Wednesday March 28, 2012
Today Martha and I got to present Chapter 13 of "Major Problems in American Constitutional History." Our topic was Freedom of and Freedom from Religion. At first, I was not that interested in the topic because I do not have much interest in the topic. However, the text did a good job illustrating different problems between religion and government over the years. It even had court cases from the 21st century. I also was able to relate to some of the issues that were brought up, such as saying "One nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance and having a "moment of silence" at the beginning of each school day because these issues became major problems when I was in high school.
Before we even started our discussion I reminded the class that many people came to America for religious freedom, yet they were intolerant of others. Also, according to the text, religion was not that big of an issue until the 1940s when new immigrants brought a lot more diversity.
Document 1 dealt with the court case of Engel v. Vitale. This case dealt with a city in New York when the government created a prayer and had school children recite it every day. The prayer was, "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen." This case determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage it to be said in public schools. However, some officials still believed that this prayer was worded so vaguely that it did not promote any particular religion, and therefore, did not violate the First Amendment. I find it funny that some people thought that back then. Today, we have many different religions in this country who do not pray to one god, but either several or none at all. Back in 1962 when this case was happening, however, there must not been as many different religions with multiple gods. Either way, government officials cannot create a prayer and make school children recite it (especially because we all know how gullible children are...).
We also looked at the court case from 1985 Wallace v. Jaffree. In this case Jaffree was a parent of 3 children. An Alabama law authorized teachers to set aside one minute at the start of each day for a moment of "silent meditation or voluntary prayer." In this case the teachers were leading prayers and the students was saying them out loud in unison. Jaffree said it violated the First Amendment and that his children were subject to carious acts of religious indoctrination. When his children did not recite the prayer they were ostracized from their peers/classmates. In the end, the Supreme Court said the law was unconstitutional in a 6-3 vote.
The last document was talked about today (we ran out of time to discuss the essays) was document 7. This was the court case of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002). Public schools in Cleveland, Ohio were deemed failures by the federal government. The Pilot Project Scholarship Program was created to provide tuition vouchers for up to $2,250 a year to some parents of students to attend participating public or private schools in the city and neighboring suburbs. The vouchers were distributed to parents according to financial need and the parents got to choose where to enroll their children. The problem with this system was that 82% of participating private schools had a religious affiliation. Many people thought this violated the First Amendment because it was mixing church and state. The Supreme Court ruled that it did not violate the Establishment Clause because it passed a 5 part test:
1.) the program must have a valid secular purpose
2.) aid must go to parents and not to the schools
3.) a broad class of beneficiaries must be covered
4.) the program must be neutral with respect to religion, and
5.) there must be adequate nonreligious options
Upon deciding the case, the judges said that they were being consistent in this case like they were with Mueller, Witters, and Zobrest.
Along with religion, we also talked more about periodization. The lists that we made up on Monday were not periodization, they were chronology. This was to show students that it can be difficult to mix/confuse the two different ways to sort historical events. Periodization has to have years/dates and sometimes things can overlap between multiple periods, again, the Cold War comes to mind. It is important to keep in mind that periodization is not simply a list of events, it is a generalization of a period. Our homework for today was to make two different periodizations of our life. I have chose to do mine in a social aspect and in an economic aspect. Though my life is but twenty years long, I have experienced enough to make a periodization of my life.
Social Periodization
1991-1994 communication only with family
1995-1998 making first real friends/a little shy (early school years)
1998-2001 outspoken (learning to speak your mind)
2002-2005 true tests of friendships (middle/high school)
2006-2009 planning for the future (high school graduation)
2010-2012 working toward goals & keeping best friends close
Economic Periodization
1991-1996 relied completely on parents for everything
1997-2002 chores
2003-2008 first jobs
2009-2012 more independence/pay for everything myself
Friday, March 30, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Abortion Rights
Monday March 26, 2012
Today in class we discussed Chapter 12 - Abortion Rights: The United States and South Africa Compared. I was quite surprised that we did not have an all out brawl in class on the discussion topic (it tends to be a bit of a touchy subject with some people). Fortunately, everyone got along and we had a good discussion and debate.
One topic we touched upon was Griswold v. Connecticut. This document dealt with the government banning the use of contraceptives because the "government has a right to invade privacy unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision." I do not agree with this at all. To me, the government invading the privacy between two people is quite similar to the government trying to invade religious experiences. These matters between two people should be a private matter, unless they are doing something that is illegal. This court case makes contraceptives legal for MARRIED people, not singles. That again, I do not agree with because the main job of the government is to protect all citizens, not just those who are married. This act can easily force someone to get married just so they can use contraceptives, which seems unconstitutional to me.
In the court case Roe v. Wade Roe wanted to obtain an abortion, but the Texas government said no. In this case, the right to privacy was the main issue. Could a state government forbid someone to get an abortion? The court created some restrictions for abortions. 1.) The woman in question must let their partner know what they want to do and get consent. 2.) If the person is younger than 18 years old they must get their parent's permission. 3.) There is a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. There were also some restrictions regarding the age of viability and how old the unborn child is (which trimester the mother is in). In many cases, the state governments have tried to put restrictions on abortion, especially for minors.
Document 6 is a part of South Africa's Constitution. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, Africa's is must more clearly stated. There is little room for interpretations, which could be a good thing. This is true in the section of equality: "Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law." or "Everyone has the right to life." or "No one may be subjected to slavery, servitude or forced labor. I think this constitution is actually very good because it clearly defines the laws, not like the U.S. Constitution that seems to dance around the subjects and can have more than one type of interpretation. The only thing from this document that I found that could be interpreted is the freedom of expression clause. It says that everyone has the right to freedom of expression but it does "not extend to a. propaganda for war, b. incitement of imminent violence, or c. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender, or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm." These parts, especially c, can (I think) be quite vague and possibly be interpreted a few different ways, like what the government considers an advocacy of hatred.
