Not Marbury v. Madison: The Most Important Supreme Court Decision of 1803

The Supreme Court, the single most important long-term part of the federal government, has always done things under the radar that do not often get recognized until decades later. Whether it may be the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, or the Civil Rights Cases of the 1870s and 1880s, there have always been decisions made by SCOTUS that have shaped the rest of American history. But, of all the decisions of 1803, including the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison was nowhere near as important as the decision that was never officially made: the decision to block the Louisiana Purchase.

After striking up a deal with France to buy what we know today as the Louisiana Purchase, President Thomas Jefferson was struggling to figure out what would happen with the legal repercussions in the United States. Being such a constructionist with the Constitution, he strayed away from his initial idea of enacting a constitutional amendment for fear that Napoleon might back away from this deal of $15 million.

Jefferson and his coalition then made a new argument stating that the current constitutional provision that allowed for governing territory inherently allowed for there to be a right to acquire territory that would be governed by the United States. This very constitutional argument outside the bounds of what had been established was new for Jefferson, but in taking this stance, he saw a once in a nation's history chance to expand the US. The Senate was able to gather the votes and support the spending necessary to acquire the territory

Where does the Supreme Court come into this situation? Well, without affirming this decision that Jefferson's legal reasoning for buying the Louisiana Purchase, there would be no possible way for the US to add this land to the country. Had the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, not actually supported and affirmed the legal basis for the purchase, there can be an argument to be made that there would be no superpower today. There would be no global center for democracy that would span larger than the East Coast. The United States we know today would have never been possible had the Supreme Court affirmed the decision for the Supreme Court.

So if anyone asks about the most important cases of the early 1800s, even 1803, the answer is not Marbury v. Madison. The true decision, which was never a true case, was the court's decision to affirm the Louisiana Purchase, the most important land purchase arguably in world history.


Sources:
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-louisiana-purchase-jeffersons-constitutional-gamble
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Approves_Louisiana_Purchase_Treaty.htm

Neil Gorsuch: SCOTUS's Newest and One of It's Most Controversial Justices

As I wrote about a month ago, the nomination and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch came at a time when the United States, following one of our nation's closest presidential elections, was more divided than ever. In fact, it was the very appointment and the blockade against the confirmation of President Obama's choice, Judge Merrick Garland, that gave way for Gorsuch to even make an appearance on the national stage, let alone become the next associate justice on the Supreme Court.

Born on August 29, 1967, Neil McGill Gorsuch was born into a family of two lawyers, and he himself began to develop a passion for the law. After heading to Columbia University, he became its campuses foremost conservative voices as a writer for the Columbia Day Spectator and was, coincidentally, one of President Barack Obama's classmates at Harvard Law School, graduating in 1991.

What sets Gorsuch apart, besides his clerkship at the Supreme Court for justices Kennedy and White, is his doctorate which he received in philosophy from Oxford University. Following that degree, he was appointed to the Tenth Circuit of the US Court of Appeals in Denver. He then began to slowly craft his fundamentalist views on the Constitution and the law, being a fervent supporter of religious freedoms and the Second Amendment.

When Gorsuch was nominated to the Supreme Court on January 31st, 2017, he was filling the vacancy  of one of the strongest fundamentalists in the history of the court: Justice Antonin Scalia. Through one of the more grueling set of Senate confirmation hearings, Gorsuch was eventually appointed to the court on April 7th, 2017.

In a very literal sense, Gorsuch remains a very stringent conservative. He is strongly in favor of states rights over federal rights. Furthermore, his beliefs in supporting religious freedoms have actually led to him supporting some of the more unpopular religious opinions in America. Even though his confirmation may have been highly contested, much of his conservative beliefs remain strong parts of the Republican party today, and he will continue to establish a precedent prioritizing the rights of the people and the will of the people over extending the power of the federal government.


Sources:
https://www.oyez.org/justices/neil_gorsuch
http://time.com/4961416/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-term-controversy/
https://www.biography.com/people/neil-gorsuch-020617

iMac: The Computer That Changed It All

There are very few technological advancements that truly change the world. There's the lightbulb, telephone, television, internet, and the personal computer. But if we could point our finger at one device that truly made it cool to own a computer, the device that you would show off to even your grandparents, it would be this. Twenty years ago this week, the Apple iMac was released, and it fundamentally changed technology and the United States forever.

When Steve Jobs arrived back at Apple in June of 1997, the company was lost. It had gone through CEOs and lackluster products left and right. Jobs wanted to reinvent the way people viewed the home computer once again. The Macintosh, Apple's most successful attempt at this to that point, was outdated and Apple failed to have any products match the reputation of the device they launched with their famous "1984" commercial.

The premise of the iMac was simple: create an all-in-one computer that looked as cool as it functioned. It would have to include everything within the box for user to start creating and working right away. It would need to have new technologies like USB, ditching legacy ports like an optical drive in favor of future-proofing the device. It needed to succeed because it was the last chance at Apple retaining their name in personal computing. And it did all of that and more.

What Apple was able to do with the iMac was able to bring productivity at a level of simplicity and efficiency to the home. It established Apple as a trendsetting brand. It became the Louis Vuitton of technology, not as exclusive but a statement. Everyone wanted an iMac, and other brands began to make copycat products in hopes of attracting more customers, yet never seeming to have the same chance to succeed like the original iMac.

It's clear and neon-colored plastic shell got Americans the chance to see their technology up close for the first time. Apple made it cool to be a computer geek and it normalized technology for all ages. Consumer technology began its exponential ascension with this product and led to our smartphones and tablets and Amazon Echos and laptops. What made the iMac so special was that it made technology an even more essential part of our lives, and it is this single device that pushed us to the tech-centric lives we live, especially here in Silicon Valley.

Sources:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/12/17328162/this-week-in-tech-20-years-ago-may-1998

http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-apple-fired-returned-2017-7

https://www.macworld.com/article/3271851/techology-business/the-imacs-lasting-legacy.html

Expanding the First Amendment to Corporations: Citizens United v. FEC

The definition of the First Amendment never ceases to change. For over two centuries, the United States has been defined by this Amendment, this idea that,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

However, for these same two centuries, the interpretation of the most important rights that we have as citizens has been interpreted and curtailed/expanded by the Supreme Court. For the past twenty years, aside from Bush v. Gore which decided a presidential election, no Supreme Court case may have had as great of an impact as the landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC

Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, wanted to run a movie on television called "Hillary: The Movie," which was a film critical against the then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in late 2007. The FEC, or Federal Election Committee, prohibited this film from being aired by a law called the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law, which prevented corporations from running ads for or against presidential candidates within thirty days of the primaries. The case arrived at SCOTUS on the grounds from Citizens United that they should be permitted to show their movie.

But, in a shocking display of judicial activism, on January 21st, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment rights of citizens were equal to the rights of individual citizens. They made the case that not only did Citizens United have the right to air the film, but that corporations under the First Amendment cannot be regulated on financing political campaigns in any capacity because they should be legally allowed to use any resources they have to support whomever they want.

This sent shockwaves through politics. With all corporations now being allowed to spend however much they wanted to whomever political candidate they choose, many people were afraid. President Obama was furious and many other liberals were stunned that now corporations had extended power in politics. But, regardless, this decision has shaped politics to this day, where individuals can donate to Super PACs in unlimited capacities, and now, if you have a heaping ton of money, you can spend it in nearly any possible capacity to support any political candidate you want.

Sources:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/05/21/money-unlimited
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/21/campaign.finance.ruling/?hpt=T2

How is Merrick Garland Not a Supreme Court Justice Today?

After the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, President Obama hoped to follow past precedent and nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court. His choice was to the court was Merrick Garland, the the Chief Judge of the United States Appeal Court DC circuit. Everyone assumed that a confirmation hearing would take place. However, what would occur for the next year was the most surprising filibuster in recent American judicial history.

Legally, after POTUS nominates a person to the Supreme Court, a hearing can take place in the Senate to confirm the citizen to the court. The crucial word to this is "can," because technically, SCOTUS confirmation hearings do not actually have to happen. It is up to the Senate's discretion about whether there should be a hearing to determine whether someone is fit to be on the court. It is clearly mentioned in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, where "[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States..." 

