This post is going to be your forum to earn some extra participation points and apply the concepts we learned in class to current events and policy developments.
Instructions
1. Find a recent (last ten days) article on a policy topic you find interesting (truly try to find something you think is significant and interesting). Make sure it is a reputable news source and not just some blogger spouting conspiracy theories.
2. Post a link to the article with a brief description/summary of the article.
3. After your summary, connect the article to at least two concepts we learned about over the course of the semester. Focus on explaining HOW the article illustrates, clarifies, or characterizes these important concepts and WHY this is significant in a broader understanding of politics.
4. After the analysis, pose two discussion questions for other students to answer. These questions are meant to spark discussion and debate.
4. Following instructions, writing in complete sentences and good organization are imperative to completing this assignment for credit.
You will not get credit unless you explain the HOW (it connects to AP US Government concepts) and WHY (it is significant) of the article. The purpose of this exercise is to help you connect the concepts we learn in class with current events so you can use some of these examples to help illustrate your point when answering the FRQ on the AP test on Tuesday May 14th.
4 comments:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/20/boston-suspect-miranda-rights-activists
I chose this article because it seemed the most unbiased because it comes from outside the United States. It explains both sides of the FBI and Boston Police’s decision to deny the Boston Suspect his Miranda rights. They call it the “public safety exception” and allows for law enforcement to interrogate the suspect, gather evidence, etc. Many Civil rights activists are in a rage, stating that American “must not waiver from our justice system.” On the other hand, there was a high possibility that the suspect still had explosive devices and information that was vital. (Further information has detailed that when they did read him his Miranda rights, he quickly became silent, and would not talk or cooperate at all…)
So there is a very easy concept that is found in this article being the landmark decision in Miranda V. Arizona. This case dealt with Ernesto Miranda being arrested and not being told of his right to council (part of the 6th amendment→ “The right to counsel”). The article illustrates the 2 sides of this decision. One side says that he is an enemy combatant, and that under the law of war, he isn’t entitled to Miranda rights. Specifically the article details Senator Lindsey Graham, using specific quotes such as “the least of our worries is a criminal trial which will likely be held years from now.” The other side is one of the Civil Rights activists. They say that we (America) shouldn’t waver from our binding of the 6th amendment. That “Every criminal defendant is entitled to be read Miranda rights,” and they think that the public safety exception should only be used actively when the threat is still there. This concept is important because it shows concept of the Bill of rights. This is a perfect example of how our civil rights are used for or against criminals, and how the freedom of speech (first amendment) is protected. Both sides of the argument are easily and legally able to show their views, and that concept is demonstrated here.
Another concept that is illustrated in this article is the checks and balances of the United States government. Although not exactly told in this particular article, judge Marianne Bowler did read the Boston suspect his Miranda rights when he got to court. The concept that this shows is a check and balance between the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch. When the judge read him his Miranda rights, he quickly stopped talking, and the FBI was very disgruntled. Without the check on the executive branch, he would most likely not of been read his Miranda rights. This concept is very important because it makes things fair for everyone, even with very sensitive situation like a terrorist attack.
Questions:
1. Do you think that the FBI had the right to use the public safety exception on the Boston Suspect?
2. Is the fact that he was 19 years old have an affect on how you view the case and the use of the public safety exception?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/26/after-the-last-two-weeks-is-it-time-for-a-laugh/?iref=allsearch
1. The article is on the policy topic of gun control and talks about how President Obama will convey his speech at the White House Correspondents' Dinner due to the recent attacks such as the Boston attack being just two weeks away. The article also talks about how all the other Presidents conveyed their speeches in the past in horrible times. Such as President Bill Clinton's serious speech in 1995 concerning the Oklahoma City Bombing. Basically we do not know how Obama will deliver his speech, but the author of the article claims "Regardless of Obama's approach this year, it's likely he'll be criticized for not being funny, being funny to begin with or not being funny enough."
