Latest SCOTUS Rulings

Recent Supreme Court decisions are rather difficult to discuss.  One of the main reasons for this difficult discussion is the fact that there are usually a lot of emotions involved in these decisions.  With that being said, I want to stick straight to the facts of the opinions and the rulings without delving into opinion; because of this adherence, this post will be relatively short.

Affordable Care Act (King v. Burwell)

The challenge that the court faced with this decision is whether states had to set up their own insurance exchanges, or whether the federal exchange would suffice.  This case is an example of when the Supreme Court gets down into the minutia of a law.  The Supreme Court has three basic decisions to make when reviewing a law and needs to rule against it:

1. They can strike out a sentence or clause
2. They can strike out an entire section
3. They can strike down the law in its entirety

With this case, they had to decide if a specific sentence within the law was constitutional.  A factor that gets taken into the situation is the benefit or cost to society.  Other examples of when they had to consider benefits and costs to society is Reynolds v. United States and Wickard v. Filburn.  With this case, they had to decide whether the federal exchange not established in the ACA benefits society, more than costing society, as a whole even though the provision called for states to establish their own exchanges.

Another factor that comes into this case is the justices.  First of all, Justice Anthony Kennedy is considered the swing vote of the court.  He sides with the conservatives on some issues and with the liberals on the others.  You can kind of predict his vote based on what the case is about; if it is about civil rights, he will probably side with the liberals and if the case is about anything else, it will usually be with the conservatives.

The second factor is the Chief Justice of the Court - John Roberts.  Roberts is considered a conservative on the court.  However, Roberts has been known to side with the liberals of the court in some cases.  This happens to be a case where you see him siding with the liberals.  Being Chief Justice means that he "runs" the court.  He is given leadership over the justices and deference in most cases.  However, that also means that he is not always right.  He is still entitled to his own opinion just like all the other justices.  Justice Roberts is also noted for how he decides in cases.  Roberts considers the reputation of the court, he doesn't want to make decisions he thinks will shame the court.  Second, Roberts also considers those costs and benefits of a decision.  He recognized that more people would benefit from keeping the sentence instead of striking it out and forcing people into a mayhem of health insurance.

In the end, you have a 6-3 decision in favor of the act and keeping the sentence.  A problem that Republicans now face is should they accept the ruling and drop the fight against the ACA or should they continue fighting to provide an alternative.  Problem is they don't have a planned alternative.  They want to repeal the ACA and make insurance privatized and let the market decide, but they have no draft or any other plan to take the U.S back to this method.

Same Sex Marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges)

This case is one where ideologies prevailed.  The split among the decisions of the case (5-4) fell with Justice Kennedy breaking the tie and siding with the liberals for civil rights.  To political scientists, like myself, this decision was actually predicted down to the votes.  One of the things that caused this decision to be predictable is the vocalization of some of the justices prior to handing down the opinions.  For example, Justice Ginsburg performed a homosexual marriage after the arguments for the case were heard, but before opinions were given.  As with the previous case of King v. Burwell, Justice Kennedy sided with civil rights.

The reason this case was heard to begin with is one of the federal appellate courts differed from all other appellate courts when hearing the case for homosexual marriage.  If this one appellate court would have consented to homosexual marriage, then the Supreme Court would never have even heard the case.

The grounds upon which the case was argued deals with the 14th Amendment's due process of law within the states in comparison with societal norms and traditions.  Amicus curiae briefs that were offered also brought into the decision the First Amendment and the free exercise of religion.  Amicus curiae briefs or just amicus briefs are essentially letters written to a court from a 3rd party that is not involved in the case itself but has an interest in the results of the case.  In the interest of this case, there were many civil rights organizations and religious organizations that wrote amicus briefs asking them to consider the implications of a ruling in either direction.

The concern regarding religious exercise deals with churches that do not endorse gay marriage.  Three of the most prominent religions are the Roman Catholic, the LDS church, and the Orthodox Jews.  One of the primary concerns in regards to religion is not just their doctrine, but their marriage practices; there is the fear that with the ruling in favor of gay marriage, religions will be required to perform these marriages.  Thus the conflict between doctrine and practice.

