government compendium fall2014

8/10/2019 Government Compendium Fall2014

1/20

LINKPINGS UNIVERSITET

Institutionen fr kultur och kommunikation

ENGELSKA

American Cultural Studies

Government and Elections

English 1

Fall Term, 2014


2/20

The Discussion Seminars

There will be three discussion seminars in your American Cultural Studies course, covering three

different topics:

1. American Education2. Government and elections3. Foreign Policy

A compendium of articles for each of the above topics will be emailed to you about a week before therelevant study group session. The discussion in your study groups and in the seminars will be based onthe articles contained in each compendium and the discussion questions following each of the articles.

The seminars are obligatory and you will be expected to know the main points covered in the discussionin the exam.

Seminar 2: American government and elections

This is your second set of articles for the second study group and seminar on American government andelections. At this point you will already have watched the online video lecture on the American systemof government & elections. In addition, you will be expected to prepare in the following way:

- Read the government chapter in your course book, Windows on the United States.- Print outand readthe articles below and the discussion questions at the end of each article,

underliningthe points most relevant to the questions.- Put together written answers for all the questions. Questions with the * mean you will have to do

independent research either online or in the book.- Meet in your study groups (see timetable) and discuss the articles and the questions. This

discussion is meant to give you a wider understanding and to help you clear up difficult points.Obviously this discussion must be in English.

Feel free to add to or modify your answers if the discussion has influenced you in some way, but eachstudent must bring individuallywritten notes to the seminar.

The seminar itself will be organized partly in groups (note: not the same groups as in the study sessions)and partly as a whole class.


3/20

Questions on Electoral Votes (from your compendium)

1. Who are electors and what is their purpose in American elections? What kind of elections makeuse of them?

2. How many electors are there per state and in the entire Electoral College?1

3. How does a person become named to a slate of electors which is pledged to one particular partyand presidential candidate?

4. What do critics see as the two main problems with the Electoral College?

5. How might the Electoral College be reformed and how might this bring about a more democraticelection campaign?

6. Who is Ross Perot and how might he have enabled the House of Representatives to elect aPresident rather than the Electoral College?

The writer questions whether Americans want a system compatible with national democracy or federal

democracy. What is the difference and which do you think is better represented by the current system

of voting via the Electoral College?

1This number has gone up slightly since this article was printed. You will find the current numberonline


4/20

The civil war

Finally passing

Assessing Americas bloodiest war, 150 years later

IN FEBRUARY 1961 the festivities marking the centennial of Jefferson Davis's inauguration aspresident of the Confederacy drew some 50,000 revellers, including the governors of three southern

states, to Montgomery, Alabama. In the run-up to the commemoration, which lasted a week, whiteAlabamans formed Confederate Colonel and Confederate Belle chapters. Teachers came to school

in period costumes. Hundreds lined the streets to escort the actor playing Davis from the railway stationto the Exchange Hotel, where he was met by the sitting chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Courtportraying his antebellum counterpart. The next night 5,000 people attended a centennial ball.

Compare Montgomery's centennial with the sesquicentennial, which this February drew a ragtag fewhundred enthusiasts (and no elected officials) to parade through Montgomery. The 1961 celebration tookplace in a South engulfed in a battle over segregation. The war's ultimate legacy was not yet clear. Butthat battle is now over. Forced segregation, the Confederacy's last death throes, lost. A black man now

sits in the White House, and by most economic indicators the South has drawn nearly level with the restof the country.

This month marks the 150th anniversary of the American civil war's beginning. The first shots were

fired at Fort Sumter, in South Carolina, on April 12th 1861. Passions can sometimes still flareasWilliam Faulkner, the South's great novelist, wrote, The past is never dead. It's not even past. Earlier

this year, for instance, a group of Mississippians proposed honouring a Confederate general who laterbecame the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan with a special car licence-plate. In South Carolina

more than a thousand people marched through downtown Columbia in January to protest against theflying of the Confederate flag on the statehouse grounds.

Such lingering echoes are hardly surprising, though they are ever rarer. The war split and nearly brokeAmerica. It killed 620,000 soldiersmore Americans than died in all the country's wars until Vietnam,combined. And it set 4m slaves free.

In 1860 in the 11 future Confederate states, 38% of the populationincluding majorities in Mississippiand South Carolina, and nearly a majority in Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Louisiana (the otherConfederate states were Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia)was enslaved. The

South's economy depended on them. During the 19th century the North's economy became largelyindustrial and increasingly urbanised. The South remained largely agricultural, its wealth concentrated in

land and slaves. The war destroyed that wealth. Income per head in the South dropped to less than 40%of that in the North, and stayed there for the rest of the century. As late as 1938 Franklin Roosevelt

singled out the South as the nation's No. 1 economic problem.

