User Posts

Friend of the Court – Amicus Brief Badge (150 points)

Written by american-government-3b2

I believe that the United States should recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. Just because Jerusalem is the center of main conflict in the East doesn’t mean that we can just not recognize them. Ari Zivotofsky wants his son’s birth certificate to state where he was actually born and I believe that his son has the right to have it stated on his birth certificate. Even though we don’t get along with Jerusalem doesn’t mean we shouldn’t recognize it as the capital of Israel. All of us have our actual place of birth on our birth certificate and this kid deserves nothing less just because we don’t get along with where he was born. I believe we need to stay on everybody’s good side and by not recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel we aren’t be nice to everyone. If we are nice to them and show them respect, then we are being the better people. We should recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel otherwise it will come back to ruin us.

Write the Opinion – M.B.Z v. Clinton Badge (200 points)

Written by american-government-3b2

Evan- “I feel that being that there is already a law in place that goes against what the petitioner is going for that is should have already been dismissed in district court and court of appeals. However, he does have the right under the constitution to question the said law that was in place if he feels it to be unconstitutional especially in a family matter dealing with his son. Regardless if it is written in law books that this was signed in as a “law” or not, a president shouldn’t have that right to give a signing statement that rules out the whole purpose of the law in the first place. I believe that signing statements are unconstitutional. I think that Mr. Bush was only trying to “save” the United States from an tension that could have been caused between the two warring countries and ourselves, something which can not ever be done. Personally, I feel that this case should be heard in the supreme court, I think it was right of them to dismiss it in earlier courts, as well as the families decision to keep pushing forward with it. I really do hope that they win their case on their own son’s birth certificate.

Megan- “I believe this could easily be a tricky case to solve. There are many issues that go into this. I understand both points of view in this case. From Clinton’s side, I understand why they wouldn’t want to sign it because of not wanting to take sides and get involved with it. But from Ari Zivotofsky’s side, I can see where he would think it is perfectly right to have matter signed and accepted. I also think that if the President signed a law previously saying something was the law, it shouldn’t be questioned anymore after that. I think it’s a good thing Bush signed that Act because I believe he was just trying to prevent argument that could have been brought up between the two countries and the U.S. itself. I am glad that this family kept going with it and that it got dismissed earlier in the courts. To be honest, I think I am on both sides of this case. I agree and disagree with both sides. It would tough for me to make a decision about this.

Erika- “I believe that this case has reasons to agree with Clinton and reasons to agree with Ari Zivotofsky. The House of Representative and the Senate passed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act which stated that for Americans born in Jerusalem, the State of Department must list Israel as the place of birth because Jerusalem is the source of conflict in the Middle East. Since there is a the FRAA Section 214(d), I feel that this shouldn’t have even been brought up in court and that the Supreme Court should favor Clinton. But then I go on to read and I change my mind. George W. Bush, the President at the time, signed a bill declaring that the FRAA Section 214(d) was unconstitutional and would therefore not be enforced. If the President said that he wouldn’t enforce this law because I was unconstitutional, then it should always remain that way and they should list his real birth place. The President should have the main decision on an issue like this. Since the President at the time, George W. Bush, thinks it is unconstitutional then they should have listed Jerusalem as the birth place. Even though Jerusalem is the source of conflict in the Middle East, I don’t think that is a reason to not list it as a place of
birth on a birth certificate. Just because the U.S. might have conflict with Jerusalem, it doesn’t mean that we should list that as salmons place of birth. If they were born there, then they should have that on their birth certificate, no doubt. So after reviewing what I believe, I would agree with Zivotofsky and put Jerusalem on his sons birth certificate.”

The President and National Security Decisions – Podcast Badge (150 points)

Written by american-government-3b2

The President and National Security Decisions – Podcast Badge (150 points)

Megan Storvick & Michael Gordon

Megan- “I believe that with all the things that have happened in our country as far as terrorist attacks that is is necessary to declare a War on Terror. I think it’s a good thing that that Congress and President Bush signed the U.S. Patriot Act in order to attempt to prevent more problems in the future.”

Michael- “I know that we had to set some laws to protect everyone, but I still think there has to be some restriction on law enforcement.”

Megan- “Yes you are right, and although I do believe these might be considered some extreme measures in order to confirm security in our country, sometimes, desperatetimes call for desperate measures.”

Michael- “If they begin doing this wiretapping and other things, what will be next???”

Megan- “I think there is only so much the government can do as far as that is concerned. I mean, we have been through some pretty intense circumstances here in our country so sometimes it’s just what we must do.”

Michael- “Well, what happened to having free rights in this country, as far as not being so ‘watched’ over? We deserve freedom in this country considering that is our right. If the government is going to start taking more action that could possibly take that away from certain citizen’s.

Megan- “9/11 was a very serious attack on our country and took many, many lives. If we want to prevent this from happening we must start taking affirmative action! Many people believe this is right because they had loved ones lost from the incident. It was a very horrible time for many Americans.”

The Validity of Signing Statements – Separation of Powers Badge (50 points)

Written by american-government-3b2

I feel that a Signing Statement is incredibly unconstitutional. Once a law has been passed through Congress and thoroughly worked over and perfected, I don’t feel that the president has the power to all of a sudden make his own decisions on what he wants done with it. Not only is it wrong, but it’s also not in the Constitution, it even states in the Constitution that “…with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it”. That’s directly stating that it’s the House that made the law’s job to reconsider it, not the presidents. If the president doesn’t enforce the laws he made himself on a Signing Statement, then why have them at all? Once it’s signed into law, you can never go back on your word, let alone your oath and signature. To do so should bring upon charges against working unconstitutionally.

The Validity of Signing Statements  - Separation of Powers Badge (50 points)

Executive Authority and Foreign Conflict – Constitutional Law Badge (50 points)

Written by american-government-3b2

I believe that the line between these has already been drawn when the forefathers set up the constitution and created the separation of powers. The president of the United States has the power to send troops anywhere at any time, but congress has to approve of it within 30 days or they are taken back. So, if congress were to disagree with the president’s decision about sending troops over somewhere, they have that power to take them back in a short amount of time so the damage is minimized and time and lives are saved. Given the political doctrine that has been presented here, I don’t believe that issues between the president and congress should be heard in the public courts, perhaps not even in the Supreme Court of the United States because of the nature of high status of the people in reference to the case. If this were a case between the president and his constituents, I feel that this would easily be held in public court, but not in a matter between the president and congress. This also further proves that this case between M.B.Z. v. Clinton should be heard in court.

Thunder Ducks

Historical Context – Separation of Powers Badge (50 points)

Written by american-government-3b2

I believe that the framers of the Constitution separated the powers in such away to further divide themselves from the British Monarchy that they came from. It’s also a great way to make sure that things stay in balance. Without it, one or more branches would have significant power over one another, and not be able to use any force of law to push forward its interests or be of any use to the United States. An example would be a presidents use of pardons, this is an example of one branch having more power than another, however, he can only give out so many, so as to not over rule the judicial branch and it’s powers. I think that they broke further away from the British Monarchy in this way because with the king having so much power, the people he was supposed to represent had no voice in what was decided and weren’t a part of issues that affected them in their everyday lives, and even issues that didn’t.

Thunder Ducks