Feds in Arizona Taking On More Drug Cases, but Also Rejecting More"

In the article (5/13/2010) on Foxnews, Arizona has seen a raise in federal drug prosecutions while the rest of the country has seen a fall. Arizona has seen a 202 percent jump in drug prosecutions since 2008. The rest of the country has seen a 17 percent drop. Federal prosecutors, who are struggling to handle a rapid rise in immigration cases along the Southwest border, turn down prosecutions in Arizona more than anywhere else in the country. This happens despite the increase in funding and staffing and looser restrictions on when they can help. Last year, federal prosecutors turned down 1,368 prosecutions. In 2008, only 603 prosecutions were rejected. Cases are commonly rejected due to a lack of prosecutorial or investigative resources. The report says, "The large number of drug cases being turned away suggests that there are serious stresses on some federal prosecutor offices... A likely major source for these strains is the powerful flood of immigrations that has washed over the region."

"In reality, we are taking more drug cases than ever before, and working in partnership with state and local agencies to make progress," spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle told FoxNews.com. Part of the reason for this increase is the drop on the requirement of only handling cases where a bust resulted in 500 pounds or more of confiscated contraband. Many local officials are glad to see federal prosecutors taking more federally-related cases now. "We're pleased that the federal prosecutor's office is able to handle all the federally related cases now," she said. But she added that the policy shift has not resulted in a lighter workload for the state. "Our office budget due to the state of the economy has been slashed," she said. "And we have a very difficult time keeping up with the workload."

This article reaffirms my belief that Arizona does have authority to pass immigration laws in their state. Arizona has a lot of work to do just in the area of drug trade. Passing more immigration laws may be a way for Arizona to start getting a grasp on their new and growing problems. Arizona is an exception in the nation in terms of immigration so one law for the whole nation may not suit Arizona. If state laws are a faster solution for their problems, then I believe they are not crossing the divide between state and federal government.

Photo credit: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/11/strain-arizonas-legal/

By SHatcher and LAmbrose

Son of Lesbian Mother Rejected from Catholic School

In Boston, an eight-year old son was denied enrollment at the St. Paul School in Hingham for interpreted discrimination against gay marriages. The son's mother being a Lesbian was the main component for his rejection at the Catholic School. Although the school denies discriminating against the mother's sexual orientation, there seems to be no other reason for the son's rejection of enrollment. Furthermore, the school accepts enrollments of students with divoriced parents, however the Church does not approve of divorce. So why aren't they accepting enrollment of students with gay parents? This is a violation of the student's civil rights because (as far as we know) the son himself is not gay and is being denied education due to his mother's sexual orientation. We feel that it is unacceptable to discriminate against a child for his parent's sexual orientation and deny his desired school of education. If the school will accept the enrollment of divorced parents even though the Church does not believe in divorce, it should not ban the acceptance of children with gay parents.

GLeeper & AHillary

Video Clip

Western Senators Propose Ban on Pacific Drilling

The senators from such western states as California, Oregon, and Washington have proposed new legislation prohibiting drilling in the Pacific Ocean. In light of the recent oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, congressmen banded together to keep their coasts safe, even though there were currently no major plans to drill. California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, even withdrew his minor plan to begin drilling off the coast of his state.

Other senators have been called to action by this event. Democratic senators from New Jersey and Florida have also proposed an increase in monetary liability for responsible oil companies. This increase would take the liability from 75 million to 10 billion dollars. This bill is not fully supported. Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican in favor of off shore drilling, is sponsoring a separate bill to raise oil taxes as an alternative to the Democratic proposal. President Obama has show support for plans to hold oil companies responsible, but has not specified what the liability limit should be.

The Minerals Management Service has put into motion plans to reorganize the agency. By breaking the agency into two separate parts, Ken Salazar hopes to weaken the “too-close” relationship between companies and federal officials. This is an example of how the iron triangle can be counterproductive. This new structure will promote safety and environmental enforcement.

Despite the measures to prevent future oil catastrophes, the estimated cost of the Gulf of Mexico disaster is 450 million dollars. The immeasurable cost of the loss of animal life and damage to the gulf is warrant enough for a significant raise in oil company liability. More should be done to hold the companies responsible. New drilling projects would be irresponsible until we are certain this situation cannot happen again.

