Desc Essay Revision: Can I Tell You Why?

I started poetry club in the beginning of my freshman year. First meeting, first day, so many new people. I had never thought about writing poetry. I never believed I had the skill to. My typical image of a poet was an African talking about the struggles of it’s continent. Maybe a regular person with a lot of life experiences. To my surprise, I wasn’t the only freshman in that room. I sat down on the far left side of the room near the windows. I could still feel the sting on my butt from my friends hand, so I sat with a wince. Thankfully no one saw. My advisor, Mr. Kay, introduced me to the room. I was kind of shy, so if my skin was a tad bit lighter, there may have been a hint of a blush. I was with people I didn’t know. Then we went around the room and said our names. Frdea… De… Imani… Taylor… Jameka… Marchella… They all seemed to be pleased with everyone there. Mr. Kay went on about his long journeys with the seniors in the room. It was interesting to see his enthusiasm about such a topic.  My first task that Tuesday evening, in room 309, was to write about myself. That was the worst thing I could’ve been told, but I ended up doing it. It started out like this:

“Highschool.

The summer before I was an anxious little 8th grader that knew nothing.

Thoughts going through my mind

Like

Am I going to be cool enough?

Am I going to fit in?

I think of my anxiety of that first year.”

With my first stanza, I felt like a spark had jolted inside me. Words continued to flow…

“That year adults have legit conversations with me

That year my individually blossomed

That year when I asked myself

Who are you?

 

I came to a new school to start fresh.

I came because I wanted something different.

I came to finally be accepted.”

 

Second… Then third… Came right out of me. I didn’t think about it much. As I continued to write, I didn’t realize the key things I had actually observed, but never thought about.

“Accepted that I am weird.

Accepted that I have a different way of seeing the world.

Accepted that I love to have fun.”

Then the last and final stanza came of my first poem, written in room 309…

“I look at myself now.

I look at what I made of myself through these years.

I look at the fact that

I am no more an anxious freshman.

I am no more that person that thought she wasn’t worth much

I am no more that girl that questioned herself about being ‘cool’

I am a confident girl.

I am that girl that you see walking the streets with priority

I am that girl you see walking into a room knowing I have the respect of e            veryone.

I am that girl that thinks something of herself”

That was it. I was finished. With my fresh, new, raw, poem, I wanted to say it out loud. I was the first to share. “Highschool…..” I didn’t get much of a reaction from the room. To them, it was just another poem read by a freshman. But Kay lightened my mood, by commenting on my strong voice. But that was it. Others said their poems and it was time to go.

Later that month, I had acquired a few skills about writing. I had some free time and I sat in a dimly lit living room. The couch to the right, the foyer to left. The piano in front of me. Over head of it was a painting. The background has a jazz theme. On the right side, black, fading into a deep red, to a bright red blood color. The left has deep violet turning into rich light purple. Down at the bottom of the picture of piano keys. The keys come out in a fine curved way. Black sharp keys and the regular white keys. But since it’s a jazz theme to it, the ends of the keys are a chalky brown. Over the keys is a fine colored black man. His body is positioned so his ear is close to the keys he feels over with his large hands. Eyes closed, he looks as if he’s engrossed into the sounds coming from his big instrument. One hand at the end of the piano with the other accompanying it not too far away. This man has large lips, with a large nose. But his facial attributes are all proportional. His close cut beard matches his hair which is buzz cut. Eyes slightly strained with tense eye brows, he seems to be concentrating of the sounds coming with, what it looks like, his precious noise making object. His right hands glides over keys, with big knuckles and great embedded nails. With great hands, they have a angular look to them. Not rounded like normal fingers. This painting has many basic shapes to it. Angular knuckles with angular tips. But his thumb has a curve to it as it’s bent. His pinky stands out feels a key on it’s own. His shadow slightly covers the keys. Mainly his face’s shadow slightly over edge of the keys. The front part of this man’s shirt is yellow faded into a light green. The back is a violet color. The collar is split, so, half is purple and half is yellow and green. His sleeve is rolled up on the right side of the painted. On the arm with the hand at the edge of the piano. Other than that artwork, there were detailed Chinese vases. They had scenes of their culture  on each side. Then the coffee table with parallel to the piano on a tan rug. I sat in the office chair. Pondering… The beginning of this self motivated poem started out like this:

“Darkness.

Darkness.

Darkness.

Dark is black.

Dark is cold.

Dark is dark.

Dark is heartless, emotionless, endless…..”

I stopped. This start wasn’t myself. I wasn’t a dark person. I began to think of colors. Then this is what flowed through my finger tips:

“Can you tell me?

Tell me why the sky is blue.

Tell me why fire is red.

Tell me why the birds sing those unknown songs that wake me in the morning.

Tell me why….”

I halted. There needed to be some order in this poem. The colors needed to be in their natural pattern. I thought about each color. Red… Orange… Yellow… Green… Blue…. Violet… White… Black… Then this came from my mind:

“Can you tell me why?

Can you tell me why roses are red?

Can you tell me why fire is orange?

Can you tell me why the sun is yellow?

Can you tell me why the grass is green?

Can you tell me why the sky is blue?

Can you tell me why lilies are purple?

Can you tell me why the clouds are white?

Can you tell me why darkness is black?

Can you tell me why?”

I wanted to tie in all the colors together. To show a certain relationship they had with each other.

“I can tell you red roses burn in orange fire.