A different court case that was decided this term by the Supreme Court, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, might prove to be a defense for religions.  If you are unfamiliar with this case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby Inc. saying that because religion was a major part of this company, any business where religion affects that company may be exempt from the ACA clause requiring firms to supply birth control health care to its employees.  While this is slightly different in that its religion and a company compared to religion and marriage, it may be possible for churches to avoid forcible performance of marriages.

Another question that arose in regards to religion with Obergefell v. Hodges is polygamy.  It is suspected that polygamy may be the next marriage issue to be addressed.  The rulings against polygamy, including Reynolds v. United State, still stands, but if the court is willing to overturn anti-sodomy laws and rule in favor of gay marriage, polygamists may have a chance.

In regards to the 14th Amendment in the case, the amendment calls for due process under the law for all citizens.  This means that if a citizen from Arizona that got married in New Mexico moves to Oregon, that each of those states will recognize any and all legal and official documents from the other states that this citizen has lived in and received these documents from.  You should be able to see the conflict now; if a citizen obtains a marriage license and has a gay marriage performed in a state that allows it, but then moves to a state where it is outlawed, there is a conflict with this due process clause.  This could also be said of the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment.

The other part of the 14th Amendment that applies is the abridgment of privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.  Is it a privilege of citizens of all sexual orientation to be married to the person of their choosing with their consent?  This is another area under the 14th Amendment that citizens for gay marriage cited.  Ultimately it came down to protecting the 14th Amendment, which was clearly outlined, or the 1st Amendment and the institution of marriage, which was more of a stretch.

Hopefully these decisions were explained well and clearly for comprehension.  If you have any other thoughts or concerns on the matter, leave a comment.  I've also included the first section of the 14th Amendment which covers the clauses in the Obergefell v. Hodges case.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A Debatable Flag

Much has been said about the Confederate Flag as of late.  This is one of those topics where it is difficult to keep bias removed from the situation.  There are strong feelings associated with the flag for some individuals.  Therefore, I apologize in advance for anything that is offensive as that is not what I'm attempting to accomplish.

As most people know, the Confederate Flag was the flag of the Confederate States of America in the mid 19th century.  If you're familiar with history, then you know that the South seceded from the Union due to grievances with the North.  Most people further understand that South left the Union due to slavery.

The slavery issue is true, but it wasn't the only reason the South left the Union.  The northern states preferred a strong federal government, while the southern states wanted more states rights and local governance.  During the Presidency of Andrew Jackson, the South attempted to employ the Doctrine of Nullification which ultimately failed and conflicted with the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution.  If you're unfamiliar with the Doctrine of Nullification, it's the belief and practice that states have the ability to decide which federal laws they will and which laws they won't.

Other issues for which the South seceded certainly exist, but are better spent with you in the library doing research.  Suffice it to say, the South lost.  The Confederate Flag, as claimed by some historians, is a historical piece of history that should not attacked or eliminated.

However, the Confederate Flag has been used for other reasons as well, the most prominent after the Civil War is its use by the Klu Klux Klan.  The Klan used the flag as part of its "ceremonies" at gatherings.  Therefore, people see the Confederate Flag as a symbol of terror to those of African descent, especially since it was used by the Klan who could be described as a domestic terrorist group, or as a lynch mob at the very least.

A third purported representation of the Confederate Flag is by the Neo Nazis.  They are not quite the same as the KKK insofar as they have fewer violent tendencies.  However, there are similarities between the two organizations.

A fourth - and my last - interpretation of the flag that is more common in non-southern states is that of rebellion.  Most of your mountain west states view the modern use of the Confederate Flag under this representation and give it little to no association with slavery or the racial actions of extremist groups.

I hope you understand that the Confederate Flag means different things to different people.  Even the non-racist person can find meaning in that flag.

News abbreviations.

In the news you might notice some acronyms for branches or offices of the government.  Agencies are one of the most common government offices that have acronyms.  Agencies are the bureaucracy of the government.  They have their roles to play, but can grow inefficient and ineffective if not maintained and regulated.  As such, I'll make a list of common acronyms and patterns you yourself can use to determine the acronym's reference.

These are ones that refer to specific offices of the federal government:

1. SCOTUS = Supreme Court of the United States
2. POTUS = President of the United States
3. FLOTUS = First Lady of the United States

This is the general rule for federal departments that are under the executive.  Look of the D or the DO.  Most of the departments have the DO such as the D.O.J. (Department of Justice) or the D.O.E. (Department of Energy).  The DHS (Department of Homeland Security) is one example of a department that lacks the O in the abbreviation.

