Political Splintering

Political splintering is defined by a political faction breaking away from its parent group. It occurs when two classes of a political party have difference ideological beliefs. 

The Whigs are just one example of political splintering. During this time, their main controversial issues was slavery. The

Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, however, was put in effect to allow single territories to decide for themselves if they wanted to be slave free or not. The northern and southern Whigs could not come a complete agreement on slavery, so a split had to happen. The differences between the north and south is now responsible for the creation of the Republican party. 

The Dixiecrats are also an excellent examples of political splintering. Differences between

the northern and southern Democrats began to reveal themselves because of the civil rights issue. Their differences caused the two political parties to be completely flipped. The southern Democrats because known as what the Republicans used to be, and the Republicans switched with the Democrats. However, the issue was not completely solved. Through this, the Dixiecrats, also known as the States Rights' Democratic party, was formed. This new party did not stay for long as clearer lines were drawn places moderates and liberals as Democrats, and the Republicans as conservatives.

Supreme Court Tells Industry Group Attacking The $15 Minimum Wage To Go Away

May 3, 2016
Unit 4-The Judiciary 

A Supreme Court case presented arguments against Seattle’s $15 an hour minimum wage mandate that ranged from challenging to basically an assault on lawmakers’ power over businesses. One of the arguments suggested that the minimum wage infringes the First Amendment because it causes companies to spend money on wages that have the possibility to be spent on advertising instead. This became an appellate court case. The Supreme Court later decided that it will not hear the appellate jurisdiction from a federal circuit court of appeals settlement of refusing to halt Seattle’s minimum wage. Since the Supreme Court is usually rather eager to take cases where there is a conflict among federal appeals courts, the fact that they didn't might imply that the justices might be hesitant to take up an issue where the Court’s membership isn't stable.

I think that the Supreme Court should take this more into consideration. Courts should have jurisdiction over this case and should look into how this might be a violation of the Constitution. As a person my age, where the minimum wage applies to the majority of the few jobs I am able to attain, it is a topic of importance to me.

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/05/03/3774434/supreme-court-tells-industry-group-attacking-the-15-minimum-wage-to-go-away/

Overlooked Tool to Fight Climate Change: A Tweak in Fuel Standards

Unit 4: The Bureaucracy

Article Date: MARCH 28, 2016

By modifying the already standing bureaucratic regulation of making changes to vehicle fuel efficiency standards, the use of greenhouse gas emissions could be greatly reduced. The purpose climate change accord, recently passed by the United Nations, is to reduce decrease greenhouse gas emissions and slow down the effects of climate change. To meet these requirements, the United States needs to reduce carbon pollution generated from power plants as an authorization legislation. In addition, since this reduction will not be enough, fuel economy of automobiles will also need to be modified. On proposed plan is for the Environmental Protection Agency to review CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standard. Thinking about fuel economy, not just gas mileage per gallon, is one way of effecting change.  If the lifetime gasoline consumption of each car model is taken into account, the article states we can calculate the CO2 emissions by car group over its anticipated lifetime. By doing so, the government could issue permits to car manufacturers based on fuel efficiency. Car companies could then use a "cap-and-trade program" to sell permits with other manufacturers.

Personally, I feel like we should be working to slow the effects of climate change, and beginning with improving the fuel efficiency of cars will be a beneficial improvement. This specific federal bureaucracy will work to improve the efficiency of cars so that fuel can be saved even more. Even though this process will involve a lot of bureaucratic red tape, is it definitely worth it to protect our environment.











Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/upshot/overlooked-tool-to-fight-climate-change-a-tweak-in-fuel-standards.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FEnvironmental%20Protection%20Agency&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=8&pgtype=collection

The Danger of a Runaway Antarctica

Unit 4
March 31, 2016

The Earth's rising temperatures are becoming more and more of a problem, and much of the weight from this issue is to be put on the president (POTUS). In January of 2015, scientists noted that it was the hottest year on record. The upcoming year, and years to come, could get even worse. Climate change should be one of the top subjects on the policy agenda because it is impacting our Earth faster than we believe. Obama most likely sits in the west wing and contemplates the censure that will occur if a member of the government takes a wrong step in dealing with global warming. While a variety of environmental problems will begin to arise, the rising sea level is a concern that already needs to be addressed. President Obama has done his part on the matter. He has worked to move aggressively to increase automobile efficiency, develop cleaner sources of energy, as well as impose strict new limits on greenhouse gases from coal-fired power plants. On the other hand, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, the leading Republican candidates, are criticizing Obama's ambition to save the planet and are even questioning the issue itself.

