Andrea's Current Event

The Northwood High School girls' basketball team of Pittsboro, North Carolina is upset with their school's Nuthouse (equivalent to our Red Sea) for being sexist. The girls on the basketball team complain that the Nuthouse only attends boys' sports, and the one game they attended was last year's fourth round playoff game, where the students showed up in the third quarter and just sat down instead of cheering. Also, the boys' basketball team always has the later games and later practice times, meaning more fans at the games and their team being able to practice however long they want.

The girls and coach of the Northwood High School understand that the school is meeting all the requirements for Title IV, but they wish there was a way to change the school's culture of supporting boys' teams over girls'.

Do you see this issue at Hudson High? Since this issue is technically not infringing upon Title IV, what could the school do to try and fix this problem?

Laura F's Current Event: Reproductive Rights

The Next Roe V. Wade? Jennie McCormack's Abortion Battle; Unwed, unemployed, mother of three, Jennie McCormack aborted her 18-21 week old fetus by taking RU-486, otherwise known as the abortion pill. McCormack then took the fetus and put it in box on her front porch, was later arrested that night. McCormack having no car and no computer had no way of reaching the nearly fifty mile away clinic willing to perfom the abortion. McCormack had her sister order the pill online, costing $200 and delivered it to McCormack's house. In Idaho, where this all took place, it is against the law for a woman to induce her own abortion, but it is legal for her to take the abortion pill if administrated by a doctor either through an appointement or prescription. The sentence is up to five years in prison. McCormack's case is similar to 'Roe v. Wade' in the way that the outcome of her case will change the country's view on the abortion wars.

Original Link

Do you think Idaho's law on inducing one's own abortion is unconstitutional? Why or why not?

Homework Assignment - Due Tuesday 12/20 by 10:30 AM

Hi folks,

Here's the assignment:

Answer the question below - which is an essential question and therefore intentionally broad and open-ended - in a paragraph that is detailed and through. This activity is intended to be a brainstorming exercise, so make sure you are offering up new ideas in your response and not simply repeating what others have already said. Also, do not feel like you need to respond directly to what others have said; in fact, for this assignment I prefer you read the other responses simply for the sake of making sure you are not repeating ideas and to get inspiration for you to come up with your own. My goal is to get the class to consider all the various elements we have studied in the unit, including politics and law (legislative acts, court cases, protests, and elections, for example), social issues (marriage and reproductive rights, for example) professional opportunities (hiring, promotion, and pay equity, for example) and problems such as gender violence, body image, and media representations. This is not an exhaustive list and I encourage you to use other evidence, including examples from the literature we have studied, what you learned during the multi-genre project fair, and materials from lectures.

Okay, here's the question:

What has been the changing role of women throughout American history?

You have until Tuesday 12/20 at 10:30 AM to complete this assignment.

Have a great weekend!

Mike's Current Event

My article was about an advocacy group in New York that accused Obama and his administration of making decisions based about politics instead of scientific studies. Obama's administration just recently vetoed the idea of having girls 16 and under to have access to emergency contraceptives without a prescription. In the past, the FDA did scientific research about this and decided that it is okay for girls 16 and under to purchase emergency contraceptives like Plan-B over the counter. Knowing this, Obama's administration still decided to veto this.


I found a source, (http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/barack-obama/11/abortion-and-birth-control/16/), that stated that Obama strongly supported keeping abortion legal, and also supports emergency contraceptives. If Obama supports emergency contraceptives, there would be no reason for him and his administration to veto this. In a related article, it said, "Critics assert that Sebelius' decision was intended to avert a bruising political battle over parental control and contraception during a presidential election season." (Sebelius is Obama's top health official who was also involved in the decision) This is the argument that the advocacy group is making; that if Obama's administration vetoed this, even though Obama strongly believes in emergency contraceptives and abortion, it must be because he is making his decision based on his own political benefits, instead of the scientific research that was done.


If Obama supports the right to an abortion and emergency contraceptives, do you think the decision by Obama's administration to veto the FDA's ruling to allow Plan-B was based strictly on political reasons? What do you think some other reasons could be for the veto?
In your opinion, should the Plan-B contraceptive be available over the counter to girls 16 and under? Why or Why not?


Sources:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ny_advocacy_group_slams_obama_on_40OLhA9PzY8OwB4o0c333O

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bloomberg_criticizes_health_sec_fbbum2lW7EFYCV62vXsgkJ

http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/barack-obama/11/abortion-and-birth-control/16/

Kevin Downing's Current Event

Hello, I'm sorry I didn't post yesterday. I had planned to do it after my Chem lab, but by the time I finished it was after midnight.

As for my current event, domestic violence is a major problem in our society. Even though it was outlawed in the late 1800s, many men still beat their wife or girlfriend. It is not only unfair to women, but costs cities and towns a lot of money. In the town of Hartlepool, which is located on the coast of northern England, they get up to 8 calls of domestic violence a night. That totals almost 3000 a year.

According to recent calculations, it costs Hartlepool over 27 million British pounds, a little under 46 million dollars a year to deal with domestic violence. Only about one in four victims of domestic abuse come forward. Most are either scared of what will happen if they tell someone, or ashamed they let it happen to them.

What do you think needs to be done in order to get more victims to come forward and help reduce the amount of domestic abuse in all countries in the world?

For more information go to:
http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/domestic_violence_costs_27m_a_year_1_4052374

Greg Doucet's Current Event

Hello class, I want to first start by saying that I was unable to post my blog on friday because my internet was down, and for that I am very sorry for the inconvinience.

