Arrest of undocumented student draws controversy

This article titled "Undocumented student's arrest called part of 'civil rights disaster'" by Jessica Ravitz discusses the predicament of an undocumented student at Kennesaw State University. Her name is Jessica Colotl. She has been in the United States illegally since she was 11 and is now 21 years old and is close to graduating from the university. In March, she was stopped in Alabama for a minor traffic violation and was unable to produce a license so she handed over an expired Mexican passport. Due to the " U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 287(g) program" which allows law enforcement to work in tandem with immigration officials, she was arrested the next day and was given to immigration officials. She spent over a month in a detention senter in Alabama. Supporters of Jessica claim that this is a perfect example of how the system is failing. Immigration attorney Charles Kuck claims that "Jessica can't start the process to become a U.S. citizen because she's not allowed to." He also claims that "She has not failed us. We have failed her. The system has failed her." The sheriff who arrested her says that "Ms. Colotl knew that she was in the United States without authority to be here and voluntarily chose to operate a vehicle without a driver's license, which is a violation of Georgia law. She has further complicated her situation with her blatant disregard for Georgia law by giving false information." The latter claim has been denied by Colotl's criminal attorney who states that the car's registration reflected her old address and that Colotl had provided her new adress when taken into custody. Many believe that the sheriff have over stepped his boundaries but I believe that everything he did is fine. His job is to enforce the law and that's what he did. Now wether the system is broken is another question. I belive that it is. Jessica Clolotl was obviously not undertaking in any drug trafficking or any other major illegal activity. She was just going about her business and trying to get a higher education. Therefore, in her specific case or any case that reflects her, I believe that the immigrant in questoin should be given a chance to build up credentials and apply for at least a student visa.

Paul wins republican primary for the Senate in Kentucky

Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul is greeted by Briarwood Elementary Principal Debbie Richey as he enters a polling place in Bowling Green, Ky.

The May 19th MSNBC entitled "Paul wins Republican Senate nod in Kentucky" discusses Rand Paul, Ron Paul's son, recent GOP Senate primary win in Kentucky. Paul is fresh off a tea party-driven win. Rand Paul said he plans to stick with his anti-federal government message even as Democrats suggested he is a controversial candidate who will make an easy target in November.
Paul easily defeated Republican established Trey Grayson with about 59 percent of the vote Tuesday night in a race closely watched across the country. This election was a test of the tea party movement's strength.

This article is very important to government because it deals with the legislative branch, political parties, and more importantly elections. We see here how decentralized elections have become. Now it is not a prerequisite to be as much of a party insider, as we can see here with the Republican-established candidate losing the primary. Rand Paul is a very controversial, and I disagree with much of what he has to say. I think he has some good ideas, but at times I feel like he is just trying to shock people.

Photo credit: Hunter Wilson/AP

Grade this post.

Extra credit post by Chris Dale

White House Defends Handling of the Spill

On Sunday May 23rd, the White House administration officials defended their position on the gulf oil spill cleanup. They are sticking to their decision to keep the company in charge of cleaning up the spill. Thad Allen, the coast guard commandment Adm. , stated "that the federal government didn't possess the technology to access the leak 5,000 feet below the surface of the ocean."
On Thursday, the EPA "ordered BP to identify and use a less-toxic of chemical dispersant that it has been using to break up the spill. BP refused, saying it believes the product it has been using—Corexit, manufactured by Nalco Holding Co. of Naperville, Ill.,—is the best option."
As a whole, the whole spill issue seems to give off a hot potato effect. The government and BP officials are still in a gridlock on what is the correct plan of action. The EPA is known as the Environmental Protection Agency. It is a government run committee that deals with restrictions on products in order to protect the environment.

Posted by: M. Laycock and S. Romell
Photo Credit: SIPA USA

Time for Congress to pay black farmers

The CNN opinion article entitled "Time for Congress to pay black farmers" By: CNN Political Analyst, Roland S. Martin on April 27, 2010. Discusses how for years black farmers have been discriminated against and now a $1.15 billion settlement has been reached to pay for past discriminations. The article goes on to talk about how the money was to be paid by March 31, but Congress recessed without acting. And how for years big opportunities were denied from these farmers for years by the government. But now some of the farmers who have been fighting for this legislation have started passing away without ever seeing justice. Martin goes on to say that "the time for talk is over -- it's time to pay up". I think that the farmers should be paid for past injustices because they have been denied the same opportunity as other farmers.

Posted by: Travis Clayton

Texas Textbook Curriculum

According to CNN, on Friday May 21, Texas voted a 9-5 vote on approving the change of what information goes into our history textbooks. The problem starts at the fact that because of Texas' size, many textbook publishers adapt their books after what Texas wants because there are so many major buyers, and they don't want to change it again, and again. If these changes go through, it is said that this change will affect every state in the U.S., even Utah. The Board of Education has already voted against discussing Social Security, and Medicare in the book. They also added to include the direct reference of President Obama's election in the book. According to CNN the students will now have to become familiar with Thomas Jefferson's political philosophies and views.

I think this is way too extreme. Texas is basically saying that they want to rewrite history, or at least keep the student population from hearing something they might not like. It is almost like saying that part of our nations history did not happen.

I think that this article relates to what we learned in class because this is dealing with how the State must exert its power in places where the use Government Funded Mandates. It is also a good example of how the state could encounter problems with other states, due to the face that his change will most likely affect everyone. Perhaps this will turn into a Supreme Court Case?

Kagan's View of Free Speech Questionable

This Washington Post editorial entitled “Elena Kagan: Hostile to free speech?” discusses Kagan’s opinion regarding freedom of speech. The author had a vested interest with regard to this when he was involved in a Supreme Court case which pitted Citizens United versus the FEC. Kagan represented the FEC. This case resulted in a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The 5-4 decision resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air via video on demand a critical film about Hilary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act. The author of this editorial won the case, but is wary of what is to come should Kagan be elected.

This relates to what we have studied in government in that it is talking about the judicial appointment process for the Supreme Court. Bossie says that Kagan is unfit to take a place on the Supreme Court due to her disregard for the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. Bossie argues that she does not regard grassroots interest groups as being constitutionally protected, which would skew her interpretations of Supreme Court cases.

