Loretta Lynch sworn in as new U.S. attorney general

Full Article

On Monday, Loretta Lynch was sworn in as the first African-American woman to serve as the nation's attorney general. Lynch is currently 55 years old and was confirmed by the Senate last week. She replaces Eric Holder, who left the position last Friday after serving as attorney general for six years. Lynch hopes to have a productive relationship with Congress.

This relates to AP Gov because it has to do with separation of powers- appointment of department heads.

I think it is good that Loretta Lynch was finally sworn in. Her approval was delayed for many weeks because of a human-trafficking law with anti-abortion measures in it that the Democrats refused to sign, and therefore the Republicans refused to approval Lynch.

Blue Bell Creameries issues recall of all products

Live Link

Blue Bell Creameries recalled all its products on Monday night after two samples of chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream tested positive for listeriosis. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention linked Blue Bell ice cream contaminated with listeriosis to three deaths at a Kansas hospital. Five others in Kansas and Texas were sickened with the disease.

This is related to AP Government because we are currently discussing the bureaucracy, which includes the CDC and other regulatory agencies responsible for making sure products on the shelf are safe for consumption.

I agree with the CDC's and Blue Bell's decision to recall. It is important that no more risks are taken concerning the health of the consumer.

US Government Bans Intel, Nvidia and AMD From Selling High End Chips To The Chinese Government

Read more: http://wccftech.com/us-government-bans-intel-nvidia-amd-chips-china/#ixzz3XJr61FbR

In a move to curb China's ability in supercomputing, the US government has banned the sale of high-end Intel, AMD, and Nvidia CPUs to the Chinese government. Intel was preparing to ship high-end processors to China to refresh their Tianhe-2 Supercomputer as this ban developed. The US Department of Commerce barred Intel from shipping these processors, citing worries over nuclear weapons research.

We are currently learning about the powers of the US Government, and specifically the executive branch, in AP US Government and Politics.

I agree with the US government. It was most likely a good idea to ban these shipments because these computers can be used to nuclear weapons research. However, it is much more likely that they have been used or are going to be used against the US government in cyberwarfare, which is probably the reason for the ban of the sale of these computer chips.

California Democrats unveil immigration bills, jab Congress on inaction

Full Live Link

California legislative leaders unveiled new proposals to aid those in the country illegally, including offering healthcare and increasing legal protections against deportation. "Today we remind the rest of the nation that California is different." Californian legislators blasted Congress for their inaction on this matter and said this package is a reflection of the shirking of duty represented by Congress. Democrats, who have the majority, do admit, however, that many parts of the bill will not face easy passage.

This connects to AP Gov because we have discussed federalism and how states are allowed to make their own policy decisions on some things such as health care.

I do think that many parts of this bill are a good idea- including the increased legal protections against deportation, in order for these illegal immigrants to have the opportunity to become legal residents of the US and be contributing members of society.

Should the US government force citizens to vote?

Full Link

During a town hall meeting in Cleveland on Wednesday, President Obama had an idea of making voting in the United States compulsory.Obama suggested compulsory voting while suggesting ways to counteract money in politics. "It would be transformative if everybody voted," Obama said. However, according to New Hampshire's Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan, “Voting is a right to be exercised, but not forced." Mr. Scanlan says. “In a perfect world everyone would vote because it’s so important. I believe every state should strive to generate maximum voter turnout but stop short of forcing people to vote.”

This relates to AP Gov because we have talked about the abilities of the national government- as well as how they can pass laws 'necessary and proper' which could be argued to include compulsory voting.

I can see both sides. One way, having maximum voter turnout can help improve the situation in government- Congress has a very low approval rating yet nearly every incumbent is always re-elected. It can also be effective as a buffer against money in politics- advertisement doesn't influence everyone, and the more people that vote, the more likely it is that people who are voting aren't influenced by this advertisement. However, there's also the fact that sometimes, people just can't vote. They don't have the time or the ability to get to the polls. Honestly, I do not believe voting should be compulsory, I think it should be strongly emphasized as very important- but not mandatory.

'Obamacare' shrinks US uninsured by 16 mn

Live Link

The number of Americans without health insurance has dropped by 16.4 million since the Affordable Care Act took effect, the largest reduction in uninsured in four decades. The law was signed nearly five years ago, but it didn't go into effect until a little under a year and a half ago. "When it comes to the key metrics of affordability, access, and quality, the evidence shows that the Affordable Care Act is working, and families, businesses and taxpayers are better off as a result," Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said in a statement. The uninsured rate among adults has dropped from a little over 20% to 13.2%.

This relates to AP Gov because we will/are talking about the jurisdictions and responsibility of both state and federal governments.

I think that Obamacare is doing a great job at what it was meant for- reducing the number of uninsured Americans to reduce the cost of insurance and healthcare for everyone, because many people would just exploit the fact that the Emergency Room at hospitals has to treat you whether you pay or not- which causes healthcare costs to rise for those who can and do pay.

Obamacare Goes to the Supreme Court

Full Article

Nearly 3 years after the Supreme Court refrained from killing Obamacare, the court is now considering a second legal challenge. This case is King v. Burwell. The case is whether the Affordable Care Act provides subsidies to everyone in the country who qualifies based on income level whether they get their insurance through a state-run exchange or an exchange run by the federal government.

This applies to AP Gov because we will discuss the power of judicial review later on in class.

If the prosecution wins this case, then those who signed up via federal exchanges (rather than state exchanges) will lose their subsidies. Most likely, these people will no longer be able to afford their insurance. I think, in this case, the inability for those who signed up via federal exchanges to recieve subsidies would be extremely detrimental to the success of the bill in helping to allow everyone easy access to affordable and quality insurance.

