Right to Privacy v National Security

In class, we have discussed domestic spying and other controversies surrounding the 4th Amendment and the war on terror. As Americans we are in the unique position of having to weigh our "reasonable expectation of privacy" with the governments responsibility to protect it's citizens.

With that being said, do you think that the federal government should be able to listen to US citizens' phone conversations without a warrant in an attempt to prevent another 9/11 attack? Read the following article and respond to this important and difficult question.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1155835,00.html

Cruel and Unusual?

After reading the TIME Magazine article "Death Penalty Walking", Do you agree that the citizens of the U.S. are starting to oppose the use of the death penalty? Moreover, do you feel that the use of lethal injection violates citizens' 8th Amendment? Please post your response here.

"Our death penalty's continued existence, countering the trend of the rest of the developed world, expresses our revulsion to violent crime and our belief in personal accountability. The endless and expensive appeals reflect our scrupulous belief in consistency and individual justice." Davide Von Drehle, Time Magazine. Jan 3rd 2008.

More Troops to Afghanistan?

As the war in Afghanistan continues to drag on many Americans and Europeans are becoming frustrated by the death tolls of coalition and NATO forces. Moreover, many of the funds that the United States and European Union have sent to the Afghan government are not achieving the desired goal : A strong and internally stable and self-sufficient government.

Initially, the United States began sending troops and funds to Afghanistan to a) eliminate the power of the Taliban and Al Queda, b) help rebuild the infrastructure of Afghanistan, and c) help train Afghan forces to combat the threat of the Taliban and Al Queda. After 830 US deaths and over 150 coalition deaths many are starting to worry that Afghanistan may turn into another unending quagmire that requires the presence of US and Coalition forces for an indefinite amount of time. Please read the TIME Magazine article (link below) and answer the following question in two paragraphs.

Should the United States continue to send billions of US dollars and over 100,000 US troops to Afghanistan?

Points to consider:

- What would the ramifications be of an immediate withdrawal of US forces?

-What would the consequences of a strong Taliban be?

- Is this OUR problem or the Afghan people's problem?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1924405-1,00.html

The Right to Die?

Does the Constitution provide US citizens the right to die? A recent Montana Supreme Court case has brought the controversial issue of physician assisted suicide into the national spotlight again. Currently, Oregon and Washington State allow physician assisted suicide (via statewide referendum) and Montana would be the third state in the the Union to allow terminally ill patients to die with the help of a doctor.

Opponents of euthanasia argue that physicians would be placed in an extremely compromising legal position. Doctors who help terminally ill patients commit suicide could not only violate their Hippocratic oath but also place themselves in a position of possible legal ramifications. Moreover, opponents also argue, from a moral and religious perspective, that the decision to die is not ours. According to this stance, only God has the power to decide when, where, and how we die.

Supports of the Right to Die issue argue that our bodies are our own personal property. Since the Fourth Amendment provides all citizens with a reasonable expectation of privacy, does this right to privacy extend to the decision to take our own lives if we're terminally ill?

What do you think? Should terminally ill citizens be able to take their own lives with the assistance of a physician? OR Is this going too far? Is it not our decision when we die? Please respond to this very difficult issue.

Second Amendment Rights

After the recent appearence of several armed citizens at President Obama's healthcare rallies, the right to bear arms has come back into the national spotlight. There was a small group of protesters that brought semi-authomatic assault rifles to the meetings, while others wore their holstered pistols. In states like Arizona and New Hampshire, residents are permitted to carry their weapons as long as they're properly registered.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution states that, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The most controversial aspect of this amendment lies in the interpretation of what a reasonable "arm" is in 2009. Moreover, how much should the government be able to restrict US citizens' ability to own a firearm?

The Healthcare debate illicts passionate feelings on both sides. These Townhall meetings that members of Congress and the President are holding draw hundreds if not thousands of protesters on each side of this issue. Critics of guns rights advocates are maintaining that the second amendment should not give permission to carry a semi-automatic weapon in public nevermind a passionate political event. On the other hand, guns rights proponents argue that an armed citizenry, in any environment, is what protects us from government oppression.

What do you think? Should firearms be allowed at these public meetings or is this going too far? Does the Second Amendment allow us to carry firearms (of any kind) in public? What do you think the framers of the Constitutions would say about this controversy?