We believe that the author has some very valid point in questioning Kagan’s views on free speech. In the appointment process, her involvement in Citizens United v. FEC should certainly not be overlooked. However, we do take this article with a grain of salt, as the author is incredibly biased because of his involvement in the case.

Photo Credit

Mary M. and Chris D.

Blumenthal Apologizes For Statements About Vietnam War Service

The Huffington Post's article, "Richard Blumenthal Apologizes For Statements About Vietnam War Service,"discusses Blumenthal's apologies about service claims. Blumenthal claimed that he served "in" Vietnam, when really he was a member of the Marine Reserves during the Vietnam war era. Blumenthal claims to have made a mistake in saying this, and that no dishonor was meant toward any veterans. He says, "I have firmly and clearly expressed regret and taken responsibility for my words." In my opinion, no one can know if Blumenthal made a genuine mistake or if he was trying to embellish on his past, but I think that his apology was appropriate.

photo credit: The Huffington Post

grade this post:

US Cartoonist Apologizes over Facebook Muhammad row

The article, US Cartoonist Apologizes over Facebook Muhammad row by the BBC on May 21st, discusses the very controversial “Everyone Draw Muhammad Day” flyer and the back lash it has had. The cartoonist, Molly Norris, apologized over Facebook saying that ‘her satirical cartoon was ‘hijacked’ and that the campaign was ‘offensive to Muslims’". A Facebook group was started for “Everyone Draw Muhammad Day”. The Pakistani courts retaliated by ordering that Facebook be blocked. They all so want Youtube blocked and have rallies against “Everyone Draw Muhammad Day” planned for Friday.
Molly Norris drew her cartoon in protest of the cancelling of the Muhammad South Park episode. In the cartoon flyer she sarcastically proposed “Everyone Draw Muhammad Day.” The cartoon sparked a viral Facebook group supporting the “Everyone Draw Muhammad Day.” In Islam it is forbidden to depict Muhammad in anyway. Norris said, “I never started a Facebook page; I never set up any place for people to send drawings to and I never received any drawings.”
The Pakistani government blocked Youtube due to "growing sacrilegious content". It is unknown if these new bans will be successful. Facebook and Youtube are both looking into the issue.
This article raises the question, Should non-Islamic citizens respect the teachings of Islam or other religions for that matter?

Our Opinion: Even though disrespectful, Americans citizens and Pakistani are both in the right. The cartoonist can publish the cartoon and people are welcome to join the Facebook group under the first amendment. In the Pakistani Constitution, free speech is allowed but the speech cannot go against the teachings of Islam. As to whether Facebook should be blocked, we believe that that is Pakistan’s choice, but the group shouldn’t be blocked in the US.

Posted By: MTaylor and EGrenadier

Obama To Send Spending-Reduction Legislation To Congress

This article, written in the Wall Street Journal on May 24, 2010, is about President Obama and his issuing of spending-reduction legislation to Congress. His proposal, called the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010, is a response to the negative criticism that the federal government is spending out of control. The legislation allows President Obama to propose a series of rescissions to spending packages approved by Congress. Congress would have to vote on whether to approve Obama's rescissions within set timeframes to limit debate and without the ability to make changes. It will give the White House broad authority to reduce wasteful federal spending and block earmarks. He has already signed into law a pay-as-you-go bill, forcing Congress to make cuts equivalent to any new entitlement increases. He has also proposed a three-year freeze on non-security discretionary funding, which could save the government $250 billion over ten years. This article is significant because it epitomizes the relationship between the president and Congress. The president can recommend legislation, but the future of the legislation depends on the willingness of Congress to accept the bill. The president often sees Congress as an obstacle to overcome, so the dynamic relationship between Congress and the president is all about persuasion. In my opinion, Congress should accept and pass Obama's legislation in order to help out those suffering in the economy, because I also agree that the government is spending ridiculous amounts of money.

Photo Credit

Extra Credit Post by OCaridi

Republican takes House seat in Hawaii

Seen in the Austin American Statesman the article Republican captures House seat in Hawaii, discusses the change in party domination of the House seat in Hawaii. This seat was held by Democrats for the last 20 years, but in the recent election, the seat went to Republican Djou. The two Democratic candidates, Hanabusa and Case fought for the seat and split the Democratic party. Due to the winner-take-all system, Djou won the election by just a few votes. This change in party in Obama's home town aids the Republican party symbolic strength in Congress. The loss in political capital for Obama fuels the gain in political prowess for the Republican party. The splitting of the Democratic party in this election could be due to candidate centered campaigns that detract from partisanship.

Photo Credit

WWillson

MWeidmann

Wall Street reform passes in the Senate

This CNN article entitled Senate Passes Sweeping Wall Street Reform from May 21, 2010 describes the latest bill to be passed by the senate, the Wall Street Reform bill. After about a year of debate, senators have agreed on the bill's provisions- to create a consumer financial protectionregulatory agency that could write new rules to protect consumers from unfair or abusive mortgages and credit cards, a council of regulators that would sound an alarm before companies are in position to trigger a financial crisis, and establish new procedures for shutting down giant financial firms that are collapsing. The bill passed with a 59-39 ratio and is headed to a conference committee to iron out differences between it and the House's version.


This article is a prime example of the Constitution's provision of checks and balances. After passing the House, the bill was passed trhough the Senate, and now faces the rulings of a conference committee before it can be handed to the President for signing.


I think this bill will be a huge benefit in the future financial system, offering more protections for consumers and limiting big companies. The current financial predicament we're in now was brought along by abusive and manipulative big businesses, particularly mortgage companies, so I believe that in order to prevent another recession caused by the same mistakes, this bill needs to be passed.

Photo Credit: http://econotwist.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obama-wall-street-reform.jpg

GRADE THIS POST

By: Sarah Gross

Kagan Must Speak

In the Newsweek article, "Elana Kagan Must Speak", the importance of her speaking on issues is highlighted. They refer back to a Supreme Court case about Credit Card companies several years ago and how one word, "location", was a crucial determinate in how credit card companies opperate. Although this has nothing to do with Kagan, it is an example of why it is so crucial for her to speak up and share her views. Because everything can be interpreted differently.