Then there are the bureaucratic agencies.  This includes the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), IRS (Internal Revenue Service), FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), and SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) to name a few.  If ever your in a bind for an acronym, you can Google or Bing search it and it will usually be the top result.  You can also try Wikipedia, but don't rely too heavy on it, it is publicly editable.

The U.S. Government

Alright, I want to cover a few more things before discussing current political activity.  I'm hoping I can cover it all in this post and will attempt to do so.  I therefore apologize if this post becomes an eyesore for you.

As I mentioned in a previous post, read the Constitution.  Most of what I'm going to go over in this post can be traced back to the Constitution.  Each of the articles that deal with a branch of the federal government also contains clauses to determine if an individual may occupy that office.

Article I of the Constitution deals with the power of the legislative branch, or Congress.  There are even certain clauses that regard a specific chamber within the Congress.  For example, there is the Section 7 Clause 1 states:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

A few of the notable clauses in Article I include:

• Each chamber setting their own rules of procedure. 
• To lay and collect taxes.
• To regulate commerce.
• To establish post offices.
• To establish inferior courts to the Supreme Court.
• To establish and maintain a military.
• The prohibition on passing bills that prohibit crimes against people that have already made those crimes. To name specific organizations in criminal law.
• (Senate) To confirm nominations made by the President.
• To pass all laws necessary and proper.
• (Senate) to confirm treaties.

As you can see, there are quite a few responsibilities, among other duties that congressional delegates must do.

Article II of the Constitution deals with the executive branch, or President.  The duties of the President are the ones most people remember and can recite.  I'll list some of these out as well:

• Commander and Chief of the military.
• Nominate federal judges, ambassadors, and other executive branch positions.
• Address the legislative branch.
• Grant pardons.
• Veto bills.
• Convene Congress.

Article III of the Constitution deals with the judicial branch, or the Supreme Court.  There aren't any enumerated qualifications for the justices of the Supreme Court, but it is generally understood that the justices have experience with law in order to at least be nominated.  The responsibilities for the Supreme Court can be boiled down to two statements:

1. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in some specific cases listed in the Constitution cases.
2. In all other cases the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction.

Other Articles of the Constitution include:

1. The relationship of the several states to the federal government (Article IV)
2. Amending the Constitution (Article V)
3. Debts and oaths; federal laws are above state laws (Article VI)
4. Ratification of the Constitution (Article VII)

Amendments to the Constitution are treated as part of the Constitution and not separate additions of a lesser value.  That being said, the Bill of Rights usually receive the most attention.  Along the lines of the amendments, the content of the amendments are usually the Supreme Court must review when deciding cases in front of them.  Occasionally, clauses in the Constitution itself are addressed, but you will usually see cases involving one, if not more, of the first 10 amendments or the 14th Amendment.

I would like to take the time to go over each amendment, but I feel that would consume too much space and would be much more beneficial to you, as the reader, if you read the amendments yourself.

The two party system that the United States has - Republicans and Democrats -  are a result of historical political evolution.  It was not always this way, but as political parties in the past found, the more people you can reach and support you can garner, the stronger your party becomes.  As such, the two party system pushes out 3rd parties and other minor parties and will absorb the goals and/or objectives those parties sought to accomplish.  An example of this is the Democratic party absorbing the interests and ideas of the green party and moving towards environmentalism and renewable energy.

The United States party system greatly contrasts that of most European politics.  Most European countries use a multi-party system.  If you've ever watched the elections for parliament for the United Kingdom, you might notice that there are other parties that attempt to get seats in parliament and not two parties.  Multi-party systems require cooperation and coalitions among parties to pass legislation.  The benefit to this is the ability to get more ideas passed rather than waiting for you party to control a majority of a bipartisan system.  The downside to this is it can take a lot of cooperation and effort to obtain the support needed in a multi-party system; you might have to shake hands with people you don't like.

Hopefully this gives you enough insight to start.  For an online reference to the Constitution, I recommend this website: http://www.usconstitution.net/.  As always, I welcome comments.

No Mr. Trump

If you followed the latest news, Donald Trump announced from Trump Tower his candidacy for United States President.  He is seeking the GOP nomination, as if the party needed more candidates.  If you think he has a chance, all I can say is, "I'm sorry."

