State And Local Government 2012-14

State and Local Government

This course is about the institutions and political forces that shape policy making and policy outcomes in state and local communities. To those of us who are students of American politics, states and their local government subdivisions are fascinating political laboratories that allow comparisons among different political systems. States vary in the powers given governors, how their legislatures are structured, how judges are selected and reviewed, and how they operate in a host of policy areas, including how they impose taxes. The party system is much weaker in some regions of the country than in others. State legislatures in some of the smaller or rural states meet for just a few months a year, whereas in other states they meet all year. The importance of interest groups and the media varies from state to state and from city to city. Generalizations are sometimes difficult, yet we try in this class to summarize what political scientists know about state and local politics and government.

State and local government and politics remain important not only to the residents of a particular state but to all Americans. A tax-cutting ballot initiative or legislative term limitation can spawn scores of similar votes in other states. And as we learned from the welfare reform legislation of recent years, states can be catalysts for change on the national level and then central to its implementation.

Those who want better government in their communities and states will not achieve it by sitting around and waiting for it. If government by the people, of the people, and for the people is to be more than just rhetoric, citizens must understand state and local politics and be willing to form political alliances, respect and protect the rights of those with whom they differ, and be willing to serve as citizen leaders, citizen politicians. We hope this class will motivate you to appreciate that every person can make a difference, and that all of us should work toward that end.

Dr. Michael Thompson

American Federalism

American Federalism
By: Fabian Hayles

Federalism is one of the most important and innovative concepts in the U.S. Constitution. Federalism system of government is a system in which power is divided between a national government and various regional governments. Federalism is an aspect of American government, whereby the states are not regional representatives of the federal government, but are granted independent powers and responsibilities.
Constitutional federalism has two distinct features. First, the national government and the states divide power: some powers are shared by the two levels of government, while other powers are reserved to one level or the other. Second, the national government itself partly functions through state-based institutions. While the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution declares the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the U.S. to be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution enumerates what kind of laws Congress has the power to enact. Moreover, the Tenth Amendment declares that the powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people. The Constitution recognizes a special position for the states in the federal Union. It gave states authority to ratify the Constitution itself and grants states the power to participate in amending the Constitution. Also, the Constitution provides special roles for the states in the workings of the national government itself. The Constitution lets states decide who can vote for members of the U.S. House of Representatives; it provides each state with equal representation in the U.S. Senate; and it gives states a role in the complicated system used to choose a president.
All state governments are modeled after the federal government and consist of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The U.S. Constitution mandates that all states uphold a "republican form" of government, although the three-branch structure is not required. Powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the congress, and the President, and the federal courts, including the Supreme Court respectively. The powers and duties of these branches are further defined by acts of Congress, including the creation of executive departments and courts inferior to the Supreme Court.
During the time when the 13 North American colonies declared their independence from Great Britain on
July 4, 1776, all 13 states recognized the need to coordinate their efforts in the war and to cooperate with each other generally. They adopted the Articles of Confederation, a constitution which created a league of sovereign states which committed the states to cooperate with each other in military affairs, foreign policy and other important areas. Barely sufficient to hold the states together through the war against England and, at the successful conclusion of that war, fell apart completely as the states pursued their own interests rather than the national interest of the new United States.
With the sudden shortage of federal money to support federal priorities, Congress, used the constitutional authority it had to regulate commerce among the states, imposed direct regulations upon the states. Since these regulations require the states to act but do not provide any funding to finance these activities, they are called unfunded mandates. Many of these regulations deal with environmental protection, historic preservation and the protection of individual rights, but they all carry with them substantial costs to the states. The states rebelled against these federal requirements and, in response, Congress enacted the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995, which prohibits the federal government from placing new requirements on state and local government without providing the necessary finding. It remains to be seen whether this law will effectively limit the range of federal activity, especially given how broadly the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted Congress' authority.
E Pluribus Unum: out of many states, one nation. In 1776, the newly independent states acted like 13 quarreling siblings. These “united” states had vast differences in history, geography, population, economy, and politics. Each state wanted all the powers of sovereign nations: to make treaties, receive ambassadors, coin money, regulate commerce. But they had to give up some of those powers in order to survive on the world stage. They agreed to the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States. It created a “firm league of friendship” among the states, along with a legislature of very limited powers. Congress was very weak: it could wage war and negotiate peace, but not raise taxes to pay for either. In Congress each state had one vote to use, and any changes to the Articles required unanimous consent. Faced with the very real problems of a weak central government, Congress issued a resolution in February 1787 calling for a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation. But at the Philadelphia convention, which opened on May 25, 1787, delegates quickly began to consider an entirely new form of government, federalism, which shared power between the states and a more robust central government with truly national powers. On September 17, 1787, the delegates approved and signed an entirely new Constitution for the United States of America. Once approved by the people, the Constitution's federal system would create a unique solution to sharing power among the states and the national government.

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/3.asp
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/price/100717
http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/docs/demopaper/dmpaper4.html

---

Federalism

Ty Rumford

Federalism is the type of government in which is divided between the national government and other governmental units. It is a direct contrast with the unitary style government in which a central authority holds the power and a confederation where the states would hold all the power.

With the Articles of Confederation were repealed in 1789, the founding fathers hoped to create a form of government that would with stand the test of time and set a standard for governments all over the world. This form of government is known as a federal system, A system where both the national government and the state government share power. In some cases authority is granted to the national government. In other local matters, the power and situation is handled by the states. In the federal system, more than one government must be able to govern the citizens and the territory as another government, each government has it's own authority and has powers that are denied the other forms, and no level of government can abolish any other. Federalism has taken many forms over the years, but we still debate the specific meaning of the division of power in government to this day.

The constitution sets up the framework for federalism but nowhere within it does it specifically define federalism. The constructors of the constitution set out to produce a document to combat the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation. In terms of power between the federal government and states, the constitution is for the federal government. In it’s addition to outlining how the government will play a role in the lives of citizens, it also outlines the three different branches of government. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are in place to carry out the constitution, they are all given a specific set of powers over each other as to prevent one section growing to powerful to dominate.

In 1901, federalism began to change. The federal government began to take more authority in developments that concerned the people, rather than policies. President Teddy Roosevelt began to set aside land for national parks, he began to regulate business, take action on issues, and he initiated what was called New Nationalism in 1910. He sought to expand the powers of the government. He thought the national government had become too decentralized in matters of national concern. He thought it was his view to right those wrongs by making the national government.

President Franklin Roosevelt truly developed the current status of federalism in this country today. His changes to the government would radically edit the view of government for good. In his attempts to help the people and pull our country out of the great depression of the 1930’s, the greatest depression our country has ever seen, he created a system that would care for the every citizen no matter how common. The government would look after and try to foster the well being of the economy for the people, protect the people from foreign threats, and be a trust of the people in the form of laws and domestic programs. Other presidents may have different political opinions and values, but all share the same respect for the government as it is today.

Work Cited:
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Concepts-of-Federalism.topicArticleId-65383,articleId-65443.html
American Federalism 1776-1997
http://acriact.tripod.com/fedessay.html

---

Caitlin Lunsway

What is Federalism?

Federalism in the United States is the evolving relationship between U.S. state governments and the federal government of the United States. Since the founding of the country, and particularly with the end of the American Civil War, power shifted away from the states and towards the national government. The progression of federalism includes Dual federalism, state centered federalism and new federalism. Federalism was a political system arising out of discontent with the Articles of Confederation which gave little practical authority to the federal government. For example, the Articles allowed the Continental Congress the power to sign treaties or declare war, but it was essentially powerless to do so because all major decisions required a unanimous vote.
Federalism has evolved over the course of American history. At different points in time, the balance and boundaries between the national and state government have changed substantially. In the twentieth century, the role of the national government expanded dramatically, and it continues to expand in the twenty-first century. Dual federalism describes the nature of federalism for the first 150 years of the American republic, roughly 1789 through World War II. The Constitution outlined provisions for two types of government in the United States, national and state. For the most part, the national government dealt with national defense, foreign policy, and fostering commerce, whereas the states dealt with local matters, economic regulation, and criminal law. This type of federalism is also called layer-cake federalism because, like a layer cake, the states’ and the national governments each had their own distinct areas of responsibility, and the different levels rarely overlapped. Part of the disputes that led to the Civil War (1861–1865) concerned federalism. Many Southerners felt that state governments alone had the right to make important decisions, such as whether slavery should be legal. Advocates of states’ rights believed that the individual state governments had power over the federal government because the states had ratified the Constitution to create the federal government in the first place. Most Southern states eventually seceded from the Union because they felt that secession was the only way to protect their rights. But Abraham Lincoln and many Northerners held that the Union could not be dissolved. The Union victory solidified the federal government’s power over the states and ended the debate over states’ rights.
Although these events played out over many decades, they reached their high points during the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt (1933–1945). The Great Depression, brought about by the crash of the stock market in 1929, was one of the most severe economic downturns in American history. Many businesses failed, roughly one-third of the population was out of work, and poverty was widespread. In response, Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, a series of programs and policies that attempted to revive the economy and prevent further depression. The New Deal included increased regulation of banking and commerce and programs to alleviate poverty, including the formation of the Works Progress Administration and a social security plan. In order to implement these programs, the national government had to grow dramatically, which consequently took power away from the states.
Since the 1970s, political leaders and scholars of the New Federalism school have argued that the national government has grown too powerful and that power should be given back to the states. Although the national government remains extremely important, state governments have regained some power. Richard Nixon began supporting New Federalism during his presidency (1969–1974), and every president since Nixon has continued to support the return of some powers to state and local governments. Although political leaders disagree on the details, most support the general principle of giving power to the states. New Federalism has taken concrete form in a variety of policies. New Federalists have argued for specific limits on federal power, as well as devolution, a policy of giving states power and responsibility for some programs. For example, the 1996 welfare reforms gave states the ability to spend federal dollars as they saw fit. Supporters claim that local and state governments can be more effective because they understand the circumstances of the issue in their state. They argue that a one-size-fits-all program imposed by Washington cannot function as effectively. New Federalism appeals to many people because of its emphasis on local and state governments. Many Americans feel that the national government has become too intrusive and unaccountable. These people champion state and local government as closer to the people and thus more accountable. However, Americans often want a single seat of power for some tasks.
The Supreme Court has played a New Federalist role by siding with state governments in a number of cases. Perhaps the most well known of these cases is United States v. Lopez (1995), in which the Court ruled that Congress had overstepped its authority in creating gun-free school zones. More controversially, in 2000, the Court struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act (1994) for much the same reason in United States v. Morrison. In other cases, the court has ruled that state governments cannot be sued for violating rights established by federal law. Overall, the Supreme Court in the 1990s reduced the power of the federal government in important ways, particularly in relation to the commerce clause.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States, http://www.sparknotes.com/us-government-and-politics/american-government/federalism/section2.rhtml,

---

American Federalism
By: Jamal Jones

Federalism is a system of government in which the same area is controlled by two levels of government. The national government has power over issues of national concern, while the state government has power over local issues. There are several different ways that power can be share in a federal system, and political scientists have devised terms to explain the different types of federalism.

Dual Federalism- views the constitution as giving a limited list of powers, primarily foreign policy and national defense, to the national government, leaving the rest to sovereign states. Each level of government is dominant within it own sphere.

Cooperative Federalism- stresses federalism as a system of intergovernmental relationships in delivering government goods and services to the people and calls for cooperation among various levels of government.

Marble cake federalism- conceives of federalism as a mixed set of responsibilities in which all levels of government are engaged in a variety of issues and programs, rather than a layer cake, or dual federalism, with fixed divisions between layers or levels of government.

Competitive federalism- views the national government, the 50 states, and the thousands of local government as competing with each other over ways to put together packages of services and taxes.

Permissive federalism- implies that, although federalism provides “a sharing of power and authority between the national and state government, the states’ share rest on the permission and permissiveness of the national government.”

New Federalism- championed by former presidents Richard M. Nixon (1969-1974) and Ronald Reagan (1981-1989), presumes that the power of the federal government is limited in favor of the broad powers reserved to the states.

Advantages of Federalism: Checks the growth of Tyranny, allows unity without uniformity, encourages experimentation, provides training and creates opportunities for future national leaders, and keeps government closer to the people.

Disadvantages of Federalism: Dividing power makes it much more difficult for government to respond quickly to national problems, the division of power makes it hard for voters to hold their elected officials accountable, the lack of uniformity can lead to conflict, and variation in policies creates redundancies and inefficiencies.

Powers of the national government involve the war power, the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, the power to tax and spend, and the National Supremacy article.

The constitution explicitly gives legislative, executive, and judicial powers to the national government. In addition to these delegated powers, such as the power to regulate interstate commerce and to appropriate funds, the national government has assumed constitutionally implied powers, such as the power to create banks, which are referred from delegated powers. The constitutional basis for the implied powers of congress is the necessary and proper clause. This clause gives congress the right “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested… In the government of the United States. “

Powers of the states include creating local governments, police citizens, and overseeing primary and elementary education.

To ensure that federalism works, the constitution imposes restraints on both the national and the state governments. States are prohibited from doing the following: Making treaties with foreign governments, authorizing private persons to interfere with the shipping and commerce of other nations, coining money, issuing bills of credit, making anything but gold and silver coin legal tender in payment of debts, taxing imports ships, keeping troops or ships of war in time of peace, and engaging in war.

WORKS CITED:
The class book, and //http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/fed.htm//

---

Jaeger Thompson
American Federalism

Federalism is a system of government that is divided between national and lower governments. This helps keep the national government in check and limits its power while also helping out the lower governments. This division between the national government and the lower governments is also called a federation. Federalism is a popular concept in many countries not just ours. These countries could include: Europe, Australia, Brazil, and many more. American Federalism is a broad and diverse topic to discuss so let’s continue.

Now let’s talk about the many different varieties of patterns that surround federalism. These can include co-operative federalism, dual federalism, creative federalism, horizontal federalism, marble-cake federalism, picket-fence federalism, and vertical federalism. These many differing types show just how broad the subject of federalism really is. Now I could continue to tell you every little thing about this subject but that would take quite a while. So let’s continue with a very brief definition of each example of federalism.

Co-operative federalism: this assumes that the two levels of government are essentially partners

Dual federalism: this assumes the two levels are functioning separately

Creative federalism: this involves common planning and decision making

Horizontal federalism: this involves common interactions and common programs among the 50 states

Marble-cake federalism: this is characterized by an intermingling of all levels of government in policies and programming

Picket-fence federalism: this implies that bureaucrats and clientele groups determine intergovernmental programs

Vertical federalism: this is viewed as the traditional form of federalism as it sees the actions of the national government as supreme within their constitutional sphere

Now that you have seen the definitions of each different varying type of federalism hopefully you can determine what type of federalist system that America uses. I happen to think that America has some qualities from each different style of federalism. Although I think we take more away from the co-operative federalism than anything else. This is because the constitution specifically states that any powers not designated to the national government belong to the states.

