Blog Stage:8

Classmate's editorial

I generally agree with your post due to your perspective on illegal immigration; however, I think allowing states to create their own immigration laws may not be constitutionally permissible.

Immigration represents one of the biggest and most controversial problems and concerns in the United States, and in Texas and Arizona these issues are magnified due to the states' proximity with the Mexican border. I completely agree with you that the illegal citizens should not be upset about having to show documentation. If someone is here legally, they should have no problem producing identification upon request. Your point that you had to show documentation while in China demonstrates an important point to the SB 1070 debate, that being that other countries require people to show their citizenship status, so why should it be so controversial in the United States? I think that all people living in the United States should be okay with having to do this since living here legally is required by law and since U.S. citizens must do this in other countries it does not seem to make much sense that we would not have a similar law. However, many would argue that this may not be a relevant argument since those countries' Constitutions and rights differ from those of the United States, and, therefore, would not be pertinent in discussing the legal regulations on illegal immigration in the United States. Moreover, I think that this aspect of 1070 becomes most controversial due to the racial profiling implications that such laws may produce, or some argue even require. While racial profiling and discrimination may be part of the illegal immigration debate, I do not think it is the deciding factor in upholding SB 1070 since it does not relate to whether the states have the power to regulate immigration; rather, it represents a wholly separate constitutional right issue. Therefore, I think that people living in the United States, of any color, and living anywhere, should be held to show their legal right to be in the United States, and the fact that race may come into play should not bear on the constitutionality of a portion of an immigration law when the law is being analyzed as to whether it is constitutional for regulating immigration. Since being in the United States unlawfully is illegal under the United States Constitution and federal laws, law enforcement  should remove those who are breaking this law (as you reference and suggest); therefore, they need to have the ability to determine whether people are in fact in this country legally or illegally in order to uphold and enforce the Constitution.

When you suggest the pairing of federal and state laws to combat illegal immigration, I am unsure if you are suggesting that states should be able to enforce the federal immigration laws (as it seems in your first reference of this idea in your post) or states should be able to make their own laws on immigration in addition to federal laws (as your last sentence seems to imply). I completely agree with the notion that states should be able to have laws that support federal immigration laws and require state actors to do certain things in order to fulfill the end goals of federal laws, such as identifying someone unlawfully in the United States and reporting them so that they may be removed. Since those state laws would still be working to enforce federal immigration laws passed by Congress, I think that would likely be constitutional. However, if the state were to create its own laws on immigration, rather than enforcing a federal law through specific means by the state, I think the state would be violating the Constitution since the power to create immigration laws remains with Congress, not the states.

Overall, I agree with most of your argument and think your point that it "is the law" to be in the United States legally is key to this debate. Since there are federal laws to the effect that people should not be in the United States unlawfully, I agree that should be at the thrust of decisions in this area, rather than "basic notions of fairness" that Obama states, as you reference.

Wrong issue at hand

The ability of states to enact and enforce their own immigration laws represents one of the most current and controversial issues in national government, as evidenced by the fact that the Supreme Court heard arguments on Arizona’s S.B. 1070 this week. Litigation over the various state immigration laws exemplify federalism issues since the primary debate is whether states are preempted from enacting such laws due to federal law governing immigration. While I agree with the notion that the federal government is in charge of immigration, I think portions of these state laws should be upheld since they are enacting laws to enforce current federal immigration laws, rather than creating new immigration laws.

The portion of S.B. 1070 requiring Arizona state police officers to check the immigration status of those arrested and detained seems reasonable. Since Arizona faces one of the highest populations of illegal immigrants, it makes sense that the state legislature felt the need to create laws to combat that problem. It especially makes sense that Arizona has an interest in checking if those committing crimes, which would lead to them being arrested and detained, are illegally in the United States. Requiring police officers to check the status of arrestees and then notifying the federal authorities does not seem to overstep any boundary since the police officers are not then taking matters into their own hands and deciding to deport those immigrants. Arizona would still be respecting federal law and congressional authority over immigration by turning over those found to be unlawfully in the United States. One could even argue that they are assisting the federal government in enforcing federal law, which should be encouraged.

