Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Gun Control

                


Article link: http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_28974167/gavin-newsom-propose-sweeping-gun-control-ballot-measure?source=infinite-up

Summary: Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and a group of activists are pushing for harsher gun control laws for the 2016 ballot. California already has strict gun laws, for example: a 10-day waiting period for all firearm purchases, an assault weapons ban, and a ban on making and selling magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. California enacted its assault weapons ban in 1989, but those who already owned the banned guns and magazines were allowed to register and keep them. The new law would require owners to turn outlawed magazines into police for destruction, sell them to a licensed firearms dealer, or move them out of the state. Newsom's measure also would require licensing of ammunition sellers and background checks for all ammunition purchases. It would also require firearm owners to notify law enforcement if their firearm has been lost or stolen.

Questions: Do you think that it is acceptable for government to take your property and destroy it? Is this infringing the second amendment? Do you think that giving up rights as a citizen will protect us? Do you agree with Newsom about needing harsher gun laws to prevent mass shootings? Why or why not? 

Mass Incarceration

Link- (article is a 2.5 minute video)
http://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/404890/prison-inherited-trait/
   
 In this video from The Atlantic, Bruce Western argues that mass incarceration is a relatively new phenomenon and that today "we are no longer incarcerating the individual, but we're incarcerating whole social groups". The video shows that African Americans are incarcerated around twice as much as Latinos, and 6 times as much as Whites. Incarceration rates have grown 5 times as high since the 1970's and we incarcerate more than any other country in the world, about 5 times as much as the UK. Western also states that there is a 70% chance that a black male under 35 who dropped out of high school has been incarcerated, making it a "normal life event", and this has really only happened in about the last ten years. About one in nine African American children has an incarcerated parent. He ends the video claiming that ultimately the problem is that we have chosen incarceration to deal with crime, and that "we have chosen the response[to crime] of the deprivation of liberty for a historically aggrieved group whose liberty in the United States was never firmly established."

 Is mass incarceration today's institutionalized racism? As it is relatively new ("last ten years"), is America becoming more racist? Crime is also highly correlated to economic problems, mental health issues, and drug addiction- Are we criminalizing social issues? Is putting people in prison the appropriate response to crimes (even if they are related to things such addiction, mental health and unemployment), or are there better ways to respond to these problems? 

California Bans "Redskins" Mascot

Links: Both articles go together - "California Becomes First State to Ban "Redskins" Nickname": TIME Article (Read this one first); NBC Article

On October 11, 2015, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a legislation that would ban the term "Redskins" from being used as a mascot, eventually eliminating all Native American mascots by January 1, 2017; a win for the National Congress of American Indians. This law was aimed at the four teams in Merced, Calaveras, Tulare, and Madera counties that bear Native American mascots. Although this law seemed to get quite a bit of support, it also received some criticism from those who wished to keep the name because it was tradition. One supporter of the tradition, Daniel Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins, refuses to change the team's name because he claims that instead of focusing on the racial slur, America should focus upon the much substantial issues concerning Native Americans.

Questions: Do you think that using "Redskins" as a mascot is a tradition that should be kept or eliminated? What are your opinions of Snyder's argument against changing the name of his team? Should all teams with Native American or other racially suggestive mascots change them? 

Clinton's Emails Remain Contentious Topic in Debates

Link- Democratic Debate: Clinton Emails

The first Democratic Debate had Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley voicing their frustrations at the over-coverage of the former Sec of State’s email controversy in the 2016 Presidential campaigns. Numerous members of Congress have previously contended that her use of personal email accounts on a non-government server to conduct official business during her tenure as US Secretary of State, and the deletion of nearly 32,000 emails before Clinton released her account to the Department of Justice, “violated State Department protocols and procedures”. Others have called the ongoing investigations on Clinton as a manipulated, partisan attack by the Republicans in Congress to weaken the potential Democratic candidate before the presidential elections next year. They note previous Speaker of House candidate Kevin McCarthy's comments on the House Special Committee on Benghazi (set up by a Republican-led House) as proof that the Republicans hope to utilize their majority in Congress to galvanize the public into "driving down [Clinton's] poll numbers".

