The Finale

         Wednesday December, 17th marks the end of my first semester of college...how time flies! This past Saturday marked the official end of my FYS Class, "Talking About Freedom." This is the class that I created this blog for initially; however, as the semester progressed, I began to view the blog less as an assignment and more as a learning opportunity, an opportunity to do something that I should've been doing all along on my own according...becoming a better informed American citizen by reading up on the world news several times a week. When choosing which articles to blog about, I tried to select topics that were relevant specifically to the First Amendment aspect of the course, or topics that correlated with what we were discussing in class. 
       The course itself taught me much more than simply how to blog about news...it taught me several key skills that I know will certainly carry over into my other courses. I have to admit, on the first day, the class intimidated me. I was scared; I thought to myself "this is the real deal, this is what a college lecture course is really like. What if I can't keep up? God forbid...what if I fail?" These little doubts in my mind didn't stay for long thanks to my teacher, Professor Smith. I knew from the get-go that Professor Smith had high expectations for everyone in the class, and that the only way to meet them was through good old fashion hard work. Professor Smith definitely went the extra mile to create a class blog that kept the class informed as well as summarized what we were discussing in class (he even went the extra mile to provide snacks every day for us starving college students! ); his blog quickly became a resource for me the second I became confused about anything we discussed in class. Professor Smith also taught me how to elevate my writing to the next level, the collegiate level. He assigned us two major essays that would weigh heavily on our grades. I have to say, the thought of a 2,000 word final essay definitely intimidated me, at first I had absolutely no idea where to begin, but Professor Smith created an outline to guide our thinking and without it, my essay very well might've been a disaster. 
       The class itself also taught me the importance of teamwork. Many of our assignments were team based. Professor Smith created teams, where we would work with our designated team to participate in moot court or to work on a difficult assignment together. Through these exercises, I learned the importance of responsibility, in order for the assignment to be a success, every member had to do their part. Also, working with a group can make an assignment far less daunting and even enjoyable. I would say that I definitely had fun learning and developing my academic skills in the class. I will miss the fun court case reenactments and the riveting discussions and debates, but I know that I will undoubtably use the skills that I've learned in my future courses!

http://www.lastagetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/unnamed-14.jpg

"White Like Me" Racism in America

          Recently in class, we viewed the film "White Like Me." The basic theme of the movie was racism and racial inequality in American society. The film was largely in contingence with what we've been discussing in class throughout the course of the semester. Throughout the semester, we've discussed observed, and even debated about events and topics in history that all are all connected to one central issue that unfortunately still plagues American society today, that is, racism. As we learned in class, racism has origins dating back to as early as the 1600's with the beginning of the institution of slavery. In class, we've observed the way in which racism and racial inequality have played integral roles in several key historical events. Recently, I completed an essay that was based off the Civil Rights Movement, a push for equality ignited by African Americans. The movement received a great amount of back-lash from white Americans who still inherently believed that African Americans were inferior to whites.
          Although society has progressed greatly in terms of acceptance and tolerance of others, racism and racial prejudice are still very much a part of American Society. As seen in the movie "White Like Me", many whites in society still continue to stereotype African Americans; for example, many believe that African Americans are the only individuals who commit crimes, or African Americans are the only ones who struggle...as seen through the film, this simply isn't realty. The unfortunate reality of the world we live in today is that every race has some sort of struggle. When the economy took a turn for the worst back in 2008, numerous amounts of Americans lost their jobs and thus turned to governmental aid just to support their families while the economy limped along. Also, society has a pre-concieved notion that perhaps the only successful high-earning are whites, and that perhaps whites are the only ones who have the opportunity to truly enjoy the fruits of success. This relates to the concept of "white privilege" addressed in the film. White privilege is the idea that white members of society received more or better privileges than minority; often times, white privilege is followed by an inherent sense of entitlement that has existed for centuries.