There are a few nuances related to presidential elections which, I'm sad to say, I've not covered yet.  In the meantime, I'll try to explain as best I can why Donald Trump will not only lose the presidency, but also not even receive the party nomination.

First of all, Donald Trump is a businessman.  While this is great for an individual seeking an office that has a similar hierarchy where it's just him in charge and he gives the orders while expecting them to be carried out; on the other hand, he has no political experience whatsoever.  Carly Fiorina is in the same boat.  These are successful business minded individuals that spend their time managing firms and companies, not negotiating between countries and managing people of such great ethnic and wealth diversity as that of the United States. 

This is not to say that there are businessmen or businesswomen that can't operate in a political office.  Darrell Issa (R-CA), a member of the House of Representatives, is a very successful businessman who has officiated in his office rather well.  This is not to say that he has his moments, like many other individuals, but he has made the transition from successful business management to a political sphere; others do not make this transition as easily.

Second, if you listen to Mr. Trump's statements made during his nomination, he made a great deal of noise about nothing.  This is my way of saying that he said a bunch of lies.  His speech reeked of fallacious comments and facts.  This doesn't even include some of the comments that he made that isolate him from voters he should be winning over.  He made comments that distanced himself from those identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino.  This will increase the probability and likelihood that will lose.

Third, there is a "traditional" background that individuals tend to have.  This has a strong correlation to the first issue with Trump running for President.  Most Presidents have a background as a governor or a legislator - usually a senator.  Governors are usually preferred as they have experience as an executive in government.

Overall, this is probably a power play for Trump.  Many presidential candidates and others that have sought the nomination for President of the United States end up making speeches and receiving money for their comments - this also includes former Presidents.  Other GOP candidates will be much better adapted for executing the office of President.

What Type of Government?

Have you ever read the Federalist Papers?  How about the notes from the Constitutional Convention of 1787?  Now how about the multiple works of the Anti-Federalists?  I'm guessing most of you have probably read only excerpts (like myself) for whatever reason you read them.  I'm further guessing that most of you have only read the Federalist Papers and even fewer have read the notes from the convention or Anti-Federalist works.  It's fascinating how much time, thought, and consideration not only went into the Constitution, but also the arguments on what type of government was appropriate as well as the strengths and weaknesses.

I'm not going to discuss the Constitution today, but let me briefly state that it is a binding, public document that each branch of the federal government adheres to.  Instead let me apprise you of the different directions our founding fathers could have led us in.  Unlike the political ideology spectrum, there exists a similar, yet more difficult spectrum for government organization.  The reason there is more difficulty is the similarity between some of these organizations that comes down to the minutia of operation.

On one end of the spectrum, we have single leader systems and as we progress down the spectrum, we see more and more individuals becoming involved in leadership for a government.  It is important to realize that many of these government systems in today's modern world exhibit a combination.  The idea of a single type of government for a state is a diminishing concept.

Dictatorship: This system of government is one where a single individual has all the power.  Fidel Castro in Cuba is probably the best example of a modern day dictator.  Others have certainly existed in the past, but it's the fact that all the power resides in this one individual.  This system usually has a negative connotation associated with it, and rightly so; it is very rare to have a "good" dictator.  One major idea that is usually positively correlated is the notion that a totalitarian ideology is associated with a dictatorship - pretty self explanatory.

Monarchy: Next on our list is a monarchy.  Now if you're asking, "What's the difference between this system and the previous one?" well this is one of those instances where we get into the minutia.  A dictatorship and a monarchy have almost exactly the same properties and applications.  The monarchy system has one major difference - the monarchy cares about extending the monarchy beyond each individual life.  Within a monarchy, you want the ability, power, and authority to continue throughout the generations.  That's why you have so many with the name King Louis in the history of France.  The monarchy cares about policy decisions that affect the royal family above all else.  With a dictatorship, the dictator usually doesn't care who succeeds him/her as the leader but desires their tenure to be the most beneficial to themselves.

Aristocracy: If you have heard of an aristocrat than you're on the right trail.  Aristocracy refers to the wealthy individuals residing at the head of a government.  This means that most government decisions leads to attempts of the aristocracy increasing their wealth.  I want to make one thing clear, so far each of these governments appear to be caring about only themselves; while this is true, they each realize that they still need the average citizen, a military, a hierarchic chain of command in order to function as a government.  So in essence, you have a small group of wealthy individuals that are leading a country under an aristocracy.