Yet after the huge public investments of the New Deal and the second world war, the South began toattract industry and manufacturingin part precisely because it was poor, and its labour cheap. Today,average income per head in the 11 former Confederate states has almost caught up; it is $36,350,compared with a national average of $40,584. Admittedly, the aggregate figure masks great regionaldifferences. Agriculture, manufacturing and mineral production remain central to the economies of theDeep South states; almost all of the former confederate states are poorer than average (with Mississippithe poorest state in the union). Virginia, by contrast, ranks 7th among states in income per head; it has a


5/20

thriving tech sector, as well as a number of federal agencies and wealthy suburbs of Washington, DC.North Carolina boasts its own tech hub in the university triangle of Raleigh-Durham.

Texas and Florida both face budgetary problems, but so do many states. Economically they more closelyresemble Arizona, another state that has boomed over the past decade, than they do other Southernstates. Similarly, Mississippi's companions at the low end of the per-capita income table are WestVirginia and Idaho, neither of which fought for the Confederacy. Like Mississippi, they lack a big city,have relatively uneducated populations and rely heavily on mining and agriculture. The poverty of theDeep South is less southern than rural. The economic legacy of the war, in other words, has all butfaded.

Strong government, hated governmentPolitically as well as economically, the civil war left the South broken and directionless. Jefferson Daviswas captured in southern Georgia a month after his best general, Robert E. Lee, surrendered. AbrahamLincoln advocated reconciliation, but he was shot just five days after Lee's surrender. The next election,in 1866, put Congress under the control of radical Republicans, who stationed federal troops throughoutthe South.

Republican Congresses also passed the 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution, which stated thateveryone born in the United States had certain rights as citizens that states could not take away, and thatstates could not bar people from voting due to race, colour or previous condition of servitude. Thoseamendments, like the 13th, which banned slavery, came with clauses granting Congress the power toenforce them. Such grants of power were new. The Bill of Rights limited federal power. These post-civil-war amendments expanded it.

But if a more powerful and active federal government is one enduring legacy of the war, another isdistrust and even hatred of that government. White southerners resented carpetbaggers and

scalawagstheir terms, respectively, for northerners who came south after the war to seek their

fortune, and for white southerners who supported the federal government. Some of these attitudespersist. In late 1865 Confederate veterans in Tennessee formed the Ku Klux Klan, a terroristorganisation that used violence against former slaves. It still survives, milder on the surface but viciousunderneath.

For most of the next hundred years, white southerners ardently subverted the promises of the civil-waramendments by enacting the segregationist policies that came to be known as Jim Crow laws. Theselaws gained legitimacy when the Supreme Court ruled in 1896 that laws enforcing segregation wereconstitutional, provided the facilities available for blacks and whites were equal. In practice they never

were, but segregation remained law and custom in the South. The Supreme Court signalled an end to allthat in the 1954 caseBrown v Board of Education, which ruled that separate facilities were inherentlyunequal.But that ruling set off huge resistance in the South. The governors of Alabama, Arkansas andMississippi all physically blocked black students from entering formerly white schools. The longdormant Ku Klux Klan rose again. This time, however, southern resistance was met both by organisedcivil disobedience and by some measure of federal will. John Kennedy and his successor, LyndonJohnson, were Democrats and civil-rights advocates, willing to use federal muscle where otherpresidents were not.


6/20

The civil-rights movement presaged a partisan sea-change in American politics. After the war,Republicans were anathema in the South, and southerners were anathema in national politics. Before theoutbreak of war southerners had dominated federal political institutions, producing most of itspresidents, House speakers, Senate leaders and Supreme Court justices. After the war's end, the nextpresident to be elected from a former Confederate state was Johnson, a Texan, in 1964. Johnson signedthe Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law with Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks in attendance. Hisadvocacy discomfited segregationist southern Democrats such as John Stennis and Strom Thurmond.

Thurmond switched parties early, in 1964. Others followed.

In 1980 Ronald Reagan's advocacy of smaller, less intrusive government resonated nationally, but hemade a particular push for southern white Democrats. During the civil-rights era, segregationists oftencouched their position as a defence of states' rights; and Reagan's endorsement of those rights at aMississippi county fair, while campaigning for the presidency in 1980, sealed his success in the South.His election gave Republicans control of the Senate for the first time since 1955.

Since then the South has grown steadily more Republican, though two of the three Democrats electedafter JohnsonJimmy Carter and Bill Clintonwere southerners, who could attract southern whites.

Today most southern members of Congress are Republican. And southern states are growing muchfaster than northern ones. In the next Congress Texas, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina will all addseats at the expense of the north-east and the Midwest.

