Amazon Web Services



Federalism/Federal System- (created in the US, 1789) defined it is the philosophy that describes the governmental system created by the Framers; system of government where the national government and state governments derive all authority from the people. Federalism is important because it offered the federal government an effective means to run the nation as a whole, rather than have it function as individual states that sometimes came together, which happened under the Articles of Confederation.

Today the state and federal governments clash over many things. Theoretically, any powers that are not expressly given to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved for the states by the 10th amendment. However, according to the Supremacy Clause the Constitution, US Treaties and laws pursuant to the Constitution are the “supreme laws of the land”. This sometimes causes gray areas in the law, questions arise about sovereignty and in those cases we often see battles arise between the two governing bodies. Some hot button issues include:

• Gun Control

• Medicinal Marijuana

• Gay Marriage

• Immigration

• Voter Rights

• Abortion

Federalism Note Taking Guide

Directions- Take detailed notes in the corresponding box. (Remember you’re trying to answer the guiding questions

|Medicinal Marijuana | |

|[pic] | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|Gay Marriage | |

|[pic] | |

| | |

| | |

|Immigration | |

|[pic] | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| | |

|Gun Control | |

|[pic] | |

|Voter Rights/ID Laws | |

|[pic] | |

|Abortion | |

|[pic] | |

ISSUE 1: Medicinal Marijuana

Guiding Questions

1. What are is the state’s perspective on this issue? How does that clash with the federal government’s laws, opinions, etc.?

2. What positive and negative impacts does this issue have on the community (state)?

3. Prediction: Based on the article, what might you guess will happen next between the state and the federal government? Who appears to be winning the fight?

Resource 1) Obama 'worse' than Bush, Clinton on pot, state lawmaker says

By: Joshua Sabatini | 10/07/11 SF Examiner Staff Writer

The U.S. Department of Justice’s crackdown on medical marijuana in California has infuriated marijuana advocates who have tirelessly worked to ensure patients have safe access to the drug and move toward legalization.

The crackdown prompted Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, to say President Barack Obama’s policies on medical marijuana “are worse than Bush and Clinton.”

Ammiano, who has worked to try and legalize medical marijuana statewide, issued a statement following DOJ’s first public statement Friday about the crackdown.

“I am bitterly disappointed in the Obama Administration for this unwarranted and destructive attack on medical marijuana and patients’ rights to medicine,” Ammiano said in a statement.  “Today’s announcement by the Department of Justice means that Obama’s medical marijuana policies are worse than Bush and Clinton.  It’s a tragic return to failed policies that will cost the state millions in tax revenue and harm countless lives. 16 states along with the District of Columbia have passed medical marijuana laws - whatever happened to the promises he made on the campaign trail to not prosecute medical marijuana or the 2009 DOJ memo saying that states with medical marijuana laws would not be prosecuted?  Change we can believe in?  Instead we get more of the same.”

In San Francisco, at least three landlords received letters from the feds telling them they must shutdown the pot clubs or face felony charges and forfeiture of their buildings. On Friday, U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag for the Northern District of California said the feds would likely crackdown on other pot clubs in San Francisco and the Bay Area. “Although our initial efforts in the Northern District focus on only certain marijuana stores, we will almost certainly be taking action against others. None are immune from action by the federal government,” she said. There are 26 permitted pot clubs in San Francisco.

Resource 2) Pot clubs in San Francisco receive threatening notes from feds, By: Joshua Sabatini | 10/06/11 SF Examiner Staff Writer

San Francisco’s medical marijuana dispensaries are under attack after at least three landlords of pot clubs were sent threatening letters from the Department of Justice as part of a statewide crackdown. The letters are the latest conflict between San Francisco — where medical marijuana is legal under local and state law — and the federal government, which deems the drug illegal.

The letters, sent by U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag to at least three landlords of Mission neighborhood dispensaries, cite a federal law that increases penalties for drug activity within 1,000 feet of schools and other public spaces. San Francisco’s pot club regulations prohibit dispensaries from operating within 1,000 feet of schools, but a handful of the city’s 26 clubs were grandfathered in and exempted.

The letters warn the property owners that their buildings could be forfeited to the federal government without compensation and any rent money seized. “Violation of the federal law … is a felony crime, and carries with it a penalty of up to 40 years in prison when operating within a prohibited distance of a school,” said a copy of one letter.

Similar letters have reportedly been sent out to dispensaries throughout the state. At least 12 pot clubs in San Diego received the threatening missives, as did the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Fairfax. The Department of Justice would not comment Thursday but is expected to make an announcement today.

For medical marijuana advocates, the letters are only the latest in a string of alarming federal enforcement actions. Operators have found financial institutions no longer welcome them as banking customers and the IRS has ruled dispensaries cannot deduct expenses such as payroll as other businesses do.

The trend is particularly troubling for advocates who believed President Barack Obama’s election would usher in a new tone where feds would back off and respect local and state laws on medical marijuana. But the opposite is happening, they say. “Obama has really done nothing to change Bush-era policies in this regard,” said Dale Gieringer, director of the California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Advocates are bracing to fight back this concerted crackdown, as they have done in the past. Stephanie Tucker, a member of The City’s medical marijuana task force, said the letters are a “slap in the face.” “We need to move forward in legalization,” Tucker said, “Enough is enough. This is a waste of resources.” This is not the first time federal law enforcement has used threatening letters against San Francisco landlords who rent out space to medical marijuana dispensaries. Similar letters were sent out in 2007.

