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.