Chart 1:

This chart shows the ages of voters. There is a clear trend: as people get older, they become more likely to vote for Gingrich or Romney, and less likely to vote for Santorum or Paul. My theory is that this is caused by the kind of advertising the candidates use and who their policies appeal to. I find the divide interesting: Paul and Santorum, who are kind of on the fringes of the campaign, appeal to young people; Gingrich and Romney, who seem to be the two main contestants, appeal to older people.

This chart shows the incomes of the voters. Each candidate has a really interesting trend. Ron Paul's strongest support is in lower income households, and becomes less and less popular with groups of greater incomes. Gingrich has relatively high support across all levels, but his strongest point is definitely in the middle – he has less support among the richest and poorest groups. Mitt Romney is popular in exactly the opposite way as Gingrich: among the richest and poorest, he is popular, but less so among middle classes. Santorum is, like Gingrich, most popular in the middle – but less so among the poorest and wealthiest voters.

Chart 3:

This chart is the results of the polling question, "What quality matters most to you in a candidate?" I found a few things most interesting. First, each candidate has a clear weakness: clearly, Romney does not appeal to anyone who wants a "true conservative", and Gingrich is not considered to have strong moral character. Santorum is not popular among those who want an experienced candidate, and Paul is not favored for beating Obama. Another great analysis of this chart is the fact that there seems to be an inverse relationship between having strong moral character and being able to defeat Barack Obama. Clearly, people do truly believe that those who are morally true can succeed in politics. And, apparently, for good reason: there is also an inverse relationship between those who are favored for experience and those who have strong moral character!

At first, my group wanted to look into the ability of the president to veto bills. However, we couldn't find vetoed bills that really affect us. Instead, since our group was all female, we figured that the amendment that most directly affected us was the 19th. Once we picked a topic, our lives got a bit easier! We did have a lot of trouble choosing a method of storytelling. Although I do really like the freedom we had to pick our method, so long as it fit in the video, we ended up brainstorming for far too long and didn't have as much time to produce.

Although I appreciated that the project was formatted after the C-SPAN documentary challenge, I think that a slightly altered assignment could have been better for SLA. Maybe we could have chosen whether to create documentary videos or some other form of presentation – videos tend to be just as much about editing as about actual information. We could have had more restrictions on how much history we had to put in. My group did a lot of work on finding the history of the 19th amendment, but didn't include much of it in our project because it didn't fit with C-SPAN's requirements.

As we prepared to create our video, we found plenty of drama in the fight for women's suffrage: a constitutional amendment was brought to congress for 40 years in a row before it was passed, women wrote a "Declaration of Sentiments" that is a pointed reference to the Declaration of Independence, and more. The one point that I found most interesting was the story of the ratification of the amendment. In the end, it all came down to the vote of a single senator within Tennessee. He was in his 20s, and ended up voting for women's suffrage partly because his mother wrote him a note and told him to do so.

In the end, I liked our final project. However, I don't think it thoroughly reflected all that we learned. Instead of telling the story of the amendment, we had to think of ways to explain why the right to vote matters to us. I think that we ended up successful because our video definitely explored the reasons that the 19th amendment matters, and even tied in those reasons to the history of the amendment and an international perspective.

My group specifically ran into a lot of trouble with the scheduling and technicalities of collaboration. We had to get the video from computer to computer, and weren't able to find time to all work together at the same time. Even when we did all work together, we ended up unable to work efficiently. I did enjoy working with the group, though, because we all brought different ideas to the table. If I had to do this project over, I think I'd want to start getting video earlier. That way, we would have been able to add more pictures and other edited pieces, and I think our project would have been richer. However, I did like our overall project, and am proud of my work.

