Executive Order on Immigration

Forty three Presidents have issued executive orders.  Meaning thousands of executive orders have been given through out our country’s history.  Last night, November 20, 2014 President Obama announced his latest executive order on the topic of immigration.  An executive order is, “a rule or order issued by the president to an executive branch of the government and having the force of law.”  Where does the President get the authority to issue them?

            When congress does not approve of what the executive branch is doing, they only really have two options.  They either rewrite the law or put it in great detail explaining exactly how the executive branch must operate.  Then of course, since the president holds the highest power, he can veto the new bill congress wrote if he disagrees.  Typically for congress to override an executive order they must have two thirds votes.  Congress is less likely to change executive orders that deal with foreign policy, national defense, or the implementation and negotiation of treaties, because these rights are granted to the President under the Constitution.  If any executive order exceeds the Presidents constitutional powers, the orders can be challenged in front of the Supreme Court.  The topic of executive orders is controversial, mainly because people do not believe the President should be able to make a big decision without the consent of the Congress.  This goes against the logic of the Constitution.

            On November 20, 2014 President Obama gave a speech about his new executive order on immigration.  Immigrants have been coming to the United States for over two hundred years, and they are the ones who have made the country what it is today.  Every year thousands of people flood to America, legally and illegally.  Many work and support themselves, while others use up some of America’s resources.  Many people do not like immigrants because they abuse the system and take part in crime.  Recently in Sacramento two police officers were killed by illegal immigrants.  Many say if we closed our borders this whole situation could have been avoided.  Maybe that is true, but not all immigrants are bad.  Many come here to go to school and make a better life for themselves.  They earn enough money to support their family, and also make a contribution to society.  This is why President Obama wants to make it easier for hard working immigrants to earn citizenship.  He stated, “I will make it easier and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates, and entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to our economy, as so many business leaders have proposed.”  Many people see this as good, while others do not agree.  Some people think by doing this, you are taking away a lot of jobs from American citizens.  But the fact is our parents and grandparents were once immigrants.  They are the ones who built this country up.  So, who are we not to allow hard working and determined immigrants into this country?

The Judicial Branch

Millions of court cases are heard each year in the United States.  Thousands of people walk out of the court room doors happy, while the others get hauled off to jail, try to figure out how to pay their fine, or begin to write an appeal.  In the United States court system, the party that loses can appeal to a higher court to see if they will overturn the ruling.  This does not guarantee that the higher court will pick up the case. 

There are three levels of courts, District Court as the trial court, Circuit Court as the first level of appeal, and Supreme Court as the final level of appeal.  Each state has at least one district court depending on population, for example California has four district courts while Montana has one.  Each district court feeds into a circuit court, there are thirteen circuit courts total.  There are twelve geographical circuit courts numbered one through eleven.  The last two are the District of Columbia and the Federal Circuit Court.  The circuit courts only hear cases from their geographical area, except for Federal Court.  The Federal District Court system can hear a case from any area in the United States, but it must be on one of the following topics: patents, international trade, trademark, veteran’s affairs, and a few others.  After the circuit court you have the highest level, the Supreme Court.  Whatever decision is made at the Supreme Court level is the final verdict.  

In the Sixth Circuit Court, which contains Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, three judges recently turned down the same-sex marriage movement.  This is the first time a Federal Appeals Court has ever ruled against same-sex marriage, and this came as a shock to the nation.  Judge Sutton, one of the judges that voted against gay marriage said, “It would now seem, the question is not whether American law will allow gay couples to marry; it is when and how that will happen.”  “More importantly, Judge Sutton made clear that he believes that any straightforward reading of the Constitution in terms of its original meaning would allow the states to regulate marriage and to protect natural marriage as the central organizing principle of human society.”[1]  Although Sutton believes one day gay marriage will become legal, he still firmly stands against it.  Seeing, the Sixth Circuit Court had the courage to stand up to gay marriage, maybe other circuit courts will soon follow suit; changing the dynamics of the same sex marriage movement.