Essay 1 states that Roe v. Wade was a mistake. The main reason the author concludes this is because the age of children. According to the essay, a fetus is not a child of any age. Also, only children under the age of 18 are protected by the government. So if a fetus is a child that does not have an age, then it cannot be protected by the government. This raised the question "what counts as a person?" The government had a difficult time in determining what they will count as a person, child, or anyone else that needs protection. I personally do not know what to believe on the subject because I have mixed feelings. However, I do believe that the mother of an unborn child is a citizen of the U.S. and, therefore, deserves protection and/or support for whatever her decision might be. I also believe that the state and federal governments are beginning to stick themselves in personal and private matters that don't really need government assistance. The government should take their time that they spend in other people's matters and actually do something good for the country and start trying to fix the economy, leave parenting, or lack thereof, to those whom is may concern.
Today we also began talking about chronology and periodization. Chronology is the order/arrangement of events based on their dates. Historians try to put things in chronological order by putting events into sections of dates, such as 1900-1915. Some events, such as the Cold War, can easily span more than one section of time, making it harder to place things in chronological order. We also talked about periodization. this is sort of like chronology, but instead of making a list of things that happened during a certain time period, historians try to label the period based on major events. So, 1950-1970 would not be: Martin Luther King Jr., Kennedy assassination, etc. It would be something like Civil Rights Movement. Periodization is trying to pull several events together and make a defining characteristic for them, such as "The Roaring 20s." We had an in-class exercise in which groups tried to periodize American History and World History from 1900 until present. This was very difficult to do, and my group started just listing events, which is chronology, not periodization. It is very difficult to define an entire era and it can be done in many different ways, such as military, economic, political, women's perspective, global, Euro-centric, and many many more. Like many things dealing with history, periodization is based on the author's perspective and which direction/spin they want to put on things.
Today in class we discussed Chapter 12 - Abortion Rights: The United States and South Africa Compared. I was quite surprised that we did not have an all out brawl in class on the discussion topic (it tends to be a bit of a touchy subject with some people). Fortunately, everyone got along and we had a good discussion and debate.
One topic we touched upon was Griswold v. Connecticut. This document dealt with the government banning the use of contraceptives because the "government has a right to invade privacy unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision." I do not agree with this at all. To me, the government invading the privacy between two people is quite similar to the government trying to invade religious experiences. These matters between two people should be a private matter, unless they are doing something that is illegal. This court case makes contraceptives legal for MARRIED people, not singles. That again, I do not agree with because the main job of the government is to protect all citizens, not just those who are married. This act can easily force someone to get married just so they can use contraceptives, which seems unconstitutional to me.
In the court case Roe v. Wade Roe wanted to obtain an abortion, but the Texas government said no. In this case, the right to privacy was the main issue. Could a state government forbid someone to get an abortion? The court created some restrictions for abortions. 1.) The woman in question must let their partner know what they want to do and get consent. 2.) If the person is younger than 18 years old they must get their parent's permission. 3.) There is a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. There were also some restrictions regarding the age of viability and how old the unborn child is (which trimester the mother is in). In many cases, the state governments have tried to put restrictions on abortion, especially for minors.
Document 6 is a part of South Africa's Constitution. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, Africa's is must more clearly stated. There is little room for interpretations, which could be a good thing. This is true in the section of equality: "Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law." or "Everyone has the right to life." or "No one may be subjected to slavery, servitude or forced labor. I think this constitution is actually very good because it clearly defines the laws, not like the U.S. Constitution that seems to dance around the subjects and can have more than one type of interpretation. The only thing from this document that I found that could be interpreted is the freedom of expression clause. It says that everyone has the right to freedom of expression but it does "not extend to a. propaganda for war, b. incitement of imminent violence, or c. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender, or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm." These parts, especially c, can (I think) be quite vague and possibly be interpreted a few different ways, like what the government considers an advocacy of hatred.
Essay 1 states that Roe v. Wade was a mistake. The main reason the author concludes this is because the age of children. According to the essay, a fetus is not a child of any age. Also, only children under the age of 18 are protected by the government. So if a fetus is a child that does not have an age, then it cannot be protected by the government. This raised the question "what counts as a person?" The government had a difficult time in determining what they will count as a person, child, or anyone else that needs protection. I personally do not know what to believe on the subject because I have mixed feelings. However, I do believe that the mother of an unborn child is a citizen of the U.S. and, therefore, deserves protection and/or support for whatever her decision might be. I also believe that the state and federal governments are beginning to stick themselves in personal and private matters that don't really need government assistance. The government should take their time that they spend in other people's matters and actually do something good for the country and start trying to fix the economy, leave parenting, or lack thereof, to those whom is may concern.
Today we also began talking about chronology and periodization. Chronology is the order/arrangement of events based on their dates. Historians try to put things in chronological order by putting events into sections of dates, such as 1900-1915. Some events, such as the Cold War, can easily span more than one section of time, making it harder to place things in chronological order. We also talked about periodization. this is sort of like chronology, but instead of making a list of things that happened during a certain time period, historians try to label the period based on major events. So, 1950-1970 would not be: Martin Luther King Jr., Kennedy assassination, etc. It would be something like Civil Rights Movement. Periodization is trying to pull several events together and make a defining characteristic for them, such as "The Roaring 20s." We had an in-class exercise in which groups tried to periodize American History and World History from 1900 until present. This was very difficult to do, and my group started just listing events, which is chronology, not periodization. It is very difficult to define an entire era and it can be done in many different ways, such as military, economic, political, women's perspective, global, Euro-centric, and many many more. Like many things dealing with history, periodization is based on the author's perspective and which direction/spin they want to put on things.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Race and Civil Rights in the Cold War Era
Wednesday March 21, 2012
Today we discussed Chapter 11. This chapter deals with education, equality, civil rights, and more. The court case Sweatt v. Painter took a stance against Plessy v. Ferguson (which said that separate was not equal). This court case only dealt with one person and did not affect as many as Plessy. This is because it dealt with higher education and no children were involved.
