The Internet Impacts Citizen Participation

"Rock the Vote" is an organization aimed to encourage young people to participate in elections and vote. This organization was found twenty years ago and has evolved much over the years. When the internet became more widely used, "Rock the Vote" developed a website. The website contains information about upcoming elections and how to register to vote. One of the main problems among young people is that they don't feel like taking the time to register and they don't understand the importance of participating in elections. "Rock the Vote" makes is more simple and it has done a great job getting more citizens involved. One of the most valuable things about the internet is that it makes things more simple and much faster.

Political Campaign Ads

This past November, Carly Fiorina and Barbara Boxer were opposing candidates for Senator of California. Here are two examples of their campaign ads.

This ad paid for by "Carly for California," is known as the "Demon Sheep Ad." It is probably one of the strangest political commercials I have ever seen. It is quite long and is focused all on one person. Throughout the ad the narrator is constantly bashing Tom Campbell. There is no information whatsoever about Carly Fiorina and why she would be a better choice for California. After watching this commercial I had no desire to vote for her.


This is an ad for Barbara Boxer. I found this one to be much more effective in that it is shorter, and it is about why she would be a better pick for senator. The ads that focus on the weaknesses of opponents make the candidate putting out the ad look weak themselves. There should be something good about you to advertise rather than bashing your opponents.

The E-Commerce Taxation Issue

E-commerce refers to the buying and selling of products via the internet. You can buy something online that comes from across the country. Since the states collect sales tax, the states can't collect sales tax on something you purchased online that is coming from a different state. This issue causes problems for the stores on the street and for the states. Local stores suffer because more and more people use online shopping since it is both faster and there is not a sales tax. This has created a large blow to state tax revenues.
Solutions that are proposed in order to fix this problem require the altering of tax policies and models. The issue with this solution is that the tax policies that already exist for each state are complicated enough and to alter them for the internet would only multiply the complexity. This is a difficult issue to resolve because the tax laws were not written with the internet in mind.

Here is a video explaining the evolution of e-commerce.

Censoring the Media

Back in 1971, a man named Daniel Ellsberg, who worked for the Pentagon, stole classified documents titled, "The Pentagon Papers." He then gave these documents over to The New York Times, who published them for the public to view. Right away the US government filed for and was granted an order to stop the publishing of the papers. When this case was appealed to the Supreme Court, the justices came to the unanimous decision that the government could not censor information printed by The New York Times or any press related material. The government argued that it should be able to keep private things that could potentially cause danger to national security. Justice Hugo Black reasoned that "freedom of the press" is written in the Constitution so that the public can be informed of what the government is doing. How can the government take that right away from the people? I agree with the ruling of the Court for this case. The public has the right to know what goes on between the US and other countries, and the media has the right to publish whatever they want.

Online Print Media

The New York Times has a website that provides news articles about the United States and all around the world. Not only are there factual articles but there are also a wide variety of editorials. I trust that The New York Times provides accurate information. It acts as a good source for people who don't have much knowledge about recent political actions. Because the use of technology has become more and more abundant all over the US, it is almost essential for newspapers to start publishing online. This has had a positive impact on the public because there are also many people who aren't willing to pay for or can't afford a newspaper subscription. It is important that the public is well aware of what is going in both their own nation and all over the world.
Here is an article written by Dale Carpenter, expressing his opinions about gay marriage. It is helpful for people to have such easy access to editorials so that they can understand the views of others and then form their own opinions.

Political Commentary on Television

There are many television news shows that aren't at the same level of seriousness as the news shows on CNN or CBS. Shows like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show are mostly making fun of the political drama taking place everyday. Most find it amusing and entertaining but there are still those who don't take the jokes lightly and may be offended. These shows provide news updates but they shouldn't be considered a valuable or reliable source of information. It is important that the people watching these shows understand that these reporters aren't serious and that for better information they should watch reports from CNN or CBS. The more amusing shows have had a positive impact not only by being entertaining but they also give some form of an update to those who don't bother to watch the serious news reports. Comedians like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert do a great job attracting younger people into the world of politics.
Here is a video clip from Stephen Colbert's "The Colbert Report." He is making fun of the obsession people have had over President Obama's birth certificate.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
America Needs to See Obama's Report Cards
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

Daniel Ellsberg, a political scientist working for the Pentagon, stole classied papers called, “The Pentagon Papers.” He then gave these documents to The New York Times, which began publishing them. Just a couple days later, the government was granted an order to stop the publishing of these papers. The case was quickly appealed to the US Supreme Court. The question was: Could the government prevent the publication of materials because they could be endangering national security?

The Court’s decision was issued per curiam. This means that the decision came from the Court as whole, rather than there being one writer for the opinion, all nine justices wrote their own opinion. Justice Hugo L. Black wrote that he felt the whole reason behind “freedom of the press” in the First Amendment was so that the press could let out government secrets and inform the people. Justice William O. Douglas agreed and added that there is nothing barring the press from publishing this kind of information. I agree with the Court’s decision for this case. Justice Black’s argument makes perfect sense. Today there a lot of information gets leaked to the public. It is as if the freedom of the press keeps the government on its toes and prevents it from committing any acts of corruption. If the government could control everything that gets published, there would be much more “behind the scenes” things taking place.  

This case is often compared to Wikileaks, which is a company responsible for leaking much government information to the public. This video discusses the similarities and differences between these two situations.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Benjamin Gitlow was convicted for violating the 1902 New York Criminal Anarchy Act. This Act prohibited speaking, teaching, advising, printing, pblishing, circulating, selling, distributing or publicly displaying of organized anarchy. Gitlow was caught teaching the necessity to overthrow the government and he made two publications based off of the Communist Manfiesto. This case deals with the issue of whether or not the First Amendment’s protections of press and free speech are included in the Fourteenth Amendment, which then makes them applicable at state level.
With a 7 to 2 vote, the Court decided to approve Gitlow’s conviction. I don’t think I completely agree with this ruling. We are given the right to free speech and free press. I don’t see why it is okay for the government to censor or simply remove people’s publications or teachings for self-preservation. Our government is unique in that the citizens are allowed to freely express what they want. If the government always removed anything that seemed threatening, it would become oppressive.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas

This case represents a collection of cases all dealing with a similar issue. It was the issue of black children being denied admission to the public white schools. This goes back to the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 which determined that having separate but equal facilities for white and colored people does not go against the guaranteed equal protection laws in the Fourteenth Amendment.
This time the Court unanimously decided that the separate but equal schools do go against the equal protection clause. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that, “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore we hold that the plaintiffs…are, by reason of the segregation complained of deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.” I am glad that the Court came to this conclusion, as it should have back in 1896 with the Plessy v. Ferguson case. I suppose that that was a different situation since it wasn’t dealing with education, but I still feel that it was of similar principle. No matter how equal the schools are or seats on a train, there should be no segregation at all.

This video discusses the involvement of young people in the fight for racial equality.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Clarence Earl Gideon planned to rob a Florida pool hall but was caught while breaking in. He could not afford his own attorney for his trial and the court refused his request for a court-appointed official. Florida would only provide free counsel for capital cases. Gideon pleaded not guilty and tried to defend himself. He was unsuccessful and was found guilty and sentenced to 5 years in prison. Gideon submitted a petition to the US Supreme Court to accept his appeal. The Court accepted the appeal and appointed Abe Fortas as Gideon’s attorney.
The Court examined the decision that was made for the Betts v. Brady case in 1942. For this case the Court had decided that the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment did not require the guarantee of counsel in criminal cases, which is stated in the Sixth Amendment.
The Court came to a unanimous decision in favor of Gideon, which overturns the decision that was made in 1942 for Betts. Chief Justice Black explained that a person can’t be given a fair trial without some sort of counsel present for them. I agree with the decision the Court came to. Everyone deserves to have some sort of defense no matter what their financial situation is. If only those who could afford lawyers had them in court, our country would be ruled by the rich. The framers of the constitution aimed for everyone to have equal opportunity in this country. Because of this case, everyone is appointed an attorney if they are unable to afford their own. Without counsel and both sides of a case, the trial couldn’t be fair.

Here is an informational video about the details of Clarence Earl Gideon.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

The decision for the Miranda case was actually for four different cases that were dealing with extremely similar constitutional issues. Each of them involved people who were convicted based on the confessions they made after long periods of interrogation and without being informed of their right to remain silent and counsel. Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix, Arizona police and was accused of kidnapping and rape. He was never informed of his right to remain silent or have an attorney. After much interrogation, he signed a written confession. Miranda appealed to the US Supreme Court based on the Fifth Amendment, that nobody shall have to be a witness against themselves for any criminal case. The main question was: Under what conditions can an interrogation take place that will produce a confession suitable for the Court?
With a 5 to 4 vote the Court decided to set Miranda free. Chief Justice Earl Warren explained that Miranda was put in an unfair situation. When someone is taken into custody they must be informed of their rights. Warren also expressed concern for the interrogation process. He felt that many defendants are put into such an emotional and pressuring situation that they are unable to practice rational judgement. Warren wrote that the Court's decision is also an effort to get rid of the pressures that defendants face when interrogated and limit self-incrimination. Although Miranda was probably guilty, I feel that the Court made the right decision. The interrogation process is quite brutal and it is important that it is addressed by the court.

