Blog 8

In my colleague Paige's blog, she talks about Warrantless Blood Draws????!!!!! "This article describes a man named Tyler McNeely who was stopped for erratic driving in a small town located in Missouri. The state trooper then performed several field sobriety test in which McNeely failed, and he proceed to refuse a breathalyzer test to measure his alcohol consumption" and about how it goes against the Constitution and violates the amendment an. I agree with Paige because I personally think that it does violate the amendment and the Constitution. To search or draw blood from someone without a warrant goes against the fourth amendment. For example, according to Wikipedia "Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement must receive written permission from a court of law, or otherwise qualified magistrate, to lawfully search and seize evidence while investigating criminal activity. A court grants permission by issuing a writ known as a warrant. A search or seizure is generally unreasonable and unconstitutional if conducted without a valid warrant and the police must obtain a warrant whenever practicable. Searches and seizures without a warrant are not considered unreasonable if one of the specifically-established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement applies". To draw blood from a person is seizing evidence which is illegal without a proper warrant.

Should Marijuana be legalized

California, Colorado, Delaware and Arizona are a couple of the eighteen states that has legalized Marijuana. Marijuana is one of the issues that has made it to the Supreme Court in the past couple of years. Marijuana has been a issue for several years now and increasing in supporters.

 In a recent case of Gonzales v. Raich Marijuana was only legalized for medical reasons only and only in the state level not the Federal level. For example, "Angel Raich of Oakland, California, Diane Monson of Oroville, California, and two anonymous caregivers sued the government for injunctive and declaratory relief on October 9, 2002 to stop the government from interfering with their right to produce and use medical marijuana claiming that the Controlled Substances Act was not constitutional as applied to their conduct. The Controlled Substances Act does not recognize the medical use of marijuana. Agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) were assigned to break up California's medical marijuana co-ops and seize their assets. This activity was the result of the belief that federal law preempted that of California. The government argued that if a single exception were made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would become unenforceable in practice. The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption." I do not agree that that Marijuana should be legalized for consumption of any kind because of the lasting effects that it has one the brain of a human. Marijuana has a lasting effect of memory damage to a humans brain.

Gun Control

I read a blog today by Kiara's government blog about guns and if they "will help our society". My colleague's blog is saying that is "a 22 year old Florida woman shot and killed her daughter while Moments after killing herself.Her 3 year old daughters body left helplessly while the people at the public golf course stood there waiting for help.if the Government thinks passing a law to allow people to carry guns around will be a big mistake. This would cause even more killings in America". I disagree with this because it not only goes against the second amendment in the United States constitution it will make matters worse. The second amendment clearly states that Americans have the right to bear arms. The problem is not guns but people and taking away guns will not solve the problem.

Homosexual Marriages

Homosexual marriages is one of the issues that has been in the supreme court. Homosexual marriages been an issue in America for many. According to Sandra Stencel one case that has been taken to the "Minnesota Supreme court in 1970 on November 18th when Jack Baker and James McConnell were denied a marriage license and when McConnell had a job retraction because of his sexuality".(Stencel 1) This case happened almost forty three years ago which shows how little our government has changed on homosexual marriages when over four decades later we are still having this issue. On March 26th, 2013 the supreme court met to rule on the prospect (prop 8) of homosexual marriages and whether or not same sex marriages violates the Constitution and whether or not it should be banned in America today. I believe that the supreme court should rule to legalize homosexual marriages because it clearly states in the constitution in article three section two it states that "the power of the judicial power of the United States of America says that the power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution". Homosexual marriages in the United States of America are only  legalized  nine states and recognized in four states but is not legalized. Homosexual  marriages  should  be  both  recognized and legalized in all fifty states and given the same rights that we  have  given  to heterosexual marriages. By only giving heterosexual marriages equal rights we are discriminating against homosexual marriages.

  I read a blog today that was written by Andrew Sullivan and published by The Dash Biased and Balanced the blog is about Obama's balance on marriage. He talks about how we should give equal rights to homosexual couples and withholding the right to marry whom we choose is discrimination to homosexual couples by the United States government. He also likes to talk about how Obama only briefly makes in the prop 8th case and about how "segregation with an argument violates core civil equality" and how it is unconstitutional of the United States government is being about the banning of homosexual marriages in most of the states. He also likes to talk about how the country seems to be split fifty-fifty on the issue.Sullivan's main support is the part of his argument that works for him is that it is discrimination against homosexual couples and how it is unconstitutional for the government to distinguish marriages licenses on the basis of gender. The part that doesn't work for Sullivan is that Obama and the Supreme Court and DOMA are making the simple arguments and I don't see how the Voting Rights Act has anything to do with the banning and discrimination of homosexual marriages.I believe that the logic behind the argument to me seems to be mostly sound I think that he needs to put a little more though into why the federal government is involved. I find the his conclusion to be very lacking on support for his argument. 

I read an editorial today that was published by the New York Times about Reproductive and Women's Rights. I disagree with the editorial that Gov. Andrew Cuomo should not re-establish his 10 part agenda on woman's rights. New York and all of the other 50 states should not adopt the law that bans the procedure of getting an abortion after the second trimester is over. Abortion should be banned all together the only exception being if the woman's life is in danger. Humans should be held responsible for their actions. Getting an abortion is not a risk free procedure it has both physical and emotional complications approximately 10% of all women suffer from complications in which 2% of are life threatening. The Emotional problems that women can also suffer from post abortion can lead to post grieving or in post abortion stress which can lead to depression or even worse suicide. Teenagers are 30% more likely to suffer these complications. According to the editorial, "Mississippi, Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming have already made state laws so that each of these states only has just a single abortion provider”. However California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada and Washington should revise both of their federal and state law to getting a ban abortion in all fifty states. The Cuomo bill does indeed sound like a good idea right now but abortion should be treated like a criminal crime and not in the health care law where it does not belong.  

 On February 7, 2013 the National Review published an article by Mario Loyola. In this article Mario was disusing about how the deadline for the sequester is fast approaching and how congressional conservatives should focus on reforming the disentangling the functions of state government from those of the federal government. The federal funds are now about 30 percent of the state budget. Mario further states that the government is over taxing everyone and according to the White House, the federal deficit over the past three decades amounted to 3.4 percent of GDP. Finally Mario says that the government should be held accountable to pay and uphold its own policies.