Rainbows On The Horizon

Issue: The Supreme Court effectively allowed gay marriage in California with the decision (or lack thereof) of two laws/cases.

Argument: The laws banning gay marriage and the denial of health benefits from gay couples only seek to “disparage and injure” fellow gay citizens of the U.S.

Evidence:

• The laws banning gay marriage and health benefits for gay couples go against the promises of life and liberty in the Fifth Amendment.
• The case Windsor v. New York struck down the federal law denying a gay widow of her partner’s estate in 2009, effectively declaring it unconstitutional to give that right to straight couples but not to gay couples.

Claims: 

• These laws are motivated by a desire to harm gay couples by denying health benefits.
• The Supreme Court is not entitled to decide a state’s stance on marriage, effectively striking down Proposition 8.

There was something special in the air on June 26 as Justice Kennedy announced the majority strike down of the law preventing gay couples from sharing health benefits. In essence, the Court (5 out of 9 judges) declared that gay couples should be treated no differently than straight couples, pronouncing a message of equality that sent shockwaves throughout the U.S. The Court also refused to rule on a court case involving Proposition 8 in California, a refusal that implies and effectively declares the legality of gay marriage in California. These rulings imply that opponents to gay rights are opponents who have no moral standards or considerations for equality, an implication that received backlash from anti-gay marriage proponents. With California as the 13^th state to allow gay marriage, over 30% of the U.S. population now lives in a same-sex marriage zone, as opposed to 0% 2 years ago. The times are changing.

The Constitution has key pieces in it that directly relate to this issue: Amendments V and XIV. Amendment V, a key factor in the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the law regarding health benefits, states that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law.” Clearly, this law forbidding same-sex couples from enjoying the same health benefits as straight couples was interfering with the life and liberty of gay citizens. It is embarrassing and degrading to same-sex couples to be considered “less than” straight couples. The law interferes with life by adding stress and financial tension in times of sickness. How dare our nation deny rights to peaceful, law-abiding citizen. Gays make the world a better place. They deserve everything that any other person in America deserves.

Amendment XIV, originally intended for the civil rights of slaves, also declares that any citizen of the U.S. has the right to life, liberty, and property. This amendment is as relevant to blacks in the 1800s as it is to gays in the 2000s; if you are an American citizen, you have unalienable rights! The disallowment of gay marriage is infringing upon the rights to life and liberty! Marriage is the ultimate commitment and signifier of true love (hopefully), so the laws in place in 37 of the U.S. states banning this commitment from same-sex couples are stealing happiness from those gay and lesbian couples! The Supreme Court is starting a domino effect that will hopefully create one of the largest social revolutions the world has ever seen. 

Hell for Hill

Issue: Are Georgia's secretive lethal injection practices constitutional and ethical?

Argument: Georgia's refusal to reveal information about its methods and processes in lethal injections violates due process rights.

Evidence:

• Georgia's use of non-FDA approved drugs in recent lethal injections caused two death row inmates to experience "significant pain and suffering," and caused another inmate to experience "tremendous suffering" according to witnesses.
• Georgia is gathering its chemicals from non-FDA regulated sources- posing tremendous risks to those who are put to death.
• (Side note) Mr. Warren Hill, the inmate in question in this particular case, shouldn't even be allowed to be executed, as he has been deemed mentally retarded and is protected against injection by the Supreme Court decision in the case Atkins v. Virginia. 

Claims:

• Georgia intends to use a dangerous and ineffective drug in its lethal injections.
• Georgia is using "illegally imported, expired, sub-potent drugs" to kill inmates, resulting in immense pain and suffering that is classified as torture (cruel and unusual punishment). 
• Mr. Hill is mentally retarded and cannot be killed under the Atkins decision.

Mr. Warren Hill, an inmate with an IQ of 70, has been spared of his execution on the grounds of his lawyers' objections to Georgia's illegal practices of acquiring and using ineffective lethal injection drugs. The lawyers state that the drugs don't do an adequate job of sedating the prisoner, leading to an excruciating execution that can be classified as cruel and unusual punishment. The state of Georgia, after being prodded by Hill's lawyers, passed a law that protects and maintains the secrecy of how it acquires the drugs used in lethal injections, further complicating the matter. Part of the issue stems from the fact that Europe, a previous supplier of lethal injection drugs, has universally banned the death penalty and refuses to supply drugs to a country that will use the drugs for lethal injections. Mr. Hill's lawyers also state that Georgia is violating the Supreme Court's decision in Atkins v. Virginia, a decision that states the mentally retarded (Hill classifies as mentally retarded) cannot be executed. 

