A Loophole the Size of an Elephant

In the case of Marbury vs. Madison, the practice of common law was established as an ideal part of the U.S. Supreme Court. Landmark Cases uses a quote from Chief Justice John Marshall in order to explain common law; "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." Over time, decisions during court cases demonstrate how a specific law works. Future cases shall refer back to previous cases in order to reach a decision regarding a current case.

The practice of judicial review is established in this famous case, but what if a case arose to challenge this ideal of allowing the Supreme Court to review a law. Is it possible for the practice of common law to undergo judicial review? The ultimate paradox to the idea of judicial review. Would congress dismiss an argument that could jeopardize the cornerstone of the Supreme Court? Imagine if common law was abolished, cases would not be open for discussion.

A Reflection of My Blogging Thus Far

What are you most proud of on your blog? Why?

I am proud of my informative style of writing. I believe that almost all of my blog entries detail a specific current event, allowing the reader to understand the topic. For example, in my third blog entry I discussed the differences between John McCain and Barrack Obama's stance on education reform. I presented each candidates' plan for educational reform and discussed how the two plans differed. It is important that my audience understands the topic at hand before I present my opinion; I believe I have separated these well. I also strongly represent my own opinions and perspective through my writing; this is evident in my fourth blog and my sixth blog.

What will you improve during future blogs? Why? How?

I believe I could incorporate a picture for each individual blog entry. Only half of my entries have incorporated a picture. Chunks of writing do not immediately catch the reader's attention, however sources of media, such as pictures, draw the reader in and possibly create a greater desire to read that specific entry. In addition to adding pictures that support my blog entries, I could probably decorate different sections of my blog to make them more eye catching. For example, my classmate, Luke, has an amazing title that he designed for his blog. I could probably create images such as his logo, in photoshop, however that may prove to be too time consuming and prevent me from focusing on the writing portion of my blog. I'm sure I can reach some sort of medium between my writing and visual appeal of my blog.

How has blogging impacted your understanding of: the U.S.? the media? current events? "old" news (i.e. the Constitution, Federalist Papers, etc)?

Blogging has allowed me to connect concepts from the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, to current events. I believe blogging has improved my understanding of checks and balances within the government. I have learned that much of the power within the government has been given to the executive branch, the opposite of what our founding fathers wished. I have also learned that our amendments may often be misinterpreted or violated. For example, my fourth blog entry discusses a bizarre story in which authorities violated a man's constitutional rights in order to charge him with criminal wrong doing.

Banned in D.C.

Link to Article, House Passes Rules Easing D.C. Gun Restriction, 9/17/08, Fox News

The House of Representatives recently moved to broaden firearm rights for citizens living in D.C. The proposed bill would allow D.C. residents to purchase and operate semiautomatic firearms. There has been much support for this bill. Many critics and politicians argue that the current restriction on semiautomatic firearms in D.C. is a violation of the second amendment, "The right to keep and bear arms." Washington D.C. is not officially a state, so their is some argument regarding whether or not the district must strictly follow the second amendment. In addition, the representative for D.C. is not able to vote in congress.

I believe that it is ridiculous for D.C. to have a restriction on semiautomatic weapons because such weapons could endanger the lives of residents and political dignitaries. The same reasoning could be applied to any other city in the U.S. The founding fathers of this country created the second amendment in order for citizens to defend themselves against incidents of civil uprising and government actions or lack of actions similar to those of Great Britain's rule over the American colonies. I support the enactment of this bill because it gives the residents of D.C. greater access to their second amendment.

The Federal Government Can't Always Hold Your Hand

Link to article, Wall St.’s Turmoil Sends Stocks Reeling, Alex Berenson, 9/15/08, The New York Times

The stock market has recently experienced some major financial blows. "The Dow fell 504.48 points, its biggest one-day point drop since Sept. 17, 2001, the first trading day after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." The banking company, Lehman Brothers, and the insurance company, A.I.G., recently declared financial bankruptcy. In a mass state of panic, investors withdrew much of their stock from the companies, sending the stock market into a downward spiral. Many Americans are questioning whether the federal government should bail out these companies or refrain from taking any direct action that would impact the stock market.

It is not the Federal government's responsibility to clean up the mess that is the stock market. The individuals that invested in either Lehman or Merrill Lynch, must take accountability for their own investments. When making buying stock you are always gambling on how well your stock will do, so by investing in a company you accept the risk of losing money. Companies must learn that the Federal government can't always be there to hold their hand, the companies are solely responsible for their own current situation. If the Federal government refrains from taking action, they will send a message to all companies that they must take full responsibility for their own actions.