The long tailSegregation was the civil war's long tail. In 1963, two years after the mock inauguration of JeffersonDavis, George Wallace, Alabama's governor, stood on those same capitol steps and declared that fromthis cradle of the Confederacy, this very heart of the great Anglo-Saxon SouthlandI say segregationtoday, segregation tomorrow, segregation for ever. Segregation was so unjust that it is easy to see it asinevitably doomed. It was not. It took blood and struggle to end it. But ended it was, and two decades

later Wallace himself, the face of segregation, apologised for his words.Ten years after that, the South elected its first black governor, Douglas Wilder in Virginia. In 2008Barack Obama won Virginia, North Carolina and Florida and ran strongly in Georgia. The gap in blackand white voter registration has narrowed dramatically throughout the South. And black Americans,who left the South in the early 20th century in what became known as the Great Migration, are movingback. Today Atlanta is home to more blacks than any city apart from New York, and 57% of blackAmericans live in the Souththe highest proportion since 1960.

Voting remains racially polarised; southern whites tend to vote Republican and southern blacks

Democratic. In 2008, for instance, Mr Obama won 98% of the black vote in Alabama and Mississippibut only 10% and 11% of the white vote. But that is hardly unique to the South: Mr Obama ran 12 pointsbehind John McCain nationally among white voters. And racially polarised voting is both a subtleproblema far cry from the obvious injustice of segregation and slaveryand a waning one. Youngwhite voters backed Mr Obama in much higher numbers than older ones did.

This March Haley Barbour, who has a record of racially insensitive remarks, said in an interview:Slavery was the primary, central cause of secessionabolishing slavery was morally imperative and

necessary, and it's regrettable that it took the civil war to do it. But it did. Mr Barbour wants to be


7/20

president. His remarks not only directly refute the ancient argument that slavery was not the principalcause of the war; they showed that there is no longer political gain in pretending otherwise.

Some people have lamented the relative public indifference to the anniversary this year, compared with50 years ago. But back then the war's fundamental questionwhether all American citizens are equal,regardless of racewas not fully answered. Today it is. This is not to say that racism no longer exists, or

that white southerners will not continue to oppose Mr Obama in greater numbers than any otherdemographic group. But their battle with him will be at the ballot box. In his last appearance, in 1889,Jefferson Davis told the young southerners in his audience: The past is dead; let it bury its dead let

me beseech you to lay aside all rancour, all bitter sectional feeling, and to take your places in the ranksof those who will bring about a consummation devoutly to be wisheda reunited country. His lastwish now seems to stand fulfilled.

QUESTIONS

1. Which states were part of the Confederacy? Find them on the map. What were the goals/policies

of the Confederacy? Who was President at the time? (see book for help)2. Describe how the economy has changed over the years since the civil war.3. Distinguish between the Bill of Rights and the amendments that came after it. Why was there a

change?4. How did the KKK come about?5. Why have the white population in the southern states become more and more Republican

thinking? Which President can take credit for that?


8/20

Tea Party movement threatened by internalriftsBy Ed Hornick, CNNDecember 7, 2009 -- Updated 1827 GMT (0227 HKT)

Protesters march through Washington at a Tea Party Express rally on September 12

Washington (CNN)-- It emerged in anger and it threatens to split in anger.

One major group in the Tea Party movement -- named after the famous Boston Tea Party -- is set to hostits first convention in February, with former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidentialcandidate Sarah Palin as its keynote speaker.

But there are fractures in the movement that threaten its future. And if history's any guide, suchmovements tend to flame out.

The Tea Party movement erupted on April 15 --taxday -- over criticism of President Obama's economicpolicies and what organizers called big government out of control. The movement, made up of local,state and national groups, continues to protest what it considers fiscally unsound policies.

And the movement is well funded. Action groups like FreedomWorks -- chaired by former House

Majority Leader Dick Armey -- helped organize and fund its April 15 rally in Washington.Other groups, including Americans for Prosperity, Tea Party Nation and Tea Party Patriots, are alsovying for the helm of the movement, and it's creating what some are calling "competitive chaos."

Some Tea Partiers have voiced anger and concern over whether the powerful groups are "astroturfing''what is supposed to be a grass-roots coalition -- the idea that the movement is being organized by old-fashioned GOP bigwigs to promote their agenda.

Donna Klink, of the Golden Triangle Tea Party-Texas, said in a post on the Tea Party Patriots Web sitethat the chaos needs to be addressed.
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Taxeshttp://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Taxeshttp://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Taxeshttp://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Taxes


9/20

"We must craft a simple coalition message that we can all agree on. ... We should all remember thesimple principles of 'Strength in Numbers' and 'United We Stand, Divided We Fall,' " she wrote.

Klink added that individual Tea Party groups can keep their own identity and beliefs while "stillreaching out to and working with other groups that share common goals."

"We MUST stop this battle within and fight together," she insists.

The factions, however, have said they are only trying to engage citizens in fiscal conservatism -- anddisagreements are inevitable.

"There are disagreements over the exact direction of the movement. There are some big battles betweensome of the national organizations happening," said Brendan Steinhauser of FreedomWorks. "Butultimately I think 90 percent of the Tea Party movement -- the grassroots members and state andnational leaders -- are all moving in the same direction. But there are certainly divisions that need to beworked out."

