Preventing Dictator Trump: Judicial Review and Separation of Powers

An important principle of our constitution that set ups our government is that of separation of powers. It is a part of checks and balances. Separation of powers has always been a hot topic especially in the Supreme Court. It keeps our government running smoothly. It helps determine the jurisdiction of each branch of government. In order to understand the separation of powers, you have to understand Judicial Review. In middle and high school history the concept of separation of powers and judicial review is taught. Mainly because it’s on the regents. Many students sort of zone out on it because it’s not all that interesting. Once again I want to take two Supreme Court cases and review them. After briefly reviewing each, I want to put some modern context on the separation of powers and judicial review. Let’s just say when an election rolls around with a controversial president being elected, my mind goes to thinking about how the constitution allows for checks and balances that keeps our democratic president from becoming a dictator. It’s really petty to blame the election results on Russia or voter fraud. A choice was made and we should deal with it by invoking the constitution. Without further or do, I want to present Marbury vs. Madison.

Marbury vs. Madison was decided by the court in 1803 by the Marshall Court. It was unanimous decision. Now you might remember some of the facts of case from high-school. If you don’t then I suggest you read up on it here. Like usual, I want to skip directly to the questions of the case and the majority opinion. The court had to decide whether or not the officers had the right to go court over the commissions and  whether or not Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was valid? The court held that because Adams had signed the commissions they were legal and should have been given out despite Jefferson’s order to not give them out. They also voided Section 13 of the Judiciary Act because it interfered with Article 3 section 2 of the constitution. The Court had an obligation to uphold the constitution over the congressional law. Here was what the Judiciary Act, section 13 says :

That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction. And shall have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or exercise consistently with the law of nations; and original, but not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul, or vice consul, shall be a party. And the trial of issues in fact in the Supreme Court, in all actions at law against citizens of the United States, shall be by jury. The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after specially provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States. [NOTE:  Text in bold of particular relevance to Marbury v. Madison. (Source, here)

The Court invalidated the last part of this law in favor of the constitution.  The constitution goes against the Judiciary Act, more specifically Article 3, Section 2:

The judicial branch has jurisdiction over any case involving: 

  • The US constitution, the laws of the United States laws, treaties, or any cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.

This particular quote is what the Supreme Court cited as their jurisdiction to hear Marbury’s case. Marbury essentially tried to argue for a broader Supreme Court jurisdiction. The Judiciary Act would have allowed that if not for the constitution’s strict view what the Supreme Court is allowed to do. Marbury vs. Madison was the first case to strike out part of a congressional law. Its become known as judicial review. This is only the first case of it, comes up again years later in the Dred Scott decision. (another blog post)

I want to go over just one more case before I bring it into a modern context. I think that one of the most interesting Supreme Court cases is McCulloch vs. Maryland. If you want to read the facts, then click here. The McCulloch vs. Maryland is not so much about judicial review but it does establish an important pecking order within our government. You may have heard of federalism. This is a case that shows what federalism. In this case, a uanimous decision was made that the state of Maryland could not tax the federal government. The question the court had to answer was simply one of federalism. Congress legally created a bank and Maryland tried to pass a bill to tax it. The court found on the basis of the 9th amendment (see my last post) or the enumerated powers amendment. The court set the precedent that federal government has constitutional power over the states. The federal government is allowed to establish banks because of the 9th amendment and the states can’t tax it because its a constitutional function. This is monumentally important case especially with the civil war later in the century. (case was decided 1819)

Marbury vs. Madison gave the Supreme Court the power to strike out congressional laws that are unconstitutional. McCulloch vs. Maryland gave the federal government the priority over constitutional functions within the states. So why are these cases so important today?  I alluded to the controversial election in the beginning of the post. I believe these two cases give the people some hope that President Trump won’t become Dictator Trump. Obviously, he has a favorable Congress and he might even get a favorable Supreme Court pending a successful nomination. But Trump and Congress still have to follow the constitution. In the end, the Supreme Court has a duty to uphold it. So no matter what happens with Trump, I think the separation of powers and judicial review will keep him in check.