My current event event was about how women are being apart of advertisements that can be offensive and unhealthy for other women viewers, specifiacally in this article, the popular women's fashion store: Victoria's Secret. Women inn the nineteenth and early twentyeth century were not as obsessed or concerned about having the "perfect" body to fit into society. Women wanted to be appriciated not by their looks, but by their career acomplishments including suffrage and equal rights.

As you may already know, Victoria's Secret uses models to advertise the desighner's clothing that possess physical qualities of what society would desribe as the "perfect" body image. These advertisements put a negative outlook on what an average women's body image is and what it should be. Researchers clause it as "unhealthy sexualization" concluding with the fact that many young women and children feel they have to be "perfect" and look like the super models on television in order to get the right man and society to notice them. Many of these researchers such as Nicole Clark are trying to make the point to other women and young teenagers that physical apperance does not matter in order to be successfull and be happy, they encourage viewers to raise their self esteem, and love themselves for who they are and their intellegence to pursue a fulfilled career.

In your opinion, do you belive what is wrong and disrespectful for desighner clothing lines to advertise women with socieies ideal "perfect" physical qualities in order to grab the viewers and men's attention to a women? Also in a more broad term, do you think women today are being more taken notice for physical appearance than being noticed for a woman's moral and career based acomplishments such as politics and sciences?

For more information on this topic, go to: http://www.ourhometown.ca/lifestyle/RK0010.php

Kayla's Current Event

My current event was on how women are not allowed in direct combat while in war. Also, it is harder for women to move up in the rankings and receive medals and honors like men do. Women can move up and they can receive medals and honors, but its much harder for a woman to than a man. Students from the University of Virginia School of Law are trying to get this changed so women can participate in combat.

The article says that women already sort of are in combat by going to the villages and becoming close with the villagers. In some cases that can be just as dangerous as the actual fighting. Another argument is that women aren't fit enough to fight. There have been military tests done to show that they can be just as capable as some men.

For more information go to: http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2011/dec/04/uva-law-team-fights-equality-women-combat-ar-1513873/

So, do you thing women should be allowed to fight in combat for our country? Why/why not? And if they already sort of are fighting, why would it be so much harder for them to get honored for it?

Matt Dang's Current Event About Violence Against Women

If you are reading this, then you are probably planning to respond to my post. This is either because (a.) You forgot about Tuesday's post or were just too lazy, or (b.) You just really like me. Both is fine, but if it is because of the latter, I really appreciate it. No but really, I hope it is because of the second reason.

My article was about violence against women and how people don't give enough attention to it. It was more focused on the victims of college and professional athletes. I guess you could consider some college athletes as professionals because they get paid under the table, but that's besides the point. What I'm really trying to get at is that when the athletes are charged, they usually get away with minimal punishment. And the media sometimes doesn't even focus on the violence. Take Ben Roethlisberger for example. He was accused of rape in '09 and sexual assault in '10. The league did suspend him for six games, but it was later reduced to four games. The media didn't even pay much attention to the violence towards the women, but his "immature and frat-boy-like behavior."

The article did mention too that sports seem to be a "powerful way to expose the the general public to problems rarely discussed openly in our society." Len Bias, a star college basketball player, died from an overdose of cocaine in 1986 just two days after being drafted as the second overall pick by the Boston Celtics. His death rallied the country to the war on drugs. Also, Michael Vick's crimes a few years back raised awareness on animal abuse. And most recently, Jerry Sandusky of Penn State and Bernie Fine of Syracuse's horrendous actions brought child abuse into the public eye. O.J. Simpson's trial did raise awareness of domestic violence, but some say that that case was more focused on race.

So do you think less, equal, or more attention should be given to violence against women as compared to child and animal abuse? And why do you think athletes are not punished enough for their crimes?

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/lapchick-111130/the-public-underwhelming-reaction-athletes-assault-women

Luke's Current Event

My deepest apologies go out to the class as in my presentation I stated the opposite of what happened. here is what really happened: A recent ballot initiative in Mississippi was rejected by 55% of voters to declare that life begins at conception in relation to Abortion rights, thus dividing religious and medical communtites across the state. if this ballot initiative was accepted, it is likely that Mississippi would face legal trouble from the supreme court in regards to the 1973 landmark of Roe V. Wade which states that women have the legal right to an abortion if desired.

If this law had turned out otherwise, would it be right to have the supreme court intervene on the new law? And in your opinion, if a compromise between pro life and pro choice were possible, what would it be? how would it be established?

Blogger wouldn't let me comment so I made a new post so I could still get full credit

I agree with the class on the fact that White Ribbon day should be a bigger deal. I have honestly never even heard of it and was not aware of all the facts about female victims. I would love to learn more about the facts and I’m sure many other Americans feel the same way. I think if more stories are told to the public then people really will see how serious this issue is and maybe it will lower the amount of victims if more people know about how serious it is. More people will be on the look to protect others and White ribbon day could be a day of remembrance for all of the victims and their families.

Kailey's curent event on White Ribbon Day

Do you think that White Ribbon Day should be more in the publics eye and do you think there is a reason why it's not?

www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/story/2011/11/21violence-against-women-domestic-white-ribbon/

Scott Brun's Current Event on Illegal Immigration

In the article “Alabama's Immigration Law Prompts Alarm” a law that was recently passed on the subject of immigration is explained in depth. The law regarded as the nation’s strictest on the subject, and states that if a police officer has any suspicions of a person being an illegal immigrant, they may check the immigration status of that individual and if the individual is illegal, the police may turn them over to federal authorities. Because there is no parts to the law saying how the police officer is supposed to come about these suspicions, opponents of the law say that the law is an excuse for racial profiling on the part of the law enforcement.   

