Recommended Reading: What Kind of Nation by James E. Simon

Since I’ve now posted a political documentary, I think it would be appropriate to post a book review/analysis that I have done after reading this book for one of my other classes. The book is called “What Kind of Nation” and it is written by James F. Simon. If you’re looking for some light summer reading or just some interesting fundamental background on the constitutional and philosophical principles that helped shape this country from a legal aspect, you will find this to be a very interesting read.

In What Kind of Nation, author James F. Simon illustrates the proverbial battle between the Founding Fathers over the structure and function of the federal government of the United States. More specifically, this book highlights the ongoing feud between Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall throughout the first few decades following the birth of the United States. The two men had differing perspectives about the nature of authority between the federal and the state governments, as well as how the power should be distributed within the federal government among the executive, judicial, and legislative branches. Though the two figures often clashed over how to resolve the governmental disputes that loomed at the time of the nation’s founding, Simon argues that these two seemingly incompatible men both ended up making a contribution to the forward progress of the early United States in terms of their respective institutional preferences and their conceptions of the nature of the government. Simon argues that while John Marshall’s time as Chief Justice allowed him to establish the credibility and respect that the Supreme Court has since come to be recognized for, Thomas Jefferson’s own views about the federal-to-state government relationship and the delegation of power to the people have also visibly taken shape.

Simon describes the inherent differences between Jefferson and Marshall in relation to their respective perceptions about which direction the country should move towards in relation to the economy and the relative power of the state and federal government. Jefferson, a Republican, sided with James Madison in the need to ratify a Bill of Rights that would serve as restrictions on the power of the federal government in relation to individuals. Jefferson’s primary commitments were to states’ rights, popular sovereignty, and individual liberty. He also believed that the future of America was “dependent upon a traditional agrarian economy that was based on the hard work and democratic ideals of yeoman farmers” (Simon 28). John Marshall, a Federalist, did not share much of Jefferson’s sympathy for strong state governments. Rather, Marshall believed in the need for a strong federal government, in which an independent federal judiciary would be a “necessary bulwark against an overreaching Congress” (25). If the country were to keep the legislative branch in check, a strong federal judiciary would be necessary to maintaining institutional legitimacy and a proper balance of power. In combination with Jefferson’s important leadership role in negations with France, these contrasting views between these two men provided a basis for much of their disagreement.

Simon devotes the majority of his book to the documentation of the various ways in which both Marshall and Jefferson were faced with situations that threatened both their personal and institutional legitimacy with respect to their governmental roles. John Marshall became the head of the Supreme Court at a point in time when the judiciary was far from being considered a coequal branch of government. However, he proved himself capable of establishing the institutional legitimacy of the “least dangerous branch” in a number of ways (Federalist No. 78). Simon argues that Marshall’s leadership on the Court was evident in the fact that there were so many unanimous opinions on the early Court (152). This consistency among the members of the Court increased the chances that the public would perceive the Court as an institution free from politicization and aimed at promoting justice, further enhancing its institutional credibility. While the case of Marbury v. Madison could have greatly damaged Marshall’s credibility, his carefully crafted argument and his decision to refrain from partisan judicialization helped Marshall not only re-establish himself but also the legitimacy of the Court. Thomas Jefferson’s own credibility came into question when he decided to overhaul most of the Federalist appointed judges after stating in his First Inaugural Address that he would not do so (148). Simon uses these examples to strengthen his argument about the conflict between Jefferson and Marshall and the resulting impact that this ongoing struggle over the nature of the distribution of political power.

Overall, What Kind of Nation does an exceptional job at analyzing the debate between Marshall and Jefferson and framing it in the context of the general principles of American government. Simon argues that the differences and accomplishments between the two have made a profound impact on the evolution and progression of the United States and its political institutions. While there are some areas in which Simon’s argument may be lacking, the way in which he analyzes and evaluates the institutional roles of both Marshall and Jefferson provides thorough insight into the nature and origin of many contemporary debates about the nature of power in the federal government and the distribution of power among the states and the people.

