Prompt No. 7 Children Immigration

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/07/329504057/in-california-town-protests-shed-light-on-national-immigration-debate

What do you think the United States should do about these busses and busses of immigrant/refugee children?  Should we bring them in and take care of them or should we send them back to their home locations?  Listen to the arguments and organize your thoughts the best you can.

Prompt No. 6 Death Penalty

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/16/justice/california-death-penalty/index.html?iref=allsearch

 What do you think? Yes or no the death penalty? What are your thoughts, after reading the article, about how the death penalty is administered? Respond in general. Read the article and don't just fall back on the opinion you have, but evaluate and see if that's an opinion you want to keep. It may be! But it may not be! Always be open to re-evaluation.

Prompt No. 5 Open Gun Carriers...2nd Amendment too far?

Read the articles, folks! And feel free to research more on your own if you'd like. Regardless of whether you are a supporter of our 2nd Amendment right to own a gun, what do you think about people openly carrying their weapons into restaurants, stores, parks, etc.? Do you think that that should be protected or do you think that's maybe taking your gun rights too far? Read the articles and come to a decision. We'll definitely talk about this more in class later.

Prompt No. 4 Abortion v. First Amendment and Compelling state interest

Often, the Supreme Court is in the tough position of having to decide between two sets of rights. What if one person's right to something somehow conflicts with another person equally protected right? Who wins? Whose right is "more important?" So in these cases, the court has to consider "compelling state interest." In other words, they have to decide which right has the most compelling (overwhelming) state (the people) interest (what is the best thing for our society) or in other words, which right most great benefits the people overall. So they recently ruled on an abortion (which is a right protected by the 9th and 14th amendments) and protesting (1st amendment) right. Do you agree with the Supreme Court of the United States' (heneforth referred to as SCOTUS) decision that requiring a buffer around abortion clinics to protect patients from Anti-Abortion supporters is a violation of those protesters first amendment rights?

Prompt No. 3 Openly carrying guns: Smart or Stupid?

Listen to the abour National Public Radio piece on the Open-Carry Gun movement in Texas. Do you think people should be allowed to openly carry their guns in public? The Second Amendment and the Supreme Court say that citizens do have the right to own a gun for protection, but does this right, in your opinion, mean people can carry their guns on them at all times, out in the open, everywhere?

Prompt No. 2 "Redskins" Racist or Free Speech?

So the "Redskins" football team has lost its Federal Trademark. In other words, the US Government will no longer protect the title "Redskins" as it relates to this football team. Why? Because the US Patent and Trademark Office, which is an office created by Congress with power granted to it to do so by the US Constitution, has decided that the term is RACIST. Most agree. But is it illegal to be racist? Is using this name for their team "free speech" and therefore protected under the first amendment? Read the attached editorial/opinion piece. Feel free to read more if you like. But in the end, do you agree with the US Patent and Trademark Office to rescind the trademark or do you think that this is a free speech issue, as discussed in the editorial? Happy WRiting!!!

Prompt No. 1 Religious Freedom

Religious Freedom: The First Amendment grants us the right to "freely practice" our religious views (and NOT to practice any as the case may be) and guarantees that the government will not establish an official religion. So, these two components pretty much establish what we call a "wall of separation" between the government and we the people and our religious or non-religious beliefs. Now, do you think the government should protect a person's religious freedom, if part of that religious freedom means potentially discriminating against another person because that person somehow is against their relgion? So for example, like referenced in the article, should a business owner have the right to refuse service to a black or gay person because for some reason their "blackness" or homosexuality is in direct to their religious beliefs? It's a tough one. Remember, rule NO. 1 is respect. Any and all opinions are welcome, but express them respectfully and logically. Happy Writing! ALSO , please make sure to identify yourself. If I don't know who you are, I can't give you credit. Rebelo