Humanities

On June of this year, the Supreme Court had lifted gun bans in the District of Columbia. The decision had been based on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. According to the article, Justice Antonin Scalia states that the Constitution protects a citizen's right to bear arms and that the ban is a direct violation of the Second Amendment. He also believes that the case will have a significant impact on gun control laws throughout the nation. Despite complaints, Washington D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty plans to keep gun laws in effect due to the city's extreme crime rate. Opposing lawyers argue that the city "consistently fights to secure its right to stand by while its citizens are victimized by crime" and that the immediate fight against crime is lacking. I find that because the amendment is so vague in indicating who "the right to bear arms" is referring to, it will result in disagreements among cities "..experts debated whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and carry a gun, or only a state's right to arm a militia". Individual cities will have changing views according to the recent criminal activities occurring within their boundaries.

Last month Governor Deval Patrick imposes new taxes in an effort to support the state's education, business and construction. One of the benefits that result from the tax increase is the potential decrease in school dropout rates. Patrick, from my understanding, seems to have disregarded the section in the Declaration of Independence referring to taxes. The article states that Patrick signed a bill that "prohibits hospitals from collecting payments for medical mistakes". He acted out of personal motive without consent, "despite the lobby by pharmaceutical and biomedical groups in Massachusetts". I believe that his decision served a valid purpose, though was unfair to certain individuals. I disagree with the fact that he had imposed taxes on a certain group in society, rather than the state of Massachusettes as a whole.

Casey Anthony, whose daughter has gone missing, was recently accused of theft and child neglect. She was imprisoned for over a month. There was no mention of whether she had been given a chance to present her case in court. At the beginning of the semester we were given an article to read about John Adams, which was later discussed in a Socratic Seminar. The text was unclear at first. Although during the Socratic Seminar, I discovered new ideas and answers to the questions I had in mind. The connection between the article about Adams and Anthony's case is that both exhibit whether or not "innocence had been protected". Adams believed, as it states in the article, that "no man in a free country should be denied the right to counsel and a fair trial" and "innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished". I strongly agree with these principles. In spite of the charges against Anthony, I believe she has the right to defend her case.

McCain who coincides with Federalist ideals, believes that the question of whether to drill offshore is the states' decision to make. In class we learned that there exists an ongoing dispute between the Anti-Federalists and Federalists. Anti-Federalists support the concept of a weak central government, in which the states or local organizations possess the power. Federalists, on the other hand, believe social groups are permittable, although it's for the best that a strong central government be in control. The Anti-Federalists were winning the conflict to begin with, and during that time America was experiencing problems. Meanwhile, the Federalists began publishing papers that support the idea of a Constitution, although unpopular at first. I like the way McCain had approached the concern, however I don't support the idea of offshore drilling.