I think that it’s a very good thing that we have state governments with powers because it’s a check’s and balances thing. The states keep the national government in check while the national government stops the state governments from doing whatever they want. So essentially I think that what federalism is doing is protecting the citizens from the governments.

To conclude I would like to say the federalism is a very good system to use because one government does not have all the power so they can’t do anything they want. It would be a dictatorship only with a government running it instead of one person. So American Federalism is essentially the division between the national and smaller governments such as the state and local ones.

Sources: www.historylearningsite.co.uk/fed.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

---

Aaron Lecesne

American federlism has been apartof are goverment econmy for a long time.It always us to determine the way welive and the guidlines we wanna live in.Amercain Federalism and the federal system define the basic structure of American government. There were many disagreements at the Constitutional Convention. Many delagates feared a national government that was too strong and many delegates feared that states' rights would merely continue the weak form of government under the Articles.Power is shared and divided between national and state governments. Each has specific powers unto themselves while they also share certain powers. Both levels have their own agencies and officials and directly affect the people. The Founding Fathers really had no other choice except federalism. The weak union created under the Articles would not work yet people did not want to give all the power to a national government. Federalism was the middle ground compromise a way to distribute authority between the states and the national government.Without federlism are country would fall apart and goverments powers wouldnot be eaully divided up between the statesin the end the checks and balances theroy would not exit.

Americans now a days take the reaponsibilties to vote and participate inthe states role in the united stated lighltly.The puposeof the amercain federlism system is to give states equal powers and allow them to come together as a whole.Federalism, and all it stands for, underpins politics in amercia. Federalism gives the Supreme power but it also gives states a great deal of power as has been clarified in Dillon's Law. On many occasions, the supreme court has been called on to adjudicate what federalism means but the Constitution put a great deal of faith in federalism when the Founding Fathers first constructed it.Federalism is a system of government in which a written constitution divides power between a central government and regional or sub-divisional governments. Both types of government act directly upon the people through their officials and laws.Both types of government are supreme within their proper sphere of authority. Federalism has shaped our foundation forever.

work cited:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/federalism
the book
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/federalism-in-america-beyond-the-tea-partiers

---

Breanna Emahizer
Wiki Essay 1
Mike Thompson
State and Local Government

American federalism: The Break Down On Federalism

Federalism is one of the most important concepts in the U.S constitution. It is defined by Wikipedia to be a political concept in which a group of members is bound by a covenant. The term Federalism is used to describe a form of government. Federalism is based upon democratic rules and institutions. The power is split up between state and local governments. The federalist movement was greatly strengthened by Shay’s Rebellion in 1786. The rebellion was fuelled by a poor economy which in part was created by the weak federal government which couldn’t deal with the American Revolution. Several examples of countries who use federalism are; Brazil, Canada, Australia, Columbia, and India. All of these countries have different forms of federalism, which is fitted to the needs of that country.

As soon as this first movement disappeared, a second one sprang up in its place. This federalist movement was based more on Alexander Hamilton and his allies for a stronger national government. The opposition to this movement was known as the “Anti-Federalists”. They preached that the debt created by the new government would bankrupt the country. This movement reached its peak when an overly Federalist President was elected. This man was John Adams. He was beat in the election of 1800, however, and with the death of Hamilton the federalist party began a long decline. What finally finished off the Federalist Party was the Hartford Convention of 1814 in which five New England states gathered to discuss several constitutional amendments necessary to protect New England’s interests.
In 1887, 55 delegates met at a constitutional convention in Philadelphia. They generated ideas of a bicameral legislature. James Madison stated in a pre-convention memorandum “that because "one could hardly expect the state legislatures to take enlightened views on national affairs",” Federalism began its newfound change however in 1901. This was when President Roosevelt began to set aside land in reserve for national parks. He also began to regulate business and take initiative in things that involve the people. In federalism, as stated earlier, the power is divided between the state and local Government. Federalism breaks down even farther into different types. Several of these types are: Dual Federalism, Cooperative federalism, as well as new federalism.
To continue, the definitions of each of these vary. Dual federalism is a political arrangement where power is divided between national and state governments in clearly defined terms, with state governments exercising those powers accorded to them without interference from the national government. Cooperative federalism is when national, state, and local governments interact cooperatively and collectively to solve common problems, rather than making policies separately but more or less equally or clashing over a policy in a system dominated by the national government. Then there is New Federalism which is a political philosophy of devolution, or the transfer of certain powers from the United States federal government back to the states.
Works Cited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States
https://www.google.com/#q=what+is+dual+federalism
https://www.google.com/#q=what+is+cooperative+federalism
https://www.google.com/#q=what%20is%20New%20federalism
blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

---

Jenease Bartley
Wiki Esay I
American federalism

Federalism in the United States is the evolving relationship between U.S. state governments and the federal government of the United States. Since the founding of the country, and particularly with the end of the American Civil War, power shifted away from the states and towards the national government.The progression of federalism includes Dual federalism, state centered federalism and new federalism.

Federalism is about dividing power between state and national governments. It is an ongoing experiment in governance. Both national and state government have their own powers but they also overlap in certain areas. The constitution grant them certain powers but it also denies them a certain set of powers. The powers granted to the National government are called Delegated Powers and the powers granted to the state government are called Reserved Powers. There is also Concurrent Powers which are powers that they both may use.

Delegated Powers by the National Government falls in 3 categories Expressed,Implied and Inherent. Reserved Powers are the 10th amendments. The founding fathers decided the best way to protect our liberties was to separate power. Not only did they separate the national government into branches but also the various sovereignties - national state and local.American Federalism promotes unity while permuting local variation.Time as shown that Federalism stimulates local interest in policy making. It also fosters innovation and experimentation. Louis Brandeis wrote in a famous1932 Supreme court dissent that the genius of federalism allowed states to serve as “laboratories of democracy”.

Though Federalism appeared to create more government kit is safe to say it created less concentration of government in one place.Though Federalism allocates power throughout the united stars to its many units of government is one higher than the other? Until recently , the general trend has been in the direction of a stronger national government but there has been a resurgence of the state and local governments as political and policy actors. The power relationships among the three levels of government are described by various models, including dual and cooperative federalism. The operative model is coercive federalism. A key ingredient of federalism is intergovernmental relations, particularly in financial interactions. The national government imposes certain controversial requirements on grants - in aid , including mandates,preemptions and set - asides.Understanding exactly how federalism works is no easy task. Political scientist often use metaphors to describe it, such as cake. one scientist said It looks like a layer of cake because the duties and responsibilities of the national and state and local government is mixed. Though separately organized today government units tend to cooperate more than eval each other. For example in the area of education all levels of government, national and state, cooperate together in order to reach their respective goal.

Work Citied

http://www.mrvanduyne.com/principles/federalism.html
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0072481218/15807/pat81218_72dpi_ch03.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States

---

State and Local Politics

Filey Perez

The Court System

The court system today is more complex than ever before. There are so many process’ and laws. As a criminal and a victim the court system can be very stressful. Cases can be drug out for weeks, months, even years in a desperate attempt to serve justice.
Today the court system has a lot more to do with lawyers than ever before. When a person is arrested they have always have had the right and always will have the right to an attorney. For most people this is a good idea because they don’t know the law well enough to defend them. The lawyers that take on cases are sometimes court appointed and other times they are hired by the defendant with their own money. This is also dependent on the severity of the case and crime that the defendant is accused of.
The courts start locally, taking on small cases like speeding tickets and other local offenses. Generally these are handled quietly and with short jail time or simple fines. Most local cases are handled within the community and usually don’t leave the community. But there is always an acceptation to the rules such as celebrities that manage to rack up large fines with speeding tickets and possession charges.
More severe cases like rape, burglary, arson and murder are taken on by the state. The state prosecution puts together the best case possible using all evidence possible. A problem in major cases is not all the evidence that the defense team and the prosecution cannot use all the evidence they have because it is not allowed in court. An example of this is polygraph tests. A poly graph test can be used by police stations and major organizations to eliminate people as suspects. A polygraph test has been found to not be 100% accurate.
If the state finds a person guilty of a crime the person found guilty can appeal to a higher court. This is a higher state court of appeal. From there the case can be appealed to the supreme courts. This is the federal level of the court system and is as high as a case can be appealed. Cases like Roe v. Wade, Tinker v. Des Moines, and other law changing cases. These are cases that are used to defend accused in other cases. Cases like this are used as base lines for other laws.
The court systems of today not completely accurate, there are always going to errors or cases that cannot be proven. The system is set up to be the criminal justice system, not the victim’s justice system. The people who are victimized cannot choose the punishment of the people who wronged them. The only way there will be justice is if the jury of our peers finds that there is enough evidence to find a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Without a system the opposite of this there would be a lot more innocent people in prisons. The United States justice system is one of the best out there and has been used by other countries to create their own criminal justice systems.

http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/court.html
http://law-school.findthebest.com/l/56/University-of-Kansas

---

Emergency Management

Louis Edmiston

According to www.emergencymgmt.com, the definition for “Emergency management is the managerial function charged with creating the framework within which communities reduce vulnerability to hazards and cope with disasters.” Emergency management is very crucial to
have in every county in every state. In an event of an emergency, the emergency managers will be ready to distinguish a plan with other agencies in the city, then they will be ready to attack the situation and attend to any people who are in need of help. Emergency managers also have to set up bases, and camps for people and supplies. There must also be staging areas for responders who are put on hold. There are many titles in emergency management. There are certain people who work as officers, deputies, commanders, chiefs and also volunteers. All of these divisions serve as a big role in emergency management. Emergency management also deals with ice storms, fires, blizzards, terrorists, active shooters, and severe weather such as tornadoes. All emergency managers have to complete online and in class courses through FEMA, which stands for Federal Emergency Management Agency. These classes teach the basics of emergency management, and also teaches the different branches of emergency management. It is important for people who help with emergency managers to take the basic ICS classes. These classes explain how to respond to emergencies at a level as a citizen. It is also important for people who want to help with emergency managers to take CERT trailing. This stands for Community Emergency Response Training. This will help the emergency managers because the more help the communities in case of a disaster. Many emergency managers encourage cities to have training for emergency management. So everyone can respond in their own way to help others. This is a more effective way to take care of the situation.

In a small town named Colby, located Northeast of Kansas. There is an emergency manager named Autumn Arasmith. Not only does she have to watch after 3,000 people in Colby, but she has to watch out for four other towns. So, she has to manage all of the county, which is named Thomas County. Autumn graduated from Colby Community College with her associates degree in criminal justice. Now, she is currently working in the office with her assistant David Becker. Her primary focus is to always plan ahead and make sure all procedures are ready in case of emergency. Autumn and David also have to review the counties EOP, which stands for Emergency Operations Plan. This plan explains all the plans for safety in the county is there is ever a disaster.According to Wikepedia, ‘Emergency planning should aim where possible to prevent emergencies occurring, and when they do occur, good planning should reduce, control or mitigate the effects of the emergency. It is the systematic and ongoing process which should evolve as lessons are learnt and circumstances change’ (Office, 2013).
‘Emergency planning should be viewed as part of a cycle of activities beginning with establishing a risk profile to help determine what should be the priorities for developing plans and ending with review and revision, which then restarts the whole cycle’ (Office, 2013). The cyclical process is common to many risk management disciplines, such as Business Continuity and Security Risk Management
They are always listening to the other agencies in Thomas County over the radio such as police, fire, and EMS. According to www.iom.edu, "timely emergency communications is a very important priority in emergency management." I'm sure Autumn would agree with me. Emergency Management can be a stressful job at times, but it must pay off when everyone goes home safely.
Sources
http://www.emergencymgmt.com/emergency-blogs/managing-crisis/Defining-Emergency-Managers-060613.html

---

Josh Hunter Day
Louis Edmiston

On Monday April 7th 2014, The Criminal Justice students at Colby Community College got the opportunity to practice felony traffic stops. They were lead by former Colby Criminal Justice graduate Josh Hunter. He is also a police officer for the City of Greeley, Colorado. He was also aided by 3 of the Colby police officers. The students also got to use 3 of the Colby Police Chargers. Each of the students got a chance to either ride or drive the police cars and chase Josh Hunter and then they will pull over. According to Wikipedia, Traffic stops are inherently dangerous for police officers, many of whom patrol and conduct stops alone. Officers typically take steps to protect themselves from passing traffic such as using their own car as a shield and/or approaching the suspect vehicle on the passenger side. This was a way for the students to learn how important it is to be very cautious when they are doing these traffic stops. The students went through a lot of different scenarios of what could happen if someone is not careful. They got to see how an officer can be shot and killed if they are not protecting themselves. They also learned that it is important to always use their resources. They also learned the best techniques to approach the car and how to take down the suspect and the other people who may be hiding in the car. It is very important that these students learn how to do this because it will get them ready for the real world. A traffic stop is always an at-risk situation because you never know who is in the vehicle and what an occupant's intentions are. You also don't know what's inside the vehicle and how it can be used against you. Felony Traffic Stops are ones where you already know the suspect's intentions. The person is already guilty of a felony crime and or trying to escape capture from one. Felony Traffic Stops involve some type of take down usually in the form of a predetermined felony stop. A familiar operational principle is to be intimately familiar with your patrol area. You should be aware of traffic patterns, ongoing construction, and where the best lighting is. Having that knowledge is essential so you can choose a good location for your traffic stop. Another thing Josh Hunter taught the students was how to get the suspect out to the vehicle. That is that most important part and that is also the part where most officers can get gilled if they are not careful. The officers used the speaker through their car to talk to the driver so they were far away. They gave the driver instructions of how to safely get out of the vehicle. If you let the driver stay in his vehicle, he’s on his home turf. He is familiar with this environment and has all of his resources available to him. If you get him out of his vehicle, you change the driver’s environment and effectively deny him the use of anything in that vehicle that could hurt you. That is why we had the Josh Hunter Day at Colby Community College.

Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_stop
http://www.policemag.com/channel/careers-training/articles/2012/11/traffic-stops.aspx

---

State and Local Politics in Oklahoma

By Bernice Skiles

I haven’t had a lot of time to learn very much about state politics in Oklahoma other than from the people who I am around every day. What I have learned so far is that it is definitely a Republican State and is reflected in that by it’s Governor. After her election, Republicans had control of the governorship and both legislative houses for the first time ever.

Until 1907 Oklahoma was Indian Territory and Oklahoma Territory. The US Congress did not want to accept Indian Territory as a separate state, so the Territories got together to
draw up a constitution that would unite them as a state. On November 16,1907 Oklahoma was admitted as the 46th state to the union. Like the Federal Government, Oklahoma’s state government is organized into three branches; executive, legislative and judicial. Three documents make up the government: the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma State Constitution, and laws of the state.

The Governor can serve an unlimited number of terms, but can only serve eight years in a row. The responsibilities of the Governor include, appointing certain state officers, veto or approval of bills passed by the Legislature, granting pardons and paroles, calling special sessions of the legislature, and commands the state militia. Preparing the state budget and ensuring that all the laws of the state are obeyed is also a part of their duties.