I agree with this article about Kagan needing to speak. I have a hard time putting someone on the Supreme Court, republican or democrate, if we do not know where they stand. And to me this poses another problem, if she cannot share her political views what else is she hiding?

Photo Credit:

By:Brooke Adair

Perjury Trail Of Chicago Cop Tied To Torture Begins

In a May 24th 2010 article, Perjury Trial Of Chicago

Cop Tied To Torture Begins: In November or 1983 Darryl

Cannon was taken by the police because they believed he had

nformation about a murder. Cannon wouldn't release any

information to them about the murder, so they handcuffed him and put a shotgun into this mouth and kept pulling the

trigger, it was really a cattle prod. Cannon just wanted them

to stop pulling the trigger so he told them that he had

committed the murder, even though he hadn't just so they

would stop. Cannon spent more than twenty years in jail

because of this. He was released in 2004 and is now suing

for wrongful conviction. Burge, the police officer was never

charged for the torture, because it had happened too long ago.

But, he was charged for lying in a previous case about the torture.

Also, George Ryan stated that "Because of the Illinois death penalty

system is arbitrary and capricious, and therefore immoral, I no longer

shall tinker withe machinery of death." George Ryan cleared the states

death row. I don't believe that this was right, because he should have

been charged for the torture that Cannon had to go through, even though

it happened a while ago.

Picture Credit

Posted By: Christina McGee

Puerto Rican Students Protest School Funds

Puerto Rican Students Protest School Funds

May 20, 2010

The article is titled ‘Student Protests Tie up Campuses in Puerto Rico’ and is from the New York Times on May 20, 2010. The University of Puerto Rico’s school system is being bombarded with protests from their students who are unhappy with the budget cuts from the government. The students feel these new austerity measures will impede the low-income students. Only one campus in all of the school system is functional.

This strike has been going since April 21, 2010. The problem is that the territory has to deal with 16% unemployment and a huge budget deficit. Students are demanding an alternative to the budget cuts and a greater transparency for university finances.

This article ties closely with the first amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. The students have the right to protest against school funding if they want and the police should not be allowed to take away their resources and supplies because of the first amendment. Also, the government is taking away funding for student scholarships which is considered discrimination against poor people.

We believe that the students have the right to protest the school’s new policy if they want to. They should be allowed to voice their opinions to the school.

Photo Credit: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/21students.html?ref=us

Grade This Post

Posted By: Anne Lucado and Hannah Slovacek

Regulations for Wall Street

This Time article, dated May 20, 2010, is about the Senate passing its version of a Wall Street regulation bill that is intended to prevent another Wall Street collapse and the need for future bailouts. The bill also makes it easier to liquidate large financial firms on the brink of bankruptcy and places restraints on the biggest, most “interconnected” banks.

This bill comes on the heels of Obama’s health care overhaul, and Senate Republicans tried to delay the passage of this bill on two separate occasions.

The bill still needs to be reconciled with the House version, which excludes auto dealers from consumer regulations.

I think this bill is necessary after the bailout last year, and I think it was a good idea for Obama to push a bill that places restrictions on big banks to show that even though they were bailed out, they will “pay the American people back” eventually. I agree with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that “the days of ‘to big too fail’ are behind us,” and this bill will help prevent big crashes in the future.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sheepguardingllama/2349178603/

By Alex Bishop

The New York Times article Texas School Board Set to Vote Textbook Revisions published May 20th, talks about the Texas school board's upcoming vote on changes to textbook requirements, and the contraversy surrounding the decision. The Texas board of education has proposed that History books should place more emphasis on capitolist enterprise, the millitary, and Christianity. Many people oppose the proposed changes because they feel that the board of education is taking advangage of its power to teach conservative values to children. Protest groups also argue that a textbook emphasis on christianity is a violation of the separation that is supposed to exist between church and state. The issue has gained national attention because due to Texas' large population, the state has a disproportionately large influence on textbook companies, meaning that the decisions of the Texas board of education carry their influence far beyond the borders of Texas. An emphasis on christianity in history books could potentialy conflict with the establishment clause of the first ammendment, and the issue as a whole is certainly a source of tension between the two parties. Personaly we believe that textbooks should be religiously and politically neutral, and we do not support the use of textbooks as a guise to influence young minds in favor of any religous or political veiwpoint.

Posted by Tfavaron and EMcKee

Senator Specter

In this New York Times article from May 20, controversy arises over Senator Specter allegiance to the Republican Party. There were multiple occasions where he voted one way and supported the other. In particular, the issue of whether or not to continue detaining guantanamo prisoners brought him to "denounce the jurisdiction-stripping provision as unconstitutional" and he also said it would take back basic rights 900 years. He attempted to propose an amendment to the bill but failed...epicly. After it wasnt successful, he voted for the bill, which was unlike many of his Republican counterparts. A few months later, he tried to influence the Supreme Court justices to accept the case and deem it unconstitutional.

The significance of this article supports the fact that we have a corrupt federal government. I don't mean that the senators do drugs, lie or cheat. Moreover, this senator is a perfect example of how senators act in order to get reelected and to gain the most amount of votes. This senator will most likely not get re elected because of his disloyalty to his party, and because he tries to achieve his own platform by voting for one thing, and supporting another.

Article Credit: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/senator-specter-and-the-law/?hp

Photo Credit: http://blackliberal.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/senator-arlen-specter.jpg

Will Arizona's Immigration Law Encourage Democratic Hispanic Voters?

In Newsweek's article, Will Arizona's Tough Immigration Law Fuel Hispanic Turnout for Democrats?, Arian Campo-Flores responds to those that think Arizona's new law will mean a rise in Hispanic, democratic, voters. He says that, although Hispanic voters are angry at this new law, they are feeling discouraged from voting for democrats. According to a poll, while only 3% of Hispanic voters outright blamed the Democrats for the new immigration law, over 70% felt like the Democrats didn't do enough to block it. This has lead to disenchantment with the government among Hispanic voters.
This article is significant because it shows that voter apathy is a very real issue in our society and can be brought on very easily, as soon as an ethnic group feels that they are not being well represented, or that everyone is working against them.
We feel that, if the Democrats want to win the Hispanic vote, they must do more to show that they have their best interests at heart, and do more to block bills that are unfavorable among Hispanic voters.

