Swann Vs. The Board Moot Court

I found it interesting how they (Swann) argued about the separate but equal exercise clause in which people should be on the same buses. Thus, it will be integration through forced bussing to eliminate segregation and pave the way for the 14th Amendment's intent to have a world with desegregation. On the other hand however, I found it interesting that The Board appealed to an emotional aspect and essentially raised to the black perspective in that congregating black and white people together will only increase racism. They argue that it will increase racial tensions and raise the rate of violence rather than lowering the amount that black people are hated upon. The Board also interestingly argued in the cost benefit analysis aspect in that it would be a lot more money for both black and whites to interact in schools. They continued that education is the number one priority for a student and combining races in the education system would only disrupt their learning experience, another interesting argument.

The in favor side of desegregation, Swann, continued that this in direct violation of the 14th Amendment and that by congregating races together then there can be a society where people can live free, as they deserve and have the right to, as well as get along. Furthermore, Swann seemed to have taken a more lawful side to this argument. They closed that Swann wanted them to change their desegregation because they should through a moral motion, because it was right. Swann appealed to the human aspect of this argument which is near undeniable to win.

Chick-fil-A in trouble?

Lately, Chick-Fil-A has come under fire in a political and social backlash toward the chain. In fact, Mayor Thomas Menino is prohibiting the chain to locate one of their franchises in Boston. The CEO of the mega chain expressed his disbelief in the equality and rights of same sex marriage. In fact, he would most likely prefer if same sex marriage was prohibited. This is interesting because the CEO of the chain has the perfect right to the freedom of speech for what he believes in and/or thinks. Furthermore, since he believes in this and has the right to without government suppression there are moat certainly consequences. The freedom of speech does not protect one from the freedom of speech with negativity on the part of others who backlashed against him. In this sense, does the mayor have the right to vocalize that a chain will not be added in Boston now?
1

This is a complicated fine line because though it is vocalizing that the chain can not be in Boston, it is also a physical line to revoke the presence of a chain. But, since the mayor's approval is needed this case shows the different complexities of the first amendment. Here, it is the idea that one's first amendment may end up being as a result of another and may also be more effective. Moreover, it shows that the freedom of speech can come with consequences as it did in this case. Ultimately because the CEO voiced his opinions he has damaged the chain's growth and a public opinion toward it. This story demonstrates a deep meaning: if the first amendment can be used and is applicable to one's beliefs then perhaps sometimes it is necessary to hinder those opinions and keep those thoughts to ones self. This way, there is no retribution and one can believe in what they want to believe in without consequences/major real-world backlash.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/randazza-first-amendment/

Trump Shuts Down First Amendment?

Donald Trump, in February of 2016, argued to "open up the libel laws" and aim to sue any such media outlets in order to make money. He essentially didn't like what the media has been saying about him and deems it unacceptable. This is a dangerous accusation to bring it up because it raises the question of does Trump take aim at removing the right to speech. The people have the freedom of press but the press commentators also have the right for their own freedom of speech. Many believe that Trump is just being the typical big-talker and guy who is mouthing off but in reality, the media outlets claim that Trump has been very successful in the past with conducting, filing, and winning SLAPP's (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). This exercises the right not to go against Trump or anyone with the idea of using SLAPP in the future.

If Trump were President, the idea behind this story, is that he would likely replace and pick Chief Justices that would revisit the libel laws and be in denial of Anti-SLAPP laws. This gives Trump the right to say what he wants without a major media backlash. For Trump, the SLAPP laws gives Trump for self-power to do what he wants without consequence. Thus, the media couldn't say anything negative toward him without his consent or he could sue them for a lot of money. This may be a win-win for Donald Trump but for the rest of the country it becomes a mess. This means that bloggers could not act out in malice with their opinions against Trump or for any powerful figure who is in favor of this, for that matter. This could break down a country built upon freedom, something that this country can and should fear.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/28/opinions/trump-first-amendment-protections-opinion-randazza/

Chicago Riots

Donald J. Trump, the man on the path to victory for the republican nomination, has recently postponed his campaign rally in Chicago. He was en route to Chicago to make his typical stop to hype up the crowds when an overwhelming number of protestors (in the thousands) took over the event. There were arrests and numerous fights that were breaking out. The police were outnumbered and even the swat team came. It was truly an act of insanity that occurred. The people acted like animals disobeying the police's commands and picking random fights with the supporters. When asked by several media outlets the purpose of them being there they chose not to answer or did not have an answer altogether.

