Locate TWO news articles related to one of the issues testing the relationship between state and federal powers listed below:
a) immigration law (Arizona is an excellent case)
b) same sex marriage (try searching for California/ Proposition 8, though many states will work for this topic - Hawaii, Vermont, Massachussets, New York, Maine and New Hampshire have all recently taken on this issue)
c) medical marijuana
d) abortion
or an issue of your choice, but ask for permission ahead.
1) Summarize and cite two news articles related to your research topic.
Be sure to explain any discreptencies or differences in opionion that may arise in these news sources. Proper formatting for web citations is: (Author's Last, First Name, "Title of Article", Title of Webpage. Date Posted.
2) Explain how this case study tests the authority of the federal government.
3) What laws and Constitutional clauses are relevant to this case?
4) In your opinion, are the laws of the state in question compatible with federal law? If not, why do you believe the state has been able to legislate (pass laws) in this manner?
Minimum 250 words. Posts not including citation information will not be eligible for a grade higher than N on this post.
Due Friday, October 1 by the begining of class.
1. In this article, posted on nydailynews.com, they are talking about how the New York Senate votes against legalizing gay marriage. Only 24 people voted yes, and 38 people voted no. That's more than 10 people, which is a big difference. People who thought other people would vote yes, voted no. All people have the right to chose. Also, it was a great day for marriage in New York.
ReplyDelete(Lovett, Kenneth New York Senate votes against legalizing gay marriage by a large margin, 38-24 http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/12/02/2009-12-02_ahead_of_senate_vote_on_new_york_gay_marriage_bills_sponsor_thomas_duane_says_he.html December 2th, 2009)
Also, in another article posted on latimes.com, gay marriage is overturned. The California Supreme Court decided that gay marriage should be overturned. People can now marry who they want without getting in trouble with the law. There was a 4-3 ruling on this topic. This decision was made after states like New York, New Jersey, and Washington refused to extend marriage rights to gay couples. It was up to the electorate or the Legislature to decide whether gays should be permitted to marry.
( Dolan Maura Gay marriage ban overturned http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-gay-marriage17-2008may17,0,7229587.story May 17th, 2008)
Same sex marriage does test the authority of the federal government. Many people believe that same sex marriage is wrong, while others believe you can mary whoever you want to. This brings up a lot of pressure to the federal government, because they have to make these decisions, which in the end can make many people happy, or make many people upset. Either way, their is much pressure for the government. This is a big case around America and the government is the only way that can make these laws.
A constituational clause related to this case is the Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment mainly says that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Laws of any state are not compatible with the Federal law. If laws were compatible with the Federal law, states probably wouldn't be able to make up laws for themselves. States have been able to legislate in this manner because the government of the state is the one to make up these laws. One state can rule a law "no" while the other state can say "yes". That's just how it goes in each state. Some states ban things, other states don't. Mnay states do not have same sex marriage, but people should be able to marry who they want to, and that's just one of the many reasons New York and California allow same sex marriage.
Amanda Aasen, C Block.
1. There has been an ongoing debate on whether or not to legalize marijuana. In the United States it illegal to grow, sell, dispense and use marijuana. Although, 14 states in the US have now legalized medical marijuana. In states such as California, marijuana is allowed to be prescribed to people with medical illnesses which cause them severe pain. State laws involving the uses of medical marijuana conflict with federal laws. Federal law has banned the use of marijuana. Federal law classifies marijuana as a class 1 narcotic. In the federal eyes it is considered as dangerous as heroin. This gives the federal government the right to raid any marijuana dispensers - even in states where marijuana is legal. “Raids on dispensaries and growers by law enforcement agencies are still common”(John Bichard). If a dispensary is raided, state law does not uphold. The controversy behind the legalization of medical marijuana, is that it may lead to more widespread use. It would make marijuana more accessible to those who wish to abuse the drug. California law is seeking to permanently legalize marijuana. “Advocates say that if legalized the state could raise $1.4 billion in taxes and save precious law enforcement and prison resources”(John Bichard). California’s defense is that many people have been imprisoned due to misuse of marijuana. This has lead to more of the taxpayers money going to prisons. If marijuana was legalized less people would be imprisoned which would save tax payer money. California residents are expected to vote on Proposition 19. It is questionable if the states should be allowed to regulate the use of marijuana or should it be left solely to the federal government. In this issue state and federal law are not compatible. Amendment 10 of the United State constitution states that any laws not specifically written in the constitution are delegated to the states. Since, marijuana is not mentioned in the constitution, supported of legalization believe that state should be allowed to regulate it. On the other side of the issue is the federal law. In Article 4, Section 4 of constitution it states that the federal government may pass legislation saying that something is illegal and states would have to abide by that law.
ReplyDeleteCitation: Bichard, John, “Marijuana and Medical Marijuana”, NY Times. 7/29/2010
2. The state of Arizona has recently enacted a stringent of immigration laws. These immigrations laws now make it illegal for immigrants to walks around without carrying their immigration documents. Making it a misdemeanor not to have immigration papers. Arizona officials are now allowed to arrest and detain anyone who is suspected of being an illegal alien. This law is controversial because it invites racial profiling. The group that will be mostly targeted will be Hispanic Americans. Arizona law will now make it legal to target Hispanic Americans and ask them for documents. This act is unconstitutional. It violates the 14th amendment which ensures equal protection under the law. Since the Arizona immigration law will mostly be targeted at Hispanic Americans, this is not equal protection for them. Furthermore, President Obama has commented that this is an human rights violation. Arizona immigration law is compatible with federal law to an extent. Federal law has outlawed illegal immigration. Although, in Arizona illegal immigration is still an issue. With the immigration law, Arizona is taking initiative to enforce federal law. “Represent another tool for our state as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government refused to fix”(Governor Brewer). Some also believe that Arizona law actually compliments federal law since they’re both regulating immigration. Additionally, it is argued that immigration should be delegated to states as a result of state sovereignty. Amendment 10 allows for Arizona to pass legislation governing immigration, since it is not specifically written in the constitution.
ReplyDeleteCitation: Archibold, Randal, “Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration”, NY Times. 8/23/2010
- Destiny Bangura A Block
1. In this first article in the NY Times, the author talks about the controversy of medical marijuana in California. He states that 14 states have already legalized medical marijuana but California would be the first state to legalize it for other uses. He then goes on to explain how legalizing marijuana will save $1.4 billion dollars in tax dollars, as well as other costs. (Birchard,John,Marijuana and Medical Marijuana,http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/marijuana/index.html,7/29/10)
ReplyDeleteIn this second article, also in the NY Times, the author interviews two people. The first person talks about the benefits of legalizing marijuana while the other person talks about how marijuana can kill people slowly. However in the end of the article, another person talks about the after affects of marijuana and how it messed up his life. (Kershaw,Sarah Marijuana is gateway drug, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/fashion/19pot.html,7/17/10)
2. This case study on legalizing marijuana has become a big issue of state vs. federal power. While some states legalized marijuana for medical use, other states ban it saying that marijuana will increase crime rate. The case of marijuana has tested the federal government’s power because the federal government denied the use of medical marijuana saying that it was “illegal” and categorized marijuana along with heroine and other narcotics. (Birchard,John,Marijuana and Medical Marijuana,http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/marijuana/index.html,7/29/10) However, fourteen states have already legalized the use of medical marijuana and now California, which is one of the major states, is in the process of legalizing the use of medical marijuana. This is controversial because the federal government says marijuana is illegal, yet the states are starting to legalize it. What I learned from this was that sometimes, states can abide by their own rule and “bend” the federal government’s law which means that the federal government’s power is not as strong as some expect it to be.
3.While considering the topic of legalizing medical marijuana, there are certain laws and constitutional clauses that apply. First, proposition 215 is the first proposition held by the state of California that legalized the use of medical marijuana. Now California is trying to outright legalize the drug through proposition 19. Proposition 19 states that marijuana will be controlled by the state of California like cigarettes. (Birchard,John,Marijuana and Medical Marijuana,http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/marijuana/index.html,7/29/10)However, in the Constitution, amendment 10, states that whatever power isn’t listed in the Constitution is given to the states. Therefore, states do have the power to legalize marijuana, but then again the Federal government declared it illegal which means the states have to follow this declaration.
4.I believe that we have a federal government for a reason. That reason is to keep peace amongst the states. However, on an issue such as medical marijuana, I think the states did the right thing to take the initiative and legalize marijuana. I believe the states were able to avoid federal law was because a majority of people voted that the use of marijuana will be the overall best for the citizens in each state. For example, California has a lot of people in jail because of marijuana. If California were to legalize marijuana, California would be able to save $1.4 billion dollars in taxes and other funds. (Birchard,John,Marijuana and Medical Marijuana, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/marijuana/index.html,7/29/10) through this case of legalizing marijuana, I learned that if the cause is best for the people, then the states have the power to take the law into their hands.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1) According to the article “Same-Sex Marriage: A Selective Bibliography of the Legal Literature”, in addition to the Hawaii case, the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 stated that no state would have the need to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state, and also defined marriage for federal-law purposes as opposite-sex. Most of the states passed their own marriage protection acts, which includes 11 more US states to amend their constitutions to forbid same-sex marriage. In Vermont, the state’s Supreme Court ruled that the state must extend the same benefits that married couples receive to same-sex couples in 1999, and in 2000 Vermont created the status of “civil union”. In 2003, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that excluding same-sex couples from benefits of civil marriage violated the state constitution, and by 2004, Massachusetts became the first state in the United States where same-sex marriage became legal. (Axel-Lute, Paul, “Same-Sex Marriage: A Selective Bibliography of the Legal Literature”, http://law-library.rutgers.edu/SSM.html, September 2002).
ReplyDeleteThe article, “Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships” evaluates the significance that same-sex issues have on the US, such as competing legislation, lawsuits, ballot initiatives attempting either to legalize or ban the practice, and religious groups over the decision to recognize same-sex marriage or condemn it. These are issues that are still being dealt with, which is why there is a running battle in the legislatures and the courts. In 2009, New Hampshire became the sixth state to allow gay couple weddings and a change in the principles and flashpoint politics. (Dematteis, Lou, “Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships”, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html, September 29, 2010)
2) This case study tests the authority of the federal government because same-sex marriage is a controversial and serious issue. People who support gay rights say that same-sex marriage is a unique expression of love and commitment, and that calling it anything else is a form of second-class citizenship. Legal rights are tied to marriage; however, the opposed say that same-sex couples would undermine the institution of marriage itself. The legislative battle of same-sex marriage picked up in 1996 as many conservatives became convinced that a federal law was required. Religious institutions struggled with policies, privileges and rights that had to do with homosexuality, and whether or not same-sex unions should be blessed and whether or not gays and lesbians should hold positions of authority. The federal government has to abide and endure the people’s political and religious views on same-sex marriages.
ReplyDelete3) Same-sex marital rights are relevant with the laws and constitutional clauses; however, according to US Supreme Courts, there are various outlooks on this issue in different states. In 1996, the US Congress approved the "Defense of Marriage Act," which was highly voted on to deny Federal benefits to married people of the same sex and to permit states to ignore such marriages sanctioned in other states, and was signed by President Bill Clinton. In 2004, the Supreme Court in Massachusetts ruled that it was required under the equal protection clause of the state's Constitution for same-sex marriage to become legal. Then, Connecticut began allowing same-sex marriage in late 2008. In 2009, Iowa's Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing gay couples to marry, and the legislatures of Maine and Vermont passed laws granting the same right in the following weeks. The New Hampshire legislature approved revisions to a same-sex marriage bill in mid 2009, and Governor John Lynch signed the legislation, making New Hampshire the sixth state to allow gay marriage. It almost seems as if there are 50 different definitions of marriage.
4) In my opinion, the laws of the state are compatible with federal law; however, in this particular case about same-sex marriage, I believe that the laws of the state would be compatible if ALL states carry the same laws on gay-marriage. The reason why there is much controversy with state and federal law on same-sex marriage is because there are 44 states that still do not permit gay marriage. In my opinion, being that the United States of America is the land of acceptance of all religions, ethnic, diversity, culture and race, I believe that this country should be open minded and respectful towards other people’s sexual and marital preference. Without that kind if sincerity and acceptance, the United States is not standing for its true meaning as a country of free will.
in the article "The Year of the (Pro-Life) Woman" by ramesh ponnuru is about george bush signing the banning of partial birth abortion.In the second article "Priest describes work of anti-abortion group" by tracey porpora is about priests who are against abortion and are trying to spread and increase the subject of pro life. these articles are similar in which they both are against abortion, george bush signed a bill of abortion in 2003 and priests have been fighting abortion for many years now and have churches that support pro life.
ReplyDelete2) these articles test the federal government because many people have different views on whats right. even if people are against it or not they voice there opinion. the federal government signs bills that say abortion is leagal in the first tri-mester. anytime after that is killing a innocent child. this was due to the roe v. wade court case about the right to privacy.
3) the bill of rights state that we have the right to privacy. many times this right is violated because of national security.but in most cases is because there taking advantage of the right.
4) in my opinion, the laws of the state are compatible with federal law, but if the state decides to make abortion illegal then its the states law. most states now have a different laws on abortion, they have clinics for people who have a medical reason for abortion or any type of problem that they cant be fit to take care of the baby.
Ashley Miller
D-block
Hess, Amanda. "Does Legalizing Gay Marriage Mean Fabulous Gay Weddings?: Marriage Equality Has Brought Justice to D.C. Weddings. Profits? Don’t Send the Thank-you Note Just Yet. - Washington City Paper." Washington City Paper - D.C. Arts, News, Food and Living. 11 June 2010. Web. 30 Sept. 2010. .
ReplyDeleteKaminer, Ariel. "Same-Sex Marriage News - The New York Times." Times Topics. 30 Sept. 2010. Web. 30 Sept. 2010. .
I found those two articles. These articles are both related to the subject of same-sex marriage. The first article deals with this issue in Washington D.C. The other article has to do with the issue in New York. For over five years now legalizing same-sex marriage has been a political issue in the United States. Legislation has been put to the test. There have been countless lawsuits and several ballot initiatives attempting either to legalize or abolish one's ability to marry someone on the same sex. Because of the recent ruling of Proposition 8 in California, the issue is going to be taken to the Supreme Court. The second article discusses the economic benefit of allowing same-sex marriage. Although this article seems "corny" it rises a valid point. Same-sex marriages in the past have cost more money then opposite-sex marriages. In D.C. money is being made off of these weddings. This is a positive impact that allowing same-sex marriage has on the District of Columbia. As well as the impact it could have on the rest of the states in the US. The issue of same-sex marriage is associated with Amendment One and Amendment Ten. Amendment Ten deals with the states having to power to regulate laws not specified in the Constitution. Same-sex marriage is a law that needs to be controlled by each state individually. However, it is now going into the hands of the Supreme Court. Amendment One deals with one's right to practice freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and exercise. Same-sex marriage is questionable on wether or not it fits under any of these categories. In my opinion, same-sex marriage is not harming anyone. I think that it is a way for individuals to express themselves. I think that states should control their citizens rights. However, I do not think it is fair to limit how someone can lead their life as long as they are peaceful.
