9: How Were Our Laws MEANT To Be Interpreted?

When the rules that formed our nation were set in place, one must wonder, what was the true intent of these laws? Would the people who made them agree or disagree with the way we interpret them now? Take this example of a fictional privacy law (most likely an amendment to the constitution):



A person always has the right to privacy. To receive certain services, they should never be required to disclose their personal information. Legal matters would be an exception. In that case, a person must disclose their personal information, and their premises are subject to be searched, if the searching party has obtained a proper warrant.

Assuming this was an actual amendment to the constitution, and that it was applied to modern day life, how would it be interpreted? The first key words subject to interpretation are "personal information." What defines personal information? Modern judges could interpret that as a social security number, an I.D., or even a last or first name. Also, "services" is an important word to look at. What exactly is to be considered a service? And what happens to all the categories outside of that one? "Legal matters" is possibly the largest loose end. What qualifies as a legal matter? Would this mean that if a person rear ends someone else on the road, the affected party would be entitled to have the opposite party's premises searched? Or would it mean that a man being suspected of stabbing another man does not fall into this category, and he would not be required to tell the police anything?

All these loose ends in this fictional amendment are exaggerated - all the laws our country was founded on and certainly modern laws are a lot more specific. However, parts of them are still subject to interpretation. All it takes is for one judge to interpret a law a certain way, and then future judges would simply use that case as a reference. This is why modern laws are as long as they are - but alas, there is no way to truly tell at what point the events of the world will fall outside of the law's specifics.

8: Blogger Review - Reviewing My Blog

The following is a revised version of my first blog. The main revisions which have been made involve sentence structure, length, and incorporation of links into sentences.

The senate legislation is attempting to double the amount of legal immigrants allowed into the U.S., and grant amnesty to all those who are already here illegally. While there are some who feel that this is fair, there are others who believe this could have a severe impact on our countries economy, and perhaps even promote illegal immigration.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the human rights that are at steak here. Because this is an idea that is accepted globally, it applies to all people. Every person is born with these "human rights." People in Mexico, or any other country, who wish to live a better life ideally have the right to. For those who support the idea of allowing more immigrants, they would agree that their right to liberty means they should be allowed to go wherever they please, and the pursuit of happiness means they should do whatever makes them happy, even if they need to immigrate to another country to do it. The counter argument is that they are only allowed liberty and the pursuit of happiness within their own country.

Personally, I feel is if it would be great if we would allow more immigrants in, and certainly for us to grant amnesty to the ones already here. It doesn't seem fair that they should be forced to live horrible lives in countries with poor economies, while we continue to consume and elevate ourselves. Our economy is certainly suffering right now, but not nearly as hard as some of theirs. They are all born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that should be fully allowed to them - no matter who their parents are or what country they were born in.

In the article I used to research this topic, I noticed a pattern in the writing. What I noticed was that in each bulletpoint, the negative side of immigration always came last. It seems as if this article is anti-immigration. This is because the focus of it is on the controversy about allowing this, rather than the good that could come of it.

7: De Creme Da La Creme Und De Escargo

In my blogs, I am most proud of the way I can show my bias, and convey my side to the audience, while still keeping a fair balance in the article. I make sure I show and explain both sides, and I make sure to do so in such a way that everyone reading the article can find something to like/agree with about it. Towards the end is where I really show my stance, and explain why.

For future blogs, I plan to improve the level at which I write, along with the amount. Although I did win 1st place for "Most Informative Blog" in the first ever Bloggies, I still feel like there is always room for improvement. I can make my writing more fluent - make it seem like I'm not just answering a prompt. Also, although it may be a bit extensive to do this every time, I can also try responding to my peers blogs every once in a while, and also try for finding any biases or patterns in the articles I'm reading.