In order to pursue my issue, I need to convince my senators to back the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011. The main resource I've been using is the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families website, which is a preexisting group lobbying for the bill. It describes itself as "an nationwide effort to pass smart federal policies that protect us from toxic chemicals." The website has various ways to get involved in the campaign. My first step as a citizen lobbyist was to join the site. Now, I receive their update emails. I also have participated in various ways they are advocating for the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011:

• They ask people to send an email to their state legislators about the act. Their website has an interface to make the sending of these emails easy. However, the email is not personalized. Instead, it relies on the celebrity status of Jessica Alba, who has become the face of the campaign. I still feel that this effort is a good idea if it attracts high enough numbers. In addition to participating, I am going to ask others to also fill out the form, using Facebook.
  
  

• In a similar, and more personal, effort, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families asked its members to upload a holiday family photo, along with a brief message to senators about why toxic chemical control is important to us. I joined this effort as well, uploading a photo of myself with my little brother and the message "I want my little brother to be safe from harmful chemicals! Please cosponsor the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011. Happy holidays." Although this action is much more personal than the letter, a single person's actions do not mean much. I plan to ask friends to also send in photos.
  
  

I also plan to call my senators about the act, and leave a message asking them to cosponsor the legislation. I will ask my friends to do the same, and have written a sample script to make the process easier. I wrote one of these scripts for a call to Bob Casey, and one for a call to Pat Toomey. I tried to use my previous research into the senators' interests and values to inform the writing of my script.

Generally, I am focusing on getting many people to participate in the emails, holiday cards, and phone calls. Because I cannot vote yet, I doubt that even a strong message coming solely from me would have much impact. However, a large number of people always have more influence than just one.

Along with Jeff Kessler, I chose the bureaucratic task of filing for a Green Card. There are various ways to get a Green Card – through family, through employment, as a refugee, and more. Each way has its own particular paperwork. Everything is made even more confusing when the person filing is currently outside the United States. Jeff and I filled out the paperwork required for getting a Green Card through a marriage, which was not particularly difficult. However, many of the other types of Green Card paperwork are not nearly as straightforward.

Jeff and I first made the flow chart, dividing up the various routes to a Green Card between the two of us. I worked on getting a Green Card through family members, which has, in itself, various sub-options. The paperwork had two parts, and so we split that up. I filled out the shorter post, and spent extra time making our flow chart colorful and well-formatted.

The system for getting a Green Card is convoluted at best. I think that this is because, as various situations arise, complexity is added from necessity – but no one ever takes the time to weed out the now-outdated complexities. Also, I think that there is a motivation to keep people from being able to easily gain access to the country. If I could, I would make the three main categories (family, employment, refugee) still separate, but within each have just a clearly defined process, instead of many sub-processes.

I enjoyed this process. I thought it was a valuable experience: waiting on line, figuring out paperwork, following link trails online to find steps are all things that I will certainly have to do as I interact with the government throughout my life. I also liked making the flow chart, because it was a cool, math-related challenge.

This case is about the interaction between government at the State level and at the Federal level. For this reason, it has to do with Article 4 and Amendment 10. Because it has to do with fairness of sentencing, it also is related to Amendment 7. Finally, the question is related to power in the judicial branch (the court system) and power in the executive branch (the prison system), and so it is a question of checks and balances.

The specific question is: If someone is charged with a state crime and a federal crime, and the state court has not yet determined a sentence, can the federal court order the federal sentence to be served consecutively to the not-yet-imposed state sentence?

Facts of the Case

In 2006, Monroe Setser, of Texas, was sentenced to five years of probation for possession of methamphetamine. A year later, he pleaded guilty to a federal charge of possession of 50 or more grams of methamphetamine, with intent to distribute. The crime was also an offense in the state of Texas, and so the federal court knew that Setser's possession charge could lead to a state sentence – not to mention to a revocation of his probation. Because of this, the federal court wanted to decide how all of those hypothetical sentences would interact. They decided that Setser's federal sentence would be served after any sentence that the state gave for the earlier possession crime, but at the same time as any sentence imposed for the 2007 possession-and-intent-to-sell crime.