The lawmaking branch of the state government is the Oklahoma State Legislature and the judicial branch of the Oklahoma Government interprets the laws. The Oklahoma Court System is made up of the Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, the Court of Civil Appeals and 77 District Courts. They also have two courts of last resort, which most states do not have. Civil issues are taken care of by the Supreme Court, and criminal matters are decided on by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.

State Representatives represent people in the 101 house districts located in the State of Oklahoma. At this time 48 Representatives are Republican and 53 are Democrats, each serving a two-year term before running for re-election. They are only allowed to serve for 12 years, or six terms.

State Senators are elected from the 48 senate districts in the state. 20 representatives are Republican and 28 are Democrats. Senators serve four-year terms and can only serve for 12 years, or three terms.

Making and maintaining laws within their jurisdiction is the responsibility of the legislative branch of the government. US senators, representatives and federal legislators at the national level, and state legislators at the state level.

The Oklahoma Legislature meets in “session”, beginning at noon the first Monday in February and must end by 5 p.m. on the last Friday in May. They are usually in session Monday through Thursday. In odd-numbered years they will also meet at noon on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January, ending no later than five p.m. on the same day to declare elections. Extra sessions can be called by the Governor or by the Legislature itself.

State government mandates tasks for the 77 counties of Oklahoma to perform, including, property assessment, property and vital statistic record keeping, maintenance of rural roads, administration of local election and judicial functions, and support of the poor.

Oklahoma like all other states elect two senators to represent them in the US Senate. They also elect five people to represent them in the House of Representatives, based on Oklahoma’s population.

Even though records show that Democrats outnumber the Republicans in the State of Oklahoma, the electoral votes go to Republican candidates for President. This is the hard part of the whole Politics game for me to understand. Even though you vote for a Democratic President in Oklahoma, your vote doesn’t count. In Kansas I got the same choices, and my vote sometimes didn’t count there either. Those of us, who are not affiliated with a party and vote people instead of party, are just left in the cold.

Resources
http://www.netstate.com/states/government/ok_government.htm
http://www.city-data.com/states/Oklahoma-Political-parties.html

---

Natalie Elmgreen

Search and Seizure

This February the supreme courts ruled on a search and seizure case. The case involves the police having the right to search a residence as long as one occupant gives consent to search the house. The case started in Los Angeles California in 2009. The police searched a residence when there was no emergency and a warrant had not been obtained to search the residence. Los Angeles Police Department responded to an armed robbery call, where a suspect was spotted and followed to an apartment building. The police heard shouting inside one of the units in the apartment building and knocked on the door. Roxanne Rojas answered the door, and had appeared to have been beaten. When the door was opened Walter Fernandez (suspect) told the police they “could not enter without a warrant.” He was then arrested for being in connection to the armed robbery. An hour later the police returned to the apartment and with the consent of Rojas the police searched the apartment where they found a shotgun and gang related materials.
The case Fernandez v. California has invoked the issue of 4th amendment rights. With this ruling another tenet of a residence can give the police permission to enter and search a residence with or without the permission of other tenets. The supreme courts ruled 6-3 on in favor of California on this issue. The lead Supreme Court justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. (along with the other male justices) claims that “police need not take the time to get a magistrate's approval before entering a home in cases.” He also stated "A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the 4th Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant,” Therefore the police had the right to search the premises with the permission of one tenet of the apartment. The majority of the Supreme Court Justices saw the case the same way. With the appearance of Rojas when she answered the door and the knowledge that the police had of the suspect, no warrant was needed to search the apartment once one of the tenets had given consent to search the residence.
Justices that disagreed (all female) with the ruling claim that the ruling caused “an invasion of privacy” and “violated the 4th amendment”. "Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement, today's decision tells the police they may dodge it," Ginsburg, an opposed Supreme Court justice. This ruling makes the requirements to be searched much easier to meet. Police have the right to search property with the consent from a person that has no right to give consent to the search. A similar case from 2006 Georgia V. Randolph and United States V. Matlock ruled in favor of Randolph. Fernandez argues that like the Randolph case, the social custom should exclude the search. In the Fernandez case using the social custom defense was over ruler and did not apply.
Fernandez v. California is a case that draws lines on the 4th amendment. This gives the police the more room to search civilians and their residence. With the 4th amendment being stretched this much there is a higher chance for this right to be violated even more. There are going to be cases with multiple roommates and the search and seizer laws are going to be stretched.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/04/kansas-governor-sam-brownback-signs-2nd-amendment-protection-act-into-law/
http://law-school.findthebest.com/l/56/University-of-Kansas

---

State Constitutions

State Constitutions

Michael Pettibone

Even though the Unites States has a constitution, all states have a constitution as well and many of them are longer than the 8,500 word U.S. constitution. Of course, all state constitutions are inferior (in a legal sense) to the United States Constitution, and when reading state constitutions, this must be kept in mind — a state constitution, for example, cannot validly authorize a state religion. However, many state constitutions guarantee civil rights that the United States Constitution has not. The Vermont Constitution abolished slavery long before the U.S. Constitution did.

The states considered themselves to be sovereign entities. They raised troops and issued money. Before the Articles of Confederation became law, they managed their own foreign policy. Virginia separately ratified the alliance with France in 1778. Most of the new state constitutions retained the basic governmental structure of the prewar colonial regimes. Governors were now elected by the people. The royal councils became elected senates, acting as the upper house in a bicameral legislature. An exception to this pattern was Pennsylvania, which experimented with a unicameral legislature.

As a reflection of the popular distrust of strong executives, most governors were given very limited powers. This hurt the effective prosecution of the war, making it difficult to get things done. Most Americans appeared willing to live with this. In their reaction to British overreaching, Americans seemed to endorse the conviction that that government is best which governs least. The Massachusetts constitution of 1780 captured the period's Enlightened idealism, declaring “The people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government, and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.” The state constitutions may have been less eloquent than Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, but they loudly echoed its ideas.

Resources:
 http://www.usconstitution.net/stateconst.html
http://www.netplaces.com/american-revolution/the-politics-of-war/the-state-constitutions.htm 

---

State Constitutions

Nick Silva

The tradition of Constitutions have been reinforced with the charters establishing the colonial settlements. The very first was the US constitution that was written after the Declaration of Independence. But since then the nation has become a total of 50 states have their own constitution and Bill of Rights respectively. State Constitutions play the same role as the United States Constitution does for their own respective state, but the US Constitution has the power to veto or supersede as the reading says to overpower that State Constitution. Every state also has a Bill of Rights that can extend those rights beyond the protections already in the US Constitution. For example in the state of Colorado, they have an exemption reason for vaccinations because of personal reasons. Where most states only exempt someone from vaccinations due to religious belief or because of a medical reason, so the fact that Colorado exempts it due to personal beliefs make it a state constitution law. But if Obama were to make an amendment that everyone must be vaccinated then Colorado’s law would be superseded and no longer exist.

Just like in the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution, the state Constitutions also have a Separation of Powers along with checks and balances accordingly. Without the checks and balances the separation of powers would not work at all because one branch could become way too powerful. This keeps it so that no power can run the entire United States of America. The President does have a say in every power but he does not run the entire one. Another thing that seventeen states have in their State Constitution is the popular initiative clause. Which is where it allows citizens of that state to petition and to place amendments directly on the ballot with a certain number of votes from registered voters. For example once again in my home state of Colorado, this past year the ballot to vote on amendment 64 was passed due to the popular initiative clause. It was to make marijuana legal in Colorado in the year 2014. It was a very controversial and very public topic in the news and the national news. But the amendment was passed, but it still must go through federal court. Federal Court will determine whether or not to make it an amendment or not.

Another thing that state constitutions have are the prohibition of same sex marriage. Every state Constitution has the redistricting in each of their constitutions which involves the census every ten years. The reason states do this is the census shows that if the congressional and state legislative districts to reflect population shifts in the states and also in regions to ensure each district has the same amount of voters. This allows for the elections to be much more of a fair fight because for example, the east coast is much more populated area and it can change an election without the redistricting. The US constitution is one of the great things in the United States of America. The fact that each state has their own constitution and bill of rights is another great thing in America, it gives certain states with the right amount of votes to do what the popular vote wants and make it an amendment. But the US constitution does supersede any state constitution because of the federal laws. It is a very reasonable clause though because we are one nation under god with many fair and reasonable rights.

Resources
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/pot-legalized-in-colorado_0_n_2272678.html
http://law.justia.com/constitution/colorado/cnart2.html

---

State Constitutions

State Constitution of Missouri

Shanice Falls (2014)

The first Missouri State Constitution came to be on July nineteenth, eighteen twenty even though the actual state of Missouri didn’t become the twenty forth state till the following year on August tenth, eighteen twenty one.
The state of Missouri had a long road in becoming a state, the first attempt to become a state was in eighteen seventeen and by eighteen nineteen Congress was considering enabling legislation that would authorize Missouri to frame a state constitution to further Missouri into becoming a state. What held up the development was an antislavery amendment added by James Tallmadge of New York. The amendment was to eliminate any further slavery and for slaves that are already in Missouri was to be emancipated when the reached the age of twenty five. The House of Representatives was controlled by the North at the time so the amendment past the House but failed to pass the Senate for the Senate was divided equally between the North and the South. So the whether or not Missouri would become a state was under question and was left that way for before the question was answered Congress had adjourned for the time being. Congress didn’t come together again till December of eighteen nineteen where they were also asked by Maine to be granted statehood. Due to this the birth of the Missouri Compromise came to be which made Maine a free state and Missouri a slave state allowing Missouri to further themselves on the road to becoming a state.
On Monday June twelfth eighteen twenty the representatives from all across Missouri came to St. Louis to write the constitution. The representatives that was present for this are as followed;
David Barton, President of the Convention, and Representative from the County of St. Louis
From the County of Cape Girardeau:
Stephen Byrd, Joseph M'Ferron, Alexander Bucknor, Richard S. Thomas, James Evans
From the County of Cooper:
Robert P. Clark, Robert Wallace, William Sillard
From the County of Franklin: John G. Heath
From the County of Howard: Nicholas S. Burckhartt, Benjamin H. Reeves, Jonathan Smith Findlay
John Ray, Duff Green
From the County of Jefferson: S. Hammond
From the County of Lincoln: Malcolm Henry
From the County of Montgomery: Jonathan Ramsay James Talbott
From the County of Madison: Nathaniel Cook
From the County of New Madrid: Robert D. Dawson, Christo. G. Houts
From the County of Pike: Stephen Cleaver
From the County of St. Charles: Hiram H. Baber, Benjamin Emmons, Nathan Boone
From the County of St. Genevieve: R. T. Brown, H. Dodge, John D. Cook, John Scott
From the County of St. Louis: Wm. Rector, Pr. Chouteau, jun., Thos. F. Riddick, Edw. Bates
A. M’Nair, Bernd. Pratte, John C. Sullivan
From the County of Washington: John Rice Jones, John Hutchings, Samuel Perry
From the County of Wayne: Elijah Bettis
Attest: William G. Pettus, Secretary of the Convention
The Constitution was finished in thirty eight days making the date to be July nineteenth, eighteen twenty. The finished document had thirteen articles covering from boundaries to the Declaration of Rights, there were four total constitutions, between eighteen twenty and nineteen forty- two. Beginning with the eighteen twenty constitution as the population of Missouri increased a second constitutional convention which produced the next constitution of eighteen sixty-five. Ten years later, in eighteen seventy- five there was a third constitution, finally the fourth constitution was written in nineteen forty-two, and was ratified in nineteen forty-five this provided the three governmental branches; the legislative including the states General Assembly, the Executive containing the state governor, and the Judicial branch which involves the state supreme court.
The constitution can be amended through three different processes. The Legislatively referred constitutional amendments, and Initiated constitutional amendment, or a constitutional convention. In the Legislatively referred constitutional amendments, there is a member of the state legislature will propose an amendment, if approved by both chambers it then goes to ballot for public vote. Initiated constitutional amendments are based on Article III of the constitution, to go on the ballot the signatures required are based on the number of voted electors during the most recent election. Finally the Constitutional convention was established in Article XII, which is held to automatically appear on the ballot every two years.

** References**
clio.missouristate.edu/FTMiller/LocalHistory/Docs/MOConst1820.htm
ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Constitution

Dante Foos
State Constitutions

James Wilson signed the Declaration of Independence and was the Advocate General for France in America from 1779 to 1783. The states now faced serious and complicated questions about how to make their rules. What did it mean to replace royal authority with institutions based on popular rule? How was "popular sovereignty" (the idea that the people were the highest authority) to be institutionalized in the new state governments? For that matter, who were "the people"? Every state chose to answer these questions in different ways based on distinctive local experiences, but in most cases colonial traditions were continued, but modified, so that the governor (the executive) lost significant power, while the assemblies (the legislative branch, which represented the people most directly) became much more important. We'll focus on the new rules created in three states to suggest the range of answers to the question about how to organize republican governments based upon popular rule. John Adams remarked that the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776 was "so democratically that it must produce confusion and every evil work." He would be elected to the Presidency in 1796. Pennsylvania created the most radical state constitution of the period. Following the idea of popular rule to its logical conclusion, Pennsylvania created a state government with several distinctive features. First, the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776 abolished property requirements for voting as well as for holding office. If you were an adult man who paid taxes, then you were allowed to vote or even to run for office. This was a dramatic expansion of who was considered a political person, but other aspects of the new state government were even more radical. Pennsylvania also became a "unicameral" government where the legislature only had one body. Furthermore, the office of the governor was entirely eliminated. Radicals in Pennsylvania observed that the governor was really just like a small-scale king and that an upper legislative body (like the House of Lords in Parliament) was supposed to represent wealthy men and aristocrats. Rather than continue those forms of government, the Pennsylvania constitution decided that "the people" could rule most effectively through a single body with complete legislative power. Many conservative Patriots met Pennsylvania's new design with horror. When John Adams described the Pennsylvania constitution, he only had bad things to say. To him it was "so democratically that it must produce confusion and every evil work." Clearly, popular rule did not mean sweeping democratic changes to all Patriots. South Carolina's state constitution of 1778 created new rules at the opposite end of the political spectrum from Pennsylvania. In South Carolina, white men had to possess a significant amount of property to vote, and they had to own even more property to be allowed to run for political office. In fact, these property requirements were so high that 90 percent of all white adults were prevented from running for political office! John Rutledge served as both South Carolina's president and governor. The state's original constitution, drafted in 1776, called for the election of a state president. But changes made to the document in 1778 saw the state's chief executive become known as "governor." This dramatic limitation of who could be an elected political leader reflected a central tradition of 18th-century Anglo-American political thought. Only individuals who were financially independent were believed to have the self-control to make responsible and reasonable judgments about public matters. As a result poor white men, all women, children, and African Americans (whether free or slave) were considered too dependent on others to exercise reliable political judgment. While most of these traditional exclusions from political participation have been ended in America today, age limitations remain, largely unchallenged. The creation of the Massachusetts state constitution of 1780 offered yet another way to answer some of the questions about the role of "the people" in creating a republican government. When the state legislature presented the voters with a proposed constitution in 1778, it was rejected because the people thought that this was too important an issue for the government to present to the people. If the government could make its own rules, then it could change them whenever it wanted and easily take away peoples' liberties. Following through on this logic, Massachusetts held a special convention in 1780 where specially elected representatives met to decide on the best framework for the new state government. This idea of a special convention of the people to decide important constitutional issues was part of a new way of thinking about popular rule that would play a central role in the ratification of the national Constitution in 1787-1788.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/14a.asp
https://www.google.com/search?q=state+constitutions&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=rw5yU_baN8TesASBqYGgBA&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=591#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=HCx-6C5xuq33GM%253A%3B4bL8LDClqcSF_M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmedia.masslive.com%252Fliving_impact%252Fphoto%252F10288271-large.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.masslive.com%252Fliving%252Findex.ssf%252F2011%252F11%252Fbarbara_bernard_in_their_constitutions_states_gave_thanks_to_a_greater_being.html%3B380%3B253

Alex Helms Wiki 1 (2014)

I want to analyze the differences between State constitutions and the Federal Constitution. First I would like to start by showing where state constitutions get their power from. In the Federal Constitution under the 10th amendment in the Bill of Rights, states rights are outlined by the phrase: “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” (U.S. Constitution).

