Locate and summarize two news articles on a current issue being debated by the Supreme Court OR that is likely to soon undergo judiciary review. You may chose your own topic or check out an articlefrom the topical list below. I ask that you read two articles so that you can gain a fuller understanding of the topic (this is your only assignment through Thanksgiving break.)
Explain how this article relates to the Marbury case and the concept of Judicial Review.
Finally, answer the framing questions for this assignmnent:
- Does judiciary review promote or hinder the democratic process in the United States?
and
- What are the benefits and limitations of the structure of the judiciary branch of the US government?
Remember to comment on at least one other student's posts.
Your response should be at least 200 words.
Suggested topics and links (based on student suggestions):
death penalty
abortion
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/washington/13scotus.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/S/Supreme%20Court
internet pornograpgy
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.htmlres=9D00E7DE1F38F937A35754C0A9629C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/S/Supreme%20Court
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/washington/13scotus.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/S/Supreme%20Court
internet pornograpgy
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.htmlres=9D00E7DE1F38F937A35754C0A9629C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/S/Supreme%20Court
medicinal marajuana
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E4DF1F3FF936A25753C1A9659C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/S/Supreme%20Court
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E4DF1F3FF936A25753C1A9659C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/S/Supreme%20Court
20 comments:
Samantha Goon
Block A
November 22, 2007
"Medical Marijuana" by Linda Greenhouse stated "The Supreme Court's action, which it took without comment, was unexpected, given that the court is nearly always willing to defer to the executive branch at least to the extent of giving a hearing to a government policy that a lower court has invalidated." This article was about the use of marijuana to sooth the patients in the hospital. California was the first state to vote for the Compassionate Use Act, in 1994, in which President Clinton denied. He brought this situation to court. Then situations led to violating amendments and big chaos. President Bush recently said in the courts "an unprecedented judicial intrusion on the executive branch's investigatory authority." This problem still occurs. In the next article about child pornography, John Schwartz stated that this problem keeps breaking the first amendment. The reason is because the federal and state are trying to work together to make child pornography protected, but the court claims that this affects the first amendment. The justices are more for the people's choice and what they believe, rather than the legislative or executive branch. The internet brings a great deal of free speech and that is why people can do anything on the internet without getting in much trouble. The court is trying to find new ways to protect children on the internet.
The Judicial branch promotes the democratic process in the United States because they are the voice of the people. They bring equality and promote justice. It's fair and a democracy is about fairness of the powered government and the positions made by the people. This branch allows that to happen. It's the people's choice of America and they should have a say in their country. Sometimes the limitations are broken like amendments, but the judicial branch finds other ways to work problems out.
Mike McSherry
After reading Capital Punishment on the New York times website I think that every state should have the death pently. Why should should a person that enjoyed killing people be allowed to live so they can sit in jail and have a chance to get out of jail for parloe or good behavior. Why should Charles Manson who murdered so many and have others kill be allowed to spend the rest of their life in jail. A person that has been sentenced to death because he didn't kill one person they kil've sevreal people, but now people etiheir get a life in prison where they do not learn anything or they get off with no sentence because the accused say that they have a mental problem. It would be messed up if a killer doesn't get what his victims got.
John Schwartz states, “For more than eight years, federal and state lawmakers have looked for ways to restrict Internet pornography in the name of protecting children from material deemed ''harmful to minors.'' And again and again, the laws have been struck down as violating the First Amendment.” Judiciary review flips and flops on whether it shows democratic process in the United States. On one side, free speech on the Internet is allowed yet the first amendment right is being violated by allowing internet pornography. In a way the government is contradicting the Bill of Rights, First Amendment which is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” In another article, Supreme Court Roundup; Justices Say Doctors May Not Be Punished for Recommending Medical Marijuana by Linda Greenhouse, states the use of marijuana to help patients feel better, whatever be the problem. "An unprecedented judicial intrusion on the executive branch's investigatory authority, President Bush had said. If marijuana is used to help patients through pain, then there should be no reason why they shouldn’t be able to have the option of obtaining the substance. I agree with Samantha Goon with her statement, “The Judicial branch promotes the democratic process in the United States because they are the voice of the people. They bring equality and promote justice. It's fair and a democracy is about fairness of the powered government and the positions made by the people.” But if the voice of the people isn’t being heard then what is there to say about the Judicial Branch? That they aren’t technically the voice of the people.