Kagan wrote that government can restrict free speech

This article describes Elena Kagan's opinion that government can restrict freedom of speech. Since Kagan has been awarded the Supreme Court nomination, hidden information has been uncovered from an article she published in the University of Chicago Law Review in 1996, entitled "Private Speech, Public Purpose: the Role of Government Motive in First Amendment Doctrine." She believes that as long as the government can show 'proper intent' in restricting freedom of speech, the restrictions stand. The problem is that the exact wording of the Constitution, "Congresss shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." therefore any government restriction on free speech is prohibited. Exactly from the article, Kagan saw that "government can restrict free speech if it believes that speech might cause harm, either directly or by inciting others to do harm. Laws that only incidentally affect speech are constitutional, the governments motive in enacting them is not the restriction of First Amendment freedom but the prohibition of some other - unprotected - activity. She doesn't define "harm" in the article, but she does offer examples of speech that may be regulated, such as incitement to violence, hate-speech, threatening, or "fighting" words. Her words, as compared to the Constitution, make her the most extremist nominee in the history of the Republic and poses a grave danger to the rights of all citizens. We think she is overstepping her boundaries as a nominee, and that the more hidden information that is uncovered regarding Elena Kagan and her beliefs, the more her popularity will dwindle among Americans. In Schenck v. United States, a socialist was urging young men to resist the draft during World War I by distributing flyers. He was convicted of impeding the war effort. It was felt that this was a violation of his freedom of speech, but the U.S. Supreme Court said otherwise. They upheld that speech can be restricted if it presented “clear and present danger” and Kagan appears to agree with this idea. She agrees that if there is the possibility of the public being in danger that the speech should be restricted. 

Article Credit May 12, 2010
Photo Credit

Obama makes choice for Supreme Court nomination

The article, "Obama Picks Kagan, Scholar but Not Judge, for Court Seat," discusses Obama's choice to nominate Elena Kagan as the next Supreme Court Justice. Ms. Kagan has some impressive credentials: she studied at both Oxford and Harvard Law, she was the dean of Harvard law school, and for the past year has served as the United States solicitor general. However, if confirmed, she will be the first Justice since Thurgood Marshall to not have prior judgeship experience before serving on the Supreme Court. Some critics are concerned about her lack of experience, but President Obama insist that she is "one of the nation's foremost legal minds."
Analysts predict "a fight over her confirmation but not necessarily an all-out war." The White House hopes that the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings by July 4.

-Mary M. and Maddie R.

Elena Kagan ain't gettin' by easy!

Senate Judiciary chairman, Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.),

will oversee Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings.

The May 11 Washington Post Article, "Elena Kagan nomination for Supreme Court riles both sides of political aisle," discusses the process that wil occur in trying to get Elena Kagan confirmed. She is an interesting case because she has no prior judicial experience. Although she has great credentials, both conservatives and liberals aren't completely confident in Kagan because they don't know where she stands on a plethora of issues. She does, however, have a rich history in law--even becoming the Dean of Harvard Law School. Kagan took some heat for a state she made in the confirmation process for Solicitor General about indefinite detention of combatants not on an actual battlefield. Both sides wait eagerly for the nomination hearings.

This is relevant for a number of reasons. A position on the Supreme Court is one of the most prestigious and powerful positions in our government, and also the best way for a president to leave his legacy. The confirmation process will be both difficult and easy at the same time. Difficult becuase many Senators will be apprehensive due to not knowing where Kagan stands on the issues. It will also be somewhat easy for Kagan because she has no prior judicial decisions to defend. This confirmation would be historic because it would be the first time for there to be three women on the Supreme Court at one time. I think that Kagan will end up getting the confirmation with a little breathing room to spare.



Photo Credit: Melina Mara/the Washington Post

Grade This Post.

By: Chris D.

Who will Obama choose?

According to the CNN article"What you need to know about the top Supreme Court contenders" (published May 9th), there are four front funners for the soon to be vacant seat of Justice John Paul Stevens: Elena Kagan, Diana Wood, Merrick Garland, and Sidney Thomas. President Obama, using the power given to him in Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution, will appoint one of the previously metioned nominees to the Supreme Court. If all goes smoothly, the Senate will confirm the nominee, and we will have a new justice on the Supreme Court by the new session this fall.

