blog stage 8

Response to Paige Duecker’s Warrantless blood drawsI do agree with Paige on the article, but the courts did not specify on when exactly exigency is to be taken. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Missouri vs. McNeely that police officers must obtain a warrant before conducting blood draws on suspected impaired drivers. Justice Sotomayor delivered the Court’s opinion that the natural metabolism of alcohol does not grant a “per se” exigency that allows a blanket exception to the 4th Amendment requirement of obtaining a warrant in DUI cases, but that exigency must be determined on a case by case basis. The 8-1 opinion rejected the position held by the Obama administration and more than 30 states that all argued the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream automatically created an exception to the requirement for a warrant. In 2010, Tyler McNeely was pulled over in Missouri by a police officer who noticed signs of impairment. McNeely refused a breath test twice, so the officer had him transported to a hospital where a blood draw was performed without a warrant or McNeely’s consent. McNeely’s BAC came back at 0.154, and he was charged with DWI. He moved to have the results suppressed arguing that the warrantless blood draw was a violation of his 4th Amendment rights.After the state charged McNeely with driving while intoxicated, McNeely filed a motion to suppress evidence due to a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial court sustained this motion. On June 21, 2011, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, reversed the trial court, holding that the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment applied so Winder did not need a warrant. Subsequently, in light of the “general interest and importance of the issue,” the Court of Appeals sua sponte transferred the case to the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial’s ruling in a per curiam opinion. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on September 25, 2012, on the question of whether the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream triggers the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment. McNeely asserts that a warrantless blood test violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that a contrary ruling poses a grave threat to bodily integrity. Furthermore, McNeely argues that the state’s need for warrantless blood tests is insubstantial because most drunk driving suspects consent either to breathalyzer or blood tests. Missouri responds that allowing warrantless blood draws in these cases allows the state to more effectively pursue a vital interest in enforcing drunk driving laws and that the blood test constitutes only a minor intrusion which involves virtually no health risks. Furthermore, Missouri asserts that warrantless blood tests may be necessary because the delay in obtaining a warrant may allow the drunken driving suspect to partly or wholly metabolize the alcohol and thus destroy the most probative evidence of drunk driving. While both parties agree that drunk driving is a serious problem, they disagree sharply over whether allowing warrantless blood draws will enable states to more effectively enforce drunken driving laws and prosecute individuals suspected of violating those laws. McNeely argues that the privacy interest at stake here is substantial because the right to bodily integrity lies at the heart of the Fourth Amendment. In support of this claim, McNeely cites the ancient legal treatise by William Blackstone who stated that individuals have an absolute right against intrusion of his life or body. Similarly, McNeely argues that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s language in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health echoes Blackstone’s earlier arguments: “[T]he Court has often deemed state incursions into the body repugnant to the interests protected by . . . Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.” Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, As a final matter, McNeely disagrees with Missouri’s interpretation of class and highlights the Supreme Court’s distinction between cars and people in terms of the privacy expectation. The following quote is from Steven R. Shapiro, ACLU national legal director, who represented Tyler McNeely before the Supreme Court: “We know from experience that drunk-driving laws can be strictly enforced without abandoning constitutional rights. Today's decision appropriately recognizes what half the states have already demonstrated – that maintaining highway safety does not require sacrificing personal privacy.” I do not believe this decision represents our Constitutional right that upholds the Fourth Amendment, stating that each case has its own determining facts on determining exigency which lies in the hands of officers, which has no clarity or specifications towards this matter when determining exigency towards a warrantless blood draw, when each case should carry its own exigency knowing that BAC will eventually dissipate in the bloodstream, this loophole or uncertainty will give officers the right to perform a warrantless blood draw according to their exigency on the matter. Warrantless blood draws do go against our Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