In other words, if it isn't in the Federal Constitution and it is not prohibited by the Constitution then it is left up to the States, “it” being any issue that may arise related to the law set aside by the Constitution. So with that in mind, state constitutions generally reflect on the powers granted by the Constitution and elaborate on them so there is less left to interpretation. State constitutions tend to be a little bit wordier due to this fact. The shortest state constitution is about 200 words less than the U.S. Constitution and the longest state constitution is over 300,000 words long! Another difference is that some states have had more than on constitution while the Federal Constitution is and has been the only one since 1789. The U.S. Constitution is a living document that was written very broadly so that interpretation is left up to the people. Many State constitutions have a reference to God somewhere in the preamble, even though a constitution isn't supposed to set a specific religion. The U.S. Constitution doesn't have any reference to god. Also oddly some state constitutions abolished slavery before the 13th amendment was enacted in the U.S. Constitution “officially” abolishing slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_constitution_(United_States)
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statesrights.html

Fily Perez
Fernandez v. California is a case that draws lines on the 4th amendment. This gives the police the more room to search civilians and their residence. With the 4th amendment being stretched this much there is a higher chance for this right to be violated even more. There are going to be cases with multiple roommates and the search and seizer laws are going to be stretched.

This February the supreme courts ruled on a search and seizure case. The case involves the police having the right to search a residence as long as one occupant gives consent to search the house. The case started in Los Angeles California in 2009. The police searched a residence when there was no emergency and a warrant had not been obtained to search the residence. Los Angeles Police Department responded to an armed robbery call, where a suspect was spotted and followed to an apartment building. The police heard shouting inside one of the units in the apartment building and knocked on the door. Roxanne Rojas answered the door, and had appeared to have been beaten. When the door was opened Walter Fernandez (suspect) told the police they “could not enter without a warrant.” He was then arrested for being in connection to the armed robbery. An hour later the police returned to the apartment and with the consent of Rojas the police searched the apartment where they found a shotgun and gang related materials
If the state finds a person guilty of a crime the person found guilty can appeal to a higher court. This is a higher state court of appeal. From there the case can be appealed to the supreme courts. This is the federal level of the court system and is as high as a case can be appealed. Cases like Roe v. Wade, Tinker v. Des Moines, and other law changing cases. These are cases that are used to defend accused in other cases. Cases like this are used as base lines for other laws.
The court systems of today not completely accurate, there are always going to errors or cases that cannot be proven. The system is set up to be the criminal justice system, not the victim’s justice system. The people who are victimized cannot choose the punishment of the people who wronged them. The only way there will be justice is if the jury of our peers finds that there is enough evidence to find a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Without a system the opposite of this there would be a lot more innocent people in prisons. The United States justice system is one of the best out there and has been used by other countries to create their own criminal justice systems.

http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/court.html
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/04/kansas-governor-sam-brownback-signs-2nd-amendment-protection-act-into-law/

—-

Parties and Elections

Parties and Elections

Dontrell Lyons (2014)

Political parties have been woven into the fabric of U.S. democracy almost since the nation’s founding, even though the U.S. Constitution never mentions them and some Founding Fathers outright rejected them.
In the 1788 Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote about the dangers of domestic political factions. George Washington, the nation’s first president, never joined any political party and expressed hope that political parties would not be formed.

Ironically, the American two-party system emerged from Washington’s advisers, including Hamilton and Madison. The Federalist Party, headed by Hamilton, favored a strong central government and close links between the government and men of wealth. The Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Madison and Thomas Jefferson, supported a limited role for central government and a more populist approach to government.
The elitism of the Federalists diminished their appeal, and their refusal to support the War of 1812 counted against them when the war ended well. The party faded away within a few years.
As its name indicates, the Era of Good Feelings (1816–1824) under President James Monroe was a time of minimal partisan politics, but in 1828 internal frictions sparked a split within the Democratic-Republican Party.
The Jacksonian Democrats, led by war hero and future president Andrew Jackson, would grow into the modern Democratic Party. A more conservative faction, led by Henry Clay, formed the Whig Party.

The Democrats supported the primacy of the executive branch (the president) over other branches of government and opposed programs they felt would build up industry at the expense of the taxpayer. The Whigs advocated the primacy of the legislative branch (Congress) and supported industrial modernization and economic protectionism.
The Whig Party collapsed in the 1850s, supplanted by the anti-slavery Republican Party, which adopted many of the economic policies of the Whigs, such as support for national banks, railroads and high tariffs.
In subsequent decades, the names of the two major U.S. political parties did not change, but the policies they championed shifted as conditions in the nation and the priorities of the electorate changed.
The Democratic Party is considered the more liberal party, the Republican Party the more conservative. Within those broad ideological categories, each party encompasses a range of beliefs and opinions. Many Americans identify themselves as “independent” (not affiliated with either party), and the number of those voters is increasing.

In 2008, the Democratic Party was the largest political party, with more than 74 million voters (37 percent of registered voters) claiming affiliation, according to the Pew Research Center. Barack Obama is the 15th Democrat to hold the office of the U.S. presidency.
George W. Bush was the 19th Republican to hold that office. In 2008, the Republican Party was the second largest U.S. political party, with nearly 56 million registered members, or approximately one-quarter of all registered voters.
A Democratic or Republican nominee has won every U.S. presidential election after 1848, and one of those parties has controlled the House of Representatives and the Senate since 1856. Other parties have won representation at national and state levels, but none has yet garnered sufficient support to form a voting bloc in Congress or mount a serious challenge for the U.S. presidency.
So-called “third parties” competing for the attention of U.S. voters include the Constitution Party, which advocates a return to what it believes were the original intentions of the Founding Fathers; the Green Party, which champions environmental stewardship and social justice; and the Libertarian Party, which supports a minimal role for government in the lives of citizens.
http://www.democrats.org/
http://www.gop.com

---

Johnathon Stiles

There have been many different political parties since the beginning of the American political system. A political party is made up of a group of people that share common goals and ideals, and these people work together to help elect people to offices that share these goals to represent them. Political parties work to try to control the government and their ultimate goal is to win as many elections and to gain as many offices as possible.

The United States has a federal government, with elected officials at the federal, state and local levels. On a national level, the head of state, the President, is elected indirectly by the people, through an Electoral College. Today, the electors virtually always vote with the popular vote of their state. All members of the federal legislature, the Congress, are directly elected. There are many elected offices at state level, each state having at least an elective governor and legislature. There are also elected offices at the local level, in counties and cities. It is estimated that across the whole country, over one million offices are filled in every electoral cycle.
During the time when the Constitution was being debated over the first two political parties surfaced in the United States, the Federalists, and the Anti-Federalists. After the Constitution was ratified the Anti-Federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson, became the Democratic Republicans.

The war of 1812 ended the Federalist Party. The Democratic Republicans began to split over issues and some supported Andrew Jackson's policies and became known as Democrats. Those who opposed Andrew Jackson's policies became known as the Whigs. The Whig Party ended over the slavery controversy. The anti-slavery issue led to the creation of the Republican Party, while the Democrats were pro-slavery. Which left us with the two political parties we still have today: the Democrats and the Republicans.

Encyclopedia Of American Political Parties And Elections (Facts on File Library of American History)Larry J. Sabato (Author), Howard R. Ernst (Author)

---

Parties and Elections (2014)

By: Caitlin Lunsway

The number of elections in Kansas varies by year. Kansas has a gubernatorial election every four years. Members of the state's United States congressional delegation run for election or re-election at the times set out in the United States Constitution. Primary elections assist in choosing political parties' nominees for various positions. On a regional basis, elections also cover municipal issues. In addition, a special election can occur at any time. Kansas entered the Union in January 1861, a little over two months prior to the start of the Civil War and seven years after it became a territory under the aptly named Kansas-Nebraska Act. The state is strongly Republican in presidential elections; it hasn’t voted for a Democrat since 1964, when Lyndon Johnson won in a landslide. In 2012, Mitt Romney won by 60% to 38% over Barack Obama. Kansas’ population growth has been slower than the nation’s as a whole in recent decades, as population trends have been away from rural locations to more urban centers. As a result, the state has lost electoral influence: From a peak of 10 electoral votes in the early part of the 20th century, the state has been reduced to six today. Out of this dissension came the People’s Party, a reform movement with roots across the country but particularly strong in Kansas. These “Populists” wanted to change the monetary system to make currency more readily available; to create income tax with a sliding scale based on earnings; to put railroads, telegraph, and telephones under government control; to prevent foreign ownership of land; and to overhaul the election process, giving the public more control.
Champions of populism wrote newspaper articles and toured the country delivering lectures on the reform movement. Mary Elizabeth Lease and Annie Diggs, both of Kansas, became popular advocates of the People’s Party. Though the two women disagreed on certain principles, they each helped place Populist candidates in office. Lease became one of the best-known Populists in the state. She believed in racial and gender equality and claimed, “Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street.” Diggs wrote for Populist newspapers and “became convinced that the reforms which we sought were after all economical rather than moral questions.”To place the Populist message in the hands of the public, the party distributed books, pamphlets, and broadsides. These materials included essays on party platforms, treatises on financial reform, campaign brochures, notices of lectures, songs of protest, and banners to promote the party agenda. Several Populist presses printed the materials in the state. At lectures, rallies, and campaign events, Populists gave away and sold their literature.As a result of the efforts, Populist candidates in the South and Midwest won elections in 1890. The party took control of the Kansas legislature when 92 Populists were voted into office. Two years later more candidates from the People’s Party were elected. These Populist candidates included Governor Lorenzo Lewelling and all other statewide officials. Jeremiah Simpson of Medicine Lodge was elected in 1890 to serve in the U.S. Congress. He earned the nickname “Sockless Jerry” for criticizing the extravagance of his opponent’s stockings. William Peffer of Topeka was the first Populist to serve as U.S. senator. Peffer, who served one term, had been involved with the national organization of the People’s Party and believed that government’s role was to “serve all the people, not only a few.”Both the Republican and Populist parties claimed victory in the Kansas House elections in 1892. A number of contests were still being disputed when the legislative session began in January 1893. The conflict between the parties reached a crisis when the Populists locked themselves in the House Hall. The Republicans used a sledgehammer to break down the doors to the hall. The governor requested support from the state militia. After a three-day standoff, Governor Lewelling was able to negotiate an agreement with the Republican speaker of the house, which amounted to a Populist surrender. The state Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Republicans.William Allen White, the outspoken editor of the Emporia Gazette, sternly criticized the Populists in an editorial in 1896. “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” became popular with the Republican Party and was reprinted in national newspapers. By the late 1890s Kansas Republicans had regained control of the legislature and state offices.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Kansas, http://www.270towin.com/states/Kansas, https://www.kshs.org/kansapedia/populism/15160

---

Raheem Brown

The United States of America has the greatest democracy in the world that allows people to voice their opinions and concerns. We are a country that has freedom of speech and religion, we are free to state which party we want to vote for without being victimize for our affiliations. Our country for the last 50 years or so has been dominated by a two party system where people choose Democratic or Republican.

When looking back in the United States of America’s history, we see that the two parties Democratic and Republican have shared the majority of the elected positions from the local level to the office of president. It was not until 1854 that the Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists; it dominated politics nationally for most of the period from 1860 to 1932. There have been 18 Republican presidents, the most recent being George W Bush from 2001 to 2009. We know that the Democratic Party is the oldest in the United States of America dating back to the days of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic Republican Party that began around 1792. There have been thirteen Democrat presidents since Andrew Jackson became the first in 1829. However, Grover Cleveland did serve two separate terms as president. The current president Barack Obama is a Democrat. Other parties such as the Whigs, Federalists, and Anti-Federalists did not last very long.

These two large parties have changed over time on what their agendas are for the American people thus third parties have emerged occasionally. “But the existing two-party system has become institutionalized and has added a persistent layer of mediation between the people and their government. There are both positive and negative sides to this system, but in recent decades citizens' faith in the two main parties has declined as the Republican and Democratic parties have had difficulty in reconciling the varying interests of the people who make up their memberships.”

If we look at the problems today, the Democratic and Republican cannot seem come to quick agreement on the fiscal cliff to increase tax on the wealthy. “However, the existence of only two dominant parties stems largely from election rules that provide for single-member districts and winner-take-all elections. Each "district" can have only one winner in any election, the person who receives the most votes. So no matter how popular a third party, it will not win a single seat in any legislature until it becomes powerful enough in a single district to take an election. By contrast, many democracies have proportional representation, in which officials are elected based on the percentage of votes their parties receive, and more than two dominant parties. If a party wins 10 percent of the vote in an election where 100 seats are at stake, it gets to have 10 of the seats. In a multiparty system, parties may form a coalition, an alliance between parties, to pool their votes if there is agreement on a major issue. Proportional representation encourages the formation of parties that are based on narrowly defined interests”, this is according to cliff notes on American Government.

It is said that the two-party system promotes governmental stability because a single party can win a majority of political offices and, with less bickering between differing and partisan legislators, govern more efficiently. In a multiparty country such as the United States of America, the formation of a government depends on the maintenance of a coalition of parties with enough total strength to form a political majority. The weakness of the ties that bind the coalition may threaten the continuance of a cabinet in power.

The United States has a federal government, with elected officials at the federal (national), state and local levels. On a national level, the head of state, the President, is elected indirectly by the people, through an Electoral College. Today, the electors virtually always vote with the popular vote of their state. All members of the federal legislature, the Congress, are directly elected. There are many elected offices at state level, each state having at least an elective governor and legislature. There are also elected offices at the local level, in counties and cities. It is estimated that across the whole country, over one million offices are filled in every electoral cycle.

Work cited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/pamphlet/2012/05/201205105460.html#axzz2GgB9D5Tt
http://2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004483

---

Parties and Elections

Archana Prabhu

United States politics are quite different from what I observed back in India, though India being the largest democratic but with a parliamentary system,where we always vision a national election as a competition between parties to gain control over parliament. United States gave me impression that two eligible and eminent people from two parties fight for the presidency. It’s more of a competition between two persons rather than a fight between major parties, although parties do play a prominent role when you come into deep Kansas or some other similar state where candidates are more favored based on their party affiliation. Would be this is the reason, I always hear Kansas is republican state no matter whoever runs for the president.

Party system started in United States though the first generation of politicians did not see it coming where first president George Washington himself did not represent any party during his tenure or his election. It all started with a fight between the ideologies of federalism to have a strong united central government and more power centered states supported by Thomas Jefferson. American political party picture went through several phases before settling down as two party system of Republican and Democratic by 1930’s. Great depression gave a strong push to Democratic Party which had Franklin D Roosevelt as their front man with new coalitions of specific liberal groups of ethno-religious, white southerners, labor unions, progressive intellectuals and now African American community, Hispanic society adding to the list. There are some independents and other smaller parties who made their mark on the national map but not something you will remember for generations. One of them would be Ross Perot who got enough light with about 19% of popular vote during 1992 presidential election with a run on George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Flag of Federalist Party–George Hamilton founded in 1794.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party

Finally, Democrats positioned themselves more towards liberalism while conservatives increasingly dominate GOP. When I observe last four election maps of United States, I see the edges of the map (East Coast and West Coast) dominated by democrats may be due to concentration of working young generations besides heavy settlement of earlier and latest immigrants. Midwest and other less populated states are stretching more towards GOP as most of the population is farming and conservative minded. I understand that latest election stressed more that larger states with more electoral votes are more important to the parties than these midwestern states. See Fig 1 to check the latest results:

Source: http://www.examiner.com

On moving to political parties at State, unlike power at White House and Congress which alternated between Democrats and Republicans, a majority of states strongly sticks with one party. Only nomination or primaries is tantamount of some of the legislature or governor elections. Local interests and strong influential figures will have effect on some states to move away from their traditional party affiliations. Consider Texas which was a strong hold of Democrats until recently as with any other south states that are traditional bastions of Democratic party, I assume George W. Bush may be influential with voters sliding towards Republican party since 1995. Demographics like Florida are leaning towards Republic Party may be due to growing senior population who are said to be conservative and are helping Republicans to power since 1999. I attribute growing diversity is an added advantage to Democrats in New York who are holding to power since 2006 where Republicans were governors for a period of 26 years after 1959 besides my assumption of presence of influential democrats The Clintons.

United States Governors and their Parties as of Jan 2011
Source: www.targetmap.com & http://upload.wikimedia.org

It’s interesting to see almost called my home state as being a starting point of US career, Most of the time Governors are from Republic party with Democrats showing their mettle recently with notable names like Kathleen Sebelius who is also serving on national map now. I remember some of my friends working for Mr. Gandhi (grandson of Father of India – Mahatma Gandhi) who ran for House from Topeka always talking about just getting through primaries is more critical than winning the seat as they strongly believed Kansas belongs to Republican Party. I believe that local elections like County, City are more or less dominated by local issues than party affiliations and moreover contestants are known to a sizeable population of the competing constituency. But still, Parties can mobilize the finances and election infrastructural support needed by any candidate of that party.

Here is the list of governors and their party affiliations since 1975 for the State of Kansas:
Source: https://www.kshs.org/p/kansas-governors/11702

Bennett, Robert F. January 13, 1975 - January 8, 1979
Republican lawyer from Overland Park.

Carlin, John William January 8, 1979 - January 12, 1987
Democratic dairy farmer from Smolan.

Hayden, John Michael (Mike) January 12, 1987 - January 14, 1991
Republican insurance agent from Atwood.

Finney, Joan January 14, 1991 - January 9, 1995
Democratic State

Graves, William Preston January 9, 1995 - January 13, 2003
Republican Secretary of State from Salina.

Sebelius, Kathleen January 13, 2003 - April 28, 2009
Democratic

Parkinson, Mark April 28, 2009 - January 10, 2011
Democratic Lt. Governor

Brownback, Samuel Dale January 10, 2011 -
Republican U. S. Senator from Topeka

On a conclusion, I am still trying to see influence of parties at any given election in this country right from Presidential to local municipal elections when compared to elections and parties in India where people and their ideologies are deeply rooted with the party.

References

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/who-won-the-popular-vote-2012_n_2087038.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States
www.freedomslighthouse.net
http://uselectionatlas.org
http://www.history.com/topics
www.targetmaps.com
https://www.kshs.org/p/kansas-governors/11702
www.cnn.com

---

Jaeger Thompson
Parties and Elections

In today’s America there are only a couple of federally recognized political parties which include: the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, Independents, and Vacant. Keep in mind these are just the ones that are recognized by our federal government. Throughout our rich history as a country we have had many different named parties that have had many different beliefs and agendas that they wished or wish to accomplish within these United States. Some of these parties have many of the same views and beliefs but also many differences. Most of them never accomplish their goals and most are never acknowledged at all by our government. Although this does not make these parties any less important than the major parties.

The first major political party is the Democratic Party. This party is represented by the donkey. A few of the well-known president’s that came from this party include: Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and whether you like it or not our current president is a democrat. Although don’t judge the whole party based on the actions of one president. A person should research the views and opinions of both political parties and think about their own views. Some of the views of the Democratic Party are that they have favored liberal positions for the most part. Historically this party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and ethnic and religious minorities. It has been strong opposition of unregulated business and finance, and has favored progressive income taxes. These are just a few examples of the beliefs of the Democratic Party. To talk about all the views of either of these parties would take a much longer paper.

The second major political party and opposing party of the Democrats is known as the Republican Party. The Republican Party is represented by an Elephant. A few of the well-known president’s to come from the Republican Party are: Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan. Abraham Lincoln was the first president to be a Republican. Kansas is primarily a Republican state as are many of the northern states. Some of the political views of the Republican Party are that they support strong individual achievement and free markets. They are also in favor of the elimination of government run welfare programs and believe in personal responsibility.

Now, I don’t happen to fully agree with one party or the other. I can see the merits of both parties. I happen to think that if both parties would stop this incessant arguing about everything that we could get a great deal more accomplished. Both parties have some good ideas and some not so good ideas. Hopefully one day they can learn that in order to get ahead in the world today they will have to learn a little thing that the schools try to teach students at a young age known as compromise. Now I doubt that this will get accomplished within the next several decades if it ever happens to get done.

In conclusion, while these are the two known parties there are many other smaller unknown parties and views and beliefs about what the government should do. It would take a whole lot more time and paper to go into all of them. I recommend that each person researches and thinks about what your personal beliefs are. Most grew up and follow their parent’s beliefs. Hopefully this helps you all find your own opinion about what we should do; after all we were given free speech for a reason. Hopefully this has helped inform you and your beliefs. See you at the voting booths!

Sources: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
americanhistory.about.com/od/uspresidents/f/democrat_presidents.html
www.republicanpresidents.net

---

Democrats vs. Republicans (2014)

By Jessica Moss

When electing a political candidate, considering their Political Party affiliation is a way to get an overview of their basic ideas and philosophy in society. The two parties with federal representation are the Democrats and the Republicans. These two parties happen to possess much different beliefs on how things should be ran in society.

The Republicans strongly believe that each person is responsible for his or herself in society. They believe that the individual's true destiny is in his or her own hands, and governmental power and resources should be kept close to the individual, rather than being centralized in distant government agencies. In terms of the economy, Republicans believe that the government should encourage a business environment so people can make use of their talents. They are convinced that the free enterprise has brought economic growth to the country, making it exceptional.

Republicans support individual independence to control tax spending. Their goal is to eliminate government waste, as well as cut and solve the government spending issue. Education wise, Republicans believe that all children should be pushed to demonstrate excellence in basic skills, especially math and reading. Mastery of English is crucial to them, in order to be academically competitive in university level. Children learning more than one language in schools is also preferred as opposed to just English. They believe that testing is also quite necessary as it determines the child's individual need in areas of help in their academics.

Another factor to consider is immigration. Republicans understand that many from foreign countries seek to live in America in order to live a fuller, better life with peace and freedom. They believe that although diversity of immigrants is welcomed among the nation, that security of our borders is essential, as well as immigration policies being strictly followed. This is because of the high frequency of drug trafficking, human trafficking, and gang violence, etc.

Democrats on the other hand, demonstrate a much different array of beliefs than Republicans do. Instead of promoting individual independence, Democrats think that it is the government's responsibility for the welfare of their people. This can have its disadvantages since it can take away right's of the individual or even subordinate enterprise and initiative. For instance, in community issues, the Democrats use a federal-level solution rather than a community based one. Because of this, federal regulations and controls are often in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. This ends up causing a severe erosion in local authority.

As far as the economy goes, Democrats believe that business decisions should only be guided by government officials, as the economy is too complex of a thing for individuals to manage by themselves. This goes for tax and government spending as well.

Democrats believe that testing in school classrooms is a waste of time for both the teachers and students. They believe that it is necessary for children to stay in schools that fail at teaching basic skills, and that literacy is something that should be left for only unions to define.

Democrats are not concerned with the security of the nation's borders. They believe that the nation should be purely open to welcoming immigrants from foreign countries, and that comfort and unconditional aid and assistance should be provided to these newcomers.

In the end, their opinions differ entirely from the Republicans'. Their platform is based generally on liberalism, rather than conservatism like the Republicans'. The Democratic party also happens to be the oldest party in the world. In 2004 it was deemed the largest political party, with 72 million voters claiming affiliation. It happens to the majority party of the United States Senate, surpassing the Republican party. On the contrary, the majority of state governments happen to outnumber liberals with conservatives in 47 states.

http://www.svgop.com/files/Differences%20Between%20Republicans%20and%20Democrats.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/01/31/conservatives-outnumber-liberals-in-47-states/

---

Parties and elections. (2014)

Adrianna Sosnowska

Today the United States of America is a multi-party system. We hear about: Reform, Libertarian, Socialist, Natural Law, Constitution, or Green Parties, but everybody knows that only two parties have a power in America: The Republican Party and The Democratic Party. It is likely that political parties will continue to play a major role in presidential elections in the new millennium. Let’s focus on these two powerful parties. If we going into the simple way to explain to foreign person, like me, situation between democrats and republicans we can say that, the first one is the left wing- the political left or simply the left are terms that refer to the segment of the political spectrum, however the right wing is The Democratic Party. Both of those parties are going really deep into national issues, but we can see some keywords where they focus at. Republicans have a strong belief in personal responsibility, limited government, and corporate entrepreneurship. Republicans generally oppose gay marriage, oppose abortion, and oppose embryonic stem cell research. Immediately after the last sentence about republicans we can see the different; democratic people support gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research. The Party also advocates civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention. In addition they believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if that means a larger role for government and progressive taxation to pay for social services.

Pretty simple symbols but statistical American person doesn’t know why a donkey is the symbol of The Democratic Party and why an elephant is a symbol of Republican.
I thought the answer would be simple but actually each book has modified the answer to their needs, I decided to choose answer from history where the parties were formed.
The beginning of democratic donkey based on the first Democrat ever- Andrew Jackson, presidential candidate associated with the donkey symbol. His opponents during the election of 1828 tried to label him a "jackass" for his populist beliefs and slogan, "Let the people rule." Jackson was entertained by the notion and ended up using it to his advantage on his campaign posters.
But cartoonist Thomas Nast is credited with making the donkey the recognized symbol of the Democratic Party. It first appeared in a cartoon in Harper's Weekly in 1870, and was supposed to represent an anti-Civil War faction. But the public was immediately taken by it and by 1880 it had already become the unofficial symbol of the party.
Political cartoonist Thomas Nast was also responsible for the Republican Party elephant. In a cartoon that appeared in Harper's Weekly in 1874, Nast drew a donkey clothed in lion's skin, scaring away all the animals at the zoo. One of those animals, the elephant, was labeled "The Republican Vote." That's all it took for the elephant to become associated with the Republican Party.

People in Europe, calling American Elections, the most complicated elections in the whole world. I completely agree! The basic process of selecting the President of the United States is spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. Of course not everybody can stand for election; person must be at least 35 years of age, they must be native-born citizens of the United States, and they must have been residents of the U.S. for at least 14 years. The hardest to understand for me is the Electoral College. In most countries, people go to vote, then responsible people count every vote and who has the biggest number of votes is winning, but not in America. The United States uses the Electoral College, which means that they separate all of the states, each state has the same number of electors as it has senators and representatives. The People in Each State Vote for Electors in the Electoral College; in most of the states, and also in the District of Columbia, the election is winner-take-all; whichever ticket receives the most votes in that state gets all the electors. The Electoral College then votes for President and for Vice-President, with each elector casting one vote; these votes are called electoral votes. Each elector is pledged to vote for particular candidates for President and Vice-President. Normally, one of the candidates for President receives a majority of the electoral votes; that person is elected President. That candidate's vice-presidential running mate will then also receive a majority of electoral votes, and that person is elected Vice-President.
Why the process is so complicated? Many people have tried to answer this question. Maybe because America is the most populous country, or maybe because is more comfortable for politics and parties. We can see so many opinions around this topic.

In my conclusion I want to say that American parties and elections are doing really well if we just take a simple look; the largest economy in the world, the most populous country, also the largest number of employers, and the second most-developed industry in the world. I am glad that I can be here, like a foreign and learn about this awesome country every day.

Resources
“The Politics of American Government” Stephen J Wayne (1996)
“Conflict and Consensus in American Politics: 2006-2007 Election Update”
Stephen J Wayne, Professor G Calvin MacKenzie, Richard Cole (2007)
“Parties and Elections in America” Sandy L. Maisel, Mark D. Brewer (2009)

http://people.howstuffworks.com/donkey-elephant.htm
http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/presidential-elections

---

THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT
Brian Wood
In 1787 leaders of the states gathered to write the Constitution a set of principles that told how the new nation would be governed. The leaders of the states wanted a strong and fair national government. But they also wanted to protect individual freedoms and prevent the government from abusing its power. They believed they could do this by having three separate branches of government. The three branches of government they came up with where Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. I’ll break down each one and explain their purpose.
Legislative branch- is made up of the two houses of Congress the Senate and the House of Representatives. The most important duty of the legislative branch has is to make laws. Laws are written, discussed and voted on in Congress.
Executive Branch- the President is the head of the executive branch, which makes laws official. The President is elected by the entire country and serves a four-year term. The President approves and carries out laws passed by the legislative branch. He appoints or removes cabinet members and officials. He negotiates treaties, and acts as head of state and commander in chief of the armed forces. The executive branch also includes the Vice President and other officials, such as members of the cabinet. The cabinet is made up of the heads of the 15 major departments of the government. The cabinet gives advice to the President about important matters.
Judicial Branch- oversees the court system of the U.S. Through court cases, the judicial branch explains the meaning of the Constitution and laws passed by Congress. The Supreme Court is the head of the judicial branch. Unlike a criminal court, the Supreme Court rules whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional—whether or not it is permitted under the Constitution. On the Supreme Court there are nine justices, or judges: eight associate justices and one chief justice. The judges are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. They have no term limits. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Its decisions are final, and no other court can overrule those decisions. Decisions of the Supreme Court set precedents - new ways of interpreting the law.

