New York City passed a law proposed by Ray Kelly and the New York Police Department, with the help of Mayor Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, to severely limit the citizens freedom to assemble. On Friday January 28, 2007 the NYPD announced the new law that requires groups of 50 or more to obtain a permit if they want to gather on a sidewalk, in the road, or in the parks. The rules effect pedestrians, vehicles, and cyclists alike. The NYPD began enforcing these rules February 25, 2007.

There have been outcries against the NYPD's new law from the community. More than 22 groups have joined Asssemble For Rights to oppose these rules, including religious organizations, peace activists including UFPJ, the National Lawyers Guild, health advocates, bicycling groups, etc. Nearly a dozen city councilors have spoken out against these rules. And the law has been opposed by the New York Bar Association, which called on City Council to overrule the NYPD.

In New York City, NY on April 29, 2007 there were three people arrested in the freedom of assembly march. The march began in city hall park and ended in battery park city. The protest was an attempt to combat the new law which restricted 50 or more people or bikes from assembling on a public street without a permit. It addition to that it also restricts twenty or more people from gathering in a public park unpermitted. The NYC bar association, AM NYC Queer Contingent, and the NY Civil Liberties Union who were also participants in the march argue the new law destroys one's first amendment rights.

Sources

http://www.nowpublic.com/three_arrested_in_freedom_of_assembly_protest

Many Victories

The United States Supreme Court has dealt with many cases, which had a variety of important issues that has affected American society. Some of these cases include Brown v. Board of education, Miranda v. Arizona, and Roe v. Wade.

Brown v. Board of Education took place in Topeka Kansas 1945, it was the questioning segregated schools in the South. Seven-year-old Linda Brown had to cross the railroad tracks and travel miles away to attend her all black school, but her father wanted her to attend the school just a few blocks away which was all white. The issue was whether segregation of children in public schools denies blacks their Fourteenth Amendment right of equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that segregation of black children in the public school system was a direct violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the ruling of the case they stated, "In the field of public educational facilities are inherently unequal."

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was a case involving a man by the name of Ernesto Miranda. Miranda was taking in by the police for charges of kidnapping and rape. The issue was whether the state of Arizona violated the constitutional rights of Miranda under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments when they interrogated him without advising him of his constitutional right to remain silent. The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the police were in error. The police needs to inform suspects that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them, and that they have the right to counsel before the police may begin to question those held in custody. This decision establishes the “Miranda Warning” which police now use prior to interrogation of persons arrested.

A woman from Texas sought an abortion, but a Texas law prohibited such an action unless the mother’s life was in danger. Ms. Roe challenged the law arguing the law violated her Fourteenth Amendment right and right to privacy under the Bill of Rights. In 1973 the Supreme Court announced its decision in Roe v. Wade, which established a women's right to have an abortion. The Supreme Court's decision stated that states could limit the right to abortion. The decision established limitations could be imposed by the states during the first trimester, or first three months, of pregnancy. If the unborn child reaches the third trimester, it reaches viability and is given constitutional protection. The woman’s right to privacy is a fundamental right that can “only be denied if compelling state interest existed.”

In conclusion, if these events or problems didn't occur we wouldn't have as many rights as we do now. Things happen for a reason they maybe bad or good but in the end you maybe with the results.

Sources

href="http://www.spu.edu/depts/library/pix/main/brown_image.jpg">http://www.spu.edu/depts/library/pix/main/brown_image.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1130000/images/_1131546_proabortion300.jpg

http://www.americanheritage.com/assets/images/articles/magazine/ah/2006/4/2006_4_50.jpg

