Week #11 Gun Ownership

           The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The controversy surrounding this amendment has only been a recent development.  After several mass shootings occurred the last few years, gun rights activists have tried to limit or regulate the sale of guns and ammunition.  This has scared many gun owners, and has created the illusion that the government is trying to take guns away from the American people.  However, the ambiguousness of the Second Amendment provides very little guidance on this issue.  The Huffington Post on January 16, 2013 states that the last part of the amendment is often read without taking the first part into consideration.  Paying attention to only the last part of the amendment implies that no matter what, the American people have a right to own guns.  Adding in the first half of the amendment, it would appear that the only reason to bear arms would be to keep a militia – a point which is now mute since the federal government has its own military and doesn’t need a people’s militia. 

            From a gun-rights standpoint, The New Yorker published an article on April 19, 2012 citing the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller. Justice Scalia wrote for the majority ““The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.”  In this interpretation, Scalia disconnects the two halves of the Second Amendment, and advances the idea that all Americans possess an inherit right to own guns. And this feeling is echoed within the majority of the American public.  The articles states that in 2008, a poll reported that almost two-thirds of Americans believe the Second Amendment defends their right to own a gun. 

            From a regulation activist standpoint the previously cited Huffington Post states that based only on the text of the Second Amendment, it does not guarantee unlimited individual rights to gun ownership.  The text could mean just a certain gun, and not all arms, thus regulation would be justified.  The previously cited New Yorker article states that the United States by far has the highest rate of civilian gun ownership – even double the rates of the second country.  But the U.S. also boasts the highest worldwide homicide rate of any developed country. From this viewpoint, it would appear that some sort of regulation and/or more extensive background checks are needed to avoid future tragedies comparable to Sandy Hook, Aurora and Virginia Tech. 

            On a personal level, I believe there is no way the government will ever be able to completely take away the guns of each American.  There would be a revolution before that happened. So discussing the banning of firearms is a mute point.  However, with the tragedies surrounding gun violence, I am in full support of further regulation and more extensive background checks.  While there will never be a solution to this issue that will please everyone, it is important to consider the greatest good for the greatest number of people.  If regulating guns would keep a firearm out of a dangerous individual’s hands’ longer, and even red flag police forces if they tried to buy a gun, then regulation of guns has served its purpose.  

Week #10 Legalizing Recreational Drugs and Marijuana

Legalization of Recreational Drugs

In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substance Act, which made illicit drugs illegal at the federal level. The question then arose: does this act supersede the powers given to Congress- without the existence of an amendment?  Or does the act protect the people from themselves? Drugs outlawed within the Controlled Substance Act include cocaine, heroin, opiates and marijuana.  It is estimated according to the text Taking Sides, that before this act was passed, less than one-half of one percent of the population used cocaine, heroin and opiates.  The use of marijuana is obviously quite a bit higher. 

            One major argument for the legalization of illicit drugs is that it would save taxpayers billions of dollars a year in incarceration expenses.  Author Bryan Stevenson contends that one in 31 adults in the U.S. is involved in probation, jail, prison and parole systems.  Over 68 billion dollars a year is spent on imprisonment costs.  He states that drug treatment and counseling programs are far more effective than incarceration in helping drug users beat addictions.  Racial discrimination also comes into play when talking about drug incarceration.  Communities of color have historically been targeted by law enforcement, and prison sentences are lengthier if caught with crack-cocaine (found in lower income areas) versus regular cocaine (found in more affluent areas).  Even though cocaine is more pure, and in effect more dangerous. 

            On the other hand, author Theodore Dalrymple argues that drugs should remain illegal because of the effect it has on a community and society at large.  Addiction affects not only the user, but also spouses, children, and entire neighborhoods.  He states that by legalizing these drugs that have been illegal for so long would create an uncontrollable waterfall effect. People would not be able to control their newfound freedom, and many would become addicts with socially undesirable effects. He acknowledges that we will never win the ‘war on drugs,’ but that shouldn’t stop us from trying.  Theft is illegal, but still happens, but no one advocates abandoning the law that prohibits thievery.  Thus, we should not abandon the law prohibiting illicit drug use. 

            On a personal level, I am an advocate for lessening prison sentences concerning drug use.  Far too many people are incarcerated for low level drug crimes- or for first time use.  I am all for reducing the number of inmates in the prison system that I pay taxes to support. However, I do not advocate for the complete legalization of drugs like cocaine, heroin and opiates.  The dangers those three categories pose to society and families are far too great to ignore.  But an increase in drug treatment versus automatic prison sentencing for possession or first time offenders should be imposed. Marijuana, on the other hand I feel differently.

