:00

Do you think that all politics involves getting elected to something?
Read this article and tell me what you think about speech and actions
that are indeed very political - but do not involve a 'campaign' for
office.

Fly The Friendly Skies

2007-02-09T10:26:00.000-06:00

Class, here's an update to the story involving the Speaker of the House. Notice the difference in facts in this article compared to Thursday's - and also notice the difference in tone between the White House spokesman and Pelosi's critics. What do you think that means, if anything?

Additionally, in your assignment, rather than posting a link, it is just fine if you provide me with a synopsis of an article you read, and be sure to tell us where you found it. That will be just fine!

Thank you and have a great weekend! Pete

Current Events, Weeks Five/Six

2007-02-08T12:03:00.000-06:00

Class,
Here's my two cents -- you can read an interesting article about Pelosi here. What I want everyone to do (no exceptions!) is as follows.
Using the 'comment' feature, please reply to this posting (see below - right now, because there are no comments, there's a link marked '0 comments'.) I want you to provide a link to a story you find interesting, as well as 2-3 paragraphs explaining your thoughts relative to the material we've covered.
For the sake of privacy, please identify yourself only by your first name and last initial. Once we're done with this segment, I'll delete this section of the site.
The purpose of this is for you, as students, to understand where your peers' ideas and thoughts are. Sky's the limit as to your analysis, but it has to be relative to the political/gov't issues we've addressed (so - no Astronaut stories!!)

Thanks very much.

Pete

An Interview With Chief Justice Roberts

2007-01-22T15:01:00.000-06:00

A Conversation with Chief Justice John Roberts About the U.S. Constitution
Host: Brian Lamb
August 5, 2006

BRIAN LAMB, HOST: Chief Justice Roberts, can you remember the first time you got interested in the Constitution?

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Well, I’m not really sure when the first time was. I know we talked about it in grade school. You learn a little bit about the government - I don’t know exactly what the class was. And I remember having a little talk and discussion about it at that time.

LAMB: Do you remember when you got interested in it?

ROBERTS: Well, I was interested in it in college. I studied history in college and, of course, a big part of American history is the role of the Constitution and the framing of the Constitution and its preservation during the Civil War. So I came into it I think mostly from the angle of history and from there into law school where, of course, it was the main subject of study.

LAMB: If you had to define it in 200 words or less - a simple explanation of what our Constitution says, what would you say?

ROBERTS: Well, these are the rules by which we govern ourselves. You know like if you’re going to play any game you’ve got to know what the rules are. And governing, of course, is not a game, it’s more important but it’s the same principle, you have to know what the rules are.

And governments in world history have so often abused the power they have and people have suffered because of it. And the framers decided they were going to lay down some rules to try to keep that from happening, that’s what the Constitution is.

LAMB: Is there a particularly interesting part of it that you have always liked?

ROBERTS: Well, you know, I think people tend to focus because the cases tend to be more high profile on the Bill of Rights, you know, is this under the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, those sorts of things; the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.

But the really interesting part of it and I think what the framers were most interested in is the structure of the whole thing, the decision to take the powers of the government and divide them up into three separate branches and to try to make sure that each branch stayed within its own sphere; the structure saying these are the - this is the presidency, this is the president’s power, this is the legislature, this is what they can do, here’s the judiciary. And that was where - that’s really where the main protection of our liberty resides. That is their way of preventing the government from becoming too powerful and I think that’s the part that is, at least for me anyway, very interesting.

LAMB: Do you have a favorite amendment?

ROBERTS: No, I don’t think I have a - any particular amendment that sort of is more favorite than any other. I mean, obviously, you get a lot of interesting issues under the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment.

And the reason we get a lot of interesting issues under those they are the ones that tend to be written for the ages, as it were, in broader terms. Because I think the framers really recognized and hoped they were forming a charter to govern for the centuries. And so they were using phrases like reasonable search and seizure and phases like that that they realized would have to be given meaning by their successors.

LAMB: If you were just starting out to study the Constitution how would you go about it based on what you know now?

ROBERTS: You know the one thing people don’t do, and by that I mean law professors, judges, law students, not just normal everyday citizens who are engaged in other occupations, nobody reads it. We talk about it a lot. We have cases about it. But to actually sit down and read it doesn’t happen that often and that is a very rewarding exercise.

You know of all the major written Constitutions in history it’s the shortest. It’s not an elaborate code. They were laying down basic principles that they wanted to endure and it’s timeless. There are parts of it that don’t seem to make much sense to day and we wonder why they are worried about quartering soldiers and things like that but they were important then. But most of it still resonates and you can see what they were trying to do just by sitting down and reading it.

LAMB: If you had to be one of the founding fathers that were at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 which one would you have been?

ROBERTS: Oh, that’s a - that’s a difficult thing to be - I’d like to think I would have been one of them - and there were a few that helped broker the great compromises that allowed the Constitution to become a reality. You know when they start - we look at a lot of problems today and we think well this is hopeless, how are you going to solve this. That was kind of what they started with.

I mean you had small states that thought they were going to be left out, you had big states that weren’t willing to give up any power, people had very different views on a lot of things. And yet they were able by sitting down in this room and kind of thrashing it out, closing it off no press in the room while they tried to work this out, to come up with, you know, a great compromise that allowed the small states, the big states, the merchant states, the agricultural states, everybody to kind of come together with, of course, one exception. They never worked out what to do about slavery and just kind of shuttled that aside and decided we’re not going to talk about that. And that taint in the Constitution, took a Civil War to remove. But with that exception I think they did a remarkable job of bringing all these diverse interests together and agreeing on a way of going forward that I’d have to say even the most optimistic of them really probably didn’t envision what the United States would become.

LAMB: When was the last time you read the Constitution?

ROBERTS: It was a few weeks ago. Just in kind of commemoration of the end of the term, you know, we spent the last term issuing a lot of decisions on what the Constitution means and I thought I ought to at least pause for an hour or so and read the original document again to see how closely I think we got to what the - what the framers wrote.

LAMB: Is there a weakness, from your perspective, in the Constitution?

ROBERTS: You know I wouldn’t identify anything as a particular weakness and to the extent weaknesses did emerge the framers anticipated that, too. I mean the amendment process, it’s extraordinarily difficult and we tend not to focus on it, but it did allow some fundamental flaws to be addressed like slavery - abolished in the Thirteenth Amendment. The Bill of Rights themselves, of course, although I tend to think of them as part of the original package because the understanding on the part of many of the framers was that as soon as we got the Constitution in place we would enact the Bill of Rights.

But no, I wouldn’t identify any particular flaw.

LAMB: At what point in our history did the court solidify as a, you know, powerful part of the three branches of government? Was it right away?

ROBERTS: It wasn’t right away and you can tell that if you tour around Washington, D.C. You know when they moved the government here the first thing they did was set up the White House for the president, next the Capitol for the legislative branch. People forgot about the Supreme Court. We didn’t get our own building until 1935 and I think that was a good indication of how significant people regarded the judiciary.

Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper said it’s the weakest branch. And certainly for the early part of its history it lived up to that. Then John Marshall came along and John Marshall established the court as the interpreter of the Constitution. In his famous decision he wrote, in Marbury vs. Madison, he basically said look, we’re a court. We have to decide cases. If in deciding a case we have to determine what the Constitution means well that’s our job under the Constitution.

He regarded the Constitution as law. That’s one way that our Constitution is different from a lot of others. Many countries that have Constitutions they’re really just political documents. And if you have a dispute under the Constitution it’s going to be resolved however disputes are going to be resolved, maybe in an election if you’re lucky, maybe by force of arms if you’re not, maybe by the mob. However political disputes are resolves that’s how they would resolve Constitutional questions.

John Marshall in Marbury vs. Madison said this is different. The Constitution is a political document. It sets up the political structures. But it’s also a law and if it’s the law we have the courts to tell what it means and that’s binding on the other branches.

And that important insight into how the Constitution works has been, I think, the secret to its success because you do have a final interpretation of its meaning that is binding on the political branches by a branch that’s separate from the political branches.

LAMB: You said first and foremost read the Constitution. What would you use secondly?

ROBERTS: Well, I’d read the Federalist Papers. These are the bits of advocacy, the briefs, the arguments in favor of ratifying the Constitution that several of the founding fathers wrote explaining what it means. They were involved in writing it, they wanted to see it ratified, and they did their best to explain it so that the various state conventions would ratify it.

And again, people can get scared away by something like that. It’s very easy reading. It’s very straight forward. It tells you exactly what they meant when they put the executive power in the presidency and why they separated the powers in order to protect individual liberty. It’s easy to read and it helps explain what the text means.

LAMB: Do you have a favorite one of the what, 84-85 ...

ROBERTS: Well, there are the - a couple of them that deal in particular with the judiciary and explain why, for example, federal judges are given life tenure, why their salary can’t be diminished. And what they say is the reason we do this is because they’re not supposed to be responsive to the people. Unlike the legislators, unlike the president, we don’t want judges to do what the people want in a particular instance. They’re supposed to be following the law and so you give them life tenure.

And there was a big debate at that time. People were concerned. The judges they had experience with were the English judges and they didn’t like that experience. And they’re saying why in this new Constitution are you setting up judges for life? That sounds like an aristocracy. We’re getting away from that.

And so they explained don’t worry about it because these judges are not going to be deciding important political questions, they’re deciding the law and they need to do that without regard to what popular pressures might have them do.

LAMB: Does the Constitution look any different to you since you’ve become chief justice?

ROBERTS: No. I wouldn’t say it looks any different. I do think since I became a judge anyway I have a particular sensitivity to the role of the court in interpreting the Constitution and the laws, and a particular concern to preserve the independence of the judiciary apart from the political branches because that’s what the framers recognized as key to the judiciary performing its function.

And I, perhaps as part of the judicial team now, have a bit more team pride in the importance and role of the court in making the Constitution a meaningful document.

LAMB: Do you ever as you watch the debate in this country about the Constitution hear different people take sides do you ever say we really don’t understand what this thing is?

ROBERTS: I do think that we need - judges need to do a better job educating people about their role. Too many people think whenever there’s any kind of dispute in our society well let’s take it to the Supreme Court and they’ll decide.

In a democratic republic that shouldn’t be someone’s first reaction. Their first reaction should be to resolve political disputes in the political process.

Now obviously one of the great insights and geniuses of the framers was to ensure that liberty was protected and that a court would be there to protect liberty. And when liberties guaranteed in the Constitution are infringed that’s what the courts are there for to ensure that that doesn’t happen. But they are not there to resolve everyday political disputes. And people’s first reaction in a lot of these cases ought to be I’m going to talk to my congressman, I’m going to talk to my senator, I’m going to call the White House, I’m going to call my governor and I’m going to talk to the people in my local government because that’s what the framers understood - that’s how they understood the system would work.

LAMB: Looking back, read the Constitution, read the Federalist Papers, in your own life did you have a teacher that was particularly important to you when it comes to the Constitution - or a book?

ROBERTS: No, I don’t think there’s anyone. I certainly had teachers in - as far back as grade school, but there again, they were tended to be history teachers and that was what I was interested in. They inspired that kind of interest in me. And I got to the law and the Constitution through a study of American history.

Books, yes, I mean there are - have been great books written about the Constitution. These are things that I looked at mostly in law school, books by people like Alexander Bikel, a famous law professor who tried to explain this - what he viewed as the fundamental conundrum in our system, how can you have in a democracy people like me who weren’t elected by anybody, who aren’t accountable to people, making such important decisions. How do you reconcile that fundamental inconsistency and he kind of struggled with that in a very, very thoughtful way that really made an impression on me.

LAMB: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

ROBERTS: Thank you very much. I’ve enjoyed it.

Supreme Court + Current Events

2007-01-22T11:49:00.000-06:00

OK, class, now we're off. You should take a look at this link regarding the Supreme Court. It's very cool, and will supplement your reading in the M v. M book (remember, you want to read p. 52-74 or so in that book).
For the night class, we'll be getting ready for the State of the Union, which we'll talk about on Thurs. for the AM class.

Stay tuned - interesting stuff. Tues. AM we may take a bit of a detour b/c of current events- be ready!! Group C is 'up'.

Pete

1st Political Ad of the Season Has Hit the Airwaves

2007-01-17T17:29:00.000-06:00

The question for you - using Google, who was this TV against, and who paid for it!?
(I saw it today, 17 Jan - surprised - caucuses are a YEAR away. Feel free to comment on this via the discussion board or right here).

The President's Speech

2007-01-10T17:43:00.000-06:00

Current Events – President Bush speaks. If you have not done so by Thursday AM, please read the text of the President’s speech regarding Iraq, and be prepared to speak about it. I’ll send links as they come! Thanks - Pete

Final Exam

2007-01-03T10:06:00.000-06:00

INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN GOVERNMENT – FINAL EXAM

Our study of the operations of the Government of the United States is inspired by two themes – the desire to explain, and the desire to predict. Developing and applying a reasoned, yet general, philosophical understanding of how people seeking power, and how people in power behave, is the route we have taken together.

We develop our understanding through observation. It is not good enough to raise ‘easy’ questions, attempt to answer them, and move on. Rather, we aim to learn the basics of the system, and then to use that understanding to develop our questions. It is my hope that in this very brief time together, doors have indeed been opened to you, and that through that process, your own questions will develop and grow, as you do.

“….Events, dear boy, events”.

As our aim is to explain and predict personal and structural behavior, we decided to do so by examining the individual, the systemic structure of the government, the electoral structure, and, events.[1]That fourth classifier – events – is the reference point for all we have dealt with in our course.

COURSE INDEX

The States
· States as central political unit
· Confederation
· Equality among states
· Federalism
· The Electoral College
· The US Senate
· In-State Political Affairs (Legislative Elections)

The Supreme Court
· The Least Understood Branch
· Marbury v. Madison
· The Civil War and the Constitution
· Civil Rights – Religion and Race
· The Appointment Process
· Constitutional Interpretation

The Congress
· Committees
· House and Senate
· Direct Election of Senators
· Congressional Decision Making
· Congressional/Presidential Relations

The Presidency
· Election
· Governing
· The Evolving Presidency
· Succession and Constitutional Change
· Presidents in History – Truman and Ford
· Primary/Caucus

Comparative Politcs
· Parliament
· Monarchy

Current Events
· World Affairs
· President as Commander-in-Chief

Theory Into Practice
· Tyranny of the Majority
· Life, Liberty, and…..
· The Declaration, The Constitution, The Law – From Poetry to the Mechanics of Governing
· 3/5TH Clause

We started our course with the understanding from the past, that the states’ governments were and remain the reference point for the power of the federal government. We spoke of the Articles of Confederation, and the desire of the Framers to ensure a weaker national government than its roots – namely, the centralized British regime, given best example by the King, and the unrecognized Parliament.
It was in response to that centralized Government that our Declaration of Independence was written – and written, to make a point. In the wake of a hard won victory, and the words of Jefferson, the Confederation was born.
But it was, as your textbook suggests, a government that failed. It is in the shadow of the Confederation that we see concepts such as “Tyranny of the Majority”, and we recognize, that such a weak government, could protect no one. We are not alone in recognizing this. A government must exist to secure rights, as Jefferson borrowed from Locke, and if a government doesn’t work- then throw it off. We saw that in the span of several years, a second revolution occurred, to create a new government.
As the new government would grow, the Framers determined that the Legislature – Congress – would be the most prominent branch. The leader of the country, Washington, would be a unanimous choice for President, and in Washington’s footprint would that office grow.
But as the Presidency and the Congress grew, so too did the least understood branch- the Supreme Court. As was Washington to the Presidency, so was John Marshall, to the court.
Fast forward two hundred years to Lemon v. Kurtzman or Gideon v. Wainwright. Do we see a Court Marshall would recognize, or should we take notice of an unspoken development, more like the unwritten traditions of the British? Would Marshall be open to a Court of changing rights? Paraphrasing Supreme Court Justice Byron White – Marshall didn’t create Judicial Review[2]. The Constitution did. He enforced it.
The recurring theme from our course, is explaining the link between the poetry between the Declaration of Independence and the mechanics of today’s government.

For our purposes today, I want you to address the issues raised by the bullet points, similar to our exercise on Tuesday. Using the following questions as a guideline, please summarize and analyze our work. You may use your notes and textbook as well as the internet, provided you use citations.

1. States’ powers have changed. Structurally, how is states’ prominence still seen in the political system, both compared to the Federal government, but also in relation to each other?
2. How has the concept of equality changed since the founding, and what concepts are now justified/enforced in ways unheard of by the framers?
3. Consider for a moment that you are a newspaper publisher in the year 1950. You have just gotten word that your City Council has banned newspapers. Please discuss your options and explain why they may exist. What if it’s the year 1850? What if Congress, not the City Council has done the offending act?
4. Your daughter was recently sent home for wearing a piece of apparel that is required by your religious views. Your lawyer says, ‘this will be a breeze. We can get an exemption from this law because your beliefs are genuinely held’. What is your response?
5. Please explain to me the political process that Bruce Braley and Mike Whalen went through in June of 2006; then explain to me how the winner of that race will fulfill his campaign promises, upon taking office in Congress next week.
6. Assume for a moment you work in the White House, and are seeking a way to pay for a road you would like built in your home district. As of this coming Thursday, who needs to help you by appropriating the money?
7. Explain the significance of the Iowa caucuses, and explain the ‘bob to the left, weave to the right’ process candidates must routinely do to get out of Iowa and into New Hampshire.

