The Balencing Act

In the Civil Power vs. Military Power segment they talked about Terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. The question is are they crimes or acts of war? They said that civil power normally is superior to military power in the U.S. Its the "heart and soul of the American tradition." Should these terrorists be considered a military responsibility? The military law is usually only used over seas in combat. The United States is not a battle ground for the terrorism war. But these people in the imaginary situation are being taken as military detainees. They don't have access to a lawyer. In the video they discuss the writ of Habeas Corpus being there for judges to make an executive decision. Habeas Corpus allows detainees to seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. When challenging their detention by filing a habeas corpus petition, the executive branch must explain to a judge its justification holding the person.

The Balancing Act: Security and Liberty Post-9/11 Response

In the beginning of the “Attacks on America” segment, it was hard to see a Muslim man holding a sign that read “America’s Graveyard is Afghanistan.” The segment was introduced by saying that terrorism has returned and it has an enormous economic impact. This is sad, but true.

Even though this situation is fictitious, I disagreed with a lot of it. For example, what would happen to America, if someone began injecting toxins into our foods and drinks? Sadly, it would be easy to do, and to hide. It makes me wonder if I should even be buying things at the grocery store right now.

My biggest discrepancy with the situation was when the host, Frank Sesno, said that they were picking up people off the streets and then detaining them in military prisons with no access to lawyers. He stated that there were over a thousand people that were in question and sixty people were picked up. Their families and friends began to protest (using their 1^st Amendment rights). I do not feel this is right…What if some of those people really are innocent? It is not right for them to be taken in, simply because they fit a stereotypical description of a terrorist: most often: Muslim. I understand that it is being done for our protection, but I feel there needs to be more grounds and proof to prove that the person or people being taken in have done something wrong. I do not believe they should be taken in due to their religious beliefs, or physical appearance. Bob Barnes, a lawyer, a military man, and a former assistant judge advocate, agrees with my statements. He says that the situation makes him feel uncomfortable and he doesn’t feel its right. He says that it is a tough and ongoing situation that is hard to deal with. He questions whether the injecting of toxins into the food is a crime or if it is an act of terrorism/war. That answer determines if they use the Rule of Civil Law or the Rule of Military Law. Viet Dinh, the former Assistant Attorney General during the George W. Bush administration quotes Habeas Corpus; which means the right to protection again illegal imprisonment. He believes that Habeas Corpus is there for judges to supervise and look out for, in any situation.

Week 4- Declaration of Sentiments

I found this article very interesting... E.C. Stanton read the Declaration of Sentiments on July 19^th, 1848. The Convention assembled to decide whether men would sign the Declaration. After this decision was made, they read the Declaration. After reading it, there were eleven issues marked as resolved. I felt that a strong quote was, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This quote is strong because it covers so many aspects of the situation and highlights the main theme: equality. Men and women are equal—women’s rights are just as important! The next morning, E.C. Stanton reread the Declaration and it was adopted and accepted.

I feel that during this time, this was a crucial event that meant a lot to the people. Women’s rights were and are very important to this day. I also agree that, “that woman is man's equal—was intended to be so by the Creator, and the highest good of the race demands that she should be recognized as such.” I agree that no man nor woman is above one another. We are equal beings. There are certain characteristics that give people stature, but overall, we are one and the same.

the declraration

the declaration of independents was such a good speech, saying that women should be mans equal. saying that women have the right to do what they want and they can vote also. i dont think that women should have to stay in a house and clean and cook food. they should be able to do what they want just as much as males. that is why this speech is so good because susan b. anthony, and elizabeth e. stanton did a project on trying to get womans rights. that all rights are equaled to mans rights. resolved. they infleunced the government to let this law happen that women have to right to do anything, aand males cant abuse them. this was a huge change all around the world.
in conclusion susan b. anthony is a huge part of history because she got the government to give women just as many rights as the mens.

Week 3 Summary

This week Mary started off with a good summary of Lyndon B. Johnson's speech. She described how the speech happened after a terrible hate crime against African Americans took place by the police. She highlighted a quote from his speech that she was important. "There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Norther problem. There is only an American problem." Mary thought he was being optimistic but there was a negro and a Southern vs. Northern problem. She appreciated his approach at making everyone equal.
Pat talked about the basics of equality. He said that Johnson was trying to say that people should be able to get along no matter what their individual beliefs or skin color is. He also mentioned that we should be able to come together as a nation and set aside all other differences.
Val thought that Johnson's speech was powerful and emotional. She especially like his quote, "This was the first nation in the history of the world to be founded with a purpose." She continued to list those purposes and explain h0w they continue to be relevant today. Val also mentioned how there are still soldiers today, men and women of all colors, fighting for those original purposes of America. It seems like my whole group agrees that race problems are present today but continue to get better.

