Mass Media II

Survey of journalist leanings

Data on partisanship and news audiences

Public knowledge

Agenda-setting

• TV coverage of Iraq & Afghanistan

Changes in the media

• Newspaper readership by age group
• Median age of nightly network news viewers
• Cable viewership by channel
• Goodbye, newsmagazine

Online

• Aggregator sites: Drudge Report and Real Clear Politics
• Original news site: The Politico
• Opinion/news sites: Huffington Post and National Review Online

Hybrids

• Youtube: The Macaca Moment
• Colbert & Daily Show as news sources
• The mix of comedy and news is old.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - John Yoo Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

The Relationship between Church and State in Obama's Administration

After reading in the New York Times that Obama hosted a Seder in the White House, I was intrigued. Given Biden's recent criticism of Israeli President Benyamin Netanyahu's plan to build 1,600 new settlements in East Jerusalem and the responses of Clinton and other senior officials of the Obama Administration, this celebration may seem strange or even contradictory to some. (Some of the more conservative pro-Israel groups have accused Obama and his administration of being "anti-Israel" and "anti-peace". Others, including Netanyahu's brother-in-law, have even gone so far as to accuse Obama of anti-Semitism, which would make his celebration of Passover especially strange.) That a Christian president would celebrate a Jewish holiday seems absurd in itself. In this way the Seder reflects the complex and ever-changing symbolic relationship between religion and the Obama Administration.

The US Government - and, more specifically, the White House - often celebrates and endorses Christian traditions - for example, the annual Easter egg roll on the White House lawn, or the First Lady's festive decor revealed through thousands of televisions across the US every year around Christmastime. While these customs do not have any real policy implications, they reflect the dominance of Christianity in our society and its strong (albeit indirect) influence on the government.

Obama, however, has diverged from this pattern. In his inaugural speech, he included some religious rhetoric, but also openly embraced non-Christians: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers," he said. His 3rd annual celebration of the Seder also reflects this willingness to accept other religions and recognize their role in public life. Too often minority religious and belief groups (atheists and agnostics are two examples of what I would consider to be a "belief group") feel discrimination based on their views and practices. In some sense, there is a religious "tyranny of the majority", as Tocqueville put it: since Christianity predominates greatly, there is often great societal pressure to conform to Christian norms and standards, whether in politics or in social life. (Obviously this pressure will vary geographically: a Jew or atheist in the evangelical South is far more likely to face discrimination and hatred than in New York City, for example. While that isn't to say atheists or others don't judge mistreat Christians, their bigotry is often less widespread and has less impact than Christian bigotry because of the numbers of both groups.) Obama's acceptance of these minority groups, however, alleviates this pressure to conform, allowing greater discussion of policies and views, especially those Christian belief usually condemns (e.g. pro-choice or pro-gay marriage policies). Even if public deliberation ultimately discards such policies, it will at least have ensured that there would be no better option than the one they chose. Recognizing and considering alternative viewpoints is an important part of the legislative process, and while I don't think Obama has fully liberated political discussion from a religious "tyranny of the majority", his actions tend towards that direction.

Obama's stance on religion does not have a direct impact on policy. But it does secularize the US government's image: if public officials recognize all of their constituents' religions, they cannot logically allow one ideology (Christianity, that is) to hold strong, monopolistic influence over them (and thereby over the policies they create). I am interested to see if this trend is just an anomaly of the Obama administration or if it is a sign that American society is moving away from a "Christianized" public life in response to (what some would call) "extremism" and bigotry from some members of the Religious Right and other religious groups.

Mass Media

Ruckus media manual

Survey of journalist leanings

Data on partisanship and news audiences

Public knowledge

Colbert & Daily Show as news sources

The mix of comedy and news is old.

Reading for Wednesday

Selections from The State of The News Media 2010 (released March 15):

Introduction and summary essays:

• Newspapers
• Online
• Network TV
• Cable
• Magazines

History of Senate reconciliation vote

After talking about the next step for the health care reform the other day, I became interested in the reconciliation process. I found this Bloomberg article very interesting in explaining the history behind this type of legislation.