For your final question, I want to focus on events. We spent hours discussing the nature of events as relating to Presidential politics and decision making. In 750-1000 words (3-3.5 pages), please explain how a Missouri County Judge and a Michigan Attorney came to occupy the Oval Office, and what they did once they arrived. Please feel free to recognize similarities/differences between the two, and be certain to explain their respective reactions to events beyond their control, in their personal, political, and electoral lives.

[1] Harold Macmillan, Prime Minister of Britain. When asked by a reporter what concerned him the most about governing, he replied, “Events, dear boy, events”.
[2] Bob Woodward, “The Brethren”.

2 Jan Written Assignment

2007-01-02T14:07:00.000-06:00

Class,
For your afternoon assignment, I would like to please collaborate, and develop a study guide, using your notes, our lecture, and our readings as a guide.

Specific to this assignment, please revisit in writing where we’ve been – where did we start? Think of the list of factors we chose to use to explain and predict the behavior of those in political life. We have spent a great deal of time on ‘events’ – which events have shaped the development of the US Government in ways no one could have expected?

Having done that, please take 30-45 minutes revisiting our first two days in class; specifically the Courts and the States. Using the bullet points below, please sum up the basic points we addressed; effectively, I want you to raise questions, and then answer them.

This assignment is due at the end of class today.

President Ford/Warren Commission

2007-01-01T20:05:00.000-06:00

Class,
Let me first address a few housekeeping items. We will spend a heavy amount of time on Wed. working on a final paper for you to turn in, and then we are done for this full semester

This pasted material below is really something else. As you may know, President Ford - as a Congressman- Gerald Ford was named to the Warren Commission - the board that investigated the murder of President Kennedy. As you no doubt know, there is naturally no real public consensus as to the events of that day. President Ford's 2005 comments - both as to the Warren Commission, but also about his own life. We will likely not be addressing any new items on Wed., but this is something to read.

Additionally, we will want to spend time looking at the Republicans and Democrats who are visiting Iowa anticipating a Presidential run. At present, there are four candidates running for President - Gov. Tom Vilsack, Sen. John Edwards, Rep. Duncan Hunter, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich. Rest assured, there will be many more - several of your colleagues attended a Presidential event this week, and I encourage all of you to do the same, after the course is done.

Thank you,

Pete

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

ASSASSINATION REPORT

Foreword

FORTY YEARS AGO, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy touched our whole nation. It also touched off one of the biggest controversies of the twentieth century – a debate that persists even into the next century.

Why has the assassination of John F. Kennedy sparked such dogmatic fascination? Foremost, people love a mystery, and this is a real-life murder mystery. Notwithstanding that, there is traditionally public cynicism about such affairs, along with a need to understand why, even if understanding it may be impossible. People want answers as to how such a reprehensible act could have occurred. They want to know the circumstances and failings of the system, the motive for the atrocity, if espionage was involved, if we captured the right and only man, and they want to be assured that it could- n’t happen again. Unfortunately, we are not able to categorically resolve all of these points, as some will always be indeterminate. The assailant never got to tell us his rationale, but even if he had, would the answer have given us much more insight or satisfaction than the testimony of other cold- blooded killers such as Charles Manson, the Unabomber, or John Lennon’s assassin, Mark David Chapman?

Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby were both very disturbed individuals, and their motives will always mystify a rational person. There are also several coincidences that would raise anyone’s suspicion. Therefore, it is human nature to look for an external impetus to these heinous acts. Did a renegade official, a criminal organization, or some other government influence their actions? That’s what the Warren Report is all about. A Presidential Commission of some of the most renowned public servants of the time, assisted by a staff of attorneys, investigators, and experts, set out to uncover who killed JFK and whether there was a conspiracy, or if Oswald and Ruby acted of their own accord. This document is the result of that comprehensive investigation.

ABOUT ME

When fate taps you on the shoulder, it helps if you are wearing your shoulder pads and have your helmet ready.

My association with this report is that I was one of those personally appointed by President Johnson as a member of the Warren Commission.

It’s a strange feeling to know that I had several choices early in life which would have altered recorded history. Not many people are given the sobering opportunity to observe how their choices made a difference in the history of the world.

One of my biggest and hardest choices was turning down offers from the Detroit Lions and the Green Bay Packers to play professional football. In addition to being voted MVP in 1934, my performance with the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor Wolverines put me in the 1935 College All-Star game at Soldier Field against the Chicago Bears. Nonetheless, when Yale University offered me coaching positions in football and boxing, I couldn’t pass up a chance to work my way into Yale Law School at the same time. Yale Admissions at first felt that I wouldn’t be able to manage jobs and classes simultaneously, but they eventually saw the error of their ways when they realized matriculation was far easier than processing my rejection each semester. I did graduate in the top 15% of my class. Coincidences were already finding me – as William Proxmire and Robert Taft, Jr. were students on the Yale JV team I coached. We were destined to meet again in Washington.

I received my LLB from Yale in 1941, a precarious time. In retrospect, it may seem obvious that the world is a global environment: physically, economically, and socially. However, since the U.S. was finally experiencing a period of peace after 200 years of internal strife over hotly-disputed civil and international conflicts, there was a general desire for isolationism. This sentiment, which as a Republican I shared, was strongest among the older, incumbent party members. That soon changed. Upon seeing modern aircraft, tanks and bombs in the hands of a well-trained Nazi war machine, we understood what the families of invaded countries were telling us. We couldn’t ignore a world at war.

One thing I can assure all readers – war is hell. As a Naval Lieutenant Commander in World War II, 21/2 years on a combat carrier in the Pacific with 10 battle stars, I not only survived the enemy, but also Mother Nature’s attacks on our ship. At that time I vowed to strive for peace at any cost. After Pearl Harbor, isolationism was a dead issue, and the Republican party was still stagnating. That wasn’t just my perspective. Many of my Michigan colleagues, including Donald Rumsfeld, who headed a group called “The Young Turks,” concurred that the Republicans needed to reform or lose public support. We obviously had the right idea, because in 1948, the party put my name on the ballot rather than Bartel Jonkman, the incumbent. The voters also agreed, as they were kind enough to elect me to the House of Representatives in the 81st Congress.

Our 1948 campaign was grassroots all the way. Television sets were rare, yet political campaigns cluttered the radio airwaves. We just went directly to the people. During that campaign, I got together with one of the bravest and most open people I’ve ever met – my wife, Betty. We obviously didn’t have much of a honeymoon; however, the victory party made up for it. Betty and I are still a great team. We have three sons and a daughter: Michael, John, Steve, and Susan.

When I first got to D.C., Richard Nixon showed me around and helped me to become acclimated. That is how I got to know him. Senator John F. Kennedy was also a friend – his office was across the hall from my own in the Old House Office Building. He often accompanied me on the way to sessions, at which time we would discuss our common views of bipartisan internationalism. Throughout my time as a Representative, I interacted with many people who are now household names from that period in our political history: Tip O’Neil, George H.W. Bush, George McGovern, Dick Cheney, Bobby Kennedy, Colin Powell, Arthur Vandenberg, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Bob Dole, among so many others. One of my favorite advisors was “Liberty,” our Golden Retriever, who would eventually make it to the floor…next to me in the Oval Office.

There was a plethora of notable events that occurred during my time as Congressman. One of the saddest was the assassination of JFK.

My personal interests in politics have always been in the legislative process. Ironically, I never sought Executive service, and even turned down the chance to run for Michigan Governor. I had set my goal to become Speaker of the House. That may have been somewhat of a lofty goal; in reality it was an impossible goal. You see, in order for a Republican to become Speaker of the House, the Republicans have to hold a majority in the House. Well, that never happened during my tenure. In fact, we had the least seats since the Great Depression when I was chosen Minority Leader in 1965. We greatly improved in later elections, yet after 25 years in Congress, I never got a crack at Speaker. Patience may be a virtue, but there are limits to the human life span. I had begun contemplating retirement and other options.

Before I had a chance to canvass new career directions, the most amazing sequence of events transpired, which changed not only my life, but also the direction of the entire nation. Due to the Watergate coverage and other negative press during the Nixon Presidency, there had been intense friction between Spiro Agnew and the news media, culminating in publicized accusations of illegalities by the Vice President. Considering how much mud was being flung in all directions at the time, it was difficult to discern what was being blown out of proportion, so I hadn’t realized how serious it was. Vice President Agnew resigned.

Prior to the Kennedy tragedy, there was no law or procedure to replace a vice president in the event that the position became vacant, which it did for the sixteenth time when Johnson took over for Kennedy in 1963. Back then, Richard Nixon, who had lost the election to Kennedy, appeared before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments. He suggested going to the Electoral College as the solution in an Amendment requiring the appointment of a new vice president, and defining the method for choosing that replacement in the middle of a term. The Democratic Subcommittee ultimately decided that the candidate would be selected by the President, then confirmed by both Houses. They felt the Electoral College was archaic, and did not necessarily reflect popular opinion/given the 2000 election, one really can’t argue. The Twenty-fifth Amendment became part of the United States Constitution in 1967. Coincidentally, President Nixon was the first president to test this new Amendment just six years later upon the resignation of his own VP.

In the White House, a short list of replacements for Spiro Agnew was circulating, which consisted of Ronald Reagan, John Connally, or Nelson Rockefeller. When I received the phone call offering me the Vice Presidency, I was, therefore, as surprised as anyone (except for my daughter, who was on the phone with friends when President Nixon called, and completely unfazed, asked him to please hang up and call me on the other line). I found out later that President Nixon had been pushing for Connally’s nomination. The conservative Republicans weren’t happy about Rockefeller, the liberal Republicans weren’t happy about Reagan, but no one was happy about John Connally, who had recently switched parties. I was chosen with the dubious distinction of being the least likely to offend. It was Democrat Speaker of the House Carl Albert’s bright idea – so you can blame him, but you can also ponder that if it were not for the Twenty-fifth Amendment, he would have become President (the word “coincidence” does come to mind).

For nine months, in my position as Vice President, I tiptoed among the political land mines of Vietnam and Watergate. All the while, I was reassured by the President and Attorney General John Mitchell that the White House was not involved.

I was consequently unprepared for the news when a “smoking gun” audio tape was released. My astonishment was that there were those who felt their position put them above the law. President Nixon resigned August 9, 1974, and through the strangest coincidences imaginable, I found myself the 38th President of the United States.

When I took office, not only did I reinforce that the American dream was possible for anyone who went after it, but I also demonstrated that even if you tried to run the other way, it could tackle you from behind. I don’t think even Rube Goldberg could have contrived a scenario that would have taken me from Minority Leader of the House of Representatives into the Oval Office. I not only made the history books, but the record books, as the first person to serve as President without ever being elected to the Executive branch of government. There have been other Vice Presidents who had to assume the Presidency, but they had been elected Vice President before it happened. Considering that I was not voted into either the office of Vice President or President, I am, thus far, the only “appointed” President of the United States.

When former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller became my Vice President, both positions in the White House were held by appointees. It was somewhat surreal. Outgoing President Nixon recommended that I retain the services of Dr. Henry Kissinger in the role of Secretary of State to ensure that our vital foreign relations remained strong and unswerving. Otherwise, just as an elected President would do, I completely replaced cabinet and staff. You may recognize some of my appointees:

George H.W. Bush – Director, CIA
Richard Cheney – Chief of Staff
Donald Rumsfeld – Secretary of Defense
Allan Greenspan – Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors

I inherited some of the most volatile issues that can confront a leader. The economy was not healthy; we were being paralyzed by an oil crisis; the Cold War was still escalating such that several countries were calling for our assistance; the Middle East was precarious; Vietnam was a drain on us financially, psychologically and tragically; and through it all, the media and Washington continued to be preoccupied with Watergate.

When I took on the responsibility of President of the United States, I said “Our long national nightmare is over,” and I meant it. But as I started in my new role, I discovered a significant proportion of my own time was still being spent on Watergate. That couldn’t continue. I had to play the role of Solomon. I consulted with Counsel to learn if there were options for extricating myself and the nation from the scandal. The only definitive resolution was a full pardon. Now, I was as outraged with Watergate as anyone else, but I also happened to have seen the humiliation and devastation Richard Nixon went through, so I knew he paid for his actions. I was also convinced that a lengthy trial in which both parties would be at each others’ throats wouldn’t bring justice, but would only further damage and distract the political system. I struggled with it, and I prayed about it, but I had to pardon Richard Nixon. It was highly controversial and apparently a big factor in my losing the reelection, but history has now vindicated me.

I am proud that I received the “John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award” for doing what was right in spite of the ramifications. For those who may not be familiar with that award, it was inspired by JFK's book, Profiles in Courage, and chartered by his daughter, Caroline Kennedy, President of the JFK Library Foundation. A bipartisan committee votes for the recipients proof indeed of my longstanding belief that politicians can agree on something important.

We withdrew our troops from Vietnam; we reached a tentative agreement with Leonid Brezhnev on Strategic Arms Limitations (SALT II); I signed the Helsinki Final Act; we reinstated the Middle East peace talks between Egypt and Israel; I sought information about our Vietnam War MIAs while in China and the Soviet Union; and I worked with President Giscard of France, Chancellor Schmidt of Germany, and Prime Ministers Harold Wilson and James Callaghan of Great Britain to bring together the world’s largest industrial nations for our first meeting of the International Economic Summit. At that time, it was called the Council of Economic Advisors. Later generations may know it as G7.

Domestically, I moved along the Equal Rights Amendment. Amazingly, as I write this, it still hasn’t been adopted. If people truly believe in equal rights, why are so many states still holding out from ratifying the ERA? My wife, Betty, has worked very hard on the ERA, drug rehabilitation through her Betty Ford Center, and other ongoing women’s issues. She has, happily, made progress through the decades.

The economy during my tenure was difficult to fully grasp, because we had, simultaneously, inflation, a recession, and high unemployment. Alan Greenspan proposed a novel plan of economic control using both tax cuts and increases to spark the economy.

I suspect that the economic issues of the current millennium are rooted in the same problems as the ones I faced back in the 1970’s. In the interim, we have had a great technology boom that artificially elevated our economy due to overzealous investments, followed by a recession resulting from the fallout of the dot.coms, further aggravated by the 9-11 tragedy in 2001. Yet the problems I faced never really went away.

There are various factors contributing to our present sluggish economy, but the biggest concern I have is our loss of U.S. factories and jobs. We have become a nation of service industries and retail. Our technological expertise is being handed over to other nations. We are even losing farmlands to real estate development, which is not only an environmental issue, but reduces the amount of agricultural goods we export. There has to be a balance, and we need to step back and look at our position in the world. The strength of nations isn’t always from guns. There is no question that we need a strong, well-trained military, but it wasn’t bombs that brought down the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall – it was economics. As the world transitions toward a peaceful environment, the strength of nations will come from their economy, and the strength of their economy will come from their industries. If we keep relinquishing industry to other countries, we will not only create an irreversible trade deficit, but we will be relinquishing the core of our country’s strength. The technology that keeps America on the leading edge is being manufactured overseas. What would happen if we suddenly lost access to that high-tech manufacturing? What would happen if it fell into the hands of those who would use it against us? There is, indeed, a lot more to be done to improve our economy. Our work was unfinished, and we cannot permanently recover without a plan that encompasses these issues.

It is true that the voters put me in Washington in the first place, it is also true that those who appointed me to the Presidency were elected officials. Yet, until the 1976 reelection, the citizens didn’t have a chance to express their opinion of me as their leader. We campaigned hard – first against Ronald Reagan in the primaries, and then against Jimmy Carter. We lost by a nose. I am still very grateful to all the people who worked so hard for my reelection. I thank those who shared my goals of peace, truth, and honesty, and ask that you pass those ideals down to your children and grandchildren so we never lose them.

Even in losing, I continued my strong philosophy of openness and respect by instructing my staff to conduct a smooth, cooperative transition to President Carter’s Democratic team. There are opponents in a competition, and then there are enemies. Competition is healthy – enmity is corrosive. I practice what I preach, as demonstrated by my current association with the Democrat who beat me. I may have lost the election, but I have gained a valued friendship. Jimmy Carter and I had a common political adversary in Ronald Reagan, but we soon discovered we had very strong moral and ideological bonds as well. Jimmy and I have worked together on numerous projects including election reform, human rights, healthcare reform, and recommendations on sensitive subjects. Historians have told us that, in the entire history of our country, no two former presidents have ever been as close – certainly not a Democrat and Republican.

Of all the difficult tasks I confronted during my Presidency, I am most proud of my accomplishment in healing a nation that was ravaged by political scandals, economic instability and a violently protested war. Through openness and honesty with the people, the press, and legislators, I reestablished a working relationship between the White House and Congress, and brought trust and credibility back into the government.