Photo Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcolman/2951197270/
By Sarah LaPotin and Alex Kelly

Cities Boycotting States

In the article, “L.A. To Boycott Arizona Over Immigration Law,” the city of Los Angeles, California passed a resolution to stop business with Arizona until their new immigration law is repealed. L.A. currently does about $52 million of business with the state in various industries. According to the article, only about $8 million of the trade could be reasonably stopped. L.A. depends on Arizona for wind and nuclear energy, which would be maintained. Taser service and waste management trade between the city and state would be most likely to be ended. US Airways, who has a hub in Arizona and sends many flights to Los Angeles, would most likely not stop business. Several other cities in California, including San Diego, San Francisco, and Oakland, have passed similar resolutions encouraging a stop of trade with Arizona until the law is repealed. Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona responded by saying "I find it really interesting that we have people out there that are attempting a boycott in favor of illegal actions in Arizona. That to me is just unbelievable."

This brings another aspect whereby the US Congress could become involved in the debate about the Arizona law. One of Congress’ rights is to regulate interstate commerce, and since this law is indirectly affecting that, Congress may feel the need and the right to become involved with this state and local level policy making.

Alexa: I think that it is ridiculous that these cities are cutting off trade with Arizona. Just because you do not agree with someone’s policy does not mean that you have to stop doing business with them, but on the other hand, I suppose that you have the right not to do business with whomever you want. Fundamentally, the law brings up an interesting perspective on racial profiling, which could or could not be considered unconstitutional. The real issue I see in this is that California desperately needs to solve its budget deficit, and these cities are acting emotionally and cutting off good trade, instead they should think more about what is best to solve their state’s problems instead of trying to indirectly influence another state’s controversial issues.

Helen: Ideological issues aside, I think that it is probably not wise for California to start cutting ties with an important trading partner. However, the claim that “people out there are attempting a boycott in favor of illegal actions in Arizona” is extremely skewed. Just because Los Angeles dislikes Arizona’s current practices doesn’t mean that it is encouraging Arizona to move towards illegal ones.

Posted by H. Anderson and A. Witowski

Texas School Board Set to Vote Textbook Revisions

In this article, written in the New York Times on May 20, the Texas Board of Education was expected to vote on Thursday night to teach kids in schools an altered version of American history that put an emphasis on "the roles of capitalist enterprise, the military, Christianity and modern Republican political figures". The voted was expected to go directly along the lines of the parties. There are 10 Republicans and 5 Democrats on the board of education. Before the vote was taken, there were inumerous public comments, a hearing in which 200 speakers addressed the board and a large protest rally. In recent years editors of textbooks have begun to alter versions of their textbooks to individual states, and due to the size of Texas, they have had an impact of the editors. Once every ten years, the board members alter the guidelines for the creation of textbooks. Last year, the conservative members of the board altered the curriculum for science. This year they are looking to change the history books and the language used in them to advance conservative principles. The changes were greatly analyzed and debated and in the end Mr. Jealous, president of the N.A.A.C.P, stated that, “the school board members are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts”.

While the school board is entitled to make changes to the guidelines for textbooks, we do not believe that they should be allowed to insert their beliefs to influence the beliefs of school children. History should be taught neutrally and there should not be any aspect of history that is left out of our textbooks. History should be taught the way that it happened, opinions should be minimal and facts should be the majority.

L.Ambrose and S.Hatcher

For Better Or Worse, Senate Passes Wall Street Bill

This article, written in NPR on May 21, 2010 describes the Senate-approved bill that was designed to take on the problems that led to the collapse of the economy. The bill is 1,400 pages and addresses twelve sectors of industry. Instead of bailing out financial firms considered too big to fail, the bill seeks to establish a process for companies to be dissolved by banking regulators, and predatory mortgages are dealt with through a proposed consumer financial protection bureau to police personal lending. Some senators, both Republicans and Liberal Democrats, think "we're left with a bill that enshrines into law failed policies of the past, imposes a massive new bureaucracy on small business that had nothing to do with creating the financial crisis and threatens jobs in our economic growth. The bill was passed with a 59-39 vote. House and Senate lawmakers will next hash out the major differences between their bills in a conference, which could take another four weeks. Oppositely, lawmakers say the key focus of the bill is restoring public confidence and proving that they "never, ever, ever again want to see you go through this because your government failed to establish the rules, the regulations, the safe guards against the behaviors that brought us to this point." The bill gives the government the authority to take over and sell off failing financial firms and creates a panel that's supposed to monitor large financial firms whose failure could present broad risks to the financial system. Pros and cons to this first authority are that the bill will allow firms to fail without bringing down the financial system without leaving taxpayers on the hook for bailouts, but many economists say that very large financial institutions will always be deemed too big to fail in a crisis. Secondly, the bill requires most derivatives to be traded on exchanges and to go through a central clearinghouse and makes banks spin off their lucrative derivatives units into separate businesses. Pros and cons are that it can move the risk associated with derivatives away from banks, but others argue that it could push derivatives trading overseas to less-regulated markets. Lastly the bill creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which will force lenders to give borrowers a clear picture of what they're getting into, but others say the agency may create regulations that burden lenders and drive up costs for borrowers.
We, students graced by the knowledge of Mrs. Kris Phelps, do not believe that the government and this bill will properly address the issues it attempts to correct. In some areas we do not believe that the regulations are strict enough while in others they inhibit the ability of the market to expand and grow. The Senate and House of Representatives are acting on their power to regulate commerce in the United States. They are also attempting to protect the citizens from making unintelligent choices, promoting the general welfare. Also, the process of making a bill is demonstrated by the fact that both chambers of Congress have passed separate bills and are now sending them to a conference committee.

