8. Commentary on Violence Against Women Act

To read the editorial click here.

In Ms. Sepassi's editorial about the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, she believes that there is more to the hold up to pass the act rather than just party rivalry. This bill could represent the increasing number of women voters and their power to sway the upcoming election. While this is a clever interpretation of what may be happening in the Senate, I believe the major reason why the two parties still haven't come to a conclusion on this bill is because of how the political process works.

As we learned in a previous chapter of our textbook, both parties must come to a majority consensus until a bill can be passed. The process is long and tedious, but in this case since there are more than 60 senators support the bill, a filibuster can't be used or it will be voted down. Given the unanimous Senate support favoring to pass renewals of this act in previous years (2000 and 2005), I'm not sure why 2012 should pose a different question. Maybe there is something to do with the election. 

If this bill manages to finally be approved by the Senate, Feldmann from the Christian Science Monitor reminds us that the Republican dominated House will pose another obstacle that is just part of America's checks and balances system. Furthermore, if no more actions are made the bill is due to expire in September. I do agree that the Senate is taking an unnecessarily long time to pass this bill--perhaps because some Republicans are trying to be cautious of each move in Congress in order to gain or hold on to as many supporters as possible. 

Resources:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0425/On-renewal-of-Violence-Against-Women-Act-Senate-Democrats-have-upper-hand

http://www.thehotline.org/get-educated/violence-against-women-act-vawa/

7. House Support for Romney

Recently the House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have taken steps to support the Republican candidate Mitt Romney, pushing other conservative representatives to back Romney. However at a conservative House gathering, representatives did not show much enthusiasm towards Romney's potential as president and mainly just wanted to kick the Democrats out. 

At one point Idaho Republican Rep. Labrador mentioned Romney "needs to reach out to every one of us who is sitting at this table and to all the conservative leaders throughout the United States to make sure he's not just speaking to a few select groups, but that he's speaking to the grassroots". This reflects what we've learned about in Executive Branch chapter of our textbook. The presidential candidate must rally support first from his base states where 55% or more vote in the favor of Romney's republican party. Connections and experience are also important factors of a successful candidate. Therefore gaining Boehner and McConnell's support is a huge advantage (in the textbook we learned that the House Speaker is the most powerful position in the House of Representatives and Senate Minority Leader position has some influence too). 

The view that some of the representatives see Romney reflects using the presidential position as a chess piece in order for the party as a whole for benefits. This ultimate goal to get Obama and his Democratic views out of controlling executive branch decisions makes the average voter feel less confident in Romney's capabilities as president. He will just be used as a pawn to facilitate conservative Republican Congress decisions. Although Romney may be taking this approach of conservative views to gain votes from Congress and change some policies if elected to office, I don't believe the lack of enthusiasm from representatives will motivate voters to take time out of their lives to support Romney. 

On the other hand, Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan sees that Romney is passionate about what he stands for and you can see there is a genuine concern about the well-being of our country. These types of views about Romney will lure voters, especially those not affiliated with a political party, to abandon voter apathy and support Romney. 

Sources:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/17/house-conservatives-appear-ready-if-not-excited-to-support-romney/

6. Commentary on GOP Race

To read Chelsea Hinojosa's blog click here.

In Ms. Hinojosa's editorial, she believes that the Republican match between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum will drain their campaign resources and fatigue the candidate. This would result in an advantage for Obama's race to presidency. I do agree that this momentary attention divergence away from the Democratic will benefit Obama slightly, but there still are other factors to consider. Perhaps even the increased media coverage of the Republican party may end up as a form of free media used to campaign their platform.

While Santorum uses his more Republican conservative approach against the more moderate Romney, we must remember that American citizens tend to be more moderate. Santorum still hasn't dropped out of the race despite his dwindling campaign funds (on the other hand, Romney has been spending big bucks from PACs and his own wealth which may come back to bite him in the finals). Santorum has begun to take more personal approaches to campaign which we have learned can make a big difference. Pennsylvanian delegate votes are Santorum's priority right now and he hopes to win the majority vote in Texas, giving him 154 delegates due to the primary process explained in Ch. 12 of our textbook.

Another factor that can sway voters is the who Romney or Santorum and Obama may choose as their vice president. In the 2008 elections, John McCain's decision of Sarah Palin as vice president crushed his chances of being elected. According to CNN, the smarter choice is to have a "boring" vice president that will in other words be ready to take on presidency and do the job. We are unsure who Romney (the more likely Republican candidate) will select as vice president and if Obama will chose Joe Biden again. This decision is a potential game changer.

Resources:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/05/politics/santorum-stays-in/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/09/opinion/zelizer-romney-vice-president/index.html

5. Invasion of Privacy

In the recently decided Florence vs. Board of Chosen Freeholders case, the issue of strip searches in prisons violating the Fourth Amendment was judged by the Supreme Court. Albert Florence was first arrested in 1998, charged with obstruction of justice and use of a deadly weapon, which required him to make a series of payments. He eventually completed all of the payments, but somehow the warrant remained in a statewide
computer database. This became a problem when Florence was pulled over by an officer in 2005 and taken to the Burlington County Detention Center.

Records show that he was then subjected to a full body cavity naked search and imprisoned for six days. According to the court report, "Officers would check arrestees for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as they disrobed. Petitioner claims he was also instructed to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals." After, Florence was moved to a Newark correctional facility where he was intrusively searched again. The conservative majority concluded a "suspicious" standard by which inmates would have to pass through certain examinations. We are uncertain whether or not racial bias is accounted for considering Florence is an African American. The next day the  facility released him after confirming Florence's claim that he had already paid the fines. These searches that have possibly scarred Florence were justified by the crack down in security after the 9-11 attacks and inmates with crime records need to be checked in order to keep the jail environment more safe. 