Obscenity: An Unsettled Subject in Constitutional Law

As I was doing some reading for my American Constitutional Law class, I found the chapter on Freedom of the Press to be particularly interesting. One of the main topics that was addressed was the First Amendment protection (or lack thereof) afforded to obscene speech. The idea of obscenity as addressed in this book made me think of two very interesting aspects of obscenity in the context of contemporary American society.

First of all, obscenity must be one of the hardest things to regulate and to dictate constitutional parameters for restricting. One of the reasons there is so much grey area when it comes to this topic is because obscenity is not, in fact, written into the First Amendment (or anywhere in the Bill of Rights). This makes it extremely difficult for the Court to regulate the extent to which it is or is not allowed to regulate obscenity. While it is universally agreed that the Court may regulate obscenity (see Miller v. California), the actual definition of obscenity is itself nearly impossible to come to agreement upon. People of different age groups, different cultures, different occupations, different sexual orientations, different gender, and different religion may all judge obscenity differently based on any (or all) of these defining demographics. For example, a 25-year old bachelor living in New York City might have no problem with a gentleman’s club opening across the street from his apartment, while the nuns and the congregation at the Catholic Church two blocks away from the club may have extreme objections to it, labeling it obscene and immoral.

The second observation that I made while posting my previous post about Laura Bush is just how exposed and how easily accessible indecent material is through the internet. When I did a Google image search for pictures of Laura Bush to post on my blog, one of the first pictures that showed up was a doctored photo of George W. Bush and Laura Bush with Laura’s wearing no underwear or pants, exposing her genital area. This is offensive to me, but I’m sure it would be even more offensive or scarring to young children doing a class report on Laura Bush or an elderly person just looking for some nice photos of the First Lady.

While obscenity is at least tangibly possible to regulate in newspapers and in the print media, how is it possible to regulate the World Wide Web, which (just like it sounds) is worldwide in its nature and may not have any listed or known authors? Or is this even possible? The Internet has provided us with boundless information about any subject we could ever think of, but at the same time it has also brought obscenity and highly offensive material to a much higher level and lent it greater accessibility, even to those who are not looking for such a thing.

Guess who was at the University Center on Friday?

As I was going to get some dark-chocolate-covered pretzels at the candy shop across from Cha at the University Center, I noticed a huge line that ended near the parking lot by Steelhead that snaked around the entire University Center. Once I reached the inside of the center near Cha, I could now see well over 1,000 people lined up for something. My roommate, who was with me at the time, said “I think it’s Laura Bush!” At first, I didn’t really believe him because that seemed crazy that the First Lady would be at UC Irvine on a cold, stormy Friday evening.

However, I then decided to ask someone in line what they were waiting for, and a woman said to me, “The First Lady is signing the book that she co-authored with her daughter.” So it was true: Laura Bush was at the children’s bookstore at the University Center on Friday evening! It then all became clear as I looked around and spotted at least 15 Secret Service agents by my count, many of them with sunglasses on to give them the “Secret Service” look even though sunglasses were probably the last thing anyone would have needed amidst the clouds and light drizzle (perhaps umbrellas would have been more helpful). My roommate and I then walked around to the other side of the plaza, and we saw her motorcade/police escort complete with about 6 black SUVs with dark, tinted windows and about a 6 motorcycle California Highway Patrol escort with some additional cars from the Irvine Police.

I was able to get a peek inside the bookstore, and had the opportunity to catch a few glimpses of the First Lady shaking hands with people and signing books. I wanted to find out what time she was leaving to see if I could take a picture with her at the very end when she was done, but the Secret Service Agent claimed not to know what time she was leaving. Perhaps the Bush Administration has seen my blog and I have ended up on their bad list. I just found it interesting how even I myself will get excited when I see someone really famous, even if its not someone I’m particularly crazy about otherwise.

My Two Cents on Ann Coulter

This will be my last post on Ann Coulter, but I believe that the breadth and controversy of her talk merited a number of different posts. Given my disagreement with many of the answers she gave to the questions that were asked, I would like to elaborate on my own viewpoints to provide somewhat of a rebuttal to her statements.