Photo Credit

Tea Party pick causes uproar on civil rights

In the article, Tea Party pick causes uproar on civil rights, the Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul raises a civil rights controversy. In doing so, he provided Democrats an opportunity to portray him as extreme and renewed concern among Republicans that his views made him vulnerable in a general election. He suggested that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was too broad and should not apply to private businesses, such as luncheonettes. But he issued a statement declareing that he would not repeal the 1964 case, and blamed his opponents for trying to distort his views by saying he favored repeal. He that he supported the sections of the Civil Rights Act that applied to public accommodations but had concerns when it came to its applicability to private business; he raised similar concerns earlier about the Americans with Disabilities Act. He says that he does not support discrimination, but the federal government cannot tell a private business owner who they can and cant serve. I do agree witht this statement, the federal government has no place telling private businesses how to work. However, theis is a dangerous subject to debate while running for office. The Democrats are just trying to distort his views to make him look bad so he cant win.

GLeeper & AHilary

Arizona limits ethnic studies in public schools

Arizona has passed a law that bans ethnic studies citing that the only students enrolled in certain ethnic classes were of the same ethnicity. For example, African-Americans took African-American studies and Asians took Asian Studies. It also passed on the claims that these classes “promote the resentment” of other racial groups. State Schools Superintendent Tom Horne supports the law, stating that "fundamental American value is that we are individuals" and "not exemplars of the race we happen to be born into. What's important is what we know, what we can do, what is our character." He gives examples of some “Raza studies” (hispanic studies) classes that were teaching kids that the United States is oppressive, they were making them angry. They used a Marxist book, the “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” This new law forbids classes "designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group" that advocate the overthrow of the United States government or resentment toward a race or class of people.” It also forbids classes that "advocate ethnic solidarity" instead of treating students as individuals. Opponents of the law point out the fact that these classes are open to all students of all ethnic backgrounds. This law impedes on free speech and free press because these classes should be open for everyone. This is why we don’t support it because it limits the liberties of the first amendment and we think the classes should be available to everyone
Posted by: Travis Clayton, Sebastian Medina

ID For All?

In his Newsweek May 13th editorial entitled "Why All Americans Should Carry ID Papers," Christopher Dickey proposes a different solution to the controversial Arizona law allowing policemen to search Hispanics that they suspect of being illegal immigrants. He suggests that it would be wisest making it a law requiring to have government-issued identification cards with all people at all times, and that if someone cannot produce their identification, they are to be detained by the police until they are proven to be American citizens or not instead of being instantaneously deported. He says that this would relieve the discriminatory pressures on the Hispanic community that come with the hot-button Arizona law. Also, the fact that these would be cards would mean that it would be far easier to keep track of, instead of having to tote around a birth certificate or a passport. Also, Dickey denounces a section of the Arizona law that states that people may complain to the police department about police officers not being zealous enough in searching for and deporting illegal immigrants.

Personally, I think that this whole situation is rather preposterous. All of this need for constant identification for no other purpose than showing that you are an American citizen is vaguely reminiscent of Stalin-era Communism, where neighbors could turn anyone in for not being enthused enough about the government's policies. In my opinion, these laws, both the one in effect in Arizona and the one proposed by Dickey, are blatant violations of the implied right to privacy as established by Griswold v. Connecticut. Citizens should not be subject to these random interruptions just because a police officer has a sneaking suspicion about them not being legal.

Mary Morris (extra credit)

Primaries put incumbents on the line

According to CNN.com, as this years primaries approach Tuesday, many incumbents are worried that they will not make the cut again. Kentucky, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania are all holding their primary elections on Tuesday. Many politicians are saying, "These contests will put the nation's anti-Washington mood to the test as voters choose between incumbents and anti-establishment candidates." These races are coming into the wake of some tough blows to lawmakers. Sen. Bob Bennett, a three-term senator, did not advance at the Utah GOP convention and Rep. Alan Mollohan did not win over fellow Democrats in last week's West Virginia primary. Leaders from both parties agree..."It's a tough year for experienced politicians."

According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, " THere is no question. There is, at this moment, an ant-incumbent mood." In Pennsylvania, Senator Arlen Specter, a five-term incumbent and ex-Republican, is running a close race with Rep. Joe Sestak, a retired Navy admiral. Spectar was a Republican until he crossed party lines to cast a deciding vote on President Obama's Stimulus plan. After he crossed to the other side, he faced plummeting GOP support in his Primary battle against Pat Toomey. In Arkansas, Senator Blanch Lincoln is facing an insurgent campaign in her third term running. Unions and progressive organizations are taking sides with her opponent, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. Halter had argued with Lincoln for not supporting the Health Care plan option during the debates in Congress. The polls are showing Lincoln with a solid lead. In Kentucky, Trey Grayson and Rand Paul are fighting to succeed Senator Jim unning, a Republican who is not running for re-election. Grayson, the Kentucky secretary of State was the favorite early on in the running. But recent polls show the lead given to Paul, a physician and son of former GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron paul.

This relates with what we had learned in class because this article is discussing the probability that a well known-incumbent has of being re-elected. They have a well known name, more money to spend on the election campaign, and credit for many successful bills passed. But, it looks like the tides are turning because of the recent uproars in the political world, especially with the new Health Care bill in play. Personally, I can easily see how many people are voting for new candidates, and not incumbents. It has been a rough year for Americans and Obama's new policies have not exactly played in any of these incumbents favor.

By: Katy Miller (Extra Credit)

Sex Offenders Still At Congress's Mercy

In Adam Liptak's New York Times article Extended Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders is Upheld, Liptak discusses the United States v. Comstock ruling and how the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the authority to allow the continued civil commitment of sex offenders until they have served out their criminal sentence. This is a major win for proponents of strong federal government. Members of pro-decentralization groups such as the Tea Party are raising up in arms against this decision, questioning the Supreme Court's broad interpretation of the resolution, wondering where in Article 1 Congress has been bestowed this authority. Those in favor of the decision point to the "necessary and proper clause" of the Constitution, found in Article 1, section 8.


Personally, I am in favor of the decision that the Supreme Court made. There is often a clear and present need for the further commitment of sex offenders, and it makes sense that their remaining time under their sentence would be spent in a mental hospital, receiving help, as opposed to in jail, which would not be a good reformative environment.

