Trump Holding Press Conference... or Witch-hunt?

    This press conference made by Donald Trump concerning the validity of President Obama's birth certificate completely detracts from keeping the public informed.  What Trump is doing is obviously a smear campaign to get favor over Obama for the upcoming election.  Fortunately Obama made a press conference in response to the recent accusations letting the nation know that he's not taking any of this seriously along with the majority of the country because he's taking care of more important things.

New York Times Co. V. United States (1971)

In 1971 the New York Times Co. published classified government documents that were leaked to the press. The newspaper had obtained a copy of documents known as “The Pentagon Papers." The Pentagon Papers, officially known as “History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy,” were illegally copied and obtained by the New York Times and the Washington Post. Acting at the Government's request, the United States district court in New York temporarily ordered the New York Times not to publish the documents. The Government claimed that the publication of the papers would endanger the security of the United States. The New York Times appealed the order to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that prior restraint violated the 1st Amendment, and that is how New York Times Co. V. United States began.  While the Government had good reason to argue that these papers could endanger national security, the newspaper companies had a better argument which was supported by the 1st amendment as to why they should be allowed to publish the documents.  After a 6-3 decision between the justices, the Court ruled in favor of the New York Times and allowed them to publish the "Pentagon Papers." 

 This court case must have been one of the hardest Supreme Court cases to rule upon in history.  Although I agree with the government's argument that publishing classified information is endangering national security, I think the newspapers had a slightly better argument because they had the 1st amendment to back them up, which is arguably the firmest amendment in terms of trying to getting around it.
  This was a landmark case because it sort of set in stone for cases to come that the first amendment is the presiding law over issues as serious as national security.

Gitlow V. New York (1925)

Benjamin Gitlow was a left-leaning member of the Socialist party in the 1920's. He was convicted for violating the New York Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902 which made it a crime to advocate the violent overthrow of the government. He was arrested during the 1920 red scare for writing, publishing and distributing about sixteen thousand copies of a pamphlet called Left‐wing Manifesto that urged socialists to establish themselves as a prominent party by strikes and “class action in any form.”
    Gitlow was tried and convicted, but he appealed the decision, arguing that his First Amendment right to freedoms of speech and press was violated.  That is how the supreme court case Gitlow V. New York came to be. Although the New York courts held that the Communists must be held accountable for the results of their propaganda, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gitlow.

Benjamin Gitlow

   
  I agree a hundred percent with the Supreme Court's decision to allow Benjamin Gitlow to practice his freedom of speech and expression by distributing these pamphlets.  If this issue was handled today it would be an open-and-shut case because of the strength of the first amendment. The only reason it was a largely publicized landmark case was because it was during the first Red Scare, and a communist winning a Supreme Court case during that time was unheard of, which shows the power of the first amendment.  This court decision helped keep the 1st amendment a solid precedent in the United States' legislative branch.

Brown V. Board of Education (1954)

In 1954 a number of black children in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware sought admission to public schools that required or permitted segregation based on race.  When the schools denied these children their right to go to their school based on the color of the children's skin a class action suit was filed against the Board of Education in the city of Topeka, Kansas. The plaintiffs were thirteen Topeka parents on behalf of their twenty children who felt that the fourteenth amendment was being violated by the Board of Education's denial of their kids into the schools.  This case was taken to the supreme court and quickly became a landmark case.  The case included Brown V. Board of Education itself, Briggs v. Elliott (filed in South Carolina), Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (filed in Virginia), Gebhart v. Belton (filed in Delaware), and Bolling v. Sharpe (filed in Washington D.C.). 

    I think the children had every right to go to these public schools despite the segregation that these states permitted.  The 14th amendment, which prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property, was definitely violated in this case.

   The defendants in this case used the outcome of Plessy V. Ferguson to argue their actions.  Unfortunately for them, the Supreme Court Justices overlooked the past case and made a unanimous decision that this was indeed a vioaltion of the fourteenth amendment.  This case now stands as the basis for many related court cases that came after Brown V. Board of Education.