Here is a brief overview of each of the possible nominees:

Elena Kagan is the US Solicitor General. She is the youngest among the nominees but has a fair about of law experiance. Not only was she a Harvard Law School Dean, she also worked as a law clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall. Like many Supreme Court nominees, she has an ivy education. Kagan is fairly neutral and doesn't have a paper trail on critical isses, such as abortion. However, she does lack judicial experience and tends to defend executive power.

Judge Diane Wood is on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. She does not have an Ivy League education and is from the Midwest. If appointed she would bring a lot of diversity to the court. Plus, Wood as delt with a court dominated by conservative judges. Wood's record on aborion, religion, and immigration would make the conformation process difficult. Conservatitves are already putting up a fight.

Judge Garland, with his Ivy League education and decision that both the left and the right agree with is a typical candidate. Case subject matter included environmental protection, ending disability discrimination, and stopping terror. With little controversy in his private or professional like, Judge Garland seems as though he would be pretty easy to confirm.

Judge Sidney Thomas is a faimly man with a legal background. He often took more gray area cases while on the court of appeals such as, right to privacy and what constitutes free speech cases. Thomas would add more to the court's ideological diversity that Garland would, but Thomas would aslo face a tougher confirmation.

In the end, Obama ended up choosing Elena Kagan!!!

Grade this Post

Posted by EGrenadier and MTaylor

Controversy surrounding new Arizona legislation




A group of protesters against the recently passed legislation.


In the May 6th CNN article, "Latino rights groups, others call for Arizona boycott," many groups are furious with the recently passed legislation in Arizona that is set to go into effect this summer. Many believe this law is opening the door for racism, and are against the fact that it allows law enforcement to ask anyone for their papers. The city councils said they are going to take action to stop this law due to "concerns over enforcement costs and negative effects on Arizona's tourism industry." Even the famous Mexican writer Carlos Fuentes ventured to say that Arizona has "officially declared itself racist." This article states the Arizona legislators say that they passed the law due to a failure by the federal government in keeping illegal citizens outside of the border, which allowed more than 450,000 undocumented immigrants to settle in the state.

Arizona passing its own version of an immigration law is an example of federalism. Because the state felt that the national government was not doing enough to restrict immigration, it exercised its right to create a law specific to its citizens. The National Council of La Raza, a national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, along with other organizations have called for a boycott "asking others to consider whether their purchases of goods and services might perpetuate the unjust and discriminatory law in Arizona”. By calling for this boycott and by holding demonstrations in the streets of Arizona, the organizations and citizens are exercising their right to freedom of speech.



Photo Credit: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/06/arizona.immigration.boycott/index.html

Grade This Post.

By: Sarah G. and Chris D.

Health Benfits for Same-Sex Marriage

Health Benefits for Same-Sex Marriage

Article Published: May 6, 2010

The New York Times article, ‘Marriage Law Is Challenged as Equaling Discrimination’, brings up issues of receiving health benefits in same-sex marriages. Nancy Gill has worked for the Postal Service for the 23 years, but because she is married to a woman, she cannot receive health benefits from her employer. Gill is forced to pay twice as much for health benefits as anyone else who she is working with. She feels it unfair that she is not able to provide for her family because she is involved in a same-sex marriage, while the other men and women who are joined in opposite-sex marriages in the Postal Service are able to provide for their families.



The Defense of Marriage Act, enacted by Bill Clinton in 1996, defines marriage as being between man and a woman. Same-sex couples are challenging the section that denies same-sex couples marriage-related benefits because they claim to have been denied equal protection under the law. The case was filed in March 2009, and was argued in a Federal District Court a week ago. This is the first major challenge taken against the act, and it is likely to end up before the Supreme Court.



Mary L. Bonauto, the director of civil rights project for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, stood up for Nancy Gill and her wife and 15 other families, calling the case a classic “equal protection issue”. Bonauto says that the act was enacted to show that same-sex marriages were immoral, but it just ended up causing same-sex families to be forced to pay twice as much for health benefits.



Advocates for gay rights have little hope that Obama will repeal the act because he has many other things on his plate right now that he is more focused on. The presidential administration disargees with DOMA, but does not think that it is unconstitutional.