Less Privacy on Facebook

Our article is called The High Price of Facebook and is written by Daniel Lyons. The engineers of facebook are changing the rules. There are certain privacy settings that are being changed. These include where you work, what music you like, and where you go to school. These all go to the public by default. It used to be everything was private until you set your profile to be otherwise, now the privacy is being violated. Some things cannot even be put on private. For example, if you insist on making your hometown, interests and friends names private, you cannot put them at all.
Facebook’s vice president of communications and public policy says “The whole kerfuffle is a misunderstanding” He says they are just trying to make things easier and improve the service it provides to users. They also believe if people don’t share information they have a “less satisfying experience.”
Critics believe the whole privacy “misunderstanding” is just about Facebook wanting to make more money. The original business model of selling ads and putting them on the sides of the pages was insufficient. However, Facebook denies that the changes were for financial benefits.
Facebook also believes that some people like the fact that facebook is more open. However, some people do not agree with these changes at all. For example, in April, three senators told Facebook to change their privacy policy. They also urged the Federal Trade Commission to put forth a series of guidelines for social networking sites like Facebook. Also, a interest group involving online-privacy filed a complaint to the FTC stating "unfair and deceptive trade practices."
In the end, the privacy issue shouldn’t hurt facebook at all. They have over 400 million members, and most are oblivious the issues of privacy. Facebook will be fine with the small amount of upset people, and will most likely be considered this years Microsoft.
This article is related to what we learned in government because it deals with the unremunerated right of privacy. It also involves the roles interest groups can have on company’s and policy making. Also that senators can influence the way online companies can work. However privacy is the largest part of this article. People have the right to privacy by the ninth, fourth, first, and many more amendments.

Photo Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/signalnoiseart/3112854245/

Post by: M.Laycock and S.Romell

Rulings: Sex offenders, teen sentences, overseas custody

In a May 17th 2010 article, Rulings: Sex offenders, teen sentences, overseas custody: On Monday the Supreme Court ruled that sentencing some juvenile criminals to life in prison without parole is cruel and unusual punishment, especially when the cases do not involve murder. Six out of the nine judges ruled in one particular case that it was unconstitutional to be sentenced life without parole because of kids young age. Tarrance Graham was sentenced to life without parole for robberies he did while he was sixteen and seventeen. This case was really important because the Supreme Court chooses from thousands of cases to hear and most cases stop at the Court of Appeals.I agree with the Supreme court, especially when the case does not have to do with murders. If it had to do with murders or violent crimes I would have a completely different stance. Although these felons are committing serious crimes in some cases they don't realize what they're doing at such a young age. I don't believe that committing a crime, such as robbery should land you in jail for the rest of your life.

Picture Credit

Posted By: Christina McGee

Transocean hires U.S. lobby firm to work Congress

This article, which was written on May 13, 2010, summarizes the issues Transocean is dealing with regarding the explosion of the oil rig right off of the shores of Louisiana. Because of these issues, Transocean hired a United States lobby firm to work Congress to back their situation. The firm, called Capitol Hill Consulting Group registered as a lobbyist for Transocean and is hoping to smooth out the conflict between BP, Transocean, and Halliburton. Each of the oil rig powers are blaming each other for the horrific accident, so Transocean took it upon themselves to lobby Congress for a positive result. In the past, Transocean has donated less than $100,000 on lobbying tax issues, but since the accident, employees and others have spent a little more than $10,000 in campaign contributions to members of the House and Senate to gain backing from the government. Hopefully for Transocean, the Capitol Hill Consulting Group will appear in front of the Senate and House of Representatives oversight committees in order to gain support, an answer as to who is to blame, and possibly funding to fix the problem that the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon has caused on the environment and the lives of others. This article was significant to our studies of interest groups and the study of lobbying and congress. Interest groups would lobby Congress to get their voices heard and rally support, just as Transocean is lobbying Congress to rally support for their company (even if it means throwing BP and Halliburton under the bus). If this technique works to the advantage of Transocean, the blame will be lifted from their shoulders and onto those of the other group. I sure do hope it works, because as long as these three groups keep disregarding their involvement in this tragedy and the less government gets involved, the more time we are wasting watching our environment fade away.

Photo Credit

Article Credit May 13, 2010

NAACP Supports Kagan

The article in the Austin American Statesman, NAACP backs Obama's Supreme Court nominee Kagan, confirms support from the NAACP for Kagan. Then NAACP were hesitant at first to back Kagan because of her lack of experience as a judge and her unknown strength on civil rights issues. The board was swayed by Kagan's work as solicitor general, her time as a White House aid under Clinton, and clerk time for Thrugood Marshall. When working in the White House, Kagan fought to strengthen hate crime legislation and civil right enforcement. This background won Kagan unanimous support on the board of NAACP, America's oldest and largest civil rights interest group. This article shows the indirect influence of interest group in the nomination system. The President presents a Supreme Court nominee and Congress confirms them, but the public support of interest groups are very important.

MWeidmann

Kagan Keeps Quiet

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01632/elena_1632865c.jpg

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article7127574.ece

This article is about Elena Kagan’s political beliefs and personal life and how they would affect her nomination. People are trying to find dirt on her, such as political beliefs or conduct that would look bad to the public, but nothing can be found. She has never made public statements regarding her political opinion, and nothing can be found out about her personal life. After a major search by the New York Times they couldn’t even find out where she lives, if she’s ever dated anyone (guy or girl) or if she even lives in a house. Republicans and Democrats alike are worried about her political stances because they have no clue where she stands because she keeps so quite out them. She is one of the most secretive nominees ever in history.

This article demonstrates how quiet and secretive Judicial nominees have to be. Nominee’s always avoid controversial questions and have squeaky clean or secretive backgrounds because of the harsh scrutiny that the opposing party could raise. Once scrutiny has been raised there is real possibility that the nominee could be Borked by Congress, and that is why Kagan has kept so quiet on political issues and been so secretive about her past.

I feel that not answering questions, especially ones about her sexuality, is a good strategy and the right strategy. If she wants to get the nomination she needs to keep quiet on such issues that the general public has mixed feelings on.