Gideon V. Wainwright (1963)

In 1961, a burglary occurred at a pool hall in Panama City, FL.  Police arrested Clarence Earl Gideon after he was found nearby with a pint of wine and some change in his pockets. Gideon, who could not afford a lawyer, asked for the judge to appoint one for him arguing that the Sixth Amendment entitles everyone to a lawyer. The judge denied his request and Gideon had to represent himself. He did a poor job of defending himself and was found guilty of breaking and entering and petty larceny. While serving his sentence in a Florida state prison, he began studying law and found out that his constitutional rights had been violated so he wrote a petition from prison asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case and it agreed. Once the case had been taken to the Supreme Court it started getting publicity and soon became a landmark case. The Court unanimously ruled in Gideon’s favor, stating that the Six Amendment requires state courts to provide attorneys for criminal defendants who cannot otherwise afford counsel.

   I don't think the Supreme Court justices had much to think about in this case, the 6th amendment clearly states that every criminal defendant shall be appointed an attorney if they can't afford one of their own.  I agree with their decision to rule in Gideon's favor, because this court case was the first to call the 6th amendment to question and the Supreme Court handled the case perfectly and basically made the decision for any court cases to come in which someone feels the 6th amendment has been violated.

Miranda V. Arizona (1966)

    In 1966 Ernesto Miranda was arrested after a crime victim identified him linking him to the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old woman 10 days earlier. Upon arrest the police officers questioning him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or of his Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney. While being interrogated Miranda signed a confession to the kidnap and rape of this 18-year-old. During his trial, his attorney argued that his confession should have been excluded from trial because he was not made aware of his rights. This case quickly moved to the Supreme Court, where The Supreme Court agreed with Ernesto Miranda's lawyer, deciding that the police had not taken proper steps to inform Miranda of his rights. 

    I agree with their decision, although the outcome could be unjust, the Supreme Court needs to stick to the Constitution when deciding these cases because America is a nation built on laws, and had they ruled against Miranda, that would jeopardize the strength of the fifth and sixth amendment.

   This is quite possibly one of the biggest landmark cases in American history.  It changed law enforcement across the nation's common procedure of arresting criminals, and now the arresting officers always have to recite "You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law.  You have the right to an attorney during interrogation; if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you."

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had applied twice for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis, but was rejected both times. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, in an effort to exterminate unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years that Bakke's applications were denied. Bakke contended that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race, first in the California courts, then after being ruled against, Bakke took it to the Supreme Court.
     I agree with Bakke's argument in this case.  If someone is better qualified for a job or position, they should get it.  Setting up a system in which one race has an advantage over another race, despite its good moral purpose, still decreases the advancement of racial equality in America. 
   Bakke barely won the Supreme Court case with a 5-4 vote between the justices, ruling in favor of Bakke. Justice Powell concluded that though race could not be the basis for excluding a candidate, race may be one of many factors in admissions considerations  As a result of the decision, Bakke was admitted to the medical school and graduated in 1982.

  This landmark decision may seem unfair to some, but the root of the Supreme Court's decision was racial equality, and they decided not to favor one race over another which will help decide many cases to come in the future.

Miller V. California (1973)

In 1973 Marvin Miller was found guilty in the Superior Court of Orange County of having violated California Penal Code 311.2 (a), which is a misdemeanor.  He did this by knowingly  mailing advertisements for “adult” books which were determined to be obscene to unwilling recipients.  Miller argued that he should be protected by the first amendment, so the case ended up at the Supreme Court. The question before the court was whether the sale and distribution of obscene material was protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee. The Court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials did not enjoy First Amendment protection.
 
  This was a landmark case because it defined where the line is in a citizen's protection by the first amendment, and it has remained the same since.  I'm not sure exactly where I land on this case, because on the one hand Miller was doing his job, advertising his product on a mass scale.  On the other hand a lot of the recipients of Miller's mail were unsuspecting and unwilling to have "obscene" material in their mail.  Although I don't think Miller should have been punished for this, I do agree that sending such material in the mail should be illegal.