blog7

Gambling in the state of TexasThere has recently been a lot of speculation on a push towards legalizing gambling in the state of Texas. A bill was introduced by a Houston law maker that would expand on current gambling laws in Texas. Many Texans are against passing the bill to legalize gambling in the state, but some who are for the bill look to it from more of a financial aspect. Casino gambling across the Louisiana border 100 miles away is part of a business that rakes in from $2 to $4 billion dollars each year from Texas, according to various estimates. The Texas Gaming Association says that spending not only takes that money from the state's economy, it also costs the state $1.5 billion a year in tax revenue. Since casinos first came about in Louisiana in the mid-1990s, that state has spent the money it earns on things like highway construction, teacher salaries and even gambling-addiction treatment facilities and hotlines. Austin’s KXAN’s statewide poll showed 64 percent of Texans say they support casino gambling in the state. Among that group, political affiliation was not really a factor, as Republicans, Democrats and Independents showed their support in the 60-70 percent range. It could also provide more opportunities for more diverse forms of gambling in the state. But acknowledging these inevitable weaknesses and the truth that gambling really ought to be as minimally regulated as possible, the bill is about as good as we could expect to see out of the legislature. Most importantly it comes with the sponsorship of committee chair John Carona and the support of more Republicans than we’ve seen on board for a gambling bill in a long time. Most importantly is the entire population of the state gets a chance to vote to approve or reject it. But there are many people who reject this bill do to ethical or religious reasons. The bill’s major opposition comes from moral objectors who view gambling as a tax on the poor, a contributor to societal ills such as addiction and a magnet for organized crime. Some tea party groups have also objected to the idea of basing a major Texas economic engine on something they view as unstable.“It’s a very cyclical kind of economy,” said Jarrod Atkinson of the Dallas Tea Party. “Like Vegas, where when the economy went bad, man, did Las Vegas go bad. I don’t want that here. I want Texas to be built on good, long-term industries, not tourism [and] not something that’s going to go belly up as soon as the economy turns.” It is a defiantly fitting to let the people decide on whether or not gambling should be apart of the State of Texas, and to respect the decision of the residents and to take them in to consideration, although Gambling will bring in revenue in great amounts and possible jobs the bigger question should be the type of business and clientele that business produces. Is our Great State of Texas ready to be labeled or marked with that kind of reputation that proceeds or follows such conduct.

blog 6

Politically IncorrectPaying for School Mark, I agree with you 190%. I also believe the system does not justify hard work. When I first got out of High School, I decided to go to school out of state. I went to school in Iowa and had made it all the way to my 3rd year of college until I had reached the limit of my loans. I had taken out 3 too many. I got so backed up financially I could not continue to finish my last year of school, I simply could just not afford to go, I was working two jobs pulling over 40 hour weeks and was double majoring in school. I was renting and living in my own house and paying my own taxes, the funny part is that I still had to use my mother’s income towards my financial status (when filling out my fafsa towards my grant status) all the way up until I was to reach the age of 25, according to the laws of Iowa, regardless of my own financial status and living. The unfortunate part about that was that my Mom made decent money so I was left with the short side of the stick when it came to getting money back. The state of Iowa granted me $600 dollars to go to school for one semester, which was not even enough money for me to pay for my books for one semester alone. my books for a full semester was $700 dollars, so my next semester I had made a decision to only buy half of my books for my classes and just learned to take really good notes in the other classes. When one of my Professors had found this out around 90 % of completion of the class that I did not even have a book, he was a little mad. I did this for the next two years. I understood that nothing came easy in life and that everything required hard work, which helped me to get through some of the many stresses that my financial status had brought, but I wasn’t about to let anything stop me from getting my degree. I met some classmates later in the year who were considered unprivileged by the state of Iowa, either because of their financial status or having a child. Now, I totally agree with helping the unprivileged and would give my shirt off my back and my last meal too help those who are in need, and by no means am against helping the unprivileged, but I Was Unprivileged Myself, they probably ate better than me, had more money than I did, were able to buy all their books for class and the most important part was their mind was stress free from not having to worry about their finances like I was. Today this is why I am a republican and my views may be a little jaded based on my experience but I honestly thought In my last year, with the governmental system that we have in place towards helping the unprivileged in regards to grant money for school, Why don’t I just Adopt a child my junior year, rename him Grant and claim all that the state has to offer me my senior year, I would finish with a 4 year degree, and receive money from the state just for going to school and not have to worry about any finances, have all my books covered and extra spending money, no loans, more food, and then just give Grant back up to the state after my senior year. Now this is of course hypothetically speaking and although a great idea its just to emphasis on a point Im trying to make. The state does not reward hard work, just like in your case, I believe you worked real hard for those grades you got towards your undergrad and now to not be able to have any scholarships after what you achieved is kind of sad to hear. But I do believe that the person in the middle gets left out in our government system towards school fees and grants. It should not be so unfair and so challenging for a middle income student to go to school. I do believe that it all happened for a reason believe it or not and I am more than happy to be where I am currently and blessed and realize that there are a lot of people who do have it pretty bad, but I hope it all works out for you in the end.