Gina Ianniello, E Block
Same sex marriage is a very talked about topic. Many people have different opinions on this topic. In a recent article that I have read a Wyoming attorney general is defending gay marriage. Gay marriage is a huge topic in Wyoming, Wyoming would like to join in allowing gays to marry. There has been already about 9 states that have allowed gays to marry in their states. Wyoming and 9 other states would like to join a legal brief, the states would like the case to go to the Supreme Court. This legal brief agrues that the U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of California exceeded his authorite when he ruled thay the U.S. Constitution allows legal gay marriage. This article was written by Casper Star-Tribune, Wyo. Attorney General Defends Gay Marriage Brief, http://cbs4denver.com/wireapnewswy/Salzburg.says.Wyoming.2.1939575.html, Posted on September 30,2010 at 10:19.
ReplyDeleteIn another recent article that I have read has to do with an issue of same sex marriage.In this article people believe that same sex marriage has been a political issue in the United States for over a decade. In California they have ruled that same sex marriage is legal, but this has set "the issue on a direct course for the Supreme Court" THis article is mainly about the different battles and beliefs for same sex marriages. This article was written by Dematteis, Lou, Same Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships,http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html, Posted on August 13,2010.
Same sex marriage is a big issue in the United States. There are plenty of opinions, there are many supports and some just dont think its right at all. Some people dont believe in gay marriage because the ideal of marriage is a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Others may feel this offends religions or belief.
In 1996, the US Congress approved the "Defense of Marriage Act," which was highly voted on to deny Federal benefits to married people of the same sex and to permit states to ignore such marriages sanctioned in other states, and was signed by President Bill Clinton.There are many different views on same sex marriage. People should have the right to marry who they chose to not what the state actually states.
Gay marriage should be premitted. Citizens of the United States are FREE, which means they are free to freedom of religion, speech, press and they should have the freedom to marry whom they chose. There is no law stating that a man and a woman should marry. I believe that gay marriage should be premitted in the U.S.
Nicole Scozzari ") C Block
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1) In the article "Marijuana and Medical Marijuana" author John Bichard discusses the debate on the issue of marijuana on a state and federal level. The idea of using marijuana has been debated over the last several years, as of now 14 states are allowed to sell marijuana to patients with prescriptions. The Cannabis plant is used to treat patients suffering from AIDS, chemotherapy, cancer and other debilitating diseases. Through legalization of marijuana California would gain excess of $1.4 billion in sales due to marijuana. Though the state would gain a large amount of money some believe the legalization of marijuana would increase health and public services. Though there are pros and cons, the people of California will be voting on Proposition 19, this would tax and regulate marijuana. (Bichard, John "Marijuana and Medical Marijuana" http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/marijuana/index.html, 09/30/10)
ReplyDelete"Medical Marijuana Laws leave Employers Dazed and Confused" is an article published on February 12, 2010 that speaks on the issues of marijuana and its direct affect on employees and employers. Author Courtney Rubin describes the events that took place after employee Luke Vezey failed his company's drug test. Since Vezey suffers from chronic back pain his doctor gave him a prescription for medical marijuana use. Just because you are given a prescription, you are not protected from the law. Some argue the laws in the state allow the use of Marijuana while Federal Law places marijuana as a controlled substance, same category as heroin. Because of these laws employers and employees are at risk since the laws are contradicting each other. "What's more, an employer who knowingly hires a medical marijuana user is "arguably complicit in an activity that's illegal under federal law."" The laws surrounding medical use of marijuana are hazy at best. The prescription use of Marijuana is legal but it is also illegal based off Federal Law. So how are people going to get employed if they have disabilities or need marijuana to relieve pain? The Federal Government is taking too much power and reducing the power of the states to the point where they have no say in the conversation. (Rubin, Courtney "Medical Marijuana Laws Leave Employers Dazed and Confused" http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2010/02/marijuana-law-confusing.html, 02/12/2010)
2. The use of the Cannabis Plant or marijuana has been a major issue when dealing with laws set forth by the state and federal government. Many can argue that the use of marijuana can have medicinal values but under the eyes of the federal government selling or using marijuana is illegal and can cause severe problems for those who are caught. Since the use of herbs as a medicinal substance is not mentioned in the Constitution the states have the rights to decide laws surrounding it....right? Sadly this is not the case, using the rights given to the Federal Government by the constitution the Federal Government can override any law set forth by the states. Many argue this is an example of power abuse as the Federal Government is intervening on state laws and policies.
ReplyDelete3) On November 5, 1996 Proposition 215 was enacted with 55.6% votes in favor. Proposition 215 was passed in California and allowed the use of Cannabis as a medicinal substance. Meanwhile Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act, a U.S Federal Government Drug Policy that listed the names of drugs ruled illegal. The Cannabis plant was listed in Class 1 the same as heroin. Since the use of herbs as a medicinal substance is not mentioned in the constitution it is up to the states to regulate laws on the use of marijuana, but the Federal Government places marijuana as an illegal drug. How is medical marijuana going to be used if the laws between the states and federal government contradict? It seems since the federal government has more power they would win this dilemma but the future on this matter is uncertain as more and more states regulate the use of marijuana as a legal medical drug.
4) As said before the use of Marijuana has never been listed in the constitution so the states have the right to regulate the laws surrounding the use of the drug. I think its in the best interest of the states to continue what they have done with the legalization of the drug marijuana. It seems in the past the federal government has no reason to step in but since that is not the case anymore the states should not be stripped of their right to regulate laws dealing with drugs such as marijuana. The medical use of marijuana is very important as it helps those suffering from illnesses and diseases. So if the federal government decides to outright ban the use of marijuana the consequences would be catastrophic. Since the general public relies on this drug for its medical use, taking it away would ensure the horrific pain patients must endure without the drug. That is inhuman, would our government ban a drug that would injure the people of this nation?, this would definitely call for a legal case as it violates the UDHR.
Derrick Tam, A-Block
In this article, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/nyregion/03marriage.html the New York State Senate rejected the bill that allows gay marriage. Senators who voted against the bill said “the public was gripped by economic anxiety and remained uneasy about changing the state’s definition of marriage.” Since 2003, seven states legalized gay marriages. Some Senators betrayed the American citizens because of the fact that they say one thing but do the complete opposite. Polls suggested that voters in New York favored same sex marriage. 51 percent of the registered voters supported gay marriage while 42 percent opposed it. In this article, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/27/AR2010082705614.html a growing number of republicans began to support same sex marriages. "Our nation is at a crossroads, and conservatives are trying to rally together to turn back the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda," said Chris Barron, chairman of GOProud, a gay Republican group. "That's why we've seen people like Glenn Beck saying, 'Look, same-sex marriage isn't hurting anybody.' Because he sees a need to create a broad-based conservative movement."
ReplyDeleteThis case study tests the authority of the Federal Government because same sex marriages is a serious and controversial issue that changes throughout time. People who are supporters on same sex marriages believe that marriage is sacred regardless of whether it’s man and women, woman and woman or man and man. There is also controversy about why people oppose it. No one can truly tell why they oppose same sex marriage. There is no legit reason. However, some aspects play a role to why they are against same sex marriage. Religion plays a role in it. Some religions believe same sex marriages are a sin and believe it shouldn’t be allowed under any circumstance. Also Politicians state that legal rights tie into marriage, which makes them state that it doesn’t apply to same sex marriages.
In 1996, the US Congress approved the "Defense of Marriage Act," which was voted on to deny Federal benefits to same sex married couples along with permitting states to ignore those marriages sanctioned in other states. It was signed by President Bill Clinton. Slowly but surely States began making same sex marriages legal. However, the definition of marriage differed between the different states. Denying same sex marriages violates Amendment 14 which is equal protection under the law along with Amendment 4 which is right to privacy.
Since The Federal Government hasn’t stepped up to set laws on same sex marriages, the States took it upon themselves to make laws. Even though some states has made it legal to have same sex marriage, the States made loop holes in the law. For example, Even though same sex marriage is allowed, the couples would have to go to another state to have documentation of marriage done.
C-block
1. In two news articles, the fight for gay marriage is discussed. In one article, the New York State Senate killed a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage in New York. After the vote was taken, the vote against it was a very large 38-24. Many Republicans feared that there would be a large conservative backlash and some Democrats also didn't support this bill.(Lovett, Kenneth, "New York Senate votes against legalizing gay marriage by a large margin, 38-24", http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/12/02/2009-12-02_ahead_of_senate_vote_on_new_york_gay_marriage_bills_sponsor_thomas_duane_says_he.html. 12/2/09.) In another news article, Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California, was overturned. Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 is "unconstitutional under both the due process and equal protection clauses."(Rovzar, Chris, "Judge hands victory to Proposition 8 opponents, Gay-Marriage ban overturned", http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/judge_vaughn_walker_hands_vict.html. 8/4/10.) The two major differences between these articles is thatwhile one state, New York, denied legalizing gay marriage, another state, California, just overturned a law that denied it.
ReplyDelete2. This case study tests the authority of the federal government mainly in Proposition 8's case. California was a state that flat out made gay marriage illegal, instead of neither legalizing it or banning it like many states. Because the state passed a bill that many thought was a violation of human rights, the federal courts had to step in.
3. The fourteenth and fifth amendments are both relevant to this case. Many who support gay marriage argue that not legalizing gay marriage violates their rights to due process and equal protection under the law.
4. In my opinion, the laws of the states in question are compatible with the federal government because gay marriage being neither banned or legal in these states doesn't infringe on anyone's rights or freedom.
Justin Roa, C-Block
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/20/arizona-immigration-enforcement-stirs-national-debate/
ReplyDeleteArizona Immigration Enforcement Bill Stirs National Debate
Published April 20, 2010
The Associated Press contributed to this report ( no name)
This article is about a new immagration law that was recently passed in arazona. It is writen by a conservative view point so it may tend to support the bill. The new bill allows poliece more power to arrest people suspected of being illeagal immagrants to be charged and arrested. The bill attracted a lot of negative attention. Many believe the new immagration law encourages racial profileing, the same tactics used by communist russia and nazi germany. The people who support the bill say it will have a positive impact on the crime rate. Senator mccain storgly backs the bill. His reasoning is the amount of kidnappings going on is increasing at an alarming pace. He believes he is standing up for america and protecting his country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html
Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on ImmigrationBy RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
Published: April 23, 2010
This article is directly against the bill, this is because it is from the N.Y. time which is a more liberal media source. The article first explains the bill saying its aim is to prevent illegal immigration. It explains that Obama disagrees with the bill and openly criticizes the new legislation. Obama spoke about over haling the immigration laws to prevent the irresponsibility of others. George bush had tried to pass legislation in his presidency but failed. According to this article the failure of the bush administration put pressure on Mcain to pass the bill.
This case study tests the federal government’s power in a big way. Arizona just legalized a very controversial immigration law. The president himself does not support the bill and he says he wants to do an immigration law overhaul. Many agree with him but it would override the state governments causing the federal government to once again increase in power. The Justice Department's lawsuit says that Arizona's new law infringes on the authority of federal laws through the Constitution's supremacy clause. Another complaint is that the Arizona law violates citizens' civil rights. I believe that it is justified to pass the new immigration bill. First of all it is the states rights to pass the law and if the feds get involved they will once again increase in power and become larger than they should be. I also believe this is compatable with ferderal law because illigeal immigration is a growing problem. Illealgal immigration is not only agaist the law it is a drain on the economy. The fact that someone is taking steps to conroll this is a good thing.
James Guardino
d-block
Breanna Pizzolo D Block
ReplyDeleteFor many years now, same sex marriage has brought up much controversy throughout the United States. Recently, the case in California dealing with Proposition 8 overturned the banning of gay marriage. This case went in favor to those who opposed Prop 8. After the overturning, this will be brought to the Supreme Court. In a news article I read, it talks about the case and the final ruling. (Rovsar, Chris “Judge Hands Victory to Proposition 8 Opponents, Gay-Marriage Ban Overturned” Daily Intel, August 4th 2010) In this article, Rovsar says that the Judge said that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. I agree with the Judge. A marriage is a union between two people who love each other, it does not matter what sex of each partner is. Something that I agree with was said in the final ruling: “Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.” In the second article, explains that after the final ruling, lawyers on both sides expect the case to be appealed, and brought to the Supreme Court. (Dolan, Maura and Williams, Carol J, “Ban on Gay Marriage Overturned” Los Angeles Times, August 5th 2010) This article mainly talks about the aftermath of the case. The appeal will most definitely happen after the federal ruling states Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. This article tests the power of the federal government, because after the ruling, the case will still never have an ending. It will now go to higher powers. Amendments 1 and 10 are associated with same sex marriage. Amendment one deals with a person’s right to freedom of speech, religion and more. Gay men and lesbian’s rights are being tampered with, and it is not fair. Amendment ten deals wit states making their own laws. In my opinion, the USA should have the same ruling as a nation. This ruling should be that proposition 8 is unconstitutional not only for California but for the United States. I this the states have be eligible to pass their own laws due to the fact that same-sex marriage is such a controversial issue. There are many different views on this subject throughout America.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html (Lou Dematteis)
ReplyDelete1.This article is about each of the states, and how they stand on same sex marriage. It says how even though it has constant political arguementum, states like Conneticut, Vermont and even Washington D.C. have allowed same sex marriage. Though other states like Maine are still voting down gay marriage. which to me shows that many people are still aganst same sex marriage.
Article 2: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14037-2004Jul25.html (Alan Cooperman)
The second article explains more about how both sides of the issue are putting in countless amounts of money in order to get their point across. this news company is more concerned about the economic affect of the issue than the actual problem.
2.This case study test the authourity of the federal government by stressing the fact that same sex marriage is a choice made by state governments. Though if a choice can not be made, the federal government steps in.
3.The 13th-15th amendments are very closely related to this case. They all have something to do with individual rights.
4.I think the state laws are compatable with the federal government because they are not infringeing with anyones individual rights.
Chamika Wanigatunga
ReplyDeleteWith the recent passage of Arizona’s new Immigration reforms, there have been many heated debates going on about the ethicality Arizona’s current policy. I used articles from The New York Times known for its left leaning approach on issues, and Fox News known for its right leaning approach to issues.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us/29arizona.html?scp=3&sq=Arizona%20Immigration&st=cse
Archibald, Randal, “Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration law”, NY Times, 7/28/2010
This article from the New York Times by Randal Archibald details the federal government stepping in on legislation passed by a certain state. Shortly after the immigration bill was passed, President Obama condemned the bill calling it “misdirected” and that a certain part of it clearly leaves room for racial and ethnic discrimination. The Obama administration took prompt action on this issue in the form of preliminary injunction by Susan Bolton, a federal judge. The part of the law that the legal injunction was directed towards was the part that said a police officer is not just permitted by required to check a “suspicious” looking person to see if they are legally allowed to be in the United States. It also said that anyone who fails to provide proper identification would be subject to state charges and possible deportation. According to President Obama, and his Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. Immigration policy is not under the administrative of state government, but the federal government.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/20/arizona-immigration-enforcement-stirs-national-debate/
The Associated Press, “Arizona Immigration Enforcement Bill Stirs National Debate”, FoxNews, 4/20/2010
This article uses information gathered from the Associated Press, therefore multiple writers took part in writing it. This Fox News Article provides the less detailed overview of the issue as opposed to just the singular action taken by the Federal Government. It details how people think that the bill blatantly advocates and sanctions racial profiling as a means of enforcing the law. In addition, it mentions the recent murder of a rancher at the hands of an illegal immigrant which added fuel to the already burning conflict. It also addresses the competition to the bill. “Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., also led a press conference Tuesday on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., to denounce the proposal and call on the federal government to put pressure on Arizona officials not to enforce it.” This article also highlights some other aspects of the bill which say that the transport of illegal immigrants is also outlawed.
cont.