---

[1] http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/11/11/in-defense-of-marriage-and-the-rule-of-law-the-importance-of-making-the-right-argument/  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_mbk0YhLa0 

Perplexed Purple Penguins

           Growing up, “Ladies and Gentlemen” “Boys and Girls” were familiar phrases in my elementary school classroom.  In a Nebraska school district teachers are no longer allowed to refer to their students by their gender, but must refer to them as “Purple Penguins.”  They can no longer have a girls and boys line, but they must line up, for example, by which fruit they prefer apples or bananas.  Teachers must not say or do anything that references a student’s gender.  In the document to the teachers it states, “Always ask yourself . . . ‘Will this configuration create a gendered space?”  Teachers must also have an all gender welcoming classroom.   The point of this is to, “provide education, training and support to help create a gender sensitive and inclusive environment for children of all ages.”

            The instructions for this new policy even go further.  If a teacher hears a child referring to “girls and boys” in a gender specific way, they must interrupt the student so they can learn it is an incorrect statement.  Teachers should ask, “What makes you say that? I think of it a little differently.  Then they should, provide counter-narratives that challenge students to think more expansively about their notions of gender.”  Why is it wrong to refer to someone as a girl or boy, when that is the way God made us?  Why does everybody have to participate in the gender neutral act when there are only a few people who are gender neutral?”   

            At my elementary school each grade would line up in two lines one for girls and the other for boys.  The teachers always referred to us as girls and boys, and when we went to church we had to sit in a boy- girl, boy-girl order.  At recess we played games together where kids played male and female roles.  When we would play games during physical education, our teams would always be the boys’ verses the girls’.  For my first nine years of school I attended a Catholic School, so of course the whole gender neutral concept would not go over to well.  The Catholic Catechism clearly states “Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.  Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.”  I can not imagine growing up where I was never referred to as a girl.  Instead of helping these children, I feel they are just confusing them.        

           

Based on: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/389862/school-told-call-kids-purple-penguins-because-boys-and-girls-not-inclusive 

unHoly Matrimony

            Every day thousands of people get married all over the world.  All of whom come from different countries, beliefs and religious backgrounds, but all ceremonies have one thing in common.  They are performed by marriage officiants, and ordained pastors or priests.  This seems like it would be a happy job, right?  Except for two pastors in Idaho who are left with only two options, they either marry a gay couple which is against their beliefs, or they face jail time and a fine for violating a “non-discrimination law”.  The two Christian pastors have now filed a federal lawsuit to fight this law.       

            “The city says its non-discrimination ordinance requires them to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies because the courts have overridden Idaho's voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.”[1]  First of all, the state went against the majority of the people allowing gay marriage, now they are forcing citizens of the state to marry them.  What happened to freedom?  Secondly, why are pastors forced to marry somebody when it is against their religious beliefs, when non Christian children in school can opt out of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance because it mentions “God”?  Christian pastors should be treated the same as Christian doctors who are able to not offer abortion services do to their religious beliefs.  Lastly, why would a gay couple even want to be married by a Christian pastor who does not accept their life style?        

            There are millions of marriage officiants in the United States that would gladly marry any gay couple, so why don’t they just get married somewhere else?  Our country is different than many others, we have freedom.  We get to make our own decisions, live our own lives, believe in any religion, and choose what we are going to do.  So why is it any different for a Christian pastor who can legally marry couples?  Why can’t they choose who they can marry?  Just as a business can refuse service to certain customers, pastors should be able to choose not to marry gay couples.  The state is taking away these pastors freedom of religion, by having consequences, which are unreasonable.  What would you do if you had to pick between God and a 180 day jail sentence with a thousand dollar fine?  And every time you choose not to do what the government was telling you to do you received 180 more days in jail and had to pay a thousand more dollars.