Florence lost his Supreme Court appeal which was divided 5-4.  This decision makes an impact on every citizen's right to be secure against unreasonable searches shall not be violated, in other words, the Fourth Amendment. In this particular case, the searches no matter how precautionary have slightly crossed the line. I do see the need for detailed search, but a full body pat down would have been sufficient. The true question remains: how far are we willing to go to maintain safety? 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/scotus-strip-search-ruling/index.html?hpt=ju_c2

4. Planned Parenthood in Election

Click here to read the blog.

In Jayne Lyn Stahl's 2012 elections blog "Women are the New Illegals", she addresses the concern of Republicans cutting down funds for Planned Parenthood, therefore limiting women from competing for the same jobs and more importantly their rise to equality. Stahl refers to women as "illegal immigrants" into the workforce because men of the past generation are unaccustomed to women not housekeeping and out competing for blue and white collar jobs. As a result, these men would be more likely to vote for the Republican candidates (Romney, Santorum, Gingrich), especially rich white males. Arguing that the pro-choice/pro-life debate has caused a sharper contrast between the two parties, Stahl sees through Republican candidate Romney's campaign that if he wins the presidency the Supreme Court will also be swayed and push back progress on establishing equal rights. 

This article interested be because the topic captured what we learned from Unit 1 about how the systems of government link together to work with Unit 2's explanations for citizen participation (through voting, writing to officials, etc.).  After learning about the recent increase in the number of women voters, I wonder how this blog implying sexism of the Republican party influence the votes of women and men. I agree with Stahl to a certain extent. Throughout my generation, I have noticed more women holding all types of jobs including those with high pay correlated with the increase of women attending colleges. I don't agree that we need a Democratic party in order to improve equality, which Stuhl believes the Republican candidates just turns their head in the presence of the nation's inequality issues and focus on border control instead. Perhaps if the people demand a change, a Republican in office would address the issue just as a Democratic president would. 

However while reading, it was important for me to keep in mind that The Smirking Chimp contains more liberal blogs. This became apparent in Stahl's opinionated commentary about  the U.S. needing "half a century, and a Democratic administration, to achieve" safeguards for equality. Stahl targets readers who share her left-leaning views, mostly Democrats, and those who are interested or concerned about the Republican candidate's plans. Consequently, this author is not 100% credible due to her bias views and possibly slanted information to persuade the reader into reconsidering the Republican party's commitment to equality. 

3. Editorial: A Weakened Miranda Rule

Click here to read editorial.

In The New York Times editorial "A Weakened Miranda Rule", the author bring to our attention the ruling of Howes v. Fields on February 21, 2012. This case involved a sheriff interrogation that did not notify Fields of his rights to decline the interrogation. Although Fields was told before hand his right to go back to his cell at any time, the author suggests this would have been uncomfortable to do in a police stressed situation. The result? Something that Fields said led to his sentence of 10 to 15 years of prison.

Miranda rights were established after the Miranda v. Arizona trial in 1966 to protect a person's Fifth Amendment right to refuse answering self-incriminating questions. A crucial part of Miranda rights to understand is that before an arrest the protections terms do not apply, and the voluntary answers to questions can be admissible in court. However, in Fields' case, he was already under arrest and not read his Miranda rights. Therefore, all statements can be used against him in court.

The author seems well informed about the rules established by Miranda rights and the Howes v. Fields case. He or she intends to spread awareness of this injustice to anyone who is concerned about their rights being curtailed. The arguments made sway towards the author trying to convince the readers that the police dominated atmosphere did lead to Fields' unprotected statements. The author believes that the Supreme Court's decision not only effected the fate of Fields, but also the police's definition of custody that may avoid the true principle implemented by Miranda rights.

I agree with the author's straightforward opinion that the Howes v. Fields case deeply damaged our Miranda rights to a certain extent. Although this trial may not have hit home for many American citizens not involved with court, the right to remain silent is a privilege we should be informed and aware of. The author's opinions about the results sounded a bit extreme perhaps for persuasive purposes. On the other hand, would this slip of not being told the Miranda rights have expedited the case to the truth by putting some pressure on Fields in the interrogation room? Maybe a continuous "pleading the fifth" has hindered the results of court cases. All in all, I do believe that not telling a suspect his or her rights is an injustice and Miranda rules should not be slurred to accommodate a Supreme Court decision. 

2. Supreme Court reviews Stolen Valor Act

Read The Washington Post article here.

This article states that the Supreme Court will be deciding whether the Stolen Valor Act, incriminating false military honors, is unconstitutional. Many believe this will be a tough case because of where the First Amendment may draw the line. Is lying protected by free speech? Decided by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement and speech integral to criminal conduct fall outside of First Amendment protection. This article is worth reading because it gives us a reminder of how our freedom of speech may be limited and it is important for us as American citizens to be aware of our rights. Therefore Supreme Court's decision is relevant to me and effects what I am able to do legally. 


I chose to blog about this article because it tied in perfectly with Ch. 2 of AM GOV textbook. This case demonstrated how the Supreme Court exercises judicial review made possible by Marbury v. Madison.  Freedom of speech is something our country is proud of and our citizens are thankful of. It will be interesting to see how the different interpretations of the Constitution will define our rights.