Judge Sonia Sotomayor

President Obama on Tuesday May 26, 2009 nominated Federal Appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. She is on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, named a U.S. District Court judge by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, and Federal Appellate Judge by President Bill Clinton. Sotomayor, who is of Puerto Rican descent, raised in a housing project in the South Bronx and attended Princeton University and Yale Law School. Sotomayor was hired out of law school as an assistant district attorney under New York County District Attorney Robert Morgenthau starting in 1979. Working in the trial division, she handled heavy caseloads as she prosecuted everything from shoplifting and prostitution to robberies, assaults, and murders. In 1984, she entered private practice, joining the commercial litigation practice group of Pavia & Harcourt in Manhattan as an associate. One of 30 attorneys in the law firm, she specialized in intellectual property litigation, international law, and arbitration. Sotomayor was thus nominated on November 27, 1991 and confirmed on August 11, 1992, by President George H. W. Bush to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated by John M. Walker, Jr. She was one of seven women among the district's 58 judges. On June 25, 1997, Sotomayor was nominated by President Bill Clinton to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was vacated by J. Daniel Mahoney. Sotomayor was confirmed on October 2, 1998, by a 67–29 vote. Over her ten years on the circuit court, Sotomayor has heard appeals in more than 3,000 cases and has written about 380 opinions where she was in the majority. The day Obama nominated Sotomayor to the court, he states that "Sotomayor would bring more experience on the bench than anyone currently serving on the Supreme Court when appointed", and personally I agree with Obama because she has more dificult life expierences than the other justice, which enables her to handle the job effiently. She became the second jurist to be nominated to three different judicial positions by three different presidents. And on July 28, 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Sotomayor's nomination; the 13–6 vote was almost entirely along party lines, with no Democrats opposing her and only one Republican supporting her. On August 6, 2009, Sotomayor was confirmed by the full Senate by a vote of 68 to 31. The vote was largely along party lines, with no Democrats opposing her and nine Republicans supporting her.

Sotomayor, 55, is the first Hispanic U.S. Supreme Court justice and the third woman to serve on the high court.

Sources

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/supreme.court/index.html

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Sonia_Sotomayor

Medicine???

A landmark decision for all Californian's quietly made history on August 20, 2008 in a Santa Cruz courtroom. For the first time since 1996, when the Compassionate Use Act was passed, the federal authorities have been charged with violating the 10th Amendment for harassing medical marijuana patients and state authorities. The case of Santa Cruz vs. Mukasey, was heard by U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who said the Bush Administration's request to dismiss a lawsuit by Santa Cruz city and county officials, and the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), wasn't going to happen. In a recent telephone interview with Alan Hopper, an ACLU counsel familiar with the case, I asked him what came next? The plaintiff will get a get a court-ordered discovery document that will allow them to get documents, and even depositions, from the federal authorities to support their claims,” he explained.

So now it's the city, county, and WAMM's turn to prove their case against the federal government. The court has recognized a concerted effort by the federal government to sabotage state medical marijuana laws, which violates the U.S. Constitution. The significance of this ruling, the first of its kind, cannot be overstated. California voters may finally get what they asked for a dozen years ago. When the court said that the federal government had gone out of its way to arrest and prosecute some of the most legitimate doctors, patients, caregivers, and dispensary owners that had been working with state and local officials, it finally drew a line-in-the sand.

An example of the federal authorities violations was their pursuit of WAMM. This non-profit group has been around for many years, and has been fully supported by the city and county of Santa Cruz. They have been referred to, by officials, as the model medical marijuana patient's collective. When the ACLU filed this lawsuit to stop them from targeting medical marijuana providers and patients, they opened a door that may finally lead to no federal interference in California's medical marijuana law. The 10th Amendment promises that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Source

http://www.times-standard.com/ci_10461558

http://eben.com/press/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/nytimes_wo_rx_weed_300px.jpg

Search And Seizure

Amenment IV states, "the right of the people to 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."

On, October 11, 2009 Ray Woodson, a father who has been fighting for custody of his two children has won that right, and is now suing the county’s Department of Human Services and a local hospital. Woodson and his children’s mother Carla Legates have been battling DHS for nearly two years and now both mother and father have filed federal lawsuits against the state agency. Their first child was removed in October 2007 at 2 months old. His sister was taken in August 2008 when she was only six hours old and still in the nursery at Claremore Regional Hospital. Legates had been previously involved with DHS and the court system concerning custody of her first child who was only a few months old when he entered a foster home in 2005. In May, Woodson won custody of the children after a 14-day jury trial, according to the filing. Now Woodson is claiming the state violated his civil rights.

During their battle for custody of their first child, Woodson and Legates gave birth to a second child in August 2008. But that child was taken into DHS custody straight from the hospital just six hours after birth. The state claimed the child was deprived, even though Woodson and Legates had not been given a chance to be parents to either of their children. DHS kept the child in custody for eight more months.

In Legates’ federal suit, she is claiming her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were violated when her children were taken into state custody. The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to provide substantial due process such as parental and marriage rights, which includes holding hearings before a person’s property interests can be taken away.