Simultaneously, I worked hard toward global peace. You can’t point to any radical initiatives when looking to define my Presidency; it is, in fact, the lack of any extreme events, I am told, that makes my term noteworthy. The people of that era didn’t need more excitement; they needed reconciliation and stability. My contribution is not something that can be measured with a scorecard, but will be measured in retrospect when evaluating how I guided our country through the turmoil to emerge, once again, as a unified people. They are not particularly glamorous, but those are the accomplishments with which I am credited.

The Warren Report

The mysterious and unknown is much more glamorous than the facts.

I AM SAD TO SAY THAT, as of this writing, I am the last remaining member of the Warren Commission. My voice, therefore, must speak for seven on this fortieth anniversary of our findings. In spite of our work being corroborated by several subsequent official investigations, the Warren Commission Report is a favorite dartboard for armchair investigators and critics hawking their own agendas. Consequently, it is quite imperative that I offer my thoughts.

The Office of the Presidency has provided me with a highly unique perspective on this Report. It was one thing to look at the evidence during our investigation back in 1964 as a U.S. House Representative. It is yet more significant for me to be commenting on it from not only having occupied the Presidential seat, but also from having survived two assassination attempts myself (yes, more coincidences).

One of my potential assassins was a Charles Manson follower whose pistol was diverted; the other was a political activist whose gun hand was deflected by a Vietnam veteran, Bill Sipple, a gay rights advocate, and a truly honorable citizen. Political assassins are typically individuals who have been touched by a publicized message, or perceived message, from a social or political group. These assassins may not even be active members of the group, but feel that the message is personally directed to them and that they are “called upon” to act on it. The assassination of JFK appears to fall into the same psychological category.

Modern technology has given the slaying of John F. Kennedy a unique accessibility. This emotional event has become etched into our collective consciousness. The older generations watched it all unfold on TV; the younger generations now watch the videos and reenactments of it. The assassination of JFK horrifies and attracts simultaneously. It is not the same as passively reading a historian’s account of President Lincoln’s fatal night at the theater. It becomes much more real and shocking to actually witness one of our popular leaders being gunned down by a cold-blooded killer. What makes this specter particularly compelling are the anomalies and coincidental circumstances surrounding the assassination and those associated with it.

It was a sunny midday in Dallas, November 22, 1963, when a Presidential motorcade with retracted convertible tops slowly paraded down Elm Street as the city and national news reporters looked on. People lined the motorcade route through Dealey Plaza. Shots were fired from a sixth-floor window in the Texas School Book Depository building. Two shots? Three shots? More? President Kennedy was shot at least twice, while John B. Connally, Governor of Texas, was hit in three places. Jackie Kennedy was spared, as were Secret Service Agents Roy H. Kellerman and William R. Greer, who was driving. Dallas Police, who were later tipped off by an alert citizen, cornered Lee Harvey Oswald at a movie theater. Unfortunately, that was only after the suspect had murdered Police Officer J. D. Tippit.

The assassination was a national tragedy, but what made it a frustrating nightmare was that only two days later, as the presumed assassin was being transported to the Dallas County jail, he was murdered by Jack Ruby. Coincidence or conspiracy?

The public wanted answers; newly sworn-in President Lyndon B. Johnson wanted the facts. Accordingly, he formed the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, better known as the Warren Commission, and recruited me as a member. We were enlisted with the directive to find out who actually killed President Kennedy and Oswald, who was involved, how it was accomplished, and why. We were to specifically look for conspiracies and accomplices. We did that.

The Warren Commission was named for the person who chaired our group – Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Earl Warren. The other members of the Warren Commission were:

Richard B. Russell – Senator (D) from Georgia, Chairman Armed Services Committee
John Sherman Cooper – Senator (R) from Kentucky
Hale Boggs – Representative (D) from Louisiana
Allen W. Dulles – former Director of the CIA
John J. McCloy – former Asst. Sec of War (WWII)
Gerald R. Ford – Representative (R) from Michigan

The members’ credentials were exemplary. Of those on the Commission, the most notable legal expertise was provided by Chief Justice Warren, a former California Attorney General; Judge Cooper, a circuit and county judge; Senator Russell, a former county attorney; John McCloy, an international terrorism investigator; and Hale Boggs, who did investigative work for the House.

We were assisted by fifteen litigation lawyers, twelve staff members, and the help of so many others both inside and outside of the Federal establishment. None of us solicited for the appointment, and our contributions to the Commission were over and above all of our other responsibilities. In addition to having to probe into the death of a friend, it was an inordinate amount of extra work. As you can imagine, it was a painful and stressful task. Yet, I pledged my services because I was committed to uncovering the truth, as were all the members of our bipartisan team. Please be assured that the investigation and report were not hampered in any way by non-attendance at meetings. Those who were not in attendance were either not involved in the agenda for that meeting, or had supplied materials and were fully briefed later. In fact, most of the work on the Commission was not done in the meetings. The most demanding part consisted of reading through all the reports and deliberating on the possibility of plots.

The nation was extremely upset over the assassination; this was augmented by all the rumors being circulated. Thus, pressure for learning what really happened was felt by all. In spite of that, President Johnson did not push us, and most importantly, we were encouraged to thoroughly pursue all possibilities – even those that sounded like something out of a James Bond or an X-Files script. We were not given any parameters or restricted by any assumptions or agencies. Everyone and everything were open for scrutiny. We didn’t accept anyone’s word at face value. There were no preconceived opinions or sacred cows. As you read the Warren Commission Report, you will see that we had no trouble finding fault with the infrastructure of the CIA and FBI.

I can’t begin to tell you all the accounts I have heard and all the work I have put into investigating rumors, eyewitness statements and circumstantial evidence – not just with the Warren Commission but in other committees as well. For instance, people get even more tenacious over the paranormal. When it looked as if the government was withholding information about UFOs, I was one of those who championed open public sessions to establish whether there was any evidence of extraterrestrials. After a while, it became discouraging trying to find hard evidence.

The Warren Commission didn’t consider itself to be infallible, but knowing what was at stake, we took inordinate measures to compensate via thoroughness and acute fastidiousness. We double-checked all information and we cross-examined everyone. We gathered experts in six fields: Firearms, Fingerprinting, Wound Ballistics, Documents, Hairs & Fibers, and Photographs. Unlike the “theorists” of today who espouse one answer and look for some shred of reality to support it, we didn’t assume any answer, but investigated all possibilities and let the facts reveal the truth.

It is true that you can’t ignore coincidences, but there are many reasons those coincidences occur. Conspiracies may or may not have existed or occurred somewhere, such as the government-sanctioned plot to kill Castro, but considering the meticulousness of our investigation, we were confident that we would have uncovered links from those to Oswald and to Kennedy’s assassination had there been any. I have become increasingly adamant that we were correct as more and more experts have questioned and then verified our conclusions.

The Controversy

You can tell how important your actions are by how intently others watch for your mistakes.

THE ECHOES OF THE assassin’s shots had hardly died out before everyone began speculating “whodunit.” The trouble was, given the kind of turbulence going on in the world at the time (not to mention covertly in the U.S.), there were plenty of groups with plausible motives to assassinate President Kennedy, which helped to encourage speculation. Notwithstanding that, our Commission’s findings were that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin and that he worked alone there was no evidence of a conspiracy. The same went for Jack Ruby.

The Warren Commission Report is an exhaustive twenty-six-volume document covering the bases for those conclusions. Our conclusions have yet to be proved wrong. That doesn’t mean they won’t be, but this report is founded on solid premises and has withstood forty years of constant inquisition.

Movies and TV documentaries about the assassination conspiracies would have you believe that barely anything has been done to follow up on or to substantiate the Warren Commission findings. Not only is that untrue, but subsequent to the Warren Commission Report, JFK’s assassination has, in fact, been reinvestigated several times – as the primary, conjoined or tertiary component of other investigations. Those have included:

Clark Panel – 1968
Rockefeller Commission – 1975
Pike Committee – 1975
Edwards and Abzug House Subcommittees – 1975
Church Committee – 1977
House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) – 1978
Ramsey Panel – 1982
Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) – 1998

There have also been several unofficial studies sponsored by media and other organizations, including:

The Men Who Killed Kennedy” documentaries – ongoing
NBC – 1967
Science and Justice analysis – 2001
CBS, PBS, ABC, BBC studies – 2003
Court TV – 2003
Frontline – 2003

Even using new technologies, nothing has been uncovered that experts consider strong enough to overturn any of our findings. The HSCA came the closest, but in doing so, focused solely on a tape recording which was itself debatable as evidence. Although the HSCA felt there was probably a conspiracy, it was a supposition based on unknown sounds on the tape that have since been shown to probably not be related to the assassination. Additionally, out of the twelve members on that committee, four (one-third) thought the conclusions were incorrect – of which three of the four disagreed completely with the final report and attached their dissenting statements to it. Compare that to this unanimous report from the Warren Commission.

We are still the benchmark. There were a few problems, but it was mostly because known evidence was not supplied by all agencies. Congress has since assessed the new information, including problems with the Federal agencies, in their more recent studies. However, nothing that has been revealed to date, previously withheld or not, would have changed our conclusions.

But conspiracy theories rage on. For example, the Zapruder film was touted at first by theorists as proof of a conspiracy. However, when the film was used to disprove conspiracies, theorists then alleged it was faked, as part of the conspiracy. An audio recording, which had been the hall- mark of conspiracy authors, was used to influence the HSCA into considering a possible conspiracy, but the data from it was later demonstrated by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS/Ramsey Panel) to have been based on unreliable assumptions. Therefore, conspiracy magicians have now decided that the tapes must have been altered. It gets worse. Because they didn’t like the results of the autopsy, they now claim the X-rays have been faked and JFK’s body has been replaced or modified (before your mind wanders too far, I will mention that the X-rays have been compared to the dental records – it is JFK). Even the Texas forensic pathologist, Dr. Earl Rose, whose legal authority to do the 1963 autopsy was overridden in favor of moving the body to Bethesda, MD, has since looked at the evidence and confirmed the Warren Commission’s findings. The HSCA had a sub-panel inspect the forensic documentation for any differences or alterations anywhere. There were none.

I’m sure there are legitimate conspiracy investigations, but they are completely eclipsed and denigrated by the deluge of bunk promoted by sensationalists seeking notoriety or looking to cash in on urban legends. If you compare the theories, you will find that not only do they contradict the facts, they contradict each other. What you have to look at is the evidence and how the eyewitness accounts fit with the hard evidence.

It is not possible or logical for me to defend every line of the Warren Commission Report in this Foreword, especially since so many of the critics have based their claims on inaccurate assumptions or partial facts that are already fully explained in this Report. In light of all the publicity and challenges over the past four decades, including some new evidence, I will address some of the most common questions people have about our conclusions.

OFFICER TIPPIT – JUST THE FACTS, MA’AM

You have to start from known facts and work backwards – otherwise it is easy to overlook hard evidence. This is what we know:

At least five civilian witnesses watched Lee Harvey Oswald murder Police Officer Tippit with a revolver and/or empty the gun and throw the casings into the bushes. In trying to evade police after that murder, Oswald ducked into the entryway of a shoe store where the manager, who had heard about Tippit’s murder on the radio, became suspicious. He tailed Oswald to a theater where the suspect sneaked inside. It was the store manager who had the police called, and who identified Oswald when they entered the theater. It became a bit more definitive that they had the right man when, upon being confronted by police in the theater, Oswald pulled out a revolver and attempted to shoot Officer M. N. McDonald in front of 12 witnesses.

Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of at least one crime that directly related to the assassination because:

The revolver that was in Oswald’s possession, which he aimed at McDonald, was the weapon used to kill Tippit, in front of eyewitnesses.

The casings that eyewitnesses watched Oswald toss into the bushes came from the revolver that he aimed at McDonald, which was the weapon used to kill Tippit, in front of eyewitnesses.

The JFK assassination weapon was mailed to a P.O. box and alias used by Oswald – the very same alias and P.O. box used for the revolver, which matched the casings from the revolver that he aimed at McDonald, which was the weapon used to kill Tippit, in front of eyewitnesses.

Up to here, in the opinion of all professional investigators, Lee Harvey Oswald’s involvement in the crime is accepted as fact. Many conspiracy propagandists have distorted this segment of the assassination chronology, which is a disservice to those who seek the truth. If you keep these indisputable elements in mind, it becomes much easier to understand what is fact and what is fantastical conjecture.

After this point, it may be less obvious as to whether or not the assassin worked alone, but the evidence still leads to Lee Harvey Oswald. There is additional information that links Oswald to the murder weapon, that puts him in the Texas School Book Depository building at the time of the assassination, and that shows the bullets were fired from Oswald’s weapon, which was also found in that warehouse:

Oswald was seen carrying a large paper bag on his carpool ride to the School Book Depository building, where he worked.

Oswald was seen at the School Book Depository building just after the shooting by a Dallas policeman and the Building Superintendent, who recognized and vouched for Oswald.

A paper bag with Oswald’s fingerprints was found near the rifle, which had presumably been dismantled to carry it in the bag.

Ballistics has confirmed that the bullets and casings that were found were assuredly fired from Oswald’s rifle.

All other issues are circumstantial, so they can easily muddy the facts if one is not mindful. There is even evidence that Oswald was on a suicide mission that day. You can read about all of it, including how quickly and easily that rifle could be broken down and reassembled, inside this Report.

NUMBER OF SHOTS

The total number of shots fired is an enigma that bothers everyone. It is the question at the heart of the conspiracy theories, and one which we, the Commission, wrestled with during the investigation. The puzzle is: whether there was enough time for a single person to have gotten off three shots, how it was that there were so many injuries from only three bullets (two that hit the motorcade) and if there may have even been more than three shots. Three shots is probably the maximum number possible in the time the Presidential limousine would have been accessible from the sixth-floor window of the School Book Depository room. Thus, the bulk of the theories focus on the bullets, the trajectories and the number of shots heard.

We can account for and assume there had to be at least three bullets: one that hit the road, one that entered President Kennedy’s neck and Governor Connally, and one that hit President Kennedy in the head.

Other evidence supports three bullets. Numerous witnesses heard three shots, three casings were discovered near the sixth-floor window of the School Book Depository building, there were fragments of approximately two bullets found plus a crater in the street from a missed shot. If it could be somehow proved that more than three shots were fired, it would be fairly solid evidence for suspecting more than one gunman.

While there are as many scenarios as there are theorists, every professional investigation has concluded there is no tangible evidence of any other person than Lee Harvey Oswald or any rifle, shells, bullets or injuries except what can be directly and confidently traced to him. Trying to create other gunmen is like chasing shadows, and so far shadows are all anyone has produced.

The only scientific speculation for other shots was investigated by the HSCA in 1978. The researchers used a computer-enhanced acoustical analysis of an audio recording made on a dictabelt machine that logged all radio transmissions of the Dallas Police Department. One of the motorcycle patrolmen had a microphone stuck in the “talk” position as the assassination transpired. Therefore, all sounds in the proximity of that mic at the time of the assassination were recorded. The acoustics researchers used spectrum enhancement to display audio “bursts,” which are not audible to the human ear. The problem is, the tapes are old and subject to extraneous noises and dropouts; also, it was never established who had the open microphone, where that motorcycle was situated or if it was even located in the plaza at all. There is some circumstantial evidence for it having been in the plaza. However, the officers there would have accelerated to 70 mph shortly after the assassination as they accompanied the Presidential limousine to Parkland Hospital, and that engine revving was not heard on the tape. The researchers also testified that the only way the alignment would generate those results would be if the bike had been in a very specific location within Dealey Plaza, and that has yet to be verified. The open mic was set to Channel 1, while the motorcade security officers were set to Channel 2. That necessitates an officer being tuned to the wrong channel in Dealey Plaza – also not verified. By synchronizing the tapes from Channel 1 and Channel 2, it was possible to obtain a close sync for timing of the recorded sounds. When the NAS scientists reviewed the tapes, they observed that those audio bursts, which were speculated to be gunshots, actually occurred after the assassination. Two additional studies contradicted each other (again) regarding the timing; either way, the fact remains there is evidence the mic wasn’t in the Plaza.

WHERE THE SHOTS HIT

The penchant for armchair investigations started as soon as people began asking “why” and “how.” In 1964, the book Who Killed Kennedy theorized that damage to the windshield of the Presidential limousine came from a bullet that was fired from the Triple Underpass. When published, the Warren Commission Report negated that hypothesis, but as extensive as our Report is, it wasn’t about to stop the flood of theories.

One of the most prevalent, the “single bullet” theory, is a reference to the now-accepted presumption that a single bullet was able to pass through President Kennedy’s neck and Governor Connally’s body, his hand and even into his leg. The seemingly impossible path is made more plausible the higher up it was when it struck President Kennedy. I have been accused of changing some wording on the Warren Commission Report to favor the lone-assassin conclusion. That is absurd. Here is what the draft said: A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine.” To any reasonable person, “above the shoulder and to the right” sounds very high and way off the side – and that’s what it sounded like to me. That would have given the totally wrong impression. Technically, from a medical perspective, the bullet entered just to the right at the base of the neck, so my recommendation to the other members was to change it to say, “A bullet had entered the back of his neck, slightly to the right of the spine.” After further investigation, we then unanimously agreed that it should read, “A bullet had entered the base of his neck slightly to the right of the spine.” As with any report, there were many clarifications and language changes suggested by several of us.

