Unit 1: Court Upholds Constitutionality of Conn. Gun-Control Law

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/court-upholds-strict-gun-law

This week, the federal court decided to uphold Connecticut's assault weapon ban. After last year alone, almost half of the states strengthened reform laws regarding gun control. The judges in Hartford said that the assult weapon ban balances the second ammendment and the Obama administration's push to reduce violence.

“The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional. While the act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control,” U.S. District Judge Alfred Covello said.

The decision to uphold the assault weapon ban left pro-gun advocates upset to the point of suing the state last April. The court, however, rejected the argument. Brian Stapleton, who represented all of the plaintiffs, said, “The decision was not entirely unexpected, but disappointing nonetheless. I respect Judge Covello immensely, but I disagree with what he has decided. We are going to appeal.” 

The ban of assault weapons took affect after the mass shooting in December of 2012 in Newtown, Conneticut that killed 26 people, (20 of which being first grade students). When the bill went into place, it required background check on all firearm purchases, as well as regulations for buying ammunition. 

Almost 800 people under the age of 18 were killed by the use of guns after the Newtown shooting.  Attorney General George Jepsen of Connecticut said, “We will continue to vigorously defend them in the event of any appeal that may be filed of this decision.”

Upholding the reform is a big decision on Connecticut's part. While the fundamental rights of the Bill of Rights are issued to the states, there are some exceptions. States have the right to decide the extent of the second amendment. 

In my opinion, banning assault weapons is a good but also bad thing. I believe that having gun control is key. If we allow people under the age or without a background check to have possession of a gun, the probability of violence would spike. The second amendment, however, says that citizens have the right to bare arms. While this bill is violating the amendment, it is for the better of the people. We are minimizing the chance of a spike in violence like that of the Newtown shooting. 

Unit 3: A Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign could cost $1.7 billion?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/12/a-hillary-clinton-2016-campaign-could-cost-1-7-billion/

The encouragement from the democratic party for Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2016 is growing rapidly. The group supporting Clinton's run for president, Ready for Hillary, is predicted to grow from two million to five million at the end of the year. The senior adviser for 'Ready for Hillary', Craig Smith, said that his estimation for the price of a presidential campaign in 2016 would be $1.7 billion. That amount does include spending by outside groups. In 2013, Ready for Hillary raised $4 million.

The editor of the non-partisan Rothenberg Political report, Stuart Rothenberg said, "I can see them picking a figure that is at the outer edge of their estimates because they want to set a goal that is both reachable but also a bit of a stretch. You want your fundraisers to feel like they have to work hard and you want your contributors to feel like they need to reach."

In the 2012 election, Democratic groups spent about $1.1 billion on the reelection of Obama. Rothenberg said because of the 2012 spending, "you have to assume every campaign can spend at least 1.1 billion, they know how to do it. But for most Americans, anytime we get a figure that has a B in it, people's eyes glaze over and they just start shaking their heads."

Back in 2004, the Bush campaign spent around $500 million. With the price of advertising alone increasing and the amount of advertisement options, the cost of running for office is increasing. Through advertising and getting the image of the candidate out to the public, political parties spend millions of dollars. In order to be recognized by the public, spending is completely necessary.

Unit 3:Clinton compares Putin's Ukraine moves to Hitler, later recalibrates

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/05/report-clinton-compares-putins-ukraine-moves-to-hitler-and-nazi-germany/

Wednesday former Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, explained her earlier comparsion of Vladimir Putin's military intervention in Ukraine to Adolf Hitler during World War II.

 During an interview with a professor of political science and communications at UCLA, Clinton said, "I'm not making a comparison certainly, but I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before. What I said yesterday is that the claims by President Putin and other Russians that they had to go into Crimea and maybe further into eastern Ukraine because they had to protect the Russian minorities ... is reminiscent of claims that were made back in the 1930s when Germany under the Nazis kept talking about how they had to protect German minorities in Poland, in Czechoslovakia and elsewhere throughout Europe." 

In the interview, Clinton never used 'Hitler'. Instead, she rephrased her previous statement by saying 'German under Nazis'. During her previous comment from Tuesday, Clinton said, "Now if this sounds familiar, it's what Hitler did back in the 30s. All the Germans that were ... the ethnic Germans, the Germans by ancestry who were in places like Czechoslovakia and Romania and other places, Hitler kept saying they're not being treated right. I must go and protect my people and that's what's gotten everybody so nervous." 

Wednesday, Clinton focused her attention more on the situation at hand. She talked about the extent of Ukraine's problem. She stated, "As President Obama has said, the Russian intervention in Crimea violates international law and it is therefore of deep concern to the United States and our allies. All parties should avoid steps that could be misinterpreted or lead to miscalculation at his delicate time."

Senator John McCain, who previously called Obama's foreign policy feckless and partially responsible for the latest problems, agreed with Clinton's statements on Wednesday along with Senator Marco Rubio. Rubio stated, "I think the point that she was making, that in terms of the claims that they needed to move into a neighboring country to protect an ethnic group tied to them is certainly similar to the argument that Hitler made in the 1930s."

While her 'Hitler' comments were strongly negative towards the situation, Clinton's statements were reversed. As a political figure and possible  candidate in the 2016 presidential race, her statements could affect some veiws of minor political parties and interest groups. As the majority of Americans would agree with her statements, Nazi Americans are still present in our country. 

In studying the political parties of the United States, interest groups were a topic of discussion. The United States has interest groups for nearly every scenario possible. While some interest groups are well known, such as the Tea Party, others are small and not as well known. In stating what Hillary Clinton stated, she could have caused a spark that would be detrimental to her possible campaign.