In your opinion, is there any way that the law could be changed in a manner that the police can go about enforcing this law in away that there is a racial aspect involved? What is it?

Sam Beauregard's Current Event on Immigration Law in South Carolina

In the following New York Times articles "South Carolina: U.S. challenges Immigration Law" and " South Carolina: 16 Countries Seek to Join Suit" they discuss the recently passed law on illegal immigration in the state of South Carolina. Due to the increasing amount of illegal aliens in the United States South Carolina has taken it upon themselves and made a new law allowing police to check the immigration status of every person that they feel looks or sounds like they are illegal. The United States Justice Department feels this new law taking effect on January 1st must be blocked and are filing a lawsuit to stop this law encouraging racial profiling and discrimination. Along with the U.S.,sixteen other countries from Latin America and the Caribbean filed papers to join the lawsuit.

Do you feel their must be a federal law to over rule this state law that some find very discriminating? Also why do you think that these sixteen other countries want to join the lawsuit?

Laura Young's Current Event on Illegal Immigrants

The article, "A Sensible Path in California," talks about the new laws signed by their governor, Jerry Brown. These new laws are for the benefit of the illegal immigrants and they focus on their college education. The most important law, the California Dream Act, allows the students to apply for private scholarships and loans and also makes them eligible to seek state-financial aid. There are different opinions about this new law. Some people think it is a waste of money. However, others feel it is beneficial to California because it will help assimilate and educate the immigrants. Seeing as they are illegal immigrants, my question is, in your opinion, do you think this law is a waste of money or beneficial to California and why?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/opinion/a-sensible-path-in-california.html

Obama's Illegal-immigrant Crackdown: Implications for Hispanics

Today in class I discussed the article Obama's Illegal-immigrant Crackdown: Implications for Hispanics, By Parik Jonsson. In the article it gives facts about Hispanic immigrants such as that Hispanics are now the majority groups being sent to federal prison, because of criminal prosecution of repeat border jumpers. Since Arizona and Alabama has passed tough immigration laws it is not only effecting illegal immigrants its also effecting legal immigrants. In Collinsville, a small town in Arizona, Hispanics are apart of the community. Half of the stores that are owned down town are Hispanic-owned. After Alabama passed the stricter laws you began to see Hispanics leave and others are left hidden in their houses. Legal immigrants are starting to feel judged.

What I would like to know is, How would you feel if you were an legal immigrant and your state started passing stricter immigration laws? Express your opinion.

See below for the article.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-illegal-immigrant-crackdown-implications-hispanics/story?id=14836244

Crystal's Current Event

In the article, "Does illegal immigration hurt U.S. economy?" by Aiyana Baida, a reporter from the University of California proposes the idea that illegal immigrants that work in the United States are good for our nation. In the report it states that the reason we have so many illegal immigrants is due to the fact that domestic workers in the United States do not want to do the lower end more tedious jobs that are required for our economy to run.

Some of these immigrants are hired by business owners in the states though the H-2A program which is a program that requires the employer to pay a certain amount of money in order to be guaranteed a worker. The H-2A program was modified in March of 2010 so that the workers would have documentation that they came to the United States to work.

In your oppinion, do you thing that illegal immigrants should be blamed for the United State's failing economy? Should the H-2A program be more selective about the immigrants that are coming to work in the U.S.?

http://www2.highlandstoday.com/content/2010/apr/01/la-does-illegal-immigration-hurt-us-economy/

Michaela's Current Event

The article “Alabama Wins in Ruling on Its Immigration Law” by Campbell Robertson talks about how Alabama has joined Arizona and Georgia in creating a bill to stop illegal immigration. It also states that Alabama’s law is said to be the strictest of all the states. The bill outlawed transporting illegal immigrants, barred them from enrolling in public universities, and required police to verify a person’s immigration status during stops and/or arrests. The article does not explain how police are supposed to know when to check a criminal suspects immigration status which leads us to believe that race will play a big factor in determining whether or not a person’s immigration status is checked.

In the article “After Immigration Law, Few Americans Taking Immigrants Work,” the affect on the agriculture industry is discussed. The article mainly highlights how the new law in Alabama is affecting the farmers for the worst. At one point in the article however, the author states that Senator Scott Beason has received several emails and phone calls thanking him for helping them get jobs and/or getting promoted due to the fact that he signed the law.

What are your feelings about states, such as Alabama, implementing strict new immigration laws?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/us/alabama-immigration-law-upheld.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21/after-alabama-immigration-law-few-americans-taking-immigrants-work_n_1023635.html

Allie's Current Event

My current even article can be found on: http://www.nativetimes.com/life/commentary/6204-abc-news-reflecting-on-the-obvious-ignoring-the-not-so-obvious

The name of the article is ABC News: Reflecting on the Obvious; Ignoring the Not-So Obvious, it was written by Tim Giago who has his weekly column in the Lakota News. He discusses how disappointed he was with the ABC news on the representation of the Native Americans on the Reservation. The reporters seem to still dwell upon the alcoholism and poverty; instead of the success like alcohol and suicide prevention programs available.

In his column Tim compares the problems on the Reservation to problems in DC: “There are many things wrong on Pine Ridge just as there are many things wrong in Washington, D.C., but for ever wrong, there are many people trying to make it right.”

How accurate do you think this comparison is? And what should media do differently to portray Native American Culture properly?

