Impeach Bush

Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska wants to impeach President Bush. He is one of a group of lawmakers angered over war policy. He is calling for removal of Bush. Hagel is bothered by Bush's ignoring of congressional and public opinions. Hagel wishes to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. Congress holds power to impeach the president.
The reason why I choose this article is because I strongly believe that war is not the solution. War brings death, destruction, and hate. The Iraq War has been drawn out far enough. It is time for our troops to finally come home, where they belong.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17786158/

Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research

On Wednesday, President Bush vetoed legislation that would have allowed the use of federal funds to support embryonic stem cell research. Proponents say embryonic stem cells offer the best chance of treating or curing many debilitatying or fatal diseases. But Bush argues that research on the cells effectively destroys a humans life.
When he announced the veto, he said he "took heart from studies released this month that suggested it may be possible to grow stem cells other than human embryos"

i chose this article because it shows a perfect example of checks and balances and how the system works. it shows a shift of the flow of the powers. in my opinion, I would support stem cell research and i think it could be a great advantage for our country.

Bush again vetoes embryonic stem cell research bill

On Wednesday June 20, President George W Bush vetoed a bill, which asks for embryonic stem cell research funding. He said this bill clearly violates the sacredness of human life. President bush is a devout Christian. He stated that using human embryos for scientific research, which often involves their destruction, conflicts with his religious beliefs. Consequently President Bush asked scientists to consider other alternatives, because "Our conscious calls us to pursue the possibilities of science in a manner that respects human dignity and upholds our moral values." Nevertheless, his rejection of the legislation doesn’t prevent private money to be used for embryonic stem cell research.

I personally do not support embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells are primitive cells from early stage embryos, which is capable of developing into almost every tissue of the body. Although stem cell research is a great idea to benefit the US in many ways, using embryos for the research is clearly immoral and unethical.

Bush Faces Eavesdropping Subpoena

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6247404.stm

Coming into effect in 2005 after the 9/11 terrorist attack, the secret spying programme enabled the government to look over the oversea e-mails and telephone communications of people who are suspected as terrorists. The Senate Judicary Committee blame the White House, Vice-President Dick Cheney, the National Security Council and the Department of Justice for violating the citizens' right to privacy. President argues taht his wartime powers enables him to track his citizens and spy on them.

I agree with the Senate Judiciary Committee that the spying programme should stop. America, which focuses so much on the freedom of individuals, is violated by the president's program. Bush argues that since it is still the wartime period, he has the right to violate their rights. However, I think the time has passed enough for Bush to stop talking about war and move on.

"Bush faces eavesdropping subpoena"

The Judicial branch, US Senate Judiciary Committee, has targeted the White House, Vice President Dick Cheney and the National Security Souncil and the Department of Justice for overruling Americans' civil liberties. The White House does not have the authority to have monitor the "overseas e-mail and telephone communications of Americans susepcted of ties to terrorists." Thus, the Senate Judiciary Committee demands the executive powers to give up the documents relating to the issue. However, the executive powers had refused "a series of request to realse the documents."

I absolutely agree with the Senate Judiciary Committee. The executive powers have no right to monitor e-mails, telephones communication just by stating that the White House has the authority to suspect any ties regarding terrorism. In addition, it violates our rights to civil liberites.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6247404.stm

Senate Kills Travel Requirement for Illegal Immigrants

The senate dismissed the travel requirement for all adult illegal aliens to return home for a short time in order to gain legal citizenship in this country. The bill giving possibility to over 12 million immigrants was denied by the senates vote of 53-45. An amendment presented by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, was too getting voted on. This amendment presented an idea that only those immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for four or more years are eligible to gain rightful citizenship.
http://http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/27/immigration.congress.ap/index.html


I believe that this proposal is a bad idea for many reasons. Many people and businesses in the U.S., ESPECIALLY California depend on illegal immigrants for labor that other people, legal citizens, wouldn't consider doing. If this proposal was to pass, it would not only cripple our economy but may put many small businesses out of business due to the cheap labor that the illegal aliens do.

