The first amendment states this Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment    of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. These very rights are what, for the most part, defines what it means to be an American. I am proud of these rights because it lets me, as an individual, express thoughts and beliefs. It just saddens me when I hear of laws that claim to be unconstitutional when they are. For example, the bills HR 347 I believe, is a violation of freedom of speech and assemble. If I have a sign that says blah blah sucks, and shout angrily while I hold up the sign, then that should be just. I don’t think it’s fair that the government makes these laws to make sure they remain safe, that is not the reason why WE THE PEOPLE, elect them in the first place. We elect so they can protect us, as citizens.

          When I think of freedom of religion, I think of people practicing what they want to practice, with hurting or damaging another person in any way. However, our government has not done a fabulous job in making sure that religion doesn’t affect anyone. When it comes to gay marriage, religion has played a major role when determining if people are allowed to be wed. Citizens and the government vote, deny people these basic rights due to religious ideas or beliefs. This shouldn’t be the case on anything! I feel there was never a line drawn when they made the constitution, of how much religion should be influencing ones opinions on matters.

Out of all the scholars we have talked about this semester, I have to say that I enjoyed Emerson the most. The reason why I enjoyed Emerson was because he points to a lot issues that still resonate today. Emerson wrote, “I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institution.” This quote speaks for us today; I feel a prime example for this is, is our education system. I feel out country is too focused on creating the next scientist. We want our future children to be the next engineer, astronaut, doctor, or inventor. I am not stating that this is bad, I think it’s a good we want our country to remain supreme in the sciences like it once did, but this shows how despite we are. I believe one day we are going to have all these scientist, and a lack of writers, artist, musicians and scholars. As a country we need to be okay that we are not the investors of things, maybe which will help the world get along, if no one is in charge. The last quote from Emerson that resonated with me had to be “a great man is coming to eat at my house. I do not wish to please him; I wish that he should wish to please men” this quote goes against some of our social norms. It is taught that when you have a special or important person coming to the house, as the host, one should all they can to make sure that quest is happy, however, I understand what Emerson is coming from, if a great person is coming to my house, I hope they are as impressive as they seem to be.

Barr Sued over tweet by Zimmerman family

The article that I read is called “George Zimmerman's parents sue Roseanne Barr over tweets” this article was received from CNN. The article discusses how George Zimmerman, the man who was charged with the murder of young teen Trayvon Martin and was found not guilty. His parents are suing comedian Roseanna Barr for the tweets she sent out back in 2012 a month after their son killed Martin. The tweets contained Zimmerman’s parents’ home address, phone number and some bold statements from the comedian. These bolds statement that were written by famous comedian entailed of her going to the Zimmerman’s house herself so that justice can be served for what happen to Martin. The reason why the parents are suing Roseanna now after two years is because the parents say that the comedian caused a lot of trouble for the family. The trouble that Barr caused, claims the parents was that they had to leave their home in the middle of the night and never returned because of all hate mail and mobs outside their home causing emotion stress.it was reported that the Zimmerman’s, "suffered emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of life, incurred additional living expenses due to the inability to live in their home and have suffered a loss in value of their home,"  Which is what the parents are suing for. The news article wrote how the family has not publicized how much the parents are asking for in damages.it is written by CNN that the suit wishes to have a trial by a jury. 

This incident is a very debatable one. The article wrote how Barr violated Tweeters contract by putting people’s personal information out to the public. But then again how did she find out the address in the first place? Most likely from public source. The article expresses that Barr, because she has a large fan following had caused tremendous amounts of problems because if one fan retweets than another, then it becomes a sparling situation. Was Barr’s actions valid? Most people have mix emotions, on the one a lot of people say that it was not the parents who kill the young teen, but their son. Some say how a parent raises their child reflections on how they may turn out in the future, causing their son to do what he did. Are the points valid? To a certain degree, on the one hand I see what people are saying, it was not his parents who did the killing. Not like I would, but if I commented an act like their son, I would not want my parents to be the blame for my actions. I am an adult, and can make my own decisions just like their son, George did. I feel Barr should have never posted their parents’ home address, I feel she should have done their sons to be honest, but then there’s a problem with his wife being harassed. So I guess Barr was wrong. I understand the anger and frustration on her part, but her actions was not justice it was anarchy. In the end, I honestly feel she shouldn’t be sued for what she did, even though it was wrong the reason for this is because I feel the family waited too long. They should have don’t something right when it happen. I feel they just want money. Because Barr wasn’t the only person who posted their information to the public! I also feel that is this goes to trial, Barr with be found not guilty, because people already feel that Zimmerman got away with murder.