Each peddle falling

Falling

Falling to the ground withering from the hot serpent that has taken away it’s red beauty.

I can tell you the yellow sun beats down on the green grass leaving it dry and brittle, taking away it source of life. Water.

I can tell you the clear, blue sky protects the purple, velvet lilies in the streams they wade in.

I can tell you, you can’t see the white, fluffy clouds in the pure darkness that is black.

That’s what I can tell you.

Now, can you tell me why?”

I felt so proud of my final product. I was so eager, I needed to read it to someone. My mom was the only one in the house at the time and she sat down to hear my poem.

“Can you tell me why?.....” I said the poem with a pure confidence. My mom enjoyed it, so that was a definite “GO” to read it in poetry club that next Tuesday.            

Once basketball season started, the teacher supporting poetry club, the basketball coach, couldn’t come to the Tuesday get together. The students ran it. I kept saying to myself, “I’ll go next week,” I kept saying that in my mind until I didn’t care about it anymore. I didn’t even think about going. I’d always hear talk among the club goers about the poetry slams that happened on Saturdays and the about California trip to nationals. It made me feel guilty. So, I felt it’d be awkward if I stepped in room 309 to venture in my poetry writing. The shame inside myself overcame the courage I needed to walk back in  that door again. I felt like the longtime writers going there would give me weird stares and talk about me. I just had this internal fear inside my self that I let sway my decision to start writing again.

What made me change my mind was this summer. I had taken a trip to Atlantic City and while on our way to catch some lunch at a burger place, I had read my Can you tell me why? poem to my friend. He thought my poem was absolutely amazing. I was flabbergasted at his reaction. I didn’t expect to have such a great response because I’m my worst critic.

            My sophomore year, I wanted to take up poetry again. Now, here’s my chance.

 

Curfew In Philadelphia

 ​I am lobbying to change the curfew for the youth in University City and Center City, Philadelphia. In the summer of August Mayor Michael Nutter enforced a curfew on the children of Philadelphia 18 and younger. The curfew restrictions are 10:00 p.m. for those under 13 10:30 p.m. for those 13 to 17 years old Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. If the curfew was violated parents would be contacted and will receive a fine from $100 to $300 for first violation and will face time in custody. The curfew was enforced because of the youth of Philadelphia is out at unreasonable hours "flash mobbing". There have been several incidents where the "flash mob" has assaulted people randomly out of pure ignorance. Not only is Mayor Nutter holding the children responsible he's holding their parents saying in one interview (to parents) "it is your responsibility to know where they are, what they are doing and who they are with. They are your children. You need to raise them. You are responsible for them." Parents will be fined and can face time in jail because of what their child committed and if parents did not come pick their child up the Department of Human Services and the parent could be taken to court for other violations, including neglect of their child. Towards the end of August the curfew was strictly enforced that minors 18 and younger have to be the house by 9 pm.

 

I am lobbying against the curfew in Philadelphia because I feel as though every minor has to suffer the consequences because of what a group of kids continue to do. I am 17 teen years old and I have never been apart of a "flash mob" and there are many other teens that have not been apart of one also. I like to go downtown to restaurants, parks and concerts.  And I can no longer enjoy myself in the city of Philadelphia because I can get arrested for violating curfew. I also have a job and the curfew makes it very hard for me to transport to work.

 

I do not think that the curfew should be completely canceled but I think the older teens should not have to be restricted to certain things.


 

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/video?id=8304098




Screen Shot 2011-10-16 at 8.08.32 PM
Screen Shot 2011-10-16 at 8.08.32 PM

Lobbying For Better Schools In Philadelphia

    Children are the future and as such should be treated with the utmost respect and guided with discipline.  However this is a difficult task.  Children are changing but the methods of which they are dealt with have not.  Schools aren’t as stimulating the minds of the youngsters nor are the extra curricular activities provided.

    In relatively recent years access to information has rose exponentially.  What a child can get from a teacher, a text book, or even his or her parent is only a mouse click away.  This can can and has caused many children to develop authority issues.  With children knowing more than the people set to teach them there is very little left for them to use to differentiate themselves from adults.  They start to see themselves as equals to adults and some times police or other law enforcement officers.

Lobbying For Better Schools In Philadelphia

    Children are the future and as such should be treated with the utmost respect and guided with discipline.  However this is a difficult task.  Children are changing but the methods of which they are dealt with have not.  Schools aren’t as stimulating the minds of the youngsters nor are the extra curricular activities provided.

    In relatively recent years access to information has rose exponentially.  What a child can get from a teacher, a text book, or even his or her parent is only a mouse click away.  This can can and has caused many children to develop authority issues.  With children knowing more than the people set to teach them there is very little left for them to use to differentiate themselves from adults.  They start to see themselves as equals to adults and some times police or other law enforcement officers.

Lobbying Topic-Benchmark

 

Philadelphia which is a corrupted city, is experiencing major problems which seems all connected to each other. Education, Poverty and Crime are three major problems that are going on in our community. Our crime rates keep increasing by a humungous amount and why? I believe it has a lot to do with educating our youth and poverty issues. Many teenagers don’t value education and one of the reasons is the household they live in.

Have you ever heard of the motto, “Education starts at home.”?  Many people disagree with that statement, but I agree.  Teens who grew up in a household where parents do not push education or aren’t as strict as most parents are about education don’t value education as much as he/she should. Teens, who live in poverty, turn to violence and selling drugs to make money because that’s the easy way out. The same teens who doesn’t value education and don’t have money get involved into the wrong things.

