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
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
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