This portion of the law becomes more difficult when considering the fact that the police officers choosing to confirm the citizenship status of the arrestee is to do so when they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully in the United States. One of the reasons state immigration laws are criticized by many relate to the proposition that they encourage racial profiling. Many protest the Arizona law arguing this would lead to racial and ethnic profiling because Arizona police officers would use being of Hispanic race or ethnicity as “reasonable suspicion” since most illegal immigrants in Arizona are from Mexico. They argue S.B. 1070 encourages racial profiling, a known problem in the United States justice system needing change. However, racial profiling has nothing to do with an argument based on federal preemption. Racial profiling has long led to many problems, but would not be a reason to prohibit states from enacting immigration laws because the Constitution promulgates power over immigration to Congress. The issue of racial profiling would need to be argued under other theories, which do not relate to the separation of federal and state powers. In fact, the Supreme Court did not allow any of those types of arguments when hearing the Arizona case.

The arrest and detain portion of S.B. 1070 seems constitutional under federal preemption theories. Nonetheless, the more controversial portions of S.B. 1070, such as making it a state crime to seek work if unlawfully in the country, along with the racial profiling issue may be stricken by the Supreme Court, but not due to federal preemption.

Blog Stage:6

Classmate's article

I respectfully disagree with this student's argument because the reasoning seemingly only comes from the fact that she, as well as most, want people to have health insurance. The Affordable Care Act is controversial in many ways, but the controversy does not focus on some people arguing people shouldn't have insurance (aside from the argument that not all people want to participate in the health insurance market, and therefore should not be forced to). I think this blog post is simplifying the debate and missing the critical issues. The Affordable Care Act is potentially problematic due to constitutional and financial issues. The biggest problem seems to be the individual mandate and tax penalty issues, which this blog post did not address. The individual mandate and tax penalty imposed if one does not purchase the required insurance stem from complicated constitutional law issues, which seem to be the critical issues that the Supreme Court focused on during the case arguments; therefore, I believe that the debate really hinges on those issues, and how the Supreme Court decides the case. Unfortunately, most people do not understand this part of the debate too well because of the legal complexity, which is why many people are outraged because they just want healthcare. However, the way in which the legislation was written and the "penalty" it would impose seem to be the real issue. I recognize that many people are not digging into these issues because of their complexity, and due to the complexity, they are not readily explained and found in the media. I wish there were more educational articles about the Act that explain how the mandate and penalty are constitutionally problematic because then people wouldn't see those opposing the Act as people who don't want others to have health insurance, because that is simply not the crutch of the issue.
The student does mention the financial part of the debate, and how the Act raises concerns because it would increase the national debt. However, this part of the argument is also much more complicated, and requires a great deal of financial analysis. Also, the student didn't raise the main argument typically used here (and argued before the Supreme Court), that people who do not currently have health insurance are causing more stress on the economy and national debt because of the high bills that must be paid for by the government when they do seek health care. However, that argument also ties into complex arguments about whether someone can claim they "do not participate" in the health care market, and therefore, would not cause such stress on the economy, which is countered with arguments that everyone at some time in their life would use the health care system, so remaining uninsured ultimately will cause economic harm. I think this argument is also complicated because it revolves around more constitutional issues involving the Commerce Clause, which once again is not easily explained or addressed in most media articles on this debate.
Ultimately, the Affordable Care Act represents a complicated piece of legislation that is not easily understood by most Americans. Consequently, it has turned more into a polarized issue where people seem to take a simplified Republican or Democratic side, without really understanding the legal issues and why the law may be stricken, in whole or part, by the Supreme Court.

Iran, Iran...

The United States should continue to pressure Iran to put an end to its nuclear program by imposing tougher sanctions, including an embargo on petroleum oil, if necessary.

 While Iran is one of the world’s leading oil producers and sanctions which would lead to Americans losing oil supplies from Iran, the United States needs to take a strong stand against nuclear production in Iran, as well as other countries such as North Korea. Despite the potential problems from losing Iran’s oil, the very real implications and possible devastation resulting from an Iranian nuclear program far outweigh the financial effects due to the lack of Iran’s oil.

 While losing that oil supply poses financial problems and possible higher gas prices for Americans, those could be offset by using oil from other counties and reserves. The United States could dip into its own reserves in a time of crisis if the Iranian sanctions and possible embargo were to lead to such a crisis. Even if the United States could not make up for the missing supply by using domestic oil, it could still import oil from other foreign countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, to offset the amounts it would no longer purchase from Iran.