The state court then sentenced Setser. For the 2006 crime, they revoked his parole and gave him five years in prison, and for the 2007 crime they gave him 10 years in prison. They ordered those two sentences to be served at the same time.

In 2010, he was paroled from the state crime and transferred to the federal prison system. The federal sentence was not shortened at all from time spent serving the state sentences.

Setser said that the court should not have the right to decide how his sentences were to be served, and so he appealed the federal sentence. The United States actually agrees with Setser, so the court appointed a man named Evan Young to argue the case against him.

Summary of the Arguments before the SCOTUS

Setser argued with that the prison system should have the right to decide how his sentences are to be served, and not the federal court. His argument is based on 18 U.S.C. §3584(a), a law which states that:

"If multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed on a defendant at the same time, or if a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently or consecutively… Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at the same time run concurrently unless the court orders or the statute mandates that the terms are to run consecutively. Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively unless the court orders that the terms are to run concurrently."

His main argument is that, because his own circumstance does not fall under the specific cases outlined in the law, the judge of the federal court should not be able to decide how his sentences were to be served. Instead, he argues, the federal prison system should decide that matter at the end of his state term. He also states that, before that particular section was enacted, the Bureau of Prisons had the power to make sentences run at the same time – and so, since the statute does not apply to his particular case, the Bureau of Prisons should still have that right.

The counterargument is that the statute is a way of giving more power to courts, not specifying when they have power. In both of the situations outlined by the statute, the judge is allowed to decide whether to overwrite the default – so, even though Setser's particular case is not included in those situations, the judge should still be able to say how the sentences should be served.

Predictions on the outcome

The United States actually agrees with Setser. This makes me believe that the Supreme Court is likely to yield that the federal court did, indeed, make a mistake in specifying how Setser should serve his various sentences, even before the state sentences were decided.

SOURCE:

Michael Dimino, Argument preview: Court to consider run-on sentences, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 23, 2011, 3:00 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/11/argument-preview-court-to-consider-run-on-sentences/

On the 17th of November, there was a hearing about the bill. I was able to find the video of the hearing online. Lautenberg opened with remarks about the bill's history. He explained that he'd talked to Republicans about making the bill bipartisan, and talked to Chemical Industry companies about their suggestions, too. He also said that most of the Democrats on the Committee for Environment and Public Works have become cosponsors of the legislation. There are 12 cosponsors in total. In fact, OpenCongress does not list any organizations currently opposing the bill! Despite all this, major chemical companies are not in full support of the bill. In the November 17th hearing, American Chemistry Council President and CEO Cal Dooley talked about his problems with the Safe Chemicals Act. He said that the bill "remains very similar to the bill which was introduced in 2010, which we consider unworkable." Most of his problems with the bill hinged on the tough standards for data and regulation, many of which would be difficult for the EPA and chemical industries to meet. However, he seemed to be willing to work with Lautenberg and other senators to make the bill more workable.

Although there are twelve senators cosponsoring the legislation, none of those senators are from Pennsylvania. I can write to Bob Casey and ask him to cosponsor the bill, or at least to pledge his support. I could also write to Pat Toomey, but I am doubtful that he will support the legislation. I recently saw an advertisement of his that was paid for by the petroleum industry. I was not able to find the ad online, but did find an article about the American Petroleum Institute's advertisements for Toomey and various other candidates. This makes me think that Pat Toomey cares more about big companies and industries than environmental or citizen health. I can still write to him, and explain my position.

When I first started to research the Safe Chemicals Act, I found the website Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. This site is an effort to pass legislation like the Safe Chemicals Act, and they have a sign-up for interested citizens. I already gave them my email, so I will be receiving updates on the bill's progress and opportunities to help. I also can write a letter to my Senators through their website. The website even has their own celebrity: Jessica Alba is working to push the Safe Chemicals Act through Congress!