Because the Constitution only mentions the role directly of the President, there is one true constitutional crux: what determines "Advice and Consent of the Senate"? In the past, the Senate has just had their Judiciary Committee conduct hearings and then propose their findings to the Senate as a whole, where a nomination for a vote will take place. But that does not necessarily mean that this vote can actually determine whether this constitutes "Advice and Consent."

This is not the only time that the Senate has chosen to filibuster a presidential nomination. In 1965, after President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated Abe Fortas to chief justice after he was appointed as an associate justice. He was filibustered after there were not enough votes to pass a "cloture" vote. He later resigned shortly after the Nixon inauguration. This circumstance unlike what took place with Johnson is that the Senate never chose to hold a vote. The Senate in 2016 made the conscious choice to not allow a more liberal justice, but more importantly, a justice appointed by Obama, to join on the court.

So with the appointment and confirmation of Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, many Americans were furious and upset at the fact the nomination of Judge Garland went nowhere. That being said, because the Constitution truly allows for the separation of powers, the Senate does not ever need to hear any SCOTUS nomination to assert their power over the executive. The uptick in partisan politics more than likely will lead to future refusals by the Senate to hear SCOTUS nominations.

Sources:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/senate-obama-merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/482733/

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/supreme-court

https://www.history.com/news/the-last-time-a-scotus-nominee-was-filibustered-yes-its-happened-before

The Electoral College: Still Serving Its Purpose?

2016 was the second time in three first term election cycles in this millennium that the loser of the election won the popular vote. Actually, the popular vote winner has lost three more times during the 1800s for other strenuous circumstances. In our nation's two hundred plus year history, there have been 700 proposed constitutional amendments to change the electoral college. This goes all to say that there is significant anger for both sides, but especially for Democrats, about whether the Electoral College system should be changed or abolished completely.

The premise for there to have the Electoral College is simple: to give true voting power to those not in metropolitan areas. In a state like Wyoming, a population of less than 600,000, gives three electoral votes. This means that each individual vote in that state is worth proportionally more than a vote in California. This allows people in smaller states to have a say in national politics, even through all the costal partisanship in this country.

Yet, there exists another clear reason for why the Electoral College should be abandoned: everyone should have a vote that counts equally. When our voting system was established, it was created because so much of the population was illiterate and did not have the knowledge necessary to vote accurately. That's why we have electors that vote for presidents and we vote for the electors. Today, the internet has leveled the playing field, giving people access to information in new and more widespread ways. Removing the electoral college would grant every single citizen with that right that initially had only been restricted to white, straight, protestant, property-owning men.

So this dilemma occurs. Do we as a nation value the vote of the individual citizen over the groups of people who are not represented as much overall in society? If the answer is that we as a nation agree that every vote should matter equally, the next step would be to add an amendment to the Constitution. This begs us to ask another question that is very crucial: would a party in control want this to happen if that meant they could lose an election in the future. This is the same dilemma that occurred with Roosevelt appointing more Supreme Court justices arose. Is it truly necessary and worth it to add amendments that could potentially backfire just as bad?

Every other major world power already has some form of direct vote for their presidents/prime ministers. For a nation that has praised itself for being truly progressive, the very system we elect our leader is the furthest thing from progressive. Much of the reason for why the electoral college was established was to ensure that the most informed people possible are voting. But now, with the majority of citizens having the capability to be able to get information, then the policies we have to vote our president now should reflect that same philosophy as it did when we began this nation.

Sources:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-people-hate-the-electoral-college-but-its-not-going-away-soon/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/the-electoral-college-was-meant-to-stop-men-like-trump-from-being-president/508310/

Protection of Political Speech in Ohio

After the Smith Act and the Alien/Sedition Acts, there have been reasons for many people who are dissenters of politics. However, with the increase in liberal policy and violent outbreaks in the civil rights era, there were policies that were being created to protect people of hateful speech. The Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act was designed to prohibit speech that would advocate "crime, sabotage, violence," etc. This bill hoped to protect the safety of the people of Ohio. What actually happened was something no one could have anticipated.

Brandenburg was a man who led a group of Ku Klux Klan, led a rally in Ohio in the late 60s and spoke at his rally, advocating to take vengeance against the government in Ohio. Following this, Brandenburg was arrested by the police by violating the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act. This case eventually reached the Supreme Court and there was a proposition that the Court was finally able to address: what did incitement of violence actually mean? If so, that would mean that Ohio violated the free speech rights of the KKK member.

