Sample by My Essay Writer
Week #5 Entry #1
“We Won – for Now”
Chris Hedges and six other plaintiffs sued President Barack Obama for the implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), an act that allows the U.S. Military to detain American citizens without due process. The provision was designed as a measure to be enforced when someone is suspected of being a terrorist. Judge Katherine declared the law unconstitutional and accepted the plaintiffs’ challenges; the judge’s decision was soon challenged by the Obama administration. The government lawyers asked for a stay on the provision so that they could continue to use the law, but the judge immediately rejected the stay. The ruling was sent to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and if it held up, it would go on to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obama administration has since asked for an emergency stay to lift the injunction so that the government could continue to use its detention powers, but that ruling wasn’t released at the time of the article’s writing.
I chose this article because I find the ability of a judge to overthrow what an entire presidential administration has ruled to be fascinating. I also wondered about the process leading up to judgement to overthrow a government decision that is unconstitutional. It is amazing to me that there could be so much time and money spent on investigating whether or not a provision is legal, only to discover that it is not. I’ve already learned a lot about what it takes to pass an act in government, but I wasn’t familiar with the steps taken in court to overthrow an Act. It seems like there would have been enough intelligence when creating the Act to determine whether there would be a successful court challenge. At the same time, it appears that due to the lengthy court process, the government can get away with doing something that is unconstitutional for quite some time before it is overthrown.
Week #5 Entry #2
“Mother Jones reporter David Corn on Revealing the Secret Romney Video That’s Upended 2012 Campaign”
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney declared that he is concerned about 100 per cent of Americans, but he said two days earlier that he isn’t concerned about the 47 per cent of Americans who are dependent on government. A hidden camera on Mother Jones caught Romney saying that he doesn’t care about the 47 per cent of Americans who “believe they are entitled to [social programs].” The comments divided Republicans, with some saying he should apologize for the remarks and others saying he should stand by them. David Corn of Mother Jones Magazine says he contacted the person who recorded the video and the source gave Corn the full tape if his identity was protected. Romney then tried to cover his tracks on Fox News, saying that he believes people want to pay taxes and there needs to be more jobs. He tried to turn around what he said to make it sound like he was actually saying the 47 per cent who don’t pay taxes are not looking for handouts, but they are looking for jobs.
I find this clip to be a classic example of democracy in action and I find it very interesting about how a video can be leaked. So far, I’ve learned about various aspects of the election campaign, and it is interesting to see how someone can sabotage his own campaign with just a few words. Romney is clearly saying whatever he thinks will win the most number of votes and I don’t believe this is the kind of person to elect as president. When Romney made the remarks that he is looking out for 100 per cent of America, he said it on national TV. When he said he doesn’t want to give handouts to the 47 per cent, he was speaking to very wealthy people. Romney is speaking to satisfy those who he thinks are listening, and he isn’t out for the greater good of America.