I was not able to find any upcoming dates for meetings, committee hearings, deadlines, or anything like that. However, during the November 17th hearing, Senator Lautenberg said that he would be calling for a vote in the Senate soon. Because of this, I need to act now! At the moment, the only person I can influence in particular is Senator Bob Casey, by asking him to cosponsor the bill. I think that, with enough pressure from Pennsylvanians, Casey would support the bill. Pat Toomey, on the other hand, will probably not. I can still send him a message, to show my beliefs.

My representatives in Senate are Bob Casey and Pat Toomey.

Bob Casey, on his website, states that "as a Senator from Pennsylvania, I am committed to protecting the environment, preserving our natural treasures, and safeguarding the health of our families," and states that energy and the environment are among his priorities. He says that he is strongly against fracking, and has cosponsored one bill that would "close big oil tax loopholes". However, based on the list of legislation he has sponsored and cosponsored, his priorities seem to lie much more with veterans and education. He has four daughters, all of whom are around my age, and he plays basketball – so I would definitely be able to start a conversation with him.

Pat Toomey, on the other hand, will certainly not want the bill to be passed. One of his slogans is "More Jobs, Less Government" (see image below). Because of this, he will certainly not want more restrictions on companies that could be producing more and hiring more. He even introduced the Employment Protection Act of 2011, which would make the EPA "consider the impact on employment levels and economic activity" before any regulatory action. The Clean Chemicals Act is certainly in conflict with this bill. I looked for interests he and I might share, and found nothing. I am uncertain how I will be able to argue for this bill against someone who so clearly is opposed to anything of the kind.

If the bill gets through Senate, it will go to the House of Representatives. There, my representative if Chaka Fattah (see district map below). Looking through his legislative record, it is clear that his priority lies with education – from early childhood care to college funding. Howeve, he also sponsored the Clean Energy Act of 2010, which would have supported research into nuclear energy and other forms of renewable power. Based on this, I think he is highly likely to support the Clean Chemicals Act of 2011. Because of his interest in education, especially public education, I would definitely try to start a conversation by talking to him about my school.

For the post part, my representatives and the people on the bill's committee look like they'll support it. However, the opponents of the bill look quite immovable: Toomey, with whom I have very little in common, and the various Senators who are strongly opposed to the bill and do not have any reason to listen to some girl from Pennsylvania.

(from Toomey's campaign website)

In the end, my topic found me: I was reading Scientific American, and spotted a brief article about the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 (PDF here), a bill that would act to control the dangerous chemicals that so often show up in everyday items. The act, introduced by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, would give the Environmental Protection Agency more freedom – and responsibility – to test and regulate chemicals. Currently, under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, the EPA has little power over industry's use of chemicals.

As I researched the Safe Chemicals Act, I found a group, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, which strongly supports the bill. The describe themselves as "a nationwide effort to pass smart federal policies that protect us from toxic chemicals". They are pushing hard for reform on the Toxic Substance Control Act, and think that the proposed Safe Chemicals Act would be a major improvement. They want to "hold industry responsible for the safety of their chemicals and products".

The American Chemistry Council is perhaps less enthusiastic, but not against the bill. According to a statement by President and CEO Cal Dooley, the ACC is "strongly aligned on the need to modernize the 35-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act." However, they believe that Lautenberg's proposal "contained provisions that would not have produced the benefits intended by its authors" and "could put American innovation and jobs at risk."

I believe that the Safe Chemicals Act would be a step forward. According to the article in Scientific American, "even extremely low levels of some environmental contaminants may have significant damaging effects on our bodies." This is a serious risk, and I believe that the health and safety of all citizens should be a high priority for the government.

1. Come

2. Come más

3. Pota

Click here to view the Googlesites website that Marina Stuart and I created. The annotated bibliography is on that website, along with the story that Marina wrote on the main page and the additional informational pages that both of us wrote together. The videos that I made are embedded in the website, but can also be watched here: