The Nations First Shield Law

 For over two hundred years in the United States of America, the struggles of journalists have brought several ethical issues to the governments feet. In attempts to stun their struggles, state by state legislature made shield laws(specifically in Maryland) were brought to the discussion. The development of this shield law is worth note in understanding how it effects first amendment laws.

The way in which ordinary American citizens interpret and react to law outside of the courts while forcing an amendment in the judicial system, is defined as Popular Constitutionalism. The concept that legislators affect the interpretation of the Constitution comes for a Jeffersonian idea known as departmentalism, simply put meaning that all branches of the government must uphold fidelity of the Constitution. The combination of citizen and law plays a big role in comprehending the judicial system of the nation.

A recurring theme between the courts and legislatures has been their exchanges. Legislative selection from judge made ideas of constitutional law aids in shrinking the risk of falsehoods on constitutional premises. In other words, it prevents legislative action from doing anything that would by law, deemed unconstitutional.

Legal scholar Robert Post has an interesting take on the difference between constitutional law and constitutional structure, referring to the gap between the two as legislature made law and court made law. As previously mentioned, a massive factor in the courts decisions are those who hold no official political positions. This is because constitutional law could not exist without considering the core values of the citizens it exists for.

In modern America, the way the constitution is interpreted is at the peak of legal scholarship. Statutory law scholar Peter Shane explains that the reason behind this "a one way understanding", in that non judicial actors invent the interpretation of our Constitution, then relate it bigger threat affecting the U.S constitutional theorist, who for the most part work for legal amendments. The label "constitutional culture" to define how citizens partake in the developments and legal terms surrounding it.

Proceeding onto the framework of non judicial precedents, it is time to investigate the wide range of social actors that play a role. Activists, journalist, and industry leaders to name a few, control a certain area of constitutional matters, that is unless they are managed by the courts. In which case they plug holes in improving the doctrine, as defined by Micheal Gerdharts model.

One method that non judicial actors often use to have their voices heard in the courts and political offices is the initiation of a constitutional concept dialogue. These dialogues are intended to make a point, and a appeal to constituents, which is an incentive for state legislators to follow suit. They send a notice to the courts about how the public will or see's an issue.

To conclude, the events leading up to the creation of the Maryland shield law would not had been possible without the influence of suitors outside of the courts. For journalist specifically, laws previously set in place did not consider the nature of their industry, thus a push for amendments and developments to the law were made not just by those in the press but those effected by it as well.

Regent Of California vs Bakke: Customs and Norms

 On behalf of the Medical School at the University of California, we are here to address the issues of Allan Bakke. I understand that Allan has been rejected by our Medical School, and it is of his opinion that it is upon the basis or his race. Obviously we disagree with this accusation on multiple different angles, but the argument I plan to present is one surrounding customs and norms.

To simplify, let me explain what is mean't by customs and norms. This refers to the culture and climate of the university surrounding specific issues. In this case the topic is race. Historically the University of California, like several other institutions, was whites only. Now that we are in the year 1978 there has been a wake up call, and there is a demand for social justice not just for African Americans but for several minorities in the United States.

The previous statement is significant in understanding the argument I am preparing to pose. Which is that the standard of Universities has changed with the times regarding race. In order to rapidly change as a society, it is necessary that we give minorities opportunities that were robbed of them for so many years. With this in mind, any University can understand why it is important to add diversity, because the world is demanding it.

In an every changing society, it is expected for laws to to change and evolve with the people. This brings me to discuss the norms of the world and how they effect this case. Previously this discussion would not have even been considered, due to the university being historically all white. Now ironically, we are here debating why a white man cannot get into the school because of the color of his skin.

From what I have presented thus far, anyone would assume that Allan was in fact rejected on the basis of his race, which would be deemed unconstitutional. This is where affirmative action comes in and nullifies this debate, explaining that it may be constitutional if race is one of several other factors in the admission process. Of course universities such as California intend to promote diversity and stand against discrimination, meaning that Allan is not being excluded solely upon race.