While anger overeconomicissues sparked the movement, it has come to represent anger in general --from anger over health care reform to just anger against politicians, like Obama, House Speaker NancyPelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

At rallies over the summer and fall, crowds carried signs portraying Obama as Hitler and likening hispolicies to those of Nazi Germany. In one case, heavy criticism forced a Tea Party group in Danville,Virginia, to cancel a bonfire in which an effigy of Pelosi was to be burned.And there's the threat that fringe members will taint the public's perception of the movement."The Tea Party combines the best elements of civic activism with some of the worst elements of fringeextremism," said GOP strategist and CNN contributor John Feehery in a CNN.com commentary. "Whilemost Tea Party activists are genuinely concerned about the future of the country, some others seeconspiracies around every corner and use unacceptable rhetoric to communicate their displeasure withthe president."Steinhauser noted that the fringe elements only make up a small part of the movement and should not

come to represent the cause."If you have 500,000 people at a rally or say you have 10,000 people at a rally, there's always going tobe less than one percent or some small percentage of people that are there that have some fringe voice orissue."That issue is similar to what other populist movements in the U.S. have faced over time.Jon Avlon, author of "Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics," has said thathistory shows that Tea Party-esque movements and "demagogues rise when the economy turns south."

"They specialize in blaming others for the troubles with wild accusations. It's a time-honoredformulation, a powerful narcotic for the nervous and dispossessed, with violent side effects," he wrote in

a CNN.com commentary.The populist movement started in the 19th century. The Populist Party later emerged, made up largely offarmers, and coalesced around opposition to the gold standard as currency.Its ties to the free-silver movement, among other things, failed to resonate with a broader base ofAmericans -- especially urbanites in populous states.

Later in the 20th century, populist anger rose up during the Great Depression, focused on big business'srole in the 1929 stock market crash and its subsequent effect on American society. And in the late 1960s,populist anger was geared against big government.
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/U_S_National_Economyhttp://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/U_S_National_Economyhttp://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/U_S_National_Economyhttp://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/U_S_National_Economy


10/20

"But now we've got both -- anger at big business and big government," said Avlon, a columnist for TheDailyBeast.com. "It's a perfect political storm, primed for a return to pitchfork politics. ... The fringe isblurring with the base, creating leverage on the party leadership."

Nathan Gonzalez of the Rothenberg Political Report said that in order for Tea Party activism to blossominto a lasting movement, it "has to exhibit some real influence that goes beyond a set of rallies."

He said that while there's the risk of fading away -- based on the divisions within the movement -- it has

growth potential."There's certainly a risk of dying out [like many populist movements] but there's the potential for havingsome staying power as well," he said. "If they become larger or more organized there's a potential tohave more influence. It depends on how they're able to harness the energy that's there now and translatethat into future success."

And part of that organization could come from having a face to associate with the Tea Party name.

Palin,Fox News' Glenn Beck and Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, have emerged as Tea Partydarlings.

Gonzalez said the Tea Partiers need to have a one person to identify with their message -- much in theway Obama became identified with "change" in the 2008 presidential election.If the Tea Party movement wants to develop into a political party or force, Gonzalez added, it shouldtake the lessons of the populists and other third-party movements to heart."I think if a third party wants to take off, there has to be a face with it. And Ross Perot was a goodexample of that in 1992 and 1996. It's become more difficult [with this movement]."

Questions on Tea Party movement threatened by internal rifts

1. When and why has the Tea Party movement emerged?

2. Does this appear to be a cohesive party? Explain

3. Who is Nancy Pelosi and what was her position and responsibilities? Who is in her postion now?*

4. According to Jon Avlon, when do third parties like these tend to arise? What was the Populist Party inthe 19th Century? Did it succeed?

5. If this party really wants long lasting stature, what will they need to do?

6. How did the Tea Party do in the mid-term elections in Nov 2010? *
http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Sarah_Palinhttp://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Sarah_Palinhttp://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/Sarah_Palin


11/20

Presidential Inaugurations

The speeches that Presidents make at their Inauguarations are often telling of

their domestic and foreign policies This is due to the current affairs of the

time

Directions: Use this chart to help organize your research of historic inaugurations. Examine the inaugural

addresses (and the conditions surrounding them) of two three presidents provided, and write your answers in the

chart below. Then use your observations to draw conclusions compare and contrast.

President State of the Nation Key words/phrases from Address

1. Pick one past president and add him to the chart. Read his inaugural address and consider the state of thenation during his inaugural address. What can you learn about American history through his inaugural address?How can you connect the state of the nation today to that period in history?

Ronald Reagan

Barack Obama

1stor 2nd


12/20

Note:You will need more room to write than this chart so it is advised to use additional paper for this task.

POLITICS

January 2, 2013, 6:59 p.m. ET

In a Diverse New Congress, Several 'Firsts'

Country's Changing Demographics Reshape Political Picture as Fast-Growing Minority Groups Attain More

Representation

Associated Press

House freshmen gathered at the Capitol in November, will help make up the most diverse Congress ever.