ReplyDelete2. The authority of the federal government is tested with this case study because this event is a clear example of the federal government flexing its authoritative muscle by intervening in legislation passed by a single state. The legislation being effective only within the legal borders of the state, the federal government took action to make sure that its interests are secured.
3. What the Obama administration argues that this is a violation of the 14 amendment. The Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment says that state and local governments cannot deprive the people of certain laws. Also, the Equal Protection Clause states that all people are equal under the law, and should not be subject to discrimination.
4. In my opinion, both the Arizona State Government, and the Federal Government are at fault here. For one, the Constitution of the United States is meant to protect US Citizens, and illegal immigrants are not under its jurisdiction. Still however, the bill gives the right for police officers to ask “suspicious” looking individuals about their citizenship status. There is as much of a chance that a random White individual is illegal as is there a Black, Asian, or Hispanic individual. There is no definite image of “illegal immigrant”, but racial bias tends to point towards Hispanics as the prime suspects. This violates the right to privacy, as well as the 14th Amendment since there are of course a considerable number of Hispanic Americans.
I believe that the federal government does have the right to intervene when the rights of citizens are being threatened, but does not have the right to go farther in to state policy than that.
(continued)
ReplyDeleteThe laws of the state are not compatible with the federal law. As proven, many states do not allow same sex marriage. Only 6 states approve of gay marriage, while 3 states recognize the marriage license but will not grant one. If the state laws were compatible with the federal law, all states would be allowed gay marriages. I believe the states should have the right to determine whether or not they should allow gay marriages because marriage is part of the reserved powers. If the federal government starts taking away pieces of state’s powers, the legislative branch will soon have nothing left. Although I do think same sex marriage should be allowed in all states, I believe it is up to the states to have their own laws about it. The Supreme Court ruled in one of the cases in 1958 about marriage: “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival….”
(Badash, David, “Does the U.S Constitution Already Make Gay Marriage Legal?”, The New Civil Rights Movement, July 9, 2009)
Fanny He; E-Block
Marijuana – legal or not ?
ReplyDeleteAnswer? – who knows. The Federal and State governments can’t seem to agree on one answer. The governments of at least 14 different states, including California, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, and Alaska, seem to believe that marijuana is legal for medical purposes. The Federal government, on the other hand, continues to follow the standard law that makes the sale, growth, and use of marijuana illegal. But how can marijuana be nationally declared illegal AND legal in certain areas of the nation at the same time? This just goes tow hold bold most state governments can be.
Raids on two Northern California medical marijuana dispensaries have led to the arrest of a man and two women who were suspected of dealing the drug. The raids were a part of a 4 month long investigation. Although many medical marijuana dispensaries in California operate without difficulty in the state’s medical marijuana law, these “victims” of the raid were arrested because they were suppliers of a substance deemed “illegal” by national government. (Djansezian, Kevork. “3 Arrested in NorCal Marijuana Dispensary Busts” http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/09/17/3-arrested-norcal-marijuana-dispensary-busts/, 17 Sept. 2010)
(cont . . . )
ReplyDeleteBeing that many dispensaries are being raided and banned, suppliers have resorted to bringing medical marijuana directly to people’s homes. I mean, how else would medical marijuana patients get what they need? Especially since sending drugs through the postal service and cultivating pot for sale both violate U.S. Law. According to the Senate Bill 420, patients are protected from prosecution for “possession, transportation, delivery, or cultivation of medical marijuana.” But this law protects patients, NOT their suppliers.
In order to solve this problem, an initiative that would legalize the possession of marijuana will be on the November ballot. If voted upon, it would take care of most of the issued that resulted in the legalization of marijuana. For instance, dispensaries will no longer be raided now that they won’t “officially” be breaking any laws. But I worry that the federal law will override the state’s decision and continue to arrest those suppliers of medical marijuana. If that’s the case, the initiative would not serve its purpose, especially when it came to issues exceeding state borders. However, some local and federal officials say that delivery services violate the 1996 Compassionate Use Act that legalized marijuana in California. These “delivery” services are only viewed as a way to avoid local regulations that ban dispensaries. 129 cities and 9 counties in California have all banned medical marijuana dispensaries. This just makes it THAT much harder for patience to obtain the “remedy” they need. In addition to those restrictions, 439 dispensaries were closed in the Los Angeles area alone. Only an estimated 135 dispensaries will be allowed to remain open, however, only if they follow the new rules and regulations set out for them. (Zassenhaus,Eric. “Marijuana Delivery Services Evade Bans on Dispensaries, Spread Across California. http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/06/05/marijuana-delievery-services-evade-bans-dispensarie/, 5 June 2010)
The state laws are in no way, shape, or form compatible with the federal laws. Although this is kind of ironic being that the federal government is supposed to be like the “supreme law of the land,” this is what happens when the federal government stretches its power past the limits guided by the Constitution.
Divinaa x3.
D-Block
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete_Cont . . .
ReplyDeleteBeing that many dispensaries are being raided and banned, suppliers have resorted to bringing medical marijuana directly to people’s homes. I mean, how else would medical marijuana patients get what they need? Especially since sending drugs through the postal service and cultivating pot for sale both violate U.S. Law. According to the Senate Bill 420, patients are protected from prosecution for “possession, transportation, delivery, or cultivation of medical marijuana.” But this law protects patients, NOT their suppliers.
In order to solve this problem, an initiative that would legalize the possession of marijuana will be on the November ballot. If voted upon, it would take care of most of the issued that resulted in the legalization of marijuana. For instance, dispensaries will no longer be raided now that they won’t “officially” be breaking any laws. But I worry that the federal law will override the state’s decision and continue to arrest those suppliers of medical marijuana. If that’s the case, the initiative would not serve its purpose, especially when it came to issues exceeding state borders. However, some local and federal officials say that delivery services violate the 1996 Compassionate Use Act that legalized marijuana in California. These “delivery” services are only viewed as a way to avoid local regulations that ban dispensaries. 129 cities and 9 counties in California have all banned medical marijuana dispensaries. This just makes it THAT much harder for patience to obtain the “remedy” they need. In addition to those restrictions, 439 dispensaries were closed in the Los Angeles area alone. Only an estimated 135 dispensaries will be allowed to remain open, however, only if they follow the new rules and regulations set out for them. (Zassenhaus,Eric. “Marijuana Delivery Services Evade Bans on Dispensaries, Spread Across California. http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/06/05/marijuana-delievery-services-evade-bans-dispensarie/, 5 June 2010)
The state laws are in no way, shape, or form compatible with the federal laws. Although this is kind of ironic being that the federal government is supposed to be like the “supreme law of the land,” this is what happens when the federal government stretches its power past the limits guided by the Constitution.
Divina x3.
D-Block
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(cont . . . )
ReplyDeleteBeing that many dispensaries are being raided and banned, suppliers have resorted to bringing medical marijuana directly to people’s homes. I mean, how else would medical marijuana patients get what they need? Especially since sending drugs through the postal service and cultivating pot for sale both violate U.S. Law. According to the Senate Bill 420, patients are protected from prosecution for “possession, transportation, delivery, or cultivation of medical marijuana.” But this law protects patients, NOT their suppliers.
In order to solve this problem, an initiative that would legalize the possession of marijuana will be on the November ballot. If voted upon, it would take care of most of the issued that resulted in the legalization of marijuana. For instance, dispensaries will no longer be raided now that they won’t “officially” be breaking any laws. But I worry that the federal law will override the state’s decision and continue to arrest those suppliers of medical marijuana. If that’s the case, the initiative would not serve its purpose, especially when it came to issues exceeding state borders. However, some local and federal officials say that delivery services violate the 1996 Compassionate Use Act that legalized marijuana in California. These “delivery” services are only viewed as a way to avoid local regulations that ban dispensaries. 129 cities and 9 counties in California have all banned medical marijuana dispensaries. This just makes it THAT much harder for patience to obtain the “remedy” they need. In addition to those restrictions, 439 dispensaries were closed in the Los Angeles area alone. Only an estimated 135 dispensaries will be allowed to remain open, however, only if they follow the new rules and regulations set out for them. (Zassenhaus,Eric. “Marijuana Delivery Services Evade Bans on Dispensaries, Spread Across California. http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/06/05/marijuana-delievery-services-evade-bans-dispensarie/, 5 June 2010)
The state laws are in no way, shape, or form compatible with the federal laws. Although this is kind of ironic being that the federal government is supposed to be like the “supreme law of the land,” this is what happens when the federal government stretches its power past the limits guided by the Constitution.
Divinaa x3 .
D-Block
Article One- Audi, By Tamara. "California Votes for Prop 8 - WSJ.com." Business News & Financial News - The Wall Street Journal - WSJ.com. Web. 30 Sept. 2010. .
ReplyDeleteArticle Two- Fagan, By Kevin. "Judge Lifts Prop. 8 Stay - Gay Marriages on Hold - SFGate." Featured Articles From The SFGate. 13 Aug. 2010. Web. 01 Oct. 2010. .
1.The first article states that California voters overturned same-sex marriage rights in a vote. The passage of Proposition 8 established marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The author talks about the passage of Proposition 8. The proposition changed the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. There are many views towards the ban to overturn gay marriage. Lorri Jean, head of the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center stated, “No one can underestimate the impact of the largest state in the nation treating all of its citizens equally.” The passage of Proposition 8 was not just to have the government recognize marriage of any kind. Marriage is a religious issue that should be handled in the church. The best solution would be to have the state recognize only civil unions. In other words, all married couples would be recognized by the state as being join in civil unions. The second article talks about the state of California allowing same-sex marriage, if the Ninth U.S Circuit Court of Appeals does not interfere. Chief U.S District Judge Vaughn Walker had invalidated Proposition 8, stating that it was discriminatory and unconstitutional. Walker critiques the Proposition 8, and strongly feels that the stay should be lifted because the ban’s supporters had not shown how allowing same-sex marriages to proceed would damage them or the state. The state did not defend Proposition 8 and that “proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant,” says Walker.
2. This case study tests the authority of the federal government because same- sex marriage has a history of being a controversial issue. People who support gay rights strongly argue that same-sex marriage allows them to express their love and affection towards one another, just like a normal married couple. With the establishment of Proposition 8, it allowed gay couples to get married. The federal court stepped in because the state passed a bill which led to the issue of violating human rights.
ReplyDelete3. The issue of same-sex marriage is associated with the fifth, tenth, and fourteenth amendment. The supporters of gay marriage stand for the legalization of gay marriage. If the marriage is not legalized in the state, their rights are violated to due process and equal protection under the law. Amendment Ten deals with the states having the power to regulate laws not specified in the Constitution. Same-sex marriage is a law that needs to be controlled by each state.
4. I feel that same-sex marriage doesn’t bother me. But, I feel that the US should have the same ruling as a nation. This controversial issue is between the people for or against same-sex marriage rights. Same-sex marriage is a chance for a gay couple to show their love for one another.
-Haynes Yatco, C Block
Cite: 1) Schwartz, John, “Court Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Ban in California”, NY Times. Aug 5 2010
ReplyDelete2) McKinley, Jesse, “Court Extends Stay on Allowing Gay Marriage”, NY Times. Aug 16 2010
A) In the Supreme Court, the temporary victory for supporters of Proposition 8 was defeated because the proposition discriminated against gay men and women. The discrimination lies in the rejection between same-sex marriages in California. Proposition 8 was a constitutional amendment, passed in November 2008, that succeeded with a 52% vote to only recognize marriage between a male and a female. However, the striking down of proposition 8 is highly controversial because opponents of the proposition didn’t believe that it is constitutional to rule solely that marriage is between men and women. Judge Walker stated, “Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.” Walker is referencing to the Equal Protection Clause in Amendment 14 of the United States Constitution that clearly states that the state shall not deny any person with its jurisdiction to equal protection of the law, which supports the idea that all men are equal. California was setting of cheers of “We Won!” to praise ruling which is regarded as the “victory for the American People” and anyone who had been denied rights because they were a minority of viewed differently. The basis of the victory expand from Walker’s viewpoint which states that traditional cannot form the rational basis for law- which implies that change is essential for progression in a country.
B)For over a decade, the political issue of same-sex marriage has been a flashpoint in the United States setting of law suits and ballot initiatives attempting to ban or approve the practice. Opponent groups that fought proposition 8 quickly filed law suits when the ban for same-sex marriage won by 52% in the ballot. In August 2010, the authority of the federal government was tested when a federal judge, believed in the unfair discrimination of men and women, in San Francisco struck down the ban and the legal battle was to be settled in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court repeals the ban and declares that same sex marriage can resume, leaving Proposition 8 banned in effect. The authority of the Federal Government is highlighted in this case study because the discrepancy was so monstrous that the federal government had to intervene before California turns into utter chaos. This goes to demonstrate that the federal government has higher superiority when it comes down to the final decision. The final decision for permitting same-sex marriage is to be enforced under the law because of the protected individual rights, which includes equality for all.
Jessica Chan;
E Block (Part 1)
... (Part 2)
ReplyDeleteC)In this case regarding Same-Sex Marriage, Amendment 14 in the Constitution is the highly referred to date to validate the rights of marriage. The Equal Protection Clause is an attempt to secure the promise of the United States’ professed commitment which states that “all men are created equal”. Advocates of gay rights believe that by denying equality within the family system is to deny the respect and the essence of privacy because being gay is about forming an adult family relationship with the person as the same sex. In addition, amendment nine states that the rights of other cannot infringe upon another persons’ right. This general protection for privacy is another argument for supporters because those who are against same-sex marriage aren’t allowed to use their belief to deprive others of liberty, without due process of law.
D) The laws of sates are not compatible with federal law. After all, the federal government holds superiorly because it has the legislative, executive, and judicial branch to keep the powers in check. For example, the greatly debated issue on same-sex marriage has reached the Supreme Court because California, as a state, couldn’t simply support one side of the issue which prompted federal intervention, in hopes of settling the disputes. The reason why states are permitted to pass laws is supported by amendment ten which gives the states reserved rights that are not delegated to the United States (federal) government. Therefore, Proposition 8, a state ballot, was able to temporarily succeed but the mass discrepancies turned this issue into a federal concern because of the issue’s controversial popularity.