Blog 5 on National Government towards gay marriage

Is Gay Marriage UnconstitutionalMany Americans are talking about one of the most controversial topics this county has seen in years. This controversial topic affects all Americans one way or another whether we choose to admit it or not, whether you have a friend that is gay, or a family member, or simply just know of someone that is gay. Many Americans are torn with the huge dilemma in determining which side of the fence they actually stand on, I for one am one of them. It has been really fascinating to watch history in the making, to be able to witness our nation’s highest form of government, the Supreme Court take on this controversial topic. I am going to give evidence why I think Gay marriage is not unconstitutional. As we learned in class, powers of the federal government are limited to those powers either granted to it by the Constitution or powers that are prohibited by the Constitution as being state powers, and that all other powers were reserved to the states and to the people. This is stated in the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The States currently hold the power of marriage. According to Ivan Hoffman, The laws of one state regulating marriage are entitled to the full faith and credit in all other states. One court case example that defines marriage can be In Loving vs. Virgina In 1967, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a Virginia state law prohibited parties of different races from marrying (and similar laws in 15 other states) was unconstitutional as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. Virginia had a public policy that was embodied in the said statute. However, in that case, the Court stated: The Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States. And the Court went on to say: There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.And finally the Court stated: These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Although this case is based on racial inequality, it does give great clarification on some of the freedoms that our Constitution provides in regards to marriage, Loving was being deprived of liberty and freedom as a free American to not be allowed to marry, and the court recognized it, but Some considerable events in regards to the Loving case which prompted the court’s decision to grant separate races to be able to marry would be what was currently going on in the 60’s at the time for African American’s, ie; Martin Luther King, Malcom X, Medgar Evers, all took part in shifting America’s attitude towards a more racially equal country. So it was depriving of one’s freedom and liberty to deny marriage of separate races, If under our Constitution we are given the freedom of choice to marry, I believe that freedom should be upheld to its fullest, thus granting same sex couples to be allowed to marry, but I do not think that this should become a federal issue, I don’t think there is enough events that have taken place yet to shift our nation to becoming more equally accepting of same sex couples, although it is looking like it is headed towards that direction, I don’t believe now is the time.

Blog 5 on National Government towards gay marriage

The Divided Prop 8I am going to critique an article on same sex marriage, written by Ruben Navarrette from CNN. I first want to start this critique by saying that I have no intentions to offend anyone over the matter, this is a completely controversial issue and I apologize for those who take offense to what is said. The writer starts out the article stating that the state of California would like a do-over, or a re-do on same sex marriage voting, referring to proposition 8. Which California voters approved. The ballot initiative defined marriage as between a man and a woman and banned same-sex marriage in California. The article next shows some statistics from a recent poll where many Californian’s have a changed attitudes towards the issue, “When it comes to same-sex marriage, many California voters want a do-over. The survey shows that 61% of California voters now approve of it, with 32% opposed.” Next the writer throws out a lame explanation on why the change of heart has taken place by saying, “Worse, supporters of the measure included a majority of Hispanic and African-American voters. They're no stranger to discrimination, and so they should know better. Maybe many of these voters of color got swept up in the same wave of fear and ignorance that swept across the rest of the state's population.” First off, blaming the averseness of the state’s decision towards same sex marriage on a particular race is Discrimination in itself, towards black’s and Hispanics. The writer is writing an article to hopefully convince readers to agree on the issue of same sex couples being allowed to marry so it doesn’t discriminate against them by discriminating against blacks and Hispanics, funny. Next, the writer describes some ads on prop 8 in California that took “full advantage of Bigotry’s old buddy—fear.” Media scare tactics have been around since the media, nothing new, if you don’t buy the right kind of toothpaste, you will get cavities or if you don’t buy a car now, you will pay more down the road, It is more hilarious that someone in the media is throwing a red flag on media scare tactics, kind of ironic. The writer says, “I now understand that we can't have a two-tiered system, where some of us enjoy the right to marry and our brothers and sisters and cousins don't, based solely on sexual orientation.” No one is saying that same sex married couples cannot get married, it is allowed in 9 states and in the District of Colombia. A similar issue would be: If I want to gamble bad enough and I live in a state where it is illegal, and the residents who live in that state look down on it and are against it, hence the reasons for it being illegal, I will go to Las Vegas or a reservation where it is not just allowed but also accepted. I am not going to try and convince every state to legalize gambling, I will move to Las Vegas, there is no reason to infringe on everyone else’s morals or attitudes towards gambling. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/26/opinion/navarrette-california-gay-marriage

blog 4

 