Now that the lawful terms of the decision have been explained with context to society, there is one more idea that must be brought into consideration. It is the issue of Allan's credibility. Overall Allan had better scores than the minorities who were accepted into the institution, meaning that on paper he should be accepted. However upon further inspection, there is far more required of a college student than simply his grades.

Academic excellence is just one piece of the puzzle in the admission process for universities. It is far more demanding now that we are starting to see the potential in students in things outside of the classroom. What a student brings to the university must be well considered. Race can be considered a piece but it is not the entire puzzle. Things like social work and school involvement are crucial to build a solid resume. Therefore it makes sense that the university would reject a student like Allan as opposed to other applicants who are more well rounded.

In conclusion the arguments I have presented regarding social norms and customs provided sufficient evidence as to why Allan was rejected at the University of California. The issue of race is only valid if it is accompanied by among other factors, and evidently it is. Mr. Bakke was not solely rejected because of the color of his skin.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_regents.html

Civil Rights Documentary

In the beginning of the 1960's, the movement for racial justice began to pick up steam throughout a young and growing United States of America. The south in particular heard the voices of those it had oppressed for so many year, as a march in Birmingham, Alabama historically took place. As thousands of African Americans took the stage to make their voices known, all kinds of reaction ensued from national community.

In the spring of 1963, a march through one of the most racist towns in the United States made history. Police began to use violence in oppose to this march as they believed it was disrupting the peace. They released dogs, strong hoses, and violently attacked innocent people with their batons and fist. To the benefit of the marchers, everything that they had done had been televised. This caused people worldwide to realize and understand the violence that had been going on, pushing the fight for segregation to even higher heights.

One crucial event that took place in Birmingham was the arrest of Dr. Martin Luther King. Along with several other African Americans, his arrest inspired hundreds to push for justice and inspired future fights for equality in the nation. This event would begin to snowball into another crucial march that would push for the same purpose. However the setting of this demonstration would be far more impactful and powerful, as the civil rights movement would send hundreds of thousands to march on Washington D.C.

On August 28, 1963, history was made in the U.S capital. A quarter of a million U.S citizens flooded the streets in support of the civil rights movement, making history and expressing a message worldwide. Martin Luther King delivered his famous "I Have A Dream Speech" in front of the nation, and celebrities far and wide stepped in to show support for a cause that would forever change America.

The results of this peaceful protest march reaped nothing but positive effects. This event was the accumulation of decades of protest and frustration from an oppressed community, pushing laws of reform and equality for the sake of the American dream. John F. Kennedy played a massive role in the progress of this movement, as he constantly met with leaders of the movement for racial justice.

The big six leaders of the civil rights movement included Philip Randolph, James Farmer, Roy Wilkins, John Lewis, Martin Luther King Jr., and Whitney Young. Only half of these men had the privilege of discussing issues with the President, who was eager to meet with the catalyst of this march. J.F.K mentioned how grateful he was to meet with them, and how they all believed they could make grand changes regarding race and democracy under his administration.

Difficult as it was, racial progress was achieved through this movement. It did not deter every hate group and eliminate all issues, however it made segregation among other things illegal. This historic era was pivotal in the growth of America as a nation, bringing black Americans their long needed legal respect in a nation that was built upon their labor.

Klansville U.S.A

 In 1966 North Carolina, the future of the Ku Klux Klan was on the line. Led by Bob Jones, he brought 10,000 members to the clan, believing that this was the best way to give voice to the poor and white working class. He felt strong racial hatred against blacks, especially those who rose financially above whites.

The Klan arose during the wake of the civil war. Essentially they would pose as confederate officers back from the dead, terrorizing freed slaves. They spent their time murdering people, and eventually the federal government condemned their behavior. This put a use to their maliciousness, but they revived themselves in the early 1920s.