Let’s quickly for example, take President Obama and his presidency. Obama’s biggest accomplishment (depends on how you look at it, failure is more accurate) is Obamacare or the Affordable Health Care Act. It was a very controversial becuase it mandated that everyone get healthcare or pay a fine. Parts of it went to the Supreme Court to be decided if they were constitutional. Some parts of it were unconstitutional and others remained. In my opinion there wasn’t enough struck down. However, I think that knowing that obviously unconstituional laws will be struck down is comforting. Nobody saw Trump getting elected. I think we all gotta have a little faith

This definitely won’t be the end of this topic, it went a little longer than I wanted but I hope to revisit it soon.  Thanks for reading!

 

Citations:

Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech. “McCulloch v. Maryland.” Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/17us316 (accessed December 12, 2016).

Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech. “Marbury v. Madison.” Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137 (accessed December 12, 2016).

 

Advertisements

Police Violence and Racial Tensions: War Intensifies

The past events of this week have brought the racial tension and police hatred to a fever pitch. The protest of police shootings has led to retaliation by the same people who feel oppressed.  The amount of death and destruction caused by this police versus colored people is absolutely unnecessary and unfathomable. It is unfortunate that police had to shoot and kill two black men. It’s unfortunate that 5 officers had to die in Dallas because of those same police shootings. Nobody should be dying from unnecessary violence. Not black people, Not police officers. I am beyond mortified by these events and the coming war that will only get worse unless we act to remedy the real problems that exist. This post is not a political grandstand nor is it an attempt to cover up or dilute the loss of life, no matter what color skin.

The first problem is obviously the social construct that is racism. People often forget that racism isn’t just limited towards black people but all people can experience it. It is accepted that black or colored people often face racism in common everyday situations. Unfortunately there are no laws or rules that we can make to fix racism. Racism is born out of our history. America was a slave holding nation in the beginning and after the civil war that same distinction that slaves had become the stigma of colored people. The racist ideas about colored people have never died only adapted over time. Now we see it in voting laws, education, police matter, and much more. Racism has one fix. It starts with you and me. In our everyday lives, we need to treat everyone fairly regardless of skin color. If you are in a position of power then judge people strictly on merit and character. Most importantly, encourage others to do the same.

The second problem is retorhic  of political nature. What I mean by this is that politicians especially liberals and President Obama tend to talk negatively about police. Yet at the same time they pass policies that hurt those people they say they want to help. The rehortic of gun control is also damaging to police and people who carry guns. The same people who want to ban guns are the same people who trust the police with guns. We need to stop talking and start doing something. President Obama does almost nothing but side with the victims. He gives no objective or constructive input on any of the situations that occur with gun violence by police or criminals. It’s unfortunate that the liberal media demonize guns and black people then it makes police shootings seem that much worse. The problem with talk is that its cheap. Politian need to shut up and maybe do something constructive to help mitigate this violence.

Now I want to look at what is not a problem and some possible solutions. It does no good to try to pick a side or try to sympathize with either of the victims. One thing that clearly isn’t problem is guns. There is no getting around the fact that guns will always get into the wrong hands. It happens and always will. We don’t need gun control just need to regulate who gets the guns. I have said this before, we need psychological evaluations every year just like a car inspection. Along with a yearly background check this will combat the number of people who get guns who might be a risk to shoot up some place.

Unfortunately there are limited solutions in tears of laws and rules. But one possible way to quell police shootings is through some stricter protocol of when an officer is actually allowed to pull the trigger. I personally know an NYPD cop. He and I have had conversations about police shootings. One of things that he told me was that officers are typically trained to go on their instinct. If they don’t feel safe then they are allowed to draw their weapon. I think officers should probably be trained to only pull the trigger if there is an absolute and immediate threat to their well-being. Such as if a suspect draws a gun themselves or another deadly weapon. The addition of body cams could help make sure that the officer actually does follow protcol. For me, I am just as concerned for the person who is being pursued by police as the police officer.

