Stage 8

For my second critique of a colleagues work, I reviewed Kali Mellor’s editorial on how she felt the government has been overreaching into the state and local governments. She begins her article with a blunt statement that out national government struggles with “staying out of our business.” She elaborates that she feels her main concern is the national government’s control over marriage. While she states that the government is over-controlling marriage, she makes a somewhat irrelevant claim that religions are being attacked by the government for not engaging with same sex marriages. I didn’t feel as though this was a legitimate claim, as there was little evidence to back up this claim of religious persecution. I personally, have never witnessed the government attack religions over their opposition to gay marriage, and I felt like bringing up social groups was completely irrelevant to her original claim that the national government is overreaching into state governments. I didn’t understand the connection between her claim that the federal government is “way to close” to state and local governments, and her claim that religions are being attacked by social groups for opposition to gay marriage, and I thought her reasoning was flawed. She did not ever indicate what laws or mandates she was referring to when she stated “the government should stay out of marriages in general.” Because she brought up same sex marriage, I almost feel as though she is referring to the legalization of gay marriage just a few years ago. If so, I strongly disagree with her. How can allowing gay Americans to marry constitute as “federal government getting way too close to state and local governments”? The connection is completely unrelated. If anything, the legalization allowed for greater freedoms in America and pushed us towards less government control over marriage. She states that the government is “here to simply lay down the laws and enforce them.” Was legalizing gay marriage not just that? Laying down the law? Is it not the government’s job to change and develop laws to serve the changing desires of the people? She articulates that it is not the government’s job to control “every aspect of our personal decisions.” I completely fail to see her point, as legalization of gay marriage was the OPPOSITE of controlling every aspect of our personal decisions. She says that she lives by “if what you are doing does not affect me, I do not care.” This is quite contrary to everything else she is saying, if she believes that the advent of gay marriage rights was an act of an overreaching government. How does allowing gay people to marry affect her? She says that “it is becoming harder to say we life in the land of the free.” How does finally allowing gay people to marry make America less free? If anything, this act extended freedom to a minority group that has had their rights limited all throughout history. I had many issues with this editorial and little respect for the author and her ignorant opinions.

Stage 7

A fundamental right of having a United States citizenship is the right to have your voice heard by voting to elect representatives. However, around 6 million citizens cannot vote in the U.S because they have been convicted of a felony. In November, Floridian citizens had voted on a ballot measure that restored voting rights to over 1.5 million Floridian felons. This was a groundbreaking new law that would give those with felony charges a second chance to reimmerse themselves in civil processes as an American citizen. Unfortunately for these felons, who Florida voters intended to give a second chance at life, were totally undermined by a series of regulations that were put in place by republican voters. I believe that these regulations were put in place with intention to put these felons back in the same place they came from, and that these regulations were written by ill-willed people. These felons must pay back fines and fees first if they would like to participate in the voting process again. Many of these felons have left prison with nothing and have already struggled with acclimating to the struggles of the real world, they are often without money and in poor health. Most of these felons would not be able to pay back fines, and I believe this is just another route these republicans have taken to ensure felons can’t vote. In all honesty, these regulations remind me of the Jim Crow laws, and other racist ways that people tried to keep black people from voting in the past. We should have evolved from this already. This is so unfair to both the 4 million voters, who’s votes and intentions are being invalidated by these regulations, and the felons who are targeted by this blatant form of discrimination. Voting is one of the most basic rights and freedoms in this country, and it should be open to ANYONE regardless of ANY condition. This is the basis of democracy, and the Republicans who have enacted these regulations are clearly against democracy and want things their way.

Stage 6

I read an editorial/commentary article by my fellow classmate, Stephanie Jeannett, about the problem of inequalities when it comes to public education. She begins by informing her audience of her educational background. She comes from a a public school district that seems to be pretty well off, as she notes she grew up in a “white suburbia bubble” and that she was “privileged to attend.” She states how she didnt understand the reasoning behind why other school districts weren’t as well off, but that she understood the cause behind the inequality after listening to an NPR “This American Life” segment. She goes on to talk about how segregation still lives on in the American Educational system, describing how school districts that tend to reflect poorly in the ranks are typically minority occupied schools. She states that these school districts do not receive the same funding that school districts such as her own did. I had a few problems with these claims, not because I don’t believe they could be true, but because they lacked any sort of empirical evidence to back them up. I felt as though she hadn’t looked too well into the causalities behind lower ranking schools, and quickly blamed their lower rankings on lack of government funding. This cause sounds likely to me, but I don’t find it wise to just write this off as the cause without little factual backing. I also felt similarly about her proposed solutions to these problems. While they sound as if they could be effective, I don’t feel as if she took into account how public school receive government funding. I may be wrong, but I do believe that public school funds are allocated by the powers of the state government, not the national government. I feel like this would call for a much more specific approach that would need to be different for different states an localities. I have also read that schools in areas that aren’t as well off receive more state funds, and that teachers receive higher wages than at public schools in higher class areas. I can’t say this with all certainty, but I do believe there should have been more factual backing to these propositions as well as statistics included in the editorial. With her second solution, I didn’t quite understand what she meant by “integrating” schools again, and there was little elaboration on what that entails and how integration may be carried out. She articulates that she believes part of the solution would be to change racist ideals and policies in the governments. Again, I had problem with such an ardent claim because of the lack of elaboration on what racist policies exist to limit benefits from poor minorities in public school systems. I am not at all saying this couldn’t be true, but in some ways, the author diminishes their credibility by not expanding on these claims. Overall, I appreciated the passion and concern of the editorial, as I feel like this is important when writing about something you care about. However, I had my doubts about the legitimacy of many of the claims stated throughout the article, and I felt like it took away from her opinion and the credibility.

