Loving v Virgina

Kinney, K-I-N-N-E-Y and then in 1924, in the period of great history in the United States, the historical period we're all familiar with, a period when the west was in arms over the yellow peril and western states were thinking about these laws or some (Inaudible), a period when the immigration laws were being passed to the United States because the north was worried about the great influx of Italian immigrants and Irish immigrants, a period when the Klan rode openly in the south and that's when they talked about bastardy of races, and miscegenation and amalgamation and race suicide became the watch word, and John Powell, a man we singled out in our brief, a noted pianist of his day, started taking up the Darwin Theory and perverting it through the theory of eugenics, the theory that applied to animals, to pigs, and hogs, and cattle.

Loving v Virginia was a case argued before the Supreme Court 1967 and addressed the right of a white man to marry a black woman. The state argued they have the right to regulate marriage.  The plaintiff argued that the law was discriminatory and akin to ‘slave’ legislation.  The court found that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination."

I am ashamed and angered when I consider how racist my country has been and continues to be.  I chose the above paragraph because it speaks to intolerance related to Native American, Italians, Irish, and of course Blacks.  It is too painful for me to focus only on the unfortunate way this country has treated my ancestors.  It is more palatable to contemplate how ignorantly the establishment treated a number of groups, in addition to blacks.  Listening the arguments made before the Supreme Court was thought provoking and brings about a sense of amazement how much progress has been made since 1967.

Gonzales v. Raich

“So now what you're saying is, in a Commerce Clause case, what we're supposed to do is to start to look at the federal scheme and the state scheme and see, comparing the federal scheme and the state scheme, whether, given the state scheme, the federal scheme is really necessary to include this.” (Stephen G. Breyer)

This Supreme Court Argument was concerned with rather the commerciality of marijuana is economic or non-economic.  The government argues that there needs to be federal oversight of medicinal marijuana in order to prevent the interstate interchanging of marijuana, a schedule 1 substance, in presumed inability of a State, in this case California, inability to regulate such substance.

I chose the above paragraph because I believe it presents an articulate example of how to appropriately treat the powers of the state versus the State.  In many instances, there is recognition that each state has a right and responsibility to regulate its citizens, with exceptions given to activities and/or events that will affect the State-at-large.  I strongly believe that it is important that each state maintains it autonomy, where possible, and not defer to the State, except in rare instances that it becomes necessary.     

Buckley v. Valeo

The issue is whether Congress under the First Amendment made by law, limit the ability of challengers to communicate with the very same constituents without similarly limiting itself.

Of course, public officials need to communicate with voters, but so do challengers and if private contributions to challengers for use in mailing are to be limited, since they may corrupt or give the wealthy an unequal voice, then contributions to incumbents for the same purpose should also be limited.  Ralph K. Winter, Jr.

This was an oral argument made before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 10, 1975.  At question was financing of political campaigns and how much individuals and political action groups can lawfully contribute.

I chose the above paragraph because, at the onset, speaks to the heart of the matter.  Speech and communication are key components in a candidate’s ability to reach his potential constituents.  In he age of mass media, communication is easily translated into dollars.  As anything else in our capitalistic economy, communication becomes subject to the forces of the market, which is counter to democracy.  Therefore, each person must be guaranteed the same access  and ability to communicate to said constituency.