It is Women’s Right to Decide

In government class we had discussed the many different ways to become active in government. The pathways of action, and especially the court pathway, are one of the many ways that citizens can participate in government. The court pathway has been used to shape government. In the courtroom they use the Constitution to back up their argument. In this instance using the Constitution is the most powerful tool because it is one of the founding principles of our nation.

The use of the Constitution was extremely evident in the Roe vs. Wade Case in 1973. The Roe vs. Wade case was very instrumental in changing the law nationwide. They had used the court pathway to shape the nation by “establishing a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that included the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child” (Justia Law)

Curtsey of Cecilia.W.Yu

. They had won the case 7-2 because under the Constitution in Amendment Fourteen, women obtain the right to equal protection, and liberty. The lawyers in the Roe vs. Wade case had skillfully used the Constitution as a tool to reinforce that all people have the right to privacy, and that women have the right to decide if they want to have an abortion.

However, the Constitution did not anticipate abortion so there are places in the Constitution where it is not clear. Pro-life activists used this to their advantage. The pro-life activists had used every pathway to pass new laws and place restrictions upon abortion. In the Constitution it states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States…” (Choices, The Constitution). The Constitution does not clarify and say that all persons born and unborn should not be deprived of life. But the Constitution does not indicate whether the person can be unborn. There are some “gray” areas in the Constitution but it is ultimately up to the judges of the case to determine what is being said and how to apply that knowledge to modern day living.

The pro-choice advocates led with the issue that women could have health risks if abortion was banned due to the violent uprisings of the pro-life advocates. Some pro-life activists burned down abortion clinics, and attacked the doctors performing these operations. These serious actions proved that it is a controversial issue. Some women do need these clinics, and if the women did not have the option they would turn to people that were not specifically trained to do so, and could potentially suffer severe problems or face death.

Curtsey of “The World As I see it” Blog by albertacowpoke

Under the Constitution, I believe that every woman should have the option to have an abortion.  Despite the many protestors against pro-choice, it is ultimately up to the woman. The fourteenth amendment clearly states that women have the right to choose whether she wants to terminate her pregnancy. She has the right to her privacy if she doesn’t want to share her personal information to the public. The government cannot dictate that only have an abortion if the woman has health issues, or her decision on if she wants to proceed with the operation.

Abby

The Right to Fair Arms

The Vice President spoke last night at a violence conference in Danbury, Connecticut. His audience, members of the state’s congressional delegation. Mr. Biden was there to push the President’s gun control policy. Mr. Vice President touched bases with the attendees by appealing to their pathos, “‘We have to speak for those 20 beautiful children who died 69 days ago, 12 miles from here,’ Biden said. ‘We have to speak for the voice of those six adults who died trying to save the children in their care that day who can’t speak for themselves. You have to speak for the 1,900 people who have died at the other end of a gun just since Sandy Hook in this country.’”(The Stamford Times)

Mr. Biden was at the conference to reiterate the importance of change concerning guns in this country. He tried to advocate the president’s plan of,

• “Closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands;

• Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and taking other common-sense steps to reduce gun violence;
• Making schools safer; and
• Increasing access to mental health services.”(Douglas Dispatch)

Though the plan of the President appeals to many there are some that have publicly said that they disapprove of the president’s choice to push gun control laws. “The Utah Sheriff Association wrote to the President a day after he released his plan.The letter stated ‘we respect the office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties; we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights in particular Amendment II has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.’”(Douglas Dispatch)

The President’s plan is one that in my opinion exemplifies the change that needs to happen around the gun culture in this country. For the people that lost their loved ones in the shootings or the people affected by gun violence we as a nation need to change. Mr. Biden is in the right to advocate the President’s plan for gun control. These simple but necessary things will make this country safer. From background checks to banning military-style assault rifles, is where we need to get as a nation to keep each other safe. Regarding our constitutional rights, clearly stated in the Sheriff’s Association of Utah, are founding fathers gave us the right to bare arms but they met against invading forces. The fact is that no one needs a fully automatic weapons lying around their house. And to the avid hunters out there it is a little unsportsmanlike to try and hunt with a high powered automatic rifle, I believe that it takes away from the art and skill needed to hunt. Mr. Vice President is in the right to try and help our countries gun problem the fact is there are “1,900 people who have died at the other end of a gun just since Sandy Hook in this country.’”(The Stamford Times) The Utah Sheriff Association is in the wrong to think we should interpret the constitution in its traditional form, the fact is that the founding fathers lived in a different time so it would be preposterous to uphold traditions started in the 18th century. The Gun Control plan is the least that the President can do to uphold his swore oath to protect this nation and it’s people. 

Praying for Rights

The information I have learned in Government class repeatedly proves to help me understand current affairs concerning politics.  Our studies of the Constitution, Presidency, Judiciary branch, etc. have all enriched my knowledge.  Now I am able to grasp more concepts and relate them to real world events.

One event that I recently came across in political news headlines correlates with our study of the Constitution and Judiciary branch nicely.  This is the case involving the Colorado Court of Appeals.  The Colorado Court of Appeals has claimed the Day of Prayer unconstitutional as of May 10, 2012.  

The Christian group known as the Colorado Springs-based National Day of Prayer Task Force first ignited the idea behind the National Day of Prayer in 1991.  It is meant to be a day set aside where people are welcome to gather in prayer.   However, it is getting ridiculed for being religious.  The Colorado judges believe that it sends the message to their citizens that if you are a religious person, you are more favored by the Colorado government.  This isn’t the first time the outburst against Day of Prayer has occurred.  In 2008 the Freedom of Free Religion organization went against Obama, in which case a U.S. District Court said the Day of Prayer was unconstitutional.  Then, three years later, in 2011 the same controversial issue was taken to 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and they affirmed the ‘Day of Prayer’.  Currently there is discussion on whether or not it should be taken to the Colorado Supreme Court.

This political case coincides with what we have learned recently in Government class about the Constitution and Judges.  I believe that this case should be ruled constitutional because of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.  This states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble” (Article 7, Amendment 1).  I think the observation of the ‘Day of Prayer’ falls under freedom of expression of religion, and the right of people to peaceably assemble.   The effect of the Day of Prayer is harmless, and it is within the rights of the citizens of the United States.  If judges rule against the people and it is revealed that citizens aren’t allowed their rights promised in the constitution, then what does that say about our government?  It could be implied that our government is not strong enough to enforce the agreements stated by our founding fathers.  Overall, it is crucial for the judges to uphold fair standards that embody the morals and rights of the Constitution.