Another thing is make gun laws nationwide. The second  amendment guarantees the right to bears no matter what. Unify the gun laws so police know that in every town, county, city and state have the same laws. This way police can act accordingly. If every non-felon who has passed a psychological  evaluation year has gun than its fine. Another important thing if you do have a gun and the police ask you to identify where, then you should comply. The basic concept is that as long as you cooperate you shouldn’t need to worry about getting shot by police whether your white, black or any other color. However, on the flip side if you don’t comply then police should have a right to draw their gun. If you try to touch your gun then I would say they have to right to shoot. Its only fair.

If we don’t make changes to our justice system or to our social constructs this violence will only get worse. Its even worse because the two presidential candidates are totally blind to causes of this violence. Its never been white vs. black or police vs. black. All of these supposed rivals are human beings. We have set up these battles for political gain  or personal gain. This is not a new thing. We need to fix the laws accordingly and be more understanding of other’s struggles. Sadly, only a few people grasp the reality of this violence. The political policies of the democrats and republicans have only made the racism and wealth gap larger. Its no secret that the elites wants to battle each other. Look up Gender 21 or George Soros. Look up the Illumati. Look up who owns most of the world’s money. Its only about 300 families. People need to wake up. If we let these tragedies  control our emotions then we let the government take away more of our rights. Its a vicious cycle.

Just to remember to respect people of other races and respect the police, because like everyone else they have a job to do. Thanks for reading!

The post 9/11 Narrative vs.The past 50 years of American Foreign Policy

The post 9/11 Narrative vs. The past 50 years of American Foreign Policy is a very long title for a blog post. However, let me explain in this opening paragraph why the title must be so long. I’ve written about 9/11 on this blog once before on the 14th anniversary last September. I wrote briefly about why it happened and the effects. I also recounted my personal experiences. The reason for this post is not necessarily about 9/11 but about the circumstances that were created afterwards. Just yesterday, ISIS sent suicide bombers to an airport in Belgium.The whole world has responded in horror and sadness. Yet another case of innocent people dying because of extremists. The 9/11 attack is an example of a bigger narrative, or more accurately its the effects of 50 years of misguided or mislead policies by the US and Europe. The post 9/11 narrative is one that can be used to predict how all terrorist attacks will be handle in the future. First, I want to explain the narrative and what it entails. Second, I want to briefly touch on some key moments in American foreign policy dating back to the 1950s. The 50 years in the title refers to the 50 years before 9/11. The last thing  is to bring all these narratives and histories together by presenting in terms of the attack on Belgium and how the US has handled it.

After 9/11 occurred, there was a lot of things happening in the US. As a nation we came together and united unlike any other time in our history. The exception being Pearl Harbor. The mourning for the loss of the thousands of innocent lives started. The most important changes within the US came in the form of policies. The US traded freedom for security. Security was tighten everywhere, football games, baseball games, events, airports, borders…etc. The US government passed the controversial patriot act which allowed the NSA to spy on the American.The US government created the TSA for airport security. At the time, President George W. Bush decided in 2003 to combine many of the departments that handled elements of security to Homeland Security. He put all the CIA, FBI, Department of Defense under one roof. In that same year, Congress easily voted to invade Afghanistan and later Iraq. Even New York City stepped up its police force and made stricter rules regarding safety on its public transportation. Now there is two cops on every other block in Manhattan.

Things changed for good. Today we still see these things as normal. The most telling action that occurred during this time was the start of the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars were not started because either country had attacked the US directly. Afghanistan was under rule by the Taliban. Iraq was under rule by Saddam Hussein. It was supposed that attack mastermind Osama Bin Laden was hiding out in Afghanistan so in retaliation for the attacks. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein was allegedly hiding weapons of mass destruction. It turned out to be untrue.Both wars created a very important policy for the future. Aptly named the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine is a policy that uses preventive measures and preempted invasions or interventions to prevent future terrorist attacks. The Bush Doctrine has been used in countries such as Libya, Syria, Iran (Iran deal is preventive), and Egypt.

The post 9/11 narrative is partly the Bush Doctrine. The other part is political rhetoric. To justify these wars and acts to prevent terrorism, the politicians warned that terrorist did not like our way of live. They didn’t like that we had freedoms. The terrorist hate democracy. So in the name of freedom and democracy the American people were tricked into trading freedoms for security. But ask yourself, are we really safer? Now lets turn our attention to some of the events leading of up to 9/11.