Jessica Chan;
E-Block
Dolan, Maura."Official Prop. 8 proponent claims same-sex marriage can harm children." Los Angeles Times. January 22, 2010. September 30, 2010
ReplyDeleteLovett, Kenneth. "New York Senate votes against legalizing gay marriage by a large margin, 38-24". Daily News. December 2, 2009. September 30,2010.
The articles, which I found, spoke about the issue of gay marriage and how some states are denying people of the same sex to get married. The article I found from the Los Angeles Times said that same sex marriage can harm children in the future. A chemical engineer, Tam, was asked for their opinion on the issue. Tam said that children should not grow up wondering whether they should marry "Jane or John" and if they grow up in an environment where same sex marriage is being practiced, their sexuality will be questionable. Gay marriage was compared to pedophilia and incest and it was said that if gay marriage is a civil right, than so is the right to practice pedophilia and incest. The article found in the Daily News talked about how people of New York were disappointed because of the outcome of senates vote to deny the idea of gay marriage. After hours of personal debate to legalize gay marriage, senate decided against gay marriage in a vote 38-24. Hassell Thompson said that "People have the right to choose...and if there is a condemnation in that choice, which is something that my church preaches, then that's between them and God.." Thompson is saying that people should have the choice no matter what their religion is and whatever internal conflicts they may have is between them and their God. This case tests the authority of federal government because although the federal government has more power over state governments, they will not come to a final decision on the constitutionality of same sex marriage. The federal government has the opportunity to either accept or deny this issue and they choose not do come to a final conclusion. This issue can relate to the first amendment which gives us the right to speech, assembly, press and religion because the acceptance of same sex marriage can be a religion issue and it can also be related to freedom of speech. As American citizens, we have the right to tell someone that we love them unconditionally and want to marry them no matter what gender they are. The right to marry someone of the same gender can also relate to the 14th amendment which gives us equality. Gay couples should be granted the same rights as a male-female couples which include the right to marriage. I think that the states should be able to decide their own laws on whether or not gay marriage should be existent or not because since the constitution does not specifically state that gay marriage is illegal, it is up to the states to decide. If the states cannot decide upon a national standard, the federal government should step in and make one decision for the entire nation to abide by in order for every citizen to be treated the same way.
Lisa Borzi; A Block
Cite 1-Author Rau, Alia Beard/Hensley, JJ “Police weighing Arizona's immigration bill's impact”
ReplyDeletehttp://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/04/22/20100422arizona-immigration-bill-police-impact.html.
Cite 2- Arcibold, Randal C. “Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html.
The two articles that I found were anti immigration law articles. The first articles were from the Arizona central which is a large newspaper company in Arizona. The article is called “Police weighing Arizona's immigration bill's impact” by Alia Beard Rau and JJ Hensley.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/04/22/20100422arizona-immigration-bill-police-impact.html. The article talks about how the police officers of Arizona are reacting to the new act that was passed. There are many concerns facing the act and a major one in terms of police officers is that the officers feel that this act will take away from focusing on other crimes. Another problem these officers face is having to determine when a person becomes suspicious and “looks” like an illegal immigrant. The problem with this is that these are state officer’s not federal officers so they don’t have the extensive training to determine when a person is deemed suspicious. So now people who have a strong accent and look Hispanic will be targeted which is racial profiling.
The next article I found was from the NY Times and it to was also aiming on proving this act unconstitutional. “Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration” by Randal C. Arcibold talks about the concerns that will come from this act. The link is http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html. It says how President Obama criticizes the act saying it is misguiding. It also talks about how the Hispanic population is reacting negatively to the bill and protests are becoming larger in number. There is also a planned boycott on Arizona completely. Governor Brewer who is Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund says “a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions.” What this does to Hispanic Americans is puts a target on their back and it is violating there natural rights as American citizens.
my first article is arizona immigration encourages police abuse. this is basically an article about how the law passed by arizona might lead to some civil rights being violated by police cause there might be some raceil profileing police could check certain peolpe that fit the description of an illegal immigrant the president of mexico Felipe Calderón has said in the article his displeasure
ReplyDeletewith the law feels it could create some tension with u.s.a. the article also states that it is unfair and is a total crime agianst what america is all about.
my second artcile is Arizona Immigration Law Identical to Federal Laws Requiring Alien Documentation, Says Attorney by penny starr.
what this is about is how the state law should be the fedral law and this decision should be fought for at the supreme court and how this law is correct in limiting immigration.
i bealieve that if the peolpe of arizona feel that that the law should be enforced then its the job of the goverment to do so thats the thing about living in demcratic repulic its marjority vs minortiy and its the will of the people
This issue is impacting the federal government because Arizona made a law about immigration which is a federal issue. The state government has no jurisdiction to makes laws regarding a federal, issue. As we speak, President Obama and the federal government is suing Arizona because they violated the constitution.
ReplyDeleteThis act violates several amendments created by our founding fathers. The first amendment is being violated in the fact that because of a person accent or language that makes them suspicious to be an illegal immigrant. The 4th amendment is also being violated in illegal search and seizure. These officers are searching suspected immigrants with no other reason other than there looks. That is not probable cause to search someone without a warrant. This is also promoting racial profiling which is wrong and not what this country stands for. I have a quote from our past president George W Bush. It states “Racial Profiling is wrong and we will end it in America”. This is from a very conservative president and whats funny is how conservatives are now promoting racial profiling. The defense of the creators and supporters of the bill state is that there is no racial profiling and that the searches are completely random. But the problem with this is that there is it’s not completely random because they are targeting Hispanic looking people. Racial issues have been such a big part of this country since it was first created and it was fought and defeated. Now it has become okay again to base laws on someone’s race which is going against the constitution and if our country has come to this that we are going against the document that we live our life by. People often use the fact that president Obama still never took a plan of action against illegal immigration but that still doesn’t give the states the rights to violate and pick and chose which parts of the constitution they follow and disobey.
As you can see I am 100% against this bill for the main reason that it does not apply legally. This is why at this moment the Supreme Court is looking at this bill and whether or not it is constitutional which its not. I’m sure that the Supreme Court will find this Act unconstitutional because it violates the natural rights of an American citizen and the constitution is the foundation in which we run our country.
James verdi D Block
1)Article 1- Birchard John “Marijuana and Medical Marijuana” http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/marijuana/index.html Updated: July 29, 2010
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about the general use of marijuana also known as cannabis. Marijuana has been used for thousands of years and has been declared illegal in the 20th century. However, people has been trying to legalize the use of this drug for the ill. According to this article, “Currently 14 states allow the use of marijuana for pain relief, nausea and loss of appetite by people with AIDS, cancer and other debilitating diseases.” Even though this new law has been made, there had been restrictions rules that widely come with the consumption of marijuana. Sellers must prove that they will not be attaining a profit from selling these drugs and patients may only consume marijuana if prescribes by their doctor. But even with this being said, many people that this will be the start of unintentional law breaking. California is considering legalizing this drug. There will be a ballot this November as to how will marijuana be consumed in within the state. According to the article, “The new ballot measure would allow anyone over 21 to buy or, possess, marijuana. It would bar personal possession of more than one ounce as well as smoking the drug in public or around minors.”
Article 2)- KOCIENIEWSKI DAVID “New Jersey Vote Backs Marijuana for Severely Ill” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/nyregion/12marijuana.html
Published: January 11, 2010
New Jersey has been the 14th state to legalize the use of marijuana to help the chronic ill. This decision has been passed by the General Assembly and State Senate. Under the bill, the state would help set the cost of the marijuana. The measure does not require insurance companies to pay for it. Charles Kwiatkowki one of many people who uses marijuana says, “It’s nice to finally see a day when democracy helps heal people” He suffers from neuralgia, which causes him to lose the feeling and use of his right arms and shoulders. Marijuana helps him with the pain. People feel the need to use marijuana because they will not get side affects that make them weak like other drugs. Others oppose to this drug being legalized. Keiko Warner, a school counselor in Millville, N. J says, “There are children at age 15, 14 who are using drugs or thinking about using drugs,” she said. “And this is not going to help.” She feels teens will be have easier access to such drugs as its easily prescribed by anyone who is ill. Both these articles explain how marijuana is considered to be legalized. The 1st article talks about the general point of the use of marijuana for the ill, as to the second article talks about other people’s point of view.
ANGELA SALMOS D-BLOCK
(CONTINUATION!! )
ReplyDelete2) Marijuana is the only major drug for which the federal government controls the only legal research supply and for which the government requires a special scientific review. The authority of the federal government is being tested in a way to show what decision they will make based on marijuana. The ill feel the need to use as, while others feel its harmful to the society. Teens shouldn’t have to feel that marijuana is okay, but the federal government has to find a way where marijuana can be used yet keep our society sane. According to http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/marijuana/index.html, “In July 2010, the Department of Veterans Affairs announced that it will formally allow patients treated at its hospitals and clinics to use medical marijuana in states where it is legal, a policy clarification that veterans have sought for several years.” This shows tat the federal government is thinking about the ill, and not just opposing to it because it would just be easier to keep the laws the way it is without chaos. This is a very controversial issue and many people has many opinions and different opinions.
3) In the Tenth Amendment says, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Sates are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. This shows that the people does have a right to what should be done with marijuana. The people are able to express their freedom of speech and declare the need for marijuana if needed for the ill, but not everyone approves of marijuana so this issue is still being solved.
4) In my opinion the federal law and the people are bumping heads, because there are citizens who believe marijuana should be used and there are others who protest against it. This whole this is honestly a complete mess. Who is to say that the ill takes advantage of the use if marijuana or gives it to other people who are not sick. Abuse of the law does happen so everything needs to be thought out clearly. I don’t have an opinion as to if marijuana should be legalized or not, but I feel that if it does help the ill they should be allowed to use it. I agree with prescription being used, but I do not agree to it being sold regularly to the common people.
__ANGELA SALMOS
D-BLOCK
The issue of abortion is a very touchy topic. There are sides who say that people should have the choice whether their child lives or dies. There are also sides that say abortion is immoral and unreligious. There are two articles that speak of both sides to this argument. The first is (Martin, Dr. William Harrison, Defender of Abortion Rights, Dies at 75, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/us/26harrison.html?ref=abortion, September 25th 2010) This article talks about Dr. William Harrison, a man who was pro choice who died recently, but left behind a legacy that people of the pro choice movement are not likely to forget. While doctors in Arkansas were giving up on performing abortions, Harrison stayed true to the belief that he was saving the future of disadvantaged children. He didn’t believe that he was killing babies, but fetus’ who were not developed enough to have a brain yet. Until he died, he performed abortions on many women who were willing to choose cancer over childbirth. The second article (Bellafante, Abortion in the Eyes of a Girl From Dillon, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/10/arts/television/10lights.html?ref=abortion, July 9th 2010) shows the issue from the point of view of a character in a television series. Becky Sproles is a teenager in the TV series “Friday Night Lights” and she is faced with this harrowing decision. Feeling the pressures of being a teenager as also making this much more difficult than it already is. In the end, she decides to abort the child. The fact that she thought about that what she was doing might be wrong shows that it might not be the best decision. This case study tests the authority of the federal government by demonstrating what happens when people choose what they do with their child. Federal law generally restricts the practice of abortion. This is good because aspiring parents would have to think about what they are doing before they do it. The federal government sees this as an issue that the states and the people should find an answer to. The most relevant amendment to this issue would be Amendment 4, the right to privacy. Technically speaking, what the mother does with her child is her own business, and the government should not have any say in what she does. The laws of Arizona, could coincide with the laws set down by Roe v. Wade. Arkansas laws only allow abortion in extreme situations and only in the first trimester. These laws actually work well with the federal laws set down. These are some ways that abortion is controversial.
ReplyDeleteJohn Schiavone C-Block
The new law of immigration in Arizona has been seen as nothing but negative in the eyes of vast amounts of citizens. "When I heard about it, it reminded me of Nazi Germany," said Hispanic Federation President Lillian RodrÃguez López. "It reminded me of South African apartheid" (Sisk, Richard, and Erin Einhorn. "Sharpton, Other Activists Compare Arizona Immigration Law to Apartheid, Nazi Germany and Jim Crow." Daily News. 24 Apr. 2010. Web. ). Civilians want their voices to be heard by any means possible whether that means they must march to Arizona or even be arrested. The fear of immigrants coming to the United States has become such a “catastrophe” that a bill was passed stating police can question the innocent if they seem as though they are an alien.
ReplyDeleteGov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration into law on Friday. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants. (Archibold, Randal C. "Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration." The New York Times. 23 Apr. 2010. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html). Although presidents rarely weigh in on state legislation, Obama has shown his opposition to this bill from the beginning, which he feels is taking away the trust between police and our communities. Governor Brewer acknowledges criticisms of the bill and assures that police will be properly trained, and racial profiling will not be tolerated. This debate could help get Hispanics involved in voting, or it could get more conservative voters involved.
The new immigration law most certainly tests the authority of the federal government. The federal government government’s power has been given a limit in certain situations, like this one, where states rights have triumphed even the president’s beliefs. President Barrack Obama has said he does not agree with this new law, but it came from the state of Arizona. The new immigration law goes against the fourth amendment. This amendment states that searched and seizures without probable cause or a search warrant is unlawful. The fourth is not the only amendment that this law is breaking, but the fourteenth in addition. The fourteenth amendment speaks on how citizen’s rights cannot be withdrawn from them. By unreasonably questioning people as illegal immigrants due to how they look is taking away their rights. I agree with what Chamika said about there is no definite image of an immigrant, so how is it that police are able to question people who look like they may be an alien? This law should only be viewed as unconstitutional due to the fact that it violates tremendous amounts of human rights. The new immigration law is detrimental.
Jessica Mallozzi
Block E
In the article “Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration”, Randal C. Archibold writes about the passing of the law in Arizona allowing officials to arrest and prosecute illegal immigrants. As if right after the signing, protests were formed against the bill emphasizing how that they thought it was unconstitutional and against the rights of the people. Those for the bill believe that if you are an illegal immigrant then you should be deported or arrested. The issue in Arizona is different rather is “What than say Montana because of the vast amount of illegal immigrants in Arizona. Another article does Arizona's immigration law do?” by Cnn.com explaining what is going on in Arizona and why there is so much controversy.
ReplyDeleteThis is testing the laws of the local government. The Arizona law is extremely controversial to people because of racial profiling that may occur. Even Obama criticized the bill. The bill is giving officers the power to detain even a citizen if they don’t have they’re immigration papers. Which many believe will be a power abused. Those against the bill argue that it is against the illegal immigrant’s rights to detain them but the other side of the argument is that they aren’t citizens therefore have no US rights.
I am for the bill because I believe that the illegal immigrants are taking away from society and the economy due the fact that they don’t pay taxes therefore don’t give back to the economy. Even though some American citizens may be asked for their citizenship papers, I think that it is necessary to decrease the size of illegal immigrants in Arizona.
(Archibold, Randal C. “Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html April 12th, 2010)
(CNN “What does Arizona's immigration law do?” http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-23/politics/immigration.faq_1_immigration-reform-law-institute-immigrant-advocates-illegal?_s=PM:POLITICS April 23rd 2010)
Michael Grigoli D-Bloc
Lou Dematteis, “Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships”, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html , September 29th 2010.