Sydney's Current Event

In Flagstaff Arizona, the Navajo Government has been upset by the trademark violation and the disrespect being caused by Urban Outfitters. The Navajo Nation claims that putting the "Navajo" name on the products is disrespectful of their culture, and it associates the products with the Navajos. The Navajo Department of Justice has sent Urban Outfitters CEO a letter demanding them to change the name of the product due to the violation of a trademark that has already been established, and the insensitivity in naming the products after the Navajos.

Do you think that Urban Outfitters should pull the Navajo name off of their products? Also, do you think that putting the "Navajo" name on the products is disrespectful of their culture?

article - http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/17/navajo-nation-fights-urban-outfitters-over-disrespectful-clothing-line/

Bobby's Current Event

After a 15-year law suit against the government Elouise Cobell, a Blackfeet tribal member representing 500,000 other Native American plaintiffs, made a settlement in which the government would pay $3.4billion to the plaintiffs communally. However, Cobell did not give all 500,000 plaintiffs a chance to back out of the settlement so they were stuck with it even if they didn't like it. So now six notices of appeal have been submitted to reverse the settlement and continue to pursue the case. The appeals have been filed because in the settlement the government was not required to show the full amount lost by the Native Americans and it was just an easy way for the government to get out of paying the full amount owed. After three appeals were filed Cobell's attorney asked the judge to approve that each appellant must pay an $8.3million bond. The judge saw this as a delay tactic and denied the request.

This has taken so long because of the way the counsel has pursued this case and now it is going to even longer to continue the case and eventually change the settlement. After 15 years of trial do you think its worth it to try to continue pursuing the case or do you think it would be better to simply accept the settlement? Remember this case could take a long time just like the first and many of the original plaintiffs may not live to see the payments.

The Article: http://nativetimes.com/news/federal/6153-ruling-clears-way-for-appeals-of-cobell-settlement

Narragansetts Challenge 2012 Gambling Referendum

In this article, the Narragansett Tribe is suing the Twin River slot parlor because they have been advertising themselves as a casino. The Twin River slot parlor is a privately owned business. Slot parlors are currently legal, but the gambling games that Twin River is attempting to add, such as blackjack, are currently illegal. The tribe sees Twin River having the opportunity to become a casino unconstitutional because the tribe had previously attempted to build a casino and the state did not allow them because they said casinos created "economic wastelands." A vote in 2012 will determine whether or not Twin River will be turned into a casino.

So do you think it is unfair that the Twin River slot parlor is getting the opportunity to upgrade to a casino when the tribe did not have this chance? Who's side are you on?

Sources:

http://www.projo.com/news/content/TWIN_RIVER_FALSE_ADVERTISING_COM_09-01-09_1OF_v20.3a64155.html

http://www.nativetimes.com/business/gaming/6104-narragansetts-challenge-2012-gambling-referendum

http://www.projo.com/generalassembly/casino_lawsuit_09-29-11_L9QL3BR_v22.6ec8b.html

Jurnee's Current Event

Cherokee Nations HUD housing funds have been frozen. HUD is the Department of Housing and Urban Development. They provide low income Native Americans with safe, affordable, and decent living spaces. The funds have been frozen because a funding law is being review in a court decision that left 2800 Cherokee citizens without citizenship. The citizenships that we eliminated were the ones of people whose ancestors were slaves of the Cherkokee who were granted all rights of the Cherokee nation through a treaty made in 1866.

In comparison to underprivileged Americans, are underprivileged Native Americans or Native American citizens granted more opportunities?

Trevors current event

The article i read can can be found here:
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/10/paper-calls-out-%E2%80%98niggerhead%E2%80%99-uses-%E2%80%98redskins%E2%80%99-in-adjacent-story/

This is a concern for the American Indians because they feel that racism for them is accepted. Do you believe the Washington redskins name and logo are offensive? And do you believe that publishers should refrain from using the term "redskins"?

Alex Rawley's Current Event

The article that I read was called, "Governor to Appoint American Adviser" by the Contra Costa Times. It can be found here: http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_18939253?nclick_check=1. There are some things that you need to know before reading this article. We learned all of these in class. One thing that you have to know is that the Native Americans have not been given a substantial voice in government before, therefore, they have not had say in matters that concern them. The main thing to remember from my presentation is that appointing this adviser is a great step in Native American- Government relations which will eventually lead to equal rights because they finally will have a say in matters and laws that concern them. California's decision to appoint this liaison of sorts may lead by example for other states to follow. There was some confusion about who was elected during the presentation. The adviser that is to be appointed is not revealed to the public yet, and so some people are wondering if the Native American is going to even be of enough blood quantum to be a real Native American. Why do you think that this matters and what do you think will improve or change due to the adviser?

current event

Throughout history, there have been man instances where the
ideas of the government have not agreed with the ideas of the American Indians.
For example, the removal of Indians from the east of the Mississippi River and
eventually the attempt of removing all Indians from the United States was a government
idea that was not agreed upon by the American Indians. On Wednesday, a
committee met in order to discuss issues in New York such as thruway tolls,
collecting taxes on tobacco, and expanding casinos. The Native Americans make
millions of dollar in revenue off of casinos and they want to expand their
profit. Instead of being ordered what to do by the government, Native Americans
are being part of the decision and making efforts to have their voices heard by
the government. I believe that this advances the social group as a whole because
they are rising as a social group to the point where they are actively involved
in government, and they help to make decisions with the government that affect their
lifestyle.

http://centralny.ynn.com/content/all_news/557957/senate-committee-examines-tribal-issues/

