Federalism

Topic: Federalism

Source: Associated Press. By Kristen Wyatt
Date: April 16, 2010
Title: Colo. medical pot grower to fight federal charges


Chris Bartkowicz, a Colorado man who grew medical marijuana, has been charged with cultivating marijuana, a federal crime punishable by five to 40 years in prison and a $2 million fine. Bartkowicz, who insisted he was abiding by state law is taking on federal authorities who charged him with illegal cultivation after he talked on TV about growing pot. The story originally came out on KUSA-TV when Bartkowicz stated that he would make “$400,000 off the plants in his Highlands Ranch home.” One day later, the DEA seized over 200 plants from the home. Colorado allows medical marijuana under certain circumstances, but pot remains illegal under federal law. Federal prosecutors said he had more plants than the state permits. On top of this, these federal prosecutors state that Bartkowicz’s claims that he was following Colorado state law will not hold up in federal court. Marijuana activists have seized the case to argue growers are being targeted by federal drug authorities despite having state clearance.

This is a case of who has the ultimate sovereignty in the area of marijuana. Although the state law allows marijuana in certain cases, the federal law does not, and as of now, the federal law is what will stand. The term federalism is used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). U.S. Federalism is a system in which the power to govern is shared between national and state governments. This being the case, it is up to the courts’ interpretations of the Constitution to decide who has sovereignty in what spheres of government. I believe that if Bartkowicz’s actions are found to have been within the Colorado state laws, he should be innocent in federal charges as well. There can’t be two separate laws that contradict one another so blatantly in an area where someone might be proven guilty by one set of laws and innocent by another. This leads to confusion and more complication of our governmental system.


Associated Press Article

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jubwI-ZzMMd4Arwz-Hm_nLn7NIWAD9F4BJE00

Civil Rights/Civil Liberties

Topic: Civil Rights/Civil Liberties

Source: CNN Politics. By Bill Mears

Date: March 11, 2010

Title: Court clears reciting of Pledge of Allegiance at Western schools

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, California, ruled 2-1 Thursday that the pledge does not represent a government endorsement of religion, prohibited by the Constitution. This means that Public schools in Western states can continue teacher-led saying the Pledge of Allegiance. The appeals court ruled that recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance "serves to unite our vast nation." The court case is Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District and the court ruled against the atheist parents. The ruling applies to the 11 states and territories in the West covered by the 9th Circuit. The same appeals court also ruled separately Thursday, upholding the use of the words "In God We Trust" on U.S. money. One atheist parent claimed that the daily recitation interfered with her right to direct her child's upbringing and that it instructed her child with the belief that God exists. Although students are not required to say the pledge, many parents feel that their children will face social pressures to state the pledge. In dissent to Thursday's ruling, Judge Stephen Reinhardt said the pledge was an overtly religious message.

This ruling is an account of civil rights and liberties. The atheist parents don’t want their children to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the “under God.” Even though the students are not forced to say the pledge, there are many social pressures which will cause many of them to say it. These atheist parents call for the separation of church and state, but the court ruled against them stating that the pledge "serves to unite our vast nation." This ruling is against the separation of church and state. I believe in God as well as stating the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. I feel that the pledge does unite our nation, and that if someone feels uncomfortable saying the part “under God” that they should be silent for that part. The first amendment does state the freedom of religion, so under that, I believe that public schools should be able to say the Pledge of Allegiance in class.

CNN Article

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/11/pledge.of.allegiance/index.html?npt=NP1

U.S. Economic Policy/ Political Parties

Topic: U.S. Economic Policy

Source: LA Times. By Peter Nicholas
Date: April 18, 2010
Title: Goldman Sachs case could help Obama shift voter anger


Fraud charges have been brought against the investment bank Goldman, Sachs & Co. that may strengthen the president’s campaign to tighten regulations on Wall Street. These charges have to do with complex financial dealings favoring insiders. For Obama, the accusations against the bank offer a chance to revive the sentiment that he and his party are protecting Americans victimized by the economic meltdown. Recently, Republicans have been successful in criticizing the administration, but with this accusation of Goldman Sachs allows Obama to spread the message that government intervention is necessary to stop unregulated trading that favors well-connected insiders. The SEC claims that Goldman stacked the deck on billions of dollars in mortgage securities in favor of insiders and against unknowing investors, a charge Goldman denies. This situation plays into the hands of the Obama administration because it could cause voter anger to turn towards the Republican Party. Beginning Monday, Obama's campaign website will carry a new section laying out the case for tighter financial regulation. As the midterm elections approach, both parties will try to spin this off to gain themselves the most votes possible.

