Second Chapter 8 Post

     Chapter 8 focuses mainly on the President of the United States and pretty much everything the position is involved with. For this blog post, I wanted to talk about one of major powers of the president, which is their power of the veto. The veto power is one of the most crucial actions the president can utilize to keep the judicial and legislative branches in check.

     The textbook defines the President's Veto Power as the "formal, constitutional authority of the president to reject bills passed by both houses of Congress, thus preventing them from becoming a law without further congressional action." Basically, once a bill is passed through both the House of Representatives and the Senate by majority votes, it lands on the President's desk. When a bill arrives to the President, there are three things he can do. First, he can sign the bill which would then make the bill a law. Another thing the President can do is veto the bill, which means that the bill won't be signed and it is stopped in its track. Lastly, the President can utilize the "pocket veto," which means that he does nothing at all. If Congress is in session, it will become a law after ten days. However, if Congress is not in session, it doesn't become a law.

     If the President decides to veto the bill, the bill is then sent back to the House of Representatives. If at least two-thirds of the members of the House support the bill, the President's veto is negated and the bill ends up becoming a law. This process is outlined in the Constitution and has actually not been used that much in the course of U.S. history. Over the course of the history of the United States, only about 100 or so bills were successfully overridden of about the 2,500 bills that have been vetoed or pocket vetoed.

     Article II, which describes the veto powers, is something I completely agree with. The Framers, who developed the Constitution, did not want too much power to be given to any single person or group of people, which goes back to the whole idea of checks and balances. With the veto power, both the President and the legislative branch can make sure that neither party does something completely biased and against what's good for the overall country. If it weren't for the veto power, there would be so many unfair laws and bills passed that would negatively harm the United States. 

Hyundai & Kia to Pay Owners Due to Overstated MPG

     This past week, it has been revealed that Korean automakers Hyundai and Kia had overstated the fuel economy of many of their models, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Friday. In response, Hyundai and Kia said that they will pay owners for additional fuel costs associated with the mileage difference. Meanwhile, the EPA will post new lower fuel economy figures for many Hyundai and Kia models on its website, fueleconomy.gov, and new window stickers will be printed for cars still on dealer lots.

     According to the EPA, mileage figures on most car labels will be lowered by one or two miles per gallon. The discrepancies involve about 900,000 Hyundai and Kia vehicles already sold and on the road. The largest drop will be for the Kia Soul. Its highway fuel economy estimate will be lowered by six miles per gallon, taking it down from 35 mpg to 29 mpg. In addition, fuel economy for the Hyundai Elantra, a compact model that was named Car of the Year at last year's Detroit Auto Show, will be reduced by one mile per gallon. However, two of the automakers' most popular models, the Hyundai Sonata and Kia Optima mid-size sedans, are not involved.

     The fuel economy figures shown on automobile window stickers are usually based on testing done by the automakers themselves according to a strict laboratory testing procedure dictated by the EPA. In this case, Hyundai and Kia would be the ones conducting the testing. Then, the EPA tests about 15% of all models itself to ensure automakers are performing the tests properly and reporting accurate results.
While those audits occasionally result in fuel economy adjustments for a vehicle, this is the first time any automaker has shown such a consistent overstatement in its mileage results, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. According to Hyundai and Kia, this whole situation stems from a problem creating an error that involved a particularly complex part of the testing procedure.

     In order to make up the problem, the automakers have agreed to issue debit cards to owners of models that were sold with overstated mileage figures. Vehicle owners will be able to take their car or SUV to their local dealership to have the odometer checked and the number of miles driven recorded.
Owners will then receive a debit card based on the miles driven and the average local price of gasoline, plus an additional 15%. Owners can then have their odometers checked and get a debit as often as they like as long as they own the car. For owners who have already sold their Hyundai or Kia vehicle, they will be able to receive a single debit card based on the mileage recorded on the car's bill of sale.

     Personally, I applaud the initiative that the Environmental Protection Agency took to get the correct, accurate information out to consumers throughout the United States. By doing this, consumers will be able to make better decisions on what car they should purchase. In addition, I like the response that Hyundai and Kia both took in order to try and remediate the situation. Even though this problem shouldn't have taken place to begin with, it is great to see companies stepping up, admitting their mistakes, and offering a solution to those affected in order to set things right and move on. It is truly refreshing to see these actions being taken instead of doing nothing and hoping that the situation will disappear on its own.

