English - Logo Sight Politics English - Logo Sight
0 My Opinion
1 I am for %100 free expression
2 Schools
3 Censorship
1 Public Opinion
2 61 First Amendment Supreme Court Cases
2 Important Cases
Student Vs School Cases
1 3 Supreme Court
2 12 Lower Court
Freedom of Religion Cases
1 Government Intervention in Church Controversies
2 Jehovah's Witnesses Cases
3 Conscientious Objection to War
4 Religion and the Right to Work
5 Religious Tests for Public Service or - Benefits
6 Free Exercise and Free Speech
7 Free Exercise and Public Education
8 Free Exercise and Public Property
9 Free Exercise and Taxation
10 Solicitation by Religious Groups
11 Free Exercise & Emmenint Domain
12 Outlawing of Religious Sacrifice
13 Establishment of Religion Clause
14 Standing to Sue
15 Tax Exemption to Religious Institutions
16 Sunday Work
17 Religious Institution Functioning as a Government Agency
18 Unequal Government Treatment of Religious Groups
19 Legislative Chaplains
20 Government Sponsor of Nativity Scenes
21 Government Aid to Public Education
22 Government Aid to Church Related Schools
23 Prayer in Public Schools
24 Teaching of Creationism in Public Schools


Everybody should have a page on their personal websites that express their Political views in the clearest and most importantly, most extensive way possible. The people with the most poticial views that are the most transparent on their websites should be respected the most and looked up to as the leaders of their peers and as a result, our Country. It makes a lot of sense if you think about it.

This page is where I express my political ideas in an organized fashion going through all of the ammendments of our constitution and giving my opinion of them. My most developed ammendment is the first, where I show my opinins of all of the 1st Ammendment Supreme Court Cases and have graphs showing peoples opinions of subjects consercing it.

Somebody should set up a website where people fill in the blanks to show their political affiliations and positions. If there is already something like that please let me know.

What I think about Politics

Three Factors Concerning Expressing Political Views

Concerning the subject of Politics, there are three factors that are important when it comes to expressing ourselves:

The First factor that is important when thinking about Politics is our Personal Position on a subject. Because of the eternal fact that we all have different preferences in life, we therefore have different levels of things we are willing to tolerate and have annoying aspects of ourselves that annoy others. Because it is inevitable that offending and offended lines sometimes overlap, we need to draw informed lines between what is right and wrong; so it is important that we express ourselves and our basic political views as well as we can.

The Second is our knowledge of the history of the subject so we know how the laws concerning it develop.

The Third is arguing your point so that people can decide if you are a person who makes sense or not. This can be done with a webpage like this, filling in the blanks on a Political Views website, or speaking your mind on YouTube.

My Political Position

My Personal Position on Politics is that we should be allowed to live our lives as freely as we can and remember that laws are put in place to control problems that get out of hand, and not to pre-emtively prosecute people. We also need to remember that laws need to constantly change in order to keep up with the changing world, so people who can illustrate that the best should be looked on as the best Political Leaders.

Politics and History go hand in hand. Politics is the most important and most interesting aspect of history to the point that you can't begin to truly study either subject before you include the other. A person becomes the best Politiician by becoming the best at describing the historical developments of every law that is in discussion to be currently modified.

There are many good ways to educate each other of our Political Views so we can arrive at a common ground. As said before, one good way is by telling the history of the subject and the law at hand. Another way is by making comparisons between concepts and laws the way that Jesus did, by telling parables. Expressing emotion is your argument is a good way to get your point accross, so any adequately covered political subject should have a video of oneself expressing their emotions and ideas of the subject, as well as their written position on it.

Comparing my Political Career with the Political Carreer of Augustus Caesar

I like comparing history to the present, and there are many ways to do this. One way, as explained two times before, is by telling the history of a subject and explaining leading up to the present, and even the future. We usually do this with laws, but you don't have to just tell the history of laws, you can also compare politicians. A current Politician can compare the yearly advance of their carreers with the development of somebody in the past year by year and step by step. Comparing political lives can be very interesting because there are many things that are similar between the past and the present and many things that are surprisingly different and can contribute to deepening your understanding of Law and how things develop.

I like mapping things. So I, in my crazy stoner mind, I know, mapped my life as a politician from when I'm 60 until when I am 100 so I can compare the prime of my political carreer with that of Augustus Caesar. I have to be a warrior comparing my life with Julius Caesar before that. People have political lives a little later in life now than in the past. My warrior life will match that of Julius Caesar's in age though, which is pretty cool. That is if I start riding my bike in January 2016. If not it will be 2017 just one year after Caesar with isn't so bad. :)

1 Pages 75
2 Time

2 4th Ammendment +

3 Abortion +
4 Affirmative Action +
5 Animal Rights +
6 Budget & Taxes +
7 Campaign Finance Reform +
8 Capital Punishment -
9 Defense -
10 Drugs +
11 Environment +
12 Foreign Policy +
13 Gay Rights +
14 Gun Control +
15 Healthcare +
16 Immigration +
17 The Parties +
40 Year Politican Carreer Kyle Pounds Vs Augustus Caesar
1 60s
1 60 2034
2 61 2035
3 62 2036
4 63 2037
5 64 2038
6 65 2039
7 66 2040
8 67 2041
9 68 2042
10 69 2043
2 70s
11 70 2044
12 71 2045
13 72 2046
14 73 2047
15 74 2048
16 75 2049
17 76 2050
18 77 2051
19 78 2052
20 79 2053
3 80s
21 80 2054
22 81 2055
23 82 2056
24 83 2057
25 84 2058
26 85 2059
27 86 2060
28 87 2051
29 88 2062
30 89 2063
4 90s
31 90 2064
32 91 2065
33 92 2066
34 93 2067
35 94 2068
36 95 2069
37 96 2070
38 97 2071
39 98 2072
40 99 2073
1st Amendment
Acts
1 Children's Internet Protection Act
2 Deleting Online Predators Act
3 The Establishment
Links
1 First Amendment Center.org
2 Center for Safe and Responsible Internet use
3 American Civil Liberties Union
4 American Library Association
5 National School Boards Association
6 Current First Amendment Issues
 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"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"
My Opinion
I am for %100 free expression

I believe the modern interpretation of the First Amendment should mean that we should have the absolute freedom to express ourselves in any way we see fit.

We need absolute freedom to live to our potential. Freedom doesn't allow us to be unruly and cause problems, it is the other way around. Only when we feel stripped of our personal freedoms will we challenge that lack of freedom by acting in unruly ways. If we merely aren't supposed to burn the flag then we won't burn the flag; but if it is made illegal to burn the flag, we will deliberately burn it in order to gain the freedom again, because intelligent people feel disrespected when we are treated like children, animals, or some kind of sub-human who doesn't know the difference between right and wrong.

It must be recognized, however, that there are certain stages of society where a significant percentage of society actually doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, thus necessitating certain laws. Certainly in feudal times we needed certain laws such as the prohibition of flag burning in order to keep the rulers in power, and thusly society harmonious, but times have changed. We need to understand that we have moved out of feudalism, empires and monarchies, and moved into democracy where we have enough social enlightenment that we aren't in danger of rebellion.

It must also be understood, however, that each time a society decides that it is time to move to a higher form of government, it must be instigated by the citizens. The rulers can't be expected to decide for the people that they are ready for a democracy, only the people can decide that. It should go without saying that when the people make the decision to change the way their government is handled, that the people in power will not go along with it; it takes a special person to sacrifice their position for an untested new form of government.

We need to understand that as a society changes it is the responsibility of the individual citizens to push that change, but it is equally important for us to understand that every kind of change comes with friction. This friction is usually called "birthing pains". Birthing Pains happen everywhere. Women hurt when they give birth to babies, plants die when winter comes, things crack when water freezes, and erode when it thaws. The world becomes polluted with industrialization, people go out of business when new inventions are made. The list goes on and on.

Once we understand these two rules: 1) It is the individual peoples responsibility to change society, not the leaders, and 2) Changes come with friction; along with the changes our society has made over the years, we will clearly see why our society has become freer over the years and why this new exeresis in freedom has caused problems. More importantly, we will see, as if looking through a crystal ball, where our society is going in the future, and what we need to do to get there faster.

A lot of First Amendment cases have to do with disputes over business and money, and I don't see what that has to do with the freedom of speech and free expression, so I will only address that part of it.

Schools

I find it fascinating that so many of the law suits involving the first amendment are between students and their school administrators, which involve schools punishing students for insulting them. I am glad that the courts upheld the constitution and ruled for the students. School administrators need to understand that their institutions are publicly funded and so they are subject to the US constitution. I believe private schools and companies should have the right to do what they want with their subjects, which brings another issue into play; the issue of deciding what should be private and what should be public. Industry and institutions that we need to survive should be public, and those smaller ones should be private. For example, energy companies, and schools should be public, whereas Churches should be private. If a Church receives public money they should be subject to public laws. I don't think any Church should receive public money though, neither a private school.

The cases involving the schools are interesting because they represent a microcosm of the problems we faced during feudalism, and the school administrators still think we live in a feudal world. For example, suspending a student for giving his teacher the finger is like a lord kicking his surf off his land for waving his shovel at him in anger. We graduated from the lord verses serfdom, and allowed people to own their own land for a reason. If the lord can do whatever he wants he will be corrupted. Remember the saying, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". If schools can kick students out of school for giving a teacher the finger, the school administrators and teachers may start believing they have the right to kick a student out of class for so much as disagreeing with them; I've seen it myself. If schools had this kind of power over students, students would be far less inclined to speak their minds on all kinds of subjects, and their minds will close down and they will become less intelligent. It is not the job of schools to make their students less intelligent. It is the job of schools to encourage all kinds of discourse, even if it is deemed distasteful. Children have different ways of expressing themselves than adults.

Students should have the right to make websites that are insulting to anybody they want to. No harm could come from a website no matter what its content is. One might argue that it could incite violence, but I say it is the exact opposite. The suppression of expression is what incites violence. When people can't express themselves, they compress their negative emotions inside until they explode. If you believe someone expressing their grievances will cause a riot, you have an inaccurate and negative view on human nature. We need to remember that civilized societies like the US are that way because the citizens are civilized. Punishing someone for insulting someone else, making a website about someone, or whatever, does more harm than good.

In fact, I believe students who insult their school administrators online are doing their duties as upholding their freedom and rights in "redressing their grievances" with their government, their schools. The only problem is they are young and haven't been taught how to express those grievances in a tasteful manner.

A teachers desire to punish students for attacking

There are two areas concerning the first Amendment: 1) Censorship, and 2) Insults and Slander over the internet.

I think the First Amendment issues that are going around these days concerning on-line slander and insults in schools is the perfect stage for examining exactly how we need to change so schools can become a place for learning instead of a place for control.

