I put in some time researching the city officials that are in favor of implementing clean energy all over the city. I immediately stumbled across the Philadelphia Government Mayor's Office of Sustainability. It is a website devoted to Mayor Nutter's plans on making the city the number one clean city of the world. This included the Solar city partnership page. A pretty small page for something that's supposed to represent the entire city, or at least that's what i think. So i dug deeper and found the Greenwork Energy Word Press. Again it talks about Mayor Nutter and also other local and federal officials who celebrate the installation of the solar PV at the water pollution center. After digging a bit more I uncovered a handful of Facility Plant and Utilities Owners are in favor of green energy to their facilities. But few think about the surrounding cities itself. It was even claimed that the Philadelphia Water Department's Solar array could fuel 28 homes a year. Interesting. So i plan on contacting Nutter or even a secretary if possible and talk about our common interests in helping out the city. You know, the stuff that can't be found online.

Philadelphia City Officials

State Representative Tom Murt

State Representative Dennis O’Brien

State Representative John Taylor

City Council Brian O’Neill C

City Council Jack Kelly

City Council Frank Rizzo

City Commisioner Joseph Duda

 

Anna C. Verna, who is the president of the city council, became the first women in Philadelphia’s 300-year history to become the president of the city council. Verna is a one of the supports of tax reductions She always been a supporter of wage and business tax reductions and committed to public services. Anna C. Verna represents the 2^nd district in Philadelphia. According to Philadelphia’s City Council page, it claims Anna C. Verna fought for $6,000,000 in funding in the city’s operating budget for 100 more police officers and supports the idea of curfew. In December 2006, the council passed a bill that she strongly supported calling for $30,000,000 of the city’s surplus to be set aside for recreation, police and fire facilities. She’s going to make sure there is also money to improve public education.

 

 

 

Revolving door: When a elective official to leave his position as a means to transfer into a position to work as a lobbyist the same goes for the versa. This can be called a form of corruption. This is an issue because of the information passed through using this method.

Ex.

Laurence Lessig called people to challenge the presidential candidates to promise that they will only appoint FCC commissioners who promise not to work for those who have regulated for at least 5 years after their term is over. He issued that call-to-action after the GAO found that the FCC is providing information to lobbyist about upcoming meeting agenda. Basically FCC members were lobbying information a week before its public announcement.

David E. Jeremiah: 
While serving on the Defense Policy Board, which advises the Secretary of Defense (Donald H. Rumsfeld at the time) on military strategy, was hired by Boeing Company as a consultant while it was seeking Pentagon approval for a $20 billion contract for aerial refueling tankers. "An internal Boeing e-mail message indicated that the men, Adm. David Jeremiah, a retired vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a member of five corporate boards, and Gen. Ronald Fogleman, who retired from the Air Force, were to lobby Mr. Rumsfeld's office." 

Gill, Kathy. "The Revolving Door(and what can we do about it)."About.com. about.com/guide, Oct/18/07. Web. 24 Oct 2011. <http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2007/10/18/the-revolving-door-and-what-we-can-do-about-it.htm>.

 

For Phase Two of my Lobbying Project, I found that since I live in district 3 of the city, Jannie L. Blackwell is my city council representative. I found that she has been an advocate the youth and underprivileged kids since she has been appointed. She has tons of experience in politics and has helped build relationships between communities. Her own interests and focus lies within the community. Her ultimate goal is to help make Philadelphia better as a whole. Since she suceded Lucien Blackwell in 1992, she has been the voice of the youth that cannot speak up for themselves and tries to support them in anyway. Just yesterday, a city wide curfew had been passed into law for minors that are out past certain times. She was the only one who voted against it along with many people in the city.
Another one of the people in legislation that I can talk to is Mayor Nutter. He is a prominent supporter of PYPM and sees just ow influencial PYPM really is. He has high hopes for this non-profit and for our success in our lives. He felt truly touched by how this group of young people can come together and be creative, feel safe, feel comfortable, and share their ideas, thoughts, and etc.


This is Jannie Blackwell



This is Mayor Nutter

 

My lobbying topic is based on curfew and the consequences that come along with it if someone doesn’t obey what needs to be done. I want to do this as my lobbying topic because those who believe that curfew doesn’t matter is messing up the fun for those who choose to be out late be can act responsibly. I also don’t believe that is fair that the parents have to pay a fee for the child that is being picked up for curfew. If not fair to those who are actually not flashing mobbing, but just hanging out have a good normal time. Just because every cop or adult wants to believe that every child is not out causing trouble, shouldn’t stop those who have self -control. I know this interest me the most because I’m 18 but all my friends are not, so some of our plans can even be followed through.

The supporters for this lobbying idea I believe should be the positives young adults that simply feel the same way. However they people who would be against this, would be cops and probably other adults who believes that these kids are only out here to start trouble. Then other people that will be against this is the children that are actually apart of the flash mob and feel differently about what should be done. I really believe something should be done because it’s not fair to the children who are being label as someone bad and they are actually being a positive individual.

The case I am talking about today is Judulang v. Holder. In this case the United Stats wants to remove a lawful permanent resident who has lived here since 1974, because he was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in 1989. The main thing they reference is the former section 212© of the Immigration and Nationality Act 8, which allows a noncitizen to come into the country even with a criminal conviction. But ever since a case called Francis v. INS made section 212© able to be used for lawful permanent residents and non citizens trying to get into the country. But when congress felt that they needed change, in 1996 they repealed section 212© but made it so that anyone who would've been able to get it at the time can still use section 212© to their advantage. Since Judulang was convicted in 1989 and he met the requirement for section 212©.  For some reason the immigration denied the wavier and told Judulang he had to leave the country. The board of Immigration and the ninth circuit(which also handles immigration) agreed with the board of immigration. This could mean anybody in Judulangs' situation would not be eligible from removal when convicted.

The constitutional question that comes into play here is one that it seems like a lot of people in the court and outside of the court are confused about and that is the tenth amendment. The tenth amendment is the amendment that so closely deals with immigration but when I researched more the constitution never discusses immigration it brings in the concept of immigration. Also to clarify the tenth says that this would be a state problem to deal with so I don't entirely know why this case is being challenged on the grounds of the constitution.

The main argument that Judulang had was that before the ruling by the BIA in 2005 in Matter of Blake and Matter of Brieva-Perez, he or any lawful permanent resident could apply for relief for any conviction even one such as voluntary manslaughter. He tried to get the law rationally reviewed under the Equal Protection clause but could not. He also says that when they ruled and change their practices it was contradictory and represents a retroactive change in the law.

The only real arguments that the U.S. made in this case were that section 212© relief is only available when there is a similarity between the reason they are being deported and the reason they are being removed. They also tried to invalidate his case against the board showing a change in law and that it should be reviewed.

I am almost sure that this case will go in favor Judulang because the U.S. has minimal success in convincing the supreme court justices of anything and also the supreme justices seem to ask questions that seem look in favor of Judulang.