The 2008 Media Meet the 1858 Media

A really good discussion of the Lincoln-Douglas debates on ... The Daily Show:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Allen Guelzo
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

Parties and Elections

Party in the Electorate

• Cinematic Map of Party Strength
• Polarization and Landslide Counties
• Party Identification by State
• National Party Identification: history & demographics
• Latest Party Identification Data

The Big Picture: Electoral Context

• Redistricting and Hall of Shame
• Forecasting presidential elections
• Forecasting House elections
• Forecasting Senate elections
• Incumbency advantage

Campaign Finance

• Financial incumbency advantage
• The best explanation of campaign fundraising in the history of film:

The Ground War

• Lincoln's manual for community organizing
• Obama's commandments

1. You are an Organizer.
2. Things are always great. Be positive.
3. Think with your head: be driven by your heart.
4. People will come to the campaign for Barack. They stay because of you.
5. Empower yourself and others will be empowered.
6. Respect your community and your coworkers.
7. NEVER lie.
8. The phone is your greatest tool and your best friend.
9. If it is not written down, it does not exist.
10. Campaigns are won when goals are met.
11. Have goals. Be accountable. Make others accountable.
12. “Some” is not a number, “soon” is not a time. Only hard numbers count.
13. Keep it simple.
14. Listen actively.
15. Time is the most valuable resource you have. Don’t waste it.
16. Have a back-up plan for every situation.
17. Look and act professional. You are Barack’s surrogate in your community.
18. When you’re not working, remember that the other side is.

The Air War

Air Midterm

Relax. This “air midterm” does not count toward your grade; do not even turn it in. Instead, use it to appraise your own progress in the course. Try out this test, either in your head or on paper. If you flounder, then you should take more care with class sessions and assigned readings.

I. Identifications. Explain the meaning and significance of the following items. Each answer should be a brief paragraph. What is fair game for an identification?

• Items that we have discussed in class or on the blog;
• Items that appear in bold or italics in the readings;
• Items that cover several pages in the readings.

1. Natural rights
2. Great Compromise
3. Nullification
4. Dual citizenship
5. Social Gospel
6. The Lemon Test
7. Fourteenth Amendment
8. Political socialization
9. Astroturf lobbying
10. Divided government
11. “A City on a Hill”

II. Short answers. Each should be a brief paragraph.

1. Explain how basic features of our constitutional system shape PIG and PO.

2. Briefly explain: “Religion, which never intervenes directly in the government of American society, should therefore be considered as the first of their political institutions, for although it did not give them the taste for liberty, it singularly facilitates their use thereof.

3. Briefly explain: “[O]f those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”

4. What are some of the disadvantages of federalism?

5. Explain how direct democracy is still part of American politics.

III. General Essays. Each answer should take 3-4 small bluebook pages.

1. “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.” Explain how the health care debate illustrates the meaning of this passage.

2. Explain how the Internet can both advance and hinder deliberative democracy.

3. According to Tocqueville, what are the main causes that check majority tyranny and maintain a democratic republic in the United States? Does the system work as he described it?

IV. Bonus questions (one point each) Very briefly identify the following:

• Steny Hoyer
• Alger Hiss
• Nicolas Heidorn
• Arianna Huffington
• Kay Bailey Hutchison

Third Essay Assignment

Choose one:

1. Take part in the legislative simulation as a congressional aide, a journalist, an interest group representative, or some other “player.” Do research on your real-life counterparts, and cite the relevant literature. (For instance, if you are playing an aide, consult studies of congressional staff.) Afterward, briefly your role and analyze your activity. What were you trying to accomplish and how? What opportunities and constraints did you face? What did you learn about Congress?

2. Write an op-ed about Congress or the news media. The op-ed should run no more than three pages. On the fourth page, discuss strategy for publishing it. Tell where you would submit it, and why you think it could win acceptance. If you succeed in publishing this op-ed, you will get an A for this assignment. (To qualify for the auto-A, it must appear in a legitimate, professional news outlet. Blogs, newsletters, and student publications do not count.) For an example of a student who did a similar assignment – and got in the LA Times – click here. Andy is now a reporter for The Politico.

3. Do the “How a Member Decides to Vote” exercise at the Center on Congress site. Explain your role and your voting decision. Do some research on how Congress has actually dealt with the issue and then appraise the exercise itself. Did it oversimplify or distort the story, or was it an accurate depiction?

