Case: Loving V. Virginia
In 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman and Richard Loving, a white man were married in the District of Columbia. The Lovings returned to Virginia shortly thereafter. The couple was then charged with violating the state's anti miscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail (the trail judge agreed to suspend the sentence if the Lovings would leave Virginia and not return for 25 years).
The passage above points out that, In the state of Virginia the Lovings was brought up on charges for what was considered a criminal act by crossing the barriers of racial segregation. In the state of Virginia people of different race was not suppose to have intimate relationships and definitely not marry outside of their race. The couple was brought to trail and sentenced to one year imprisonment. However, the trail judge, I guess thought he was doing the couple a favor by not enforcing jail time but having them leave the state for at minimum 25 years. In my eyes they were still being punished for being in love.
As pointed out in the fourteenth amendment, States must apply the law equally. The law prohibits discrimination against people or groups of people. In the case of Lovings V. Virginia the courts found there was no just cause for the state to punish the couple other than pure racial discrimination.
Stated under the Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race is up to the individual, and can not be dictated by the State.
I chose this passage because I find it interesting that we as people have come such a long way and it's sad to say that inter-racial relationships are still frowned upon today. Maybe not in the court system but in society. A lot of people believe one should not date or marry outside of their race. I believe if two people are in love, it shouldn't matter the race as long as they are happy. Two each his own.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Friday, November 28, 2014
The American Political System
Post-War Liberalism to the Present
In 2008 the biggest stock market crash since the Great Depression occurred resulting from financial speculation in the U.S. housing market. This was in large part a result of the "deregulation" of the financial industry beginning in the 1980s, overturning laws established in the 1930. Unlike the Great Depression which began in the middle of a Republican administration and helped to discredit the Republicans for more than 40 years, this one exploded, or was timed to explode, shortly before a presidential election, the 2008 election which saw the election of Barack Obama.
The nineteen eighties were the times of the Regan administration. During which, deregulation on Wall St. made possible the exploitation of America's financial industries by the wealthy. Insider trading, false stock reports, and fraudulent accounting began to become the norm e.g. Enron. All of which enabled the wealthy to thrive. While on the flip side the poor and working class thrived in other regards; mass incarceration, unemployment/outsourcing of jobs, and the explosion of drug addiction. These events (plus the Bush wars and Clinton's NAFTA) are all the inheritance of the Obama Administration.
I agree with the articles description of "mixed results" for this administration efforts to bring balance to our country's people. President Obama was voted in on the idea of "Hope", which continues to meet with record opposition (the most non-productive congress in our nations history). For many it appears that the opposition to the President's efforts are racially fueled, but the truth is that we're all affected.
On November 23, 2014 CBS aired it's show 60 minutes. The first topic of the show was about America's dilapidated infrastructure's condition. The President made a proposal during his first term to put trillions of dollars into the needed repairs, which would've created many millions of jobs. The Republican congress voted against it.
In 2008 the biggest stock market crash since the Great Depression occurred resulting from financial speculation in the U.S. housing market. This was in large part a result of the "deregulation" of the financial industry beginning in the 1980s, overturning laws established in the 1930. Unlike the Great Depression which began in the middle of a Republican administration and helped to discredit the Republicans for more than 40 years, this one exploded, or was timed to explode, shortly before a presidential election, the 2008 election which saw the election of Barack Obama.
The nineteen eighties were the times of the Regan administration. During which, deregulation on Wall St. made possible the exploitation of America's financial industries by the wealthy. Insider trading, false stock reports, and fraudulent accounting began to become the norm e.g. Enron. All of which enabled the wealthy to thrive. While on the flip side the poor and working class thrived in other regards; mass incarceration, unemployment/outsourcing of jobs, and the explosion of drug addiction. These events (plus the Bush wars and Clinton's NAFTA) are all the inheritance of the Obama Administration.
I agree with the articles description of "mixed results" for this administration efforts to bring balance to our country's people. President Obama was voted in on the idea of "Hope", which continues to meet with record opposition (the most non-productive congress in our nations history). For many it appears that the opposition to the President's efforts are racially fueled, but the truth is that we're all affected.
On November 23, 2014 CBS aired it's show 60 minutes. The first topic of the show was about America's dilapidated infrastructure's condition. The President made a proposal during his first term to put trillions of dollars into the needed repairs, which would've created many millions of jobs. The Republican congress voted against it.
Saturday, November 15, 2014
The American Political System
Congress
The number of representatives from each state depends on the population of each state. Changes in the population, changes the number of representatives from each state. So for example a state like New York which has a declining population over the last twenty years has lost representatives, while states like Florida or Texas which have growing populations have seen increases in their representation over the last few decades.
What this passage is pointing out is that if you live in a state that is largely populated you have a bigger voice in congress. There will be more representatives in house that have a common interest of the state. They will have a bigger influence over the outcome of what laws are or are not passed. As people migrate to and from different states, changes in congress start to happen. Your state representation can either strengthen or become weaker. This is a process that happens over time.
I chose this passage because it's interesting to know that a state population has such a big influence on congress. I understand from the passage that population influence the number of representatives in congress however, I feel it can influence rather there are more democratic or republican as well.
The number of representatives from each state depends on the population of each state. Changes in the population, changes the number of representatives from each state. So for example a state like New York which has a declining population over the last twenty years has lost representatives, while states like Florida or Texas which have growing populations have seen increases in their representation over the last few decades.
What this passage is pointing out is that if you live in a state that is largely populated you have a bigger voice in congress. There will be more representatives in house that have a common interest of the state. They will have a bigger influence over the outcome of what laws are or are not passed. As people migrate to and from different states, changes in congress start to happen. Your state representation can either strengthen or become weaker. This is a process that happens over time.
I chose this passage because it's interesting to know that a state population has such a big influence on congress. I understand from the passage that population influence the number of representatives in congress however, I feel it can influence rather there are more democratic or republican as well.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
American Political System
Equal Rights
Of course we are familiar with the "civil rights movement" for equality. But many of aspects of the civil rights movement also contained a demand for greater political participation as well as social protections. After civil rights were established the next demand came in the form of greater political participation, the right to vote and hold office. Unlike pure civil rights which poses no threat to the capitalist system, extending the right to vote to the whole population could lead to a greater demand for equality by passing laws to that effect.
This quote points out that in order for change to happen and for all citizens to have a fair chance at equality after establishing civil rights, they also needed to have a voice in government. In a capitalist system, the rich dictates the political agenda. Candidates who were in office, protected the interest of the wealthy, and made sure that the laws passed was in their best interest. To gain greater political involvement, citizens needed voting right so that they could elect people into office that had the same ideas and views as them. Once in office, laws would be put into place that promoted equality for all.
I chose this quote to point out how having civil rights alone is not enough for equality. Although citizens are suppose to be treated equally, that's not always the case. Citizens having a choice of who they would like to elect into government for me is the only way to go. I believe the chances of equality are greater.
Of course we are familiar with the "civil rights movement" for equality. But many of aspects of the civil rights movement also contained a demand for greater political participation as well as social protections. After civil rights were established the next demand came in the form of greater political participation, the right to vote and hold office. Unlike pure civil rights which poses no threat to the capitalist system, extending the right to vote to the whole population could lead to a greater demand for equality by passing laws to that effect.
This quote points out that in order for change to happen and for all citizens to have a fair chance at equality after establishing civil rights, they also needed to have a voice in government. In a capitalist system, the rich dictates the political agenda. Candidates who were in office, protected the interest of the wealthy, and made sure that the laws passed was in their best interest. To gain greater political involvement, citizens needed voting right so that they could elect people into office that had the same ideas and views as them. Once in office, laws would be put into place that promoted equality for all.
I chose this quote to point out how having civil rights alone is not enough for equality. Although citizens are suppose to be treated equally, that's not always the case. Citizens having a choice of who they would like to elect into government for me is the only way to go. I believe the chances of equality are greater.