This case is interpreted in court through Civil rights and Civil liberties under the 14th amendment. Civil rights are a class of rights warranted by the government that protect individuals from the unwarranted actions by government and these rights ensure an individuals ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without descrimination. Civil liberties are rights that protect an individual from the state. The 14th amendment of the Constitution states that every individual of the United States cannnot be denied equal protection of laws and every individual is entitled to due process of law. Gill does not feel like she is getting this equal protection under the 14th amendment because of her same-sex marriage. Also, she feels like she is being denied of her civil rights because she is not receiving the same health benefits as opposite-sex couples. Even though it is obvious that Gill and her wife are being denied equal protection, President Obama does not view DOMA as constitutional.



We believe that this couple should receive their benefits, but due to the DOMA, their marriage is not moral. So, the Postal company doesn’t have to recognize them as a true couple. Thus, the couple is not entitled to receive benefits from the company. The first step in same-sex civil liberties, is getting rid of DOMA, but until this happens, it technically is constitutional to refuse giving them their health benefits.





Photo Credit: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/us/07doma.html?ref=us


Grade This Post


Posted By: Anne Lucado and Hannah Slovacek

Violation of Freedom of Symbolic Speech

On May 5, aka Cinco De Mayo, five students that attend Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill wore shirts that brandished the American flag. During lunch they were told by a principle that they had to take off the shirts or turn them inside out because they would cause an “incendiary” incident with the Mexican American students. The five students refused to remove or hide their clothing, and left school to avoid being suspended by the administrators. The incident became public and the school district said that the way Live Oak High School administrators handled the situation extremely poorly, and the district re instated the students, who returned to school last Thursday.

http://www.larose.com/upimages/Flag_shirt.JPG

The significance is that this act by the school violated the student’s right to freedom of symbolic speech as outlined in the first amendment. The Supreme Court case that spread the protection of the first amendment to the states was Tinker Vs. Des Moines.

I feel like this is absolutly rediculous. We are in The United States of America so therefore everyones freedom of speech is protected by the 1st amendment. Not to mention that the kids were wearing shirts featuring the American flag and nothing else.

Double Standard in Kagan Pick

The article we chose is called “Left is mute on racial double standard in Kagan pick.” It is about the most recent Supreme Court nominee Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. The article targets how if there was a white male Republican president, and that president nominated a white male Republican justice to the Supreme Court, the media would go crazy. However, in the current situation, there is an African American male Democratic president nominating a white democratic woman. It focuses on how while some people may not like it when articles talk about the race of nominees; however, it comes into account in the long run. It also talks about how if Kagan is approved by the senate, many Republicans will call this a “double standard.” They might believe that people were more concerned with not offending the Obama administration, rather than the ideology. Through what we have learned in class, we are able to understand the difficulties of getting a nominee approved to the Supreme Court. The president’s nominee must be approved by a majority vote in the Senate. On top of getting the nominee approved, the nominee must have a very qualified background, and try to fly under the radar. In history, there have only been thirteen judges that have not been approved to the Supreme Court. However, that doesn’t mean that it won’t happen again.

Photo Credit: Http://www.theatlanticwire.com

Posted by S. Romell and M. Laycock

Illegal Deportation?

This Newsweek article, dated January 7, 2010, tells the story of legal immigrant Jose Angel Carachuri-Rosendo and the issues surrounding his deportation on the grounds of misdemeanor offenses. Prior to 1996, immigration judges have exercised discretion on deportation on a case-by-case basis. However in 1996, new laws increased the number of crimes that constituted aggravated felonies and took some power away from immigration judges, causing confusion. Recently, the government has expanded the meaning of these “aggravated felonies” to encompass lower-level crimes as well and used it as grounds for more deportations. The legal question posed by this and other similar cases is: Should legal immigrants be deported for committing crimes?

We relate this situation to a child playing at a friend’s house. The child was invited to play at his/her friend’s house as a guest, however it is known that if you break a rule of their house you must go home.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdorn/116503453/

By Brooke Adair & Alex Bishop

Grade this post

Fed decision for suing on arizona immigration law

This article deals with the immigration law that was passed in Arizona. Some think the law is a violation of civil rights, and that racial profiling could become a problem and cause disputes between different communitites and law enforcement. Attorney General in Washington is considering suing arizona law makers because of the immigration law that presents cause for any law enforcement officer to demand legal documents of any person they may feel is in the United States illegally. One thing already done, they said the person in question had to be pulled over or arrested on another issue before providing proof of legal US residency. In addition, Obama proposed a comprehensive immigration reform that would help secure borders, make illegal immigrants pay taxes they owe from being in America, and learn english because if you come into our country you should abide by our laws as well.

