Affirmative Action case reaching the Supreme Court

Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin"into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually justified as countering the effects of a history of discrimination. It is a practice that has been used in areas such as employment and Universities' admission practices. However it benefits minorities, its constitutionality has been questioned in the past by applicants that don't belong to these groups. Groups against Affirmative Actions state that it contradicts its purpose creating more discrimination. On the other hand supporters see it as a big opportunity for minorities to have access to the schools that were once predominantly white. The first case decided by the Supreme Court deciding this issue was back in 1979, California v. Bakke. In this case an applicant to medical school was denied admission because of a special program that secured 16  of the 100 seats to the entering class. The majority of the justices agreed that he shouldn't have been denied admission. Thurgood Marshall the only black justice in the panel wrote a very powerful dissenting opinion. History is trying to repete itself this time with justice Sotomayor in the Supreme Court; Fisher v. Texas is schedule to be heard in fall by the Supreme Court. Sotomayor has expressed her positive views about Affirmative Action, however it is expected that the majority of the justice will rule against this practice. Either writing the majority , concurring or discenting opinion; justice Sotomayor is expecting to bring some controversy to this case. I really hope she makes history like Justice Thurgood Marshall... I'm a big fan of her !!!!


http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/07/opinion/navarrette-affirmative-action/index.html

"Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman", that is the definition of a marriage that opponents to the same-sex marriage are willing to defend until the end. Recently a California Court of Appeals declared Proposition Eight, banning same-sex marriage, to be unconstitutional; last Thursday the Maryland Senate voted to legalize same sex marriage making part of the list of states that already issue marriage licence to same sex couples. It seems that there has been a progressive change in mentality and people are more receptive to changes in society. Unfortunately for some and fortunately for others the definition of marriage that we have known for centuries has to be restated so it does not discriminate on the basis of gender.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/23/us/maryland-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=ju_c2

Search at a School Unconstitutional ???

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures. It is very clear that this Amendment protects citizens from potentially being harassed and abused by law enforcement and investigative agencies, however it is not clear if it also protects us for unreasonable search a seizures carry on by regular citizens. This is a case that will be heard in the Supreme Court in North Carolina, after a student filed a lawsuit against her school for inducing her to participate in a bra search based on a tip that pills were being bought to class.  The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled last year that the searches were unconstitutional as well as demeaning and highly intrusive. Schools need to find other ways to conduct searches on students, in my opinion the school took it too far. However the issue is whether the search was unconstitutional. It will be very interesting to know how the courts address this issue.

An American citizen, a father, and a husband was killed in Ciudad Juarez Mexico in front of his two year old son and his wife, when in an attempt to keep his family together moved to ciudad Juarez to ask the U.S embassy to give his wife permission to return to the U.S. They had been married for two years when they decided to begin the naturalization process. His wife was brought into the United States ilegally by his parents when she was a child. Ciudad Juarez is one of the most dangerous cities in the world; 3000 people were murdered in 2010. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prevent immigrants from returning to the United States for several years if they have entered into its territory unlawfully. This law applies whether the USCIS knows that you were in the country illegally or not. The law has to be amended in my opinion, so tragedies like this may be prevented.

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech is probably one of the most invoked Constitutional Rights. I invoked it just this morning in a little domestic disagreement. But how far this right protecting the free expression of our ideas can go? Demonstrators in a national park in Washington were surprised by the decision of a district court judge stating that their protest is considered a matter of public policy and not Constitutional Law. However they were protesting peacefully and quietly, and their actions did not endanger anyone, soon they will be ask to remove their camping gear from the park. I think we will hear more about this case...

Felony Disenfranchisement

What does the term disenfranchisement mean? According to the Black's Law Dictionary, disenfranchisement means taking away the right to vote in public elections from citizens or class of citizens in this case citizens that have been charged with felonies ( Felony Disenfranchisement). With the primaries and presidential elections around the corner Felony Disenfranchisement has become a hot subject to talk about during the political debates. Some candidates are in favor of allowing felons to vote, right that was taken away by the founders. It is not a mystery that a great percentage of people incarcerated are black, and this is the population that is being affected the most by this law. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the Government from denying the right to vote on the basis of race, color or previous condition of servitude, however it does not prohibit the Government from taking away the right to vote from people that have committed felonies.