The new Congress to be sworn in on Thursday will be the most diverse ever, with women, minorities and gays

making large gains in a shift that underscores the political effect of changing demographics and social mores.

In addition to the greater minority makeup across Congress, the House will have its first Hindu member, its first

female combat veterans and its first openly bisexual member. The Senate will have its first Buddhist.

The increased diversity comes mainly from House Democrats, with the Republican conference made up

overwhelmingly of white, Christian males. That split in some ways reflects the divide in the electorate in last

year's presidential race, with PresidentBarack Obama winning convincingly among minorities, women and gays

while losing white voters to Republican Mitt Romney.
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-politics-campaign.htmlhttp://topics.wsj.com/person/o/barack-obama/4328http://topics.wsj.com/person/o/barack-obama/4328http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-politics-campaign.html


13/20

Republicans worried about their appeal among some of the largest or fastest-growing voter groups say they plan

to make a new effort to recruit minorities and women as candidates. "We will have a very focused and

concerted effort in terms of the diversity of our candidates," said Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, the new

chairman of the House Republican campaign arm. "We're going to be effective in our recruiting."

Mr. Walden's Democratic counterpart noted the differences in the new Congress's makeup. "The demography is

changing throughout the country, and it's better to stay ahead of that than have to catch up to it," said Rep.

Steve Israel of New York.

For the first time, white men will be a minority among House Democrats, with blacks and Latinos adding to the

party's numbers. Democrats Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii will be the first female

combat veterans in Congress, with the later also the chamber's first Hindu.

"My Hinduism...has taught me that true happiness comes when you're doing things for other people and not

just living for yourself," Ms. Gabbard said.

Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona Democrat, is the first openly bisexual person elected to Congress. Raised a Mormon

in a low-income family, she lists her religious affiliation as nonea rarity in politics.

In the Senate, Democrats have more women

of the record 20 women senators, 16 are Democrats. But

Republicans count three ethnic minorities among their ranks, compared with two Democrats.

The new Senate will have that chamber's first Buddhist in Mazie Hirono, a Hawaii Democrat and current House

member, who succeeds the retiring Daniel Akaka, a Democrat. The Senate will also have its first openly gay

member in Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin, who succeeds Democrat Herb Kohl.

Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Sinema are part of the largest group of openly gay members of Congress in history. Among

them are Mark Takano, an Asian-American Democrat from California, who will be the chamber's first openly gay

ethnic minority. In all, six members of the new House are openly gay.

Mr. Takano and Ms. Gabbard are among the four new members of Congress, all Democrats, who are Asian-

American or Pacific Islandersethnic groups among which Republicans think they can make inroads.

"I think you're going to see a far more aggressive outreach in the Hispanic and Asian communities for example,

with far more Spanish-language advertising and a far more aggressive grass-roots effort to reach into minority

communities," said Whit Ayres, a Republican consultant. "There's no reason in the world why Republicans

should be losing Asian voters."

Republicans did run some high-profile House candidates in 2012 who didn't fit their conference's current mold.

Mia Love, an African-American, lost a race for a Utah seat. Richard Tisei would have been Congress's only openly

gay Republican had he won a Massachusetts race.

Rep. Allen West, one of two black Republicans in the House, lost his re-election bid. The other, Rep. Tim Scott of

South Carolina, is set to become the only African-American in the Senate of either party, after being appointed

to a vacant seat.

At the gubernatorial level, some of the nation's most prominent Republicans are minorities, including Indian-

AmericansBobby Jindal of Louisiana and Nikki Haley of South Carolina and New Mexico'sSusana Martinez,who

is Hispanic.
http://topics.wsj.com/person/i/steve-israel/7063http://topics.wsj.com/person/b/bobby%20jindal/6959http://topics.wsj.com/person/m/susana-martinez/6960http://topics.wsj.com/person/m/susana-martinez/6960http://topics.wsj.com/person/b/bobby%20jindal/6959http://topics.wsj.com/person/i/steve-israel/7063


14/20

"Governors are a more visible picture of a political party in their state than congressmen or even senators," Mr.

Ayres said. "The route is clearly open for center-right politicians who are not white to do very well as

Republicans. We've got plenty of evidence of that. We just need more."

Questions:

1. Which groups of people were brought into Congress last election? Which parties were they inand what states did they come from?

2. *There are a number of things unusual about Kyrsten Sinema being elected to Congress, what

are they? (Research a bit where she comes from?)

3. *Tim Scott is currently a Senator from South Carolina. Research how he got that position and

what fringe group supports his ideology. What is his ideology?

4. Given that the Republicans lost the Presidential election in 2012, what must the party do to

gain more votes? How is it ironic that Republicans cannot get endorsement from the African

American community?

