Congress overrides Obama's veto on 9/11 Bill

Congressional leaders concede changes should be made to 9/11 law Obama vetoed

Summary: The article "Congressional Leaders concede changes should be made to 9/11 law Obama vetoed" discusses the recent decision made by Congress to override President Obama's veto. The 9/11 Victims law allows families affected by 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia for any connections with the 9/11 terrorist attack. Just this Wednesday Congress voted overwhelmingly against Obama, with 97-1 in the Senate and 348-77 in the House, therefore passing the bill. However since then, Obama has responded saying he believes this was a political decision, and does not think the congress members have thought of all the possible consequences. There is now a letter being signed by Senators stating their concerns, and suggesting that they may possibly change parts of the law. If Congress wants to create some amendments to this newly passed law, they must act soon to protect the United States.

Connection: According to many senators, Obama did not share many of his concerns until after Congress had made their decision to override the veto. This is an issue regarding the executive branch's involvement in legislature. The executive branch is notoriously known for being uninvolved in Congress, creating many gaps between the two branches' ideas and hurting our government as a whole. 

Questions: If Obama (or another member in the executive branch on his behalf) had spoken to Congress and shared his concerns before the votes to override his veto, would the outcome be different now?Should the executive branch be more involved with Congress overall?Will the 9/11 Victims Law have serious consequences on our country?

Do Presidential Debates Actually Influence Elections?

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-presidential-debates/do-presidential-debates-impact-election-outcomes-n653801

Summary: In NBC’s article “Do Presidential Debates Impact Election Outcomes,” the author, Dante Chinni, argues that presidential debates really don’t actually influence voters all that much, and instead allow the media to test the candidate’s ability to deal with pressure, or allow the candidates to attack their opponent one last time. Since 1992, the candidate who was leading when they went into the debate ended up winning in the election, except on one occasion, that being 2000. The 1980 presidential debate between Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan is often used as evidence to show that the debates really can influence elections, however; Later analysis of the polls showed that Reagan had a solid lead against Carter since June that year. Because the candidates announce their run for presidency over a year in advance, their images are already solidified and well- known by the public, and voters seeing the candidates on TV is not going to influence them any more than other times they have seen the candidates.

Connection: The presidential debate last Monday night saw record breaking numbers of people tuned in to watch the two highly disliked candidates attack each other. Throughout the course of the race, Clinton has maintained a lead over Trump by a few points, so will the trend continue, and will we see Hillary Clinton as our next president?

Questions: Seeing the trend that the candidate leading going into the debate usually wins the election, how could Trump somehow beat Hillary?

In what way could presidential debates become more influential in elections?

Should we even attempt to make the debates more influential?

1st 2016 Presidential Debate

“Why the 2016 presidential debates really matter”

Summary:      In the article "Why the 2016 Presidential Debates Really Matter",  Julian Zelizer explains the potential impact this year’s debates could have on the electorate.  Beginning on Monday night, candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will take control of national television in a series of debates that is likely to be heated and of more importance than usual for three main reasons.  Political experts thought that Trump should have fallen behind in the polls long ago, and yet it is still a close tie between him and a woman with experience, demonstrating that the electorate is not voting according to traditional standards.  In addition, the sheer number of voters the debates will likely reach thanks to social media should increase the influence the debates have.  Both candidates have previously demonstrated extreme skill of controlling the cameras, and thus the debates will likely be an incredibly lively and riveting performance to win over voters for November, making these debates more momentous than usual because of their ability to swing the election.  

Connection:      As the November elections approach, voters must make an effort to be educated on the policies and character of the candidates.  The countdown has began and it is up to the public to decide who is the best choice for the presidency. These debates will serve as a current example of how our government functions and runs the election process for the executive branch.  

Questions:

Will this debate be taken seriously or will it turn into a catfight as candidates try to slash each other?

Do these debates actually have any power to swing votes or is the electorate already set in voting for their party candidate?

What role will the media play in these debates in comparison to past years?

Ending the Abuse of Filibustering

                 

       

   http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/mark-mellman/83309-a-proposal-to-end-abuse-of-filibuster

Summary:      In the article "A Proposal to End Abuse of the Filibuster",  Mark Mellman explores the history of party relationships and explains the current increase in polarization. Until recently, the Senate rarely simply refused to act. Filibustering was hardly used and only in extreme cases. Even during the many  controversial decisions in the 60s such as the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War, no Senate term produced more than 7 filibusters. In 1986, one filibuster lasted for 23 hours and 30 minutes to stall debate on a military debate, the second longest in US history. The article proposes that the only way to limit this abuse is to only allow parties in Congress to filibuster a certain number of times. In this way, Congress would be able to keep its tradition while restricting its misuse.

Connection:      The debate over the use of filibustering n Congress has been brought to the forefront of the publics attention due to the gridlock in Congress and the increasing polarization between the political parties. As the parties have grown farther apart, filibustering has become more and more common, to the point where it is blatantly being abused. It has slowed the congressional process to a snail's pace, making it largely unproductive.

Questions:

Has the use of filibustering contributed to the gridlock in Congress?

What is the value in allowing congressmen/women to filibuster (if there is any)?

Should filibustering be banned?

Delays in Congress

Congressional talks on Zika, government funding inch forward by Ted Barrett and Deirdre Walsh, CNN

  

Summary:

            In their article “Congressional talks on Zika, government funding inch forward,” Ted Barrett and Deirdre Walsh discuss the ongoing debate in Congress over the Zika bill that would fund the fight against the Zika virus that is currently spreading in the U.S. Congress is having difficulty passing this crucial bill due to partisan polarization. The Democrats recently blocked the bill from passing because the Republicans added a provision prohibiting funds in the bill from going to Planned Parenthood. Other interest groups and agencies also want to add their own provisions to the bill that would address their interests; for example, environmental groups are concerned about damage caused by the pesticides that are used to kill Zika-carrying mosquitos. Other non-Zika related issues, such as gun control and abortion, are being brought up in the debate over the Zika bill, thus causing greater gridlock. Regardless, it is crucial that Congress comes to a decision soon or else the federal government could shut down.

Connection:

            The long-lasting debate and stalemate over the Zika bill in Congress reflects the strong partisan polarization in the U.S. today. This polarization is leading to an increase in policy gridlock, thus rendering Congress ineffective in dealing with extremely important and urgent issues.

Questions:

1. Is Congress effective?

2. Does Congress’s actions accurately reflect the interests of the majority?

3. Who does Congress represent?