          When President Barack Obama was elected as the very first African American president, it seemed as though America had turned a corner; as though the American public had finally put their biases and prejudices aside for the good of the nation. However, many members of society were outraged at the idea of an African American leading the nation, they simply couldn't fathom how Obama was elected. Several white simply voted for McCain for the sole fact that they couldn't stand the idea of a black president, whereas many African Americans voted for Obama because of his race, perhaps in hopes that his election would bring about the eventual elimination of racism in society.
         At the end of the day, I learned from the movie that an American is an American, regardless of the color of his or her skin. It saddens me that many members of society fail to echo this sentiment. I firmly believe that racism in America will end when people begin to view others as equals; when the values, beliefs, or work ethic that a person holds becomes more important than the color of their skin. "White Like Me" seeks to bring awareness to this very concept, the concept that even though society is completely integrated by law, we truly cannot become "integrated" until all members of society learn to give the same level of respect and tolerance to all, regardless of race.





photo sources:
1. http://www.timwise.org/books-and-dvds/white-like-me/  
2. http://www.thezooom.com/2012/11/8233/  

Anticipated Decision of Jury Calls for State of Emergency in Missouri

         As of Monday, November 17th, Missouri declared itself in a "state of emergency". Given the events that have occurred over the past few months, there is no question that controversy and conflict are rampant. Months ago, a white police officer in the town of Ferguson (Darren Wilson) shot and killed African American teenager Michael Brown (who was unarmed at the time of the shooting.) The incident stirred Americans as protests regarding unfair racial targeting and violence ensued in not only the state of Missouri but all across the nation. Ferguson police attempted to put an end to the protests, however, their efforts proved to be in direct violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. 

        After months of consistent protesting and debate, the grand jury has stated that a decision on the case is expected to be reached by Mid-November. However, in the mean time, Mo. Governor Jay Nixon has called upon the Missouri National Guard in order to reinforce the state of emergency in anticipation of the inevitable rising tension as the decision dates nears...a rather militaristic approach to conflict resolution in my opinion; many protestors share the same feelings, expressing their disdain for the military-like method of law enforcement. Is crowd control with large rifles and military vehicles truly necessary to stop rowdy protestors? Governor Nixon insists that the aid of the National Guard is simply part of a "contingency plan" stating that it was "simply the next step in continuing efforts to plan and be prepared for any contingency, and that means making sure these resources are in place in advance of any announcement." So basically, Gov. Nixon's plan was simply a preempted strike in anticipation of state-wide uproar when the jury releases their decision; he also insists that the order was merely to protect the "dual pillars" or the endurance of public safety and the protestors rights to voice their opinions. 
          Even though many experts believe that the jury will choose not to indict Wilson (which would inevitably lead to violent outbreaks and protests), Nixon insists that the National Guard will play a secondary role in the law enforcement process by merely aiding local police officers so that they can instead focus on the protection of constitutional rights as well as smaller local issues. It's only a matter of time before a verdict is reached. Will justice be served to officer Wilson, or will the jury choose not to indict? This decision is said to be reached very soon.

Article and photos: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/us/missouri-governor-calls-out-national-guard-ahead-of-grand-jury-decision.html?ref=politics&_r=0

Gay Marriage Delays in Kansas

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/kansas-watches-high-court-justice-gay-marriage-26828771

        Doesn't everyone deserve the right to be happy? The freedom to live with and love who they want? If only all states felt this way; however, on a positive note, 32 US states have legalized gay marriage. Yet, that means that 18 other states have yet to lift their bans. One state in particular that is sparking much media attention lately is the state of Kansas. Last week, a federal judge ordered the state of Kansas to stop enforcing the ban. Attorney General Derek Schmidt decided to appeal to the Supreme Court. Justice Sonya Sotomayor temporarily halted the judges order. Civil Liberty attorneys firmly believe that delaying the lifting of the gay marriage ban in the state of Kansas will prove to have negative effects on gay couples as well as their families. Unfortunately, Kansas seems to be rather set on their decision and have been for years. For example, the state has never once recognized same sex marriage; in the year 2005, the voters approved an amendment to the state constitution that reinforced the the ban. The controversy is largely based off the request for legal change that was filed by the ACLU (American Civil Liberty Union), standing up for the rights of two lesbian couples. The Kansas court state that "marriage license applications from same-sex couples could be accepted but not issued until its case is resolved. That order will remain in effect until Tuesday." Sadly, rather than addressing the issue head on, the state of Kansas would rather choose to remain passive and keep the ban in place until further notice.