"Decode DVD's" the article that I read was about a group of hackers that made a program that helped decode DVD’s. This was and is a big problem, because if you have the power to overwrite the copyright seal on DVD’s then you are stealing from the creator. so new York times covered this story far enough that it went to the supreme court, the hackers never showed up to court but they had this to say about the whole thing, ''We took several steps forward with this case, forcing the courts to recognize that freedom of speech was at stake,'' Cindy Cohn, the foundation's legal director, said in a statement. ''Later cases will provide a better foundation for the Supreme Court to act on the problems created by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.'' if you don't know what the act is.... no stealing information, movies, games, programs, music, etc. so of course the judiciary review promote the democratic process in the United States, which is to get rich from your product. the benefits and limitations of the structure of the judiciary branch of the US government is easy, you get to pass laws and you have to see if they conflicts with any other laws or people.
Matthew bowlin
after reading mikes i feel different because i feel that if you kill some one then they should live a hard life in prison and not an automatic death.
matthew bowlin
This article is about Global warming debate hits Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court there is a debate on global warming and what effect carbon dioxide has on the environment. The states are suing the Bush Administration that damages they claim occur because of global warming. They want to control carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles from 6% to 4%. Opponents say that if the rest of the world (China & India) does not do anything about carbon dioxide this reduction of carbon dioxide will have little effect on global warming. The E.P.A. states that carbon dioxide does not directly contribute to climate change. The car manufactures agree with the E.P.A. The issues of global warming are hard to prove to the Supreme Court. They’ve Slept on It by Dahlia Lithwick is about gun control in America today. No one can agree on gun control and how to interpret the second amendments for the people to bare arms. This article states that after sixty eight years the Supreme Court has been asleep on this issue. The last case in front of the Supreme Court was in 1939. This case was about a person going across state lines with a sawed off shotgun. The Supreme Court ruled that taking a sawed off shotgun across state lines did not pertain to the second amendment. During the 68 years the N.R.A. has only gotten stronger. This debate about gun control has been played out in the states courts for over 200 years. In my opinion the laws that are for fathers wrote 200 years ago were the right laws for that part of our history. If these same people who wrote those laws ere alive today they would see the need for some sort of gun control. I think that the Supreme Court has a very had time debating these issues because there are good arguments for and against these issues. I think that the judicial Branch of government hinders the democratic process because these issues are hard to prove the benefits of the judicial branch of government is that these issues are debating in the highest courts of the U.S. so the people see how important these debates are.
Qadeem G.,A Block
Supreme Court Roundup; Justices Say Doctors May Not Be Punished for Recommending Medical Marijuana by Linda Greenhouse is an issue that I feel I've been waiting for or at least I'm anxious to discuss.
The article disscusses the issue on whether or not marijuana distributed by Doctors should be illegal.Marijuana,a drug used in this case to numb a patient's pain is said to be detrimental.
In 1996, immediately after California voters approved a medical marijuana initiative known as the Compassionate Use Act, the Clinton administration warned doctors that recommending marijuana ''will lead to administrative action by the Drug Enforcement Administration to revoke the practitioner's registration.'' However,George W. Bush believed that it violated freedom of speech in which it would prohibit discussing and or recommending the use of marijuana to patients.Speculation was of surface that the only reason for this debate is to punish doctors who advocate the use of marijuana to patients. President George W. Bush says that prosecuting such doctors which is against his belivev in this case defies his position in the executive branch.