Plessy V. Ferguson (1896)

On June 7, 1892, a man named Homer Plessy who was 7/8 white, 1/8 black paid for a first class passage on the East Louisiana Railway. He took a vacant seat in a coach train car where white passengers sat.  After refusing to move to the train car for African-Americans he was arrested and brought to court. Justice John H. Ferguson found Plessy guilty so Plessy took his case to the supreme court which became Plessy V. Ferguson.  He argued that the state of Louisiana was violating the 14th amendment which prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property.
    On a 7 to 1 vote the supreme court ruled that the state of Louisiana had, in no way, violated the fourteenth amendment, and that the separate but equal law actually separated the two races as a matter of public policy.
  I completely disagree with the court's ruling on this case, nobody should be discriminated for their race or color.  I think this was an obvious violation of the 14th amendment.

 This landmark case strengthened segregation in the United States in the late 19th century, and kept "seperate but equal" laws in affect until Brown V. Board of Education in 1954.

United States V. Nixon (1974)

While President Richard Nixon was in his 1974 reelection campaign, burglars broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate office complex in D.C.  This burglary resulted in the United States Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Watergate scandal.  During the investigation it was revealed that the president had taped numerous conversations in the Oval Office.  Despite Nixon's effort to keep these tapes from being heard, the supreme court ruled that he had to hand over the tapes on due to the fact they were deemed relevant evidence.
    I agree with the court's decision in this case because it would not be constitutional for the president to have more rights while being prosecuted in a court of law than any other citizen of the country.
Click here for full summary and analysis of US v. Nixon

The Watergate scandal led to the first Supreme Court case to result in the impeachment of a U.S. president, and will forever leave a negative impression on American citizens' approval of former president Nixon.

Roe V. Wade (1973)

As you may know, the legalization of abortion across America was due to the Supreme Court decision of Roe V. Wade.  In this case Jane Roe used her right to privacy as her defense.  The right to privacy originates from the fourth amendment, which does not specifically say privacy, but it protects individuals in their persons, homes, papers, and effects from "unreasonable searches and seizures."  Privacy is also a part of the first amendment, which protects freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, it also implies the right to privacy in the form of free thoughts. Personally, I think the courts made the right decision in this case because women should have the right to decide whether or not they should be taking care of an infant.  Some say that abortion is murder, but I doubt the fetus is upset about it seeing as most unwanted babies end up in low income homes or foster homes, and ultimately end up living sub-par lives. Therefore, a women choosing not to have a child should be legal despite its irresponsible nature.

 

Community Service Report: Homelessness In California

Homelessness In California

“People who are homeless are not social inadequates. They are people without homes.”

-Sheila McKechnie

Part 1

            During the 1980’s, homelessness in California, and the U.S. for that matter, began to increase at a rapid pace, and is now at a historically high rate.  The reason for this growth in the homeless population is not due to a single issue, but since its growth many theories and explanations have been offered as to why.  Some popular explanations point to the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, the recent failure of the housing market, the government’s reluctance to help support single-parent families, and the effects of widespread illegal drug use in urban areas.  With California’s budgetary constraints and a plummeting house market, this problem is only growing larger. 

            The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines homelessness as an individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and an individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is either a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations. This would include welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the 2008 Homeless Assessment Report to Congress it was recorded that in one given night there was 664,414 homeless people across the nation, and it is estimated that the recession that started in late 2008 has added over a hundred-thousand more homeless in the past three years. They also provided a breakdown showing the proportions of each race and age group in this total count:

Race

• 37.9% are White, non-Hispanic/Latino
• 11.6% are White, Hispanic/Latino
• 41.7% are Black or African American
• 0.8% are Asian
• 1.9% are Native Indian or Alaska Native
• 0.7% are Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
• 5.4% are Several Races

Age

• 2.2% are Under 1
• 8.1% are 1 to 5
• 6.8% are 6 to 12
• 3.7% are 13 to 17
• 22.2% are 18 to 30
• 40.3% are 31 to 50
• 14.0% are 51 to 61
• 2.8% are 62 and older

These statistics are only based on a census taken in one night, in terms of one year the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty did a study which estimates between 2.3 and 3.5 million people experience homelessness in America per year since the recession.

