The Underground Economy

The underground economy is made of people who do not work a regular paid job. They get paid under the table with no income reported and no taxes paid. Jobs in the underground economy are typically linked with illegal things such as drug dealing but also includes housekeepers and nannies.

The shadow economy is beneficial in the way that the money people make from their "secret" jobs is used for personal consumption which rises the economy. It also allows people that are having trouble getting a full or part time job in the "real" economy to earn money.

Although it can be beneficial, it can also be unfavorable. The more people are being paid under the table without taxes, the less money the government has to spend. Government programs depend on tax money. With less taxes being paid, the higher they will be so the government can do its job. In addition, people with jobs in the secret economy do not get Social Security or health benefits. There is also a higher risk of losing your job and not getting paid at all.

Net Neutrality

What is net neutrality? Net neutrality is "the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) should give consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favoring some sources or blocking others" (1). This means that the Internet and what's in it is equally provided to everyone.

It is important that we as consumers have net neutrality because it means we have easy and equal access to the Internet. If we did not have net neutrality, to get better and faster Internet connection we would have to pay our Internet providers more.

Big companies such as Comcast would benefit a lot without net neutrality because Internet companies would have to pay them more money for their websites to run just as fast or faster than other websites (2). Without net neutralilty, small companies on the Internet would have a harder time to start up because they would have to compete for fast service against big companies (2).

The FCC can control the neutrality of the Internet because of the 1934 Communications Act. Under this act, the FCC is able to "prevent [ISPs] from manipulating how quickly or slowly sites are transmitted along their networks" (2). This means they control Internet providers and how service is delivered.

1- http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/24/net-neutrality-what-is-it-guide/23237737/ 

2- Net Neutrality: What it means for you

Spoils System vs Merit System

The spoils system, also known as patronage, was a system in which people, for their support of a party, would get government positions. This meant that many of the government members were new and from the same party as the president. Andrew Jackson is known for using the spoils system. When he became President, Jackson substituted everyone in the government for his supporters, the "Jacksonian Democrats." Jackson believed that it was good to clear out government office members to keep the government from becoming corrupt.

In 1881, Charles Guiteau assassinated President James Garfield because he was not allowed a government job. After President Garfield's assassination , Congress passed the Pendleton Act which stopped the spoils system. The Pendleton Act created a new system, the merit system. The merit system required exams for federal employment. To do this, the Pendleton Act established a  three-member Civil Service Commission administered the system. So, jobs given through the merit system were based off of skill and ability to do the job, unlike the spoils system, were jobs were given because of connections with people in the government.

I believe that the spoils system is still in a small way part of our government today. For example, Obama appointed ambassadors, but only 5 out of the 18 at that time were actual diplomats. It happens to be that the rest are people who helped Obama during his campaign. Many of these "diplomats" have raised hundreds of dollars. For example, Charles Rivkin, an entertainment mogul, who was appointed to go to Paris, France, raised $800,00 for Obama. This is an example of the spoils system. Supporters of Obama raised money for him, and as a reward they are given government jobs, whether they are qualified to do the job or not.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/us/politics/29web-baker.html?_r=0)

Cell Phones and the Constitution

I believe that police should not be able to look at our phones without a warrant. Unless it is an EXTREMELY urgent and dangerous situation between life and death, I believe everyone should have a right to privacy on their phones. If a person is a suspect for committing a crime and the police want to check his/her phone, they should have to have a search warrant. But if a situation is, for example, a threat against the safety of lives, or someone who has committed multiple heinous crimes and is on the most wanted list, then police should be able to look at his/her phone. There should be very specific standards to keep people safe and to prevent tragic events from occurring, but also give people as much privacy as possible.

In Riley v. California, I would have to agree with the Supreme Court. Although it was a horrible act he did, it had already occurred so I believe that the police would have needed to receive a warrant "just as the police [would] need permission to search inside someone's home" (14). Going through his phone without a warrant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And to get a warrant, the police can use e-mail and get one within 15 minutes (17). Because this case was not a real emergency situation and happened in the past, I think that the police could have gotten a warrant. And in some "now-or-never" cases, "like finding a ticking bomb or a kidnapped child," a search can occur without a warrant for these emergencies (17). This case was just not one of them. 

Vacation Blog

Last January, six same-sex couples went to the Miami-Dade County Clerk's office and demanded they have their marriage licenses, but they were turned down. The couples sued and as of today, January 5th, they have their won their lawsuit.

Miami-Dade County has become the first place in Florida to allow same-sex marriage, half a day before it is legal in the rest of the state. Less than three hours after Circuit Judge Sarah Zabel lifted the stay on the ban of gay marriage, two of the couples (Catherina Pareto and Karla Arguello, and Jeff and Todd Delmay) were married by Zabel herself. The other four couples are taking their time and plan to have the wedding of their dreams.

Florida is now the 36th state where same-sex marriage is legal after South Carolina, which legalized it in November 2014.

The fight for the right of same-sex marriage started in the 1920s and is still a HUGE issue. There are still 14 states where same-sex marriage is illegal. Many people have different opinions on this topic. Some people are all for it while others are extremely against it.