April 16, 2013

Beside a Path to Citizenship, a New Path onImmigrationByJULIA PRESTON

WASHINGTON A sweeping immigration bill that a bipartisan group of eight senators completed on Tuesday seeks not onlyto fix chronic problems in the system and bring an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants to the right side of the law. It would

also reorient future immigration with the goal of bringing foreigners to the country based increasingly on the job skills and

personal assets they can offer.

The bill, by four Democrats and four Republicans, is the most ambitious effort in at least 26 years to repair, update and

reshape the American immigration system.

The part of the bill expected to draw the most controversy is a 13-year pathway to citizenship for immigrants who have been

living here illegally. In an effort to make that proposal acceptable to Republicans who fear it could unleash a new wave of i llegal

immigration, the senators placed a series of conditions, or triggers, along the pathway, that would require the Department of

Homeland Security to spend as much as $6.5 billion over 10 years to increase enforcement and extend fencing along the

Southwest border.

The border security programs would have to be fully operational before any immigrants who had been here illegally would be

able to apply for permanent resident cards, the first step toward becoming American citizens.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/julia_preston/index.htmlhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/julia_preston/index.htmlhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/julia_preston/index.htmlhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/julia_preston/index.html


15/20

But the proposal for illegal immigrants is only one part of the complex bargain. Created by the senators in tough closed-door

negotiations, the legislation codifies other novel compromises designed to break logjams that have clogged the immigration

system.

President Obama praised the legislation as largely consistent with the principles he had laid out for an immigration overhaul.

After a meeting with two senators from the group, Charles E. Schumer of New York, a Democrat, and John McCain of Arizona,

a Republican, the president said in a statement that the provisions of their bill are all common-sense steps that the majority of

Americans support.

Mr. McCain said his onetime rival for the presidency was very supportive but understands that everybody didnt get

everything they wanted.

Mr. Schumer praised Mr. Obama for giving the senators room to craft the bipartisan legislation. I thanked him for that. John

thanked him for that.

Mr. Schumer said the process would begin formally with hearings on Friday in the Judiciary Committee, with the goal of voting

on the bill in the Senate in late May or early June.

For the first time, the legislation would create a merit-based program to award the visa for legal permanent residents, known

as a green card, based on a point system. When the merit system takes effect, five years after the bill is passed, at least 120,000

foreign-born people each year would be able to gain green cards by accumulating points based on their skills and education, as

well as their family ties and the time they have lived in the United States.

Over a decade, the balance in the immigration system would gradually shift away from the 75 percent of visas that now go to

family members of immigrants already here. As a result of the merit program, closer to 50 percent of visas annually would go

to immigrants based on their family ties, while about half would be based on job skills.

As part of the border security triggers, the bill would require all employers, within five years, to verify the legal status of new

hires using a federal photo-matching system. It would also require the federal government to create an electronic system

within 10 years for checking foreigners as they leave the country through airports and seaports.

The bill also would also create two new guest-worker programs, one for farmworkers and another for low-wage laborers.

It would give employers in technology and science fields tens of thousands of new temporary and permanent resident visas

annually, which they have been urgently seeking for computer engineers and foreign graduates with advanced degrees from

American universities. It raises current annual caps on temporary high-skilled visas, known as H-1B, to 110,000 from 65,000,

while adding 5,000 more of those visas for the foreign graduates. The cap would gradually rise to 180,000.

And the bill would allow young illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children, known as Dreamers, to become

citizens after only five years.


16/20

The senators are gambling that the bill would repair enough longstanding problems to attract support from a broad array of

groups that would benefit, including Latinos, religious groups and labor unions; big technology companies like Microsoft and

Facebook, which have been clamoring for more visas; agricultural growers and other employers in labor-intensive businesses;

and immigrant families who stand to be united more quickly with family members coming here legally.

Many groups responded initially with surprise at the bills ambitious scope and its practical approach.

The heart of immigration reform is fixing the legal immigration system so it works for America, said Tamar Jacoby, president

ofImmigrationWorks USA,a group representing small businesses. The first draft doesnt get the future exactly right, but its a

good start.

Several other business and conservative groups praised the framework but said the guest worker programs were too limited.

Leaders ofUnited We Dream,an organization of youths here illegally, called the five-year path to citizenship for young people

a major victory for the movement. They also said the path for other illegal immigrants was too long.

Opponents said the legislation favored illegal immigrants over Americanworkers and foreigners who came legally. It legalizes

almost everyone in the country illegally before the border is secured, said Representative Lamar S. Smith of Texas, a leading

Republican on immigration issues. This of course will encourage even moreillegal immigration.

Perhaps the most original compromise is the path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Several Republicans, especially Senator

Marco Rubio of Florida, insisted that there could be no special, separate path for them. But Democrats, led by Mr. Schumer,

fought for a direct, manageable pathway that would ensure that most immigrants here illegally get a chance to earn their way

to becoming citizens.