Why do you think that the government is letting the Native
Americans be more involved in the decision making of laws that affect them
instead of creating laws and forcing them upon the Native Americans such as in
the removal of Indians?

taxes

i fully agree witht h law about taxes that is being purposed. peopole who make more should pay more and people who make less should be taxed a less precent. HOWEVER i agree with marcus as well. no one should be penalized or being wealthy. i dont think people should be able to opped out of paying taxes. it is already tax deducable if you do charity work or donate you get a decutable on taxes. so i believe that should stay in place and be enphized to peopole that you pay less taxes if you chose what to spend youre money on. the gov would already give the money to the charity so its just taking out the middle man in a way

Current Event by David Pelling

In 2001 and 2003, George W. Bush proposed laws that would lower taxes, but the middle class ended up paying a higher percent of their income in taxes wealthier people. Obama plans to lower the national debt, in part by changing the tax laws. He wants to create a system where people are taxed on there income. For example, people making over $1 million a year will have to pay about 30% of that $1 million in taxes on average. People who make only $50,000-$75,000 will only have to pay 15% of their income in taxes. Although the federal taxes are being reformed, the state taxes are still uneven. The states can tax people whatever they want because of federalism. California are currently taxing people who make $50,000 9.55%, while Arizona only taxes 3.36% on the same amount of money. Some states have one income tax that everyone has to pay, like Colorado and Pennsylvania. These taxes are also controversial because if the state can make any tax rate they want, the government cannot control it.

So, if you were a very wealthy person in this country, would you support Obama's plan and lose more money while being fair, or disagree with the law because you can have more money?

Why?

Current event - Nate Otenti

How do you think popular sovereignty has impacted and will impact Davis' court case?

if you need to brush up on the information, here is a link: http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/19/justice/georgia-davis-execution/index.html

Checks and Balances

In president Barack Obama speech he expresssed a stratagy that he feels will take America out of this economical circus.Obama has got almost all the money he has asked for since being elected in 2009 and the economy has not gotten much better since this money was been spent. Part of the reason America is in the condition it is, is because of Barack according to Peter Wehner. It is very obvious that Peter the author of Checks and Balances on the President is very bias against Democrats and especially the president himself Barack Obama. All the article states is how the economical circus is due to the government and there leader the president. Showing past results about giving Obama all the money he asks for have shown to not work out in most cases. And until his idea for the new act is changed it will not be passed due tot he fact that it needs a two thirds vote to pass and Republicans are not for it. The act is looking promising to Democratics but unfortunalty for them Repbulicans have a slight adventage on votes, or it is about even which will not give Barack Obama and Democratics the amount of votes to pass the act.

Article Source : http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/09/12/checks-and-balances-obama/

Federalism and Equal Rights

All across the US, multiple states are having huge controversies about gay marriage. Some states want to allow it, and other want to ban it. Either way, some people are going to be angry at the decision. For example, in class we read the court case about gay marriage in California. California was trying to ban gay marriage but homosexuals were angry and wanted to argue their side of the situation. California can make their own laws, separate from federal laws because of Federalism. Like in Sydney, and Bobby talked about, people in California voted to get a new representative who could have a different view on gay marriage and may help legalize gay marriage in California. New Jersey also was involved with issues with gay marriage. Last year citizens tried to legalize gay marriage but it was shut down. New Jersey wants to try to legalize it again but the governor, Chris Christie, said that he would veto it. If California bans gay marriage that doesn’t mean that New Jersey won’t be able to legalize it; this is because of Federalism. People often argue about gay marriage because of equal rights. They believe that everyone should have equal opportunities and marry whoever they want. Others feel that marriage is strictly based for a man and a woman.

Equal Protection

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, no state can deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
In the court case Roe vs. Wade (1973), a pregnant women from Texas challenged the states anti-abortion law. The law was completely against abortions for pregnant women because the people who created the law had to think of the complications that would come from the abortions: the health of the mother, who and where the abortion was being performed, and if they were protecting the fetus' life or taking it away. Due to this women challenging the anti-abortion law, she opened up the option for pro-life and pro-choice in that state. Which gives all Texas women the ability to be protected equally if they would choose to have an abortion or not.

Cited:
http://library.thinkquest.org/11572/cc/

Checks and Balances

In the article “Who Judges Judges?” limited government is said to be a problem in Tennessee. In the Tennessee Constitution, the punishment of the judicial branch is said to be the responsibility of the legislative branch, but the current system does not follow this statement. The present system in Tennessee is made up of a Court of Judiciary that reports to the Supreme Court; judiciary’s oversee judiciary or in other words “judges judge judges.” The legislative branch is taking a stand against this because it goes against the constitution and the principle of checks and balances.
I noticed in Marcus’s blog post that he mentioned the separation of powers; although the principle of checks and balances in never referenced, I think separation of powers and checks and balances go hand in hand. In “Who Judges Judges?” the legislative branch is taking a stand to fight for the principle of checks and balances so that the principle of separation of powers is followed.


http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_209432.asp

Federalism/Equal Protection

   On June 23, 2011, South Boston gangster James "Whitey" Bulger was arrested in California after being on the run for 16 years for the murders of 19 people starting in 1980 going until he fled from Boston just before Christmas in 1994. After receiving a tip from the FBI television spots, Bulger was arrested at his apartment in Santa Monica along with Catherine Greig, his long time companion.
  Having committed most of his crimes in Massachusetts, Bulger was sent from California to Massachusetts after his arrest. Federalism plays a role in this because the separation of the regional governments in separate states gave Massachusetts the right to try him in Massachusetts. Equal protection also plays a role in the case against Whitey Bulger because according the sixth amendment of the constitution, he has the right to be tried by an impartial jury.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-23/news/29695361_1_catherine-greig-john-j-connolly-fbi-agent

Equal Rights and Protection

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". - Wikipedia

In the article I found in the Los Angeles Times, “Millionaire tax sought by Obama is panned by GOP as ‘class welfare,’” there is an attempt to fulfill the democratic principle of Equal Rights. This article describes how Obama had planned to put a new tax on people who made over $1 million a year. This tax would make people who made $1 million a year or more pay at least the same rate as middle-class workers do.