Moot Court: Brown vs. Board of Education

http://www.spft.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/BrownVBoard.jpg 

       Today, the class argued the court case of Brown vs. Board of Education 1957 , a landmark case in history due to the fact that it tackles the idea of "separate but equal" laws as well as segregation. In the case of Brown vs. Board of Education, the real question was: should there be segregation of black and white children within the public school system?
Each side argued the following: 

Board of Education Side: 

• SC represented “separate but equal” in 1896
• As long as the RR companies provide separate but equal entities then the separation is legal
• No matter which way you look at it, whites are superior to blacks—integration of schools will only bring more feelings of inferiority; is it worth the integration if the feeling of inferiority don't go away?
• Integration could be detrimental to both parties—black children would fall behind and not get the attention that they need or white children wouldn't reach their full potential 
• State and local government have the right to make decisions that are ultimately what is best for the children—schooling and education isn't a “federal issue”
• “Race mixing” can cause issues in itself

Brown Arguments:

• the reality is that the schools aren't equal—black schools have lower quality of education, it isn't up to par with white schools
• Studies show that minority students learn best in mixed classroom environment 
• “reality vs. rhetoric”—separate but equal isn't true in reality 
• according to the constitution, black children are citizens of the US and should therefore receive the same benefits and treatment as white children—based on First Amendment 
• the Jim Crow laws saying that young black children must attend segregated schools is unconstitutional 
• Separating children by race can cause the “inferiority complex” 
• Separate schools act as “badges of inferiority” 

         Personally, I believe that segregation is just flat out morally incorrect. However, constitutionally speaking, the Board of Education side makes a valid point when they state that schooling isn't technically a "federal issue", therefore its the choice of the state and local governments to regulate the schooling of the children. Yet, I still believe that the side of Brown had the most valid arguments because its hard to argue with the facts. Equality was simply an ideal, however, it is a matter of reality vs. rhetoric. The unfortunate reality of the time was that the school systems designated for black children were of lower quality than those of white students. That simply shouldn't be. The 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state where they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The 14th Amendment is difficult to argue with. Ultimately, all citizens should receive equal educational opportunities regardless of race. 

Guns, Bears, and Weed...Oh My!

           As most of you are all aware of, it's the year 2014 aka the year of midterm elections! With that being said, voters are speaking out more than ever about controversial topics in both the political and social realm of the spectrum. These topics are particularly controversial such as: abortion, the legalization of marijuana, and gun-control laws. Others include the well-known battle for higher minimum wage, alcohol bans, and even hunting regulations in certain states. These issues have appeared in ballot initiatives in many states, as voters seek to make their voices heard, while many political candidates choose their respective sides on each issue. Fox News reports the following facts and statistics: ( http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/27/weed-booze-and-bears-ballot-questions-compete-with-candidates-for-voters/) 

To Legalize or Not to Legalize Marijuana:
The question of whether or not to legalize marijuana has plagued the minds of state governments for years. States such as Colorado and Washington have already joined team "legalize marijuana", allowing the use of marijuana for recreational purposes. Other states such as Oregon and even Washington DC seem to following in Colorado's footsteps, as support for the overall push toward legalization continues to grow rapidly. Reports show that Drug Policy Action has generated over $500,000 toward the "yes on 91 campaign" in Oregon. Many states such as Florida are very interested in the opinion of its citizens, as they now ask a question on their voting ballots regarding its legalization.

Abortion: 
Abortion is perhaps the most controversial issue within society that seems to have the nation split as to which stance to take. States such as Colorado are seeking to amend their laws in order to define a fetus as an actual person, while other states such as North Dakota push for laws that would protect the unborn and make the act of abortion illegal.

Gun Control:
Many Americans are adamant that we as a nation tighten gun-control restriction, especially in light of the many tragic events that have occurred in recent years such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The state of Washington's ballot initiative 594 would call for stricter regulation, requiring background checks for nearly all weapon purchases. However, there is much opposition still from groups such as the National Rifle Association, who argue against the background checks, and are even in favor of the prohibition of governmental seizure of weapons without due-process.

Minimum Wage:
To raise, or not to raise? This seems to always be the question. However, it appears as though several states are in favor of an increase in minimum wage. South Dakota would see an increase from $7.25 an hour to $8.50, while Alaska would have a significant raise from $7.75 to $9.75 over a span of several years. 