Civil Rights are guaranteed to all US citizens. The Arizona immigration law is a dangerous gateway to future civil rights problems based on racial discrimination. From what we have learned in government, these rights are not able to be infringed upon by the government which is what may happen if this law is not dealt with further.

Photo credit:http://www.flickr.com/photos/45976898@N02/4574551377/

Article credit:http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/09/holder.arizona.immigration/index.html?iref=allsearch

Kagan Supreme Court Nominee

On Monday May 10, Soliciter General, Kagan, was nominated into the Supreme Court Justice by President Obama. As Dean of Harvard law, she has made many influencial political connections in the political world. Although, "her heart beats clearly on the left," she is willing to compromise with her ideological opposites. Her limited comments on "hott-button" issues and bipartisin skills will make it difficult for ideological opposites to criticize her ideological standpoints. If the bright, young, Solicter Gerneral is nominated, she should expect a tough questioning over such issues such as homosexual rights, and national security. As Soliciter General, she has worked several high-profile cases since taking the job in spring of 2009, making Obama's search for the next Supreme Court nominee an easy task. Kagan's popularity has resulted in confirmation for her current job by a 61-31 vote.

Kagan was born in April of 1960 in a Jewish household in the upper west side of Manhattan. She attended Princeton University and Harvard Law School. She served for Thurgood Marshall as a law clerk. She then went on to teach at the University of Chicago, where Obama was also serving as a part-time faculty. Kagan earned her reputation for her well-reasoned statements over tricky political issues when she was named associate White House counsel by President Clinton, as well as her nomination to the Influencial Domestic Policy. Since Kagan has a low political profile, has made logical statements over hot-button issues, and is a white Jewish femaile, she looks like a promising candidate for Obama. Although, the fact that she has never served as a judge could pose as a problem in her nomination. After reading this article and researching her political history,there seems to be no reason for the Senate to deny Obama's nomination of Kagan for Supreme Court Justice. She seems to be a strong candidate in the fact that she is able to mix her ideological views with her opposites, and provide level-headed statements to the public.

Posted by: Katy Miller, Travis Clayton, Sebastian Medina

Women's Courts

In the Newsweek article Women's Court, the public awaits President Obama's choice to replace Justice John Paul Stephens on the Supreme Court. He dicusses his preference to fill the space with a female candidate.

The Supreme Court is fickle in their stance to uphold liberal Justices, so Obama's alternative for increasing diversity among the court is to have women appointed. Obama hopes to be the first president to install three women to the Supreme Court.

According to Newsweek, "Obama will cement his place in history as a powerful guardian of the interests of American women," if he is able to pull this off.

One of the likely candidates is Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who not only brings diversity by merely being a woman, but is also a conservative. Formerly the Dean of Harvard Law School, Obama may favor Kagan due to his ties to Harvard.

Diane Wood seems less popular now because of all the decisions she's made regarding abortion, which clearly has her looking unfavorable to the Conservatives.

Janet Napolitano is unlikely to appointed because Obama feels she is already doing a great job with Homeland Security, and she is more beneficial to that position.

Michelle Obama will most likely have a good chance of making the Court due to her approval of increasing gender diversity but also because she offers racial and socioeconomic diversity herself.

By: Lauren Baggett & Jackie Kalinoski

Infringment on First Amendment.

In the Austin-American Statesman article "Immigration Protesters Released from LA Jail" the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, assembly and petition are demonstrated . Dissenters to Arizona's new immigration laws decided to stage a protest last week in Los Angeles where they chained themselves together and layed down in front of an immigrant detention center. after blocking traffic for roughly four hours, they were surrounded by police and arrested. The assembly was deemed "unlawful" and the demonstrators were charged with interfering with police work, and failure to disperse. They were released late Friday and are due in court on June 4th. This situation deals with the freedom of assembly, speech and petition secured by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The protesters had every right to assemble and protest, but they lacked a permit for the demonstration stating the time, place and manner (a provision established in Skokie v. Illinois).