house fails to override bush's veto

The House on Wednesday failed to muster enough votes to override President Bush’s veto of a bill to expand federally funded embryonic stem cell research. Backers of the bill, approved by the House a year ago with a strong bipartisan margin, and the Senate on Tuesday, did not get the two-thirds vote necessary to override Bush’s first in more than five years in the White House. Bush on Wednesday rejected the legislation that could have multiplied the federal money going into embryonic stem cell research, making an emotionally charged life-and-death issue the first veto of his presidency."This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said in announcing his veto. "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect.""Mr. President, we will not give up," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "We will continue this battle."Bush was making good on a promise he made in 2001 to limit federally funded embryonic research to the stem cell lines that had been created by the time.Supporters of more research were not expected to muster the two-thirds majorities needed in both houses of Congress to overturn the president's veto."If we are to find the right ways to advance ethical medical research, we must also be willing when necessary to reject the wrong ways," his message said. "For that reason, I must veto this bill.

I disagree with bush and his veto because I do not think that this research would promote more abortions. It is only using cells from life that has already been killed. There should have been enough votes by the house to override his veto.

Senate Approves Immigration Bill

Yesterday, the Senate passed a bill that deals with immigration over the Mexican-American border. Many do not believe that the bill will get passed by the House of Representatives because their politics greatly differ from the Senate's. They believe that Congress should stay away from labor law reforms until illegal immigration is reduced greatly. Both Democrats and Republicans believe the only way a House-Senate agreement will be reached is with large involvement from the President. Some believe the bill will have to be completely rewritten in a House-Senate committee before it passes. I personally believe that this issue cannot be dealt with in such a broad fashion. I think there are individual needs that should be considered with each case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501548.html

BUSH VETOES STEM CELL RESEARCH (pt. 394767)

Thursday, June 21st, President Bush vetoed a bill (the third in his term) which attempted to expand federal funding for stem cell research. His arguement was that scientific advantages allowed similar studies to be done without destroying human embryos. When he wrote to congress he said, "The Congress has sent me legislation that would compel American taxpayers, for the first time in our history, to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos," and accused them of crossing an ethical boundary. Many people argue that he is withholding support for scientists who may soon make breakthroughs in science to keep the support of Christians and others who consider human embryos to be equal with humans.

Although I personally believe that stem-cell research is a positive thing, it is hard to say whether or not Bush did the right thing. It seems that the whole country is divided on this matter, so obviously the president would have a hard time choosing to veto or pass this bill, for fear of losing support from a good half of his fan-base. And although George Bush is somewhat of an idiot, you have to wonder if this is only his third veto in term, can you understand his point? Personally, I am torn on this matter, but it seems both legislation and the president need to find out what is best for their country and move on from there.

BIG FAT SUBPOENA!!!

So basically, president Bush is being subpoenaed by the U.S. Senate due to controversy surrounding his spy games. It has been alligated that premier Bush unlawfully phone-tapped suspected terrorists without any warrant, which we all know to be unconstitutional (guess George didn't get the memo). Now the senate has been questioning the president about these outrageously unlawful acts.According to the Senate committee chairman Patrick Leahy "Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection," Oh what a suprise, the President is once again failing to own up to anything he says.

I think that this show of power by the Senate to regulate the executive branch is exactly what the Bush administration needs as a reminder that there are consequences to infriging upon the most sacred American documents of ALL TIMES!!! This subpoena is a healthy excersize in checks and balances and is an example of the success of our three branched system of government. God bless America.