4. Analyze your home House member, using the questions on p. 417 of the textbook. The key question is the last: Whether or not you agree with your representative’s views, do you think that person is doing a good job contributing to American deliberative democracy?

• Essays should be typed, stapled, double-spaced, and no more than four pages long. I will not read past the fourth page.

• Put your name on a cover sheet. Do not identify yourself on the text pages.

• Cite your sources with endnotes, which should be in a standard style (e.g., Turabian or Chicago Manual of Style). Endnote pages do not count against the page limit.

• Watch your spelling, grammar, diction, and punctuation. Errors will count against you.

• Return essays by the start of class, Wednesday, April 7. Late essays will drop a letter grade. I will grant no extensions except for illness or emergency.

The Signing

Count the pens:

Healthcare bill

I found this video informative and helpful. It explains what the healthcare bill will do in the near future and in a couple of years.

Breaking down the health reform bill -NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams

Party!

Partisanship and Health Care Legislation

• Polarization on health care
• Polarization on abortion

Party in Government and Party Organization

.........................Legislative............................Executive

Party in Gov.....House Dem Caucus................POTUS
........................House GOP Conference
........................Senate Dem Caucus
........................Senate GOP Conference

Party Org........DCCC, NRCC, DSCC, NRSC......DNC, RNC

Party in the Electorate

• Cinematic Map of Party Strength
• Polarization and Landslide Counties
• Party Identification by State
• National Party Identification: history & demographics
• Latest Party Identification Data

St. Patrick's Day Controversy

For centuries, the Irish were among the most discriminated against group in the United States and Great Britain. Until the early 20th century, they suffered job, housing and other forms of discrimination in the United States. A hundred years ago in the Northeast, window signs advertising for job openings included the words “no Irish need apply.” There’s even a word that describes hostility towards the Irish -hibernophobia, derived from Hibernia, the name the Romans gave Ireland. The struggle of Irish Americans against discrimination parallels the historical struggle of American LGBTs against homophobia. The Irish should therefore feel a special empathy for LGBTs in general, and especially for Irish LGBTs, who have been doubly discriminated against.

The vast majority of St. Patrick’s celebrations exclude LGBTs. They can do so legally because they’re protected under Hurley v. the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston. There are competing First Amendment claims: the organizers' right to decide what message their parade will send out and the unwanted marchers' right to use the city streets to express themselves. It also brings up the issue of Separation of Church and State, as this exclusive Catholic event uses city funds, streets, and police. The landmark 1995 U.S. Supreme Court decision said the private group organizing the march can do so under the Constitution’s First Amendment. The Court ruled, “The selection of contingents to make a parade is entitled to First Amendment protection. Parades such as petitioners' are a form of protected expression because they include marchers who are making some sort of collective point.” For years, LGBT groups have protested their exclusion from St. Patrick’s Day Parades (http://www.ny1.com/5-manhattan-news-content/top_stories/115375/gay-rights-group-protests-exclusion-from-st--patrick-s-day-parade).

On the other hand, many feel that gay Irishmen should concentrate on their ethnicity, rather than their sexual preference, on St. Patrick’s Day. The same Supreme Court decision allowing private groups to exclude gays from St. Patrick’s Day parades also allows Gay Pride parade organizers to exclude anti-gay groups. If this issue fell under anti-discrimination law, there could be anti-gay marriage groups such as Focus on the Family or the National Organization for Marriage marching in Gay Pride parades all across the country.

The decision of whether to march is difficult for politicians. Mayor Thomas M. Menino, the first Italian-American mayor of Boston, has spurned participation in the parade for years because of the organizers' refusal to allow gay groups to register and march. Menino participates each year in the breakfast on the morning of the parade, often does media interviews at the head of the parade for television coverage of the event, and visits South Boston residents' homes during the parade. But as a symbol of his opposition to what he considers the organizers' discriminatory policy, he has consistently refused to march along the route. Apparently not wanting to risk alienating any of his Irish constituents, New York Mayor Bloomberg does march in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade down Fifth Avenue.

