As you may recall (if you actually read my other comments), there are 9 primary actors that I am considering in my prediction, namely the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court. Although each is assigned to use the Constitution to interpret the law, there are other motivating factors present, which can be seen by past voting patterns of each of the Justices.
John G. Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Sonia Sotomayor have each consistently voted by interpreting the Constitution and putting away their own political ideologies, meaning that each has a strong desire to do that which is in the nation's best interest. It's very likely that they'll seriously consider that parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are a violation of the 10th Amendment. However, both John G. Roberts and Clarence Thomas are strong equal rights activists, and as such may look at the greater good of providing healthcare to a larger group of people. Therefore, their motivation to maintain the Tenth Amendment is not as great as the others.
Both Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer have been strong activists in dispersing federal power and distributing that power to the states. With an issue such as the healthcare reform, they will want to disperse the federal control to the states.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr have tended to vote more liberally, extending rights to more people. Therefore, they will vote for healthcare to be available to all people, which is one of the main reasons the healthcare law was signed.
The newest member of the Supreme Court is a little trickier to assess because of the few cases she has voted on. It has been speculated, however, that Elena Kagan will be a "consensus builder" and will tend to vote with majority of other Supreme Court members.
Any comments on the observations I've made? I'm not very knowledgeable with respect to politics, so any suggestions would be nice! Thanks.
Actor motivations for my situation seem pretty simple at first glance. Each government involved (U.S., Mexican, and Colombian) all are motivated to dismantle the drug trade and all the negatives associated with it within their borders. On the other side all the cartels have the common motivation of wanting control of the drug trade (production, trafficking routes etc.). However, motivations may change or shift. Perhaps the governments involved my shift their priorities to ending the violence or something of this nature. Likewise, cartels may soon find it more important to lay low and get the governments off their backs as opposed to having immediate domination of the market.
I have six possible actors; they are the Dominican Government, Domestic Activist and Human Rights Organizations, International Activist and Human Rights Organization, International Governmental Groups, Foreign States, and the Dominican People themselves.
The Dominican Government wants the status quot since they set it up that way. They did so to settle the issue of Haitian Immigration which has been a thorn on the side of the Dominican gov't for decades. They want it alot.
The Domestic Human Rights groups want to change and Amend the Constitution because they find it a violation of Human Rights and International Laws on nationality and statelessness. Especially since many in this group are Haitian-Dominicans.They want to change it just as strong as the gov't wants to keep it them same.
International Human Rights Groups want the Constitution amended as well and hold DR responsible for their human rights and international law violations. They want it pretty bad but not as mush as the Domestic HR do.
International Governmental Groups want to hold DR accountable to their agreements, recognize their error and fix it. It makes them look bad in the international world if they are in league or doing business with human rights violators.They want it least of all the organizations because they don't want to get to involved at the same time.
Foreign States would like the Constitution amended but wont get involved because they either do not have the resources to do so or are trying to stay out of it since it isn't their issue and have domestic issues and politics of the similar sort they need to ameliorate. They would like it changed but aren't willing to do anything so probably least of all groups.
The Dominican People wont do anything because many are ignorant of the situation of Haitian-Dominicans or are clouded by decades of prejudice, racism, and antihaitianism reinforced into them. They are passive as of now but human rights groups and activists are trying to mobilize, educate, and bring awareness to the gravity of the issue. Many may want it but most just don't know or care and a substantial population wants to keep it as it is.
The motivation for the publishing company is to make money. That is their sole interest in the series, and always has been. They are going to do what it takes to convince Rowling to write another book if they think the profit margin will be high enough.
Rowling herself has various motivations. One motivation is raising money for charity by continuing to write. A second is to please her fans by continuing to write. Another is to make herself happy by taking a break and contemplating her future. With the kind of money she has accumulated over the years, her motivation to write another book doesn't need to be very high.
The readers have two camps: those who want another book and those who don't. Those who do want another book are motivated by the desire to read another book. These readers range from really dedicated and demanding to those who would like to see another book but are okay waiting for a while. Those who don't want another book are motivated by things such as moving on to other material or not caring that much about any future writing.
The NDP, being the ruling and uncontested party for over thirty years, is obviously pro-government. They want to remain the ruling party in Egypt with their party leader as President and under their control.
The Egyptian military’s motivations are currently uncertain, but their recent actions seem promising for those wanting reform. So far they have met many demands made by those who are pro-democracy and have claimed to trade over their power once elections can occur.