Here is a silly cartoon that explains how the Miranda rights were recognized and what happened to Ernesto Miranda after the case.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

The Medical School at UC Davis had a separate admissions process for minority students. In 1973, 84 "regular" students and 16 minority or disadvantaged students were admitted. The group of minority students had much lower science grade-point averages and Medical College Aptitude Test scores. Alan Bakke, who was white, was not given admission to the UC Davis Medical School that year. His science grade-point average was slightly lower than the regular students, but his aptitude test scores were much higher. Bakke attempted to sue the Regents for a place at the school. California's Superior Court ruled that the admissions program violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The court still didn't order that Bakke be admitted into the school though. Bakke appealed to the California Supreme Court, who ordered him admitted to the school by citing the Fourteenth Amendment. The Regents then appealed to the US Supreme Court arguing that the special admissions process did not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There was also a question of whether or not racial preference considerations are always unconstitutional.

With a 5 to 4 vote, the Court decided that the University's minority admissions program did violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I agree with this ruling. I can see why the University felt that this admissions process was more fair though. There are a lot of people who have no choice but to grow up in a poor environment and not have the same opportunities as others. Many feel that these people deserve the same chance as everyone else who had the privileges of a comfortable home and good education. At the same time though, it isn't fair to those who may be more fortunate but also worked just as hard. It is nice that the University considers that one person had a tougher time in school given the environment they had to grow up in, but I feel the school should give admission to those who are most qualified.
This kind of evaluating is still done by colleges today. There isn't a completely separate admissions program for minorities but there is a lot of room to explain one's struggles while growing up. It is important that schools recognize those who worked extra hard to overcome the rough schools and living conditions.

Miller v. California (1973)

Miller sent out unrequested mailings containing advertisements for "adult" books and films. These brochures showed sexually explicit photos and drawings. Miller was prosecuted for violating California's obscenity laws and was found guilty. His appeal addresses whether or not the state is violating the First Amendment when prosecuting publishers for "obscene" materials.
The Court ended up voting 5 to 4 in favor of California. I agree with this decision. Although I feel that the rights granted to citizens in the First Amendment are important, the state should also have some control over the things people publish. This kind of material can be offensive to some people. It is difficult to have a concrete definition of what exactly is crossing the line when it comes to obscene material. Because of this dilemma, the Court proposed three guidelines that should be followed.
This topic will always remain an issue in society today because it is so difficult to determine what is and is not obscene. It is important to keep offensive materials from being published but at the same time the First Amendment is supposed to protect our right to free speech and free press.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

An 1890 Louisiana law ordered that railroads must have separate but equal accommodations for whites and colored races. Anyone who violated this law was either fined $20 or put in jail for 25 days. Plessy, who was 1/8 black sat in the white people section. When the conductor asked him to move, he refused to give up his seat. He was arrested and a local judge, Ferguson, ordered him to be imprisoned. Plessy appealed to the United States Supreme Court with the argument that the law in Louisiana violates both the Thirteenth Amendment (forbids slavery) and the Fourteenth Amendment (prohibits the denial of equal protection to any person).
The Court quickly ignored the issue of the Thirteenth Amendment. They felt that just because there is a legal distinction between the two races, it doesn't mean they are being treated unequally. I am disappointed that segregation was not addressed. Although the whites and colored are essentially being treated equal, why does there still have to be separation? Justice Henry Brown explained that the Fourteenth Amendment enforces "absolute equality of the two races" and that, "it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based on color." Even though there is fair treatment, I feel that it is racist just to simply make a distinction. I guess that means that we're all a little racist, but it's the truth. The law should simply address the citizens, there is no reason to distinguish between whites and colored people.

Here is a video with Gary Orfield, who co-founded the Harvard Civil Right Project. In this video he talks about the case of Plessy v. Ferguson and how we have evolved since then.


