State bans on same-sex marriage: Should the Supreme court intervene?

Currently the Supreme Court is debating what to do about state bans on same-sex marriage.  Should they uphold the states right to enact such a law, as their elected officials have? Or does it amount to discrimination by the government?  Read this article and answer the following questions.  For each question you should cite the article in your response.  Be sure to explain yourself throughout your response.

Which justice has the most convincing legal argument in your eyes?  Why or why not?  Cite the article in your response.  Remember to explain why you think the justice you picked has the best argument.

In your opinion, should marriage be left up to the states, or is this a case where the federal government should intervene?  What part of the Constitution is justification for the states rights, pro-ban advocates?  What part of the Constitution is justification for the anti-ban, same-sex marriage advocates?  Which part of the Constitution should, in this case, hold more legal weight?

What does this article say about the role of the judicial branch in American politics as a whole?  What kind of sweeping changes have been made in the past b the Supreme Court?  Should the Supreme Court be social engineers, who are there to "make things right" when others fail to see the immorality of their ways?  Or should the Supreme Court simply be an arbiter of the law, with no consideration to the moral or social ramifications? 

Listen to this segment from NPR and answer the following questions.  First, briefly summarize the main idea of this segment.  Do you agree?  Why or why not? 

Equal pay for equal work: It seems simple, so why is it so difficult to achieve?

First, read this article about the gender pay gap and how it has evolved over the years.  What are two possible solutions to closing the gap cited in the article?

Second, read this article about the debate going on in the halls of Washington.  What is the Republican approach to solving this issue?  What is the Democrats approach?  Which one do you agree with and why?  Do you think this is an issue that the government needs to address or do you think the private sector will eventually correct itself?  How do both sides use statistics to argue their case?

Third, read this article about a relatively new approach to the problem made by some companies.  Summarize the general idea of the article.  Do you think this approach will help to solve the problem?  Why or why not?  Cite the article in your response.

Lastly, read this article about the broader impact of the equal pay issue.  How are politicians framing this as an issue that goes beyond mere gender equality?  Do you agree with the central idea of this article?  Why or why not?  Be sure to explain your reasoning, citing the article in your response.  Should all people be concerned about this issue?  Why or why not?  Do you think this issue will make an impact on voting in the 2016 Presidential election?  How might it have an impact?  Will Democrats or Republicans benefit more from this being a major issue in 2016?  Explain your reasoning.

Hillary's small scale start

Hillary Clinton has basically had the last two years to start her campaign on her own terms and clearly a lot of thought has been put into how she is courting Iowa voters.  Her motto seems to be "think small."  Read this article, respond to the following prompts and questions.  Cite quotes and use evidence from the article throughout your response. 

Explain the role of the media in Presidential campaigns.  What is their main job when covering a presidential campaign?  Why do you think Clinton is trying to "go small" in Iowa?  Why is there such an emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire at this stage in the long road to the primary and eventually the general election?  Do you think Clinton's strategy will work?  Why or why not?

Marco Rubio's strategy

Research the strategy of Marco Rubio heading into primary season and answer the following questions.  In your responses, cite your research parenthetically and use direct quotes from the source.

What is his main strategy?  Who is his biggest competition in the primary?  Why do you think so?  If he makes it through the primary as the nominee, do you think he stands a chance against Hillary Clinton or another democrat?  Why or why not?  Will his youth and inexperience help or hurt his chances?  Explain the reasons behind your opinion, relating to his overall campaign strategy.  What are the main policies he will focus on throughout his campaign?  Why will he focus on these policies?  How will that help him win the nomination?   

Joe Biden: VP of the United States of Awkward

Joe Biden was picked as VP because of his foreign policy experience, but lately he has been in the headlines for a different reason.  He has often the been the subject of scrutiny for his, at times, uncomfortable closeness in public with total strangers and friends alike, that likely has the White House cringing.  Take a look at the three links embedded in this post..  Talk about awkward. Post a (school appropriate) Biden meme for a little bit of credit.  No repeats!

Ready to Cruz the USA or for a new bRand of President? (or Bush or Walker or Christie or Rubio)

So far (officially) only two candidates (with backing from a major party) have thrust themselves into the media spotlight by launching their campaign to run for the office of President of the United States in 2016.  The Senator from Kentucky, Dr. Rand Paul, is a former ophthalmologist by way of Kentucky and son of venerated libertarian darling Ron Paul.  His announcement came on Monday.  Since his announcement he has been under fire for his sometimes questionable reactions to media scrutiny.  Before Paul there was Senator Ted Cruz from Texas, the first official candidate for the Republican party, who is branding himself as the values-based religious option for the Republican palette.  Both share the Republican sentiment that Washington is broken, that they are newcomers/outsiders and the government that governs best governs least.  What are there chances against someone with the political clout of Jeb Bush or the more mainstream grassroots support of Gov. Scott Walker? Also, can they compete with the support of their likely Democratic challenger Hilary Clinton, who is set to announce her candidacy on Sunday?

Read all the linked articles to get an idea of how the 2016 Presidential race is shaping up in its infant stages and answer the following questions.  The thoughtfulness and in-depth analysis contained in your response will determine the value of your post. It is undeniable that these two first official candidates provide a fresh look on the field for 2016, but do you think they have a chance to win the primary?  What about the general election?  Why or why not?  If you were a Republican voter in the primary booth this fall, who would you vote for (assuming Christie, Walker, Rubio, Bush, or anyone else you might think of run) and why?  Would it be better for someone like Bush (center-leaning conservative) or Paul (right-leaning conservative) to win the primary?  What do you think the American people want in 2016?  If you were a voter (which most of you will be) what would you want the new President to address when they take office in 2017?  What issues do you think need to be on the policy agenda?  Be specific in your answers.

Opening the door for religious freedom or legalized discrimination?

In the wake of the controversial Indiana law and proposed Arkansas state law, a very provocative question has been dominating the headlines.  Should a business, if that business is owned by people with certain religious beliefs, be able to refuse service to someone because they believe what they are doing is against their beliefs?  Read this article for a good overview of the controversy.  For example, should there be a law that allows a bakery to refuse (based on religious beliefs) to make a cake for a wedding between two people of the same sex?  Does it hinder their ability to freely exercise their religion per the 1st amendment? Or does it simply allow businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation?  Is this similar to the racial discrimination of the past?  Is refusal of service based on sexual orientation any different from refusal of service based on race or gender?  Be sure to explain your reasons for your opinion, don't just answer yes or no.  Start a discussion below of the core ideas at work here (e.g. freedom of religion, separation of church and state, unlawful discrimination, expectations of private business, etc.).  Opinions are welcome, and necessary for this discussion.  Disagreement is inevitable, but keep in mind this is no place for ranting or personal attacks (like the comment section on so many articles pertaining to this subject, we're better than that).  Points will be awarded based on the thoughtfulness and completeness of the response.  Also, be sure to cite the articles I posted (or an article you found, or the law itself) at least twice in your response for credit.

Role play with the President

The recent talks with Iran in negotiating a deal on limitations of nuclear weapons in the Middle East has been dominating the headlines lately.  Clearly the President plays a big part in these negotiations, but exactly what role does he play?  Go to this article for background and details and answer the following questions.  What role (of the roles we talked about in class) is the President playing here?  How so?  What secondary role is he playing?  Use specific details from the article to back up your analysis and be sure to explain your reasoning behind your answer.