In comparison to the rest of the nation, California has arguably the worst homeless problem in America.  California was already millions of dollars in debt before the recession, and since then the damage to the state’s budget has been catastrophic, thus causing the homeless rates not only to continue, but to grow exponentially.  Another cause of the increase in homelessness is deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill. Around the early 1980’s the American government took a new view on the mentally ill, since they were put in institutions in which they were taken care of and almost everything was done for them the government decided that this method would never help the disabled live on their own and that the mental institutions were not worth government spending.  This resulted in institutions getting shut down throughout America, resulting in an abundance of mentally ill people with no place to live.  This has been an obvious major cause of homelessness seeing as thirty-nine percent of homeless people report some form of mental illness according to data comprised by Samhsha's National Mental Health Information Center.  Another government related reason for homelessness is the government’s reluctance to subsidize low income, single parent families.  Single parent families often do not make enough money to survive above the poverty line, especially in urban areas, so the children of these families grow up with little to no opportunity to make a successful living.  If the government would have a better plan to help these impoverished families stay afloat financially, there would be fewer children born into poverty and more opportunities for children living with only one parent.

The most recent cause of the up rise in the homeless population is the failure of the housing market in California.  Over the last two years, worker’s wages have been cut, the unemployment rate reached a twelve year record of over 7.5 percent, and the prices of food and fuel spiked dramatically, as a result a staggering two percent of all residential home loans entered into foreclosure across California, which is pretty bad compared to the nations foreclosure percentage of 1.6%.  According to statistics recorded by RealtyTrac, an online seller of foreclosed homes, the rate of foreclosing homes increased by 27% from August 2007 to August 2008.  With all these homes being foreclosed, the effects were disheartening.  This crash in the housing market put thousands of Californians out on the street, adding to an already increasing homeless population.

A very commonly known reason for homelessness is the effects of widespread drugs in urban communities.  In the 1980’s, with the introduction of crack cocaine came a large demand for the drug in inner city areas.  The drug mostly affected the African American community in these urban cities, and is thought by many to be one of the most significant reasons for the high percentage of homeless African Americans.  Crack cocaine is not the only drug that contributes to the homeless population; other widespread drugs that have affected the homeless community include methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana.  The effects of these drugs when distributed throughout an inner city often reaches many users who become addicted, thus taking in their money and health which creates a situation in which the users are much more vulnerable to becoming homeless.

It seems as though Californians across the state recognize the homelessness problem and want something done about it, but as far as I can tell not much is being done.  With two of the largest homeless populations in the country, Los Angeles and the Bay Area, it is clear that California needs an efficient plan to solve its overgrowing homeless population.

Part II

“You can spend the money on new housing for poor people and the homeless, or you can spend it on a football stadium or a golf course.”

-Jello Biafra

            As a nation America has had a homeless problem for over almost a century, but throughout our history, few steps have been made to rid America of this problem.  In fact, the last landmark decision made by the government in order to help the homeless and others living under the poverty line was FDR’s New Deal.  Since then our government has used some of its budget for plans to benefit the homeless, but in my opinion they have not done nearly enough. 

            The government’s biggest financial aid plan is the welfare system.  The welfare system was built in the 1930’s after the Depression was over, but did not make as much of an affect until after the Great Society legislation of the 1960s, for the first time a person who was not elderly or disabled could receive a living from the American government.   Unfortunately this program was somewhat abused until 1996, under the Clinton Administration when congress changed the welfare system from a limitless source of money for anyone who was considered poor to a finite program built to provide short-term financial assistance in order to get jobless American’s just enough money to survive as they find a new job.  This decision created a drastic change in the welfare system especially in California.  In the 1970’s California had the most generous welfare system in all of America, paying for virtually all food stamps given at the time.  Once this welfare reform came into play, a lot of Californians who were coasting on welfare lost their free ride and soon had to find jobs, but with all these underprivileged, undereducated families looking for jobs at the same time, there were a lot of people who couldn’t get jobs which fueled the homeless problem.

