Abstract This paper examines the Patriot Act and explains that its objectives include provisions for providing the U.S. with the instruments necessary to combat and prevent future acts of terrorism. The paper argues that the Act, however, is limited on many levels and does not necessarily achieve the objective of preventing terrorism; rather, it imposes limitations on civil liberties and causes unnecessary fears to be raised in the minds and hearts of the American people.
From the Paper "Certain constraints evident in achieving the goals of the Act are presented by clientele opinion, the courts, agency staff, federal rules and even the culture within the U.S. Many argue that provisions in the Patriot Act are not compatible with the U.S. culture, which supports the idea that the government should be charged with "defending life, liberty, and property against both domestic and foreign predators" (Levy, 2003). Though in theory, the act was established to support these causes, many would argue that it in effect denies certain civil liberties and causes immigrants and non-citizens to carelessly be classified as foreign predators in many situations (Levy, 2003)."
Abstract America responded to the 9/11 attacks by strengthening powers of government and, in the process, eroding personal freedoms. This paper argues that it is time to understand that the war on terror isn't a short-term war, and if we are to live governed by the Constitution, which our founding fathers put into place to ensure freedom for everyone, it's time to roll back some of the more recent legislation and work towards more sustainable methods of preventing terrorism. The paper refers, in particular, to the USA Patriot Act and the laissez-faire policy of the Department of Homeland Security. The paper argues that if we continue to give up our personal freedom, we have, in fact, let the terrorists win.
From the Paper "Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act also gives the FBI virtually unlimited power to search bookstore and library records and see what people are reading. Before PATRIOT, the government needed probable cause and a warrant from a neutral judge in order to obtain such records; now they can see what a person is reading without that person even knowing about it. The Fourth Amendment's guarantee of ?[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search an seizures? (The Bill of Rights) doesn?t prevent this new power granted to our government agencies. Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law at Stanford University, argues that under the Cohen Theorem, reading anonymously is "so intimately connected with speech and freedom of thought that the First Amendment should be understood to guarantee such a right" (154)."
Discusses how the United States can protect itself from enemies within its own borders without harming the ideals of freedom on which the country's Constitution is based.
Abstract The tragedy of 9/11 is the most recent case in point of how a nation can take its freedom and liberty for granted, which ultimately allows others to tear down that which has taken over 200 years to build, protect, and defend. This paper shows that the Patriot Act of 2001 undoubtedly faces numerous legal challenges in the upcoming months and years. While the issue of protecting the nation cannot be forgotten in the aftermath of 9/11, neither can the lessons learned from the Alien and Sedition Acts, nor the tragic mistake of interning thousands of Japanese-Americans under no more than suspicion and bigotry. The paper explains that the challenge of defending a nation from outside aggressors is simple when compared to the problem of defending the nation from those who would attack it from within.
From the Paper "Under the Patriot Act, the FBI needs only to certify to a FISA judge that the action is based on investigating terrorism. There remains no need for evidence of a crime, or probable cause, only that the search is designed to protect against terrorism. Under the Act, the judge has no authority to reject this application. While the Department of Justice (DOJ) calls this "seeking a court order," in application it is much closer to a rubber stamp. In the pragmatic application of the Act, the target of a search needn't be a terror suspect himself, so long as the government's purpose is "an authorized investigation ... to protect against international terrorism." (Lithwick and Turner, 2003)"
Is same-sex marriage a civil rights issue? This paper considers major arguments against same-sex marriage and contrasts them with arguments in favor of it.
Abstract This paper focuses on religion, the influence of religion on politics, the Federal Marriage Amendment, and marriage rights and privileges. The paper sheds a positive light on the topic of same-sex marriage. Resources are current, and the paper is argumentative.
From the Paper "Recent political events have shed sudden light on an issue that the American public has long been avoiding: Same-sex marriage. Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry? As human beings and American citizens, are same sex couples entitled to the same protections that law provides to heterosexual married couples? Unlike the usual pro/con debates, this particular issue has three sides. There's the "no" side that argues that the benefits of marriage are sanctimonious and that they should be provided only to opposite sex couples. The "yes" side would argue that marriage is a basic civil right and should be provided to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation. The third side meets the previous two extremes somewhere in the middle, stating that while the term "marriage" is sanctimonious and should be reserved only for opposite sex couples, the benefits of marriage should be available to all couples regardless of sexual orientation. Each side has its own theories in a debate that is anything but black and white."
Abstract The paper examines the controversy of the Patriot Act and answers many of the myths claiming that it infringes on people's civil liberties. The author discusses how this law has been a vital tool in helping to fight terrorism. It shows how, previously, governments agencies did not work together to share information and now, as a result, of the Patriot Act, agencies are exchanging information, which is key to preventing terrorist attacks. This paper, therefore, argues that, although certain sectors of the population may feel that the Patriot Act affects their civil rights, in general, the Act assists in protecting the country.