The lawsuit also states that the reason for taking the children were based on the case of Legates’ first son, who was taken in 2005. At that time, according to Legates, she was married to the child’s father and was allegedly being abused. Her recollection of that case involves authorities telling her to divorce her then husband, as she was pregnant with her first child at the time, or “they would take my son. And then they took him anyway.”

In her suit, Legates is suing Rogers County DHS, former director Maggie Box and child welfare workers Bergdorf, Pruitt and Priest. A settlement conference has been scheduled for Oct. 27, and according to a motion to strike the settlement conference filed by the defendants, Legates’ attorney filed a written settlement offer of $6.5 million. In their motion, the defendants stated the settlement demand, “involves no compromise and requires complete capitulation by the Defendants,” and that it is “a clear indication that the Plaintiff is not likely to participate in good faith in settlement discussions.”

Sources

http://www.truthdig.com/images/avboothuploads/dp_privacy_500.gif

http://claremoreprogress.com/local/x546096852/Father-sues-DHS-hospital-following-custody-fight

You Can Not Trust Everyone

Pierce County judge had a wide range to work with Thursday as she considered adjusting the bail for one of six people charged with aiding cop killer Maurice Clemmons. Superior Court Judge Stephanie Arend decided to set Quiana Maylea Williams’ bail at $150,000. The judge said some bail was warranted for Williams, who is charged with five counts of first-degree rendering criminal assistance for allegedly helping Clemmons, 37, after he shot Lakewood police Sgt. Mark Renninger, 39; and officers Tina Griswold, 40; Greg Richards, 42; and Ronald Owens, 37.

Prosecutors contend Williams, who claimed to be a friend of Clemmons, took the killer to her home in Seattle after the Nov. 29 shooting at a Parkland coffee shop, helped treat his wounds and let him do laundry. She’s pleaded not guilty. The community has “legitimate concerns” that Williams is a flight risk given the nature of the charges and the potential 25-year prison sentence she faces if convicted as charged, Arend said. At the same time, the judge said, Williams is a longtime Puget Sound-area resident with no criminal history. She also allowed authorities to search her home and car without a warrant. It remained to be seen if Williams could come up with the $15,000 to hire a bail bond company. Mosley her attorney had asked Arend to release Williams on her own recognizance or, at most, set bail at $5,000. He argued the $1 million bail Superior Court Judge Thomas Larkin set at Williams’ arraignment was excessive.

“None of the factors apply to my client,” he said. “She has absolutely no criminal history. As far as I can tell she doesn’t even have a traffic ticket.” Prosecuting Attorney Mark Lindquist argued the $1 million bail stay in place. He contended Williams is a flight risk now that she faces a long prison sentence if convicted. “As being a danger to the community,” he said, “the defendant has already shown herself to be a danger to the community when she gave transportation, a hiding place and medical aid to a man who murdered four Lakewood police officers – Maurice Clemmons, a man who said he was not done killing yet.” Lindquist also dismissed Williams’ cooperation with authorities as “too little, too late.” “Under the facts and circumstances of this exceptional case, $1 million bail is not unconstitutionally excessive,” he said.

Personally I believe the bail is excessive, I also believe that at the time she probably was just worried about helping her friend not even knowing he was a cop killer. She should not be held accountable for something she probably knew nothing about. The 8th Amendent does protect the government from applying excessive bail and since she did not aid and abet in the crime she should not be fined that heavily, unless they have evidence against her.

Sources

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/03/05/1096830/bail-set-for-alleged-helper.html#ixzz0nIQxMkJ2

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/12/04/2010428690.jpg

There is Time to Paint Nails

Lora Hunt was on trial for reckless homicide in the death of Anita Zaffke of Lake Zurich, who was struck from behind as she sat on her motorcycle at a red light near Lake Zurich on May 2, 2009. "She did something that in her words she admitted was a very, very stupid thing," said Hunt's lawyer, Jeff Tomczak, during his opening statements today in Lake County Circuit Court in Waukegan. "She touched up her nails."

Hunt, 48, of Morris was involved in a terrible accident, but was not a criminal, he said. Assistant State's Attorney Mike Mermel told the jury that the evidence will show that the victim was wearing a bright green fluorescent safety jacket. The evidence will also show that Hunt continued to polish her nails even after seeing the traffic signal light turn yellow. Mermel said Hunt was driving 50 mph at the time. She kept pressing the gas pedal and wondered why her car wasn't slowing down, he said. "So not only did she miss a person in a bright green jacket, but she missed the brake pedal," Mermel told a reporter during a break in the testimony. Hunt originally was ticketed for failing to reduce speed for the crash at the intersection of U.S. Highway 12 and Old McHenry Road near Lake Zurich.

Zaffke, 56, had stopped at the intersection as the light turned from green to yellow, authorities said. Hunt, who was driving a Chevrolet Impala, has pleaded not guilty. Hunt admitted she was distracted by the nail polish she was applying as she approached the stoplight, according to a written statement read in court. After realizing she had hit someone, Hunt got out of her car to check on Zaffke, according to the statement."I'm a nurse and I thought I had to do something," her statement read. "But it was too late."Dr. Manuel Montez, a forensic pathologist, testified that Zaffke suffered numerous traumatic injuries, including a neck and brainstem fracture.

Amendment VI states that ,"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.Hunt's trial began on May 4, 2010 and she was convicted on May 7, 2010. This is evident that the 6th Amendment still holds value in the court system today.

Sources

"Trial Begins in Fatal 'nail-polish' Crash." Chicago Breaking News. 4 May 2010. Web. 08 May 2010. .

The Scoop on Arizona

April 20th, Arizona passed a sweeping and controversial immigration bill authorizing police officers to stop suspected illegal immigrants and demand proof of citizenship. The law has sparked a national uproar, with politicians, pundits and citizens weighing in. Because of all the anger mounted over the Arizona law, a police officer sued to challenge the law. The lawsuit from 15-year Tucson police veteran Martin Escobar was one of two filed Thursday, less than a week after Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill that critics claim is unconstitutional and fear will lead to racial profiling. The law is receiving a lot of negativity, even the people who are or were suppose to enforce the law are against this law. Arizona’s immigration law has been an immediate hit with the Republican party, but some of the party’s top strategists and rising stars worry that the harsh crackdown may do long-term damage to the GOP in the eyes of America’s Hispanic population. The people put the Senate and House of Reps. into office and if the Republicans lose any more seats it would be trouble, since Democrats are already the majority in Congress.From Marco Rubio to Jeb Bush to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Republicans who represent heavily Hispanic states have been vocal in their criticism of the Arizona law, saying it overreaches. Even Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, a conservative hero for his win last fall, has questioned the law. Many Republicans believe this law will not get them re- elected into important offices.“It’s like a virus that you get and you don’t feel like you’re unhealthy for the first few days, but after that you have a fever and you’re really sick,” says Matthew Dowd, former President George W. Bush’s chief strategist in 2004. “You can’t win a national election and you can’t win certain states without the Latino vote. And Republicans already had a problem.”

“I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill,” top Bush strategist Karl Rove said during a stop on his book tour. “I wished they hadn't passed it, in a way.”

“It’s like you can’t win certain states without the Latino vote. And Republicans already had a problem.”

"The law was a virus that you get and you don’t feel like you’re unhealthy for the first few days, but after that you have a fever and you’re really sick," says Matthew Dowd, former President George W. Bush’s chief strategist in 2004. Senate Democrats unveiled their framework for immigration reform on Thursday April 20th. Some Democrats think they could benefit politically from addressing immigration reform but the party was primarily motivated to move on the issue in the wake of the controversy over Arizona's new immigration law. Senator Dick Durbin states, "Failure to act on immigration reform will mean that our broken system and ineffective laws will continue to weaken our national security and hurt our workers and fail short of the most basic standard of justice." This law will possibly change the Congress population severely due to the resent events of oil spill, mine explosions and severe immigration laws, it will hurt the Republicans and help the Democrats.

Sources

Hunt, Kassie. "Worries in Republican Arizona Law Could Hurt Party - Kasie Hunt - POLITICO.com." Politics, Political News - POLITICO.com. 30 Apr. 2010. Web. 30 Apr. 2010. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36617.html.

Condon, Stephanie. "Can Dems Do Immigration Reform This Year? - Political Hotsheet - CBS News." Breaking News Headlines: Business, Entertainment & World News - CBS News. Web. 01 May 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003857-503544.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CBSNewsPCAnswer+%28PC+Answer%3A+CBSNews.com%29.

Congress vs. President

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States and Congress is the only branch that can propose bills and pass them into laws. And lastly the president whose job is to enforce the nation's laws. The point of having three branchese of government is for one branch of government to check the other. I think all the branches of the government are important, but the problem is tht due to the media's power to control the people's minds, it also give more power to the president than it should be in a correct checks and balances system. Checks and balance is a system established in the Constitution that prevents any branch of government from becoming too powerful.

