March on Washington

On August 27, 1963, around 250,000 people, whites and blacks alike, marched on Washington D.C. to protest for equal rights. To this day, this demonstration remains as one of the largest political rallies in United States history. The March was the result of the passion and dedication of the Civil Rights Leaders and also the the spirit of the proud U.S. citizens who traveled from every corner of the country to view this spectacle.
But of course this march was no cake walk. It wouldn't be a protest for equal rights under the law if the government was attempting to intervene and undermine the project. Whether it was the FBI accusing Martin Luther King and his inner circle of being communists, or President John F. Kennedy pleading with Mr. King to cancel the march, not everyone was excited for this historic event.
The movie, "The March", told the story of the planning of the event and it is a story that not many people are accustomed to hearing. Most people, myself included, believed that it was just an all around success and was welcomed with open arms. Thats only about half the story. The behind the scenes work and effort that was put into this project was unbelievable. To watch this video, go to http://video.pbs.org/program/march/ and learn more.

Board of Regents v. Bakke

In class today we held a moot court for the Board of Regents of the University of California Davis v. Bakke Supreme Court case. This case was a landmark decision that upheld affirmative action but disallowed the use of quotas. Quotas were used by many schools, in particular the medical school at the University of California Davis, where they designated 16 out of 100 seats for African American Students. These quotas were the result of the effort from universities to ensure they integrated their student body. Yet, according to Bakke and later supported by the Courts decision, these quotas violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by singularly using race as a determining factor in the acceptance of a student. The intent of the quotas were just, yet their application became unjust because they discriminated against those who weren't minorities.

I enjoyed listening to the arguments presented by the litigation groups. It's always interesting to see how my peers will develop their arguments and go about working the case. I think that the defense had a rough time against the attacks of the prosecution mostly because the prosecution had the force of the law behind them. All in all I agree with the courts decision and believe that race should be one of the factors in determining acceptance but not the sole factor. Allowing an admissions council to deny someone solely on the basis of race can lead to the acceptance of less qualified candidates simply because they aren't white, as was the case with Bakke.

Klansville USA

North Carolina, a widely known progressive state in the South, rarely experienced the violence of the Civil Rights Era that their neighbors had. Yet the state of North Carolina had more members of the Ku Klux Klan living within its boarders than all other southern states combined. At its peak the Klan had more than 10,000 members involved in open street walks, Klan rallies, and even radio sponsorships. The Klan became incredibly prominent during the 1960's and became a driving force of voicing "white interests" in the state.

But why the sudden spike in Klan involvement in the progressive state of North Carolina? Well, to be simply put, the answer is inclusion. The organization of the Klan in North Carolina during the 1960's was masterfully completed and gave a "county fair" setting to their rallies. If you're in the backwoods of North Carolina and you hear about a rally where the whole town would attend, food would be served, music would be played, AND there would be a preacher ranting about the wants and desires of your fellow white people, that sounds like a damn good Saturday. Rallies received a lot of local attention because even if people didn't want to be outgoing about their social views, they enjoyed listening to a preacher discuss them and having their views projected through someone else. Most likely the local Klan rally would be the highlight of your week, and it didn't hurt that you could relate to their message as a lower, working class, white southerner. The main purpose of the Klan was to act as a protector for these lower class whites to avoid falling to the bottom of the barrel. With minorities gaining more and more rights under the law, lower class, southern whites were hit with a huge culture shock when they weren't allowed to stand on the backs of oppressed minorities. This culture shock led these North Carolinians to join the Klan in waves, and they were welcomed with open arms.

Plessy v. Ferguson Mock Trial

My litigation group, team "Red, White, and Better than You", was elected to be the defendant in the Supreme Court case, Plessy v. Ferguson To prepare for the case, my group and I began by researching and finding out all the information we could about the circumstances of the trial. We wanted to get a full understanding of the case and its background. The case itself was fought over the infringement of Homer Plessy's 14th amendment rights under the equal protection clause. Plessy believed the segregation was wrong and does not offer blacks the same protection and treatment under the law as whites, and is thus unconstitutional. The local Louisiana court and the states supreme court both ruled against Plessy, forcing him to pay a $25 fine for his crime. The case then made its way to the Supreme Court where the same decision would be made, along with the landmark ruling of "separate but equal", allowing segregation in public places.