In court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (I & II), evidence was used to describe how the children and students were affected. The positions of the schools came into place. Often, whites would abandon an old school and build a new one. The old school was left to the blacks to use, often being unsafe and not having enough qualified teachers. Under the 14th Amendment, separate is not equal because the students were not exposed to the same opportunities and experiences as the white students. Simply being separated from the whites had an emotional effect on the students. I mean, wouldn't anyone who was being ostracized from society have a few emotional issues?!
Document 2 was about Brown v. Board of Education II. This targets discrimination and the courts called for desegregation. Though the courts said that ALL schools had to desegregate, it called for "all deliberate speed." This basically means that the court recognizes that the desegregation process can be slow, so they are allowing time for towns and schools to work in into their systems. the NAACP did NOT like this! Mainly because the group knew that the southern states would take their sweet time desegregating the schools. The NAACP wanted is NOW, not whenever it was convenient. And even though everyone was "equal" now, there was still discrimination in schools and the workplace. There was even lynching and murders, such of that of Emmett Till.
Document 6 was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act discussed that there has to be equal employment opportunities for everyone, no matter what. This, however, is easier said than done. Even today employers can discriminate against someone applying for a job, but use a different reason as for not hiring them. Also, since, technically, employees are not supposed to talk about their salaries with others, employers can also pay each person differently. If there was a problem with difference in pay, the employer can say things like 1. "they have been working here longer and have more seniority" or 2. "this person has more knowledge and works harder than others do." So if they want to, employers can be as discriminatory as they want, just as long as they have some legitimate reason to back it up.
During the 1960s and the Civil Rights Movement many advances were made. After reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, however, I have learned that it was extremely difficult for Lydon Johnson to keep up with his Great Society and the Vietnam War at the same time. I always enjoy learning about history that has directly impacted our nation. Even though I know the Civil Rights Movement was a time of struggle, I am still thankful that there were people willing to put themselves out in the open and fight for their cause. Heck, if it wasn't for this movement, being a female, I would probably be getting paid less than minimum wage, working long hours, and have little protections and rights!
Today we discussed Chapter 11. This chapter deals with education, equality, civil rights, and more. The court case Sweatt v. Painter took a stance against Plessy v. Ferguson (which said that separate was not equal). This court case only dealt with one person and did not affect as many as Plessy. This is because it dealt with higher education and no children were involved.
In court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (I & II), evidence was used to describe how the children and students were affected. The positions of the schools came into place. Often, whites would abandon an old school and build a new one. The old school was left to the blacks to use, often being unsafe and not having enough qualified teachers. Under the 14th Amendment, separate is not equal because the students were not exposed to the same opportunities and experiences as the white students. Simply being separated from the whites had an emotional effect on the students. I mean, wouldn't anyone who was being ostracized from society have a few emotional issues?!
Document 2 was about Brown v. Board of Education II. This targets discrimination and the courts called for desegregation. Though the courts said that ALL schools had to desegregate, it called for "all deliberate speed." This basically means that the court recognizes that the desegregation process can be slow, so they are allowing time for towns and schools to work in into their systems. the NAACP did NOT like this! Mainly because the group knew that the southern states would take their sweet time desegregating the schools. The NAACP wanted is NOW, not whenever it was convenient. And even though everyone was "equal" now, there was still discrimination in schools and the workplace. There was even lynching and murders, such of that of Emmett Till.
Document 6 was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act discussed that there has to be equal employment opportunities for everyone, no matter what. This, however, is easier said than done. Even today employers can discriminate against someone applying for a job, but use a different reason as for not hiring them. Also, since, technically, employees are not supposed to talk about their salaries with others, employers can also pay each person differently. If there was a problem with difference in pay, the employer can say things like 1. "they have been working here longer and have more seniority" or 2. "this person has more knowledge and works harder than others do." So if they want to, employers can be as discriminatory as they want, just as long as they have some legitimate reason to back it up.
During the 1960s and the Civil Rights Movement many advances were made. After reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, however, I have learned that it was extremely difficult for Lydon Johnson to keep up with his Great Society and the Vietnam War at the same time. I always enjoy learning about history that has directly impacted our nation. Even though I know the Civil Rights Movement was a time of struggle, I am still thankful that there were people willing to put themselves out in the open and fight for their cause. Heck, if it wasn't for this movement, being a female, I would probably be getting paid less than minimum wage, working long hours, and have little protections and rights!
Franklin Roosevelt, the Depression, and the New Deal
Monday March 19, 2012
Today we discussed Chapter 10. Even though there were three main topics within this chapter, there was even more topics covered during our discussion. One topic we covered was the National Recovery Act. This act was put in place by the President in 1933 in order to help the nation out of the Great Depression. Like many other actions by other Presidents in the past, this act was highly debated (not only back then, but it still is today). Those who were in favor of the act said that the President was simply taking the measures that were needed to help the economy. This was accomplished by trying to regulate industries. Those who oppose of the act, however, claimed that it gave the President too much power because everything had to be approved by him in order to be put into action. People also thought that the President was getting too involved in economic affairs. This act also gave too much power to the big companies, allowing them to pretty much create their own versions of monopolies by allowing the corporations themselves to set their own regulations. Many people debate that this act was quite socialistic, even given the circumstances. I, personally, think that the President was trying all he knew how in order to help to fix the economy, and possibly his reputation as president. Just like Lincoln, Roosevelt believed that he had a little bit more authority given the economic times. I think it would be easier to understand Lincoln going above his authorities because the nation was in a civil war. Roosevelt, on the other hand, seemed to only be thinking that fixing the major corporations would fix the entire economy. Though this theory is good, it did not provide economic relief as fast as the American people needed it.