The war in Iraq was a bad choice for the United States of America. President Bush in 2000 declared war in Iraq without Congress's approval, which is directly defying the system of checks and balances. Which in the Constitution states in Article I, section 7, the Congress shall have the power to declare war, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water. The declaration of war as written in the Constitution seems to create a war-making partnership with the two branches of government, to restrict the president's Article II power as Commander-in-Chief, and instead significantly grant that power to the Legislative Branch. But because of the influence of media on the American people Bush was able to convince the country that America needed to go to war now and did not have any time to waste, so because the people supported his cause he was able to send 20, 000 troops. However Congress does not have the power to order the president to remove troops from battle. Instead of asking Congress to declare war after he sent the troops he merely asked for their support, which Congress could not turn down because they knew it would be political suicide. I mean it would sound bad in the media if the story was, "Congress will not support the War on Terror, it would rather the United States be blown up than find the 'weapons of mass destruction'."

Sources

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/cartoons/2007/09/img/092007_executive.jpg

Opinion on The Freedom of Press

Media stereotypes are to be expected, especially in the entertainment, news and advertising industries. Stereotypes are quick easy ways that give audiences a quick, similar understanding of a person or group of people usually involving their ethnicity, social class, race, gender, sexual orientation or occupation. No one is safe from stereotypes even teenagers are suffering from it. Through movies and TV shows teens are perceived as people who only care about two things money and sex. While flipping through the channels one might notice all the programming shown is directing toward teens. Even the news has stereotyped teens by making a public perception that teenage crime is on the rise or out of control.

The entertainment world has extremely attacked the youth in many ways; the media shows that all teens like drinking, taking drugs and having sex. Today by the end of high school, the average student will have spent 15,000 hours watching TV and only 11,000 hours in the classroom. The time spent watching TV will impact some teens into following what they see on the television. The media should not have the power to say whatever they want or to stereotype, but according to the first amendment they do and that is ashame. Negative stereotypes not only affect how adults see teenagers, they influence how teenagers see themselves. The feeling that the rest of the world doesn't respect or understand you does little to encourage a positive sense of feeling important. Media should back off for once and let teens be teens. Stereotypes are lies and one day the media will learn one way or another not to do it.

Sources

http://www.faithmouse.com/cartoon222large.jpg

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/special_initiatives/toolkit/stereotypes/index.cfm

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1224

Double Jeopardy

According to the Fifth Amendment a person can not be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Youssef Megahed, a 23-year-old college student and permanent legal U.S. resident, is in immigration custody, facing deportation to Egypt. In August of 2007, Megahed and another college student were stopped while on their way to South Carolina. Police found explosives in the trunk. Both men were arrested and charged with terrorist related activity. The driver, Ahmed Mohamed, pled guilty to providing support to terrorist after authorities found a YouTube video showing him building remote control bombs. Mohamed was sentenced to 15 years. Youssef Megahed, charged with two counts of terrorist activity went on trial in early 2009. In April 2009, a federal jury found Megahed not guilty, finding the explosives simular to fireworks. Three days later, immigration officials arrested Megahed outside of a Tampa Wal-Mart. Megahed's family and supporters believe the government's actions amount to double jeopardy, getting a second chance to try a case it lost the first time around.







"We're completely disappointed with this action by the government," said Adam Allen, Megahed's public defender. "My understanding is that they have arrested him to seek to deport him based solely on the same grounds for which he was acquitted." U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman James Judge said Megahed was arrested for "civil violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act," releasing few details in a prepared statement. Luckily the Florida immigration judge dismissed the deportation case against Youssef Megahed. The Constitution of the United States still holds value of decisions made in the United States.

Sources

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/article990078.ece

http://standeyo.com/NEWS/08_Terror/08_Terror_pics/080327.jihad1.jpg

War on Terror

President Barack Obama on Tuesday December 8, 2009 said that he would be sending an additional 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan by next summer. He also said that he plans to have all surviving American troops back home by July 2011. Addressing cadets and officers at West Point, Obama said: "As Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan." He states, "Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully, for what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility. What's at stake is the security of our allies and the common security of the world." It is said that the new troops will cost the national treasury approximately 30 billion dollars.