Week 3- "We Shall Overcome"

Lyndon B. Johnson's “We Shall Overcome” speech is very powerful and emotional. Back in the day, these people were going through hard times, especially the Negros. I think that Lyndon’s speech was enlightening for some and it helped them to look at the situation in a new way. He highlights the facts and the general feelings of most people.

I like the quote, “This was the first nation in the history of the world to be founded with a purpose.” He then describes that these purposes are still thriving throughout the famous quotes: "All men are created equal." "Government by consent of the governed." "Give me liberty or give me death." In addition, that the phrases are not simple, witty words thrown together with no meaning; they are not “empty theories.”

Even today, almost fifty years later, those phrases are still important to our people and to our rights. Even in 2006, we were doing things like this. ß Click

There are still soldiers, men and women, of both colors, fighting for them. As Mary has said, there are still problems with race today, but they are most definitely getting better.

I also really liked the quote, “to apply any other test, to deny a man his hopes because of his color or race or his religion or the place of his birth is not only to do injustice, it is to deny Americans and to dishonor the dead who gave their lives for American freedom.” This quote is very powerful and sadly, very TRUE! I am glad that now a days, this speech is able to make history so that all the generations that came and will come are able to learn from it and respect it.

we shall overcome

Lyndon B. Johnson wrote a speech about the ehole dicrimination in the 60's because he saw that policeman were beating up a negroe repeatedly hitting him over nad over. he wrote this speech to try to stop the disrimination from keep happeneing. he wants everyone to be eaqual. he quotes. the issue of equal rights for american segroes is such an issue. should we defeat every enemy, should we double our wealth and conquer the stars, and still be unequal to this issue, then we have failed as people and as a nation.

what he is saying is why cant everyone just get along no matter what there beliefs are or there skin color. we are all americans in the same country everyone should just get along as a nation instead of always fighting eachother. there have been soldiers who fought for the north and south about the civil rights. now that is over and now everyone should just stop fighting.

he says there are no northern problems, and there are no southern problems there is only american prblems, meaning as a nation we should be helping eachother out not putting each other down. Lyndon can write a good speech and peopple listened to him because they liked how he talked

"We Shall Overcome"

Lyndon B. Johnson spoke gracefully and articulately to the people in Selma, Alabama. After a terrible hate crime against African American people took place by the police, it made Johnson's role in the whole ordeal a troublesome one. While he is the commander and chief of the military, he is also responsible for keeping the police in line.
He claimed to be searching for democracy of all people, no matter what race or religion, and over all I felt he was sincere in his search but I felt as if he might have been a little blind to the whole situation, in his quote "There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem." While this idea is optimistic I don't feel like at the time that was really what was happening. There really was a Negro problem, there was a southern vs northern problem. Just because the President didn't want to believe that it was happening doesn't mean that it was actually reality. In fact the protest was mostly African Americans against the White males in this country.
I did like his approach about everyone being equal. How they weren't meeting as democrats or republicans but as Americans. None the less you know that people do not just walk in the door and drop their beliefs, they are always present and in the back of your mind.
While he wanted everyone to get along in practice it was a good idea, but in reality there was still a problem. Even today race is still a constant issue in this country, but it is getting better.

Week 2 Blog- Shooting and Governer's Comments

The shooting in Tucson never needed to happen. My group members did a wonderful job of summing up the facts and making some very valid points. Lateaka hit the nail on the head that guns do not kill people, people kill people. The shooting was wrong and the man had many other options to get a message across that did not include murdering innocent people. The 1^st Amendment has a lot to it and maybe he got overwhelmed and misused his rights due to a misunderstanding. His choices reflect not only the first amendment but also the second amendment. He may have a right to bear arms, but the use of the weapon is morally to protect himself. He used in an unacceptable way and that is why he must now face his consequences.

In regards to the Governor’s comments: What would it have hurt to go to the event? What did he have to lose by going? As my other group members noted: it made him look very bad and he came off as being a rude racist by not attending. I agree that he should have gone to support his son’s heritage. Let his son learn about the history. As Governor, he must now pay attention and sacrifice some of his own feelings for the sake of the people. He would not have lost anything by attending the event, but by choosing not to, he lost a lot of support and respect from his people.