If this controversy had happened to PRESIDENT Hillary Clinton, should she have been impeached? Who would have the jurisdiction to impeach the president? Do you think Clinton should be persecuted for her actions? And on what grounds (ie what laws did she violate)? What would Republicans be hoping to gain from this scandal?

Is Life Retroactive?

Link: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2015/10/supreme_court_dispatch_montgomery_v_louisiana_asks_the_justices_to_weigh.single.html

Date: Tuesday, Oct 13

Summary: In a 2012 Supreme Court case Miller vs. Alabama, the court ruled that juveniles convicted to mandatory life in prison without paroles was unconstitutional as it violates the Eighth Amendment. However, the court gave the states discretion to re-examine cases of juvenile convicted criminals. Factors considered include the offender's "immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences" due to their age when said crime took place. In Montgomery vs. Louisiana, Henry Montgomery, at the age of 17, was convicted of killing a white deputy sheriff and sentenced to mandatory life in prison without parole. Now at the age of 69, Montgomery hopes to get his case re-examined. Montgomery vs. Louisiana poses the question whether every state should be required to re-sentence or offer parole to anyone currently serving life sentences for crimes committed before the age of 18.


Questions-
Should age a factor in determining parole eligibility?
If the Montgomery case passed, how would cases be prioritized for re-trial?

Mental Illness and Gun Control

Article Link: 

Blaming Gun Violence on the Mentally Ill Is Easy, but Ignorant

Last Week Tonight With John Oliver (Discussed Within Article):

John Oliver On Mental Illness

Summary:

In the aftermath of the mass college shooting in Oregon earlier this month, many politicians have contested that resolving gun violence lies in improving mental healthcare. While improving mental care is necessary, mental illness's relation to gun violence in the media is more often than not misleading. In a study conducted by Vanderbilt University, approximately 5% of gun violence is committed by those with mental illness. In fact, the mentally ill are 60-120% more likely to be the victims of gun violence than the average person. Still, something must be done about mental healthcare. About 10 million Americans suffer from serious psychiatric conditions, and not all are receiving adequate care. About 2 million mentally ill people go to jail per year, 10 times more than within state-funded psychiatric treatment. Thankfully, there are programs out there than can help these people. Programs such as Assertive Community Treatment have had astounding effects on helping the mentally ill, yet are threatened by funding cuts. Improving mental healthcare is important, but it should not be related to ending gun violence.

Questions:

Do you think that those of mental illness should be entitled to mental healthcare, even if their condition is not serious? Do you think that the task of aiding the mentally ill should fall to the national government, state governments, or local governments which includes programs such as Assertive Community Treatment? Is the media to blame for mental illness's association with gun violence?

Kentucky Clerk Refuses to Grant Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html
Date: Sunday, October 11, 2015

Summary: Kim Davis, a county clerk from Kentucky, was detained after refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses after the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges allowed same-sex marriage throughout the United States. She was sued by couples backed up by the ACLU in Miller v. Davis and the district court ordered her to comply with court orders.  Davis refused to comply because she believed it violated her First Amendment right of freedom of religion and claimed that she would not "violate her conscious". Davis decided to stay in jail rather than issuing the licenses. She was released five days later and was ordered to not interfere with the distribution of any marriage license. Davis drew large public attention to religious rights and tested how people would react to the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Davis had many supporters including the Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, and these demonstrations proved equality for everyone is still not embedded in society. Did Davis have the right to refuse to distribute same-sex marriage licenses on the grounds that it infringed upon her freedom of religion? Do you think the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges will be carried out throughout the country and do you think most people will accept this decision, or act in defiance like Davis and many of her supporters did?