In a first phase, those immigrants would spend a minimum of 10 years in Registered Provisional Immigrant Status, which

would allow them to work and travel. After 10 years, they would be eligible to apply for green cards through the merit system.

That system would have two tracks: one based on the number of points immigrants could accumulate, with a fixed annual

numerical cap, and another for foreigners who had been legally employed in the United States for 10 years or more. The second

track would not have a cap. Formerly illegal immigrants would be eligible to apply, after 10 years in provisional status, for

those green cards.

However, many other immigrants would also be eligible for the merit system. They include those who had applied legally for

green cards and had been stuck in backlogs for 10 years or more. The solution satisfied both Republicans and Democratsdemands.

The other senators in the group, who have been called the Gang of Eight, are Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, Robert Menendez of

New Jersey and Michael Bennet of Colorado, all Democrats; and Mr. McCain and Jeff Flake, both of Arizona, and Lindsey

Graham of South Carolina, all Republicans.

In other compromises, the bill would reduce the categories of family members eligible for green cards, eliminating siblings of

United States citizens, and limiting sons and daughters of citizens to those younger than 31. It would eliminate a lottery that
http://www.immigrationworksusa.org/http://www.immigrationworksusa.org/http://www.immigrationworksusa.org/http://unitedwedream.org/http://unitedwedream.org/http://unitedwedream.org/http://unitedwedream.org/http://www.immigrationworksusa.org/


17/20

has distributed 55,000 visas each year, using those visas to reduce other backlogs. Republicans have sought to limit what they

call family chain migration.

But among the victories for Democrats is a provision to allow immigrants who had been deported on noncriminal grounds to

apply to return, if they have spouses or minor children here.

Michael D. Shear contributed reporting.

Questions:

1. After having read the article, what do you feel are the most controversial parts of the proposal?

What apprehensions do the Republicans have? Democrats?

2. Who is John McCain and why is he important in American politics? (requires a search beyond

this article)

3. What is the merit-based program and how does it differ from the already in-place green-card

system?4. Which states in the US have a high-stake interest in getting immigration reform right?

5. What paths are there for illegal immigrants to become citizens?

6. GENERAL TASK: Look up what the exact make-up of the congress is at the moment (how many

republicans and democrats in each house) and see which states vote for senators in November.

In your view, why would it be /would it not be beneficial for each house to have an even

number of democrats and republicans?

Following SouterMay 7th 2009 | WASHINGTON, DCFrom The Economist print edition

Barack Obama has a chance to rejuvenate the Supreme Courts liberal wing

AP


18/20

DAVID SOUTER (second from right, above) is a singular character. Though wealthy, he lives the life

of Diogenes. He lunches frugally at his desk, typically on yogurt and an apple, which he eats to thecore. He seldom goes out. He has no time for modern distractions such as television. But most

unusually of all, despite having life tenure as a judge on the Supreme Court, he is planning toretire at the tender age of 69.

He loves judging but hates Washington, DC. He calls it the worst city in the world, though he has

barely travelled. He yearns to return to his home in a tiny hamlet in New Hampshire, a dilapidatedwooden farmhouse where he lives alone. His announcement, on May 1st, sent ripples of excitementthrough the city he despises. President Barack Obama now has a chance to pep up the courtsliberal wing with a youthful replacement.

The Supreme Court matters. Its nine members decide what the constitution means. When there is

doubt as to whether a law, a president or the actions of a local police department are lawful, thenine get the final say. Their decisions cannot be overruled, except by a future Supreme Court or a

constitutional amendment. And they are appointed for life.

Small wonder that confirmation hearings for nominees are ferocious. One jurist with superb

qualifications was scuppered when it was revealed that, at the age of 12, he had described the film

To Kill a Mockingbird as kind of boring. Obviously a racist, concluded the Senate. Anothercandidate had once offered to marry his girlfriend if she was pregnant. This proved he was

maniacally opposed to abortion, said the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, a windbagwho had uttered his first full sentence at the age of 14 months and hadnt stopped since.

These, as it happens, are scenes from Supreme Courtship, an amusing novel by ChristopherBuckley. But reality is not so far removed from satire. When Robert Bork, a learned conservative

judge, was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987, Ted Kennedy called him a Neanderthal who

would bring back segregated lunch counters and slam the courthouse doors on the fingers ofmillions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector ofindividual rights. Mr Borkwas not confirmed. Clarence Thomas, a black conservative, was narrowly confirmed in 1991, butonly after enduring what he called a high-tech lynching over allegations that he sexually harasseda colleague.

Mr Souter, who was picked by President George Bush senior in 1990, escaped with only a lighthazing, largely because he was so little known. At the time of his nomination he had been an

appeals court judge for only two months. Mr Bush figured that Senate Democrats would be unableto attack his record because there was no record to attack.


