It states “Republicans have one major weapon left: the filibuster,” says author Kristi Oloffson. It then states, ”If the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage," said Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent. "Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill. (Time)” The making of the cloture guideline was not an announcement of affection for supermajority rules to the Senate, but rather it was the result of tough managing of an unsupportive
Republicans do not mind throwing deceptions and smokescreens; 7. Republicans claim absolute allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, yet they orchestrate bills to take away the First Amendment rights of state citizens; and 8. Republicans always have enough money to do the things they want to do. I am not against the Mississippi Republican Party, but with the way they have been handling themselves lately, I find it hard to see how anyone who believes in personal liberties and what is right can stand by them. However, maybe, the Republicans are not guilty of any of the above, and they are simply being vilified by a few out of control bullies.
To begin looking at Leser v. Garnett, it is important to look at each contention individually, and the arguments against it (as, during each objection, the Supreme Court unanimously against it). As discussed in the Yale Law Journal, “The first contention, that “so great an addition to the electorate, if made without the state’s consent, destroys its autonomy as a political body” and thus deprives the state of equal representation in the Senate.” In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court voted against the objection, referencing the 15th amendment. While the 15th amendment was not “adopted in accordance with law,” it was accepted with reluctance, but no protesting. The Yale Law Journal notes, “The second contention, that the state Constitutions of Tennessee and Missouri contain provisions limiting the power of the legislature to ratify.” which, was again unanimously voted against in noting Article V of the United States Constitutions discussion of the function of the state
The constitution protected the right to marriage and requires states to implement these laws equally but the Supreme Court should not engage in judicial policy making. Scalia argued that change should be enacted by elected officials as stated in the constitution and allowing the majority of the Supreme Court to decide would go against what the constitution outlined for policy making. The Supreme Court’s ruling creates a questions based on religious freedoms: Is it legal for business owners, with objections to same-sex marriage, to refuse wedding goods and services to a same-sex
However, this analogy could make you think bias in the media does exist. Not only is the media bias in sports, but the bias seems to be more recognizable in politics. A rule of thumb, never debate religion and politics. Both topics will most likely end with some form of physical or verbal altercation. After working for the same company for
In this day and age people are most concerned with being politically correct. A person must be aware of what he or she says and be sensitive to other people 's religious affiliations and cultures. The controversy of the Battle flag is affecting politicians directly in the upcoming elections. Nia-Malika Henderson, Senior Political Reporter, says that, “The flag debate is quickly becoming a major political issue ahead of the state 's crucial first-in-the-South presidential primary next year. Many Republicans, including Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, have avoided taking a position on the flag.” (Henderson) Citizens of America are taking sides on the Battle flag controversy and that plays a major part in how the voters will choose their leaders in the upcoming elections.
There is no right or wrong when we choose to vote or not vote. Mandatory voting is an unconstitutional force by government in the United States. If the federal government passed the law to force American people to vote, then the political policies of the United States would certainly changed from democratic politics to dictatorial
Consequently, these politicians can voice a need to restrict immigration and limit certain civil rights on minority groups. Corporations and Public Relations departments are in more control to what the media learn, as they do not readily provide insight to hiring practices, promotions, interactions or anything deal with minority groups. Also they make any discrimination in the corporations as something that are “regrettable small incidents” (24 Van Dijk). Thus the media helps convey both the political and corporate discourse to the larger population on their biased perspective. For the political side, this can be used in both sides of the political party spectrum.
Sending arms to people that we believe democracy in, but not willing to use those arms (John F. Kennedy’s University of Washington Speech, on the 16th of November, 1961.). We can send people in the Middle East supplies and equipment, but we cannot send troops there to use them, but they there will have to use. Since we don’t want to go to War with the Soviet Union or someone else who’s Communist. Having Powerful weapons that are not as effective that our enemy has as well and we believe not just in our army, but in reason and right (John F. Kennedy’s University of Washington Speech, on the 16th of November, 1961.). Having the most powerful weapon in the world, as well as the Soviet Union has as well, cannot be outmatched so that we’ll only use for right and also in reasons while they will use in not for the rights and won’t have a reason why they used it.
Either way, as proven by history, government censorship is necessary; however, the limitation to its censoring power must be clear and a system to prevent the possible abuse of this power is crucial. Overall, censorship should exist only for speeches that contained clear and dangerous intent and information published by media that contained a true threat to national security. The word censorship is usually comprised of a negative connotation and many are opposed to this idea. In fact, many Americans believe the First Amendment will protect almost all censorship. For example, according to Harris Poll, 84% of American believe the
Supporters of this decision argued that money does not corrupt, while critics believe that it is basically bribery (Montana). In 2011, the state of Montana tried to challenge the US Supreme Court decision by arguing that outside money caused corruption. Montana wanted to uphold their 1912 Corrupt Law, which banned corporations from giving money to campaigns and also acquired disclosure on who gave money to campaigns (Big Sky). The state did not want outside groups manipulating the message and ads of their elections or influencing voters. When it came to the court decision, the court made a 5-to-2 vote, stating that the state of Montana “cannot ignore the Citizens United decision” (Montana).
Although they appear as allies their ideals often put them at odds. Much like today’s two dominate political parties, the Democrats and Republicans. One could compare the hard-headed Brain to the Republican party and the good-natured Pinky to the Democratic party. Their views in matters of gun control, taxes, and climate change are polar opposites. Brain will stubbornly charge head first with no consideration for facts or the opinions of others, just like Republicans.
“Under Justice Roberts’s test, Citizens’ desire to broadcast the film during an election cycle is irrelevant because this desire is a contextual factor that focuses on Citizens’ intent in producing the film” The intent may not have been to sway votes, so there is no reason the speech should be limited, as established here by a Duke Law student, Aaron Harmon. Some may disapprove of these types of contributions to campaigns, but this format helps bring more information to create informed voters. The decision was also very broad. Justice Kennedy, author of the opinion held that “This case cannot be resolved on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the First Amendment ’s meaning and purpose.”(“CITIZENS UNITED”) Kennedy could have simply said that Citizens could show the film, but it wouldn’t establish much. By broadening the decision, they established a relevant precedent to get rid of unnecessary campaign finance