Article

Senate Smashes the Proposal of Illegal Immigrantts Returning Home for Green Cards

Today Wednesday June 27th, 2007 the Senate denied the proposal to require all illegal immigrants to return to their homelands in order to qualify for permanent status in the U.S. The vote was 53-45 which shut down the possibility of over 12 million illegal immigrants gaining green cards. This bill is actually struggling due to both the left and the right. "Conservatives call the measure too lenient toward unlawful immigrants, while liberals say it could rip apart families and doom guest workers to exploitation at the hands of unscrupulous employers." Also getting voted on was an amendmet that would allow only those who had been in the country for at least four years to gain lawful status by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/27/immigration.congress.ap/index.html

I personally think that the current proposal is a bad a idea for a number of reasons. For one it would take years to weed out all of the illegal immigrants, which would also slow production, especially in Southern California. Not only do illegal immigrants make up a huge part of the hard labor population, but they also allow for many companies to stay afloat. i can also see it taking many years after for these illegal immigrants actually re-entering the country, which would defeat their purpose for coming here. In the end I believe they should legalize these immigrant's citizenship, but should go about it in a different fashion.

Bush getting REJECTED by the Senates

Although President George W. Bush had hope to get the support from the Republican senates for the Iraq War policy, he had miserably failed. His wishes were completely rejected when two prominent Senate Republicans called for Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. troops. Senate Richard Lugar, a past Bush supporter and the Iraq war, called for a change of direction towards the war by coming the floor of the Senate to call for the U.S. to begin withdrawing troops as soon as possible. Other republicans also supported Senate Richard Lugar, people such as Senate George Voinovich and John Warner who stated that other Republicans would make similar calls to end the war.

This article caught my attention because it actually affects my life. One of my friend has to go to Iraq in December if the war doesn't end by then. This war has been going on for years and years now and to me, it seems useless. I think that President Bush should call an end to the war and definitely start withdrawing the U.S. troops immediately. It just only seems like he doesn't want the war to end because if it continues he wouldn't have to give up the spot as a president yet.

Senate Resurrects Immigration Bill

On, June 27, it has been announced that the senate, the White House and Republican and Democratic architects who assembled this bill, is ready to revive this issue against the GOP . Last month, this exact bill was opposed by the House GOP with a 114-23 vote against the senate. The Senate and White House has predicted that by the end of this week, the bill shall be approved.
In there efforts to get this bill passed, the GOP has constantly used stalling tactics to prevent approving this bill. For example, reading the 373 paged package to stall. The result of this issue would not be known until the end of the week, where numerous amounts of debate and voting will take place.
This Bill is to create temporary job opportunities, strengthen border securtities, and to keep illegal immigrants out of the U.S. Bush continues to limit the ammount of illegal immigration present and until the final vote, this bill is not in place.
This bill is not a high priority right now and i believe that Bush and his administration should use the time to do something more constructive such as possibly tending to the war in Iraq, and the situation at hand over there. Although this is an important issue, there are more important issues going on and this can be evaluated in the near future. Illegal immigration to me can never be "fully regulated" because people can attempt to enter the U.S. in numerous ways.
For more on this issue please visit http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/27/immigration.congress.ap/index.html to gain more information.

Bush's Immigration Fight

The concept of immigration has been very important and urgent during the term of President Bush and now that his time is limited, he is working to get a bill through the House and Senate about immigration. Bush has personally lobbied in the Senate for his immigration bill to pass, as they have stalled on making a decision. Two of his Cabinet members, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, have been active supporters trying to convince Congress to ratify Bush's bill. Because of the active lobbying that has been occurring in the Senate, they determined on Tuesday to revive the bill. Since this decision, the President has been trying to convince senators to favor the bill. Bush is confident that this bill will pass with a majority vote in the Senate, as he states that "When successful in the Senate, we'll be reconvening to figure out how to get the bill out of the House," as his game plan.

I believe that its important for President Bush to finally accomplish this bill at the end of his term. As immigration is such a difficult topic to grasp for many Americans, the approval of Bush's bill will leave a lasting mark before he leaves his office. I find it very interesting that Bush would go as far as to lobby for his own bill in the Senate for its passage. It's not very often that the President proposes a bill and fights for its ratification. Therefore, the passage of it in the House will show the dedication Bush has for this topic.