The annual March 17 parade down New York’s Fifth Avenue is the oldest in the U.S. and the largest St. Patrick’s Day celebration in the world. For the last few years it has been a tradition for my friends and me to attend the parade, but this was the first year I was made aware of this issue. As I sat on a wall in Central Park watching the parade go by, I was struck by the irony of a parade that excludes the LGBT community in a city that is characterized by liberal ideals. Based on conversations with fellow New Yorkers, I have concluded that many attending the parade are not intentionally expressing agreement with the Irish-Catholic beliefs of the parade organizers. Many, like myself, have just never had exposure to this topic. Although I think the Court had an unfortunate interpretation of the First Amendment, which resulted in exclusiveness, I know that like all issues, there are two sides. However, I now feel more inclined to understand what political statements we sometimes make inadvertently, sometimes by our very presence.

Cost of Healthcare Reform

The Democrats are celebrating their hard-won victory. Some members of house, in addition to the President, have called this victory good for the nations bottom-line, citing a Congressional Budget Office report that says we will reap tens and hundreds of billions in savings. Yet in a NYT op-ed, DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, the CBO director from 2003-2005, notes that:

the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

This changes my support for the bill, and I suspect that it would change others as well. I do not consider healthcare--or any other entitlement program--to be an inalienable right. (Some may argue that healthcare is part of the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" referred to as inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. I do not agree. The rights in the Declaration are rights from molestation. We are free to preserve our lives, liberties and happiness without interference from government; we are not guaranteed that any of these shall be effectively realized.)

I am not ethically opposed to social programs (though I had the idea that we deserve anything other than protection of our rights from the government), but I do think we can only have as much as we can afford. Unless the healthcare legislation is edited to ensure that real, substantive cost controls are implemented both for consumers and for the government, I will vote against any representative who supports this bill--all other things being equal.

Political ramifications of tonight's health care reform passage

Ignoring the actual bill entirely, I am interested to see the political effects this reform will have in elections to come. I am eager to see if the public views the reform in a positive light given Obama is living up to his promises of "Change" or if the public disapproval of the bill will actually cause his rating to to fall.

On a more local level, the following links got me thinking about how this act is trouble for many representatives campaigns. (Huge win for Barack Obama, but split decision for House Democrats, Some Dems walk plank with 'yes' vote)

In my home state of Colorado, I can't see how Democrat representatives who are running for re-election in historically Republican districts stand much chance. Bye Bye Betsy Markey

Rewritting History?

Last week Texas' Board of Education voted in favor of making some changes to the social studies area of the state's curriculum. (Here is a New York Times' article reporting the most recent vote.) In summary, the board decided to change state textbooks to reflect a more conservative version of social subjects such as history and economics. The first article on the subject that I read was an op ed which criticized the decision and asked: "How can a state decided to rewrite history?" The editorial is quite critical of the decision and describes it as a move by Republicans to push their agenda and put God in schools.

After reading the bold assertions of the op ed author, I decided to look more into the debate and see if this was actually a partisan attempt to "rewrite history". The vote, 10-5 in favor of the Republicans, followed party lines exactly. Concerned about the politics involved with this issue, I suspected the op ed to be the liberal point of view and questioned its objectivity. I looked to review the changes first hand but although the curriculum is supposed to be published for open review, I was unable to find it.

Using the New York Times article for details, I looked at what changes are being made and what the motives behind them actually are. The Board believes it is adding factual pieces to history that are currently omitted. The Republican majority claims history and education are biased by the left's agenda and that it is important to include both sides of the story. In support of this argument, I agree academia is biased to the left and that the history of “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association,” should be included. Economic history is a prime example where the new proposed curriculum attempts to complete the picture. The board stated and I agree that the history and theories of Chicago economists, Frank Knight and Milton Friedman for example, must be included alongside those of Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes. Friedman needs to be included, not instead of, but alongside Smith and Keynes to complete the picture and tell the story not advertise a message, political view or agenda. (Note: I am probably biased given I am an economics major at a school dominated by the Chicago school of economics) Education is not limiting what students learn or shaping what they believe politically. Therefore, I fully support including factual information and allowing students the necessary information to learn about the past objectively.

Adding factual information, such as Friedman's theories, to textbooks improves the quality of education and reduces the liberal bias in education. However, not all of the Board's changes are this constructive. In other areas, the board has decided to combat the liberal bias by simply omitting important information in hopes of painting a biased history in line with the message the Republicans are hoping to send to the youth. This is hypocritical and illogical because omitting factual information does not allow students to balance facts but instead forces them to wade through agendas and political struggles to discover simple truths.