Resource 3) Medical Marijuana Crackdown In Colorado: 10 More Dispensaries Near Schools Forced To Shut Down Posted: 09/19/2012

[pic]

Jars full of medical marijuana are seen at a dispensary.

This is the third wave of letters Walsh has sent out to Colorado dispensares deemed too close to schools. Walsh's actions have resulted in a total of 57 medical marijuana dispensaries that have now been shuttered since the crackdown began in January in what has become the most aggressive law-enforcement action against the medical marijuana industry that the federal government has pursued in the state.

And the crackdown will not be ending anytime soon it appears. In a press release, Walsh's office said that a fourth wave of letters is forthcoming as additional marijuana shops are identified within this 1,000 foot “drug-free school zone.”

Walsh's office cites the Controlled Substances Act, title 21, section 860, a federal law which references the 1,000 foot boundary for manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance near a school or college, although nothing in Colorado's medical marijuana law specifies the distance between a shop and a school, the decision, like most such zoning matters, is left to local communities.

"I can see no legitimate basis in this judicial district to focus the resources of the United States government on the medical marijuana dispensaries that are otherwise compliant with Colorado law or local regulation," Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett told Walsh in a recent letter. "The people of Boulder County do not need Washington, D.C., or the federal government dictating how far dispensaries should be from schools, or other fine points of local land use law.”

However, Walsh is dedicated to this crackdown. In a copy of a letter responding to Garnett obtained by The Denver Post in March, Walsh reiterated his intent to close all dispensaries operating within 1,000 feet of a school, and noted that these closures are "not at the direction of Washington, D.C., but [at Walsh's direction] as U.S. Attorney and as a Coloradan."

While the feds crackdown on medical marijuana, Coloradans are getting ready to vote on Amendment 64 and will decide whether Colorado should legalize marijuana this November.

Amendment 64 seeks legalization and regulation of marijuana for recreational use for adults and appears to be quite popular amongst Colorado voters. Several recent polls show that a strong majority of Coloradans favor the ballot measure

ISSUE 2: Gay Marriage

Guiding Questions

1. What are is the state’s perspective on this issue? How does that clash with the federal government’s laws, opinions, etc.?

2. What positive and negative impacts does this issue have on the community (state)?

3. Prediction: Based on the article, what might you guess will happen next between the state and the federal government? Who appears to be winning the fight?

Resource 1) Fighting at the ballot box for the right to marry August 26, 2012 9:39 AM



Resource 2) Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Gay Marriage Likely To Go Before Supreme Court Within The Next Year By KRISTEN WYATT 09/19/12 [pic]

[pic]

The 1996 law has been declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in New York and is awaiting arguments before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Those oral arguments are scheduled for Sept. 27. The law was passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton after the Hawaii Supreme Court issued a ruling in 1993 making it appear Hawaii might legalize gay marriage.

Since then, many states have banned gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004 and continuing with Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland and Washington state. Maryland and Washington's laws aren't yet in effect and might be subject to referendums.

In February 2011, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder instructed the Department of Justice to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act. Ginsburg's remarks came at a conference sponsored by the University of Colorado law school. Ginsburg talked mostly about entering the legal profession when there were few female lawyers and even fewer judges. The students roared with laughter when Ginsburg told of scrambling even to find a women's restroom in law school at Columbia University in the 1950s. "We never complained, that's just the way it was," she said to laughter from the students.

Resource 3) Gay Marriage Ban Challenged in Illinois By STEVEN YACCINO Published: May 30, 2012

[pic]

M. Spencer Green/Associated Press

The move comes just a year after a civil union law took effect in Illinois, granting an array of legal protections for same-sex couples that are similar to those of marriage. It took supporters years to gather enough votes to pass the legislation, and hundreds of people turned out to watch Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat, sign the law, which many gay-rights advocates considered to be a major victory.

But some say it does not go far enough. “By excluding these families from marriage and relegating them to civil unions, a lesser status, government has branded these families as inferior, as less deserving than other families,” Camilla Taylor, national director of Lambda Legal’s Marriage Project, said at a news conference on Wednesday.

Lambda Legal, which was involved in a similar lawsuit in Iowa that led that state’s Supreme Court to overturn a ban on gay marriage in 2009, also has lawsuits pending in Nevada and New Jersey. Same-sex marriage is not recognized by the federal government but is now legal in six states, including New York, and the District of Columbia.

The Illinois lawsuits have been filed at a time when the issue seems to be shifting quickly. Recent public opinion surveys indicate support for same-sex marriage is rising nationwide. Still, this month voters in North Carolina overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state Constitution banning gay marriage. Shortly afterward, Mr. Obama made his historic, if symbolic, endorsement of same-sex marriage.

In Illinois, where the General Assembly is dominated by Democrats, the civil union bill did not pass easily: 32 to 24 in the State Senate, and 61 to 52 in the House. A gay marriage bill is now stalled in the legislature, and some opponents see the new lawsuits as a shift in focus from the statehouse to the courthouse. “I think it’s dangerous to use the courts to adjudicate these important social questions,” said Robert Gilligan, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, which also opposed the civil union law. John Knight, director of the A.C.L.U.’s gay-related litigation in the Midwest, said Wednesday that the group intended to “fight the battle in both venues.”

