The discussion that I watched was the roundtable on “Meet the Press” on MSNBC. The topic of the discussion was the ability of the Vice Presidential candidates to capture the American people and convince them of their adequacy and ability to work as VP. Two of the key figures that participated in the discussion were Peggy Noonan and David Yepsen, two political analysts and writers. The discussion was a prime example of impartial, civil dialogue. During the discussion, Peggy Noonan said, “She convinced the American people that she was capable of coming forward and simply debating. She showed that she is a woman of great and natural competence of the “show business” of politics…I feel increased concern about her “populist” approach…She says she is the “Joe six-pack.” Would Lincoln say, “I represent the backwoods type?” Would Roosevelt say “The New York aristocracy deserves another moment in the sun, vote for me!” Populism as a tactic is justified often in politics. “I need this program, people want it!” and “We’re the good guys, they’re the bad guys,” are not the good approaches to take.” After that, David Yepsen said “People are concerned about the economy, a job, a future, putting gas in your tank, and paying off your house.” I learned that Palin initially bolstered the GOP nomination, but week by week solid republican states are becoming more of a tossup both because of her weak ability to defend claims and argue points and because of the recession and the economic woes.Ex
Examining Contemporary Political Culture Sunday, Oct 5 2008
Uncategorized 10:27 pm
This political discussion that I examined occurred on “Meet the Press,” a television show on MSNBC. The topic of the discussion was Obama’s and McCain’s views on the economy, and the effects of such views on the American people and Main Street. The people that participated in the discussion were GOP strategist Mike Murphy and Democratic strategist Paul Begala. Throughout, the two men discussed the points of interest in a civil dialogue, only demonstrating what they would advise the different candidates to do in response to television advertisements and false claims. From the discussion, I learned that more people are considering Obama a better candidate because of his persistence on discussing the issues of the economy. As Mike Murphy pointed out, McCain is somewhat ignoring the issue and not expressing his plans to fix the crisis as effectively as he should or as noticeably as Obama is. Begala expressed that McCain cannot reinvent himself as someone who knows something about the economy. All in all, the discussion enlightened me on the economic issues at hand and the positions of the two candidates.
Tenth Amendment: Powers Reserved for the States and the People Friday, Sep 26 2008
Uncategorized 4:54 pm
The Tenth Amendment – the last amendment in the Bill of Rights – limits the power of the federal government. Essentially, this amendment states that all the powers not spelled out in the constitution for the federal government are left for the state government to decide. This amendment is significant because it promotes federalism in our government system and allows states to choose what freedoms or limitations they want to have. It also protects American’s by denying state’s to sell their driver information without the driver’s consent, an important aspect in many American’s lives to prevent identification theft. When discussing this case, the Supreme Court faced such individual rights as privacy and the tenth amendment, as well as such national issues as federalism and the commerce clause. This case had to decide the limits of privacy in American’s lives and the limits that states face in adhering to Congress’ passed legislature. Without this amendment, the federal government could gain too much power and would deny peoples of certain regions the rights that they seek.
Reno v. Condon
- Attorney General Condon
In 2000, Congress passed the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) in an effort to protect drivers from having personal information passed out or sold. Departments of Motor Vehicles required drivers to submit personal information, and this personal information can sometimes be transferred to alternate sources (one instance ultimately led to a woman’s murder). Because of this, Congress utilized its power in our federal government to protect all drivers from having information transferred without the driver’s consent. In that year, South Carolina, led by Attorney General Condon, filed suit against the act, 
claiming that it dismissed the powers of the states and suppressed federalism in our government. Prior to submission to the Supreme Court, “The District Court concluded that the DPPA was incompatible with the principles of federalism, granted summary judgement for the State, and permanently enjoined the DPPA’s enforcement against the State. In affirming, the Court of Appeals also concluded that the DPPA violated the constitutional principles of federalism” (The Oyez Project). The case first went to the Court of Appeals, where they voted in favor of the state. Finally, the U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno (see picture) asked the Supreme Court to revisit the decisions that the Court of Appeals had made. Did the DPPA take away too much power from the state of South Carolina, or was it a necessary act that protected drivers everywhere?
The Supreme Court overrode and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, claiming that Congress did in fact have the power to regulate instate commerce and could enact the DPPA according to the Tenth Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, the Commerce Clause, federalism, and privacy. After the unanimous (9-0) vote, Chief Justice Rehnquist said, “The DPPA regulates the States as the owners of databases. It does not require the South Carolina Legislature to enact any laws or regulations, and it does not require State officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes regulating private individuals.” The power for Congress to regulate such interstate commerce is spelled out in Article I of the Constitution. New York Times reported, “[The Supreme Court] invalidated four federal laws, continuing on the path of subjecting the exercise of congressional authority to close and skeptical scrutiny.”
I do agree with Congress’ exercise of its powers through Article I. However, a dissenting opinion states, “…rather than enacting a law of general applicability that incidentally applies to the States, Congress passed a law that, for all intents and purposes, applies only to the States” (FindLaw.com). At first glance, this claim seems feasible, but Congress passed the DPPA because of the incidents that had occurred without it (i.e. the murder of the woman that promoted the passing of the DPPA). This case ruling reflects the principles of federalism, protects personal privacy, and complies with the Commerce Clause that denotes the powers of Congress with respect to interstate commerce.
Sources:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0528_0141_ZS.html
http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar34.htm
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/uscircs/4th/972554p.html
http://graphics.nytimes.com/images/2001/03/16/national/16home.1.jpg
http://a.abcnews.com/images/GMA/nm_janet_reno_071030_mn.jpg
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902EFD91439F931A35754C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&&scp=3&sq=%22reno%20v.%20condon%22&st=cse
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E4D6143AF930A25752C0A9669C8B63&scp=2&sq=%22reno%20v.%20condon%22&st=cse
The Oyez Project, Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000), 29 Sept 2008 <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_98_1464/>