One court case that we talked about was Relations Board v. Jones. This court case dealt with discrimination in the workplace (the workplace being the 4th largest steel company in the nation!). The company tried to fire ten workers who were trying to unionize. The courts ruled that the corporation must hire the people back. The court sided with FDR saying that Congress can put regulations on the company because it was an interstate company. Ironically, President Ronald Regan did something similar in August of 1981. In this case, the union called a strike because they wanted better working conditions, better pay, and a 32 hour work week. Regan said that the strike was bad for national safety and told the workers to go back to work. Regan fired the workers that did not go back to work (over 10,000 workers!!!). The workers were replaced, but with inexperienced air traffic controllers. Later, the strikers were allowed to come back to work.
Many of the court cases in this chapter helped to shape the minimum wage system that we have today. Laws regulating wage, hours, and conditions have long since been in place, mainly due to major court cases. For example, in the court case West Coast Hotel v. Parrish the court upheld the minimum wage policy and forced the hotel to pay its employees the right amounts. If people throughout history, especially women and minorities, did not fight for equal rights and pay in the workforce, companies today would still be taking advantage of free labor. Well, I guess some companies actually are.... Many companies hire illegal immigrants because they do not have to pay them minimum wage because they are not citizens. I also remember something about being under the age of 18. In high school teachers told us that anyone under the age of 18 is not titled to minimum wage. I don't know if this is still true today, but I remember I did corn de-tastling one summer (an absolutely horrible job!) and I did not get minimum wage. I do not think that is fair either because weather kids under 18 or adults do the job, it still gets done, so there shouldn't be a reason for not paying everyone equally. Equal pay for equal work should always be enforced. I think it has something to do with the new ideas that Americans want high paying jobs, but they want their goods and services cheaply. That could by why our economy went from a producer to a consumer over the past five decades. No wonder our economy is bad today! We moved all our factories overseas and now have nothing to offer other countries! Hopefully this new generation of politicians can bring something new to the country...
Today's Butters' topic was Historical Revisionism. This is the changing perspectives of a historical event. These re-interpretations mean that there has already been one original interpretation, called an orthodox. This can be a dangerous concept because it is often difficult to redo someone else's work. In order to redo an orthodox, a writer or historian must find something wrong with the first interpretation. This can be hard when the idea or concept has been widely recognized and had been put in place for a long time. This idea can also be good because it shows things from a different perspective. Often times, it is best when time has past since the event and the orthodox version because technology and other resources become available. These new resources can be sealed by the government (like who shot JFK). Technology such as DNA, carbon dating, and anthropology have helped historical revisions. According to many historians, all history is revisionism and it often has a negative slant. This is often because when people write about an event years after it happens, it is hard to capture the zeitgeist (or spirit of the times). Typically, the orthodox version has primary sources that include how people felt and specific events, while revisions often lack in these departments. So while historical revisionism is often looked at as a bad thing, almost all history is some sort of reinterpretation of the past and historians and authors often have their own beliefs about their chosen topics.
Today we discussed Chapter 10. Even though there were three main topics within this chapter, there was even more topics covered during our discussion. One topic we covered was the National Recovery Act. This act was put in place by the President in 1933 in order to help the nation out of the Great Depression. Like many other actions by other Presidents in the past, this act was highly debated (not only back then, but it still is today). Those who were in favor of the act said that the President was simply taking the measures that were needed to help the economy. This was accomplished by trying to regulate industries. Those who oppose of the act, however, claimed that it gave the President too much power because everything had to be approved by him in order to be put into action. People also thought that the President was getting too involved in economic affairs. This act also gave too much power to the big companies, allowing them to pretty much create their own versions of monopolies by allowing the corporations themselves to set their own regulations. Many people debate that this act was quite socialistic, even given the circumstances. I, personally, think that the President was trying all he knew how in order to help to fix the economy, and possibly his reputation as president. Just like Lincoln, Roosevelt believed that he had a little bit more authority given the economic times. I think it would be easier to understand Lincoln going above his authorities because the nation was in a civil war. Roosevelt, on the other hand, seemed to only be thinking that fixing the major corporations would fix the entire economy. Though this theory is good, it did not provide economic relief as fast as the American people needed it.
One court case that we talked about was Relations Board v. Jones. This court case dealt with discrimination in the workplace (the workplace being the 4th largest steel company in the nation!). The company tried to fire ten workers who were trying to unionize. The courts ruled that the corporation must hire the people back. The court sided with FDR saying that Congress can put regulations on the company because it was an interstate company. Ironically, President Ronald Regan did something similar in August of 1981. In this case, the union called a strike because they wanted better working conditions, better pay, and a 32 hour work week. Regan said that the strike was bad for national safety and told the workers to go back to work. Regan fired the workers that did not go back to work (over 10,000 workers!!!). The workers were replaced, but with inexperienced air traffic controllers. Later, the strikers were allowed to come back to work.