The public primarily wants reform, which was to start out with the resignation of the previous President, Hosni Mubarak. After successfully achieving this, they now want the reform process to continue with amendments to their Constitution and the removal of the Emergency Law. Many Egyptians want to form their government into a democracy; however, some of the public remain strongly on the side of the current government.
The most influential opposition parties and movements: the Muslim Brotherhood, the New Wafd Party, and the National Association for Change are with the protesters and many other Egyptians in that they also want reforms on government. Both the New Wafd Party and the NAC are pushing for pro-democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood, on the hand, was primarily established to create the need for an Islamic renewal and would prefer the government to change into a theocracy.
President Obama- The president is largely motivated by his "promise" for a true healthcare reform, and by the realization that he may not be reelected in 2012.
Congress- Congress is largely motivated by their supports, though not necessarily their constituents. They're motivated by greatly lobbyists, and their own self interest. Like the President, many congressman are concerned about reelection in coming elections. Therefor they are also motivated by the perception of their decisions by their constituents.
Healthcare companies and lobbyists- They're motivated by profits. The passing of new legislation could cut their profits and regulate the insurance industry, leaving current money making practices hard to make happen, or even illegal.
The American Public- The public is motivated by self interest. Exact personal interest varies from person to person, but generally it falls this way: Pro-healthcare reform/regulation/whatever generally want cheaper, better healthcare coverage and accessibility. Wealthier people/anti-gov't insurance regulation tend to want no changes because in some way or another they benefit from the current system. This could be though working in/closely with a health insurance company, paying lower income taxes, or other factors.
The United States would obviously like to maintain the status quo of keeping the dollar as the world reserve currency. Ideally it would like to do so without having to enact fiscal/monetary reform, but the United States will probably have to change its behavior if it would like to restore the world's confidence in the dollar.
China has made it evident that it would like to diversify its reserve holdings in the long term, but China will be forced to enact this incrementally in order to protect its current holdings and trade relationship with the United States.
Russia has stated that it will diminish its usage of dollars and its purchase of dollar-based securities alongside with China. Russia is motivated to do this in order to protect itself financially, to bolster the strategic position of the nation, and to strengthen its relationship with China. Russia would probably be highly cooperative in any effort for a new reserve-currency alternative.
The entity of the European Union would ideally like to move away from the dollar and see the Euro attain a new reserve-currency prominence. However, it seems like the European union would also be satisfied with a transition to the SDR. The European Union might have difficulties coordinating this because some members have high levels of foreign reserves (France and Germany) and other members have expressed tensions with the Euro (Germany). I am assuming the European Union is interested in maintaining its unity and protecting their reserves in the long-run.
The United Kingdom and Japan would (ideally) like their currencies to attain greater prominence with the greatest possible stability for the system. I believe that both actors have a passive interest in the status quo, but wouldn't be too resistant to change if it was supported with enough of a consensus.
The central banks of the world's nations are interested in maintaining the value of their current reserves and maintaining valuable reserves for the future. They are a major actor that protect against an immediate transition.
The World Bank and the IMF are most interested in maintaining the stability of the monetary system. However, the IMF would benefit from having the SDR attain reserve currency status because it would be able to play a more direct part in the monetary system.
The motivations of my actors come down to political disagreements. While Governor Susana Martinez talks about wanting to put those who have committed horrendous crimes to death, her political position has to be taken into consideration as well. After running on a Republican platform and being supported by well-known politicians such as Sarah Palin, it is easy to see that support of the death penalty might be focused less on getting justice and more on advocating a Republican platform.
The motivations of the New Mexico Legislature are also highly dependent on political motivations as well. Republican senators and representatives are more likely to support the Republican agenda and support Governor Martinez in trying to reinstate the death penalty, while the Democratic representatives and senators are less likely to support this agenda. Depending on how the 2012 elections turn out, it is possible that there will be a Republican majority to support Martinez or a Democratic majority to try to prevent the reinstatement of the death penalty.
No matter how you divide up the actors at play in my prediction, they are all ultimately after the same thing-the Presidency.
Pesdident Obama wants to remain President, as do the Democrats. The Republican Party aims to nominate a candidate who can/will become President. That candidate wants to become President.