Health care will be an Obama legacy I am going to critique an article that was written by Julian Zelizer from CNN. In this Article I will start off with the Title, the statement of the title makes an extremely bold claim that leads me to the expectation that this article and everything beyond the title will support and provide sound circumstantial evidence that will with no doubt lead me, the reader to believe the claim which should prove how Obama’s Health Care Act will shift Obama to legacy status. In the writers next response he states “However, with each passing day, it appears that the program is in good shape, slowly becoming part of the fabric of American government”, while speaking of Obama’s Health Care Act. The writer next points just how it is becoming part of the fabric of American Government by using Gov. Chris Christie and the state of New Jersey as an example, one of the main potential contenders for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Christie said that his state would accept the Medicaid expansion that is part of the ACA. Christie had been one of the president's toughest critics, frequently lambasting the program as a prime example of big government liberalism. The writer points out that Christie has changed his tune. The expansion of Medicaid will allow about 104,000 of the poorest residents in New Jersey to gain access to health insurance. To call out Gov. Christie on this issue was a good analytic tactic but a poor ethical choice in my opinion; I believe desperate times called for desperate measures pertaining to the State of New Jersey which only under the astringent circumstances from the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy did Obama’s Health Care become not just feasible but necessary, Many of the State’s residents were left with absolutely nothing following the catastrophic event which no one had no control over. A similar concept would be, say there are 4 types; you have your runners (upper class) and your joggers (middle class), and your walkers (lower class) and some aimless people walking in life. All types of people have different speeds of achieving and defining their success towards their life. All types: Runners, Joggers, Walkers and Aimless Walkers are on the track of life and suddenly a drastic turn of events take place where all people in the region are faced with a horrible catastrophic event that cause all types of people, Runners, Joggers, Walkers and Aimless Walkers immediate distress and pain, many people get hurt and most lose all that they have. I believe ALL Americans, deep down inside there is a little bit of goodness in us all, many of the Runners, Joggers, Walkers and Aimless Walkers from different regions will turn and stop and help to pick those who have fallen. That is the situation with New Jersey and Gov. Christie accepting Obama’s Health Care plan, this is not simply a “Change of Heart” as the writer eloquently describes it or an issue where many of the republicans or runners are agreeing with Obama’s Health Care Act which supports the lower class or walkers in life, which the plan was designed for, it is simply coming to the truth which lies at hand, many of New Jersey residents, runners, joggers, walkers and yes aimless walkers have faced the worst of times from an unexplainable and unexpected event and as human beings and as a leader like Gov. Christie the importance goes beyond what we believe in, to do what is right and best for the residents and community as a whole. I don’t believe Obama’s Health Care plan will propel Obama to legacy status. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/opinion/zelizer-health-care/index.html?hpt=po_r1

blog 3

 

