Should the U.S. have an open borders policy for migrants?

An open border is a border that allows free movement of people between different jurisdictions with limited or no restrictions to movement. A border can either be open due to the legislation allowing its people across its borders or it may be open due to a lack of adequate supervision of the border which allows the free movement of people across the border.  In modern countries, borders are either open or closed. Areas that have open borders such as the European Union and the American states, allow easy navigation in and out from one country to another. However, there are some countries that enforce closed borders, restricting the movement and entry of citizens. Recently, there has been a vocal movement to close the U.S border and to take steps in assuring it is tightly sealed, especially along the Mexican border. There are also those who argue that the government should not intervene in the border control issues, but should open the borders so for the labor market to determine the flow of immigrants into the country.

                People who argue against the open borders may believe that opening borders could stunt the economic growth and prosperity. In addition, they may also believe that American political culture must be protected, and having immigrants may alter American values and beliefs, and weaken the polity. They may also argue that policing borders is necessary to control drug trafficking and other illegal activity. People who argue for open borders think about how the free market is best equipped to regulate the flow of laborers from one country to another. They may argue that open borders promote cultural diversity, that American exposure to new beliefs and ideas may benefit democratic deliberation. In addition, policing borders is economically inefficient, and the amount of money the national government spends on border security could be better spent on other programs.

Congress

                Initially, the Framers’ idea of Congress’s authority was much narrower than it is today. Those who had attended the Constitutional Convention had only wanted to create a legislative body that would be able to make laws and raise and spend revenues. The changes in the demands made on the national government over time have allowed the executive and judicial branches to gain powers at the expense of the legislative branch, making it difficult for Congress to maintain its initial role.

                The Constitution created a bicameral legislature with members of each body to be elected differently, to represent different constituencies. Each state is represented in the Senate by two senators, regardless of the state’s population. The number of representatives each state sends to the House of Representatives, in contrast, is determined by that state’s population, so after every U.S. Census, district lines must be redrawn to reflect population shifts. Each state is allotted its share of these 435 representatives based on its population. After each U.S. Census, the number of seats assigned to each state is adjusted by a constitutionally mandated process.  After seats are assigned, congressional districts have to be redrawn by state legislatures to reflect population shifts to ensure that each member in Congress represents approximately the same number of residents.

Senators are elected for six-year terms, and originally they were chosen by state legislatures because the Framers intended for senators to represent their states’ interests in the Senate. Members of the House of Representatives are elected to two-year terms by a vote of the eligible electorate in each congressional district. The Framers expected that House members would be more responsible to the people, both because they were elected directly by them and because they were up for reelection every two years. Congress is also given formal law-making powers in the Constitution. But, presidents issue proclamations and executive orders with the force of law bureaucrats issue quasi-legislative rules and are charged with enforcing laws, rules, and regulations and the Supreme Court and lower federal courts render opinions that generate principles that also have the force of law.

                Political parties are extremely important in the way Congress is organized. The Speaker of the House is usually a member of the majority party, and other leadership roles such as majority and minority leaders and whips are also controlled by the parties. The Speaker presides over the House of Representatives, oversees House business, and is the official spokesperson for the House, as well as being second in the line of presidential succession. After the Speaker, the next most powerful people in the House are the majority and minority leaders. The majority leader is the head of the party controlling the most seats in the House of Representatives or the Senate. The minority leader is the head of the party with the second highest number of elected representatives in the House of Representatives or the Senate. The official chair of the Senate is the president pro tempore, who is selected by the majority party and presides over the Senate in the absence of the vice president. The true leader of the Senate is the majority leader, elected to the position by the majority party. The minority leader and the Republican and Democratic whips round out the leadership positions in the Senate and perform functions similar to those of their House counterparts.

In addition to the party leaders, Congress has a several committees and subcommittees that cover the entire range of government policies. There are four types of congressional committees: standing; joint; conference; and select . Standing committees are the committees to which bills are referred for consideration; they are so called because they continue from one Congress to the next. . Joint committees are standing committees that include members from both houses of Congress and are set up to conduct investigations or special studies. They focus public attention on major matters, such as the economy, taxation, or scandals. Conference committees are special joint committees created to reconcile differences in bills passed by the House and Senate. A conference committee is madeup of members from the House and Senate committees that originally considered the bill. . Select committees are temporary committees appointed for specific purposes, such as investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Is Cloning Ethical and Should it be Pursued?