The First Amendment is also the defining aspect of the place the United States of America plays in the world stage.  It is a legacy that is a constant reminder of what America came from.  Because of the First Amendment the American people are the freest minded in the world. This is evidenced by it's dominance in music, movies, and television, otherwise known as "pop" culture, around the world.

Because of our freedom of speech we aren't afraid to use our imaginations to do great things.  It is our adherence to this belief that shows our great faith in God.  When we believe in absolute freedom, we have absolute faith that there is no need to control any outside force because the forces of God, which are the forces of good, will always naturally shine supreme over evil. 

Censorship
Censorship is evil because it is caused by and causes fear.  Lets take the censorship of bad words for example.  People censure bad words because they are afraid that if people are allowed to say them then pretty soon everybody will be saying bad words and it will get out of control.  These people are afraid that if left alone, the evil of our mouths will come out freely. They don't believe that we are capable of self governing our expressions.  Another thing that is censured too much is pornography.  Pornography is the age old belief that showing ones bare genitals, whether they are covered with hair or not, bare bottoms, and breasts to others in public and photos is bad.  This belief is so old that we don't even bother to think about it, but we do bother to continue to enforce it.  People who support pornography laws are afraid that if people are allowed to publish and even look at naked photos of people than they will abuse that right and they will become a tax on society.  To look into that further
1 Can you name any specific rights that are guaranteed by the First Amendment?
 
1997
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Freedom of the press
11
12
12
14
14
16
15
16
13
Freedom of speech
49
44
60
59
58
63
58
63
56
Freedom of religion
21
13
16
16
18
22
17
20
17
Right to petition
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
3
3
Right of assembly/association
10
8
9
10
10
11
10
14
11
2 The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees
 
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Strongly agree
16
10
29
41
19
19
13
8
Mildly agree
12
12
10
8
15
11
10
10
Mildly disagree
22
26
19
15
18
21
16
22
Strongly disagree
45
48
39
32
42
44
56
54
3 The press has too much, too little, or about the right amount of freedom to do what it wants
 
1997
1999
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Too much freedom
38
53
42
51
46
42
46
42
39
40
Too little freedom
9
7
8
7
8
8
9
12
10
10
About right
50
37
48
41
42
49
43
44
47
47
4 Newspapers should be allowed to freely criticise the US Military about its strategy and performance
 
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Strongly agree
33
32
32
36
33
Mildly agree
24
22
24
23
25
Mildly disagree
18
14
12
12
11
Strongly disagree
24
30
29
26
28
5 Musicians should be allowed to sing songs that others might find offensive
 
1997
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Strongly agree
23
27
32
34
31
35
34
31
41
Mildly agree
28
29
27
27
26
26
25
25
22
Mildly disagree
16
15
12
9
14
10
12
14
11
Strongly disagree
31
26
28
28
27
26
26
24
23
6 People should be allowed to say things in public that might be offensive to religious groups
 
2000
2001
2002
2003
2005
2006
Strongly agree
22
25
29
26
23
31
Mildly agree
24
22
28
23
25
24
Mildly disagree
15
16
14
14
15
16
Strongly disagree
38
35
28
36
35
27
7 People should be allowed to say things in public that might be offensive to racial groups
 
1997
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Strongly agree
8
8
15
16
14
18
17
21
22
Mildly agree
15
13
17
18
20
20
18
22
20
Mildly disagree
14
16
15
15
16
14
14
14
13
Strongly disagree
61
62
52
49
48
47
49
39
42
8 Newspapers should be allowed to publish sensitive and classified information 2006
Should be allowed to publish
12
Should be allowed to publish only when wrongdoing
15
Should not be allowed to publish
35
9 Newspapers should honor governments requests to withhold information that might hurt the war on terrorism 2006
Strongly agree
57
Mildly agree
18
Mildly disagree
9
Strongly disagree
12
10 Even during wartime, the press should be allowed to publish stories that criticize the actions of the government 2006
Strongly agree
38
Mildly agree
28
Mildly disagree
13
Strongly disagree
18
11 Even during wartime, political candidates should be allowed to criticize the actions of government while campaigning 2006
Strongly agree
45
Mildly agree
23
Mildly disagree
11
Strongly disagree
18
12 Are War Protesters Un-American?
Yes
1 Many of the protests have been organized by openly communist, socialist, and other anti-capitalist groups.
2 Most protesters are uninformed about the issues they're protesting.
3 The participants are often taking part in the protests because it's fashionable or trendy rather than because they really believe in what they're protesting.
4 Protesters send a message of weakness and indecisiveness to foreigners, thereby thwarting our causes.
5 Many of the signs and chants attack Bush & America rather than the issues.
6 The protests send a negative message to soldiers risking their lives every day.
7 The vocalness of the protests mislead the world as to the true level of opposition; pro-war advocates rarely protest.
8 Protesters don't show up to protest Saddam or other atrocious governments.
No
1 Freedom of expression is the very definition of America.
2 Protests could keep the U.S. from making big mistakes and save the lives of American soldiers. - Protests show foreigners that the people don't always support the government, leading to hatred of American policy rather than hatred of the American people.
3 Protests are a way to ensure the voices of the people are heard by the government.