Exactly how the fight will play out is unclear. A spokesman for the Cook County state’s attorney office, which is generally responsible for defending the county clerk, declined to comment.

Mr. Orr, however, cheered on the lawsuits against him, while acknowledging that his hands are tied by state law. “I hope this lawsuit clears the last hurdle to achieving equal marriage rights for all,” he said in a statement.

ISSUE 3: Immigration

Guiding Questions – please answer on your note taking guide.

1. What are/is the state’s perspective on this issue? How does that clash with the federal government’s laws, opinions, etc.?

2. What positive and negative impacts does this issue have on the community (state)?

3. Prediction: Based on the article, what might you guess will happen next between the state and the federal government? Who appears to be winning the fight?

Resource 1) California Dream Act Signed By Jerry Brown: Second Bill Passes

[pic]

On Saturday, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 131, the second bill of the two-part California Dream Act, allowing undocumented immigrant students to apply for state-funded financial aid for college.

In July, Brown signed AB 130, making funding from private sources available to undocumented students. With Saturday's signing of AB 131, the California Dream Act passed in its entirety, granting undocumented students access to public and private funding for college.

"Going to college is a dream that promises intellectual excitement and creative thinking," said Brown in a press release. "The Dream Act benefits us all by giving top students a chance to improve their lives and the lives of all of us."

According to the California Department of Finance, about 2,500 students will qualify for Cal Grants as a result of the bill, at a cost of $14.5 million. This amount will make up 1 percent of the annual $1.4 billion budget of the Cal Grant program.

Resource 2) Supreme Court upholds key part of Arizona law for now, strikes down other provisions

By Robert Barnes, Published: June 25, 2012

[pic]

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down several key parts of Arizona’s tough law on illegal immigrants, but it left standing a controversial provision requiring police to check the immigration status of people they detain and suspect to be in the country illegally. The 5 to 3 decision upholding the “show me your papers” provision came with a warning that the courts would be watching its implementation. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) declared victory and said police could enforce the law without resorting to profiling based on ethnicity.

But the ruling, which reinforced the federal government’s primacy in immigration policy, also vindicated the Obama administration’s decision to challenge the Arizona law almost from the moment it was passed. The justices will rule Thursday on the constitutionality of President Obama’s most important priority before the court: the health-care law, his signature domestic achievement. It will be the final day of a term that has been dominated by questions about the power of the federal government.

The immigration decision comes as the issue has taken a central spot in the nation’s political conversation and domestic agenda, even as the numbers of illegal immigrants coming to this country have fallen. It is likely to be just one in a series of court decisions about the role states may play in combating illegal immigration; five states have adopted laws similar to Arizona’s, and others are waiting in the wings. Obama recently ignited new controversy by announcing that many immigrants under age 30 who were brought to this country illegally by their parents would not be deported. In an unusual moment Monday, a dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia mentioned Obama’s policy as he spoke from the bench to criticize the majority’s decision.

In oral arguments on the Arizona law, the justices had seemed skeptical of the administration’s vision of the subordinate role states must play in immigration matters. But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy spelled out states’ limited role, even as he acknowledged criticism that the failure of Congress and the executive branch to form a comprehensive immigration strategy has led to severe hardships.

“Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues,” he wrote, “but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”

The court threw out three such provisions in the Arizona law. It said the state cannot make it a misdemeanor for immigrants to not carry registration documents; criminalize the act of an illegal immigrant seeking employment; or authorize state officers to arrest someone on the belief that the person has committed an offense that makes him deportable.

Resource 3) Texas town's ban on renting to illegal immigrants goes to court

By Molly Hennessy-Fiske This post has been corrected, as indicated below.

September 19, 2012, 11:39 a.m.

|[pic] |

|In this file photo from November 2006, former Marine Sgt. Salvadaor Parada, right, speaks to protesters during a rally outside City Hall in Farmers Branch, |

|Texas. A federal appeals court will review Farmers Branch's ordinance, which allows the city building inspector to evict any illegal immigrant renters. (Rex C.|

|Curry / Associated Press / November 13, 2006) |

HOUSTON -- A panel of federal appeals court judges is expected to hear arguments Wednesday concerning a Dallas suburb's ordinance banning illegal immigrant renters.

The suburb of Farmers Branch, population 28,000, was sued four years ago after officials passed an ordinance allowing the city building inspector to screen renters based on their immigration status, according to city spokesman Tom Bryson. Voters had already approved a similar ordinance by referendum the year before, 68% in favor in an election with 45% turnout, Bryson told the Los Angeles Times.

Because of legal challenges, the city has never been allowed to enforce the ordinance, which replaced an earlier 2006 version. The newer ordinance would require renters to buy a $5 city license, fill out an application disclosing their immigration status and allow the city's building inspector to check it. Illegal immigrants would be denied permits, and landlords who rented to them would be fined or could lose their renters' license.

Two years ago, a federal district judge ruled against the city, a ruling that was upheld in March by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals based in New Orleans. Attorneys for the city requested a hearing before the full circuit court after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Arizona's new immigration law, SB 1070, in June.

