Seprate is not Equal

Arguably one of the most landmark cases that forever changed this nation was that of Brown v. the Board which in turn also overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision separate but equal. Brown v. the Board made it clear that separate was no longer equal and chose to integrate the school systems. This was a very hard process due to those who objected and used violence to protest fueled by their hate for the African American race. This was a hard process but we can thank those of the past as now school communities, workplaces, etc are all racially diverse.

It's hard to look back on history and remember that no too long ago everyone was separate from each other. White children did not go to school with black children. And it was not until 1954 in the Brown v. Board case that this country realized it needed to change. Times were changing and it could no longer be denied that separate was not equal. The schooling systems for African American children verses white children was unfair and unconstitutional. Growing up I never had to experience any type of segregation based on race. I could play with who I wanted to and not be judged based upon it. I grew up going to school and playing sports with people from all different backgrounds. I believe being surrounded by diversity helped me grow up well cultured and respecting others who are different than I am.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

Pregnancy Clinics Fight for Their Right to Deny Abortion Information

In January a law was passed in the state of California that said pregnancy clinics had to put up a sign saying that abortion is an option even fir those with low incomes with a phone number to call. However, most pregnancy clinics are refusing to comply with this law as they claim it violates their First Amendment rights.

The claim that the pregnancy clinics are making that putting up this sign is speech that they do not want to say. This is an example of speech-action dichotomy. Now the court is going have to decide if it is speech protected by the First Amendment or action that is not.

Personally, I understand the point the Pregnancy Clinics are making. I do believe it is unconstitutional to make them "say" and give information about a topic that they do not. No one should be forced to say something they do not believe in or just simply do not want to say. This is exactly what the First Amendment protects, our freedom of speech . What we want to say is our decision and no one else's. I also find this law extremely unfair to those running the pregnancy clinics because abortion is against their religion. Not only are these people being forced to say something they do not want want to but they are being forced to say something that violates their morality . This is unconstitutional and I think soon the courts will adjust this law to make it fair for everyone especially because the pregnancy clinics are refusing to comply to it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/11/us/pregnancy-clinics-fight-for-right-to-deny-abortion-information.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FFirst%20Amendment%20(US%20Constitution)&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=collection

Thank You First Amendment

As we know, or hope that most of you know, our beloved First Amendment continues to protect the citizens of the United States. There are constantly new court cases taking places because people are having their First Amendment rights violated.

A couple days ago, on April 26th a town over from the one that I currently live in , Paterson NJ was facing a First Amendment dispute. A police officer was seen and noted for holding a sign that was for a certain mayor. The cops's boss denoted him to patrol officer based on the fact that he was making a political statement by doing this.

Mr. Heffernan (the police officer) sued under the First Amendment that his rights were being violated by his supervisor for doing this. This is a valid First Amendment claim because an individual was having their rights violated by a government agency. However , the ruling in Mr. Heffernan's case was he was not exercising his rights and therefore they could not be violated.

This ruling really surprises me, I thought that this case was a for sure win for Mr. Heffernan. The government was punishing him for holding a sign that showed support for a mayor. In my opinion this is harsh and oppressive behavior and unconditional . Workers should not be afraid to be punished in the workplace because of their political views. The First Amendment is in place to protect citizens from having issues like this .





http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/us/supreme-court-first-amendment-police-officer-demoted.html?

Plessy v. Ferguson

Plessy v. Ferguson was a landmark case that ruled "separate but equal" for segregated train cars. This case went to a supreme court and had a seven to one ruling. Justice Harlan said that by allowing public authority to segregate train cars was a violation of African-Americans constitutional rights. Justice Harlan compared this case to that of Dred Scott and said that one day this ruling will be overturned and struck as unconstitutional just like that of Dred Scott.