Many of the court cases in this chapter helped to shape the minimum wage system that we have today. Laws regulating wage, hours, and conditions have long since been in place, mainly due to major court cases. For example, in the court case West Coast Hotel v. Parrish the court upheld the minimum wage policy and forced the hotel to pay its employees the right amounts. If people throughout history, especially women and minorities, did not fight for equal rights and pay in the workforce, companies today would still be taking advantage of free labor. Well, I guess some companies actually are.... Many companies hire illegal immigrants because they do not have to pay them minimum wage because they are not citizens. I also remember something about being under the age of 18. In high school teachers told us that anyone under the age of 18 is not titled to minimum wage. I don't know if this is still true today, but I remember I did corn de-tastling one summer (an absolutely horrible job!) and I did not get minimum wage. I do not think that is fair either because weather kids under 18 or adults do the job, it still gets done, so there shouldn't be a reason for not paying everyone equally. Equal pay for equal work should always be enforced. I think it has something to do with the new ideas that Americans want high paying jobs, but they want their goods and services cheaply. That could by why our economy went from a producer to a consumer over the past five decades. No wonder our economy is bad today! We moved all our factories overseas and now have nothing to offer other countries! Hopefully this new generation of politicians can bring something new to the country...
Today's Butters' topic was Historical Revisionism. This is the changing perspectives of a historical event. These re-interpretations mean that there has already been one original interpretation, called an orthodox. This can be a dangerous concept because it is often difficult to redo someone else's work. In order to redo an orthodox, a writer or historian must find something wrong with the first interpretation. This can be hard when the idea or concept has been widely recognized and had been put in place for a long time. This idea can also be good because it shows things from a different perspective. Often times, it is best when time has past since the event and the orthodox version because technology and other resources become available. These new resources can be sealed by the government (like who shot JFK). Technology such as DNA, carbon dating, and anthropology have helped historical revisions. According to many historians, all history is revisionism and it often has a negative slant. This is often because when people write about an event years after it happens, it is hard to capture the zeitgeist (or spirit of the times). Typically, the orthodox version has primary sources that include how people felt and specific events, while revisions often lack in these departments. So while historical revisionism is often looked at as a bad thing, almost all history is some sort of reinterpretation of the past and historians and authors often have their own beliefs about their chosen topics.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Total War and the Emergence of Modern Civil Liberties
Wednesday March 14, 2012
Today in class we discussed Chapter 9. It was AMAZING because we got to have class outside. I actually felt more inclined to participate in the discussion just to show that we can hold class outside and not have any problems in participation. I think others felt the same way, because we had a good discussion.
Document #1 talks about President Woodrow Wilson and his regulations for alien enemies. I agree with several of these regulations: 6 (an alien enemy cannot commit any hostile act toward the U.S. or give aid to its enemies, 8 (any person who the President believes can be aiding the enemy or is seen as a public danger can be removed to any location designated by the president, 10 (no enemy can enter into the U.S. unless they follow restrictions), and 12 (if an enemy is caught doing certain things they can be sentenced to jail, prison, military camp, or another type of detention). I do not really agree with how these regulations are worded. They talk about any enemy or person, but it mainly refers to men and excludes women altogether. During this time, WWI, women were very active in gaining support, spreading beliefs, and doing other things that the federal government would see as "enemy acts."
The Espionage Act was discussed in document 2. This act prohibits any attempts to interfere with military operations. Under this act, people are supposed to support the US during wartime (meaning help in any way possible, and especially not interfere with military recruitment). This act also says that any false statements against the US or the war effort are illegal. Today, people would be up in arms if an act like this was put in place. Today, people would argue that this type of act impedes on their 1st Amendment of free speech, press, petition, assembly, and religion. There have been thousands of people since 2001 speak out against the war and they use the 1st Amendment as their base. I think that people today would raise several court cases if an Espionage Act of 2012 was created.
There were several court cases discussed in this chapter, such as Schenck v. United States, Abrams v. United States, and Gitlow v. New York. All of these court cases have things in common. First, in each case the 1st Amendment is involved. Though the rulings are different, the Supreme Court states that the 1st Amendment is not static and it changed over time and they way in which it is interpreted. The federal government claims that state governments cannot put restrictions on the 1st Amendment, only the federal government can. Also, the "clear and present danger" idea is used in these cases to see what the threatening ideas are/could be. This chapter also talks about the Red Scare. This scare happened at near the end of WWI (1919-1920ish). This was a threat of communism. Everyone thought that communists were everywhere and were going to take over the world and things would change for the worst. People had a right to be afraid because there had been several revolutions in Russia and it seemed like Russia was in chaos. Russia is a big country and if it is possible for it to fall to communism, then the U.S. might not have a chance at survival! These fears and rumors spread throughout the entire U.S. Many people believed that if countries in Europe and Asia started to fall to communism, they all would soon fall to it. This idea was later called the domino effect, but during this time people did not call it that. Americans have always thought of themselves as protectors of the "free" world and communist threats were destroying our ideas of peace, liberty, and freedom. I can see how easily people could become afraid and how quickly rumors could spread! Especially during a time when people of America believed that the government said because they themselves did not have any outside knowledge of other countries. In my opinion, the federal government helped to spread the ideas of the Red Scare instead of trying to re-assure the country. Even though the Red Scare came after WWI, laws such as the Espionage Act created a trustworthiness among the US people and people could get their neighbors in big trouble just by spreading a small rumor about them. Again, the government could have done something to help the people instead of creating more problems.
Today in class we discussed Chapter 9. It was AMAZING because we got to have class outside. I actually felt more inclined to participate in the discussion just to show that we can hold class outside and not have any problems in participation. I think others felt the same way, because we had a good discussion.
Document #1 talks about President Woodrow Wilson and his regulations for alien enemies. I agree with several of these regulations: 6 (an alien enemy cannot commit any hostile act toward the U.S. or give aid to its enemies, 8 (any person who the President believes can be aiding the enemy or is seen as a public danger can be removed to any location designated by the president, 10 (no enemy can enter into the U.S. unless they follow restrictions), and 12 (if an enemy is caught doing certain things they can be sentenced to jail, prison, military camp, or another type of detention). I do not really agree with how these regulations are worded. They talk about any enemy or person, but it mainly refers to men and excludes women altogether. During this time, WWI, women were very active in gaining support, spreading beliefs, and doing other things that the federal government would see as "enemy acts."