On Wednesday, the case is scheduled to be considered by the full circuit court in New Orleans, a panel that includes 10 judges appointed by Republican presidents, five appointed by Democrats. The panel is considered one of the nation's most conservative, and its decision to hear the Farmers Branch case is rare — fewer than 5% of petitions for a full court hearing are granted.

The court directed both sides before arguments Wednesday to consider the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on SB 1070, portions of which take effect this week. That ruling upheld Arizona's "show me your papers" requirement, which gives law enforcement officials the authority to check a person's immigration status if they suspect the individual is an illegal immigrant.

Farmers Branch has spent nearly $5.8 million on legal bills related to the case, and has mounted an online legal defense fund that has raised more than $250,000 for immigration-related lawsuits, Bryson said. City attorneys have argued that the ordinance is substantially different from Arizona's law and that the Supreme Court has not barred municipalities from limiting illegal immigrant renters. Farmers Branch attorney Michael Jung did not return calls Wednesday.

Attorneys for landlords and renters who sued the town argue that the ordinance overreaches, addressing federal matters, a position supported by immigrant advocates.

“The position of the ACLU of Texas and other advocates is that that is interfering with the enforcement of immigration laws, which is the exclusive province of the federal government,” said Rebecca Robertson, legal and policy director for the ACLU of Texas based in Houston. That organization submitted a brief in support of the plaintiffs in the Farmers Branch case.

“It’s not up to states and municipalities to come up with some patchwork system for dealing with immigration,” Robertson said.

Lawyers challenging the ordinance will note that the U.S. Supreme Court “struck down almost every provision of SB 1070,” she said. "That case just reinforces the argument we had already made that Farmers Branch is not free to come up with its own enforcement scheme” for immigration.

Robertson told The Times that the Farmers Branch case is one of many local legal battles about immigration in which SB 1070 is playing a role.

“Courts across the country are beginning to wrestle with what is this new Supreme Court precedent and how do we reconcile that with these various decisions,” she said.

She cited an August 20 ruling by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals based in Atlanta that found Alabama’s prohibition on renting to illegal immigrants was preempted by federal law.

"We argued that the 5th Circuit should reach precisely the same conclusion about Farmers Branch’s ordinance," she said. 

[For the record: Sept. 19, 1:06 p.m.: A previous version of this post incorrectly said the ordinance would allow the city building inspector to evict renters based on their immigration status. The ordinance would allow the city building inspector to screen, not evict, renters based on their immigration status.]

ISSUE 4 Gun Control

Guiding Questions – please answer on your note taking guide.

1. What are/is the state’s perspective on this issue? How does that clash with the federal government’s laws, opinions, etc.?

2. What positive and negative impacts does this issue have on the community (state)?

3. Prediction: Based on the article, what might you guess will happen next between the state and the federal government? Who appears to be winning the fight?

Resource 1) Clergy call for statewide gun registration By Lolly Bowean Tribune reporter September 7, 2012

|[pic] |

|The Rev. Ira Acree, left, listens to the names of people killed by gun violence in Chicago in August, as part of a gun-control news conference Friday. (Keri |

|Wiginton, Chicago Tribune / September 7, 2012) |

In an attempt to call attention to the city’s increasing violence, a coalition of Chicago clergy announced an effort Friday to gather 100,000 signatures on a petition to support legislation that would require gun owners statewide to register their weapons. The citywide petition drive, starting this weekend and continuing until the state legislature reconvenes in November, seeks to send a message to elected officials that the owners of assault weapons should have to register the devices, said the Rev. Ira J. Acree, who helped organize the movement.

“Our sons and daughters are dying and being gunned down,” said Acree, who is pastor of Greater St. John Bible Church in Austin, a community that has been hit hard by gun violence. “Rifles, AK-47’s and machine guns should not be in the hands of ordinary citizens. Nobody needs an assault weapon that was made for the military.” Chicago residents already register their firearms since the city allowed handgun ownership for the first time in decades in 2010 after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the city’s handgun ban.

The petition drive was intended to draw attention to the problem of violence and shootings in Chicago, said Father Michael Pfleger of St. Sabina Church in the Auburn Gresham neighborhood.

“We want to engage and empower members of our congregations to now get involved to combat this violence that is plaguing the city,” he said. “A lot of times people feel like they don’t know what to do. They feel almost paralyzed.

“We’re not saying take guns away from people. We’re saying make them responsible. Title them like a car. Treat guns the same way we treat cars.”

House Bill 5831 would, among other things, prohibit anyone from carrying or possessing a handgun that is not registered.

But the legislation, introduced in February, faces a tough road in Springfield, where gun control issues often result in geographic differences of opinion. Downstate lawmakers tend to oppose stricter gun regulations, city lawmakers support them and suburban lawmakers split. The Chicago Clergy Coalition is made up of almost 130 ministers of all faiths from throughout the city.

On Friday, about 35 of them gathered at St. James Cathedral to announce the petition effort. Homicides in the city have increased by 32 percent through Aug. 26, the city’s most recent figures show. At the press conference, the Rev. Kevin Bruursema of New Life Community Church in Lincoln Park criticized Mayor Rahm Emanuel for recent comments he made about gang violence. But the group of ministers fell short of condemning the mayor and called him an ally in their battle.