Alcohol Bans: 
Believe it or not, there are still states out there (10 to be exact) where alcohol is still technically banned. For example, in Arkansas a ballot initiative would allow for alcohol legalization across the state, where currently 37 out of 75 counties prohibit its over the counter sale. Surprisingly, 54% of the voters opposed removing the prohibition across the state.

Hunting and Trapping: 
In the state of Maine, a ballot initiative that has sparked national attention is the proposition to ban several methods used by hunters to lure and trap bears, in favor of more human methods of capture. Both parties involved have spent a total of $ 1.6 million dollars on TV advertisements and campaigns in order to inform and even persuade citizens to choose a side. 

photo credits: http://galleryhip.com/crossed-guns-western.html
http://www.firstpeople.us/pictures/bear/1600x1200/Feeling_Grizzly-1600x1200.jpg
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/legal-pot/seattles-only-legal-marijuana-shop-sells-out-pot-n153971

Mid-Semester Reflection: Blogging

       This week is midterm exam week right before Fall Break, which signifies that the first semester is halfway over. Since I am at the halfway point within my FYS Talking About Freedom course, I felt it necessary to take a moment to reflect upon my experience thus far, particularly in the area of blogging. To be honest, when I began the course and Mr. Smith informed us that we had to create a blog and make a new post every week (about any topic we desired) My immediate thought was "where in the world do I even start?"

       When approaching the blog, I decided that it would be best to stick with a common theme throughout each post, my theme being: First and Fourteenth Amendment issues within the world. I wanted to focus on the controversy of each situation, the public's reaction to the event; I also decided to add my own personal opinion about each article in order to make my blog more personalized. 
        To be honest, before I began the FYS course, I never even watched the news on my own accord, unless it was already on in the background. However, as I began scavenging the internet for articles to write my blog posts about each week, I was simultaneously educating myself on events occurring around the world; I noticed that even when I was simply surfing the web, my eyes would glance over to my favorites bar at the name "Huffington Post" or "Fox News" and I would then find myself scrolling through the "Breaking News" section instead of as Mr. Smith would say "browsing pictures of shoes on Pinterest." I now try to read at least one news article a day (aside from articles used for my blog.)
      In addition to becoming a more well-informed citizen, I also discovered that blogging has many long term personal benefits. For example, blogs can help you gain internships and even allow you to stand out in a competitive applicant pool when applying for a job. Additionally, blogs and pages such as Linkedin can serve as an excellent resume supplements. I look forward to continuing to improve my blogging skills as well as writing about more relevant world issues after returning from Fall Break! 

photo credit: http://elitacsustan.edublogs.org

Plessy v. Ferguson Mock Trial Reflection

      Today in class we conducted a mock trial of the Supreme Court case: Plessy v. Ferguson 1896 regarding the issue of "separate but equal." In summary of the facts, a man named Plessy purchased a first-class ticket at a Louisiana Railroad Station, and subsequently proceeded to board the East Louisiana Railroad. They key issue was the fact that the railroad car was "whites only." However, the state of Louisiana made a generally applicable law that railroad companies were obligated to provide separate accommodations of black and white travels, thus there was De-Jure segregation at the state level. The first part of the issue lies in Mr. Plessy's racial background; when purchasing the ticket, he informed the company that he was merely 1/8th African American, which technically made him 7/8th white. After Mr. Plessy decided to seat himself in the whites-only section, he was asked to leave; when he refused, he was then issued a $25 fine for violating the Separate Car Act, as well as arrested. Plessy in turn, decided to sue stating that his 13th and 14th amendment rights were being violated. 

        The two teams, Team Lincoln and Team Jefferson divided in order to argue both in favor and against Mr. Plessy. The first team to state their case was Team Jefferson, who argued in favor of Mr. Plessy. They argued first that Mr. Plessy was only 1/8th African American and 7/8th white. How was he supposed to be classified? Also, they argued that Plessy was allowed to purchase a ticket because  the Railroad company was considered to be "common carrier" which meant that there was to be no racial distinction among passengers. Mr. Plessy's based their argument off the fact that the 13th and 14th Amendments provided for equal treatment of all US citizens, it also made African Americans citizens. 

