Research Question

Is our judicial system set up to favor certain races?

I chose this question because since as long as I can remember, the word racism has been associated with convicted criminals and the jail population. The breakdown of races for convicted felons does not match up with the breakdown of races in the country. This discrepancy leads me to wonder, does our judicial system favor certain races?

3-2-1 Gideon v. Wainwright

I was suprised to learn that State Courts actually denied people the right to counsel because it was never a right specified in state law even though it is stated in the Bill of Rights. I also found it surprising how Clarence knew he was being denied this right and that he even brought it up in court in front of the judge. Even though he did end up going to jail, I found it really cool how he still petitioned to the Supreme Court through a handwritten letter on jail stationary. 

This reminded me a lot of the Civil Rights movement in our country. The video mentioned that lawyers like to set the precedence for future cases and this reminded me of segregation, and how state laws allowed for it even though they denied African Americans their basic rights. It wasn't until Brown v. Board of Education that segregation in schools was banned--setting precedence for all other segregation in the country.

Did Gideon send his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court right away? No. Gideon filed a petition to the Florida Supreme Court first, claiming that he was unconstitutionally convicted because he was not provided a defense attorney at trial. However, it wasn't until the Florida Supreme Court denied his petition that Gideon appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gay Rights and The Judicial System

In 1994, The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted and states that in the eyes of federal law, the words "marriage" and "spouse" refer to legal unions between one man and one woman. 

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Toronto, Canada in 2007; their marriage was recognized by the state of New York. In 2009, Thea died and left her estate to spouse Edith, but because their marriage was not recognized by federal law, the government imposed $363,000 in taxes. However, if their marriage would have been recognized by federal law, no taxes would have been imposed because their esate would have qualified for marital exemption. 

In November of 2010, Windsor filed suit in court seeking a declaration that DOMA was unconstitutional. This seemed almost impossible because at the time the goverment was in full support of DOMA; however, on February 23, 2011, the President and the Attorney General announced that they would not defend The Defense of Marriage Act. On April 18, 2011, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives motioned to dismiss the case, but the  district court denied the motion, and held that DOMA was unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.

By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court held that the purpose and effect of DOMA was to create a "disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma" of same-sex couples. They ruled that because of this, DOMA was in violation of the 5th Ammendment's guarantee of equal protection. 

Obama's Way

I thought this interview was very interesting in the sense that it was so casual and unofficial. 

I learned a lot about the President and his life outside his demanding job of running the country. I enjoyed reading about how "normal" he is and how he is so effortless in trransitioning from her proper serious role into a more laid back role. I thought it was interesting how he coach's his daughter's basketball team and how he is so open to being involved in other things than his job.

Reading this article made me think of many celebrities who use their fame to get attention and direct the spotlight on them. I think today many celebrities use the media in order to further their fame. I admire how Obama doesn't use his title in this type of way. In certain cases, celebrities use the media to blend their professional lives and personal lives together by making sure the good deed they do are photographed to make them look good. I like how Obama does the activities that he does, for example playing basketball, solely because he enjoys to--not to make headlines.

One question I have would be when does Obama have the time to go out and do what he wants? Does he work around the clock? In an interview with Newsweek, Obama explains his daily schedule as follows...

"I'm a night owl. My usual day [is]: I work out in the morning; I get to the office around 8:30 a.m. to 9 a.m.; work till about 6:30 p.m.; have dinner with the family, hang out with the kids and put them to bed about 8:30 p.m. And then I'll probably read briefing papers or do paperwork or write stuff until about 11:30 p.m. and then I usually have about a half hour to read before I go to bed . . . about midnight, 12:30 a.m. -- sometimes a little later."

Legislation Recently Passed in Congress

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

 There are over 5,000 bills and resolutions currently being seen by Congress. They must all be enacted before the 2013-2015 session--which is made up of the "113th Congress." However, only 5% of those bills will become law. Recently, one act was lucky enough to be passed by the Senate, Congress, and even signed by the President. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 was passed to amend the previous act passed in 1994. This new act makes many changes to the Act, such as: amending the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, amending the federal criminal code, and revising the grant programs for supporting families with a history of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. 

This bill was introduced to Congress and reported to committees in January of this year. It was passed by the Senate in February 12 by a vote of 78 to 22. Then it was sent to the House, and on February 28, they passed the bill by a vote of 286 to 138. This bill was enacted after being signed by the President on March 7, 2013.

LGBTQ Rights & the Media

Ever since the emmergence of technology, the media has played a major role in how society views certain issues. The media has the power to promote, but they can also condemn. Ever since gay rights was thrown into the media pool of hot topics, many believe that the media has negatively covered this topic.

The Fox News Watch center found 44 percent of stories covering gay rights were "pretty neutral." But in stories that largely reflected one side or the other, statements supportive of gay marriage dominated those opposing it by a 5-to-1 margin. Amy Mitchell, director of th Project for Excellence in Journalism, is hesitant to suggest bias and says,"viewers and listeners and readers will necessarily see bias." After the Supreme Court's ruling to strike down Prop 8, Audie Cornish from the Host says, "Yesterday's decisions by the Supreme Court on gay marriage brought widespread celebration and a lot of coverage of those celebrations. But cultural conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage believe recent coverage of the issue has not fairly reflected their views."

This leads me to think, can there be such a thing as neutral coverage? To me the answer isn't that simple. Yes, an article can be unbiased by equally representing all aspects of a topic and choosing a unbiased headline, but does all that matter if the reader doesn't agree with what's being presented? I think that until the media stops covering controversial topics, there will always be bias in media coverage. 

Here are some examples of biased gay rights articles..

So does this mean that all articles are biased because of the way they are read? I belive that no matter if an article is neutral, it will still be viewed as bias by either side because they will feel their argument isn't represented well enough. So this leads me to ask

"Take the Money and Run for Office"

When you think of political fundraisers, what comes to mind? Galas, balls, suits, evening gowns, expensive champagne? Well think again. Contrary to popular belief, political fundraising isn't as glamorous as the public think. Yes, fundraising takes form in fancy galas or expensive brunches, but I was surprised to learn that most of the money political candidates raise are over phone calls. Political candidates spend 2-3 hours a day making call after call in an attempt to get donations for their campaign. With a $10-15,000 goal each day, no wonder why there is a desperation to raise the money-and fast.
I was also surprised to learn that lobbyists are the ones that organize events and fundraisers to raise money for a certain politician. A large amount of the time, lobbyist pick and choose which candidates they want to support, often ignoring the calls from those they aren't interested in helping.
Another thing I learned (but also common sense) is that once a particular politician has called multiple times, they are ignored. Yes, lobbyists do have the power to pick and choose, but the constant phone calls also play a role in their choosing of candidates.

After listening to this podcast, I was reminded of when Obama first ran for office. My family was always receiving mail from the Obama campaign, subliminally asking my parents to vote for him. These letters would never directly say "Vote for me!" but they would include a list of his accomplishments and goals in order to entice voters. These are basically like the daily phone calls candidates make because they are appealing to the voter community. Instead of asking the public for money, they are asking for votes.

I'm curious to know who donates the most to political campaigns.
While I always thought that generous donations came from financial/corporate firms, I found out that many large donations are made from well-known brand companies such as AT&T, Microsoft and even Dreamworks! The link below is about Wall St. investigation into public companies' political contributions in the current election cycle.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/corporate-political-donations_n_1644375.html

Gerrymandering--A Redistricting Game

By playing this "redistricting game," I learned just how hard it is to redistrict based on parties and populations. It was a difficult struggle for me to achieve a party majority in 2 of the 3 districts, as well as keep the population the same. Every time I would redistrict in order to keep the population the same, I would end up messing up the party majorities. This taught me just how hard it was to gerrymander, and if I couldn't figure it out on a computer game, I can't even imagine how people actually figure this out for the entire country!
Also, I was surprised to learn that the party that controls the State Legislature essentially controls the gerrymandering process. The Republicans, for example, are legally allowed to gerrymander a new district--basically rigging an election.
I was also surprised to learn that gerrymandering isn't guaranteed to be successful. A lot of the time I would redistrict and get approval from both the government and the state, but then I would find out that it was rejected by the court.