"SCOTUS Raises the Stakes—Again—in Obamacare Politics"

Live article

Both Congressional Republicans and the President have a lot on the line- the Supreme Court will hear another high-profile challenge to Obamacare- this is its third case in three years. The case they are hearing is King v. Burwell, which challenges Obamacare's insurance subsidies, which, if eliminated, could severely damage the law, because many people who have gained insurance under the law depend on the subsidies to afford it. It would also make the 'individual mandate' harder to enforce. 

Later in the semester, we will study the separation of powers as well as what each branch can and cannot do. One of the powers of the Supreme Court is judicial review- the power to review laws and executive actions- but only if said law or action is challenged in court and makes it way up to the Supreme Court.

I think that it is fine for Republicans to try to challenge Obamacare in court. However, I do believe that they need to come up with their own healthcare plan to replace it. Considering most of the beneficiaries of this law live in Republican or swing states, come election time, many of their constituents won't be happy with them, and they may vote for a different candidate.

Obama vetoes Keystone XL pipeline

Live Link

On Tuesday, President Obama, as he had promised, vetoed a Republican bill approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline. Obama, rejected the bill because it "unwisely bypassed a State Department process that will determine whether the project would be beneficial to the United States". The Republicans support it for its short-term job creation (construction), as there will not be many long-term jobs associated with the Keystone Pipeline- and it also mainly transports Canadian oil. However, the Republicans say they plan to override this veto by March 3rd. According to this article, they don't have enough votes to do so.

"Through this bill, the United States Congress attempts to circumvent longstanding and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest," Obama wrote in his veto message.

Later in the year, we will learn about presidential as well as congressional powers related to the vetoing of bills as well as the override of those vetoes.

I agree with Obama's decision to veto this bill. As seen in the article, there is currently a State Department process that will determine whether the project is beneficial. I don't think the legislative branch should overstep its powers to approve this project at this point in time.

Texas judge blocks Barack Obama's immigration order, House GOP pushes for bill to stop implementation

Hello all! Today, I will be discussing a Texas federal judge's decision to block Obama's immigration order. Here's the full article: Article

A Texas federal judge temporarily blocked President Obama's executive 'amnesty' per a request by twenty-six states. However, the Obama administration predict that this ruling will be overturned by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, House Republican leaders, are not backing down from a threat to cut off funding (in essence shutting it down) for the Department of Homeland Security unless the Senate and Obama go along with a bill suspending the executive order.

This relates to our curriculum because we will eventually talk about the powers of different part of the US Government. We will talk about executive actions as well as the courts' abilities to vacate those executive actions.

I personally think that this is ridiculous. If you want to stop Obama's immigration order, have a vote pass in Congress. If it passes by more than an extremely narrow margin, the president should sign it. However, until that happens, I think his executive action should be left alone.

US to form new agency to coordinate efforts tackling cyberthreats

Full Article 

        Hello everyone! Today, I will be talking about how the US government going to announce, on Tuesday, the creation of a new agency, which will be called the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center, that will focus on combating virtual threats like massive hacking operations and attacks on US infrastructure. This new agency will allow the government to gather and share information collected by agencies such as  the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency. This latter ability is a difference between it and the National Terrorism Center, and is also a reason as to why it failed- it did not have this ability.

        Later on in the year, we will discuss agencies of the government, the powers they have, and the process of creating a new agency. This is a good example of this- it's the creating of an agency as well as the powers this new agency will have.

        I think the creation of this new agency is a great idea. It's long overdue that we have an agency to beef up our cybersecurity, because the next war will be cyber warfare, and that will be fought not by soldiers, but by tech personnel working around-the-clock in order to patch things before they are compromised. With this new agency, we finally have a way to do this, and a way to, hopefully, prevent it from happening.

       

US government to propose huge change to internet rules

     
        Hello again. Today, I'll be discussing how the FCC is considering classifying the internet as a telecommunications service rather than an information service, which would be a huge win for proponents of "Net Neutrality". For the whole article, click here. Thais change would allow the FCC to monitor and police internet service, as well as making sure providers aren't blocking content or allowing providers to be paid off to increase internet speeds. However, the government does not plan to price-set the internet as it has done for other utilities. Many internet providers, however, don't like the idea of "net neutrality", as seen in this quote Comcast released in a statement, “The internet has not just appeared by accident or gift — it has been built by companies like ours investing and building networks and infrastructure.”

       Later on in this unit, we will discuss government institutions as well as their powers and responsibilities. The FCC is a government institution, and it has the power and responsibility to regulate utilities, telecom, and other services.

      I think this is a positive step forward for this country, because, earlier this year, Comcast blackmailed Netflix into paying it money by throttling Netflix to Comcast's customers until Netflix paid them off. The internet should not be regarded as something that can be exploited to the internet service provider's benefit, rather, it should be something that treats all websites equally.

     

Boehner opens door to Obama immigration lawsuit

Full Article

       Hello, all who may be reading this. Today, January 27th, House Speaker John Boehner has decided to draw up plans to launch yet another try at a lawsuit against President Obama over his executive "amnesty", the executive order that granted a short reprieve for illegal immigrants in this country, hoping that they will use this chance to apply for citizenship.

       In class, we will, in the future, talk about Congress' and the Presidency's powers, including impeachment and executive orders, respectfully. This article mentions both- John Boehner intends to sue (which, if successful, could be the runner-up to an impeachment trial) Obama over his executive order granting temporary amnesty to illegal immigrants.

       Now, there are many people who disagree with Obama's immigration executive action- just as there are people who don't agree with "Obamacare". However, both times now John Boehner has tried to "sue" the Obama administration over these actions/bills- and it failed the first time because it was too "ridiculous". It's perfectly fine to disagree with the President's policies, but intending to sue the president over an action he took rather than suggesting your own solution goes a little overboard.