New Privacy Law/Ammendment?

THE SUPREME COURT:

 THE FOURTH AMENDMEN

T; Police Violate Privacy in Home Raids With

 Journalists

By LINDA GREENHOUSE

Published: May 25, 1999

          This article is about

 police and how they are breaking the 4th amendment when they break into a persons house for an arrest or raid with a journalist or photographer in company in order to take a record of the arrest or raid.

          An assignment that was assigned to us in Humanities class recently was to create a law or amendment that would protect peoples privacy.  I took this very literally, on purpose of course, and made up an amendment that would completely bar everything and anything the government could try to do to get into any ones property.  The amendment that I made up went a little something like this.

          No man, woman, child or government worker is allowed to intrude on the property of another man, woman, child or government worker, where the words intrude and property are defined by the citizen being intruded upon.  Furthermore no loopholes may be exploited in this ammendment, where loophole and exploit are also being defined by the citizen being intruded upon.

          This amendment will never even have a chance to be passed by the government, but it would be almost impenetrable as an amendment.  Upon judicial review this amendment would be almost immediately abolished, because it literally gives the government or anybody else for that matter any leeway with any case that requires searching property.  No one would be able to commit anyone of anything because no one would be able to search anothers house.

          For anyone that may reply to this blogpost, try and leave a privacy amendment of your own, I would be glad to add it into this post (with proper credit given of course) and will post what might happen if the amendment would go under judicial review.

Reflections and Ideas

Well, there are no odd or even political stories for this blog post, but it is actually going to be a reflection on the blog as a whole.

The first question that I must answer in this reflection is, "What are you most proud of on your blog? Why?".  The answer to this is simple.  The thing that I am proud of most on my blog is that this blog post, the one that you are reading, is not my 7th blog post, but actually my 8th.  I actually have one extra blog post than required, and that is because I have found a subject that I am really interested in, but I could not find any evidence for it that related to the prompt that I had to work off of.  So now I am completely in to one of the subjects that I have brought up on this blog, the Anonymous group, and I plan to continue posting blogs about them, even if I don't have a prompt for it.  That is what I am proud of on my blog

The second question that I have to answer is, "What would you like to improve on your blog? Why? How?"  And the answer is simple, yet again.  The thing that I know I need to improve on is more media.  If I just put in more pictures and videos, maybe a news feed on the side or bottom of my blog, this blog page would be a lot more interesting than just text.  And to start the newly founded tradition, I will place a picture, which may or may not have something to do with politics, here.

The final question that I will answer during this reflection is, "How can we better connect our class' blogs?"  My theory on how we could do this, is that we should have Randy, our teacher, make a blog post.  Then, everyone would need to respond to that blog post in their blog on tuesdays.  Then, on thursdays, we could have everybody respond/reply to a classmates tuesday blogpost in a blog post of their own again.  This way, we would be doing less prompted posts, but we would be a lot more involved with each others blog, and getting a better understanding of everyone elses viewpoints, and we would definately be more connected in our blogs.

McCain Overstating His Ads, Again...

There He Goes Again

September 18, 2008

– by Joe Miller

This article talks about how John McCain's political warfare ads have , yet again, overstated Barack Obama's tax plan.

First, McCain's ad states that Obama will raise taxes on electricity, which Obama has not stated. Second, McCain's ad states that Obama will raise Home Heating Oil taxes on families, but Obama has actually proposed a thousand dollar rebate on heating oil. Third, the ad states that Obama will raise taxes on all "life savings," while he really is only going to raise it slightly on couples who earn more than 250 thousand dollars yearly, or singles who earn more than 200 thousand dollars yearly.

These kinds of stories are the ones that really get me riled up, mainly because it is these people, these lying manipulating people, that are going to be leading the entire country.  Now it isn't just McCain that has had some untruthful ad's, Obama has also had some, but even so, neither of them should have any false advertisements.  

One thing to note about this is what is this supposed to say about our society?  Are we people who have to lie in order to get anywhere?  How are we compared to any other society?  Will we stay like this forever?

These are just a few of the questions that cannot be answered by only one person, but need to be answered soon.

Homosexuality and the Right to the Persuit of Happiness

Notice: This Blog post was revised on the 25 of September, 2008.

DISCLAIMER: I personally do not support or condemn homosexuality in any way.  I personally think that if people really want to (or however you want to phrase it) be a homosexual, then so be it.  It is not my job to control peoples personal lives.  Please do not leave a comment criticizing me of my views, unless you really want to.

Your Stories: Gay Marriage in California

By MIKE NIZZA

June 16, 2008,  1:28 pm

          This is not really a news article, per se, but it brings up the topic of Gay marriage, which is a topic that I have been wanting to blog about since 5:00 this evening.  This article starts off mentioning a story of two people who waited for 55 years to get married because of the gay marriage laws in California, then goes on to tell people to tell their stories of same sex marriage.  My issue with this whole thing is,

 why does the government keep trying to put up laws trying to ban same sex marriage when right in the Declaration of Independance it states that one, all men are created equal, and two, all men are endowed with the unalienable right of the persuit of happiness.  If one person wants to marry another, and that is the only way that they can be completely happy with their life, the Government, according to the Declaration, must allow whoever it is to marry whoever they want to.  Recently, there has been attempts to make an ammendment that will ban gay marriage.  This, in nature, is illegal to do, because of the unwritten social contract that obliges the Government to protect peoples right to the persuit of happiness, and it also shows complete discrimination toward all homosexuals.