The 60 First Amendment Supreme Court Cases
1 1919 Schenck VS United States Concerning a conspiracy to obstruct the draft process. The Court held that Schenck's criminal conviction was constitutional. Disagree
2 1925 Gitlow VS People Concerning the limits of protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments with regard to public safety and the integrity of the state. The Court upheld the state law
3 1927 Whitney VS California Concerning the jurisdiction of a state court over federal questions. The Court sustained Whitney's conviction.
4 1931 Near VS Minnesota Concerning the regular publication of newspapers or magazines thought to be malicious. The Court held that the statute unconstitutional.
5 1931 Stromberg VS California Concerning the display of a red flag in California, which is an illegal act. The Court ruled 7-2 that a 1919 California statute banning red flags was unconstitutional. Agree
6 1936 Grosjean VS American Press Co., Inc. Concerning the types of taxes that may be levied against owners of newspapers. The Court in a unanimous decision, found the tax to be unconstitutional.
7 1937 De Jonge VS Oregon Concerning criminal punishment for participation in public meetings, even if peaceful, because the sponsoring group advocates violence or popular uprising. The Court found that Dirk de Jonge had the right. Agree
8 1939 Hague VS Committee for Industrial Organization Concerning the ability of municipal officers to enforce the ordinances forbidding the distribution of printed matter. The Court
9 1940 Cantwell VS Connecticut Concerning the state enactment of any law respecting religion. The Court found that Cantwell's action was protected.
10 1940 Thornhill VS Alabama Concerning loitering or picketing about a lawful business to affect commerce. The Court reversed the conviction.
11 1942 Chaplinsky VS New Hampshire Concerning verbal insults in public places. The Court ruled that obscenity and fighting words--do not convey ideas and thus are not subject to First Amendment protection.
12 1946 Marsh VS Alabama Concerning the distribution of religious literature on a sidewalk. The Court In a 5-3 decision, ruled in favor of Marsh.
13 1951 Dennis VS United States Concerning the criminality of anyone knowingly advocating the overthrow of the United States. The Court In a 6-to-2 decision, upheld the convictions of the Communist Party leaders.
14 1952 Joseph Burstyn, Inc. VS Wilson Concerning the First Amendment protection of free speech in films. The Court It determined that certain provisions of the New York Education Law allowing a censor to forbid the commercial showing of any non-licensed motion picture film, or revoke or deny the license of a film deemed to be "sacrilegious," was a "restraint on freedom of speech".
15 1957 Roth VS United States Concerning the mailing of obscene material. The Court In a 6-to-3 decision held that obscenity was not "within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press."
16 1957 Communist Party of the United States VS Subsersive- Watkins v. United States Concerning witnesses before Congress refusing to answer questions. The Court decided 6-1 to overturn Watkins' conviction.
17 1957 Yates VS United States Concerning the teaching of Communist principles. The Court ruled that the Smith Act did not prohibit “advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government as an abstract doctrine.”
18 1961 The Communist Party VS Activities Control Bd. Concerning the registration of the Communist Party of the United States as a "Communist action organization." The Court found that the Communist Party of the United States was a "Communist action organization," within the meaning of the Act, and ordered it to register as such under § 7.
19 1961 Scales VS United States
Concerning membership of organizations which advocate the overthrow of the United States.
The Court In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the Security Act protects "per se" members of an organization from criminal prosecution.
20 1963 Edwards VS South Carolina Concerning the arrest of peaceful demonstrators for criminal conduct. The Court The Court held that the arrests and convictions violated the rights of the marchers.
21 1963 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People VS Button Concerning the enforcement of a state statute that violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court The unanimous Court held that the activities of the NAACP amounted to "modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
22 1964 Jacobellis VS Ohio Concerning censorship of films deemed to be obscene. The Court The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the conviction.
23 1964 New York Times Co. VS Sullivan Concerning awards due in libel cases considering intent. The Court The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity). Under this new standard, Sullivan's case collapsed.
24 1965 Cox VS Louisiana Concerning the content and location of a civil rights protest. The Court held that these could not sustain a breach of the peace conviction either. The constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly could not be denied because of hostility to their assertion or exercise.
25 1965 Cox VS Louisiana Concerning related issues to the previous case. The Court
26 1965 Zemel VS Rusk Concerning a citizen's request for a visa to Cuba. The Court found that restrictions to travel, if made in a nondiscriminatory fashion, were valid in the interests of national security. I Agree.
27 1966 A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" VS Attorney General of Massachusetts Concerning obscenity in a book. The Court Some forms of expression, among them obscenity and fighting words, do not convey ideas and thus are not subject to First Amendment protection. In this case, Chaplinsky uttered fighting words, i.e., words that "inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
28 1967 Curtis Publishing Co. VS Butts Concerning libel by a reporter against a football coach accused of fixing a game. The Court held that, while news organizations were protected from liability when printing allegations about public officials, they may still be sued by public figures if the information they disseminate is recklessly gathered and unchecked.
29 1967 Keyishian VS Board of Regents Concerning State University of New York teachers dismissed for refusing to certify that they were not Communists. The Court The Supreme Court struck the New York rules down, citing their vagueness.
30 1968 United States VS O'Brien Concerning the burning of draft cards. The Court established a test to determine whether governmental regulation involving symbolic speech was justified.
31 1969 Stanley VS Georgia Concerning the possession of obscene films. The Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibited making private possession of obscene materials a crime.
32 1969 Tinker VS Des Moines Independent Community School Concerning the suspension of students who wore black armbands protesting the police action in Vietnam. The Court wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment.
33 1971 Cohen VS California Concerning a state attempting to make the expression of four letter words a criminal offense. The Court protected two elements of speech: the emotive (the expression of emotion) and the cognitive (the expression of ideas).
34 1971 Rosenbloom VS Metromedia Concerning libel stemming from a radio news broadcast of an arrest using pejorative language. The Court Upheld an appeals court ruling that even though a news broadcast contains information about a private citizen it is not libel unless the plaintiff can demonstrate a reckless disregard for the truth or malicious intent.
35 1972 Grayned VS City of Rockford Concerning the permissible levels of noise of a person on grounds adjacent to a school building. The Court That the anti-picketing ordinance was overbroad and was therefore invalid; that the antinoise ordinance, which prohibited only noise that took place near a public school and might disrupt school activity, was valid; and that therefore Grayned's conviction under the anti-picketing ordinance was reversed while his conviction under the antinoise ordinance was upheld.
36 1972 Police Dep't VS Mosley Concerning picketing at any school involved in labor disputes. The Court held that the exemption for labor picketing violated the equal protection clause.
37 1974 Gertz VS Robert Welch, Inc. Concerning the defamation of public officials in the public media.
38 1974 Jenkins VS Georgia Concerning the conviction of a man for showing the film "Carnal Knowledge" in a movie theater. The Court held that the Georgia Supreme Court misapplied the obscenity test announced in
39 1973 Miller VS California
40 1976 Buckley VS Valeo Concerning limits to campaign contributions. The Court
41 1976 Greer VS Spock Concerning the distribution of political materials on federal military reservations. The Court
42 1976 Young VS American Mini Theatres Concerning zoning restriction for movie theaters. The Court
43 1980 Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. VS Public Service Comm'n Concerning censorship of advertising. The Court
44 1980 Pruneyard Shopping Center VS Robins Concerning petitioning in privately owned grounds. The Court
45 1981 Heffron VS International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness Concerning the distribution of any materials, including merchandise, at fairgrounds. The Court
46 1982 Brown VS Hartlage Concerning the nature of campaign promises. The Court
47 1982 New York VS Ferber Concerning the distribution of material promoting underage sex. The Court found that the state's interest in preventing sexual exploitation of minors was a compelling "government objective of surpassing importance." The law was carefully drawn to protect children from the mental, physical, and sexual abuse associated with pornography while not violating the First Amendment.
48 1982 Globe Newspaper Co. VS Superior Court Concerning the limits of press coverage of sexual offenses involving victims under the age of 18. The Court held that the Massachusetts law violated the First Amendment.
49 1982 Board of Educ. VS Pico Concerning the removal of books deemed to be anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic, from public high school and junior high school libraries. The Court
50 1983 Connick VS Myers Concerning the dismissal of an Assistant District Attorney for insubordination for questioning the policies of her supervisors. The Court
51 1984 Clark VS Community for Creative Nonviolence Concerning sleeping in connection with protests. The Court
52 1985 Cornelius VS NAACP Legal Defense & Educ. Fund Concerning charitable donations of federal employees. The Court
53 1988 Hazelwood School Dist. VS Kuhlmeier Concerning censorship of a high school newspaper. The Court
54 1989 Massachusetts VS Oakes Concerning a man who photographed his 14-year-old stepdaughter nude.
Concerning allowable levels of noise from concerts in public parks. The Court
55 1990 United States VS Eichman Concerning burning of the United States flag. The Court
56 1990 Osborne VS Ohio Concerning the possession of material showing a minor in a state of nudity. The Court
57 1990 Rutan VS Republican Party of Illinois Concerning the political nature of a state government hiring freeze. The Court held that Governor Thompson's practices amounted to an unconstitutional patronage system.
58 1991 Rust VS Sullivan Concerning the use of federal funds for family planning which advise patients of the possibility of abortion. The Court Should government subsidize one protected right (family planning), as it does in this case, it does not follow that government must subsidize analogous counterpart rights (abortion services).
59 1992 Dawson VS Delaware Concerning the admission of a defendant's personal beliefs if they are irrelevant to the case. The Court
60 1993 Lamb's Chapel VS Center Moriches Union Free School District Concerning the use of public school property for religious meetings. The Court
61 1995 Rosenberger VS Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, U.S. Concerning the distribution of student funds at a state university to groups with religious publications. The Court
Important Cases
1 Student Vs School
1 Supreme Court
1 1969 Tinker VS Des Moines dist com Students who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam war.
2 1986 Bethel School District VS Fraser Student suspended for making vulgar comments ("firm in the pants," "take you to the climax") at a school assembly. The Court ruled that the students first amendment rights were not violated when he was suspended. Disagree
3 1987 Hazelwood School District VS Kuhlmeier School took out an article about teen pregnancy and divorce. The Court ruled that it is OK for a school to edit its newspapers. Disagree
2 Lower Court
1 1943 Board of Education VS Barnette Protected students from being forced to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance in school. Agree
2 1969 Watts VS US Petitioner's remark during political debate at small public gathering that if inducted into Army and made to carry a rifle, "The first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.," held to be crude political hyperbole which in light of its context and conditional nature did not constitute a knowing and willful threat against the President. Agree
3 1986 Klein VS Smith A high school student made a vulgar gesture to a teacher off-campus and after school hours. School officials suspended the student for ten days for "vulgar or extremely inappropriate language or conduct directed to a staff member." The student sued, claiming that the suspension violated his First Amendment free-speech rights. The Court sided with the student. Agree
4 1997 Reno VS ACLU
5 1998 Beussink VS Woodland R-IV School District Student made a critical home page of his school and was suspended for ten days. The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to suspend him. Agree
6 2000 Nick Emmett VS Kent School District No. 415 Posted mock "obituaries" of at least two of the Plaintiff's friends on a web site. He was expelled. The Court sided with the student. Agree
7 2000 J.S. VS Bethlehem Area School District Student expelled for a website, "Teacher Sux," consisting of several web pages that made derogatory and threatening comments about J.S.'s algebra teacher, Mrs. Fulmer, and derogatory comments about Nitschmann Principal, Mr. Kartsotis. The Court sided with the student. Agree
8 2002 Coy VS Board of education of the North Canton city schools Student expelled for a website that contained a section entitled “losers.”  This section contained a picture of one student with a caption saying his mother had sexually molested him. The Court sided with the student. Agree
9 2002 Mahhafey VS Aldri A boy scetches violence at his school in his notebook and gets expelled. The Court sides with the school. Disagree
10 2003 US VS ALA concerning the Children's Internet Protection Act Whether the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) induces public libraries to violate the 1st Amendment
11 2006 Layshock v Hermitage School District Student makes a myspace page making fun of his principal and is suspended for ten days. The Court sided with the school. Disagree
12 2006 Killion VS Franklin Regional School District Student suspended for making a website criticizing his school. The Court sided with student. Agree
2 Freedom of Religion
1 Government Intervention in Church Controversies
1 1944 United States VS Ballard Ballard claimed to possess the power to heal people and claimed to have had success in doing so in the past. He solicited contributions via mail in exchange for offering his healing abilities. The jury sided with Ballard.
2 1952 Kedroff VS Saint Nicholas Cathedral The New York legislature passed a statute transferring control over the church from the Moscow synod to American control. The Court ruled for the Moscow synod.
3 1969 Presbyterian Church VS Hull Church Response to the attempts by two Georgia churches to withdraw from the control of the U.S. Presbyterian Church. The Court sided with the local Churches
4 1979 Jones VS Wolf A Presbyterian church had a schism that led to a vote over whether to separate from the national church structure. It was allowed to separate and form its own church.
2 Jehovah's Witnesses Cases
1 1940Cantwell VS Connecticut They went door-to-door with books and pamphlets in a predominately Roman Catholic street and played a record entitled "Enemies" which attacked Catholicism. The Court sided with the Witnesses.
2 1940Minersville School District VS Gobitis Two Jehovah's Witness school children, ages 10 and 12, were suspended from school for refusing to salute the American flag. The Court ruled against the students.
3 1941 Cox VS New Hampshire groups marched along sidewalks, displayed signs, and handed out leaflets announcing a later meeting. The Court upheld their conviction of marching without a license.
4 1942 Jones VS OpelikA 1 A witness sold books without a license. The Court ruled against the Witness because it was commercial.
5 1943Jones VS Opelika 2 He gave away the books for a voluntary donation. The Court ruled that he couldn't charge a flat fee.
6 1943Murdock VS Pennsylvania Witness asked for contributions in exchange for books and pamphlets. The Court ruled for Witness.
7 1943West Virginia State Board of Education VS Barnette A group of Witnesses refused to salute the flag. The Court ruled for the Witnesses.
8 1944Prince VS Massachusetts A Witness made a child under her care to sell literature. The Court ruled that it is not ok to make children work.
3 Conscientious Objection to War
1 1929United States VS Schwimmer Hungarian woman wanted to be a citizen but refused to declare that she would take up arms to defend her country. The Court ruled to deny her citizenship.
2 1931United States VS Macintosh A Canadian man refused to swear to take up arms for his country. The Court ruled against him.
3 1934Hamilton VS Regents of the Univerisity of California Students suspended for refusing to do the school's ROTC program. The Court ruled against them.
4 1946 Girouard VS United States Canadian refused to swear to take up arms. The Court ruled for him.
5 1965United States VS Seeger Upheld the Universal Military Training and Service Act for concientious objection.
6 1970Welsh VS United States The Court allowed Welsh to be declared a conscientious objector even though he declared that his opposition to war was not based on religious convictions.
7 1971Gillette VS United States The Court decided 8-1 that Congress did not act unconstitutionally by limiting conscientious objector status to those people who objected to all wars.
4 Religion and the Right to Work
1 1963 Sherbert VS Verner The Supreme Court ruling 7-2 in favor of the woman’s right to refuse to work on her Sabbath without relinquishing her right to unemployment benefits.
2 1977 Trans World Airlines VS Hardison Man fired for not working on Friday night. Court ruled in his favor.
3 1986Ohio Civil Rights Commission VS Dayton Christian Schools Woman fired for getting pregnant. Court ruled in favor of allowing a civil rights investigation.
4 1987 Corporation of the Presiding Bishops of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints VS Amos Man fired from a church for not being a member of the church. The Court rules in favor of the church.
5 1990 Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon VS Smith Men fired by a private drug rehabilitation organization because they ingested peyote. The Court sided with the company.
6 1995 United States VS National Treasury Employees Union Federal employees lose funding to speak about religion but their superiors get extra money for their lost income from the appearances. The Court rules in favor of the lower level employees and allows them keep making money for speaking about religion.
5 Religious Tests for Public Service or Benefits
1 1961Torcaso VS Watkins Man denied appointment to Notary Public on Maryland because he refused to declare his belief in God. The Court rules in favor of him.
2 1978 McDaniel VS Paty The Court ruled in favor of an Ordained minister who was barred from serving in Tennessee’s constitutional convention.
3 1986 Goldman VS Weinberger Officer wanted to wear his yamuka inside. The Court ruled against him. Disagree
4 1986 Bowen VS Roy Indians refuse to provide social security number for food stamps. The Court ruled against them. Agree
6 Free Exercise and Free Speech
1 1992 R.A. VS City of St. Paul Kids get in trouble for burning a cross in someones lawn according to a statute that prohibits that kind of vandalism. The Court rules for the kids.
7 Free Exercise and Public Education
1 1972Wisconsin VS Yoder Amish stop going to school after eighth grade. The Court rules for them.
2 1981Widmar VS Vincent School stops allowing students to use school property to distribute religious material. The Court ruled in favor of the students.
3 1990 Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools VS Mergens The Court decided 8-1 that the students had the right to begin a Christian Club.
4 1993 Lamb's Chapel VS Center Moriches Union Free School District
The Court ruled unanimously to reject the school district's decision to refuse to allow school property to be used for religious activities.
5 1995Rosenberger VS Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia The Court ruled 5-4 that the University of Virginia inappropriately denied funding to Wide Awake Productions because they were religious.
8 Free Exercise and Public Property
1 1995 Capital Square Review and Advisory Board VS Pinette Ku Klux Klan wanted to put a cross in Columbus Ohio Capital Square for the holiday season. The Court upholds it.
9 Free Exercise and Taxation
1 1982 United States VS Lee Amish man didn't want to pay his social security taxes. Upheld.
2 1983 Bob Jones University VS United States The IRS revoked the tax exempt status of two racist schools. Upheld.
10 Solicitation by Religious Groups
1 1981 Heffron VS International Society for Krishna Consciousness Krishnas weren't allowed to distribute literature in a Minnasota fair. Upheld 5-3-1.
11 Free Exercise and Eminent Domain
1 1988 Lying VS Northwest Indian CPA Forest service wanted to build a six mile road through Chimney Rock in Six Rivers National Forest on Indian ceremonial land. Upheld.
2 1997 City of Boerne VS Flores Church wanted to enlarge their building in the historical district. The Court ruled against them 6-3
12 Outlawing of Religious Sacrifice
1 1993 Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye VS City of Hialeah The Court unanimously invalidated the city ordinances that outlawed animal sacrifices.
1 Establishment of Religion Clause
1 Standing to Sue
1 1968 Flast VS Cohen The Court ruled that the taxpayers could sue the federal government if its spending violated a specific limitation on its power.
2 1982 Valley Forge Christian College VS Americans United for Separation of Church and State The Court permitted 5-4 a grant of land to a Christian College stand.
3 1986 Bender VS Williamsport The Court ruled that one member of a School Board cannot use the interest of the Board to confer standing upon himself.
2 Tax Exemption to Religious Institutions
1 1970 Walz VS Tax Commission of the City of New York The Court upheld the tax exemption for churches by a vote of 8-1.
2 1989 Texas Monthly Inc. VS Bullock The Court decided that exempting religious publications from the state sales tax violated the Establishment Clause.
3 Sunday Work
1 1961 McGowan VS Maryland Store fined for selling things on Sunday. The Court ruled that Maryland’s Sunday closing laws had evolved into furthering secular ends and did not violate the Establishment Clause.
2 1961 Braunfeld VS Brown Jew wanted his store open on Sunday. Court ruled 6-3 against him.
3 1985 Thorton VS Caldor Man didn't want to work on Sunday. The Court ruled 8-1 against him because it had a direct effect of advancing a particular religious practice.
4 Religious Institution Functioning as a Government Agency
1 1988 Larkin VS Grendel's Den
2 1988 Bowen VS Kendrick Man wanted to sell liquor ten feet from a church. Court ruled 8-1 for him.
3 1994 Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School VS Grumet A school district was drawn specifically to include only Jews. The Court ruled 6-3 against them.
5 Unequal Government Treatment of Religious Groups
1 1982 Larson VS Valente Unification Church didn't want to have to register with Minnesota's Department of Commerce. The Court ruled 5-4 for the Church.
6 Legislative Chaplains
1 1983 Marsh VS Chambers The Court voted 6-3 permitting the practice of beginning the legislative session with a prayer given by the publicly funded chaplain.
7 Government-Sponsored Nativity Scenes
1 1984 Lynch VS Donnelly The Court ruled 5-4 that the city of Pawtucket could continue to display a nativity scene as part of its Christmas display.
2 1989 County of Allegheny VS ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter Two religious symbals in Pittsburg, crèche outside County Courthouse and a menorah outside the City-County Building. The Court ruled for the menorah and against the creche in a fragmented decision.
8 Government Aid to Public Education
1 1948 McCollum VS Board of Education The Court disallowed 6-1 the practice of allowing religious education to take place in public school classrooms during the school day.
2 1952 Zorach VS Clauson The Court permitted 6-3 the public school students to travel to parochial schools to receive religious education.
3 1962 Engel VS Vitale The Court ruled that requiring students to recite prayer is unconstitutional.
4 1963 Abington Township School District VS Schempp Murray challenged the requirement of the Baltimore school board that the Lord's Prayer be recited prior to the beginning of the day's classes. The Court ruled 8-1 against the allowing the reciting of the Bible verses and the Lord's Prayer.
5 1968 Epperson VS Arkansas No teacher was permitted to teach "that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals."
The Court ruled that Arkansas could not stipulate which models of creation could or could not be taught in school.
6 1980 Stone VS Graham A Kentucky law required the posting of the Ten Commandments in each public school classroom.
The Court ruled 5-4 the Kentucky law unconstitutional.
7 1985 Wallace VS Jaffree An Alabama law required that each school day begin with a moment of “silent meditation or voluntary prayer”. The Court ruled 6-3 that the Alabama law was unconstitutional.
8 1997 Agostini VS Felton
9 2000 Mitchell VS Helms In a 6-3 decision The Court ruled that it was permissible for loans to be made to religious schools.
9 Governmental Aid to Church-Related Schools
1 1925 Pierce VS Society of Sisters Oregon cumpulsory education at a public school law challenged by a Catholic school. The Court Ruled for the school.
2 1930 Cochran VS Louisiana State Board of Education The Court upheld the Louisiana statute that provided state funds for the purchasing of textbooks for both religious and public school students.
3 1947 Everson VS Board of Education New Jersey pays for transport to private school. Ruled 5-4 for the plan.
4 1968 Board of Education VS Allen New York paid for books for both public and private schools. Upheld.
5 1971 Lemon VS Kurtzman Rhode Island paid 15% of private school teachers salaries. Ruled unanimously against it.
6 1971 Tilton VS Richardson Church sponsored institutions paid to build non-religious buildings, but in 20 years would go to them. Ruled 8-1 against the 20 year rule.
7 1973 Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty VS Nyquist
The Court permitted New York’s plan to reimburse nonpublic schools for the costs resulting from offering and recording the results of state-mandated tests.
8 1975 Meek VS Pittenger The Court permitted Pennsylvania to purchase textbooks for non-public schools, but did not allow for the purchase of instructional materials or the supplication of special needs instructors.
9 1976 Roemer VS Board of Public Works of Maryland The Court permitted Maryland to pay non-public schools with the stipulation that the money only be spent on secular functions.
10 1977 Wolman VS Walter The Court allowed Ohio to provide textbooks, standardized tests, therapeutic and diagnostic services to non-public school children. However, the state could not offer educational materials or subsidize class field trips.
- Committee for Public Education and Religious
11 1980 Liberty VS Regan The Court permitted New York’s plan to reimburse nonpublic schools for the costs resulting from offering and recording the results of state-mandated tests.
12 1983 Mueller VS Allen A Minnesota law allowed parents to deduct from their state income taxes any school expenses. Ruled 5-4 to allow the deductions to be made by parents with students attending religious schools.
13 1985 Aguilar VS Felton
Court ruled 5-4 New York City's plan to pay the salaries of parochial school employees who offered remedial assistance to low-income students.
14 1985 Grand Rapids School District VS Ball Private schools rented rooms to public schools.
The Court invalidated the programs because they had the primary effect of advancing religion.
15 1993 Zobrest VS Catalina Foothills School District Ruled 5-4 to make school district pay for a sign language interpreter for a boy at a Catholic school.
10 Prayer in Public Schools
1 1992 Lee VS Weisman A man thanked God in a graduation speech. The Court ruled 5-4 that the graduation prayer violated the Establishment Clause.
11 Teaching of Creationism in Public Schools
1 1987 Edwards VS Aguillard Evolution couldn't be taught in Lousiana without including creationism. The Court ruled 7-2 that they could teach evolution alone.
Religious Clauses
Establishment Clause, The prohibition of:
1 Establishment of a national religion by Congress or a Supreme Court Judge,
2 Preference of one religion over another or religion over non-religion.
Free Exercise Clause The freedom to believe, and the freedom to act
 