Bush vetoes embryonic stem cell funding -jane

Bush vetoes embryonic stem cell funding
As he rejects such a bill for the second time, the president calls for study of tissue that would not 'destroy human life.'
By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff WriterJune 21, 2007
WASHINGTON — President Bush on Wednesday vetoed legislation that would have allowed the use of federal funds to support embryonic stem cell research, the second consecutive year he has blocked such a bill. Proponents say embryonic stem cells — which can turn into cells for many different kinds of human tissue — offer the best chance of treating or curing many debilitating or fatal diseases.
But opponents, like Bush, argue that research on the cells, which can be derived from human embryos created during in-vitro fertilization treatments, effectively destroys a human life.In announcing the veto, Bush said he took heart from studies released this month that suggested it may be possible to grow stem cells from sources other than human embryos. "Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical — and it is not the only option before us," Bush said in remarks in the White House's ornate East Room after the veto. "Researchers are now developing promising new techniques that offer the potential to produce pluripotent stem cells without having to destroy human life."


In my opinion, i think that stem cell research is a great idea and can help the United States Greatly. You could replace vital organs of a persons who's heart-for example had been destroyed, you could regrow limbs, and could help millions of people.

Senate Republicans block union bill

On Tuesday, the Republican Senates prevented a bill regarding workers and unions. The bill was intended to make organizing workers for unions easier at nonunion workplaces. The bill would require employers to negotiate with unions if more than half of the workers were in the union. By forcing the employers to recognize unions, the unions would have more authority to protest against the employers. The bill was seen as a threat to the rich from the middle class. The Democrats favored the bill. The House of Representatives passed the bill on March 1. The number in favor was 43 votes fewer than the 2/3 necessary to override the veto that was expected from President Bush.

I believe this is a difference in benefits to each class. Most Democrats are part of the middle class therefore would obviously favor the bill. Republicans are usually rich and therefore would suffer if this bill is passed. Since there are more Democrats, the bill was passed even though the Republicans attempted to stall it.
I chose this article because this is a example of the passing of a bill and the debate that is in it.

2 GOP senators break with Bush on Iraq

Ohio Senator George Voinovich and Indiana Senator Richard G. Lugar, both Republicans, pleaded to President Bush that the U.S. military involvement in Iraq be ceased as soon as possible. Lugar, the former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee mentioned that the relation of national security interest with the Middle East had decreased by this war. He also mentioned that, “we must not abandon our mission, but we must begin a transition where the Iraqi government and its neighbors play a larger role in stabilizing Iraq.” Voinovich also mentioned that stability of Iraq can be maintained without military involvement. Not only Democrats, but Republicans are beginning to show signs that they desire the army to withdraw from Iraq. White House Spokesman simply responded to Congress and the people that the matter is in the process so the result should be waited patiently.

I think the troops should be pulled out from Iraq because not just soldiers, but many innocent Americans such as journalists and reporters died due to this war. As Voinovich mentioned, there should be ways that Iraq can attain stability without the U.S. military involvement. The U.S. focused too much on Iraq and it is time for us to take care of ourselves first from war.

It’s sometimes not easy to understand what follows the decisions of President Bush regarding the war in Iraq. Some said he puts the army in Iraq to root democracy there by preventing civil war. Others stated that by putting the army in Iraq, Bush satisfies and pleases the sophisticated arm production companies. There is also a rumor that Bush owns a private property of oil, where oil is considerably taken from Iraq to the U.S., so his eyes may be on that benefit. Others also said to this matter that he does that as the “Big Stick Policy” to prove power of the United States to the world. I chose this article because I sometimes wonder the priorities and values of President Bush. I think President Bush concluded his decisions on this war through various ethical and beneficial concerns that collided within him.

Union Bill Being Blocked

Senate Republicans blocked the organized labor's top legislative goal this year. It was a bill that was designed to make it easier for unions to organize workers at nonunion workplaces.The resulting tally was 51-48, which left the Democrats in short of nine votes because they needed 60 to cut off the continuous debate in the Senate and bring the bill to a vote. Before in March 1, The House passed the bill by 241-185. The number 241 was 43 votes fewer than the two-thirds necessary to override the veto expected from President Bush.The bill would have required employers to recognize unions if more than half of eligible workers signed union cards. The bill the Senate stopped on Tuesday was written to help not only workers, but union bosses, who have watched hopelessly as union membership in the United States has decreased.Democrats vowed that they are not going to let this bill die.