ReplyDeleteThe following article dealt with the issue, whether same- sex marriage should be allowed or banned. Numerous people believe that marriage is a fundamental bond with ancient roots and allow same sex marriage would undermine the institution of marriage. In a great deal of states, man of them rules that a law barring same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Although, the federal judges felt that the law barring the federal government from recognizing same- sex marriage; voters felt that same-sex couples should not be allowed because legal rights were tied into marriage.
This case study tests the authority of the federal government because although the state has the power to determine the rights of marriage, banning same-sex marriage goes against certain amendments in the Constitution. For example, same-sex couple, test the 14th Amendment, which is equal protection under the law and the 5th Amendment, which is due process. Also in Article 4; Section 2, its states that all citizens have the same rights; therefore banging same-sex marriage would be unconstitutional because it is denying humans their rights. I do believe the state laws can be compatible with the federal government. According to the article, a number of states legalized same-sex marriage, which agreed with the federal government, who ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriage.
John Birchard, “Marijuana and Medical Marijuana”, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/m/marijuana/index.html , July 29th 2010.
The following article handles the issue dealing with marijuana legalized for medical purposes. People who suffer from serious medical diseases are tired of taking hundred of different pills, when they can just take one drug that will cure all their problems. Many of the states have already legalized the use of medical marijuana, but the federal government continues to oppose any decriminalization of the drug. Because of dispensaries, some states require sellers to prove nonprofit status.
This case study test the authority of the federal government because they said the use of marijuana was illegal and it was a schedule one drug according to the DEA. But because the use of marijuana is not found in the Constitution, we must turn to the 10th Amendment, which says the states have the power to decide on they issue. It is up to the states to decide whether they wish to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, but the federal government claims the use of it is illegal and often raid dispensaries. The laws of the state are not compatible with those of the government; it is more of a contradiction. The states said, medical marijuana is legal, but then you have the federal government raided dispensaries. There is no way to fight it either because state laws are irrelevant in federal courts.
D - BLOCK .
Part of federal gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional
ReplyDeleteThe Defense of Marriage Act goes against states' rights and the Equal Protection Clause, a federal judge says in two Massachusetts cases.
The topic I pick was gay marriage the article I pick was Part of federal gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional from the Los Angeles times the article stated that on Thursday in Boston the federal judge in Boston on Thursday according to the article is stated that ”The 1996 law prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, which deprives gay spouses of federal benefits like healthcare and tax breaks that their heterosexual counterparts receive. “ U.S district judge Joseph the only deals with the law as it affects Massachusetts residents residents. They can also help secure federal benefits for other gay spouse in states where the the same marriage is legal. Federal employees in same sex marriages in California have previously won similar judgments that the government have to pay benefits to their spouses. The ban passed by a 52% margin is now before a federal judge san Francisco on a similar challenge to it constitutionally. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/09/nation/la-na
Part of federal gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional
The Defense of Marriage Act goes against states' rights and the Equal Protection Clause, a federal judge says in two Massachusetts cases.
July 09, 2010|By Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times
The other that I read about same gay marriage this one is about califorina voters went to the polls nov.5,2008 and passed prop 8 for the so-called gay marriage ban addcoring to the arctlie agency can implement laws that violate the U.S. Constitution. Preventing gays and lesbians from marriage violates same-sex couples’ rights of due process and equal protection under the law. Church or religious groups can’t expect states to discriminate against one group simply because it doesn’t fit their religious or local customs. California’s gubernatorial candidates should take as stand and set the record straight where they stand on legalizing gay marriage. The state or the prop 8 expressly forbade the start civil rights of same –sex couples seeking civil marriage in California.
http://www.examiner.com/city-buzz-in-los-angeles/california-s-gay-marrage-ban-tossed-out
John M. Curtis
LA City Buzz Examiner
California's Gay Marriage Ban Tossed Out
August 6th, 2010 11:59 am PT
The case stydts the authority of federal government by how they have the right to chose for the state for gay marriage or not and agree or disagree with people in thre state gov about this issue .
The amendment that supports gay marriage law is the 14th amendment which is Protects rights against state infringements, defines citizenship, prohibits states from interfering with privileges and immunities, requires due process and equal protection, punishes states for denying vote, and disqualifies Confederate officials and debts.
In my opinion I think the state has the right to pass this law because if a lot of people in that state thinks gay marriage is right it should be.
-Alexandra Cifu a block
1. In the Fox News article United States May Challenge Arizona Immigration Law, the audience is provided with information about the political opinions of the politicians from the state of Arizona and the federal government including President Barrack Obama’s. The Arizona Immigration Law was signed by Republican Governor Jan Brewer providing federal authorities with the opportunity to acquire documental evidence to determine whether a specific individual is an illegal alien or an American citizen. The Immigration Law is controversial as political representations believe federal authorities could result to discrimination and radical profiling when identifying the status of a specific human being. The majority of the federal government supports these claims including President Barrack Obama. Obama believes that innocent human beings can become victims of the immigration law because of their physical appearance and/or foreign ethnicities. Reverend Al Sharpton also believes the Arizona Immigration Law is unconstitutional has prepared to assemble protestors in the state of Arizona to appeal the immigration law. Jon Garrido, a Phoenix City Councilman, is also against the Arizona Immigration Law and prepared to acquire signatures for a referendum on the November election. However, the establishment of the referendum would be difficult because 76,682 registered voters would be required and illegal aliens would be unable to participate. On the other hand, Senator John McCain disagrees with the political opinions of President Barrack Obama and the federal government as McCain supports the establishment of the immigration law. John McCain believes the federal government should be responsible for illegal immigration because of their failure to secure the border between Mexico and the United States. Therefore, McCain believes that Arizona’s Immigration Law was justified because the federal government inability to provide assistance with this political issue. Senator John McCain provides valid information with Arizona consisting of 460,000 illegal immigrants and the importing of illegal drugs in the state to drastically increase. McCain understands that the federal government is concerned with discrimination and radical profiling but he continuously believes that Arizona’s authorities will be provided with policies and principle that will require a sufficient amount of evidence before an authority could question a suspected individual. Additionally, Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader, agrees with the Arizona Immigration Law and Senator John McCain. Steny Hoyer believes that Arizona understands the importance of the amendments and will respect them with the involvement of the law. Hoyer supports McCain’s conclusion that the federal government is responsible for this immigration law because of their inability to secure the borders. Steny Hoyer believes the amount of illegal immigrations in Arizona truly provides the audience about the federal government determination in reducing immigration into the country.
ReplyDelete(Serrano, Richard A., Holder: U.S. May Challenge Arizona Immigration Law, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/27/lawsuits-set-fly-arizona-officials-defend-new-immigration-law/, April 27th, 2010)
In the New York Times article Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration, the audience is provided with additional information about Arizona’s Immigration Law and the political opinions of representation throughout the country. The Arizona Immigration Law has become the one of the strictest in the country with the failure to provide appropriate documentation to federal authorities resulting in detainment and/or deportation. President Barrack Obama criticized the immigration law to media sources, a rarity for a president to express their viewpoints on state legislation.
- Kevin Conroy (Block D)
Governor Jan Brewer informed media sources that federal governments concerns including discrimination and radical profiling would be addressed with Brewer confirming that federal authorities being properly trained before being able to acquire documentation from suspected illegal aliens. Governor Jan Brewer and Senator John McCain have continuously supported the Arizona Immigration Law, SB 1070, regardless of the federal governments and media sources criticism of the immigration law and inhabitants of Arizona peacefully assembling to revoke the law. Furthermore, Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, prepares to acknowledge the immigration law in legislation to attempt to resolve the circumstance diplomatically. The Arizona Immigration Law has become a primary campaigning strategy that political candidates are using to secure additionally voters that could influence the results of an election.
ReplyDelete(Archibold, Randal C., Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html, April 23rd, 2010)
2. The establishment of the Arizona Immigration Law undermines the authority of the federal government because immigration is classified as a federal power. In 1975, the Supreme Court stated “Power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power. But the Court has never held that every state enactment which in any way deals with aliens is a regulation of immigration and thus per se pre-empted by this constitutional power, whether latent or exercised.” (The Supreme Court Case of DeCanas versus Bica) The statement by the Supreme Court suggests that states have the opportunity to establish principles and laws involving immigration; however, the federal government could revoke those principles and laws if they are believed to be unconstitutional. Therefore, the Arizona Immigration Law undermines the authority of the federal government because Arizona enforced the law without acquiring the acknowledgement of the federal government resulting in the controversy surrounding the issue. President Barrack Obama and other prominent politicians have expressed their political opinion involving the issue and media sources believe that the immigration law could be revoked in the future because of the violation of civil rights and liberties provided by the United States Constitution.
3. The Arizona Immigration Law violates the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The 4th Amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The Arizona Immigration Law provides federal authorities with the opportunity to acquire documental evidence from suspected illegal aliens without providing sufficient evidence for the purpose of this individual being unreasonably searched. This violates the 4th Amendment because federal authorities would not have a warrant and would be forcing illegal aliens, as well as, certified American citizens to prove that they are legal with evidence resulting in a search and seizure to some extent. Additionally, human beings will be unreasonable searched because of their physical appearance and ethnic background because they appear to be Hispanic which is unconstitutional as the immigration law should be apply to everyone and not just certain individuals.
- Kevin Conroy (Block D)
4. Personally, I believe the Arizona Immigration Law is not compatible with the federal government. The state of Arizona was able to legislate the immigration law because of the inability of the federal government to provide security for the American-Mexican border resulting in the government understanding their failure to fulfill their responsibility and initially accepting the proposal. The federal government has been involved in other political issues that have undermined the importance of illegal immigration; however, President Barrack Obama and the federal government will eventually review this issue to determine whether the immigration law violates the amendments and if the law is constitutional. I believe that controversy surrounding this issue will continue to result in the subjects headlines in the news; however, I believe the federal government and the judicial branch will understand that it violates the 4th Amendment and attempt to establish a resolution with the state of Arizona by either providing additionally border patrol or working to develop a political law that ensures the constitution is upheld, as well as, immigration is drastically limited.
ReplyDelete- Kevin Conroy (Block D)
Medical use of Marijuana is a very sensitive subject. Many people has reasons to why it should or should not be legalized. Two articles I have read are about Washington being one of the fourteen states to approve the use of medical marijuana and the risks of legalizing marijuana In the first article,( SOUTHHALL ASHLEY Washington, D.C., Approves Medical Use of Marijuana http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/us/05marijuana.html Published May 4th 2010) Washington has approved the use of medical marijuana from a handful of dispensaries in by the city. “The 13-member Council voted unanimously to allow doctors to recommend marijuana for people who are infected with H.I.V., as well as people with glaucoma, cancer or a “chronic and lasting disease.” Some doctors say that marijuana relieves patients from nausea, vomiting, and side effects from chemotherapy. This legislations permits the mayor Adrian M. Fenty to establish eight dispensaries where patients that need marijuana because of their illness can get 2 ounces a month. There is a maximum where 95 plants could be planted within the dispensaries and prohibits agencies to arrest medical marijuana users. In the second article,( Mascia Jennifer “Medical Use of Marijuana Costs Some Jobs” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/us/29marijuana.html published: August 28, 2010) Workers have been fired for failing the drug test while they say it was for medical reasons, yet according to the laws of their states, they are using it in an illegal way. Workers have been stressing on the fact that their state is not aware of the medical uses that marijuana does for them, so they lose their jobs. People feel it is not right that they are required to take such a drug test when they admit themselves they use marijuana as medicine for a certain illness they have. “Why would they send me down there when they know I am going to test positive?” said Nick Stennet who has Poland syndrome called “I feel like they put me through ridicule when it was so avoidable.”
ReplyDelete2) The Federal government should be given a lot of credit for dealing with such issues as marijuana to the people. There are so many reasons why it should stay illegal, but there are also reasons why it should be legalized. The Federal Government however, has opposed to some uses of marijuana, the only thing being accepted right now is for the use of the ill. The authority of the Federal Government in this case is tested because they are trying to protect the interest of the people. Society is a handful to manage. The Federal Government I believe is trying its best to listen to the ill and listen to the well.
3) For the two articles I have read, Amendment IV was violated in the second article which is right to privacy. If a person feels that they don’t have to take a drug test and insist themselves that they in fact do take marijuana already, then why waste their time? Amendment 1 freedom of speech is given to everyone in this situation, its what gives the Federal Government their decision towards the use of marijuana.
4) In my opinion, the laws of the state interferes the federal law based on the two articles I read. People were losing their jobs because marijuana. They were accused of using marihuana in an inappropriate degree. I feel that at this point in society when it comes to drugs, it can’t get any worse. People make a living of selling weed. If people are ill and marijuana is needed, than there should be no problem, but then again I do agree with people who oppose because allowing marijuana as a regular use and be sold anywhere can bring our society to a whole different level.
Jose Valentin
Block D
In the first article of the NY times, the author is conversating about whether people can have marijuana dispensaries with or without a legalized permit. The article states that there are over 1000 marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles. Over half are suspected to be illegal. It says that " police officials are going to crack down on these dispensaries by having every dispensarie must attain a documented and legal permit, the person must have a full background check, members have to recieve a criminal record check, patients should be registered with the police, and police must know where the marijuana is coming from. If this policy works, hundreds of dispensaries will shut down. They will also be monitered by the law officials around the country. The article also explains that this treatment will only be allowed for a limited amount of terminally ill people. By Moore, Solomon Title- "Los Angeles prepares for clash over marajuana"(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/us/18enforce.html?ref=marijuana). Posted on October 17, 2009. In another article by explorer news.com, the author is debating whether Arizona should allow the distribution of medical marijuana. Some people believe that marajuana can and can't help people suffering from terminally ill diseases such as HIV/Aids, cancer, and chemotherapy, etc. The article states that a woman who had brain cancer said that medical marajiuana saved her life. The article also explains how the most abused drug in the country is alcohol, and debating on legalizing medical marijuana. Author Perry, Dave. Title- "Medical Marijuana". (http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2010/09/30/opinion/editorials/doc4ca2769e3a745665728127.txt) posted September 29,2010.
ReplyDeleteThis case study does test the authority of the federal government because in the first article people are creating marijuana dispensaries ilegally. Law officials do not know where and who is disributing the marijuana to, who is recieving it, how much of it etc. The federal government would have to step in and create laws for the use of medical marijuana, also prosecute the illegal distributors of the marijuana. If they don't, this could turn into a global issue and get worse. Constitutional clauses that are relevant to the legalization of medical marijuana is the 10th amendment because it claims that powers that are not listed for the federal government are given to the states. In my opinion the federal government is only brought up for world wide issues. But for medical marijuana, the majority of states voted that the use of mendical marijuana would help citizens. Some pros for medical marijuana is that it can help treat terminally illness such as Aids, cancer, it gets rid of any symptoms due to ilness and chemotheropy. It has saved peoples lives, also the economy will steadily rise, and the crime rate will decrease. Some cons are that teens might recieve easier access to the marijuana, and you might get addicted to it.