It will be a long time before racism completely goes away in this country, but we have come a long way. Segregation will unfortunately always be a part of human nature. It's not just colored races dealing with it, but homosexuals as well. Plessy's case is a landmark in history because it is part of what jump started society's struggle for equality across the counrty.

United States v. Nixon (1974)

While President Richard M. Nixon was campaigning for reelection, burglars broke into the Watergate office and apartment complex. There were alleged ties between these burglars and the President's reelection committee. Many conversations were taped in the White House Oval office and when Leon Jaworski attempted to subpoena the tapes, the President refused to hand them over to the court. Nixon felt that he didn't have to surrender the tapes because he had executive power.
The main question was: Can the president claim executive privileges to avoid surrendering material to the federal court? The court unanimously voted that the President must hand over the tapes. This is obviously the correct decision. This case is proof that our system of checks and balances are working. It is nice to see that once a president's action has been questioned it is then tried in court for its constitutionality. Without this system our country would be run by corrupt leaders.
The 18 minutes of tape that was erased was originally thought gone for good but historians today are trying to recover the missing information with new technology. This video discusses the various methods being used.


This court case is significant today because it ensures that our constitution and system of checks and balances are working. Nixon resigned before actually being impeached. This case acts as a reminder to present and future presidents, that their executive power does not give them the privilege to act unconstitutionally.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

 Back in 1973, Jane Roe (a pseudonym) challenged the Texas law that prohibited abortions except for when the life of the child's mother was in danger. Roe was a a young woman who wished to have an abortion although her life was not being put in danger. Roe fought that the Fourteenth Amendment could not protect the life of her baby because a fetus is not considered a person according to the law. She also argued that her abortion should be kept private which is protected by the Bill of Rights.
The Court easily voted, 7 to 2, in favor of both of Roe's arguments. Being rather conservative, people were surprised to see Justice Harry A. Blackmun's response. He explained that the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments address that a woman has "the right to activities relating to marriage..., procreation..., and contraception..." This confirms that Roe has the right to do what she wants with anything that relates to these situations. Pregnancy and abortion are both linked to all of these situations. Justice Blackmun also adds that the right to privacy of course includes a woman's decision on whether or not to have an abortion.
It is interesting to consider what does and does not qualify as a person. How can one say that a fetus isn't a person if we know that it is destined to become one in just a short period of time? The court draws a line at the second trimester, which is the first 3 months of pregnancy. After the second trimester is up, the woman must give birth to her baby. It gets to a stage where the baby is developed enough to be considered an actual human being and to have an abortion at that point is considered murder. I agree that there should be a limit on how late an abortion can be done. I feel that if a woman truly feels unprepared to properly raise a baby, it is better off that the baby is not brought into the world in the first place. There is still much controversy considering this topic but many women today are getting abortions who feel unprepared or not ready to have a child.

Here is a video presenting the stories of three young women dealing with abortion and how the court decision in favor Roe has positively effected them as it has for many women across America.

Head Start Helps Children

While writing my community service research paper I discovered a national program called, Head Start, that is specifically for helping children growing up in poor families. This program focuses on one of the main parts to my community service topic, which is poverty. There are many children born into families that are unable to afford any sort of education for them. I visited the Head Start website to find more details about the program.

"Head Start is a national program that promotes school readiness by enhancing the social and cognitive development of children through the provision of educational, health, nutritional, social and other services to enrolled children and families."

Safes Along the Sea Shore

The earthquake and tsunami in Japan left many people without any of their personal belongings and homes. One month following the disasters, belongings are beginning to wash up on the shores. Japanese culture and tradition cause many citizens of Japan to stash a lot of their money in safes in their homes. Those who couldn't evacuate quickly enough, lost much of their savings along with their houses. Tomoko Hosaka wrote an article depicting and explaining the massive number of dented metal boxes that have washed up.
Hosaka points out that because so many Japanese citizens keep their savings at home, there is about $350 billion worth of yen that doesn't circulate. Workers are attempting to identify the safes and are trying to successfully return them to their owners. The loss of so much money only further increases the amount of poverty and homelessness in a country under so much stress.

Project Linus Promo Video

Project Linus Promo Video:



This is a fun and easy way to help out children dealing with an illness or living in poor conditions.

Children Living in Poverty

Here is an informative video about the many children living in poverty. Children International is an organization that allows you to sponsor a child. Sponsoring a child helps with medical expenses and gives an undernourished child more food.