The fact that the European Union is taking a similar stance on sanctioning Iran for its nuclear actions further supports the need for the United States to impose higher sanctions, and an embargo if Iran continues to work on nuclear projects after the United States imposes the sanctions. After the devastation and destruction suffered in Japan after the nuclear power plant incident in 2011, nuclear consequences are readily known to the world. Japan is still recovering from that event, and it was an event merely from a power plant, not nuclear weapons which Iran may be developing. The simple possibility that they could be developing nuclear weapons, or nuclear projects having the same amount of nuclear energy, rightfully does put the United States and Europe on guard. That type and amount of nuclear power could be devastating to the entire planet, and it is simply not worth the risk to let Iran continue such a project. Sanctions and an embargo should be used before launching any kind of attack on Iran because it is much safer, and it allows for more times to possibly have talks with Iran. The main concern with continuing to impose higher sanctions and an embargo would be the possibility that it would actually help Iran financially by causing their oil prices to increase with countries eventually purchasing oil from them. Nonetheless, the United States and European Union should continue to impose sanctions because at this point it is the safest and least costly route. It would be reckless to launch an attack that may lead to the exact type of devastation the United States wants to prevent Iran’s nuclear program from causing.

The author’s blog claims that Obama is not to blame for rising gas prices in America, and Republicans are incorrectly blaming Obama as a way to boost their presidential campaigns. I believe the author intended his audience to be liberals and environmentalists since he negatively criticizes Republicans and dismisses their arguments, sometimes without much evidence. The author seems like a credible source for a liberal blog since he explains the issues in the manner geared to liberal readers while supporting them with evidence for the most part. However, I found him to be less credible on the points where he simply stated Republicans were in it for the money without fully addressing their arguments.

The author claims that there are four prominent “lies” that Republicans are proclaiming regarding Obama and the rising gas prices. First, the author claimed that Republicans are inaccurately placing the blame for gas prices on Obama when the real problem is the fact that the United States does not have enough oil itself and the rise in gas prices is a result of issues between Saudi Arabia and China. To make this point the author points out how many barrels of oil the U.S. produces itself and how much it gets from the largest producer, Saudi Arabia. He further states that the most logical explanation for the gas prices comes from the fact that Saudi Arabia is the largest producer of oil and China is the most desperate consumer, meaning that Saudi Arabia can keep rising the prices because China must, and will, purchase oil at whatever price Saudi Arabia sells it at. I think the author’s explanation is very logical and pints to specific evidence, including numerical evidence of barrels produced. Additionally, I think it makes sense how China’s demand can have such an effect on gas prices worldwide, especially since Saudi Arabia is such a dominant seller.

Second, the author claims that Republicans are incorrect in stating that Obama has no energy plan, and he quotes Obama recently proclaiming his energy plans to use other forms of energy to make the U.S. self-sufficient. While the author does have evidence in the quote by Obama stating his policy and Bloomberg stating America is the closest it has been to energy self-sufficiency in nearly twenty years, I did not find that particularly persuasive. Since it is a quote by Obama himself stating his plan, that does not demonstrate that Obama has actually implemented a plan that is right now doing much to make America more self-sufficient, which I think is the root of the Republican criticism.

Third, the author argues that Republicans live by the mantra of “drill, baby drill,” and criticize Obama for not doing more domestic drilling to effectuate energy self-sufficiency. The author claims Republicans are wrong on this point because even if Obama did drill in the ANWR, it would take ten years for it to be used as gasoline. Moreover, the author argues that increasing the use of natural gas, as Republicans urge, is too dangerous and would lead to disastrous environmental consequences. I think the author’s evidence and logic do support his points that those specific solutions offered by Republicans may not be sound; however, I think he dismisses natural gas solutions too quickly, and he did not address oil drilling suggestions by Republicans in areas other than ANWR.