“When the city is bleeding, it’s the whole city, not just one part,” Bruursema said. “He said it’s gangs against gangs. We can do a lot better than that. When a son is gunned down in Pilsen, Little Village or Englewood, it’s a loss for the entire city.”

Resource 2- Justices to Consider Whether State Gun Laws Violate Second Amendment

By Robert Barnes Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, October 1, 2009

The Supreme Court set up a historic decision on gun control Wednesday, saying it will rule on whether restrictive state and local laws violate the Second Amendment right to gun ownership that it recognized last year.

The landmark 2008 decision to strike down the District of Columbia's ban on handgun possession was the first time the court had said the amendment grants an individual right to own a gun for self-defense. But the 5 to 4 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond the federal government and federal enclaves such as Washington.

Most court observers say they think that the five justices who recognized the individual right will also find that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, a move that could spark challenges of state and local laws governing gun registration, how and when the weapons can be carried, and storage requirements.

The court will hear a challenge of handgun laws in Chicago and the neighboring village of Oak Park, Ill. It was filed by Alexandria lawyer Alan Gura, who successfully argued the Heller case. He said the Chicago ban is "identical" to the one found unconstitutional in the District.

The announcement came as the court prepared for its new term, which will officially begin on Monday. Justices sifted through more than 2,000 petitions accumulated through the summer and selected 10 to hear.

Resource 3) Gun-control, gun-rights groups ready for renewed debate after Colorado shooting[pic][pic][pic]

July 20, 2012|By Michael Martinez, CNN

[pic]

• [pic]

The extreme carnage at the Colorado movie theater, now one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history, reopens the nation's passionate debate about gun control -- or gun rights -- and both sides were readying for renewed legislative efforts in the aftermath of Friday's shooting.

"We're going to see the gun control side talk about how more gun control is needed in wake of this horrible shooting," said John Velleco, director of federal affairs for of Gun Owners of America.

He added that gun-control advocates should acknowledge that "more gun control could actually make situations worse by making it harder for law-abiding folks to own and carry guns, which means for lunatics that there are more unarmed, potential victims."

Meanwhile, the Brady Campaign, the nation's largest citizens' lobby to prevent gun violence, pledged aggressive action.

"Today we are meeting with activists across this country as we continue to call on the American people to add their voice for change through our petition against arming dangerous people," President Dan Gross said in a statement Friday.

Shootings cast pall over 'Dark Knight Rises' blockbuster weekend

"We are insistent that our elected leaders take action to prevent future tragedies. Political cowardice is not an excuse for evasion and inaction on this life-and-death issue," Gross said.

Gun-control advocates admit that any reform faces a difficult path in a sharply divided Congress -- on top of a presidential election year.

"I would hope we would see something in the Senate," Ladd Everitt, a spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said about gun-control measures emerging from the Democrat-led chamber.

But the Republican-controlled House is a different story, he said.

"We don't live in a fantasy world and we understand that in the House it's a much tougher lift. The House has moved to far to the right that it's essentially a subsidiary of the NRA," or the National Rifle Association, he told CNN.

In Aurora, the agonized seek answers through faith

Velleco of Gun Owners of America said he has yet to see any new legislative proposals from gun-control advocates -- who he described as "kind of like vultures to take advantage of a situation to further an agenda that doesn't get traction and that people don't support."

Resource 4) SB 249, CA Sen. Leland Yee's Gun Control Bill, Seeks To Slow Bullet Reloading, Infuriates Gun Activists (VIDEO)



ISSUE 5 Voter ID laws

Guiding Questions – please answer on your note taking guide.

1. What are is the state’s perspective on this issue? How does that clash with the federal government’s laws, opinions, etc.?

2. What positive and negative impacts does this issue have on the community (state)?

3. Prediction: Based on the article, what might you guess will happen next between the state and the federal government? Who appears to be winning the fight?

Resource 1)

[pic]

We have come a long way since the 1960s. When the Voting Rights Act was passed, there were only 300 elected African-American officials in the United States; today there are more than 9,000, including 43 members of Congress. The 1993 National Voter Registration Act — also known as the Motor Voter Act — made it easier to register to vote, while the 2002 Help America Vote Act responded to the irregularities of the 2000 presidential race with improved election standards.

Despite decades of progress, this year’s Republican-backed wave of voting restrictions has demonstrated that the fundamental right to vote is still subject to partisan manipulation. The most common new requirement, that citizens obtain and display unexpired government-issued photo identification before entering the voting booth, was advanced in 35 states and passed by Republican legislatures in Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri and nine other states — despite the fact that as many as 25 percent of African-Americans lack acceptable identification.

Having fought for voting rights as a student, I am especially troubled that these laws disproportionately affect young voters. Students at state universities in Wisconsin cannot vote using their current IDs (because the new law requires the cards to have signatures, which those do not). South Carolina prohibits the use of student IDs altogether. Texas also rejects student IDs, but allows voting by those who have a license to carry a concealed handgun. These schemes are clearly crafted to affect not just how we vote, but who votes.

Conservative proponents have argued for photo ID mandates by claiming that widespread voter impersonation exists in America, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. While defending its photo ID law before the Supreme Court, Indiana was unable to cite a single instance of actual voter impersonation at any point in its history. Likewise, in Kansas, there were far more reports of U.F.O. sightings than allegations of voter fraud in the past decade. These theories of systematic fraud are really unfounded fears being exploited to threaten the franchise.