Later on, the House Select Committee on Assassinations did a very thorough analysis of the bullet trajectory with the assistance of the NASA Ames Research Center. Their conclusion: one bullet could do it. The Oliver Stone movie, JFK, produced in 2001, totally ignored not only our explana- tions but also the conclusions of NASA and the HSCA Report from 1978 when displaying the illogical path of the so-called “magic bullet.”

EPILEPTIC ACCOUNTED FOR

Shortly before the shooting, a person had an epileptic seizure, which attracted some attention. As part of a conspiracy, that could be considered suspicious. Oliver Stone claimed that person just mysteriously evaporated. However, that man was Jerry Belknap and his story has been right here in the Warren Commission Report since 1964.

THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

It is impossible to prove there weren’t any other shots or gunmen to those who insist otherwise (inherent when trying to prove any negative). It becomes far more complex to prove there were no plans of conspiracy. If conspiracy fanatics will claim every piece of hard evidence – including the President’s body, the home movies, the audio, the bullets, the X-rays, even bystanders – has been altered or forged, then it is hardly worth my time to debate it here. The reason some things appeared to be suspicious was possibly because there were people who apparently did have things to hide. It came out later there was a government-sanctioned plot to kill Fidel Castro. There seemed to also have been a scramble to cover that up which did interfere marginally with our investigation, as I testified to the HSCA. It was really more of a problem for the CIA. JFK’s assassination and our investigation into it put certain classified and potentially embarrassing operations in danger of being exposed. Their reaction was to hide or destroy some information, which can easily be misinterpreted as collusion in JFK’s assassination.

There is a distinct difference between a cover-up and involvement in a plot. Yet at the time, we expected the Federal organizations to provide all information. We understood that there may have been power plays, egos, and sensitivities, or even just laziness, which is why we double-checked information obtained from them – but we were not suspicious of entire organizations. It is true that there are some odd coincidences. There were likely those who were not sorry to see that President die, and there was evidence withheld from us. However, none of that negates the facts as we know them.

Given the new facts, could there still have been a conspiracy? Conceivably. But no verified evidence to date shows a link to, or any direct involvement by, any government agency, federal employees, or subversive group.

PHOTO EVIDENCE

Orville Nix was one of the bystanders filming during the assassination. Back in 1967, there was a short-lived “discovery” on his film of something with the shape of a “classic gunman” stance. The same shape, however, was also present in a frame long after the assassination, so it was only the shadows. Josiah Thompson was responsible for finding the discrepancy so quickly, but couldn’t squash the runaway rumor.

Mary Moorman had been taking snapshots of the motorcade. Over a decade later, an enlargement of her photo was included in JFK: The Case for Conspiracy, revealing another shadow shape. This “Badge Man” shape was the one discussed by Gary Mack and Jack White in The Men Who Killed Kennedy. However, when MIT analyzed it, the scientists were reluctant to call it a human figure.

Another image from Moorman’s camera showed a distinct figure that looked dog-like by the wall near the grassy knoll. This shadowy shape received notoriety under the name “Black Dog Man,” and was featured in the book The Killing of a President. The shape was later explained away by eyewitness accounts of a couple who had been seated at a nearby bench and moved over to the wall. The eyewitness descriptions of their having “lunch” were verified by Richard Trask in his book Pictures of the Pain. Trask published a photo by Johnny Flyman, Dallas Morning News, of the leftovers from their meal still sitting on the bench when the picture was taken later that afternoon. So there is hard evidence that the couple existed and were the shapes seen in that space.

Lee Harvey Oswald claimed the photo of him holding the murder weapon in his backyard was trick photography. Not only have the photos been authenticated, but you can read what his wife said about it at the time in this Report. You can also read in this Report all the other things Oswald lied about, such as his claims that he didn’t kill Tippit, he didn’t own a rifle, and he didn’t carry a bag to work, all of which contradict accounts confirmed by witnesses.

THE GRASSY KNOLL

A favorite attraction that has caught the attention of people looking for assassination conspiracies is an area in Dealey Plaza now referred to as the “grassy knoll,” located generally to the front of the motorcade. One of the reasons that area is so popular is because the Zapruder film gives the impression that the fatal shot originated from the front. Since that shot has now been reexamined and is confirmed to have come from the rear, conspiracy peddlers either ignore the expert findings in favor of their own scenarios or develop hypotheses that require other gunmen to be stationed in the vicinity.

One odd thing is that some witnesses have mentioned smoke and a flash coming from the grassy knoll. Flintlock muskets and mass-assault weapons will give off a flash and smoke, but modern sharpshooter guns don’t. In fact, for his movie, Oliver Stone didn’t even use a rifle for the smoke; he ended up generating it as a special effect.

Some witnesses were under the impression that they heard the shots from this grassy knoll. Any good detective will tell you that there are typically contradictory eyewitness accounts in any investigation. But was there really something there? Some eyewitness reports, such as those of Emmett J. Hudson and the Newmans, were initially misinterpreted by theorists as indicating the gunshot was from the grassy knoll; however, those observers later clarified their own statements as meaning the Texas School Book Depository. Interestingly, the closer people were to the knoll, the less likely they were to describe it as a “gunshot.” Sam Holland, one of the eyewitnesses close to the knoll, related the sound to a “firecracker,” saying it was definitely different from the other shots. It was also perceived as a more “flat” or “booming” sound than the other shots. Therefore, a sound other than a gunshot does seem to have logically emanated from that direction.

Thanks to some insightful deduction, I can now inform you that we have eyewitness verification of something going on by the retaining wall. There appears to be human movement on most photographic exposures of the vicinity. So, what was going on in the grassy knoll area? In 1991, Trask discovered that an eyewitness report could be correlated to his “lunch couple” on the bench. Not only that, but also a loud crack came from there. The couple was also spotted by Marilyn Sitzman, Abraham Zapruder’s secretary, who helped him film. She recounted how one of the young couple smashed a glass pop bottle, and the sound of that bursting glass startled her into reality. This “crack” of an empty soda pop bottle would have been sharp, hollow, and, according to Sitzman, occurred at the time the shots were being fired.

OLIVER STONE MOVIE

The movie JFK tried to make a case that there was intentionally less security provided for JFK in Dallas than he normally had or would have been expected. It seems strange that anyone would even try to argue that point considering that the Secret Service was known to be upset with JFK about his trip to New York City just the week before. Citizens in New York had complained about the inconvenience of traffic jams due to the Presidential motorcades. Because of that, Kennedy insisted on riding through New York City without motorcycle escort and even stopping for traffic lights. The Secret Service was not happy. In fact, it was common for Kennedy to allow people to watch from balconies and line streets within reaching distance, not to mention shooting distance, of his motorcades. Dallas was anticipated to be a less friendly atmosphere. Not only was there motorcycle security, but unlike what was stated in Oliver Stone’s movie, Army Intelligence did send agents – in fact, a larger number than what JFK had been allotted on other locations.

In addition to the rumors already covered, Oliver Stone perpetuated some of his own. Some facts here:

Although the District Attorney of New Orleans, Earling “Jim” Garrison, investigated whether Clay Shaw had used an alias, his own staff determined there was no such identity.

One of the witnesses, the lady in red in the Zapruder film, later claimed she was held against her will and intimidated by “authorities.” She was, in reality, being interviewed by a newspaper reporter for the Times Herald in the pressroom of the Sheriff’s Office. That same witness has been known to change/embellish her accounts. Oswald’s interrogations were indeed documented and are included in this Report.

If the evidence for the “conspiracy” was that strong, why would Oliver Stone resort to ignoring, distorting and even inventing facts?

COUP D’ÉTAT

It is bad enough that conspiracy schemers keep looking for scapegoats in the form of dissident groups or rogue agents, but they have gone too far. They have stepped over the line from playing conspiracy games into slanderous and mean-spirited attacks on an innocent man. In 2003, The History Channel ran a documentary based on a recent book that accused then Vice President Lyndon Johnson of conspiring to assassinate Kennedy! That is despicable. It is unfortunate when independent writers publish that kind of trash, but a reputable media organization, which the public trusts to give accurate and unbiased information, has now been swept into this frenzy. Who or what is next? Will I be inducted into the JFK assassination ring when I am no longer around to defend myself? America needs to get a grip on this hysteria.

My Perspective

Searching for the truth is honorable; obsessing over it for forty years is freedom of the press.

ALTHOUGH HE WAS President for such a short time, John F. Kennedy will be remembered for many accomplishments. It is discouraging that he is mostly remembered as a corpse. Searching for the truth is honorable; obsessing over it for forty years is freedom of the press. The arguments and rumors persist, partly because we don’t want to believe that one deranged individual could rob a nation of its leader so quickly and easily, and partly because there are no direct eyewitnesses to the actions of the murderer. We all feel cheated by not having definitive answers. Yet, it is one thing to search for truth – it is completely another to concoct conspiracies worthy of a Stephen King novel by using isolated pieces of questionable evidence.

Some of the critics who have obtained the widest publicity have either deliberately or negligently misled the American people by misstating the facts and by omitting crucial facts in their discussions. In light of how much merchandising and promotion has gone into the industry that has emerged, plus the intensity of the “fan” interest, I am convinced that the search for conspiracies has an entertainment value that cannot and will not be dampened by such mundane matters as the truth (which threatens its very existence).

Consider the scope of a conspiracy that would be needed to coordinate all the elements of the JFK assassination. If information about proprietary research results, or the Castro plot or even the Watergate cover-ups, could- n’t be stopped from being leaked to the press, how is it NO concrete news tips ever surfaced about the alleged conspiracy? Instead of using the loose ends of the Warren Report as a cash cow for controversy, we should be ensuring that its strengths and conclusions are studied and acted on. There are still valuable lessons to be gleaned from this document. Difficulties with FBI-CIA interagency communications were among our key findings, and that was reinforced by later investigations. Why were those communications still so inadequate in September of 2001?

I may be asked, “What if it were you instead of Kennedy – would you be happy with the Report and feel safe?” Well, for almost four years I did trust these same agencies to guard my life, and even knowing how close I came to a similar fate, I remain confident in our conclusions. There were several auxiliary findings that were disconcerting in themselves, but I am not sure people have truly read this Report.

Based on the evidence we had at the time, I stand by our findings. If we were to uncover new evidence, I would certainly be open to other conclusions. One can look at it this way: if the Warren Report is as easy to dismiss as some would want you to believe, then why are there so many people trying so hard to discredit it? You would have to conclude that if this Report hasn’t been definitively repudiated after all this time, it obviously is valid and reliable.

Due to rampant conspiracy legends, including those promulgated by the Oliver Stone movie, Congress has spent millions of taxpayer dollars investigating and re-investigating this tragic assassination. Your biggest contribution as an American citizen would be to read the Warren Commission’s Report, plus those of the HSCA and the Ramsey Panel. I know that reading a technical report can be very daunting and boring, but I can assure you that this one is quite captivating/although some of the more squeamish readers may want to skip over the graphic medical procedures.

I do not expect you to accept our conclusions on faith; it is important to see the background information we used in order to understand the process by which we formulated our opinions. This should also include access to the related documentation. I, myself, have always supported openness, so I commissioned what is now known as the Rockefeller Commission, which triggered the Church Committee. I also lobbied for and assisted in the declassification of assassination materials.

Given the effect of all the hype, the books and a blockbuster movie, it would be difficult to dispel all preconceived notions with just my word. However, if you consider my word to carry any weight, I hope you take the time, on this fortieth anniversary of the Warren Commission Report, to reflect on what we have been through together in order to grow smarter, better and stronger both as individuals and as a nation.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

President Gerald R. Ford

Elec. College

2006-12-28T13:39:00.000-06:00

Class,
Please read this article about the electoral college, and analyze as per the utility/downside of the institution. Please have this done by 4:30 this afternoon. Please limit your work to 15,000 words.

Radio Ads - McRoberts for Iowa

2006-12-27T21:44:00.000-06:00

Class,
During my Legislative race, we were able to really build some bridges with a few carefully selected radio ads. We've talked about them in class, but here are the three most successful. I'll leave these up for a few days - please listen to them, and be critical!

Introduction
Response to Attack
Endorsement

President Ford Questions

2006-12-27T14:17:00.000-06:00

Please take 60/90 minutes, and prepare a brief – no more that 750 word – document developing your understanding of the life and Presidency of Gerald R. Ford.

Through which process did Ford become Vice President?
How did the country react to Ford’s assumption of office?
How did the country react to Ford’s pardon of President Nixon?
What policy difficulties did Ford face in the White House (Clue – inflation, the Mayaguez, Vietnam amnesty).
How close did Ford come to reelection?

Post Presidency:

As of November, 2006, President Ford became the oldest former President in US History; Presidents such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan also had very long lives after leaving office. Please research and describe two aspects of the Ford Post-Presidency – 1) the potential ‘co-presidency’ with future President Reagan, and 2) his relationship with Former President Carter.

Please write this as a narrative, and not as a simple listing of facts. Do not feel obliged to follow MLA rules, but please make sure I can see where you found your information. I want to get a ‘feel’ for your own thoughts, in addition to the questions asked.

President Ford

2006-12-27T11:04:00.000-06:00

Comments about President Ford are here.
CNN Coverage of President Ford
MSNBC Coverage and Photo Album
Here is a link to an article I wrote in 2003 about President Ford

Am. Gov't - The Supreme Court

2006-12-26T13:22:00.000-06:00

Class, per our discussion on Monday, I would like to re-visit our talk, starting with the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. What do we mean, when addressing the contrasting values of the 1st Amendment? Specifically, what is the tension between the Constitutional protection of religious practice, versus the prohibition of endorsement? How does this tension play itself out in Congress and in the Courts?

First, let us recognize that although the term ‘Separation of Church and State’ is widely used, that this term is not a part of the Constitution. That term was a shorthand used by several of the framers, to explain the relationship of the maturing US Government to religious bodies in the country. The Framers using this term were well acquainted with the possibility of tension between the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. And that tension – like that between separate branches of government – would become essential for the protection of liberty, and indeed, for religion.

Let us read the relevant text of the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

We must first remember, that when “Congress” is mentioned, we have come to define that term as any government action – such as a City Council or State. Second, we must get to the heart of it. What, in plain English, do these clauses mean? What do we know, first of all? We can be assured that Congress cannot create a “Church of the United States”, and we can be assured that the doors to your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque, will not be nailed shut because of the whim of the Governor, Member of Congress, or the President. With that as our starting point, let us continue.

We addressed two examples – the first, a tax exempt status of a church; the second, the prohibition of the drug peyote by members of a religious group. Reading the First Amendment – where do these regulations fit, understanding that both sets of regulations are allowed.

Let’s dig a bit deeper. As we know, the Supreme Court decides what standards to apply to state action. Currently, the Supreme Court uses a standard based upon a case called Lemon v. Kurtzman, a case involving direct subsidy for religious school. In Lemon, the parent of a child attending a public school sued to prevent the state from spending taxpayer funds to pay for school costs, and to reimburse parochial schools for routine expenses. The Court, in responding to Lemon’s claim (Kurtzman was the Superintendent), settled on the decision that the subsidy was indeed unconstitutional.

Here is the test the Court established for Legislation referencing religion:

1.The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" with religion

What does that mean, in plain English? What sort of practices and customs can the state allow, or forbid? Consider the following examples of the relevant 1) state action and 2) religious activity in question.

A Seventh-Day Adventist is fired from her job, for refusing to work on Saturdays, and is subsequently denied unemployment benefits (Sherbert v. Verner)

Amish schoolchildren are taken out of school by their parents, in contrast to the state’s requirement of K-12 education (Wisconsin v. Yoder)

A person uses Peyote as part of a traditional religious practice, and is then fired for drug use, and unemployment benefits are denied (Employment Division v. Smith)

A superintendent allows a school prayer before a football game (Doe v. Santa Fe)

A young girl is expelled from school for wearing a Muslim head scarf, in contrast to the school’s ban on hats/headgear in class

In those four instances, religious behavior is ‘entangled’ with regulation. Although the standards evolve – for instance, the ruling in Sherbert was nullified to some degree by Smith, the result for the Plaintiff was the same – the tenor of the Court has been one of a ‘bridge’ between religion and irreligion, so to speak. Each of these cases involved either a monetary interest – Lemon – a state benefit – Sherbert, Smith, or a regulation – Yoder and case the involving the headscarf. But what about an instance where state involvement is less pronounced – such as a reading the Pledge of Allegiance?

Read on. Knowing what we know about the still-enforced Lemon test, please give me a basic outline as to the state action, and the likely response taken by the courts to that action. Once you are finished with that, please Google the case names, and compare your initial reactions to the holdings of the Court. What stands out for you, both as to the nature of the 1st Amendment, but also the changing nature of the Court?