Fourth, the author states that Republicans claim that Obama does not have an effective energy strategy because he has exaggerated the potential environmental consequences. The author criticizes this Republican argument by purporting that Republicans have no energy strategy and are only interested in the oil and gas industry because those companies largely support Republicans financially. I think the author’s evidence of how much the oil and gas industry contributes to Republicans does support his argument that Republicans want to continue to pursue those industries. However, I think the author should consider other evidence of why Republicans want to pursue those industries, perhaps job creation and the abundance of those resources. It seems his logic there may be too liberal-biased. Furthermore, he did not address whether or not the environmental consequences were exaggerated; he should have put on evidence explaining more about the detriment to the environment if he disagrees with that part of the Republican argument.

Author's Blog Entry

The author most likely intended the “Reform and Corporate Taxes” article for Americans interested in tax reform and who are already somewhat informed about the current system. I also think the author intended this as an informative article for readers who pay corporate tax and are interested in how the 2012 presidential election may affect the corporate tax system. Since the author discusses the Obama Administration’s plan and framework, while noting at the end of the article Republican nominee hopeful Romney’s suggested corporate tax rate, it seems to be informative on the candidates’ plans.

The article claims that corporate tax reform is needed; however, in order to drop the rate, proposals must offer specific trade-offs and explain how the drop would be made up for by explicitly mentioning which loopholes would be dropped, while including numerical data. The author claims that Obama’s proposal is not enough since dropping the rate and eliminating the proposed loopholes would not bring up enough revenue. Obama’s plan suggests dropping the current rate from 35 percent to 28 percent and eliminating many of the current loopholes in the corporate tax system. The author thinks that dropping the rate that much cannot be made up for simply by dropping subsidies. The author considers the framework to also have shortcomings related to taxing foreign profits. While it does call for a minimum on foreign earnings of American profits, it does not go further with foreign profits which could result in more revenue for the U.S. government by requiring multinationals pay more. Although the author sees shortcomings in Obama’s current proposal, he thinks it is more viable than Republican suggestions since they did not mention specific ways to pay for the tax cut. He did mention that Romney did propose dropping the rate to 25 percent by “broadening” the corporate base; however, Romney did not mention any specific loopholes he would end.

The author seems to be credible in writing this general survey-type article informing the audience of the big issues and explaining the possible contrast in Obama’s plan and a Republican plan. The article does not discuss a great deal of information or complex information, but since I think he was trying to provide the audience with an overview, his evidence and logic seem sufficient. Most of the evidence he included was actually the lack of specific evidence presented, which seemed to logically support the article’s proposition that detailed specifics need to be included in these proposals from Obama and Republican candidates. I did think the evidence contrasting the corporate tax on foreign earnings of American companies and foreign profits added to his argument. The fact that he did mention a few of the loopholes that Obama specifically mentioned, (ending subsidies for oil and gas explorations, corporate jets, and private equity partners) was helpful in exemplifying things that would have to be eliminated in order to drop the tax rate. I would have liked to have seen the author suggest some other loopholes that could be cut or possibilities that candidates may propose. The article seemed logical since he stated the problem that the President faces in dropping this rate and how the public needs to be informed by highlighting current proposals.

NY TIMES NEWS ARTICLE

The Affordable Care Act mandated that employers' health insurance plans provide women with contraception free of charge; however, after objections from religious groups, the Obama administration recently called for a change in which certain religious and non-profit organizations would not have to pay for contraception since it would upset their principles. Instead, the health insurance companies will have to directly offer contraception coverage to their employees.

In January 2012, the Obama administration declared that religious-affiliated employers would have to provide contraception as a form of preventative care for female employees. The Catholic Church, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Republican leaders called on Obama to make a change since the mandate would have interfered with their religious freedom. Archbishop Timothy Dolan was pleased and hopeful with Obama’s decision to revise the mandate, but stated that the Church would need to see the details, and would work with the Obama administration. Other religious officials continue to object to the policy for non-religious reasons, while others have called on Obama to insert a clearer definition exempting the concerned religious organizations. General Counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops suggests the provision should be removed completely instead of making an amendment for Catholic employers and their insurers. Many Democrats on the other side of the debate called for Obama to stand firm on the rule to protect women’s health.

I recommend reading this article since the health care debate is such a relevant topic. The contraception issue demonstrates just one objection to the law. This issue and the Obama administration’s decision to amend the mandate quickly after opposition illustrate how important of an issue the new health insurance law and its implications are. 

Obama to change birth control rule