The first event leading towards the creation of terrorist groups in the middle east is set in the 1950s. Iran was happy being ruled by a democratic government. President Eisenhower decided to have the CIA overthrow Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and replace him with the Shah (Mohammed Reza Pahlavi). Iran went from being a democracy to a dictatorship. Why? It was a deal with Britain to take control over the oil supply for British and American oil companies. Iran would has not forgotten about this overthrow. Eisenhower was not done in the middle east either. He defend Egypt from attack by the Israeli’s and French over the Suez Canal. Unfortunately, it helped a dictator stay in power. This strongly affected many countries in the middle east because of Eisenhower actions it set up trouble later on.

Ronald Reagan also did some damage in the middle east. Starting with the bombing of Libya in 1986. Muammar Gaddafi was still in power at that time, and a bomb exploded in Berlin killing some Americans. The tensions between the US and Libya were already high. Reagan also sold weapons to the Iranian rebels. The Iran-Contra scandal was the result. These small but meaningful events all helped to contribute to instability in the middle east. Also in the 1980s during the Soviet Afghanistan war, the US backed the rebels of Afghanistan against the Soviets. They supplied leaders like Osama Bin Laden with weapons.

Now we are back in 2016. The attacks on Belgium and the advanced security of the US is in full force. President Obama said:

“The thoughts and prayers of the American people are with the people of Belgium. We stand in solidarity with them in condemning these outrageous attacks against innocent people. We will do whatever is necessary to support our friend and ally Belgium in bringing to justice those who are responsible and this is yet another reminder that the world must unite, we must be together regardless of nationality or race or faith, in fighting against the scourge of terrorism.

“We can and we will defeat those who threaten the safety and security of people all around the world”.

Hillary Clinton said:

“We face an adversary that is constantly adapting and operating across multiple theaters,” she said. “Our response must be just as nimble and far reaching. We need to reinforce the alliances that have been pillars of American power for decades.”

As you can see both these quotes put the weigh of defense on preventive measures. They both insist that America will be going to war. I could find a lot of quotes with similar sediments. The post 9/11 narrative of Bush Doctrine is still at work even today. American politicians are obsessed with fighting terrorists. I think its because they have the perfect justification for it, democracy and freedom. The choices previously made by the US government to intervene in middle east affairs over oil or disputes has been wrecking havoc today. The problem is not what many candidates or President’s suggest, its not that America is defense-less or lacks the ability. Its not that Europe hasn’t beefed up its security. Its that we have meddled in other countries business and disrupted the natural order.

I believe that terrorists are religious extremists and that they use fear and coercion to lead governments into retaliation. The terrorists don’t care what type of government or anything like that. They only see the non-believers in their sect of religious beliefs. If you can’t make people comply with reason then you go to killing and terrorism. The US government would be smart to realize that America has the defense resources and it could make the coalitions necessary to defeat these terrorists.The problem is we shouldn’t be attacking. We should be defending. Diplomatically, we pose a truce and try to work out the problems. However, if any terrorist decide to attack then we will be ready to push them back. This whole post is basically what the political science world calls an example of blowback. Blowback is a term used to described retaliation over actions between countries or groups.

I hope that this post clears up some of the misconceptions about terrorism. Terrorism is notoriously hard to stop. There is no clear solution. Just remember to keep alert. Be safe.

Thanks for reading!

2016 New Year, Same old politics.

It is now 2016 and it is the election year. Donald Trump is still leading the polls for the Republican party. Hillary Clinton still leads the Democratic Party for the nomination. Interestingly, the political race has not changed much. With the Iowa causcas coming up in a month or so the stakes for the race to the nomination are heating up. The purpose of this particular post is to recap some ideas about the political race and some insights on what is going on with certain issues. Instead of speculating who may win or who has a better chance, I want to focus on the issues. Statistics and precedents can predict the winners. The winner will obviously become the leader of the free world with the power to influence and create policy. People tend to forget the President is merely a policy creator and influencer. His actual job description is to enforce the law that Congress writes. The executive branch must execute the laws. This seems simple on the surface but in reality, the complexity of issues and the lack of bipartisanship on the part of congress makes a President’s job much harder.  Conservative critics of President