When the media report on cloning in the news, they are usually talking about only one type called reproductive cloning. There are different types of cloning however, and cloning technologies can be used for other purposes besides producing the genetic twin of another organism. Reproductive cloning is a technology used to generate an animal that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently or previously existing animal. The controversy over cloning begins with the ethics of it and confusion over how it works. The general questions raised may be some of the following: If you had a clone would it be your child or your delayed twin? Does a clone have a soul? What about all the duds? What about creating clones for organs? Who should decide who is cloned? Who should have access to cloning technology – only people with good genes? Who should pay for the cloning? Should we be able to use this technology to design our children? (Gattaca) Who does genetic information belong to? Should people with genetic diseases be cured? Should they have children?

In 2002, President Bush stated “Cloning would contradict the most fundamental principle of medical ethics, that no human life should be exploited or extinguished for the benefit of another” President Bush pushed for a complete ban; he believed human cloning was morally wrong. However, some lawmakers believe that human cloning is OK when it's done to advance medical science. A few scientists and doctors want to clone humans primarily for therapeutic research or reproduction. Scientists who do therapeutic research look for new ways of curing disease. Bush and other scientists and ethicists argue that it is not clear whether there will be medical benefits from therapeutic human cloning. The possibility of wiping out some diseases is the chief reason many scientists and politicians argue that totally banning human cloning is wrong. The leader of the U.S. Senate, Democrat Tom Daschle says that he is opposed to cloning humans, but he differs strongly with the president on the "need to allow science and research to cure disease." Beyond government lawmakers, many have come out supporting cloning research. More than 40 Nobel Laureates issued a statement saying that a total ban, like what the president wants would have a chilling effect on scientific research.

There are many medical advantages of cloning. Instead of creating cloned babies, researchers want to use somatic cell nuclear transfer, the same process used to clone Dolly the sheep in 1997, to create embryonic stem cells. The cloned cells would be genetically identical to the patient's own, so they could replace part of an ailing brain or heart without touching off a full-scale attack from the patient's immune system. But creating a cloned embryo requires human egg cells, and egg cells aren't cheap. I believe continued research on cloning should be allowed. If medical advances are possible, and no one is being harmed during the research, there are no cons.

Is Partisanship good for Democracy?

In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is widely understood to carry a negative connotation, usually referring to those who wholly support their party's policies and are perhaps even reluctant to acknowledge correctness on the part of their political opponents in almost any situation. In recent years, the term bipartisanship has been used by many in American politics. During the 2008 presidential elections, both Senators John McCain and Barack Obama tried to lay claim to the label by emphasizing their ability to work across the aisle. And, after Barack Obama won the presidency, he appointed Republicans to several high-profile positions. However, many people criticize his claims of bipartisanship because he failed to consult in a meaningful way with Republicans in Congress on significant policy issues, such as health care reform. In the meantime, although both the Republican and Democratic leadership have repeatedly emphasized their bipartisan credentials, members of Congress have voted with their parties about ninety percent of the time in recent Congresses. The members of Congress view of their representational role as trustees, delegates, or politicos as influential to how they make policy decisions. Legislators can also take into account several other factors, including political party, constituents, colleagues and caucuses, staff and support agencies, and interest groups, lobbyists, and political action committees. When a bill is non-ideological or one on which a member has no real position, staff members may be the greatest influence on how a member of Congress votes. Then again, bipartisanship may not always be a good thing. For example, when Tom DeLay announced his retirement as House majority leader, he said, “You show me a nation without partisanship, and I’ll show you a tyranny. For all its faults, it is partisanship, based on core principles, that clarifies our debates, that prevents one party from straying too far from the mainstream, and that constantly refreshes our politics with new ideas and new leaders.”

If there is a case to be made for partisanship, it's that voters deserve a clear choice. Partisanship protects democracy, produces stronger policies, and reflects the will of the people. Those who may argue against partisanship may believe partisanship is undemocratic, that it results in a political gridlock, and that it does not reflect the will of the people. Partisan politics is often blamed for the messes in Washington. Each election may bring a new set of candidates makes its campaign promise to work with the other side, to reach across the aisle and to get something done. The problem with partisan politics, as it is perceived is that nothing will get done while both sides disagree and stand firmly on their platform. 