Blogging has not greatly impacted my overall understanding of U.S. history and current events, but it does give me an idea of the specific things happening here in the U.S., and gives me a sort of insight that I would never have had otherwise. I still don't learn all the textbook things that I need to, (although when doing a blog about one of those things, it helps to reinforce it), but I do get a feel for how things work, and I feel like I have learned something new every time I finish. I have gotten a much greater insight on politics, mainly on what to look for in candidates, and what they say really means. I've also learned the extent to which the media can stretch things, and that nothing they say should be taken too literally.

6: FactCheck - Checking The Facts

Belittling Palin?
(No Visible Author)

September 11, 2008
Fact Check

Click Here For Article

In a McCain campaign ad, he states that Obama and his running mate, Biden, have made several offensive and sexist statements against McCain's running mate, Palin. The truth is, however, that the quotes used to support this statement are entirely taken out of context, and the claims being made in the commercial are completely false.

We have studied a bit of politics and current events in class, so we have learned that such outrageous claims have come to be expected. From being in class this year, in the research I've been required to do, I have learned just how much the truth can be distorted, and the amount of people who continue to do it and get away with it.

I think it is unfair that people should be allowed to flat out lie, and because they put quotations around one word from the sentence, they can get away with it. Both candidates have stretched the truth, at the least, which I understand can be neccessary in order for one to make a point. However, when reading through this article, and many of the other main articles on FactCheck, I realize that McCain abuses this opportunity. What he says may be technically true, but its completely misleading, which, to me, makes it a lie. I am shocked that things like this don't entirely discredit his reputation.

5: Lehman Bros - Rescue or Leave to Drown?

Lehman Bros Files For Bankruptcy
(No Visible Author)
9/16/08
BBC News

Click Here For Article

After Lehman Bros., a very large and well known bank, lost a large amount of money, the question was raised, and is still being asked; what should the federal government do?

The Anti Federalists would argue that the government should not be allowed to step in - that these banks should fend for themselves. All those who work at, have stocks invested in, or own the company would simply be at the mercy of however the stocks go. This would probably be because they would not want the government to have the power to simply change such large scale things as this at will, but also to save a lot of money. A federalist, on the other hand, would argue just the opposite. They would say that the government should be given the authority to step in and spend whatever sum of money they so choose in order to keep the company from going under.

I personally believe a little bit of both. The federal government SHOULD step in - but they should only do so much. I suppose this means I have a federalist standpoint, because what I'm suggesting would still require that the federal government have full power. They should give the bank a temporary loan - one that would be enough to keep them running for another few months, so that the workers would have a chance to find new work, or get absorbed into another company. The stockholders and company owners however, should pay their debt.

4: Obama Makes History

Democrats Praise "New Hope" Obama
(No Visible Author)
8/26/08
BBC News

Click Here For Article

Barack Obama is the first ever African American to be a presidential candidate, and if he wins the 2008 election, he will be the first ever African American president. Senator Edward Kennedy believes that Obama will continue to carry out his dream, and create the change he feels is necessary to this country. Many people would be happy to have him as the next president, as can be seen by the turnout at the Democratic National Convention.

In class, we have been discussing a lot of politics, primarily the presidential candidates. We have been talking about all the hype that has been going around about them, and what to and what not to believe. With Obama, it has been a topic of interest, since he is bringing something entirely new to the table (both with his race and his plans for the country).

I believe that the history Barack Obama is making by simply being in the running is perfectly representative of the "change" that he is talking about. I personally support his philosphy that change is what this country needs right now, and I am supportive of his plan to get there. Even if he does not win this election (although I really hope he does) I am thrilled that he is even in the running, because that shows just how far we have come as a nation.

3: Vermont Says No To Death Penalty

VT. Prosecutors May Seek Death Penalty In Abduction
Wilson Ring
7/6/08
The Boston Globe

Click Here For Article

Although it has been over 50 years since the state of Vermont had anyone executed, that is now what they are considering doing for the alleged kidnapper in a missing child's case. This issue was sparked after the disappearance (and presumed death) of 12 year old Brooke Bennett. The death penalty was outlawed in Vermont in 1965, however, the current Federal law allows for capital punishment. This is a conflict that the people involved with the case are now having to deal with. They need to decide whether they should only go for maximum punishment of what the current state law allows, or go with a law that has been been outlawed and invalidated.