Health care will be an Obama legacy I am going to critique an article that was written by Julian Zelizer from CNN. In this Article I will start off with the Title, the statement of the title makes an extremely bold claim that leads me to the expectation that this article and everything beyond the title will support and provide sound circumstantial evidence that will with no doubt lead me, the reader to believe the claim which should prove how Obama’s Health Care Act will shift Obama to legacy status. In the writers next response he states “However, with each passing day, it appears that the program is in good shape, slowly becoming part of the fabric of American government”, while speaking of Obama’s Health Care Act. The writer next points just how it is becoming part of the fabric of American Government by using Gov. Chris Christie and the state of New Jersey as an example, one of the main potential contenders for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Christie said that his state would accept the Medicaid expansion that is part of the ACA. Christie had been one of the president's toughest critics, frequently lambasting the program as a prime example of big government liberalism. The writer points out that Christie has changed his tune. The expansion of Medicaid will allow about 104,000 of the poorest residents in New Jersey to gain access to health insurance. To call out Gov. Christie on this issue was a good analytic tactic but a poor ethical choice in my opinion; I believe desperate times called for desperate measures pertaining to the State of New Jersey which only under the astringent circumstances from the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy did Obama’s Health Care become not just feasible but necessary, Many of the State’s residents were left with absolutely nothing following the catastrophic event which no one had no control over. A similar concept would be, say there are 4 types; you have your runners (upper class) and your joggers (middle class), and your walkers (lower class) and some aimless people walking in life. All types of people have different speeds of achieving and defining their success towards their life. All types: Runners, Joggers, Walkers and Aimless Walkers are on the track of life and suddenly a drastic turn of events take place where all people in the region are faced with a horrible catastrophic event that cause all types of people, Runners, Joggers, Walkers and Aimless Walkers immediate distress and pain, many people get hurt and most lose all that they have. I believe ALL Americans, deep down inside there is a little bit of goodness in us all, many of the Runners, Joggers, Walkers and Aimless Walkers from different regions will turn and stop and help to pick those who have fallen. That is the situation with New Jersey and Gov. Christie accepting Obama’s Health Care plan, this is not simply a “Change of Heart” as the writer eloquently describes it or an issue where many of the republicans or runners are agreeing with Obama’s Health Care Act which supports the lower class or walkers in life, which the plan was designed for, it is simply coming to the truth which lies at hand, many of New Jersey residents, runners, joggers, walkers and yes aimless walkers have faced the worst of times from an unexplainable and unexpected event and as human beings and as a leader like Gov. Christie the importance goes beyond what we believe in, to do what is right and best for the residents and community as a whole. I don’t believe Obama’s Health Care plan will propel Obama to legacy status.   Health care will be an Obama legacy I am going to critique an article that was written by Julian Zelizer from CNN. In this Article I will start off with the Title, the statement of the title makes an extremely bold claim that leads me to the expectation that this article and everything beyond the title will support and provide sound circumstantial evidence that will with no doubt lead me, the reader to believe the claim which should prove how Obama’s Health Care Act will shift Obama to legacy status. In the writers next response he states “However, with each passing day, it appears that the program is in good shape, slowly becoming part of the fabric of American government”, while speaking of Obama’s Health Care Act. The writer next points just how it is becoming part of the fabric of American Government by using Gov. Chris Christie and the state of New Jersey as an example, one of the main potential contenders for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Christie said that his state would accept the Medicaid expansion that is part of the ACA. Christie had been one of the president's toughest critics, frequently lambasting the program as a prime example of big government liberalism. The writer points out that Christie has changed his tune. The expansion of Medicaid will allow about 104,000 of the poorest residents in New Jersey to gain access to health insurance. To call out Gov. Christie on this issue was a good analytic tactic but a poor ethical choice in my opinion; I believe desperate times called for desperate measures pertaining to the State of New Jersey which only under the astringent circumstances from the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy did Obama’s Health Care become not just feasible but necessary, Many of the State’s residents were left with absolutely nothing following the catastrophic event which no one had no control over. A similar concept would be, say there are 4 types; you have your runners (upper class) and your joggers (middle class), and your walkers (lower class) and some aimless people walking in life. All types of people have different speeds of achieving and defining their success towards their life. All types: Runners, Joggers, Walkers and Aimless Walkers are on the track of life and suddenly a drastic turn of events take place where all people in the region are faced with a horrible catastrophic event that cause all types of people, Runners, Joggers, Walkers and Aimless Walkers immediate distress and pain, many people get hurt and most lose all that they have. I believe ALL Americans, deep down inside there is a little bit of goodness in us all, many of the Runners, Joggers, Walkers and Aimless Walkers from different regions will turn and stop and help to pick those who have fallen. That is the situation with New Jersey and Gov. Christie accepting Obama’s Health Care plan, this is not simply a “Change of Heart” as the writer eloquently describes it or an issue where many of the republicans or runners are agreeing with Obama’s Health Care Act which supports the lower class or walkers in life, which the plan was designed for, it is simply coming to the truth which lies at hand, many of New Jersey residents, runners, joggers, walkers and yes aimless walkers have faced the worst of times from an unexplainable and unexpected event and as human beings and as a leader like Gov. Christie the importance goes beyond what we believe in, to do what is right and best for the residents and community as a whole. I don’t believe Obama’s Health Care plan will propel Obama to legacy status. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/opinion/zelizer-health-care/index.html?hpt=po_r1