Tag Archive | "supreme court"

Resolved, that the U.S. Constitution should be strictly interpreted in America today.

Resolved, that the U.S. Constitution should be strictly interpreted in America today.

Background: A strict Constitutional interpretation means doing only exactly what the Constitution specifically authorizes and absolutely nothing else regardless of what’s going on now, whereas a loose constitutional interpretation permits one to “interpret” the meaning of a provision in the context of new or developing facts and circumstances.  Most Conservative Republicans and just about all Tea-Party members argue for a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution contending that the best government is the least government especially as regards economic freedom and property rights, but not in foreign affairs where a big powerful military is necessary or in moral matters like abortion, embryonic stem cell research, or gay marriage which must be prohibited.  In contrast, many Liberal Democrats suggest that the federal government should oversee and regulate the many and varied aspects of modern day life to ensure socio-economic rights, personal freedoms, and liberties or else the people will suffer, especially at the hands of big business or groups that seek to impose their own moral beliefs on everybody.  Liberals also generally oppose an American world-wide military presence.

Pro:

  • Americans can look after themselves especially if there is never any gun control–they do not need a federal Big Brother who “taxes and spends” in order to snoop around the States and double-check everything, except that we must secure our borders against illegal immigrants and Islamic terrorists.  Furthermore, government programs simply encourage people to become lazy and dependent instead of strong and self-reliant.
  • We must neither tax our wealthiest citizens or corporations in order to permit their financial successes in a free market system to “trickle down” to the rest of the people at the bottom of the economic hierarchy, nor regulate big business which would then lose money in attempting to comply with expensive and burdensome health and safety regulations.
  • There is no climate crisis, and anyway America has plenty of oil, gas, and coal resources which private industry should be perfectly free to exploit unhindered by any conservation or carbon-emission regulations.

Con:

  • We must look to the greater welfare of the country–like with health care–to best ensure equal opportunity, and individual rights and personal freedoms for everybody instead of just safeguarding elites like big business or the military-industrial complex.  A level playing field in which there is equal opportunity is very important.
  • We need to tax everybody fairly in order to best secure through regulatory expenditures the blessings of liberty and equality for all of our citizens and thereby avoid inequity and injustice.
  • The Founding Fathers drafted a Constitution which was appropriate for thirteen Sovereign States when the entire Eastern Seaboard was covered in a forest and the main perceived threats to the new country were wild animals and Native Americans–times have changed, and a fresh interpretation of the Constitution for a World Superpower with international hegemony on a technologically advanced planet is now mandated.  Furthermore, the whole point of government is to help the people, not step back from helping, because government exists for the people.

~KS FEB ’11

Posted in Domestic Affairs, PhilosophicalComments (0)

Resolved, that Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional.

As one of the most controversial decisions in Supreme Court history, Roe V Wade determined that women have the constitutional right to privacy, which extends to abortion. Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of the majority opinion, stated that the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy but, “in varying contexts the Court or individual justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right.” Some critics of the decision feel that Roe V Wade actually created the right to privacy, one that was not in the constitution, but simply expanded on the 9th amendment as one of the “enumerated rights.” Did the courts expand on the “enumerated rights” of the ninth amendment in an unconstitutional way or did they do their job and protect the rights of all citizens?

Posted in Domestic Affairs, Hot TopicsComments (2)

Resolved, that the judicial decision in Johnson v. Transportation Agency was unjust.

Background: In 1978 an Affirmative Action Plan was set into place, voluntarily, to allow both minorities and women to be hired into occupations there were underrepresented in with gender or race being a deciding factor in their promotion or hiring; without have a ‘quota’ being created.  The Santa Clara County Transportation Agency adopted said plan and promoted Diane Joyce above her male coworker who were both qualified for the position.  In 1987, the agency received a right-to-sue letter from Paul Johnson as the agency has violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by using gender as the determining factor in job selection.  The agency took a gradual approach to affirmative action to “attain” a balanced workforce without permanently “maintaining” a balance of gender and race.  The case was affirmed.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: An employer cannot withhold a job or promotion from an applicant because of that person’s race, color, ethnicity, gender, or religion.

Pro:

  • Discrimination to fix discrimination is morally wrong and self-defeating.
  • Johnson and another man were tied for second with a score of 75, while Joyce was in third with a score of 73.
  • The interview criteria accounted for all relevant factors that related to the job.

Con:

  • Affirmative Action is the correction of an unjust or under representation by selective discrimination.
  • Both candidates were equally qualified.
  • Women were 36.4 percent of the available labor in the area, but only 22.4 percent of the agency’s employees were women.  It is only just that a government agency reflects the people it serves.

-KS

Posted in Domestic Affairs, HistoricalComments (3)