Unfortunately, when people make decisions, they must face the consequences that come with them. That is what happened for the criminal in the shooting as well as the Governor.

shooting in tucson

even though that there is an amendmant that says that people.can bear arms, well that man used it wrong way times a thousand. you dont go into a grocery store and just shoot up the pplace and killing people for no reason. this is going to have a big role in citizenship because now people are going to get into groups and possibly try to get themto put detectors out side the doors because they will be worried if someones caring a gun in the store. i know i would want for the detectors because i would probably think i was goin to get shot at anytime at any place


i do not think that governor is very mature to telling people to kiss his butt. that is not how a governor should be talking to any people it kinda makes him look really bad. you are supposed to be helping people out not telling them to kiss his but. since i am i citizen of maine it was a bad idea because now he made the government look bad. not something to say on tv.

Week 2 Questions

Lateaka hit most of the important points about the shooting in Tuscon. I think that it is everyone's right to bear arms, and to express how they feel about politicians, but I also think that the gunman took it a little too far by shooting up a grocery store. The innocent people that were killed is also a citizenship problem because innocent people should have the freedom to go to the store and not worry about people coming to "protest". While we do have the right to protest, we have the right to peacefully protest. When things start becoming violent that's when it becomes a problem, that's when your liberties are taken away.
On the basis of morals, I feel that everyone has a different idea of what is morally right. But one thing that most everyone in this country agrees on is that it is not morally right to kill anyone, for any reason, with the exception of the death penalty.

2)the much less tragic, but still newsworthy comments by our governor on 1/14
I feel like the governor not going to the dinner was a little bit weird. It doesn't make him racist but it would have been nice of him to go out of respect for the holiday. There was really no reason for him to not go, and if he doesn't want people to think he is a racist, then it might have been in his best interest for him to make an appearance. While his son might be from Jamaica, one would think that he would want his son to learn about his heritage and about what Martin Luther King had to offer the people of the United States. And celebrate him with the rest of the country. I just find it a little bit weird that he didn't want to go. And he was a little bit rude about the whole idea. But there is freedom of speech for everyone, with no exception.

Blog Week 2- Questions Answered

What are the implications of these events for "citizenship", understood in either its legal or its moral meaning?

Arizona Shooting- The recent shooting in Tucson ended with 6 people killed and 13 wounded. One of the injured was Representative Gabrielle Giffords. Jared Lee Loughner, the gunman who was only 22 years old, took his rights as an American citizen too far. We could talk about his right to bear arms. If he wasn't allowed to have a gun, would those 6 people be dead? But guns don't kill people, people kill people, right? We have the right to assemble, and petition, and disagree with politicians all we want but we do not have the right as an American citizen to take matters into our own hands. Whether or not the shooting was political, I don't know. It seems like people take advantage of the rights they are given because they want more.

Our Governor's Comments- On Martin Luther King Jr. day, Maine governor LePage opted out of attending MLK day invitations from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). When a reporter from a television station asked LePage about the situation he replied, "Tell 'em to kiss my butt. If they want to play the race card, come to dinner and my son will talk to them." (LePage has a son adopted from Jamaica.) I think that Lepage should be able to make decisions of what do do on any day for himself without having his motives questioned but when he made that comment it only made him look rude and disrespectful. I think it makes perfect sense, just because he declined and invitation does not make him racist, but he could have handled that in a better way.

after reading all of my group mates posts about MLK speech it is a powerful speech that he said in Montgomery, Alabama in the 1950's. Rosa Parks had every right not to move out of her seat that she was sitting in on the bus. She did not need to move when the white people wanted to take her seats, so instead of just finding a differnt seat they tool her and put her in jail. The African Americans are the same people as the Americans just with different skin tones. We are all American citizens in the United States so why cant people all just be treated the same. So Martin Luther King says what Rosa Parks did on the bus was nothing wrong at all, she did not commit any crime what so ever so she shouldn't of been held in jail just because she didn't move. Val says.
MLK goes on saying that my friends, there comes a time when people get tired of beig trampled over by the iron feet of oppression. There comes a time, my friends, when people get tired of being plunged across the abyss of humiliation, where they'd experienced the bleakness of nagging dispair. There comes a time when people get tired of being pushed out of the glittering sunlightof life's july and left standing amid the piercing chill of an alpine November. There comes a time.
MLK is a man who just wants everyone to be equal as a person no matter what color skin they have or where they are from. he is a brilliant man who says if you are an american citizen than everyone should be treated as an American citizen period. President Obama is just like Martin Luther King, he won people ovver with is words and how impressive his speeches were, just how MLK did. That's how Obama got elected as president everyone loved how he spoke to the nation.
People listened to MLK as a nation and as a hole just like a big community and now everyone is treated the same and now there is no more racial diverdity in the United States all thanks to Martin Luther King.