Am. Gov't - Current Events and Supreme Court Notes

2006-12-26T10:53:00.000-06:00

Class,
Here's news -
Saddam Hussein - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13163805/
Sen. John McCain - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16349599/
Chief Justice John Roberts - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16353383/
Sens. Obama and Clinton - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16343035/

Please spend an extra amount of time reading the article about Chief Justice Roberts' management of the Court. As we mentioned, the Supreme Court may be the least understood branch of Government. You know there are nine members, appointed by a President, and that they serve, for all intents and purposes, for life. But what is this Court made of, other than a group of Judges? How do they decide?

This article on John Roberts is intriguing; the Chief Justice of the United States occupies a unique role. He is not the leader of the Court per se - the Court has a collective personality. The Chief is the director of the federal judiciary, and considered the most 'senior' Justice, regardless of tenure. The Chief, when part of a majority opinion, has the authority to assign authorship of the opinion - sometimes, to himself. It is not unheard of, for a Chief to change his vote on an issue, just to be able to write a very narrow decision on an issue.

As emphasized in Marbury v. Madison, the Court decides what the law means. That is to say nine men and women decide what the law is. Therefore, personalities must play a role. Let us dig a little deeper. Please read up on the following justices:

Thurgood Marshall
Byron White
Chief Justice Earl Warren
Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Chief Justice John Roberts
Sandra Day O'Connor
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
John Paul Stevens

This is modern example of just a few of the Justices. We will address each member's specific philosophy before the end of the term.

White Collar Crime

2006-12-18T10:19:00.000-06:00

Class,
Please study your pre-test and be sure to focus on governmental crime as well - that will do you just fine as you cram for the rest of the day - thank you. Pete

Criminal Evidence Study Guide

2006-12-17T12:40:00.000-06:00

Class, simply review the chapters/pages we identified in class together;
that's going to be your best bet for the Monday exam. Please call or
email with any specific questions -- GOOD LUCK!

IR - Parliament

2006-12-10T20:37:00.000-06:00

IR Class –
Here is a link to a report from 1990, about Margaret Thatcher’s ouster. This stuff is very interesting. Please think a moment about how foreign this is compared to our own methods. Compare Thatcher’s resignation with President Nixon’s resignation.

The link to what led up to the resignation is here.

The link to the resignation report is here.

Interesting!

IR Exam Review Fall 06

2006-12-08T17:00:00.000-06:00

IR Exam Review, Fall 2006

Collective Security, Sovereignty and the Roots of these concepts. This is hugely important, given the level of scrutiny that we put upon WWI and NATO in our class. Remember – key concepts such as the US’ rejection of the League of Nations, the outbreak of WWI, excessive entanglements – all of these issues we discussed are as a result of this 400 year old Westphalian doctrine

Levels of Analysis - be prepared to explain a fact pattern. For instance, you may have an event from history – details and all – and you will want to analyze the event. Be sure and read each sentence carefully; you will want to spend as much time reading as you need to write a solid response.

Parliamentary/Comparative Systems – refresh your recollection as to key terms/structures. Be on the lookout for specifically different methods of governing – i.e., cabinet, selection of a leader/Prime Minister, and ways a PM leaves office

Cold War – start with 1968, and follow through to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Explain Nixon’s ‘openings’ to the East, remember specifically Nixon and Ford’s relationship to the Soviet Union and treaties, and be very sure to remember the focusing events leading to the formal end of détente, and the reinstitution of the arms race in the late 1970s/early 1980s. We will not be spending any time on Viet Nam

Remember – read your notes! They are your best indicator of what I’ve felt is important this term. THANK YOU for your participation in our small class.

Pete

US Gov't Exam Review

2006-12-08T15:33:00.000-06:00

Class, here you are. There will be items not on this list, but really only the most basic points of reference. You may bring in a one-sided sheet of notes into the exam (Typed, handwritten – I don’t care). We’ll also have 10-15 min. to talk before the exam. Thanks for everything this semester.

Exam Review, US Gov’t:
History

Framing of the Country – Escape from Central Gov’t

Shay’s Rebellion/Madison.

“Tyranny of the Majority” – changing nature of that term

States as Key Players; controlling component part of Constitution (that is an inarticulate phrase…what I mean, is STATES ARE IMPORTANT and the BUILDING BLOCKS of the Constitution!)

The Civil War Amendments’ greatly expanding the power of the federal government

“State Action” requirement, and the ONE exception to that

Locke/Jefferson – remember chart on p. 32 – MEMORIZE it!

Conception of equality and how it has changed.

Courts

Establishment of Judicial Review – facts and aftereffects. Be prepared to detail specifically the facts leading up to the suit being filed.

Explain why the suit was filed in the Supreme Court, instead of one of the ‘lower courts’ Congress established.

Explain the difference between Appellate and Original Jurisdiction as it relates to MvM and the Judiciary Act.

Explain the political tension the court was under (remember – John Marshall was appointed by Adams, who was just defeated by Jefferson). Explain the ‘two bad alternatives’ assumed that the court was under, and explain the ‘third option’ invented by Marshall. And be sure to use its proper name (Hint: J_______ R________).

Difference between ‘state courts’ and ‘inferior/lower courts’

Appointment process of Sup Ct Justice

Congress

Nature of House v. Senate – which body represents what constituency?

Two Chambers compared to England’s Parliament (will also be an ‘executive/presidency question). Why do we have a separation of powers? (Remember English/Colonial history here!)

What is the appointment process and how is it similar to passing a bill?

How are Senators elected? How were they elected, and why?

How are Members of Congress elected, and what process, held each ten years, determines how districts are set up?

Who is the leader of the House of Representatives? Who elects her? Compare that to how party leaders are elected.

Presidency

Who elects the President, and how are they chosen?

What did the 12th Amendment seek to remedy?

What does the popular vote determine in the several states?

What body determines the manner of elections for federal office?

Who won the popular vote in the year 2000?

Who won the popular vote in the year 2004?

Name the only two Vice Presidents in history (that we know of…I hear Nelson Rockefeller was pretty tough) to have shot a person while in office.

What is the group of people who collectively make up the Executive Branch called, and who hires and fires them?

Be prepared to discuss your personal development as voter/potential voter this cycle, specifically regarding your state legislative race.

Exam Review for IR/Am. Gov't - will be posted on Friday

2006-12-07T20:33:00.000-06:00

Classes,
I'll make every attempt to have these up for you by later tonight
(Thurs, 7 Dec), but it may be Friday. Either way, you will have a good
couple days to prepare for the exam. Following your notes from today
will be a good start. as I'd said, if we haven't reviewed these past few
days, it's not likely to be on the test. Certain things of a general
nature - such as things you should know from High School - are fair
game, though! Thanks for your patience. Pete

2008

2006-12-05T07:03:00.000-06:00

Presidential Politics
<http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061202/NEWS/61202013/1001/galleries>,
Iowa Style!

Elec. College Supp. Documents

2006-12-05T06:54:00.000-06:00

Click here for a very cool set of documents on the electoral college!

Captain's Blog

2006-11-27T16:26:00.000-06:00

Class,
Take a look here for a regularly updated blog about the goings on in Afghanistan - from an old Army ROTC buddy of mine from the area - really a neat read!

Pete

Check It Out!

2006-11-16T22:10:00.000-06:00

Click here to see one of our own who is making the big run!

Am. Gov't - IR Current Events

2006-03-28T06:57:00.000-06:00

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/28/israel.election/index.html

Class,

This is required reading!

Thanks,

Pete

Iraq Article - Required Reading

2006-03-24T22:06:00.000-06:00

Class,

This article is homework - consider it part of your participation grade. It's too important for us to ignore!

Pete

IR - Israeli Election on Tuesday

2006-03-24T11:33:00.000-06:00

Class,

Please read this and comment via email at my Hawkeye address (good way to increase your participation) -

Thanks -

Pete

Afghanistan Legal Issue

2006-03-22T00:12:00.000-06:00

Class,

Please respond to this article -- click here. You can send a note to my email at Hawkeye by clicking on this link. This is timely, and raises issues about the US' role in the world, given what we are talking about in the Am. Gov't course and in the International Relations course. Thanks -

Pete

Reminder

2006-03-20T18:58:00.000-06:00

Class,

We are getting into the home stretch. In the next days, you will be assigned a second assignment (IR - this will be a bit later). Please realize that under no circumstances will late assignments be accepted. If you miss a class, you must write/call me or a colleague, to see if one's been assigned.

During the time in between an assignment being handed out and the time it's due, I am happy to send you a copy of it. Please be aware, however, sometimes it is an entire day before I will access my email/phone, so it is in your best interest to keep your eyes open.

Missing an assignment will not mean that you fail the course; however, missed/late assignments are routinely a result of absences; taken together, that means that students who are in that position will need to spend these next eight weeks in weekly attendance, and readying themselves by reading and taking excellent notes. Please trust that I will not leave you hanging for the final - but please also take the notes and speak up in class.

Thanks much - I hope you've had a good spring break, and we will see each other on Tuesday.

Pete

Am. Gov't

2006-03-13T21:34:00.000-06:00

Class,

Please explain to our colleagues why Claude Allen is in the news. Remember, the Senate's role is to advise and consent. That's the thrust of this article from 2004. What's the current relevance of this?

July 07, 2004, 9:47 a.m.
Claude Allen & His Enemies
Understanding the judge fights.

By C. Boyden Gray

In April 2003, President Bush announced his intention to nominate Claude Alexander Allen to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which reaches from Virginia to South Carolina. Sixteen months later, as with so many of the president's other nominees courtesy of Senate Democrats Allen is still waiting.

The opposition to Allen is directed by left-wing interest groups, from where Senate Democrats increasingly take their marching orders. The National Organization for Women, for instance, has hit upon a most remarkable basis for opposing Allen: "Allen's three children are home-schooled." Never mind the fact that centuries of American children have been so educated; never mind the fact that our Founding Fathers mostly learned at the knees of their parents. In this day and age, apparently, children not educated in state-run, union staffed, federally subsidized schools are a basis for suspicion.

Or, take the self-proclaimed Alliance for Justice, whose mission is to keep the federal bench safe from Republican appointees. Their great criticism of Allen is that he has worked to advance an "abstinence-only-until-marriage agenda." Therefore, in their words: "Everything about Allen's record suggests that...he would be unable to separate his personal extremist views from what the law requires."

Extremist views? Educating his children and promoting sexual responsibility? One might think these are the marks of an excellent judicial selection yet these are the bases for strident liberal opposition to Claude Allen's nomination. Why would NOW, the Alliance, or any of their ideological ilk take such a stand? The answer is an instructive window into their elitist and anti-democratic manifesto for America.

The dispute flows from a fundamental disconnect over the proper role of judges in our system of government. Liberals did not invent judicial activism. Conservatives, unfortunately, claim that dubious honor. Liberals, however, have perfected it. Judicial activism, in short, is an attempt to impose through the courts what has already been rejected by the democratic process. While the nation may debate the wisdom of a particular course, weighing its effect on custom and tradition, balancing progress and upheaval, the activist judge by sweeping fiat enforces his personal predilections with nary a ballot cast.

The Framers understood, and conservatives by and large maintain, that judges should faithfully apply the law as crafted by the legislature and enforced by the executive. This includes dutifully applying "liberal" statutes that judges might not have supported had they been legislators. This contrasts markedly with the liberal view of the judge whose role is to write into the law those very beliefs that they would enact had they the authority of the legislature and the backing of the people. This includes refusing to enforce "conservative" laws, best exemplified by the recent federal judge in California who struck down the federal partial-birth-abortion act before it was ever signed into law.

Given their understanding of what a judge should do, the radical Left's criticisms of Allen are more understandable. He is conservative and unapologetically pro-family. Were he to follow their judicial model, he might well implement his own "agenda," favoring life and responsibility, just as liberal judges have happily imposed theirs.

Liberals, of course, claim that he would do so recall the Alliance for Justice. Yet, recall also that every federal judge takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Despite their bluster to the contrary, no liberal critic has produced a single shred of evidence that were he confirmed, Allen would so cavalierly ignore that duty.

Given their paucity of evidence, the Left's objection cannot really be that Allen's record suggests he would write his own views into law. The true basis for their opposition is not that he will act to implement his own agenda, but rather given his traditional values, belief in family, and ideals of personal conservatism that he might not warmly and enthusiastically embrace theirs. It is their political agenda that drives their animus against not only Claude Allen's jurisprudence, but against his person for them there is no difference.

President Bush and his nominees, thus, stand athwart the great debate of the last half century: Should the United States return to being the republic it was founded or should it resign itself to oligarchy, ruled not by the will of its people but by an elite and unaccountable few? While the president has stood up for democracy and selected his nominees accordingly, a minority of the Senate has opted for the latter. Having failed to win out through the democratic process (even when they controlled the entire federal government), the Senate minority's last great hope is to enthrone a federal judiciary who will discover democratically insurmountable mandates in the Constitution mandating their worldview.

This debate is not about substantive outcome. There yet exist principled Democrats who understand that their beliefs are properly advanced through the democratic process, and not by judicial decree. Indeed, they understand that the latter approach can be, and has been, used to similarly impose conservative tyranny. Yet, unfortunately, most liberals in their maniacal pursuit of substantive victory have cast the procedural protections of checks, balances, and a limited judiciary to the wind.

Claude Allen promises not to advance a political agenda from the federal bench he has been nominated to, but to be the type of judge who buttresses the foundation of American government by applying the rule of law however he finds it. President Bush, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, could do much worse than Allen. By the grace of democratic principles overriding a minority in the Senate, let us hope they do not have to.

Former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray is chairman of the Committee for Justice.

IR - Harold Wilson

2006-03-09T20:13:00.000-06:00

Oh, this is something else.

IR

2006-03-07T12:04:00.000-06:00

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,404753,00.html

More Nuanced International Politics

2006-03-06T21:49:00.000-06:00

Read this.

Gov't

2006-03-06T16:15:00.000-06:00

Class,

This is going to be a big one -

Pete

A friend recommends a page from The Onion

2006-03-04T20:03:00.000-06:00

pete@mcroberts.com recommends a page from The Onion.

The recommended page is:

Childrens Hospital Charity Dependent On Teri Hatchers Knowledge Of British Parliament

pete@mcroberts.com included the following message:
For IR - Class, this comment on "Celebrity Jeopardy" is precisely, precisely why we spend so much time on European politics. Read on! Next week - the House of Lords!

************************************************************************
You are receiving this email because your friend at pete@mcroberts.com sent it to you. If you do not wish to receive emails like this, please contact your friend.

Weimar - IR

2006-03-01T19:12:00.000-06:00

Class,

I'm going to wait until next Tues. to give your Weimar Republic suggestions; I've not spent the requisite amount of time this week to give you the pointers you should have. So - you're free for the time being! Please realize, that although this assignment will be graded, as it's one of your two, this is intended to supplement your book chapter. I do want to see you reading, looking up your own questions, and using them. There are many right ways to respond to this.

Thank you,

Pete

Peter McRoberts
PO Box 182
Independence, IA, 50644
(h) 319/334-3335
(w) 319/334-3131, Ex. 107
pete@mcroberts.com

Gov't/IR

2006-02-28T12:29:00.000-06:00

Class, I am very interested in your thoughts about a) the actual content of this small piece and b) the tone in which it's presented.

The headline of this article is Bush: "Bin Laden Helped Me", book says; I guess I do not really have an opinion about the merits, it just seems like a tortured title to this piece. I'd be very interested to read the entire interview, and not just this nugget.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President Bush said his 2004 re-election victory over Sen. John Kerry was inadvertently aided by Osama bin Laden, The Washington Examiner newspaper reported Tuesday.

The al Qaeda leader had issued a taped diatribe against Bush the Friday before Americans went to the polls

Bush said there were "enormous amounts of discussion" inside his campaign about the 15-minute tape, which he called "an interesting entry by our enemy" into the presidential race.

Bush's comments in the Washington newspaper were excerpts from the new book "Strategery" by Bill Sammon, a longtime White House correspondent.

"What does it mean? Is it going to help? Is it going to hurt?" Bush told Sammon of the bin Laden tapes.

"Anything that drops in at the end of a campaign that is not already decided creates all kinds of anxieties, because you're not sure of the effect.

"I thought it was going to help," Bush said.

"I thought it would help remind people that if bin Laden doesn't want Bush to be the president, something must be right with Bush."

Am. Gov't/IR - Gerald Ford

2006-02-26T23:24:00.000-06:00

Class,

Soon, we'll begin reading about the Presidency and Congress. I would like you to read this and give me your thoughts. Do you recognize these names? 2001 is pretty recent history - but much has changed since this speech was given. We'll talk about this more together, but in the meantime, please read Lott and Daschle's comments - to get a background on President Ford - and then Ford's remarks about the role of the US.

Ford's comments will also fit in well for IR - so this is your homework -

Pete

Address by President Gerald R. Ford, May 23, 2001

Introductory Remarks by Senator Trent Lott

My colleagues, and our special guests, today we are delighted to have you all here for the our latest edition of the Leader's Lecture Series. We were delayed just a moment because I actually had prepared remarks and they were not here. I did not want to wing this one.

