Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

The landmark Supreme Court decision that changes the landscape of voting

Origins about the case: Is a case dealing with the 1st amendment. The main idea of the case is about the regulation of campaign spending by corporations. Citizens United is suing FEC because of BCRA (which is bipartisan camping reform act). BCRA was attempting to regulate campaign contributions. The BCRA applied restrictions some of them were preventing corporations and labor unions from giving money from their general treasuries to broadcast. Other restrictions are that corporations have to reveal who they are with political ads, and a disclaimer when a political ad is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support.

Citizen United’s Argument	FEC argument
The 1st Amendment was violated by saying corporations couldn’t give money from their general treasuries to broadcast ads. The restrictions of disclosure of donors and disclaimers (if candidate didn’t authorized ad) is unconstitutional	That no Constitutional right were being violated because McConnell v. FEC already set the precedent.

Begging the questions: 

·         Are corporation’s people?

·         Did the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell solved all constitutional challenges? 

·         Do the BCRA's disclosure requirements hinder an unconstitutional right of freedom of speech

The Decision:

5 votes for Citizens United, 4 votes against

What does this mean?

This court ruling will mean that corporations will now be able spend freely on political campaign ads. There will be no restrictions on them. Also corporations won't have to reveal who they are so they can give to money to candidates without anyone knowing who they are. 

(Citizens United v. FEC in a more entertainting way)

sources: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/publiced_preview_QandACitizens.html

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205

Everything needed to be known about torture

The Pros and Cons about Torture

The origins of Torture: 

Torture was first use in 530 AD by the Romans and ever since the world has use it. It was first used for criminal punishment. Over time torture has evolved to be use as a way to get information out about secret plots or animation about terrorist group. The use of torture really ramped up after 9/11, Americans were scared and didn't feel safe. In reaction to 9/11 the use of torture was authorized by Bush and the CIA and the military were using now more then ever. The question of should torture be use didn't pop up until the Abu Ghraib Prison incident. The Abu Gharib torture incident is the CIA and the Army committing hideous acts against their detainees, humans rights violation. More information can be found in this link: Torture at Abu Ghraib. Even with incident exposing how torture can become so hideout, it is still like that elephant in the room. For this article I planned on listing the pros and cons of both sides and for the reader to decide if torture should be use or not.

The Pros:	The Cons:
Information received is used for a variety of purposes	Torture impractical and ineffective
Obtain information a timely fashion	Information may be false
May receive information not even asked for	High rates of attrition in the interrogators
Can prepare for an attack	Torture methods are immoral
Terrorists deserve punishment for the extra pain and misery they caused	Widens the anti-American view
	A chance of a detainee being innocent
	Other non-torture methods are just as effective

(Here is a clip of Jon Stewart talking about the use of torture)

All the information is needed to know about torture, now it is time to decide:

sources: http://thejusticecampaign.org/?page_id=175
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/10/torture-at-abu-ghraib
http://www.debate.org/torture/