Many people around Philadelphia are sick of the violence that goes on in our community and are creating organizations to prevent this and to have people come out and talk to our youth about how serious this situation is. Plenty of organizations are trying to create more after school activities and other major events to keep teens and everyone.

Our city is trying to control our youth by setting curfews but I realized that is only in effect during the safer parts of Philly. Living in South Philly, nothing has changed and no curfews were enforced. Without police enforcing laws in every part of Philadelphia, how do they expect teens to take them seriously? If we have more people stand up instead of just letting things happen, if we have parents be a parent and actually take care of a responsibility and to have our officials make sure laws are set for every section and part of Philadelphia, I believe it’ll be a huge change.

 

Martinez v. Ryan

My SCOTUSblog case was Martinez v. Ryan case. Some background information on this case is that Martinez is serving 2 consecutive sentences for having sex with a person under the age of 15. Martinez filed for a direct appeal with the help of a state appointed counsel. But the Arizona Supreme Court denied him.
The question is if the the prisoners have the right to argue that their lawyers were inadequate during post-conviction proceedings, does the the defendant have a right to appointed counsel during that proceeding? Or in other words he has a right to an effective assistance of post-conviction counsel in raising his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim. Martinez knows he has this right so he is trying to get an appeal so that things may be reconsidered. Arizona is arguing the whole right to counsel or lack there of as an opinion and that recognition should have been made prior to of the fact that the counsel was ineffective. In my opinion I don't think they will rule in his favor because it seems as though their mind is already made up. But I think that they will at least consider the constitution but still decide against it and go with the state's rules. This case is still pending. 

SCOTUS Case :Douglas v. The Independent Living Center Of Southern California


I was assigned to following the case "Douglas v. The independent Living Center of Southern California". in California there is a tight financial situation and one of the states larger  expense is Healthcare. As a result in 2008 and 2009 the state cut 1-10% of the Medi - Cal reimbursement budget .The main topic (question/concern) of "Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California" is  not the legality of the actual cuts to the health care budget. It is whether or not the healthcare beneficiaries and providers can sue the state for not meeting the required reimbursement rates.
Medicaid is  federally funded healthcare that reimburses healthcare providers for servicing individuals who qualify. If a state chooses accept federal funding it is mandatory  that the state  give out a reasonable amount of money to medicare providers, If not the funding for healthcare for the state will be shut down.
Medicaid providers and recipients in California attempted  to sue the state  to prevent budget cuts. The healthcare providers are using the  Supremacy Clause , which basically states that federal law trumps state law. If the state is not following the federal law then the state can be sued under there Ex Parte Young , which would allow the state to be sued for acting in a unconstitutional manner .
The case reached the Supreme Court in October of 2011. The defense has made a point that if this is allowed federal agencies will be bombarded with other cases thats are also arguing that the state is not following the federal law. Making it difficult for them to handle anything but the cases.The prosecution responded saying they had no intention of doing this they just simply wanted to make sure they are allowed to exercise their rights to fight.
A decision has not been reach as of yet. The Supreme Court is expected to have a final ruling  sometime next year. The case is not expected to rule in favor of the people and providers  of the California medicare system. Personally I do not expect to see them come out completely successful either because the defense most laws likely correct when they said that other organizations or people will also try and sue the, state arguing that it has acted unconstitutionally. If the state has acted as such it should be handled fairly and not given a final ruling under the impression that if it as allowed it will only bring chaos. Sadly the case will most likely be given a ruling with future cases in mind.Therefore not allowing these organizations to sue the state.

Lobbying For: Council Votes 15-2 to OK sick-leave bill; veto chances unclear

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/20111014_Council_votes_15-2_to_OK_sick-leave_bill__veto_chances_unclear.html

With the economy today I know we are trying to save money and be as resourceful as possible with our money. Recently introduced by Wilson Goode Jr. the council voted on what is being called the Ok sick-leave bill, which is basically saying that when you are sick and cannot come into work you should be payed for that day. Some people such as Brian O'Neil feel that this is not fair because you should be payed only fot the work that you do, and some people such as Bill Greenlee and Darrell Clarke which were two men who had the bill sick-leave measure but did not get the the council enough votes to override Mayor Nutter veto they also felt as though if you feel your sick you can't work but you still need to get payed so why not just pay them. I feel as though you should be payed on a sick day, the reason being is that for one thing when you are sick you do not work as efficiently as you would if you were in good health, another thing is if you come into the work place sick and their sickness is contagious that will spread to other workers and now instead of having one person call out at a time you have three or four people calling out at a time. Today we look at things through one lens we and we see the money money money issue but we fail to realize that we need people humans to make this money and as a human at one point or another you are going to get sick and you are going to need a break, but why be punished for something that is out of your control. There has not been any final decisions made on the case so far but the are going to keep trying to get the bill passed and have the votes override the mayoral vote or veto so that they can pass this bill and hopefully for once not only look for the money in things but realize that sometimes we have to remember that as a government we put them in place to have things in order and be able to make decisions fo us the people.


images-1
images-1

Electoral College Reform.

For my lobbying project I will be lobbying against the electoral college. The electoral college is a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for the electors who then vote for the President. I feel like we the people should be able to vote on who we want to represent us and our votes should be the actual reasons the candidate is put into The White House. If there are any opponents of allowing our votes to be the actual deciding votes of our president and representatives would be candidates who usually win or get higher votes from the electoral college. I think the people who vote would be the main supporters of my topic because they can feel like their votes are being counted and their voice is being heard for what they actually have to say.