The Supreme Court  UNANIMOUSLY ruled on June 9th, 1969 in favor of Brandenburg and determined that Brandenburg had his free speech rights violated by the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act. They saw this law as unconstitutional because they were unable to clearly define and distinguish between speech that actually was directly inciting violence and teaching such ideologies that could lead to violence. If the law couldn't actually do this "strict scrutiny" test effectively, then the law was unconstitutional and violated the rights of Ohio citizens by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

At a time when it was unpopular for liberals to nationally support groups such as the KKK, the Supreme Court in one of its most liberal constructions, didn't shy away from protecting the political speech rights of all Americans. By choosing to set a precedent to protect any political speech that didn't directly incite violence, it opened the door for legal protests that took place in places like Charlottesville. Although these protests have resulted in violence, this protest of not directly being done to incite violence has allowed protests like these to exist and continue to thrive. Even in California, there have been a few protests in the past few months by the KKK, but it is crucial to remember that those rights that are protected for the KKK to protest is what allowed protest for Black Lives Matter and the Women's March to exist.

Sources:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492
https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-stone/freedom-of-expression/brandenburg-v-ohio-2/
https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/brandenburg-v-ohio/
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-far-right-california-20170818-story.html

The Black Panther Party: A Different Approach to Civil Rights

With just five days to the release of the Black Panther movie, there's one question: is it's namesake the civil rights group? The answer is, unfortunately, no. That being said, it is no better time to recognize the work that the Black Panther Party has done for the US as far as civil rights are concerned.

Founded on October 15th in 1966 by Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale in Oakland, California, the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense sought out to create a movement for the purpose of empowering black people across the country. With their core principles relying upon the strong principles of self-defense and respecting those of all races who supported the equality of black people and all humans as a whole. Although they were hoping for equality, they sought more impactful measures. For starters, they led a march to the state capital in Sacramento fully armed to protest against the Mulford Act. 

Within three years of the founding of the group, the Black Panther Party had already amassed over 2,000 members and eventually grow to have international presence in Japan, China, Uruguay, Zimbabwe, and others. However, when the United States feels a threat and pressure to change, they call it communist. That's exactly what the FBI did. They used violent tactics to combat the Black Panthers and even shot and killed the leader of the Chicago chapter, Fred Hampton, in a shootout. 

For as much as the Black Panther Party did for two decades, much of their power was obliterated by the FBI and their COINTELPRO operations. And as the times went on, things didn't seem to get any better for the party. One of the co-founders, Huey Newton, was killed in 1989 over a drug dispute nearby the first chapter of the party itself, effectively ending any sort of hope that the current r party had of returning to national prominence after they dissolved in 1982.

After the Black Panther Party effectively ended, the New Black Panther Party took a much more nationalist and militant agenda, completely opposing the policy that was instated originally back in 1965. Regardless of the steps that have been taken with this party, we should never forget about how much the Black Panther Party influenced this country. Through their displays of strength to showcase the true meaning of black power, they were able to profoundly shift how we today see the growth of what we see today as the powerful party that changed a generation of black Americans.

Sources:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Black-Panther-Party

http://www.history.com/topics/black-panthers

President Johnson: Fifty Years Ahead of the Times

On June 4th, 1965, President Johnson gave one of the most important yet forgotten speeches in American history. Following his lack of support, with the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, President Johnson was going to very well lose the election in 1968. Knowing this and knowing the fact that he needed to take the opportunity to address the inequity and inequality of black people in the United States. With this speech, he echoed the idea that the government must do more than just grant the freedoms to black people, but address the actual societal inequality and do what must be necessary to bring black people to an equal playing field.

49 years after President Johnson, Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote the essay, "The Case for Reparations," a paper outlining the legal and moral basis for reparations for black Americans. But nearly half a century earlier, President Johnson attempted to acknowledge this level of inequality. In his address to the famous HBCU Howard University, Johnson outlined that "To end this equal opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough." Johnson saw how once you free a group of oppressed people, they don't know how to deal with and combat the societal inequity they must face once they aren't held down by legislation.

