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