MIA Mass Meeting speech - take three

One of the main points that I thought was important that no one really touched upon was the fact that he opened the speech saying "We are here in a general sense because first and foremost we are American citizens, (That’s right) and we are determined to apply our citizenship to the fullness of its meaning. (Yeah. That’s right) We are here also because of our love for democracy, (Yes) and because of our deep-seated belief that democracy transformed from thin paper to thick action (Yes) is the greatest form of government on earth." 
I feel as if his knowledge of what it takes to be an American citizen is a strong understanding. He knows what he wants to achieve and he knows how he is going to do it. He couldn't possibly do it on his own and in this speech he is seeking the help of his fellow Americans.
    "You know, my friends, there comes a time when people get tired of being trampled over by the iron feet of oppression. [Sustained applause] There comes a time, my friends, when people get tired of being plunged across the abyss of humiliation, where they’d experienced the bleakness of nagging despair. (Keep talking) There comes a time when people get tired of being pushed out of the glittering sunlight of life’s July and left standing amid the piercing chill of an alpine November. [Applause] There comes a time"
MLK JR was a man of many brilliant words. He knew what it was going to take in order to get people to support him. I feel that could even be linked to today's society. A lot of people respected Obama not only for how he is as a person, but for how well he speaks to a large group of people. He gained a lot of respect that way and that is a very admirable trait that most average people don't possess. MLK had that same trait and just like Obama won the election, MLK won the hearts of the people and got them to follow him. 


 - Mary Chambers

MIA Mass Meeting at Holt Street Baptist Church

Val covered the main points of Martin Luther King's Speech very well. I noticed a few things that she didn't point out that I thought were important. King explains the situation with Rosa Parks on the bus. He describes what happened and mentions that the newspapers say that she refused to leave a reserve section on the bus. Martin Luther King states that that is not true when he says, "...but I want you to know this evening that there is no reserved section. The law has never been clarified at that point. Now I think I speak with legal authority, not that I have any legal authority, but I think I speak with legal authority behind me that the law, the ordinance, the city ordinance has never been totally clarified." Hes making a point that Rosa Parks in fact did not commit a crime at all.
He goes on to say that the protest that they are putting on is not wrong. He wants the people to know that nothing they have done is wrong. He states, "If we are wrong, the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong. If we are wrong, the Constitution of the United States is wrong." He continues to say that the things he wants to do to change the situation of segregation and racism will not be illegal unconstitutional. "There will be nobody among us who will stand up and defy the Constitution of this nation." King stated. He wants to make sure that people don't get out of hand, and letting everyone know that there are ways that they can handle the situation.

Week 1- MIA Mass Meeting at Holt Street Baptist Church file

This speech was very powerful and crucial to problems during the nineteen fifties in Montgomery, Alabama. Martin Luther King and other colored folks are good Christian people who follow the Christian religion. They are not gathering to support or begin violence. They have no desire to hurt others. This is supported when the speaker says, “the only weapon that we have in our hands this evening is the weapon of protest.” They are tired of the unfair treatment and brutality that is being pushed onto them simply because of color differences.

Secondly, they want to keep the peace as well as get their rights heard. They do not feel that what was done to Rosa Parks was right. This example is shown in the sixth paragraph, “Mrs. Parks is a fine Christian person, unassuming, and yet there is integrity and character there. And just because she refused to get up, she was arrested.” They discuss how Rosa Parks is a good woman and that they are glad that the situation happened to a good soul like her, so that she is not looked at in a negative way. They also discuss how none of them can doubt her sense of character or her devotion to the Christian faith. The Negro folks have a very good sense of unity and they will unite and stand by her in support of her brave protest.

They come together as citizens of a community, but not only as Montgomery citizens but as Negro citizens of the Black community. “And as we stand and sit here this evening and as we prepare ourselves for what lies ahead, let us go out with a grim and bold determination that we are going to stick together.” Many or all of the folks who support Martin Luther King have been treated unfairly or mistreated because of color differences. The speaker says, “We are here because we are determined to get the situation corrected. This situation is not at all new. The problem has existed over endless years. I don't have time this evening to go into the history of these numerous cases, but at least one stands before us now with glaring dimensions.” This was the introduction given to describe what happened to Rosa Parks.

What comes to mind when you hear the word citizenship?

Val Buteau
Jonathan Grindle

Which three words are most important?

Participation
Freedom
Rights