State of the Union Address - January 12, 2016

Article II, Sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution

"The President shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

Pretty vague, huh?

Tuesday, January 12th, 2016, President Barack Obama will give his seventh and final State of the Union Address (his speech in 2009, given in the first month of his presidency doesn't count as an official SOTU).

In the article provided in class, you read a little about the history of the SOTU address.  A Brief History of the State of the Union Address from Mental Floss is an interesting read that will give you more information about his this even has developed over time.  Pay close attention to the precedents set (especially by Washington, Jefferson, and Wilson), because the ambiguity of constitutional requirement meant that Presidents have some flexibility.

Clearly, television has fundamentally changed how the SOTU is delivered.  TV has also shifted the role of the speech in U.S. politics.  While it used to be a speech (or letter) directed to Congress, television makes the speech more directed toward the American people in the presence of Congress.  Check out these memorable State of the Union moments (Washington Post) and these memorable speeches (NBC).  One thing you may notice is that in recent speeches, it is not always the speech itself that gets all the media attention, but things like guests of honor or the behavior of attendees (like this infamous shout from Rep. Wilson).

After you watch the speech, write a reaction and post it as a comment below.  (Hint: write it in a document and then copy/paste.)  In your reaction, respond to some or all of the topics below:

• Topics : Were the issues predictable?  Did any of his topics, ideas, or opinions surprise you?
• Persuasiveness : Did you find Obama to be generally persuasive?  On what topics was he most persuasive; on what topics was he least persuasive?  Explain why you think so.
• What did you think of all the "pomp and circumstance?" (applause procedures, etc).
• Effect : Do you think this speech will have any effect on the congressional or national agenda?
• What did you think of the Republican response?

Also, please post a reply to at least 1 other student to further discuss the issues raised.

Voter ID Laws and Civil Rights

States affected by the Civil Rights Act of 1965
(and therefore the SCOTUS decision of 2013)

In the summer of 2013, the Supreme Court -- in a 5-4 decision -- struck down section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional.  This key provision, when it was in effect, subjected districts
with a history of discrimination in voting (particularly the Deep South) to additional oversight by the Department of Justice.  The conservative decision, in short, said that the formula determining which districts required additional oversight was outdated.  The liberal perspective holds that the VRA is still critical in preventing discrimination at the polls.

States that has implemented voter ID
or other laws to restrict voting

This SCOTUS decision made it easier for many states to pass "voter id bills," which have become the center of the current debate regarding discrimination at the polling place.  Across the nation, states with Republican leadership are passing laws that require voters to show picture ID on election day.  The Republican rationale is that Voter ID bills, like the one passed in Wisconsin, will prevent in-person voter fraud.  The Democratic response has been that the bills are a supposed solution without a real answer.  They assert that in-person voter fraud is not a major problem, and that instead these bills are designed to suppress the votes of poor people, minorities, the elderly (least likely to have a driver license), young people and students (most likely to move and therefore not have a current ID) and women (most likely to change their name) -- all of whom are statistically likely to support Democrats.  Some Republicans have referenced how these bills can also be understood as strategies to decrease Democratic voter turnouts, as demonstrated by Pennsylvania Representative Turzai (R), and more recently by Governor Chris Christie.

As you can see, we have a significant difference in the way the two parties view the situation.  The core difference is that Republicans tend to believe the biggest problem is preventing voter fraud; while Democrats believe the biggest problem is people who should be allowed to vote being denied their right to do so.

What do you think? (Due by Monday, 11/9)

• Read up on several perspectives about the voter ID bill in Wisconsin (which was first implemented in the Tuesday election) and similar bills around the nation.  Just to get you started, here is a conservative editorial (WSJ), and here is a liberal argument (Mother Jones), but you should also look elsewhere (please share sources).
• Keep in mind that finding valid statistics is really difficult in this case, as each side uses different studies (not to mention most of the debate is theoretical and doesn't often discuss the statistical frequency of fraud).  Having said that, this article (ABCnews) takes a non-partisan look at each side's view of the numbers.
• Post a comment to this post recording your thoughts on voter ID bills or responding to the thoughts of your classmates.  Are these bills discriminatory or simply good governance?  Are they a political strategy or necessary measures?  Is requiring a voter ID requirement a new form of poll tax (see Twenty-Fourth Amendment)?  What evidence jumps out at you as most influential in shaping your opinion of these bills?

First Draft of History: Edward Snowden

How should American view Edward Snowden?

Using the following resources to support your opinion (and feel free to use others, but please link them so others can check your source if they intend to comment), post your feelings about how Americans should view Edward Snowden.

The New York Times has an entire page dedicated to this debate, with several links to each perspective.  The Week has an article that also deals with both sides of the debate.  PBS Newshour, handled this question by hosting a debate between Daniel Ellsberg and Michael Mukasey.

Jeffrey Toobin contends that Snowden is no hero, while the ACLU considers him an important whistleblower in calling attention to the government overstepping its rights by invading the privacy of American citizens.  Daniel Ellsberg, the man famous (infamous?) for leaking the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times during the Vietnam War, naturally relates to Snowden and considers his actions to be service to the nation.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

An excellent story for teaching about congressional agencies... one day too late.

As NPR reports, the CBO's projection of Obamacare's impact on jobs is not pretty.  Remember, the CBO's job is to project the cost of legislation Congress has passed or is considering.

As we have discussed in class, both parties have a tendency to use their own numbers to support their claims.  What this story also highlights is that even the CBO numbers -- which, despite coming from a non-partisan, official congressional agency -- are often politicized.

Its interesting: While Republicans have recently had a tendency to dismiss the CBO numbers (or outright attack it), they will surely be using these new numbers in their 2014 campaigns.  Likewise, while the Democrats have recently been using CBO numbers to claim Obamacare victories, the White House is now downplaying and disputing the recent report.

Of course, while "non-partisan" and "official" numbers are often better than the alternatives, that doesn't mean they are always correct.

Farm Bill Expected to Pass

I recommend checking out this NPR story and this CBS story on the farm bill that is expected to pass.  As we talked about in class, the 5-year farm bills are often "christmas tree bills" full of earmarks.  This one will be no different.

Bias in the Shutdown Coverage

Later in this course, we will examine the role of the American media in politics.  The government shutdown, however, provides an interesting and important case study in media presentation that just can't wait.  I recommend this NPR story:

Monitoring For Signs of Bias in Media's Shutdown Reporting (Morning Edition, NPR, 10-4-13)

How have the broadcasts and webpages you follow been presenting the news?  Try to check out the "other side" -- you'll notice an entirely different take on the "blame game."

A Government Shutdown?

As you are likely aware, we currently have a divided government (the presidency and Senate are held by Democrats and the House is controlled by Republicans).  Divided government inevitably results in showdowns like the one currently going on in Washington.  By October 1 -- the beginning of the fiscal year for the national government -- the Congress (both houses) have to pass a spending bill to keep the government operational.  While there are many areas of agreement, there is one fight that persists in the current showdown:

The House of Representatives passed a bill that funds the government, but removes all funding for Obamacare.  Essentially, they hope to repeal Obamacare without literally repealing Obamacare.

In the Senate, passed a "clean" funding bill, which does not defund Obamacare.  This was an expected outcome because the Democrats clearly had the votes and clearly would not defund Obamacare, but that didn't stop Republican Senator Ted Cruz from dominating headlines over a "faux" filibuster protest against the passage.

This is a classic showdown in which both sides are hoping to win the political battle, but -- presumably -- neither side really wants the battle to end in a government shutdown.  Its basically a game of political chicken.

Consider the potential result if a government shutdown really does occur.  The Washington Post has an overview of previous shutdowns that actually happened.  AP speculates what it might look like this time around:

Read up about the battle online (if this is news to you, I recommend starting here) and decide for yourself:

• Are the Republicans out of line to attach a defunding Obamacare demand to a crucial spending bill, or should the Democrats take up the bill as the House passed it?  
• What other motives do you see in this political fight?
• What should current Congressmen have learned for past government shutdown battles?
• Do you think the shutdown will actually occur?  Why or why not?

Sorry I forgot to clarify how to actually do this assignment in class: Respond to some or all of the above discussion questions (or record other thoughts) in a "comment" to this post.  (I think you should be able to use your school google account.)