16 years in jail

Two Mississippi sisters spent 16 years in prison over an $11 armed robbery will be released under one condition: One must donate a kidney to the other. Govenor Haley Barbour, who suspended their sentences, says that Gladys Scott must donate a kidney to her sister, Jamie. Each of the Scott sisters got two life sentences after they were convicted by a jury of robbing two people near the town of Forest. Although they would be eligible for parole in 2014, the Department of Corrections "believes the sisters no longer pose a threat to society".

In my opinion, this release of the sisters is fair because they didn't deserve such a long sentence. I believe the government system in the south is biasis and there is still lots of hatred towards even though segregation is over. On the other hand, someone might believe that they shouldn't be released because they shouldn't have stolen. 

Do you think this is fair ?

If you were the governor what would you have done?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvdT3nFc5bA

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/crime/2010/12/30/ms.kidney.criminal.sisters.wlbt

Man might go to jail for reading his wife's e-mail

Leon Walker

Leon Walker, a computer technican, who lives in Detroit Michigan, faces going to court for allegedly hacking into his wife's e-mail.  In his defense he states, "she gave me her password before". During Walker's search through her e-mail, he finds out that Clara Walker, his wife, is having an affair with her second husband. Then, Leon, the third husband, shares the documents with wife's first husband in order to file an emergency claim to gain custody and protection of their kids with Clara. According to Leon the second husband has been arrested before due to domestic violence. When Clara Walker learned how the e-mails made their way into court, she complained to police.

I really don't believe he should go to jail because she gave him the password. He just wanted to find out if his wife was cheating on him and he did. I find nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, her email is private and should only be used by her, so getting into her email without her around is technically invading her privacy. 

What do you think about this situtation?


Should he go to jail or not and why?

This relates to AP Government because of the concept privacy. During our readings, we read about civil rights and how the state can't deprive a persons life, liberty, or property. In this case, Clara believes her liberty of privacy is being violated because Leon goes into her email. Even though Leon might go to jail, he can't be cruelly punished due to the 8th amendment.









http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/29/michigan.hacking.spouse/index.html

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/strange/news-article.aspx?storyid=183653&catid=82

Civil Liberties

Civil Liberties are rights and freedoms given to each citizen in the U.S. constitution found in the first amendment. 


Essential Questions to Answer about civil liberties:

• How important is the first amendment?. The civil liberties are listed as followed: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press, freedom of petition, and freedom of religion. Freedom of speech means that we the people have the right to speak freely about the government without the fear of being punished in any way. Freedom of assembly means that we the people have the right to come together in public to express their views peacefully and non violently without interference. Freedom of press means that the people have the right to publish any opinions freely. Freedom of religion means that the people have the right to practice any religion they want to without the government's consent. Lastly, freedom of petition means that the people have the right to disagree with government. The first amendment is very important because it lists the civil liberties that we as humans possess. Also back in the era of King and Queens, we did not have these liberties and if you were to talk disagree or were insubordinate to what the king or queen said there were consequences. Punishments were imprisonment and most times death. Therefore, without the first amendment we as a nation would be a monarchy.

• What is speech? Speech can be defined as many things from the words that come out of someones mouth to obscenity.

• Who is a person? any corporation and other associations, like individuals, that contributes discussion or debate.

• Is there separation between church and state? Yes, there is because the state can not interfere or make any law prohibiting to exercise of religion with the church and vise virsa found in the first amendment and Article VI .

• What is due-process? Due process is the principle that that government most respect all rights according to the constitution.

In the news lately, the slogan "Don't touch my junk" is beginning to be known world-wide. The slogan is referring to the way Transportation Security Administration or (TSA) is holding the scope and grope process. Many Americans are complaining that TSA are being too physical and invading their privacy. For example, Passenger Erin Chase likened her ordeal to sexual assault by a TSA screener who, "went all the way up my legs, up my inner thighs, all along my inner thighs until she reached my genital area, touched both sides." Even the scanners are being a problem because they are said to reveal too much. Obama asks TSA to constantly evaluate its methods in order to keep all passengers safe. He also believes that the pat down and scanners are very necessary because last Christmas there was an "underwear bomber" and Nigerian terror Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab.

I think we as a people are very ungrateful because the scope and grope process is only trying to keep us safe from bombers like Umar. Instead of thanking the TSA for doing their jobs, we complain about that's crazy??? 

Some questions for thought are:

Is the scope and grope process really invading privacy or is it keep us safe?

If a person confesses to a crime, is there any reason why the
confession should not be used in court? 

Links: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/

DON'T ASK DON'T TELL

The policy known as "don't ask, don't tell'' was made law in 1993 creates a big issue over the role of gays in the military. It limits the military's ability to ask service members about their sexuality and allows homosexuals to serve in the armed force but they must keep quiet about it and they can not show affection to any other service member.

Don't ask don't tell was adopted as a compromise after President Clinton failed to overturn an existing ban on gay service members, which was opposed by officers in the military. President Bush supported the "don't ask, don't tell" rules during both terms of his administration. Since 1993, some 12,500 gay men and lesbians have been released from duty after their sexuality became known. 

A federal court case starting Tuesday in California will consider whether the policy banning gays and lesbians from openly serving in uniform is constitutional.

A six-year legal fight by the Log Cabin Republican culminates today in Riverside, California, where the group's lawyers will argue that the the gay ban violates due process and free speech protections. The group has about 19,000 members and supports freedom, fairness and equality for gay and lesbian Americans.

