Which Rights Are Important?
In 1993, 18 year old Jose Medellin (now 32 years old) was a participant in the brutal rape and murder of 14 year old Jennifer Ertman and 16 year old Elizabeth Pena. He and the other four members of his gang attacked the two girls as they were walking home through TC Jester Park in Downtown Houston. All of the members of the gang were prosecuted and sentenced to death. One of the murderers in this case has been executed by the state but all of the other members have gotten stays of execution due to being a minor at the time of the crime or, in Jose's case, being a Mexican national.
Jose has lived in Texas since childhood (There is some discrepancy about when he moved to Houston. According to reports he came over when he was 6 years old, but he claims he was 9 on his penpal request site), was schooled here, used resources and rights as though he was an American, and committed a crime here. Mexican citizen or no, the basics of the American law system are covered in our elementary, middle and high schools, which he had attended at every level.
Though Jose had his Miranda Rights read to him, the police did not inform him that he had a right to speak to the Mexican consulate. I personally was not aware that the police force in Houston needed to be required to know the ins and outs of international law so they would be able to inform an illegal citizen-cum-murderer of his rights. Anyhow, Jose claims on those grounds that he deserves a retrial. The state of Texas denied him a retrial as he never asked for assistance throughout his initial trial.
This case has gone up the ranks and was before the Supreme Court of the United States at the beginning of October. While the case was before the court, President Bush, former governor of Texas, made a statement that had sided with Medellin. Texas is of course fighting back and the case will not be decided until early next summer.
While this has become an excellent discussion of state's rights, my larger concern at the moment is why an illegal immigrant is allowed to murder the legal residents of the country he's crashing in? If an American citizen traveled to another country, murdered someone there, and then CONFESSED TO IT, I would think that they should be held up to the highest law of the land. Their citizen was killed after all. If tables were turned, there would be hell to pay.
The fact that the consulate was not contacted did not come to light until 10 years after the death sentence ruling was made... I'd say that the statue of limitations for complaints was up on that one.
My biggest problem has to do with length of time in the states. If Jose was a visitor, here on the weekend, or something of the like, I would be in complete support of the consulate stepping in and defending him. However, the man lived in the United States for the better part of his life, and it's not like we keep it secret how much the state likes killing people who kill other people around these parts.
For more information on this case, Google "Jose Ernesto Medellin", or check out some of my research:
NPR's Nina Totenberg
ABC News
Fox News (to be fair)
Oyez-The Supreme Court Media
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Blog Stage Four - Editorial Critique
The Tobacco Tax
Washington Post
10/17/2007
In response to the Washington Post's article on... well, who knows what it's about? Its meandering writing goes from being anti-smoking to being anti-Bush for not passing the bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) with little segue and the only point it seems to make is that apparently President Bush must support smoking and the tobacco companies because he didn't pass the bill due to "the legislation would raise taxes on working people".
The argument made in the editorial (and what a long and winding road we took to get there) is the expansion would be funded by a steep raise in the taxes on cigarettes, steep being 61 cents per pack, and the veto would not enforce this price hike therefore no funding for SCHIP.
First and foremost, President Bush and his administration are hiding behind the working people he does nothing for in the first place. There can be many avenues taken to fund SCHIP... I have one... cut down on war spending. Crazy notion, I know. But, since he is hiding behind the working class and not wanting to raise the price of the cigarettes they apparently so desperately cling to, that is the game we’ll play.
Now I’m meandering as much as the fair editorial writer.
The editorial has its stance: it's mad about the SCHIP expansion being vetoed. But is it mad about smokers and their evil smoking? Is it mad at Bush because he uses the working class as a scapegoat? One cannot tell. This has an initial aim of discussing the dangers of smoking and how raising cigarettes taxes would cause a drop in smokers, but then goes on to talk about how we need the money from smoking to support and pay for SCHIP. Would that not defeat the purpose? If sin taxes from cigarettes are the only way to pay for the expansion and then we eliminate the smokers by pricing them out, what are we going to do about SCHIP?
Maybe we can have kids start smoking at a young age and then they can die of lung/throat/lung cancer and emphysema before anything really bad gets to them, since they won’t have insurance to help them. At this point I am as confused as the writer, but I know I'm mad too. I just don't know what I'm mad about anymore.
Washington Post
10/17/2007
In response to the Washington Post's article on... well, who knows what it's about? Its meandering writing goes from being anti-smoking to being anti-Bush for not passing the bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) with little segue and the only point it seems to make is that apparently President Bush must support smoking and the tobacco companies because he didn't pass the bill due to "the legislation would raise taxes on working people".
The argument made in the editorial (and what a long and winding road we took to get there) is the expansion would be funded by a steep raise in the taxes on cigarettes, steep being 61 cents per pack, and the veto would not enforce this price hike therefore no funding for SCHIP.
First and foremost, President Bush and his administration are hiding behind the working people he does nothing for in the first place. There can be many avenues taken to fund SCHIP... I have one... cut down on war spending. Crazy notion, I know. But, since he is hiding behind the working class and not wanting to raise the price of the cigarettes they apparently so desperately cling to, that is the game we’ll play.
Now I’m meandering as much as the fair editorial writer.
The editorial has its stance: it's mad about the SCHIP expansion being vetoed. But is it mad about smokers and their evil smoking? Is it mad at Bush because he uses the working class as a scapegoat? One cannot tell. This has an initial aim of discussing the dangers of smoking and how raising cigarettes taxes would cause a drop in smokers, but then goes on to talk about how we need the money from smoking to support and pay for SCHIP. Would that not defeat the purpose? If sin taxes from cigarettes are the only way to pay for the expansion and then we eliminate the smokers by pricing them out, what are we going to do about SCHIP?
Maybe we can have kids start smoking at a young age and then they can die of lung/throat/lung cancer and emphysema before anything really bad gets to them, since they won’t have insurance to help them. At this point I am as confused as the writer, but I know I'm mad too. I just don't know what I'm mad about anymore.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Poll 2 Results!
Just for posterity:
What do you think of the Electoral College?
-Outdated! Get rid of it. It only causes problems. 10 votes
-Keep it! Tradition is tradition. 1 votes
-...so what is an electoral college? 3 votes
Total Votes: 14
Me and ye olde fiance (Berry) go back and forth on this subject for daaaaaaaaaaays. He firmly believes that it will set the government on it's ear if you allow the people to actually vote for what they want, because "the electoral system provides a layer of stability to the government, in times of changeover which is needed and it also represents the rights of states to continue to choose their electors how they wish and distribute those electoral votes as they see fit."
I say, this is a good argument... for the early 1800's. We've also been having this debate off and on for the past seven years. Apparently, neither of us will break.
What do you think of the Electoral College?
-Outdated! Get rid of it. It only causes problems. 10 votes
-Keep it! Tradition is tradition. 1 votes
-...so what is an electoral college? 3 votes
Total Votes: 14
Me and ye olde fiance (Berry) go back and forth on this subject for daaaaaaaaaaays. He firmly believes that it will set the government on it's ear if you allow the people to actually vote for what they want, because "the electoral system provides a layer of stability to the government, in times of changeover which is needed and it also represents the rights of states to continue to choose their electors how they wish and distribute those electoral votes as they see fit."
I say, this is a good argument... for the early 1800's. We've also been having this debate off and on for the past seven years. Apparently, neither of us will break.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Blog Stage Three - Editorial Critique
Re: Gun Games in the Senate
The New York Times is notable for its high-minded approach at all issues written in editorials. Its target audience of liberal city-dwellers forces subjects to lose a certain amount of objectivity in the name of slight sensationalism for issues such as gun control.
The article seems to be siphon for personal rage at the negligence of the Senate for not passing a bill through fast enough, and then the bill ultimately being blocked by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). There is not much in the way of an argument, and the little that is presented is unclear of what the writer wants to accomplish. The most tangible thesis that can be gleaned from this is that the writer believes that actions should be taken to speed up the process of bills passing through Congress. Luckily enough, to compensate for the lack solid argument, the writer does not waste the reader's time by trying to manipulate any group of people in particular to change their minds to match the writer's own beliefs. Solid facts are used to support the writer’s cause for rant. Nothing is specifically quoted, but substantial piece of evidence are brought forward to prove that the editorial is justified.