I, personally, am all for it. Love is love. So I am very happy to hear that another state has taken a step towards equality. Same-sex couples are no different than any other ordinary couple. They are people who deserve the right to be married. I find it hard to believe that some people think otherwise.

All of the articles that I have read about this event have all been positive, which I am very happy to see. This is a huge step for the same-sex couples in Florida and it should be celebrated. Because this has just happened today, there will most likely be more news about the event as well as the issue itself soon.

President Obama's Executive Order

President Obama has recently announced that he is carrying out an executive order regarding immigration. His executive order gives immigrants temporary protection from deportation in addition to keeping children, who are legal U.S. citizens and residents, with their parents. I believe it is constitutional. I believe that children should not be separated from their families. Most immigrants are contributing to the United States and are actually helping it. 

Obama's executive action is strengthening our immigration system. It makes it easier for felons to be deported. This will keep immigrants who are helping our country in, while deporting immigrants who do not follow the rules. For example, parents with kids who are born the in United States have extended time here. These parents are actually working to support their family. There is also more enforcement at borders to keep illegal immigrants out. 

Many of the previous presidents have placed executive orders. There were most likely many people who were against them, for there is never anything in politics in which everyone can agree on. Presidents in the past have done the same thing Obama is doing. All of these presidents are doing what they believe is for the best of the United States.

Head of State

In the movie Head of State, Chris Rock plays an alderman named Mays Gilliam. In the beginning of the movie, he helps out the people in his town and everyone knows him. After one of the candidates die from a plane crash, Mays is chosen to run for President. At first, he is given cue cards and is told what to say, how to act, and what to wear.

Towards the middle of the movie, he makes the decision of doing his campaign the way he wants to. He speaks from his own heart and does what he thinks is right. He also dresses in his own clothes instead of the suits. We see him go into a store wearing a suit and he comes out wearing a sweatshirt and sweatpants. Towards the end of his campaign, Mays turns out to be an actual threat to Brian Lewis, the other presidential candidate. 

Although some of the things he says on television and in his speeches are not what candidates would typically say, Mays understands and can relate to lower and middle class people and they love him. In many of his speeches he swears but he has experienced all of the troubles they have been through and understands them. He can represent them and help them. He uses this to get people's support and votes. In the end, he wins the race for President of the United States.

The movie also satirizes political parties in many scenes. For example, in the very beginning of the movie, some guys are shown in a car listening to a rap radio station. An announcement from the news comes on for a moment saying one of the presidential candidates have died in an airplane crash. The Right after the announcement the music comes back on and the people do not even react to what they just heard. This shows how a lot of people do not even pay attention to the government or care about it.

At the start of his campaign, Mays travels around the U.S. to get votes. For each place he goes, he says the same thing from a card that will appeal to the people he is speaking to. This shows how political parties say what the people want to hear. For instance, he goes to a farm and tells them how important the workers are to gain their support. 

2014 Mid Term Election

If I was 18 who would I vote for in the 2014 Mid Term Election? Before I decided there are 5 main issues to take into consideration in which Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker have different views on.

First is early education and K-12. Here I have to go with Coakley. I like how her focus is on early childhood education. This is where children are growing and there brains are developing. It is important that they get a good education at this period of time. I like how Coakley plans to make early education accesible to all children including in impoverished areas.

On the issue of higher education and its cost, I agree with Baker. I like his idea of shortening the years to get a bachelors or masters degree. Doing this will save someone a whole year of tuition and fees in addition to many other costs. In addition, the sooner students get degrees, the sooner they are able to get to work and get experience.

Next is the debate for sick time for workers. I am for Coakley's Plan. I do not like Baker's plan in which only businesses with 50+ workers would be eligible. Unlike Baker's plan, Coakely's plan includes businesses with just 11+ people. This gives more people the opportunity for sick days.

For the welfare reform issue, I disagree with Baker so I would have to go with Coakley. I don't think it would be right for people on welfare to have a better advantage of getting a job over other people who work just as hard who are not on welfare. I agree with Coakley on how for the most part, welfare is just being used for alcohol, tobacco, and other unnecessary things.

Lastly, I do not like Baker's contradictory view on climate change so Coakley's plan seems more appealing. Although I do like the idea of the windmill project in New Bedford, I like Coakley's plan of taking action towards helping the environment.

In the end, after thinking about the main issues, I would vote for Martha Coakley. Her plans are more appealing than those of Charlie Baker.

Lincoln Discussion

In the movie Lincoln, we see Lincoln trying to pass the 13th amendment to abolish slavery and it is not easy. The Republicans wanted the 13th amendment to be passed, while the Democrats were against it. The main reason is racism. Democratic representatives did not want to pass the amendment because they did not want African Americans to be able to vote, own property, and most importantly, take jobs away from white men. They were afraid of the thought of all slaves being freed at the same time. It was also difficult because his own cabinet members did not agree with him for the majority of the time.

