American Gov

Front 1

18 Does the War in Iraq help the war Against terrorism
YES

Back 1

Dunn argues yes it does because it destabilizes Jihadis, both of the Palestinian and Al Qaeda types. We now have them on the run, and thier use of the bomb (IEDs) in Iraq will not work if we are undeterred in promoting Bush's grand strategy to promote democracy in the region.

Front 2

18 Does the War in Iraq help the war Against terrorism
NO

Back 2

Jervis states that NO because the Bush's 4 point Doctrine of hegemonial unilateral power to deal with state sponsored terrorism will make the US more of a target. With events contradicting all 4 points of the plan and our allies are turning against us, the US will not later be able to fix the fact that we are neither loved nor feared.

Front 3

6 Is congress barred from regualting commerce within a state?
YES

Back 3

Rehnquist explained that yes the law barring guns from school grounds was unconstitutional because it is not properly based on the Commerce Clause, which regulates "commerce" "among" states. The US government failed to show how this gun law, a criminal law, substantially effected inter-state commerce, a business provision.

Front 4

6 Is congress barred from regualting commerce within a state?
NO

Back 4

Breyer conutered that Congress's law barring guns from school groups was properly based on the commerce clasue especially given the deference courts should extend to congress. The government showed that the law owered violence in the schools, violence is human and commercial, and lowering violence makes the US more competitive.

Front 5

4 Do the media have a liberal bias?
YES

Back 5

Goldberg argued that after Bias the topic has gotten more respect but the media still denies that it is liberal, arguing instead that there is a conservative conspiracy. Reporters need to start standing up to this Orwellian orthodoxy as John Carroll (and Goldberg) have done.

Front 6

4 Do the media have a liberal bias?
NO

Back 6

Kennedy states that Republicans won in 2004 not because of 'values gap' but because of the information deficit of caused by conservatives in the media that was so strong i made American sbelieve Iraq helped Bin Laden and it covered the deep ills Bush had caused. If we do not listen to David Brock's book and Bill Moyers' comments, then the conspiracy that people like Grover Norquists group meeting Wednesdays are doing with the media to keep Republicans in control will threaten our democracy.

Front 7

3 Should the Electoral College be abolished?
YES

Back 7

Edwards urged "yes" it should be abolished and replaced with a direct election because the Electoral College is against political equality and arguments for it are without sufficent support. A direct election requiring 40% to win or a run-off would be difficult but it would be better for the country and is in each party's interest to do it.

Front 8

3 Should the Electoral College be abolished?
NO

Back 8

Greg argues that the electoral college should not be abolished because it works, has become more democratic, decides elections with greater certainty, and keeps middle America at the center. Without the Electoral College the country would move towards the cities, be more divided, and go "retro" (retro, actually means it would become more diverse, though) as Sperling has explained. Believes middle america are thus incouraged to vote.

Front 9

Political Parties

Back 9

are voluntary associations that exist to recruit candidates, help them win in elections, and once elected, they help them govern. They are candidate centered while interest groups are interest centered. Each government is a party (or coalition) in power, and an election is a government takeover (should the Socialists even the unlearned would know this). The rise of an emerging party foretells what the future may be.

Front 10

270

Back 10

a party needs 270 electoral votes to win an electoral majority. this (electoral college) applies only to the presidency. The US mainly has had a 2-party system (a system of 2 main parties). However, these parties have gone through about 6 major transitions.

Front 11

1. Federalists V. Jeffersonian Republicans (1796-1832)

Back 11

Original supporters of federal system v. jefferson a federalist who identified wtih farmers

Front 12

2. Democrats v. whigs 1832-1860

Back 12

jackson, supporter of small farmer vs. conservatives reacting to against him for values

Front 13

3. Republicans v. Democrats 1860-1896

Back 13

new civil rights party of lincoln v. those who supported maximum states rights including full rights to slavery, return of fugitives

Front 14

4. Republicans v. Democrats 1896-1932

Back 14

Supporters of banking, corporate Empire interests vs. those who were for protection for farmers against corporate interests

Front 15

5. Republicans v. Democrats 1932-1992

Back 15

Those against welfare state and for smaller gov (southern strategy) vs. those for welfare state, unions, feminism, and larger gov

Front 16

6. Republicans v. Democrats 1992-now

Back 16

those against welfare state, unions, affirmative action, and feminism vs. those for moderating the welfare state, unions, minority power, and feminists

Front 17

Third parties

Back 17

have shaped elections: Republicans have been the most successful. Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive party was second (88 electoral collge votes). Eugene Debbs Socialits had the longest, significant run short of the republicans (1904-1912). Strom Thurmond's racists States Rights part (1948) George Wallace's racist American Independent party (1968) won 39 and 48 electoral college votes respectively. Presently, the Green party pulls from the democrats voters, and the libertarian pary, from the republicans. The reform party is in disarray. None of these three parties has ever won an electoral college vote.