ALIENS???

I agree with the amendment that says that foreigners CAN run for president. I would say that in addition to the 20 year stipulation, they would have to pass some sort of test or...obstacle course of some sort to prove their allegiance to America. I'm not sure exactly what this test would entail, but I think that it would "cover all of the bases" so to speak, so that any skeptics could rest at ease. We live in a new era, and so it's time that we make some new rules. The Framers of the constitution had good intentions, and the clause they made about foreign rulers makes sense for the time period. I mean, they had just gotten away from tyrants, so they would definitely would want to make sure that no one tried to make America their..."latest addition" to their pre-existing country. However, in today's world, things are different and people are not looking to "steal" a country as established as America. Er- I suppose that it's possible that people would want to do that, but it's highly unlikely THEREFORE, that old and decrepit rule needs to be updated.

Well pardon meeee

If I had the power to pardon people in jail...I don't think that I would exercise that power, unless they were blatantly in need of a lesser sentencing. I feel that the legal system has good people in it, and trust their decisions to put people in jail. However, there are times when sentencing can seem unfair. For example, the guy who inadvertently killed bald eagles by trying to poison coyotes. It sounds like he has/had been in jail for quite a few years. I don't think that the punishment matches the crime. It sounds like he just made a stupid mistake, so he should have to make it up to the eagles because he's certainly not helping anyone by taking up tax dollars in jail. Some sort of eagle community service is in order I think. For bigger issues, like people on death row, I think that I would pardon them. I don't really believe in the death penalty, but who am I to say who lives and die? Wouldn't I have to pardon ALL people on death row if I were to pardon one of them for that reason? If I were a governor, I would try to implement some way of giving people the same effect of the death penalty...but without the death. That sounds really weird but I just don't think that anyone on Earth can say who lives and who dies. As President I would try to do the same thing, or at least bring some sort of committee together to purpose an idea like that to me.

My friend Sarah, perhaps you've heard of her

Well good ole Sarah Palin came to town a week before the election and low and behold, I forgot to mention that! Well, it was actually totally awesome, and I don't mean that because of her outstanding speech. Actually, by the time that Sarah actually starting reeling away, I had sort of tuned out...it was really cold and it had started raining, to which she reminisced- "It reminds me of home!". cute.
However, the whole ambiance of the rally was so invigorating, and totally awesome. It was the first time that I had been to something like that, something where all sorts of people came together to support such an important and larger than life cause. Sure, I've been to concerts where there are tons of people, supporting the same bands...but it's a totally different experience to go to a political rally...which totally makes me feel like a giant nerd for saying that. Most memorable moment: the totally fat, totally clad in plaid, totally hickish, and totally Sarah "dude" holding a sign which read, "Drill Baby, Drill!", naturally evoking a sort of "Git R Done" mentality.
Least favorite moment(s): I just hated all the hooplah that happened before Sarah came. There should have been a lesser amount of people to announce her arrival because by the time she actually spoke, it's like I said, it was cold and rainy, and I was tuned out. By that time, I had waited in line and been corralled into the gates with the masses for several hours.
I don't mean to complain, I thought that overall, it was a totally awesome experience, and certainly a once in a lifetime one. I'm sure it's something my grandkids will ask me about...I only wish I had paid more attention to what Sarah said...

M.I.P. Most Important Pal

Okay, so at first when I was thinking about who Obama's most important helper is going to be, I was thinking maybe like...the head of Homeland Security or something like that. However, the more I thought about it, the more I think that it should actually be the Speaker of the House, and here's why. Joe Biden shouldn't be his most important go to guy because I feel that he would just agree with whatever Obama wants to do. Example: in order to be in Obama's campaigne, Biden totally bashed on McCain, despite their being such good "friends". I don't necessarily trust Joe to stick to his guns. God forbid, but if something bad should happen to both the President and the VP, the Speaker of the House is the next person in line to run the country. This person has to be up to snuff with all the happenings in America and elsewhere, but is also separated enough from the President that I would assume that they would be less inclined to agree with whatever President Obama has to say. And the Speaker has to preside over all sort of important meetings in Congress, which is "where the magic happens" as far as law making goes. There are a lot of important people that Obama is going to have to surround himself to pull us out of this crisis, but I think that Speaker of the House, Nancy, will prove to be most important.

Election Night

I have to say that I was pretty sure who was going to win this Presidential race, so I wasn't all that stoked to watch the race...plus I had homework to do. I find it so odd that the popular vote can be so utterly close, and yet have the electoral votes be such a landslide. I know we've talked about this, but it's still so weird. I kind of just ignored the popular vote tally because it was sort of a false hope. The morning after, my dad said something along the lines of, "We lost", and that he was worried about the nation. I said that that's probably what half the nation was saying when Bush was elected, so it's their turn, I guess. Change worries people, and since that's what Obama embodies, he's intimidating. I know that I have a hard time with change sometimes....but I'm also aware that change is necessary for progress, and this nation could certainly use some of that. Besides, if he is a truly horrific president (this is JUST an IF situation), the government will correct itself and find someone who it thinks will correct the situation. It'll be really interesting to see what will happen in the first few months of the new year.

ps- what was the deal with the thrown out votes? I heard somewhere that the votes from soldiers in Iraq were late in getting to the polls, so they were discounted? Is this true/possible?

I vote forrrrrrrr

LOWERING THE VOTING AGE! Or at the very least there should be some sort of compromise. I will be 18 a mere 2 days after the election, so to me, it seems ridiculous that I'm missing out on the election. There's talk about the age being lowered to 16, but that would sort of undermine the fact that most states recognized 18 year olds as adults...therefore they would technically be allowing "children" to be voting on the ruler of the county. Why don't we meet somewhere in the middle? What about if the person is 18 by the date of the new president's inauguration? That seems fair since nothing could feasibly change about that person in a 2 month span.
I can see why some people would want the age to be 16...it's like learning a language. The earlier you are exposed to a new language, the better chance you have of actyally learning that language...it's just the way that your brain absorbs the information. Therefore, it would make sense that the earlier you are exposed to politics and the process in becoming president, the better informed you would be later in life/in voting.
Maybe a good solution would be in introduce government classes to students in middle school and possibly even earlier. That way, the age could be lowered and the young voters would be recognized as "good" voters.

However, I think that this is highly unlikely, and therefore think that if you are 18 by the time of inauguration, you should be allowed to vote.

Electoral College

The biggest example that supports the decision to change the electoral college is the election of 2000.
"In most years the system provokes little controversy: The winner of the popular vote usually wins the Electoral College vote too. But in 2000, George W. Bush won the presidency after losing the popular election by more than 500,000 votes. How? He garnered 271 electoral votes — one more than the 270 votes needed for a simple majority."

Now, I don't want to get into whether or not I believe that Bush is a good president or anything like that, but I have to say- I don't believe that he should have won the presidency this way. By the electors getting to cast their votes, which apparently have infinitely more power than the vote of the individual, completely silences the 500,000 people that didn't vote for Bush. What on Earth is supposed to entice the average American to vote if they feel that it's a moot point? It doesn't add up that there are commercials and other various modes of advertising pressuring us to "Vote or Die" (thanks, Paris!)and then have those votes cast aside by the electors.

Yes, the College provides us with a clear winner, and allows there to be a fair distribution of power between the states and feds, however, who do we think makes up the states's votes? THE PEOPLE DO. So why have them vote and have their voices "heard" if the Big Wigs of the states are actually those that count? Why don't we just shorten the process, save the candidates money on advertising and just have the electors vote on who they think would represent the individual state's needs/beliefs? That way, it's not directly up to the people anyway. The problem with that being that it would be like "allowing a blind man to preside over a “trial of colors.” " like George Mason said.

Also- with the California/Wyoming comparison, wouldn't it work the opposite way too? Essentially, the votes are divided such that the states with fewer people (Wyoming)have more influence with their votes (their electors do) than densely populated states (California). This is supposed to be proportional and prevent candidates from spending all of their time campaigning in the larger states. This is said to "give the little guy a voice", meaning that the people should want to vote since they carry so much weight. Wouldn't this also sort of discourage the larger states from voting, since their vote counts less? and maybe someone would vote for their candidate for them? food for thought