Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald
49 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Sfitzg35
Scoop.it!

Feds can’t smoke pot, even in states where it’s legal

Feds can’t smoke pot, even in states where it’s legal | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
EYE CATCHERS | Our recommended stories from The Washington Post and across the Web.
Sfitzg35's insight:

This article is interesting in the fact that the federal government prohibits its workforce from using marijuana, even though 20 states and Washington, D.C. allow the use of medical marijuana and Colorado and Washington allow it for recreational use. Do you think this is fair? 

more...
Chelsie DeBus's curator insight, April 20, 2014 7:27 PM

This article is about that Federal Government workers can't smoke marijuana even if it is legal in the state they live in.  I agree with this article 100%. I think that if you are a government worker you shouldn't have any drugs in your system at all. This article relates to government and law because this is a law in the United States that a lot of different people have to follow. 

Rachel Sigrist's curator insight, April 24, 2014 1:50 PM

why can't they smoke where it is legal?

Katie Gilbertson's comment, April 27, 2014 4:34 PM
If it's legal, it's legal. No question about it for me at least. They shouldn't have different rules apply to different people. However, I can see where they are coming from if they don't want to encourage the product.
Scooped by Sfitzg35
Scoop.it!

Citizenship isn't about passing a civics test

Citizenship isn't about passing a civics test | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
Peter Levine says immigration law must address what it means to be a citizen beyond passing a civics test.
Sfitzg35's insight:

This article is about how under current law, people wanting to become citizens must pass a U.S. Naturalization Test. This test assumes that a citizen knows some basic information about the U.S. political system. The question is whether these requirements reflect a worthy definition of citizenship. Should we insist on testing them on knowing generalized facts OR should we focus more on the skills and value of commitment of these people? What do you think? 

more...
Ian (ACL) Whitney's comment, March 22, 2014 9:42 PM
I think we should really focus on skills and what they will need to become successful citizens in our society.
Scooped by Sfitzg35
Scoop.it!

Political fight over military sex assaults divides women senators

Political fight over military sex assaults divides women senators | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
Senate's 20 female lawmakers class on how to best handle military sexual assaults.
Sfitzg35's insight:

This article is about how female senators engaged in a political battle over how the military handles sex assault. Democratic Sens Kirsten Gillibrand and Claire McCaskill differ on how to handle the issue. Gillibrand would go outside of the traditional military command structure to force change, and McCaskill's approach is to reform from within. Who do you believe has the better plan?

 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Sfitzg35 from Government & Law
Scoop.it!

Voter ID laws to get big test in primaries

Voter ID laws to get big test in primaries | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
– In elections that begin this week, voters in 10 states will be required to present photo identification before casting ballots – the first major test of voter ID

Via MsHaeussinger
more...
Darby Dodds's comment, March 6, 2014 3:22 PM
I think it is a good idea to make people show an ID if they want to vote. I think it will cause a lot less problems.
Wyatt Nelson's comment, March 9, 2014 12:55 AM
I think a photo ID should be required. It shows you are a citizen and live in that state.
Kirsten Cunningham's curator insight, March 10, 2014 3:25 PM

What is your in sight on this? Should you be required to show Id to vote? 

 

Rescooped by Sfitzg35 from Gov and Law - Colin Anderson
Scoop.it!

U.S. government sues Philadelphia schools over beard policy

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - The U.S. government sued Philadelphia's school district for religious discrimination on Wednesday for demanding that a veteran Muslim police officer trim his beard.The suit, filed

Via cander05
more...
cander05's curator insight, March 5, 2014 11:37 PM

I think that the U.S government is right to sue the school district based on religious discrimination. Abu-Bakr has kept his beard for 27 years because of his beliefs while working in the district. The district has no evidence of his beard ever obstructing his work, which in my opinion makes this an unnecessary act by the school district. 

Sfitzg35's comment, March 6, 2014 9:23 AM
I think the U.S government had all the right in the world to sue the school district. The man has the right to wear his beard how he wants it because of his religion. He has done no harm to the students around him with his beard, so i don't think the school district should have any say on his beliefs or make him trim his beard.
Ian (ACL) Whitney's comment, March 9, 2014 1:34 AM
I think this is so sad on our part! No one should discriminate like that!
Scooped by Sfitzg35
Scoop.it!

Holder calls for restoring ex-cons' voting rights

Holder calls for restoring ex-cons' voting rights | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
Washington (CNN) -- One of Washington's oddities of late is Attorney General Eric Holder's liberal social justice goals finding unity with the tea party movement's curb-big-government proposals led by Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee.
Sfitzg35's insight:

This article is about Attorney General Eric Holder calling for states to restore voting rights to prisoners who are disenfranchised upon conviction. Holder is pushing to overhaul the nation's criminal justice system by discarding minimum sentences for non-violent crimes and reduce costly prison spending. Eleven U.S. states completely deny voting rights to prisoners, even after they've completed sentences. Holder thinks this is unfair. Do you think these people should have the right to vote? 

more...
Yesenia Gibson's curator insight, March 6, 2014 3:45 PM

This article is about Holder wanting to give felons who have served their time there right to vote back. I don't think there right should be taken away and I think it could be a good idea, especially depending on why's crime they committed and if they served their time. Do you think Holder is making a good decision?

Scooped by Sfitzg35
Scoop.it!

Labor unions disappointed at 1 percent pay raise Obama to propose for federal workers

Labor unions disappointed at 1 percent pay raise Obama to propose for federal workers | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
Federal labor leaders disappointed with Obama’s plan to raise federal employee pay by 1 percent next year.
Sfitzg35's insight:

This article is about how labor unions are disappointed in the fact that Obama plans to raise federal employee pay by 1 percent next year. His spending plan also includes 1 percent for military members. Labor unions are saying that federal employees deserve more than this amount, as do members of the military. They say 3.3 percent would be reasonable and fair. What do you think?

 

more...
Darby Dodds's curator insight, February 26, 2014 8:21 PM

This article is about how Obama wants to raise federal employee pay by one percent. People believe that ine percent is not right and should be higher. Some say the 1 percent increase would not be enough to compensate for those sacrifices.

 Do you think it should only be one percent or should it be higher? 
MsHaeussinger's comment, March 3, 2014 9:10 AM
Sarah is correct, 3.3% would be much more on par with inflation and cost of living. But, 1% is a start!
Scooped by Sfitzg35
Scoop.it!

No constitutional violations occurred when police entered home | The Indiana Lawyer

No constitutional violations occurred when police entered home | The Indiana Lawyer | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
A man’s federal and state constitutional rights were no violated when police officers entered his home without a warrant based on concerns an injured animal or person may be inside. Police and animal control officers were called to Jonathan Carpenter’s home based on a report of four dogs fighting. When they arrived, they saw the dogs running in and out of the home through an open door. An officer captured three of the dogs and decided to enter the home to search for the fourth . . .
Sfitzg35's insight:

The police were called to a man's house based on a report of dogs fighting. When they arrived they caught three of the dogs outside and decided to enter the house to find the fourth dog. No one responded to the police when they entered and while they were searching for the dog, they found marijuana plants. The man was soon taken into custody and he then filed a motion to suppress, saying the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Do you think the police violated his rights? 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Sfitzg35 from Government & Law
Scoop.it!

San Diego County gun law violates 2nd Amendment, appeals court rules

San Diego County gun law violates 2nd Amendment, appeals court rules | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court decided Thursday that a San Diego restriction on carrying concealed guns in public for self defense infringes on citizens' 2nd Amendment rights.

Via MsHaeussinger
more...
Darby Dodds's comment, February 22, 2014 11:34 PM
If you are in serious need of a gun then you can carry one. But you shouldn't carry a gun for the heck of it.
Isaac Mettler's comment, February 23, 2014 10:48 PM
If you are a responsible citizen and apply for the permit to carry a gun, then you should be able to. They may be able to save their own life or someone else's.
Justin kettner's comment, February 27, 2014 12:41 PM
If you can pass the background checks and can pass a conceal & carry class there should be no questions asked upon why you are carrying a firearm. Public places carry fire extinguishers not expecting a fire but when one happens there a way to try and put the fire out. Same thing comes to a firearm for carrying purposes you never know when something might happen and something bad may never happen in order for you to need a weapon but would you rather be prepared or wish you were?
Scooped by Sfitzg35
Scoop.it!

Banks cleared to accept marijuana business

Banks cleared to accept marijuana business | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
The U.S. government issued rules on Friday for the first time allowing banks to legally provide financial services to state-licensed marijuana businesses.
Sfitzg35's insight:

This article is about the U.S. government allowing banks to use cash from legal pot dealers. Many officials say that forcing marijuana businesses to be cash businesses because they can't access banks was a public safety problem, so this is a great idea. Others on the other hand are saying that this will just arouse more problems. What do you think?

more...
tcoble22's comment, February 22, 2014 10:04 PM
I don't see why the banks wouldn't be able to use cash from legal pot dealers. As long as they don't break the 8 trafficking rules they should be allowed too. In the long run they will be helping out. So I believe that the banks should be allowed to do this and not get prosecuted for it.
cander05's comment, February 23, 2014 1:09 AM
Yeah I agree with Tyler, I don't know why this would be an issue. If it gets rid of the public safety issue by giving them the right to have access to banks, then this is a good thing.
Scooped by Sfitzg35
Scoop.it!

Judge: It's Legal to Flash Your Headlights to Warn of Cops

Judge: It's Legal to Flash Your Headlights to Warn of Cops | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
Drivers of the world, unite—because the coppers can't stop you from doing so, a federal judge in St. Louis ruled this week. It's a common custom of the road to flash your headlights at oncoming... Crime & Courts News Summaries. | New...more
Sfitzg35's insight:

This article is about a man who flashed his headlights to warn other drivers that they were about to pass a police speed trap. The police cited him for violating a city ordinance.  US District Judge Henry Autrey then stated that prohibiting the headlight flash violates the First Amendment. He also stated that all this guy was doing was warning other citizens about the violation of law. Do you think this is legal? Do you think not letting people flash their headlights is against their first amendment rights?

more...
cander05's comment, February 23, 2014 1:16 AM
I believe that nothing is wrong with what Michael Elli did. All he did was basically tell other drivers to slow down, which is essentially what the police wants. But on another note if the police were to make a law saying that you cannot flash your lights as a warning, I don't think that would violate your first amendment rights because this could be viewed as a distraction and impair drivers.
Scooped by Sfitzg35
Scoop.it!

Online, live protests target NSA surveillance

Online, live protests target NSA surveillance | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
Websites posted messages opposing NSA government surveillance on Tuesday, as activists planned live protests and other gatherings in cities all over the world.
Sfitzg35's insight:

This article is about activists trying to protest against government surveillance. They say that this secret government snooping is a violation of the first and fourth Amendment rights. In addition to individual privacy issues, surveillance programs are also damaging online businesses. Last month, President Obama reformed the way government agencies collect information both online and via telephone records. He also made other changes, but web activists said that they weren't good enough. Do you think Obama's changes were good enough or do you think he could've done more?

more...
tcoble22's comment, February 15, 2014 10:06 PM
I think that Obama could have done a better job. There are millions of people who get there stuff hacked and taken away from online daily. Therefore I believe he should do a better job to fix it to protect people's records and privacy online.
Rescooped by Sfitzg35 from Government & Law
Scoop.it!

IOC Forces U.S. Olympic Goalie To Take Constitution Off Mask

IOC Forces U.S. Olympic Goalie To Take Constitution Off Mask | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
That up there was the mask U.S. women's hockey goalie Jessie Vetter was going to wear at the Sochi Olympics. At least until the IOC forced her to take an image of the Constitution off the back.

Via MsHaeussinger
more...
Madisen Schimek's comment, February 10, 2014 12:42 AM
I completely agree. Having this on someone's helmet shouldn't have to do with any of it. It's the game of hockey, he is just repressing his country.
Madisen Schimek's comment, February 10, 2014 12:43 AM
Representing *
Shelby Adams's curator insight, February 13, 2014 8:52 PM

I think it was a strange request for an American Olympian to have to remove the constitution off her mask. The constitution is basically our entire government and it shows how strong of a country we are. I'm sure they had a good reason, but why do you think they made her remove it from the mask?

Scooped by Sfitzg35
Scoop.it!

White House begins full-court press for ACA during March Madness

White House begins full-court press for ACA during March Madness | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
The White House hopes March Madness will spur new health care enrollment
Sfitzg35's insight:

This article is about the White House is targeting fans of the NCAA National Championship tournament this week during March Madness to boost health-care enrollment. This will include online videos from coaches and athletes such as LeBron James. On Wednesday, the administration will place President Obama's NCAA bracket and the ranked reasons to get insurance on the same page. Do you think this plan will encourage more young people to sign up for health insurance?  

more...
tcoble22's comment, March 23, 2014 12:43 AM
I think this idea is at least a start for getting the health insurance out to young people. Since young people will be watching the tournament. Also younger people might think they should apply for health insurance if they see their idol or a famous athlete talking about it.
MsHaeussinger's comment, March 23, 2014 6:24 PM
Smart marketing plan!
Scooped by Sfitzg35
Scoop.it!