The Espionage Act was discussed in document 2. This act prohibits any attempts to interfere with military operations. Under this act, people are supposed to support the US during wartime (meaning help in any way possible, and especially not interfere with military recruitment). This act also says that any false statements against the US or the war effort are illegal. Today, people would be up in arms if an act like this was put in place. Today, people would argue that this type of act impedes on their 1st Amendment of free speech, press, petition, assembly, and religion. There have been thousands of people since 2001 speak out against the war and they use the 1st Amendment as their base. I think that people today would raise several court cases if an Espionage Act of 2012 was created.
There were several court cases discussed in this chapter, such as Schenck v. United States, Abrams v. United States, and Gitlow v. New York. All of these court cases have things in common. First, in each case the 1st Amendment is involved. Though the rulings are different, the Supreme Court states that the 1st Amendment is not static and it changed over time and they way in which it is interpreted. The federal government claims that state governments cannot put restrictions on the 1st Amendment, only the federal government can. Also, the "clear and present danger" idea is used in these cases to see what the threatening ideas are/could be. This chapter also talks about the Red Scare. This scare happened at near the end of WWI (1919-1920ish). This was a threat of communism. Everyone thought that communists were everywhere and were going to take over the world and things would change for the worst. People had a right to be afraid because there had been several revolutions in Russia and it seemed like Russia was in chaos. Russia is a big country and if it is possible for it to fall to communism, then the U.S. might not have a chance at survival! These fears and rumors spread throughout the entire U.S. Many people believed that if countries in Europe and Asia started to fall to communism, they all would soon fall to it. This idea was later called the domino effect, but during this time people did not call it that. Americans have always thought of themselves as protectors of the "free" world and communist threats were destroying our ideas of peace, liberty, and freedom. I can see how easily people could become afraid and how quickly rumors could spread! Especially during a time when people of America believed that the government said because they themselves did not have any outside knowledge of other countries. In my opinion, the federal government helped to spread the ideas of the Red Scare instead of trying to re-assure the country. Even though the Red Scare came after WWI, laws such as the Espionage Act created a trustworthiness among the US people and people could get their neighbors in big trouble just by spreading a small rumor about them. Again, the government could have done something to help the people instead of creating more problems.
Protective Legislation and the Liberty to Contract
Monday March 12, 2012
Today in class we discussed Chapter 8 out of "Major Problems in American Constitutional History. This chapter was mainly about workers and their rights/obligations. Document number 2 is called "The People's Part Announces its Agenda for Reform, 1896." This document outlines the demands of the People's Party. There are several good ideas, but there are also some ideas that are not as helpful, in my opinion. Under the Finances section, I liked the 1st demand, which calls for a national money that is issued by the General Government. This would call for no intervention from banks and people would be more protected from debt and unequal distribution. Number 7 actually made me think, the people WANT a graduated income tax! I found it interesting that the People's Party wanted the federal government to own the railroads because it would be in the best interest of the people. If the government owned the railroads there would be less potential for monopolies, and therefore, prices would be competitive (which is a good thing). The people demanded a direct election of the President, Vice-President, and U.S. Senators. This would get rid of the electoral college and make voting a more direct thing: people vote for the person, not for a different person in the electoral college who will hopefully vote how they said they would. I do not really agree with the direct legislation through the initiative and referendum idea. Laws already take a long time to be passed and if people have to vote on them, it could just lengthen the process. This document is very forward-looking though and many of the ideas were later adopted by other political parties.
Document #5 is a court case that ruled that women can only work 10 hours a day. The courts found this constitutional because women are not as strong as men. During discussion we were supposed to take a feminist stance and debate whether we felt this ruling was fair or not. I think this ruling is unfair. The men who created this law said that they were trying to protect women because they are fragile and also cannot work too much at a job because they have lives outside of work. Even though this could have been true for a majority of women, it is not the case for everyone. If I was working back during this time I would be angry. Single women who do not have a family to take care of and only need to take care of themselves should be able to work as long as they can (meaning more than 10 hours). I understand that the men wanted to protect the women because they are "fragile" and will be the mothers of the future leaders of the country, but it is still discrimination. In my opinion, I believe that a strong-willed woman who can work just as hard and just as long as a man can would, in turn, produce strong babies. So, using this way of thinking, the men are only jeopardizing the future of the country by not letting the women work!
The essay "Gender, Law, and Labor in the Progressive Era" was a very interesting article. The author describes that Muller's attorneys argued that women did not need protection, and that by giving them more protection just widens the gap of equality between men and women. This essay shows how psychological evidence was used in court for the first time. In the end, the courts used this to justify sex discrimination in the workplace, saying that women were, indeed, weaker than men. This is especially true in jobs such as police, firefighting, military, and more physically demanding jobs. This is very interesting to me because I knew several women in the military and they try twice as hard to prove that they are just as good as the men are, but men still look at them as half of what they are. For instance, my boyfriend is in the Army and there was a woman in his class. One day they had to go out on a ruck march and the woman's heal of her foot got cut open because of her boot. It was a several mile march, but she refused to stop because she knew that she had to prove herself. Today, everyone in the group knows that the girl is super tough and no one messes with her and sees her as a great soldier. It really sucks that woman have to work twice as hard just be seen by men as half their equal!!!
