Skip to main content

Home/ Dr. Friedman's AP Government/ Group items tagged constitution

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
kyrranielson

Laws governing recall in Wisconsin - Ballotpedia - 0 views

ballotpedia.org/_governing_recall_in_Wisconsin

shared by kyrranielson on 25 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • The citizens of Wisconsin are granted the authority to perform a recall election by Section 12 of Article XIII of the Wisconsin Constitution. This section was added to the Wisconsin Constitution in 1926; it was amended in April 1981.
  • In Wisconsin, a "qualified elector" is someone who: Is a citizen of the United States Is 18 years of age or older Has resided in the district or jurisdiction where the recall is sought for at least 10 days.
    • kyrranielson
      kyrranielson on 25 Mar 15
       
      I think it is important to understand the process to form a petition and recall an elected official. In this article it states the laws and regulations included in this process. Some argue that this process may be a bit lengthy but I think that it is necessary to ensure that the elected official isn't being recalled for a legitimate reason.
  • sebasgm on 25 Mar 15
     
    Yeah, this stated the process pretty well. I also shared something similar.
Jason Friedman

Watch: Florida Mayor Stomps on an Atheist's Constitutional Rights | Occupy Democrats - 0 views

www.occupydemocrats.com/atheists-constitutional-rights

ap government first amendment

shared by Jason Friedman on 03 Sep 14 - No Cached
  • Jason Friedman on 03 Sep 14
     
    Students: Ask yourself if you think the Mayor's actions are constitutional. Maybe revisit the question after we cover the first amendment.
kyrranielson

Same-Sex "Marriage" Is Not a Civil Right | The Center for Public Justice - 3 views

www.cpjustice.org/...storyReader$1178

shared by kyrranielson on 10 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment.
  • civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration.
  • A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. Thus it is not marriage.
  • ...9 more annotations...
    • kyrranielson
      kyrranielson on 10 Oct 14
       
      I do not believe that this is true. Marriage isn't defined by your ability to reproduce.
  • A marriage and a homosexual relationship are two different kinds of relationships and it is a misuse of civil rights law to use that law to try to blot out the difference between two different kinds of things.
    • kyrranielson
      kyrranielson on 10 Oct 14
       
      There is no difference between a straight or homosexual relationship. You can't compare it to brothers and sisters living together or an eight year old wanting to get married. This is a civil rights issue because it is infringing on people's personal rights to enjoy the benefits of marriage.
  • The only thing that will change is that the law will mistakenly use the word "marriage" to refer to two different kinds of sexually intimate human relationships.
  • Judges and public officials will then be required to recognize as a marriage any sexually Intimate bond between two people who want to call themselves married.
    • kyrranielson
      kyrranielson on 10 Oct 14
       
      Judges are not being called upon to accept the idea of marriage between any individual that claims that. The only relationship that is asking to be recognizing is between two people of the same gender, nobody is asking them to allow brother and sister marriage or marriage between a 12 year old and a 20 year old. This is just a matter of mature relationships being recognized to the next level.
  • In that regard, the question of marriage is not about a civil right at all. It is about the nature of reality and interpretations of reality that precede the law.
  • the question of marriage is not first of all a religious matter in the sense in which most people use the word "religion."
    • kyrranielson
      kyrranielson on 10 Oct 14
       
      marriage is not a matter of religion, then why is it a standard of moralistic values that a man and a woman can be married but not homosexuals?
  • sebasgm on 10 Oct 14
     
    I agree with you Kyrra, it shouldn't be defined by your ability to reproduce. I also agree with the statement that marriage is a "civil matter, not a church affair." There is really no argument against the restrictions put on same-sex marriage being discriminatory and unconstitutional, hopefully society will soon come to understand this.
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Joanne Kim on 11 Oct 14
     
    I also agree with Kyrra and Sebastian and think this article is using ridiculous reasons to oppose same sex marriage. I think same sex marriage is not different from any other types of marriage, and therefore should be allowed.
  • paigedeleeuw on 11 Oct 14
     
    I completely agree with the statement that marriage is a civil matter rather than a church affair. I do not, however, believe that just because same-sex marriage cannot physically create pregnancy, it does not count as marriage. You are all right to say that this article is using absolutely ridiculous reasons to support their ideas on same-sex marriage. As Sebastian said, hopefully society will lessen their biased minds on the subject matter.
  • danielajallath on 18 Oct 16
     
    First, I was not very familiar with the legalities of this issue until I read this. To my surprise I realized how many factors went into the process of legalizing same-sex marriages. I agree with Kyrra's comments, which I think are on point. This issue is an example of how religion does tie into law at times. The Constitution does not point at any religion in specific. However, if in law marriage did not tie up to religion... What said that only a man and woman could be married and not same sex people? There was no one definition for this. At the end of the day, same-sex marriage was passed at a federal level. There cannot be any discrimination towards these individuals, or if there is then they are protected by the law. Going back to "Civil Rights", this law was passed in response to civil rights. How the law should not discriminate. Many of the excuses that this article uses of why same sex marriage is different are ridiculous in my opinion. Just like my older fellow classmates said marriage should not be based on wether a couple can procreate. In conclusion, its is 2016 and same sex marriages are legal, respected and protected against the law. So, justice was served!
Jason Friedman

Unit 3 - The Constitution - History with Mr. Bayne - 0 views

www.mrbayne.com/unit-3---the-constitution.html

ap government constitution

shared by Jason Friedman on 29 Apr 15 - No Cached
  • Jason Friedman on 29 Apr 15
     
    See especially the LEJ CASH video
sebasgm

Maryland State Comptroller of Treasury v. Wynne | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent... - 1 views

www.oyez.org/...2014_13_485

ap government

shared by sebasgm on 10 Oct 14 - No Cached
    • sebasgm
      sebasgm on 10 Oct 14
       
      Court eventually found that the taxing violated the dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution as these people were getting overly taxed. 
    • sebasgm
      sebasgm on 10 Oct 14
       
      Maryland wanted to tax the income made in other states.
  • sebasgm on 10 Oct 14
     
    Found this to be interesting as it had to do with the dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution and it prohibiting states from taxing the income their citizens receive from other states.
Jason Friedman

Which episodes of the West Wing are vital to one's understanding of US Government? : th... - 1 views

www.reddit.com/...he_west_wing_are_vital_to_ones

ap government The West Wing

shared by Jason Friedman on 23 Apr 15 - No Cached
  • Jason Friedman on 23 Apr 15
     
    "Top 5 Constitutional Moments"
natedurrett

This Alabama Judge Has Figured Out How to Dismantle Roe v. Wade - ProPublica - 2 views

www.propublica.org/...ut-how-to-dismantle-roe-v-wade

alabama judge how to roe wade supreme court

shared by natedurrett on 11 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • Before his election to Alabama’s highest court, Parker had been an aide-de-camp to Chief Justice Roy Moore, whose installation of a granite Ten Commandments monument in the state judiciary building had touched off what became for Alabama both a considerable embarrassment and a genuine constitutional crisis.
  • A DVD of the session shows him gripping the lectern, dressed in a gray suit and blue tie, as he railed against the perceived sins of jurists at every level. “It’s the judges who have legalized abortion and homosexuality … They are shaking the very foundation of our society.”
  • Parker has been the most creative in his relentless campaign to undermine legal abortion.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Again and again, he has taken cases that do not directly concern reproductive rights, or even reproductive issues, and found ways to use them to argue for full legal status for the unborn.
  • Those efforts have made Parker a pivotal figure in the so-called personhood movement, which has its roots in a loophole in Roe v. Wade.
  • During oral arguments, the justices had asked Roe’s lawyer what would happen if a fetus were held to be a person under the Constitution.
  • “If this suggestion of personhood is established, [Roe’s] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed.”
  • natedurrett on 11 Oct 14
     
    Alabama Judge challenges pro-choice by stating that fetuses should have full rights as citizens of the US
Joanne Kim

"2012 Wisconsin Recall" by Steven M. Biskupic - 2 views

scholarship.law.marquette.edu/...4

ap government elections recall scott walker

shared by Joanne Kim on 25 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • From a legal perspective, the 2012 Walker recall involved equally unique issues arising from the Wisconsin Constitution and obscure state statutes.
  • litigation over review of submitted recall signatures;
  • unlimited campaign finance contributions; and (3) the scheduling of the recall election. The Article concludes that an assessment of the historical nature of the Walker recall is incomplete without consideration of the impact of these issues.
  • campbellcondon on 25 Mar 15
     
    Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker faced only the third gubernatorial recall in the nation's history and was the first to survive. From a legal perspective, the 2012 Walker recall involved equally unique issues arising from the Wisconsin Constitution and obscure state statutes.
  • Joanne Kim on 25 Mar 15
     
    This long essay talks about the 2012 wisconsin recall but the summary shows cleary the main unique point of the recall election. I think the information is very helpful.
Jason Friedman

Presidential Debates in History - Bill of Rights Institute - 2 views

www.billofrightsinstitute.org/...residential-debates-in-history

potus ap government

shared by Jason Friedman on 03 Oct 15 - No Cached
  • Divisive presidential campaigns are not new in American history. Politics has always been a brutal sport in which different factions vie for any advantage on voting day. While the competitive spirit of elections has little changed over the centuries, the modes in which candidates communicate their platforms and tear down their opponents have changed significantly. Now, presidential contenders are tasked with crafting a unique brand, cultivating a positive public image, and must appeal to a broader base of voters with a wider array of backgrounds and interests than ever before. The ways in which voters come to perceive and judge candidates have likewise changed with time. Visual media, especially the Internet, is one of the most important factors in modern elections.
  • Until the end of the nineteenth century, presidential candidates did little personal campaigning, preferring to let their supporters do the heavy lifting of attacking opponents and persuading voters.
    • Jason Friedman
      Jason Friedman on 14 Oct 15
       
      This is an example of how I might write something to the group.
paigedeleeuw

House Agrees to Fully Fund DHS Despite Opposition on Immigration - US News - 0 views

www.usnews.com/...pite-opposition-on-immigration

shared by paigedeleeuw on 04 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • The vote was a major victory for Democrats
  • funding for DHS through the end of the fiscal year – without making any concessions on immigration.
  • The move would have been the GOP’s last viable avenue for opening negotiations to halt Obama’s actions shielding some immigrants in the U.S. illegally from deportation.
  • ...14 more annotations...
  • the House passed a motion to recede from its version of the DHS funding bill and concur with the clean appropriations measure passed in the Senate last week.
  • he House voted 257-167,
  • most Republicans opposing the bill
  • House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told members that pushing for short-term continuing resolutions to avoid a shutdown was no longer a viable path.
  • So it’s not just waiting for the courts, and in fact, if this bill were to pass, I believe it would actually harm the case in the courts.”
  • Republicans supporting passage of the clean funding bill Tuesday made clear they were doing so while maintaining their objections to Obama’s immigration orders, which include protections from deportations for several groups of immigrants, including people who were brought illegally to the U.S. as children and immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens.
  • 5 Republicans ultimately swallowed their opposition and moved to support the full funding bill, saying they preferred to let the courts take up the battle on the immigration actions.
  • federal judge in Texas blocked those immigration actions for procedural reasons, which at the time even some moderate Republicans said was not enough of a reason to give up the fight in Congress.
  • The Obama administration has said it will ask for a stay of the decision to allow immigrants to apply for deportation relief, and conservatives said they feared a vote passing clean DHS funding would send the wrong message to the courts.
  • If I were representing the Department of Justice in front of the Fifth Circuit to try to get this injunction overturned, the first sentence in my brief would be ‘The United States Congress has voted, knowing this program was in existence, to fully fund all operations,’” said Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla.,
  • To allow a shutdown of these critical functions would be an abdication of one of our primary duties as members of Congress: It is the constitutional duty of this body to provide funding for the federal government – all of the federal government,” said Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho,
  • Republicans who would prefer to hold up DHS funding in order to win their fight on immigration.
  • Naming line items in the appropriations bill, such as a $700 million increase for border security enforcement, a fully funded E-Verify system for employers to confirm the legal status of prospective employees, and money for biometric entry and exit security systems, Dent said a vote on a clean funding bill would still help meet their goals.“If you’re concerned about illegal immigration,” Dent said, “vote for this bill."
  • Republican leadership capitulated Tuesday in a key early congressional showdown, joining with Democrats to pass a bill to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security without amendments that would undo President Barack Obama’s executive orders on immigration.
paigedeleeuw

The Public Interest Standard in Television Broadcasting | Benton Foundation - 2 views

benton.org/...sec2

shared by paigedeleeuw on 29 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • Federal oversight of all broadcasting has had two general goals: to foster the commercial development of the industry and to ensure that broadcasting serves the educational and informational needs of the American people.
  • Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have sometimes concluded that the broadcast marketplace by itself is not adequately serving public needs. Accordingly, numerous efforts have been undertaken over the past 70 years to encourage or require programming or airtime to enhance the electoral process, governance, political discourse, local community affairs, and education. Some initiatives have sought to help underserved audience-constituencies such as children, minorities, and individuals with disabilities.
  • As competition in the telecommunications marketplace becomes more acute and as the competitive dynamics of TV broadcasting change, the capacities of the free marketplace to serve public ends are being tested as never before.
  • ...18 more annotations...
  • A recurring challenge for Congress and the FCC has been how to reconcile the competitive commercial pressures of broadcasting with the needs of a democracy when the two seem to be in conflict. This struggle was at the heart of the controversy that led to enactment of the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934.(1)
  • Under the antiquated Radio Act of 1912, the Secretary of Commerce and Labor was authorized to issue radio licenses to citizens on request.(2) Because broadcast spectrum was so plentiful relative to demand, it was not considered necessary to empower the Secretary to deny radio licenses.
  • ongress expanded the deregulatory approach of the 1980s with its enactment of the Telecommunications Act.(38) Among other things, the Act extended the length of television broadcast licenses from 5 years to 8 years(39) and instituted new license renewal procedures that made it more difficult for competitors to compete for an existing broadcast license.(40) The Telecommunications Act also lifted limits on the number of stations that a single company could own, a rule that historically was intended to promote greater diversity in programming.(41)
  • From the beginning, broadcast regulation in the public interest has sought to meet certain basic needs of American politics and culture, over and above what the marketplace may or may not provide. It has sought to cultivate a more informed citizenry, greater democratic dialogue, diversity of expression, a more educated population, and more robust, culturally inclusive communities.
  • why public interest obligations have been seen as vital to broadcast television—and why a marketplace conception of free speech may meet many, but not all, needs of American democracy.
  • Opportunity for local self-expression. The development and use of local talent. Programs for children. Religious programs. Educational programs. Public affairs programs. Editorialization by licensees. Political broadcasts. Agricultural programs. News programs. Weather and market services. Sports programs. Service to minority groups. Entertainment programming.
  • The 1934 Act, which continues to be the charter for broadcast television, ratified a fundamental compromise by adopting two related provisions: a ban on "common carrier" regulation (sought by broadcasters) and a general requirement that broadcast licensees operate in the "public interest, convenience and necessity" (supported by Congress and various civic, educational, and religious groups).(3) The phrase was given no particular definition; some considered it necessary for the Federal Government's licensing powers to be considered constitutional.(4)
  • If a broadcast licensee airs an editorial that either endorses or opposes a legally qualified candidate, the licensee must notify all other candidates for that particular office within 24 hours, provide them with a script or tape, and offer them a "reasonable opportunity to respond through the use of the licensee's broadcast facilities.
  • the chief legal vehicle for citizens to gain direct access to the airwaves -- or hear diverse viewpoints on controversial public issues -- was the Fairness Doctrine. The principles behind the Fairness Doctrine were first expressed in 1929 in guidelines issued by the FRC, with regard to Great Lakes Broadcasting Co.(50) That Commission statement affirmed the need for broadcasters to serve a diverse public with well- rounded programming.
  • the FCC held in the Mayflower ruling in 1941 that a broadcast station could never editorialize because it would flout the public interest mandate that all sides of a controversial issue be fairly presented. Licensees, the FCC said, must present "all sides of important public questions fairly, objectively and without bias."(51)
  • For decades, the Fairness Doctrine was seen as a primary feature of the public interest standard.
  • In 1963, the FCC formally articulated the principle that the presentation of only one side of an issue during a sponsored program (such as an attack on the proposed Nuclear Test Ban Treaty) required free airtime for opposing views -- a rule known as the Cullman Doctrine.(59) Cigarette advertising, and later, controversial advertising in general, also became subject to the Fairness Doctrine.(60) In 1967 the Commission formalized its "personal attack rule" and political editorial policies in specific and specialized rules.(61)
  • Localism was one reason why Congress enacted the 1962 "all-channel" law -- a law that required that all television receivers be capable of receiving both VHF and UHF signals. The idea, according to a House committee report, was to "permit all communities of appreciable size to have at least one television station as an outlet for local self-expression."(77) With varying degrees of success, the FCC has also sought to promote locally originated programming through the Prime Time Access Rule (a rule that once limited networks to 3 hours of programming during primetime, but has since been repealed) and through policy statements that mention local news and public affairs programming as inherent to the public interest stan- dard.(78)
  • The bond between broadcasters and their local communities was given a new and stronger dimension in the 1960s as a result of United Church of Christ v. FCC.(79) In 1964, after the station owner of WLBT in Jackson, Mississippi, aired a program urging racial segregation but refused to air the views of civil rights activists or even to meet with them, the United Church of Christ and others petitioned for legal standing to challenge the renewal of WLBT's broadcast license. A Circuit Court ruling in 1966 held that citizens have the right to participate in the FCC license renewal process.
  • A primary objective and benefit of our Nation's system of regulation of television broadcasting is the local origination of programming. There is a substantial governmental interest in ensuring its continuation.
  • the Supreme Court in Turner Broadcasting v. FCC recognized Congress's rationale and upheld the must-carry rules as consistent with the First Amendment
  • The Telecommunications Act of 1996 encouraged the television industry to develop a voluntary ratings system that allows parents to assess the suitability of programming for their children.
  • Congress has recognized the public interest in expanding captioning access through two key legislative acts. The Television Decoder Circuitry Act (TDCA), passed in 1990, requires all television sets with screens 13 inches or larger manufactured or imported into the United States after July 1, 1993, to display closed captions through a "decoder chip" built into the sets.
  • kyrranielson on 29 Oct 14
     
    I think that if "broadcasters are meant to act as trustees for the public interest, then a corollary is that they must affirmatively present a wide diversity of perspectives." In my opinion, this is fantastic for all other means than politics. I think that both sides of an arguement should be presented publicly. I don't think that a Republican should just watch what the republican candidates are discussing but also look at the side of the Democrat to have a well-rounded political knowledge.
1 - 15 of 15
Showing 20▼ items per page