 

The article that I read is called “Who will survive in America” from MSMBC.com. The article discusses the latest Michael Dunn verdict and the stand your grown law in Florida. The article opens up discussing the conviction of the 47 year old Michael Dunn case of shooting teenager Jordan Davis. Dunn’s charges on first degree murder were in a deadlock and judge declared it a miss trial. The article writes about the frustration people have with the verdict because they feel that another black teen was killed by a white man by using the stand your ground law.  The article goes into describing the case by saying that Dunn was armed and he has shown aggression and hateful feeling toward African Americans to his neighbor and it was documents that while in jail he wrote hateful statements as well to his neighbor.

The author of the article becomes interested in whether the Stand Your Ground Law is a law that is neutral to all races. The author makes a point by pointing out how last summer there was a similar case with George Zimmerman, another armed man who got into a tussle with a African American teen and in the end the teen ended up dead and Zimmerman found not guilty to the charge of second degree. The author makes another point that both men had time and the right to retreat away from the situations but decided to “stand their grown”. It seems that the stand your grown laws are supposed to protect everyone, but only seem to protect certain people and the author of the article says that the law is dangerous to everyone but it seems to be used toward black males.

I feel that this is a valid argument which talks about race in our country. From what I see, it seems Stand Your Grown Law lets people get away with murder, which is insane. there are law that are foolish, one women in Flordia shot a gun at the wall to stop her boyfriend from beating her and she got 20 years in jail!! It was a big case right after Zimmerman. Another problem I have with the law is that so far, every person on trial for murder that uses this law gets because majority of the time the jury doesn’t understand the law so the end up either saying the person is not guilty or a lesser charge. This law seems like it has a revolving door that moves in one direction which is saddling. The author said the law needs to add things such as retreating policy that way less aggression can be enforced. This law clearly has it flaws, but no is trying to fix them because I feel it’s not white teens, or females, the elderly or children getting killed. Yes, I believe if females from any race or ethnicity where the ones dying at the hands of this law it would have been repealed or another democratic.  The author makes a point in the article if our country has progressed since lynching days. I feel we have most defiantly! I understand that our country has race problems but so much has changed and gotten better. To compare this to lynching is different, yes young black males are being killed for pointless reasons but eggless these men are on trial and people speak up against them. I feel our racism way to institutionalized which is what I feel the author is coming from.

The article that I read is called “Pennsylvania voter ID laws struck down as judge cites burden   Citizens”. This article was written by Rick Lymanjan, and was posted on January 17, 2014 in the New York Times. The articles main discussion was about how a judge by the Name of Bernard L. McGinley, decided not to pass the voter ID law that governor Corbett so wishes to pass. For those who do not know, the voter ID law are about how PA state residents, have to show some sort of ID in order to vote at the polls and i cast a ballot. The reason why the law was proposed was because Governor Corbett and his party said that it will protect from voters fraud. The problem with this statement is that there has not been enough evidence, to prove that there is an influx or a lot of, voter’s fraud to make the law pass.

Judge McGinley wrote, “Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election” (Lymanjan 2014, p 1) he then went on writing that this particular law takes away the rights of citizens in Pennsylvania. The article discusses how the law prevents many demographics from voting, such as: elderly, disabled and low-income persons. The article does not go into detail why these particular groups would suffer from these laws. Another problem with the law that the judge touched on was the fact that the law promised free ID’s to anyone who didn’t have one, but the judge argued that this idea was too difficult to execute and maybe even impossible. It was written in the article that since the law was denied that the governor may take to the State Supreme Court but nothing is official yet, governor Corbett has yet mad a discussion.

The main question to be asked here is if the voter ID law unconstitutional? It is evident, that a judge finds it to be so, but does the general population? In my opinion this law that governor Corbett wants passed, is going against our constitutional rights because he is creating a barrier so some people will not be able to vote. The voter ID law reminds me of the reading test that they used to preform of poor blacks and whites in the south back in the late 1800s. If they couldn’t read and understand what was in written then those people couldn’t vote, taking away their rights. The same will happen if the voter ID law is passed.  This is something that can be argued about. This law can take away peoples voice more than it already is. I feel there is no evidence, like the judge said, to support voting fraud. Voters Fraud is rare in this state and I haven’t heard of any other state that has a huge problem with voters fraud. There is another story behind this; do I know what that story is? No.  Do I even suspect? Not really, but believe, If I have some time I will come up with a few ideas.