4th Ammendment
 
     
Abortion
 
Links

1 abortionfacts.com

2 Planned Parenthood
3 Pro Choice Education Project
Important Cases

1 1972 Roe VS Wade

2 1973 Doe VS Bolton
3 1965 Griswald VS Connecticut
4 1992 Planned Parenthood VS Casey
I think Abortion should be legal.
Should Abortion Be Banned
(Except in Special Circumstances Like Saving the Mother's Life)?
1 Abortion is a form of murder and demeans the value of human life.
2 Other birth control is readily available; thus, abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control.
3 The societal contributions of a potentially valuable human being are wiped out.
4 Women who have abortions often suffer major psychological damage from the experience along with, in some cases, the father of the child.
5 The advances of genetic testing may prompt more abortions (to avoid having the non-ideal child).
6 There are many couples who spend years on waiting lists trying to adopt a child.
7 The abortion decision is often made by minors or young adults, who don't have the maturity and life experiences to make good decisions.
8 People have the right not to see their tax dollars go to something they find immoral.
1 Government gets to control a woman's body. "Back alley" abortions would increase if it were made illegal, leading to increased risk of young women dying or becoming sterile.
2 It's arguably better for society to have babies aborted than have them be brought up poor and neglected, where not only will the child suffer but society when that child develops a higher attraction to crime, welfare, etc.
3 One brief mistake can take away a woman's childhood and trap her for life.
4 Giving up a child for adoption can be just as emotionally damaging as having an abortion. Abortion is not murder because it is performed before a fetus has developed into a human person.
Important Cases

1 1972 Roe VS Wade

2 1965 Griswald VS Connecticut
3 1992 Planned Parenthood VS Casey
4 Doe v. Bolton
 
