W6 Branching Out - Would Would You Do?

User Generated

QUbbire

Writing

Description

GOV-240 American Government

Week 6 - Branching Out

This assignment has two separate parts:

Part I:

Answer the three DQ’s in 50 words or more

Part II:

Complete the textbook activities listed below. Each response should be a minimum of 75 words or more.

Chapter 13:””What would you do?”

Chapter 14:””What would you do?"

Chapter 16:””What would you do?”

** COMPLETE ASSIGNMENT DETAILS ATTACHED ** ** PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS **

Unformatted Attachment Preview

GOV-240 American Government Week 6 - Branching Out This assignment has two separate parts: Part I: Answer the DQ’s in 50 words or more: How do interest groups impact change within existing laws or when creating new laws? What kinds of actions can interest groups legally take? Think about what types of issues benefit from having interest groups associated with them. Do these groups act altruistically? Do they act for the betterment of corporations or individuals? If you could be part of one of the three branches of the federal government, which would you select and why? Outline three positive and three negative reasons of holding that position, whether it's Speaker of the House, the president, or a Supreme Court justice. Which role's responsibilities appear intriguing? Which appear overwhelming? How do contemporary political candidates use the media, especially social media, to gain public interest, to campaign, and try to affect political change? Does social media usage and knowledge hurt or hinder a candidate? In the future, could the Constitution need to be altered to accommodate social media rights and civil liberties? Part II: Complete the textbook activities listed below. Each response should be a minimum of 75 words or more. - - DETAILS BELOW - Chapter 13:””What would you do?” Chapter 14:””What would you do?” Chapter 16:””What would you do?” CHAPTER 13 What Would You Do? NEWS Memorandum To: U.S. Representative Hope Shelly From: Julie Rosen, legislative aide Subject: The size of the House of Representatives The House can decide how big it wishes to be. When it was created, there was one representative for every 30,000 people. Now each one typically represents more than 600,000 people. In most other democracies, each Member of Parliament represents far fewer than 600,000 people. Doubling the size of the House may be a way of avoiding term limits. Should We Have a Bigger Congress? A powerful citizens’ organization has demanded that the House of Representatives be made larger so that voters can feel closer to their members. Each representative now speaks for about 600,000 people—far too many, the group argues, to make it possible for all points of view to be heard. Arguments for: 1. Doubling the size of the House would reduce the huge demand for constituent services each member now faces. 2. A bigger House would represent more shades of opinion more fairly. 3. Each member could raise less campaign money because his or her campaign would be smaller. Arguments against: 1. A bigger House would be twice as hard to manage, and it would take even longer to pass legislation. 2. Campaigns in districts of 300,000 people would cost as much as ones in districts with 600,000 people. 3. Interest groups do a better job of representing public opinion than would a House with more members. Your decision ◯Increase size of House ◯Do not increase size of House CHAPTER 14 What Would You Do? NEWS Memorandum To: President Lucy Barr From: Office of Legislative Affairs Director Talya Potter Subject: Passing budget bills under divided government With the opposition party in control of Congress, media pundits and other commentators are calling for the president to accept the other party's agenda for the next round of budget bills. Will the White House and Congress Agree on a Budget? In the latest budget battle between the White House and Congress, the pressure on the president to accept a compromise with his political opponents is great, given the looming threat of not only a government shutdown, but also a debt default by the United States for the first time in the history of the American republic. Arguments for: 1. With a reelection battle around the corner, the president cannot afford to get caught up in a budget battle with Congress. 2. The president's ability to gain public support for his agenda is limited, and even increased public support will not improve leverage with Congress. 3. The president should defer to Congress as the primary representative of the people in American politics. Arguments against: 1. American politics is guided too often by campaigns, and the president will build support for reelection by acting presidential—that is, by setting the agenda for the budget and not backing down. 2. The president can build public support through speeches and other forms of communication, and this support can be used as political capital to negotiate with Congress. 3. The president is the only nationally elected official in American politics (other than the vice president), and therefore is responsible for identifying and promoting public priorities, even if this means legislative battles with Congress. Your decision ◯Favor plan ◯Oppose plan CHAPTER 16 What Would You Do? NEWS Memorandum To: Senator Brian Will From: Paul Evan, legislative assistant Re: Internet surveillance In 2007, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) created a secret surveillance program, codenamed PRISM, that—in conjunction with British intelligence agencies—gathered, tracked, and analyzed massive amounts of “private” data (audio and video chats, emails, and more) by directly searching the central servers of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple. NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked classified information about the program to journalists in 2013, and some people questioned whether it intruded upon American civil liberties.65 Should the program be continued? Is the PRISM Internet Surveillance Program Needed? Congress is discussing whether to continue a secret surveillance program that gathers data from Internet companies as part of the federal government's counter-terrorism strategy. Arguments for: 1. Broad data collection is necessary to fight terrorists, who rely almost exclusively on electronic communications. 2. Although the program was secret, some members of Congress were aware of, and approved, the surveillance for national security. 3. In the interest of national security, some civil liberties must be curtailed to keep the United States safe. Arguments against: 1. Data collection will not substitute for human intelligence gathering, and this program diverts much needed resources from the latter. 2. Congress has deferred too much to the executive branch in combating terrorism, and needs to scrutinize surveillance programs much more carefully. 3. While civil liberties are not absolute, especially when national security is at stake, this program is unnecessarily broad in scope, and allows the federal government to collect data without sufficient justification for intruding upon constitutionally guaranteed protections. Your decision ◯Support the program ◯Oppose the program The reasons for the growth in court activism are clear. One is the sheer growth in the size and scope of the government as a whole. The courts have come to play a larger role in our lives because Congress, the bureaucracy, and the president have come to play larger ones. In 1890, hardly anybody would have thought of asking Congress—much less the courts—to make rules governing the participation of women in college sports or the district boundaries of state legislatures. Today such rules are commonplace, and the courts are inevitably drawn into interpreting them. And when the Court decided how the vote in Florida would be counted during the 2000 presidential election, it created an opportunity in the future for scores of new lawsuits challenging election results. The other reason for increased activism is the acceptance by a large number of judges, conservative as well as liberal, of the activist view of the function of the courts. If courts once existed solely to “settle disputes,” today they also exist in the eyes of their members to “solve problems.” Though the Supreme Court is the pinnacle of the federal judiciary, most decisions, including many important ones, are made by the several courts of appeals and the 94 district courts. The Supreme Court can control its own workload by deciding when to grant certiorari. It has become easier for citizens and groups to gain access to the federal courts (through class-action suits, by amicus curiae briefs, by laws that require government agencies to pay legal fees). At the same time, the courts have widened the reach of their decisions by issuing orders that cover whole classes of citizens or affect the management of major public and private institutions. However, the courts can overstep the bounds of their authority and bring upon themselves a counterattack from both the public and Congress. Congress has the right to control much of the courts' jurisdiction, but it rarely does so. As a result, the ability of judges to make law is only infrequently challenged directly. GOV-240 American Government Week 6 - Branching Out This assignment has two separate parts: Part I: Answer the DQ’s in 50 words or more: How do interest groups impact change within existing laws or when creating new laws? What kinds of actions can interest groups legally take? Think about what types of issues benefit from having interest groups associated with them. Do these groups act altruistically? Do they act for the betterment of corporations or individuals? If you could be part of one of the three branches of the federal government, which would you select and why? Outline three positive and three negative reasons of holding that position, whether it's Speaker of the House, the president, or a Supreme Court justice. Which role's responsibilities appear intriguing? Which appear overwhelming? How do contemporary political candidates use the media, especially social media, to gain public interest, to campaign, and try to affect political change? Does social media usage and knowledge hurt or hinder a candidate? In the future, could the Constitution need to be altered to accommodate social media rights and civil liberties? Part II: Complete the textbook activities listed below. Each response should be a minimum of 75 words or more. - - DETAILS BELOW - Chapter 13:””What would you do?” Chapter 14:””What would you do?” Chapter 16:””What would you do?” CHAPTER 13 What Would You Do? NEWS Memorandum To: U.S. Representative Hope Shelly From: Julie Rosen, legislative aide Subject: The size of the House of Representatives The House can decide how big it wishes to be. When it was created, there was one representative for every 30,000 people. Now each one typically represents more than 600,000 people. In most other democracies, each Member of Parliament represents far fewer than 600,000 people. Doubling the size of the House may be a way of avoiding term limits. Should We Have a Bigger Congress? A powerful citizens’ organization has demanded that the House of Representatives be made larger so that voters can feel closer to their members. Each representative now speaks for about 600,000 people—far too many, the group argues, to make it possible for all points of view to be heard. Arguments for: 1. Doubling the size of the House would reduce the huge demand for constituent services each member now faces. 2. A bigger House would represent more shades of opinion more fairly. 3. Each member could raise less campaign money because his or her campaign would be smaller. Arguments against: 1. A bigger House would be twice as hard to manage, and it would take even longer to pass legislation. 2. Campaigns in districts of 300,000 people would cost as much as ones in districts with 600,000 people. 3. Interest groups do a better job of representing public opinion than would a House with more members. Your decision ◯Increase size of House ◯Do not increase size of House CHAPTER 14 What Would You Do? NEWS Memorandum To: President Lucy Barr From: Office of Legislative Affairs Director Talya Potter Subject: Passing budget bills under divided government With the opposition party in control of Congress, media pundits and other commentators are calling for the president to accept the other party's agenda for the next round of budget bills. Will the White House and Congress Agree on a Budget? In the latest budget battle between the White House and Congress, the pressure on the president to accept a compromise with his political opponents is great, given the looming threat of not only a government shutdown, but also a debt default by the United States for the first time in the history of the American republic. Arguments for: 1. With a reelection battle around the corner, the president cannot afford to get caught up in a budget battle with Congress. 