FYLC Collaborative Assignment 2



Democracy, interesting word, right? When one hears democracy, you’d think it means having your voice heard, having your voice matter, however, is that always ever the case in the United States, or politics in general? The electoral college is a fine example of where the United Stated went wrong.  To put it simple, for those who do not what the electoral college is, they’re essentially the body of individuals chosen by state by voters, who at the end, picks who our president is. The electors soul purpose was to act as a filter to ensure the presidential election was faithfully carried out, and to prevent certain unqualified, dangerous, people  from entering office- but I’m sure we realized that they’ve failed at that countless times past and present. For my research topic, I wanted to look into something that make sense, and fits my interests. With that, I thought, instead of getting rid of the college in a whole, why not repurpose it? And so, I’ve decided to dig a bit deeper because I found it quite interesting due to the fact something so important is so pointless. My question was, “The electoral college is defined in the constitution, what stops electors from being bias as to who they elect?” So that makes me wonder, instead of giving so much power to a group of individuals, why not have them just act as a trial, a court that investigates the two presidential candidates, dives into their pasts, or even restructure it in any way that gives it actual purpose and efficiency; to ensure the United States has a leader with a fair history to hold one of the highest honors in the world. So then, I found a article that carried my exact thoughts out.

Bibliographic Entry:

Foley, Edward B. An Idea for Electoral College Reform That Both Parties Might Actually Like. 12 Jan. 2019.

In this law review article, it dives straight into the mysteries of the electoral college. This article seems to have a neutral stance regarding the college. As stated in the article, “Another idea: A state could award all of its electoral votes to a candidate who receives a majority of the state’s popular vote, but if no candidate does, then the state would apportion its electoral votes among the candidates.” I believe the point of this article which is important to note, is that it seems to take more of a strategic approach to the electoral college, which correlates to my original l research question. There’s quite a few important points stated in this article, but it is important to see the main point being made is that the college has had an exceptionally long run of attempts to reform, abolish, and so forth. So, instead of trying to remove it as a whole, we should approach it in a way where the American people’s voices are heard, but there’s also a safety net in place to ensure the legitimacy of the election. The most important point of the other hand, is stated as, “The 12th Amendment left in place the power of states to appoint their electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” consistent with the Jeffersonians’ commitment to federalist”. From this quote, it essentially highlights the fact that the power is given to these electors, but how it is used is all based on their morals, views, and thus forth.

Personally for me, I am also neutral in the matters of the electoral college. While of course it would be easy for anyone to say, “abolish it!”, “it’s unfair!”, yes, that may be true, but just like anything else, there needs to be some sort of filter within the presidential election. Otherwise, that’s setting the county up for major catastrophe. An example, a A-list celebrity that has no prior experience in law, business, or anything virtually helpful in politics, might run to be president. In the supposed case they win, it’s putting someone who has no clue what they are doing, or going to do, in office, which is very tragic. We most remember that the electoral college’s role within the elections are essentially **TO ACT AS A FILTERING COMMITTEE OF A SORTS**, however, over the past few years, it has lots sight of its true purpose. While it is easy to simply say, “REFORM THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE THEN!!!!!”, we must be asking ourselves this: What are we doing as a society to help secure democracy required to create change? Now, going back to my researching question, “The electoral college is defined in the constitution, what stops electors from being bias as to who they elect?” Well quite frankly, there are mechanisms in place usually as the recent Supreme Court ruling stating that all electors must go by the states votes. On the other hand, you have secret donations being funneled to electors prior to voting, funneled to their campaigns, charities, centers; its non-stop. So at the end, it now comes down to not asking what stops the electors from being bias as to who they elect, but rather, what’s being set in place to ensure the morals, dignity and honor set forth in these prestigious positions, are upheld? Nevertheless, in politics, it seems to always end up being a never ending trial of unanswered questions, illegal interactions, hidden emails, scandals, orange spray tans, and well – I’m sure you know where I’m getting at; I can go on. With that, sight of what truly matters ends up being lost. Until these things are addressed, humanity is considered, no true progress would ever be made.


“The force of inertia is strong, to be sure. But overcoming lack of political will is easier than passing a constitutional amendment.”

Legal source entry

My legal source entry is a Harvard civil rights-civil liberties law review written by Louis W Fisher. Essentially the article focuses on the legalities behind gentrification, and the legal bases of its occurrence. While also applying factual evidence, along with laws and bans in place to inform readers on what is acceptable in the world of gentrification.

The legal source entry begins by informing the reader that since the 1970’s researchers have been studying the phenomenon that is gentrification. They then go on to say that a lot of modern day debates on gentrification focus on the relocation of long time residents and them being left without a home often. This occurs from San Francisco all the way to New York. The paper states “The feelings of frustration and marginalization among longtime residents who are displaced by gentrification are magnified as landlords often turn to aggressive and abusive tactics”. Meaning that not only are citizens impacted negatively by the fact that they are moved out of their homes and onto the streets, but also by how they are treated by people in higher power. An implication of this can be seen in the last source entry in which Ray Tirado’s landlords would not bring in a plumber for his building and essentially let the building fall apart around him in order to get him out of there. Further illustrating the negative effects gentrification can have on individuals.  The text also states that mayor bill de Blasio at the time attempted to do a rent freeze which ended up having little to no real effect, and was thus deemed unsuccessful. Another piece of important information is also presented in which the text explains that landlords who aggressively push buyout offers may be violating § 349 ban against misleading or deceptive acts if they are insinuating that they will not allow said tenet to renew their lease when it expires. Showing that there are laws and bans in place to combat landlords using bad tactics in order to get a tenant to move out of their home or be bought out.

