<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Unit 3 project by Benjamin Hess</title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa</link>
      <description>Ben Hess Period 3</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2017-01-13 15:56:46 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2017-01-13 16:53:56 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title>Limited Government: The Patriot Act</title>
         <author>s_benjamin_hess</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147076921</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>The USA Patriot Act is an antiterrorism law enacted by the U.S. Congress in October 2001, at the request of then-President George W. Bush in response to the terrorist attacks that took place on Sept. 11, 2001, in New York and Washington, D.C. Often referred to simply as <em>the Patriot Act</em>, it was signed by Bush on Oct. 26, 2001.<br><br></div><div><figure class="attachment attachment-preview"><img src="http://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/rms/ux/responsive/img/reg_wrapper_curl.png" width="135" height="91"><figcaption class="caption"></figcaption></figure></div><div><br><br></div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2017-01-13 15:59:53 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147076921</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Separation of powers and Checks and Balances</title>
         <author>s_benjamin_hess</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147078843</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>It was Montesquieu’s vision of a truly separated, tripartite system that the Founding Fathers would come to adopt at the Constitutional Convention. Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution vests legislative powers in a Congress of the United States, itself separated into a House of Representatives and a Senate. Article II, Section 1 vests executive authority in a President of the United States. Article III, Section 1 vests judicial authority in a single Supreme Court of the United States and “in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”During the ratification debates from 1787 to 1788, some critics charged that upon close inspection the separation of powers in Articles I-III of the Constitution were not as complete as Montesquieu appeared to advocate and would tend toward an accumulation of power in one branch or another over time. The president, for example, has the power to accept or reject a bill duly passed by Congress, a seemingly legislative power. For its part, the Senate may approve or reject a presidential appointment to his own branch, a seemingly executive power.<br><br></div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2017-01-13 16:05:58 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147078843</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Federalism: Obergefell vs. Hodges</title>
         <author>s_benjamin_hess</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147080150</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Groups of same-sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states' bans on same-sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages that occurred in jurisdictions that provided for such marriages. The plaintiffs in each case argued that the states' statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights Act. In all the cases, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and held that the states' bans on same-sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages performed in other states did not violate the couples' Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2017-01-13 16:09:57 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147080150</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Popular Sovereignty: 24th Amendment</title>
         <author>s_benjamin_hess</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147081539</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.<br><br></div><div><br></div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2017-01-13 16:14:39 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147081539</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Constitutional Dynamism</title>
         <author>s_benjamin_hess</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147082360</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>The constitutional structures and traditions that promote corporatism are the main obstacles to economic dynamism and inclusion in societies. Corporatism is the cause of Argentina's "reversal of development" from the 1930s to the present. If the normative and imperative rules in Constitutions change both incentives and culture, some questions arise: how should we design Constitutional rules that promote economic dynamism? At the same time, is a bad political economy, as occurs in a corporatist economy, promoted by government officials because it allows their perpetuation in government? A corporatist economy could be the basis of a perverse political culture where utility-maximizing leaders will embark on destructive economic policies to enhance their own personal power unless they are appropriately constrained. The Argentine Constitutional economy has both poor incentives and a poor Constitutional culture, which prevent the development of both dynamism and inclusion. Strategic political considerations push rulers into bad economic policies. At the same time, a strong corporate culture favours the resulting mix of authoritarianism, stagnation and social exclusion.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2017-01-13 16:17:20 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147082360</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Bonus: War powers Resolution</title>
         <author>s_benjamin_hess</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147083689</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2017-01-13 16:21:03 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147083689</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Constitutional Stability</title>
         <author>s_benjamin_hess</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147087395</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Some of the challenges were examined in this article that have arisen as part of attempts during the past two decades to entrench a culture of constitutionalism and respect for law in Central Africa. It shows how, from a background of constitutions that did not promote any constitutionalism, the countries in this region generally adopted constitutions which contained most of the core elements of constitutionalism and the rule of law. It is shown that in the last few years there has been a steady slide towards what can be referred to as tokenistic and symbolic constitutionalism in the region. The objective of the article is to see how this decline could be arrested to ensure a return to substantive and effective constitutionalism. The approach adopted is essentially comparative. The contribution commences with an overview of the state of constitutionalism and the rule of law in the 11 countries located in the region. This is preceded by a brief explanation of the three critical concepts: constitution, constitutionalism and the rule of law. It then uses a number of key indicators of good governance and the rule of law to assess the governance situation in the region. This is followed by an overarching analysis of the constitutions of these countries to identify trends and tendencies and to show the nature and extent of the widening gap between the constitutional texts and actual practice. A number of measures are suggested which, it is argued, need to be taken to make constitutionalism in the region meaningful and effective.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2017-01-13 16:31:40 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147087395</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Limited Government: United States vs. Nixon</title>
         <author>s_benjamin_hess</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147088407</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>A grand jury returned indictments against seven of President Richard Nixon's closest aides in the Watergate affair. The special prosecutor appointed by Nixon and the defendants sought audio tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in the Oval Office. Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena claiming "executive privilege," which is the right to withhold information from other government branches to preserve confidential communications within the executive branch or to secure the national interest. Decided together with Nixon v. United States.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2017-01-13 16:34:52 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147088407</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Popular Sovereignty: Kansas Voter ID laws</title>
         <author>s_benjamin_hess</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147089587</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Kansas' law is one of the strictest voter identification statutes in the country, making the state a symbol for mostly Republican Party supporters who say the rules are meant to prevent voter fraud. Opponents, mostly Democrats, say they discriminate against minorities. Every time a noncitizen votes, it effectively cancels out the vote of a citizen,” Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said in court filings ahead of Tuesday's oral arguments. In arguments before the Denver-based U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Kobach said, "We don't need to be authorized by the federal government" to set up rules to manage state and local elections.<br><br></div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2017-01-13 16:38:09 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147089587</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Federalism: Coates vs. Dish Network</title>
         <author>s_benjamin_hess</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147091062</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Coats had a doctor's authorization to smoke medical marijuana, which has been legal in Colorado since 2000. Coats says that he never used the drug -- or was under its influence -- at work, facts that Dish Network does not dispute.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2017-01-13 16:42:24 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147091062</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Separation of powers and checks and balances: Marbury vs. Madison</title>
         <author>s_benjamin_hess</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147092357</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>In the last days of President John Adams’ presidency, he nominated a number of people to serve as justices of the peace for the District of Columbia. The Senate confirmed the nominations, and the commissions were prepared. President Adams’ Secretary of State, John Marshall, did not deliver all of the commissions before President Thomas Jefferson took office. President Jefferson then ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commissions. The plaintiffs, men whose commissions were not delivered, sued Madison in the Supreme Court and argued that, in refusing to deliver the commissions, the Secretary of State was neglecting his Constitutional duty.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2017-01-13 16:46:46 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147092357</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Bonus: Corwin Amendment</title>
         <author>s_benjamin_hess</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147093130</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>The <strong>Corwin Amendment</strong> is a proposed <strong>amendment</strong> to the United States Constitution that would shield "domestic institutions" of the states (which in 1861 included slavery) from the constitutional<strong>amendment</strong> process and from abolition or interference by Congress.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2017-01-13 16:49:17 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/s_benjamin_hess/kuye2hcqfvwa/wish/147093130</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