I agree that it will be important for the Republicans to pick a strong Vice Presidential candidate, because McCain is really getting up there in age. I find her advice to pick Mitt Romney as a Vice Presidential candidate to be an admittedly wise choice in terms of electability for the Republicans, since the vote was mainly split between Romney and McCain until Romney dropped out of the race. Whether or not he will actually make a good Vice President if he comes into office is a topic for debate outside of this discussion, er, blog.

I found it interesting though that both one of the questioners and Coulter herself seemed to buy into this idea that there is some sort of Democrat takeover in the teaching profession that leads to this sort of brainwashing of kids when they are young, entrenching them with a very liberal, Democratic ideology. Maybe it’s not the fact that teachers are all liberals that makes students move more towards the left. In fact, one of my favorite and most influential teachers in high school was a strong conservative, yet I do not find myself assuming his own political views because of his inspiration as a teacher.

Instead, I think that it’s maybe that people who become teachers are too intelligent to buy into many of the ideas and policies that the Republican Party that simply hurt the working class and the lower class in this country. While many Republicans have made accomplishments for education and have fought for better quality schools, failed and inadequate programs such as No Child Left Behind try to put state and federal control over processes that are probably best managed at the local level. In fact, NCLB is ironic because it runs contrary to the Republican ideal of small government. However, in general, most teachers (as most normal citizens) probably see how education has taken the backseat to defense spending and other areas of the budget under George W. Bush. So it’s not a problem with a lack of conservatives in the profession, but rather it’s the ability of most teachers to understand what’s in the best interest of this country’s young people that causes them to have a liberal leaning on many issues.

Q&A with Ann Coulter

When Ann Coulter came to speak at UCI, I thought that the Q&A session that she held would be worth writing down so I could later share the responses in here as one of my blogs. While I did not manage to get down every question and every answer, here is a fairly thorough and accurate description of the ones I was able to take note of.


Q: Because of McCain’s age, what are the odds he’ll be a one-term president?
A: This makes the VP choice very important, because they have a good chance at ending up
President.


Q: Who would you advise as McCain’s running mate?
A: Romney, he’s a strong candidate. However, because he was governor of Massachusetts he had trouble winning some Republicans over; McCain also said he doesn’t know anything about
economics, this is certainly Romney’s strong suit; Romney was too polite in the debates. I liked Giuliani in the debates.


Q: We see Obama exciting the youth. They have lately been moving more towards the
Democratic side. Our public schools all seem to be entrenched with this kind of ideology.
How can we get more conservatives on school boards?
A: Don’t go to law school, become a teacher! (If you’re a Republican); we get this Chinese-style
brainwashing throughout public school and college.


Q: Would you still defend Pat Buchanan against his charge of anti-semitism?
A: Yes, I would. There are a lot of Jews saying that Pat Buchanan is not an anti-Semite.


Q: Are liberals in this country intentionally doing harm to this country as some sort of a
conspiracy?
A: The idea that we need to sit down with these leaders is crazy; if we need to talk to them, we
can just call them. If they’re going to nuke Iran and then chit-chat, I’m all for it.


Q: Will you vote for McCain even though you don’t like him?
A: She will be voting against Obama. She voted for Bob Dole, it’s not a vivid memory, but
she did it.


Q: Since Hillary is trying to get the women to vote Democrat, would you consider running as
McCain’s VP?
A: I’m a reporter, not a politician.


Q: Do you have any respect for Democrats?
A: There were some things I liked about Democrats 50 years ago like Truman, who were actually capable of fighting a war. No, I doesn’t respect Democrats on domestic issues, but what I really doesn’t understand is why both parties in America are not pro-American?

The Middle East Crisis and the “Axis of Evil”

In my previous post, I mentioned Ann Coulter’s talk at UC Irvine last week. I would like to elaborate on that speech, just because it also relates to one of my earlier blogs that I posted about Obama’s pledge to meet with the leaders of foreign nations that are labeled as hostile to the United States (particularly the ones that the U.S. does not have any diplomatic ties with).