The indiviual states have the power to prohibit the advocacy of marijuana to patients.This fact is another issue because how can it be prohibited by the federal governmment when the federal government can't mandate the use of laws in all states if not all stated agree.This issue brings up the tenth amendment but in my opinion,amendments have to support the issue according to the severity of the issue.
In this counrty with the way marijuana is used and the affects it has who is to stay someone won't become addicted.Therefore promoting the use of marijuana is absurd.If there was a anti-drug mandated for people to use after they don't need marijuana then let it be recommended to patients or if it was addictive and has it's negative affects then it should be recommended.
Giuliani Vexes Audiences With His Abortion Views by Michael Cooper discusses former NYC mayor,Rudolph W.Guiliani,believes that abortion is wrong.However,according to this article, he himselfwould appoint people who are for abortion which doesn't make any sense.
Both of these articles relate to the Marbury Case because different opinions are held in different branches of the government and what branch has the right to decide could violate the concept of "Checks and Balances" if the government doesn't abide by the rules.
The benefits and limitations of the structure of the judiciary branch of the US government are that they have the right to view issues to decide whether there constitutional or not and a limitation is that a supreme court judge can serve as long as they want.
Whether or not judiciary review hinders the democratic process or not isn't an issue I have an opinion on.
Gerald Lara Jr.
Block A
Novermber 24, 2007
The Article "Case touches the 2nd amndment nerve" under abortion hindered the democratic process in the United States as it questions the right to bear arms. The end process of thi review was still remained under the amendment, but still questioned about certain weapons being banned. The final review of the board was to leave things as they were, following the 2nd amendment. The benefits of this amendment is to not only have protection from certain circumstances, but for your well being. The limitations to this law is that is regulates to nearly every weapon, therofre not banning uneicssary weapons such as bazookas. Also after readin this article, we may see the insightful and full extent of this amendment.
Refering to Derek after reading his post.It upsets me how long ago such issues as gun-control were viewed by the Supreme Court especially when they are far beyond an issue in the 21st century.The government needs to step up and be an effective government.May be if people lived forever then they would be more concerned about the enviornment.
Mariel Elia
Nov.2007
After reading Capital Punishment on the New York Times website it didn’t change my opinion of killing guilty people. The gift of life is something you cannot get back. Life is precious and I don’t agree with killing people because of wrong actions. I don't think no states should have death penalty. Death is something big and us Americans take advantage of things soon the population will decrease. Also I think many innocent people would be killed because already some innocent people are in jail. This issue should be up to the government it’s too much of a big deal to let states decide.
Good evening my funky friends of csi,
The Judicial Branch hears cases that challenge or require interpretation of the legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. It consists of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. Unfortunately, I wasn't interested in the links given, so I did some research on my own and found a very interesting article based on abortion. David Kirkpatrick wrote "Nominee Backed Ban on Abortion in 1989 Campaign," which was based on a survey that Harriet E. Miers supported banning abortion except to protect the life of the pregnant woman. She is completely pro-life and takes extreme focus upon the judicial opinions. In the survey she took, one question stated "if Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prohibit the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature?" This means that the Judicial Branch is puzzled by this because they would take away the rights for most women. This is a choice, whether right or wrong, its the decision on the beholder. The Judicial Branch is the voice of the people, as Samantha Goon states. I agree with her statement, the Judicial Branch tries to make everyone happy; however, it’s impossible. They might affect the amendments and make citizens of America think twice, but in all honesty, its for the good of our country.
Love always and foreva eva,
Kristina Cats!
