|
|
Post by Mr. Kruzich on Sept 14, 2016 7:41:38 GMT -6
CURRENT EVENTS! All of you have signed up to post & present a Monday current event. Current events should be online sources, legitimate articles from reputable sources, of a "decent length," and related to government or politics (local, state, national, or international). When you post, you should do the following: 1. Write the title of your article, and hyperlink the online source 2. In 1-2 paragraphs, summarize your article. Answer the 5 "W's" and provide any necessary details & explanations. Somebody reading your summary should not be left with questions about what happened. 3. In 1 paragraph, discuss one aspect of the article that relates to something we've covered in class. 4. In 1 additional paragraph, write a reflection. This could be sharing an opinion, predicting what the event will mean to the future, or asking additional questions that you'd like to see answered. Basically, do some processing of your topic. *Current events will be worth 20 points. I will not only expect your topic to be covered completely and accurately, but I will expect your responses to be academic and professional. Use well-developed paragraphs with proper spelling and grammar. Your posts are due at the beginning of the class period for presentation points (5 of the 20). Posts that are late cannot have the presentation points made up. Posts after your posting week will not be accepted. These are hard deadlines. *Each student is responsible for 4 responses to articles throughout the semester. These must be done throughout the semester... one by the end of September, one by the end of October, one by the end of November, and one before our final exam. These are hard deadlines. You may work ahead and get them done. These responses should: 1. Be 1-2 well-developed paragraphs. 2. Add something additional to the article that isn't in the summary or previous responses 3. Demonstrate clearly that you read the actual article, and not just the summary 4. Be timely- within one week of the actual posting of the article. *Responses are 10 points each. Why are we doing this? Because our district standards say we must. Happy reading, happy writing! |
|
|
|
Post by Megan Reinke on Sept 17, 2016 8:49:48 GMT -6
www.studentnewsdaily.com/daily-news-article/new-hampshire-to-defend-ban-on-ballot-box-selfies-in-court/New Hampshire to defend ballot-box selfies in court Up until 2014, there has been a ban of taking pictures of your completed voting ballot and posting it online. Although, many people who opposed this ban quickly argued that it violated the First-Amendment of the Constitution about free speech. One New Hampshire voter, in October 2014, sued after posting his ballot online with his dog's name as his vote as a joke because he was upset with his options. In August of 2015, Judge Paul Bardaboro declared the law unconstitutional. Quickly, the state appealed issuing the case to be transferred to US Court of Appeals in Boston which was heard on September 13th, 2016. New Hampshire argued that this risks vote-buying while New Hampshire voter argued it increases civic engagement. This article very well relates to what we are covering in class. First off, it deals strongly with the the Judicial branch. We discussed the court system and what happens if one chooses to appeal a ruling on a case. A prime example of this is when New Hampshire disagreed with Judge Paul Bardaboro and sent the case to a higher court. It also leads into our next unit: the Constitution. This article discusses the first amendment, specifically freedom of speech. Personally, I believe banning citizens from posting a picture of the ballot on social media is a violation to the first amendment. New Hampshire argues, there is a risk to vote-buying, but I think this is a very slim risk. The risk will always be there. States nor the national government has any right to draw a line on our first amendment. I believe the US Court of Appeals will agree with the New Hampshire voter. I have a lot of respect for this New Hampshire voter, as it takes a lot of guts and confidence to go up against the State for what you believe in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Abby Smith on Sept 18, 2016 17:38:09 GMT -6
www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17433451/late-appeal-moves-nfl-concussion-case-supreme-courtLate appeal sends NFL concussion case to Supreme Court Head injuries raise a huge concern to all football players active in the sport. One NFL family specifically has been greatly impacted after losing their son due to a head injury, Buffalo Bills fullback Carlton Gilchrist. The family has filed a last-minute appeal in the NFL concussion case, and has sent a settlement to the U.S Supreme Court that has pushed back payout for several months. The family asked a higher court to review the case because the lead lawyers approved the potential $1 billion dollar settlement without challenging scientific evidence by both sides. A settlement this big settled without scientific evidence that left the family and many astonished. The attorney of Gilchrist's family believes that the lead lawyers simply approved without challenging any evidence in this case for the expected $112 million in fees. The family originally sued the NFL because his 2011 death showed him having chronic traumatic encephalopathy, which researchers link with football concussions. The player lawsuits accused the NFL of hiding what it knew about the link between concussions and CTE. This article is very relateable to what we are learning in class. First being when we reviewed the three branches of government. Regarding this case, the Judicial branch. In class, we reviewed what the Judicial branch's purpose role in our government. Another prime example is when we spent time learning about Iowa's Supreme Court. This article gives another case and an example to how Supreme Court can have a huge impact. Personally, I believe that Gilchrist's family has every right to appoint this case to the Supreme Court. I agree to the fact that it was astonishing to know such a big case that has so much at stake was settled without a single piece of evidence. As popular as the NFL is, this case could have and still could ultimately change the way football is being played all across America. It is very telling how much power the Supreme Court really has in this case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olivia Sandquist on Sept 25, 2016 13:48:00 GMT -6