First of all, I found her idea of blaming Jimmy Carter for the worsening of conditions in the Middle East to be nothing more than using him as a scapegoat for decades of failed policy by primarily Republican presidents. Now of course, it would be highly unfair to only criticize the administrations under each period because many of the Republican presidents faced a divided Congress (meaning that Democrats were actually in more control of the legislative power than Republicans). But the fact is that it was the CIA under the leadership of George H.W. Bush and during the Reagan Administration that actually recruited known Islamic extremists such as Osama Bin Laden (yes, that’s right) in order to contain the Communist threat that the Soviet Union posed to the U.S. in the Middle East.

But more importantly, I was appalled at the conditions she laid out for first meeting with evil leaders and hostile governments. She said that George W. Bush has a phone, so he can call Kim Jong Il or whoever he wants any time of the day. She said that meeting with them face-to-face may compromise our position and give leverage to other leaders of countries that may have close links within the “axis of evil”. As I have stated previously, I do see merit in this argument. However, she said that if we want to meet these leaders face-to-face, we should only do this if we have nuked them first. I think this was meant to be more of an illustration of how adamant Coulter thought we should be about NOT meet with these leaders ever, but the fact that she even suggested this seriously was a little frightening.

When a student challenged her explanation on this as being quite extreme, she even had the nerve to cite the U.S.’s bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan during WWII to get them to comply with our conditions. She said something to the extent of this: “Look at the Japanese: two well-placed nukes, and they were quiet as puppies.” To even subtly suggest that one of the gravest crimes against humanity committed under the name of the American flag was actually justified is something that I believe any American should be completely ashamed of. While the Japanese certainly did comply with American demands after the bombing, to ever cite this in a contemporary defensive diplomatic argument that involves nuclear weapons is like suggesting that the Nazi concentration camps “worked”.

So shame on you, Ann Coulter. If Michelle Obama said that she hadn’t been proud to be an American before, doubtless it’s because of people like you.

The War Behind Closed Doors: A PBS Documentary

If you’re looking for a good documentary that traces the origins of the Iraq War, I have film that I would highly recommend. The documentary is by PBS and it is entitled “The War Behind Closed Doors.” It talks about how the Bush Administration entered the war and the outside influences that led to the invasion over five years ago. Contrary to popular belief, the Iraq War was not necessarily Bush’s idea or one that his administration drew up from oil interests or one that they pursued exclusively because of the War on Terror. In November of 1997, the Clinton Administration was about ready to bomb Baghdad and make an effort to remove Sadaam Hussein from power. However, the air strike was called off at the last minute, and the planes returned to their bases with their payloads still unreleased.

One of the main players in the decision to invade Iraq and one of the primary hawks throughout the Bush White House has been Paul Wolfowitz. It was Wolfowitz who butted heads with Colin Powell and eventually helped convert Cheney into a war hawk in 2002. Interestingly, George W. Bush was prepped by Republican leaders all the way back in 1998 about the present conditions in the Middle East because of his announced presidential bid. He was still at the Governor’s mansion in Texas at the time when these kinds of hawkish strategies were being presented to him by people who were already working at various levels of the federal government.

Without spoiling too much more of the documentary, I would recommend that if you have a spare 54 minutes to kill, you’ll find this to be a rather interesting documentary. While it may not be completely independent and unbiased, I believe that it presents a more accurate and fair depiction of events than is possible in most of the major news networks’ coverage of the progression of American involvement throughout the Middle East.

Here's the web address for the website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/

Orange County = Red County?

After having had the opportunity to hear Ann Coulter speak at UC Irvine last week, I realize that Bill O’Reilly is nothing in comparison to her. One of the most frightening aspects of her appearance at the Pacific Ballroom at UCI’s Student Center on Thursday was the vast number of people that were there in support of her. I guess it shouldn’t have been a surprise given how “Red” Orange County is, but the fact that such a conservative, right-wing speaker could get so much praise on a college campus was both eerie and disappointing at the same time.