The pending legislation dealing with The Electoral College is the:

H.J.Res.36 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Electoral College and provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President by the popular vote of all citizens of the United States regardless of place of residence.

I believe this can really help my lobbying topic because with this and the graphs and explanations that let people know exactly how their votes are being used and counted if counted at all will really make people stop and think twice about whether or not they agree with the electoral college. 





voting-booth
voting-booth

SLA Playwrights Shine!!

Numerous SLA students won awards in the Philadelphia Young Playwrights Annual Playwriting Festival!

Congratulations to Manna-Symone Middlebrooks for winning first place!! Her play will be performed at Temple November 3rd-5th. Click here to get a free ticket. (Also, check out the picture of Gina Dukes on the front page!)

Congratulations also to Aja Wallace, Martha Robles, Maddie Walls, Taylor Stover, and Bernicia Guercio for their awards. Look for their names to appear shortly on the Philadelphia Young Playwrights website (link above).

Click here to see all these play, videos, and other examples of amazing work students did last year during their World History class.

Curfew Lobbying: Bettering Philadelphia Curfew Laws

I am lobbying to change the curfew in Philadelphia. I am not 100% for the curfew but I am not against it neither. Personally, the curfew laws is not a bad idea but there needs to be some adjustments. I feel like it’s a bit crazy for the curfew for those under 18 is 9pm. Me personally, on Saturdays, I attend a program called Teenshop which lasts until 1pm. From there I have to go home in which I will arrive about 1:45pm then from there, I have house cleaning I must do before I think about going anywhere. Around 6:30ish, I am done cleaning and if I plan to go somewhere, it’ll take me about a hour to get ready and when I finally do get out of the house, I have to come right back inside? That’s ridiculous. I feel like we should go back to regular curfew laws but raise the fine if children are caught out past 12:00am. I find that pretty fair because for one, if kids are given an extra mile, the consequences should be more severe if they take advantage of the scenario. I feel like the main supporters of my idea would be teenagers under the age of 18 who more than likely really wish to be outside beyond 9:00pm but my opponents would be the mayor, police and many adults. There isn’t any pending legislation dealing with my topic but I would like to see a way to make these laws fair. I mean yes, I understand how terrible our youth has been in recent years but should the entire generation be punished for the wrong doings of the few? I hope soon that there’s a lot of discussion about raising the curfew fine but going back to previous curfew laws.

Caraco v. Novo Nordisk

The Case I was giving was Caraco vs. Novo Nordisk
which will be argued December 5, 20ll 
Dockett Number: 10-844

Caraco v. Novo Nordisk: 

Summarization- basically the argument stems from whether or not a generic drug making company can sue for having another company for making the name brand version of that exact drug without the prior knowledge of the FDA.

Constitutional issue: Commerce clause; which says that "no person shall introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any new drug unless with an approval.


From the Scotus Blog: 


Whether a generic drug manufacturer may sue the company that produces the brand-name version of the drug to require it to correct information filed with the Food and Drug Administration, information that is relevant to the agency's decision whether to approve the generic version of the drug.


With this case it looks at whether states can legally sell drugs under a different name in a different state without The Food and Drug Administration knowing anything about the effects of granting the state the right to sell the product in pharmacy stores or over the counter.

Reynold Vs. US.

 

 

 

Issue: Does petitioner have standing to challenge the Attorney General's interim rule making the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act retroactively applicable to those who committed their underlying offenses prior to its enactment date?

 

 

The case I was given was Reynolds vs. Us, and the case went before the Supreme Court on October 3, 2011. The constitutional question surrounding the case is does Mr. Reynolds have standing under the reading of the S.O.R.N.A. statute to raise claims concerning the attorney general's Interim rule. As well as does S.O.R.N.A. Violate the Constitution and should this Court hear Billy Joe Reynolds' case to resolve conflicting court opinions concerning the commerce clause, the ex post facto clause and due process?

            If you’re wondering what S.O.R.N.A its sex offender registration and notification act which is Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-248). SORNA requires sex offenders to register and notify the United States. To summarize the case, “Billy Joe Reynolds became a convicted sex offender Missouri in 2001 and sentenced to imprisonment.  Upon his release in 2005, he registered under Missouri law and subsequently updated and verified his registration as required by Missouri law. In November 2007, Reynolds was charged and indicted with violating SORNA’s registration requirements after he moved to Pennsylvania without updating his registration. Reynolds tried to dismiss the indictment saying that the Attorney General’s rule violated the APA. The district court denied the motion, and Reynolds entered a conditional plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.  The Third Circuit affirmed, ruling that SORNA’s registration requirements applied to pre-enactment offenders by their own force, even without the additional rule by the Attorney General.” Above was quoted from the scouts blog.” To put this into plain language Reynolds committed a sex crime before the SORNA ruling was enacted but section 1613(d) of the act says the attorney general has the authority to say whether and how the requirements apply to sex offenders that committed crimes before the act was created. The only problem with this is that Reynolds argues that this means that the Attorney General gets to say whether they apply at all.  He also claims that the second clause contradicts the language of the first clause. It give the attorney general the authorization to prescribe rules meaning the attorney general get to say how they are applied.