Affirmative Action
Should Affirmative Action Policies, which give preferential treatment based on minority status, be eliminated?
1 Affirmative action leads to reverse discrimination.
2 Affirmative action lowers standards of accountability needed to push students or employees to perform better.
3 Students admitted on this basis are often ill-equipped to handle the schools to which they've been admitted. It would help lead a truly color-blind society.
4 It is condescending to minorities to say they need affirmative action to succeed.
5 It demeans true minority achievement; i.e. success is labeled as result of affirmative action rather than hard work and ability.
1 Diversity is desirable and won't always occur if left to chance.
2 Students starting at a disadvantage need a boost.
3 Affirmative action draws people to areas of study and work they may never consider otherwise.
4 Some stereotypes may never be broken without affirmative action.
5 Affirmative action is needed to compensate minorities for centuries of slavery or oppression.
Acts, Iniciatives, Orders & Cases
1 1961 Executive Order 10925 Makes the first reference to "affirmative action" Creates the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and mandates that projects financed with federal funds "take affirmative action" to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias.
2 1964 Civil Rights Act The most sweeping civil rights legislation since Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination of all kinds based on race, color, religion, or national origin.
3 1965 Executive Order 11246 Enforces affirmative action for the first time requires government contractors to "take affirmative action" toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment. Contractors must take specific measures to ensure equality in hiring and must document these efforts. On Oct. 13, 1967, the order was amended to cover discrimination on the basis of gender.
4 1969 Philadelphia Order most forceful plan thus far to guarantee fair hiring practices in construction jobs. Philadelphia was selected as the test case because, as assistant secretary of labor Arthur Fletcher explained, "The craft unions and the construction industry are among the most egregious offenders against equal opportunity laws . . . openly hostile toward letting blacks into their closed circle." The order included definite "goals and timetables." As President Nixon asserted, "We would not impose quotas, but would require federal contractors to show 'affirmative action' to meet the goals of increasing minority employment."
5 1978 Regents of the University of California VS Bakke imposed limitations on affirmative action to ensure that providing greater opportunities for minorities did not come at the expense of the rights of the majority—affirmative action was unfair if it led to reverse discrimination. The case involved the Univ. of California, Davis, Medical School, which had two separate admissions pools, one for standard applicants, and another for minority and economically disadvantaged students. The school reserved 16 of its 100 places for this latter group.

Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was rejected twice even though there were minority applicants admitted with significantly lower scores than his. Bakke maintained that judging him on the basis of his race was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that while race was a legitimate factor in school admissions, the use of such inflexible quotas as the medical school had set aside was not. The Supreme Court, however, was split 5–4 in its decision on the Bakke case and addressed only a minimal number of the many complex issues that had sprung up about affirmative action.
6 1980 Fullilove VS Klutznick Supreme Court ruled that some modest quotas were perfectly constitutional. The Court upheld a federal law requiring that 15% of funds for public works be set aside for qualified minority contractors. The "narrowed focus and limited extent" of the affirmative action program did not violate the equal rights of non-minority contractors, according to the Court—there was no "allocation of federal funds according to inflexible percentages solely based on race or ethnicity."
7 1986 Wygant VS Jackson Board of Education This case challenged a school board's policy of protecting minority employees by laying off non-minority teachers first, even though the non-minority employees had seniority. The Supreme Court ruled against the school board, maintaining that the injury suffered by non-minorities affected could not justify the benefits to minorities: "We have previously expressed concern over the burden that a preferential-layoffs scheme imposes on innocent parties. In cases involving valid hiring goals, the burden to be borne by innocent individuals is diffused to a considerable extent among society generally. Though hiring goals may burden some innocent individuals, they simply do not impose the same kind of injury that layoffs impose. Denial of a future employment opportunity is not as intrusive as loss of an existing job."
8 1987 United States VS Paradise In July 1970, a federal court found that the State of Alabama Department of Public Safety systematically discriminated against blacks in hiring: "in the thirty-seven-year history of the patrol there has never been a black trooper." The court ordered that the state reform its hiring practices to end "pervasive, systematic, and obstinate discriminatory exclusion of blacks." A full 12 years and several lawsuits later, the department still had not promoted any blacks above entry level nor had they implemented a racially fair hiring system. In response, the court ordered specific racial quotas to correct the situation. For every white hired or promoted, one black would also be hired or promoted until at least 25% of the upper ranks of the department were composed of blacks. This use of numerical quotas was challenged. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the use of strict quotas in this case as one of the only means of combating the department's overt and defiant racism.
9 1989 City of Richmond VS Croson This case involved affirmative action programs at the state and local levels—a Richmond program setting aside 30% of city construction funds for black-owned firms was challenged. For the first time, affirmative action was judged as a "highly suspect tool." The Supreme Court ruled that an "amorphous claim that there has been past discrimination in a particular industry cannot justify the use of an unyielding racial quota." It maintained that affirmative action must be subject to "strict scrutiny" and is unconstitutional unless racial discrimination can be proven to be "widespread throughout a particular industry." The Court maintained that "the purpose of strict scrutiny is to `smoke out' illegitimate uses of race by assuring that the legislative body is pursuing a goal important enough to warrant use of a highly suspect tool. The test also ensures that the means chosen `fit' this compelling goal so closely that there is little or no possibility that the motive for the classification was illegitimate racial prejudice or stereotype."
10 1995 Adarand Constructors, Inc. VS Peña What Croson was to state- and local-run affirmative action programs, Adarand was to federal programs. The Court again called for "strict scrutiny" in determining whether discrimination existed before implementing a federal affirmative action program. "Strict scrutiny" meant that affirmative action programs fulfilled a "compelling governmental interest," and were "narrowly tailored" to fit the particular situation. Although two of the judges (Scalia and Thomas) felt that there should be a complete ban on affirmative action, the majority of judges asserted that "the unhappy persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups in this country" justified the use of race-based remedial measures in certain circumstances.
11 1995 White House guidelines on affirmative action President Clinton asserted in a speech that while Adarand set "stricter standards to mandate reform of affirmative action, it actually reaffirmed the need for affirmative action and reaffirmed the continuing existence of systematic discrimination in the United States." In a White House memorandum on the same day, he called for the elimination of any program that "(a) creates a quota; (b) creates preferences for unqualified individuals; (c) creates reverse discrimination; or (d) continues even after its equal opportunity purposes have been achieved."
12 1996 Hopwood VS University of Texas Law School Cheryl Hopwood and three other white law-school applicants at the University of Texas challenged the school's affirmative action program, asserting that they were rejected because of unfair preferences toward less qualified minority applicants. As a result, the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals suspended the university's affirmative action admissions program and ruled that the 1978 Bakke decision was invalid—while Bakke rejected racial quotas it maintained that race could serve as a factor in admissions. In addition to remedying past discrimination, Bakke maintained that the inclusion of minority students would create a diverse student body, and that was beneficial to the educational environment as a whole. Hopwood, however, rejected the legitimacy of diversity as a goal, asserting that "educational diversity is not recognized as a compelling state interest." The Supreme Court allowed the ruling to stand. In 1997, the Texas Attorney General announced that all "Texas public universities [should] employ race-neutral criteria." The June 23, 2003, Supreme Court ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger invalidates Hopwood.
13 1997 Proposition 209 Enacted in California A state ban on all forms of affirmative action was passed in California: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." Proposed in 1996, the controversial ban had been delayed in the courts for almost a year before it went into effect.
14 1998 Initiative 200Enacted in Washington State. Washington becomes the second state to abolish state affirmative action measures when it passed "I 200," which is similar to California's Proposition 209.
15 2000 Florida bans race as factor in college admissions. Florida legislature approves education component of Gov. Jeb Bush's "One Florida" initiative, aimed at ending affirmative action in the state.
16 2001 Univ. of Michigan Law School's affirmative action policy

In Grutter v. Bollinger, a case similar to the University of Michigan undergraduate lawsuit, a different judge drew an opposite conclusion, invalidating the law school's policy and ruling that "intellectual diversity bears no obvious or necessary relationship to racial diversity." But on May 14, 2002, the decision was reversed on appeal, ruling that the admissions policy was, in fact, constitutional.
17 2003 Gratz VS Bollinger, a federal judge ruled that the use of race as a factor in admissions at the University of Michigan was constitutional. The gist of the university's argument was as follows: just as preference is granted to children of alumni, scholarship athletes, and others groups for reasons deemed beneficial to the university, so too does the affirmative action program serve "a compelling interest" by providing educational benefits derived from a diverse student body.
18 2003 Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action in University Admissions
In the most important affirmative action decision since the 1978 Bakke case, the Supreme Court (5-4) upholds the University of Michigan Law School's policy, ruling that race can be one of many factors considered by colleges when selecting their students because it furthers "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." The Supreme Court, however, ruled (6-3) that the more formulaic approach of the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions program, which uses a point system that rates students and awards additional points to minorities, had to be modified. The undergraduate program, unlike the law school's, does not provide the "individualized consideration" of applicants deemed necessary in previous Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action.
"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."
Animal Rights
     
Budget & Taxes
 
How the economy is changing
The way in which we look at the way the economy works is changing.  First lets look at the history of the economy with the Roman civilization. In the beginning the Roman economy was driven by the products they stole from the lands they conquered. Then they created a trade network that benefited everybody.  For a while the Spanish economy was driven that way also.  Today the economy is driven by world trade.  The British Empire's economy was driven by world trade controlled by a centralized force.  Today's economy is controlled by centralized forces also because we need to set up a system of checks and balances. 
The multi national corporation

We live in a world that is controlled by multi national corporations.  The way a multi national corporation works is that it is funded by normal middle class people who put money into in in the hopes of it making money so they can sell their shares at a later date at a higher price. The problem is that because of the fact that people are conditioned to not take personal responsibility for anything they invest in companies that they think will make money instead of investing in companies that they hope will make money.  So in the end they make collective decisions about the way the world works without knowing it.  If they invest in companies that they hope will succeed then they will succeed because they will have the funding.  So in the end the only people to blame are the people themselves.  People like to blame the worlds woes on multinational corporations and the people in charge of the corporations instead of the people who invest in the corporations. We need to understand that the people who are in control of the corporations are just doing their jobs and have a lot more to lose than the person who doesn't have as much invested in it, so it is much harder for them to make a positive impact on the corporation than the person who just has some shares in it. 

The economy is changing in two ways, the first way is my small businesses managing day to day and taking away the middle man in situations.  This happens as we become more responsible.  An example is instead of hiring a large chain company to cut your lawn you hire a guy who works for himself to cut your lawn.  Before the large company was a better choice because the workers are better trained than the individual who just decided one day he wanted to cut lawns and does a bad job. So what the people are paying for is the security of having a good job done.  But assuming the worker is competent it is cheaper to hire the self employed lawn cutter because his expenses are less because there are no middle men such as secretaries and and offices and managers and owners, there are only workers. 

Another way the economy is changing is from the atomization of the worlds factories.