            Marijuana Legalization

            Marijuana has a lengthy history of different feelings from the American people and policy makers.  “Reefer Madness” occurred in the 1930s, and thrust marijuana paranoia well into the last half of the 19^th century.  Recently though, marijuana acceptance has grown drastically. While still illegal at the federal level under the Controlled Substance Act, states have begun to legalize the drug.  According to the Huffington Post on June 29, 2013, 18 states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana use for medical purposes, and Colorado and Washington state have outright legalized it for recreational use.  And policy makers in D.C. have remained silent on the issue. 

            On August 28, 2012, the Huffington Post published an article in favor of legalizing marijuana, citing that marijuana is less dangerous and less addictive than alcohol and cigarettes.  Marijuana is less addictive, and when used incurs less injuries than alcohol.  It is also impossible to die of an overdose on marijuana, whereas it is possible to die from alcohol.  Legalizing marijuana could also not only save taxpayers money, but generate millions of dollars in tax revenue.  With the passing of Amendment 64 in Colorado, the state will generate about $12 million dollars annually in law enforcement savings, and earn about $100 million a year in tax revenue.  By getting marijuana off the streets and into a regulated business industry, it would make it harder for youth under 21 to get ahold of the substance. 

            On the other hand, The Daily Caller published an article on July 19, 2012 discrediting the marijuana legalization movement.  The author states that long term effects of marijuana use includes the loss of short term memory, slows reaction time, and although the study is not cited, the article insists that studies have proven that marijuana is more addictive than alcohol. On a societal level, statewide legalization of marijuana would create an even larger market for drug cartels.  Since the federal government has not legalized the drug, many reputable growers and manufacturers will abstain from the business for fear of federal troubles.  Thus, only those who partake in the business now underground will continue to do so, but legally. 

            On a personal level, I whole-heartedly believe marijuana should be legalized.  Too many friends and general members of society are in legal trouble for possessing small amounts of the drug.  It’s a crime that unnecessarily upsets lives that could have been productive members of society. It’s not the small use of marijuana that obstruct people from contributing to society, it’s the legal trouble that keeps good people out of certain jobs they would be best at.  On an economic level, legalizing the drug would only benefit states.  Already, Colorado has seen huge profit from Amendment 64.  Street gangs are pocketing money that could be going to support local governments and public structures.  Bottom line, the use of marijuana will always be a part of our society on a massive scale.  Legalize, regulate, and profit from an activity that will always be around.  

Week #9 Legal Drinking Age

Underage drinking is a widespread problem in the U.S. Since the 1980s, the legal drinking age has been 21 – enforced at the state level, but heavily encouraged at the federal level. The initial idea was to stop highway fatalities for young drinkers, according to TIME on June 6, 2008.  For most of the rest of the world, the legal drinking age is just 18.  For a country that legally recognizes people as adults at the age of 18 (they can vote and enlist in the military), strict discipline is imposed if anyone under the age of 21 is caught drinking alcohol. Legal trouble from MIP’s can span months, and keep kids from pursuing certain degrees in college. 

            The aforementioned TIME article describes a new insight to the drinking age debate.  Former Middlebury College President John McCardell Jr. is promoting the cause to lower the drinking age to 18 – by providing the youngsters with a license to drink if they complete 42 hours of education on the history, chemistry, psychology, and sociology of alcohol.  He argues that by bringing underage drinking out in the open, there would be less abuse of the drug.  Whereas now, underage kids are forced to drink behind closed doors completely unsupervised.  If out in the open, there would be less binge drinking, fewer untreated alcohol poisonings, and better supervision of new drinkers.

            However, against the cause of course is M.A.D.D., or Mothers Against Drunk Driving.  On September 14, 2012, PolicyMic published an article criticizing efforts to lower the drinking age.  They cited three main reasons to keep the legal drinking age at 21.  First, drunk driving is highest amongst 18-25 years olds.  M.A.D.D argues that if the age were lowered, even more drunk driving accidents would occur in the 18-20 year old range.  Second, with binge-drinking and alcohol poisonings so prevalent on college campuses already, the article contends that by lowering the drinking age, it would subject more kids to the harsh effects of alcohol.  Last, alcohol would only increase the impulsive nature of youngsters.  The potential for violent behavior would increase if more people had legal access to alcohol. 