Why is Obama still sending troops to are war that ended already? What are our American troops still doing in Afghanistan? President Obama states, "There is a more solemn duty as president than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm's way;" however, he does seem to be in any rush to remove our troops, but instead he sends more. He states "I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action." The U.S. is still fighting the War on Terror even though the war officially ended in 2008. As the President of the United States Obama has the right to send troops to Afganistsan according to the Constitution's Article II, Section 2 which makes the President the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, but that does not mean put our troops in harms way inorder to befriend a Middle East country.

Sources

Keefe, Mike. "Afghanistan." Mike Keefe Political Cartoons - Updated Daily at InToon.com. 25 Nov. 2009. Web. 23 Apr. 2010. http://www.intoon.com/#78751.

"BBC NEWS Americas US to Boost Troops in Afghanistan." BBC NEWS News Front Page. 18 Feb. 2009. Web. 23 Apr. 2010. .

Activating The First Amendment

When do rebels overstep their boundaries? Is it when a group of anti-abortion activist believe that they must end abortion by any means necessary, including bombs, guns, knives, arson and kidnapping. What many activist do not understand is that, if a woman arrives to the decision to have an abortion, there is not much that will change her mind. Therefore, the option of a legal abortion should be available to her as it eliminates the chance of an illegal means of discarding her unborn child. Backyard abortions can be extremely dangerous. The high risk of illegal abortions would not be a problem if legal abortions, carried out by professional doctors, were available. Anti-abortionist always refer to abortion as murder, which is not not correct because murder is the act of taking away a life, and abortion doesn't deal with a complete human life, but rather with a fetus. Therefore, no body's life is being taken away as life, since life begins at birth. It is unfair to condemn those who are in favor of abortion because nobody has the right to judge another's choice regarding the issue. For a person to enforce their personal views upon another on the topic and to either force them into agreeing with their viewpoint for or against abortion is an infringement of one's individual rights.

Consequently the first amendment allows a person to the freedom of speech, giving rebels the right to protest whatever they like. But the fact that anti-abortionist think they have the right to use any means necessary to get there point across, even if that means taking away an actual life is sad. Other than the logic behind the fact that they would take away a life to protect a life that is not even in existence is wrong and illegal, it also goes against what they are trying to protect, life. Just because America give its citizens does not mean a person should go around and take away others rights for their own selfish reasons. The Constitution protects factions, but it does not protect felons. For example, Tiller was shot through the eye at close range and killed on May 31, 2009, during worship services at the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, where he was serving as an usher and handing out church bulletins. The gunman escaped after threatening to shoot two people who pursued him at first, and fled in a car. Three hours after the shooting, the anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder was arrested about 170 miles away in suburban Kansas City. On June 2, 2009, Roeder was charged with first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault in connection with the shooting, subsequently convicted in January 2010 on those charges, and sentenced to life without parole for 50 years on April 1st, 2010, the maximum sentence available in Kansas. According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation, since 1977 in the United States, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. Violence directed toward abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort. Property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs"). The majority of anti-abortion violence has been committed in the United States of America.

Sources

"Anti-abortion Violence - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia." Main Page - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 12 Apr. 2010. Web. 20 Apr. 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence.

"Anti-abortion Activists Hold Vigil in Hackensack «." Passaic – Bergen Jewish News. 10 Aug. 2009. Web. 20 Apr. 2010. http://passaicnews.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/anti-abortion-activists-hold-vigil-in-hackensack/.

Health Care Reform

Government's role in health care has been steadily growing since Medicare and Medicaid were established 45 years ago. Now Congress has presented a Health Care Bill to aid uninsured and self-employed people so they would be able to purchase insurance through state-based programs. This aid would be available to individuals and families with income between the 133 percent and 400 percent of poverty level. The bill would expand coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured. Individuals and families who make between 100 percent - 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level and want to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange are eligible for aid. They cannot be eligible for Medicare, Medicaid and cannot be covered by an employer. President Obama is trying to fulfilling a promise he made in his presidential election campaign to provide health care for all American citizens. President Obama promised the American people, "the security and stability that's missing today." He states, "If you don't have insurance, you'll finally be able to afford insurance." Sadly President Obama can not pass a law without Congress's or the Justices' approval, neither can he propose a law to Congress. The bill has to go through the House of Representative as it states in Article I, section 7, that "all the bills for raising revenue must originate in the House in order to be passed into law." The House of Representatives proposed the law in the summer of 2009 has been through months of fierce debate in Washington. President Obama admits to the existence of disagreements, and he said there was "widespread agreement on the urgent need to reform a broken system" and finally hold health insurance companies accountable. The bill passed the House but was sent back by the Senate who disapproved of some slight glitches found in the bill. Finally, after more than a year Congress passed a health care reform bill on Sunday, March 21, 2010.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/03/23/VI2010032301705.html
(The signing of the Health Care Bill)