This game reminded me a lot of my favorite TV show, Scandal. In this show, the presidency of Fitzgerald Clark relied on the votes of a small county named Defiance, in Ohio. Before learning about gerrymandering, I was confused on how a single county could essentially make or break a presidency. But after realizing how redistricting works, I was able to understand that if that one county didn't vote for him, the state wouldn't have a majority Republican, which would have cost him Ohio's electoral vote.

I'm interested to know how the term gerrymandering got its name. After doing some research, I found that the term gerrymandering goes all the way back to 1812. In 1812, Governor Elbridge Gerry redrew the state senate election districts in Massachusetts in order to benefit the Democratic-Republican party. It just so happened that the one of his redrawn districts in the Boston area resembled a salamander--hence the name gerrymandering!

Amending the Consitution

The 22nd Amendment

Starting with George Washington, no president has had the job for more than two full terms. He was asked to run for a third term but he refused because a "transition of power was was needed to set the Constitution in stone." This stayed true for about 150 years until Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in 1932. He was re-elected for his second term in 1936; however, he was re-elected for a third term in 1940 because the American people did not see it wise to elect another president in the midst of WWII. When his third term was up, again the American people did not think it was smart to change leaders in the middle of WWII, so they re-elected him for a fourth term in 1944. Even though it was said that FDR's leadership was a main reason we came out of the war victorious, Congress decided that once the war was over, Washington's self-imposed two-term limit should become the law. The 22nd Amendment passed Congress on March 21, 1947, and was ratified by 41 states on February 27, 1951.

The Every Vote Counts Amendment

Mr. Gene Greene of Texas proposed the joint resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States. The Every Vote Counts Amendment, proposed January 4, 2007, would abolish the electoral college and would provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President. After the election of 1876, the House committee approved a constitutional amendment (The Electoral College) to apply a proportional system to all the states. The argument for this system is that is makes each individual vote valuable because each ballot would affect the candidates' ability to reach the 270 Electoral College votes required to be elected. However, The Every Vote Counts Amendment failed by a vote of 86 to 338. 

Federalism and Same-Sex Marriage

When it comes to same-sex marriage, or marriage in general, the Constitution does not specify any power or federal control they have over the topic. Marriage is left in the hands of the state. The states, for example California, have the power to make their own rules regarding same-sex marriage, and the federal government gives them that power. 

But because the states have the power to make their own laws, they aren't always uniform. There is still a big divide in the country between states that have laws banning same-sex marriage and allowing same-sex marriage.  

However, when the federal government did intervene in the repeal of Prop 8 in California, the ruiling was only applicable to one state. Not like in Brown v. The Boad of Education where segregation was banned in every state. The federal government ha yet to do so for gay rights. It is a long-term goal for same-sex marriage activists to have the federal government legalize gay marriage in all 50 states.

http://works.bepress.com/nancy_knauer/4/

Battleground America (New Yorker)

This article surprised me in many ways; these three things surprised me the most. First, I was surprised to learn that the US has the highest rate of civilian gun ownership in the world. Yemen is the second highest but still their rate is only half the rate of ours. Second, I was also surprised to learn that the rate of gun ownership among men has fell from one in two to one in three. I think this surprised me so much because with all he debates about gun control in the country, I would assume that gun ownership rates have raised. Lastly, I was surprised to learn about the "gun-show loophole" and that it cannot be prevented. Although all states require firearms-safety training and background checks, because of the gun-show loophole, not all gun owners have to take the class or have a background check.

