Cricital post on Prop 8

In edgar's post about Prop 8, he talks about a "California measure" to only allow marriage between a man and a woman. I agree with edgar on the topic of homosexual and bisexual marriages. People should be allowed to follow what their heart wants. The founders escaped and started a new colony because they want religious freedom, and the right that we all should be allowed to have. On that bias, I believe that it is not in the government's right to determine if a man or a woman can or cannot be married. Many opponents of homosexual marriage argue that it is a "sin" or against the bible and God. I do not know much about the bible or about Christian belief but one thing I know is in America we have the right to believe what we want. People are making laws that are based on religion is the one thing the original founders would not want. I also agree that this is a personal right that should be allowed. They are no different than what we are. Before when slavery was first abolished, people believed that colored-skin people were inferior but there were many that proved otherwise. Now America has allowed white,colored,male, or female the rights we all deserve. Now it is time for people who were born attracted to the same-sex. They do not choose who they are attracted to, just as how we do not choose what color we are, or what ethnicity we are. Here is an extended list of the pros and cons of homosexual marriage.

Are our rights being abused and misused?

In the article, Ditch the 14th Amendment? Why stop there?, Martin discusses about how some republican senators such as Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn are suggesting to eliminate the 14th Amendment. The idea was that the 14th Amendment "grants citizenship to children born in the U.S." Many illegal immigrants use this flaw to come to America and find a better future for their children. The main reason for the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to the African-Americans that were force to American for "vicious and dehumanizing free-labor." There were many laws and loop holes in the system to prevent African-Americans their right. Also, they "didn't choose to come to America", they were forced. He then goes off and suggest what if we eliminate other Amendments. Such as the 2nd Amendment, he suggest that with a ban on firearms; crime rates will be reduced and deaths well decline in numbers. He then suggest to “tighten up” the 10th Amendment, so that the laws will be at the federal level and reduce the many ways of doing “business.” The 22nd Amendment, which limit’s the length and amount of terms a president can take, should be eliminated so we can keep presidents who get things done and avoid possible failures. He thing goes off on a tangent and discusses how they are the same type of people “who want to ban gay marriage.” He is obviously tired of how some politicians want to “mess with” the U.S. Constitution but then not commit fully.

There are some things about this article I agree with. Things such as, 2nd Amendment should be limited and 22nd Amendment should be changed. In contrast, I believe that the 10th Amendment should still be in effect because the states know what is better for its citizens than the nation. Also, laws are better reinforced at the state level than the federal level because it is closer and cover less people than an entire nation.

Critical Comments About the Right to Bear Arms

In "Open-Minded Politics" latest post, Drew discusses the benefits and dangers to privately owned firearms. He mentions that in an article a woman has decided that the added protection of owning a firearm in her house outweighs the dangers. Even though he made a good argument, I believe that not everyone should be able to own a firearm. There have been many cases where careless owners put themselves and their families in danger. People neglect their weapons and place them out in the open for a little boy pretending to play guns or robbers. People like Fiona Lee, http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-child-shot-in-head-072910,0,4792063.story, or people like Cheyenne Alexis McKeehan ,http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/toddler-dies-mistaking-gun-wii-controller/story?id=10056190. It is good to have protection at home, but I believe there are other ways. I understand the police are not able to protect everyone at all times but there are weapons that are non-lethal such as Mace or a Tazer.

Today's United States government

The United States government has changed a lot since the framers created it less than 300 years ago. The United States grew a lot since then, 13 states to 50 states plus a few territories. Most things remain the same: U.S. Constitution grants citizens unalienable rights, Checks and balance system.

We have grown a lot since the birth of the United States. The growth of technology allows us to gauge how our government and political leaders are doing by online and offline polls and surveys. Technology also allows us to quickly and effectively hold polls. We created amendments to protect citizen's civil rights and their right to vote. The Internet, computers, televisions also help to inform citizens of what is going on in the government and our representatives.