Sources

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/02/autos/hyundai-kia-mpg-overstated/index.html 

Chapter 8 Post

     With Election Day only two days away, I think it would be appropriate to talk about the Presidency itself and all of the regulations, qualifications, and rules that could affect the President. Since Chapter 8 deals with the President and their role in the Oval Office, it is definitely the perfect time to cover the topic. There are a few rules that written in the Constitution that must be followed as well as a few qualifications not specified within the Constitution that are considered crucial towards becoming a President.

     As of today, there are millions of Americans throughout the country that do not even know some of the basic qualifications that a person must possess in order to be able to run for President. To be considered for the presidency, a candidate must be a natural-born American citizen, be at least 35 years old, and be a resident of the United States for at least 14 consecutive years. These specific rules are written in the Constitution. In addition to these rules, there are a few unwritten qualifications that have applied to most of the elected presidents. Examples of these qualifications are: being a male and having a college education. While it is not absolutely necessary to have these qualifications, over time, it has been proven to be a common, consistent characteristic amongst presidents.

     Once a candidate is elected, they must follow additional rules and guidelines that have been put in place. In the 18th century when the Constitution was being written, the Framers wanted to avoid the policies from country they just left (England). Because of this, the Framers decided to create "terms," which defined how long the president was to stay in office. The questionable part of this situation was the number of times a president could be reelected. Eventually, it was decided that the president would be elected to 4 year terms with the possibility to be reelected to an indefinite number of terms. However, this changed in 1951 with the passing of the 22nd Amendment after an uproar occurred due to Roosevelt being elected to four terms from 1933 to 1945. The Twenty-Second Amendment specifies that no president can serve more than two terms. In addition, a president can not serve more than 10 years, a specification that only applies to presidents who come into power during the middle of a term because of an impeachment or assassination.

     While some people may have their objections to these qualifications and regulations, I feel that, for the most part, are perfect. I think it is necessary that the person in charge of this country is someone who was born here and has lived his or her life in the United States. By fulfilling this specification, the candidates will overall be more exposed to the issues that are hurting this country so they will be able to fully develop ideas and policies to try and help the country. This can't be done if the candidate hasn't lived the majority of their life in the United States. In addition, I agree with the two term limit because if a president is in charge for too long, it may eventually feel like the country is ruled by a monarch. This wouldn't be too good considering that it would then feel like the US is transforming into the government that the Framers wanted to get away from back in the 18th century. I think if we keep going with the same rules and qualifications, the United States will continue on the right direction as long as the right candidates come along who will actually make the effort to make a difference. 

China's Currency Hurting the U.S. Economy?

     In the past few weeks, China has become a major issue for U.S. politics. China has been accused by many people, most notably the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, of being a "currency manipulator," which means that they have been keeping their currency, the yuan, artificially low by "hoarding" foreign reserves. By doing this, it gives Chinese exporters an advantage over competitors. Basically, China is trying to control the exchange rate by selling its own currency while making large purchases of foreign currencies, including the U.S. dollar.

     China's manipulation of the exchange rate has many negative effects on U.S. economy. First off, it distorts capital flows, which has the ability to impact labor markets and trade throughout our country and other countries around the world. In addition, it provides advantages to China. By manipulating the yuan's true value by keeping it low compared to the dollar, China's goods look much more attractive to American consumers. In addition, this makes products made in the United States much more expensive for consumers in China. All of this has allowed China's economy, which is led by its exports, to expand at quick rates.

     In the past, China's currency was pegged to the U.S. dollar, which meant that the two currencies moved together. However, in 2010, Beijing loosened the link between the currencies, which has allowed the yuan to appreciate by about 10%. What is confusing about this situation is that many analysts feel that the currency should be much stronger based on how China is currently doing. In response to all of this, the United States hasn't really done much. The government had promised to not purposely weaken the dollar, but the way that they are flooding the economy with printed money is basically doing what they didn't want to do. If elected president, Mitt Romney plans to label China as a currency manipulator, which would mainly be seen as a "symbolic" gesture. This move could help create talks between the United States and China, but nothing immediate has been planned. However, various economists are worried that Romney's second part of the plan, which is to enforce tariffs and duties on China if they don't begin to float their currency, could create a trade war between the two countries, which will be devastating for the global economy.

     In my opinion, I think that the U.S. government needs to take a firm stand and fight back in this critical situation. We need to show that our country does not take currency manipulators lightly and that we will do anything it takes to bring back an even playing field for both countries. Yes, it may be a huge risk if the feared trade war actually results from these actions, but I think it would be worth it if we could gain some diplomatic negotiations with China. In a time where the global economy isn't too strong, we need to be working together with other countries in order to restore prosperity throughout the world. This can't be achieved though if one country is trying to find ways to gain economic advantages, which is why it is imperative that the United States takes action and gets this whole situation settled out.

Articles Referenced 

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/21/news/economy/china-currency-manipulation/index.html?iid=HP_LN

Chapter 10 Post - How YOU Can Be Nominated to the Supreme Court!

     Being selected and confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, let alone nominated, is probably one of the biggest honors a citizen working in the judiciary branch can receive. Since it is the highest position within the judicial branch, nominees must be held to the highest of standards in order to stand a chance against the U.S. Senate's review process. There are at least six major criteria that is factored into the President's decision of whether or not a particular person is fit for the job. These criteria are:

1. Competence
2. Ideology or Policy Preferences
3. Rewards
4. Pursuit of Political Support
5. Religion
6. Race & Gender

     Over time, these factors have shifted in importance as the Presidents who have come into office brought along with them different points of emphasis to look for when nominating someone for the Supreme Court. Over the years, these factors have evolved as our society changed to accomodate our changing values and opinions.

     The first factor that is used in deciding a nominee for the Supreme Court is the person's competence. The majority of citizens that have been nominated for the Supreme Court have had some sort of experience, whether judicial, legal, or governmental. This is a factor that I find extremely important since anyone that is going to be chosen for such a prestigious position has to have some form of experience associated with them that makes them qualified for the position. I am glad that this factor has stood firm over the course of U.S. history and hasn't been changed to make it easier to be considered for this huge position. Next, a President's ideology plays a big role in determining who they will nominate for the Supreme Court. When looking for potential replacements on the Supreme Court, a president will prefer people that would want to help reach their political goals, not someone that will become an obstacle. This factor has changed over the years as the presidents that have come into power try to ensure that their agendas are being enforced. I don't really like this certain criteria since it places a lot of potential bias in a president's choice. Of course this is something that is pretty much inevitable as a person's personal choice will always have some sort of bias associated with it. The next major factor, "rewards," is another factor that I consider to be a bit unfair as presidents sometimes place personal friendships ahead of actual experience that a person may possess. 

     In pursuit of political support, a president may utilize a vacant Supreme Court spot in order to gain support from voters around the country. In my opinion, this shouldn't be a major factor in determining a potential Supreme Court nominee as once again, personal bias comes in to enhance a president's political agenda. The last two major factors in nomination criteria, religion, and race and gender, have been the two factors that have changed the most over the course of U.S. history. In terms of religion, the majority of Supreme Court justices have been traditional Protestant followers. However, in recent years, there have been an increase in Roman Catholic justices, a shift that not many people envisioned. This evolution is major as it signifies how our society has changed to accept a wider variety of faiths that hadn't been observed in the past. Race and gender has also been a factor that evolved over the years. In the past, there have only been a handful of women and African Americans that had served on the Court. The last few years have been a significant shift however as presidents have been appointing more diverse people for the job, such as President Obama appointing Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. 

     Overall, as we move into the future and society continues to evolve, the major factors that influence a president's nomination will also change in order to fit with society's changing values. As of right now, I feel that quite a bit of progress has been made in order to allow a wider variety of qualified citizens to become justices, however, I think that more progress can be made to make an even greater impact. If you ever want to have a shot at becoming a Supreme Court justice, make sure you meet all of these factors and have a lot of luck!

Foreclosures Fall to 5-Year Low

     The number of foreclosures affecting the nation's housing market has been less severe than anticipated, a huge positive in our recovering economy. Foreclosure filings, which include default notices, scheduled auctions, and bank repossessions, were reported on 180,427 properties last month, which is the lowest level it has been in five years. According to a report released by RealtyTrac, this number is approximately a 7% decline from August. Daren Blomquist, the vice president of RealtyTrac, states that foreclosures are "making little noise in the housing market - at least on a national level."