            The government/ court argues that the plain language of SORNA’s registration requirements means that all sex offenders, including pre-enactment offenders, must register.  The court also argues that it says that SORNA’s delegation to the Attorney General to is just to establish how it applies. The registration requirements further suggests that the SORNA’s requirements apply by their own force. The court also argues that the case is temporary and unimportant because this only applies to a small amount of sex offender that committed crimes before the act. And even after the ruling, either way, won’t affect the ability of pre-enforcement offenders to challenge registration requirements under SORNA.

            The decision has not yet been made on the case although I feel like its more than likely that the court will not rule in the favor of Reynolds

Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association

 

On Monday October 3rd, the Supreme Court had a hearing for a public case that dealt with California’s health care providers moving to cut reimbursements for Medicaid care. In 2008 and 2009 the state legislature lowered the amount of possible reimbursements to the health care companies because they were having financial troubles. As expected there was a great fall back on the poor and disabled who are the main beneficiaries of Medicaid. This case isn’t as much about whether the health care cuts are legal because no one has a legal right to Medicaid, but whether or not independent parties have the right to sue to make sure the policy is working the way it should.

There is still however the question of whether or not it’s constitutional. The supreme clause says that the U.S. constitution is the supreme laws of the land and that state judges must follow federal law when there is conflict between state and federal law. Because the U.S. department of Health and Human Services is who enforced the federal law for each state to have an approved plan the change to the plan has been considered unconstitutional. 

Fracking in PA

Now days everyone is concerned Fracking, Is it good for us? Our kids? the environment? Fracking is good and bad in different ways. In a way it can help our economy because it can provide jobs to the society. Not only it can provide jobs but it also can but it can make this nation an independent nation and have its own resource. Even though there are good sides to tracking, there are also bad sides. Fracking can make own water, which we use on the daily basis contaimnated. According to scientist, they show that fracking can lead to gas coming through the pipes which waters comes out from at our homes. 

Fracking is the procedure of creating fractures in rocks and rock formations by injecting fluid into cracks to force them further open. Basically what they're doing in Pennsylvania is that companies such as the gas companies drill water, sand and chemicals deep underground at high pressure. This opens cracks that allows natural gas to flow into the wells. Some homeowners in the drilling areas says that tracking has polluted their water. According to scientist, the homeowners can be right. 

Natural gas or methane is flammable and potentially explosive. Having such dangerous chemicals coming through our pipes to our homes can cause many problems. Problems from drinking water to taking a shower or cooking food. Fracking has its benefits and consequences. 

flaming-water-fracking-natural-gas-us-drinking-water-supply-in-danger-photo_credit-gassland
flaming-water-fracking-natural-gas-us-drinking-water-supply-in-danger-photo_credit-gassland

SCOTUS Case: Howes v. Fields

Johniera McClain

American Government

B band

10/13/11

           

                                    SCOTUS Case: Howes v. Fields

 

Suspects are entitled to Miranda Warnings when they are being questioned about a crime while they are in custody. Was Randall Fields indeed custody when it was not clear that the police officer gave out an Miranda Warning to Fields?

 

            The Miranda Rights refer to the some of the rights that are contained in the Fifth Amendment in the Constitution. As in The Fifth Amendment it states: “Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was a landmark US Supreme Court case. Ernesto Miranda had signed a statement confessing to a crime, but he did not know he had an absolute right to remain silent and not talk to the police, as guaranteed to him by the Constitution, and the police did not inform him of his constitutional right before asking him questions and then having him sign a written confession. His conviction was based entirely on the confession he signed, and not on any independent evidence in the state's possession.”

 

            Fields convicted of several accounts of sexual behavior with a minor that had been affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which upheld the admission of the defendant's’ self incriminating statements that was told to the police officers at the prison while he was serving time for another reason.


            The Sixth Circuit affirmed a districts court’s grant of federal habeas relief on the ground that Fields was in custody when in questioned and that the statements that were said should have been suppressed due to the failure of the officer complying with the Miranda before interrogating Fields.

 
            People on the behalf of the Petitioner Ms. Carol Howes questioned why a prisoner who was mandated to leave his cell to go to another building to answer questions about another crime should not be considered in custody.

 

            Personal belief, is that the petitioner of the case will be what is going to come out of this. Randall Fields was incarcerated at the time due to unrelated reasoning of the circumstance in which he was questioned. Although, why wouldn’t Fields think that he was under the Miranda Custody due to the fact that he was already in the presence of a police officer questioning him? It could go somewhere else though because according to Fields he was under the impression that he was allowed to leave if and when he so chooses and also he was properly given his Miranda warning when by Constitution and particular the Fifth Amendment he was lawfully by right had to have that given to him. It shall be interesting as it all unfolds.

 



SCOTUS Case: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC

The question of this case is, if ministerial exception applies not only to ministers, but teachers that teach at a religious school.

Cheryl Perich had filed a lawsuit against the church and the school for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. She was fired after she became sick in 2004. After a few months, she felt better and was able to work. But when the school urged her to resign, she refused to. So, they fired her.

The representatives believed that ministerial exception, which is under the first amendment in the Constitution, should apply in their case. Ministerial exception is basically gives religions certain rights to control employment matters without the courts interfering.

The funny thing about this case is that, Perich was not a minister. She was offered to be one, but she wasn’t. Also, she wasn’t teaching in a religious nature.

