Executive and Judicial Branch

Guided Learning Response #6

Judicial Branch:
Supreme Court Justices
· John G. Roberts Jr., Chief Justice
· John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice
· Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice
· Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice
· David Hackett Souter, Associate Justice
· Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice
· Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice
· Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice
· Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., Associate Justice

Executive Branch:
President: George W. Bush, Republican
Vice-President: Richard B. Cheney, Republican

Cabinet Departments:
· Department of Agriculture - Secretary Mike Johanns
o Department of Commerce - Secretary Carlos Gutierrez
o Department of Defense - Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
o Department of Education- Secretary Margaret Spellings
o Department of Energy - Secretary Samuel W. Bodman
o Department of Health and Human Services - Secretary Michael O. Leavitt
o Department of Homeland Security - Secretary Michael Chertoff
o Department of Housing and Urban Development - Secretary Alphonso Jackson
o Department of the Interior - Secretary Dirk Kempthorne
o Department of Justice - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
o Department of Labor - Secretary Elaine Chao
o Department of State - Secretary Condoleeza Rice
o Department of Transportation - Deputy Secretary Maria Cino
o Department of the Treasury - Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
o Department of Veterans Affairs - Secretary Jim Nicholson

Cabinet Rank Members:
o Vice President - Richard B. Cheney
o Office of Management and Budget - Rob Portman
o Environmental Protection Agency - Stephen Johnson
o White House Chief of Staff - Joshua B. Bolten
o United States Trade Representative - Ambassador Susan Schwab
o Office of National Drug Control Policy - John Walters

Politicians of the Legislative Branch

Legislative Branch:
Kentucky Members of House of Representatives
· Ed Whitfield-Republican
· Ron Lewis-Republican
· Anne M. Northup-Republican
· Geoff Davis-Republican
· Harold Rogers-Republican
· Ben Chandler-Democrat
Kentucky Members of Senate
· Jim Bunning-Republican
· Mitch McConnell-Republican

Leadership Positions in the United States House of Representatives
· Speaker of the House-Dennis Hastert-Republican-Illinois
· Majority Leader-John Boehner-Republican-Ohio
· Minority Leader-Nancy Pelosi-Democrat-California
· Majority Whip-Roy Blunt-Republican-Missouri
· Minority Whip-Steny Hoyer-Democrat-Maryland

Leadership Positions in the United States Senate
· President Pro Tempore-Ted Stevens-Republican-Alaska
· Majority Leader-Bill Frist-Republican-Tennessee
· Minority Leader-Harry Reid-Democrat-Nevada
· Majority Whip-Mitch McConnell-Republican-Kentucky
· Minority Whip-Dick Durbin-Democrat-Illinois

Battle for Power: The Limits of the Tenth Amendment

With the Garcia decision in 1985 the United States Supreme Court continued the idea of a strong federal government. The powers afforded to the states in the 10th amendment were lessened further by this decision which gave Congress the right to legislate and involve themselves in state issues. The debate surrounding this decision is still very poignant and has become intensified again with several new issues.

One issue which was debated a few years ago and seems to be resurfacing again is the question of whether stem cell research should be legislated by the national or state governments. This topic encompasses a myriad of moral, societal, and scientific boundaries and issues. The best solution for the United States is for the national government to assume the role of regulating stem cell research. Stem cell research opens up debates about the uses, and misuses, and practical applications which may one day be discovered. The issue of stem cell research is important because it is an issue which the entire world is facing together and which the United States must make a decision about in the very near future. Leaving this issue to the states could leave our country years behind other countries which have already begun regulating this research. This issue is much better handled on the national level because there are too many ways for the states to handle it. Scientific research is a national topic and if each state legislates what their universities and schools can do the flow of scientific knowledge in our country would soon be in shambles. For example, a California scientist who performed a promising experiment could not demonstrate the results to his colleague from New Mexico because the two states did not have the same legislation regarding this issue. The topic of stem cell research is much better handled by the national government.