The best example of blatant omission can be seen in perhaps the most debated educational issue, separation of church and state. This issue is at the forefront of the proposed changes and rightfully so given it may be the most biased piece of history in the current public education system. When I first came to college and enrolled in a Religion in Politics course I was surprised at the role of religion in American politics. In high school, it was stressed that the founders were not religious and that they believed religion had no role in politics. In my college course, we read numerous primary sources ranging from the Mayflower Compact to state constitutions to personal correspondences between the founders of our great country. From this I began to understand the role religion played in American and the distinction between religion and politics and church and state. In high school, none of this was talked about because there is so much attention and focus given to the political correctness of church and state separation. Therefore the Republicans on the school board are correct in saying America was founded by Christians and also correct in believing all students should be able to learn this truth.

However, where the school Board fails is portrayed clearly by how they attempt to correct the bias view of church and state. Instead of creating a comprehensive explanation of how Church and State separation began and what it actually means, they decide to simply eliminate its "founder", Thomas Jefferson from the list of influential figures and instead focus on more religious figures. Withholding information is the same grievance the Republicans are crying about regarding education today so simply editing pieces of history does nothing but further the subjectivity of the material taught to students. In this sense I have to agree with the op ed author and say that a lot of the proposed changes are not designed to simply add omitted pieces of history but instead are carefully crafted to create a biased political message.

I came to the realization that education has become a partisan battleground just like everything else in this country. Texas' motive behind making the curriculum more Christian does not fix the problem of a politically biased education system. Instead it simply adds another bias for students and professors to compete against in their deliberation for truth.

Civil Rights story

Mississippi school sued for canceling prom over lesbian student

I found it pretty interesting that the school decided to cancel the event. Maybe a more significant surprise is that the school district policy requires dates to be of the opposite sex.

Participation and Interest Groups

Thank You for Smoking:

The real MOD Squad

• Tobacco Institute (defunct)
• Distilled Spirits Council
• National Rifle Association

The NRA is a conglomerate, consisting not only of the NRA (a 501(c)(4)), but also:

• NRA Political Victory Fund (a PAC)
• NRA Foundation (a 501(c)(3) nonprofit)
• NRA Institute for Legislative Action (a separate 501(c)(4))

Tips on lobbying

Campaign Money in the Health Debate

• Health Professionals
• Insurance Industry
• Pharmaceuticals

Health Care and the Outside Game:

• Rally for the health bill
• Ad against the bill by Employers for a Healthy Economy:

Public Opinion and Political Participation

Measuring Public Opinion

• Polls and Surveys: FAQs
• Nonresponse bias
• Nonattitudes (or pseudo-opinions)
• A recent survey questionnaire
• Whom do you sample?
• Question wording: the example of civil rights

A 2008 focus group:

Ideology

.........................................................Government Intervention in Economic Affairs

.........................................................For....................................... Against

Expansion of

Personal Freedoms.....For Liberal...................................Libertarian

.......................................Against Populist.................................Conservative

Political Socialization

Participation

• Latest census data
• Historical voter turnout

Martin Scorsese's "The Golden Door" (2006)

Although I came across "The Golden Door" a week or two after our discussion of American citizenship and immigration, I feel obligated to share this with the class.  In an interview with NPR, Martin Scorsese (himself an Italian immigrant) even cites "The Godfather: Part II" as being one of the best films to depict the immigrant's experience coming to America.  Interestingly, this part-surrealist, part-realist narrative does not show the Statue of Liberty, a typical mainstay in films about immigration.  Despite this trailer's embarrassingly cheesy voice over, this is a must-see for anyone seeking an intriguing representation of an immigrant's journey to America.  My favorite line?  During the treacherous journey by boat from Sicily to New York, protagonist Salvatore Mancuso introduces himself to the other foreigners on board.  "I've never been in a place with so many foreigners," Mancuso marvels.  "But we're all Italians," a neighbor retorts.  This interaction reveals the vast diversity within the wave of "new immigrants" and the difficulties of finding a community among a disparate group of people.  With many language dialects, customs, appearances, and values, the Italian immigrants had to embrace some common ground to shape the Italian-American culture that seems so distinct in the U.S. today.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NkoJXHiQTc

The Worst President Ever?