          Another interesting story that has come up recently

 regarding homosexuality is about Clay Aiken, the American Idol star that has now told the world that he is gay.  He also had a son by means of artificial ensemination with his producer, Jaymes Foster.  He claims to have wanted kids his whole life, but it couldn't have worked with another male, so that is what he did about it.  I find the whole situation releiving, yet a bit unnerving.  It is releiving because he is sending the message out to all of the people in the homosexual community that they can be happy and do what they want, with or without marriage, but it is also giving out a message that everything is perfectly fine if a son is born without the mother and father duo, which is terribly wrong because a growing child needs both a loving mother and father in order to be able to grow more naturally and less offset by the situation.   Clay's persuit of happiness is completely legal in this case, but there are other situations that are not, and those are the ones that need to be resolved.

My question to you people who might comment, is why does the government not realize they are breaking the Declaration of Independance, or if they do, why are they doing it?

This New Memorial Day

Candidates Take Break, of Sorts, to Mark 7th Anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks

By PATRICK HEALY

Published: September 11, 2008

This slightly lengthy article explains what happened today with the two presidential runners at Ground Zero.  As everyone should know, today marks the seventh anniversary of the Twin towers terrorist attacks.  If you really think about it, every country has a chance to be attacked, just as we did.  And it can really get in the way of the whole Natural or Human rights theory.  Human or Natural rights is, as explained in an earlier blog,  the right to Life, Liberty, and either Property or the Pursuit of Happiness (depending on what system you are going off of).  And I now have the same question as posted in that previous blog.  How is the government supposed to protect us from something such as this?  They could always increase security, and there are always measures that they could take, but on top of everything they have done, there are always things that can happen and threaten lives.  The only REAL way to stop all violence, in my opinion, would be to not have a human race at all.  There will always be some sort of offense, whether it be physical, or mental, or anything else. 

How can the government really stop violence and the threat against American lives?

All Politics is About...

Have you ever heard the term "Power to the people"?  Well my friend, that would be a very Anti-Federalist term.  The Anti-Federalist group started out back in the days of the lobsterbacks and revolutionaries.  They stood for the power of the people, and hated the idea of the government holding all the power.

On the other hand are the Federalists.  They stand for a firm solid government that will help the country contain its people.  Suprizingly this group was formed after the anti-Federalists, which is a little odd.

These groups nowadays are, by definition, called the Democrats (Anti-Feds) and the Republicans (Feds).  The democrats are people who want a democratic society more, which means that the majority of the people that vote for one thing win.  The republicans on the otherhand, are for a congress made up of people from all over the country voting for laws.

McCain and Obama

By DAVID BROOKS

Published: January 8, 2008

The political race nowadays is a firm example of all of this.  It always ends up democrats vs. republicans, and Federalists vs, Anti-Federalists.  Nowadays though, the line is always crossed. Democrats are not always Anti-Federalist, and the Republicans are not always Federalist. Nowadays, it is actually more of the fact of who has been in office for a longer period of time.

This year, 2008, the race for leader stands between two people (again).  John McCain and Barack Obama.  There have been a lot of differences between the two, along with some pretty bad political warfare.

At the moment of posting this blog, John McCain is ahead in the polls, meaning that the Democrats are loosing at the moment.  I personally am not going to give my stance on this actual debate between parties, but each person has their own special attributes about them, and they are only going to win if most of the country favors those attributes over the others.

What is the Government to do?

New York Times

Man Charged With Killing Six in Washington State

By DAN FROSCH

Published: September 3, 2008

This news story is about an emotionally unstable man killing 6 people including a sheriff's deputy and hurting 4 more people.  The thing that got me thinking here was, how is the government supposed to deal with this kind of situation?  During class we had to discuss the whole social contract concept that describes a persons natural rights of life, liberty, and property, and how the government is put into place by the people to protect it.  My said question really comes into play with this whole social contract in the way that the government doesn't really have very many options in this situation.  They can't really do anything before hand other than taking every single person in the United States and judging them all for emotional or mental health, but this idea has way too many problems with it, such as the cost it would take, the margin of errors or even just the ethical issues it could bring up.  The easiest option (the method that is in place now) would be to wait and find out who the next emotionally unstable person is, but then an innocent life is long gone and their "social contract" has been defiled.

How should the Government handle situations like this?

A New Pre-Enlightenment Based Movie

Lakeview Terrace (2008)

Review Summary

An interracial couple moves into their California dream home, only to find themselves the target of their volatile next-door neighbor -- a racist LAPD officer -- in this tightly wound thriller starring Samuel L. Jackson and Kerry Washington. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide

After seeing a commercial for this movie on TV, I immediately remembered a concept that we talked about in class, the Royal law society.  The concept of this movie is that a cop is harassing his neighbors, but the neighbors can't do anything about it because no one would ever believe the cop could never do anything wrong.  This entire viewpoint is pre-enlightenment, where the idea that the King or any other royal figure could do anything wrong was immediately preposterous, and people could never think it at all.  Really in today's society this would never be a problem, because everybody must follow the same laws no matter what.

Trailer for the movie: