Roe v. Wade

Roe (P), a pregnant single woman, brought a class action suit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws. These laws made it a crime to obtain or attempt an abortion except on medical advice to save the life of the mother.

Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit included Hallford, a doctor who faced criminal prosecution for violating the state abortion laws; and the Does, a married couple with no children, who sought an injunction against enforcement of the laws on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. The defendant was county District Attorney Wade (D).

I don't agree with making abortion illegal. There maybe many reasons for why a woman will want to get an abortion. It should be there decision. This law has a lot of debates because we are not only concern about the women we are also concern about the child. What if this law was in place and a women bring a kid to this world an harms them. What if the reason for the abortion is because she was raped. I think this should be a decision for the women but to a certain time frame.

War Liberalism to the Present

It is that fundamental belief -- it is that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work.

OBAMA: It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family: "E pluribus unum," out of many, one.

I choose this two because I can't seem to agree with it. The meaning I got from these two passage is that this country is made up by each individual helping out another. For example I help my sister or friend because they need it and can't do much. In my opinion this country is not like that. In this country there is more people that only look out for them self then helping others. Before anyone can get ahead of you they will try and make you fail. Americans are not family we are each other enemies instead of must of us working together we work against each other.

Marshall

Citizen is a status bestowed on those who are full members of a community. All who posses the status are equal with respect to the rights and duties with which the status is endowed.

I chose this quote because it is true that is what citizen is but I also disagree with this sentence. All who posses the status are suppose to have equal statuses but that is not the case. Citizen are suppose to have rights and feel freedom in their community but many citizens don't. There is a lot of citizen that in their own community don't feel safe because of other individuals and the law enforcement sometimes don't even help. When they do want to help is like freedom to the citizens doesn't exist. All for work enviroment there are a lot of citizens that don't get hire or get a low paying job based on their race. If we are all so call equal because we are citizen then why is ther so many discrimination,judgements and stereotypes. We as citizens of a community should help each other out and be equal instead of being against each other.

Thoreau

The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.

The meaning that i think this pasage is trying to say is that the people chose the government for the country but the government is the one who rules us. We the people will fail before the government fail itslef. The army works for the country but is not a part of the government. The army is a part of the government but the government controls them aswell.

Another Stab at the Constitution

The article I chose was Revisiting the Constitution: Do We Really Need the Second Amendment? The passage in the article I will talk about is the following, "The Second Amendment acknowledged the vulnerability of a nation in its infancy, but could not predict a world where some would move through life feeling more like targets than citizens. Now a mother watching her own fragile creation grow into black manhood, I would worry less if it were more difficult for him to find himself facing a gun held by boys or men who look like him or by those whose job it is to serve and protect." What she is trying to say is that we living in a world that we do not know when would be our last day. One day we can be normal citizens living life then the next we can either be facing a charge for a crime or dead. I personally think getting rid of the second amendment would not make a difference. There are people now that have illegal guns. If we do take out the second amendment there will be more people getting arrest. Now people that have guns legally use them to protect them self but there is also some problems. Having kids at home is one problem. Kids can get hold of their parents weapon and can do something bad. This amendment is a really hard one because if it stays in the constitution people will always get killed or arrested. If it gets removed the same crimes will be committed or even more because now guns are illegal.

The Constitution and the Federalist

Federalist #10
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine?


     I believe the meaning of this passage is if a person is judge there are easier to judge other based on there judgement and they wont see things on the clearer side. This is saying that a men can not be a judge and parties because there judgement as a judge may affect there judgement as parties.
     I agree with this passage because people may want something and is easy to judge without thinking of outcomes. If you are going to judge someone or something it shouldn't be based on your opinion,thought, or interest but it should be based on facts and truth.

Federalist #51
In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another.


     I think the meaning of this passage is saying that each group in the government should have its own promises. The only people that are able to see the will are the ones that are in that group.
     I agree that each group in the government has its own will because in that case they will handle laws and regulations better then everyone trying to make laws all together and disagreeing. If they make own laws they can then discuss each of their ideas.



-I am still trying to understand must of these articles. I understand part of them but then I get a bit confused.

Assignment due 9/20

One of the questions on the paper was, 'Are you an anarchist?' To which a detached philosopher would naturally feel inclined to answer, 'What the devil has that to do with you? Are you an atheist?' along with some playful efforts to cross-examine the official about what constitutes an ἁρχη [Greek: archê]. Then there was the question, 'Are you in favour of subverting the government of the United States by force?

      The meaning of this passage is that once you get to an airport they officer start asking questions that make people feel like outcast. Just because the race they are or what country they came from they think they come to America to do harm.
     I chose this passage because I agree with what is said. I find that the questions that are ask when you come back from another country are unnecessary questions. Yes I understand that is for our safety but if someone is going to do harm to America they will know how to. For example 9/11. So now because of what those man did, their race of people are automatically stamped as if they are coming to america to do harm.