---

[1] http://www.christianpost.com/news/idaho-pastors-face-jail-time-thousands-in-fines-for-not-performing-gay-weddings-128325/ 

Career vs. Motherhood

          Why do so many women in the United States have an abortion?  Because a baby is not part of her plan at that time, it will lead her career off track and ruin her chance for a promotion at work.  But now if you work for a big company like Facebook or Apple, you will not have to worry about throwing all of your plans in the garbage to have a family, or worrying about being to old to have children.  At the beginning of this year Facebook began covering up to 20,000 dollars worth of egg freezing for all women on their payroll.  Starting January of 2015 Apple will begin to offer this as another one of their lavish benefits.

 Egg freezing, “is a novel technology in which a woman's eggs are extracted, frozen and stored. Later, when she is ready to become pregnant, the eggs can be thawed, fertilized, and transferred to the uterus as embryos.”  Doctors are saying that freezing women’s eggs is just as influential as birth control and may even become more popular.  These companies see it as a great benefit, but I think it is flawed.  Companies make it seem like a wonderful benefit for their employees, when really they are looking out for their best interests.  They do not want to be bothered by their top female employees having a child, and their family coming first, and not to mention their six to eight weeks out of the office.  But hey, at least these companies are thinking before hand and not making their employees feel like they are forced to have an abortion in order to keep their job.  Seriously, your job should never consume your life.  I know it is difficult to work full time and raise a family.  But is a job more important than a family?  What happens when you are sick, and in the hospital who is going to be there for you, definitely not your job?  So why do so many people care so much about getting the next promotion, instead of having a family?

These two companies are pretty much telling their women employees, here we will make sure you can have a family later, but for now we want you to focus all your time and energy on your job.  Why can’t women be mothers at a normal age, while also being an employed?  I believe what these companies are doing is wrong.  First of all, God made women to have children naturally and within a certain time in their life.  And secondly, these companies are convincing their employees that a family can wait, and the next big promotion is what really matters.   Life is not about how much money you make, or what job you have, it is about the people you share it with.  Robert Byrd once said “I look at it this way: One of these days I'll be over in a hospital somewhere with four walls around me. And the only people who'll be with me will be my family.”

A Daughter's Perspective

          Police officers, Firefighters, and Paramedics, all have one thing in common, they are first responders, who put their life at risk each and everyday for the good of other people.  For the first fifteen years of my life, my dad got up each morning, put on his uniform, and badge and left for work.  When police officers leave their house in the morning, they have no idea what challenges they are going to face that day, or if they will return home that night.  They have lots of training, but when faced with dangerous situations they are forced to make split second decisions.  Even a routine traffic stop can turn into on of the most dangerous situations.   So, when I heard on the news that a family was suing two police officers in Indiana for using excessive force, it disheartened me. Why do people have so little respect for police officers?

            Last month officers Lt. Patrick Vicari and Sgt. Charles Turner pulled over a vehicle in Hammond, Indiana, because they noticed the driver and the passenger were not wearing their seatbelts.  The driver, Mahone refused to roll the windows of the vehicle down when the officers approached the car and on top of that she would not show identification, but later showed identification off camera.  When the officers asked the passenger, Jones, for identification, he did not have I.D. with him and refused to write his name down on a piece of paper.  Apparently, he remembered he had his name on a traffic violation ticket in the back seat, and without telling police, he turned and reached for the ticket.  The police officers could not see what he was doing, fearing he was reaching for a weapon; they broke the window and shot him with a stun gun.  Now, a month later Jones is suing the two police officers.  If he and his girlfriend would have shown some respect and followed directions, they could have avoided the whole situation. 