Our population has changed a lot since then. We have a more diverse population and to go along with it many issues. To compensate we have many diverse people involved in our government. There are female political leaders, Minority congressmen. Even our president is half black and half white. The voting population also includes a younger generation. Also more middle class people are involved with the help of interest groups.

There are many issues that were not a problem back then. Today we have issues with gay marriage or partnership, abortion. Also, we have similar issues such as taxes and war.

The United States government still relay on the checks and balance system. We have a three part system: Executive, Legislative, Judicial. The Legislative Branch includes the Congress and the House of Representatives. There were a few times the system kept each branch in check. Nixon would have been impeach for the Watergate scandal. Also, Bill Clinton and his scandal with Monica Lewinski.

I believe our government is in good shape and is slowly changing to a better government. A government that can better represent a population as diverse as ours. Eventually everyone will be represented, including the poor population. With technology changing the way we conduct political business.

Revival of a Lost case with a Side of Fraud

In paul's blog post, Why lilly ledbetter should quit while she's behind, he mentions Democrats using Lilly ledbetter's case to attack the Roberts court. Lilly Ledbetter's case was that in 1992, she received a note that shows her pay along with three other male co-workers with the same occupation. She didn't file to the EEOC for pay discrimination until she stopped working in 1998. The jury ruled in favor of Ledbetter but the court ruled against her because "she failed timely to challenge." The libral Democrats tried to resurrect the case in an attempt to use it against the court. Ledbetter re-testified with a different story. She didn't know about the pay discrimination until much later in 1998. Posted in here, Lilly Ledbetter, living a lie.

The author, Paul, intended his audience to be Conservatives against lies and corruption. He used strong language when referring to Ledbetter and her Democratic representatives. She change her story so that it could be of use. He wanted to inform people of the case stating facts from the case. He did not mention much about Ledbetter's side or about Senator Leahy, Democratic helping Ledbetter. His opinions are extremely biased but the facts are up against Ledbetter and makes sense. He has a lot of political knowledge and is very creditable. He is an attorney in Wahington, D.C. and he is a graduate of Standford law School. I would have to agree with him because the facts are againist Ledbetter. Lies have no place in many place, especially in the supreme court. It makes sense, people have no case when it is back up with lies. Even more so, when the opposing party know that she is committing fraud.

How tough are Electricity bills in our nation

Substantial commentary or criticism #1

What 7 Republicans Could Do

The author of the article is somewhat rallying for support on electrical bills. To better the environment and set standards on how we get our electricity. He worries that if people continue to live the way things are, dependence on fossil fuels, we would be writing our own tombstones and the tombstones of our children.

The audience he is trying to convey his information to are the people who care about the future, environment, and our economy. He discusses how Americans are living now and what it would lead to to lure these people in.

He says that Americans want to live the American life and that our population growth is increasing rapidly. If you pieces these two together, Americans in the future will all want their nice big cars, big houses, life in luxury but then multiply that by the millions or billions even. Eventually we will run out of fossil fuels and have to rely on alternative energy methods. Also he attaches on environment issues to this case. He says that we need to clean out the air(Green House Effect). There are many power plants that are old and not modernized. He mentions that the bill could offer more jobs for Americans.

I agree with this article, in that we should be looking out for our future. Changes now would ensure a better future. Depending on something that is slowly draining and will keep on draining is risky. We will eventually run out, faster with the increasing population. The change would help give a push to more projects promoting our environment and green-safe electricity.

Obama signed a fix to healthcare

Obama signs health care 'fixes' bill

The article describes briefly what the new bill that Obama had recently signed. It also include some opinions of political analysts. Something weird was that attached to it was a change to student funding and loans. The bill cap the student loan repayments to 10 percent of their income and forgives the balance if they stay on top of payments after 20 years. The bill wants to eliminate a medicare bill that paid for member's medication fees up to a certain point. It increase the threshold of tax on expensive health care plans. Most notible of the changes, to me, is that the fine for individuals who fail to purchase coverage was decreased and increasing the fines for companies who fail to provide health coverage. This article is a good read and something to read about since it will effect us directly.