There are red flags all over this case; Georgia is violating key aspects of Amendments V and VIII. Amendment V guarantees that all people convicted of crime have the right to "due process of law." The courts in Georgia are violating Mr. Hill's privilege to appeal his case until he learns the information about the drugs that will be used to end his life. Mr. Hill has the right to know if the drugs are safe and are able to sedate him well enough to guarantee a painless execution, but the courts in Georgia are passing laws to protect the secrecy of said drugs. It appears as if Georgia has something to hide. 

Amendment VIII declares that no cruel punishments can be inflicted upon criminals. The courts in Georgia violated this with their execution of 3 men who experience horrible pain as a result of impotent drugs used in lethal injections. Georgia knew that these drugs were not checked by the FDA, yet they went ahead with their plans and violated a key part of the Bill of Rights. It appears as is they intend to violate the amendment a fourth time with the impending execution of Hill. Georgia also violated the cruel punishment provision by cancelling Mr. Hill's execution hours (in one case 30 minutes) before it was to be done- four times. Psychologists state that this constant fear of life or death plagues inmates who are spared of execution on the day it was to be done. It especially affects the minds of the mentally retarded. 

The state of Georgia is acting extremely irresponsibly in its course of action in Mr. Hill's case. Georgia has repeatedly violated 2 key amendments and refuses to compromise. In addition, Georgia is ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling that spares the mentally retarded from execution. Mr. Hill has clearly been deemed as mentally unfit, yet Georgia doesn't seem to care at all. Supreme Court, where are you?

I (Used To) Have A Dream

Issue: The Supreme court struck down a landmark piece of Civil-Rights Era legislation- the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Argument: Chief Justice John G. Roberts declared that the current social conditions in America are not as discriminatory as they used to be and that the Act infringes upon state sovereignty.

Evidence

• When the act was put into place, black voter registration in Missouri (a typical southern state in the times of the Civil Rights movement) was 6.4%. Today, that rate is 76%- a number exceeding white voter registration rates by 4%. 
• Two cities, Selma, Alabama and Philadelphia, Mississippi, in which racist hate crimes and discrimination were committed in the 60's, are now governed by black men.

Claims

• Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is a "federal intrusion on state sovereignty."
• Our nation has made great strides in civil rights and no longer needs federal anti-discriminatory voting laws. 

In a very close vote (5-4), the Supreme Court struck down the main provisions of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 by claiming that it no longer applies in today's society, a much more diverse and less discriminatory era in our nation's history. However, this strike down of a major piece of Civil Rights legislation us drawing heavy opposition from those who believe discriminatory processes- such as "racial gerrymandering and at-large voting"- will soon take place because the federal government can no longer mandate the laws of voting in states. The Chief Justice believes that such processes will not affect the black population's ability to vote, as evidenced by a 70% increase in black voter registration since the time of the original legislation. 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg published a summary of her dissent on the matter, citing the strike down as a violation of Amendment XV. Amendment XV grants black suffrage and gives Congress the power to “enforce this article by legislation.” The Voting Rights Act was the proper step of legislation in the heat of the Civil Rights movement. Even today, the Act is completely justified by Amendment XV; Congress has the power to do whatever it takes to maintain universal black suffrage.

Amendment XIV maintains “no state shall make or enforce any law” that infringes upon the privileges and immunities of all citizens- black, white, yellow, or green. New voter registration laws put into place could easily become an obstacle to the voting privileges of minorities and blacks. Amendment XXIV deals with the similar and analogous issue of poll taxes. States tried to enact these taxes a long time ago to keep minorities and blacks from voting. The issue at hand is similar; voting requirements and formalities could keep certain populations from voting. The Constitution gives Congress full power to combat this injustice and to establish the most fair voting conditions imaginable.

Both sides have valid points. America has come a long way in its social and civil rights. Only time will tell what will happen with the strike down of the Voting Rights Act. If black voter registration rates decline, Congress has the power and the obligation to reinstate laws to provide complete voter equality.