Sources:
trumanlibrary.org
kids.usa.gov

---

State Legislatures

State Legislatures

Benjamin Jurek

State legislatures are very similar to the United States Congress. Much like the U.S. Congress, state legislatures are comprised of a two house, or bicameral, system. This is true, with the exception of Nebraska, which utilizes a one house, or unicameral, system. In a bicameral system, the legislature is made up of a house of representatives as well as a senate. The house’s delegates are elected by their respective districts based on population, while the senate’s delegates are elected by districts based on area. This system creates balance between urban and rural interests. At least every ten years, a census must be taken to redistrict the state’s voting areas to conform with this system.

A typical state legislator is a 53-year-old white male, well-educated and well-off. (Pearson, 2012) Delegates are elected to represent their local community at the state level. This ensures that all parts of the state have and equal say in the capitol. This also serves as an easy way for citizens to make their voice heard concerning issues at the local, state, or even national level. Contacting your local representatives can be easily done in person, by phone, or via e-mail. (Pearson, 2012) Contact information can be easily found at http://www.kslegislature.org/li/.

The legislative branch has many responsibilities. They include considering and amending legislation, overseeing the implementation of laws, interviewing judges, and as stated before, serving as the major access point for citizens, interest groups and lobbyists. (Pearson, 2012) The legislature utilizes a variety of committees for different tasks and issues. Committees can create bills that are put to vote by the entire legislature. In nearly half of the states, bills can also be proposed by citizens directly via initiatives. This is one of many differences in legislatures of the states. Term limits, lobbying rules, resources, salaries and time in session all vary and change constantly among the states. Members of the legislature keep a close eye on how other state’s handle issues and what their solution and outcomes are. With this they can make decisions that may hopefully help their own state to progress in the right direction. Modernization and reform is constantly taking place at the local, state and national level. The state legislature acts as a middle ground between local and national governments. Along with the executive and judicial branches of the state government, the state legislature helps to govern its’ people while upholding the state’s constitution, continually solving the state’s problems, protecting its’ citizens, and ensuring a bright future for its’ state.

Kansas’ legislature consists of 125 representatives and 40 senators, with the supermajority being Republican in both houses. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_Legislature) Our local delegates here in Colby are Ralph Ostmeyer as senator and Ward Cassidy as representative. Cassidy is an educator from St. Francis. He heads two education committees in the house. Cassidy is a Republican and has only been our representative since 2011. Ostmeyer is a farmer/rancher from Grinnell. He heads the Federal and State Affairs committee. Ostmeyer is also a Republican and has been our senator since 2005. Kansas representatives serve 2 year terms and have no term limit. Kansas senators serve four year terms and also have no term limit.

Sources:
Pearson Education, Inc. State and Local Politics Government by the People (2012) State Legislatures: 95-113
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_Legislature
http://www.kslegislature.org/li/

Natalie Elmgreen
Being a Leader
Being a leader takes a lot more than just being in charge. Being a leader means that people follow you. Not only do people want to follow a leader, people want to do what it takes to do better. This kind of policy about leadership applies to all kinds of leadership. There are certain skills and abilities that a leader has to have. These skills and abilities have a lot to do with being liked by people. A group of people are more likely to follow a leader who they respect, like or aspire to be like.
Some people are born to lead. There are just certain qualities that they have to lead. Kids at young ages can take on the role of a leader. Sports are a great way for kids to learn how to work with other people and find the most effective way to direct people. To me there are different kinds of leaders. There are example leaders, verbal leaders, quiet leaders, and combination people.
People, who lead by example, do their job to the best of their ability. Usually these are people who do their job better than anyone else. People follow them wanting to do the job the same way. They don’t have to say anything people just want to follow them.
Verbal leaders have the ability to make people do what they want through words. This kind of leader is not known to be most effective. This is known to cause people to be a little hostile toward the leader. For example sports teams that experience this kind of leader tend to have fights and other problems.
Quiet leaders aren’t people who are verbal or better at something. These are people who are smarter about how they go about everything. They know more about the task at hand and they strategize the best way to go about getting a job done. These are the most famous of leaders. Generals, presidents, and other positions of power use this kind of leadership. The best thing they do is think logically when there is major panic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.sht

State Governors

State Governors

Drake Lovvorn

Each and every one of the states in the United States of America has a governor, all of whom are popularly elected. Many people may wonder just exactly what the governor does or what powers he/she may hold,  or even how the election process works. I hope to answer all of those questions by the end of this paper.

A governor is the state's highest-ranking elected official, but his or her actual duties are more varied than, say, an elected member of the state legislature, whose main role is to propose and vote on new legislation. A governor's responsibilities vary from state to state depending on the constitution within the state.

People from all backgrounds can choose to run for governor, but the strongest contenders are usually those with previous political experience. To become a governor of any state within the United states you have to meet certain age requirements, and residency requirements. Each state has a different set of rules and regulations stated in their states constitution. For example in most states you need to be at least 30 years of age or older. Not only that but you also have to have lived in the state your running in for at least seven years. You also have to be a U.S citizen. But even along with these stated regulations there are still quite a handful of unsaid regulations. These are things such as having a college education and having a good strong moral background.

Governors are the Chief Executives of their state which are basically the states managers. They are responsible for implementing state laws and overseeing the operations of the state executive branch. As state leaders governors are set with a variaty of powers. These said powers consist of making appointments, preparing the state budget, vetoing legislation, issuing executive orders, commanding the state National Guard, Pardon or grant clemency, and helping to establish the legislature’s agenda. Although governors have many roles and responsibilities in common, the scope of their power varies from state to state in accordance with state constitutions, legislation, and tradition.

Governors term limits vary by state. They have four year terms in every state except for New Hampshire and Vermont which have two year term limits. All Governors may also succeed themselves with the exception of the state of Virginia. Although they may be limited to a specific number of consecutive or total terms.

Today Governors play a very important role in the United States. Not only do they run the general operations of their state but the also command a braud set of powers stretching all the way from commanding the national guard to helping to establish the legislature’s agenda. In some ways the governor of each state is like the president but on a smaller scale with only control over their state. Without the state governors the united states as a whole would be weaker. These men and women help guide the nation and help put into place important state laws.

Sources

National Governors Association. "Term Limits." (December 29, 2012) http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.9e1238065e726e63ee28aca9501010a0/?vgnextoid=3d252bf8a1cb6010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD
Guide to Government. "California State Government — State Executive Branch Overview." June 26, 2009. (April 27, 2010) http://www.smartvoter.org/gtg/ca/state/overview/state_exec.html

—— 
Breanna Emahizer,
Wiki Essay Number 2
Thompson
State Governors
The head honcho, the man in charge, the top dog. Not saying the president isn’t important, but a state election hits close to home for most voters. Voters weigh the option of who they want running their country very carefully. They are even more careful with state elections in some cases. The state governor, the person we chose to represent us and the person we put in charge of state obligations. This is a person who is elected based on state elections. State elections are held at certain times during off years with the presidential election. Anyone has the power to run for office as a state governor, however candidates are stronger if they have a political background. They know how to speak to the people, and how to get their point across. These candidates generally make it farther in the polls with the general public. They could even rise to run for Presidency.

From state to state, it varies on restrictions according to their constitution. Every state has a basic outline of rules that they follow which stated in that same constitution. The candidate must reach a certain age and they must also be a U.S. citizen. After a candidate is deemed eligible, it is up to the public as well as the candidate’s party to decide if he or she will be a good fit for what they want done in the state and with the legislation. Each state has its legislation split in to three branches. This set up is like how the national government is set up. The state legislation is split in to the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial branch. The legislative branch is made up of the Attorney General, the House of Representatives, the Senate and a committee. The executive branch the Governor, the Lt. Governor, and the Office Repealer. Finally the judicial branch is made up of all of the courts, the judges, the applet clerk, and court administrations.
Today governors, along with every other branch in the state legislation play a very important part in what goes on in the state. Governors may be one of the most important people to vote for. These people are in charge of your state. He or she is in charge of what will affect you more directly. He or she is in charge of what happens in your state. Governors rule the state roost. However, he or she does have to answer to all of the other people involved in the state legislation. My father told me when I turned eighteen and was concerned I wouldn’t even make a difference with voting, “If you don’t vote, you can’t bitch. You got what was coming to you. You have a say in who will run your state and your country. Don’t waste the opportunity to have a voice. Your vote counts, don’t waste that.” Very strong words, form a very wise man. Many people in the older generation will push the younger ones to vote and have a say in what will go on in the future of the state and the country. The wiser generations have a lot to say if we take the time to listen. Take your time knowing the candidate, gather information before you cast your vote. You have a bigger impact that you might think.
Works Cited:
http://governor.state.tx.us/about/duties/
http://en.wikipedia.org/http://elections.gmu.edu/wiki/United_States_elections,_2014
http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_25/Article_1/
http://www.kansas.gov/government/legislature/

---

Jerry Brown's Impact on the State of California (2014)

By Jessica Moss

“Governor Moonbeam. I earned it with a lot of hard work!” jokes governor Jerry Brown. There is however, much truth to this statement. In 2011, Brown stepped into the office. Since then he has worked very hard in order to eliminate bankruptcy in the state of California. A couple of years ago before Brown entered the office, a high percentage of unemployment was relevant, a $26 billion dollar deficit, as well as a whopping debt amount of $35 billion dollars.
By introducing budget cuts and new taxes, Brown has managed to zero out the deficit, and is lowering the debt. Ironically, California happens to be a Republican state. But despite Brown being a Democrat, he has gained much respect and support from Republicans. A poll by the Public Policy Institute of California states that approximately 1/3 of Republicans prefer Jerry Brown. This means that he may possibly be re-elected for another 5 years in the office.
California has struggled with its finances since the 1970s. Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger promised to cut the car tax, but ended up increasing the debt by $4 billion dollars. As a result of the Great Recession, the state's credit depleted. Republican lawmakers refused to raise revenues. In 2010, approved another anti-tax proposition that reclassified state fees as taxes. By having the Californians withstand the painful effects of budget cuts, he would attempt to convince them to vote for a tax raise on themselves at the ballot box. Brown warned voters that if new revenues weren't created, K-12 education would be wiped out by a new round of cuts. Raising money for school kids was not easy as it is, considering the nation's anti-tax hysteria that started an entire generation ago. According to Democrat Governor Martin O'Malley of Maryland, “Brown was fighting against 30 years of lies that a tax cut is the greatest good in the republic.”
Brown's efforts have so far paid off. His newest created budget will put the state on its path to be debt free, by reversing cuts to education and public health services. This may even create a $1.1 billion dollar rainy-day refund. Another accomplishment of Brown's was the launching of the world's most advanced carbon-pollution trading markets which is going to reduce climate pollution to 1990 levels by year 2020. In year 2011, Brown signed a law which requires California to generate 1/3 of its power by renewable sources, He claims that, “We're the most aggressive in the Western Hemisphere in terms of our clean-energy goals.”
For being considered the most well accomplished progressive governor, Brown does indeed have a dark side. His ticket back into governor went through the state attorney general's office. Because of this, he is completely exposed to California's formidable law enforcement interests. The state's prison system is incredibly overcrowded, and Brown has maintained it at 150 percent of designed capacity. Brown was rebuked by federal judges for his so called “repeated failure” due to draconian sentences of low-level offenders such as potheads. It was mandatory for Brown to schedule the release of over 10,000 inmates. This provoked Brown, and made him angrily appeal back to the Supreme Court.
In 2010, it was reported that Brown was still opposed to the legalization of marijuana. He has a call for greater control when it comes to firearms. As of 2013, Brown was a year short of what will probably be his last campaign. He is nearing the age of 80, and has a small window of pursuing what he intends for the state of California, then nation as a whole, and even the planet.

For more information:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/jerry-browns-tough-love-miracle-20130829

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/04/dan-walters-daily-jerry-brown-

Alex Helms Wiki Essay 2
John “Mike” Hayden was the governor of Kansas from 1987 and 1991. He's not well known outside of Kansas but if you live in Northwest Kansas and haven't heard of him you probably lived under a rock, or died before 1980. However if the latter were true you wouldn't be reading this so listen up Patrick. Mike Hayden was born in Colby, Kansas and grew up on a farm near Atwood, Kansas, my hometown. Although his family worked the ground that had belonged to them for more than 40 years, Hayden didn't feel like the farm life was for him. Hayden had interests in the environment which led him to pursue a Biology degree from Kansas State University. After he graduated he was drafted and served a year in Vietnam.

Battle worn and tested, he came back to attend graduate school at Fort Hays State University. It was during his time there that he decided to run for elected office. He became the Northwest district's representative on the State Legislature. He served from 1972-1986 and then decided to run for governor. He won the candidacy by winning 89 of 90 counties chosen because of their primarily rural make up. He ran against Democrat Tom Docking and won. During his term as governor, Hayden Proposed and passed an 8 billion dollar plan to rejuvenate Kansas' 3rd largest in the nation highway system. He also put in place a program that effected property taxes by raising those for commercial and business owners but lowering those of residential owners and farmers. This plan greatly affected his reelection for a second term. I wrote about Mr. Hayden because he is from my hometown and did what he could to help rural areas in a system that was primarily focused on urban issues. I've done work for his brother Paul Hayden who has taken over the farm responsibilities. He made strides in preserving the rural communities of Kansas, including mine, and he will always be remembered as Atwood's Governor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Hayden
http://www.nga.org/cms/home/governors/past-governors-bios/page_kansas/col2-content/main-content-list/title_hayden_john.html

Judges and Justices

Judges and Justices

By: Fabian Hayles

Many people wonder about the designation of two officers that are authorized to administer specific legal actions in local, state, and federal jurisdictions. There is a difference between a justice and a judge. Some of the differences involve the background of the individual holding the title, the structure of the local jurisdiction, and the specific duties associated with each title. Attorneys, law clerks, and bailiffs all have their purpose in the court system, but the law is actually carried out when judges and justices issue their rulings on a case. Judges and justices are court officials who make the final decision in every case that is brought to a court of law. Depending on the jurisdiction, either can sit on the bench anywhere between six to eight years. All judges and justices are required to step down from their duties by the age of 70. Judges work in lower level courts, such as district court and circuit court. In many states, judges are licensed attorneys who run for the public office of judge. These attorneys have successfully attended law school, passed the state’s bar examination, and have practiced law for at least five years. When a judge vacates a seat, the governor of that state appoints a replacement who will serve until the next judicial election. In other states, judges are appointed by the governor who receives recommendations from a judicial nominating committee. Some states choose to appoint judges to avoid judicial candidates from having to raise money for their own election and risk being influenced by special interest groups. Lower court judges preside over trials and hear oral arguments in civil cases and misdemeanour and felony criminal justice cases. Parties in those cases can appeal a judge’s decision to justices in higher courts. Judges play many roles. They interpret the law, assess the evidence presented, and control how hearings and trials unfold in their courtrooms. Most important of all, judges are impartial decision-makers in the pursuit of justice. We have what is known as an adversarial system of justice - legal cases are contests between opposing sides, which ensures that evidence and legal arguments will be fully and forcefully presented. The judge, however, remains above the fray, providing an independent and impartial assessment of the facts and how the law applies to those facts. Many criminal cases and almost all civil ones - are heard by a judge sitting without a jury. The judge is the trier of fact, deciding whether the evidence is credible and which witnesses are telling the truth. Then the judge applies the law to these facts to determine whether a civil claim has been established on a balance of probabilities or whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in criminal cases, that the suspect is guilty.
In contrast, justices will perform a different function within the judicial system. Also sworn to uphold the laws of the land, a justice does not necessarily have to be an attorney or have any formal legal training. Instead, a justice will be empowered by the jurisdiction to perform such functions as the witnessing of legal documents, the performance of civil unions and marriages, and other similar duties as defined by the jurisdiction. In some parts of the world, local justice officials are elected rather than appointed. Justices are found on a state’s Appeals Court and Supreme Court. A higher court justice can either be elected or appointed. Unlike their counterparts in lower courts who work alone, appellate justices can consider cases in panels, meaning three justices can decide a case. A full court of justices may decide to join together to consider a more complex or prominent case. Justices do not hold trials, but review documentation from the lower courts before making decisions. When necessary, justices will hear oral arguments from attorneys on specific cases, and will issue a written opinion at a later date. Lower court judges also issue written opinions, but there are times when they rule from the bench shortly after hearing oral arguments. Although each state has different laws for placing justices and judges in place, it is important that these court officials render fair and equitable decisions to all parties that appear before the bench.
Since legal systems vary from one country to the next, there are no clear-cut differences between a justice and a judge in some jurisdictions. Depending on the location and local laws, a justice may preside at a court of law and a judge may be empowered to perform legal unions. When discussing the differences between a judge and a justice, it is often helpful to define the jurisdiction under consideration, and look at the specific application of those two terms within that jurisdiction.

