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