Ama Kwakye
Block A
NOvember 25,2007
Americn History
In class for the past week and a half we have been talking about some issues in our modern day society and everything has been based around the Madison verse Marbury cause which took place in 1803. Today there are many issues in our society such as the gun policy, weapons, child pornography, and last but not least ABORTION. Today there are many different debates on whether abortion should be allowed in the United States. Rudy Giuliani is not on my side this time! He thinks that people should have the right to choose whether they want to have an abortion or not, I am strongly against killing innocent babies! Millions upon millions of babies get kilt each year. People say that it’s good to abort, but it’s not there are so many women out there that want to have babies but cant and if you happen to have a baby you could ask for help. There are so many charities out there for new born babies and more that people don’t know about. If our 0parent decided to abort us would we be here today? NOOOOO! When will the judicial branch ever make up there minds? Will our society be able to help decide whether abortion should be legal in the United States? OK till next time bye-ThE ONE AND ONLY Ama KWAKYE-
I do now agree with Micheal Mcsherry we should not have the death penelty! to wrongs definatly dont make a right. Lets say someone killed somneone you know you would want that person to suffer right? you wouldnt want them to die right away and forget about the horible sin they commited' AMa
Karmila Saulong
Block A
November 2007
According to the article, “Supreme Court Roundup; Justices Say Doctors May Not Be Punished for Recommending Medical Marijuana” by LINDA GREENHOUSE and the article “Giuliani Vexes Audiences with His Abortion” Views by MICHAEL COOPER both relate to the Marbury case and judicial review. Both these cases are being reviewed by the Supreme Court just like the Marbury case. Mr. Giuliani stated while covering the abortion issue “We’re seeking to find judges who understand the very, very important concept that judges exist to interpret the law, not to invent the law.” The judicial are a group of people that interpret the law and see if it is acceptable in society. I agree with what Samantha said when the justices listen to the peoples belief more than the legislative and the executive. The judiciary review can promote and hinder the democratic process in the United States depending on the issue and how much the people will fight for what they want. However, based on the articles, the judiciary review seems to promote the democratic process of the US. The judiciary review seems to play a huge role in society with the laws that they pass and the issues they solve. In the Marijuana article, the articles say that the justices have been persuaded by the courts appeal. There are many benefits and limitations of the structure of the judiciary branch of the US government. The judiciary review helps the people get what they want while without being to overpowering. They can’t just pass a law; it takes time for issues to be resolved without violating the constitution. They are like the voice of the people. There is limitation because they only administer justice among the people and don’t have complete control.
Tarina Meaders
a block
11/26/07
For this weeks blog, the articles I chose to study were "Justices Say Doctors May Not Be Punished for Recommending Medical Marijuana" and "Antipornography Law Keeps Crashing Into First Amendment". Both of these issues are going to undergo judiciary review in order to be ruled in a justified manner.
In my opinion, Judiciary review promotes the democratic process because it is a helpful way to rule a case. As discussed in class, The Supreme Court is sometimes in need of a "re-cap" of how past cases of the same issue were judged. It's not possible for judiciary review to hinder the democratic process when cases become a burden. Even though the use of jury is a prime aspect used in ruling court cases, it can prove faulty because the chosen jury might not decide an actualy fair ruling or punishment for the case. Judiciary review is a more stable way to make a decision. The benefits of the Judicial Branch are the abilities to have access to overview of cases, to be apart of experienced groups of judges and courts to make a final decision towards a case. The Limitations of being apart of the judiciary branch are being able to resign when retired, and the seperation of powers and checks and balances. Even though these two policies help even out power between branches, they also bring about contsraints. This is basically the only negative in the judiciary branch.
Tarina Meaders
a block
11/26/07
In response to Karmilas blog, everything you wrote was well said. Although I couldn't make a good connection between the articles and the MArbury case, the way you put it was more understandable. Also, about the Judicial branches position, they are more like the voice of the people but I dont think they always benefit the people too much becuase of the fact that they cant pass any laws. It would be very inconvenient if the branches that WERE allowed to pass laws did not fully agree with the judgement of the judicial branch,causing the problem at hand not to be solved. Other than that, your post was very agreeable, you and I see things eye to eye on most occasions anyway. Thanks for helping me out Karmila!