Obama accuse him of using too many executive orders to avoid going through Congress. On the one hand, they have a point because Congress is supposed to pass the laws not the President. On the other hand, President Obama cannot work with Congress because of various extreme views within both parties. The executive order most recently used by Obama was for gun control. A controversial subject and order. I thought it was neccessary and the correct path until Congress decides to act. Let’s face it, background checks don’t obscure the individual right to own a gun. This is especially true if said individual is a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record or psychological affects. 

One hot topic that usually decides elections is the economy. The economy usually includes job creation, minimum wage and corporate taxes. The clear divide between a conservative and liberal policy is simple as lower corporate taxes and minimum wage to encourage job growth versus higher minimum wage and corproate taxes, respectively. There is nothing wrong with minimum wage in principle is a good regulation to keep wages from bottoming out. However, if raised artifically the minimum wage can adversely effect the economy and job market. The democratic party believes in a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage.  I believe that this is a misguided raise. Raising wages without using the market value as a guide is just stupid. I have said this numerous times in numerous ways that the it will end up increasing poverty and decreasing jobs. Common sense will dictate that a person who works at a fast food establishment should not be paid as much as some who works in bachelors degree position. Its not fair to that college graduate who paid at least 30 to 100 grand to attend an university. Another effect of artifcally raising minimum wage is that prices and cost of living will also rise with it. I really wish I could tell the Democratic candidates how dumb they sound.

Another hot button topic is healthcare. Obamacare is just an expensive mess that happens to insure people at an unaffordable and unsustainable rate. The simple fix for Obamacare is get it out of the government’s hands. Allow free competition among health insurance companies. The free competition will help lower prices because the best companies will have the MOST business. Obamacare is primarily a government run organization that picks the winners and losers rather than the market. For those who cannot afford insurance, cut some other useless government programs that cost money and use that money to subidize a strict bracket of uninsured. Once again, this is where conservatives want to repeal but I haven’t heard of a good plan to actually replace it. I think that my recommendation takes a part of the idea of obamacare but makes it better.

My last topic is college education debt. I recently recieved a call from Sallie Mae to repay my loans. (Its a struggle to pay for anything with no job) Fortunately all presidential candidates are putting forward plans to help reduce student debt. One program that New York State has just come out with is Get on Your Feet. I am in the process of signing up. It pays for your loans for two years. Its pretty good. However, what worries me is that these programs are costing taxpayer money. So what I would like to see is where is the money coming from? I feel like some tweaking to certain sections of budget could easily pay for college debt. For example, the military budget could be cut a little bit. The largest military spending budget in the world. I’ve heard college debt is approximately 1-2 billion. Consider that our military budget is about 600 billion to 800 billion. So just imagine if the government would hold the military accountable and cut about 5 percent that could fund healthcare, social security and college debt. Also we could still crust ISIS or anyone else. I actually go against conservatives because they would love to increase military but its not necessary anymore. We need to protect our borders and not worry too much about everyone else.

I hope you enjoyed my two cents. I am waiting in earnest for the nomination winners and looking forward to the debates that will come betweeen them. Those debates are usually the most interesting. Right now, I think Rubio will end up with the nomination for the Republicans. Despite Trump’s strong poll, he is not backed by establishment. Right now in the liberal camp, I think that Hillary Clinton will win. Clinton is the establishment democrat.  Should be interesting to see what happens. Stay tuned as I will update periodically.

Debates, Candidates and Polls

The third Republican Debate is coming soon on October 28th on CNBC. The amount of candidates still in the running will force a JV debate to occur once again. I came across a few interesting pieces on FiveThirtyEight. One of these highlights who might be in the JV debate or who may not make it. It seems that Lindsey Graham may not make it to the debate stage at all.