In a perfect world, I would be able to say that these actors are motivated by "the common good" or doing what's best for the country, but in reality, that's not the case. The only people motivated by trying to do what's best for the country are the voters, the American people, and really, they all have their own agendas as well.
So maybe, all of the actors are simply motivated by the only truly rational thing-doing what's best for themselves.
The main motivating factors for the actors involved would be money in the case of the scientists and the medical field. Also, possibilities for technological advancement for the use of curing disease. Another motivation is how this ruling will affect future rulings (precedent). Lastly, another motivational factor could be a desire to open up more possibilities for where research could go if these cells are really as pluripotent (able to differentiate) as they seem to be.
"John G. Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Sonia Sotomayor have each consistently voted by interpreting the Constitution and putting away their own political ideologies, meaning that each has a strong desire to do that which is in the nation's best interest."
- Sam
Just like that? There's an ongoing debate over what it means to accurately interpret the Constitution; until that debate is resolved (which will probably never happen), we can't say that *anyone* has set aside ideology, because merely choosing one mode of interpretation over the other is inherently ideological. And whether an adherence is to strict constructionism is in the nation's best interest or not is less settled still.
The President is primarily motivated by a will to take the best course of action for the American people, reelection and legacy; however the administration as a whole includes many other people whom might have their own motivations such as moving up in the administration and maybe even running for the Presidency. The U.S. Congress is motivated by the will to make the best decisions for the American people, getting reelected and the will of special interest groups. The members of Congress are also motivated based on their political divisions and the success of their party. Although the President, like Congress is susceptible to the will of special interest groups, I do not believe he is as susceptible as members of Congress because he does not need the extra money to advertise in a re-election campaign. The President does not need extra money like members of Congress do because he is already President and when he runs for re-election he will have the luxury of already being well known and not need to advertise like members of congress will. The Afghan Government is motivated by the desire to gain more power within its own borders, retain the power it already has, and keep the people of Afghanistan happy. The insurgent forces are motivated by a hatred of non-Muslims, money, fear and a sense of defending their homes and families from foreign invaders.
As you may recall (if you actually read my other comments), there are 9 primary actors that I am considering in my prediction, namely the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court. Although each is assigned to use the Constitution to interpret the law, there are other motivating factors present, which can be seen by past voting patterns of each of the Justices.
ReplyDeleteJohn G. Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Sonia Sotomayor have each consistently voted by interpreting the Constitution and putting away their own political ideologies, meaning that each has a strong desire to do that which is in the nation's best interest. It's very likely that they'll seriously consider that parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are a violation of the 10th Amendment. However, both John G. Roberts and Clarence Thomas are strong equal rights activists, and as such may look at the greater good of providing healthcare to a larger group of people. Therefore, their motivation to maintain the Tenth Amendment is not as great as the others.
Both Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer have been strong activists in dispersing federal power and distributing that power to the states. With an issue such as the healthcare reform, they will want to disperse the federal control to the states.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr have tended to vote more liberally, extending rights to more people. Therefore, they will vote for healthcare to be available to all people, which is one of the main reasons the healthcare law was signed.
The newest member of the Supreme Court is a little trickier to assess because of the few cases she has voted on. It has been speculated, however, that Elena Kagan will be a "consensus builder" and will tend to vote with majority of other Supreme Court members.
Any comments on the observations I've made? I'm not very knowledgeable with respect to politics, so any suggestions would be nice! Thanks.
Actor motivations for my situation seem pretty simple at first glance.
ReplyDeleteEach government involved (U.S., Mexican, and Colombian) all are motivated to dismantle the drug trade and all the negatives associated with it within their borders.
On the other side all the cartels have the common motivation of wanting control of the drug trade (production, trafficking routes etc.).
However, motivations may change or shift. Perhaps the governments involved my shift their priorities to ending the violence or something of this nature. Likewise, cartels may soon find it more important to lay low and get the governments off their backs as opposed to having immediate domination of the market.
I have six possible actors; they are the Dominican Government, Domestic Activist and Human Rights Organizations, International Activist and Human Rights Organization, International Governmental Groups, Foreign States, and the Dominican People themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe Dominican Government wants the status quot since they set it up that way. They did so to settle the issue of Haitian Immigration which has been a thorn on the side of the Dominican gov't for decades. They want it alot.
The Domestic Human Rights groups want to change and Amend the Constitution because they find it a violation of Human Rights and International Laws on nationality and statelessness. Especially since many in this group are Haitian-Dominicans.They want to change it just as strong as the gov't wants to keep it them same.