      Team Lincoln then argued in favor of the State. First and foremost, they stated that Mr. Plessy deliberately informed the Railroad Company that he was black while purchasing the ticket, making it his choice to disclose his racial heritage. Second, the Railroad Companies did in fact provide equal transportation for both races, based off economic status. The quality of the cars was determined based off the general economic status of the passengers, and how much they could pay to ride. The fact that the cars were divided by race fueled the idea of "separate but equal" meaning that blacks were given the same accommodations as whites, just separate from them.

      At the end of the case, the Supreme Court sided with the state claiming that the law was constitutional, and that there was no significant difference between the quality of the black cars versus the white cars, and also rejected the fact that there was any 14th Amendment violations at play. The court argued that the state of Louisiana's law did not imply that blacks were inferior in anyway; therefore, the separation of blacks and whites was simply a matter of "public policy." This case set the precedence for the creation of more segregation laws based off the concept of "separate but equal." I personally believe that the issue here had many factors at play; I personally find it difficult to choose a side; both sides made extremely valid arguments that I enjoyed listening to. At the end of the day, it is difficult to argue with the facts. 
photo credit: http://northwesthistoryexpress.com/timeline/transportation1800/PennsylvaniaTrain.jpg

Wilderness Proposal Leads to First Amendment Controversy

          Let's say you're working for National Geographic and you wish to photograph a certain tree species for your article, shouldn't you be allowed to? Well, the government says not so fast... According to the following article: (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-forest-service-wilderness-proposal-sparks-first-amendment-fight/) The United States Forest Service has created a proposal that maps out new rules and restrictions requiring permits in order for any media group or organization to film or take photos in over 100 million acres of US wilderness. According to the new rules, in order for a member of a media organization to obtain permission to photograph or shoot in a national park, he or she would be required to seek approval from the US Forest Service, as well as be subject to fees as high as $1500 for the commercial filming or photographing.

          Many argue that the issue here isn't simply the fact that the government wishes to charge fees for photographing nature, but rather the fact that the restrictions are quite possibly in direct violation with the First Amendment and the right to freedom of press. Some media organizations worry that the new law would then allow the government to decide what's "newsworthy" and what isn't. What if the US Forest Service simply doesn't like an idea for a story? Should it be allowed to deny the media organization the right to obtain footage that would allow for its publication to be made possible?

photo credit: http://www.nationalforests.org/blog/explore-national-forests-near-national-parks

T-Shirt Gets NY High School Student Suspended

     Imagine having to call your parents and inform them that you have been suspended...not for a behavioral infraction, but for your T-Shirt. Sounds a little a ridiculous, right? According to the article http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/13/new-york-high-school-suspended-for-nra-pro-2nd-amendment-t-shirt/, 16 year old New York High Schooler Shane Kinney would agree. Recently, Kinney was suspended from his high school for sporting a T-shirt that stated "2nd Amendment Shall not be Infringed." He was told by an administrator that he either had to cover the logo on the shirt with duct tape, turn the shirt inside out or accept a suspension; Kinney held his ground and refused to cover the logo, therefore, he was suspended for a day.

       However, the school administration stated that Kinney had attended school wearing a sweatshirt that contained a firearm logo, and was asked not to wear it again. Kinney ignored the request by wearing the shirt that contained an image of fire arms, again. Kinney's father sided with his son stating that no where in the school handbook is there a rule that outlaws apparel containing images of guns. He also added that he completely disagrees with the suspension stating that "the NRA does great things and there was nothing wrong with that shirt."
      Can a school administration really suspend a student for what they wear? In my opinion, this is a rather tricky situation because there are many factors at play here. I do believe that Kinney's shirt did not contain any violent imagery, it was simply imagery that promoted an amendment found within the US Constitution, the right of all citizens to bear arms. Yet on the other hand, Kinney was asked in the past not to wear that type of attire to school and he chose to ignore school policy; therefore, I can understand why the school would take such disciplinary measures. I do believe that the punishment would've been too harsh had the student not been asked not to wear the shirt before.

photo source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/13/new-york-high-school-suspended-for-nra-pro-2nd-amendment-t-shirt/