19/20

This brilliant plan backfired. Mr Bush had been assured that Mr Souter was a staunch conservative;he proved to be anything but. Pro-lifers who expected him to help overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973

Supreme Court decision that established a right to abortion, were disappointed. He had a chance toscrap it in 1992. Instead, he reaffirmed it. The same year, he joined a 5-4 majority upholding the

ban on prayer in public schools. And in 2000, in Bush v Gore, he voted against automaticallyawarding the presidency to the son of the man who nominated him. As some readers will recall, he

lost that one. He is said to have considered resigning.

In 2005 Mr Souter sparked another controversy by voting to allow the government to seize

peoples homes and hand the land to private developers. The constitution allows the expropriationof private property for public use, such as building a road. In Kelo v New London, a town inConnecticut wanted to evict some homeowners and replace them with wealthier people and

businesses who might pay higher taxes. Mr Souter and four other justices thought that was just

fine. Outraged property-rights sticklers proposed to have Mr Souters home bulldozed and replacedwith a hotel. They failed, of course, but most states have since passed laws curbing the power oflocal governments to grab land on behalf of private corporations.

In the past year, in cases that were not decided unanimously, Mr Souter has voted 86% of the

time with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Courts liberal lioness. He agreed with Samuel Alito, a

young conservative, only 14% of the time. Republicans rate him one of the elder President Bushsbiggest mistakes. Democrats, having been pleasantly surprised, hope that Mr Obama does not

hand them the other sort of surprise with his replacement.

That seems unlikely. With at least 59 Democrats in the 100-seat Senate, Mr Obama can be fairlysure that his choice will be confirmed. The question is: what sort of judge would he like? The

answer is unclear. Although Mr Obama has taught constitutional law and edited the Harvard LawReview, his opinions on constitutional matters are hard to pin down.

When campaigning for the Democratic nomination, he told liberals what they wanted to hear.

Addressing a Planned Parenthood conference in 2007, he said: [W]eneed somebody whos got the

heart, the empathy, to recognise what its like to be a young teenage mom [or] poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And thats the [criterion] by which Ill be selecting my judges.

For conservatives, this was alarming. Justice is supposed to be blind, not empathetic. Asconservatives see it, liberal judges have repeatedly subverted the rule of law in recent decades by

overruling elected lawmakers with scant constitutional justification. Roe v Wade,which relies on aconstitutional right to privacy that is nowhere written in the constitution, is the most controversialexample.

But as president Mr Obama has sent out mixed signals. On the one hand, he says he wantssomeone who understands that justice isnt about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a

casebook. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of peoples lives. That sounds like

a prescription for judicial activism. But Mr Obama also says he wants somebody who is dedicatedto the rule of law, who honours our constitutional traditions and the appropriate limits of thejudicial role. That is exactly what conservatives say they want.

So no one knows what to expect. Many Democrats want him to choose a Hispanic woman, sincethe court currently has no Hispanics and only one woman. Speculation swirls around SoniaSotomayor, an appeals court judge who grew up in poverty in the South Bronx after her father, amanual labourer from Puerto Rico, died when she was nine.

It could be no more than speculation, however. Unkind critics question Ms Sotomayors intellect.

And she upset many with her ruling in Ricci v DeStefano, a case now before the Supreme Court. Agroup of white firefighters sued for racial discrimination when they were denied promotions. Theyhad passed an aptitude test, but because none of their black colleagues passed, the city decided topromote no one. Ms Sotomayor sided with the city.


20/20

The conventional wisdom about Mr Souters retirement is that an ageing liberal will simply bereplaced by a younger one. On the most angrily debated issues, such as abortion, that may be

true. And the court may soon be forced to rule on some aspect of gay marriage, although thestates seem for now to be liberalising apace without direction from above. But Mr Souter does not

entirely fit the liberal stereotype. For example, he complains about the stark unpredictability ofthe punitive damages that lawyers often urge juries to impose. Last year he wrote the majority

opinion striking down a $2.5 billion award against Exxon for an oil spill in Alaska.

The next court could hear plenty of commercial cases, not least because the recession has spurred

the federal government to involve itself more in private business. Mr Obama is propping up banks,managing car firms, re-writing mortgage contracts and chasing white-collar criminals. All theseventures raise legal questions. Mr Obama will want an ally on the Supreme Court; but as Mr

Souters career attests, unsackable judges make unpredictable allies.

Questions

1. Why are nominees for Supreme Court Justices so ferocious? What is the procedure a nominee mustgo through to actually sit on the Supreme Court?* See course book

2. Why was David Souter picked by President Bush to sit on the Supreme Court? How has his choice

proven to be an unwelcome surprise? Give examples.

3. What is the Roe vs. Wade case all about?* Why is it so controversial?

4. Who has now replaced Souter? Was it an easy confirmation process or was there controversysurrounding the proceedings? Has this person set a new precedent for the Supreme Court?*

5. Since this article, yet another Supreme Court justice has been appointed. How does this person affectthe political and demographic balance of the court? *

government compendium fall2014

Documents