My original thoughts before the case was that, ministerial exception probably wouldn't matter, because as I have read that Perich was not a minister. So, I believed that it wouldn't count towards her. And I also thought that she wasn't hired by the church. And what it turns out to be, ministerial exception didn't apply at all.

Howes v. Fields Docket # 10-680

Natalie Sanchez


My case was Howes v. Fields. It dealer with a young man, Randel Lee Fields, who was imprisoned for a crime that he admitted to have committed. "How could he have ratted himself out like that?" you might be asking yourself. The answer is that he was not read his miranda rights before interrogation. Here's the whole story.  Fields was under custody for disorderly conduct in Lenawee County Sheriff’s Department. On December 23, 2001, Field was escorted form his cell to a conference room by a police guard without handcuffs. Once there, officers Deputy David Batterson and Deputy Dale Sharp began to question him. Fields continued to tell the guards that he did not want to speak with them at that moment, but the guards continued to question him. They told Fields that he was welcome to leave if he wanted. In the end, Field was interrogated for seven hours and told the officers about his sexual relations with a minor. During those seven hours of interrogation, Fields was not read his miranda rights. 


For those of you who do not know, miranda rights are the set of entitlements that must be read to someone before are incarcerated or before are taken into an interrogation. These rights state, “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.”  The Miranda rights are connected to the constitution in that they give the suspect a chance to clear his or her name by pleading the fifth ammendment (or, in other words, keeping their mouths shut). Because he was not read his miranda warning, Fields told the police officers what he did, hence, the Michigan court of appeals charged him with two counts of third degree sexual conduct and was given a term of ten to fifteen years in prison. The Questions in hand are as follows: Was Field's second sentence constitutional? Was the Michigan Court of Appeal’s decision against or in agreement with federal law? More importantly, "
Does federal law automatically require Miranda warnings before questioning jail or prison inmates about issues unrelated to the cases for which they were incarcerated?" This is what congress was debating on October 4, 2011. They wanted to determine whether or not miranda rights should be read to prisoners even when they are being interrogated about a different crime than the one that got them in jail in the first place. 


Now there are two ways to look at this case. You could either justify Field's second jail sentence or deem it unlawful. The side that the Michigan Court of Appeals took was the one that justified Field's second sentence. They argue that 1. Field was under custody for another crime, 2. he was not wearing handcuffs when he was interrogated by the officers, 3. he was interrogated in a conference room, and 4. he was told that he could leave the room whenever he wanted to. Because of these small details,the Miranda rights were not necessary for this case scenario, according to the Michigan Court of Appeals. The other side argues that Miranda rights were created in order to give a suspect the chance to clear his name by not speaking about his or her acts during an interrogation. They argue that the person must be in custody in order to receive their miranda warning; Fields was in custody. Fields also stated that he was treated harshly during the impromptu interrogation, as one of the deputies used intimidation to get him to talk about his offense. The people who think that Field was treated unjustly argue that 1. a suspect in custody should be read their miranda rights, as anything they say can be used against them, 2. that this should happen regardless of what crime the criminal is going to be asked about, and 3. this is the only way that the miranda warning could serve its full purpose. I think that Field's sentence is going to be lifted-his sentence will be deemed unconstitutional. 


I feel like, though he was being asked about another crime he committed, he was tricked into giving information to the officers in a very unlawful way. The fair thing would have been to read Fields his miranda rights so that he would have been given a heads up that he was going to court and that what he was going to say to the officers would be used against him. I feel like Fields was treated unfairly and that he will soon receive justice. 


Sources: 

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0254p-06.pdf

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_10_680%20#

http://www.mirandawarning.org/historyofmirandawarning.html


Howes v. Fields docket No. 10-680

Natalie Sanchez


My case was Howes v. Fields. It dealer with a young man, Randel Lee Fields, who was imprisoned for a crime that he admitted to have committed. "How could he have ratted himself out like that?" you might be asking yourself. The answer is that he was not read his miranda rights before interrogation. Here's the whole story.  Fields was under custody for disorderly conduct in Lenawee County Sheriff’s Department. On December 23, 2001, Field was escorted form his cell to a conference room by a police guard without handcuffs. Once there, officers Deputy David Batterson and Deputy Dale Sharp began to question him. Fields continued to tell the guards that he did not want to speak with them at that moment, but the guards continued to question him. They told Fields that he was welcome to leave if he wanted. In the end, Field was interrogated for seven hours and told the officers about his sexual relations with a minor. During those seven hours of interrogation, Fields was not read his miranda rights. For those of you who do not know, miranda rights are the set of entitlements that must be read to someone before are incarcerated or before are taken into an interrogation. These rights state, “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.”  These rights basically give the suspect a chance to clear his or her name by pleading the fifth (or, in other words, keeping your mouth shut). Because he was not read his miranda warning, Fields told the police officers what he did, hence, the Michigan court of appeals charged him with two counts of third degree sexual conduct and was given a term of ten to fifteen years in prison. The Questions in hand are as follows: Was Field's second sentence constitutional? Was the Michigan Court of Appeal’s decision against or in agreement with federal law? More importantly, "Does federal law automatically require Miranda warnings before questioning jail or prison inmates about issues unrelated to the cases for which they were incarcerated?" This is what congress was debating on October 4, 2011. They wanted to determine whether or not miranda rights should be read to prisoners even when they are being interrogated about a different crime than the one that got them in jail in the first place. Now there are two ways to look at this case. You could either justify Field's second jail sentence or deem it unlawful. The side that the Michigan Court of Appeals took was the one that justified Field's second sentence. They argue that 1. Field was under custody for another crime, 2. he was not wearing handcuffs when he was interrogated by the officers, 3. he was interrogated in a conference room, and 4. he was told that he could leave the room whenever he wanted to. Because of these small details,the Miranda rights were not necessary for this case scenario, according to the Michigan Court of Appeals. The other side argues that Miranda rights were created in order to give a suspect the chance to clear his name by not speaking about his or her acts during an interrogation. They argue that the person must be in custody in order to receive their miranda warning; Fields was in custody. Fields also stated that he was treated harshly during the impromptu interrogation, as one of the deputies used intimidation to get him to talk about his offense. The people who think that Field was treated unjustly argue that 1. a suspect in custody should be read their miranda rights, as anything they say can be used against them, 2. that this should happen regardless of what crime the criminal is going to be asked about, and 3. this is the only way that the miranda warning could serve its full purpose. I think that Field's sentence is going to be lifted-his sentence will be deemed unconstitutional. I feel like, though he was being asked about another crime he committed, he was tricked into giving information to the officers in a very unlawful way. The fair thing would have been to read Fields his miranda rights so that he would have been given a heads up that he was going to court and that what he was going to say to the officers would be used against him. I feel like Fields was treated unfairly and that he will soon receive justice. 