In my opinion, I don't agree with the gay and lesbian lifestyle but I still believe they should be allow to join the military. The military needs all the help they can get!

What do you think? Should gays and lesbians be allowed to join the military? Comment Plz :)

Links:http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pentagon-release-review/story?id=12270535

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/11/dont_ask_dont_tell_report_set.html?hpid=topnews

Battle On The Hill

Will Obama Prevail ?

There's been a lot of hoopla over these past elections. Obama is dealing with a lot of criticism over his decision making as President. As a result of the recent election, the sixty plus incoming Republicans in the House of Representatives is quite conservative; and in fact, their political ideology is the exact opposite of our liberal democratic President Obama.  In the article, Bill Burton, White House spokesman, politically socializes his views upon the readers of the article as he expresses that the American people do not want to re-litigate what the government has done for the past two years, they want Washington to move the economy forward by creating jobs.  Due to everything that has been accomplished, some Americans in both parties are experiencing some political cleavage because some are starting to second guess why they put him in office.  Moderate Independent Women’s Forum President Michelle Bernard added this caution: “Politicians of both parties should be very clear that the public does not hold either party in high regard. The true takeaway of this election is that the American electorate is not going to stand for bad policy anymore from Washington, regardless of who is governing.” Political Elite Mitch McConnell has a slightly different view.  He states that “The fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill, to end the bailouts and cut spending and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things is to put someone in the White House who won’t veto any of these things.”



??Obama Thinking??

 I believe the economy is the dividing line where Americans lie in determining if he stays President or if someone different will create the change that was promised.  If Obama wants to have another term in office he needs to give the Americans the change that they voted for.  The article also shed some light on the public opinion of tte citizens of the country.  For example a 46-year-old white mother states that she is sick and tired of the bad behavior in Washington hurting families like hers.  From what I gather, the American people's eyes are beginning to open towards politics because the actions inns of Washingto impacting ours lives.

Abortion?

Abortion! Many people believe that abortion became popular as result of the current generation.  In actuality, abortion has been around for hundreds of years.  During the time of the early settlers, abortion was legal in the United States and was constitutionally accepted among its citizens as an ideal and common practice.  In the 1800's as new immigrants starting migrating to the United States, some states started pushing to make abortion illegal based off various reasons.  One article expressed that a common theme for the change of law was a result of fear that the immigrant population would outgrow that of the residents that were already in the States.  Whatever the reason may have been in changing the laws, the consequences in the future would make room for one of the greatest cases in the United States known as Roe vs. Wade.

In Roe vs. Wade, Roe was a Texas resident who attempted to have an abortion but was unsuccessful because of Texas state law. The law of Texas stated that it was illegal to have an abortion unless the pregnant woman's life is at risk. The Court’s decision was that women have the option to choose abortion based on the right to privacy found in the Fourteenth Amendment. Due to the courts ruling on Roe vs. Wade, the laws of 46 states adopted this ideal.

Some people believe that abortion is wrong and should be illegal because abortion is killing an innocent infant. Others believe that abortion is a good thing and should be legal because it brings relief to the mother who cannot take care of the baby. I came to conclusion that it should be legal because no one should have power to decide whether someone lives or dies besides God in my opinion.  Besides, the constitution states that everyone is born with God given rights, which are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My question to you is in whose hands do you feel should the decision about the fate of an unborn child’s life be in?  Another question that I have for you is, if abortion was illegal then what exceptions would you create.

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_history

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/excerpt.asp?id=27

Women and equal rights

Robin Hobbins once stated  “Women do two-thirds of the world’s work, receive 10 percent of the world’s income and own 1 percent of the means of production.” From the past til now this quote, by Mr. Hobbins still hold validity in today's society.


Before the Civil War, and even in our modern society. Women still struggle with being equal with men.  For decades women have made progress in achieving what is due them, but still has a little way to go.  Before the Civil War, the voice of women were silent and unheard.  Although the political figures voted by men still affected the lives of women, they had no say in who was elected to official positions.  In 1848, Elizabeth Cady stanton, Lucretia Mott, and some men gathered together to start a movement known as the Women's Suffrage movement which was geared towards achieving equal voting rights for women.  The very well known case of Minor vs Happersett dealt with a woman named Virgina Minor who alleged she was denied the right to register to vote by a Missouri state registrar named Resse Happersett.  Minor said that this was an infringement of her Civil Rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Although Minor did not get the decision she wanted, she paved the way for progress to be made for women in the area of voting rights. 

After a long uphill battle, millions of American women exercised their right to vote on the election day of 1920.  Over a span of 100 years of struggle and persistence, the sweat and tears were well worth it.   On August 16, 1920, the nineteenth amendment to the Constitution became law and allowed women to participate in the fall elections of that year including the Presidential election.  As I sit back and look at how this all unfolded, I can't help but ask myself what the big deal was with allowing women to vote.  The most I could think of was that maybe women would vote with emotions and feelings instead of the knowledge and facts.  Others could argue that some men probably would vote the same way.  If you ask me, there is no valid argument in the discussion of giving women the right to vote because at the end of the day, they are citizens just as much as men are.  My question to some are, how do you think politics would play out in today's age if women were still not allowed to vote?  I also would like to know what qualities do women bring to politics today?

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage1900/a/august_26_wed.htm (Another link to add to the page)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dPF0SGh_PQ (School house rocks video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hBd1HN7WJM (Invest in women: Do you see the opportunity video)
http://www.globalissues.org/article/166/womens-rights