This is an almost perfect example of Federalism Vs. Anti-Federalism, (ideally the conflict would be that the federal government does not want the death penalty, and the state government does). The state law dictates that no person can face capital punishment, under any circumstances, so an Anti-Federalist would argue that a person shouldn't just be able to use Federal law to their advantage, because state law should have more power. However, a Federalist would argue just the opposite - the state should be allowed to follow it's own laws, and override them to call upon Federal laws when necessary.

I am torn on this issue, because I don't feel like the Central Government should have quite as much power over the states as it does now, but I also feel that the states shouldn't have an excessive amount of power. I believe that in a case such as this, the prosecutors would be right to call upon Federal law, and request capital punishment. However, in other cases, what may be best for the country as a whole may not be best for that particular region. There is no one side to this issue, and I cannot decide between any of them. Therefore, I remain an impartial observer.

2: Hate Speech Is LEGAL?

Hate Speech Or Free Speech? What Much Of West Bans Is Protected In U.S.
Adam Liptak
International Herald Tribune
6/11/08

Click Here For Article

Since the creation of freedom of speech, it has been difficult to discern the difference between hate speech and and free speech. Nazi's have been able to march freely, and newspapers and magazines can say entirely untrue and hurtful things, since they are all protected by the freedom of speech law.

In the enlightenment, many new and different ideas came about. As a result of this, the Constitution (among other things) was made. With the Constitution came amendments, the first of which being the right to freedom of speech. This was a fairly different idea at the time, since it was not too long before this that a person sneezing the wrong way could get them burned at the stake for being a witch.

I believe that our freedom of speech law is necessary to our society today - however, there do need to be exceptions. According to some of the events explained in this article, any newspaper or magazine can lie, provokes hatred or simply be offensive, without needing to suffer any consequence whatsoever (except for perhaps consumer outrage). Anyone can claim that they hate any race or religion, to any person at all, without getting in trouble.

There need to be exceptions to this rule, because if there are not, a little bit of hate speech and propaganda can easily grow into a nationwide mindset. This is usually how most genocides start - and although it may never get to THAT point, the things people are allowed to do can still cause some major damage.

1: Immigrants... Allowed To Immigrate?

Immigration Bills Concern Some Experts
By Marcus Stern and Jerry Kammer
The Union Tribune
May 7, 2006

Click Here For Article

The senate legislation is attempting to double the amount of legal immigrants allowed into the U.S., and grant amnesty to all those who are already here illegally. While some feel that this is fair, there are others who believe this could have a severe impact on our countries economy, and even promote illegal immigration.

This connects to the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because this is an idea that is accepted globally, and applies to all people. Every person is born with these "human rights." People in Mexico, or any other country, who wish to live a better life ideally have the right to. For those who support the idea of allowing more immigrants, they would agree that their right to liberty means they should be allowed to go wherever they please, and the pursuit of happiness means they should do whatever makes them happy, even if they need to immigrate to another country to do it. The counter argument is that they are only allowed liberty and the pursuit of happiness within their own country.

I personally feel like it would be great if we would allow more immigrants in, and certainly for us to grant amnesty to the ones already here. It doesn't seem fair that they should be forced to live horrible lives in countries with poor economies, while we continue to consume and elevate ourselves. Our economy is certainly suffering right now, but not nearly as hard as some of theirs. They are all born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that should be fully allowed to them - no matter who their parents are or what country they were born in.

In this article, the main pattern I noticed was that in each bulletpoint, the negative side of immigration always came last. It seems as if this article is anti-immigration. This is because the focus of it is on the controversy about allowing this, rather than the good that could come of it.