Sources: 

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0254p-06.pdf

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_10_680%20#

http://www.mirandawarning.org/historyofmirandawarning.html

Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association SCOTUS Case

        The case I was assigned to follow was Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association. The state of California has been making cuts to the Medicaid reimbursements and the recipients and providers of Medicaid want to fight against these cuts the state is making. However, this case is not about the arguments against the state, but whether or not these people can even make arguments in the first place. The main constitutional issue in this case surrounds the Supremacy Clause, along with Ex Parte Young. The Supremacy Clause essentially establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as “the supreme law of the land.” So, the states judges must follow laws included in these areas even in state laws conflict with them. If the states don’t follow these laws, then, under Ex Parte Young, the state can be sued. Medicaid and the right of the people to have access to this is clearly stated under the Social Security Act, so the people believe that it is well in the laws of the country for the state of California and its officials to be sued for making cuts that make it harder for some families to get access to the care they need. However, some members of the Supreme Court feel that a new look should be taken at how open the courts should be to claims that states are violating federal law.

California spends more than $41 billion a year on the Medicaid Program (Medi-Cal), and it takes up approximately 13% of the state’s budget. However, California Legislature approved reimbursements cuts in 2008 and 2009 because of the worsening financial crisis. These cuts were between 1% and 10%. So, if looked at under the Supremacy Clause, these reimbursements violated the requirements of the Medicaid law of 1965 that state payments remain “consistent with efficiency, economy and quality of care” and overall sufficient for medical professionals. So, hospitals, unions, and organizations sued.

When the case of whether or not the state can even be sued in the first place reached the Supreme Court on October 3rd, 2011, Justice Stephen G. Breyer argued that if hundreds and hundreds of lawsuits come into the Court saying that the states are not following federal law, then the federal agencies responsible for enforcing these laws will be too overwhelmed with cases to do their “business.” He was quoted as saying, “It’s a mass, in other words.” This is why the Court wants to take a new look at this process of lawsuits because they believe that there will be simply too many to handle. The lawyer for California Medicaid patients and care providers, Carter G. Phillips, argued that he was not fighting for this kind of expansion of litigation, however. He pushed that his intention was to only make sure that people had the right to fight to make sure that federal supremacy is maintained and their “life or death” benefits were safe. He also made the pint that federal courts have been hearing and deciding these cases for generations. However, the Court found merit in what Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler was saying about Medicaid being different since it was a joint enterprise managed by administrative agencies, not the courts. He also argued that he was only trying to make an exception in litigation.

The Supreme Court is not expected to make a ruling until spring of 2012 on this case and the other related cases that were also argued. However, based off of the feeling the court gave (expressed through what I read), there seems to be a good chance that the court may rule against the Medicaid patients and care-givers. They seem to be in favor of making this exception in litigation for this case, which would leave them to depend on federal officials who can only shut off federal funds entirely in this case. I kind of see this as making sense. In this time of economic turmoil and also accessibility of law to citizens, the Courts may just see countless cases like this throughout the United States. By allowed the citizens to sue, the floor will be opened to who knows how many other cases. The courts want to save as much time and energy as possible and keep the system from overflowing. So, while it is in their rights to sue the state for violating federal laws, an exception might just be made by the Supreme Court. 

Maples v. Thomas - Legal Abandonment (Docket 10-63)

Constitutional Question: In the case of Maples v. Thomas, the constitutional question being presented before the Supreme Court is "Whether the Eleventh Circuit properly held that there was no cause to excuse any procedural default where petitioner was blameless for the default, the state's own conduct contributed to the default, and petitioner's attorneys of record were no longer functioning as his agents at the time of any default." In plain English, this is asking weather a prisoner can argue that a death sentence is unconstitutional when proper filing procedures were not followed. This is specifically relevant to the sixth and eighth amendments since they specifically involve congressional proceedings.