Besides further explaining and diving into this fundamental idea of prejudice in American society, he lists directly statistics about how black people has gotten significantly more poor as their fight for rights have gone on. He shares that, "In 1948 the 8 percent unemployment rate for Negro teenage boys was actually less than that of whites. By last year that rate had grown to 23 percent, as against 13 percent for whites unemployed." He also mentions the statistic that "the infant mortality of nonwhites in 1940 was 70 percent greater than whites. Twenty-two years later it was 90 percent greater." He goes lengths to list many statistics about this societal imbalance to state that America has failed black people. 

Throughout his address, he is also clear to define that the difference between white and black poverty is "simply the consequence of ancient brutality, past injustice, and present prejudice." While some actions and causes have been the same between the two groups of poor people, black Americans dealing with the societal and past legal oppression that has been placed upon them, and it calls and forces them to be placed at a lower level than other Americans. 

Ultimately, Lyndon B. Johnson's address is a lost source of optimism. He saw that this level of inequity was a dangerous issue that is responsible for the lack of opportunity for African Americans across the country. He saw that the government could do something more to preserve the continued growth from the CRM and to bring more support to black Americans because it is the right thing to do. His speech was a landmark in history that is lost, yet must be used as a reflection of how little our country really has come in fifty years and how so many of the issues he mentioned in that speech are still relevant today.

Sources:

VOF #168

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/06/04/for-howard-grads-lbjs-to-fulfill-these-rights-remarks-are-still-relevant-half-a-century-later/?utm_term=.03361ca30df4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcfAuodA2x8

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=27021

Thurgood Marshall: An American Hero

American heroes come from all backgrounds. They have accomplished things that exemplify what it means to be a citizen of this country. They have struggled through the restrictions of this nation to become the person they are today. It could be made an argument that each of the Supreme Court justices that have served in history are American heroes. However, if there is one justice that symbolized a beacon of hope for so many Americans and caused legitimate policy change changing the lives of Americans for the better to this day, it would be Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Born in Baltimore on July 2nd, 1908, Marshall always was reading the Constitution for his misbehavior in school, and by the time he graduated in 1925 from high school, he knew it like the back of his hand. At Lincoln University in Oxford, Pennsylvania, Marshall wasn't the greatest student at first. He got suspended for hazing with his fraternity and would focus much more on his social life. But by the time he graduated, he was able to focus and ended up graduating near the top of his class.

Rejected from the University of Maryland Law School because he was black, he ended up at Howard, the famous HBCU. After graduating and denying a Harvard scholarship, he decided to pursue opening his own practice. Unable to get many paying cases, he never turned down a single one. This would lead to a precedent of volunteering. He eventually joined onto the NAACP and their legal efforts in desegregating the US in all aspects. Becoming one of the most well-known lawyers in all of the United States, he won 29 out of the 32 cases he argued in front of the SCOTUS. Then, he got the opportunity of a lifetime.

Brown v. Board of Education was the single most influential Supreme Court case in the 20th century. His argument helped remove the "separate but equal" doctrine in the United States and made it illegal to have segregated schools. After this landmark case, he became a national figure. He was nominated to the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals by JFK in September of 1961. In July of 65, Marshall became the solicitor general, appointed by President Johnson, and he was nominated and later confirmed as a Supreme Court justice on August 30th, 1967.

Through his 24 years on his bench as a liberal, he helped lead initiatives on equality of all people. Furthermore, as a big supporter of federal over state governments, he wanted to get rid of capital punishment significantly. As the court became significantly conservative, he got the name "The Great Dissenter" for always speaking against the decisions that he didn't support.

To be an American hero, one must be able to sacrifice their well-being for the betterment of the nation as a whole. Thurgood Marshall especially embodies this idea because he has been able to set aside his comforts to speak for the silenced and act for those who weren't able to do so. As the first black Supreme Court justice, he set an opportunity for all Americans to know that one day, they would get their opportunity to serve on the bench, knowing that this country is truly for all Americans.


Sources:
https://www.oyez.org/justices/thurgood_marshall
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thurgood-Marshall

Free Speech No Longer

The First Amendment of the United States protects all forms of free speech and expression that does not intend on hurting or threatening the republic. However, during WW2, and later through the Cold War, the United States government inspired fear in Americans of the circumstances at hand, and later resulted in some of the most egregious restrictions on free speech in our nation's history.