Supreme Court Nomination Troubles

By: Zane Kuhlman

This article on Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s Military Policy, states that she banned Army recruitment on the Havard campus during her time as dean. She made the Army recruiters go to a different area than other recruiters and reversed the policy allowing them to go everywhere on campus to recruit. She reportedly denied them access due to the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy. Newt Gringrich voiced his opinion on the matter stating “And that is an act so unbecoming of an American that she should be disqualified from the very beginning.” Should Kagan be denied confirmation to the Supreme Court because of her view on the Military? I think that it is something that should be seriously considered during the confirmation process.

Supreme Court rules against life without parole for minors!

U.S Supreme Court Building

In this May 17th article by the Associated Press a recent Supreme Court decision is discussed. The Supreme Court just ruled that a minor, that is somebody under the age of 18, may not be given a life sentence without the possibility of parole for a non-homicidal crime. There was also nearly a decision that a minor could not be given a life sentence without parole for any crime, including homicide, but there was a 5-4 decision against that.

This article demonstrates the Supreme Courts exercise of judicial review. By casting their 5 to 4 vote, the court ruled that teenagers may not be locked up for life without chance of parole if they haven't killed anyone. The article is also gives an example of federalism. Although the states denied these offenders any parole, the Supreme Court’s decision overrules the states’ previous decisions and displays the power the national government has over the states.

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision. We believe the state judges should have the authority to make their own decision on whether or not the individual (based on the specific case) should be able to get parole.


Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootbearwdc/37621686/

Grade This Post.


By: Chris D., Jackie K., and Sarah G.

Supreme Court Restricts Life Sentences for Juveniles

The article I found is called “Supreme Court Restricts Life Sentences for Juveniles”. It stated that the “U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that teenagers may not be locked up in prison for life with no chance of parole if they have not killed anyone.” This ruling came within the case of Terrance Graham. He was implicated in a series of armed robberies at age 17. Now Graham is 22 years old and is in prison in Florida.

Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that “The state has denied him any chance to later demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society based solely on a nonhomicide crime that he committed while he was a child in the eyes of the law.” He also expressed that “This the Eighth Amendment does not permit.” Chief Justice Roberts also agreed with Justice Anthony Kennedy and four others on the Supreme Court, all liberals.

However, Roberts believes that it should not “extend to all young offenders who are locked up for crimes other than murder. By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court decided that “the U.S. Constitution requires that young people serving life sentences must at least be considered for release.”

The Supreme Court receives thousands of cases in a year, but they only choose around sixty of them to decide. That means that the case of Terrance Graham made it all the way from the district courts to the appeals courts to the Supreme Court. This is a very long process and the majority of cases don’t make it past the Court of Appeals.

All in all, this is an important case in United States History. Anytime that the Supreme Court makes a ruling on a case, it sets a precedent for the future interpretation of our constitution.

posted by: M. Laycock

photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/waynekessler/4514980675/

Arizona Bill

According to the New York Times, On Friday April 23rd, Jan Brewer signed into law a bill which would help to prevent illegal immigration and is now considered one of the most severe bills in the nation to date. Even Obama criticized the bill, as well as many protestors. Obama claimed at the press conference that the bill would “…undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.” The bill stated that any immigrant would be required to carry their papers at all times or be subject to detainment. The opponents of the bill argue that this will increase discrimination against Hispanics and be cause for further harassment. This would also increase the amount of power that the police force holds. The bill has cause Mexico’s Foreign Ministry to fear for the lives of their people and those in relation to these immigrants.

Brewer ensured the public that the police force would not enact racial profiling, but this somewhat contradicts the foundation of the bill itself, which is based on judging whether or not a person is an immigrant and demanding identification.

This relates to what we’ve learned in Government because the fact that Obama criticized the bill, but Brewer still had the right to disregard his opinions. This shows the separation of powers between the state and national government.

The immigrants could apply the 9th amendment (the unenumerated rights) to their side of the story. They could argue that they have the right to privacy under this amendment. The government officials could say that they have probable cause to search or detain under the 4th amendment.

We disagree with the extremity of the bill. It may cause even more discrimination than is already occurring. On the other hand, it would increase the security of our nation, and carrying around papers is not any more of a burden than to have a driver’s license on hand. The principle of racial profiling is where the controversy lies.

By: Lauren Baggett & Katy Miller

U.S. Approval of Killing of Cleric Causes Unease

Anwar al-Awlaki, who is an American born terrorism suspect supposedly hiding in Yemen has been placed on the CIA kill list. The kill list authorizes the CIA to take out a potential enemy to the United States. Anwar al-Awlaki’s name has been linked back to the Christmas day bombings and the Times Square bombings. He is a preacher who supports the active war against the United States.

There is controversy surrounding this matter, because of the fifth amendment and, as a citizen, whether he has the right to due process of law. When american born citizens fought for the nazi party in World War II, they were given no “special treatment,” but as times have changed, the question now arises of these treasonists rights. But, there have been instances in the past when the CIA has wrongfully captured suspects, and if they had been put on the kill list, they would have been innocently murdered.

Alexa: I think that it is safe to say that our country should be protected at all costs. But, if these costs include other people’s lives, we should be extrememly careful when taking a life. Above all, before resorting to killing these people, we should try every means possible to capture them and bring them to justice in a different way. Because mistakes by the CIA are highly publicized, we often get a one sided story, we should in fact not all of the guilty people that have been brought to justice by these tough investigations. Since fighting against the United States would likely be considered treason by the framers, I think that by engaging in acts of terror, our citizens lose their protections under our law.

Helen: What’s the harm in giving Awlaki a trial? It doesn’t seem right that the CIA needs a court warrant to eavesdrop on his cell phone calls but needs no sort of judicial review to kill him. One of the main functions of the judicial branch is to check the executive branch, and that function should be maintained. The CIA is composed of humans, and humans can be fallible, as the CIA has been in the past. Precautions should be taken to make sure that no mistakes are made.