The bill came to Obama on Tuesday, March 23, 2010. President Obama sat at a desk surrounded by congressional leaders and some of the people whose problems he highlighted in speeches. He used 22 pens to sign his signature. Obama was finally be able to make insurance more affordable by providing the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history, reducing premium costs for millions of families and small business owners. Obama signed the bill, it was checked off by the justices and it is now a law. President Obama is loyal to the promises he makes.

Sources

Nolen, John. "Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What's in the Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News." Breaking News Headlines: Business, Entertainment & World News - CBS News. 21 Mar. 2010. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html.

"Obama Signs Health-care Bill - Washingtonpost.com." Washingtonpost.com - Nation, World, Technology and Washington Area News and Headlines. 23 Mar. 2010. Web. 19 Apr. 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/03/23/VI2010032301705.html.

Who Actually Has The Right To Bear Arms?

Chicago's gun ban has been in place for 28 years, it states that no one in the city of Chicago is allowed to carry a hand gun or an automatic weapon. I do admit that gun control and lack of gun safety is becoming an ever-increasing problem within our nation, but I do not think that our right to bear arms should be taken away. As a result of the gun ban many people do not feel comfortable in their homes due to the fact that they feel unable to protect themselves. I understand Chicago does not want guns in the hands of felons; however, it is necessary that guns are not confiscated from law-abiding citizens. Owning a gun deters burglary because if you have a gun in the house most criminals will get scared and run. It is the fear factor that gives gun owners an advantage. I believe that there should be some type of gun control, but I also believe people should have the right to bear arms in their homes. The second amendment was set in place for individuals to protect themselves when they believe it is necessary or when the police is unable to provide their attention immediately. Some people will argue that in a modern society we no longer need guns to defend ourselves because there are no wild animals, hostile Indians, or ruthless cowboys, they believe that the police are provided for that purpose. However I argue that police officers are limited by number and there are more criminals than ever before, also the massive number of people living in one area means that the police can never protect everyone. Many people who support gun control believe banning guns would reduce gun related crimes because it would be harder for criminals to obtain a firearm. But the truth is that criminals will always hold onto their guns, and by banning guns that leaves their victims unprotected. A person's second amendment should not be taken away from them because of the amount of crime occurring in the neighborhood.

The case being brought to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Chicago handgun ban is called McDonald vs. Chicago. Otis McDonald, 76, is a resident of Chicago whose life is threatened in his own home; therefore, he decided to sue Chicago for it's ban on handguns. McDonald believes his right to bear arms in not being protected by the city and he does not feel protected in his home. He states how he was threatened at gunpoint in his Morgan Park neighborhood. He states, "In my home, this is the only time I worry." Also stating that, "There's more guns coming into this city than the police can take away from them. So if I've got a gun, and if others have guns in their homes to protect themselves, then that's one thing that police would have to worry about less." Three times, he says, his house had been broken into; once he called police to report gunfire, only to be confronted by a man who told him he'd heard about that call and threatened to kill him. He and four other plaintiffs presented their case to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 2, 2010. McDonald is only looking to make his neighborhood safe and his ability to sleep well at night. I believe he and every other person in the U.S. should have the right to protect himself as it is written in the United States Constitution. No one should feel unsafe in their home, they should be able to protect themselves.

Sources

Vogue, Ariane De. "Supreme Court Hears Chicago Gun-Ban Case - ABC News." ABCNews.com - Breaking News, Politics, Online News, World News, Feature Stories, Celebrity Interviews and More - ABC News. 2 Mar. 2010. Web. 18 Apr. 2010. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/supreme-court-hears-chicago-gun-ban-case/story?id=9780703.



Savage, David. "Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Chicago Gun Law." Chicago Breaking News. 30 Sept. 2009. Web. 17 Apr. 2010. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/09/supreme-court-may-decide-on-hearing-chicago-gun-cases.html.