Oligarchy: This is another one that has extreme similarities to the previous organization.  An oligarchy contains a small group of individuals that is leading the country.  The difference between an oligarchy and an aristocracy is the type of individuals.  An aristocracy is an oligarchy, but an oligarchy isn't always an aristocracy.  An ideal oligarchy involves individuals that are of different social classes and occupations.  A republic (our next one) is technically considered an oligarchy as well - depending on it's size.

Republic: If you're thinking Rome, well that's partially historically correct.  Rome did have a republic that operated at times throughout it's role as a leading world power.  A republic consists of individuals who are appointed to represent the people, usually in relation to a certain proportion within districts or subsets.  The United States has a republican form of government in the legislative branch since each member of Congress represents a specific area of the country and not just the country as a whole (like an oligarchy).  Thinking of your state, you have two senators that represent you and your state, as well as a member of the House of Representatives that represents the specific part of the state you live in - unless you live in one of those states like Wyoming that only has one member.  The members of the House of Representatives represent a proportional size of the population within their state; thus larger states have more representatives than the smaller states.

Polity: This system is one that is very rarely recognized.  I also use this term as it's a term that Aristotle used and defer to him on this term as he is considered one of the most ancient political scientists.  A polity is similar to democracy, but it is a limited democracy.  So instead of hearing polity out of an individuals mouth, you will probably hear limited democracy.  In essence, a polity is where only certain individuals within a society have government say, but it is by the say of those people that have the voting right.  This is actually more of what Athens used as it was only the males who were citizens of Athens that had the right to vote.

Democracy: This exists when the people at large without respect to any restrictions have the right to vote.  Now there may be a contingency or two, like they have to be a citizen to vote and meet a certain age requirement, but these are the only contingencies.  In reality, you don't want citizens of another country or state coming over to yours and voting only to have them vote on who they think should be the leader over you.  Nor do you want a twelve-year-old having a say in your government when they probably don't understand issues at hand and will vote with their parents are someone else that they might emulate.  Under a democracy, the people are the government and they hold votes to decide which course of action should be taken.  This is what most people like to see since they feel that each individual has an actual say rather than leaving it to fewer or a single individual(s) to make the decisions.

Confederacy: I almost forgot this one (in actuality I already published it, but caught it on the same day).  A confederacy is probably the loosest sense of a government.  It is more of an agreement or friendship between civilizations or lesser sovereigns.  The ancient Grecian empire actually was a confederacy, along with more closer-to-home examples.  A confederacy pretty much grants each sovereign the ability to keep and maintain their own government, but each sovereign in a confederacy agrees to help each other.  There is usually some leading council or head in a confederacy.

As mentioned previously, you will usually see a combination of these government organizations in the world today.  The United Kingdom, for example, uses a combination of three of these organizations; they have a monarch - whose power has been greatly restricted as compared to originally - an aristocracy - the House of Lords in Parliament - a republic - the House of Commons in Parliament.  The United States has a combination of two, a democracy and a republic, although it used to be a polity and a republic.  The United States also utilizes direct and indirect democracy; a direct democracy refers to the people directly voting on a matter whereas indirect means a group of individuals receives the people's votes and then makes a second vote on behalf of those votes (the electoral college).

Hope you enjoyed this enlightenment.  Once again, if you think I missed something, let me know in the comments section.

Let's be Politically Correct

There are a few nuances in political science that the vast majority of Americans don't understand.  Terminology is one of the biggest differences.  For example, the terms country, nation and state do not mean the same.  For those of you who are wondering, a nation actually refers to a nationality; if you are saying "My nation is the United States" or "My nationality is American" than you're technically incorrect.  The United States is both a country and a state and while saying that you are American is technically not a nationality, it can be if you adhere to the idea of civic nationalism.  Is your mind blown yet?  A state usually refers to the geographic area that a government has authority over.  A country is very similar in that it also adheres to geographic limits, but is not necessarily restricted by a government, but rather by a regime.  The term regime usually has negative connotations - thank the news - but it actually refers to who is running the country.  An example of this is the Obama Administration, that is a regime; Fidel Castro in Cuba his administration is a regime.

Is everybody doing ok?  If I haven't lost you yet, continue reading.

