Medical Marijuana

So the reason the recent bill did not pass was because their were too many grey areas and questions about where the money would go apparently. I'm not sure of my view on this because there are many things to be considered.  For example what are the benefits? Would it really help the economy that much? Are the statistics for people over 20 that would buy the marijuana high enough for us to bring in enough money? I suppose we can observe Arizona and how the legalization will effect them and their economy. Maybe that will provide more answers for us.

Filibustering

Filibuster is the term used for the tactic of freebooting a debate. Personally i do not think this really serves a point because filibustering does not guarantee a different vote outcome. The whole idea of just talking and talking until the quarum is resolved seems rather silly to me. I feel as if this is a juvenile way to to prove that someone disagrees with the bill or is obviously against it. Overall, they are just postponing what needs the resolution of issues and stopping work for our country from being done. I mean what positive outcomes have come from it?

Warantless Wire-tapping

While this is surely a controversial subject, i stand with others in opposing it. I do not believe that our government should invade our privacy without warrants. I mean is it really that hard to obtain a warrant and for what purpose should they avoid it? Laziness? Just like no one would want to be recorded without knowledge or good reason behind it, i don't think anyone should be listened to like that. Overall this is an issue of our rights as citizens and humans as well as the fundamentals of the constitution. I just don't believe that any justification can be found for this issue because when there is a right way to go about something, such as warranted wiretapping, you cannot defend yourself for going the wrong way out of pure laziness or to avoid conflict.

Executive Privelage

I think the term "executive privelage" is a kind way of saying the president has the power to keep any government documents or information, private. Which is overall, slightly confusing. How do we decide which information the president can keep private rightfully and the information that our country should know. Basically, when should it be applied and who can apply it? Apparently the current president may hold this power , as well as "a former president during whose term an allegedly privileged document was created", which i suppose is understandable.
A recent example of this power is Obama declaring he will not use executive privelage as far as the Kagan nomination. Yet it also known that certain documents pertaining to will be kept private because of national security concerns. So, I'm not quite sure if i grasp the whole idea of this privelage just because it seems as if there can be special circumstances and we can never truely know the intentions behind why it is used..? Thoughts?

TSA

Transportation Security Administration -  created as part of a security act passed by Congress, and signed into law by Bush in 2001.

The head of the TSA has recently acknowledged that the airport pat downs have been very invasive to travelers and more than uncomfortable lately. Travelers have been complaining that these pat downs have been targeting private areas and are concerned with their privacy. At some airports travelers must decide between this aggressive method or a full body scan. What do you think? Are these methods good for us or should the government find alternatives. The American Civil Liberties Union is looking into this as it is a problem of security and invasion of privacy. One spokesman said they were concerned that this could be seen as apart of constant efforts to invade privacy and wondered if these methods were actually effective. There have been recent videos of bad reactions to the pat downs and many complaints that the procedure was more violating and aimed towards privates than necessary. Thoughts?

Wall Street Reform

Obama has recently released a proposal for a Wall Street Reform. While like every proposal there are areas in which are good and areas in which can be improved, it seems as if the majority thinks this proposal is benificial just because of the issues it draws attention to as well as the general ideas it proposes. This proposal revolves around 5 key ideas:

(1) Promote robust supervision and regulation of financial firms.
(2) Establish comprehensive supervision of financial markets.
(3) Protect consumers and investors from financial abuse.
(4) Provide the government with the tools it needs to manage financial crises.
(5) Raise international regulatory standards and improve international cooperation.

We are in the middle of a financial crisis. Are these 5 ideas enough and if they are established and enforced how much improvement will there actually be? Is this just the beggining of some sort of draft, because these ideas are too general and not enough to save us or is this the beginning of a brighter future under Obama's presidency? These are questions that will hopefully be answered soon.

Eminent Domain

Eminent Domain: The right of a government to seize private property for public use, in exchange for payment of fair market value.

Eminent Domain has surely rubbed many people the wrong way throughout history and the popular debate continues to resurface...is the power of Eminent Domain being abused? While there are people who do not agree with the whole idea just because they do not want to lose their property, there are many who are more understanding with it, that is as long as the cause is good and morally right. I say morally right because there have been many cases where eminent domain has been used just to increase tax revenue, rather than for good public use reasons. These are the cases that draw our attention to the power abuse behind eminent domain. We must draw clear lines around eminent domain and whether the fifth amendment supports them or not. For example, the Kilo vs. New London case. That case sought answers from the supreme court to the following:
What protection does the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement provide for individuals whose property is being condemned, not to eliminate slums or blight, but for the sole purpose of "economic development" that will perhaps increase tax revenues and improve the local economy?

This question surely stimulates the mind and reminds us to put ourselves in the shoes of those who have lost their homes to eminent domain unfairly. How would you respond if it was you? Speaking for myself, i would be upset and respond very strongly. So my conclusion is that the government must help us find a solution to this problem revolving around eminent domain because after all, it's there job to establish justice ..isn't it?