*Reedited on 9/25/08

Constitutional Rights Violated

Link to Article, Police Illegally Taped Nursing Home Sex, Wisconsin Court Rules, 9/11/08, FoxNews

"Police who videotaped a man having sex with his comatose wife in her nursing home room violated his constitutional rights, an appeals court ruled on Thursday." Police had secretly videotaped the man during his visits to his wife. The man was originally charged with sexual assault, but this was solely based on evidence that violated this man's constitutional rights. However strange or twisted this story may seem on the surface, I believe the prosecutors are clearly guilty of violating this man's privacy, regardless of the purpose for which the cameras where installed. In addition, the original warrant allowing the installment of video cameras in the woman's room, was based solely on assumptions.

I believe this is a good example of every free person having the right to a fair trail. Despite the allegations made, the court made the right decision to dismiss the case. Because the evidence used to support the prosecutors claims was obtained illegally, it can not be used in the case. The prosecutors argue that it was alright to violate his constitutional rights to obtain the footage because they have no other evidence that would support the charges.

Taking all the CHANGE out of the taxpayer wallet

Link to Article, Obama unveils plans for education reform, 9/9/08, USA TODAY

Presidential candidates Barrack Obama and John McCain have two very different plans for educational reform.

Barrack Obama wishes to supply charter schools with twice as much funding. "The federal government spends about $200 million a year on charter schools, independently run institutions that receive public money. Obama's proposal would take that up to over $400 million." Barrack Obama's seems to take a Federalist stance on educational reform, entrusting the government to fund and manage the situation with a great deal of power.

John McCain encourages an expansion of the existing school voucher program in Washington D.C. that gives parents the option to choose between public or private schools. John McCain has taken an anti-federalist stance by entrusting American families to decide which form of education is best for their children, rather than increasing funding to improve public schools.

I see John McCain's educational reform much more appealing than Barrack Obama's educational reform. I feel that Barrack Obama's federal funded educational reform does not evenly distribute funds among students, he wishes to assign a certain amount of money for one specific form of education. What if a student prefers to attend private schooling rather than charter schooling? A child that is not abiding by the educational voucher program would be limited in the funding they receive if they choose to attend a private school.

Hurricane John Locke

Link to Article, Louisiana counts cost of Gustav, 9/02/08, The BBC

Hurricane Gustav has swept through the Louisiana area the past couple of days, leaving a significant amount of damage behind. In comparison to hurricane Katrina, the flooding caused by Gustav has been minimal due to the maintenance of the city's levees. Residents of New Orleans were urged to evacuate, no one wanted to witness the same tragedies caused by hurricane Katrina. During hurricane Katrina, the government's response was far from immediate, leaving thousands left to fend for themselves, a Thomas Hobbs type of philosophy. The government's response to hurricane Gustav has been quite the opposite; the public was informed prior to the hurricane and given ample time to evacuate. The government stressed the urgency of evacuation, helping the public out, a John Locke type of philosophy.

I believe that advising the public to evacuate was a responsible decision for the government to announce. When the public is at risk of serious injury or death, the government should provide precautions to be taken that are for the publics best interest. I believe that had the government not advised residents to evacuate, many people would have already been seriously hurt or killed. The government is trying to improve it's policies for reaction to natural disasters, and I applaud them.

Not exactly Thai cuisine...

Link to Article, Bangkok under state of emergency, 9/02/08, The BBC

In Bangkok, members of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), clashed with supporters of the current Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, as well as police, leaving at least 1 person dead. The Prime Minister believes he had no other choice but to enlist the help of the Thailand army in order to resolve the week-long protest. The BBC states, "Protesters went on to shut down airports and rail services. Public sector unions said they would begin a nationwide strike at 43 state enterprises on Wednesday unless the prime minister stepped down." The PAD clearly do not wish for the current Prime Minster to remain in power because they say he is just a front for the previous Prime Minister who is now in exile. Claims have been made that the current Prime Minister has been accused of buying votes in the previous election.

In America's Declaration of Independence, we are given the basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Although I am not particularly familiar with Thailand law, I am certain that the Thailand public has a smaller range of granted liberties than that of the American public. What if a seemingly similar situation were to occur in America? How would our government's actions differ from those of Thailand's government?

I feel that our government would not respond as harshly as the Thailand government. Protests in support of various political ideas are quite common in America because we are all guaranteed our right to free speech. We are given the right to a peaceful protest, this is what draws the line between civility and anarchy. However, I believe if American protesters shut down airports and public transportation using force, the government would not sit idle too long before dispersing such a protest. Such an event would cause airports and public transit stations to flood with millions of travelers/commuters, possibly resulting in heavy economic loss.