Stage 5

Should Trump be Impeached? Are his actions unconstitutional? 

From early on in his presidency, Donald Trump has committed multiple unconstitutional acts that have led many citizens and government officials alike to discuss the possibility of impeachment. From his first executive order, the travel ban, to his latest offense of declaring a national emergency over the border wall, President Trump has given us more than enough reason to impeach him. His declaration of national emergency was done in an attempt to secure money to fund the construction projects of the border wall when Congress had already denied him access to that appropriated money. His actions violated the appropriations clause, as he essentially intended to steal from appropriated funds against statutory authority. President Trump embodies the danger of an overreaching executive branch, and his efforts to override Congress jeopardizes the American foundation of a separation of powers and checks and balances. This foundation is what keeps our country a democracy, and protects the people of America from having our liberty stolen by the government. If the President’s plans to take appropriated money went on successfully, and he was able to override the Legislative branch, it would forever change the dynamic of American democracy. This would be a tradition-changing precedent that would change the power the executive has over the people, and America as we know it would be no more. I believe that no matter one’s support for the border wall or not, no matter party affiliation or whether or not you support the president, we must all come together to fight for our right to protect our voice. We cannot let Trump take away our democracy. I stand by Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house, and her fight to hold a lawsuit against Donald Trump.

Stage 4

The topic discussed in the New York Times editorial article involves the Constitution’s right not to shield President Donald Trump of allegations of misconduct prior to him coming into office in 2016. The author of the article is the New York Times Editorial Board. The Editorial Board is part of the Opinion department of the times, and consists of fifteen journalists led by James Bennet. In the article, the source claims that Mr. Trump is not protected by the presidency from answering civil charges. The Editorial Board supports this claim by using the precedent set in the Clinton vs Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. In this case, the author explains, President Clinton was to appear in the courts and be questioned under oath by lawyers. I agree with the correlation the author made between President Clinton and President Donald Trump because according to the article Trump has received allegations of sexual misconduct before he took office by a former contestant on Trump’s TV show, The Apprentice. The contestant, Summer Zervos, is suing the President for deframing her when calling her accusations of him groping her a hoax. The overall message the article sent was that the President is not above the law, and will be treated like any other civilian would be when facing similar accusations. The article was likely written for liberals as The Times is a left-leaning news source. The article reaffirms their belief in the judiciary system, and reminds readers that regardless of a President’s actions, they are not beyond the reach of the court.

Stage 3: Editorial Critical Analysis

In a February 2019 New York Times article, The Editorial Board reports that the Trump administration's new family planning rule threatens access to contraception and health care via Title X. The Editorial Board at the New York Times is composed of journalists with wide-ranging areas of expertise. Among these journalists is Michelle Cottle, formally a news correspondent in Washington, but now covering U.S politics for the Times. The credibility of the editorial page is especially strong because it is edited by James Bennet, a former White House correspondent and Jerusalem bureau chief. The articles intended audience is women, their direct or indirect involvement with Title X, and how the changes made to Title X influence their options with family planning. The author claims that the new rule was United States government’s way of imposing unnecessary regulations for reproductive health clinics to impede women's access to options and care. The author explains that in order for a clinic that provides abortions to continue receiving funding the clinic must create a separate entrance for those seeking an abortion, hire separate personnel, and use a different system for storing abortion-related health records. I take the author's stance that creating an excessive amount of “hoops” to jump through puts women at a disadvantaged state. The Editorial Board also makes the argument that the new rule is unethical because it also includes a part that prohibits health care providers from informing pregnant patients about their full range of options. As a reader I was immediately alarmed by doctors no longer being required to educate pregnant patients of their options. It is now expected that many health clinics will no longer use Title X, but with this being many women's main source of health care, I stand with author in sympathizing for the price women are paying.

Blog Stage Two

The following article by the New York Times regards President Trump's recent declaration of national emergency over the border wall and Nancy Pelosi's (speaker of the house) effort to overturn the declaration. The article is written in anticipation for the house vote Pelosi has scheduled this upcoming Tuesday. This article is important to read because it discusses a larger problem than the surface level fight for border security, it outlines the fight for the defense of balanced powers on part of the entire legislative branch and checks and balances of government branches established in the constitution. President Trump's declaration, if it prevails, is a bigger issue than unlawfully redirecting funds towards the construction of the border wall. Essentially, the act will establish a precedent that will forever change the balance of powers. The legislative branch takes charge in government spending, and with an overreaching executive who hopes to unconstitutionally redirect up to 3.6 billion dollars of military construction funding towards the border wall fund, what does that say for future executives? What's to stop future presidents from overreaching? If the resolution led by Pelosi does not pass, it gives the executive branch power over the legislative branch in areas that were not intended by the founding fathers, fundamentally taking away power from the branch of the people. The big controversy here is: will congressional Republicans unite with Democrats to defend legislative powers, defecting their party and support for the president? Nancy Pelosi invited Republicans to vote for the resolution, appealing to them by calling for the defense of Congress's "power of the purse," or power over government budgeting. Pelosi doesn't doubt that the resolution will pass, however, if the resolution gets majority vote the president may still veto the resolution. This means 2/3rds of Congress must vote on overriding the veto, which is doubtful. We will see what happens this Tuesday at the house vote...