2. The article clarifies the dangers of no gun control .One of the concepts learned in class is how gun control infringes on the second amendment in the Bill of Rights. The second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms but was written in 1791. It’s now 2013 and people have become more violent due to lack of stricter gun control laws. One of the most recent attacks in the United States was at the Boston Marathon, when 3 people were killed and 140 people were hurt. So, the question is should America pass another legislation limiting gunpowder control? The problem remains unresolved, which is why fellow citizens will be watching Obama’s reaction at the dinner. Another concept we discussed is how to help limit gun access such as background checks on all sales and enforcing current gun laws. Another concept learned is the difference between state and federal laws. Although, the second amendment was intended to apply to the states (14th Amend.) it wasn’t enforced to all states. This is a problem because not all states will have the same gun access laws!
3. It is significant in a broader understanding of politics because we as citizens should be aware of the loose gun laws in our state and be aware of our amendments, so that if something such as gun control was to infringe on our right, we as an American could fix it. Another concept learned to help fight against controversies on a certain topic is to write letters to the government and start or enter an interest group.
Questions:
1.Is it true that a criminal will always find a way to get a gun?
2.Do you think stricter gun laws will make society safer?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ABORTION_DEATHS_IMPACT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-05-04-15-25-10
This article is about a case in Philadelphia in which a doctor, Kermit Gosnell, is accused of killing five people. Four of these killings were viable babies that were born alive. He is also accused of performing abortions after the 24 week limit in Pennsylvania. Gosnell was licensed to perform all of these abortions but his clinic had not been inspected in over 20 years. Because of this case many anti-abortion groups are using this issue to bring in an audience not usually associated with the matter. Groups who support abortion have claimed Gosnell to be a "rogue operator" and that he should not be associated with the abortion community.
The general subject of this article, abortion, connects to one very important court case we learned about in class, Roe V. Wade. This case originally is what allows this clinic along with any other abortion clinic to be not be outlawed in the United States. This case stated that women have the right to privacy in deciding whether to end a pregnancy except in later stages. In some cases women may still attain an abortion in later stages if it is to protect their health. In this case Gosnell also performed abortions after the 24 week limit. This limit is in place because after 24 weeks a baby may be viable to live after this amount of time. In another court case we learned in class, Webster V. Reproductive Health Services, the supreme court ruled that in the state of Missouri that testing for viability after 24 weeks is constitutional. This allows states like Pennsylvania to also enact this time table of when abortions can be carried out. In Webster V. Reproductive the supreme court also ruled that public facilities and public employees can not be used for abortions is constitutional but this part of the case did not apply to this situation. Both of these cases uphold the legality of carrying out abortions and the restrictions of when this can be done.
1.) In Webster V. Reproductive Health Services the supreme court established that Missouri's law that stated public employees and facilities could not be used for abortions was constitutional. Claremont McKenna College professor Jon Shields, an expert in abortion policy says "Most of the industry is self-regulated and generally that works pretty well" but in this case the clinic was not self regulated properly. Would abortion clinics be better regulated if they were run by public employees in public facilities?
2.) In Pennsylvania the state health department does not inspect abortion clinics because they do not wish to place a barrier for women seeking abortions. In this case Gosnell's clinic had not been inspected since 1993. Now some groups are arguing that abortion clinic should meet the same requirements as outpatient surgical facilities. Do you agree or disagree on whether they should meet these requirements? Why?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/nyregion/alphonza-bryant-17-couldnt-escape-same-fate-as-slain-fahter.html
I chose this article becauses it was a very touching story to me. 13 years after his father's killing, alphonso bryant 3 gets shot and killed in the same area his fahter was killed at. Bryant was misatken for a gang member, but mayor bloomberg used the teenager to illustrate the toll that illegal guns can hvae on new york.
1. One concept that we learned about over the course over the semester was limiting gun control access. Where are these gang members buying these guns? How do us Americans protect ourselves from future incidents?Another concept is the steady contrast between state and federal laws. Every state does not have the same gun laws which is bad for our safety.
2. Having knowledge about gun laws is very important and also knowing your amendments because you never know when you may have to help out a friend or inform somebody about the use of guns.
Questions:
1. Do you America will be safer if nobody had access to guns?
2. Do you think that guns should be given to military affilates?
Post a Comment