From high court, warning to whistle-blowers

Wednesday, May 31, 2006
by Warren Richey (CS Monitor)

Refer to Chapter 4

Essence of the Story

• In a recent 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court said that government employees do not enjoy free speech protection if they speak out against public misconduct.
  
• When working as employees of the government--that is, making official statements and reports--the Court said that employees can be disciplined.
  
• The dissenting Justices agreed that public employees do not always enjoy First Amendment protection, but said it is incorrect to argue that they "never" enjoy such protection.

Political Analysis

• This decision further sharpens the line of First Amendment protections for individuals, separating their role as employees from that of "citizen".
  
• This Court has also seen fit, in the interests of federalism, to draw sharper lines between government and the private sector, reducing in some respects a variety of ways that state governments are subject to constitutional requirements.

Read the Full Story

With war on, Americans have troops in mind

Friday, May 26, 2006
by Brad Knickerbocker

Refer to Chapter 16

Essence of the Story

• American support for the war in Iraq is waning, but public approval of the military has not eroded.
  
• Since the attacks of 9/11, American interest in the military and military affairs has increased, as illustrated by larger, more elaborate, and more popular events on Memorial Day.
  
• Many describe this as a "post Vietnam" movement to separate the soldier from the war.

Political Analysis

• In the past, public opinion about war, and public opinion about the military, have moved in tandem. Now they are separating--but it is not clear what the political impact of this will be, whether it will give the government a freer hand in pursuing military engagements, or whether it indicates a more nuanced and critical public.
  
• It is clear, however, that it is good politics to support the military with higher pay, greater benefits, and other services.

Read the Full Story

Senate Votes English as 'National Language'; Bill Keeps in Place Multilingual Laws

Friday, May 19, 2006
by Jonathan Weisman and Jim VandeHei

Refer to Chapter 15

Essence of the Story

• A bill which designates English as the "national language" of the US passed the Senate, but multilingual protections (for instance, requirements that ballots be provided in multiple languages) were kept in place.
  
• Immigration rights supporters call the vote "devastating", but others say that the bill is primarily symbolic, and will change few actual laws.
  
• The vote, 63-34, was split on partisan grounds, with only 9 Democrats voting in favor and one Republican voting against.

Political Analysis

• Are symbolic bills important? They represent an important institutional step, even if they don't actually change laws. Many argue that this bill, for example, affirms a core part of the American identity (the "melting pot") and will smooth the path for more conservative immigration policy.
  
• The other political thread here is presidential politics. It is no surprise that one of the major players in this bill is Senator John McCain, who is surely running for president in 2008. One wonders how much the Bush administration still sees McCain as a competitor, or as a partner, in planning for 2008.

Read the Full Story

First . Previous . Next . Last

Back to top