California Governor Gavin Newsom Chooses to Favor Tighter Gun Laws

San Francisco Chronicle Article Regarding Guns vs Marijuana

2016 California Gun Law on the Ballot

     Lieutenant Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, stood outside of the scene of a "1993 shooting incident that left eight people dead" and pledged to support a 2016 California ballot measure that would strengthen California's already tough assault weapon's policy. Newsom has traditionally been strongly in favor of laws that allow for legal Marijuana use in California. While he “he still supports legalizing marijuana”, his shift in policy support is most likely directly tied to his campaign for reelection in 2016. Newsom has carefully chosen which alliances to keep, reasoning that it is more important to support gun restraint than Marijuana legalization. The proposed gun law “measure will ban possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines, require licenses for ammunition dealers, call for background checks for anyone buying ammunition, make it easier to confiscate weapons from people not allowed to have them and require people to report lost or stolen guns.” Newsom’s newfound support for gun restraint, possibly in lieu of major tragedies that have recently occurred, poses a threat to avid supporters of the 2nd Amendment while also helping him gain voters in favor of gun control.

     Do you think it is more important to support Marijuana legalization or gun restraint laws? Do you think it is unconstitutional for the proposed gun law to enact the restrictions mentioned above? 

Clinton Raises More Questions During Benghazi Hearings

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/22/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi-hearing-updates/

 An 11 hour hearing (the second so far) concluded on October 22nd regarding the questionable emails sent by Hillary Clinton about actions in Benghazi. As a result of a Romanian hacker breaking into a private email server on Clinton's property, emails were released showing that Clinton may not have done as much as she could to save the American ambassador and soldiers that died in Benghazi. Soon after, Clinton released 30,490 "work" emails, maintaining that she did this "out of an abundance of being transparent." However, 31,830 "personal" emails were deleted as well. Both Democrats and Republicans presided over her hearing, with Democrats in support of Clinton's good intentions and Republicans demanding answers for questions they feel are still unanswered. Whatever the case may be, implications for her campaign are huge as people feel that her integrity is severely lacking.

 Is it a violation of Clinton's right to privacy if she is condemned for things taken from her without permission? Are Republicans right to ask what Clinton had in her personal (and now deleted) emails? Or, did she even have the right to delete them in the first place after the hack, possibly knowing that they would come up later?

Who Will be the Next Speaker of the House?

            A few weeks ago, John Boehner surprised everyone and announced that he is retiring from Congress. This came unexpectedly even though many conservatives, especially the Tea Party wanted him out. The big question now is who will be his successor? For a while, Kevin McCarthy was thought to be the front runner, but he eventually withdrew his bid. That leaves Republican Paul Ryan as many conservatives' favorite. Paul Ryan is 45, popular, and even members of the Freedom Caucus (some of the most conservative members in Congress) said they would willingly support him. The fact that the Freedom Caucus is supportive of Paul Ryan is very interesting, considering they were part of driving Boehner out of Congress, and blocking McCarthy as a candidate.
            It seems as though Ryan has everything falling into place, and is a contrast to Boehner in many ways. He presents a fresh face, who is young and more lively. He has even made sure that if he does become Speaker of the House some things change, like not letting a single member of the House be able to file a motion to remove the Speaker.

Even with the support of the Republicans, do you think that the conservatives will try and use him as a puppet to get what they want, a similar force that drove out Boehner? If he wins, do you think he will try and compromise with Democrats to get work done, or will he be intimidated by the conservatives? Finally, what is your thought on how well Paul Ryan will be as Speaker of the House?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/us/politics/house-gop-factions-lining-up-for-paul-ryan-as-speaker.html

Ben Carson Makes Racist Comment

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/22/ben-carson-cant-change-subject-after-contentious-muslim-remark/

When asked if the candidates faith should matter to voters, presidential candidate Ben Carson had a very controversial reply. He said he believes faith matters and that the faith must be consistent with the constitution. Carson then escalated his statement by saying “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” Carson's comments infuriated thousands, prompting many Muslims to voice their anger. The candidate was asked to clarify and further discuss his statement on several occasions the following week. As we have discussed in class, candidates can ruin their entire campaign with just one comment. 

