GRIDLOCK

There are several causes of gridlock. Gridlock occurs most often when there is divided government. Divided government is when the legislative branch and the executive branch are not unified under the same party. For example, if congress is dominated by democrats and passes a bill, a republican president can veto the bill. Then a two thirds majority is needed in both houses to pass the bill. This problem produces a stalemate, and the bill is unable to be passed. Gridlock can also occur even when the government is unified. One reason for this is the structure of the bicameral legislature. Even when a bill is easily passed in the House of Representatives, it can be stopped by a filibuster in the Senate. A filibuster requires 60 votes to pass a bill, which does not often happen. Furthermore, republicans and democrats have become more and more divided. Republicans today are more conservative than in the past, and democrats are now more liberal. This is a problem because there are less members of the legislature who are closer to the political center and willing to make compromises. The nature of the media and technological advancements in communication have also contributed toward gridlock. Since politicians are always in the spotlight, they are more concerned with satisfying their constituents in order to win elections than being willing to make compromises. Gridlock was intended by the framers of the constitution to prevent colossal mistakes from being made. In current politics, however, gridlock has led to government inaction, and changes need to be made to eliminate some of the checks of the federal government that cause gridlock to be more likely

Selective Incorporation

Selective incorporation is the way in which the federal government interpreted the 14th Amendment and how much of the Bill of Rights should be applied to the states. The 14th Amendment granted national citizenship, so it caused people to question whether a person could now be protected under the Bill of Rights from state actions. American federalism slowed down the process of incorporation significantly because it undermines the power of the states. If the same limits are placed on all states, then there is no longer any diversity among states. This is why only parts of the Bill of Rights were incorporated when it was deemed necessary. In the case of Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court decided that the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment did not apply to the actions of a state. Thus, the 5th Amendment was not incorporated, and it only applied to actions of the federal government. The case of Gitlow v. New York, however, incorporated the 1st Amendment (free speech specifically). The Court decided that freedom of speech was a fundamental right, so it was incorporated. Finally, in the Palko v. Connecticut case, the issue of double jeopardy was deliberated. Palko had been sentenced to life in prison, but he was then given the death penalty after a second trial. The court decided that double jeopardy was fair and did not incorporate this portion of the Bill of Rights. As you can see, the Court is very unpredictable in its decisions to selectively incorporate the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. 

Greatest Impact on Desegregation

I think it's fair to say that the Court's ruling in Brown v. Board actually worsened race relations before it made them better due to the huge uproar it created among white Americans. A good example of this is the extreme rioting and vandalism of public school buses in the city of Boston. The lack of enforcement of this ruling was also a problem. I do not think that the pursuit of ferderal legislation, however,  would have  been a better option because it would have been extremely difficult to pass laws to enforce the ruling of Brown better. The Court is important because it acts as a referee and can make decisions opposite of the tyranny of the majority. Although the Civil Rights Act was vital to facilitation the civil rights movement, it is the Court that has had the biggest impact on desegregation. Without the Court, the laws passed on civil rights would be nothing but words because there would be no real enforcement of them. An example of the Supreme Court enacting penalties for those who do not follow laws on civil rights is the Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools. In this decision, the Supreme Court a violation of Title IX of the 1972 Education Act, which forbade gender discrimination in education, could result in monetary damages. 

Unfunded Mandates

An unfunded mandate is one that is imposed on state and local governments by the federal government without giving them any funding whatsoever. Unfunded mandates are a problem because states are forced to comply to them, but they take out a large chunk of the states' budgets. An example of an unfunded mandate is the No Child Left Behind Act, which sought to improve student performances on standardized tests and threatened to punish schools that do not improve. Although George Bush had promised that it would be funded for, there was a huge gap between the signing of the bill and the actual time it took for the funding to arrive. This problem led to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act which was named under the Contract with America. The UMRA said that an unfunded mandate valued at over $50 million can be stopped by the House of Representatives. This forced Congress to have to accept responsibility for the mandates. I feel that a better strategy would be to create some sort of commision that was focused solely on reviewing unfunded mandates to determine whether they are economically feasable. Also, raising taxes could provide the money the states need.

What government involvement should there be in cases like Terri Schiavo's?

The Terri Schiavo case demonstrated how chaotic government involvement can be. This is mostly due to the separation of powers. In this case, Schiavo's parents first attempted to get the desired outcome of having their daughter's feeding tube put back into place through the courts. When they were denied, they turned around and took their problem to Congress. While this had some effect, the Schiavo's were still denied. Finallly, they made one final attempt to have the feeding tube replaced by going directly to governor Jeb Bush. Although the separation of powers is important in limiting the power of the national government, it greatly complicates things due to the fact that the three branches often disagree on some issues. The main problem with government involvement in this matter is the length of time it takes to decide on issues such as this. The more people there are involved, the harder it is to make a decision. I honestly cannot answer this question because I don't know what governmental involvement should take place in this case. I can, however, give my opinion on this case in particular. I think pulling the plug on Terri Schaivo was the right thing to do. There is no point to living while in a permanent vegetative state. If i were in one, I would definitely want the plug to be pulled on me. Furthermore, Terri had said that she wished to die a dignified death. 

What government involvement should there be in cases like Terri Schiavo's

What are the similarities and differences between the Honor Code at MBA and the US Constitution?

The MBA honor code and the US constitution have several similarities and differences. Both of them were created by the people. A group of students created the MBA honor code, not the faculty. It was also just a group of Americans recently free from British rule who would decide how the government of the U.S. would operate. It was also decided that any issue concerning honor would be handled by a council of students only. This differs from the constitution because a person who breaks the law is not punished by ordinary citizens, but is handled by the judicial branch. Both the US constitution and the MBA honor code were created to maintain order and prevent certain things from happening. Everyone knows that people do not behave gentlemanly or honorably all the time, so it is necessary to create institutions such as these to keep them in check.