From the Paper "One of the most vocal critics of the Patriot Act is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Their biggest objection of the Act is to Section 215, which permits agents to seek business records by showing a judge that this information is required to help a terrorism investigation. Under Section 215 the FBI does not have to show probable cause of wrongdoing to obtain a warrant, as is required in other criminal cases. The ACLU contends that Section 215 is unconstitutional because it gives the FBI the ability to spy on and track everyday protest groups such as the National Rifle Association, Operation Rescue and Greenpeace, simply because they can be considered domestic terrorism groups."
Abstract This paper provides background information on the case against Martha Stewart and her involvement in the Imclone stock scandal. The paper looks at the arguments presented by the prosecution, the arguments presented by the defense, the verdict, and then offers some afterthoughts concerning the case.
From the Paper "Imclone is a biotech company that produces oncology pharmaceuticals. Imclone's most famous drug to date has been Erbitux, a compound that is used to fight certain types of cancers. On December 27th, 2001, Martha Stewart sold 3928 chares of Imclone. The problem the prosecution had with transaction was she sold the shares one day before the FDA announced it had rejected Imclone's application for approval of Erbitux. The days following this announcement sent Imclone's stock price way down. The fact is that even though Martha Stewart made a profit of $51,000 by selling her shares, she was never actually charged with insider trading."
Abstract This is a position paper arguing that the key to solving society's problems with guns is to address the core issues rather than simply the symptoms. The paper suggests that the solution likely lies within education about guns and about the value of all life.
From the Paper "Gun control has been a hot topic for years in political and human rights debates, and although it may seem to be on the back burner today due to concerns over terrorists and other threatening worldly forces, it is not any less relevant now than ever before. People who are opponents to the gun control efforts feel that they are often intrusive into the private lives of citizens and unconstitutional. Proponents of gun control laws believe that it is an important part of stopping violent crime and improving the moral fiber of our society. Both sides of the issue have legitimate concerns, however it is questionable whether either group is currently proposing any solutions that will truly solve the problems that have spawned this debate."
Abstract This paper examines how the question of under what circumstances does one sovereign nation have the moral authority to initiate military aggression against another sovereign nation is a question that has been debated since the beginning of human civilization. In particular, it analyzes the use of military aggression against Iraq during the United States invasion of 2003 and whether it establishes a radical precedent in modern times that violates the previously recognized principles of moral justification for war and inaugurates the adoption of a "first-strike" policy by the United States in international relations.
From the Paper "In the new war against terror, it is a mistake to focus primarily on the means possessed by the enemy. The attack of September 11 shows the overwhelming devastation that can be wrought with incredibly little means, when there is sufficient planning and motivation. Terrorists do not need a crazed dictator to provide them with extraordinarily lethal chemical and biological weapons. These can easily be made with minimal laboratory equipment using readily-known methods. And the means to deploy them can be found by exploiting the technology of the free world. Plan of action as well as intent are therefore of great importance to consider when evaluating a threat."
Abstract This paper examines how human cloning has always stirred healthy debate and how philosophical theories regarding the issue of cloning range from the technological to the ethical. The value of human life is also juxtaposed with the benefits to those who are suffering. It looks at how some view cloning as an inevitable process that is bound to occur as society forges ahead into the next age of medical discovery, while others see the act of human cloning as a slippery slope that will lead to cloning for spare parts, thus removing the dignity of life itself.
From the Paper "When we consider these varying views, we discover that many philosophical viewpoints revolve around the issue of values. In other words, cloning devalues life because it degrades others as a means to our ends. John Kilner, in his essay, ?Human Cloning Would Violate Christian Ethics,? staunchly believes, "human cloning will cause the deaths of human beings"(Kilner 13). In short, the act of cloning, whether or not it saves live, devalues life itself. He asserts that because cloning is not yet a perfect science, many human embryos would be lost and therefore, the "cost is unacceptably high" (14). He grounds his argument on the ?277 failed attempts? (14) that took place before Dolly was cloned successfully."
Abstract This paper attempts to shed light on the "newest" platform on which creationists stand: intelligent design. The paper does this by first delineating the concept of creation and the new "scientific" explanation for creationism. The paper then goes on to point out the shortcomings of this new platform and concludes that, in reality, it is just a deliberate effort made by the creationists to veil their goals with a cloak of superficially scientific support.
From the Paper "The search for knowledge regarding the origin of humanity is about as old as its inhabitants. Since the early 1800's mankind has continually narrowed the debate down to two opposing ideologies: one of creation and one of evolution. Ever since this partition of ideas, science has been at odds with religion. Yet just as ironic as the debate itself, it appears as if these two conflicting views have attempted to settle their differences with the current prevailing argument. But a closer look into the recent creation/evolution debate reveals that indeed claims being made by present day creationists are still, at best, erroneous. Thus the purpose of this paper is to shed light on the "newest" platform on which creationist stand: Intelligent Design. In order to fully understand the claim that they make, we first must clearly delineate the often misrepresented concept of evolution. In doing so, one can unmask the falseness in which creationists seem to aimlessly wander."