In Georgia, Florida, Ohio and other states, legislatures have significantly reduced opportunities to cast ballots before Election Day — an option that was disproportionately used by African-American voters in 2008. In this case the justification is often fiscal: Republicans in North Carolina attempted to eliminate early voting, claiming it would save money. Fortunately, the effort failed after the State Election Board demonstrated that cuts to early voting would actually be more expensive because new election precincts and additional voting machines would be required to handle the surge of voters on Election Day.

Voters in other states weren’t so lucky. Florida has cut its early voting period by half, from 96 mandated hours over 14 days to a minimum of 48 hours over just eight days, and has severely restricted voter registration drives, prompting the venerable League of Women Voters to cease registering voters in the state altogether. Again, this affects very specific types of voters: according to the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, African-Americans and Latinos were more than twice as likely as white voters to register through a voter registration drive.

These restrictions purportedly apply to all citizens equally. In reality, we know that they will disproportionately burden African Americans and other racial minorities, yet again. They are poll taxes by another name.

The King Memorial reminds us that out of a mountain of despair we may hew a stone of hope. Forty-eight years after the March on Washington, we must continue our work with hope that all citizens will have an unfettered right to vote. Second-class citizenship is not citizenship at all.

We’ve come some distance and have made great progress, but Dr. King’s dream has not been realized in full. New restraints on the right to vote do not merely slow us down. They turn us backward, setting us in the wrong direction on a course where we have already traveled too far and sacrificed too much.

John Lewis, a Democrat, is a congressman from Georgia.

Correction: August 27, 2011

An earlier version of this article misstated a quotation engraved on the new Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington. The quotation is "out of a mountain of despair we may hew a stone of hope," not "out of a mountain of stone.

Resource 2) Judge Refuses To Block Pa. Voter ID Law; Appeal Headed To State Supreme Court

  by Corey Dade

[pic]

A judge's decision Wednesday to uphold the new Pennsylvania voter identification law shifted attention to the state's highest court, which could now determine if the requirement will be imposed on Election Day.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs had asked the judge to stop the law from taking effect as part of a constitutional challenge. Their complaint claims the law would make it disproportionately harder for seniors, minorities and others to vote in the Nov. 6 general election.

"Our concern is that you cannot wait until after Election Day to figure out that people lost their right to vote," says Judith Browne Dianis, co-director of the Advancement Project, which is the co-counsel for the plaintiffs. "We wanted to make sure the voters of Pennsylvania were protected going into this election, and that their right to vote wasn't encumbered by an unnecessary barrier."

Pennsylvania state court Judge Robert Simpson declined to rule on whether the law violates the state constitution. But in refusing to grant an injunction against the law, the judge said the plaintiffs failed to prove that voter disenfranchisement would be "immediate or inevitable."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs said they will immediately appeal to the state Supreme Court. The Associated Press reports: "At the state Supreme Court, votes by four justices would be needed to overturn Simpson's ruling. The high court is currently split between three Republicans and three Democrats following the recent suspension of Justice Joan Orie Melvin, a Republican who is fighting criminal corruption charges." Simpson, a Republican, said he was "convinced" the state "will fully educate the public" about the new requirement and enact the law "in a nonpartisan, even-handed manner."

The judge also pushed back against plaintiffs' claims that they can't obtain a state photo ID, one of the cards allowed under the law, because they lack the necessary documents such as a birth certificate. He cited in his ruling the state's plans to issue a special photo ID for those voters:

"Moreover, considering the believable testimony about the pending DOS photo IDs for voting, and the enhanced availability of birth confirmation through the Department of Health for those born in Pennsylvania, I am not convinced any qualified elector need be disenfranchised. ... Further ... based on the availability of absentee voting, provisional ballots, and opportunities for judicial relief for those with special hardships, I am not convinced any of the individual Petitioners or other witnesses will not have their votes counted in the general election."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs say that as many as 1 million voters lack the forms of photo identification accepted under the law. The judge rejected the figure as critics' "attempts to inflate the numbers." He said he believed state officials' estimate of between 1 percent and 9 percent of registered voters — or 82,723 to 744,507 people, based on state voter data. Separately, the Justice Department is investigating whether minority voters are disproportionately represented among those who lack proper ID under the new law.

In November, voters in 30 states will have to present some form of identification at the polls. Ten of the states will require photo identification, including the presidential battlegrounds of Florida, Michigan, Virginia (pending federal approval) and now possibly Pennsylvania. Legal battles over state voter ID laws and other election restrictions has sparked a national debate over voting rights and the potential impact these measures could have on voter turnout.

Proponents of the Republican-led initiatives say they will prevent voter fraud and shore up the election system. Nine of the 11 states that passed photo ID laws since 2010 have Republican governors. A new study of more than 2,000 election-fraud cases since 2000 found that in-person voter impersonation, which ID laws are intended to prevent, "is virtually nonexistent." Opponents, mainly Democrats and voting and civil rights groups, say the measures are intended to suppress turnout among minorities and young people, who tend to vote for Democratic candidates.