I feel that Republican senators do not understand the true economic concerns of America's middle-class families. They are blocking chances and opportunities of working families.They are not caring about the union bosses, even if they are suffering from the decreasing membership. Through the blocking of this bill, the earning power of men is decreasing as well. They are only continuing to vote for the special interests and to vote against American workers, which is just wrong. I chose this article to see what is going on in our economy and to be informed of the issues of unions.

House Passes Security Spending

On July 15, 2007, the Homeland Security Department Appropriations Bill was passed through the House granting security along the border of the United States and Mexico. The bill, costing a large $36 billion, funded the Secure Fence Act, which was proposed to build hundreds of additional miles of fencing along the southern border. As a response to the bill, President George Bush threatened to veto it because the proposed project exceeded his intended funding of $1 billion. The Republicans stated that the suggested amount of money from the President was illogical to build the 854-mile and double-layer fence, which was never funded, although being authorized by Congress last year.

The vetoes of the President seem to irritate me especially when particular projects are approved and not taken into action later on. As the article states, last year, Congress approved to authorize the construction of the long fence to secure the borders of the United States and Mexico, but did not distribute any funding since. I believe the President should set a more reasonable budget for the 854 mile wall, much more than $1 billion dollars. President Bush should keep the mission of the Secure Fence Act, and not avoid the problem with his only interest of associating the U.S. in war.

Amending environmental laws to help business

In Oregon, a battleground state that the Bush-Cheney ticket had lost by less than half of 1 percent, drought-stricken farmers and ranchers were about to cut off from the irrigation water that kept their cropland and pastures green. First Cheney looked for a way around the law and aides. Because of Cheney;s intervention, the government reversed itself and let the water flow in time to save the 2002 growing season, declaring that there were no threat to the fish. It was Cheney's insistence on easing air pollution controls, that led Christine Todd Whitman to resign as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. In April, the Supreme Court rejected two other policies closely associated with Cheney.

With Cheney's encouragement, the administration lifted the ban in 2002, and Hoffman followed up in 2005 by writing a proposal to fundamentally change the way national parks are managed. The Bush administration continues to press for expanded snowmobile access, despite numerous studies showing that the vehicles harm the parks' environment and polls showing majority support for the ban.

Veterans Health Care

On June 23, 2007 The Texas congressman who represents President Bush's home district said Saturday that the administration and Republicans put a higher priority on tax cuts than on veterans' health care.Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, said the House has sent Bush a $64.7 billion spending bill to fund Veterans Affairs. That includes a $6 billion increase for veterans' health care, $3.8 billion more than Bush had requested,"For weeks, the White House budget office threatened to veto this bill, because it was above their request," Edwards said in the Democrats' weekly radio address. "Fortunately, the president finally backed down on his threat to this historic veterans' bill, but only after it was clear that Congress would override a veto."

I agree that veterans should get free health care because most of their health issues were probably caused by war, and because they fought the war because they joined the military voluntarily. And because they joined voluntarily they fought the war for our country so its time to give them something back in return

Bush vetoes embryonic stem cell bill

On Wednesday June 20 president Bush rejected embryotic stem cell legislation. The president said that human embryos should not be destroy of created. Democrats dimissed his veto as moral affront, but republican didn't beause the stem cell research can find more cure for illness. Recently some states and private organizations allow to fund embryotic stem cell research. However, federal limited cells to existed and made restriction.Bush said that also destroying human life in the hopes of saveing human life is not ethical, and it is not the only option before us on stage.

Embryotic stem cell research is not familiar issue but I think Bush should veto this legislation. I am believing that federal government doesn't need to fund stem cell research. Funds that are came from states are enough and I can't morally accept this research. It's good to find cures but the government has to put restrction how deeply scientists can research.