Our guest today is someone we certainly all know and love and value so much. Senator Daschle and I were just visiting with him. Looking at his itinerary for just this week, he has been in Boston and New York and Washington; he is going to Palm Springs and Albuquerque. We were concerned he was thinking about another national campaign with a schedule such as that. (Laughter.)

But it has been quite a week for our good friend, former President Gerald R. Ford. He received the very distinguished Profiles in Courage Award. Senator Kennedy and I spoke of that. (Applause.)

Tonight he will give us some thoughts on his service in the Congress. Then he will go and attend his granddaughter's graduation. What a week. We are honored he would give us this time with him so we could benefit from his thoughts.

I have so many memories of Gerald Ford. I hardly know where to begin.

Some of you may think he made a terrible mistake way back in 1972, when I was a young 30-year-old staff assistant to my predecessor, Congressman Bill Colmer, who was the chairman of the Rules Committee. The minority leader, Gerald Ford, heard I might be thinking about running for Congress. He came over and said: By the way, you should run as a Republican. And so I did. So I have blamed him all these years for my declining net worth -- (Laughter) -- financially and other ways.

But he meant an awful lot to me then. I watched him and I respected him. And what he thought and what he had to say to me meant a great deal to me then. He gave me some good advice along the way.

He will not remember this, but actually I was at a social event one night during the early part of Watergate, and as young Members of Congress sometimes tend to do, I was mouthing off a little bit too much. And he pulled me aside and suggested I reserve judgment until I knew the whole story. It struck me like thunder. But I shut up. (Laughter.)

Thank goodness.

Then I remember the moment when he came into the House Chamber for his first presentation to the Joint Session of Congress after he had been sworn in as President of the United States. It was a tough time. Howard Baker remembers, Bob Dole, and Bob Byrd -- we all know what a challenging time it was for our country. But he rose to the occasion. And the phrase he used that night -- that I have never forgotten, that sums it up so well -- he said: I'm not a Lincoln, just a Ford.

He was not any gold-plated politician who had asked for what had been thrust upon him. He was just a man of the people, from Michigan. He and Betty Ford brought a lot of dignity and decency at a time when we really needed it. So we will always be very indebted to him.

This special forum has brought before us a number of individuals who have exercised great leadership and have had a time in the Senate. And they have had a great deal to do with the governance of our country.

Our speakers have had a diverse background from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, from both parties, and they have spanned an age differential of four decades. Some have been better known in public life than others. But none of them, I think, has rivaled our guest this evening for the enduring affection of the American people.

As we visited in my office across the hall, I listened and watched as my good friend, Senator Tom Daschle, spoke also of that affection for our former President, Gerald Ford. So now I call on Senator Daschle to give us the benefit of his remarks about this special man.

Tom.

Introduction by Senator Tom Daschle

Thank you very much, Trent.

I think, for the record, it might be appropriate that we note a former honoree is with us tonight. He has just been confirmed as our next Ambassador to Japan, Senator Howard Baker.

Mr. Ambassador.

In the 5 years Senator Lott and I have worked together as leaders, Trent has had many good ideas. Some days, I think he has had too many good ideas.

But this Lecture Series is undoubtedly one of his very best.

Shortly after he became majority leader, Senator Lott decided we ought to take advantage of the unusual, perhaps unprecedented, number of former Senate leaders who are still living; we ought to find a way to share with the nation what he called "the wisdom and insights that can be gained only by a lifetime of service to free people."

Our guest this evening is the eighth speaker in this series. He is also proof that Scott Fitzgerald was wrong. Not only are there second acts in some American lives, every once in a while you come across one of those rare people who is living an extraordinary third act -- someone like President Gerald Ford.

The first act in President Ford's public life was played out mostly in the House of Representatives -- to considerable critical acclaim. The second act took place, of course, in the White House. The third act -- well, that act is still unfolding, and, like many good stories, it contains some surprising developments.

For more than 20 years after Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, many Americans -- perhaps most -- thought he had made the wrong decision. Certainly in 1976, many voters thought the pardon had been a mistake -- a fact that undoubtedly contributed to President Ford's reelection loss that year. But a few years ago, that consensus began to change. The American people started to see the Nixon pardon not as an act of collusion, but an act of courage.

Two years ago, President and Mrs. Ford received the Congressional Gold Medal -- the highest honor the Congress can bestow on a civilian -- for the enormous contributions they have made to our nation, individually and together. And earlier this week, as Trent noted, President Ford received another well deserved honor, the prestigious Kennedy Library Foundation's Profiles in Courage Award.

In his introduction to Profiles in Courage, President Kennedy wrote that leaders who take principled stands they know will be unpopular do not do so out of contempt for their constituents; to the contrary, they do it because they have a deep "faith in people's ultimate sense of justice...faith in their ability to honor courage and respect judgment...and faith that -- in the long run -- people will act unselfishly for the good of the nation."

Gerald Ford has always had that sort of faith in the American people. It is one of the reasons, I think, for his great success.

As a leader in the House, he set a standard we would all do well to follow. He was a master of consensus-building, cooperation, and honorable compromise.

In fact, Mr. President, I understand that when you became Vice President, and a member of this Senate, one of the first calls you made was to your old golfing buddy, Tip O'Neill.

As President, Gerald Ford did more than wake us from a nightmare, he made it possible for us to dream again.

Like the other great statesman from his hometown, Arthur Vandenberg, President Ford has always been a committed internationalist. During his years in the White House, he helped restore our nation's prestige in the world community by working to achieve peace in the Middle East, preserve detente with the Soviet Union, and set new limits on the spread of nuclear weapons.

As if that were not enough, in addition to all of those professional accomplishments, President Ford also had the good sense to marry one of the most candid and courageous women America has ever produced. (Applause.)

We wish she were here this evening. I hope you will give Mrs. Ford our warm regards.

Like all of the leaders from whom we have been privileged to hear in this series, President Ford believes deeply in the possibility -- and the necessity -- of principled compromise. I recently came across an article in which he talked about the genesis of that faith. He said: "I come by my political pragmatism the hard way. My generation paid a very heavy price in resistance to extremists and dictators."

This weekend, we will honor others who paid the ultimate price to resist tyranny. And for that reason, and many others, this evening seems to be the perfect time to hear from our distinguished guest.

Welcome home, Mr. President. We are honored that you are here.

Introduction by Senator Trent Lott

Well done, my good friend, Senator Tom Daschle. There is not a lot that could or should be added to that. But I am going to attempt a little more.

I want to note, Mr. President, that in addition to former colleagues of yours in the House and, of course, those you knew in the Senate, we have a number of your long-term friends here: Former Cabinet secretaries, people who helped you get through confirmation, some of your friends in the media -- and there are many now -- (Laughter) -- and then, too, actually.

But I want to welcome them all. I will not attempt to name them all. But we thank you for being here.

Just a bit more.

Many of us, of course, know that Gerald Ford was President at a difficult time, and that he served as Vice President briefly, but I think he would want to note -- and maybe he will later -- that he was always really a man of the House. He served, I believe, some 26 years in the House of Representatives. And he truly fulfilled what I think James Madison had in mind when he served in the House and in a leadership role. But he also never lost his touch with the people, with the folks back in Michigan, and in his hometown.

He served in the leadership in the House. And then in the Presidency, as I said earlier, that was a very difficult time. Many of the people at that time had felt a loss of trust, and they felt injured by the process we had just been through. What we needed was one good man to give us some new direction and to restore our spirit.

Well, we got him in Jerry Ford. We got him through an untried constitutional procedure, hurriedly enacted and, in some respects, awkwardly employed. If any of you remember that, that was the first time we had voted under the constitutional amendment to bring in a Vice President by the Congress. I served on the Judiciary Committee. I remember it quite well. So if anyone ever doubted that heaven watches over America and our great republic, they should not have doubted it anymore after that experience. He was selected. He was confirmed by the Congress. And he went into this very difficult time.

Apart from the circumstances that brought him to the White House, his was not an easy term in office for other reasons. We had tragedy in Southeast Asia. We had economic troubles here at home. The challenges were enormous. The decisions were hard. But whether or not you agreed with them, you respected the way he made them.

Part of leadership is grasping the nettle when no one else wants to touch it. Our speaker grabbed for more than his share of thorns.

I remember in particular his many vetoes of congressional spending bills. And as a former House member, he knows that quite often the Congress does not necessarily appreciate that. I remember being in a small band of congressmen who voted repeatedly to confirm those vetoes. But he was trying to do the right thing to prevent an economic tailspin that later came.

In this, as in other matters, he was determined to do what was right for the American people instead of what was popular, because many of these vetoes were not popular. Perhaps as a result of that approach, he knew the pain of a close electoral defeat. But even then, he made sure he put his country's interests ahead of his own, and he worked to make sure that his successor had a smooth transition into office.

At the time, I suspect, most Americans, as Tom alluded to, did not really realize how much we owed this man in the courageous stance he took. But time has a funny effect on people. With the passage of time, we look back and say, he did the right thing, he showed real courage. That is why he got this award that was alluded to, the Kennedy Profiles in Courage.

He faced the crisis of war, and he faced the crisis of depression, but more than anything else, I think he faced and dealt with the crisis of our spirit. In that time, he and the First Lady brought the Government a candor and a decency that did much more than just raise our spirits, they went back and restored the values of the heartland and caring, and they treated us like neighbors at a time when we needed it.

So I think that more than anything else, we owe a debt of gratitude to President Jerry Ford for restoring the nation's faith in our Constitution, and in our laws, and in ourselves.

So join me and Senator Daschle in welcoming, for this occasion, our good friend, President Jerry Ford.

Mr. President.

Address by President Gerald R. Ford

Please, won't you all sit down.

Thank you very much. Please. Thank you. Thank you very, very much, Trent and Tom.

I thank all of you. It is a very, very high honor and a very great privilege for me to be here on this occasion under these circumstances. I thank you, Trent and Tom, for your much too kind and far, far too generous remarks.

It is nice to see all you young fellows and young ladies here. (Laughter.)

I do not think there is anybody in either the House or the Senate who is still here who was here when I came as a freshman in January of 1949. Am I correct or inaccurate? It was a long, long time ago.

But it is so nice to see some dear friends, such as Bob Dole. You all don't know that when I first ran against Charlie Halleck in 1965, it was a neck-and-neck race, and the Kansas delegation, under Bob Dole's leadership, gave me the margin, so that I won by the landslide margin of 73-67. That started all of this.

And, of course, Howard [Baker] and Nancy [Kassebaum-Baker], the whole family are very, very, very dear friends.

And Senator [Kay] Hutchison up there, I started her in State government. How many years ago? A long time ago.

Of course, Bob Byrd; he and I served together in the House. And he gave me a grilling when I was up for confirmation as Vice President. And thank you for your long friendship.

I will be forever grateful, Ted [Kennedy], to you and Caroline for the most generous and wonderful action you took last week. Betty and I will be forever appreciative of your kindness and thoughtfulness.

A Man of the Hill

I just want to say thank you to Trent and Tom on receiving this invitation. Quite frankly, I wondered what I could contribute to this Leader's Lecture Series. As someone who spent 25 years in the other body, I had a sneaking suspicion that Tom and Trent asked me on the theory that I would never get here on my own.

But, of course, I have at least a footnote in Senate history. For all too brief a time it was my privilege to serve as your presiding officer. I made friendships then which I have cherished ever since. More than a man of the House, I consider myself a man of the Hill. And I am very, very proud of that. So while I may have lived at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue for 2 1/2 years, this area here has always been my home, and I am very proud of that.

I must confess that a lengthy career in the House had not fully prepared me for the byways of the world's greatest deliberative body. In preparing for this lecture, I came across something from another Vice President, Calvin Coolidge. "At first I intended to become a student of the Senate rules," wrote Coolidge, "but I soon found that the Senate had but one fixed rule, which was to the effect that the Senate would do anything it wanted to do whenever it wanted to do it."

"When I had learned that, I did not waste [any more] time...," Coolidge went on, "because they were so seldom applied."

No doubt Senator Bob Byrd would have a different assessment on that.

Just so you don't get the wrong impression, Coolidge hastened to add that no one can become familiar with the inside workings of the Senate without gaining a great respect for it. It was true then, and it remains true today. Certainly those who watched the recent debate over campaign finance reform were impressed by the combination of passion, on the one hand, and civility which it represented. I congratulate you on that performance.

Sixty years have passed since an aspiring lawyer from Grand Rapids shouted himself hoarse at the 1940 Republican National Convention in Philadelphia. Along with several thousand other equally boisterous supporters in the gallery, we made the hall ring with "We Want Willkie. We want Willkie." Little could I imagine at that time how eventful the years ahead would be. Never in my wildest dreams could I have envisioned myself standing in this place, before this audience, only days after receiving the Profiles in Courage Award at the Kennedy Library. For that, I will be forever grateful, Ted.

The award takes its name from one Senator's portrait gallery of Senators who risked their popularity for their principles. One of them was Daniel Webster, "the godlike Daniel" to his admirers. At a critical moment in the nation's history, when disunion loomed and popular democracy itself was threatened with extinction, Webster faced an excruciating choice. Here, within these very walls, he looked into his political grave.

The galleries were packed, the atmosphere charged with electricity, as Webster rose to his feet. "Mr. President, I wish to speak today, not as a Massachusetts man, not as a Northern man, but as an American. Hear me for my cause."

Webster's cause was the Compromise of 1850. Like most compromises, it was easier to criticize than to embrace. For doing the latter, Webster was denounced by his allies in the abolitionist movement. Public meetings wrote him off as a turncoat or worse.

Barely two years later, Webster died a broken man, only to be immortalized in his own time by a fellow Bay Stater. Why? Because however unpopular his action might have been at the time, Webster helped to delay the Civil War for a decade. As a result, the chances were vastly increased that when war did come, it would forever eradicate the stain of slavery from American soil.

More than 150 years later, we have yet to fulfill all the promises we made to ourselves and to our maker at the time of the birth of this Republic. But we have come a long way from the decidedly unrepresentative convention that assembled in Philadelphia to establish the first republic in modern times. Indeed, the genius of our democracy is that we remain an unfinished nation, a work in progress. Much of the work is entrusted to all of you here in this great deliberative body. Everyone in this room faces their own tests of conscience each and every day.

Senator Vandenberg

Harry Truman famously defined a statesman as a politician who has been dead for 20 years.

It is a good line, but it fails to account for those special leaders who manage to save their nation by outgrowing purely local views or narrow partisanship.

Arthur Vandenberg was such a man. He holds a very special place in my life. Before Pearl Harbor, I emulated the isolationist outlook of my fellow Midwesterners -- Senator Vandenberg included at the time. A tour of duty in the South Pacific, aboard a combat aircraft carrier with nine battle stars, convinced me very strongly otherwise. After four years in the Navy, I came home to Grand Rapids a convert to the bipartisan foreign policy newly espoused by my fellow townsman, Arthur Vandenberg.

Inspired by Vandenberg's example, I came to believe that only American leadership could shape a future where peace was possible and freedom secure.

This was a big idea in 1948, big enough to make me take on an entrenched isolationist Congressman in that year's Republican primary. He believed the world ended around the Michigan-Indiana border.

I thought it extended at least as far as Berlin and Beijing. On primary day, the voters surprised the pundits by agreeing with me. And that is how I came here.

I will never forget how Senator Arthur Vandenberg and his lovely wife took a shine to Betty and me. We were married 2 1/2 weeks before my first election. We came to Washington looking for an apartment, looking for friends, and the Vandenbergs sort of took a shine to us and took us in. Betty and I now have been married 53 years, and we look back with such wonderful, wonderful recollections of this great city and this great Capitol.

On Senator Vandenberg's last birthday, in April of 1951, the Vandenbergs invited Betty and me to a dinner at their apartment in the old Wardman Park Hotel. So you can imagine how pleased I was to learn of your decision to add his portrait to the august company of Clay, Webster, Calhoun, LaFollette, and Taft, whose presence graces the Senate Reception Room. Half a century ago, it was no anomaly to speak of the Truman-Vandenberg foreign policy. Early in 1949, I was ushered into the Oval Office for the first time to hear an American President outline a foreign policy worthy of America at her most generous. As it happened, Harry Truman was the first of eight presidents, backed by twenty congresses of both parties, who would stand firm against Soviet expansionism and finally rescue us from the narrow window ledge of nuclear standoff.

Across the hall from my old congressional office, in the Old House Office Building, as we called it then, was another young Navy veteran of the Pacific front, John F. Kennedy. Although our parties differed, our priorities were much the same. We were both internationalists in our outlook, both willing to accept the responsibilities of global engagement. We often walked over to the floor of the House together when the bells rang. Once there, we might go our separate ways, but we never sacrificed our friendship to our ambitions.

Like Webster and Vandenberg before him, Jack Kennedy understood that in the high stakes game of history, only those who are willing to lose for their convictions deserve to win at the polls. At the same time, he grasped that only those whose convictions do not blind them to the search for common ground can hope to rally a political system intentionally designed to frustrate utopian reformers.