            Personally, I do agree with lowering the drinking age.  As a minor, I hardly had any trouble getting alcohol.  But what endangered my safety the most was trying to hide it from my parents and law enforcement.  Rather than call my parents to pick me up from a party, I would drive home under the influence and hope I didn’t see any cops.  Minors are going to drink.  It goes along with the age.  I agree with John McCardell Jr.’s idea of educating people before allowing them to drink.  If I had known a sliver of the dangers alcohol poses, I believe I wouldn’t have engaged in binge drinking like I did.  Now that I am old enough to legally drink, I find that I don’t drink near as often as I did when it was illegal for me.  The risk factor is gone, and so is the major enticing elements that drinking provides.  By lowering the drinking age, the risk factor would be gone for thousands of kids, and so would a large portion of the dangers surrounding underage drinking.  

Week #8 Separation of Church and State

Referring to keeping religion out of the governmental structure of America, separation of church and state is a concept that has long been debated.  In the first Amendment, the Constitution proclaims that ‘government shall make no establishment of religion.’  However, as the Atlantic on June 15, 2011 states, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that there should be a separation of church and state, merely just that the government does not favor one religion over the other. However, there has long been a push to remove religion from every basic public event – like the pledge of allegiance in schools, or the inscription of the 10 Commandments on courthouses.  Religion makes people uneasy, and religion in government makes people even more uneasy. Unless it’s your religion of course.

            Justice John Paul Stevens argues for the separation of church and state in a Supreme Court case dissenting opinion.  Because allowing one religion to be more prominent than another in governmental places (like the Texas state courthouse), it could make people who practice other religions feel excluded. Since the government is supposed to represent every U.S. citizen, no one should be made to feel like an outsider in such public places. Stevens also points out that founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were wholly against including religion in governmental practices and structures because it could be used as an influence towards one side or another.

            On the other hand, Justice Antonin Scalia also uses the Originalist argument by stating that the United States has an intricate history with religion.  George Washington opened his Presidency with a prayer.  Technically, the Constitution does not demand a complete separation of church and state, since those words are nowhere to be found subsequently together. Scalia goes on to state that the main religions practiced – Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all have similar beliefs – such as the Ten Commandments seen on the front of the Texas State Courthouse.  Thus, when there is a clear majority for it, traditional structures should not be removed from society’s landmarks. 

            On a personal level, I agree with the separation of church and state.  If even one person feels excluded from basic governmental structures and programs, then whatever traditions or laws are in place are wrong.  All citizens share the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  If differing opinions on religions stands in the way of that basic right, then religion should be removed from the public equation and remain a private practice.  

Week #7 Same Sex Marriage and Abortion

Same Sex Marriage

Throughout United States’ history, the issue of marriage between people of the same sex has been a heated debate.  For the longest time, same sex marriage was illegal, however Hawaii pioneered the equal rights effort in 1996 when the highest court ruled there must be a compelling public reason to prohibit gay marriage.  The U.S. Congress responded with the Defense of Marriage Act that same year.  DOMA redefined the word ‘marriage’ and specified that it meant only between a man and woman.  According to Reuters on July 3, 2013, DOMA was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Windsor v. U.S. The ruling stopped short of mandating that same sex marriage be legal at the federal level.  It is now up to each individual state to allow gay marriage or not. 

In our course textbook, Taking Sides, author Theodore B. Olson argues that by not allowing gay and lesbian people to form the same relationships, and solidify them with marriage, we are excluding a huge part of our own society.  By allowing everyone to be married – on the conditions they wish – our society would become more stable.  Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and society, according to Olson. 

Several cases against same sex marriage follow along the lines of keeping the family unit wholesome. If gays were allowed to be married, they would raise children who would not be able to fit into society, if gays were allowed to be married, then what’s stopping a three-way marriage, or marriage to animals? Author Sam Shulman argues that marriage exists is to solemnize the connection of opposites, which alone creates new life.  Marriage is sacred and defined only within the limits of the ability to create new life.

On a personal level, I believe same sex couples should have the right to marriage. Marriage is a basic human right, and not something people should be excluded from.  I also agree that by allowing all humans to marry whom they wish, it would create a more stable society since marriage generally means two people are deciding to settle down. 