Saturday, November 1, 2014
Civil Disobedience
Henry David Thoreau
Government is only as good or bad as the people who run it. It is not evil in itself nor is it good in itself, or as he says, "but, to speak practically and as a citizen unlike those who call themselves no government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step towards obtaining it". In other words a government closer to the ideas of equality and justice that we are entitled to according to the Declaration.
In the above passage, I believe Thoreau is saying that having government organize and protect society is not a bad thing to have in place. However, it should be run in a manner that promotes equality and justice for all. He's stating that, if you have corrupted people in office that is not looking out for every one's best interest as a whole, it's the people in office who has mismanaged the affairs and/or has not protected the people of society. It's not just the mere fact that you have government organizing affairs. It is ultimately the people in office making decisions, rules and regulations. He also doesn't feel there should be no government, just a change or reorganization of government to make things better. Thoreau is expressing that everyman should take a stance and let government know what they expect from them. Man should not just accept everything government puts on the table. Make it to whereas government have to earn the respect of the people. Hopefully, by doing this, government would make things more favorable and equal for everyone.
I chose this passage because I believe this is a true concept in everyday life. I work in the health care industry and have worked at many organizations. A hospital is a hospital no matter where you go and performs basically the same task on a daily basis. Some hospitals I have worked at have been excellent and others not so good. What made the difference was how the hospital was ran. The rules and regulations differed from hospital to hospital and it's the "people" in leadership who put the rules and regulations in place. A lot of the time the rules and regulations benefit the organization and not so much the employees. I feel this is where it ties into what Thoreau is stating, it not the fact that there is a government in place that makes the difference, it's the people within the organization that makes the rule which produces the outcome, that makes the difference. I totally agree with the last point he makes in his passage, If people don't believe something is right or unjust, they should take a stance and work together towards change. Make the organization respect them to hopefully promote equality for all.
Government is only as good or bad as the people who run it. It is not evil in itself nor is it good in itself, or as he says, "but, to speak practically and as a citizen unlike those who call themselves no government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step towards obtaining it". In other words a government closer to the ideas of equality and justice that we are entitled to according to the Declaration.
In the above passage, I believe Thoreau is saying that having government organize and protect society is not a bad thing to have in place. However, it should be run in a manner that promotes equality and justice for all. He's stating that, if you have corrupted people in office that is not looking out for every one's best interest as a whole, it's the people in office who has mismanaged the affairs and/or has not protected the people of society. It's not just the mere fact that you have government organizing affairs. It is ultimately the people in office making decisions, rules and regulations. He also doesn't feel there should be no government, just a change or reorganization of government to make things better. Thoreau is expressing that everyman should take a stance and let government know what they expect from them. Man should not just accept everything government puts on the table. Make it to whereas government have to earn the respect of the people. Hopefully, by doing this, government would make things more favorable and equal for everyone.
I chose this passage because I believe this is a true concept in everyday life. I work in the health care industry and have worked at many organizations. A hospital is a hospital no matter where you go and performs basically the same task on a daily basis. Some hospitals I have worked at have been excellent and others not so good. What made the difference was how the hospital was ran. The rules and regulations differed from hospital to hospital and it's the "people" in leadership who put the rules and regulations in place. A lot of the time the rules and regulations benefit the organization and not so much the employees. I feel this is where it ties into what Thoreau is stating, it not the fact that there is a government in place that makes the difference, it's the people within the organization that makes the rule which produces the outcome, that makes the difference. I totally agree with the last point he makes in his passage, If people don't believe something is right or unjust, they should take a stance and work together towards change. Make the organization respect them to hopefully promote equality for all.
Friday, October 24, 2014
Diffusion of Innovations among the American States
Demographic Factors:
Decision maker's relative wealth, or the degree to which "free floating" resources are available, are important determinants of the willingness to adopt new techniques or policies. If "slack" resources are available, either in the form of money or a highly skilled, professional staff, the decision maker can afford the luxury of experiment and can more easily risk the possibility of failure.