[According to White House talking points on the proposal circulated to lawmakers, "no household making over $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income in taxes than middle-class families pay."] This is a direct quote from the article that shows the position on the proposal from someone who agreed with the proposal.

A statistic from 2009 showed that 22,000 people making more than $1 million a year had paid less than 15% of their income taxes. The article also states how Congress has considered higher taxes for millionaires previously, but the measures did not make it into law.

I think Obama’s objective here is to make taxes equal for everyone, which is an acceptable request on his part. But a lot more comes with raising taxes than some think. The article states that the White House did not give detail on the proposal. The article also had claims from various people inquiring that the tax raise was not a viable option for the time being; that there were other more important things to take care of in the immediate future.

This article relates directly to Equal Rights and Protection because there should not be any exceptions for people that make more money than middle-class people. Any working individual should have to pay the same amount of taxes that any other working individual does. That is my opinion.

I notice that Marcus read this article too. We used different democratic principles to express our understandings of the article but I agree with his view on the article. Separation of powers and popular sovereignty come into effect as well. I also found Nate’s article on inter-racial marriage interesting, since you don’t hear much about those issues any more. Equal Protection is an issue in the United States that is continuing to improve day by day.

Atricle:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/sc-dc-tax-millionaires-20110919-9,0,2726012.story

California on Cannis

My group was federalism. Federalism is the ability for each state to make laws on certain subjects that best fit that states needs. My example of a current issue regarding ferderalism is the state laws on Marijuana. The state law in MA, at no point allows anyone to have any with them at any time with out a fee. However in the state of California, people are allowed to have a certain amount on them with only a fee and it can be taxed. If Marijuana is found in a car and it is less than one ounce can be given a fee of a max of 100 dollars. If there is more than 10 pounds of it in the car the car can be taken in to custody. Marijuana can also be prescibed for medical purposes and covered by health insurances. Other states will have strict drugs charge for any amount of Marijuana. There are good and bad things to California's take on the drug laws. One being, lesser crimes are delt with as lesser crimes and not severly punished. A bad thing however is Marijuana is a gate way drug and can possibly lead to addiction to stronger drugs in some cases.


www.canormal.org

Equal Protecton

Back in February of 2010 Obama wanted to stop the military policy "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which forbids gay men and women the right to serve in the military. Top officials of the Department of Defense and Admiral Mike Mullen also agree with Obama and try to find a way to demolish this law. "As of September 20, service members will no longer be forced to hide who they are in order to serve their country," Obama stated. Trying to ban this law is an example of Equal protection because Obama and others are trying to give everyone the same right to fight in the military. In relation to Alyssa's post everyone is created equally so everyone should be able to have the right to want to serve there country no matter if they are gay or straight.


http://www.infoplease.com/news/2010/current-events/us_feb.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/07/22/138621225/obama-ends-dont-ask-dont-tell-policy

Limited Government

The article I read was about limited government. Michele Bachmann is a Republican wanting to eliminate Obama's national health care plan. She doesn't believe in a national health care system. It seems that she wants the states the be able to decide how to address the health care issue. Also, she wants there to be a limited number of abortions that a woman can have. She wants to limit the power of the federal government.
I agree with her on both of these issues. I don't like the fact that every citizen must have health care because I don't understand how we are going to be able to pay for all of it. Also, I want there to be a limited amount of abortions because I think it is wrong. Even though the baby is not born yet, it is still living. I hope Michele Bachmann can convince other Republican party members to support her ideas on these issues.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-08-27/story/michele-bachmann-spreads-limited-government-message-jacksonville-beaches

Equal Protection

An on-going problem for the United States is whether or not same sex marriage should be allowed. This has been a problem for many states and both sides of the argument have valid explanations on why it should or should not be allowed. One of the most common cases is Califonias "proposition 8". But now North Carolina voted to put constitutional same-sex marriage ban on the ballot. The house won 76-41 and needed atleast 72 to pass this onto the senate. Some defense is that people claim the only legal and right marriage is between a man and a woman. Some also claim that marriage doesn't matter who your with, as long as you love your partner. This amendment would have zero impact on zero impact on private employees and whether they choose to offer same-sex benefits to their employees. This relates to equal protection because everyone should be protected by the government whether they are gay or not. And in some cases the government does not include the protection for gays.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/12/n-c-considers-putting-amendment-to-ban-same-sex-marriage-on-ballot/?iref=allsearch

Obama's plan

Barack Obama has a new plan in mind about how we are going to stop losing monye and make our country a better one. At a conference last week, he went into great detail in describing the plan, and repeatedly told everyone in attendance to vote for it. The fact that he made such a big deal about it shows the importance of popular sovereignty: without the popular vote, Obama's plan can not possibly come into fruition. Also, the popular vote decides who is elected to represent each state, and who shares in opinions with the most people, although voting for president does not follow this model. It also shows the power of limited government because even though he is the president, he is still unable to do whatever he wants and make his own laws and things. Lastly, the concept of separation of powers is shown through the president, who is head of the executive branch, is asking for the help of the legislative branch to get a law passed.