If and when the national government becomes involved in regulating stem cell research there are many groups of elites who will be a part of that. First of all, scientists from around the nation would have to be consulted. Though there is no doubt they would be in favor of little regulation and few rules their knowledge and insight into the issues would be vital. In fact, some of these elites are already members of Congress. Others would be elites associated with federally funded organizations which do scientific research. Because they already receive federal money they would be the most involved in this particular type of research. One of the understood principles of democracy in the national government is that elected elites almost always act in their self-interest. Certainly, the regulation of stem cell research would involve decisions made in the self-interest of other elites like them. Most likely Congressmen who are associated with elites at large research institutions would be most instrumental in this process. When enacting legislation to regulate stem cell research Congressmen will vote in a way which serves their interest and that of the elites they represent.

There is no doubt that stem cell research and the issue of who regulates it will become a hotly debated topic in the next few years. With the threat of epidemics of various illnesses including the Asian Bird Flu, scientists will begin pressuring the federal government to allow them to search for new and innovative ways to prepare for these plagues. The elected elites will be all too willing to vote for what the elites they represent want and before too long America will be a nation which permits all kinds of stem cell research like other nations around the world.

Division in America

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” (Madison, 106) Though written in 1788 these words hold just as much truth over two centuries later as they did when the founding fathers considered them in writing the Constitution. As the men who drafted our country’s most powerful government document congregated, the memories of the Revolution and tyranny of England were still fresh in their minds. As a result, the system of checks and balances introduced in Articles I, II, and III of the Constitution are the basis of a fundamental principle of American democracy.
James Madison was a genius in that he considered the impact of each and every principle employed in our Constitution. As he co-wrote The Federalist Papers he not only garnered support for a new central government but he defined the ideals of American democracy. Throughout The Federalist Papers Madison is often drawn to contemplate human nature and its applications to government. He discusses the positive side of human nature in reason, virtue, and morality. He also consults the negative aspects in that man is a creature who has too much dignity and sins often. His fear was that this negative side of human nature would cause ambitious people to encroach on the power of others and, in doing so, accumulate too much power in one branch of the government. As a result, the checks and balances between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches are still vital to the success of democracy today.
The early American government had little chance of success. The Articles of Confederation had certainly failed to establish a nation which held any power in the world. Fear that power resulted in tyranny was rampant in the fledgling nation. This was certainly a dilemma for the elites writing the Constitution. They were aware that if the Constitution offered opportunities for tyranny to become a part of America that they would never garner the support necessary to ratify it. Madison recognized this and summed it up perfectly: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” (Madison, 106) Just as vital as creating a strong central government was controlling this power so it could be used to create positive change. Factions in young America were dangerous because they could uproot the foundation of the new government. Madison and the founding fathers recognized this. Madison, in writing about the government controlling itself, was warning against those factions which were power hungry. Throughout history power hungry men have wrecked nations and caused much distress. The founding fathers were well aware of this and created a democracy which focused on preventing it completely.
Factions are an important part of any democracy. There is no way to prevent people from forming groups which support their own beliefs. Madison also knew this and did not try to prevent it. In fact, he recognized that it was impossible to prevent factions from forming. Instead, he offered a solution. Madison warned that the best policy was to accept factions, but control them. However, factions are still dangerous, which is why Madison recommended the government exert control over them. Two centuries ago there was nowhere near as much access to media as there is today. As a result of this constant knowledge of world and national situations the average American is more equipped than they were in 1778 to create a faction and have it succeed. While it is certainly still true that the elites govern the masses there is more opportunity for members of the masses to become elites today.
Today is the anniversary of the worst attack on American soil in history. September 11th was the Pearl Harbor of my generation and has forever scarred us in many ways which have yet to be truly seen. One constant reminder of these deadly attacks is the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. Though support for these strikes was strong at first it has declined until many Americans believe we are our wasting our time in a country that does not want our help. Factions have risen on both sides of this issue and they are more dangerous than any our country has seen in several decades. These factions pose a great threat to our country because both have garnered considerable support across the country. There seems to be no middle ground to stand on and as a result the conflict is not being resolved. I have no doubt we would see Madison revive The Federalist Papers in response to this looming division which becomes greater every day.
I am reminded of the phrase, “United We Stand, Divided We Fall.” Our country was founded on the idea that the elites govern the masses because, in reality, they have basically the same principles in common and can find common ground to work on for our country. Maybe Madison made the greatest point as he warned the founding fathers to proceed with caution. “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.” (Madison, 108)

Ideals of Democracy

Two centuries after the founding fathers signed their names to the Constitution Americans are still struggling to comprehend the basic idea of democracy that these men understood all along. Identified most correctly as the irony of democracy it states that,
“Democracy is government by the people, but the survival of the democracy
rests on the shoulders of elites…elites must govern wisely if government “by the
people” is to survive.” (Dye, 1)
The masses have always regarded American democracy with the same awe they afforded to the American Dream just a few generations ago. Democracy is an amazing form of government few people in this world are privileged to be a part of. Few of these masses truly understand the reality of American “democracy.”
The founding fathers had a great deal of foresight and addressed many issues in the Constitution which are still relevant today. However, in their handling of some issues they were certainly regarding their self-interests above those of the masses they represented. For example, the authors failed to clearly define their meaning on certain key issues. As secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton took it upon himself to interpret the meaning of Congress’ ability to do those things which were “necessary and proper.” In doing so he expanded the power of Congress to include all things deemed “necessary and proper” by the elites. Often referred to as the elastic clause this short part of the Constitution has sparked much debate on the limitations of Congress’ power in America. As a result of his interpretation of the elastic clause Hamilton caused a great deal of conflict. The ultimate result was the emergence of the first election where political parties were involved. The founding fathers failed to address the prospect of disagreement over ambiguity in the Constitution and as a result left room for a division which exists still today.
Secondly, Congress failed to give Americans enough involvement in their government. Though these elites understood the illiteracy of the masses they failed to see their desire to be involved in their government. As a result, the Constitution which was originally ratified allowed Americans only to elect House members. This gave elites almost complete control in choosing all other leaders in the national government. The voting process was entirely too complicated. The founding fathers created the electoral college and bound Americans to a system which makes little sense. In present day America citizens can vote and the candidate for President who receives the majority vote may not be declared the victor. Because the founding fathers believed the elites who were educated were the only citizens intelligent enough to choose our national leader they created the electoral college, which serves little use in 2006.
The United States has been involved in the conflict with Iraq for over three years at this point. Great strides have been made in creating a democratic form of government in this once oppressed country. People got to vote in a general election. Basic rights have been restored. However, there is still not the peace that was present when the American Constitution was ratified. Part of the problem with this unrest is the state of affairs in Iraq. Democracy is defined as “rule by the people” literally. However, just as it was true 200 years ago democracy cannot involve every citizen actually ruling. There would be no consistency in a country. Therefore, the leaders must be chosen “by the people” to make decisions in the best interest of the country. The modern day world is littered with governments which claim to be democratic but are actually far from it. However, when writing their Constitution it was important for them to address relevant issues they face. For example, women’s rights have long been suppressed in Iraq. Though women did not have rights when the Constitution was written they have had them for nearly a century now in America. However, women in Iraq are helping to define democracy in their country. How are women to be involved in this new experiment in their country? What role will they play? These are important questions to be considered.
One topic which has been debated for over two centuries in America is the separation of church and state. It is important that Iraqi’s create their own definition for this controversial statement. This will aid in allowing their country to focus on more relevant issues after the ratification of their Constitution.
The most important issues to be addressed in Iraq are those found in the American Bill of Rights. Will these rights be granted to all citizens of Iraq? Are the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just as important as they were in 1787? Are there essential rights which are necessary considering world conditions today? Iraqi’s must make these decisions for themselves in creating a government which will support all of its citizens.
There are many essential principles of democracy which Iraqi’s can address today before they embark on their journey in democracy. For example, do people have the right to address public policy and call for a change in it? America has always struggled with the media and their freedoms. It is important that Iraq address this issue and create an open and accountable media. Most important, however, is the concept that all men are considered innocent until proven guilty. All people are afforded the opportunity for a trial and fair representation. These rights are essential in creating a lasting democracy.
Iraq is just beginning on their part of the experiment which much of the world is enjoying today. America began the experiment over 200 years ago and we have yet to understand all of its facets. However, we have come a long way in ensuring that all citizens are granted all rights which they are “endowed by their creator” (Thomas Jefferson).