100 words each question
The Constitutional issue I will discuss will be the birthright citizenship dispute. The courts dispute whether natural-born refers to territorial, blood, or some combination. The Citizenship Clause is the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, and it reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.” According to President Trump “So-called Birthright Citizenship, which costs our Country billions of dollars and is very unfair to our citizens, will be ended one way or the other. It is not covered by the 14th Amendment because of the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ Many legal scholars agree,” I believe in controlling citizenship by allowing the parents to become citizens but to revoke citizenship already granted to children of illegal immigrants is out of the question. As a Supreme Court Justice that part would be denied, you will not be able to remove any citizens from my country.
Good evening Class/Dr. B.,
With Abortion laws being at the center of many debates these days I was not surprised to find a recent case out of North Dakota where a Federal Judge temporarily blocked a law that requires physicians to giver their patients inaccurate information about the effects of abortion. The law stated that patients must be told that the effects of abortion drugs can be reversed and that the procedure will terminate the life of a “whole, separate, unique, living human being” as part of informed consent.
U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Holland wrote that this law was “unsound, misplaced, and would not survive a constitutional challenge under any level of scrutiny.” The law clearly is more in favor of those who are against pro-choice. Requiring that Physicians give misleading information to patients that contradicts medical science and their practices is a violation of the physicians First Amendment Rights to speak freely to their patients. Personal opinions aside, I agree with the decision that the Judge made in this case. The Supreme Court would potentially be looking at an even bigger issue if they place these type of requirements on Physicians, especially if the information being provided is misleading. If I was Supreme Court Justice and this case made it to my Court I would have to first ask what ground did the state even have for this to have been passed as a law in the first place. I understand that patients should be given lots of information before these types of serious procedures, but when a law leans more in favor of certain political groups and violates rights of certain people we must scrutinize it’s origin and motive. Thanks for any comments/feedback! -Tierra
A pending case that still has to be resolved is New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., et al. V. City of New York, New York, et al. In this pending case, New York (state) enforces gun owners to be licensed within the State. For the citizens that live within New York City, the individual or organization responsible for granting such license is the police commissioner for the city. His or her responsibility is to review the application and ensure the applicant does not have adverse mental health history, criminal history, or history of poor moral character. The issue brought up in this case is the “premise” license, in which it allows the licensed owner to have and possess a weapon(s) in his or her dwelling. The issue with this permit is that although it allows for owners to transport their weapons, in accordance with established laws, to authorized shooting ranges within city limits, it prevents a licensed owner to transport his or her weapon, within established policy outside of New York City limits.
The district level courts ruled that it does not violate a citizen’s second amendment right, but it merely regulated rather than restricts the right to possess a firearm in the home. From a constitutional perspective, I believe New York City’s law should be updated to allow a law abiding citizen who has been approved to maintain a premise carry, to be allowed for that individual to transport his or her weapon, directly to and from an authorized small arms range, even if its outside the city’s limit, unloaded and in a locked container, with ammunition separated. This is the policy that must be followed when transporting a weapon in New York City.
If I was sitting on the Supreme Court, I would vote that it is a violation of a citizen’s second amendment right “to have and bear arms”. For example, other states have open carry (in most places), within their entire state. New York State has their law, but New York City is further restricting a citizen’s second amendment right.