Today's Butters' Topic was Morality in History. The main question was, "should you include your sense of morality when you write about history?" At first, I thought that you should include your own thoughts and beliefs because you know what you are writing about and who your intended audience is, so it your audience would most likely belief the same things that you do. I learned that history should be done through amoral stand point - one should not impose any morality. As historians, we pick subjects that not only interest us, but also show who were are. So by picking subjects that show who we are, we are initially showing our own morality. For example, if I wrote about how great a person Adolf Hitler was, people would be able to sense my morality through my writings. Morality is where the argument of any topic comes from, such as good and evil. Doris Kearns Goodwin explains what makes a good leader through writing about what we consider great and controversial presidents, like Lincoln and Lydon Johnson. Edmund Burke thought that in order to understand the present, you have to look at institutions and morality of the past. For example, historical experiences help us to distinguish what is considered good and evil: we believe that Hitler is evil, but the U.S. was good in trying to stop the spread of communism throughout the world. This type of value-centered history can be difficult to understand and master, but it makes for better writers and readers once you learn the pros and cons. The downfalls of using morality in history include presentism and ethnocentrism. When used correctly, a person can illustrate their ideas and beliefs and get others to join them, but this needs to be done by using concrete examples and experiences in history.
Today in class we discussed Chapter 8 out of "Major Problems in American Constitutional History. This chapter was mainly about workers and their rights/obligations. Document number 2 is called "The People's Part Announces its Agenda for Reform, 1896." This document outlines the demands of the People's Party. There are several good ideas, but there are also some ideas that are not as helpful, in my opinion. Under the Finances section, I liked the 1st demand, which calls for a national money that is issued by the General Government. This would call for no intervention from banks and people would be more protected from debt and unequal distribution. Number 7 actually made me think, the people WANT a graduated income tax! I found it interesting that the People's Party wanted the federal government to own the railroads because it would be in the best interest of the people. If the government owned the railroads there would be less potential for monopolies, and therefore, prices would be competitive (which is a good thing). The people demanded a direct election of the President, Vice-President, and U.S. Senators. This would get rid of the electoral college and make voting a more direct thing: people vote for the person, not for a different person in the electoral college who will hopefully vote how they said they would. I do not really agree with the direct legislation through the initiative and referendum idea. Laws already take a long time to be passed and if people have to vote on them, it could just lengthen the process. This document is very forward-looking though and many of the ideas were later adopted by other political parties.
Document #5 is a court case that ruled that women can only work 10 hours a day. The courts found this constitutional because women are not as strong as men. During discussion we were supposed to take a feminist stance and debate whether we felt this ruling was fair or not. I think this ruling is unfair. The men who created this law said that they were trying to protect women because they are fragile and also cannot work too much at a job because they have lives outside of work. Even though this could have been true for a majority of women, it is not the case for everyone. If I was working back during this time I would be angry. Single women who do not have a family to take care of and only need to take care of themselves should be able to work as long as they can (meaning more than 10 hours). I understand that the men wanted to protect the women because they are "fragile" and will be the mothers of the future leaders of the country, but it is still discrimination. In my opinion, I believe that a strong-willed woman who can work just as hard and just as long as a man can would, in turn, produce strong babies. So, using this way of thinking, the men are only jeopardizing the future of the country by not letting the women work!
The essay "Gender, Law, and Labor in the Progressive Era" was a very interesting article. The author describes that Muller's attorneys argued that women did not need protection, and that by giving them more protection just widens the gap of equality between men and women. This essay shows how psychological evidence was used in court for the first time. In the end, the courts used this to justify sex discrimination in the workplace, saying that women were, indeed, weaker than men. This is especially true in jobs such as police, firefighting, military, and more physically demanding jobs. This is very interesting to me because I knew several women in the military and they try twice as hard to prove that they are just as good as the men are, but men still look at them as half of what they are. For instance, my boyfriend is in the Army and there was a woman in his class. One day they had to go out on a ruck march and the woman's heal of her foot got cut open because of her boot. It was a several mile march, but she refused to stop because she knew that she had to prove herself. Today, everyone in the group knows that the girl is super tough and no one messes with her and sees her as a great soldier. It really sucks that woman have to work twice as hard just be seen by men as half their equal!!!
Today's Butters' Topic was Morality in History. The main question was, "should you include your sense of morality when you write about history?" At first, I thought that you should include your own thoughts and beliefs because you know what you are writing about and who your intended audience is, so it your audience would most likely belief the same things that you do. I learned that history should be done through amoral stand point - one should not impose any morality. As historians, we pick subjects that not only interest us, but also show who were are. So by picking subjects that show who we are, we are initially showing our own morality. For example, if I wrote about how great a person Adolf Hitler was, people would be able to sense my morality through my writings. Morality is where the argument of any topic comes from, such as good and evil. Doris Kearns Goodwin explains what makes a good leader through writing about what we consider great and controversial presidents, like Lincoln and Lydon Johnson. Edmund Burke thought that in order to understand the present, you have to look at institutions and morality of the past. For example, historical experiences help us to distinguish what is considered good and evil: we believe that Hitler is evil, but the U.S. was good in trying to stop the spread of communism throughout the world. This type of value-centered history can be difficult to understand and master, but it makes for better writers and readers once you learn the pros and cons. The downfalls of using morality in history include presentism and ethnocentrism. When used correctly, a person can illustrate their ideas and beliefs and get others to join them, but this needs to be done by using concrete examples and experiences in history.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Reconstruction and the Fourteenth Amendment
Wednesday February 29, 2012
Today in class we discussed chapter 7 out of our "Major Problems in American Constitutional History" textbooks. Most of the discussion questions today dealt with the 13, 14, of 15th Amendment. We mainly talked about the 14th Amendment, which deals with citizenship. We talked about women's suffrage, or women's right to vote. Woman were fighting for the right since the 1850s, but did not get the right until 1920. One question we talked about was, "Why did the Constitution only allow men the right to hold political offices?" A court case called Minor v. Happersett (1875) deals with women's rights. Minor was a women who fought for women's suffrage in Missouri. The Supreme Court said that she does NOT have the right to vote under the 14th Amendment, but she is technically a citizen. The court made their decision on what they thought the founding fathers would have done. This court case was never overturned, but it was amended with the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote. This is quite strange to me, because at the time women were considered citizens, but were not allowed to vote because they were seen as property of their husband, fathers, or brothers. So they are citizens and property at the same time, but cannot vote. Typical sexist men in government! When covering this topic in other classes I learned that women were very angry that the U.S. federal government gave African American men the right to vote decades before women got the right. The voting rights sort of resembles the presidency: first only white men, then an African American, and maybe in the future we will have a female president.