1 Should the U.S. Institute a National Sales Tax to Replace the Income Tax?
1 A national sales tax discourages consumption, leading to a conservation of resources.
2 The removal of an income tax encourages saving and investing, which is the key to job growth. Individuals would have an extra incentive to work hard and earn income, leading to a far more productive nation.
3 A sales tax would be a much simpler system, eliminating the need for individuals to comply with complex tax reporting requirements and freeing up all the money & time lost on the income tax process.
4 Tax rates can be targeted to encourage or discourage the consumption of certain items.
5 Consumer prices of certain items would fall since labor and tax compliance costs would be cheaper to businesses.
6 It's a tax system consistent with a free society; i.e. Americans have a choice regarding their taxes, unlike our current confiscation system.
1 A sales tax would be a regressive tax; i.e. low-income individuals would pay a much higher share of their incomes than wealthy individuals.
2 A national sales tax is a risky system that may not raise near enough money to support all our needs in defense, education, health care, etc.
3 Consumer spending, which drives a thriving economy, would likely drop as people save and invest more rather than spend.
4 Many incentives built into our tax system (such as education, home ownership, charity, etc.) would be eliminated.
5 Hundreds of thousands of attorneys, accountants, and human resource workers would likely lose their jobs due to the simpler tax system. - Real estate values would likely plummet since the tax advantages to ownership would vanish.
6 Mortgage and other consumer debt would likely explode since consumers would be forced to finance the taxes also.
7 We would have to come up with another way to raise or set aside funds for social security.
8 The transition costs of such a change would be extremely expensive.
9 Tax evasion and instances of black market purchasing would likely skyrocket.
10 Consumer prices of many items would go up by a much greater rate than the sales tax rate since raw materials would also be taxed.
11 Retirees and others who have earned the majority of their life income have already had their money hit with income tax; thus, they will pay extra sales tax with money already subjected to income tax.
12 A sales tax is more insidious; i.e. it's easier for the government to raise taxes without the people knowing it, as opposed to an income tax which shows up on the W2's and 1040's every year.
2 Should There be a "Windfall Tax" on the Excess Profits of Oil Companies?
Yes
1 Record prices for gas have been accompanies by record profits for the oil companies, punishing the little guy instead of billionaires.
2 Rich oil executives are making millions in options and bonuses, even if their companies aren't very profitable.
3 Money brought in could be put into an energy trust fund or alternative fuel research; it also could be put into other areas where we need funds such as defense, education, social security, etc.
4 It ensures there won't be price gouging since unreasonable profits are taken.
No
1 Gas prices will likely increase since oil companies will factor the tax into their prices.
2 Less potential for large profit means less incentive to invest in exploration, drilling, and refinery development; thus, it will lead to supply problems and greater foreign oil dependence.
3 Companies shouldn't be punished just because they are successful.
4 Oil stocks, which are owned by many Americans in 401(k)'s and other critical investment portfolios, would likely plunge in value.
5 The tax would increase inflation, leading to higher prices on items unrelated to oil.
6 Corporate profits of non-oil-related companies would tax a hit; thus, the decrease in corporate tax revenues would offset the money brought in by oil taxes.
3 Should Products Which Contribute to Obesity (Such as Big Macs and Krispy Kreme Donuts) be Taxed?
Yes
1 It helps discourage consumers from eating foods that aren't good for them.
2 Health care costs of obesity are skyrocketing, and even non-obese people must share this cost burden.
3 Additional revenue could be raised by the government to cover health care, medical research, and other items.
No
1 People are personally responsible for their weight, not the products.
2 How would you decide what items to tax?
3 Virtually any products can make you obese if abused.
4 A tax would punish successful businesses for providing products that people want.
5 The government already taxes income, alcohol, gasoline, sales, and about everything else in our lives.
6 Additional taxes can lead to job cuts in the affected businesses and contribute a degradation of consumer purchasing power.
4 Should Americans Be Able to Put Some of Their Social Security Contributions in Private Accounts?

Yes

1 It gives poor people a better chance to retire wealthy.
2 It makes up for inevitable benefit cuts that must eventually be made to the system.
3 The stock market should get an initial bump in value.
4 People are given a personal stake in the U.S. economy, providing extra incentive to help their companies and the nation as a whole to do well.
5 Personal responsibility and ownership are injected into citizens' plans for retirement.
6 Stocks & bonds are historically safe in long-term diversified portfolios (as evidence by their existence in every major government - union - corporate pension & retirement fund).
7 Individuals who die early and don't recover all they paid in can pass on funds to their next of kin.
8 Billions of dollars will be injected into corporate investment, leading to an economic stimulus.

No

1 Poor portfolio management could leave some retirees severely short of funds.
2 Wide stock market price fluctuations could leave large groups of retirees in dire straits if their retirement occurs during a downturn.
3 There are several less complicated fixes to social security available.
4 This isn't the best time to address the problem (i.e. there are far more urgent issues).
5 Even more money will be taken out of an already underfunded system.
6 Current IRA's and 401k's offer essentially the same benefits as social security private accounts. - The transition costs of setting up private accounts would be prohibitively high and severely add to an exploding deficit
5 Should the Minimum Wage Be Abolished (i.e. Reduced to $0.00)?
1 It would lead to more responsibility in the accounting and administration of corporations.
2 Retirees and others living on fixed incomes would have more take-home pay.
3 It would stimulate more investment in the stock market, along with great business investment spending.
4 More money in the hands of consumers means more money can be spent to get the economy going.
5 It makes the expansion of small businesses easier.
6 Consumers & private investors know how to handle money better than the government.
1 Most of the tax savings will be going to the wealthy.
2 It discourages the investment of stocks in retirement accounts.
3 Companies may slow down capital spending so they can pay out more dividends.
4 Cutting taxes would be risky since we need the money for homeland security, education, and other priorities.
5 There are ways to cut taxes that are more immediately stimulative to the economy.
6 It would raise the interest cost of borrowing for state & local governments.
6 Should the individual tax on dividends be eliminated?
1 The vast majority of economists believe the minimum wage law costs the economy thousands of jobs.
2 Teenagers, workers in training, college students, interns, and part-time workers all have their options and opportunities limited by the minimum wage.
3 A low-paying job remains an entry point for those with few marketable skills.
4 Abolishing the minimum wage will allow businesses to achieve greater efficiency and lower prices.
5 When you force American companies to pay a certain wage, you increase the likelihood that those companies will outsource jobs to foreign workers, where labor is much cheaper.
6 Non-profit charitable organizations are hurt by the minimum wage.
7 The minimum wage can drive some small companies out of business.
8 A minimum wage gives businesses an additional incentive to mechanize duties previously held by humans.
9 Cost-of-living differences in various areas of the country make a universal minimum wage difficult to set.
10 The minimum wage creates a competitive advantage for foreign companies, providing yet another obstacle in the ability of American companies to compete globally.
11 The minimum wage law is just another example of government condescendingly controlling our actions and destroying personal choice.
12 Citizens do have the ability to say no to a lower wage.
1 Adults who currently work for minimum wage are likely to lose jobs to teenagers who will work for much less.
2 Workers need a minimum amount of income from their work to survive and pay the bills.
3 Businesses have more power to abuse the labor market.
4 It forces businesses to share some of the vast wealth with the people that help produce it.
 
Capital Punishment
 
 
1 Pared-down versions of the following decisions are presented in Death Penalty Cases
1 1972 Furman v. Georgia the landmark ruling invalidating capital punishment laws as then administered, and clearly the watershed case in the modern death-penalty era.
2 1976 Gregg v. Georgia  one of a series of important cases in which the justices announced that punishment by death is not per se cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment, and that “guided discretion” statutes are capable of remedying the constitutional infirmities identified by the Furman Court.
3 1976 Woodson v. North Carolina another of the series of 1976 decisions, in which the Court declared mandatory capital-punishment legislation unconstitutional.
4 1977 Coker v. Georgia holding that death is a constitutionally excessive punishment for the crime of raping an adult.
5 1982 Enmund v. Florida in which the justices clarified the circumstances under which the “nontrigger-person” in a felony murder can be sentenced to death.
6 1987 Tison v. Arizona in which the justices clarified the circumstances under which the “nontrigger-person” in a felony murder can be sentenced to death.
7 1989 Stanford v. Kentucky ruling, respectively, that the federal Constitution does not prohibit the execution of 16- and 17-year old murderers, or mentally retarded murderers.
8 1989 Penry v. Lynaugh ruling, respectively, that the federal Constitution does not prohibit the execution of 16- and 17-year old murderers, or mentally retarded murderers.
9 1986 Ford v. Wainwright recognizing that the Eighth Amendment forbids the capital punishment of offenders who have become “incompetent” for execution, and requiring minimal procedural safeguards for resolving incompetency claims.
10 1984 Pulley v. Harris holding that the federal Constitution does not require “comparative proportionality review” of capital sentences.
11 1980 Godfrey v. Georgia in which a statutory aggravating factor involving the commission of an “outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman...” murder was declared unconstitutionally vague, as applied.
12 1978 Lockett v. Ohio ruling, respectively, that the sentence in a capital trial must be allowed to consider all relevant mitigating evidence, and that jurors may not be required to agree unanimously that a mitigating factor has been established before crediting mitigation evidence.
13 1990 McKoy v. North Carolina ruling, respectively, that the sentence in a capital trial must be allowed to consider all relevant mitigating evidence, and that jurors may not be required to agree unanimously that a mitigating factor has been established before crediting mitigation evidence.
14 1990 Blystone v. Penn-sylvania holding that legislation requiring that a death penalty be imposed if the sentence finds at least one aggravating factor and no mitigating factors, or that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors, does not create an impermissible “mandatory” capital punishment scheme.
15 1984 Spaziano v. Florida approving Florida’s practice of allowing the trial judge to impose a death sentence in disregard of a jury’s advisory verdict recommending a sentence of life imprisonment.
16 1987 McCleskey v. Kemp rejecting equal protection and cruel and unusual punishment challenges to Georgia’s death-penalty system, raised by an African American defendant sentenced to death for murdering a white victim, based on a statewide study suggesting that killers of whites were significantly more likely to be charged with capital crimes and sentenced to death than killers of blacks in otherwise similar cases.
17 1991 Payne v. Tennessee allowing the sentencing authority in capital trials to consider “victim-impact evidence.”
18 1987 Burger v. Kemp rejecting a capital defendant’s claim that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel.
19 1984 Arizona v. Rumsey applying double jeopardy principles to the capital-sentencing context.
2 Should the death penalty be banned as a form of punishment?
1 Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life.
2 It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights.
3 The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system.
4 We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance.
5 It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong.
6 Life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent.
7 Other countries (especially in Europe) would have a more favorable image of America.
8 Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death.
9 The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state.
10 The possibility exists that innocent men and women may be put to death.
11 Mentally ill patients may be put to death.
12 It creates sympathy for the monstrous perpetrators of the crimes.
13 It is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life.
1 The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much.
2 It creates another form of crime deterrent.
3 Justice is better served. Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims.
4 It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence.
5 DNA testing can now effectively eliminate uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence.
6 Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill.
7 It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system.
 