Republicans block bill making it easier to form unions

On Tuesday, June 26, the Senate blocked a bill that would allow the labor union to organize workplaces without a what's called a secret ballot election. Under current labor law, a company can demand a secret ballot election supervised by the federal government after being presented the union cards. By using only a card check system, the companies would enable union organizers to use their knowledge of who did and didn't sign cards to intimidate reluctant workers. As a result, the union proposed a bill that would require employers to recognize unions after being presented union cards signed by a majority of eligible workers on their payrolls. However, democrats were unable to get the 60 votes needed to force consideration of the Employee Free Choice Act, ending organized labor's chance to win its top legislative priority from Congress with a final vote of 51-48.

Personally, I think that the bill proposed by the union is somewhat necessary for the labors. The unions have complained that employers have greater access to workers during secret ballot campaigns and have also claimed that corporate threats, intimidation and eventual firings have become common for union activists. They said that by dragging out the election process, companies often succeed in wearing down union enthusiasm and also added how obstacles to organizing are a major reason union membership has dropped from 20 percent of wage and salary workers in 1983 to 12 percent in 2006.

Judicial branch sides with Executive branch on controversial Guantanamo Bay issue

On February 20, 2007, recent controversies involving the U.S. Court of Appeals have challenged the civilian courts authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay. President Bush pushed the Military Commissions Act through Congress last year to set up a system run by the Defense Department to prosecute terrorism suspects. Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights stresses the arguements that would defy the will of Congress, if accepted, to be a complete dissapointment. Kadidal quotes, "The bottom line is that according to two of the federal judges, the president can do whatever he wants without any legal limitations as long as he does it offshore." Erik Ablin, a spokesman for the Justice Department praised the decision. "The decision reaffirms the validity of the framework that Congress established in the MCA permitting Guantanamo detainees to challenge their detention".
Most criticized by Democrats and civil libertarians was a provision that stripped U.S. courts of the authority to hear arguments from detainees who said they were being held illegally. The law instead authorizes three-officer military panels to review whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the detention. The new provision introduced by Leahy states, "The Military Commissions Act is a dangerous and misguided law that undercuts our freedoms and assaults our Constitution by removing vital checks and balances designed to prevent government overreaching and lawlessness."
The ruling implemented by the federal appeals court gives out the wrong message about justice to U.S. citizens and the international community.

I agree with the opposing side of the official ruling in which denies court access for detainees with cases currently pending. Although the ruling verify's President Bush's anti-terrorism plan enforcing the Military Commissions Act, it can be validated as dangerous and misguiding to a certain extent. The law has proven to undercut our freedoms and condemns our Constitution by ignoring the significance of checks and balances that are specifically designed to limit government power. Traditionally the U.S. government has its foundation and system of checks and balances that includes the three branches. Each one of these entities is interdependent on the other, and this delegate balance is what makes ours the greatest country in the world. Depriving the detainees of critical due process rights by putting the legal burden on detainees contradicts the justice of each citizen and allows indefinite detention of guiltless people without judicial review.

Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Research Bill

On Wednesday June 20, President Bush vetoes an embryonic stem cell research funding bill. This is the third veto in his presidency and the second one that is about stem cell research. Bush also issued an executive order that it is not allowed to do research that would destroy embryos. But many disagree to Bush's veto. Emanuel said that Americans see stem cells as a cure to illnesses. Many say that Bush has to stop vetoing all these bills that would help our country in many ways.

In my opinion, Bush is not a good president. He doesn't realize the things that will be good for our country and the things that do our country no good. He needs to let the scientists do what they can as long as what they're doing isn't against ethics. But the executive order Bush is signing that makes it okay for stem cell research to be tested on "ethically produced" stem cells.