It is so clear to see how this ruling was a violation of the 13th and 14th amendments. This also violated the civil rights act. Only one Justice at the time of this ruling could see how wrong it was to separate people on a train by race. At this time period everyone was so blinded by racism that African-Americans were constantly being denied their rights as citizens. We know today that separate but equal was never actually that. It was a deliberate mechanism that tried to take away African-American's rights fueled only by racism and hate. As a country we have made so much progress from the time of the Plessy v. Ferguson case; with that being said progress must continue to happen,  racism is still not eradicated and citizens are denied their rights everyday.

Equal Means Equal

I had what I would consider to be a very unique high school experience. The past four years of my life have been spent at an all girl high school. I fully credit Immaculate Heart Academy for making me the woman I am today. As corny as it many sound I believe in girl power; I believe that I am strong and can do any job an man could do if not even better. I want to be a woman in a position of power. Men once made all the decisions; for the family, and for the country but not anymore.

This country has struggled since the beginning with treating all persons equal. Besides race, a persons sex has always caused an unbalance between genders. If you read the original constitution women were excluded completely; "all men" nothing that included women. Our opinion and speech was unimportant and didn't deserve a right to vote. So many women fought so hard to gain our rights in this country . We now have the same rights as everyone else but there is still a power imbalance. So few women hold positions of power in government, in the business world, and even with athletics. We've made progress but the United States is still male dominated in many aspects. Equal means equal and the strive for equality will not stop until achieve it.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/former-first-lady-rosalynn-carter/international-womens-day_b_9405192.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics

We May Need To Add To The First Amendment

Today anything can be captured in a picture or recorded. This generation is so tech savvy with all of our devices that people can easily capture any moment they desire. Lately, its been the new trend to film those in a position of power to expose them for what they are truly doing. Police officers have been at the height of this issue . Every time I'm watching the news or even scrolling on Facebook I come across at least five new videos of Police Officers being taped while on the job. A lot of the time if the Police Officers are aware they are being recorded they will confiscate the device or erase the footage. 

There was a recent ruling in a first amendment case that does not protect the "filming" of police officers under the first amendment . Those who would film the police and then have their film confiscated or deleted claim that the police were violating their first amendment right. The judge in this instance had ruled that the filming was not protected under the fist amendment. The judge had said "we find no basis to craft a new First Amendment right based solely on 'observing and recording.'"

I agree with the judge that under the first amendment observing and recording isn't protected. It's not technically expressive action so there is a gap in this situation. Maybe our constitution needs another change, it has been done before many times as we evolve as a nation. Today's generation is very different from the time the Constitution was written; there were no cameras, no cell phones, no technology. We are a very technologically advanced society and sometimes changes need to be made or new rights need to be added in order to continue to protect the rights of Americans. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/filming-police-isnt-a-first-amendment-right-federal-judge-rules_us_56d5d57ce4b03260bf783785

Apple Having Their Rights Violated By The Government?

Recently I've been following the news and story of Apple refusing to unlock the one of the shooters phone in the San Bernardo case. Apple is lining up their case as unconstitutional under the first and fifth amendments. I find this case to be very interesting because due to my First Year Seminar class I fully understand how Apple is bringing this up as unconstitutional and how it works. Apple is claiming under the first amendment that the code they need to provide is speech and that they can not be forced to do this under the protection of the first amendment. The FBI is a federal run institution so I agree that under the First amendment apple is and should be fully protected.

In class we discussed a very similar situation to the Apple one. In North Carolina, non-union workers were being forced to pay union dues although they were not apart of it nor supported it. These workers sued under the first amendment by saying them paying the union was action as speech. This action was actually speech because it was non-verbally giving support to the union. Apple is claiming the same argument here; the code they have to provide is expressive speech.

Apple is also claiming under the fifth amendment that the government is violating the right "to be free from arbitrary deprivation of its liberty by government" ( Goldman, Pagliery, Segall). I couldn’t agree more with the argument apple is making under the constitution. 

Apple is having their rights violated directly by the government and they can not be forced to do what the FBI is asking them unless we are planning on rewriting the constitution.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/25/technology/apple-fbi-response/