Abortion

In the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973, women were allowed more control over their bodies.  Abortion was legalized up until the third trimester.  Many conservative states tried to limit the amount of abortions happening by creating 24 hour waiting periods, requirements that abortions occur in hospitals, and informed consent laws. 

In the course textbook, Taking Sides, author Robert P. George furthers the pro-life debate by stating that most pro-life advocates do see abortion as a sin against God – but only because it is considered the unjust taking of an innocent life.  He also quotes a dissenting opinion in the Roe v. Wade decision – saying that a fetus development is continuous, it doesn’t become a human – it already is, just still developing.

But on a more liberal note, perhaps abortion could be viewed differently if we were to acknowledge how society reacts when a miscarriage occurs.  Author Mary Gordon explains that a 7-week-old baby (which could be aborted) is different than a 7-month-old baby because of what we call each death.  A death early in the pregnancy is a miscarriage, whereas a death late in the pregnancy is a stillbirth.  She goes on to state that while abortion is a regrettable matter, it should be legalized for various societal reasons – like poverty, and a better life for the child that is wanted versus not.

On a personal level, I take a definite feminist approach.  While abortion may be one of the hardest decisions a woman may ever have to face, the choice to abort or not is hers, not leading (mostly) male politicians. Especially in instances of extreme poverty, terminating unwanted pregnancies could potentially save a child and its mother a very hard life.  Without a doubt, where the mother’s health is at stake (defined as broadly as in Roe v. Wade) or in instances of rape and incest, the mother should be allowed to abort with reasonable ease.  

Week #6 Is Congress Dysfunctional? Campaign Financing

This post comes at a critical time in U.S. politics.  The government is currently shut down after both parties failed to come to an agreement on a budget.  The public approval rating of Congress is at a mere 11%.  Thus, begging the question, is Congress dysfunctional?

Lee Hamilton, a former representative argues in "Public Criticisms of Congress" How Congress Works,  that no, the inefficiency of Congress is by design. The original framers of the Constitution never intended Congress to be a machine, whipping out legislation at a rapid rate. Instead, Congress is supposed to cater to the American people's needs, but only after deliberate consideration of those needs.   Congress is not supposed to produce a new law or piece of legislation after every public cry of want.  They are only supposed to tackle the bigger issues that will stay around for years to come.

Columnist Ezra Klein argues the opposite.  He contends that Congress is very dysfunctional for several reasons.  First, even with a majority in Congress the last few years, and in Senate now, the Democrats cannot get anything passed.  Here's where the problem is, the minority can obstruct the goals of the majority.  Congress has become a political game.  While in the past, there used to be political factions within each major party (Liberal Republicans, Conservative Democrats), those are nonexistent now, thus coalitions cannot be formed to pass legislation.  It truly is all Republicans versus all Democrats now.  If the Democrats were to pass any piece of legislation, it would be a loss for the Republicans.  The same happens when Republicans are in power.  Since the minority can obstruct the progress of the majority, isn't the minority proposing new solutions? No.  The minority can obstruct all majority legislation, without proposing a different solution, and the blame for ineffectiveness will fall on the party with the majority power.  All that matters is that the minority gain the majority in the next election.

Klein also argues that the filibuster is used far too often nowadays.  Originally, the filibuster was created by mistake in the late 18th century.  In 2009, the Senate had to break more filibusters than the 1950s and 60s combined. Filibustering obstructs any progress of a bill, and clearly something is wrong is its being used that much more.


On a different note, people running for public office currently have the option of using public monies for their campaigns.  Few, however choose to use the money as it has become obvious that candidates can raise a lot more money on their own.  Big donors get around laws restricting the amount of money they can give to candidates by giving money to political parties (known as "soft money") or SuperPacs.  Whereas money given directly to the candidate is called "hard money."

Mark Green argues in "Change, For Good" in the 2002 book Selling Out: How Big Corporate Money Buys Elections, Rams Through Legislation, and Betrays Our Democracy, that adoption of public financing of campaigns would make elections more fair and open.  Spending limits should be set in place for elections so that it would allow officials to spend more time actually doing their jobs rather than spending most of their time fundraising for their next campaign.  If spending limits became a part of elections, they should not be set too high, because that would favor only certain candidates who could actually raise that much.  But if limits were set too low, that would favor the incumbents whose names are already well known from serving in office.

John Samples argues the opposite in "Taxpayer Financing of Campaigns" from Welfare for Politicians? Taxpayer Financing of Campaigns in 2006.  He said that public financing of campaigns would force taxpayers to support  candidates that they don't necessarily want to.  Most Americans do not contribute to campaign funds.  Public financing of campaigns would not be fair also because the transfer of money from taxpayers to candidates and their select ideas and views.