Equal Protection

After the terrorist attacks of 9-11 the Muslim community has had a hard time with law enforcers. They where targeted and see as guilty by affiliation so they where extremely singled out. This is a problem in the United States right now because they are still being singled out just because of their beliefs. This falls in to equal protection because the Muslim community is being target more by law enforcements only for their religious views. The Muslim community feel that they are the “bogie man” to divert people away from the real issues that are going on that are much more important, they fell condemned for acts of only a few people. They feel that it has become normal to fear them and drought them because of what had happened. Some Muslim people feel proud of who they are and what they believe in now matter what they say. A young male said that it is more of an opportunity to prove themselves to the world that they are not evil.

In the past and now they have been targeted as evil and wrong doers by the law enforcement; because of this there are being denied their rights to their freedom of religion because they are being targeted for it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/muslims

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/muslims-in-america/

Popular Sovereignty

http://www.king5.com/news/education/No-school-Tacoma-teachers-on-strike-129695783.html

In Tacoma, Washington, The Tacoma Education Association voted to go on strike . The strike focused around pay, sizes of classes, and how teachers can be reassigned or transferred within the district. The vote was to either keep working under an expired contract or to strike. The teachers were extactic to hear that there was an 80% vote approving for a strike. They began the strike on September 13th, 2011 at 8. This left 28,000 students in the district without school, leaving their parents or guardians to find the care or education in replace.
This article advocates popular sovereignty because there was a vote made to decide whether or not to strike. Since the vast majority said yes, there would be one regardless or who it affected.

In Luara Fagan's article, I believe there is limited government too because there was protest which gives the power to the people not the government to go against what the government has established. In Nate Otenti's, I believe there was federalism because every state had a different outlook on interracial marriages and whether or not it was legal. I also believe that Alyssa Whitney's statement was true in that, even though many people thought Anthony was guilty, she had the right to be fairly trialed

Equal Protection

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/09/15/tribal-sovereignty-vs-racial-justice/the-use-of-blood-quantum

I read an article about the Cherokee nation and their blood quantum rules/laws. In this article, the Cherokee denied individuals the rights to join their nation as equals due to them not being blood related. Some people think that this is due to the fact that the Cherokee discriminate against other races. Other people say that this is because they do not want to be colonized or destroyed. The questionable part about this article is the fact that the courts do not know whether it should be treated as their right or having sovereignty or if this is truly another discrimination case.
The Cherokee are likely to act in defense saying that they are using their rights that they were given by the constitution such as popular sovereignty. The people that were expelled from the Nation happened to be black freedmen and so the court automatically assumed that they were acting out of racism, however, there have been many nations before the Cherokee that have expelled due to the blood quantum law also. This means that their blood quantum law is not uncommon and maybe the courts are just cracking down on this one case because it involves people of a different race.

Equal Protection

In the case of Casey Anthony she was found not guilty of killing her two year old daughter Caylee. As we all know, this case was heard all over the world. Sometimes media brings a negativity affect to a court case as big as this one. This is a good example of Equal Protection because no matter how many people thought that Casey was guilty the jury had to keep an open mind and count be biased towards what everyone else was thinking. All men and women are created equal no matter what they do, so everyone gets the same protection. In a court case all people are innocent until proven guilty. The jurors gave Casey a fair trail.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/casey-anthony-guilty-murder-caylees-death/story?id=13987918

School Choice In Colorado

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/school-choice-in-colorado/2011/08/25/gIQATJO5gJ_story.html

Religion and government are two things that most people would like to keep separate. The question needing an answer is, if a student receives a government scholarship that he/she can use to go to any school of his/her choosing, can a private(and religious) school be one of his options. Some people think that the student and their parents/guardians should get to pick which ever school they would like to go to. A school that could help the student thrive better. If this school was to be a religious school then should the government scholarship be able to be used to help pay for the students entry fee? Should government be able to say that you can not use a scholarship to go to a religious school that could help a student learn better, in once case found in the Washington Post article, a boy with social problems does better in a smaller learning environment which can not be accessed at a small school, but at a private school smaller classes are easier to get into. Popular Sovereignty says that a state is free for the federal government to have any say on its domestic policy. If the state government says that the parent of a child who has won a scholarship can't send their child to a religious school, but the federal government says they can, should they be able to? Do they get the right to give a government given scholarship to a religious school?

Equal Protection

In 1958, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving, both residents of Virginia, got married in the District of Columbia. Since Mildred was and African American woman, and Richard was a white man, the state of Virginia felt as though they both were in violation of the anti-miscegenation law. That law, in short, did not allow for inter-racial marriages to take place in the state of Virginia, although the pair did not wed in Virginia, they did move back shorty after. In a local court decision, the two were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail. The trial judge agreed to lessen the sentence if the pair were top leave Virginia and not return for 25 years. The question arose as to whether Virginia's anti-miscegenation law was in violation of the 14th amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
In an appeal of the decision by a higher level court, the decision was unanimous in favor of the Loving's. The ruling stated that Virginia's law against inter-racial marriages was unconstitutional and in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Court rejected the states argument that stated that the law was fair because it applied to both blacks and whites. Chief Justice Earl Warren said, '"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State." In conclusion, the Equal Protection Clause helped to secure these people's freedoms so that their rights could not be violated by laws that were unconstitutional.