Lincoln also uses implied powers. For example he twists the truth about a peace delegation in Richmond, Virginia. To get the amendment to pass, he writes a note to the members of the House of Representatives that he does not know of any delegation. He also promised Lame Duck politicians jobs. Lame Ducks are politicians that are not to be re-elected in the next election. Because they would have to search for a job, they might have swayed to the majority opinion, to not pass the amendment. So the offer of a job appealed to them so they voted for the amendment. Doing that was not exactly morally right.

Lincoln needed to pass the 13th amendment because without changing the Constitution, the Emancipation Proclamation could be abolished. If he lost reelection, the Emancipation Proclamation could be removed. That is why Lincoln wanted to get the amendment passed as soon as he could. The passing of the amendment would also lead to the end of the Civil War.

Bill Of Rights Memes

The 4th Amendment gives people the right of privacy. Recently, Edward Snowden, a former  NSA (National Security Agency) worker, revealed that the NSA keeps track phone calls, messages, and online activity. This has become a very controversial issue because the NSA's purpose is to find any threats against the United States but we have our right to privacy.

The 5th Amendment states that you can't be tried for the same crime twice, which is called Double Jeopardy.  Once there is a verdict on a case, they cannot be tried again.

Petoria

Petoria has an authoritarian type of government with a unitary system. Peter is the President of Petoria and is the only leader of his nation. He is the central government and has all of the power. Two benefits he has are:

1. He can do whatever he wants within his own nation.
2. He has diplomatic immunity.

Peter can do whatever he wants in his nation. Whether it is to build a pool or vandalize his property, there is no legal system in Petoria that can stop him. He can make up his own rules and regulations.

He also has diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity means that as a diplomat, he has "the privilege of exemption from certain laws and taxes granted... by the country in which [he is] working." In the episode, Peter is shown doing graffiti on walls in America, stepping on grass where it says not to, not paying for drinks, etc. 

Although it may seem like a luxury at first, by not having a federal government, the Griffins suffer by not having things a government would normally supply. For example the Griffin family has no water, electricty, or gas. The kids also can't go to school, because Petoria does not provide schools. So they have to be home-schooled. Lastly, Petoria has no army to defend the Griffins againts the U.S. Army or any other foreign attacks.

Ratification of the Consitution

Ratifying the Constitution was very difficult because nine out of the thirteen states had to approve it. The process lasted two years from 1787 to 1789. During this time America was split into two groups: Federalists who were for the Constitution and Antifederalists who were against it.

Antifederalists thought that the Constitution took too much power away from the people and gave too much power to the federal government. In contrast, Federalists did not want too much democracy and wanted a strong federal government. Federalists thought that the states were lower than the federal government. The Antifederalists disagreed and thought the federal government should be more powerful. The Antifederalists also wanted the Bill of Rights to be included while the Federalists did not think it was necessary.

In the end, the Federalists won the battle over the Constitution. But the Antifederalist had a victory in which they got the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

Why did the Articles of Confederation fail?

The main problems with the Articles of Confederation involved the economy, national leadership, and legislation.

According to Article IX, the national government and each state could create their own currency. This made it difficult to trade because of the different currencies. Also, Congress did not have any power to place taxes. Instead, they had to ask states for money and they could not always get the money on time so we were in debt for a long time.

There was also no judiciary system within the national government in the Articles of Confederation. Article IV states that each state has its own judicial affairs. In addition, there was no executive branch and no president. This meant that our foreign affairs were very difficult to keep up.

It was also very hard to pass amendments for the Articles of Confederation because the vote had to be unanimous and it was, and still is, difficult to have every state agree on something. It also was frustrating for the people because each state only got one vote according to Article V. This was frustrating because one state may have half the population of another but still stopped a law from passing. 

What would life be like without the government?

If the United States did not have a government we would be living in one big mess. We would be living in an anarchy. Without the government we would not have laws, and without laws people would go around doing anything they want, good or bad. Without them our lives are unpredictable.

Life without laws would literally be like The Purge, the movie. In The Purge all illegal acts are legal for 12 hours. I believe this movie truly portrays what life would be like without a government. The crime rate in America would sky rocket and everything would just be a complete disaster. We would live our lives in fear every single moment because laws keep us safe and give us security.

You could also compare a life without government to The Dark Knight Rises where the people choose their leaders whether they are credible to do their job or not. For example the people in Gotham have their own court with Dr. Jonathan Crane as the "judge". The defendants are offered a choice, death or exile, although both choices end up the same. So there could possibly be some form of organization and structure, but it would most likely be controlled by anarchists and/or terrorists.

The government also provides us things such as education, roads and highways, hospitals, food, water, and money. Without it individuals and families would be on their own. We would all be living individually by getting our own food, teaching ourselves, etc. 

I believe that we organized a government to keep life orderly and safe instead of chaotic and dangerous. With the government our lives are secure. Although people do still commit crimes, laws are enforced better with the police and punishment. I also believe that it was created to help our relationships with other countries.

We are very lucky to be able to live the lives we have. Without a government our lives would be flipped upside-down.