This article reminded me of FX's hit TV show, Son's of Anarchy. I am a fan of Son's and I've been watching it since the first season, and this article particularly reminded me of the show because of the show's heavy use of guns. In the show, the Son's of Anarchy are a motorcycle gang in the East Bay and one of the many things they are involved in is the distribution of guns to neighboring street gangs. Obviously, their distribution of guns is illegal and secretive, but this reminds me of the idea that guns are become easily accessible by civilians--especially dangerous ones. This disregards the required background checks and state laws requiring firearm-safety courses for all gun owners.

One question I have would be: "Have the states or the Federal government done anything to prevent the "gun-show loophole" from being a legitimate reason to buy and own a gun?"

After doing research, I discovered that many states do not require background checks for the people purchasing weapons at a gun show from private individuals. The only background checks the federal government requires are those done by licensed dealers. However, some states have gone further than federal law by requiring background checks for any gun purchased at gun shows.  

The link below includes more information as well as a map of the US that depicts the different laws requiring background checks at gun shows.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

LGBTQ Rights and The Constitution

In the United States, there are only 15 states that have legal same sex marriage--4 by court decision, 6 by State Legislature, and 3 by popular vote. There are 2 states, New Jersey and New Mexico, that have no laws banning or legalizing same-sex marriage. However, the remaining 35 states ban same-sex marriage based either on State Law, Constitutional Law, or even both. But how does the Constitution relate to the rights of gays in America when it comes to marriage?

Get the facts here! http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857

In Article IV of the Constitution, the first two sections can be related to LGBTQ rights in America, more specifically, same-sex marriage.

Section 1 reads:

"Full Faith and Credit should be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings...."

Because a marriage certificate seen as an official "record," a gay couple married legally has the right to be recognized as married even though they may be in a state that bans same-sex marriage. 

Similarly, Section 2 reads:

"The Citizens of each State should be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

This means for example, a gay couple living and who are citizens in Nevada (a state that bans same-sex marriage) has the right to go to California (a state that legalizes same-sex marriage) and be legally married. This is because they have the same exact rights as any other citizen to be married even though their home state will not legally wed them. 

My Policy: Civil Rights

The policy area I've decided to focus on throughout the year is Civil Rights, more specifically the issue of LGBTQ Rights. This policy grabs my attention because of the debate and controversy surrounding the rights of gays in America. Ever since Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional and gay marriage was legalized in California, I have been bombarded by the media with praise as well as anger toward this change in policy. Though this is a great win for LGBTQ advocates and same-sex marriage supporters, I am compelled to learn about the opposition to this ruling and how it is affecting the rest of the country. I feel called study and become an expert on the rights and debates concerning LGBTQ citizens and throughout the year I'll be applying the concepts I learn in this course to my policy.

Introduction

Hello! My name is Teryssa Pineda, and I'm a senior here at St. Ignatius. I'm 17 years old and I'm involved in many things through school. This year, I'm involved with the TLC Club, I'm a part of Campus Ministry and Insignis, and this past July I went on a service trip to West Virginia.

- As a member of the TLC Club, I tutor at DeMarillac Academy once a week with Mr. Haluck and a few other students. I first joined the club last school year, and I've made many good friends and I've learned a lot about myself in the process. This experience has strengthened my want to pursue a career in helping children--I'd love to become a child behavioral psychologist.

- This past summer I went on a one week service trip to Nazareth Farm in West Virginia. While I was there, a few classmates and I helped renovate and paint several homes in the community. Besides non-profit work in the community, Nazareth Farm is a Catholic organization that not only offers service opportunity, but also a spiritual retreat experience. 

http://www.nazarethfarm.org/index.php

- Since last year, I've been a part of Campus Ministry, and I joined Insignis this year because of my experience at Nazareth Farm. Since my trip, I've strengthened my spiritual life so I joined Insignis to be a part of the religious experience at SI. Throughout the year, I will be participating in morning prayer, Examen, FML, and I will also lead several junior retreats.

http://www.siprep.org/page.cfm?p=711