Article: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395
(contains voice)

Equal Protection

In March 2010 the Supreme Court heard a case discussing mothers and fathers being treated differently in determining whether their child or children could become and American Citizen. Ruben Flores-Villar was born in Mexico but raised by his parents,both American Citizens, in California. His mother was from Mexico and his parents were not married. Mr. Flores-Villar wanted to become and American Citizen so he would not be deported but he was rejected. The United States Court of Appeals rejected him because there was a law that stated "mothers and fathers whose children were born abroad and out of wedlock to a partner who was not an American Citizen." The law has now been amended, let fathers pass down American Citizenship only if the father had lived in the United States ten years prior to the birth of their child. Mothers were allowed to pass down American Citizenship if they had lived in the United Stated only one year prior to the birth of their child. Mr. Flores-Villar's father did not meet these requirements which is why he was not allowed American Citizenship. Flores-Villar argued that this law violated the equal protection principle.

This article relates to Allie's post in that men and women were being treated differently. For both circumstances there is a difference in men and women being treated, making the situation violate the Constitution's equal protection principle clause. My article violates this principle because men and women are not being treated equally. The law states that a man can only pass down American citizenship if he had lived in the U.S ten years prior to the birth of his child whereas the mother had only needed to live in the U.S for one year. Men and women are given the same rules to follow therefore violating the equal protection principle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/us/23scotus.html

Separation of Power and Checks & Balances

The Constitution originally states that Senators are to be elected by state legislators. But the 17th Amendment changed that and allowed the people to choose their state's senators. So Randy G. Lancaster of Kelso, WA argued that the 17th Amendment be removed. He argues that having the state legislators deciding on the senators would be more beneficiary because it would cut the costs of their campaign spending. Senate campaigns are some of the most expensive. Also, the legislators are more educated in politics and would be able to have a much wider range of candidates and choose the best one.
This article explains how the 17th Amendment changes the separation of power by giving the power of choosing senators to the people and taking it away from state governments. It takes away their rights to have indirect participation in the federal legislative process as giving to them in the original U.S. Constitution. It also affects the checks and balances of the government. The state government before could choose the senators they sent to Washington, but now can't. They lost power and the balance was off.

http://tdn.com/news/opinion/article_e86ff2b2-e17a-11e0-8710-001cc4c03286.html

Equal Protection

Racism has always been an issue in this country and continues to be to this day. Death-row inmate Duane Buck was scheduled to be executed in Texas for a double murder. During the trial, the psychologist told the jury that Hispanic and African-Americans are more likely to be repeat offenders. The psychologist was involved in seven trials so far involving inmates on death row. The first six had their sentence changed because the judge noticed the racist tones of the psychologist. As David said earlier, a case involving someone's life shouldn't be decided by the color of their skin.

This article shows the importance about equal protection because if the judge didn't believe in equal protection and was more like the psychologist then Duane Buck would have been executed because he was African-American. Equal protection says that everyone, regardless of race, gender, or religion has the same rights.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/16/perry-makes-first-public-comments-since-stay-of-execution-for-texas-inmate/?hpt=po_bn1

Equal Protection

http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2011/09/16/ginsburg-rebuts-scalia-on-sex-bias/


The fourteenth amendment guarantees all the people, equal protection. In the amendment, the Equal Protection Clause is established. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under law to all the people. Supreme Court rules that sex discrimination is against and violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Justice Antonin Scalia had declared that the Constitution — as properly interpreted — doesn’t prohibit sex discrimination and agrees with the laws about the woman not serving.
In 1960 Earl Warren court had held a state law excusing all women from jury service, with the exception of volunteering. In Florida there was a case held when a woman murdered her abusive husband and was faced with second degree murder convicted by an all-male jury. The court found nothing in difference that violated the equal protection law! A justice John Marshall Harlan says, “Despite the enlightened emancipation of women from the restrictions and protections of bygone years…woman is still regarded as the center of home and family life,” which excuses females from the hassle of jury service. This law was never found to be against the Equal Protection Law.
“Everyone understood by the ’50s and ’60s that race discrimination was a bad thing, but many thought that gender discrimination operated benignly in the woman’s favor,” says a 78 year-old female judge against the statement.
In the end Ginsburg speaks, “The idea was to get rid of all overt gender classifications,” Ginsburg said. “What we wanted was to open all doors for men and for women.”
Scalia was so wrong in this case, discrimination woman and assuming that they have nothing better to do then play the “at-home role” violates the fourteen amendments majorly. The clause says that anyone living under jurisdiction has the same rights and laws as everyone else. This means, one cannot be discriminated against for race of in this case, gender. Several cases have been in session for violating the fourteenth amendment such as 1880 Strauder vs. West Virginia, 2000 Bush vs. Gore and the case above.

Equal Protection

Recently, in a California court interpreters were ordered to take a test designed by other interpreters to obtain a new license that was needed to be an interpreter in the court. After taking the tests, nine current interpreters failed. The people who made the tests up were granted a new license without even having to take the test. The interpreters who failed the tests said they were not guaranteed equal protection from the court because the other interpreters weren’t required to take the test to begin with.

The judge ruled that they were correct. Because the interpreters who made the test didn’t have to take it and pass, it was unfair to all the other interpreters. This relates to equal protection because everyone should be able to have the same opportunity to fail or to pass the test. They shouldn’t have just assumed that the interpreters could have passed the test. The judge also did say that because they made the test, it wouldn't make much sense for them to take it. Although that is correct, they still should have done something else to obtain their new license.

Source: http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/chan091611.htm