Obesity Is Becoming a Problem in Our Society

Overweight specifically refers to an excessive amount of body weight that may come from muscles, bone, adipose tissue, and water. Obesity specifically refers to an excessive amount of adipose tissue. Over two-thirds of adults in the United States are overweight or obese, and over one-third are obese, according to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Americans are becoming more obese by not eating properly and getting more sedentary. It is a growing health problem that needs to be addressed because obesity can lead to more health care costs and more complicated problems later in life. Scientific evidence clearly shows a link between poor diet and many degenerative disease, yet there seems to be a sense of apathy towards eating and feeling healthy. Although genes are an important factor in many cases of obesity, a person's environment also plays a significant role. Environmental factors include lifestyle behaviors such as what a person eats and how active he or she is.

Psychological factors also influence eating habits and obesity. Many people eat in response to negative emotions such as boredom, sadness, or anger. People who have difficulty with weight management may be facing more emotional and psychological issues; about thirty-percent of people who seek treatment for serious weight problems have difficulties with binge eating. During a binge-eating episode, people eat large amounts of food while feeling they can't control how much they are eating.

Obesity increases the likelihood of various diseases, particularly heart disease, type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, certain types of cancer, osteoarthritis and asthma. Obesity is most commonly caused by a combination of excessive food energy intake, lack of physical activity, and genetic susceptibility, although a few cases are caused primarily by genes, endocrine disorders, medications or psychiatric illness. Evidence to support the view that some obese people eat little yet gain weight due to a slow metabolism is limited; on average obese people have a greater energy expenditure than their thin counterparts due to the energy required to maintain an increased body mass.

The statistics for obesity rates today are shocking. 58 million people in the United States are overweight, 40 million are obese, and 3 million are morbidly obese. Eight out of 10 people over 25 are overweight. Seventy eight percent of Americans are not meeting basic activity level recommendations. Twenty five percent of all Americans are completely sedentary. There has been a seventy-six percent increase in Type II diabetes in adults 30-40 since 1990. Eighty percent of type II diabetes related to obesity. Seventy percent of cardiovascular diseases are related to obesity. Forty-two percent breast and colon cancer are diagnosed among obese individuals. Thirty percent of gall bladder surgeries are related to obesity.

People overweight and obese and their associated health problems have a significant economic impact on the U.S. health care system. Direct medical costs may include preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services related to obesity. Indirect costs relate to morbidity and mortality costs. Morbidity costs are defined as the value of income lost from decreased productivity, restricted activity, absenteeism, and bed days. Mortality costs are the value of future income lost by premature death.

Should the Federal Bureaucracy Play a Role in Funding Higher Education?

In the United States, education is usually a State or local responsibility. Usually, states, communities, and public and private organizations establish schools and colleges, develop curriculum, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $1.15 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2011-2012, a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where about 87.7 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources. Over the past decade, college tuition has increased an average of 4.9 percent per year, meaning that a student who paid $3,000 per year in tuition in 2000 would pay $4,840 in 2010 for the same education. The rising costs have created increasing concerns about how many middle-class families will be able to pay for their children’s higher education.

There has long been a debate on the issue of how big of a role the federal bureaucracy should play in funding higher education. To address educational the funding dilemma, some educational policy experts argue that the best way to is to increase the federal Department of Education’s role in providing student loans, Pell Grants, and other programs designed to help students finance their educational aspirations. The expert observers suggest that the federal bureaucracy has unique knowledge and resources in the area of educational policy that make it well-suited to providing and administering a wide array of higher education programs. Other observers believe that it should not be the federal bureaucracy’s responsibility to administer programs to defray the costs of higher education. They argue that the federal bureaucracy is already too big and that expanding the purview of the federal bureaucracy will negatively impact American society. With this comes the questions of whether or not the federal bureaucracy is qualified to distribute education benefits to all Americans, or if the Department of Education be responsible for assuring that higher education is affordable for all Americans, and If not, where the responsibility should fall.

People who argue for the federal bureaucracy’s role in funding higher education may say that only the federal bureaucracy is best suited to offer certain services, that that federal bureaucracy has a responsibility to help citizens, and that the federal bureaucracy does not focus on earning a profit. Those arguing against the federal bureaucracy’s role in funding education may believe private banks and corporations can provide services more efficiently and less expensively than the federal bureaucracy, that it is not the federal bureaucracy’s job to administer higher education programs, and that students already receive money from their education. In my opinion, the federal bureaucracy should concern itself with issues of education. Ensuring and securing the education of the nation’s youth plays an important role in building the nation’s future.

The United States Monetary Policy

Monetary policy is the process by which the monetary authority of a country controls the supply of money, often targeting a rate of interest for the purpose of promoting economic growth and stability. The official goals usually include relatively stable prices and low unemployment. Monetary policy rests on the relationship between the rates of interest in an economy, that is the price at which money can be borrowed, and the total supply of money. It uses a variety of tools to control one or both of these, to influence outcomes like economic growth, inflation, exchange rates with other currencies and unemployment. Where currency is under a monopoly of issuance, or where there is a regulated system of issuing currency through banks which are tied to a central bank, the monetary authority has the ability to alter the money supply and thus influence the interest rate.

Developing countries may have problems establishing an effective operating monetary policy. The primary difficulty is that few developing countries have deep markets in government debt. The matter is further complicated by the difficulties in forecasting money demand and fiscal pressure to levy the inflation tax by expanding the monetary base rapidly. In general, the central banks in many developing countries have poor records in managing monetary policy. This is often because the monetary authority in a developing country is not independent of government, so good monetary policy takes a backseat to the political desires of the government or are used to pursue other non-monetary goals. For this and other reasons, developing countries that want to establish credible monetary policy may institute a currency board or adopt dollarization. Such forms of monetary institutions thus essentially tie the hands of the government from interference and, it is hoped, that such policies will import the monetary policy of the anchor nation.

In the United States, the Federal Reserve is in charge of monetary policy, and implements it primarily by performing operations that influence short term interest rates. Following a series of financial panics and banking runs, Congress passed--and President Woodrow Wilson signed into law--the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. The law created the Federal Reserve System, comprising twelve public-private regional federal reserve banks. Today, the Federal Reserve is tasked with managing U.S. monetary policy, regulating bank holding companies and other member banks, and monitoring systemic risk. 

Is the War Powers Act Constitutional?

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. Through the Constitution, Congress is given the authority to declare war, to make the rules that govern the military, and to provide appropriations to the armed services, but the Constitution also designates the president commander in chief of the armed services. There are many that argue that the president’s constitutional jurisdiction over war powers has steadily increased since the nation’s founding.

The War Powers Act of 1973 was passed by Congress over President Nixon's veto to increase congressional control over the executive branch in foreign policy matters, specifically in regard to military actions short of formally declared war. Its central provision prohibited the President from engaging in military actions for more than sixty days, unless Congress voted approval. The Act was an attempt to rein in the war-making authority of the president by demanding, among other things, that the executive notify Congress within forty-eight hours after deploying the armed forces in combat. The stated purpose of the act was to “fulfill the intent of the framers . . . and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the president will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities . . . and to the continued use of such forces.” While generally complying with the requirements of the War Powers Act, every presidential administration since Nixon’s has argued that the act infringes on the president’s constitutional duty as commander in chief. Consequently, the constitutionality of the War Powers Act remains contested. Some constitutional scholars maintain that Congress is within its right to exercise oversight in foreign policy matters, reining in the executive where necessary. Other scholars side with executive-branch officials who consider the War Powers Act an infringement on the president’s constitutional authority.

            Usually those who would argue for the constitutionality of the War powers Act would argue that the Act attempts to restore the balance of shared control of the military. In addition, the United States has not officially declared war since World War II. The war powers act reflects the will of the American people. Those arguing against the constitutionality of the War Powers Act may suggest that the Constitution clearly defines the role of the president in foreign policy along with defining the role of Congress in military action. The Supreme Court has upheld an expanded interpretation of the president’s authority in matters of foreign policy. All presidents since Mr. Nixon have challenged the law's constitutionality, and its provisions requiring troop withdrawal have never been activated. The debate over the constitutional separation of powers concerning the use of armed force abroad during the past three decades has been unimpressive on both sides. Few commentators have taken the time to look seriously at the historical aspect of the problem, and some act as if the 1972-73 debates were an issue of first impression. Throughout most of our history, both Congress and the President understood that decisions regarding foreign affairs were different from domestic issues and were the province of the executive except in areas where the Constitution had made a clear exception. But by the early 1970s, the theoretical and textual basis of that distinction had apparently been forgotten at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Legislators and their advocates looked through the Constitution and discovered there was no mention of "national security" or "foreign affairs." The theory quickly emerged that there should be no difference between domestic and foreign affairs and Congress was the "senior partner" in making policy for both.