            Another similar program to welfare is California’s General Assistance or General Relief program (GA/GR).  This is a program is not actually run by the state of California, but individually run by each of California’s 58 counties.  Each county has its own General Assistance program which is run by its own board of supervisors so the amount given to families who qualify can vary amongst counties as well as the eligibility requirements.  Most people who are eligible for General Assistance are also eligible for the Food Stamp program which is aimed at giving the poor a higher dose of daily nutrition.

            Besides Welfare, the Food Stamp program, the local General Assistance program, and a few other smaller programs for the homeless, the government spends little money on getting the homeless off the streets.   Most programs that help feed and shelter the homeless are run by non-profit organizations, often run by churches and other types of charity.  These are the people that are really making a difference in the homeless community; those who spend their own time and money to help those who are less fortunate.  If America as a whole, or at least the government, would adopt this type of humanitarianism, you wouldn’t see any starving people in the streets.  Unfortunately that idea is not very realistic, what’s worse is it’s actually becoming quite the opposite.  With upcoming budget cuts in California, the homeless problem is not about to get any better, but on top of that the federal government is proposing further tax cuts on California.  These cuts will mainly affect urban areas and inner cities like Oakland. This is because under the budget proposals offered by both the White House and the U.S. Congress, the city could lose millions of dollars that go to its social programs which help subsidize those living under the poverty line.  The mayor of Oakland Jean Quan spoke out about this in late February stating that “With an unemployment rate nearly double that of the nation at 17 percent, the city of Oakland can hardly afford the elimination of programs that helps in the area of economic recovery.”

            It seems as though while the community members are doing their part to provide food and shelter to the homeless, the government is going the other way, making more cuts, affecting more homeless citizens.  I didn’t realize how much food needs to be distributed to the homeless until I did some volunteer work at the Contra Costa Food Bank in Concord.  I spent multiple hours sorting a seemingly endless supply of donated food into separate boxes to be sent to homeless shelters in the area.  The warehouse that stored all of this food seemed large enough to keep all the homeless people in the state full for a year, but from what one of the regular workers there told me, all the food I saw was only a days worth, they do that same sorting process every day and ship it out.  Then I thought about the fact that there’s another warehouse in Oakland just like this one that does the same thing every day.  That is when I really realized how much needs to be done in order to feed our state’s homeless community.  These two warehouses should not be doing all the work to feed the homeless in the bay area, there should be equal if not greater participation by the government in order to feed the homeless.

Part III

“Shelter Network’s programs and services are a rainbow in the clouds for homeless children and adults.” -Maya Angelou

            There are a lot of steps that could be taken in order to help our homeless population that our government is not willing to take, due to their decisions on how to spend tax money after budget cuts are made.  It seems that the homeless issue is never one of enough importance to make a drastic change, but the homeless rate is rising, and that means that eventually it will get to a point where the government can no longer turn its shoulder and changes will have to be made.  I don’t consider myself to be an economist by any means, but I do think that California’s government, despite the 300 billion dollars its in debt, could set up a statewide program for more homeless shelters and soup kitchens in the most impoverished areas.  While working at the Contra Costa Food Bank I asked my supervisor where all the food we were packing gets sent to, and he told me almost all of it gets sent to churches and other non profit organizations who feed the homeless.  If the same donations were taken into a government regulated program which evenly and efficiently distributes all the donated food to the homeless instead of the select organizations that go out of their way to feed the homeless, then homeless people throughout California would be properly fed without much budgetary constraints, as long as the food donation and labor is done voluntarily. Also, if California could adopt government regulated shelters throughout the state and display its effectiveness, that could be the first big move for homeless people in America since the New Deal and take wind across the country causing more states to adopt this plan, thus making a significant impact on homelessness across America.

CS: Possible Federal Tax Cuts Could Seriously Impact the Homeless Community

Mayor of Oakland, Jean Quan, speaks out on federal tax cuts.

As if the proposed California state cuts aren't enough, Oakland also is about to feel the wrath of the federal government's budget cuts. Those series of cuts would hit Head Start, which is a service for the city's homeless and Community Development Block grants.  Instead of fixing the homeless problem, it seems the government is  increasing it.