In 1925 50,000 Klan members marched through the capital, sending messages about their numbers and giving them publicity. However even if their message reached those across America, huge changes surrounding segregation would arise in the south. The Civil Rights movement began to loom large, and the push for integration put pressure on their notion.

Jones was chosen to be the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. Seven days later Martin Luther King shared the thoughts of the Civil Rights movement to Washington D.C. Jones took inspiration from this and wanted to demonstrate his opinions the same way King did.

Gradual change was not acceptable to both sides, as the civil rights began to rise up. Blacks began putting themselves in government offices, and the Klan wanted a say in this. They saw themselves as the only organization in the south that would protest for the segregation of race.

Many of the events hosted by the Klan were seen as social events. Even if there were very few people, many would come to watch and partake in social events. They brought people of the same opinion together, believing that the events would convince people that desegregation was bad.

Rallies would convince some to join the Klan. The members thought that this would give them the respect and relevance that they wanted in their community. Jones believed the clan could be seen as a central force in electing politicians to positions they wanted them positioned in. He used street walks in North Carolina towns to show that his clan had nothing to hide.

Lyndon Johnson spoke to the Klan members after they gunned down a white civil rights worker in her car. They argued that the civil rights movement were the evil ones who wanted to tear down America through desegregation. After this event their event in North Carolina brought in 3,000 people, which was broadcast by CBS. They were seen in a very different light, condoning murder and hate that was shown across America.

Eventually clansmen began to see that Jones was selling opinions that made people sick, not cured. His refusal to testify and pleading of the 5th amendment alienated many of his followers. This was an incentive for many in the clan to realize the injustices of what they were doing, and the group soon fell apart. Jones was convicted of contempt in congress, and was sent into a year in federal jail.

Whites found different political avenues as the Klan became a shameful thing once more. Jones could not achieve any of his major goals and were legally unable to maintain segregation. People leaving get the clan realized that they had really descended into darkness.

Brown v Board of Education

The debate of wether segregation should continue in the United States brought many different and interesting viewpoints to the table. Schools across America have been brutally effected by this debate, and the question of how kids for the future will receive a good education has made the case even more important. This debate made sure this topic was thoroughly discussed, and had a momentous impact in the history and future of the African American community.

One of the arguments made in favor of Brown was that the schools may definitely be separate, but they are in no way equal. In many black school the standard education is much lower, the facilities are less sanitary, the they are simply not funded as much as white schools. Therefore not only is the standard lower for an entire American community, it is evident that the nation is making no effort to integrate them into their society.

A further talking point that was posed in favor of Brown was that the separate accommodations was unconstitutional. If you are going to have separate schools you are going to have a separate nation, and when one of these is unequally neglected then people in the nation will not have the same opportunities as other. This by definition means that all people are not created equal, and in turn the American promise is not upheld.

By the words of the law of course the accommodation laws can lawfully be argued. However it is evident to anyone who has seen both schools that the students are not receiving the same tools for success. In the future economic malfunction will be evident due to the poor attention an American race and community is receiving. In short these were the arguments posed by Brown in his case against the Board of Education.

Next the defense for Board of Education provided arguments that would maintain Americas historical traditions. The first that arose was that there was no proof that the schools were teaching different levels of education, and that it was a fallacy that there was unequal standards implemented in the schools. If bathrooms are separate but equal, then why should schools and facilities be any different?

Another point that was made was that there is no way under the constitution that the schools being separated was unconstitutional. America has given opportunities to blacks because it has seen many from this community establish themselves in history by leaving legacies. If this community is given education that is supported then obviously the boundaries are limitless. Therefore why should the segregated schools highlight the good work that has been done for this community?

In the end the decision ruled in favor of Brown due the argument that the segregation of schools was not based on logic, and there was proof that there was separate but not equal accommodations in the schools. This decision improved the standard of millions in America and had a positive impact on the community that was deprived of rights and equality for the entirety of its tenure in the nation.