Atty. Gen. Eric Holder defends reading Miranda rights to terror suspects

In a May 6th 2010 article from latimesblog: Saturday May 1st 2010 an attempted car bombing occured in Times Square. Faisal Shahzad was read his Miranda rights at the scene of this attempeted bombing. Attorney General Eric Holder defended reading Faisal Shahzad his Miranda rights, because he believed that they were still able to gather important information once his Miranda rights were read and that reading the Miranda rights didn't hinder the investigation. Attorney General Eric Holder defended reading the Miranda rights before a Senate panel to consider a 6% increase over the 2010 fiscal year in the justice departments budget. Holder defended President Obams $29.2 billion fiscal year 2011 budget request for his departyment because he belives that it would ensure that the justice department has the resources it needs to do it's job.






The United States is very generous in the application of its rights to non-citizens, which has been a source of conflict for many years. One part of the Miranda Rights and the Bill of Rights (5th Amendment) is the liberty that protects a person from self-incrimination. This protection for terrorists could prevent a terrorist from confessing or giving other valuable information.

Also present in this article is the set-up of our government. Here the Attorney General, executive of the Justice Department, which is part of the government bureaucracy, is testifying before Congress to get a budget increase. This demonstrates the separation of powers between the different branches of government as Congress depends on the bureaucracy for enforcement of the laws it makes, the bureaucracy depends on Congress for the money to do so.




















Photo Credit

Posted by: cmcgee, OCaridi, and JMHuber

Obama's Choice

Photo Credit: www.cnn.com

Article: "Women's Court" http://www.newsweek.com/id/237338 (5/3/2010)

With the resignation of John Paul Stevens, President Barack Hussain Obama will get to make his second Supreme Court justice nomination. Since Stevens was considered the most liberal justice on the court, Obama will not have a chance to drastically change the ideological makeup of the court with his nomination. Also, in years to come, the likely justices to retire are all the most liberal ones, so it is likely that within his presidency, Obama will never get the chance to change basic ideological makeup of the court. Instead, he will turn to other characteristics to change the court. Several of the potential choices are women with diverse perspectives. Among the potential women nominees are Elena Kagen, the first woman solicitor general and a dean of Harvard Law school, Diane Wood, a judge on the seventh circuit court of appeals, and Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland Security.

This article displays the Supreme Court nominee selection process. It confirms that justices are chosen carefully by the president. Once Obama makes his selection for nominee, she (or he) will have to be confirmed by the Supreme Court.

The nominee will be Elena Kagen; if confirmed, she will add gender diversity to the court. Her occupations have not included any terms as a judge, so it will be interesting to see if that affects her nomination.

Posted by Helen Anderson and Alexa Witowski

Kagan Supreme Court Nominee

On May 10, 2010, President Obama plans to make an announcement to the White House to replace Justice John Paul Stevens with our Solicitor General Elena Kagan. Kagan is fifty years old and is known to be the "front-runner" for the nominations. Receiving her law degree from Harvard and Dean of the Law School, Kagan has the qualifications of becoming a Supreme Court Justice due to her education as well as her minority representation of women. If confirmed, Kagan would be the fourth women in history to serve on the Supreme Court and making this the first time in history for three women to be on the Court at the same time. Through the nomination process, qualifications such as education, judicial experience, representation, and minority status are all factors for the final confirmation from the Senate for a new Justice. Although Kagan has the education, minority status, and same political representation as Obama (as we know of), she has no judicial experience, having the potential of strong opposition from the Republicans.

GLeeper & AHillary

Is the National Day of Prayer Constitutional?

In the Newsweek article The Religious Case for Church-State Separation published on April 23, 2010 by Jon Meacham, the question of separation of church and state is discussed.

On April 15, 2010, a Wisconsin federal judge ruled that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. His ruling sparked different opinions on the ongoing issue of the separation of church and state. Sarah Palin and Franklin Graham both oppose the ruling as well as Obama. One of Governor Palin's arguments is that the Founding Fathers were believers. But the author sites the fact that the Founding Fathers believed in a country that separated church and state. This idea even extends back to biblical times. In the New Testament, Jesus "withdrew and hid" after the crowds wanted to make him king.

The significance of the Wisconsin judge's ruling is the question of constitutionality. The Establishment Clause from the Constitution, prohibits the establishment of a national religion or a preference of one religion over another. The National Day of Prayer is a generic day for all people of any faith to pray, but it still crosses the line of separation of church and state. This day gives a preference to people who believe in a faith over people who do not. There can still be a Day of Prayer but not associated with the United States as a whole.

photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/foje64/3749311859/

Posted by: Alex Kelly and Sarah Lapotin