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