International Human Rights Groups want the Constitution amended as well and hold DR responsible for their human rights and international law violations. They want it pretty bad but not as mush as the Domestic HR do.
International Governmental Groups want to hold DR accountable to their agreements, recognize their error and fix it. It makes them look bad in the international world if they are in league or doing business with human rights violators.They want it least of all the organizations because they don't want to get to involved at the same time.
Foreign States would like the Constitution amended but wont get involved because they either do not have the resources to do so or are trying to stay out of it since it isn't their issue and have domestic issues and politics of the similar sort they need to ameliorate. They would like it changed but aren't willing to do anything so probably least of all groups.
The Dominican People wont do anything because many are ignorant of the situation of Haitian-Dominicans or are clouded by decades of prejudice, racism, and antihaitianism reinforced into them. They are passive as of now but human rights groups and activists are trying to mobilize, educate, and bring awareness to the gravity of the issue. Many may want it but most just don't know or care and a substantial population wants to keep it as it is.
The motivation for the publishing company is to make money. That is their sole interest in the series, and always has been. They are going to do what it takes to convince Rowling to write another book if they think the profit margin will be high enough.
ReplyDeleteRowling herself has various motivations. One motivation is raising money for charity by continuing to write. A second is to please her fans by continuing to write. Another is to make herself happy by taking a break and contemplating her future. With the kind of money she has accumulated over the years, her motivation to write another book doesn't need to be very high.
The readers have two camps: those who want another book and those who don't. Those who do want another book are motivated by the desire to read another book. These readers range from really dedicated and demanding to those who would like to see another book but are okay waiting for a while. Those who don't want another book are motivated by things such as moving on to other material or not caring that much about any future writing.
The NDP, being the ruling and uncontested party for over thirty years, is obviously pro-government. They want to remain the ruling party in Egypt with their party leader as President and under their control.
ReplyDeleteThe Egyptian military’s motivations are currently uncertain, but their recent actions seem promising for those wanting reform. So far they have met many demands made by those who are pro-democracy and have claimed to trade over their power once elections can occur.
The public primarily wants reform, which was to start out with the resignation of the previous President, Hosni Mubarak. After successfully achieving this, they now want the reform process to continue with amendments to their Constitution and the removal of the Emergency Law. Many Egyptians want to form their government into a democracy; however, some of the public remain strongly on the side of the current government.
The most influential opposition parties and movements: the Muslim Brotherhood, the New Wafd Party, and the National Association for Change are with the protesters and many other Egyptians in that they also want reforms on government. Both the New Wafd Party and the NAC are pushing for pro-democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood, on the hand, was primarily established to create the need for an Islamic renewal and would prefer the government to change into a theocracy.
President Obama- The president is largely motivated by his "promise" for a true healthcare reform, and by the realization that he may not be reelected in 2012.
ReplyDeleteCongress- Congress is largely motivated by their supports, though not necessarily their constituents. They're motivated by greatly lobbyists, and their own self interest. Like the President, many congressman are concerned about reelection in coming elections. Therefor they are also motivated by the perception of their decisions by their constituents.
Healthcare companies and lobbyists- They're motivated by profits. The passing of new legislation could cut their profits and regulate the insurance industry, leaving current money making practices hard to make happen, or even illegal.
The American Public- The public is motivated by self interest. Exact personal interest varies from person to person, but generally it falls this way:
Pro-healthcare reform/regulation/whatever generally want cheaper, better healthcare coverage and accessibility.
Wealthier people/anti-gov't insurance regulation tend to want no changes because in some way or another they benefit from the current system. This could be though working in/closely with a health insurance company, paying lower income taxes, or other factors.
The United States would obviously like to maintain the status quo of keeping the dollar as the world reserve currency. Ideally it would like to do so without having to enact fiscal/monetary reform, but the United States will probably have to change its behavior if it would like to restore the world's confidence in the dollar.
ReplyDeleteChina has made it evident that it would like to diversify its reserve holdings in the long term, but China will be forced to enact this incrementally in order to protect its current holdings and trade relationship with the United States.
Russia has stated that it will diminish its usage of dollars and its purchase of dollar-based securities alongside with China. Russia is motivated to do this in order to protect itself financially, to bolster the strategic position of the nation, and to strengthen its relationship with China. Russia would probably be highly cooperative in any effort for a new reserve-currency alternative.