The fraud charges brought against Goldman, Sachs & Co. could lead to change in our nation’s economic policy. Obama wants more regulation of Wall Street, while the Republicans are against this. A compelling case is to be made to the American people about how the Republicans have put their short-term political interests over the long-term interests of the country. In this environment there is great political danger in going along with the big banks to defend the status quo. Republicans are put in a delicate spot because they risk alienating the "tea party" activists if they appear too close to big financial institutions. But Obama has vulnerabilities of his own. Goldman Sachs employees contributed nearly $1 million to his 2008 presidential campaign, and he won’t want to lose this money. I believe that this scandal is good for the Obama administration because it will lead voters away from Republicans and the big banks, and cause them to want more regulations on Wall Street.



LA Times Article

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-obama-goldman18-2010apr18,0,3834544.story

Civil Rights/Civil Liberties

Topic: Civil Rights/Civil Liberties
Source: LA Times. By Robert Faturechi and Richard Winton
Date: April 18, 2010
Title: White supremacist rally at L.A. City Hall draws violent counter-protest

A white supremacist group held a rally on April 17, 2010 at a Los Angeles city hall. The group was protesting against illegal immigrants. Their rally, however, attracted its own counter-protest. The combination of the two protests lead to violence, leaving two men beaten and five people arrested for throwing rocks and bottles at the white supremacists and their police escorts. The counter-protestors included a wide assortment of African American, Jewish, Latino, immigrants-rights and anarchist groups. The neo-Nazi group had obtained a permit for its demonstration earlier in the week, and police prepared the rally area by taping off a section of City Hall's shaded south lawn. A group member denounced illegal immigrants, saying, "If the city supports illegal aliens and criminals, that is treason." Commander David Doan said the LAPD's objective was to defend free speech without using force. "There was a tremendous amount of restraint shown by our officers," he said. "We allowed both sides to exercise their 1st Amendment rights."
This protest and counter-protest ended up with both sides being allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights. The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The parts that apply to this situation are the freedom of speech and the right of the people to peaceably assemble. The police granted the neo-Nazis the right to peaceably assemble at the court house, and by protecting the rally allowed both of the groups so have their share of freedom of speech. I agree with how the police handled the situation. The neo-Nazis were allowed to state their opinions on illegal immigrants. They felt like they were clogging everything up and draining government funds. On the other hand, the counter-protestors were also allowed to protest against these neo-Nazis. The police did, however, step in when it was needed due to the violence that occurred. I agree that the neo-Nazis should be granted the right to protest, as they were, and that the police should protect them as they did. The counter-protestors have the right to protest as well, but I believe that they took it too far when they started physically attacking the neo-Nazi group.


LA Times Article

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-white-supremacist18-2010apr18,0,4043821.story?track=rss

Separation of Powers/Checks and Balances

Topic: Separation of Powers/Checks and Balances

Source: LA Times. By James Oliphant

Date: April 16, 2010

Title: Obama judicial nominee Goodwin Liu comes under GOP fire

On Friday, Obama’s judicial nominee for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Goodwin Liu, faced much criticism from the Republican Senators. Liu “is considered among the most liberal of Obama's judicial nominees,” so these Republicans fear his confirmation into the judicial will shift the court too far to the liberal side. Liu is a 39 year old professor of law at UC Berkeley who has never been a judge. Republicans are knocking him for this, but, “two dozen George W. Bush administration nominees had also never been judges.” It appears that Liu would rule by judicial precedent and stated that "I would approach every case with an open mind…The role of a judge is to faithfully follow the law as it is written." The Republicans’ opposition of Liu foreshadows their concern of Obama’s nomination to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat.

This struggle for the filling of judge seats in the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco is one example of the checks and balances in our governmental system. Republicans appear poised to oppose Goodwin Liu, but they are also using his nomination to show their concerns about the president's approaching pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. The Republican Party sees Liu's nomination as part of a larger struggle over the future direction of the federal judiciary, and senators Friday suggested that Liu would create new rights under the Constitution or apply the law in a biased manner. These arguments echoed many of the criticisms directed at Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor during her confirmation hearing last year. The way Congress can check executive power is how the Senate can refuse to approve a presidential appointment. This is also an example of how the Senate can check the power of the courts. This check of power is specifically stated in the Constitution. I think that the Republicans will combat any judicial nominee who is a liberal because they want the court to be as conservative as possible, as many Republicans are conservatives. Liu, however, is considered one of Obama’s most liberal nominees, so I can definitely see where the Republicans are coming from being outspoken against this selection. This conflict foreshadows how Obama will need Senate approval on his coming appointment for the Supreme Court.

LA Times Article
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/16/nation/la-na-goodwin-liu17-2010apr17