www.cnn.com/2016/09/18/politics/john-kerry-russia-syria-ceasefire/index.htmlRussia 'is warned' about tampering attempts on US election systems. With the 2016 presidential elections coming up, the US government is very worried about these elections being tampered by Russians. The US and Russia have never truly been on good terms,but the US has reasons to believe that they are trying to rig the 2016 elections. Current president Barack Obama has made it very clear to Russia that any tampering whatsoever will not be tolerated. However, our two countries are having other difficulties because they are both trying to help in Syria. In Syria, there is currently a civil war, so Russia and the US are having troubles deciding which side to defend. Both countries are now trying to work together to defend the Syrians against the terrorist groups. This article mostly has to do with our executive branch. It talks about a lot of decisions that were by our president. It's the president's job to handle affairs with foreign countries and make decisions when it comes to the military. All of these duties we discussed in class. Our election system is very complex, so I doubt that there will be any issues with the election being tampered with, especially after President Obama's warning. However, I feel that the military does need to be careful when it comes to working with the Russians because our two countries have never worked well together, I don't think that we should fully trust them after the threatened to tamper our elections. In the end it's about helping Syria, but we also have to look out for ourselves especially during such a crucial time period for our government.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen McDaniel on Sept 26, 2016 11:20:32 GMT -6
www.cnn.com/2016/09/21/politics/obama-congress-saudi-9-11-bill/Obama vetoes controversial 9/11 bill This article is about President Obama vetoing the controversial bill allowing the families of victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia over the terror attacks of 9/11. The "Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Attacks" was passed because of the pressure from victims families. This bill was passed with enough support, that they believe they should have enough to override President Obama's veto. Obama has vowed to reject it stating that it could "open US diplomats and service-members to lawsuit". However, both Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress say that the veto will be overridden. If there is a successful override, it will be the first override in Obama's presidential career, which has included 12 vetoes. This connects to our class because we discussed veto and overrides as a part of the checks and balances of the Legislative and Executive branch. In my personal opinion, I believe that the families of 9/11 victims should be allowed to take legal action against the Saudi Arabian government. Knowing of the attack or not, they should be held accountable for the group who planned and executed the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Those that were affected from the loss of loved ones or friends, and those left mentally scared should be allowed to blame and take legal action against the Saudi Arabian government.
|
|
|
|
Post by Becca Muhlenbruck on Sept 27, 2016 11:04:25 GMT -6
After reading Stephen’s article, “Obama vetoes controversial 9/11 bill,” what I found most interesting about this article was the European Union’s response to the bill and why they requested that Obama veto it. According to the article, “The European Union is of the view that the possible adoption and implementation of the JASTA would be in conflict with fundamental principles of international law and in particular the principle of State sovereign immunity.” In class we had talked about popular sovereignty, but I did not know what State sovereign immunity was; I looked it up and learned that it is a legal doctrine by which the state cannot commit a legal wrong, therefore being immune from civil suits or criminal charges. Based on what the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act wants to accomplish, family members of 9/11 victims being able to sue Saudi Arabia, this would seem to violate State sovereign immunity. I can see why Obama chose to veto the bill, as it could open US diplomats to lawsuits and potentially lead “other States [to] seek to adopt similar legislation, leading to a further weakening of the principles of State sovereignty immunity.” However, I do believe that the families of the victims deserve some kind of compensation or at least acknowledgement by those responsible for the attacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin Heimer on Sept 28, 2016 20:14:17 GMT -6
Response to Olivia Sandquist
I agree the US should be worried about interference in the upcoming election because our next president will come into office dealing with a civil war in Syria. The government needs to be careful with emerging technologies and voting electronically. Sticking to traditional voting eliminates a a possible threat. Besides the election America is concerned about Russia not doing a good enough job to enforce a ceasefire in Syria. Russia is doing a poor job of getting humanitarian aid to some of the hardest hit areas in Syria. It will be interesting to see how the new president handles this tricky situation in Syria.
|
|
|
|
Post by Collin Maahs on Sept 28, 2016 22:03:16 GMT -6
Response to Stephen McDaniel:
After reading this article, I find it interesting that both Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress can agree so much on something yet not have the same opinions as the President. However, it looks like a few are having seconds thoughts, some of which are Republicans of congress, whom could possibly stop the override. It will be interesting to see what happens after the veto is finally signed. Additionally, the point made by Paul Ryan in the article stood out to me. He said, "I worry about trial lawyers trying to get rich off this." This makes me wonder what kind of case could even be made against Saudi Arabia, how much money could they get from this or would it even work, and would lawyers really take advantage of a situation dealing with 9/11? As with Stephen and Becca, I believe the families should indeed receive some kind of relief, even 15 years after the incident.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chase Van Blair on Sept 28, 2016 22:14:44 GMT -6
In response to Olivia's article, I don't believe that Russia has the ability to tamper with the election because the president is elected by the electoral college. Sure they could stuff the ballot box and win the popular vote with the citizens, but if I'm correct, that doesn't have any effect on the election itself. Russia in itself seems to be a weird country, for example: housing snowden after being banned from the United States. They obviously aren't trying to get on our good side, so I can understand if they refuse to cease fire with Syria for just that reason. If they were truly in this to help, they would enforce a cease fire, and provide humanitarian aid to the devastated cities and people in Syria.