"Why was the first ten amendments called the "Bill of Rights?" The Bill of Rights was actually added to the Constitution in order to appease the anti-federalists. Prior to the Civil War, most judges believed that the federal government would/should not take away individual rights, but states could. Most court cases before the Civil War dealt with basic freedoms and those after the war dealt mostly with inequality. The creators of the Bill of Rights wanted to make sure that people knew their basic rights and that they had some protection from the federal government.
Back in the days of the Civil War era being a woman was considered to be a form of disability when it came to doing any job (a job that a man could do). I believe that this was the common belief because women were mainly expected to stay at home, look after the household, and raise children. People did not really believe that a woman could have a successful career. Women who did try to have a career were often looked down upon because their male co-workers believed that they were radical women who did not follow tradition. Throughout history men were thought to be better, more productive workers. Many of the beliefs came about because women who have children were considered a liability in the workplace. Women would want/need to take more days off work to care for their children, have to put kids in a daycare, and that they would be preoccupied with business at home than at work. A good example of this is the Triangle Shirtwaist Company. The company hired women to make clothing, but found that some women were leaving work during their lunch hours and breaks to run home and check on their children. The supervisors did not like this idea and began chaining women to their machines, monitoring their breaks, and putting other strict requirements on them. Well, one day there was a fire and women could not get out of the building because they were either chained to their machines or the doors were locking them inside. Several women died and some tried to jump out of a window, but they died too. This was a tremendous event that changed several work codes/ethics. Its strange because I work in a factory and the women are WAY more productive than the men. It always seems like men have to stop working in order to have a conversation (can't handle more than one thing at a time). The women all work very hard and can easily out-do the men when it comes to productivity. Today, women are seen as more productive, but yet, are still paid less than men for the same exact job. Even though the country has come a long way since the Civil War era, there is still ramped discrimination against women and minority culture groups.
There was no "Butters' Topic" for today's class session. Class will not meet again until after spring break, on March 12, 2012.
Today in class we discussed chapter 7 out of our "Major Problems in American Constitutional History" textbooks. Most of the discussion questions today dealt with the 13, 14, of 15th Amendment. We mainly talked about the 14th Amendment, which deals with citizenship. We talked about women's suffrage, or women's right to vote. Woman were fighting for the right since the 1850s, but did not get the right until 1920. One question we talked about was, "Why did the Constitution only allow men the right to hold political offices?" A court case called Minor v. Happersett (1875) deals with women's rights. Minor was a women who fought for women's suffrage in Missouri. The Supreme Court said that she does NOT have the right to vote under the 14th Amendment, but she is technically a citizen. The court made their decision on what they thought the founding fathers would have done. This court case was never overturned, but it was amended with the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote. This is quite strange to me, because at the time women were considered citizens, but were not allowed to vote because they were seen as property of their husband, fathers, or brothers. So they are citizens and property at the same time, but cannot vote. Typical sexist men in government! When covering this topic in other classes I learned that women were very angry that the U.S. federal government gave African American men the right to vote decades before women got the right. The voting rights sort of resembles the presidency: first only white men, then an African American, and maybe in the future we will have a female president.
"Why was the first ten amendments called the "Bill of Rights?" The Bill of Rights was actually added to the Constitution in order to appease the anti-federalists. Prior to the Civil War, most judges believed that the federal government would/should not take away individual rights, but states could. Most court cases before the Civil War dealt with basic freedoms and those after the war dealt mostly with inequality. The creators of the Bill of Rights wanted to make sure that people knew their basic rights and that they had some protection from the federal government.
Back in the days of the Civil War era being a woman was considered to be a form of disability when it came to doing any job (a job that a man could do). I believe that this was the common belief because women were mainly expected to stay at home, look after the household, and raise children. People did not really believe that a woman could have a successful career. Women who did try to have a career were often looked down upon because their male co-workers believed that they were radical women who did not follow tradition. Throughout history men were thought to be better, more productive workers. Many of the beliefs came about because women who have children were considered a liability in the workplace. Women would want/need to take more days off work to care for their children, have to put kids in a daycare, and that they would be preoccupied with business at home than at work. A good example of this is the Triangle Shirtwaist Company. The company hired women to make clothing, but found that some women were leaving work during their lunch hours and breaks to run home and check on their children. The supervisors did not like this idea and began chaining women to their machines, monitoring their breaks, and putting other strict requirements on them. Well, one day there was a fire and women could not get out of the building because they were either chained to their machines or the doors were locking them inside. Several women died and some tried to jump out of a window, but they died too. This was a tremendous event that changed several work codes/ethics. Its strange because I work in a factory and the women are WAY more productive than the men. It always seems like men have to stop working in order to have a conversation (can't handle more than one thing at a time). The women all work very hard and can easily out-do the men when it comes to productivity. Today, women are seen as more productive, but yet, are still paid less than men for the same exact job. Even though the country has come a long way since the Civil War era, there is still ramped discrimination against women and minority culture groups.
There was no "Butters' Topic" for today's class session. Class will not meet again until after spring break, on March 12, 2012.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)