            Do police officers have too much power and authority?  How can we assure they   always use it appropriately?  Should police officers knowingly be able to put themselves in a dangerous situation, then harm that person and call it self-defense?  My dad was a police officer for many years, and most of his friends are also cops.  Growing up around police officers, and seeing them in a work and home environment, I have a strong respect for them and everything they do.  Other people also should have a strong respect and healthy fear for police officers.  They are the people that keep you safe, they walk into a building with a gun man to help hostages escape, they run out in the middle of traffic to pickup big pieces of garbage, and they park their vehicles in dangerous places to block traffic where a car accident has occurred.  They are also the people who write you a ticket for speeding, running a red light, and having a tail light out, but they do this out of concern for safety of you and others.  When they pull you over, they approach a vehicle not knowing who is inside or if they are armed and dangerous.  This is why Lt. Patrick Vicari and Sgt. Charles Turner acted like they did, and when Jones turned to get his parking ticket, they still had no idea who he was; he could have been someone that was armed and dangerous.  So, I think it is absolutely ridiculous that Jones is suing the police officers for excessive force.  What were they supposed to do, wait until Jones had a gun pointed at them to take the kind of action they did?  Jones claims his civil rights were infringed upon, but how?  Does he think this happened because he was African American?  Ultimately, it comes down to him not wanting to do what the police officers asked of him and now he will not take responsibility for his action. He believes the officers owe him, but for what, protecting themselves?  I feel like they are looking for deep pockets and easy money. 

      Now let’s say, someone breaks into Jones’ home, who do you think he is going to call?  He will call the police, probably the same department that Lt. Patrick Vicari and Sgt. Charles Turner work for.  Jones would want the police officers to do everything they could to get that person out of his house even if that meant shooting that person with a stun gun.  But what if the police officers said, “Oh no we can not do that because we might get sued”.  Do we want our police officers thinking about if they would get sued or not before they protect themselves or others?  As a daughter of a police officer, I do not want them thinking about getting sued first; I want them to do whatever they need to do to protect themselves and others, and I am sure many other sons and daughters of police officers feel the same way. At the end of the day we just want our parent’s home safe.            

Based off of http://abcnews.go.com/US/indiana-cops-tasered-man-accused-excessive-force-past/story?id=26051579 

"Yes means Yes'

Rape seems to be a popular topic across all college campuses, but especially in California.  It means “the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.”[1]  “No means No” has been the popular slogan for many years, this phrase was supposed to protect individuals from unwanted sex.  Yes of course, it did save some people, but now the State of California has come up with a new bill and slogan to help prevent rape.

“The California Legislature passed a bill that requires any college that is receiving state-financed student aid to change their policy from “No means No” to “Yes means Yes”.[2]  How exactly does changing a phrase help prevent rape?  “Yes means Yes”, “Now places the burden on the student initiating sex to obtain a “yes,” rather than on the intended partner to convey a “no.”[3]  According to the new law anyone who is drugged, drunk, or unconscious can not consent, and lack of resistance does not count as a yes.  It must be a verbal yes.  Recently, a new app was launched called Good 2 Go, that documents the affirmative consent.  Requirements of the new law compel, “Colleges to provide victims with confidential reporting, counseling and access to a victim advocate. Campus officials investigating rape complaints will have to undergo trauma-based training, too.”[4]

This new law sounds ideal and perfect, but will it actually work?  I have my doubts and so do many others.  Most of the time, when a rape occurs alcohol is a contributing factor effecting one or both parties.  If both partners are drunk is one really more responsible than the other?  Then later if the victim comes forward and says they were raped, how do they prove it?  It still ultimately comes down to her word against his.  Honestly, I feel the government is wasting the tax payers money enacting this new law “Yes means Yes”, when it is going to have approximately the same affect as the “No means No” law.  I believe they should put their resources toward the origin of the problem, and have laws about parties serving alcohol on campus.  Obviously, no matter how many laws or different kinds of laws the government makes, the problem will always still be there because most college kids feel it is their right of passage to party.  But the “No means No” law would work a lot better if the two people were not in an alcoholic fog.

---

[1] www.webster.com 

[2]  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/opinion/california-lawmakers-redefine-campus-sexual-assault.html?_r=0 

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/opinion/california-lawmakers-redefine-campus-sexual-assault.html?_r=0 

[4] http://mashable.com/2014/09/29/yes-means-yes-sexual-consent-law/