My team and I were able to win the case because we were able to find other court decisions that set precedence for our argument. Our main legal document was the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, which repealed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, thus making segregation and discrimination in public accommodations and transportation legal. Because our argument was based off of solidified law and not the moral sentiments of the prosecution, we were able to win the case.
Personally, I thoroughly enjoyed this assignment. I enjoyed planning out my argument based off the argument I believed the prosecution would make. I enjoyed having a counter statement to every argument or accusation they could have made. Through my research, however, I was able to see that even though I was on the winning side of the court case legally, the right decision was not the one chosen. Discriminatory and racist behaviors ran rampant across this country and still continue to this day.
I believe that if the people in power and influence during this time period had made the decision based off morality instead of legal precedence, the world we live in today would be much different.

Causes of the Civil War

From the inception of our country, the issue of slavery was one of great debate. The South's agrarian centered society became the largest cotton producing region in the world, while the North's industrial powerhouse pumped out goods to export to our new network of global allies. This entire process relied heavily on the institution of slavery. Now it seemed that the country was divided right down the middle on the morality behind this peculiar institution, but one thing was for sure, the South's economy needed slavery like a fish needs water. From the 20 year rule to the Missouri compromise, the debate took form through the laws passed in congress. This was seemingly one step forward and two steps back for every law passed in the eyes of the abolitionists, but the mere fact that the debate was being had was a promising sentiment in our young nation.


Slavery itself became the benchmark of what the majority of people believe the civil war was fought over. But I don't think anyone should believe that the South's stubbornness and injustices were based solely off of their hatred and belief that the African race was a lesser one. Yes of course these sentiments were prominent, but looking through the eyes of a historian or even as a politician, you can see that the South didn't so much as WANT the oppression of blacks; they NEEDED it. Their entire economic system depended on it. Having free labor, perfect land for farming, and a new capitalistic society in which to do business, is enough to make any business man, white or black, swoon in their millions. The true battle was fought over the South's belief that their states had the right to this free labor, and that the federal government had no right to dismantle this peculiar institution that created more millionaires in Mississippi than in any other state. The enforcement of laws like the "Tariff of Abominations" in 1828 added kindle to the soon to be inferno of the civil war.

In the eyes of the leadership in the South, slavery was a states rights issue. In the North, it was a civil rights issue. But we should not be foolish enough to think that the Northern states were a fantasy land of acceptance and love. Racism itself extended nationwide. Even in the Lincoln's giving of the Emancipation Proclamation, only slaves from the rebel states were set free. Slaves currently living and working in the "boarder states" had to maintain their servitude because the North feared that they would lose the support of their host states, and they would join the Southern cause.

So now, in 1861, the country found itself fighting a war that pitted brother against brother. A war proving that a house divided cannot stand. A war that would go down as the bloodiest in our history.

Free Speech or Symbols of Racism?

In Sacramento, California, residence of a small town neighborhood were shocked to be driving down the street and seeing swastikas displayed on a neighbors property. These swastikas took their form on American flags and the Flag of Israel, replacing the Star of David and the 50 stars on our own flag. This display has caused quite the uproar and has extended into the national spotlight. California lawmakers have "demanded" that the man take down his customized flags because they fear that hatred displayed in such a manner could be followed by and action of terrorism and violence. But this man is acting within his rights of free speech as an American citizen, guaranteed under the First Amendment. That being said, lawmakers "demanding" that these symbols be removed is nothing short of a symbolic gesture in itself. These lawmakers have no authority over this display, regardless of how hate fueled and controversial it may be.

Some of the residence of this small neighborhood have expressed an interest in walking over to the property and removing the symbols on their own. To which I respond, "Why waste your time?" In my opinion, any person is well within their rights to let everyone in their neighborhood know that they are a racist bigot. Who am I to get in the way of someone making a fool of themselves? One of my favorite quotes seems to apply to this situation beautifully and it goes as follows: "America wasn't founded so that we could all be better. America was founded so we could all be anything we damn well please."-P.J. O'Rourke. To learn more about this developing situation, read more here: Free Speech or Symbols of Racism?