Posted by: H. Anderson and A. Witowski

Getting Rid of Nuclar Weapons

Seen on CNN, Obama to Submit Nuclear Arms Treaty to the Senate, Obama has sent a treaty to the Senate for ratification detailing The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. This treaty cuts the number of nuclear weapons held by the US and Russia by a third, and sets a limit for both countries at 1550 nuclear warheads and 700 delivery vehicles. The Republicans in Congress are hesitant to support this treaty because they are concerned over the effectiveness of the treaty and the country's defenses. This is a current example of Congress's check on the President in foreign policy. The President can negotiate treaties, but Senate must ratify treaties with a 2/3 majority vote.
MWeidmann
WWillson

Proposed Ban on Pacific Drilling

Proposed Ban on Pacific Drilling

May 13, 2010

In the ‘Western Senators Propose Ban on Pacific Drilling’ article, West Coast senators proposed a permanent ban on oil drilling in the Pacific on Thursday. Shortly after the Gulf accident, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger withdrew a plan for new offshore drilling. Since there was no current plan to present the problem of offshore drilling, the move made by senators from Oregon, California and Washington was highly symbolic. On Thursday Senators Frank R. Lautenberg and Robert Menendez from New Jersey and Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, all Democrats, tried to raise oil company liability because the current statistics only represent a small fraction of the damage caused by the BP spill in the Gulf.

While these Senators were busy trying to push the bill, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, was busy blocking their bill. She claimed their bill discouraged all oil exploration. The Democrats are not letting this stop them though; they are going to try again to change the liability law.

Due to the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Democratic Senators from several states are pushing for the costs of the oil company liability in a spill from $75 million to $10 billion. States such as Alaska are against this because they say it will discourage oil drillers from taking such a risk. This disagreement is an example of the senator’s different political beliefs and how it affects their policymaking in the Senate.

The Minerals Management Service is responsible for promoting oil exploration and collecting royalties from it, as well as regulating the safety and environmental practices of oil drilling. The Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, would like to split up the two main functions of this agency because he feels like their interests conflict with each other. He also wanted to do the split to end the sometimes-too-close relationship between government officials and regulated companies.

We belive that the offshore drilling should continue, but the liability price should be increased. This could discourage some drillers, but that might not be the worst thing.

Photo Credit: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14spill.html?ref=us

Grade This Post

Submitted by: Anne Lucado and Hannah Slovacek

BP Says Leak May Be Closer to a Solution

In the article, "BP Say Leak May Be Closer to a Solution," the New York Times discusses BP's latest initiatives to stop the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The spill started several weeks ago and is due to "a calamitous series of equipment and operational failures," according to Representative Henry Waxman of California. BP will be trying several different tactics to slow and ultimately stop the leak soon, so that it will stop in weeks, rather than months. Congress has passed a $118 million packet of actions to combat the spill and aid those hurt in the disaster.

photo credit: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/us/13spill.html

Grade this Post

Stripping Terrorists of American Citizenship

In the article, Bill aims to strip certain Americans of their citizenship, by Ed Hornick of CNN on May 7th, 2010. There is a bill being introduced to Congress that would allow the government to strip people of their citizenship if they are believed to be involved in terrorist actions. The bill is being introduced by a bi-partisan group, some of which are saying that they are simply updating the 1940 bill, the Immigration and Nationality Act, to fit the present times. There are critics of the bill who say that this is a direct reaction to the attempted car bombing of Time Square. The group claims that their actions are based on the current situation with the wars we are fighting, and the world we live in. This bill could violate a citizens civil liberities, by going against the framers original idea of any citizen guilty or innocent to receive due process of the law. The bill includes clauses that could potentionally violate the original intent of the constitution involving how treason should be viewed. In our opinion this bill could be potentionally dangerous to civil liberties. While we think the idea behind the bill would be helpful, like the Speaker of the House, we would like to know what consistutes terrorism, we would like to see the definition of what would strip someone of their citizenship to the United States.

Posted by TFavaron and EMckee

Photo Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/boyds/1266529437/sizes/m/

First steps toward renewable resources

This Newsweek article, dated May 12, 2010, describes the first debates on a packed energy bill (called the American Power Act or the Kerry-Lieberman bill) designed to fight climate change. The bill includes $54 billion in federal loan guarantees for nuclear proponents, subsidies for companies that use/create renewable energy, and incentives for “clean coal” researchers. The bill also addresses the hot topic of oil drilling, which will increase but states can reject plans of drilling within 75 miles of their coastline.

The timing of this bill is precarious, as it immediately follows the huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and drilling’s reputation is less than spectacular at the moment.
Initially, environmentalists weren’t impressed with Kerry’s draft but have offered some support since.

We think this bill is a step in the right direction. Even if it doesn’t stop climate change or switch all energy sources to renewable energy, it’s better than doing nothing.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/camtrails/447548233/

By Brooke Adair & Alex Bishop

Balancing the Budget

In Newsweek's article, Wake Up, America by Robert J. Samuelson published on May 13, 2010, Samuelson thinks that the current European economic crisis needs to be an example for America. To him, Americans aren't seriously considering that this could happen to us because of the size of our national debt.
The hard part about balancing the budget is that very few politicians want to do it. Liberals want to keep social spending and conservatives want to keep defense spending. Neither really want to raise taxes, especially conservatives, and that would be necessary if we wanted to balance the budget while we keep spending.
The significance of this issue is how large the scope of the government should be. The larger it is, the harder it is to balance the budget.
Obama has made a "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform" but has done little else to balance the budget.
We think that our growing national debt is a serious threat. But it is difficult for our country to balance how much we spend with how much we tax. The politicians should make balancing the budget a more prominent issue on the policy agenda and maybe over time, America's budget could be back on track.

By: Alex Kelly and Sarah Lapotin

photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/inkyfingerz/454976773/

Obama to submit nuclear arms treaty to Senate

Obama and the Russian president recently ratifyed a treaty to reduce the total amount of nuclear arms held by each country by approximately 1/3. However, republicans are skeptic about this treaty because they wonder if the nuclear reduction will decrease the ability the nation holds to defend its self from foregin powers. This treaty is called START (The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty).

The significance of our article is the following: it sets a good example that our president follows through with his personal platform and is working towards his goal to reduce world arms threats. Obama also deemed the treaty "the most comprehensive arms control agreement in nearly two decades."



Article credit: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/13/obama-to-submit-nuclear-arms-treaty-to-senate/

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonirodrigo/3133355832/

Jason Powell
Jeff Stice