Not the answer

This post is well written and addresses a valid issue concerning capital punishment. Capital punishment for cases such as child molestation may cause further trauma for victims. There is also a substantial risk that this punishment would be used in a racially discriminatory way. I do not believe that child molesters can be "cured" however I do not think that killing them should be the answer. States should not be allowed to bypass what qualifies for capital punishment.

Another Landmark Ruling

The Supreme Court has recently decided that an individual has the right to bear arms through their interpretation of the Second Amendment. In this decision, the majority opinion takes into account the necessity of fire arm regulations and qualifications. The dissenting opinion noted the lack of provisions for specific gun rights in the Second Amendment while also observing states’ individual bill of rights that do address these rights.

The central issue in this ruling seems to be states’ rights versus national. Although I do not personally own or desire to own fire arms, I am hoping consistent national gun laws will help end the high rate of gun violence in this country.

Comment #1

I do not agree with the stance taken in this blog, "Universal Healthcare: Yes or No?". Yes, taxes are not enjoyable and neither are malpractice suits, but should universal healthcare hinge upon factors such as these?! People need access to healthcare and if they, like so many in the U.S., are unable to receive it, longstanding complications arise. So many people have health problems that could have been prevented had they had access to medical care.

One argument in particular was disturbing i.e. the "lack" of personal freedom on the part of doctors choosing private practices. If someone chooses to become a doctor, it should be to help people not to profit off of their problems... Besides if this was their intention, a field like cosmetic surgery would probably be a better fit.I doubt cosmetic surgery will be part of universal healthcare so no need to worry about a lack of profiteering.

The arguments made in "Universal Healthcare: Yes or No?" fail to convince me that this program is unnecessary or undesirable. Although well organized, this blog is superficial and lacks real data to support the author's assertions.

Why just a man and a woman?!

Slowly but surely, more people in America can pursue their personal happiness. I am very happy that judicial activism has led to the recognition of homosexual marriages. Judicial activism, as defined by Thomas E. Patterson’s We the People, is the doctrine advocating judges’ active “interpretation of the Constitution, statutes, and precedents” when any branch of government ignore or abuse established principles. Although homosexual marriages are not legal nation wide, individual states have begun to give rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples everywhere. Currently only two states, Massachusetts and California, recognize same-sex marriages. States like Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, and New Hampshire created legal unions: not marriage in name but is essentially marriage. A hand full of states may not seem like a huge improvement but this progress may be the catalyst for further attainment of civil rights. To think, until 1967 there was not nation wide legal recognition and protection of interracial marriages!

It is unfortunate that the federal government does not recognize these marriages/unions. I do not believe the government should actively enforce “traditional values”. The government should protect our rights not only as citizens but as human beings. As human beings, people are lucky to find their soul mates so why deny anyone happiness simply because of something as arbitrary as sexual preference.

Thank you, Supreme Court

Since September 11th President Bush and his administration have continually stripped away numerous rights under the guise of protecting the U.S. from terrorism. For instance, the passage of the Patriot Act has led to greatly increased domestic wire taps and indefinite detentions of immigrants. Similarly, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 has taken away the right of habeas corpus from the men held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. However the Supreme Court has decided that this is unconstitutional and those being held have the right to challenge government confinement before a judge. As the New York Times editorial, "Justice 5, Brutality 4," asserts our rights are subject to the makeup of the Supreme Court. Thankfully the Supreme Court is no longer allowing President Bush to trample over supposed "terrorists". With any luck, fascist legislation like the Patriot Act and other such "preventative" laws will be overturned. After all, what is left to protect when you have sacrificed so many rights?!

Listen to the votes not the electors

In Ann Coulter’s latest tirade against Liberals, “Obama was selected, not elected,” she compares the Democratic nomination of Barack Obama over Hilary Clinton to the “election” of George W. Bush over Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election. Coulter gleefully writes that under the Constitution, the American people are not given the right to vote for president rather the Electoral College only has this right. Coulter asserts that the American voter has “no right to demand that their vote prevail over the electors’ vote.” Coulter assumes that everyone aside from liberals shares her elitist views of democracy.

The original intent of the Electoral College was to ensure that the executive power was not a direct reflection of popular majorities (I.e. illiterate, non-landowning men). Understandably, the Electoral College was practical: the smaller amount of votes of electors simplified the voting and counting process. However, I do not think this form of election is necessary any longer. As opposed to almost three hundred years ago, American literacy is high and public education is prevalent. Now, technology expedites the voting process. Instead of voting for someone else to vote, I want my voice/vote to actually be counted.

Although I am neither excited nor disgusted with Barack Obama’s nomination for the Democratic ticket, I feel that in any sort of race, the popular vote should prevail. In essence, to drive through traffic, stand in line, and cast my ballot only have my state’s elector ignore my vote is a waste of my time.

Go to http://AnnCoulter.com to decide for yourself.

"Obama Clinches Nomination;First Black Candidate to Lead Major Party Ticket"

Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times wrote “Obama Clinches Nomination; First Black Candidate to Lead Major Party Ticket.” This article announced Barack Obama’s successful attainment of the Democratic presidential nomination. Despite Obama’s nomination, Hilary Clinton has not dropped out of the race and has even admitted to accepting a vice presidential nomination on the Democratic ticket. As the title of this article indicates, Barack Obama’s nomination for President is a historic moment: this nomination signals how far the United States has come in concerns of racism. Only with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was legislation finally enacted to end institutionalized racism (I.e. segregation) and enforce equal rights for any person, despite color. Most importantly, Obama’s nomination for President shows how quickly minorities went from second class citizens to future leaders of the United States.