Prior to the Second World War, the worst restrictions on free speech in American history took place in 1798 with the Sedition Act. When the Federalists were fearful of the growing power and influence of the Republicans, they passed a law that banned any speech that was,“false, scandalous and malicious writing," against their party. This restricted press printing information about politics, and many groups were censored and at least 26 people were placed in jail as a result. This ultimately was repealed only once the Jefferson team won the 1800 election and they repealed all  parts of the Alien and Sedition Acts except for the Alien Enemies Act.

Fast forward to 1940 and the commencement of the Second World War. The Smith Act, previously known as the Alien Registration Act of 1940, made it a criminal offense for anyone to advocate for overthrowing the government, organize with these groups, or even be a member of any of these groups. This resulted many groups, such as the Communist Party of the United States of America and the Socialist Workers Party, from being able to freely express their political beliefs. Many members were prosecuted and thrown into jail.

For the next seventeen years, Americans were being unfairly prosecuted and imprisoned for their expression of how they believed the United States could be better. But in 1957, the Supreme Court ruled in Yates v. United States that all the people convicted under the Smith Act would be reverse their convictions and have their cases retried. Furthermore, they demanded a new level of strict scrutiny, and they also wanted to ask for a clear difference between the force to overthrow a specific principle versus overthrowing the actual government. 

After the Smith Act was reversed, the United States finally allowed clear expression of their opinions on the government. This did increase the amount of vocal support of Communism in the United States through the 60s, and in many ways, this act proved that the Supreme Court was in favor of the people speaking freely about how they can make the government better, setting a precedent for the culmination of the Civil Rights Movement.

Sources:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1956/6

https://www.britannica.com/event/Smith-Act

http://www.history.com/topics/alien-and-sedition-acts

13th: Tackling the 21st Century Slavery

The thirteenth amendment is the most consequential amendment on the United States Constitution. Rather than just explain what it is, why not just read it yourself?
 "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." 

This amendment to the Constitution specifically tackles the issue of the emancipation of all slaves in the United States, protected by the federal government. This meant that any free man should never be allowed to be put under slavery and have it protected under federal law, as rights are always against the state. In the brief read through, one can clearly see a clause that could pose a serious problem. In the amendment, it states "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." This means that anyone can be a slave if they are convicted of a crime. This simple loophole forever changed America, because black Americans were being sentenced for long periods for petty crimes. They would be forced by the state and private prisons to work for pennies, even nothing on the hour, all because they may have been sentenced for loitering, or minor drug offenses.

The first time that this was brought to true public spotlight was the film, 13th, by Ava DuVernay, where she shares the specific details as to what the prison industrial complex is: a government loophole that allows prisons work prisoners for countless hours for nearly no pay. She brought in activists, historians, and writers to help explain how the thirteenth amendment led to generations of the disenfranchisement of African Americans as a result of the "punishment for crime" clause. This documentary brought many opinions that contributed to the evolving discussion on how to reduce burden for races that have been hurt because of previous American policy. 

While this film did provide more conversation to race relations, at this moment in time, there has not been significant policy changes, and with the recent Trump election, there has been a bigger crackdown on non-violent drug offenses than with the past president. Regardless of what happens in the future, this film will forever be mentioned as one of the most important documentaries on American rights, and it just won three Emmys to add to its impact. 

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_(film)
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/movies/13th-review-ava-duvernay.html?mcubz=3

Donald Trump: The Modern Andrew Jackson

Donald Trump. Blasphemous, arrogant, loud, complacent, which have all been true factually at some point in the past two years. What surprises most people when the see Donald Trump is that they believe that his presidency is an anomaly unlike anything in our nation's history. That he is a president that has never existed in American history. But there was a president who actually was extremely similar to Mr. 45. His name was Andrew Jackson.