Campaign Finance Reform
     
Defense
 
The war in Iraq
Our attitudes about the war in Iraq is a fascinating social social phenomenon.  We are divided about this issue along very unpredictable lines, be it age, sex, political affiliation, nationality, or religion.  People are against and for the war for very different reasons. 
1 Should the U.S. act without U.N. approval when the situation warrants action?
1 Member countries act in their own interest rather than the common good, leading to bad decisions.
2 No one else is going to look out for the security and interests of the U.S.
3 Countries will disagree and obstruct just to thwart the U.S.
4 We often have intelligence that the U.N. doesn't that we can't release.
5 Debate takes too much time and leads to inaction.
6 The tough but necessary actions are often the most risky and unpopular.
7 The veto and chairmanship procedures of the U.N. administration has become somewhat of a joke.
8 We need to maintain a threat of acting alone to push the U.N. to not make anti-U.S. decisions.
9 There are some world problems that only the U.S. is willing to deal with (e.g. North Korea).
10 The U.N. is not a true democratic institution since many of the countries are communist or dictatorships.
1 Anti-Americanism will continue to grow.
2 It creates the impression that the U.N. is irrelevant, and other countries may feel they too can act alone.
3 Different perspectives of other nations can show us our actions may be wrong.
4 The U.N. process forces us to use diplomacy and enhance relationships.
5 Ignoring the U.N. makes us sound hypocritical since we condemn Saddam and others for the same reasons.
2 Should the U.S. Allow the CIA to Destabilize or Lead Overthrows of Hostile Foreign Governments?
1 The risk of civilian deaths is reduced or eliminated.
2 Internal coups lead to a more credible and internationally recognized government than a foreign overthrow.
3 Less damage is done to the infrastructure of the country.
4 Fewer lives of American troops are put on the line.
5 The financial costs are dramatically reduced. Popular support for an all-out war is usually impossible to achieve.
6 Less resentment and anti-American sentiment is accumulated.
7 At a minimum, it prepares efforts for military action that may be needed in the future.
8 We can help counter anti-American propaganda from the inside.
1 These actions lead to wild conspiracy theories, whether or not the CIA has a hand in things.
2 The credibility of the U.S. and the intelligence community is damaged.
3 A lack of democratic decision making could lead to corruption and bad decisions.
4 Other countries could follow the same policies.
5 It could lead to Saddam/Stalin-like internal crackdowns on the population.
3 Should the U.S. use its military and financial power to act as the world's policeman?
Yes
1 Unstable regions can be havens for terrorists.
2 Nations cannot grow and develop with constant threat of warlords and terrorists trying to gain power.
3 Humanitarian aid often cannot reach its intended recipients.
4 Genocide and atrocities can be avoided or lessened.
5 Militant ideologies could expand without us, threatening the lives and resources of democratic countries.
6 Living with oppression and a constant state of terror throughout an entire population is worse than the risk of a few deaths.
7 It could eventually lead to a united, stable world. No other country in the world has the power to play this role.
No
1 It could increase an already growing anti-American sentiment around the world.
2 We could make many wrong decisions (e.g. when we armed & financed Saddam Hussein). U.S. soldiers would be put in harm's way.
3 Civilians would be killed on many of the missions.
4 Much of a country could be destroyed in a liberation attempt.
5 The financial cost of being a world policeman is extremely high.
4 Should the U.S. act without U.N. approval when the situation warrants action?
1 Member countries act in their own interest rather than the common good, leading to bad decisions. - No one else is going to look out for the security and interests of the U.S.
2 Countries will disagree and obstruct just to thwart the U.S.
3 We often have intelligence that the U.N. doesn't that we can't release.
4 Debate takes too much time and leads to inaction.
5 The tough but necessary actions are often the most risky and unpopular.
6 The veto and chairmanship procedures of the U.N. administration has become somewhat of a joke.
7 We need to maintain a threat of acting alone to push the U.N. to not make anti-U.S. decisions.
8 There are some world problems that only the U.S. is willing to deal with (e.g. North Korea).
9 The U.N. is not a true democratic institution since many of the countries are communist or dictatorships.
1 Anti-Americanism will continue to grow.
2 It creates the impression that the U.N. is irrelevant, and other countries may feel they too can act alone.
3 Different perspectives of other nations can show us our actions may be wrong.
4 The U.N. process forces us to use diplomacy and enhance relationships.
5 Ignoring the U.N. makes us sound hypocritical since we condemn Saddam and others for the same reasons.
5 Should the U.S. Allow the CIA to Destabilize or Lead Overthrows of Hostile Foreign Governments?
1 The risk of civilian deaths is reduced or eliminated.
2 Internal coups lead to a more credible and internationally-recognized government than a foreign overthrow.
3 Less damage is done to the infrastructure of the country.
4 Fewer lives of American troops are put on the line. The financial costs are dramatically reduced. - Popular support for an all-out war is usually impossible to achieve.
5 Less resentment and anti-American sentiment is accumulated.
6 At a minimum, it prepares efforts for military action that may be needed in the future.
7 We can help counter anti-American propaganda from the inside.
1 These actions lead to wild conspiracy theories, whether or not the CIA has a hand in things.
2 The credibility of the U.S. and the intelligence community is damaged.
3 A lack of democratic decision making could lead to corruption and bad decisions.
4 Other countries could follow the same policies.
5 It could lead to Saddam/Stalin-like internal crackdowns on the population.
Our attitudes about the war in Iraq is a fascinating social social phenomenon.  We are divided about this issue along very unpredictable lines, be it age, sex, political affiliation, nationality, or religion.  People are against and for the war for very different reasons. 
 
Weed
Links
1 Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
2 LEAP on YouTube
3 Drug war clock
4 Office of National Drug Control Policy
5 Marijuana news
Why Nuggets should be legal
I wish nugg's was legal, because my life would be so much better. After numerous times trying to quite because of whooping coughs. I have discovered that I can't, even if my lungs turn black. If buds was legal, I could grow my own kind and make muffins with it and never smoke it no more. I don't like to buy it cause I use my money to keep my fucking bikes 'n shit going, so I scrape friends aluminum pipes and have to smoke shiny particles. And when I do buy a bag, I always have to weight for the dank, so I just get the shwag, which is like half fertilizer and gasoline. My lungs keep me up at night because I can't breath smoothly.
If ganja was legal, I would do what would give me the imagination and motivation to pack my day with the best of deeds, without forgetting what I'm doing or passing out. I don't think bad short term memory is bad unless your at work, and you only have bad short term memory when your buzzed on buds. If Marijuana was legal then more people would get baked, and if more people got high: People would look at the hills like they were a place to go, people would smile and laugh for no apparent reason, people wouldn't have to take synthetic drugs to calm down, If ganja was legal It sucks not being able to go to sleep at night because of fucked up lungs. they improve it so I could have loss of certain kinds of play in they at each other and I could smoke a joint and talk to a cop at the same time, which would be fun for me because I would stumble around and see if he thinks I'm joking or not.
Most importantly, Marijuana is good for my imagination, so that would probably make it good for the
imaginations of people who don't burn down because its illegal; and their imaginations would make them happier, so I would be happier. I know I had other things to say but I can't remember them because Stone could only get me the dirt before two. So somebody please start a Durango NORML, if you don't have the time take some time off of school to do it; and if you don't have the motivation then drink coffee and ask people to slap you or something, I don't know.
Why religions should support Marijuana even though it is not needed and leads to indulgences
Marijuana is a good thing because it makes you happy. It expands your awareness in a way that you appreciate the simple things in life, laugh, and reflect and see that anything negative is bad and so we should be positive about everything. However, if you smoke too much, for example if you are stoned all day for a couple weeks your mind gets so used to it that it goes back to its normal ways, an the body becomes so drenched in THC that the blood sugar levels drop and you never have energy, causing agitation and a feeling of hopelessness this is the 'burn out'. Time to quit for a couple weeks or until you are energetic and clear minded again. These laws apply to Dope addicts like me, other people only on it occasionally and don't get burnt out. Religions need to support marijuana because this is the only danger imposed by it. It should hot be classified as a bad drug just because it can lead to bad drugs, for it can also lead to good things like creativity, love, and sports. Drugs that harm are the result of a general loss of control, which can be spurred by any minor weaknesses or indulgences like over eating, co-dependence, or alcoholism. marijuana is a plant you can't illegalize Gods creation, that is the same thing as illegalizing pornography. You have the responsibility to speak out against it if you don't like it, but to make it illegal, and cause 50,000 innocent people to go to jail for life, cause mass paranoia, a black market, and general disrespect and anger for authority and the religious right, and fines and jail sentences is so counter productive it is bound to bring you down. Open your eyes and realize you can't compare marijuana to other drugs, and more than half of us love the stuff. you cant expect it to be legal in the future from observing its massive growth in popularity in the last 30 or 10 years, so why drag on the drug war. For the vast majority of people the drug war is about marijuana and marijuana is not even a drug. It is a plant that if you smoke makes you happy, it isn't even addictive, drugs are addictive, alcohol and tobacco are drugs. get real.
Take more drugs! (written in like '96)

I'm pissed off how the food of the gods has such a bad rap. If I didn't have my drugs I don't know what I would be; definitely not as open minded as I am now. There's no danger to them either. Those fascist are in a catch-22 about psychedelics, because you would have to eat a ton of them to go crazy, and you would have to be crazy in the first place to eat that much at one time. I have seen a bunch of people go crazy on alcohol, but only twice have I even heard of it happening on acid. If your addicted to something that's your problem and you should go to a drug rehab center, plus suicidal people can always find ways to kill themselves; don't suppress the normal people. And Marijuana? When I quit for two months my short term memory didn't improve and my lungs didn't get any stronger. (actually, that's bullshit) Plus, all the car wrecks I have ever been in that were my fault I was totally sober. So what's your beef!? It better be damn good for all the paranoia, brothers and sisters in jail, and my tax money being spent on the DEA.