With strong message against creating new crimes, Gov. Brown vetoes drone bills

Link: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pc-gov-brown-vetoes-bills-restricting-hobbyist-drones-at-fires-schools-prisons-20151003-story.html

Summary: Governor Jerry Brown recently vetoed several bills preventing civilian operated drones from flying over wildfires, schools, and prisons. The first of these bills would've made it a crime, punishable with up to six months in jail and fines of up to 5,000 dollars for interfering with firefighting aircraft by use of drone. Another bill would've prevented drones from flying over public schools and taking pictures or video without the administration's approval. The final bill would've prevented drones from flying over prisons, as a response to other incidents across the country where drones had been airdropping contraband into these facilities. Governor Brown cited that his reasoning for vetoing these bills is that each of them would've created a new crime, further contributing to the problem of the overcrowding of California's jails and prisons. Do you think that Governor Brown made the right decision vetoing these bills? Why or why not? Explain.

Summary: A day after the shooting that occurred in Oregon, Hillary Clinton made a speech to a crowd regarding the issue and how it relates to the Republicans and the NRA. She said that "Every time there’s another massacre, the Republicans and the N.R.A. say, ‘It’s not the time to talk about guns.’ Yes, it is. It is time to act, but Republicans continue to refuse to do anything to protect our communities. They put the N.R.A. ahead of American families." She then says that those who support the NRA need to meet the those affected by the deaths of their loved ones as a result of the shooter's actions. 

What do you think? Is Hillary Clinton right that Republicans put the NRA above the safety of American families? Is the NRA to blame for shootings such as this one, or something else? Should gun laws be changed?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/02/hillary-clinton-on-n-r-a-s-hold-over-republicans-it-sickens-me/

Speculating As To Why Americans Can't come to a Consensus on Firearms

Link-cnn.com

Summary-As of today, October first, our nation has been struck with what appears to be just the most recent in a chain of similar tragedies. Today, at an oreogn community college, a troubled man managed to kill 10 innocent people and wound many others, reportedly due to somewhat anti-religious motives. This has once again reignited the ongoing debate over gun control. While some react to these recent shootings over the last few years as a sign of the need for stricter gun control, others consider it a mental health issue. The article I linked gives the perspectives of many gun-control advocates, and what they would do to curb gun violence. Persomally, I think one of the best ideas proposed was to make the gun liscnense test more rigourous, like a driving test. However, this entire gun issue can be traced back to our current studies on the constitution and our given rights.

Questions-Do you think increased gun control is unconstitutional and/or stripping us of our freedoms? What changes would you personally implement to the firearm system in America? Or do you think tragedies like these are an issue of mental health?

Death Penalty Execution in Georgia

Date - Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Link - Gissendaner Execution

Summary - Eighteen years ago, Kelly Gissendaner was sentenced to death due to her role in her husband's death, convincing her boyfriend to kill him.  On Wednesday, September 30, Gissendaner became the first woman since World War II to be executed by Georgia.  Gissendaner's original execution was planned for February, but was rescheduled twice due to weather and to suspicion of the drug quality.  In the past few days, Gissendaner's family and attorney's have filled appeals to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, who rejected the appeal on Tuesday, saying that the execution was not against the Constitution. On Wednesday, Gissendaner's family filled three appeals to the Supreme Court, all of which were shut down.  Even the Pope, with a letter written on his behalf, urged for the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles to commute her death sentence; however, it was to no avail.  Gissendaner's family and many others claim that she was a changed woman with many new values and morals.  The picture above shows Gissendaner (center) having earned her theology certificate, often preaching to her fellow inmates.

Questions - On what grounds do you think Gissendaner appealed her decision?  On what grounds did the courts reject her appeal?  In rejecting her appeal, did courts follow a precedent or establish a new one?  Do you think any of Gissendaner's civil rights or liberties were violated?  Lastly, do you agree with the refusal of her appeal?  Why or why not?