Just like Donald Trump, Andrew Jackson was consistently filled with contradictions that spewed through his campaign and thoughts. He hated the elite and their control over the economy and government, yet he was an elite controlling the government as the commander in chief. Donald Trump spent the majority of his campaign claiming he was going to "drain the swamp." Of course, the truth is just like Jackson, Trump has been a part of the swamp his whole life, with a net worth being $3.5 billion. Also, they share a similar contradiction related to freedom and equality. Jackson spent the majority of his presidency claiming that he was all for freedom and he was for the "common man." However, he owned hundreds of slaves and was bluntly racist in the removal of Cherokee Indians in what we all know today as the Trail of Tears. Trump has claimed that he is for all Americans too, however, with the Muslim country travel ban, and the recent retraction of DACA, the president has acted against the statements he said prior. He also has used extremely rude statements when referring to his opponent in the presidential race, such as "crooked Hilary," and stated that Clinton did not have the "stamina" to be President. Andrew Jackson spent the majority of his 1828 presidential campaign by making outrageous statements against John Quincy Adams, that he was putting government money in his own pocket and he was pimping Russian women.

Perhaps the most startling part about their relationship is actually how much Donald Trump looks up to and admires Andrew Jackson. He has said that "He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart." Trump in fact is the only president in at least recent history to reference Andrew Jackson, the man behind the Trail of Tears, as someone with a "big heart," unless he meant for white people. Donald Trump even got upset when it was announced that Harriet Tubman would be replacing Andrew Jackson on the $20 dollar bill, claiming that "Well, Andrew Jackson had a great history, and I think it's very rough when you take somebody off the bill." He even went so far as to say "I think Harriett Tubman is fantastic, but I would love to leave Andrew Jackson or see if we can come up with another denomination."

As much as Americans today want to be stunned that a president exists today that does not care at all for certain segments of the population exists, one only has to look as far as the 1820s and 30s, where there was a president who shared many general philosophies about government. They both argued a populist agenda and campaigned for the "common" man, even though they both were surrounded by many elites advising all of their moves, all thanks to the fact that neither held any political offices prior to becoming presidents. This presidency if anything has given us an opportunity to be able to compare any situation politically that is occurring to day and merely look back at the past, and more often than not, something like this in some way or form has happened.


Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/may/02/whats-up-with-donald-trump-andrew-jackson/

John Locke's Impact on Global Democracy

Although there were many different people involved in the creation of the United States, perhaps the man most important in the growth of the US was never even involved in the actual founding of the US itself. His ideas not only transcended democracy, but it transcended political theory for the rest of history. Without the ideas of John Locke, the United States, and all democracies around the world, would never be the way they are today.

John Locke's founding principle was the state of nature. This environment, also cheerfully referred to as "the hippy community," you have one right: the right to secure property. This is a state that has peace and liberty, where there is equal moral judgment for all people. He also took an idea similar to Native Americans in that property has to be used effectively and practically or else you are not making the most of what you own. In many ways, he believed in a liberal state and you had the right to yourself. He believed that only property owners should be allowed to vote and if you were dependent, you demonstrated a lack of power. Not only this, but Locke's mantra was very simple: "rights are always against the state." This means that your rights are for you that the government cannot violate. That means that anyone else, whether a neighbor or superior in your office CAN violate your rights and you cannot sue them stating your rights have been violated, unless you are working for the government in which the state would be violating your rights, not a private employer.

The idea of property he exemplifies lays the groundwork for the future of all democracies. He shares the sentiment that in order to create property, humans must mix themselves with natural things in order to create property. In essence, anywhere or anything you work on is your property. In case of emergency, where there could be social unrest, there was concern at this early colonial times of war, and this idea was exemplified by another philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, who believed that citizens had to submit to a superior authority. But both Hobbes and Locke have the same general thesis about all states: the object of the state is to secure property. In the United States, it is a given freedom that Americans have a government that will protect their property and prevent anyone from seizing it unlawfully. This simple principle has been responsible for arguments across all different types of property, including slavery and slaves being considered as property. Many slave owners argued that the government had to protect their property, and since slaves were considered property, the government could not seize slaves until they were considered as humans under the eyes of the law, i.e. adding a new amendment to the Constitution.

John Locke may be the one person responsible for helping plan the ideas that began western democracy, but for what he conceived, he is severely under recognized. He may not be the most memorable person, but his ideas exist in the live on in the ideas that are applied and used by billions of people all across the world.


Credit: Columbia University Summer Program - Constitutional Law