The statement above points out that wealth, resources and education play a role in how quick some states adopt new programs, techniques and policies. As reflected in the chart of innovation scores, the larger states that are more economically stable, well connected and informed, adopt at a much quicker pace over smaller less developed states. The larger states focus more on the benefits of change and less on the risk of failure. It's also competition, population keeps the economy flourishing. If states are not adopting new programs and changing over the years, people are going to relocate to areas that better suit there needs.
I chose this passage because I thought it was important to point out how money, resources and knowledge plays a role in why some states may adopt some policies and programs so readily, and not others. It may not be because they don't want too. It could simply be because they are not in a position to jump on the band wagon because other states did.
Decision maker's relative wealth, or the degree to which "free floating" resources are available, are important determinants of the willingness to adopt new techniques or policies. If "slack" resources are available, either in the form of money or a highly skilled, professional staff, the decision maker can afford the luxury of experiment and can more easily risk the possibility of failure.
The statement above points out that wealth, resources and education play a role in how quick some states adopt new programs, techniques and policies. As reflected in the chart of innovation scores, the larger states that are more economically stable, well connected and informed, adopt at a much quicker pace over smaller less developed states. The larger states focus more on the benefits of change and less on the risk of failure. It's also competition, population keeps the economy flourishing. If states are not adopting new programs and changing over the years, people are going to relocate to areas that better suit there needs.
I chose this passage because I thought it was important to point out how money, resources and knowledge plays a role in why some states may adopt some policies and programs so readily, and not others. It may not be because they don't want too. It could simply be because they are not in a position to jump on the band wagon because other states did.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
New York Times Articles:
Akhil Reed Amar.....
Looks at the limitation of naturalized citizens for holding office, specifically the President. The constitution states that "only citizens born in the U.S. are eligible to be President of the United States," as he says: But those American citizens who happen to have been born abroad to non-American parents - and who later choose to become "naturalized" American citizens - are not the full legal equals of those of U.S. born in the United States.
This statement boils down to, those who are not born here on U.S. soil have no rights to become the President of the United States. Regardless of the fact that you have become a U.S. citizen or have grown accustom to the American way, you will not be granted the same equality as someone who was born in the United States. You was simply born in the wrong place.
I chose this statement because I feel this is an area of the constitution that should be amended. No one should be denied the opportunity to run for presidency simply because they was born in another country. For so many people, the United States is all they know. People migrate from different countries to the U.S. all the time and at very young ages. For the most part, most if not all of their education is obtained through the American school systems. Yes, having certain guidelines or meeting certain criteria should be necessary to become President of the United States. However, just because you was not born an American citizen is just wrong on so many levels. The person who is best qualified for the position should be allowed the opportunity to run. Why should anyone be punished simply because of their birthplace.
Akhil Reed Amar.....
Looks at the limitation of naturalized citizens for holding office, specifically the President. The constitution states that "only citizens born in the U.S. are eligible to be President of the United States," as he says: But those American citizens who happen to have been born abroad to non-American parents - and who later choose to become "naturalized" American citizens - are not the full legal equals of those of U.S. born in the United States.
This statement boils down to, those who are not born here on U.S. soil have no rights to become the President of the United States. Regardless of the fact that you have become a U.S. citizen or have grown accustom to the American way, you will not be granted the same equality as someone who was born in the United States. You was simply born in the wrong place.
I chose this statement because I feel this is an area of the constitution that should be amended. No one should be denied the opportunity to run for presidency simply because they was born in another country. For so many people, the United States is all they know. People migrate from different countries to the U.S. all the time and at very young ages. For the most part, most if not all of their education is obtained through the American school systems. Yes, having certain guidelines or meeting certain criteria should be necessary to become President of the United States. However, just because you was not born an American citizen is just wrong on so many levels. The person who is best qualified for the position should be allowed the opportunity to run. Why should anyone be punished simply because of their birthplace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)