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/what-is-a-judges-role-in-court.html
http://legalcareers.about.com/od/careerprofiles/p/judge.htm
http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-justice-and-vs-judge/

---

Dontrell Lyons (2014)

Attorneys, law clerks, and bailiffs all have their purpose in the court system, but the law is actually carried out when judges and justices issue their rulings on a case.
Judges and justices are court officials who make the final decision in every case that is brought to a court of law. Depending on the jurisdiction, they can sit on the bench anywhere between six to eight years. Judges and justices must retire at least by the age of 70.

Judges handle local cases
Judges work in lower level courts, such as district court and circuit court. In many states, judges are licensed attorneys who run for the public office of judge. These attorneys have successfully attended law school, passed the state’s bar examination, and have practiced law for at least five years. When a judge vacates a seat, the governor of that state appoints a replacement who will serve until the next judicial election.
In other states, judges are appointed by the governor who receives recommendations from a judicial nominating committee. Some states choose to appoint judges to avoid judicial candidates from having to raise money for their own election and risk being influenced by special interest groups.
Lower court judges preside over trials and hear oral arguments in civil cases and misdemeanor and felony criminal justice cases. Parties in those cases can appeal a judge’s decision to justices in higher courts.
Justices operate differently than judges
Justices are found on a state’s Appeals Court and Supreme Court. A higher court justice can either be elected or appointed. For instance, voters in the state of Michigan elect both appellate and Supreme Court justices. Judicial candidates must be nominated to the Supreme Court bench at either the state’s Republican Party convention, the Democratic Party convention, or by another party that has ballot status in the state of Michigan.
Conversely, in the state of Iowa, the governor appoints justices to the appeals court and the Supreme Court after considering nominees from the state’s Judicial Nominating Commission.
Unlike their counterparts in lower courts who work alone, appellate justices can consider cases in “panels,” meaning three justices can decide a case. A full court of justices may decide to join together to consider a more complex or prominent case.
Justices do not hold trials, but review documentation from the lower courts before making decisions. When necessary, justices will hear oral arguments from attorneys on specific cases, and will issue a written opinion at a later date. Lower court judges also issue written opinions, but there are times when they rule from the bench shortly after hearing oral arguments.
Although each state has different laws for placing justices and judges in place, it is important that these court officials render fair and equitable decisions to all parties that appear before the bench.
http://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-judge-and-a-justice/
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-a-justice-and-a-judge.htm

---

Bernard Newbold

Judges and Justices

We often wonder what the difference between the Judges and Justices is when it comes to the legal affairs of an Independent country. In the British Commonwealth system, there is a Chief Justice, Appeals Court Justices, Supreme Court Justices and Magistrate Court Judges. The differences between a Justice and a Judge are the role in which they play and the title that is more fitting and appropriate.

In the Bahamas, the position of Chief Justice is the head of the Judicature and is authorized by Article 93(2) of the Constitution of the Bahamas. Under Article 94(1), the Governor-General appoints the Chief Justice on the recommendation of the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. Removal of the Chief Justice is governed by Article 96(6); the Prime Minister recommends removal to the Governor-General, who then forms a tribunal of at least three members selected by the Governor-General in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister. Under Article 98(2), the Chief Justice may be invited to sit on the Court of Appeal by the President of that Court.

The Court of Appeal is the highest Court resident in The Bahamas. It is a part of the judicial branch of the Government of The Bahamas and was established by Article 98 of the Constitution of The Commonwealth of The Bahamas. The Court of Appeal has such jurisdiction and powers as are conferred on it by the Constitution and the Court of Appeal Act (Chapter 52 of the 2000 Revised Edition of The Statute Law of The Bahamas). The practice and procedure relating to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction is in accordance with rules of court made by its President pursuant to section 8 of the Court of Appeal Act. The current rules of court are The Court of Appeal Rules 2005. The Court of Appeal consists of the President, the Chief Justice ex officio who sits only at the invitation of the President, and such number of other Justices as may be prescribed by Parliament. Presently, the number prescribed by Parliament is six, including the President. The seniority of Justices of Appeal is determined by their date of appointment. The most senior justice acts as President of the Court of Appeal when the substantive holder of the office is absent. Since the formation of this court in 1970, Justice Dame Joan Sawyer was the first female to serve from 2001-2010. She was preceded Justice Anita Allen.

Justices of the Supreme Court include the Chief Justice and such number of other Justices as may be prescribed by Parliament. No office of Justice of the Supreme Court shall be abolished while there is a substantive holder thereof. Article 93(2) and (3). The Chief Justice is appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. Other Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the Governor-General, acting on the advice of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission. Article 94 Section 3 of the Supreme Court Act, provides that there shall be, in addition to the Chief Justice, not more than eleven and not less than two Justices of the Court and that the title of Senior Justice may be conferred upon not more than two Justices by the Governor-General acting on the advice of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission. To qualify for appointment as a Justice of the Supreme Court, a person must be a member of The Bahamas Bar or the Bar of a Commonwealth country, membership of which is a qualification for admission to practice as a counsel and attorney in The Bahamas, and must have practiced as a counsel and attorney for not less than ten (10) years. Once appointed, the salaries and other terms of appointment of the Chief Justice, and Justices of the Supreme Court cannot be altered to their disadvantage. Justices of the Supreme Court can serve until the age of sixty-five (65) years and, where agreed, may serve until the age of sixty-seven (67).

The Magistrate's Court is similar to the Sanhedrin council. It is the lowest court in The Bahamas. Each one of these courts has a Justice or a Judge to oversee and ensure the lawyer is carried out. The title of Justice or Judge is based upon the court system and each one has a rank.

References:
http://www.courtofappeal.org.bs/
http://www.bahamassupremecourt.gov.bs/justices_supreme.php

Dante Foos
Judges
How Judges and Justices Are Chosen

The Senate Judiciary Committee reviews the president's nominees to the federal bench before they are confirmed on the Senate floor. The committee holds its meetings in rooms such as this one, Committee Room 226 in the Senate Dirksen Office Building. Legendary Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that a Supreme Court Justice should be a "combination of Justinian, Jesus Christ, and John Marshall." Why are venerable former justices sources of guidance in understanding necessary qualities for federal judges? The Constitution is silent on judicial qualifications. It meticulously outlines qualifications for the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the presidency, but it does not give any advice for judicial appointments other than stating that justices should exhibit "good behavior." As a result, selections are governed primarily by tradition.
The Nomination Process
The Constitution provides broad parameters for the judicial nomination process. It gives the responsibility for nominating federal judges and justices to the president. It also requires nominations to be confirmed by the Senate. First, look at the numbers. More than 600 judges sit on district courts, almost 200 judges sit on courts of appeals, and 9 justices make up the Supreme Court. Because all federal judges have life terms, no single president will make all of these appointments. But many vacancies do occur during a president's term of office. Appointing judges, then, could be a full-time job. A president relies on many sources to recommend appropriate nominees for judicial posts. Recommendations often come from the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, members of Congress, sitting judges and justices, and the American Bar Association. Some judicial hopefuls even nominate themselves. A special, very powerful tradition for recommending district judges is called senatorial courtesy. According to this practice, the senators from the state in which the vacancy occurs actually make the decision. A senator of the same political party as the President sends a nomination to the president, who almost always follows the recommendation. To ignore it would be a great affront to the senator, as well as an invitation for conflict between the president and the Senate.
Selection Criteria

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was nominated to fill the position vacated by Thurgood Marshall. He served on the U.S. Court of Appeals before his nomination to the Supreme Court by George Bush.
Presidents must consider many factors in making their choices for federal judgeships:
• Experience — Most nominees have had substantial judicial or governmental experience, either on the state or federal level. Many have law degrees or some other form of higher education.
• Political ideology — Presidents usually appoint judges who seem to have a similar political ideology to their own. In other words, a president with a liberal ideology will usually appoint liberals to the courts. Likewise, conservative presidents tend to appoint conservatives.
• Party and personal loyalties — A remarkably high percentage of a resident's appointees belong to the president's political party. Although political favoritism is less common today than it was a few decades ago, presidents still appoint friends and loyal supporters to federal judgeships.
• Ethnicity and gender — Until relatively recently, almost all federal judges were white males. Today, however, ethnicity and gender are important criteria for appointing judges. In 1967, Lyndon Johnson appointed the first African American Supreme Court justice, Thurgood Marshall. In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor. All recent presidents have appointed African Americans, Latinos, members of other ethnic minority groups, and women to district courts and courts of appeal. Because federal judges and Supreme Court justices serve for life, a president's nomination decisions are in many ways his or her most important legacy. Many of these appointments will serve long after a president's term of office ends. Whether or not the results are a "combination of Justinian, Jesus Christ, and John Marshall," these choices can have an impact on generations to come.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&authuser=0&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=591&q=judge&oq=judge&gs_l=img.3..0l10.2225.3647.0.4635.5.5.0.0.0.0.261.985.0j3j2.5.0....0...1ac.1.43.img..0.5.952.v_Nlp1C28EY#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=_neVQDHnn0nEmM%253A%3B4EK2vdM6AA-EyM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fphandroid.s3.amazonaws.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2011%252F07%252Fjudge-judy.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fphandroid.com%252F2012%252F08%252F16%252Fjudge-koh-in-response-to-apple-court-filing-are-you-smoking-crack%252F%3B300%3B220

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge

---

Negative Images of the Judicial Branch

Sarah Lamm

The judicial branch is an important section in state governments, without it humanity would fail in today’s world. It might not be in the spotlight as much as the legislative and executive branches, but it can still have negative imagery attach to it. To understand why it has these negative imams we must understand their jobs. It is important to know about the state’s judicial branch: how judges are chosen, prosecutors, and defenders.

Judges can be chosen in many different ways, it all depends on what state they are from. One way is having the governor appoint the judges then legislature approves it. This way is sort of the states version of checks and balances. This is not the most popular way but about ten states do this or a version of this. Another way is Popular Election. About 85% of state and localities do it this way. The reason this might be consider a better choice is because you can not bride the general public. Other ways can be easily corrupted. Bribe the governor and some state congressmen and you have the job. But the down side is the general public can be uninformed. So you might not actually get the best person for the job. You could get the person who spent the most money or which ever judge is the popular party in that state. Both ways has its up and down, this is not the only way to choose judges though. There is lots of way, but none are perfect.

Prosecutors have the power to send the case out of criminal court into civil, or ect., take the case before a grand jury, dismiss charges, file an information affidavit. They can sometimes have the hardest job and the most pressure put on them. They bad guy could be in custody, but if something along the way gets mess up, i.e. illegal search and seizure, the bad guy must released. Prosecutors are sometimes blamed and called incompetent by the public, by the victim, or victim’s family. They are the ones who are supposed to send the bad guy to prison, and if that does not happen for any reason they are used as a scapegoat. It might not be their fault but they could get blamed for it anyways.

Defenders are usually assigned to defendants because a majority of people can not afford a lawyer. The two main ways of being assign are assigned counsel system or public defender system. The main difference is in assigned counsel system is the courts itself pays the lawyer, while in public defender system the government pays them to take the case. Defenders can also have a bad public image, mainly the ones that get paid by the client. Normally they are seen as a sleazy person, who gets heartless criminals off the hook, even when they know their client did the crime. It is not there fault if the client did the crime and got away with it. They must do there job to the best of their ability, or their client is not get his due process.

Basically all government jobs have bad images for one reason or another. But it’s important to understand how and why they work that way in order to correct the problems in the future. Judges are seen as corrupt, prosecutors as incompetent, and defenders as sleazy. These images are not always are correct. We must understand there jobs before we can judge them.

Sources
Magleby, David. State and Local Politics: Government by the People. 15th ed. Boston: Longman, 2012. Print.

"The Judicial Branch." The Judicial Branch. West Virginia Legislature, n.d. Web. 06 Jan. 2013. <http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Educational/Kids_Page/11.html>.

---

Johnathon Stiles
Judge Justices

A judge is an official who presides over court proceedings, either alone or as part of a panel of judges. The powers, functions, method of appointment, discipline, and training of judges vary widely across different jurisdictions. The judge is supposed to conduct the trial impartially and in an open court. The judge hears all the witnesses and any other evidence presented by the parties of the case, assesses the credibility and arguments of the parties, and then issues a ruling on the matter at hand based on his or her interpretation of the law and his or her own personal judgment. In some jurisdictions, the judge's powers may be shared with a jury. In inquisitorial systems of criminal investigation, a judge might also be an examining magistrate.

Judges are persons who have passed law degree, and have experience as lawyers. Upon elevation as a judge, which is often through appointments, a person get powers to pass on verdicts on various matters related to law. Judges preside over a jury that is constituted to hear legal proceedings and deliberate to finally arrive at a decision that is binding upon the warring parties. Judges are also qualified to pass on prison sentences. Justices on the other hand, are the part of the same judiciary that consists of judges, lawyers, clerks and other legal personnel. It is easier to think of justices as being a rung higher in the ladder of judicial positions or ranks. Another difference from judges lies in the fact that justices are often elected rather than being appointed or nominated.

