Congress Terms | Quizalize

Legislative Structure: Congress -- two houses: Senate (2 senators from each state, 6 year terms, must be at least 30 years old and have been a citizen for at least nine years) -- Constitution originally allowed state legislatures to choose the two senators but now elected by popular vote House of Representatives (number based on population of state, determined every ten years in a census -- number now set at 435; 2 year terms, must be at least 25 years old and have been a citizen for 7 years) Legislative Powers: Makes the laws -- any senator or representative can propose a bill -- if majority in one house favors it, bill goes to other house for debate -- if approved by both -- goes to the president to be signed into law -- President can veto any proposed law but can then be overruled if there is a two thirds majority in both houses favoring the law Elastic Clause -- can make all laws “necessary and proper” to carry out its other powers Only the House of Representatives can propose new taxes Only Congress can decide on how to spend the money raised through taxes Power to raise (pay for) an army and navy To declare war Approves treaties and executive appointments -- Senate How was the debate over how the president should be chosen resolved? The Electoral College System -- made up of electors who cast votes to elect the president and vice-president every four years Each state has as many electors in the Electoral College as the number of senators and reps it sends to Congress. The votes cast by electors are called electoral votes. Delegates left the method of choosing electors up to each state. Before 1820, state legislatures chose electors in most states. Today, people choose their state’s electors when they vote in presidential elections. The electors then cast their ballots for president and vice-president on a date chosen by Congress. Today must win at least 270 of the 538 total electoral votes

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

THE BATTLE OF THE PHILIPPINE SEA Occured in the Philippine Sea and Marinas The battle engaged the bulk of thepagan American forces, and prevented the Japanese from reinforcing, their fleet in the •Marianas. •A month after, the Japanese LOST THEIR 4 best aircraft carriers in the Battle of Midway, an island northwest of Pearl "Harbor. 1. The Batle of the Philipine Sea lasted just one day June 19- June 20 1944 3. is also called the "Marianas Turkey Shoot” The Battle of the Coral Sea The Coral Sea is Between New Guinea and Australia The Japanese Were Trying to Attack Australia! The U.S. Navy and the Japanese Navy Fought! Nobody Won! U.S. Was Able to STOP the Attack on Australia! (Victory!) The American fleet defeated the Japanese. American planes bombarded Japanese installation in Manila from the air. Air strikes were also carried out in the Visayas. Battle of Okinawa: Battle Details The attack on Okinawa took heavy toll on both sides of the fighting... The Americans lost 7,373 men killed and 32,056 wounded on land. At sea, the Americans lost 5,000 killed and 4,600 wounded. The Japanese lost 107,000 killed and 7,400 men taken prisoner. The Japanese may have lost another 20,000 dead as a result of American tactics whereby Japanese troops were incinerated where they fought. The Americans also lost 36 ships. 368 ships were also damaged. 763 aircraft were destroyed. The Japanese lost 16 ships sunk and over 4,000 aircraft were lost. battle facts -the japanese launched fierce kamikaze attacks l-arge amouunts of civillian deaths -japanese soldiers using civilians as human shields Americans ended with more triumphs in the battles like in: General MacArthur and the Allies next turned to the Island of Iwo Jima The island was critical to the Allies as a base for an attack on Japan It was called the most heavily defended spot on earth Allied and Japanese forces suffered heavy casualties IWO JIMA American soldiers plant the flag ol the Island of Iwo Jima after their victory Battle of Leyte Gulf "Second Battle of the Philippine Sea". Time: October 23 - 26, 1944 during WW. Location: Leyte Gulf in Philippines (East coast), Philippine islands of Leyte, Samar, and Luzon. Largest naval battle in WWII. Leyte was secured and was liberated from the hands of the Japanese Americans decided to launch their attack in Leyte since the weak side of the Japanese fleet was in Visayas. Heavy bombing at the Leyte beaches cleared the way for the landing in Palo, Leyte. Leading the American troops were General Douglas MacArthur and President Osmeña, who took over after the death of President Quezon in Saranak Lake in New York. the battle for the liberation of manila The commonwealth government capital was transferred from tacloban to Manila. Manila once again became the seat of the national leadership. ON july 4, 1945, general macarthur announced the total liberation of the Philippines • The Commonwealth government capital was transferred from Tacloban to Manila. Manila once again became the seat of the national leadership. On July 4, 1945, General MacArthur announced the total liberation of the Philippines. Americans surprised the Japanese with the landing of troops in Lingayen Gulf in Pangasinan. • The Filipino guerillas had already cleared the area and neutralized many of the Japanese forces. The first target was the UST, which was used by the Japanese as a camp for civilian prisoners of war, and they were able to free them. • More than 1000 POWs from Bataan and Corregidor were also freed from the Bilibid Prisons. • The battle of Manila was recorded as the fiercest urban fighting in the entire Pacific War. WATERLOO DAILY COURIER-NEWSPAPER “PEACE! WAR ENDS; JAPANESE ACCEPT ALLIED TERMS. ON EMPEROR" On August 6, due to persistent refusal of Japan to yield, another atomic bomb was dropped in the shipbuilding city of Nagasaki. On August 15, V-J Day (Victory in Japan), Emperor Hirohito finally admitted defeat and on September 3, 1945 the document of surrender was signed on board of the U.S. battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay. With the liberation of the Philippines, the Americar troops moved on to finally end the war in Asia. The Japanese cities of Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya and Kure were bombed. In July 26, the allies demanded surrender but the Japanese continued to hold on to their belief that surrender is a dishonor. Atomic bomb was dropped on the populous city of Hiroshima, 60% of the city was destroyed. It was estimated that there were more than 80 000 people died on the spot and more than 37 000 suffered severe injuries. Today, the HIROSHIMA SHRINE serves as a reminder of th horrors of war and the need to preserve PEACE in the world. THE POSTWAR PHILIPPINE COMMONWEALTH-• Philippine Commonwealth resumed. Osmeña was confronted with a war - ravaged country with no financial resources for PROBLEMS • Poverty • Destruction of Properties • Unemployment • Price Increase • Hoarding • Graft and Corruption HINDRANCES -Rehabilitation of INDUSTRIES COULD NOT BE DONE BECAUSE OF LACK OF FUND -RAILWAYS WERE DESTROYED THAT LED TO SLOW PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION SOLUTION -PCAU (Philippine Civil Affairs Unit) was established by MacArthur to provide emergency relief in areas liberated by the Americans. - It organized food distribution centers. CHALLENGES TO INDEPENDENCE • On April 30, 1946, the Philippine the US President. BIASED AGREEMENTS: Rehabilitation or the Tydings Act of 1946, passed by the US Congress, was approved by Commission • This Act created the US Philippine War Damage The Act also provided for the transfer of $100,000,000 surplus property of the United States to the Philippines. The Philippine Armed Forces received large quantities of valuable military equipment and supplies. BIASED AGREEMENTS: • The United States Congress offered $800 million for post World War Il rebuilding funds if the Bell Trade Act was ratified by the Philippine Congress Parity rights granting U.S. citizens and corporations rights to Philippine natural resources equal to (in parity with) those of Philippine citizens The Philippines used to celebrate its Independence Day on July 4, and not June 12, by virtue of the Truman Proclamation in 1946. In the early 1960s, however, the Philippine Historical Association lobbied to bring back June 12 as our Independence Day. In 1962, President Diosdado Macapagal issued a proclamation to make the change official. DECLARATION OF PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE • On July 4, 1946, the Americans granted independence to the Philippines.

Congress

Congress Bills and Resolutions

Congress dominance in the first three general elections

Congress Review

Congress 2

Related quizzes

Related quizzes