Do you think Carson's comments will have a negative or positive effect on his candidacy? Do you believe a candidates' faith should be important? Will the United States have a Muslim President in the next 50 years?

Marco Rubio’s Energy Policy Centers on Drilling and Reversing Obama Rules

Recently, Senator Marco Rubio stated a new energy policy that would be heavily based on drilling and hydraulic fracturing which would ultimately diminish Obama's previous environmental gains.  Rubio discussed an immediate start to move forward with the Keystone XL oil pipeline to allow the extraction of gasses buried in Salem and other places. Rubio claims that "the hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of natural gas and oil underneath the ground are doing the people of Ohio no good pent-up in shale rock.”  Rubio's speech emphasized that extracting these natural resources would lead to less pollution because it would allow for the creation of wind and solar powered devices. However, this plan would reverse Environmental Protection Agency regulations in order to receive this gas.  He goes on to say how little progress Democrats such as Hillary Clinton are making because they constantly oppose economic advancements.  Furthermore, he says “If we elect Hillary Clinton as president, an outdated leader who believes President Obama’s restrictions haven’t gone far enough, who believes that energy policy is more about trying to change the weather than it is about empowering our people — then we will miss out on one of the greatest economic opportunities of this century.”

Do you believe that Rubio is moving in the right direction in implementing oil drilling?  What is more important, in your opinion, economic progress or saving the environment?  Is it important to note that Rubio made this speech in Ohio because it is a major swing state in the election?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/marco-rubios-energy-policy-centers-on-drilling-and-reversing-obama-rules.html?ref=us

Jerry Brown Makes Assisted Suicide Legal in California

Recently in the news, we have heard that the Governor of California, Jerry Brown, has passed a bill that allows for the government to assist people in committing suicide. After struggling with talking to opponent of the bill, mainly the Catholic Church, he decided it was the right thing to do to pass it. He decided to pass it after he though of how he would not want to struggle near the ending of his life and would want to go peacefully.This California law will permit physicians to provide lethal prescriptions to mentally competent adults. The law will take effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns its special session on healthcare, which may not be until next year — January at the earliest, November at the latest. The new law is modeled after one that went into effect in 1997 in Oregon, where last year 105 people took their lives with drugs prescribed for that purpose. There was a contentious debate over the End of Life Option Act, which divided physicians, ethicists, religious leaders and the Democratic majority in the Legislature. They did not believe that it was morally correct to help kill someone. They saw it as a sort of murder.

http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-gov-brown-end-of-life-bill-20151005-story.html

Question: Should this be legal? Do you think it is morally correct to assist someone in wanting to kill themselves? Should Jerry Brown have waited longer to pass this law?

Resolving Women's Rights Conflicts on a World Stage

Recently in the news, an American campaign, which bears the #Freethe20, takes up the cause of 20 imprisoned activists abroad, and it comes after an unsuccessful lobbying campaign to include activists among the speakers at the summit meeting. In China, 3 women have been imprisoned which is the most out of any other country. In the meeting among the UN, the United States was represented by Samantha Power, not Barack Obama, as America is in campaign mode. The goal behind the UN meeting was to bring recognition worldwide of the issue of the 20 women who have been imprisoned. Along with the imprisonment of 3 women, China has recently 5 other women's rights activists were detained and because they were protesting for their rights. These five women have recently been released but are struggling because of restrictions in terms of work, life, and freedom of action. A quote from Hilary Clinton about women's rights is that, women’s rights are human rights. This is incorporated because it shows that everyone needs to be treated equally. 