Adrian Nieves C-block
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: May 25, 2010
ReplyDeleteOklahoma: Veto of Third Abortion Bill Is Overridden http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/us/26brfs-VETOOFTHIRDA_BRF.html?ref=abortion
This article talks about the Legislature overridden the governor’s veto on a bill that would require women to fill out questionnaires filled with 38 questions asking them personal questions. Also the legislature passed a bill require women to undergo ultrasounds and listen to a description of the fetus before the abortion. This happened after the governor’s veto.
Published: March 9, 2010 Laws, Lies and the Abortion Debate http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/opinion/10wed2.html?_r=1&ref=abortion
In this article the states are doing things to get the Supreme Court to water down Roe.v.Wade. In Utah Governor Herbert signed a bill that would criminalize certain behavior by women that results in miscarriage. In Oklahoma, the Center for Reproductive Rights requiring procedure sonograms. In Nebraska there would be a bill that would ban abortion in 20 weeks gestation. The bill did not pass yet. In the first article the legislature has overridden the governor twice on both bills after the. All this happened after the governor vetoed both bills. The legislature clearly did what it wanted to do. In the second article I felt that the Federal government was not doing a good job at all. This is not right and these bills attack the women’s rights and health. First they clearly see what some of these states are doing to change the minds of the people who want to have an abortion done. Some of the things that the states are doing seem to be unconstitutional. It seems like the Federal government is in between the situation of abortion. Their taking to long to uphold a federal ban on a particular method of abortion. Abortion has been legal ever since 1973 Roe.v.Wade. There were two bills passed by the legislature in Oklahoma. One was a bill that would require pregnant women and doctors to complete lengthy questionnaires before an abortion could be performed. Another bill that was passed would require women to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before receiving an abortion. Article 10 says whatever is not listed in the constitution then the power goes to the states. States could make abortion illegal but then again some of the ways are unconstitutional. For example the privacy of the women which some people say can be connected with the ninth amendment. I don’t think the laws of the state are compatible with the federal law if it’s not listed in the constitution then the power goes to the states. Basically I think the states are able to pass these laws in this manner because of Article 10.
by:justin castro D-block
United States is suing an Arizona sheriff about civil rights. The sheriff Arpaio, refuses to provide documents in federal rights. Arpiao descrides him self according to http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/02/nation/la-na-lawsuit-arpaio-20100903, as "America's toughest Sheriff".[Riccardi, Nicholas, "U.S. sues Arizona sheriff in civil rights probe" http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/02/nation/la-na-lawsuit-arpaio-20100903]The article basically says that Arpiao has been tough mostly on Latinos and asked about their immigration status. The article states Arpaio has been hard and aggressive about enforcing the new immigration laws. Meanwhile, same sex marriage has their own rocky road, but at atleast six other states legalized same sex marriage. According to http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html, when california banned same sex marriage,but a referndum was taken and said it as unconsitutional. Obama shares his views by saying that he opposes same sex marriage but it would be wrong for him to ban same sex marriage since he's all about equality for men and women. But Obama is unable to do anythign within the states since it would violate their 10th amandment. He also shares that he is thinking of reappealing the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy in the military. [N/A, N/A, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html]
ReplyDeleteThis case test the authority of the federal government by slowly gaining laws that will allow Arizona police to ask latinos about their immigration and to use racial profiling. But court cases after court cases, many people assume that the laws in Arizona will be taken to the Supreme Court. As for same sex marriages, federal government cannot violate the 10th amendment if they create laws that go either for or against gay marriage. They're restrictions for federal government in both sides since the federal government has to reserve their powers and states reserve their powers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1) For mostly anybody, any conflict that is centered around race and ethinicity is touchy area to explore.Due to the fact that America has had some issues in the past, and even still in the present, with racial profiling, people develop misconceptions. In the first article I read about the immigration law in Arizona, they explained why the federal government might not want to get involved just yet. The Obama administration feels that making a rash decision on the law can undermine U.S. foreign policy. U.S. district Judge Susan Bolton asked this : "Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered the United States illegally?" I agree with Judge Bolton because technically, Arizona is in accordance with the law. When a person immigrates to the U.S. and wishes to become a citizen, there are procedures issued by the government that they must follow. Obviously, it has been made clear that residing in the U.S. without having legal documentation stating that you belong here, or you're in the process of becoming a citizen, is illegal. According to this article, some civil rights groups have protested this law, and are comparing their fight to the Civil Rights Movement; this I find slightly offensive. African Americans weren't being treated differently because they were breaking immigration laws.
ReplyDelete(Gaynor, Tim, "White house, Arizona battle over state immigration law" http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN224386320100723, July 22,2010)
2) In the second article I read, it was simply explaining the law and people's views on it, including President Obama's. The people who participate in Arizona's Civil Right's Advocate groups are worried that the police lack the experience to get pass racial profiling. Despite this, similar to the other article, the bulk of U.S. citizens still agree with the law. Obama has yet to pass a bill because there aren't enough GOP supporters on board. Most are hoping to get a bill passed this year, but the author believes that the chances are slim. I agree with the author because it is not easy to legislate morals (established with the prohibition law in the early 1900s). Although these people are coming here illegally, they still have a lot of supporters who will fight the law.In the article, the author reveals that there are other states interested in issuing the same law; hopefully but 2011, we'll have some answers regarding other states.
(No author listed, "What does Arizona's immigration law do?" http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-23/politics/immigration.faq_1_immigration-reform-law-institute-immigrant-advocates-illegal?_s=PM:POLITICS, April 23, 2010)
1. Anderson, Kayla
ReplyDelete“Medical Marijuana: An intimate look inside one dispensary”
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s1762765.shtml?cat=516
09/27/2010
This article, “Medical Marijuana: An intimate look inside one dispensary,”
is about the legalization of medical marijuana in the state of New Mexico. This article focus’ on the Southwest Organic Producers, commonly referred to as SWOP, which is, one of the 11 licensed medical marijuana producers in New Mexico. The article takes readers and viewers into a farm/dispencary. The SWOP farm ensures high-grade medical cannabis that is safe yet, effective on the patient. Apparently, one of the SWOP farms had plants over eight feet tall with large, bulky buds. SWOP provides smoke-able products yet, they also provide edible products. SWOP talks about the process of becoming licenses to sell medical weed. This is what the first article I read was about.
Moore, Solomon and Stout, David
“U.S. Won’t Prosecute in States That Allow Medical Marijuana”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/us/20cannabis.html?_r=1&ref=marijuana
10/19/2009
This article, “U.S. Won’t Prosecute in States That Allow Medical Marijuana,” is about the legalization of medical marijuana throughout various states in the nation. This article states that the U.S. will no longer prosecute people who use medical marijuana, as well as, their caregivers unless it is abused. However, “selling” marijuana of any kind, whether medical or non-medical, will remain illegal without a prescription. Also, the article states that medical cannabis should not be sold at marijuana dispensaries. The conservative Texas representative, Lamar Smith, despises the position taken by the federal government. Mr. Smith feels that it would weaken the enforcement of drug laws throughout the nation. They also fear that people who do have prescriptions might use it for recreational use instead. Also, the federal government wants to create a system that enables them to keep track of the medical marijuana. This is what the article from the “New York Times” was about.
2. The legalization of medical cannabis should be up to the individual states. However, there should be a limit set put but the federal government. The legalization is a state right because it is not mentioned in the constitution. If something isn’t in the constitution it is up to the state. This is why the legalization of medical cannabis should be up to the states.
3. The laws related to this case include proposition 215, proposition 19, and the constitution. The constitution is very influential in this case because, the legalization of medical marijuana isn’t mentioned in it. Proposition 215 is important because it is the proposition that was used to legalize cannabis in California. Also, proposition 19 is important because this proposition limits how much of something can be used in a certain state. These are the laws that would be used to legalize cannabis.
4. I believe the state laws for legalization are achievable. I believe they are achievable because there isn’t anything in the constitution about the medical use of marijuana. Since, there isn’t that means it’s up to the state. Another reason that it is achievable is because according to the second article I read, from the New York Times, states that the D.E.A. will help the state governments with controlling the cannabis. These are reasons why the legalization of cannabis is now possible in select states.
Glenn Kugelman
C-Block
Citations:
ReplyDeleteArchibold, Randal C. "Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 23 Apr. 2010. Web. 29 Sept. 2010. .
Rau, Alia Beard. "Arizona Immigration Law: State to Appeal Injunction." Arizona Local News - Phoenix Arizona News - Phoenix Breaking News - Azcentral.com. 28 July 2010. Web. 29 Sept. 2010. .
The first article written by the NY Times addresses the issue of the Immigration Law that was just recently passed a few months ago. Signed by Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona, the bill was created to stop illegal residents from staying in the States but has only caused controversy since it was issued. This move unleashed immediate protests and reignited a divisive battle over immigration reform nationally. In fact, this issue has gotten to be so heated that President Obama criticized it “ the Arizona law threatens to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe” So far this law was the strictest immigration measure in generations giving the police power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Many opponents are saying that it is an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status, which is true because now this creates racial profiling- an issue that our country is strongly against after the Civil Rights movement.
The second article is somewhat different because it covers the appeal which will ask the court to lift the injunctions put in place by the new Immigration Law. This ruling stops four of the law’s more than a dozen provisions from going into effect because the Court believes the US is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the court foes not preliminarily enjoin enforcement of these sections. The portions of the law that will no longer be in effect are what makes it a crime to carry alien-registration papers, what allows for a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe they committed a public offense that makes them removable from our country, what makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to apply for work and what requires an officer to make a reasonable attempt to determine ones immigration status. Officials are trying to fix the damage that has been already caused by this issue and are implicating immediate action before things get worse and the country actually splits up over this.
2. This case tests the authority of the Federal Government because our Constitution gives us civil liberties that are being breached at the moment with the issue of this law. Even President Obama showed distaste towards this bill because it goes against everything this nation stands for which is treating everyone fairly and not profiling someone based on their appearance. Gov. Jen Brewer stated that it was issued to fix the mess that our government failed to repair but after much controversy, the state filed an expedited appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asking the panel to lift preliminary injunctions preventing several sections of Arizona’s new immigration law from going into effect.
ReplyDelete3.The fourteenth amendment pertains to this issue because it prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty or property as well as the equal protection clause which prevents discrimination. So far, the issue of this bill has rocked the very core foundations and beliefs of our government that it stands for and has created a divide among citizens which is to be considered a red flag since the last time a nation was so strongly divided a war wound up emerging.
4. Although I don’t agree with this Law, it if in fact considered to be Constitutional because whatever powers the Constitution doesn’t state are given to individual states to decide on. Since Arizona did not like the way our government was handling the issue of immigration, they decided to take action by passing this bill. This however creates much controversy among people since many see it as racial profiling. It also goes against our strong belief that people are equal and cannot be deprived of their liberties by the government. Another issue that the government is sceptical about is the fact that they make money off of these immigrants and if others see that America is profiling immigrants (which is what this country is made up of anyway), they might not want to come to America and bring business for us. This split amongst people for and against the bill is also alarming since we do not want to create another Civil War. This case can only be settled by the Federal Government when it reaches the Supreme Court but until then, this is technically considered to be Constitutional.
The first article I chose, written by a Roni Caryn Rabin, titles "Nostrums: A bit of Marijuana is found to Ease Pain" is about not only the pain relieving effects of the drug, but the quickness of relief it offers. Testimonies state that three puffs of Marijuana a day for people with chronic pain resulted in mild relief of the pain and the user did not even get high. It was also brought to attention that neurotic people with anxiety disorders reported better sleep after use of the drug and less anxiety.
ReplyDeleteThe next Article was actually a video on CNN.com about the first Medical Marijuana commercial. It is adressed only to people who want to use it medically and the creator of the commercial testifies, "I dont want to get people high, I want to get them well." This video is also quite religiously centered, focusing partially on the religious aspect of the argument.
As with all Medical Marijuana cases and instances, the Federal Vs. State laws are called into question. The main conflict between the two sets of regulations being that in California, Prescriptions for marijuana and the use of the drug for medical reasons, however, sale of the drug is highly illegal on the federal level. The Amendment related to this matter would be amendment 10.
In my own opinion, even though I do believe that Marijuana is wonderful to those with terminal illness and a lot of pain, I still believe that the legalization of the drug, in any sense, does go against Amendment 10 of our Constitution. Marijuana was deemed an illegal, Schedule 1 Narcotic by the federal government. Which means that laws permitting the use of it for any reason passed by the state, go against the already enforced federal law. Simply put, The states that have legalized marijuana for medical use had no grounds to contradict the federal policy on the drug.
Travis Knight D Block
In this article is states that Washington, D.C. became the sixth place in the nation where same sex marriage can take place. “Proponents of same-sex marriage say that the institution is a unique expression of love and commitment and that calling the unions of same-sex couples anything else is a form of second-class citizenship; they also point out that many legal rights are tied to marriage” Some people think being gay is unconstitutional and going against the bible. A court in California ruled that it was also unconstitutional, while in Maine there was a bill approving gay marriage. New York voted to legalize same-sex marriage while Massachusetts ruled that gay couples deserve the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples. “Mr. Obama has said he opposes same-sex marriage as a Christian but describes himself as a "fierce advocate of equality" for gay men and lesbians.” Throughout the years, gay marriage might be accepted through out the United States, but that’s unsure of as of now. (Dematteis, Lou, Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships, Aug. 13, 2010)
ReplyDeleteAccording to a Washington Post Poll in February, adults younger than thirty( 6 in 10) think they people have a right to same-sex marriage. "Our nation is at a crossroads, and conservatives are trying to rally together to turn back the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda," said Chris Barron, chairman of GOProud, a gay Republican group. "That's why we've seen people like Glenn Beck saying, 'Look, same-sex marriage isn't hurting anybody.' Because he sees a need to create a broad-based conservative movement." I used this quote because he uses the term same- sex marriage isn’t hurting anybody. People can’t help who they love so it should be fair for them to marry who they wish to marry. Gay rights continue to divide both parties. Gay is individuality and something you can’t change, so there shouldn’t be a law against it. (Somashekhar, Sandhya, Same Sex Marriage Gains GOP support, August 27,2010)
The federal government divides the power of the nation government and the state government. Under federalism, each level of government has control in some areas and shares powers in other areas. The federal government can declare whether they can have same-sex marriage and declare if homosexuality is unconstitutional. I think it should be based upon the people, and there shouldn’t be a law stating who you can and cannot love. The federal government has the power to allow or disallow gay marriage.
I think the freedom of religion in the first amendment can guarantee that homosexuals have the right to marry whom they wish. Most people may say its unconstitutional and that its not in the bible, but its their religion they can be who they want to be, they can love who they want to love. One major Act is the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which bans same-sex marriages that is apart of many states including Colorado, Kansas, Illinois and Michigan. Places like New York, New Jersey and New Mexico do not have a law banning same-sex marriages.
The laws of the state are compatible with federal law because the federal government consists of both. They make most of the rules while the state government is held back on a few. Although I feel as if one state is allowing same-sex marriage, so should the rest of the United States, but at least it is not banned throughout the whole country.
Danielle Ianazzi
Eblock
I decided to research abortion in the United States. The first article I read seemed to be leaning towards the pro-choice side. Throughout the article, the author included the thoughts of Dr. William Adams, who has been performing abortions for three decades, as well as pro-choice activist, Melissa Bird. Both Adams and Bird are strongly against the abortion laws that have been recently passed. These include the House Bill 200 which requires doctors to offer to show a woman an ultrasound before an abortion (previously, offering the ultrasound was optional) and another change to the law; that the doctor has to determine if a fetus is “viable” instead of simply “survivable” outside of the womb, which Adams claims is ridiculous medically speaking since fetuses are not viable until 23 weeks and no Utah doctor will do an abortion after 20 weeks. I completely agree with Adams and Bird. I find it a complete violation of our fourth amendment right to privacy. I learned in this article that because some states are creating so many laws restricting abortion, women actually went to such extremes as to hire someone to beat them in order to kill their fetus. By doing this, these women are also endangering themselves by becoming felons by breaking House Bill 462 which makes it a felony for a woman who intentionally has a miscarriage. In this manner, I feel that the laws of the state are not compatible with federal law. However, these states have been able to legislate the new laws most likely because there is an even stronger pro-life following. Many religious figures, such as priests and bishops, are making it their business to make sure their state does not vote any pro-choice activist into office; preventing pro-choice representation in government.
ReplyDelete(Loftin, Josh “Utah Legislators Against Abortion” http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-10791-utah-legislators-against-abortion.html March 24, 2010)
The next article I found, I discovered how not only were these pro-life activists trying to violate a woman’s right to amendment 4, some are also complete hypocrites. Pro-life activists are strongly against abortion for the main reason that they believe it is murdering unborn babies. Yet, although they are against murder, some are willing to destroy abortion clinics, killing whoever is inside. One of the more recent attacks killed Dr. William Harrison. Harrison has, like Dr. Adams, has also been performing abortions for about three decades. Ever since the 1980s, clinics have been picketed, firebombed, and vandalized; death threats as well were considered routine. This violence goes against everything these pro-life activists stand for. They preach how every life is sacred one second and kill a living human being, like Dr. Williams, the next. Dr. Williams once heard a patient of his even say, “Oh, God, doctor, I was hoping it was cancer.” These women would rather have cancer than be pregnant, so who are we to deny an abortion and ruin their lives? Having a baby is not an easy thing at all. Just look at a television for shows like “Teen Mom” and “16 and Pregnant”. These young women had to drop out of school and stop their whole lives in order to care for their newborn children. Is it really a wonder why an abortion is so important to them now? (Martin, Douglas “Dr. William Harrison, Defender of Abortion Rights, Dies at 75” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/us/26harrison.html?_r=1&ref=abortion September 25, 2010)
ReplyDeleteI really feel that the laws in these states preventing abortion availability to women are awful. I think that pro-choice believers should have more representation in government so maybe the voices of these pregnant women can be heard clearer.
-Vanessa Kreytak D BLOCK
1. According to this article “Water Drops for Migrants: Kindness, or Offense” from the NY Times, volunteers from organizations such as No More Deaths were leaving gallon water jugs in remote areas of the desert for immigrants crossing the border. The Fish and Wildlife Service, however deemed it illegal and even prosecuted a man named Daniel Millis for ‘committing this crime’. He and other volunteers left the water jugs in the desert , because the weather in these remote deserts is extreme and has lead to the deaths of many immigrants crossing the border. This case can be compared to the 5th amendment which grants individuals the right to due process. Authorities didn’t even know whether or not the ‘criminal act’ Mr. Willis committed was littering or not. The people in the state of Arizona didn’t promote the idea of leaving gallon water jugs in the desert because it would encourage immigrants to cross the border. In this case, both state and federal government laws are mutual that they don’t want immigrants crossing the border illegally, but the federal government actually took action in aiding the immigrants so that less of them die on American land. Citizens of the state dislike the law so much that they have been found to be slashing the water jugs created by the federal government and crashing into them with their vehicles. (Lacey, Marc, “Water Drops for Migrants: Kindness, or Offense?”, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27water.html?ref=immigration-and-emigration, September 26th, 2010)
ReplyDelete2. In this article also from the New York Times, Jan Brewer Governor of Arizona called a much needed meeting to discuss the violence along the border between the United States and Mexico and revising immigration laws. However, none of the six border governors of Mexico showed up protesting the bill she had signed for immigration laws earlier. Another governor planned a meeting of his own to discuss these problems without the presence of the governors of Arizona or Texas. At the meeting that Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico called, discussions of unity arose. As they spoke of unity, it became clear that the view in Mexico is that heading to the United States for work is not an illegal act. Ms Brewer tried to defend herself in an interview with a “Spanish-language broadcaster” said that she was disappointed that the Mexican representatives refused to come to Arizona and discuss the issue on illegal immigration. Mr. Richardson claimed it was Arizona’s strict immigration law, a large amount of which has been blocked by a federal judge, was what moved him to request the Mexican governors to come to his state. According to this article, the state and federal government do not agree, the state governments don’t even agree. Many of the state governors and most of the federal government agree that Arizona’s immigration laws are ridiculously harsh and strict. This case can be related to the tenth amendment, because the federal government already has laws pertaining to immigration, but officials in the state of Arizona felt that Arizona was above the law and could take immigration cases into their own jurisdiction. This can be seen as undermining the government and can lead to chaos. (Lacey Mark, “Border Tensions are Seen At Governors’ Conference”, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/us/politics/21governors.html?ref=immigration-and-emigration, September 20th, 2010)
Grades for this assignment are posted on engrade. I'm impressed with the level of sophistication that most of you approached these controversial issues with. Remember to always complete every aspect of the task and cite your sources (Author, Date, site. )
ReplyDeleteIn the two articles that i have found, are both related to same sex marriage. The first article deal’s with problems in New York. This article state’s that same sex marriage has been a political problem for many year’s now, and has not been taken care of yet. There has been many lawsuite’s about this, which have failed to make this legal. This began to hurt many Americans all over, for shutting down there dream’s of marrying someone of the same sex. This lawsuit is being taken up with the Supreme Court, because it has been put to the test way to many times. My second article that i have chosen deal’s with the United State’s not paying as much attention to same sex marriage and how people feel about it, as much as they should. This article states that if same sex marriage was legal in all states the United States would be faced with, medical, tax, and retirement benefits just like a traditional marriage faces. Same sex marriage deals with Amendment One, because its the choice of one person or person’s. The religion of the persons getting married should have the say as too what and who get’s married at that time. Amendment ten is also faced because it states the the states have the law, which means each state should have there own law, and agree with each person about getting married. I think that each american should have there own right to marry who they want no matter if its the same sex, or opposite. Each state should be able to say if they want to legalize same sex marriage or not. I dont believe that people deserve to be unhappy because of the law if they arent hurting anyone, why hurt them?
ReplyDeleteAlexandra Ferrigno E-Block
(Nieves,Evelyn , “S.D. Abortion Bill Takes Aim at 'Roe'” , http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202424.html , February 23, 2006)
ReplyDeleteThis case study tests the authority because, the supreme court had to decide whether or not partial birth abortion is constitutional or not. The law was passed in 2003, but federal appeal courts have yet to not turn it down. This article states how states have been approving or not approving it. But, it concludes that federal courts have not approved it. Which makes the law not fully legal because, the federal government is over the state government.
South Dakota tried to pass a law stating that doctors would have to tell people asking for an abortion that they are ending the life of a whole , separate, human being. This law was turned down because its clearly unconstitutional & its ridiculous to tell someone that. This is relevant to the case because, over 800 abortions are performed each year in South Dakota & this would affect the case and if this law should be passed.
I feel the laws should be compatible. So many states pass laws not compatible. It makes in complicated on people. Like the documentary we watched in class. They allow abortions when so many states don’t allow it? It doesn’t make much sense & you never know what your doing is right or not.
-stephanie Llorca e-block
In the article, "New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill," Jeremy W. Peters speaks of how the rejection of the bill was unexpected to those supporting gay marriage. Out of the 62 senators, 35 seemed to be supporters and it was believed that atleast 26 would remain strong and actually vote for the passing of the bill. The outcome proved something different though. When it was time to vote, only 24 senators voted for gay marriage to be legal in NY while the other 38 did not. Circumstances and history seem to play a great role in why some senators refused to vote for the bill even though they claimed they would. One major reason seems to be because gay marriage is such a controversial argument. Someone like a republican going with what they believe in and voting for the passing of the bill poses threats to where they stand. They would be putting themselves on the line going along with what their people oppose. The same is for democrats who have recently become senators. Fearing that their lack of seniority might make them easily removable, they refuse to go against the grain and express a specific belief that many people do not agree with. Along with those fears, legalizing gay marriage in New York did not seem like it was definite making the senators feel less of a need to stand up. (Peters, Jeremy, "New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill", http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/nyregion/03marriage.html?_r=1, Dec. 2, 2009)
ReplyDeleteLike the author of the first article, David Kocieniewski, the author of "New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill" describes the reasons that are believed to hold the senators back from allowing the Gay Marriage Bill to pass. Just as mentioned in the first article, senators fear that focusing on a social issue during a time of such financial crisis would not be an admirable move to make. Also, it seems as if many senators feel that allowing same sex marriage would forever change culture as we know it. On the contrary, many people in favor of homosexuality and their right of marriage believe that the ability to wed is part of the amendment that assures equal rights. Therefore, supporters are not giving up and instead ready to bring the case to the Supreme Court of New Jersey. They also want a referendum to be held in Jersey. Although many referendums seem to conclude that many people oppose the bill, the people of New Jersey still believe that just like most other states, they shall hold a referendum as well. In their defense, womens rights were not favored in referendums neither but after years of pushing it, here we stand in a country where women have equal rights as men. Speaking of rights, African Americans did not have rights neither and looking back at the fact that they had to fight so vigorously for them seems preposterous just as supporters of gay marriage hope the people of the future will look back at this fight for justice. (Kocieniewski, David, "New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill", http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/nyregion/08trenton.html, Jan. 7,2010)
The issue of gay marriage is very controversial and there are two opposing sides with extremely strong views. The fact that there are liberals fighting their hearts out to get the bill passed and then there are conservatives doing their best to defeat the bill causes the decision to rest heavily on the authority of the federal government. Since the legislative branch can't seem to find a decision that will please each side a set verdict is never made and it is forced to go to greater powers. The federal government will have to do their best decide whether or not gay marriage goes against the constitution while different people give different opinions on what the amendments mean. The federal government also has to make sure the decision is part of their authority so that they do not abuse their rights. In my opinion, many amendments and clauses back up the fact that gay marriage should be legal. First and foremost, the first amendment grants the freedom of expression. Each person has the ability to believe and express their belief in whatever they believe in and if that includes homosexuality and the ability for them to wed then so be it. Also the fourth amendment assures each person with due process. Each person has legal, constitutional rights. Justice and liberty are of these therefore it is only right that homosexuals are not deprived of their right to marry since there is no specific reason why they should not. Doing so does not pose any harm to others. According to the fifth amendment, Americans have the right to privacy. Who people decide to be with is their personal decision and it is not something that the government should get involved in. Last but not least, the equal protection clause proclaimed that every citizen is equal and should be treated that way. Refusing homosexuals the right to marry simply because of their preference is clearly denying them of their right and if America stands for freedom, equality and opportunity why woudn't they grant homosexuals the opportunity to get married? Not passing the Gay Marriage Bill is such a hypocritical action taken by the US and it's states therefore I have no clue why it's been tolerated this long. Americans are aware that The Constitution is a living document therefore it can transform just as society does over years and fear of change seems so be the only rational reason why Gay Marriage is not yet legal.
ReplyDelete-Caileen Gonzalez C-Block
The New YorkTimes "Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships"(http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html?scp=2&sq=same%20sex%20marriages%20federal%20authority&st=cse Updated: Aug. 13, 2010) speaks on the issue of same sex marriages being constitutional or not, the back and forth controversy between the legislatures branch and the courts which and are still making decisions on whether same sex matrimony are allowed to be recognized and are marriages license available to those of the same sexual preference. this also demonstrates what the people have voted upon reflecting their opinions of same sex marriages through various votes and referendums that were available to them. so far there are six places in the nations where same sex marriages can take place, Washington, D.C. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont also issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This article portrays the views of many different states and their policy / tolerance for same gender matrimony. lawsuits and ballot initiatives attempting either to legalize or ban the practice have been in affect within the federal governement. In July 2010, a federal judge in massachutsettes ruled that a law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage (Known as the Defense of Marriage Act) was unconstitutional, stating that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples. in religious organizations this issue has been recognized to either agree with same-sex marriage or condemn it.Religious institutions have struggled with policies, privileges and rites regarding homosexuality, including whether or not to bless same-sex unions and whether or not gays and lesbians may hold positions of authority.The issue of same-sex marriage with the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled in 1993 that the denial of marriage licenses to three homosexual couples amounted to unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sex - not sexual orientation - unless the state could show a compelling reason for the denials.The second article The New York Times"In Defense of Marriage" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/opinion/14sat2.html?_r=1&ref=californias=_proposition_8_samesex_marriage, Published: August 13, 2010) speaks on behalf of what the Proposition 8 stating the possibilities that could have come about through marriage between the partners if California didn't make it illegal in 2008. 52 percent of the voters passed Proposition 8, prohibiting same-sex marriage. On August 4, Judge Vaughn Walker of Federal District Court ruled that the proposition violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and due process of the law, after this ruling there was no reason to continue the prohibition. in the article it states the opposers of this same sex marriage legalization had vast amounts of time to come up with a defense that would prove how same sex marriages interfered and caused harm to the state or society itself, they failed to bring evidence that disproved the legalization of same sex matrimony. There already are 18,000 same-sex couples in the state who were married before Proposition 8 was passed, and their presence does not seem to have damaged relationships between men and women. There already are 18,000 same-sex couples in the state who were married before Proposition 8 was passed, and their presence does not seem to have damaged relationships between men and women in society they are surrounded by. The State of California filed a brief with the court urging that marriages be allowed to resume immediately.
ReplyDeleteContinue..
ReplyDeleteThis case study tests the authority of the federal government in one way. This states are allowed to make laws that fit the states needs. Each individual state doesn't require the use of a rubric to making guidelines for the people in the state. Yes, the Federal government has laws that are set in place but the state laws can me modified with the consent of the governed. This case of same sex marriage allow each individual states to make its own laws proper and necessary for those who vote on what they would rather have, with ballots and initiatives available when making state laws if majority votes one way that side is favored the minority side can sway others to think and vote other wise through recounts but its what the majority wants for the state they live in. If a law is made unconstitutional it has to be checked by the supreme court and ruled otherwise. A constitutional clause related to this is the Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment mainly says that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Meaning the federal government can't deny one of their right to get married because in the amendment it isn't acceptable to segregate one or restrict them from marrying the same gender and joining in matrimony. Denying same sex marriages violates Amendment 14 as well as Amendment 4 right to privacy.The federal laws are not compatible with the state laws because the federal government can't really have a say in whether or not same sex marriage is appropriate. I feel its up to the states to decide whether they would like to make it legal or illegal for themselves in the societies that they create. Each state is different and consists of different people, different views, different beliefs and different backgrounds therefore, making the decision up to the state to decide and ask the people what they want. The majority rules the federal law shouldn't be put in place to make that decision, rather let each state make its own laws. If the federal government was to make the decision for law then one side of the opinion wont be satisfied. We live in a republic we are given the right to make our own decisions and speak freely as we choose if leaving the ultimate decision up to the federal government that would be something that we as citizens of this country wouldn't be able to change either banning same sex marriage or legalizing it, these decisions should be left up to the people in their own states.
TianaRodriguez C-Block
My article by Bill Bennett, on catholiceducation.org, is stating that gay marriage is wrong. The author states that allowing gay marriage will cause social damage in the long run. The author states that legalizing gay marriages would make a profound change in the whole meaning of "marriage". The author compares a gay couple to a bi-sexual wanting to marry two people. He states "How could they explain why we ought to deny a marriage license to a bisexual who wants to marry two people? After all doing so would be a denial of that persons sexuality". It's clear that Bill Bennett is completley against the idea of gay marriage. The only question I have is, why? In March of 2010, Washington D.C became the sixth place in the nation where same-sex marriage can take place. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont also legalize gay marriage. Other states have been on and off, up and down with the situation of same-sex marriage. In 2008 a California court ruled that same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. In Novemeber, a ballot measure was passed known as Proposition 8 that restored the ban. Propostion 8 went to the supreme court which resulted in allowing marriages that happened before it was ruled unconstitutional, to stand. In 2009, Maine approved the right for same-sex marriages until voters rejected it at the poll. In July of 2010 a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that " that a law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage (Known as the Defense of Marriage Act) was unconstitutional, finding that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples" THANK GOD! In my opionion, I believe EVERYONE should be treated equally. I believe everyone should have the same rights reguardless. Everyone is born equal and no one should have more rights then the next person. If someone is gay, it doesn't mean the law should treat them any differently. Who is same-sex marriage hurting? If it makes two people happy, then why not? Who are we to tell someone that they can't marry the person they love? Same sex couples just want what everybody else has, I don't understand why we need to give them a problem about it.
ReplyDeleteChelsea Cruz A Block
Irmak Karakelle
ReplyDeleteD Block
In the the first article I chose (Jones, Leah “Ten States Oppose Gay Marriage” www.CWNEWZ.com 10/11/10) was from a Christian website so I wasn’t surprised to find this article to be biased against gay marriage because it’s from a religious prospective. Basically, I learned from this article that on Friday October 8th 2010 a brief that was submitted by ten states that oppose gay marriage was sent to the federal appeal courts in California. The brief stated that the constitution does not require marriages to include same-sex couples. It was also mentioned in the 39 page long brief (not very brief if you ask me) that states, not federal courts had the final say in allowing (or banning) gay marriage. The second article that I chose (CNN “Lawmakers Approve Same-Sex Marriage in N.H., Maine” www.CNN.com 5/6/09) is from May of 2009. It is an article regarding New Hampshire and Maine approving of gay marriage and leaving Rhode Island as the only other New England state without legislation in favor of the issue. Both articles include states that believe that the approval or banning of gay marriage is a state power, however, each article represents a different favor in the issue. These articles test the authority of the federal government because it seems that the states really do have the right to chose in this issue whereas the federal government isn’t really having much of a part in the decisions made by the states. Even though the constitution does not address the issue of same sex marriages, there are amendments that can be coherent to the issue such as the ninth amendment which guaranteed the right to privacy after Roe v Wade. I do not think states should have the power to pass laws because we are one united nation under one government. By allowing states too much power, we can potentially divide the nation. On the other hand, the federal government can become corrupt if we allow them too much power. All in all, I think the system our states and federal government have to divide power is reasonable. I don’t think there is any system that would diminish the different viewpoints of the states and/or federal government (including the opinions of the people).
1] ARTICLE #1:
ReplyDeleteS.D. Abortion Bill Takes Aim at 'Roe'
By Evelyn Nieves
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 23, 2006
ARTICLE#2:
Abortion Rights Groups Push to Regulate Crisis Pregnancy Centers
Cindy Rodriguez
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Article 1 states that South Dakota has banned abortion. They have banned abortion to all unless abortion is required to save the life of a pregnant woman. Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky are also planning to follow is South Dakota's foot steps. I do not agree with South Dakota's new bill. I think that woman should be given the option to have an abortion because it is their body and their baby. Some people may want to have an abortion because they had been raped, forced into being pregnant or incest. This article makes a connection to the 1973 supreme court ruling on ROE VS WADE. "The bill was designed to challenge the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe , which in 1973 recognized a right of women to terminate pregnancies."
Article 2 states that there are so called "crisis pregnancy centers" that do not consist of licensed medical professionals or any sort of staff. They lie to the women who go in there in search of abortion information and tell them that abortion leads to breast cancer to scare them. City Council is fighting to pass a bill so that these pregnancy centers put up signs to let women know that they do not provide abortions instead of misleading them. City council member Jessica Lappin says, "They are preying on scared and vulnerable women. Women who are facing very painful and difficult decisions and they mislead and manipulate them."
2] This case study has a lot of mixed feelings. States feel differently about it as many people do as well. The federal government has been stuck in this situation for a while and will continue to stay in it until something drastic occurs forcing them to pick a side. The federal government cannot take complete authority of this issue because no one quite knows what to do.
3] In the constitution it states that murder is bad. Many consider abortion being murder. This may make abortion unconstitutional to many different people.
4] States should have complete right to decide of abortion laws for their own states. A federal law cannot be passed because abortion is such a sensitive topic. Many states feel very differently about it as do many people. Since an overall decision cannot be made, the government has let the states decide for themselves. Until they are able to come up with an answer for the case, states will continue to make laws regarding abortion taking place in their states.
Mariam Airapetian C Block :]
In San Francisco, the court had acknowledged a stay on same-sex marriages in California until a final decision is made on whether a ban is constitutional. The legal battle over Proposition 8 is still on. Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. Same-sex marriages are suspended until the appeals court reaches a final decision. However, the case will sooner or later reach the Supreme Court if the state government doesn’t reach a decision soon.
ReplyDeleteThe Mexican Supreme Court stated that each of the country’s 31 states acknowledged same-sex marriages registered in Mexico City. This will potentially same-sex couples full matrimonial rights throughout the nation. The court already ruled that Mexico City’s same-sex law constitutional. The next step for same-sex couples is the right to adoption. The court must still decide on whether letting same-sex couples adopting children is constitutional.
The federal government is not too involved. The state governments have their own view on same-sex marriages being legal or not. Since 7 states already have the legalization of same-sex marriages, other states are skeptical. The federal government will be involved once the cases are pushed to the Supreme Court. The Mexican Supreme Court was the only federal government to took a stand and settled the law for the country.
Banning same-sex marriages violated three Amendments. The 1st Amendment: freedom of speech, expression, religion, etc. The 4th Amendment: right to privacy. The 5th Amendment: due process. The 14th Amendment: equal protection under the law. The federal government should make the laws regarding same-sex marriages. Some of the states laws were ruled unconstitutional. Some states are harsh on the same-sex marriage laws when they are banned.
Agren David, Mexican States Ordered to Honor Gay Marriages, The New York Times
McKinley Jesse, Court Extends Stay on Allowing Gay Marriage, The New York Times
Article #1: (Crary, David, “U.S. Parties Try to Play Down Social Issues, But Gay Marriage Debate Flares Up in Some Contests”, GoogleNews.com. October 17, 2010.)
ReplyDeleteArticle #2: Birkey, Andy, “Anti-gay Marriage Groups Use MLK in New Radio Ad”, MinnesotaIndependent.com. October 15, 2010.)
1)-Crary’s article is describing the upcoming election this year and how the heated debate of same-sex marriage is brought up once again. Since Google News takes a neutral stance on politics, both sides of the issue are equally represented here. As it has always been, most Republicans oppose the idea because they believe that there is in fact only one definition of a marriage, and that is with one man and one woman. The Democrats disagree with the definition and use the Constitution in their argument stating that it is up to the people to decide on such matters. It is ironic that the Obama administration says that gays should be treated equally and yet they appealed the ruling of Congress’s halt on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. They are trying to keep both political parties happy but in reality no progress is being made. Citizens and politicians hope that with the election right around the corner, we will finally be able to fix this issue for once and for all.
-In the second article, Birkey is focusing on the gubernatorial debate between Republican Tom Emmer and Democrat Mark Dayton. Emmer recently used Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his ads claiming that in the words of MLK, people should have a right to the ballot thus have the right to vote against gay marriage. However, even MLK’s relatives were reported to have said that he wouldn’t have supported the idea of limiting a homosexual’s rights. Essentially, Birkey is saying that Emmer’s argument is irrelevant to this debate. Although Minnesota is undecided on same-sex marriage, it seems that the Minnesota Independent newspaper itself is leaning more towards the liberal side on political issues like these.
2) The conflict on same-sex marriage tests the powers of the federal government because based on how the situation is currently, it is evident that such an issue is up to the states themselves to resolve. The only problem is that the issue isn’t being resolved, which means that the states are turning to higher officials like Congress and the Obama administration to help speed the process up. In sticky debates like these, the people have often referred to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to advocate for their positions on gay marriage but the interpretation of both documents is what keeps the states undecided.
3) The 5th, 10th, and 14th amendments are related to the issue of gay marriage. Since the Constitution cannot address every issue and power, the 10th Amendment states that any power not stated already is reserved for the states, hence the term “reserved powers”. Same-sex marriage is left to the states to decide on which is why there is so much controversy surrounding the subject. The 14th Amendment is used by the advocators of this type of marriage because it defines that the rights and privileges of any U.S. citizen cannot be limited by anyone else, that they are all under equal protection of the law. Last but not least, the 5th Amendment tells us that gay people cannot be punished for any wrongdoing and can’t be put into jail without a trial.
4) I don’t believe that the laws of the states are compatible with the federal law since the issue has been exposed to just about every possible source of media there is right now and it remains unresolved. California repealed Proposition 8 due to the fact that not all people voted on the law, making it invalid. The issue of same-sex marriage is evidently up to each states themselves to decide but there is an almost equal opposition from both sides of the conflict. Many people are resorting to help from Congress and the President to take a stance on this debate.
-Christina Tsang D-Block
The powers of both federal and state governments have been constantly bumping heads when it comes to the issue of abortion. Both articles that I’ve obtained from nytimes.com were dealing with the new law in place in many states that forces mothers-to-be to obtain ultrasounds before they get abortions, if they decide to do so. In the article “In Ultrasound, Abortion Fight Has New Front”, Kevin Sack discusses the woman’s perspective of receiving an ultrasound before they terminate their pregnancy. “Florida Governor Vetoes Abortion Bill” by Damien Cave goes into depth about the Governor of Florida’s perspective and what he does in response to this budding law all over the country. In Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, abortion providers are required by law to conduct an ultrasound and offer women a chance to peer inside their womb. “In Ultrasound, Abortion Fight Has New Front” reveals the feelings of the women- mostly offended. Many women not only feel that it is a constitutional violation but also many are offended at the states implicit suggestion that they had not fully considered their choice (Sack, Kevin, “In Ultrasound, Abortion Fight Has New Front”, nytimes.com, 05/27/2010). “Florida Governor Vetoes Abortion Bill”, Governor Charlie Crist vetoed the bill forcing Floridian woman from having to receive ultrasounds before terminating a pregnancy. According to the article this veto kept Florida from joining 20 states already implementing this law (Cave, Damien, “Florida Governor Vetoes Abortion Bill”, nytimes.com, 06/11/2010). Gov. Crist adds in quite a number of financial and medical terms however he makes it known that he is definitely pro-life. Although the federal government isn’t mentioned much in the two articles, it’s safe to say that they have a significant role in the creation of this law. As of now, the states are aiming to enforce this project however this law has been receiving much controversy and could possibly be taken to the supreme court in the near future. This would be the ultimate involvement with the federal government if things begin to get out of hand. Many, along with myself, would say that to force a woman to receive an ultrasound before terminating a pregnancy is a violation of the first amendment- freedom of expression. Under no section of the constitution does it say that a woman has to receive an ultrasound in order to receive an abortion. The states are just using their 10th amendment right to stomp on the individual rights of the people. Point blank, the states manipulate laws in order to ease their minds and personal opinions regarding ethical dilemmas. Abortion just happens to be one of them.
ReplyDeleteSamantha Furman; A Block
One of the problems that Switzerland faces is the inequality for children. The differences in treatment is most noticeable in education, protection, and health care. The children which are mistreated are handicapped, children in poverty, or minors unaccompanied by an adult. The canton is being held responsible for this disparity among the children. It is said that this disparity among the cantons is due to the structural weaknesses on the cooperation between them. This problem could be improved if the Confederation would come up with a national plan that would guarantee the implementation of children’s rights an establish a national human rights institution. According to the Swiss Network for the Rights of the Children “the first consequence of this is that children are not considered as an important part in the legal process and thus, are not included in the decision-making process. As far as administrative procedures are concerned, authorities aren’t taking the interest of the child into considerations. The child’s interest is one of, if not the most important pillar of the Convention on children’s right. More over, the current laws regarding children are not elaborated within the Convention’s perspectives. We regret that information programs are not proposed to lawyers or judges” The Swiss Network for the Rights of the Children is a coalition that gathers to fight for children’s rights. On June 22, 2009 it published its second report to the United Nations “this report was published within the procedure created by the article 44 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child which enforces each state party to submit every 5 years a periodical review to the committee. This report should contain information on how Switzerland has implemented children’s rights.” The Swiss Network for the Rights of the Children expected changes to be made on behalf of the children, unfortuanately as of 2009, nothing has been done.
ReplyDeleteInformation Platform humanrights.ch
According the Swiss News an Article was written on April 3, 2003 stating that
“Switzerland needs to work harder to implement United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Switzerland fails on children’s rights.”
According to the editorial Institute International Droits Lenfant from Switzerland the field of treatment of children is the area where Swiss Network have been working the hardest. It reported on June 11, 2010 that “ILO Member States have decided, after ten days of negotiations, upon drafting a new International Convention to protect domestic workers. This text will not focus only on children, since it aims to offer assistance and protection to all domestic workers. And yet a large part of these workers are under 18.”
One major state vs federal power crisis thats happening is the medical marijuana situation . in california its legal (on a state level) to own a medical mariujan dispensarie.According to law the feds have the power to overthrow the state law and thats exactly whats happening. the feds are busting marijuana dispensaries everywhere . Now a huge contreversy is the idea that if legalized on both state and fed level , is it actualy being used for "medical" uses other than recreational use. Most "patients" have tried many other medicines to try to help w/e their specificaly going through and have turned to marijuana becuase it eases their pain better then the other medicines they have takein.The most marijuana actvist could do is keep trying to get it legal on both levels and convince those, who are turning down the idea of "medical marijuana".
ReplyDelete