I suppose that if you’re rich like Ann Coulter (and like many people in Orange County), you really don’t know what it’s like to be middle-class or to be a working-class citizen. Of course, even most of the fairly wealthy members of the community have always tended to label themselves as “middle-class” or “upper-middle-class”, while in reality they are probably among the top 5% of income earners or wealth holders in this country. People like this are often so out of touch with the daily struggles endured by so many across America that the only reason politics is relevant for them is to help them secure the wealth that they already have, not to look out for the welfare of others possibly at the expense of their own fortune. Sadly, these people will allow themselves to be spoon-fed whatever their leaders tell them, swallowing lies and deceptions like spoon-fed children too young to be able to feed themselves.

This is not intended to be an indictment on all Republicans in general or on the Republican Party in general. My observation is simply that many Democrats are accused of being ignorant because they don’t vote. The fact is that there are more registered Democrats in this country than Republicans, and it has been this way for quite a few years now. So if all Democrats voted, we should have ended up with Al Gore in 2000 or John Kerry in 2004. However, this Republican ignorance is different in the sense that it is blind obedience or submission to the viewpoints of their party leaders. I’m scared for the future of this country should both of these kinds of ignorance continue, but particularly the ignorance of the Republicans who should know better because they are generally more well-educated than the rest.

Bush Family Bloopers

Well, I thought it would be nice for something more lighthearted given the pessimistic and critical nature of many of my previous posts. Here are some of my favorite Bush-isms/slip ups by both George W. Bush and his father:

Time for Hillary to Quit?

Barack Obama now has 1,969 delegates to Clinton’s 1,779 delegates. Obama has now won a vast majority of the states that have voted in the Democratic primaries thus far. Of all the votes that have been counted (excluding Michigan and Florida because they violated Democratic party rules by moving their primaries up), Obama has more popular votes. In CNN’s national poll of polls, Clinton has not been ahead against Obama since around Super Tuesday.

Obama and others have recognized Senator Clinton’s right up to this point to stay in the race. However, I believe that there is a point where her involvement in this race is no longer an attempt for her to take the lead in the Democratic primary and become the Democratic nominee, but rather it is her stubbornness (or her “fighting” character, depending on how you view Mrs. Clinton) that makes her refuse to bow out of the race until the very end.

If Senator Clinton is truly concerned about the welfare and general prosperity of the American people for at least the next four years, I believe it is time that she removes herself from the remaining Democratic primaries and concedes victory to Senator Obama. I have a lot of respect for Senator Clinton, and I don’t think she would have made a bad president. However, the longer this race gets drawn out, the easier it is becoming for John McCain and the Republicans to try to break up an already divided Democratic party over the issue of candidate selection. So is it time for Hillary to call it quits? I certainly believe so.

An Obama/Clinton Ticket?

Will there be an Obama/Clinton Democratic ticket in November? While I would hope so, others don't think it'll happen. I really think it would be a smart choice for Obama to pick Clinton for the Vice Presidential nomination. Many Hillary supporters say they will not support Obama if he becomes the Democratic nominee, and many Obama supporters say the same thing about Senator Clinton if she becomes the nominee. There are many states where Clinton is competitive with McCain in an electoral matchup for November while Obama does not come even close. There are also a number of other states where Obama is competitive with McCain but Clinton would not come close (I would imagine that race plays a significant factor here).
However, what if John McCain chooses, say, Condoleeza Rice as his running mate to run against a supposed Obama/Clinton "dream ticket?" He'd be killing two birds with one stone: not only is she a woman, but she's also an African-American. Both women and African-Americans tend to be strongholds for Democrats in terms of American political behavioral patterns, but how would Obama fare against this kind of Republican team? Gender and race are two very obvious and notably strong identities in American culture, and always have been for a variety of reasons including (but not limited to) the discrimination that each of these respective groups has faced throughout history. But at the same time, political party affiliations may also be very distinct identities for people.
Are we a nation subdivided and segregated to a greater degree by our political, ideologically motivated principles, or are we a nation that is sewn more closely together by the common struggles that each respective demographic group has faced whether by race, gender, socioeconomic status, or religion? I believe that it's a great recognition of social and political progress towards equality for us to even be asking these kinds of questions. However, with the possibility of both an African-American and a woman as either the Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate for both parties in this election, will the recognition of race and gender help to further unite us as a nation or will the possibility of the nomination of a Republican woman/minority group member been used by the Republican party as an intended barrier to divide these constituent groups among the two parties?