Week #5 Constitutional Meaning and Excessive Presidential Powers

Written over 2 centuries ago, the Constitution is still the guiding light for the United States when it comes to just about every legal question.  However, did the framers intend for courts and judges to take their words literally? Or was it meant to be a living document that would change as the times changed?

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia claims in his speech from 2005, titled "Constitution Interpretation" that judges should take the framers words literally, and not allow the Constitution to change with the times.  His stance on taking the Constitution literally is known as being an originalist. Scalia argues that if the Constitution is allowed to change, then anyone could give whatever meaning they wanted to to the words in the Constitution. The Constitution would change to fit the needs of the people (especially judges, political parties, and lobbyists) and would lose its rigid structure of lawfulness. Scalia points out that the phrase 'substantive due process' was something added to help interpret the Constitution based on what the American people needed at the time.  Basically, the Court has the power to interpret the Constitution however they want in court cases because of the substantive due process phrase.  Another important tenant of Scalia's argument is that the Constitution grows and changes based on political needs.  The conservatives want abortion outlawed....ect.  The Democrats want abortion legalized ....ect.  Both groups of people interpret the Constitution differently based on what they personally want to see happen.  From an originalist standpoint, abortion is legal already, because outlawing the right to abortion would be unconstitutional.  There is no point debating it.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer argues in Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution also in 2005, that the Constitution should be interpreted on a case by case basis.  Breyer states that the framers of the Constitution barely agreed on including major points in the Constitution (like the Bill of Rights), that they wouldn't have all agreed on how to interpret each significant point.  Thus, judges shouldn't all interpret them the same way today either.  Justice Breyer also objects to the idea that all judges would rule based on their own personal agendas.  He claims that judges know the power of their decisions in making way for legal precedents, rules, standards and how each one would not only affect the country, but the world.  In very few cases would someone purposefully obstruct future proceedings for personal agendas.

However, as time has marched on, there has been an increase in presidential powers. Specifically in cases involving  military action, presidents have executed swift power moves by quickly implementing their decisions.  Overall, the Constitution is pretty vague when it comes to explaining presidential powers. Article II, Section 2 states, "(the) President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." The Constitution does not explain how the president should use those powers, just that they have the right exercise them.

John C. Yoo argues in Memorandum Opinion for the Deputy Counsel to the President in 2001 that the president should have unilateral war powers.  Yoo states that since power is there is a huge centralized power within the presidential role, it was meant for the president to exercise his powers swiftly especially when it comes to matters of national defense, foreign policy, and threats.  Since there is only one person in charge of the executive branch (versus multiple Supreme Court Judges, and hundreds of members of Congress) the framers intended for presidential actions to be made much more swiftly compared to any other branch.  Yoo goes on to argue that the Constitution resolves that any uncertainties within the executive power must be decided in favor of the executive branch. Hence, the Constitution is vague when explaining executive powers, thus when any issues arise, the power must be given to the executive branch.

On the other hand, Michael Cairo points out in the article "The Imperial Presidency Triumphant" published in Executing the Constitution in 2006, that within the last few presidencies the executive power has expanded far more than the framers had intended. He goes on to state that broad military powers were given to Congress (like raising a military, allocating funds, officially declaring war, and regulating commerce).  And the president originally was only supposed to nominate ambassadors, negotiate treaties, and direct armed forces (after war has been declared by Congress).  The Clinton and Bush administrations set a new precedent, elevating the power of the president when it comes to the Commander-in-Chief position.  They were involved in several wars and deployed thousands of troops, all without the official approval of Congress.

On a personal level, I do believe that the Constitution should be interpreted more literally than abstractly.  If we allow courts to interpret the Constitution differently based on the changing times, it makes it all too easy to make a decision based on personal feelings in the case, and create legal precedents that shouldn't be followed.  Court decisions should be based on the original meaning of the Constitution and by past precedents.
I side in the middle of the presidential unilateral power debate.  I whole heartedly believe that the executive branch should have the power to make swift decisions when it comes to foreign policy, foreign threats, and war (after all, we have seen just how impossible it is for Congress to come to an agreement in a timely matter).  However, I also whole heartedly believe in our system of checks and balances.  The executive branch needs another branch to oversee and check on its use and overuse of power.