Reflection on State vs. Mann

     Recently today, my FYS Seminar Class: Talking about Freedom, held a mock trial for the 1829 court case of State vs. Mann. The case was about woman named Elizabeth Jones who allowed for a man named John Mann to rent her slave, Lydia. One day, Lydia disobeyed Mann, and in turn, Mann shot and wounded Lydia ( The lower court then decided to charge Mann a five dollar fine for the violent act committed against the slave (other facts about the case can be found here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_v._Mann) However, Mann appealed the decision to the North Carolina Supreme Court arguing that he should not be held responsible for paying the fine. The case to me was a matter of principal rather than about the monetary aspect.

      The class was split into two teams: Team Erica (Coleman, Tyler, Mike and myself) to argue in favor of Mr. Mann vs. Team Nido (Katie, Brighid, and Randy) to argue that Mr. Mann should in fact have to pay the fine. At first, I found it rather difficult to formulate my arguments for this case, because I was essentially arguing in favor of slavery, something that I believe to be one of the most cruel and horrible chapters in history. However, when formulating my arguments I had to try my best to forget my own personal biases and feelings on the subject; it took a bit of time to remove the presentism from my mind and instead get into the mindset of a slave owner in the 1800's but it had to be done in order to at least make successful points. After extensive research and a slight bit of frustration our arguments emerged as the following:

I. Slavery is ordained in heaven, therefore the act is not illegal.

II. The master isn't liable for the indictment of battery and assault committed; technically, Lydia was given to Mr. Mann by Mrs. Jones, therefore she was in his care.

III. Slavery itself should not be illegal due to the great impact it has on the national economy.

IV. Slaves aren't considered “human” by law

My personal argument was Argument III; the main point I sought to argue was that slavery was in fact crucial for the US economy at the time, and owners needed to do anything in their power in order to maintain their revenue generating plantations. It sounds harsh I know....But I had to make the argument anyways. This perhaps is one of the things I find to be most difficult about the field of law. How does one argue for something that he or she knows is morally incorrect? This is a concept I still grapple with, but after completing this case I believe that the way in which one argues something he or she doesn't believe in is through cold, hard facts.

Photo source: http://www.gordoncounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/departments/superior-court/Gavel-and-Scales.jpg

Most Important First Amendment Freedom: Teachers vs. Students

        Since the beginning of time, teachers and students have constantly disagreed on many issues such as how much homework should be given or how long a test should be. However, times are no longer this simple. This generation of teenagers in particular has become far more involved in the world around; taking an interest in politics and governmental matters like never before. But the real question is why now? The answer: social media. According to blaze.com, the survey "Students on the Future of the First Amendment" discovered that 62% of students use social medial, and  71% read online news. With social media, everything is instantaneous, allowing teenagers to become easily informed and educated about relevant world issues by even simply tapping an application icon on a glass screen.
      The growing exposure to First Amendment news has allowed teenagers to become informed to the point where they are able to form their own opinions and feelings about certain issues, even pushing for their voices and point of views to be heard. According to the article "Religion or Speech? Students, Teachers Differ on Most Important First Amendment Freedom" the survey focused largely on the contrasting opinions of students vs. teachers on the importance of various First Amendment freedoms. The following statistics were discovered:

• 65% of students believe that freedom of speech is the most important
• 40% of teachers believe that freedom of speech is the most important
• 25% of students believe that freedom of religion is the most important
• 42% of teachers believe that freedom of religion is the most important

I believe that these differing views are due to generational discrepancies among teachers and students; the world that this generation of teenagers today inhabits is one of great change and progression; technology allows for information to be available in a flash; teenagers wish to possess the ability to make their voices heard and I believe that the percentage of students who believe freed of speech to be the most important will only increase in years to come...the popularity and availability of social media is growing exponentially and will continue to do so for generations to come.