CANDIDATE CNBC’S POLL AVERAGE FOR THE DEBATE
Donald Trump 23.8%
Ben Carson 18.7
Carly Fiorina 9.5
Marco Rubio 9.3
Jeb Bush 8.3
Ted Cruz 7.2
Mike Huckabee 3.5
Chris Christie 3.2
John Kasich 3.2
Rand Paul 3.0
Rick Santorum 0.7
Bobby Jindal 0.5
George Pataki 0.3
Jim Gilmore 0.0
Lindsey Graham 0.0

These are the polling numbers as averaged by CNBC. The rules for this debate are that you need to have at least one percent in of the national polls.  Jim Gilmore and Lindsey Graham both have big zeros. I have never heard of Jim Gilmore. So who cares? However, Lindsey Graham seem to perform strong in the last debate.  So I am a little surprised that he might fall off the debate stage. (Not literally) I just want to comment on how interesting this chart actually is.  It shows a good rundown of each candidate is doing. Of course, Trump is leading with Carson trailing by about 5 points.  My horse (candidate) in the race is doing good old 3 percent. Typical for a libertarian conservative.  Unfortunately, the best candidates aren’t even close to the top. Moving on…

I found another interesting piece on fivethirtyeight call “Stop Comparing Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders”. I recommend reading it. The quick summary of it is that Trump will not have staying power or experience to win a republican nomination. Meanwhile, Sanders is a veteran of politics and has a better staff and more experience. They also point out that Trump is going up against a large field of candidates. Bernie only has one to two opponents, one being Hillary Clinton. If Joe Biden were to run then he would have two. It’s a really interesting narrative to look at despite the vast differences.

I think that the author, Nate Sliver is correct in saying that they should be compared. However, despite their huge differences in one-one political experience, they are microcosms of their respective parties. Let’s first take Bernie Sanders. Sanders is a self proclaimed Socialist. He votes democratic on nearly on bill. He is a Washington insider being a senator since 1991.  He has been in politics his whole life. The democratic offers much of the same with each candidate. If you look at Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or even some of the other candidates they all have years of political experience. This is what the democratic party is basically brought to the election. Now contrast their candidate profiles against the profiles of the leading Republican candidates.  Donald Trump is a business man. Never run an election campaign. Trump has never been in politics. He is an outsider. The same could be said for second place Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina. All the candidates with political experience like Jeb, Cruz, Rubio, and Paul are all failing to get voter traction.

Of course, this a generalization of all candidates so its bound to have inaccuracies. But my point is that each party is aiming something different with the candidates put forward. It seems to me that typically the parties will go against in each other or in the opposite direction. Republicans want an outsider to win the Presidency. Democrats want an insider to win the Presidency. As a libertarian, I see that their both after the same thing, control. It doesn’t matter who becomes President from what party because either way its given that congress will be elected mostly in the opposite party.

I have talked about Congress and their ability to stop bills from making any progress. Congress also makes the government seemingly non-productive. People always wonder why President Obama turns to executive actions? Congress refuses to help him pass anything. So in a way I can’t blame Obama for using executive orders. (although I may disagree with the laws that are passed) I think that regardless of who wins this election, we should really look at congress. I can only hope that if an republican gets elected that their will be a republican controlled congress and vice versa. Otherwise I believe that things will continue to be as they are.

Let’s face the reality that comparing Sanders and Trump may be futile as many doubt they will get the nomination. Not to say that Sanders cannot overcome Clinton. Also not saying that Trump could gain staying power. Stranger things have happened in elections.

***

I always look forward to these debates. I remember last election watching Obama and Mitt Romney debate. I thought it was the most intellectually entertaining event. Right now, I feel like the Republican debates are just a circus because of sheer number of candidates. So I’m hoping that maybe a few will drop out between now and next year. Its hard to make good predictions and comparisons with so many candidates. Its also hard to gauge who is doing good and bad. I found that with the dem debate it was easier to see who was doing well and who was falling on their face. Also a smaller number of candidates means more focus on issues. (With Republicans this is a shaky point)

***

Looking to do a historical piece about an past election. Obviously it will require some research. So keep on the look out for it. I want to see if theres any historical precedent for this election. With 44 presidents there has been a lot of races. If you have any suggestions on what I should write then drop me a line gsmit006@plattsburgh.edu.

Thanks for Reading!!!!