The entity of the European Union would ideally like to move away from the dollar and see the Euro attain a new reserve-currency prominence. However, it seems like the European union would also be satisfied with a transition to the SDR. The European Union might have difficulties coordinating this because some members have high levels of foreign reserves (France and Germany) and other members have expressed tensions with the Euro (Germany). I am assuming the European Union is interested in maintaining its unity and protecting their reserves in the long-run.
The United Kingdom and Japan would (ideally) like their currencies to attain greater prominence with the greatest possible stability for the system. I believe that both actors have a passive interest in the status quo, but wouldn't be too resistant to change if it was supported with enough of a consensus.
The central banks of the world's nations are interested in maintaining the value of their current reserves and maintaining valuable reserves for the future. They are a major actor that protect against an immediate transition.
The World Bank and the IMF are most interested in maintaining the stability of the monetary system. However, the IMF would benefit from having the SDR attain reserve currency status because it would be able to play a more direct part in the monetary system.
The motivations of my actors come down to political disagreements. While Governor Susana Martinez talks about wanting to put those who have committed horrendous crimes to death, her political position has to be taken into consideration as well. After running on a Republican platform and being supported by well-known politicians such as Sarah Palin, it is easy to see that support of the death penalty might be focused less on getting justice and more on advocating a Republican platform.
ReplyDeleteThe motivations of the New Mexico Legislature are also highly dependent on political motivations as well. Republican senators and representatives are more likely to support the Republican agenda and support Governor Martinez in trying to reinstate the death penalty, while the Democratic representatives and senators are less likely to support this agenda. Depending on how the 2012 elections turn out, it is possible that there will be a Republican majority to support Martinez or a Democratic majority to try to prevent the reinstatement of the death penalty.
No matter how you divide up the actors at play in my prediction, they are all ultimately after the same thing-the Presidency.
ReplyDeletePesdident Obama wants to remain President, as do the Democrats. The Republican Party aims to nominate a candidate who can/will become President. That candidate wants to become President.
In a perfect world, I would be able to say that these actors are motivated by "the common good" or doing what's best for the country, but in reality, that's not the case. The only people motivated by trying to do what's best for the country are the voters, the American people, and really, they all have their own agendas as well.
So maybe, all of the actors are simply motivated by the only truly rational thing-doing what's best for themselves.
The main motivating factors for the actors involved would be money in the case of the scientists and the medical field. Also, possibilities for technological advancement for the use of curing disease. Another motivation is how this ruling will affect future rulings (precedent). Lastly, another motivational factor could be a desire to open up more possibilities for where research could go if these cells are really as pluripotent (able to differentiate) as they seem to be.
ReplyDeleteAll my actors want is to be Prezident. Is that so much to ask? IS IT!?
ReplyDelete"John G. Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Sonia Sotomayor have each consistently voted by interpreting the Constitution and putting away their own political ideologies, meaning that each has a strong desire to do that which is in the nation's best interest."
ReplyDelete- Sam
Just like that? There's an ongoing debate over what it means to accurately interpret the Constitution; until that debate is resolved (which will probably never happen), we can't say that *anyone* has set aside ideology, because merely choosing one mode of interpretation over the other is inherently ideological. And whether an adherence is to strict constructionism is in the nation's best interest or not is less settled still.
The President is primarily motivated by a will to take the best course of action for the American people, reelection and legacy; however the administration as a whole includes many other people whom might have their own motivations such as moving up in the administration and maybe even running for the Presidency. The U.S. Congress is motivated by the will to make the best decisions for the American people, getting reelected and the will of special interest groups. The members of Congress are also motivated based on their political divisions and the success of their party. Although the President, like Congress is susceptible to the will of special interest groups, I do not believe he is as susceptible as members of Congress because he does not need the extra money to advertise in a re-election campaign. The President does not need extra money like members of Congress do because he is already President and when he runs for re-election he will have the luxury of already being well known and not need to advertise like members of congress will. The Afghan Government is motivated by the desire to gain more power within its own borders, retain the power it already has, and keep the people of Afghanistan happy. The insurgent forces are motivated by a hatred of non-Muslims, money, fear and a sense of defending their homes and families from foreign invaders.
ReplyDeletejust a reminder...my prediction is about whether the U.S. will begin to pull troops out of Afghanistan in July of this summer or not.
ReplyDelete