---

Judges and Justice
Jenease Bartley

The Nomination Process

The Constitution provides broad parameters for the judicial nomination process. It gives the responsibility for nominating federal judges and justices to the president. It also requires nominations to be confirmed by the Senate. First, look at the numbers.More than 600 judges sit on district courts, almost 200 judges sit on courts of appeals, and 9 justices make up the Supreme Court. Because all federal judges have life terms, no single president will make all of these appointments.

But many vacancies do occur during a president's term of office. Appointing judges, then, could be a full-time job. A president relies on many sources to recommend appropriate nominees for judicial posts.Recommendations often come from the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, members of Congress, sitting judges and justices, and the American Bar Association. Some judicial hopefuls even nominate themselves.

A special, very powerful tradition for recommending district judges is called senatorial courtesy. According to this practice, the senators from the state in which the vacancy occurs actually make the decision. A senator of the same political party as the President sends a nomination to the president, who almost always follows the recommendation. To ignore it would be a great affront to the senator, as well as an invitation for conflict between the president and the Senate.
Because federal judges and Supreme Court justices serve for life, a president's nomination decisions are in many ways his or her most important legacy. Many of these appointments will serve long after a president's term of office ends. Whether or not the results are a "combination of Justinian, Jesus Christ, and John Marshall," these choices can have an impact on generations to come.

Work Cited
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge
http://www.ushistory.org/gov/9d.asp

---

Jo-elle Endreola
Political Institutions

Political institutions have a major impact on government and societies all around the world. Not only do these institutions keep criminals in jail, and the rest of society safe, but also are also useful for several other things. These institutions are also useful for helping needy families out financially, giving individuals a right to make a change through local, state, and federal representatives, and giving society good health care for a chance to live healthier and longer lives.

Political institutions are displayed, and emerged from many different societies in several different ways. These institutions could include, police force, political parties, court systems, prisons, and many different interest groups. These institutions can emerge not only in America’s government, but also from other types of governments all around the world. Different governments including monarchies oligarchies, and democracies create their own political institutions to accommodate to that governments needs. Political institutions also can differ depending on federal, state, and local government. Federal government institutions may include national park centers, institutions such as military, congress, Supreme Court, executive branch, and House of Representatives. State assistance programs such as welfare, and food assistance, hospitals, mental institutions, Kansas Bureau of Investigation, and high way patrolmen, are recognized as state institutions. Small local government institutions are considered to be things like city council, school boards, post offices, fire stations, local court systems, local police departments, and the local jail system.

Although political institutions can be good for government and society these institutions still has some downfalls. The major negative effect of political institutions is the affordability to run all of these institutions. In order to run these Institutions ran by state, local, and federal government, you have to pay employers to do these jobs. Police force, mailman, teachers, office ladies, and fire fighters are some examples of employers paid by the government to keep all of these institutions running. Not only does the government have to pay the employers to run these institutions but the government also has to pay for the properties to keep the institutions open. Along with paying for the money to build these institutions also comes paying for electricity, water, police cars, fire trucks, office supplies, police equipment such as guns, and scanners, and fire fighter equipment such as hoses and protective gear. Jus in local education alone our government spends about 277.2 billion in education alone, so just imagine what we spend annually on all of the political institutions combined.

Political institutions are a good thing, and help out a lot for people in society by protecting us, providing good health care, and giving us good opportunities of a quality education, but these institutions also have major downfalls as to why these political institutions negatively effect our government, such as financial struggles. Our government is truly lucky to have a government that can provide so many different institutions to keep us safe, and educated. Our society sometimes takes this for granite.

Sources:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0045838
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/current_spending
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/04/05/raymond-j-la-raja/how-political-institutions-constrain-power-corporate-money-politics

---

[[tab Local Governments and Metropolitics]]

State and Local Policy

State and Local Policy

Benjamin Jurek

The creation of State and Local Policy is based on a myriad of factors. Location, political control, industry, ethnicity, and culture, among other things, determine what laws and policies are adopted by individual states, counties and communities. State and Local Policy is created at the Federal and State level and then altered, added to and otherwise changed at the local level as needed. Anyone from Governors and state legislators to mayors and regular citizens have a say in state and local policy. Boards or committees are often created to oversee and manage certain areas of state funded programs.

One-fourth of a state’s budget goes toward public education. Since the 1940’s, government control of education has steadily grown. With this growth, the debate for which method of education has also intensified. The use of standardized testing has become a major part in determining how much money schools get from the federal government. Many people see this as unfair due to some schools being in less fortunate areas to begin with. Some have advocated for vouchers to be used so that parents have the ability to choose which school they want to place their children in after doing research. Vouchers have been resisted by many on the basis of whether they can be used in religious schools. Also along these lines, charter schools are a flourishing alternative to public schools. These schools resemble private schools but receive government funding if they meet specified standards. The government also provides funds to higher education such as community colleges and state universities. With the economic downturn, the government has had to cut back funding of these institutions and left the colleges to increase tuition. This shift has forced cut backs, as well as placing a bigger financial burden on the students.

Social services are another area that the government has taken control of since early last century. During the Great Depression, the overwhelming burden of needy citizens was too great for charity alone to manage. The government stepped in and slowly began creating social service programs to help the less fortunate. These programs have grown and multiplied over the years and now contain welfare, unemployment, public assistance, Medicaid/Medicare, public health and safety, and many other services. Many argue that these services do not align with our model of limited-government and a free society, and that these services are being taken advantage of. At any rate, these programs present a massive strain on state and local budgets.

The protection of state and local government powers is provided by their law enforcement. State police are utilized where local law enforcement ends. Local police and sheriff’s departments maintain city and county affairs, while state police mainly deal with highway and interstate security. There are over 700,000 law enforcement officers in the U.S. State and local governments spend over $125 billion on police protection and correctional or prison institutions! Local governments pay for roughly 70% of these costs. The federal government, however, is slowly acquiring more control of law enforcement, as they have in other areas of government.

The planning of individual cities is one of the few decisions left mostly to the city itself. The creation of zoning laws and economic planning help cities grow in an orderly fashion. By making sure that crime, pollution, garbage, water, shopping, and traffic do not present problems in the future, city planners can create cities that grow and flow well without having problems. While much of the money to maintain city works such as highways, public buildings, airports, parks and recreational facilities is provided by the federal government, state and local governments do all of the building and maintenance. This comes with oversight and guidance from the federal government. State and local officials do what they can with what they have to provide and help their states and communities flourish. The major deciding factor in how much they can do is the budget.

Finally, state and local policy is created to protect its’ citizens. One of the more controversial branches that has been created is the Environmental Protection Agency. They are entrusted with protecting the environment and its inhabitants from pollution due to industry and the like. However, this has to be done without driving industry out of state’s and losing taxes and jobs. All types of health and safety legislation, workman’s compensation, child labor laws, and consumer protection are examples of regulation put in place by state and local government to protect its’ citizens.

State and local governments are constantly trying to do what’s best for their people. Making decisions is no easy task and the finding the right solution is sometimes a difficult process. A policy will never make everyone happy no matter what, but it is up to our leaders to create policies that do what’s best for the majority. Problems and solutions will continue to arise. We must stay vigilant as citizens and have the foresight to see these issues, and in conjunction with federal, state and local government, develop policies that best create a favorable outcome for our community.

Sources:
Magleby, David. State and Local Politics: Government by javascript:;the People. 15th ed. Boston: Longman, 2012. Print.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government
http://www.fredericksburgva.gov/uploadedImages/City%20Hall%208-01-06%20005(1).jpg?n=6637
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/EPA-logo.gif

---

State and Local Policy Issues
Adrianna Sosnowska

Government’s issues are well known for all of us, but today I want to separate State and Local Policy Issues, show the different between them and I want to also understand more this topic, because that’s what’s going with program around us. First of all if we want to talk about issues, we have to defined State and Local Government. State governments in the United States are those republics formed by citizens in the jurisdiction thereof as provided by the United States Constitution, with the original 13 states forming the first Articles of Confederation, and later the aforementioned Constitution. Within the U.S. constitution are provisions as to the formation of new states within the Union. While a local government will typically only have control over their specific geographical region, and cannot pass or enforce laws that will affect a wider area. Local governments can elect officials, enact taxes, and do many other things that a national government would do, just on a smaller scale. To be clear I want to define also policy which is- a course of action adopted and pursued by a government.

We can see the issues around us; sometimes the issue can even touch your family or just yourself. That’s why I pick this exact topic, because I want to know about issues of area where I’m leaving or where I want to live in the future. The following brief analysis shares a sampling of insights that the National Council of Nonprofits gained through its work with the collective network of State Associations of nonprofits and other nonprofit organizations active at state and local levels. Here are some of examples! State and local policymakers continued in 2011 to offload their public responsibilities by slashing funding for and sometimes even eliminating essential programs, expecting that others – nonprofits and foundations – would fill the voids and pick up the slack. We can say it is Shifting Fiscal Obligations. Next really important issue is Respecting Tax Exemption: However, in the overwhelming number of cases in 2011, the majority of policymakers successfully fought back short-sighted efforts to take resources away from nonprofit missions through sales taxes, property taxes, and other new taxing mechanisms. For instance, new taxes were proposed yet rejected in Georgia, Rhode Island, and Washington, DC; the general excise tax exemption was threatened but preserved in Hawai’i; and the New Orleans property tax campaign was ultimately withdrawn. In all these situations, nonprofit organizations stepped forward with extensive advocacy efforts that demonstrated the positive impact of their work and the negative consequences of the legislative proposals to divert funds that had been donated to charities. Indeed, the North Dakota Legislature actually extended tax exemptions to enable more nonprofits in the state to focus on their mission-related work. Reasonable Regulation: Michigan updated its Charitable Organizations and Solicitations Act to streamline regulations and clarify when and how an organization must file with the Attorney General’s Office. New Jersey raised the threshold for mandatory audits under the fundraising statute from $250,000 to $500,000, saving each smaller organization an average of $7,000 annually, and collectively saving the state’s nonprofits more than $10 million that can now be devoted to program work rather than more paperwork. . Losing Their Incentives: After years of progress, taxpayers in some states saw a loss of government incentive for their donations to the work of charitable nonprofits. In Hawai’i, the Legislature imposed caps on the amount that upper-income taxpayers can claim in itemized deductions. Michigan repealed long-standing tax credits to encourage donations to food banks, education, and community foundations in order to pay for tax cuts for businesses. In Montana, however, a similar effort to end the state’s Charitable Endowment Tax Credit failed in mid-March after lawmakers learned that the tax credit was in fact a powerful tool for fostering both economic and community development.

In my conclusion I want to say what we, straight people can do to prevent issues like that. I think maybe we can think more about how we vote, and do we vote in general. Think about how important is pick the good politics, if we pick right is possible to our policy and government to have better situation. Be a good patriot, that’s mean have a right to solving state and local policy issues.

Sources:
State and Local Government: Sustainability in the 21st Century by Christopher A. Simon, Brent S. Steel, Nicholas P. Lovrich
http://www.governing.com/columns/col-top-5-state-local-issues.html
http://www.statepolicyindex.com
http://www.councilofnonprofits.org/public-policy/top-ten-state-and-local-policy-issues

Brian Wood
United States National Debt

America has dug itself in a deep whole and stands $17,474,701,108,625.66 in debt on May 9th 2014. The national debt has only gotten worse and is not turning in any different direction. The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $2.40 billion per day since September 30, 2012! The estimated population of the United States has 318,187,127 people. This means that it would take each citizen to pay $54,919.57 to get out of debt. The countries that are most dangerous to us we owe trillions and billions of dollars to. We are in debt to China the most at a whopping $1.26 trillion.

Resources:
(http://people.howstuffworks.com/5-united-states-debt-holders.htm#page=9)
(bensguide.gpo.gov)

---

Staffing and Finance

Bernard Newbold

Staffing an organization can vary greatly from one company to another. How the staffing function is structured depends on the company's size, type, strategy, budget, and staffing needs. Generally defined, staffing is the process of determining human resource needs in an organization and securing sufficient quantities of qualified people to fill those positions. Staffing is not, however, as simplistic as that definition would have one believes. Staffing is actually a complex endeavor involving a number of diverse tasks, ranging from job analysis to performance appraisal, from employment interviewing to career development, from hiring to termination. Rapala ( 2011) noted the point that effective staffing is everyone’s responsibility and does not rest just with the staffing department. Moreover, to execute properly the human resource tasks of staffing, must be knowledgeable of the legal contexts in which staffing occurs.

While all phases of human resource management have become increasingly legalistic in recent years, staffing is the one area that has been most affected. The overwhelming majority of federal employment legislation enacted and court decisions rendered has been directed to various parts of the staffing process. Laws and regulations have imposed new requirements on staffing procedures. The potential liabilities for violations of the law have increased significantly. Staffing can no longer simply concern itself with securing the right number and quality of employees to perform the work of the organization, but to carry out its tasks in statutory guidelines. Procedures, practices, and policies must conform to the law or the organization exposes themselves to the risk of investigations or legal actions. Wells Fargo is a corporation that employs over several hundred thousand associates that supply financial services to customers in the United States.

"Finance" is a broad term that describes two related activities: the study of how money is managed and the actual process of acquiring needed funds. Because individuals, businesses and government entities all need funding to operate, the field is often separated into three sub-categories: personal finance, corporate finance and public finance. All three categories are concerned with activities such as pursuing sound investments, obtaining low-cost credit, allocating funds for liabilities, and banking. Yet each has its own specific considerations. For example, individuals need to provision for retirement expenses, which means investing enough money during their working years and ensuring that their asset allocation fits their long-term plans. A large company, on the other hand, may have to decide whether to raise additional funds through a bond issue or stock offering. Investment banks may advise the firm on such considerations and help them market the securities.
As for public finance, in addition to managing money for its day-to-day operations, a government body also has larger social responsibilities. Its goals include attaining an equitable distribution of income for its citizens and enacting policies that lead to a stable economy.

References
http://www.bahamas.gov.bs/wps/portal/public/fina/MOF/!ut/p/b1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOKNDdx9HR1NLHzdTf0tDDxDzUMCHE2NDNydDYAKIoEKDHAARwNC-sP1o1CVGJgZGoGU-DiFeVkaGgQbQRXgscLPIz83Vb8gN8Igy8RREQBrOsOo/dl4/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/
http://www.kellyservices.com/Global/Home/

Digital Story

2012

Johnathon Stiles

Drake Lovvorn

Raheem Brown

Archana Prabhu

Ty Rumford

Sarah Lamm

Nick Silva

Skyler Mengel

---

2013

Bernard Newbold

Aaron Lecesne

Jamal Jones

Benjamin Jurek

---

2014

Dontrell Lyons

Fabian Hayles Digital Story

---

Caitlin Lunsway

Jessica Moss

---

Breanna Emahizer Digital story

Alex Helms Digital Story (2014)
Sorry for Music volume it wouldn't go any quieter.

---

Jenease Bartley

---

Adrianna Sosnowska 

---

Shanice Falls

---

Brian Woods

---

Natalie and Filey

Mind Maps

---

Bernard Newbold

---

Johnathon Stiles

---