Do you think China had the right to take the actions that they have been taking? Do you think change will be coming for women's rights around the world?  Should the United States get involved in more issues such as this one? Do you think other countries should adopt an amendment similar to the 19th amendment which gives women access to more freedom?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/world/un-summit-meeting-on-womens-rights-highlights-more-tension-between-us-and-china.html?_r=0

The Effects of Prop 209

Students at Berkeley share a perspective similar to that of most Americans. That is, they want "diversity without the zero-sum calculus that inevitably accompanies affirmative action." After the passage of Proposition 209, affirmative action was banned in California. There were to be no more strict quotas in the admission process for colleges. 
The effects of this, however, are less clear cut. While the first year following the proposition did mark a drop in minority attendance at the most impacted California schools, the less selective ones-- like Irvine or Riverside-- found spots for many of these individuals. In addition, the elimination of affirmative action has prompted the establishment of new outreach programs hoping to increase the eligibility of minority applicants. Programs like Proposition 3, which granted funding to support minorities from local schools, became increasing popular. 
The debate continues between conservatives and liberals, with conservatives arguing that admission should be based upon merit and the liberals arguing that Proposition 209 denied opportunity. 
Many believe that their denials to schools like UCLA were a "blessing in disguise" and go on to be completely satisfied with their experiences at Riverside or other schools. The remainder, however, remain appalled by the lack of equal opportunity that they face in the world of education.

Do you think affirmative action supports or bolsters the equality of rights? Which should be valued more by the government-- merit or diversity? Do programs such as Prop 3, which provide funding for minority outreach programs, make up for this "loss" of opportunity? 
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/02/magazine/the-class-of-prop-209.html?pagewanted=all

California Passes Fair Pay Act

 

Gov. Jerry Brown stands to applaud female factory workers from World War II as he visits the Rosie the Riveter National Monument in Richmond on Tuesday to sign the California Fair Pay Act into law.

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 California took a huge step in attempt to close the wage gap between men and women. Governor Jerry Brown signed one of the toughest pay equality laws in the nation, which will take effect on January 1, 2016. Women in California who work full time are paid substantially less; about 84 cents for every dollar a man makes. With the passing of The Fair Pay Act, women will now be paid the same for equal work. This act forbids employers from paying employees less than their opposite-sex counterparts and requires employers to provide a reason if they pay an employee less than their coworker. Although many support the bill, some feel as though the bill will have negative affects on the economy of California. Richard A. Epstein, a Professor of Law and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, called the California bill “crazy,” predicting it would only intensify the state’s economic woes by discouraging voluntary job changes. Even so, the bill passed with almost no opposition. Only two Assembly Republicans voted against the legislation on the floor, while no state senators opposed the measure.

Question: Do you think this law be effective or will it be similar to the Equal Pay act of 1963 where it did not fully accomplish the goal of abolishing wage discrimination based on sex?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/10/06/us/ap-us-xgr-equal-pay-california-.html?_r=0

Links for 10/5

Youtube on Strict

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzETeTvYDu4&app=desktop

Prop 209 Reading

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/proposition-209_n_1300122.html

CA Schools

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/racial-breakdown-of-the-l_n_485577.html#s72083&title=University_of_CaliforniaDavis

New York City to Join U.S. Anti-Terrorist Program Criticized by Rights Groups

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/nyregion/new-york-city-to-join-us-anti-terrorist-program-criticized-by-rights-groups.html

Summary: Last Tuesday, the de Blasio administration of New York said that New York City would join Strong Cities Network, an organization focused on diminishing the recruiting power of terrorist groups in the United States. Many civil rights groups criticized this move, claiming that it encouraged racial profiling and deprived ethnic citizens of their basic rights. The New York Civil Liberties Union and numerous civil rights lawyers believed that NYC's participation placed an unfair focus on law-abiding American Muslims and urged the mayor to reconsider. However, de Blasio responded by saying "when we undermine intolerance, we undermine extremism and violence", expressing his unwillingness to change his decision. Instead he tried to compensate with a number of outreach programs, including "the designation of two Muslim holy days as citywide school holidays". Linda Sarsour, the executive director of the Arab-American Association of New York voiced her concern that the New York administration would bring back some of the counterterrorism practices of the Bloomberg Administration, "involving the surveillance of mosques and city Muslims groups". As a result of these dissenters, mayor de Blasio's actions were met with skepticism. 

Questions: Do you believe that the government can infringe on personal liberties on the grounds of protection against terrorism? Do you think de Blasio's decision is constitutionally acceptable? Do you believe that surveillance and other methods used by the Strong Cities Network are the right ways to deal with terrorism? If not, how can the government appropriately combat terrorism in a way that does not intrude on citizens' rights?