Same Sex Marriage in Alabama

On February 9, 2015, same sex marriage became legal in the state of Alabama. Though it received heavy push back from some of the states conservative majority, about 32% of the residence of Alabama approved of the notion to have the state government recognize the relationships and marriages between same sex couples. Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore, led the charge against the same sex marriage push by ordering probate judges to not hand out marriage licenses to gay couples. Now this is the same man who lost his position as Chief Justice in 2003 for refusing to take down a Ten Commandments Monument that resided on a state building: a clear violation of the first amendment in regards to the governments establishment of a religion. Justice Moore has a conservative history and we can see it continue here in regards to same sex marriage.

In my opinion, and in the vernacular of the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, everybody has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which includes the institution of marriage among same sex couples. Regardless of my personal beliefs or convictions, are we expected to give the government so much power that they can tell us who we can and cannot spend our lives with? Though it may fall against the Christian values of the conservative right wing, our constitution protects us from the establishment of religion so that it may not influence policy or affect our citizens who don't identify with that belief system. If two people, regardless of gender, wish to be married, than I say "have at it." Living in this country gives us the rare ability to chose how we wish to live our lives. We are given certain freedoms upon on our birth and it is up to us to take advantage of them and to use our ability to be different to make an identity for ourselves. To read more on this subject, feel free to continue reading the article on this webpage: Same Sex Marriage in Alabama

Chapel Hill Shooting

On Tuesday February 11, 2015, three Muslim American students were killed at the University of North Carolina around 5 p.m. by local man Craig Hicks. According to Hicks and his wife, this violent outburst was a result of an on going parking despite between Mr. Hicks and the victims, Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, 21; her husband, Mr. Barakat, 23; and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19. According to reports, Mr. Hicks opened fire on the victims and ultimately shot them in the head and killed them. This outrageous act of violence seems to be a bit too extreme to have erupted over a simple parking altercation. The timing is too peculiar. In my opinion, it seems to be more complicated than that.

Many people were quick to jump to twitter and Facebook to criticize the media for its lack of coverage, claiming that if a muslim man killed three christians, it would be breaking news. But instead, three Muslim Americans were killed, and the major media outlets took a backseat in regards to their coverage of this violent outbreak. I find it hard to believe that this violent action could have come about merely from a parking dispute, as Mr. Hicks and the media proclaim. It seems evident that this was a crime fueled from hatred and anger; a hate crime. People were quick to proclaim this as an act of terrorism, which seemed to shock many others in our society. Too often are the terms "terrorist" and "muslim" considered synonyms. But by definition, a hate crime is in fact an act of terrorism because it uses violence in the pursuit of political aims. Now Mr. Hicks may not look like our stereotypical terrorist we see on the news, but he must be judged by his actions, and his actions suggest a life of anger and ignorance towards an ideology.

As Americans, we are free to practice our religions and our cultures as we please, as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. We are all equal under the law: white, black, christian, or muslim; we are all equal.

State v. Mann

During our mock trial today, we discussed the the appellate court case State v. Mann from 1829. The case was about property rights for slave owners and how they impact the slaves under their possession. In the case, a man by the name of John Mann rented out a slave by the name of Lydia from her slave owner, Elizabeth Jones. By signing a contract that leases out Lydia for a year, she becomes John Mann's property during that time period. During her period of servitude to Mr. Mann, Lydia attempted to escape. In response to this, Mr. Mann shoots Lydia in the back, wounding her. When the case entered the local court system, the court originally sided with Lydia and fined Mann $10 for assault and battery.
Mann appealed the decision to the appellate court system. This court, led by judge Thomas Ruffin, looked back on the case to see if due process and the case itself, was conducted correctly. The defense's argument stated that the local court system judge broke the law in North Carolina by siding with Lydia. According to North Carolina law, when a slave attempts to escape, the owner of said slave is within their rights to take physical action against the slave, which includes killing them. In 1829, the government could not side with Lydia because she is property of Mr. Mann, the defense argued. Thomas Ruffin ended up over turning the ruling from the local court, and sided with Mann. This decision served to further engrain the institution of slavery into the culture of, not just the south, but of North Carolina specifically.