Arguments for Legalization
For
1 The drug generally isn't more harmful than alcohol or tobacco if used in moderation.
2 Limiting the use of the drug intrudes on personal freedom.
3 Legalization would mean a lower price; thus, related crimes (like theft) would be reduced.
4 There are medical benefits such as the those for cancer patients.
5 Street justice related to drug disputes would be reduced.
6 It could be a source of additional tax revenues.
7 Police and court resources would be freed up for more serious crimes.
8 Drug dealers (including some terrorists) would lose most or all of their business.
9 The FDA or others could regulate the quality and safety of drugs.
10 Like sex, alcohol, or cigarettes, marijuana is one of life's little pleasures for some people.
11 Drug busts often trap young people in a flawed system that turns them into lifelong criminals.
Against
1 Marijuana is often used as a stepping-stone drug, leading to heroin, cocaine, or other harder drugs.
2 Stoned driving and other dangers would be increased.
3 Some consider use of the drug as morally wrong. Legalization would increase the chances of the drug falling into the hands of kids.
4 Because of drug-related arrests, people who have committed or are likely to commit more serious crimes can be taken off the streets.
5 Physical damage would be done to users that abuse the drug.
Drug War Statistics
1 The U.S. federal government spent over $19 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second. The budget has since been increased by over a billion dollars.
State and local governments spent at least another 30 billion.
2 Arrests for drug law violations in 2006 are expected to exceed the 1,678,192 arrests of 2003.
3 Someone is arrested every 20 seconds.
4 Police arrested an estimated 786,545 persons for marijuana violations in 2005, The total is the highest ever recorded by the FBI, and comprised 42.6 percent of all drug arrests in the United States.
5 Since December 31, 1995, the U.S. prison population has grown an average of 43,266 inmates per year. About 25 per cent are sentenced for drug law violations.
6 Nearly 4,000 new HIV infections can be prevented before the year 2007 if the federal ban on needle exchange funding is lifted this year.
7 About 10 new cases could be prevented every day.
Environment
Issues

1 Biodiversity

2 Climate Change and Global Warming
3 Genetically Engineered Food
4 Nature and Animal Conservation
5 Hemp: Miracle Fiber or Dangerous Drug?
6 The clean air act
Solar Power
Solar will save us. The future is now with solar technology. For $1600 you could set up your RV with a solar power system strong enough for your satellite TV, power tools, stereo
Be a sun worshiping Gypsy
We could save the rape of mother earth from the energy companies and consumerism buy buying camper vans and equipping them with solar energy systems. A solar power system strong enough to comfortably support a person in summer and winter can be obtained for less than a thousand dollars.
Solar for the future everybody!
Our renewable power technology is now advanced enough to support our electrical needs. There are solar powered RV'ers out there with Satellite TVs, and power tools. For less than a thousand dollars you could equip your van with a solar system good enough to live out of.
If we all invested a couple thousand
Self Sufficiency
The transformation from living as part of a unit subject to the units laws into living as part of a unit and working independently in coordination with the larger unit is a main theme in the transformation into the new age.  We illustrate this economically and socially.
Economically
Economically the transformation into self sufficiency is best described as the transformation to independent power.  Most of what is destroying the planet now is our use of power.  The use of oil is not self sustainable because we will run out of oil in twenty years, so obviously we need to change.  There are options such as nuclear power, but this is not a realistic option because it is dangerous and pollutes, also it contributes to a great central power structure which is the theme of the old world.  The transformation into solar power is the perfect example of how the world we live in is controlled by each of us, and the only people who can change your lives are you.  In order to fix the energy problem all we have to do is change ourselves. All we have to do is invest in putting solar panels on top of each of our houses and wiring them up to a battery and inverter. After a few short years the set up costs will have paid for themselves so it is without a doubt in our best interests.  We have no one to blame for ourselves if we haven't done this yet.  Once we are sucking less energy out of the electric power plants we will be able to use more of it on charging our electric powered cars and thus use less oil.  once we realize we can make a difference with our own lives we will be able to make more autonomous decisions regarding the energy consumption of our local communities.  We will be able to hook up windmills and water driven propellers on smaller scale. 
Independent Business
There is becoming less and less of a need to have a middle man involved in businesses.
Socially
Another theme in self sufficiency the way we need to change how we think
Move out of your house now!

Please be like me and move out of your house and live up here on campus, it's a lot better. You might think it's a waste of time, but it's not. When I lived in houses, I was spending all my time getting blitzed and hanging out with my roommates and doing their dishes. Now I spend all my time doing the things I wished I was doing when I lived in a house. Plus I get to look at the stars every night and watch the little reflector bugs fly around. You may think you can't afford it, but it's actually a lot cheaper than living in a house. I lived splendidly last year on just about $4000, A lot of people spend that on rent alone. You may think it's bad for the environment, but I don't think so. As long as you don't pee there (like me) you would leave your campsite just the way you found it. And you wouldn't be helping a house degrade the environment (water, electricity, wood, etc..). You may think the law enforcers would get you, not true. I have told told the cops up here more than once that I live up here, and they have never told me to stop. u a it ain't but I don't think they really care. It kind of sucks when it rains, but I just go to the picnic shelter behind the Bader Sheridan's or put a tarp over me. And when it snows it don't matter because snow don't get you wet. Most importantly, if you live in a car during college, you can live in a car anywhere. Scientists are making a bean now that has all the nutrients you need combined with rice, so you could almost live for free baby! all my time getting blitzedy time doing the things I wish can

Foreign Policy


How to be Diplomatic
Diplomacy is a learned skill. If you can be diplomatic you can put anyone on your side. Present every statement in the form of a question: 'Don't you think John is sort of right?' 'no!' 'why?' not: 'John is right' 'No he's not!' 'Yes he is' Make the person feel smart. Never say their wrong or don't understand. Always have facts to backup your arguments.
How to have a religious conversation without making it confrontational

If you speak your mind to a fundamentalist you are bound to have differences in opinion. and the way to woo them and keep them from feeling frustrated is to keep smiling, laughing, never show weakness, for that should be reserved for your friends, and keep reminding them that no matter what we will all go to heaven, and we all want the same thing. When bringing basic differences in doctrine together like the trinity, God, and reincarnation, and idol worship, an overview and historical retracing is necessary. For all of these beliefs need to be not only respected but believed. Their truth is self evident in the millions of believers. For example, the trinity issue. Muslims fervently disregard the trinity, but only because they think Christians put too much emphasis on it, if you look at the trinity as what it is: The different levels of awareness of God, and then acknowledge that it is the importance in remembering God that is most important, there doesn't have to be an argument. Different religions are just different styles, there is nothing wrong with different styles, that is the beauty of the world, the diversification there doesn't have to be a "difference" in ideology an even there needs to be a reconciliation and honest forthright agreement and clarification between al religions in order to move on to the next age.

Gay Rights
     
Gun Control
     
Health care
Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?
1 The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 40 million.
2 Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals.
3 We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc.
4 We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors.
5 Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc.
6 Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs.
1 There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; if they can't run an office such as the DMV efficiently, how can we expect them to handle something as complex as health care?
2 "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
3 Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
4 Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
5 Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
6 Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; non profits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
7 Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
8 Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
9 Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
10 Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.
 
Immigration
1 Common Immigration Questions

1 What Should be Done About USCIS Backlog, Processing and Waiting Times?
Immigration applications take months and years to be processed. Waiting times and priority dates are out of control. Applicants wait for years abroad to be reunited with their families in the U.S. Is this right? Is it wrong? What are the arguments from both sides? What can be done about it? Should something be done at all?

2 U.S. Border Control Issues
When U.S. borders are vulnerable, the entire country is vulnerable. What should be done about the borders, and what is at stake?
3 Impact of Immigration on Healthcare Costs
Opponents of mass immigration say that immigrants play an ominous role in our rising health care costs. Advocates argue that health care costs, influenced by other factors, are harming new immigrants, as well as others in the United States.
4 Professional Work Visas: Both Sides of the Issue / Political Stands
A look at the issues surrounding professional worker visas to the U.S., namely the L-1 and H-1B visas, annual caps, rules, regulations, and the effect of these visas on American workers.
5 Welfare & Healthcare, Licenses for Immigrants in The U.S.
Immigrants often take advantage of public services, such as healthcare and welfare, costing the United States billions each year. Is this fair to American citizen taxpayers who foot the bill? Would it be humane to deny assistance to human beings in need?
6 Amnesty: Both Sides of the Issue / Political Stands
Should illegal immigrants in the United States receive amnesty? Here are arguments from both sides of the issue.
7 Should Illegal Immigrant Children & Teenagers Be Educated in the U.S.?
Should the U.S. government allow illegal immigrant children in public schools? Should they allow them in college? Should they give them tuition breaks? Here are background information and pro/con arguments from both sides.
8 Fingerprinting, Photographing and Tracking of Visitors to the U.S.
Many foreign visitors to the United States are now fingerprinted, photographed and questioned each time they enter the U.S. Is this fair? Necessary? Good for America? The debate is a passionate one.
9 The Guest Worker Program: Both Sides of the Issue / Political Stands
Should illegal aliens and foreigners be allowed to work in the U.S., legally, for up to six years?
10 Faster, Easier Citizenship for Military Personnel: Both Sides of the Issue / Pol
Thousands of military personnel are not yet citizens of the U.S., and are thus defending a country in which they lack certain rights, including the right to vote for their own leaders.
11 Driver's Licenses for Immigrants in the U.S.
In most parts of the U.S., driving a car is necessary to get to work, school or the doctor. Should legal immigrants and temporary residents have quick access to a driver's license? Should illegals be granted driver's licenses?
12 Detaining Illegal Immigrants: Both Sides of the Issue / Political Stands
Illegal aliens, as well as foreigners legally in the U.S. who have committed a crime, can be deported at any time. While they are awaiting deportation, they may wait indefinitely in jail. This has been going on for a long time. More recently, anyone suspected of having ties to terrorism can be held indefinitely as well. "indefinitely" can mean years, without any set court date.
13 Requiring English / Accepting Other Languages in the U.S.
Should English be the official U.S. language? What about Spanish? Arguments for and against, plus where George W. Bush and his former presidential opponent, Governor John Kerry, stand.
2 Should America Maintain/Increase the Level of Legal Immigration?
1 Some of the most intelligent and ambitious individuals, who are unsatisfied with their own countries, bring their skills to America.
2 It increases the diversity and expands the culture of the country.
3 Immigrants often taken the low-paying jobs (like food service & hotel cleaning) that most Americans don't want to do at such low wages.
4 Decreasing or eliminating legal immigration will inevitably create more incentive to come to the country illegally, which leads to less assimilation and fewer taxpaying, law-abiding citizens.
5 It improves the overall image of America internationally, as it is seen as an open, welcoming country; and immigrants who return home or maintain contact with family back home have a true image of America, not the one propagandized in much of the international media.
6 Adding an additional group of cheap labor adds to the flexibility of business, leading to cheaper prices, better quality products, and higher profits. It gives struggling people all over the world an opportunity for a better life.
7 This country was built on immigrants who sought opportunity, political & religious freedom, etc.
1 More immigrants means more opportunity for terrorists, drug dealers, and other criminals to enter the country.
2 Immigrants, especially the poorer ones, consume a high amount of government resources (health care, education, welfare, etc.) without paying a corresponding high rate of taxes.
3 The national identity and language is disappearing.
4 The great "melting pot" is being replaced by divisive multiculturalism.
5 Less-skilled American citizens earn less money and have fewer job opportunities because they must compete with immigrants in the job market.
The Political Parties