McCain stepping up foreign policy heat on Obama

Blitzer: McCain stepping up foreign policy heat on Obama
Posted: 03:20 PM ET

From CNN Anchor Wolf Blitzer


Blitzer: Obama and Clinton have escalated their war of words over foreign policy.
(CNN) — John McCain is not letting up on Barack Obama. Virtually every recent day, he has gone after Obama’s national security stance. He says Obama’s willingness to meet with leaders from Iran, North Korea and Venezuela is “reckless, and demonstrates a poor judgment that will make the world more dangerous.” In his latest statement, McCain calls Obama’s approach “naïve” and “based entirely on emotion.”

Obama is responding in kind. “The Bush Iraq policy that asks everything of our troops and nothing of Iraqi politicians is John McCain’s policy, too, and so is the fear of tough and aggressive diplomacy that has left this country more isolated and less secure than at any time in recent history,” Obama said Tuesday night.

Still, there is no doubt that McCain’s strategy of hammering Obama on a nearly daily basis on foreign policy is deliberate. McCain certainly feels very comfortable talking about national security. He sees that as his major strength. And most observers agree McCain would much rather have national security on the agenda right now than the economy where he and his fellow Republicans see themselves as rather vulnerable..

By attacking Obama, moreover, he is helping to frame the debate and put the Democratic candidate on the defensive. That’s the strategy for now.


I find the debate over whether or not we should be talking to the governments of the so-called "axis of evil" and other controversial leaders such as Hugo Chavez to be quite interesting. On the one hand, I agree with McCain's idea that we should be careful not to compromise our national security and that there will always be the potential of doing harm to our national image and our bargaining position abroad if we talk to the leaders of countries that have traditionally been "unfriendly" toward the United States. However, at the same time, I find myself tending to side more with the position held by Obama.

It has long been held by this nation that the American government does not negotiate with terrorists, nor does prefer it negotiate with other governments or national leaders who have demonstrated outright hostility towards the U.S. But there is a fundamental problem here: If our government has strained relations with North Korea, Iran, and other such nations, how do we expect to improve our ties (or actually establish ties) with other governments if we aren't willing to even talk to them? Simply talking to the leaders of these nations doesn't mean we have to "negotiate" in the sense that we are bargaining away ourselves or weakening our national security position.

Everyone knows the phrase "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." Why shouldn't we abide by the same policy? When you invade a country on faulty evidence of weapons of mass destruction and then proceed to stay in that country longer than the Nazis occupied much of Europe during WWII, it hardly seems unreasonable for countries like North Korea to want to build up some sort of resistance to the United States. Even if North Korea hadn't begun testing its nuclear capabilities in 2005, who's to say that the United States government would have viewed them any more favorably? North Korea's nuclear weapons testing is a simple and natural example of the security dilemma. The oppression that has come under Kim Jong Il is violently disturbing, and I would never even suggest that I support what they are doing. However, from a national security standpoint it doesn't seem very difficult to understand why they would become interested in developing their nuclear capabilities.

Given the negative reputation that Kim Jong Il has deservedly developed over the years, I don't see how the United States would expect for the North Korean president to ever change on his own. In times where we have a dire concern for our national safety and when we are elevated to such a high level of publicity on the international scene, it is imperative for us to maintain a policy where we are willing to meet with leaders of unfriendly governments. These talks must be approached very carefully and must be planned while keeping in mind the possible negative consequences. Just because there is the potential for negative backlash on the United States doesn't mean we shouldn't orient ourselves towards making progress in breaking down barriers with our enemies.