President Obama's re-election bid is pushing for strong turnouts of young and minority voters, whom plaintiffs in the cases say are among the likeliest to not have acceptable IDs. The Obama administration, through the Justice Department, has used the Voting Rights Act to block some of the initiatives, including voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina. With just 12 weeks before Election Day, photo ID laws in these other states remain in limbo:

Mississippi: A voter-approved constitutional amendment is under Department of Justice review. Mississippi is one of several states, including New Hampshire, South Carolina, Virginia and Texas, with a history of voter discrimination that must obtain federal approval to change election procedures.

New Hampshire: The measure is under Justice Department review after the state legislature overrode the governor's veto of the voter ID bill. Voters would be able to show a variety of identification forms, but several of the options will be eliminated in September 2013.

South Carolina: A trial before a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court in Washington is scheduled to begin Aug. 27. The Justice Department twice blocked the law. If it is struck down, a separate law would require voters to show a non-photo ID on Election Day.

Texas: The U.S. District Court in Washington is expected to rule by Aug. 31. If Texas loses, an existing law will require a non-photo ID at the polls.

Virginia: A version more liberal than most others, by allowing a wide range of picture IDs, is under Justice Department review. In a move apparently to pre-empt legal claims of voter suppression, the governor has ordered the state to send new registration cards to every active voter.

Wisconsin: The state is appealing a state judge's decision striking down the law in March as a violation of the Wisconsin Constitution. Two separate challenges have been filed in federal court in Milwaukee.

ISSUE 6 Abortion Rights

Guiding Questions – please answer on your note taking guide.

1. What are/is the state’s perspective on this issue? How does that clash with the federal government’s laws, opinions, etc.?

2. What positive and negative impacts does this issue have on the community (state)?

3. Prediction: Based on the article, what might you guess will happen next between the state and the federal government? Who appears to be winning the fight?

Resource 1) Federal court upholds Arizona’s late-term abortion law

Posted by Sarah Kliff on July 30, 2012

[pic]

A federal court in Arizona has upheld the state’s ban on abortions after 20 weeks, allowing it to come into effect on August 1. The ruling has already set off further legal challenges that are likely to center on one question: Where does the line get drawn between an abortion restriction and an all-out ban?

Ever since Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has allowed states to ban abortions after the fetus is viable – usually thought to be around 23 or 24 weeks – as long as such restrictions have an exception for the health or life of the mother. The Supreme Court has not allowed bans prior to that point in pregnancy.

The American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the Arizona law as unconstitutionally limiting women’s access to abortions prior to the fetus’ viability.

In the ruling today, Judge James Teilborg does not dispute that viability standard. He recognizes that pre-viability bans are not constitutional. But he concludes that Arizona’s law is not a ban at all. Because it makes certain exceptions for abortions “to avert a pregnant woman’s death or avoid a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”

“Accordingly, [the law] does not purport to ban all abortions past 20 weeks gestational age,” Teilborg concludes. “Further, the statue allows for abortions up to and including 20 weeks gestational age. As such, [it] is not a ban on previability abortions.”

That interpretation, ACLU attorney Alexa Kolbi-Molinas argues, ignores the standing case law on abortion rights. She points to a passage of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1996 lawsuit on abortion rights, where the Supreme Court specifically took on the issue of exceptions to previability abortion bans. They found  that states could pass certain restrictions on previability abortions; they could create waiting periods, for example, or require patients’ to read certain medical materials.

what they could not do was prohibit previability abortions “regardless of whether exceptions are made for particular circumstances.”

“It doesn’t dispute the Supreme Court on the viability standard,” says Kolbi-Molinas. “It acknowledges it exists. He says its not a ban because there are some exceptions. That completely ignores Casey.”

Seven states have passed laws in the past two years that ban abortions at or around 20 weeks, usually on the basis that the fetus could feel pain (the research on this is disputed). While many states already ban late-term abortion, they tend to do so later in the pregnancy, often around 24 weeks, thought to be after viability. These new bans move that restriction up significantly earlier.

Arizona’s law was the first of these laws to be challenged in court. And, as of a few hours ago, it’s the first that a federal court has upheld.

The American Civil Liberties Union plans to appeal this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It will also request an emergency stay of the regulation, to bar it from coming into effect later this week

Resource 2) Court Paves Way For Texas Planned Parenthood Cuts by Wade Goodwyn August 27, 2012

Texas Gov. Rick Perry and the Republican-led Legislature have been locked in an ongoing battle with Planned Parenthood over state funding for years. None of the Planned Parenthood clinics that perform abortions receives any state or federal taxpayer dollars. But Republicans also want to discontinue public funds to clinics that provide preventive health services to the poor.

With the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, that path is now clear. "The ruling affirms that the Texas Women's Health Program has no obligation to fund organizations that promote abortion, including Planned Parenthood," says Lucy Nashed, a spokeswoman for the governor. "This decision is a win for Texas women, first and foremost. It's a win for our rule of law and for our state's priority to protect life," Nashed says.

Maneuvering Around Constitutionality Issues

The 5th Circuit's decision is a reversal of a lower court's temporary injunction that stopped Texas from defunding Planned Parenthood on the grounds that the state's action was likely to be ruled unconstitutional. In the past, federal courts have ruled that states can't defund Planned Parenthood clinics just because they affiliate with abortion providers, on the grounds that it violates Planned Parenthood's right to free speech and free association, as well as federal regulations. To get around this obstacle, Perry decided to forgo federal funding, even though the federal government pays 90 percent of the cost, approximately $35 million, of the Texas Women's Health Program.