Article:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/17/religion-or-speech-students-teachers-differ-on-most-important-first-amendment-freedom/

Photo: http://www.commdiginews.com/business-2/first-amendment-and-vehicle-license-plates-17313/

Trading Doughnuts and Coffee for M16 Rifles and ARVS

        Have you ever watched a movie and seen a typical cop leaning on an old Ford police car eating a doughnut, armed with a small gun and night-stick? I'm sure you have, for this image has been the stereotypical portrayal of a cop for decades. However, times have definitely changed. The number of violent acts and crimes occurring on a daily basis has risen almost exponentially since then, causing the government to increase security. This increasing demand for greater protection of the American people has caused a dramatic shift in police forces across America, especially in the area of equipment, according to the article "The Rise of the SWAT Team in American Policing"- The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/us/the-rise-of-the-swat-team-in-american-policing.html?ref=us&_r=0

      Due to numerous tragedies such as 911, greater steps towards maximizing security have been taken on both the state and federal levels, especially within police departments. Many argue that the popular action figure "GI Joe" has become the new "Officer Friendly"; this is largely because police departments have become armed with items such as: M16 rifles, grenade launchers, and even armored trucks. Sounds more like an army than a police force, right? Many would argue yes, and that this new militarization technically violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the nation's armed forces in lieu of police force in the US. They argue that soldiers are strictly there to fight and defend our country in dangerous war zones, and police forces are for dealing with everyday crimes and conflicts.

     The summoning of SWAT teams for crimes occurring within cities has increased drastically over the past few years; much controversy lately regarding the possible "over-militarization" of police forces was sparked by the violence that occurred in Ferguson, MO where unarmed protesters were corralled by police forces clad in heavy-duty military equipment. However, many Americans believe that the need for more security and enforcement is crucial. After events such as 911 and the bombing of the Boston Marathon, terrorism has become a real threat, and something we as Americans shouldn't take lightly, and should do everything in our power to prevent from occurring again. As much as we would like to deny it, there is much violence and danger in our world right now. Many Americans find the militarization to be occurring at an alarming rate, however, I believe that this is our new reality; the issue now becomes whether or not the government will be able to adequately arm and protect our nation without completely alienating the Posse Comitatus Act altogether.

Photo credit: http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/swat-teams-new-face-of-police-agencies/

I "Mustache" You All A Question...Should Beards Be Allowed In Prisons?

     According to the New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/us/beards-in-prison-hold-next-religion-test-for-supreme-court.html?ref=us,  over the past few months, there has been much debate regarding the topic of...facial hair...yes, facial hair. Recently, the case of Gregory Holt, an inmate of an Arkansas prison, has been brought to the attention of the Supreme Court. The case to be argued on October 7th deals precisely with this very issue. I'm sure many of you are wondering why the subject of facial hair would be gracing the headlines of several national news websites? Well I'll tell you why. Gregory Holt also known by the name of Abdul Maalik Muhammad is a practicing Muslim; precisely the reason for the controversy. Muslims by faith are encouraged to grow beards in order to show their devoutness, and pay homage to Muhammad the Prophet. The case deals largely with the subject of Religious Freedom. Over forty prison systems across the United States allow for inmates to grow beards of any length, with Arkansas being one of the exceptions. The law states that only "neatly trimmed" style facial hair is permitted for prisoners with skin diseases. Should the government really be able to regulate one's own appearance?

     There are clearly two sides to this argument. Those who believe that the law is utterly ridiculous firmly state that telling a Muslim he cannot grow hair to profess his faith is in violation of the First Amendment. However, majority believe that the law is completely reasonable given the norm that occurs in prison. In the past beards have been used in order to disguise illegal contraband such as marijuana, cocaine, needles, sharp pieces of wire, and knives. The state informed the court that allowing beards would be rather dangerous during times of inspection; additionally, beards allow for escaped prisoners to dramatically modify their appearance easily. The risk is simply too great to make exceptions even for religious reasons. As of last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit St. Louis, Missouri, ruled that the reasons provided for the prohibition of beards were completely plausible. However, Gregory Holt asked the Supreme Court to hear his case once more, stating that other courts had previously disapproved of banning beards in prisons. Who knows, maybe the idea of facial hair will "grow" on the Supreme Court eventually, however for now, the controversy still remains.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/us/beards-in-prison-hold-next-religion-test-for-supreme-court.html?ref=us

Photos: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/justin-bieber-arrest-stars-tweet-reactions-mugshot-jokes-2014231
http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2012/08/mug-shot_friday_television_per.php