Facts of the Case: Cory Maples was arrested and convicted for first degree murder in Alabama. In Alabama, once someone is convicted, they are not given free council. Since he could not afford an attorney, he contacted two New York legislators who would act as his out-of-state council pro-bono. As with any out of state council in Alabama, there needed to be a local council to oversee the case on the local scale. After filing for post-conviction relief (where Maples petitioned the court to have his death penalty overturned), he request was denied. The copy of that denial was sent to the New York lawyers and the Alabama lawyer. However, both of his New York lawyers left their firm, and the ruling was returned to the county clerk. In addition, the Alabama lawyer did not convey the ruling to Maples, since he assumed the New York lawyers would have done so. After not hearing his ruling, he contacted the county clerk who sent a copy of the ruling directly to the prison (where it would be given to Maples). Unfortunately, upon receipt of said document, he noticed that the deadline for him to appeal the petition had already passed. Therefore, he wished to argue that continuing his death sentence would be unconstitutional since he was not given ample time to appeal (due to his lawyers' inability to represent Maples in this scenario).

Summary of the Arguments before the SCOTUS: In the supreme court hearing, the story was conveyed before the court by a representative of Maples to explain the ways in which his appeal deadline should have been extended in this instance (or his case be re-evaluated). Some members of the supreme court questioned whether the court should be punished by having to re-hear the case (taking up the court's valuable time). In addition, the Maples representative reiterated that Maples should not be punished for the abandonment by three responsible lawyers. However, the court did seem be particularly hesitant at the vast implications that a ruling for abandonment could bring.

Prediction: While the court did not want to have huge implications, it appears as though they will side on behalf of Maples. This will probably be done with a complex ruling explaining the numerous factors for abandonment by lawyers to be considered ineffective council (which is prohibited by the sixth amendment).

Lobbying:Continuous inflation of College Tuition

College fees are on a continuing rise. Each year, or mid-year, tuition increases are making it difficult for families to pay for their children's education. As a result some have no choice but to leave their colleges or  knowingly burry themselves in debt. Only to come out of college to pay off loans in an already damaged economy. Universities' aren't getting enough State financial support and are in turn charging more,cutting enrollment, and letting go os staff and teachers. If this stays the same only a small percentage of students will be able to afford graduating college.         
    In today's society it is difficult to be successful in life without a college education. The world needs educated people to continue to function. Without them there will be a shortage of phycisians,lawyers,teachers, and most of all students. Unless changes are made to the educational financial state that colleges are in , there will be a serious drop in qualified individuals to take certain roles in society.
    College students across the country have started to protest against these institutions that continue to raise tuition each year. Regrettably there haven't been many changes to help universities with the ever pressing issue. Eductions needs to be moved up on our nations list of priorities. Starting with a new budget for school districts and Universities all over the country. Students should be able to have a choice to  receive a form of higher learning or not. However, if nothing changes in the nations outlook on education then that option will be taken away for many.

Lobbying against "Rolling Brownouts"

The main things I am lobbying against are budget cuts. But I am leaning more towards a specific type of budget cuts called "rolling brownouts". Which are budget cuts towards firefighters. Because of these budget cuts they are taking away from things like education, policeman, and firefighters. instead of taking away from other particular things they are going after children's education and our safety. Its nuts. My dad is also a firefighter so this specific topic hits closer to home for me.

The main supporters of this are mainly Firefighters, families of firefighters, other people who are being effected by the budget cuts such as: schools, police, ect. Finding the main opponents of this lobbying act was a bit tricky. At the moment I can't find anyone mainly in charge of the budget cuts towards the firefighters. But since the Government is in charge of all the budget cuts, I am guessing a broad answer would be the Government.

I know there are already people lobbying that the school cuts and all the cuts that don't make sense to stop and such. Last year I remember going to Harrisburg and there were a bunch of schools there protesting about the school cuts at how they needed to stop hurting the children's education. I believe there were also many protest about the budget cuts towards the firefighters and the police. But I can not find anything other then protests happening in this area. I would like for the Government to stop cutting the firefighters because taking ladder trucks or engines away from the firehouses are not only putting everyone in more danger then they already are in but also not letting the firefighter do their job. How can you fight a fire without the proper equipment. So it needs to stop.

I am finding a lot of information about incidents that have happened because firehouses did not have the proper equipment for the job. The biggest one I have heard of is a fire that had happened in Olney and two kids had died because one of the firehouses were closed due to budget cuts so a firehouse farther away took the call only to find out that by the time they pulled the two boys out, they were already dead. It tragic and all because the Government is taking away need equipment from some of the men who keep this city safe. It ridiculous, I believe it should be stopped.

Lobbying Topic Guns

-The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. 

-They also feel as though CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS IN SELF-DEFENSE: FLORIDA ADOPTS UNIFORM REGULATIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMITS LAW is also being not use to its fairness so they want to just band guns all together. its states " THE FLORIDA Constitution provides that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms in self-defense and in defense of the state "shall not be infringed."[1] However, "the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law."[2] To further the citizens' right to bear arms in self-defense, during the 1987 Legislative Session the Florida Legislature passed two laws[3] regulating the carrying of concealed weapons and firearms. The broad intent of these laws was to preempt county and local firearms regulation in order to obtain uniformity of laws throughout the state[4] and to allow law-abiding citizens to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons for purposes of self-defense.[5]" 



- Meaning that people have the right to protect them selfs in other words. but what florida wants is to bad guns every where and get rid of them but from all laws that have been made is so that the bear arms in self-defense can be used to help not harm so really what florida want is not in any of the laws because they want to band it all together. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/opinion/pandering-to-the-gun-lobby.html http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Getchell1.htm