Brooklyn Performer's Due Process Rights Violated

Brooklyn subway performer, Andrew Kalleen, has filed a suit against the New York Police Department for violating his right to Due Process under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The NYPD arrested Kalleen under the claim that he needs a permit to perform along the subway transit stations. This is not the first incident where Kalleen has been confronted by the police, and by this time, he knew exactly what to say to the authorities. Kalleen referenced the Metropolitan Transportation Authority rules that allow performers to solicit donations and perform in transit stations as long as they are not impeding the flow of transit. But despite this, the NYDP continued with their arrest. This is a direct violation of Kalleen's Fifth Amendment and also his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. These rights are put in place to protect the citizens of the United States from the abuse of power at the federal and state levels. The NYPD, a local, state-run organization, ignored the law and continued with the arrest and detainment of Kalleen without a just or reasonable cause. To read more about this issue, please feel free to continue reading the article at http://www.brooklyneagle.com/articles/2015/2/3/brooklyn-artist-set-sue-city-civil-rights-violations

Woman sues Michigan Police for First Amendment Violations

Malak Kazan, a 27 year old practicing Muslim woman from Michigan, was arrested last year for driving with a suspended license. When the time came to take her mug shot, she was told she must remove her hijab because it is the police departments policy to remove all headgear that "can contain concealable items that could pose a threat or chance of injury to the cops or to themselves." Ms. Kazan attempted to explain that it is against her religion to expose her hair and neck to men that are not in her immediate family. She even went far enough to request that a female officer take her mug shot, to avoid the offense to her own culture and belief system. Yet that request was refused because there "aren't always enough female officers on duty." So in the end, she was forced to remove the head piece and continue with the photograph. 

Ms. Kazan is suing under the second clause of the first amendment and also the fourteenth amendment, granting her equal protection under the law, and protecting her from the dangers of excessive state and local authorities. Now I assume that this case will not take too long to decide, as it is a blatant violation of her guaranteed constitutional rights. The lawsuit also includes a plan to edit the policy of the police force to allow an exception for Muslim women and their religious headwear. To read more about this case, follow this link http://www.albawaba.com/editorchoice/woman-sues-michigan-cops-who-made-her-take-hijab-648412

American Sniper and a Hero's Controversy

The recently released film, "American Sniper", has stirred up a lot of controversy lately. By pulling in over $200 million dollars domestically in theaters, the story and legend of US Navy SEAL Chris Kyle has been brought to the forefront of all of our minds. And undoubtedly, the debate has been brought up, "Is this man a hero?" People like Jesse Ventura don't believe so. But he's not the only one. People everywhere are questioning the morality of Kyle's status as the most deadly sniper in US military history. People have seen the movie and his book as a way to brag about the number of people he's killed, or as a way to portray his racist feelings towards to muslim population in the Middle East. Yet on the contrary to those beliefs, there are still many people who view this man as a national hero. In Texas, Kyle's home state, there are even talks about making a "Chris Kyle Day", to honor the legendary sniper. 

I personally see the man as a hero. Being from a military family, I of course have my biases. I tend to believe that anyone who can sacrifice their life for the protection of my freedoms deserves my respect. Chris Kyle was one of those "fundamentally American" people, where he wholeheartedly believed in the American dream and everything this country was founded upon. When asked about his kill count, he said he didn't think about it too much. What kept him up at night, though, was the thought that he couldn't save everyone: that he could have done more to save more American lives. The hatred and violence he saw in Iraq disturbed him to his very core. He realized that if hatred like that is allowed to breathe and grow without any action, it will undoubtedly reach our shores. If you would like to read more about Chris Kyle and his story, check out these websites: Chris Kyle, Former Nav SEAL, Dies at 38 and Jesse Ventura Says 'American Sniper' is No Hero