Our Political System -- A Work in Progress

At times it may seem as if our political system resembles nothing so much as Doctor Doolittle's mythical beast, the Pushme-Pullyu, which wants to travel in opposite directions at the same time and, not surprisingly, winds up going nowhere.

To its harshest critics, Washington, DC, is a chamber of horrors; to many of those holding office, suppression. But to me, Washington is a mirror held up to the people and the process you represent. If this city is less civil than it might be, isn't that a reflection of a society coarsened by tabloid values, one in which fame is confused with notoriety, and shame is the surest ticket to fifteen minutes on daytime television?

In a culture where more people recognize Oprah than the Speaker of the House, it is easy to say that politics have been crowded out of our lives by other forms of mass entertainment. The problem with this theory is that Oprah doesn't set your taxes or run your schools or commit young Americans to foreign wars.

An election campaign is a conversation we have with ourselves. Lately it seems as if many Americans are barely on speaking terms with one another. Just as bad, millions of us have tuned out of the conversation altogether. Consider recent campaigns, with their focus groups, ever shrinking sound bites, and consultants who act as if they are candidates. Contrast that with the race Jimmy Carter and I had a quarter century ago. And I think all of you know Jimmy and I are very dear and warm friends. As the first post-Watergate candidates, we were governed by a stringent limit on how much we could spend. A quarter century later, there is more money than ever and less participation than at any time in recent history.

Of course, the '76 campaign was shaped by more than federal spending limits. Because the specter of Vietnam, on the one hand, and Watergate, on the other, loomed so large, I found myself, in effect, running two campaigns: the first to win a full term, and the second to restore the shattered confidence of the American people in their democratic institutions. I was unsuccessful, as we all know, in the first. But as I left Washington, I could take some consolation in knowing that the national mood was different from what it had been just a few years earlier.

Twenty-five years later, I sense a return of grassroots dissatisfaction, not necessarily directed at any politician or party, but at a system that appears too remote, too unresponsive, and, finally, too unrepresentative. In some ways, the problems we experienced back then were actually preferable to the current climate, for a generation ago it was possible -- if depressing -- to trace voter unhappiness to specific policies and personalities. People objected to the war, to the way it was being conducted, and to the Presidents of both parties who were in charge.

In a democracy, such differences are a sign of health -- only indifference is fatal. Put another way, I would much rather deal with honest contention than creeping cynicism. This, I fear, is the greatest single difference between the disillusionment of the seventies and the widespread feeling among today's electorate that politics are irrelevant to their lives. No doubt some of this is rooted in perceptions of how we treat one another.

Like most Americans, I am an optimist. And I am proud of my nature. I grew up in a household where there were three rules: Work hard, tell the truth, and be sure to be home at dinnertime. It is not a very sophisticated philosophy, but it has gotten me through a lot of tough, tough times.

Honest Contention vs. Creeping Cynicism

There is something else I learned at an early age, something I would heartily recommend to anyone who contemplates a life in politics. I learned that most people are mostly good most of the time. I learned to fight hard for my beliefs without questioning the motives or patriotism of those who believed otherwise. Thus, I come before you this evening not to bury political moderation but to be proud of it and advocate it.

For my own part, I readily admit to a bias in favor of two-party politics. On the surface, you might expect this to be a recipe for polarization. And no doubt there are some within the electorate for whom ideological purity is an overriding concern. Yet our parties are instruments of government much more than they are vehicles of protest. First they define our differences, then they mediate them. In doing so, they serve as an ideological shock absorber, cushioning the impact of change and forging a consensus acceptable to the vast majority of Americans who travel in the middle of the road. Back in the sixties I used to play straight man to Senator Everett Dirksen. Our operation became known as the "Ev and Jerry Show." Neither one of us was bashful about criticizing the imagined shortcomings of the Great Society. Yet our differences with President Johnson's program, however they might seem at the time, were programmatic, not personal. We might question the other side's ideas, but never its motives or its patriotism.

Everett Dirksen memorably observed: "I live by my principles and one of my principles is flexibility."

Perhaps to some, Dirksen's folk wisdom may appear a cynical contradiction in terms. I didn't see it that way, for in the great defining struggle of civil rights, Ev Dirksen's flexibility enabled him to put aside narrow questions of party advantage and remind his colleagues that it was another Illinois Republican, by the name of Abraham Lincoln, who had given the GOP its moral charter as a party dedicated to racial justice. Together, both parties rose to the occasion, insisting that America banish bigotry and make good on its ancient promises. And the political process responded, as it should when big ideas come along, to ride the current of history.

Unfortunately, there are some on the right and some on the left for whom "consensus" is a dirty word. A few mistake the clash of ideas for a holy war. I never claimed to be a political philosopher. I never claimed to be anything more than a plain-spoken Midwesterner, conservative on money and liberal on human rights. While I never regarded government as an enemy, I was perfectly happy to have politicians of both parties stay out of the people's wallets, out of their classrooms, out of their boardrooms, and out of their bedrooms.

For me, tolerance is more than a virtue, it is the crowning glory of a society whose greatest strength lies in its diversity. I am hardly alone in this. At heart, most Americans are pragmatists. We want to make things work, we want to be self-reliant, but not at the expense of the community. We value authenticity as much as ideology, especially in this age when so much of what passes for public life consists of little more than candidates without ideas hiring consultants without convictions to stage campaigns without content.

The net result: Elections without voters.

No first-class democracy can tolerate second-class citizens. At the same time, isn't it also true that any popular government derives its legitimacy from the active involvement of its citizens?

Last November, barely half the eligible voters went to the polls to choose a President. More Americans watched the Super Bowl between the Baltimore Ravens and the New York Giants than exercised their democratic right to select between George W. and Al Gore.

The two events may not be unrelated, for in politics, as in sports, many Americans feel more like spectators at a game. Millions are turned off a political culture that measures democracy in decibels. It is against this backdrop that the debate over campaign finance affords both parties a rare opportunity to regain public confidence by devising legitimate workable rules that limit the influence of big donors while preserving essential rights of free speech.

Increasing Political Participation

Hardly less important than limiting the power of the few is increasing the involvement by the many. For much of our history, political parties helped to acclimate newcomers to these shores. No one proposes to turn the clock back to an era of big city machines, when corruption flourished and paternalism ruled. But surely the parties have a role to play in conducting a national civics course, with special emphasis on reaching out to the newest Americans -- those who have chosen to come here from other lands because they prize our freedoms.

Unfortunately, the more political parties try to make themselves over into vehicles of entertainment, the smaller the audience. Perhaps the answer is to stop making politics more like television and, instead, make television pay more attention to politics. That means free time for the major candidates on all leading media outlets. It means more than 4 1/2 hours of convention coverage every 4 years.

Some network executives have complained that the conventions have become overly scripted. Perhaps we would have more spontaneity if the networks didn't lay down an ultimatum that they could only cover one hour each night of the convention.

But if there is too little media attention paid to the unglamorous aspects of self-government, in my opinion there is far too much showered on the trivial and the tawdry. Let me put it bluntly: If I want to attend a horse race, I will go to the track. If I want to choose a President, or a member of Congress, I would like to rely on serious, substantive reporting about issues, character, and performance. An informed electorate deserves something better than "gotcha journalism" which puts the spotlight on the reporter rather than the candidate, asks questions designed to entrap rather than elucidate, and ignores difficult issues with long-term consequences to concentrate on the flap of the moment.

Once upon a time, parties mattered. So did party loyalists and the conventions they attended. We could do a lot worse than to recreate the sense of belonging to a cause larger than ourselves, which, in turn, made Washington something more than a gigantic sound bite factory.

While I am at it, let me put in a good word for the much abused smoke-filled room of political legend. Over the years -- and it goes back a long time -- I have sat in more than my share of those smoke-filled rooms. At times, I have even inhaled.

It was a strong party system and, yes, a boss or two, who gave us Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, and Eisenhower -- not to mention such distinguished also-rans as Al Smith, Tom Dewey, Adlai Stevenson, and even my youthful hero, Wendell Willkie, who owed his nomination to more than those noisy galleries in Philadelphia.

Based on personal experience, I believe our parties will never regain public confidence until they look beyond the consultants and the tracking polls.

As President, facing a stiff challenge from the right wing of my own party in 1976, I was urged to abandon our efforts to promote black majority rule in what was then Rhodesia. Did Henry Kissinger, as Secretary of State, really have to choose the height of the Republican primary season, I was asked, to fly to Africa and denounce the vestiges of colonial rule?

I think you will remember that, Bob [Dole].

The polls gave us one answer and individual conscience a dramatically opposing one.

Kissinger went, as he and I had scheduled. I lost a few primaries, and undemocratic Rhodesia was set on the course to genuine self-rule as the independent nation of Zimbabwe.

Restoring Community

Wherever I go, I get a sense of longing for community and the desire on the part of grassroots citizens to be part of something bigger and far nobler than themselves. This attitude is particularly evident among the young, many of whom feel deprived of a great cause in which to enlist.

Of all the challenges that face this country in a new century, none is more important than restoring our frayed bonds of community, of giving each American a sense that he belongs to something larger and finer than himself. That is what democratic government both demands and offers, because democracy is about nothing if not the dispersal of authority. The genius of America is not that we dictate society's objectives from the top down, but that we organize them from the ground up, and that we -- you and I -- do the organizing.

It often seems as if our problems go unaddressed until they all become totally unmanageable. Then, when management is inadequate to the task, we look to leadership. That is the paradox of our democracy: We are never better than in a crisis, even one generated by our neglect or selfishness. Ironically, the bigger the issue, the greater the need for parties to help us organize consensus. It was true when I entered politics because I felt strongly about the future role of America and the role it should play in the world. And it will be just as true as we debate such sensitive subjects as the future of current entitlement programs.

Fortunately, those who combine strong principles with a taste for political moderation needn't look far to find a role model. Exactly 100 years ago, an assassin's bullet catapulted Theodore Roosevelt into the Presidency, for he understood that unregulated monopoly could pose an even greater threat than unrestrained government.

Everywhere his countrymen looked in the first days of the Roosevelt era, they saw a dynamic leader for whom breaking with tradition was a tradition: Inviting a black man, Booker T. Washington, to dine at the White House; assailing the vast industrial conglomerates called trusts; bringing under Government's watchful eye the production of meat, food, and drugs; setting aside vast areas of the unspoiled West for generations as yet unborn.

To the average American, TR was easily the most captivating, democratic chief executive since Lincoln. Yet at heart, he was a thoughtful, pragmatic product of Manhattan's elegant brownstones who balanced budgets and threw open the windows of a musty society to forestall more violent changes. "He serves his party best," said TR, "who most helps to make it instantly responsive to every need of the [public]."

I said earlier that Washington was a mirror reflecting our instincts. That includes the instinct for political survival. Call it a hunch, but I think it is a mistake to underestimate the American people, millions of whom are willing to help forge the necessary consensus that will keep entitlements from strangling our economy or mortgaging the future of our children. In any event, here is a challenge worthy of American democracy in the 21st century.

Which brings me to my final point: The Founders designed a government in which it is easier to do nothing than to do a great deal all at once. But they also counted on the will and the wisdom of Americans to conceive and implement reforms where necessity demands solutions. So I leave you with the most radical thought of all and a hint that big issues and big ideas may yet revitalize public faith in a system that earns our trust by appealing to what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature."

Entitlement programs, we are told, represent the third rail of American politics. Touch it and you die -- politically, at least. Wouldn't it be ironic if those supposedly untouchable third rails were to supply the very track that would carry us into the next century and a renewal of confidence in a political system that is wise enough to listen and strong enough to lead?

Two hundred years ago, our first president summed up both the glory and the frustration of American politics when he said: "...a democratic state must feel before it can see; that is what makes it slow to act. But the people, at last, will be right."

What troubles may plague the city named for George Washington, they can be resolved as long as we place our ultimate trust in the people.

Six decades later, I guess you could say I still want Wendell Willkie. On his Indiana tombstone, an open book of granite, the following creed is written:

"I believe in America because in it we are free --

Free to choose our government, to speak our minds

To observe our different religions.

Because we are generous with our freedom, we share

Our rights with those who disagree with us.

Because we hate no people and covet no people's lands

Because we are blessed with a natural and varied abundance

Because we have great dreams and because we have the

Opportunity to make these dreams come true."

How unreasonable such beliefs must have seemed in 18th century Europe or 20th century Moscow. How strange they must seem, even now, in Havana or Baghdad or Beijing. How very unreasonable -- and how thoroughly American.

Thank you very much.

IR

2006-02-23T19:52:00.000-06:00

Class,

Here's the Nine Hour Movie of British Parliamentary Intrigue I was telling you. Enjoy.

IR - Read This!

2006-02-20T23:07:00.000-06:00

And then please remind us all why it's important.

See Here.

********************
Pete McRoberts
Iowa House District 23
PO Box 182
Independence, IA, 50644
Buchanan County: (319) 334-3335
Black Hawk County: (319) 961-1260
http://www.mcrobertsforiowa.org
********************

Current Events - Bush's last 1000 days and attendant concerns!

2006-02-20T10:33:00.000-06:00

Class,
Please read this article and tell me what you think; is there too much being made of this, or just enough, or should every paper in America spend more time on these concerns? Read this article for Tuesday and be ready to discuss! Thanks -- Pete

Am. Gov't

2006-02-16T09:18:00.000-06:00

Class,

Please read this article, linked here. Then, when we're back together in class, tell me who the author is and how come we listen to her!

Pete

Weather

2006-02-16T08:42:00.000-06:00

Due to poor driving conditions, American Government and International Relations for Thurs. 16 Feb., will be rescheduled. Thank you for your patience, and drive safely,

Pete

IR

2006-02-14T22:13:00.000-06:00

Class,

Please read this; things to think about.

http://www.cssproject.org/news/srebrenica_englisch.pdf

Harriet Miers

2006-02-10T22:15:00.000-06:00

Class,
Over the next couple weeks, we'll be talking about the process by which the President deals with Congress. Nowhere is this more pronounced than when a Supreme Court nomination takes place. I would like to remind yourself of the name Harriet Miers, and then please read this link for Tuesday. You can do so here.

Gov't

2006-02-07T12:01:00.000-06:00

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/07/budget.ap/index.html

Ethanol! Biodiesel!

2006-02-03T14:43:00.000-06:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11131407/

Current Events

2006-02-01T21:56:00.000-06:00

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/01/walmart.contraception.ap/index.html

Gov't class - what do you think of this?

Am Gov't - Current Events

2006-01-31T12:58:00.000-06:00

Alito Is Confirmed for Supreme Court in 58-42 Vote

By DAVID STOUT

Published: January 31, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., who has been widely praised for his intellect and integrity but both admired and assailed for his conservative judicial philosophy, was confirmed today as the 110th justice in the history of the Supreme Court.

Doug Mills/The New York Times

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. arrived for a meeting with Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington, on Monday.

The 58-to-42 vote in the Senate gives President Bush a political triumph just hours ahead of his televised State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress at 9 p.m. Eastern time. Judge Alito, who watched the vote from the Roosevelt Room in the White House with his family, is expected to be sworn in later today.

As expected, Judge Alito's support hewed closely to party lines. Among two Republican supporters of abortion rights, Senators Olympia J. Snowe of Maine voted for Judge Alito, while Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted no, the only Republican to do so.

Judge Alito also won the support of four Democrats: Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

The vote is also a triumph for the conservative movement, whose adherents have longed to tilt the balance of the court to the right.

Admirers and critics have predicted that Samuel Alito will do just that. Legal scholars have described his jurisprudence as cautious, respectful of precedent and solidly conservative. In contrast, the justice he will succeed, Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring, came to be widely regarded as a swing justice between the tribunal's liberal and conservative wings.

In a news conference after the vote, some Republicans noted the partisan fight that had ensued over the Alito nomination, especially over the concern about how the judge would rule on cases involving abortion rights.

"There have been a great many concerns raised about how he is going to vote on specific cases," Senator Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said about Judge Alito. "There's no doubt about his qualification in terms of education, professional career and his service on the court of appeals, and we have seen in the long history of the court that there's no way to determine in advance how a nominee is going to vote."

Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said later, "I must say that I wish the president was in a position to do more than claim a partisan victory tonight."

"The union would be better and stronger and more unified if we were confirming a different nominee, a nominee who could have united us more than divided us," Mr. Schumer said, according to The Associated Press.

Judge Alito, who sat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for some 15 years, is only 55, so he could be on the Supreme Court for decades. He becomes the second relatively young conservative to ascend to the court in recent months. Last fall, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who turned 51 on Friday, replaced William H. Rehnquist, who died in early September.

Judge Alito's supporters have described him as a jurist who would not seek to undo the work of legislators and adopt his own agenda. His detractors say he has consistently sided with big government and big business, and that he does not believe a woman has a right to an abortion.

Today's vote was momentous politically and, for Judge Alito, personally. But it was in a sense anticlimactic; confirmation was assured on Monday afternoon, when the Senate voted to shut off debate on the nomination and give the nominee a yes-or-no vote.

Despite their differences over his judicial philosophy, Alito supporters and opponents have agreed that his is an inspiring American story.

Samuel Alito grew up in modest circumstances in Trenton, the son of an Italian immigrant father who worked for the New Jersey Legislature and a mother who was a school principal. As an undergraduate at Princeton and a student at Yale Law School, he garnered prestigious academic prizes as well as notice for his conservative views, which were conspicuously in the minority, and for his civility in engaging ideological opponents.

When Judge Alito graduated from Princeton in 1972, an intense moment in the Vietnam anti-war movement, he was just one of 12 members of his class to receive a military commission through the R.O.T.C program. He served just three months on active duty, in 1975, though he remained in the Army Reserve until 1980.

His involvement with a conservative Princeton alumni group became something of an issue during his confirmation hearings when Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee said that it had held positions opposing the admission of women and minorities. Judge Alito said he had little to do with the group and had joined it simply because it was fighting efforts to abolish R.O.T.C. from the Princeton campus. The committee passed his nomination to the full Senate on a strict party-line vote, 10 to 8.

Before the first President Bush elevated him to the appeals court in 1990, Judge Alito worked mostly as a government lawyer in a number of positions in Washington and New Jersey, including a stint as United States attorney there.

Despite his deep New Jersey roots, Judge Alito was confirmed today without the support of the senators from his home state. Senators Frank R. Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, both Democrats, said the judge's philosophy made him a bad choice for the high court.

"It's not where you come from that matters," Mr. Menendez said before the vote, "but where you will take the nation."

But history shows that a justice's path cannot always be charted in advance.

Two of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Supreme Court nominees, Earl Warren and William J. Brennan Jr., turned out to be considerably more liberal than Eisenhower had envisioned or desired. And Justice David H. Souter, named to the court by the first President Bush, has likewise been a disappointment to latter-day conservatives.

Ford

2006-01-25T23:52:00.000-06:00

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/25/ford.hospital/index.html

IR Posting

2006-01-24T21:45:00.000-06:00

Class,
We are already entering our third week! This would mean, that we're starting chapter three (in both sections), but I am inclined toward really getting comfortable with the concepts in Chapter two.
For IR, that means -- complete familiarity with the three levels of analysis, and recognition of their subsets; for example, you should know "Systemic" level of analysis down cold, and be -familiar- w/ Classical/Structural Realism when you see. We will split hairs as to the Realist/Liberal distinctions together in our discussions - same w/ the other two levels of analysis. We should also think of a few questions about the 'real world'; for instance, when has the US acted and reacted in a 'Classical Realist' sense, in a liberal sense, etc., and who are examples of these schools of thought? We will also want to ask how personal politics fits in (this is walking right up to the line of the individual level...) - for instance, Churchill and Roosevelt, Reagan and Thatcher, Bush I's famously close relationship with leaders, Clinton-Blair and GW Bush and Blair - is this beginning to look a little more like the 'world politics as local politics' that Harry Truman may have thought? Are the 'contrasts' between Bush and Truman contrasts, or are they really just differing illustrations of similar views of world politics? (I believe that being President is unique enough, that Presidents' instincts and personal tastes have much more to do with shaping policy than one would think - remember, the Presidency is the only indispensible office in our system).

For US Gov't, we started on the historical undercurrents of the constitution, and have recently addressed the intangibles - i.e., Marbury v. Madison. Our job is to get a 'gut level' feeling for government, and I think we can do this. There'll be more soon - in the meantime, dwell carefully on what your opinion should be. Question - would John Marshall's assumption of power in 1803 be accepted, were it Chief Justice John Roberts making a similar assertion today? Think about this!

Thanks,

Pete

IR - German Politics

2006-01-21T22:32:00.000-06:00

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,395120,00.html

Class, let's talk about this - remember, the Peace of Westphalia was the root of the current definition of the state. What does this article assume about the different cultural/political views of Europe and the US regarding what the 'state' means?

Am. Gov't/IR

2005-12-12T13:21:00.000-06:00

Harkin Teaches Brad Pitt A Lesson

Lost in the fizz of yesterday's Hill bedlam was a quiet visit paid to Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) by actor Brad Pitt.

When Pitt's team first requested the meeting with the Iowa senator, they laid down some conditions: clear the office. Don't introduce Pitt to anyone. Don't talk about the visit ahead of time.

But we're told the senator didn't take kindly to being told what to do in the confines of his own office.

So when Pitt, sporting black hair and a bushy beard, showed up around 2:00 pm, every available member of the Harkin staff -- even if they were busy -- was arrayed around the office. Harkin proceeded to introduce them to Pitt, one by one. "He got the personal introduction, along with their function and everthing else," says someone who was there.

When they did manage to speak privately, Pitt and Harkin discussed Africa and trade issues.

IR

2005-12-04T16:37:00.000-06:00

Class,

This is why I somewhat doubt the proposition in your book, that suggests the two sides of the Cold War were 'misunderstanding' the intentions of the other. Notice in this article, that Poland approved of this plan - notice also, that is because Poland, as with all Warsaw Pact states, was not sovereign. There's not much to misunderstand about that, is there?

Secret Files Reveal Potential Horror of Cold War Armageddon

Poland's post-communism transparency has led to the opening of secret files predicting the extent of a massive nuclear exchange over Europe between the two Cold War rivals.

For the more than three decades of the Cold War -- from 1955 to 1991 -- the Warsaw Pact was the military rival of the West. Both sides, NATO and the Soviet Union's eastern European satellite countries, were armed to the teeth, separated by what became known as the Iron Curtain. Nuclear weapons and conventional arms parity prevented the two sides from pursing a military solution to their standoff.

The consequences for Europe of a military conflict are well documented in secret Warsaw Pact files recently made public by the Polish government.

Just how damning the Polish archives are is slowly coming to light. The first document excerpts prove that the Warsaw Pact -- counter to its own previous declarations -- had indeed been prepared to risk a first-strike nuclear war with the West. Leon Kieres, the director of Poland's Institute for National Remembrance, said he was shocked when he first read the top-secret papers.

Warsaw Pact allies would have sacrificed Poland

"It was planned to accept heavy losses among the Polish population in the event of a military conflict with NATO," Kieres said. "More than two million people would have died. Some 43 cities on Polish territory would have been targets in a nuclear war. We never knew that our lives were the object of such war games. Polish society has a right to learn what its fate would have been, had a military conflict become a reality."

Leon Kieres was referring to war game plans from the Polish military command in 1979. The war game assumed a provocation by NATO with a massive Russian nuclear response that would have obliterated all of West Germanys major cities.

Afterwards, tank divisions with two million Soviet troops would invade a nuclear and chemically contaminated Central Europe and march as far as the Netherlands and Belgium. It's not surprising, the Polish historian Pavel Piotrovski added, that Poland was agreeing to its territorial annihilation by a Western nuclear counterattack by being part of this plan.

Plan detailing annihilation forced on Poles

"We were not a sovereign state," Piotrovski said. "All the important decisions were forced on us. The Polish government, as well as the governments of the other Socialist countries, had to carry them out."

The decision to make public classified war plans of the Warsaw Pact is a complete reversal of an agreement by its member states when it disbanded in 1991 to keep these documents under lock and key.

The papers were written in Poland and have been kept in Polish archives. For that reason, they are subject only to Polish law, said Poland's Defense Minister Radoslav Sikorski, defending his government's decision to publish them.

"This is the end of the post-communist era in Poland," he said. "A time when such obvious things as the archives of a defunct military pact no longer need to remain secret."

IR

2005-11-28T09:50:00.000-06:00

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,387252,00.html

Response to Comments - "Second Term Curse"

2005-11-26T10:36:00.000-06:00

Great thoughts! My own view - 'Second Term Curse' is really a symptom of all the shine finally wearing off of a President; for instance, in year five, six, seven, the public and media are simply 'used' to the President, and there's less leeway. There are some terrific articles available -- go to google.com and enter the terms "Second Term Curse" - the 3rd or 4th entry is a Washington Post article called something like "Bush beat John Kerry; now he must beat Richard Nixon". I am not looking for a review of the articles you find, rather, these can be used to give you familiarity with the history behind the second terms. I am also less looking for a history of the term "Second Term Curse"; the concept is more important than the term itself.

------------------------------------

Dear Pete:
I am researching the Presidential "second term curse." The amount of differing opinions as to the origin makes any conclusive words nonexistent. I found a range from George Washington to George Bush. I found 22nd Amendment. I even found how this journalistic technique was used on President Grant. I could tie all articles to this issue in some way!
Personal opinion: " Presidential second term curse" is a "Euphemism" created to whitewash the effect of the 22nd amendments reduction of presidential power by removing any political power gained through the forces of electability; consequently second term Presidents are mired down with journalistic scandals, some even leaked on purpose by congress. Lets face facts Monica's Book would not have been a best seller if Clinton was not impeached. It would have been a book about how a woman chose to have sex in a closet. Where is the best seller about FDR's affair?

Please, let me know which direction you would like me to go.

Fw: Breaking News Mon., November 21, 2005

2005-11-21T16:00:00.000-06:00

FORMER TOM DELAY AIDE MICHAEL SCANLON PLEADS GUILTY IN CONSPIRACY TO BRIBE
PUBLIC OFFICIALS

http://abcnews.go.com?CMP=EMC-1396

IR - Sharon

2005-11-21T11:38:00.000-06:00

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Sharon_No_Return.html

Class, let's talk about this on Tues. AM.

Am. Gov't - Mon. 21 Nov.

2005-11-21T09:50:00.000-06:00

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/20/texas.execution.ap/index.html

Class,

Monday and Tuesday, we'll be reviewing the federal judiciary. Let's please read this article first.

Second, the Congressional extra credit has expired, but you have until Tuesday to get the three point Wal Mart question in. Write me if you have any questions. Please do not be intimidated by the position paper; let's walk each other through any concerns you might have. It is a big assignment; but there's time, and doing this assignment is part of what will prepare you for the exam.

Thanks,

Pete

Am. Gov't -Position Paper Number Three

2005-11-18T17:29:00.000-06:00

POSITION PAPER #3 - THE PRESIDENT

30 PTS.

Correct answers will make ten distinct points per question. Use your textbook, the library, or the internet, but be sure and cite which sources you are using. This is the time to really shine, and you can use this to help you get a terrific grade! If you would like help in crafting your answer, please feel free to email me; but be aware that I will only be able to access email sporadically from Wed., 23 Nov. to Sun. 27 Nov. Papers should be handed in no later than 3:15 PM on Tuesday, 29 Nov. No late papers will be accepted.

You should notice, that questions one and two are very broad topics; there are more than ten points you can make on each. A suggestion - write a short outline, and literally count up the points you want to make before writing your final answer. If you have ten, smart points to make in each question, then you have just gotten to your 100%. Keep trying until you get there. All the answers are in your notes from the last two weeks of class. Remember - the questions themselves lead to the answer - that's why they are long, and detailed. The more detail you answer with, the closer you are to your "A". You may work together, but ensure that the work on your paper is purely your own. Happy hunting and enjoy the holidays.

1. The term 'second term curse' is a phrase we heard several times in class. Assume it is August, 1974, and you have just opened the paper to see that President Nixon has resigned, to be replaced by Vice-President Gerald Ford. Please explain in detail the reasons (not the process) that made Ford Vice-President, what led to Nixon's resignation, and the political/personal issues surrounding President Ford's pardon of Nixon. You are invited to offer your own opinion for this question in addition to the history behind it.

2. Assume for a moment that Vice President Cheney would resign from office. Explain to me in explicit detail and history the process that President Bush would use to replace him. Please consider and address the differences in the process between a Vice Presidential appointment and other appointments, such as an appointment to the Supreme Court or the Cabinet. Upon doing so, please note and each instance of a Vice Presidential vacancy since 1967. Please address what is unique about the Ford Vice-Presidency and Presidency in the context of the 25^th Amendment.

3. We are in Iowa, and we will soon have no less than a dozen potential Presidents knocking at our doors and asking for our support. Please explain why this is; after all, Iowa is only one of 50 states, isn't it? So - what is the deal here? Specifically, I would like you to please recognize and explain the caucus system, and what we do with it in Iowa. Having done that, please compare our system to how other states choose their candidates. Does Iowa indeed prove, that the first step in deciding who leads the country, is 'showing up'?

Am. Gov't - Extra Credit

2005-11-16T18:58:00.000-06:00

Please briefly answer the following extra credit question for a Tuesday, November 22. You can do so giving me a short piece, typed, single spaced. I will stop reading at two paragraphs, so make it short! Use the Wal-Mart Video plus your own general knowledge as your resource - no research here. 3 Pts.

"What do you see as the greatest difficulty when trying to mobilize people to political action - such as what Wal Mart Watch is trying to do, and what are the differences and similarities between electoral and non-electoral political work?"

Additionally, the extra credit posted a few days ago on the site is due right away - the end of the week's getting close. If you saw the video, an acceptable answer is right there. If not, you can do some quick research and get a different, yet equally acceptable answer. Any questions, as always please email me. Thanks -

Pete

Am. Gov't.

2005-11-16T13:26:00.000-06:00

Class,

Read this !

IR - Articles

2005-11-16T09:50:00.000-06:00

Meine Damen und Herren,

Please read this and this.

Thanks,

Pete

IR - German Election

2005-11-15T09:05:00.000-06:00

Read this about the German election!

Am. Gov't - Politics But Not on Election Day!

2005-11-14T19:09:00.000-06:00

http://www.walmartwatch.com

http://www.walmartfacts.com

Please briefly take a look through these, as a supplement to the film we saw - what issues are being raised? Perhaps more important to us, is the context in which they are raised. Remember, there are no 'neutral' or 'even' points presented - this is persuasive, political speech. Who do you think is making a more effective use of what they are saying?

(Remember - Extra credit's getting due....).

IR

2005-11-14T19:04:00.000-06:00

Read this!

Announcements

2005-11-10T15:14:00.000-06:00

Class,

If this pertains to any of you, or you would like any information, please feel free to contact me privately, or stop by the office in Black Hawk for help. Thanks, Pete

Make up test hours and room have changed as announced in Hawkeye Happenings:

ACADEMIC SUPPORT TESTING SERVICES INFORMATION CHANGES
Please make note of the new Academic Support Testing Services information:
NEW TESTING ROOM BREMER 125
NEW EXTENSION- Ext. 1098 to schedule special needs tests and for any testing questions.
NEW MAKE-UP TESTING HOURS:
Monday Thursday: 8:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m.
Friday: 8:00 a.m. 4:30 p.m.

In the next two weeks, evening testing hours (until 8:00 p.m.) for make-up will be added.

The changes to ASC testing should begin on Monday, November 14.

Students who need testing accommodations and are taking evening classes can call Ext. 1098 and schedule a testing time in the evening and testing accommodations will be arranged for them.

Am. Gov't - Extra Credit

2005-11-10T09:15:00.000-06:00

Class,
For FIVE points extra credit, please tell me, by the end of next week, the answer to the following question.
"What is the percentage of bills introduced in Congress that are voted on?"

If you are having trouble w/ the answer, please email me!

Thanks,

Pete

IR!

2005-11-02T11:20:00.000-06:00

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,382712,00.html

Am. Gov't - Presidency in Action

2005-11-02T08:52:00.000-06:00

http://www.americanpresident.org/action/a_home.shtml

IR - Germany

2005-11-01T12:10:00.000-06:00

Class,

Please read this article, regarding upheaval in Germany.

Am. Gov't - Texas Case

2005-10-31T22:16:00.000-06:00

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

2005-10-31T18:57:00.000-06:00

The Presidency of Gerald R. Ford

1974-1977

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

2005-10-31T18:45:00.000-06:00

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

2005-10-31T18:38:00.000-06:00

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

IR - International Parliaments

2005-10-30T22:11:00.000-06:00

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

2005-10-30T11:29:00.000-06:00

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

Position Paper #2 Model Answer

2005-10-26T09:37:00.000-05:00

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").

Videos

2005-10-25T12:53:00.000-05:00

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

2005-10-25T12:51:00.000-05:00

Class,

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 -

Plame Investigation

2005-10-24T08:30:00.000-05:00

Class,

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

2005-10-24T08:23:00.000-05:00

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.

Thanks--

Am. Gov't/IR - Current Event

2005-10-20T03:47:00.000-05:00

Am. Gov't -The plot thickens! Read on.

IR - Interview with Angela Merkel here.

Special on North Korea here.

Am. Gov't - Current Events

2005-10-19T22:31:00.000-05:00

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.

Current Event

2005-10-17T09:59:00.000-05:00

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

Position Paper #2 Comment

2005-10-16T16:01:00.000-05:00

Class,
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

Am. Gov't - FEMA lateness shocker

2005-10-13T07:13:00.000-05:00

FYI

> October 12, 2005
> FEMA TOO LATE TO SAVE NICK AND JESSICA'S MARRIAGE
>
> 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
>
> ***ANDY AT UNIVERSITY OF IOWA - OCT. 17-18***
> 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.

Am. Gov't - makeup of the Supreme Court

2005-10-12T11:47:00.000-05:00

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