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/

A False Win?

At the nail-biting Iowa caucuses held on February 1st, the first caucus of the presidential nomination bid, was thought to be a huge upset. All the polls, days before and even months before, pointed to Donald Trump winning. However, it turned out that Ted Cruz won by a significant margin. Many wondered how this was possible since the polls seemingly pointed toward Trump being the front-runner. There are a number of possibilities and reasons for this. As I listened to CNN over the hours and now days I heard many explanations. One of the explanations was that Cruz, shortly before the votes were cast, claimed that Dr. Ben Carson was suspending his campaign, which swung votes to Cruz. Another explanation was that Rubio had surged and stole some of Trump's votes. In all, the explanation, and most recent one, that CNN is talking about, as well as Trump and the secretary of state of Iowa, is the one that interests me most: Voter violation.

The secretary of state of Iowa claims, first of all, that this doesn't exist. Second, what this is is where voters were sent a letter in the mail with several large warnings across it with on the back in large red type "Voter Violation". The letter continued claiming "You are receiving this election notice because of low expected voter turnout in your area. Your individual voting history as well as your neighbors' are public record. Their scores are published below, and many of them will see your score as well. CAUCUS ON MONDAY TO IMPROVE YOUR SCORE and please encourage your neighbors to caucus as well. A follow-up notice may be issued following Monday's caucuses.” 

Pictured above is the exact piece of mail that was sent to a variety of Iowan registered voters

Essentially this caught my attention because not only is it a threat but it is a definite violation of the first amendment. People, under the first amendment, have the right to speak but they also have the freedom not to speak. This is a direct contradiction of that as it is forcing people against their will (in a mental sort of way/out of fear) to go out and say who they want for president. After the caucus this idea gained traction and gave fury to some and the secretary of state claimed that it is very false that voters are given a rating and also that their participation is counted. Overall, this is something that is known as fraud as well as a first amendment case that shows how even the first amendment can shape an election in many unexpected ways. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/30/politics/ted-cruz-mailer-iowa-caucuses-voter-violation/

Corruption affecting the people

Something I have found interesting that has been occurring on CNN lately as breaking, and now occurring news, is the Flint water crisis. Essentially, what is happening is that there is lead contamination in the drinking waters of flint, Michigan. This occurred all the way back in April of 2014 due to aging pipes and is only being reported now as being unsafe. There is supposed to be 0 levels of lead contamination in the body, but however, levels are reading as 6.5. Some babies are experiencing a cease in maturation/growth which is very detrimental. Now, the reason this has just been brought up is because doctors who have been examining a variety of patients have recognized an irregular increase in lead throughout the town. People of the town have even stored some of the water in a water bottle and in a short period of time, the water has turned a murky red color. Nevertheless, the first amendment has been brought up regularly in this case and how it has even effected the people, the idea of it, if you will. There is a scandal occurring that proves that state officials knew about this from near the beginning and have said nothing about it. People are filing class-action lawsuits that delineate how the state officials should've reported this rather than keeping it to themselves. But, by the first amendment it protects the officials' rights not to speak and thats what they essentially CHOSE to do even though it was in the pain of others. This proves that the first amendment can work with some and against others. In the end, it will be investigated over the first amendment and whether or not it applies to withholding information but I just found it interesting if the first amendment even applies to concealing and/or withholding information from the public which in this case the officials will argue.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/health/flint-michigan-water-investigation/