I don't remember much of my prospective undergraduate Johns Hopkins tour, but I do remember sitting in a small auditorium while the tour guide listed JH's "best and brightest" alums. She included President Woodrow Wilson, who obtained a doctorate in history and political science there. "How can you say that and look so incredibly unashamed?" I wanted to ask. "Could your institution have possibly failed any worse here?" But I refrained, because I didn't think it would do my application any good.
Declaring one president the absolute worst is a little presumptuous; let's face it, the US has had its fair share of failures and nonentities. Does anyone even remember the presidents of the late 19th century? I know I don't. At least most of these unimpressive characters are recognized as such. What really annoys me about President Wilson is that, somehow, he has not only escaped condemnation but is frequently considered one of our more preeminent statesmen!
Wilson loved The Birth of a Nation and re-segregated the civil service, which we discussed in class. He only supported women’s suffrage after World War I; women’s service in the military (though not in combat) and on the home front forced his hand. Wilson’s greatest crime, though, was his direct culpability for World War II.

What, you say? Hitler started World War II. Everyone knows that! Hitler was no Santa Claus, I agree. He a truly awful man and a somewhat gifted pedagogic, but he was only able to gain political power because Germany’s pride and economy were in shambles. When the Germans surrendered and ended World War I, they did so thinking they would receive a peace like Wilson’s idealistic Fourteen Points. The last point was a League of Nations, so that war would never, ever, happen again. (Can you hear the world laughing?) The US Senate, led by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, did not want to give up its sovereign power to declare war to the League. As long as this one provision was removed, the US would enter the League. But Lodge and Wilson were bitter enemies, so Wilson refused to compromise. The result? The US did not enter the League, completely killing the organization’s efficacy. The French and British, out for revenge, demanded reparations that ruined Germany and Austria’s economies. The Germans felt betrayed, as did the Italians and the Japanese, whose contributions to the war effort the French and British refused to recognize. A little over two decades later, these four disgruntled nations combined to form the Axis powers. When World War II was over, 60 million people were dead. That’s an awfully high price for some personal politicking.

Civil Rights

Civil War Amendments

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. 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.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Woodrow Wilson's work in a pro-Klan movie:

Major Civil Rights Laws:

The Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1964 

• Prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.
• Prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs or activities on the basis of race, color, or national origin
• Prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin in public accommodations.

Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), enacted shortly after the CRA and which was designed to prevent the disenfranchisement of black voters in the South, prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.



The Fair Housing Act (FHA), which was originally enacted in 1968, prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or familial status.



The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex with regard to the compensation paid to men and women for substantially equal work performed in the same establishment




Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Like Title VI of the CRA, Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination is tied to federal funding. Specifically, Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded education programs or activities.




The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in federally conducted and federally funded programs or activities, as well as in employment by the federal government and by federal contractors.



The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which is the most recently enacted piece of major civil rights legislation in the nation, prohibits discrimination based on disability in employment, public services, public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications.

Thoughts on the Principles of Affirmative Action

Although I do not completely agree with the manner in which affirmative action was carried out in certain cases, I understand its principles. As the book states, “In order to treat people equally you must treat them differently.” For many decades, African Americans were discriminated against in every field solely on the bases of their skin color. They were forced to attend inferior schools and live in poverty stricken areas. Although the laws eventually changed, the conditions were and still are slow to catch up. In fact, even today, many inner city schools in African American communities pale in comparison to predominately white suburban schools. Thus, even the best students in inner city schools cannot compete with their white counterparts because of the discrepancies in the educational quality they received. If both groups of students were to apply to college on a strictly colorblind bases, the white students would get in while the minority students with an inferior educational background would most likely not. Therefore, the challenges that a student overcomes must also be taken into account. The minority student could not help that their educational system deprived them or lacked sufficient resources. This, however, does not mean that white students should be discriminated against in turn; it just means that hard working minority students should also get a shot. Thus, equal opportunity cannot be colorblind to be equal.

Supreme Court Case on Handgun Ban

Here is a Chicago TV report on the case that Chris mentioned in class yesterday:

• Barron v. Baltimore held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.
• Things changed with "selective incorporation."
• Definition of "strict scrutiny"

The Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

• The Lemon Test
• "Fighting Words"
• Prior restraint
• The Miller Test

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

• DC v. Heller

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.