Janell McBean
A-Block
In reading the article of "Giuliani Vexes Audiences With His Abortion Views" in the death penalty section. "WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 — On the campaign trail, Rudolph W. Giuliani has made the case that while he believes that abortions are wrong, he thinks the ultimate decision of whether to have them should be up to women, and not the government. But he has also pledged to appoint the kind of conservative judges who might be expected to rule against abortion." This article was mainly about the view(s) on abortion. Even though Giuliani did not bring up abortion once in his 40 minute speech it still doesnt stop my opinion on abortion. The thought of abortion makes me so sick in so many terrible ways. Killing an innocent baby is so dirty and low. The worse, even if it's for a pointless or very ignorant reason. There are so many people dying to have children and yet there are people killing them. I cant even start to explain how sick it gets me at the ways they do abortions. It's not even certain that you can have another baby after they even perform the operation. It's so life changing, even thinking about a baby entering your life. Abortion should be illegal everywhere. It's not fair. I dont even agree with Giuliani's opinion either. It shouldnt even have to be up to the woman. Abortion is wrong.
Sam Goon - G+ - what evidence do you have that the Supreme Court is preserving the will of the people on these issues?
Mike M - N your post didn't answer the assigned question and you neglected to comment on other posts.
Michela - G - strong use of quotes, but as I asked Sam, what inspires you to states that the Supreme Court best promotes the will of the public?
Matt - S - interesting comments but your posts reflects some serious misconceptions about the structure of the US government (the Judiciary can NOT pass laws). Judiciary Review enables the Supreme Court to deem a law unconstitutional, but in those cases the Legislative branch is responsible for changing those laws.
Derek - S : you did a fine job explaining the difficult responsibilities of SJ justices, but didn't explain how they hinder democratic processes. Also, remember to respond to at least one other post.
Quadeem- G: strong summaries and analysis on the role of the Supreme Court!
Gerald - N : you start off solid but clearly rushed and did not proof your own work. Post did not respond to others or meet the required length.
Mariel - N : your post didn't answer the assigned question and you neglected to respond to another post.
Kristina - S - your post meets the required length and responds to others but you didn't exactly address the question of judicial review in a way that reflects a thorough understanding of the concept.
Ama - S- : Your post lacks a thorough explaination of judicial review. It's fine to express your opinions on these issues but be sure to follow directions.
Karmilla G-: strong reflection on judicial review but you didn't respond to a classmate's post.
Janelle - N - you clearly have strong views on the abortion issue - which is fine - but you didn't follow the directions for the assignment. Remember to reflect on the question and respond to at least one other post.
Tarina - G+ - thoughtful reflection. I appreciate the in-depth analysis you gave karmilla.
Since the topic of death penalty and abortion both deal with the killing of a human life, i decided to choose these two to writ about. while some believe that it is only fair to kill someone for killing another man, i believe that by killing this person, wouldn't we be just like them. Its not like it is impossible for a person to change. If someone is constantly killing people with no sign of remorse or sorrow, then they should be subjected to death yet if the person can change, then they deserve a second chance. In my opinion, abortion should only be the decision of the person who wants to get it done. this decision is personal and should not be governmental issue. Women who do not think they are ready to have a child should be able to have this choice. On the other hand, people that constantly do this shouldn't be allowed to. yes there are products that prevent pregnancy yet there are always cases in which these methods aren't used. the government should be allowed to discuss who can die in a death chair but should not take place in something as personal as abortion. When Marial Elia said "Life is precious and I don’t agree with killing people because of wrong actions. I don't think no states should have death penalty" i agreed until the point that she said states shouldn't have death penalty. In my opinion, death would be a more just method of killing someone rather than giving a person something as stupid as 125 years in prison. thats basically being tortured for the rest of your life and i don't think you would rather have these maniacs released.
Post a Comment