Obama is correct to be worrying about saving our planet, but he is soon to be a lame duck. Our

global health is a serious issue that people need to open up their minds to. It is time that Republicans take a look at what is really around them, and realize that global warming is happening whether we like it or not. Climate change should be one of the top subjects on the policy agenda because it is impacting our Earth faster than we believe. This article addresses to me the implications that are arising politically.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/opinion/the-danger-of-a-runaway-antarctica.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FObama%2C%20Barack&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Opinion&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=article

Representative Chaka Fattah - Pennsylvania’s 2nd Congressional District

Unit 4

March 29, 2016

Chaka Fattah is a member of the Democratic Party. Beginning in 1995, he served as

the U.S. representative for the second congressional district in Pennsylvania. Previously, he served in PA’s Senate and House of Representatives. The district is comprised of areas in Philadelphia, as

well as the Lower Merion Township and Montgomery County. Fattah’s top 5 contributors are GCG Partners, Communications Workers of America, Congressional Black Caucus, PAC, Iron Workers Union, and Leadership for American Opportunity. 

Bill 1: Fattah would likely support this bill, as it was sponsored by another Democrat. He would be for this bill because it would allow individuals to have more privacy and freedom. 
Bill 2: He would not likely support this bill because a Republicans sponsored it and in doing so, potential safety lapses could occur. Security implications would arise if this bill was passed, which he would not be willing to have.
Bill 3: Because this bill has the potential to cause incarceration rates to drastically increase, he would likely not support this bill. It is

also Republican-sponsored.

Anti-Trump Republicans Call for a Thrid-Party Option

Unit 3

Date of Article: March 2, 2016

Many Republicans aren't happy with the possible Republican candidate, Donald Trump. These voters want to be freed from the option of having to choose between the unacceptable Republican choice of Donald Trump, and Hilary Clinton. Rather than having the typical two-party system, Republican voters are nearly begging for an independent candidate or third party option. The article states, "While he has gained intense popularity on the right, Mr. Trump has alienated key blocks in the Republican coalition with his slash-and-burn campaign. For many, his initial refusal last weekend to disavow an endorsement from David Duke, the white supremacist, was a breaking point." Many powerful Republicans, including the senator of Nebraska and governor of Massachusetts confessed they will not be voting for Donald Trump. Marco Rubio's foreign policy advisor, Max Boot, said: "I would sooner vote for Josef Stalin than I would for Donald Trump."

In my opinion, as an individual who is not for Donald Trump, I do not want to be faced with the decision to choose between Trump and Clinton in the final election. Because of this decision, I feel that party de-alignment is beginning to form. I think the public would be better off if there was a thrid-party candidate to choose from. The media continues to portray Donald Trump as a powerful and popular leader, but the truth is that there are many that would do anything other than vote for him.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us/politics/anti-donald-trump-republicans-call-for-a-third-party-option.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

AP Poll: Jobs, Social Security are key for next president

Unit 2

The majority of Americans intensely believe that reducing unemployment rates and protecting the future of social security is highly important. Because Americans believe this, these issues are key for our future president. As is usual, though, there are many more economic issues between Republicans and Democrats on which agreement is not met. A random sampling poll of 1,008 people was performed by the AP-NORC was conducted in January, 2016. In the study, the sampling error was an estimated +/- 3.6 percent.

According to the AP-NORC poll, "85 percent of Americans think protecting the future of Social Security is extremely or very important for the next president and 81 percent said the same for reducing unemployment." At this rate, Social Security is only able to pay out full program benefits until 2034. On a better note, unemployment rates stand at 4.9 percent, the lowest it has been in eight years.

Democrats, unlike Republicans, feel that thinning the gap between the rich and poor is highly
important. Democrats wish to decrease the amount of people in poverty and hope to increase wages in order to balance increases in living costs. Republicans, on the other hand, are much more focused on reducing the federal deficit. They also place importance on revamping the welfare system and diminishing government regulation.

From my perspective, social security does not seem as big of a deal to me because retirement is not in my near future. Unemployment, however, is a much bigger deal to me since I will soon be entering the workforce in a couple of years. With these issues at hand, the public opinion does not seem to know which candidate will be able to best transform our economic future.

Source:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/23/the-associated-press-ap-poll-jobs-social-security-are-key-for-next-president.html