     Many industry experts like Blomquist believed that the market was going to be overwhelmed with repossessions ever since a $25 billion mortgage settlement was reached in April. In this case, the government stopped lenders around the country from making any loans to customers in order to place their procedures under great scrutiny after the "robo-signing scandal" came to light in September 2010. By settling this situation out, lenders are now able to proceed to do their jobs again as they now lay out clear and specific guidelines on how they could go after borrowers who had missed payments. This result created a fear for an increase in repossessions as mentioned earlier, but in reality, the process has had a much more "managed" flow which is helping to control the number of foreclosures.

     Part of the reason why the number of foreclosures is steadily falling is due to the government's and banks' efforts to prevent homeowners from falling into foreclosure have taken hold. For example, the Home Affordable Modification Program, which is sponsored by the government, has helped more than a million borrowers obtain more affordable mortgages. In addition, banks have been refinancing people's loans in an added effort to keep delinquent borrowers from falling into foreclosure. Lastly, the record low mortgage rates have helped struggling borrowers stay in their homes for longer periods of time. By refinancing their mortgages to lower rates, borrowers can greatly reduce their payments and help them avoid defaulting on their loan.

     Overall, the number of foreclosures are finally beginning to steadily decrease to the point where analysts can believe that the housing market has finally turned the corner and is on its way back up. I believe that the government is doing their best at handling the situation as it shows from the decrease in foreclosures and improved guidelines being created and implemented by lenders in order to avoid another major fiasco like in September 2010. By stepping in when they had to, they were able to take control of the situation and get things back in the right direction. It may have been a slow process at times, but the results are beginning to show, which can only mean brighter days are coming soon for all of us as we continue to push through the current economic state.

Articles Referenced

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/11/real_estate/foreclosures/index.html
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/22/real_estate/foreclosure_paperwork_problems/index.htm?iid=EL
http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/09/real_estate/mortgage-settlement-faq/index.htm?iid=EL

Third Chapter 5 Post - The Establishment Clause

     The first amendment is part of the Bill of Rights that imposes a number of restrictions on the federal government with respect to civil liberties, including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. The aspect of the first amendment I want to focus on in this post is the freedom of religion, and more specifically the establishment clause. Dating back to the 1700's, the Framers of the Constitution disliked a national church or religion, which was reflected in the Constitution. For example, Article IV states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust under the United States."

     The First Amendment to the Constitution begins, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." From here, the First Amendment talks about two major clauses, the establishment clause, and the free exercise clause. The establishment clause directs the national government not to sanction an official religion, while the free exercise clause guarantees citizens that the national government will not interfere with their practice of religion. These two clauses have been part of numerous controversial cases through the course of U.S. history.

     The separation of church and state has always been a touchy issue for American politics. Over the years, the Supreme Court has has been split over how to interpret the establishment clause. Some people feel that the clause creates a wall between church and state while others feel that there should be some government intervention allowed for religion. For the most part, the Court has held strong to a strict separation between church and state when it comes to issues of mandatory prayer in school. For example, in Abington School Dsitrict v. Schempp, the Court ruled that state-mandated Bible reading or recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public schools was unconstitutional.

     Another issue involving the freedom of religion and the establishment clause involves coming up with a method to deal with church and state questions. The lemon test, which was created due to the Lemon v. Kurtzman case, is a three-part test for laws dealing with religious establishment issues. The test states that a policy was constitutional if it had the following three aspects:

1. It had a legitimate secular purpose.
2. It neither advanced nor inhibited religion.
3. It did not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

     However, the Supreme Court has often avoided the Lemon test altogether as long as school prayer wasn't involved. Overall, as time went on, the Supreme Court has gotten a bit more lenient when it comes to lowering the wall separating church and state. In my opinion, I feel that the establishment clause and all the resulting court cases and rulings that have come from this issue have been pretty good for this country. Sure, there have been conflicts and disagreements that have risen throughout, but without these conflicts, the United States as a whole wouldn't have been able to push through them and grow as a nation in order to provide as much freedom as possible for the citizens guaranteed in the Constitution.