One of the first things I want to address is that of political ideologies.  Political ideologies range across a linear spectrum.  At one end you have anarchy - complete and utter lack of government - and at the other you have totalitarianism - the total control and domination of government.  All other political ideologies fall in between these two extremes.  A difficulty that arises is personal bias in this matter as well as associating one ideology with another or even giving both the same definition; one example of this is communism.  Communism is sometimes associated with totalitarianism or even socialism, when in actuality, it is its own entity.  Some of the confusion that arises with communism revolves around its usage and application.  I'll talk more about communism later to better help you understand.  A final problem that arises is when we try to link ideologies to actual political parties.  While the terms left and right wing are applicable, calling a Democrat a socialist isn't always appropriate, let alone correct.  The last problem, and I promise this is the last, is associating ideologies with actual government organization; a republican government doesn't denote a conservative government.  I'll probably talk about government organization either later in this post or another post.

Alright, back to that spectrum. I'll start on the left and work my way right, just like reading a book.

Totalitarianism: This is the farthest left.  In essence, it represents complete domination by the government such that the only thing they can't control is the minutia of your life.  Totalitarianism translates into set prices for all products and services, set amount of products that will be produced, how much "property" you are allowed to possess, use, or borrow.  It allows the government to control the interest rates of banks, if there is even more than one bank for that matter.  Think of this like the U.S.S.R. back in the days of Stalin.

Communism: This is second from the left.  Communism actually has two parts, a political aspect and an economic aspect.  I am going to ignore the economic aspect since we are focusing on the government organization in this post.  Communism is similar to Totalitarianism in that it usually translates into set standards from the government.  However, it is not so far to the left in that it allows the people as a whole, as a "commune" to determine what the standards and limits will be.  This is supposed to allow them to enjoy the benefits of life together (and potentially the failures as well).  The way that Marx and Engels outlined this government organization requires economic failures of capitalism to bring about Communism.  With that being said, there has never existed a true communist government in the history of the world as we know it.

Socialism: This government organization does not possess as much control over the lives and economy as the former two.  It has some of the same goals as Communism in that one of its main purposes is to improve the lives of those under this ideology.  Socialism is meant to have the government regulate, but not intervene to improve life.  If there is no service offered that does not improve life or if the current services offered can't or won't improve their ability to improve life, then the government will step in.  Welfare programs are generally seen as Socialism in practice and there is usually a high tax that supports these programs.  Most of the states in the European Union adhere to this ideology.  Redistribution of wealth is another ideal that exists under Socialism.

Liberalism: This takes another step away from the left to the point of the idea of progress within a country or state, but even less regulation and limited involvement.  There might exist a social program here or there, but it is not as well funded like under socialism.  As such, there is usually back-lash from the people against the government regarding these programs (sound familiar?).  Not much else needs to be said about Liberalism as it is almost like a gray area between Socialism and Conservatism.

Conservatism: This is "technically" the middle ground on the spectrum.  What makes it difficult to say whether or not this is the true middle is the gray matter between each of these ideologies.  There is no set starting or stopping point for each ideology.  What makes Conservatism the middle is the lack of progress, but not retrogressing either.  Conservatives are the people that like to keep the status quo.  If progress does occur under this ideology, it usually takes a long time to accomplish.  This ideology probably makes sense to you if you have grandparents that are part of the baby-boomer generation.

Retrogressionism: Spell check hates me right now because Retrogressionism isn't really a word.  There's a few other words within the field of political science that aren't spell check recognized that I have to add to Microsoft Word's dictionary.  This ideology has other names as well like radical conservatism, but I prefer the term Retrogressionism because it is fairly straight forward in the name.  It is the government ideology that you should go back to an older method of governance.  Most politicians don't adhere to this ideology, but once in a while you might see a comment from a politician about retrogressing on the action to take on a policy.  This doesn't mean they are a retrogressionist, but rather just hold that belief for a certain policy.

Libertarianism:  This relies on economic policy in relation to government operation.  Libertarianism is the ideology that government should step back out of the scene and just perform the very basic tasks and essentials.  More specifically, they want the economic market to function on its own.  They believe that by government staying in the sole sphere of making laws, carrying out laws, and judging based on laws that everything else will work itself out.  Government doesn't need to be influencing things such as environment preservation or protection, so if they make a law, it better be about criminal activity.

