Week 13

"In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State." Oyez.com - Loving v. Virginia

Loving v. Virginia as a supreme court case has shaped the path of America (at least legally) discrimination wise. If the judges on this case had ruled the other way then racially charged marriage laws would still be around. In addition there would have never been Obergefell v. Hodges which legalized same sex marriage nationwide. It closed doors for other forms of discrimination too. For example people now, again at least legally, cannot be denied the right to purchase something or attend a place because of the color of their skin, religion, sex, etc. Though this case simply affected the legal viewing of discrimination in America, it also opened the doors for individuals to come to their own personal understanding that racism is wrong, and that they should not discriminate based on someones beliefs or skin color. 

Week 10

"...states can actually control the extent of gerrymandering." What 60 years of political gerrymandering looks like - Christopher Ingraham

This quote stuck out to me because of the level of truth it holds. States can control gerrymandering, and if they couldn't the federal government could control it. However no one wants to control it. If it were controlled then both parties (though more heavily used by republicans) could stand to lose an easy power play. This difference or gap between can and want is what drives so many easily fixable issues farther and farther up. For example I believe the issue of police brutality could be at least lessened if police were properly trained, if their salaries and promotions did not depend on how many citations they gave or searches they conducted but instead on how well they did the ones that were necessary. Or even how skilled they are at being able to tell when force or action of any kind is truly necessary. But again for this issue no one in power wants to make a change because that would result in either a loss of income or power for them. In the end it all comes down to greed.

Week 9

"But it is answered in reply to all this, that precisely what I have now denounced is, in fact, guaranteed and sanctioned by the Constitution of the United States; that the right to hold and to hunt slaves is a part of that Constitution framed by the illustrious Fathers of this Republic.

Then, I dare to affirm, notwithstanding all I have said before, your fathers stooped, basely stooped

To palter with us in a double sense:
And keep the word of promise to the ear,
But break it to the heart.

And instead of being the honest men I have before declared them to be, they were the veriest impostors that ever practiced on mankind" Frederick Douglass "What to the slave is the fourth of July"

When opening this piece Douglass began by praising the founding fathers for creating a nation with just and fair laws. Laws that created a country where all could find equality. He continues to praise them (while discussing the fugitive slave act) up until this part where he unveils the truth behind their actions. He makes it clear the the writers of the constitution worded it in such a way to make sure that slavery would remain legal. Jefferson one of the most well know founders had a plantation with a plethora of slaves. Because of this it would have obviously been in his self interest to write the legality of their ownership into the countries founding documents. Douglass calls men like Jefferson impostors because they put on a mask that they are working for the good of man kind while they are really just looking out for their own interests. This analysis fits well with today's politicians many of whom if not most run for office under the facade of improving the well being of Americans when they are really just seeking to fill their pockets.

Week 7

"That government is best which governs least";(1) and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. - Thoreau's, Civil Disobedience 

Thoreau's above quote condenses many different ideas into one statement. I interpret this as him meaning instead of there being no government at all as to there being a government who isn't looked upon as a 'government'. He means that the leaders of a state should not be viewed by the people as 'oppressors', 'tyrants', or 'faceless', all words which can be used to describe almost every countries government today, especially Donald Trumps America. The form of government I believe he would like instead is one where the people are informed of all decisions and actions, where there is more participation by the citizens. Instead of the autonomous machine that many regimes even democracies are today. In this form of government citizens would see there leaders as brothers instead of overbearing parents, they would feel a connection and familiarity with the top. 

Week 6

"After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable on." - Deceleration of Sentiments

This quote from the deceleration of sentiments holds a lot of power because of how true it was for the women writing it. Thankfully it no longer holds true. The women must have felt while writing it such a hot anger and frustration at their situation. They were people, citizens of the country, yet held no rights except those that would also be given to a child. If a women was married she would have less rights than she did unmarried (she even did not have rights to the children she bore). So for women marriage an important part of life at the time was nothing more than a fancier word for incarceration. And then if she chose to not marry or was a widower she was given a 'sprinkle' of more rights. However these rights would mainly pertain to property which the government would simply tax and tax to supply the establishment which holds her chains.

Now thankfully the environment for women has improved greatly. Women can now vote, be elected into office, run corporations, etc. Despite these great improvements there is still a lot to be done. For example women still on average earn less than men, are still sexually assaulted at alarming rates, and looked down upon when holding a position of power over men. These are just some issues that are present today, there are far more which are too numerous to name. However following the pattern of the last two hundred years it would seem that things will continue to improve. They could do so even faster if more women came together like the signers of this deceleration and demanded change.

Week 5

"But modern day naturalized are barred from the presidency simply because they were born in the wrong place to the wrong parents. This must, and someday will, change." Akhil Reed The New York Times

The author means by this quote that immigrants once naturalized should be able to serve as the president of the United States. I agree to a degree with the authors statement. When the author brings up Hamilton as an example of someone who migrated and was allowed to run for president he leaves out that in this case Hamilton was still just a young adult when he came to the then colonies. Hamilton also fought during the revolutionary war helping to develop the foundation of the United States which would make there be little to no reason in his case to doubt his loyalties. However in the case of recent immigrants or ones who have migrated after living a majority of their life (Say a 50 year old) in a foreign country it would be hard to really tell where their loyalties lie. I am not saying that every immigrant who would want to run for leader of the United States would have bad intentions, but that they may subliminally favor there home country in foreign affairs. 

For example lets say that a 50 year old Swedish man/ woman immigrates here, and eventually gains citizenship. They have a previous political background in their home country and good finances so it is not hard for them to fall into American politics. By the time they are 65, lets say, they decide to run for president and win. If they have to complete a trade deal with Sweden they may be more inclined to accept a deal that favors them, or to not hold them accountable for transgressions that may deserve sanctions. 

In finally I do agree with the authors point that migrants who do come here say as children or at an age where they can still spend a majority of their life in the United States before running fro president should be allowed to. However there should still be certain restrictions to prevent electing an unfit leader.

Week 4

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The author of this the preamble to the constitution, Gouverneur Morris, a founding father of the United States likely had different ideas for whom this would apply to then we do today. He presumably meant for this to apply to his comrades, other Anglo Saxon males (Perhaps females too to some degree). However because of his broad use of "We the People" instead of, "We the Anglo Saxon People" or "We the Men", he allowed for the meaning of his words to be adapted and changed with the growing country. Written over 200 years ago, the countries views on race, sex, gender, religion, have definitely changed. Without this ambiguous meaning it would have meant a suppression of the rights of emerging minority groups, which would have left the country in a much darker bigoted age.

The interpretation of these words apply to so many today. Ranging from Women, to Blacks, Minorities (Religious and Racial Groups), the LGBTQ+ community, and more. Despite many/ most of these groups not yet receiving their full constitutional rights, the fact that the possibility for them to receive them means a lot. Many countries constitutions, such as Saudi Arabia, are not so widely applicable. In the case of Saudi Arabia a monarch is recognized as the supreme leader of the land and Islam is the states only recognized religion, leaving no room for anyone who does not fit these limitations to be welcome to any rights.

Constant fights for more rights for oppressed groups are constantly being fought for, and are only able to be fought for thanks to the grammatical wording of the preamble of the Constitution. Be it purposeful or not this ambiguity has left the door open for this countries progress within the expansion of civil rights. It has by no means created a utopia type country, however it has at least made it possible for a universally free country, as long as the citizens of the country continue to fight for their constitutional rights.