The conclusion seems to have put together an idea that a new law should be created every time a new travesty towards your fellow man is committed. The law that was so callously brought down by Sen. Coburn was to eliminate the loophole in gun control laws that allowed Seung-Hui Cho to purchase the guns he used in the Virginia Tech Massacre. The root of the argument there is that Cho was not included on the list of citizens not allowed to purchase firearms due to mental instability because he was under outpatient mental treatment rather than in-patient.
There is no doubt in my mind that stricter measures should be taken about who should and should not own a gun, but I will always oppose a law that was created and rushed to ease the troubled minds and souls who turn to the government for all of their answers. Knee-jerk, reactionary legislation is how Americans wound up with the Patriot Act, and if even another month was spent on that "miracle" of Congress my fellow countrymen would not have to worry about who was listening to the other end of their phone call.
The New York Times is notable for its high-minded approach at all issues written in editorials. Its target audience of liberal city-dwellers forces subjects to lose a certain amount of objectivity in the name of slight sensationalism for issues such as gun control.
The article seems to be siphon for personal rage at the negligence of the Senate for not passing a bill through fast enough, and then the bill ultimately being blocked by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). There is not much in the way of an argument, and the little that is presented is unclear of what the writer wants to accomplish. The most tangible thesis that can be gleaned from this is that the writer believes that actions should be taken to speed up the process of bills passing through Congress. Luckily enough, to compensate for the lack solid argument, the writer does not waste the reader's time by trying to manipulate any group of people in particular to change their minds to match the writer's own beliefs. Solid facts are used to support the writer’s cause for rant. Nothing is specifically quoted, but substantial piece of evidence are brought forward to prove that the editorial is justified.
The conclusion seems to have put together an idea that a new law should be created every time a new travesty towards your fellow man is committed. The law that was so callously brought down by Sen. Coburn was to eliminate the loophole in gun control laws that allowed Seung-Hui Cho to purchase the guns he used in the Virginia Tech Massacre. The root of the argument there is that Cho was not included on the list of citizens not allowed to purchase firearms due to mental instability because he was under outpatient mental treatment rather than in-patient.
There is no doubt in my mind that stricter measures should be taken about who should and should not own a gun, but I will always oppose a law that was created and rushed to ease the troubled minds and souls who turn to the government for all of their answers. Knee-jerk, reactionary legislation is how Americans wound up with the Patriot Act, and if even another month was spent on that "miracle" of Congress my fellow countrymen would not have to worry about who was listening to the other end of their phone call.
New Blog - comin' up
So for my Stage Three Blog Assignment I am to do the following:
Well... I am not a fan of critical analysis, because I'm a live-and-let-live, you-do -your-thing-I'll-do-mine sort of person. I'll rant about the stuff I care about, but I don't wanna sit around and tear apart someone else's philosophy. The most I'll get into is "That's dumb" or "How can you think that?" but I can't bring myself to going further.
...also... critical thinking hurts... oh, the wrinkles in my brain are flattening! Just kidding.
Either way, my point for this was warning:
My next blog is me doing a Devil's Advocate thing. Some of it I'm into, but not all of it. I still encourage people to comment and let me know what they think. I like to hear about what is on your mind.
Substantial commentary or criticism #1 (Due: October 3, 2007)
Write a substantial (250-500 words) commentary or critical analysis of an article (news, editorial, or commentary) about U.S. national government from one of the Suggested Sources. Post your commentary or criticism to your blog.
Well... I am not a fan of critical analysis, because I'm a live-and-let-live, you-do -your-thing-I'll-do-mine sort of person. I'll rant about the stuff I care about, but I don't wanna sit around and tear apart someone else's philosophy. The most I'll get into is "That's dumb" or "How can you think that?" but I can't bring myself to going further.
...also... critical thinking hurts... oh, the wrinkles in my brain are flattening! Just kidding.
Either way, my point for this was warning:
My next blog is me doing a Devil's Advocate thing. Some of it I'm into, but not all of it. I still encourage people to comment and let me know what they think. I like to hear about what is on your mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