House vote on contraception aid sets up veto

On June 22, 2007, the House of Representatives met on Thursday to vote on whether or not to end a ban on giving birth control to oversea groups who favor abortion. This bill would challenge one of George Bush’s firm beliefs of foreign aid policy and therefore if the bill passes the Senate, our President is most likely going to veto the bill. Representative Nita Lowey, a supporter of the bill, had stated that the bill would help "reduce unintended and high-risk pregnancies and abortions ... and save the lives of mothers". However an opponent to the bill stated that by financially aiding a pro-abortion organization we are basically strengthening the policy of abortion. Although this debate may continue on, President Bush is expected to veto this bill not only to limit the powers of Legislature, but to support his views as the President.

The debate of abortion has been around for a long time and currently I’m not for or against it. Abortion has both its advantages and disadvantages, however, our President’s ability to veto based on his beliefs leaves me to wonder, what would happen if a President’s view and the people’s view collide? I partially agree with George Bush’s expectancy to veto, because a leader must establish firm beliefs in which they fully support, but what were to happen if one of his views opposed the view of the entire nation? As a leader, it is important to strongly articulate his or her views but can a leader reject the entire nation? This instance may never occur; however it just adds to my question: How much power does a President have? I chose this article because it discussed a popular debate between abortions and also gave me a clearer definition of a President’s power.

Contraceptive Aid for Foreigning Organizations Denied

Democrats in Congress were unable to ratify a bill that would give contraceptive aid to foreign organizations to support planned parenthood and reduce unwanted pregnancies, much to their dismay. The advocates believe that by donating aid such as birth control pills and condoms to foreign organizations, the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions would decrease. However, even before voting took place on June 22, 2007, "the White House had threatened a veto if Congress approved a bill with the family-planning provision." Their reason was that it would violate Bush's proposed 2008 budgets regarding dollar limits. However, many responsive Republicans stated that the foreign organizations that the Democrats referred to support the right to abortion, and that itself should not be portrayed in the American belief. On the other hand, Democratic supporters declared that only aid would be given, not money, and were disappointed by the decision.

I believe that the controversy surrounding abortion is very intricate and interesting. This is not a black and white issue, as supporters are lined up on both sides of the discussion. However, it is interesting to see that Bush's administration had already threatened a veto before voting actually took place. This act, an intended check against the proposal, confirms the negative stance of many Republicans, although not all, on the right to abortion. I personally believe that this moral debate, surfaced decades ago, will continue to increase in dispute and as of right now, I do not have a clear cut opinion on this issue.

The Senate Confirms George Bush Nomination of George Wu as a Federal Judge

George Wu was recently confirmed by the United States Senate to the United States District Court. The Asian American community were very excited and pleased with his nomination by the President and his confirmation by the Senate. The Asian Pacific American Bar Association felt that Asians are underrepresented on the federal court. George Wu becomes one of six Asian judges on the federal court.
Federal judges are appointed by the President. This includes District Court Judges, Circuit Court of Appeal Justices and United States Supreme Court Justices. The appointment process is very long. First, the President must nominate a person as a federal judge. Then the person must go through a confirmation process and appear before the United States Senate for questioning. During this process the senate may confirm or reject the President's nominee. This is an example of check and balances. As a Chinese American, I am very happy that both the President and the Senate agreed on George Wu as a federal court judge because it is important that Asians are represented on the federal court.

Bush Threatens to Veto Democrats' Iraq Plan

The Bush Administration has threatened to veto an "aggressive, new [plan] to narrow U.S. involvement in Iraq" that was drawn up by the House Democrats because it "would undermine military efforts". This plan will ultimately end combat duties by Aug. 31, 2008 and could lead to withdrawals from Iraq by the end of the year. Additionally this plan would include "billions of dollars in new spending for military health care" and would have some money for the military operations in Afghanistan
Honestly, I feel that if Bush vetoes this plan it would be a huge mistake. American troops were originally sent to Iraq to find Bush's claimed "weapons of mass destruction"-which were nonexistent-and they should have returned home as soon it was confirmed that there were no W.M.D. This proposed plan by the House Democrats is the right course of action, for it is sparing the U.S. military from countless more unnecessary casualties.

Senate Revisits Immigration Bill

After a three week break, the Senate, with a 64-35 vote, decided to revisit the National Immigration Bill. But it isn't easy to pass, it needs to pass through many obstacles. For example, it needs to pass another vote and has to be approved that it does not violate any other of the 26 amendments. If it gets past senate, it faces opposition from the GOP, which is the Republican Party. House Republicans voted against the bill 114-23. With this amendment, 4.4 billion will be spent on securing the border and establishing a tracking system. Immigrants would have to return to their country and get "Z visas" which would allow them to temporarly live within the United States.

"There will be some who think this is too tough," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham said. "But there are many who believe we won't ever do anything to change the problem."

I believe that the process for getting a bill passed should be hard. If it does pass, I would know that the majority of the people believe that it is the right thing to do. In relation to immigration, it is frustrating at times to make everyone happy, but the end result will be for the greater good and that the checks and balances worked. I feel that immigrants should not have to go back to their previous country to get a "Z visa" as it currently is on the bill, but nothing is permanent and there will be changes.

"I'm trying to talk to those who don't believe that this bill corrects the mistakes of the past, and to those who think we're too tough, it's all perspective and application."

Court rules for funding of issue ads

On the 25th of June 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the rights of businesses and unions to fund advocacy laws nearing an election. Ruling in favor of an anti-abortion group who wished to air ads about candidates within 30 days of the 2004 elections, the Supreme Court sustained a win for the grass roots lobby groups and for the Constitution. Basically, this ruling repealed the effects of the McCain-Feingold bill which forbid interest groups "from spending their treasury money on ads that mention federal candidates 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election." This is a strong example of judicial review. Even when the Bush administration urged the court to ban the ads, the justices agreed that if the ads had been paid for out of the groups' political action commitee, then the ads had a right to be run. Thus, the judicial branch checked the power of the legislative branch and worked independently of the executive branch.

I agree with this article to some extent. While the concept of judicial review may have been correctly practiced and the First Amendment was upheld, I believe that the consequences will be too severe. Interest groups such as the anti-abortion group may air ads not to aid their own candidates, but to subtlely slander their candidate's opponent. This would be a direct violation of the law (as one is allowed to sue another for slander and libel) and would actually hinder political processes; it greatly influences a person's vote. Airing so close to the election, these ads may cloud a voter's judgement with slanderous information and swing their vote to the opposition. Like Madison said in his Federalist Papers #51, some violations of the constitution is necessary. In this case, I believe that this violation is necessary and proper for the well being of the general public.

PLEASE READ!!

Some hints on posting:

1. Do not include giant quotes from the article - just summarize.
2. Give your post a real title that gives the reader an idea about the subject of your article.
3. Only post articles with summaries - not random comments.
4. Keep it brief - 2 paragraphs!
5. See my sample.
6. spellcheck and edit!!
7. Please do not use your actual name for your display name - change ASAP!

This week's theme - June 25rd-June 29th

The theme for this week is: checks and balances OR branches using their powers.

Look for articles that show checks and balances being used in the government. In the sample that I posted the president used a veto that the Congress could not override.

If you have trouble with that theme, look for articles where a branch of government is using one of their major powers. The only limit is that I do not want articles about Congress passing laws because that is the theme for next week.

In July of last year, President Bush vetoed a stem cell research bill that would have eased restrictions against funding programs that used stem cells from embryos created for in vitro fertilization but were not used. The President said that the bill "would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," and that "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect." This was the first time that Bush used a veto during his term as president. Although Congress had more than enough votes to pass the bill, neither house had the necessary 2/3 majority to override the veto.

This has always been a tough issue for me. I won't get into where I stand on stem cell research, but it does make me think about when a veto should be used. In this case, who really should be relied on to measure the moral compass of the nation? The Presidents is elected by the entire nation, whose religious, ethic, moral, and political beliefs spread across the entire spectrum. The members of Congress are elected by a smaller sample, taken only from their states. Shouldn't they know where their constituents stand on an issue? I may not have an answer to this question.