Abstract This paper examines how, since the tragedy of September 11, 2001, employment claims of discrimination on the basis of national origin have risen substantially. It looks at how, with the increase in discrimination based on national origin, it seems appropriate to talk about what national-origin discrimination is and what workplace protections exist under Title VII to combat this type of discrimination. It focuses on these topics, looks at the development of Title VII, and identifies the impact it has had in the workplace. Additionally, it looks at who is and is not protected under Title VII and reviews policies and procedures that employers can implement to limit their exposure to such claims.
From the Paper "National origin discrimination has been broadly defined as "including, but not limited to, the denial of equal employment opportunity because of [an applicant or employee"s] or his or her ancestor's place of origin; or because an applicant has the physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics of a national origin group? (EEOC). It is illegal for employers to segregate, limit, and or classify an employee based on the individual's national origin, which may rob them of benefits, opportunities, or privileges in their employment (Bennett 401). Oddly enough, according to the EEOC, it is suggested that national origin discrimination is often based solely on physical characteristics, such as facial features, which is not an appropriate basis for determining national origin. The EEOC also protects against discrimination on the basis of association or marriage with individuals of a particular national origin group; attendance, membership or participation in schools, churches, temples, synagogues or mosques; or any people with a surname affiliated with an ethnicity."
Abstract This paper presents the three reasons given by George W. Bush to the American public for going to war with Iraq. The paper discusses these three reasons: That Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaeda, that Hussein was attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, and that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The paper dismisses these reasons as inapplicable. The claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction is examined in the paper. The paper also outlines Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the threat of nuclear weapons.
From the Paper "Of the three claims, the third one regarding WMD was instantly believable, because American news had been full of pictures of dead Kurds, citizens of Iraq, killed with Iraq's chemical weapons. Hussein had used WMD's in the past on his own citizens, and so it seemed likely that he could easily use them on people he regarded as enemies of his country. In addition, he used Scud missiles (short range, and easily moved) to attack Saudi Arabia and even Israel during the Gulf War (Richelson, p. 75), demonstrating his willingness to attack other nations. The second concern, that Iraq might already nuclear weapons, had less direct evidence people could recall easily, but was also quite scary. Since the end of the Cold War, a recurring fear was that a terrorist-driven country would use nuclear weapons to try to force its will on other countries."
Abstract This paper explains that the principal ethical issue underlying objections to the medical use of stem cells has its roots in the Christian religious belief that human life begins at conception. Scientists absolutely reject this belief and consider all biological life, including human life, to be fundamentally the same, different only in degrees rather than in kind. The author states that the argument against stem cell research is based on the specious "slippery slope" argument, according to which producing embryos for medical research would necessarily lead to human cloning. he paper concludes that there is no basis in objective ethical principles to prohibit the medical profession from pursuing all avenues likely to improve human life by eliminating as many debilitating diseases as possible.
From the Paper "Human stem cells exist in four varieties, with different relative therapeutic medical potential. Stem cells derived from early human embryos have the greatest medical potential and likely hold the key to curing victims of traumatic spinal paralysis and organ tissue regeneration instead of reliance on donor tissue transplantation. Embryonic stem cell tissues are referred to as totipotent, because they seem to posses the unique potential to grow into virtually any human tissue or even complete human organs."
Abstract This paper examines the general divide, as well as proposing support for one particular aspect of this rather general issue, which is that of the racism inherent in the American state execution system, hereafter referred to as 'death row'. This paper explains that, especially in Texas and some other Southern states such as Georgia, but arguably anywhere, minorities are relegated to an inferior social status due to racist out-group thinking in terms of cultural authority; this racism is at work. The writer points out that the over-representation of minorities on death row is worth examining as a symptom of many problems in the system, including those of cleared cases and ones still pending. The functional racism of the death penalty is illustrated in several examples and other issues of concern it raises within legal scholarship.
From the Paper "The history of the death penalty is long and too complicated to recount in terms of cultural differences throughout human history within the present forum. But the death penalty has been used by societies since ancient times, for various crimes ranging in magnitude and the severity of harm involved. Generally societies that were based on scriptural rules regarding the death penalty for various crimes had their civil codes and
laws. There has been an observed racial divide within the U.S. in terms of death penalty cases since independence, depending largely on the societal implications of a racially oppressive legal culture that was guided by principles of universal human freedom. Other systems have their own histories of racial oppression through unequal colonialist
legal systems."
Tags: crime, punishment, texas, death, row, capital
Abstract This paper argues gun control is a law that should exist to some extent, but that should not violate the right, as set out by the U.S. Constitution, to bear arms. It explains that there is no evidence proving that gun ownership increases the likelihood of any crime or accident if the gun is stored and used properly.
From the Paper "There exists a long-running debate concerning the question of whether owning a gun increases the likelihood of becoming a victim of crime, committing a crime that one would not otherwise have committed, or that household ownership of a gun increases the likelihood of death due to accident or suicide. Different studies have returned different findings and conclusions and it leaves one wondering exactly what the truth is and exactly what one should believe when contemplating possible gun purchase and household ownership of a gun."