2. The president's ability to gain public support for his agenda is limited, and even increased public support will not improve leverage with Congress. 3. The president should defer to Congress as the primary representative of the people in American politics. Arguments against: 1. American politics is guided too often by campaigns, and the president will build support for reelection by acting presidential—that is, by setting the agenda for the budget and not backing down. 2. The president can build public support through speeches and other forms of communication, and this support can be used as political capital to negotiate with Congress. 3. The president is the only nationally elected official in American politics (other than the vice president), and therefore is responsible for identifying and promoting public priorities, even if this means legislative battles with Congress. Your decision ◯Favor plan ◯Oppose plan CHAPTER 16 What Would You Do? NEWS Memorandum To: Senator Brian Will From: Paul Evan, legislative assistant Re: Internet surveillance In 2007, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) created a secret surveillance program, codenamed PRISM, that—in conjunction with British intelligence agencies—gathered, tracked, and analyzed massive amounts of “private” data (audio and video chats, emails, and more) by directly searching the central servers of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple. NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked classified information about the program to journalists in 2013, and some people questioned whether it intruded upon American civil liberties.65 Should the program be continued? Is the PRISM Internet Surveillance Program Needed? Congress is discussing whether to continue a secret surveillance program that gathers data from Internet companies as part of the federal government's counter-terrorism strategy. Arguments for: 1. Broad data collection is necessary to fight terrorists, who rely almost exclusively on electronic communications. 2. Although the program was secret, some members of Congress were aware of, and approved, the surveillance for national security. 3. In the interest of national security, some civil liberties must be curtailed to keep the United States safe. Arguments against: 1. Data collection will not substitute for human intelligence gathering, and this program diverts much needed resources from the latter. 2. Congress has deferred too much to the executive branch in combating terrorism, and needs to scrutinize surveillance programs much more carefully. 3. While civil liberties are not absolute, especially when national security is at stake, this program is unnecessarily broad in scope, and allows the federal government to collect data without sufficient justification for intruding upon constitutionally guaranteed protections. Your decision ◯Support the program ◯Oppose the program The reasons for the growth in court activism are clear. One is the sheer growth in the size and scope of the government as a whole. The courts have come to play a larger role in our lives because Congress, the bureaucracy, and the president have come to play larger ones. In 1890, hardly anybody would have thought of asking Congress—much less the courts—to make rules governing the participation of women in college sports or the district boundaries of state legislatures. Today such rules are commonplace, and the courts are inevitably drawn into interpreting them. And when the Court decided how the vote in Florida would be counted during the 2000 presidential election, it created an opportunity in the future for scores of new lawsuits challenging election results. The other reason for increased activism is the acceptance by a large number of judges, conservative as well as liberal, of the activist view of the function of the courts. If courts once existed solely to “settle disputes,” today they also exist in the eyes of their members to “solve problems.” Though the Supreme Court is the pinnacle of the federal judiciary, most decisions, including many important ones, are made by the several courts of appeals and the 94 district courts. The Supreme Court can control its own workload by deciding when to grant certiorari. It has become easier for citizens and groups to gain access to the federal courts (through class-action suits, by amicus curiae briefs, by laws that require government agencies to pay legal fees). At the same time, the courts have widened the reach of their decisions by issuing orders that cover whole classes of citizens or affect the management of major public and private institutions. However, the courts can overstep the bounds of their authority and bring upon themselves a counterattack from both the public and Congress. Congress has the right to control much of the courts' jurisdiction, but it rarely does so. As a result, the ability of judges to make law is only infrequently challenged directly.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Surname 1
Student’s name
Institution
Date
Branching Out
1. How do interest groups impact change within existing laws or when creating new
laws? What kinds of actions can interest groups legally take? Think about what
types of issues benefit from having interest groups associated with them. Do these
groups act altruistically? Do they act for the betterment of corporations or
individuals?
Interest groups are individuals with a common group who come together and one umbrella body.
Interest groups influence changes within the existing laws or creation of new laws by lobbying
members of congress and senate to formulate laws in their favor. In most cases, interest groups
often play a central role in setting the government agenda, defining options, influencing
decisions and directing implementation of laws which are of concern to them and the public.
These groups work closely with members of the Congress and other members of the
administration to draft regulations and policy initiatives. They also influence...


Anonymous
Just what I needed…Fantastic!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags