You Can Protest, But Only How I Say You Can Protest

The supreme court recently issued a new rule that somewhat reduces the strictness of a 1949 rule prohibiting citizens from protesting and assembling on its plaza, but not by much. After a student, Harold Hodge, Jr. was arrested in 2011 for protesting police forces and their mistreatment of African Americans and Latinos, the court decided to lessen the intensity of the original regulation by adding a new one, that still bans “‘processions or assemblages” or the display of “a flag, banner or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization or movement” in the Supreme Court building or on its grounds.” Although the decision lessens the rule first set up in the 40s, there are still arguments that the prohibition of organized protest and assemblages at the Supreme Court plaza directly violates the first amendment rights of citizens. The Supreme Court has hopes that new regulation will help the court keep its decorum and well-mannered demeanor, without the interruption from demonstrators. However, seeing that Constitution directly states that the government “shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” it is simple to see how the rule appointed by the Supreme court completely disregards the very first, and possibly most important amendment in the entirety of the U.S. Constitution.
Those representing the Supreme Court in the case, however, are defending the regulations made by the court by saying the law was necessary to allow the peaceful coming and going of visitors to the courthouse, as well as keep “the appearance of the court as a body not swayed by external influence.”

Hodge’s lawyer, John W. Whitehead, claims that the obstruction of the people’s freedom is unjust and “repugnant to the First Amendment,” because banning the rights of people to petition seems unnecessary and undoubtedly unconstitutional because it does directly breach what the Constitution has written clear as day.

Read More

Bachelors Degree in English and a Handgun to Prove It

Ever since the somewhat recent mass murders in Aurora, Colorado, and the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, gun laws have been scrutinized and severely re-evaluated. As reaction to a multitude of horrific shooting stories and catastrophes recently, a school in Arkansas is attempting to arm it’s staff with guns in order to keep it’s students safe. Arkansas will not be the first to make the same call, as six other states have picked up on the new protocol.
Although some believe that arming administrators with guns will protect those inside the schools, there are those opposing the idea as well. According to the article, many state educators are disagreeing with the idea, and one called the plan downright “awful”. Arming teachers with handguns would allow a deadly weapon to be in the presence of children, and the possibilities of something going wrong would multiply, especially with younger, more naive children. What if a teacher accidentally left the safe with the gun unlocked? Or if a student were to somehow get a hold of the gun? What if a teacher happened to have a breakdown and use the gun on his/her students? The amount of risks that are introduced could be too much of a high cost. The right for adults to bear arms goes back to our Constitutional rights as people. Should Arkansas allow teachers to carry arms in thier classrooms, the law cannot do anything to stop the decision, could it? Our right to possess a weapon for protection makes sense, but should the second amendment stretch as far as allowing such weapons to be present in a classroom? Personally, as a student, knowing a police officer or guard was armed would be reassuring if an intruder entered the school. I would not, however, feel safe knowing a teacher of mine possessed a weapon in the classroom, or had access to it at all. Although I do understand it is strictly for protection, the risk is too high, and not worth paying if something were to go wrong.

On the other side of the spectrum, NRA vice-president wishes that the government force armed guards in every school in the country. The idea to have an armed person in a school facility would be reassuring, but to go as far as to arm teachers is too much of a step in a potentially dangerous situation. I suppose it is ultimately up to the state and it’s person opinions on whether or not the benefits outweigh the dangers.

Read More

LGBT > DOMA

Marriage equality and LGBT recognition has been in the news a multitude of times in the past few years. Recently, the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which denied same-sex couples from receiving the same rights and recognition as heterosexual couples, but now, same-sex couples are allowed equal rights and benefits under the law. This gain was what the LGBT community has been fighting to win, and it is a huge victory on their side. In 1992, when DOMA was enacted, no state allowed the marriage between same-sex couples, however, now 12 states legally sanction lesbians and gays to marry.

Majority opposed DOMA because of its overstepping of the Constitution and the rights people have as citizens, no matter their sexual preference. Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke for the majority of the Supreme Court when she stated, “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute,” was unconstitutional and ultimately unjust - which it is.  Because DOMA is no longer being carried out, gay and lesbian couples will now receive a multitude of financial and health benefits that they weren’t allowed to gain prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The most opposition to equality rights for gays and lesbians mainly comes from religious groups who look down on same-sex marriages. Religion is very subjective topic so there will always be arguments about what one person finds morally corrupt or wrong, and another finds perfectly fine. To a lot of Christians and other religiously affiliated people, though, homosexuality is not tolerated as much as one would hope.
Seeing as we attend Booker T. Washington HSPVA, a school known for it’s large LGBT community, I can’t imagine my peers not being awarded the same benefits and rights as I will receive when we all grow older. The idea that man and women only deserve rights is preposterous and very ignorant. Saying that (I’m sorry for using this example) Kim Kardashian and her divorced-too-quickly-to-know-his-name husband (who were married for a whopping seventy-two days) deserve more rights than Neil Patrick Harris and his husband David Burtka (who have been in a committed relationship for longer than eight years) seems a bit ridiculous. The most important message in the Constitution is equality, and the very first lines read “We The People”, so there shouldn’t really be any argument to the idea of marriage equality, should there?

Read More

One Step Backwards, Two Steps Forwards

             I think all of the negativity of the government is overshadowing the positive work happening in the U.S. economy. Everyone knows of how inconsistent as well as troubling the government spending/debt has been, and according to this article, we're finally taking a step in the right direction. The fiscal debt is 51% less than it was in 2009 - the smallest is has been in the past five years. The article attributes all of the success to a multitude of cutbacks and changes that has resulted in the best (if you can call debts "best") fiscal debt in a long while.
            First off, there were multiple "accross-the-board-budget-cuts" that helped keep the government spending down. The government also introduced higher taxes on higher income families this year and also went through expirations of stimulus packages. One of the biggest helps was the fact that Fannie Mae bailed out the U.S. government and helped the debt stay down.
           Overall, the government spending was 20.8% of the GOP (1.2% less than last year). Hopefully the debt decreases steadily from here as we continue on. I believe we will can do so, but we'd need to co-operate - not  shutdown...again.
           This article reminds me of the section in the economics book we read where it talked about government spending and how Americans look past the excessive spending by the government because it leads to "success". You told us to come up with a question about what we read and my question was "Can the government still be successful without over-spending?". I think the answer is partially yes. This artice shows how we can do positive work when spending less that will help out in the long run. Although it may seem like we're moving backwards, we're still taking two steps forward.

Read More

The Debt Ceiling is to the American Economy as S*** is to a House

     After recent news that the government shutdown has ended, I went online to see what the compromise was. I read in a Fox News article that Obama signed an agreement that the shutdown would be over and the debt ceiling would be raised considering the U.S. has no money to pay off the debt and needs money to keep the economy flowing. I don't like the fact that the debt ceiling was raised. At all. It's just going to add more debt to the too-much-to-pay-off debt we already have. Why would we raise the amount of debt that the government can get themselves into knowing that we don't have enough money (AT ALL) to pay off the debt we have right now.
     Irritated with the news, I coincidentally stumbled upon the greatest metaphor that sums up the dilemma with the debt ceiling. So basically, the article said that the American economy is like a house, and the debt ceiling is...well it's s***. So this house has been having some sewage back-up and now it is now filled with s***. The walls and vents and ever crack in the wall is filled with this stuff and the family living in the house doesn't know what to do. After much contemplation and arguing over how to solve this problem, they come down to two options; they could raise the ceiling or fix the sewage and take out the s***. The more obvious and logical answer would be to take out the s*** but in the end, the family decides they are just going to raise the ceiling. What's going to happen when the house fills up with s*** again? Are they just going to raise the ceiling again? And then raise it some more? What about all the s***? Is it just going to stay there? Is the family just going to walk around and live their life like it's not there?
       Yes. That's exactly what they're going to do. And that family (if you didn't already guess) is just like the government right now. They're just going to walk around like that mile high pile of debt isn't there. Or at least that's what it seems like they're doing right now. I just want to know what America is going to do when a few years pass and the same problem comes up again. Will we raise the roof, or will the s*** just keep coming?

Read More

California raises minimum wage to $10.....good for them.

According to CNN’s article, the national debt ceiling has been having some issues lately.  America seems to be having trouble getting enough money to pay off its debt in full, so controversy is arising about the possible outcomes of such an issue. According to the article, the debt ceiling is the amount of money that the Treasury is allowed to borrow, and because the ceiling is so low, and America doesn’t have enough on its own, we’re facing trouble. After trying to decide how to solve the problem, The US Treasury is now going to have to decide on who to pay off first, but many are saying that the Treasury is not made to function by “picking and choosing”. However, America really only has two choices; we can pay off certain debts and ask for a delay with others, or we can delay all debt in general and wait until we get enough money to pay everything back in full. While reading the paragraph I noticed that when describing the possible solutions, one of them was to pay off certain debts and paying the rest off later, and then I realized that it sounded familiar. Wouldn’t that scenario technically entail America to sort of file for bankruptcy? If so, how much money would America lose by doing so? If we had a more stable economy, we wouldn’t necessarily have this problem because money would be cycling through the system better. And as for picking and choosing, how is the government to say what is most important to pay off? Like the article states, the government would “be subject to accusations of politically choosing winners over losers.

To say nothing of the fact that paying some but not all of what the federal government owes would harm the economy and likely upend markets,” and we don’t want that on top of everything else. Also would there technically be opportunity cost when deciding who to pay off and who to delay payment with? For example, the opportunity cost of paying off these people would result in not paying off these other people. Regardless, many are to believe that this debt ceiling will hurt the reputation of America and cause great debate on the county’s motives.

Read More

Excuse me sir, your prejudice is showing...

     Racial equality (or inequality I should say) has been in the media a lot recently ever since the Trayvon Martin case. Now in the news, the NYPD 's "Stop and Frisk" policy is being questioned on whether it it doing its job correctly. According to the article, the New York Police Department has been targeting African Americans and Latinos when carrying out this policy, racially profiling citizens and violating their fourth and fifteenth amendment rights. Much to the dismay of a New York City judge, Shira A. Schiendlin, she is now attempting the modify the policy to end the prejudice practice. 

     The NYPD and New York mayor have showed their disapproval of the judge's decision, and some believe the doing of this important policy could jeopardize the safety of the New York citizens. According to the NYPD and mayor, crime has lessened since the practice of stopping and frisking suspicious people. According to the judge, however, more stops occur in diverse neighborhoods, despite the fact that more Caucasians are found with artillery and other contraband. Seeing as the fourteenth amendment lays down an equality policy for all in America, stopping and frisking more blacks and hispanics just because of their race completely oversteps the constitutional rights that minorities have. Also, the "Stop and Frisk" policy in general is technically unconstitutional because it infringes on peoples' right - minorities or majorities - to not undergo unnecessary searches and seizures. Although it may lower crime rates in the city, the violation of citizens' constitutional rights does not make the practice okay. 

     With the factual knowledge that more whites are caught with drugs and weapons, the NYPD - if anything - turn to racially profiling Caucasians. However, because of the hateful stereotypes that minorities are labeled with, officials turn a "blind eye" to the unjust system. The city has plans for an appeal to the judge's decision. The NYPD and New York mayor have strong beliefs that the policy will not be removed. 



TERESA WELSH
CNN8/12/13

Read More