That approach seems to have opened the door for the 5th Circuit's decision. "The court is very clear that the Texas policy is constitutional, to the extent that it limits funding to Planned Parenthood in both its affiliates and non-abortion-providing entities," says Stefanie Lindquist, a law professor at the University of Texas.

Lindquist says the 5th Circuit decision focused not on Planned Parenthood's First Amendment rights but on those of the state of Texas. While 95 percent of Planned Parenthood's money goes to provide health care services to tens of thousands of low-income women, the organization is also the state's largest provider of abortions. The appeals court focused on that, ruling that the name "Planned Parenthood" equates with abortion. So, the court reasoned, if Texas doesn't want to fund an organization it believes is promoting abortion, it doesn't have to.

Lindquist says the decision is a real blow to Planned Parenthood. "It will provide other states who are interested in limiting abortion funding — or funding for abortion-related organizations ... with a road map, especially if they choose to forgo federal dollars." Just how many states would be willing to follow in Texas' footsteps by forgoing federal funding for their women's health programs is an open question.

For Planned Parenthood, Risky Options

As for Planned Parenthood in Texas, Lindquist says the organization can appeal. But with the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, she says, doing so would be a gamble. The organization could also consider changing the name of the clinics that provide services to women, Lindquist says. "Planned Parenthood doesn't want to do that, I presume," she says. "But it is about the identifying mark of Planned Parenthood — and that that mark is associated, I assume, in the mind of Texas regulators and legislators, with the provision of elected abortions." But a name change might not offer any guarantee to the organization, either. Texas is likely to decide it won't fund any clinic that is willing to refer a woman seeking an abortion, no matter what that clinic is called. And the court could well uphold that decision, too.

"Of course we're disappointed," says Helene Krasnoff, Planned Parenthood's lead counsel. "The case has never been about Planned Parenthood, though. It's been about the tens of thousands of low-income Texas women who rely on our health services for preventive health services like cancer screenings, birth control, well-woman exams. And we're going to evaluate every possible legal option to protect their health."

In the wake of the 5th Circuit's ruling, it's unclear where those tens of thousands of low-income Texas women might go. Planned Parenthood does have legal options, but none that are particularly attractive.

-----------------------

Federalism Today

Ten medical marijuana dispensaries have complied with letters sent by U.S. Attorney John Walsh to shut down, the U.S. Attorney's office confirmed in a press statement Tuesday. The dispensaries were within 1,000 feet of schools and were notified in early August that they had 45 days to shut down, move their business or face federal enforcement action. According to 7News, the 10 shops that got the letters were in the Denver metro area and in southern Colorado.

BOULDER, Colo. -- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Wednesday that she believes the Defense of Marriage Act will likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court within the next year. Ginsburg spoke at the University of Colorado in Boulder. She was asked a student-submitted question about the equal-protection clause and whether the nation's high court would consider it applying to sexual orientation.

Ginsburg said with a smile that she couldn't answer the question. She said she could not talk about matters that would come to the court, and that the Defense of Marriage Act would probably be up soon. "I think it's most likely that we will have that issue before the court toward the end of the current term," she said.

CHICAGO — Less than a month after President Obama endorsed gay marriage, two dozen same-sex couples filed two separate lawsuits in the president’s home state on Wednesday, arguing that it is unconstitutional for Illinois to deny them the right to wed. Janean Watkins, left, and Lakeesha Harris were the first in line at the Cook County Office of Vital Records in Chicago on June 1, 2011, the first day that civil union licenses were issued. The lawsuits — led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois and Lambda Legal, a civil rights group for gay men and lesbians — aim to strike down a statewide law limiting marriage to a man and woman. Both were filed in state court against the Cook County clerk, David Orr, whose office issues marriage licenses in the Chicago area.

A Poll Tax by Another Name By JOHN LEWIS August 26, 2011

Washington -- AS we celebrate the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial, we reflect on the life and legacy of this great man. But recent legislation on voting reminds us that there is still work to do. Since January, a majority of state legislatures have passed or considered election-law changes that, taken together, constitute the most concerted effort to restrict the right to vote since before the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Growing up as the son of an Alabama sharecropper, I experienced Jim Crow firsthand. It was enforced by the slander of “separate but equal,” willful blindness to acts of racially motivated violence and the threat of economic retaliation. The pernicious effect of those strategies was to institutionalize second-class citizenship and restrict political participation to the majority alone.

Demonstrators hold signs at an NAACP-organized rally on the steps of the Pennsylvania Capitol to protest the state's new voter identification law on July 24 in Harrisburg, Pa.

Marc Levy/AP

David Kent/MCT/Landov

Abortion-rights opponents outside a Planned Parenthood of North Texas event in Fort Worth in February. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Texas can defund Planned Parenthood clinics because the organization provides abortions.

Officials in Texas say they will cut off state funding to Planned Parenthood following a federal court ruling last week. The decision by a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says the state can defund the health clinics because Planned Parenthood is associated with abortion. Planned Parenthood warned that the cuts threaten access to health care for more than 50,000 poor women. But many Texas officials cheered the decision, which could reverberate to other states targeting the organization.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download