Obama’s New Approach Takes a Humorous Turn

Obama’s New Approach Takes a Humorous Turn | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
The president’s interview on “Between Two Ferns,” an online parody of celebrity interview shows, is an attempt to get young people to sign up for health insurance on the government’s website.
Sfitzg35's insight:

This article is about how President Obama attended an interview t.v. show hosted by comedian Zach Galifianakis. Researchers say Obama’s immediate reason for being on the show was to urge young people to sign up for health insurance on the government’s website, healthcare.gov. Obama broke out of his serious side and showed everyone he had a humorous side to him too. Do you think Obama's appearance on the show with a funny personality is a good way to promote more people into signing up for health insurance? 

more...
tcoble22's comment, March 15, 2014 10:47 PM
I think that this is a very good idea! Young people are more likely to watch this since it's not so boring. They would actually understand this type of talk and be interested about what he offers then!
Scooped by Sfitzg35
Scoop.it!

Study puts new Medicaid enrollment under Obamacare at fewer than 2 million

Study puts new Medicaid enrollment under Obamacare at fewer than 2 million | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
(CNN) -- Just a fraction of the more than 6 million people the Obama administration has touted as being determined eligible for Medicaid under Obamacare are new enrollees, according to an independent study released Wednesday.
Sfitzg35's insight:

About 1.1 to 1.8 million people are newly enrolled in Medicaid because of the Affordable Care Act.  Federal officials think that the increased Medicaid enrollment is an example of Obamacare's success. President Obama is using the combined figure as evidence of the law's effectiveness.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Sfitzg35 from Gov & Law- Tyler Coble
Scoop.it!

Government urged to think ahead on accessible housing » Housing » 24dash.com

Government urged to think ahead on accessible housing » Housing » 24dash.com | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
A housing provider specialising in accessible housing for disabled tenants has urged the government to think ahead on access standards for new homes.

Via Steven Preece, tcoble22
more...
Sfitzg35's comment, March 6, 2014 9:35 AM
I think this is a great idea because it will open up more opportunities for disabled people to buy and live in a house that is fit for their needs and style. I believe that everyone should be able to live in a house where they feel comfortable and don't have to worry about how to access things around the house.
cander05's comment, March 9, 2014 12:41 AM
This would be a great idea, as it would provide everybody with the opportunity to own and feel comfortable in their own house.
Wyatt Nelson's comment, March 9, 2014 12:53 AM
This is a good idea because disabled people can have hard times doing things in their house.
Scooped by Sfitzg35
Scoop.it!

Supreme Court secretly recorded on camera

Supreme Court secretly recorded on camera | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
In an apparent first at the tradition-minded Supreme Court, an advocacy group surreptitiously recorded video of an oral argument that was interrupted by a spectator.
Sfitzg35's insight:

This article is about an advocacy group that snuck in a video camera and taped a video of an oral argument during a Supreme Court meeting.  This group supports campaign finance reform, and they posted the video on YouTube as part of a protest over the issue.  All spectators and members of the media are screened with magnetometers at the entrance to the courtroom, and there is still no explanation of how a video camera was smuggled past security.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Sfitzg35
Scoop.it!

How Government Leaders Can Stay Out of Social Media Hell

How Government Leaders Can Stay Out of Social Media Hell | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
It's all too easy for a public official to make the kind of online mistake that results in ridicule and embarrassment. But it's not that hard to avoid a catastrophe.
Sfitzg35's insight:

This article is about how public officials are prone to making online mistakes that result in embarrassment, but they are capable and can avoid a catastrophe. Social media can have many advantages for government officials, but how can officials protect themselves from a social media meltdown or scandal?     

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Sfitzg35
Scoop.it!

Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill

Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gays.
Sfitzg35's insight:

This article is about Arizona passing a bill that allows business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers. Do you agree that anyone who owns a business can choose who they work with or who they don't work with? Is this discrimination?  

more...
Wyatt Nelson's comment, March 2, 2014 1:46 AM
I think this is so wrong! You should not discriminate because people are gay! They should except everyone!
Chelsie DeBus's curator insight, March 17, 2014 7:23 AM

This article is about Arizona passing a law that states that they don't have to give business to people who are lesbians or gay.  I don't think it is right at all. Why shouldn't all people have the same rights as each other.  Do you think it is right?? This article relates to government and law because it is our own state that is passing a law like this. I can't believe how mean people can be. 

Katie Gilbertson's comment, March 21, 2014 11:39 AM
What happened to America being the symbol of freedom? The more stupid stunts like this people pull, the less "freedom" America has. People come here for better lives, and here are people just trying to bring them down because of their beliefs? This is wrong and could end very badly if it continued.
Rescooped by Sfitzg35 from Gov and Law - Colin Anderson
Scoop.it!

