Good Luck, Huck'

Greetings dear students! I am here to supply you with even more information about the infamous Mike Huckabee! We talked about him a little in class this week after your quiz: he is the former governor of Arkansas who is making a run at the Republican nomination for president. You all know that the Iowa caucus is coming up soon: January 3rd. I've provided a few things for you here. There is a short article from The Economist on Huckabee's chances in Iowa and beyond. The Economist is a British magazine, so it's perspective on American politics is usually interesting if only because the tone differs from American reporting. They are devoted advocates of the free market, but generally moderate in their other policy positions. Check the article out here. For even more Huckabee reporting, please read this piece from the NYTimes Magazine. It's a much longer profile with more personal details and history. The NYTimes Magazine has been writing profiles of nearly all of the presidential candidates as the campaign has gone on. I'll share the links to some others of them soon. And finally, I submit for your consideration, one of Mike Huckabee's television advertisements.

This ad plays on something of a US pop cultural phenomenon from last year: Chuck Norris jokes. It can be seen on one hand as a very clever move by Huckabee. Republicans can often be seen as too authoritative, militant, mean. Huckabee is working hard to develop an image that makes him seem humorous, easy-going, and likable. Very often, advertisements in campaigns can be negative (called "attack ads"). The effectiveness of these advertisements is often debated. Sometimes an attack ad can expose (or create) a weakness in an opposing candidate; sometimes it makes the candidate who sponsors it seem overly aggressive. The most notorious recent example of an attack ad comes from the 2004 presidential election, when Swift Boat Veterans for Truth released a series of television advertisements that sharply criticized Democratic candidate John Kerry. They questioned his military service and patriotism and accused him of being a liar. Kerry fought against the ads, but the damage was done. President Bush and the Bush campaign refused to condemn the ads. Here is one such advertisement:


The Swift Boat scandal was an ugly situation all around, but it ultimately worked to President Bush's advantage. Doubt was cast upon Kerry's military record. You can learn more about it here.

One of the stunning aspects of the whole situation was that, for many people, Bush emerged looking like the candidate with more military credibility. Bush was in the Texas National Guard for a short time as a young man. His military record has also been a source of controversy.

One important thing to recognize in these scenarios is that patriotism and a military background are two qualities that are very important to American voters. Candidates have to work hard to show that they are patriotic, that they are up to the challenge of acting as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and that they will not be too "soft" in their foreign policy. This is usually more of a challenge for Democrats than for Republicans, because Democrats are more often seen as "doves," that is, people reluctant to go to war, more prone to use diplomatic solutions to international problems and in favor of a more limited military budget. Republicans, on the other hand, have a reputation for being "hawks" - advocates of war who push for a very strong military with a worldwide presence and a large budget.

I think that's enough for one post! There is more to come!

on the attack,

Eric

(nota bene: several of these links are to articles on Wikipedia. Especially in the case of controversial topics, Wikipedia is a good place to start, but it is not the only place you should look for information. Follow the links at the bottom of the wiki entries and don't hesitate to do some google searching as well to get other perspectives on the issues.)

The Debate Over Roe v. Wade

Greetings! As promised, I'm providing some links to the sites of pro-life groups so you all can have a chance to see the other side of this very controversial debate over abortion in the US.

First, I think it is a good idea to look at the Roe v Wade decision itself. The most widely debated section is point 3. of the syllabus, which cites the Fourteenth Amendment and the right to privacy to establish the basis for legalizing abortion. However, the same point also opens the door to regulation of abortion on a state-by-state basis.

Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Every year there are many demonstrations and debates that take place on the anniversary of the decision. You can be sure that in 2008, on the 35th anniversary of the decision, there will be a significant amount of action from both pro-life and pro-choice groups.

For more information, a good, if not infallible, place to start is Wikipedia. This article gives a solid overview of the pro-life arguments. I like that it mentions that there are several different positions within the pro-life movement - some people are categorically opposed to abortion in any circumstances, others have a much more moderate opinion. It's also important to note that pro-life arguments are often tied to religious beliefs, so the debate can frequently engage more questions than that of abortion, such as the relationship between religion and the state.

Once you visit Wikipedia, you can also take a look at the following sites for further information. As you can see, there are a variety of different groups that oppose abortion, each for its own reasons. A simple Google search for "pro-life group" will bring several million results.

Pro-Life Action League
Feminists for Life
Abortion Facts*

*as I said in class, and as you will find in the Wikipedia article, both pro-life and pro-choice groups look to give themselves an advantage in the way they represent themselves to the public. The Abortion Facts site is a pro-life site. Many of the "facts" presented there would be hotly contested by pro-choice groups, who claim that they are false or misrepresented. Planned Parenthood, an organization that supports abortion, offers a very different picture of the abortion question. Both sides of the debate tend to offer lots of statistics to support their arguments while trying to discredit the statistics offered by the other side. This is something that is not limited to the abortion debate, of course.

...

We talked a couple of weeks ago about accomplices, aidors/abettors, and accessories to crimes. The timing was perfect: this article showed up in the New York Times the very next day! The article describes the case of Ryan Holle, a young man in Florida who is serving a life sentence in prison without parole. He lent his car to some friends who used it to drive to a woman's house. Once there, they robbed her and murdered her. Under the "felony murder" rule, Ryan Holle was given the same punishment as the men who were in the house.