Fascism: This is like the right-wing version of Communism.  It involves strong national identity emotions.  This is the type of ideology that dominated Germany post World War I.  Usually fascism comes about as a result as disparaging conditions within a country; as people band together to eliminate the problems of society, the nationalism aspect dominates the front and the search for solutions and scapegoats commences.

Anarchism: This far right side of the political ideology spectrum holds the concept of no government whatsoever.  Let everyone fend for themselves.  Some see this as an extremist form of Libertarianism; that argument is pretty much valid, but is given the name of Anarchism so you don't have to say extreme Libertarianism.  Anarchism is what English philosopher Thomas Hobbes called the state of nature.  The world is a giant free-for-all.  In case you were wondering, the only progress that is made is if you live long enough to get something done, but don't expect it or anything else to last long anyways.

So now you know the different ideologies of government.  If you think I made an error or missed an ideology, let me know and I will remedy this post ASAP.  I'm sure you will find your ideology or political philosophy in the mix of all that I have thrown at you.  I will discuss different government organizations at a later time.  If you're wondering when will I talk about a current event or something of a similar nature, I will once I find something worth discussing, but I also want to run the basics by you as well.  Enjoy!

Commencement

Over the years, I have seen myself transform.  Along with my own transformation, I have seen the transformation of the United States.  Some when reading this may think it's a wonk blog.  Personally, I don't consider myself a wonk.  I am, however, deeply fascinated with the government of the United States.

On creating this blog, I decided, why not share what I have observed and seen through the years in combination with my studies.  That being said, I am a political science major about to finish my undergrad work with a minor in economics.  It's a field of study that I personally feel like nobody really pursues - and by field I mean the combination of political science and economics.  Both of these areas of study cross over into the other at times, but there is a connection being missed.  They have everything to do with each other.

In concurrence with my observations and knowledge regarding the U.S. government, I wanted to present analysis of events in as much of an unbiased, objective manner as possible.  Those of you who are thinking about this last statement and not just reading it are realizing that this is extremely difficult to do, and you're right.  I firmly believe that it is impossible to get completely unbiased information, there is the lens of every person it passes through before it reaches you and then your own self from which biases arise.  Having said all of this, however, I plan on doing the best I can, no religious bias or political bias or economic bias is the intent for the content.

If you want to find out more about my personal beliefs, that's fine.  I'll even make it easier for you; I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - a.k.a. LDS or Mormon - I adhere to the New Keynesian view of economics, in light of the fact that the Federal Reserve does also, it makes more sense to me, I have the political view of socialism.  That being said, you might see why I'm an anomaly in regards to my religious beliefs.   If you say Mormon and liberal in the same sentence, most people will think of Harry Reid.  Very few LDS members stray from the conservative political ideology.  So to say that I believe in socialism gives you an idea how far left my own political beliefs are.  Now that I've said all this I hope my bias doesn't get in the way or that you will be able to recognize it if it does.

Now I must also say that I have given you my political beliefs and religious beliefs but that doesn't mean I endorse MSNBC.  In all honesty, I don't like getting news from heavily swayed news programs, this includes FOX.  I personally try to get it from CNN if I want more than politics.  Other than that, I try to get straight to the source as my little Idaho communications will let me.  Oh dear, did I say that.  Yep, I'm from Idaho, add that to the anomaly list.  The best sources for news about politics is The Hill, Politico, CQ Roll Call; these sources are right there at the source with that focus of politics.  They go to offices of delegates and representatives, speak to the members of Congress themselves or even office staff to get the "inside scoop".  C-SPAN is the best option.  I know what you're thinking, C-SPAN is boring and sucks.  Well, C-SPAN is also what is right there in Congress and the White House and best of all, there is no commentary.  It's the closest thing to getting the viewer right there as if they were watching the proceedings in the building instead of across the wire somewhere else.

Thank you for enduring my lengthy introduction.  I probably said more than you wanted to know, if not, that's perfect.  I will try to update this as best I can while finishing my studies and keeping up with the current events of the day.  I also will post on historical aspects as well.  If you don't like what I say, then go ahead and find another blog that better suits your reading desires, otherwise, I'll see you in the future.  Lastly, if you want to see my analysis regarding a specific subject, leave a comment and I'll try to address it as soon as I can and as best I can.  Thanks!