The underlying idea is that the anti-trump protestors were there because they felt that Donald Trump was taking away their first amendment rights and that he was wreaking havoc across the country. In reality however, if that was their purpose then they failed because what they were doing was taking away his first amendment to speak. They banished him from giving a rally to his supporters thus looking at fault themselves. The law enforcement enacted that Trump shouldn't do the rally over safety concerns. The other reasons protestors seemingly stormed the trump rally was because of violence that broke out at some of his previous rallies. Once again, if that was their point then they severely failed because they were the ones who created literal riots at the University of Chicago in Illinois that night. Overall, it is incredible the passion that some people feel in this nation and how treacherous it can become when just simply someone is seeking the nomination or when others feel that their first amendment rights are being revoked.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/donald-trump-chicago-protests/

Plessy vs. Ferguson and Justice Harlan

Justice Harlan wrote out the losing argument because quite frankly though he would of rather been on the winning side, he had to tell the truth. Justice Harlan felt that he needed to pave a way for the constitution and that the constitution is "color blind". He felt that all races were of pride and of equality in rights and of life. He argued that Louisiana had equal rights yet didn't completely follow it. By writing it out rather than keeping it to himself he sought out bringing awareness and informing the people in order to bring about change. I think that his argument, personally, is very valid and informative and brings up a lot of incredibly innovative points for the time.

For 1896, I feel that the people would probably think that his claims were outlandish and out of the norm, unruly perhaps. Further, in 2016 it makes sense that the people would agree with these claims and think that he makes relatively substantial arguments advocating for equality. His dissenting opinion (the losing side/opinion) sheds light that from there to here a lot has changed. The supreme courts have recognized what was happening and therefore established universal freedom. Furthermore, the world has changed for the better in a more equal system. A way where people are more happy and connected in that universal way.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/nclc375/harlan.html

Moot Court Debate

Throughout the class period it was very interesting to hear the different sides of the State Demand case. It was imperative to hear the different arguments. Though in todays society, our side, the side defending the slave, would have easily one the case. However, in this instance, the side that ended up winning was the side defending the master. I still feel that this is ridiculous because of the moral side of attempted murder. Furthermore, there becomes a time to respect both sides of the argument. Mr. Mann argued that the slave was leased and therefore since the slave (who was a woman might I just add) was under ownership of the master that the master had the rights to do whatever he pleased to the slave.

As well, since he was under lease then this exempts the master from being held accountable for creating any harm or essentially the idea of property damage incurred. Others argued that following the laws of slavery in North Carolina that slavery is fair, typical, and legal. The other side of the argument, our side, differed greatly. 

On the opposite side of the case we had argued that though slavery was legal that the is a very atypical one. We also argued that the owner was essentially a temporary master and that there was no need for a shot in the back but rather another means of subduing the slave. It was an act that violated what this country stands for. We argued that the owner violated the laws regarding property damage since he not only killed a human but also destroyed the property of the true owner.

I personally argued that due process rights for slaves represents the ideals that if a slave is charged with capital offense that that same individual is entitled to legal counsel. In all, our argument was the regard of the temporary owner damaging the property of the true owner. In all, the temporary master was not further prosecuted, unfortunately, and all fees/fines and penalties were then waived. 

Eligibility

It is often argued what does the constitution remark as being a proper natural born citizen. It has caused many problems, recently however, in the presidency. Donald Trump brought it up when President Obama was near the end of his campaign arguing that Obama was not a natural born citizen. Now Presidential candidate Trump raises the same exact argument against Presidential candidate Ted Cruz arguing that he was born in Canada but since one of his parents are from the United States and since he immediately came to the United States that he is considered a natural born citizen and thus eligible to run for President. The constitution is very interpretive with how it can be understood with what passes as natural born vs. ineligible. However, I often wonder if the first amendment takes precedence sometimes over the others in that idea of free speech. I wonder if someone can run for president because they believe that as a citizen of America that they should have their voices heard whether that be by one person or the entire country. Ted Cruz wants his voice heard   and is thus running for president so it is pondered if even if he isn't natural born that perhaps it can be override. Especially, it must be considered that times are changing and that the people of america typically aren't as concerned with the idea of being born in america or even being a natural born citizen. Very recently, in turn, it was officially determined that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen and thus he is very eligible for president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/23/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ted-cruz-birther-movement/