|
|
|
|
Post by Katelyn McNaughton on Sept 29, 2016 19:15:48 GMT -6
After reading Olivia's article, I am surprised that tampering with our election would even be a possible thing. I don't think Americans really have to worry about Russia tampering with our election, especially after Obama was informed. He is probably keeping a close eye on the polls and has many people securing it. Russia on the other hand is something I think we should definitely keep a very close eye on and make sure we look out for ourselves while helping with the Syrian civil war. In reality, the Americans votes really don't make a difference in the overall election. Presidents are elected by the electoral college, not the people. The Secretary of State, John Kerry, explains that there is really only two options when dealing with Syria. Americans either need to negotiate with Syria and end in a ceasefire, or they need to fight harder to get this war over with. Personally, I think it would be beneficial to try and bring Syria to a ceasefire and try to come to a negotiation to stop the fighting in Syria.
|
|
|
|
Post by misty jackson on Sept 29, 2016 20:01:27 GMT -6
While reading the Russia is warrant article they mentioned how Russia has been warned about messing with the American election results. They were warned on many occasions and they have to keep their eyes open because Russia has not agreed to everything, but the also like them to. While Russia and the US agree on whose side they take in the Syrian civil war. There still very concerned. They are still very concerned that Russia might tamper with the election. Russian Syria or not taking the cessfirer seriously and there's no good way to actually stopped it.
Kerry stated that one option to moving forward would be having negotiation. We have an agreement based on specific steps but not trust even though the Pentagon wants to trust that Russia will help in for cessfirer. This article raised some interesting questions because there are a lot of questions unanswered.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nolan Delanoit on Sept 30, 2016 8:36:25 GMT -6
While reading Olivia's article about Russia tampering with the US election system. I believe we don't have to worry about the Russians tampering with our election because how complex the election system is. I also think they won't try to tamper with it because they don't want to worsen our relationships with our 2 countries. On the other hand we should take this seriously because any type of threat should be seen as a real threat. If they succeed it could mean we don't have a cease fire with Syria.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cassidy Long on Sept 30, 2016 9:19:37 GMT -6
Response to Stephen McDaniel:
After reading Stephen's article, "Obama vetoes controversial 9/11 bill," I found it very interesting that Obama has issued 12 vetoes throughout his presidency, but if this one gets overrode, it will be the first veto that Obama has been overrode in. This is very interesting to me because in my opinion, this proves how good of a president Obama is because this shows how many good decisions he has made and how many people agree with him, because no one has decided to override one of his vetoes so far in his presidential career. Something I learned from this article is that the president has only 10 days to make the decision of if he should make the veto or not, and for some reason the White House is wanting to keep it's options open by waiting nearer to the deadline of when to make it. This makes a lot of sense to me because they do not want to make a mistake, but I also didn't know that they would wait as long as they possibly could.
I personally think that the families of 9/11 victims should not be able to sue Saudi Arabia, because in my opinion, it just would make many more people angry about 9/11 and it will bring up many of the harsh feelings that people have been holding back from this event. Although what happened many years ago is very terrible and many family members were lost, I do not think suing Saudi Arabia is the right way to handle it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jenna Jones on Sept 30, 2016 11:25:11 GMT -6
In respond to Olivia's post,I agree that it would be difficult to rig the presidential election because of the complexity of our voting system. However, because a threat has been placed I think its smart they are placing additional security to protect this election in making sure it is accurate and fair. If Russia were to tamper with the election it would only worsen the relations between the two countries making it even more difficult to work together in Syria. I don't believe that Russia will follow through with this threat especially after the president and the people of the United State have bee informed of the threats. Before reading this article I wasn't sure how things in Syria were. I have very little knowledge on what is happening in that country and this article gave me a little more information than I previously had.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spencer Roach on Sept 30, 2016 13:50:13 GMT -6
In respond to Olivia's post, I agree that it would be very difficult for Russia to rig the Presidential election because of how complex our election system is. But, since Russia has placed a threat I think it would be smart that they are placing more security for this election, so that both Trump and Clinton have an accurate and fair chance. Going on to Syria, if Russia were to tamper with our election it would only hurt our relationship with them and helping Syria. I personally don't believe that Russia will follow through with their threat because the President and the people have been highly informed about the situation. Going back to Syria I had no clue what was going on there but thanks to reading this article, I now have a better understanding of the situation.
|
|