Mock Trial Blog Post

The mock trial debates surrounding a runaway slave case brought many viewpoints and attitudes. The arguments between responsibility, morality, and history taught me many things that I would not have known had it not been for the information being directly presented in front of me. The information and topics that I considered most interesting and important will be highlighted in this post.

The first defense in the case that was presented that the price of the meeting was far too cheap. A ten dollar fine would not have much significance in any slave owners life, and to fight a case for an amount this small was absurd. On top of that it was the slave owner who inflicted harm on the slave in the first place, therefore what would mean that there is a clear agreement that the owner was the deliberate aggressor in this scenario. In other words, the owner valued his ten dollars higher than his slaves life.

Although my first thoughts were that there was no way that this action could be prolonged, there were some arguments that convinced me otherwise. One of them was the fact that because the slave had not been killed or seriously incapacitated, the whole case was virtually useless. In a way this perspective is true in the sense of life value, due to the life being endangered but not taken, it is important to consider whether the discussion will achieve anything due to no one being dead.

Further perspectives that seemed to bring a new light of opinion was the matter of the injured woman being a slave. Of course a slave had no human rights and wasn't even considered such. Therefore if a man were to hypothetically destroy or harm his window, it would be the same as harming a slave. So in a way, the slave being wounded by a master who considers them as property is no an illegal or important matter.

Switching sides to the debate in favor for the slave, there were plenty of points that had a moral and emotional impact. Those who argued in favor of the slave claimed that ethically and morally no human should get away with harming another human, especially when the aggressor had full intent and awareness of the action they are performing. For the honor of the slave who only thought about her wellbeing in safety, the entire case is a disgrace.

Obviously from the previous viewpoint and from the post thus far, we can see that Mann could be justifiably charged with assault had the slave been a regular American citizen. The fine line that is drawn in this case and really the arguments that are being made are either for or against the rights of a slave. The fact of the matter in this case was indeed however that a master is absolute, and has the right to render submission over his slave.

Each One Teach One Reflection

 The Reconstruction era each one teach one taught me a lot about the evolution of America. The first thing that I learned is that President Andrew Johnson was a supported of slavery in the north. He was impeached in the house but not in the senate. Surprisingly he grew up with what could be labeled as a superiority complex, adding to his attitude of aggression and personality.

Johnson planned to begin reconstruction era in the south to continue slavery effectively. He wanted the white man by himself have dominance over the south. Reconstruction completed itself 8 months after it started and allowed confederates to enter congress, leaving a large dent in African American hope to impose themselves in the U.S government.

The next topic presented was the Lincoln assassination and the effect that it had on this era. John Wilkes Booth was the man who would go all the way with this plan. He was an actor and confederate who loathed the anti slavery and reconstruction ideas, and killed the current president on April 14th, 1865.

He then fled out of the theatre and started one of the largest man hunts in the history of the nation. Booth broke his leg escaping and made it all the way to Maryland. He was caught by the police at Surrats house where he was taken under jurisdiction of the government. Lincoln lost his life and the American community lost a true friend.

A further discussion topic in the reconstruction era was the Freedman's Bureau. This event helped African Americans all across the nation support themselves and gain popularity in a time of need. Established by congress in 1865 in helped former slaves and poor whites all across the south recover after the destructive civil war.

The Compromise of 1877 helped America choose its new leader and President. Essentially it was a mutual agreement between Democrats and allies of the Republican Rutherford Hayes, marking the end of the reconstruction era. It gave the Democratic Party of slavery the power to regain political dominance in southern state government.

Ultimately the reconstruction came to an end in 1877 and had mixed results in America. Radical Republican Legislation failed to uphold and protect former slaves from white persecution, and these issues continued in the south even after this era came to a close. Black codes and racist laws were implemented to keep the peace, however the African community found its way into government positions after years of perseverance and hardship, helping the make America the true land of the free.