Read the article and look at the different arguments offered. Then I want to know! What do you think about the "felony murder" rule? Should accessories to the crime be punished as harshly as the principal offenders? Why or why not?

Best,

Eric

Predicting the Political Future (A Site to See)

What's the best way to keep your mind sharp during the strike? Read! Study! Discuss! In English!

I have a more substantial post in the works, but for right now, I strongly recommend that all of you go to visit Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball. This is a site maintained by a politics professor from the University of Virginia, one of America's best universities. The University was founded in 1819 by Thomas Jefferson (America's third president - he bought the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon.) Sabato is a respected analyst of American politics and I like his style - he's nonpartisan and he doesn't take himself too seriously.

Sabato updates the site every week to two weeks, so check back often. He covers a lot of topics that are not talked about in the mainstream press, like Congressional races and revising the Constitution. Also, he has a fabulous moustache.

Be well, my students. I will see you all soon.

clairvoyantly yours,

Eric

ps: don't forget to look at those Supreme Court cases for your expose topics!

Court to Hear Case About Gun Control

Whoa! This is a big one. The Supreme Court today agreed to hear a case this spring concerning the gun control law in Washington, DC. The law there is one of the strictest in the country, so I'm betting that the decision will have a big impact on legislation elsewhere. This also make gun control a hot issue in the presidential election - the court will give its decision just months before Americans choose their next president. Very interesting.

You fine people can read about the court's acceptance of the case

here and here

unarmed,

Eric

Oral Presentations, Strikes, Forthcoming...

Hello there, students of law! Hope you all are in good spirits, whatever your opinion on the strike. I also hope you all have been looking at Supreme Court cases to work on for your exposes! Don't forget, the Cornell Law link on the side of this page will take you to the site with all of the cases. As soon as you have chosen, be sure to e-mail me so I can give you the green light.

You have now had an extra week to complete the homework I distributed on November 8,9, and 10. Should be looking good! We'll be discussing that this week in class, so don't forget to bring it with you!

I'll be posting again sometime soon with some extra reading material.

best

Eric

Sarkozy Speaks to Congress

President Sarkozy spoke to a joint session of the US Congress on Wednesday, receiving lots of applause and even standing ovations from the American lawmakers for his speech.

“President Sarkozy has hit a home run out of the ballpark,” said Representative Tom Lantos, the California Democrat who is chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. “I expect a spectacular renaissance in French-American relations.”

the whole speech (nysun)

some accounts of the speech from the press:
nytimes
Le Monde
BBC

What do you think of Sarkozy's speech? What should be the nature of the Franco-American alliance? What are your predictions about the future relationship between the two countries? Do you anticipate the "spectacular renaissance" that Lantos predicts?

(nb: please be sure to be respectful in the comments and vive le discours!)

Nebraska, Freedom of Religion, Schoolhouse Rock

We've been talking in class over these first few weeks about the separation of powers in the US Government. "Separation of powers" is the idea that different responsibilities in government should be handled by different branches of government. It's a French idea - thanks Montesquieu (take a look at his The Spirit of Laws in English or in French)!

So both federal and state governments in America are separated into three distinct branches: legislative, executive and judicial. At the federal level, the legislature is called Congress. It is bicameral, which means it has two houses. Those two houses are the House of Representatives and the Senate.

All the states have a bicameral legislature too. Except one: NEBRASKA! Nebraska has a unicameral legislature. Only one house! Why? Follow the links to find out!

Nebraska's Unicameral Legislature (from wikipedia)

Nebraska Legislature : Official Website

Fun Facts about Nebraska

Nebraska: a very exciting place

***

Some of you had a very good question in our last class about the process of swearing witnesses in during court proceedings. Traditionally, a witness is sworn in by placing his / her hand on the Bible and saying "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God." Many of you asked how this can be the case if the establishment clause of the First Amendment is to be respected. What happens is someone who is not Christian has to testify? And what about the President? Doesn't he/she also swear on the Bible before taking office?

All good questions! Here are some answers:

In North Carolina in 2005, a Muslim woman who had to testify in court wanted to swear on the Koran rather than the Bible. It created a lot of controversy because the judge refused. According to state law in North Carolina, a witness must swear on the "Holy Scriptures" to be admitted as a witness. You can read about this incident here and find a good opinion piece about it here.

As for the president and other elected officials, they are not required to swear on the Bible to take office. Congressman Keith Ellison, a Muslim from Minnesota, was elected almost exactly one year ago. He chose to swear on the Koran rather than the Bible.

And what about those people who aren't religious? There's an option for them too! Rather than swearing on the Bible, Koran, or some other holy text, witnesses and officials also have the option of "affirmation" rather than swearing, which is a totally secular process. I learned in this testy blog post that John Quincy Adams swore on a book of law. Theodore Roosevelt simply held up his hand, swearing on nothing. And Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover used an affirmation instead of swearing. You can read the President's Oath of Office here.

So, friends, there you go. Can't wait to see you all in class this week. It's going to be great.

I swear.

federally yours,

Eric P.

Welcome!

Hello to all my wonderful students! I have created this blog to stay in touch with you all during the weeks between our class sessions. I'll be using it to give you extra reading material and a look at some aspects of American culture and society that we won't have time to discuss in class. Come back often, share your thoughts, and explore the links that are here for you!

Bests,

Eric