Group tries to slow U.S. government’s move from paper

Group tries to slow U.S. government’s move from paper | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
Consumers for Paper Options has claimed wins in the name of the old and poor but is an industry creation.

Via cander05
more...
Sfitzg35's comment, February 22, 2014 10:02 PM
I think this is a good idea because it saves the government a lot of time and money, but I also think that some people should have the option of wanting paper billing because they may not have a computer, especially senior citizens.
tcoble22's comment, February 22, 2014 10:15 PM
I agree with Sarah on this it's a great idea and we would save a lot of money. Except it's tougher sometimes because people don't know how to use the technology. Especially young older people such as senior citizens. This can be a good/bad thing at the same time. Therefore I believe they should start to approach the online billing but the people who absolutely insist on the paper biling can receive that.
MsHaeussinger's comment, February 23, 2014 10:09 AM
That is a good connection, Colin! At some point, we have to move beyond tech that is outdated, even if people don't like it. We don't use the telegraph anymore because we have better tech.
Rescooped by Sfitzg35 from Gov & Law- Tyler Coble
Scoop.it!

Abortion clinic 'bubble zones' trump 1st Amendment? - WND.com

Abortion clinic 'bubble zones' trump 1st Amendment? - WND.com | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
WND.com
Abortion clinic 'bubble zones' trump 1st Amendment?

Via James Stone, tcoble22
more...
Austin Robertson's comment, April 27, 2014 6:12 PM
The freedom of protesting should be protected. If someone is doing something that is going to help their life because they can't take care if a baby or because they were raped, they can do what they want. But protesting should be allowed.
Abigail Beinborn's curator insight, May 21, 2014 12:03 PM

This goes against the first amendment. People have a freedom of speech and to petition.  Making a boundary around the abortion clinics would be limiting their freedom to petition in the U.S. Constitution. 

Lauren Heim's comment, May 25, 2014 7:47 PM
This is definitely violating the first amendment. They have the right to petition even if it is a nuisance. If they took it to court they would definitely lose. This is ridiculous.
Scooped by Sfitzg35
Scoop.it!

Sources: Airlines warned to beware of possible shoe bombs

Sources: Airlines warned to beware of possible shoe bombs | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
The U.S. government has warned airlines to pay particular attention to the possibility of terrorists attempting to hide explosives in shoes, sources said.
Sfitzg35's insight:

This article is about the U.S. government warning airlines to pay special close attention because terrorists are attempting to hide bombs in their shoes. Information has been collected stating that terrorist groups have been working on new bomb designs. Law enforcement states that passengers may notice additional searches. 

more...
tcoble22's comment, February 22, 2014 10:09 PM
I think they should definitely make extra searches since this can be a huge issue. Also I think our technology should be up to date where you have to put your shoes through a scanner at the air port to make sure there are no bombs. This can either be a huge issue or minor issue just depends how the air ports take it on.
Scooped by Sfitzg35
Scoop.it!

U.S. should honor states' new pot laws

U.S. should honor states' new pot laws | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
Mark Osler says two ideologies collide on whether the federal government should honor Colorado and Washington's decisions to legalize pot.
Sfitzg35's insight:

This article is about how the residents of Colorado and Washington have voted to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.  What makes this new law interesting is that it brings into conflict the two most important political thoughts in America: federalism and moralism.  Federalists urge a hands-off approach.  But, federal and state efforts to limit marijuana use through prosecution simply hasn't worked.  Federal prosecutors state that to be true to our best values, federalism should win out and Colorado and Washington should step back from marijuana use.  Moralists on the other hand disagree.  Do you think federalism should win this situation, or moralism? 

more...
tcoble22's comment, February 15, 2014 9:56 PM
I disagree with this because I think it should be the states call on if they want marijuana to be legal or not. Especially if the states only allow a certain amount of marijuana per person. Also if they are the right age there is nothing wrong with it. Therefore I think moralism should win this.
Scooped by Sfitzg35
Scoop.it!

U.S. expands legal benefits, services for same-sex marriages

U.S. expands legal benefits, services for same-sex marriages | Gov & Law-Sarah Fitzgerald | Scoop.it
The U.S. government will recognize same-sex marriages as equal to traditional marriages in all federal matters,
Sfitzg35's insight:

This article is about the U.S. government expanding recognition of same-sex marriages. The government is recognizing same-sex marriage for legal purposes even in 34 states that don't allow it. Same-sex couples will have rights in U.S. bankruptcies, courts, and prison visits. I think this is a good idea because a same-sex couple could get legally married in one state and then could have a federal joint bankruptcy in another state that doesn't allow same-sex marriages. Do you think this is right?

more...
No comment yet.