I utilized this last source to provide legal information in order to back up my previous notion that gentrification had many effects whilst also answering my question as to why and how it negatively affects people. If I could ask the writer one thing I would ask if there were any court cases or acts that went against gentrification in general and not allowing landlords to raise prices or move tenants out in general regardless if they give them a notice or there is a buyout.

Legal Source

       My research question is what is the current situation for undocumented families crossing the United States with children? The reason why I chose this question is because I’m actually very interested to know what situation there in. I have been seeing a lot through the news and some on social media. How these families are being treated unfairly and being held for an extremely long period of time. Which is why I chose this question because in my research I want to go in depth and find out what’s actually happening after being caught at the border.

Department of Homeland Security. “Zero Tolerance Immigration Prosecutions – Family Fact Sheet.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 15 June 2018, www.cbp.gov/newsroom/zero-tolerance-immigration-prosecutions-family-fact-sheet.

In this Family Fact Sheet from the Department of Homeland Security states by law what are the procedures for immigrants crossing the border illegally. Anyone who enters the border illegally even with children will be prosecuted. After being prosecuted, any family involved will be separated from their parents. Children will be sent off to the department of health and human services. Also to the Office of Refugees Resettlement. These children are held in temporary shelters or hosted by an appropriate family. places. Where they take care of children’s medical care, mental health care, and educational programs. Also ICE will work on regular communication between parents and their children. Although all individuals that have entered illegally will be sent to the Department of Justice and present before a federal judge. Later the result made from a federal judge will be sent to ICE to follow up immigration proceedings. Although any individual that has been prosecuted for illegal entry can seek asylum and any other protection available under law. However, children can also present individual claims for asylum and may take separate immigration proceedings.

After reading the family fact sheet and knowing by law what the procedures have to be taken toward families and any individual that enters the country illegally. Which actually doesn’t seem the same procedures that are being taken at the border. According to the family fact sheet, “Children in HHS ORR custody are provided with appropriate care, including medical care, mental health care, and educational programs”. Considering from past research these children aren’t given all the care that they’re in title to. For example, mental health care and educational programs aren’t given to these undocumented children. While they are being held in these temporary shelters there are sleeping on the floors. Where there isn’t even enough space for these children to sleep. Let alone have space for educational programs they can atend to. Also there’s no mental health care given to these children because they spent all day in these shelters sitting quietly. Lastly, children shouldn’t be allowed to make their own claims without their parents. Mostly because their children are very young to understand. Which is why they should be with their parents and file claims together instead of separate. Children shouldn’t present themselves at federal judge  without their parents.

        The rhetorical factor that this genre uses is that it’s a legal source. Meaning the agent from the Department of Homeland Security wrote this family fact sheet and based it on what the law states and what should be happening according to them.

“Children whose parents are referred for prosecution will be placed with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR)”.


Legal source :Abortion

Have you ever found it to be baffling that in some places adolescent females are not able to make decisions on their own about abortions, but can make certain legal consent decisions like sexual intercourse, receiving contraception/birth control,going through childbirth and becoming a mother or giving up the baby for adoption? I find this topic to be of interest because as a teen I always wanted to become a mom. Thankfully, I am glad that God had other plans for me and I was able to graduate high school and go off to college.I had my child at 21 and still I faced the pressure of responsibility it takes to care for yourself and another person.Motherhood is not easy, so I can imagine what it is like for a teen, especially if they did not feel like they were ready to become a mother and is forced by the government to have a 3rd party make decisions for her.


In this law review, the writer indicates many valid reasoning on why she felt teenage girls should have their own saying when it involves life changing decisions such as terminating a pregnancy.In some places, teenagers are forced to get consent or notify their parents if they wanted to get an abortion. In many cases, going to a parent could be inconvenient. Some teenagers did not live with parents, and some parents were even alcohol and drug abusers, how could they make such decisions ? Also, if a minor wanted to prove to a judge why she felt she did not want her parents to grant her permission, the judge was able to waive the parental permission, this was referred to as a Judicial Bypass. The Judicial Bypass did not work in favor for some, because it can leave a minor in danger if they face domestic and sexual abuse in the home from the parent. In the article , it was said that in 2010 , teen pregnancies and child birth cost U.S. tax payers 9.4 billion for increased health and foster care, increased incarnation rates for children of teen parents and lost tax revenue due to lower education and income of teen mothers*166. As you can see, the decision is left to a third party who did not have to bare the responsibility of caring for the child and to live a struggle life if they denied her option to abortion.

A pregnant persons decision is between her and her doctor.In my opinion, I feel as though if a person does not want to have a child, they should grant that person that right. Many children grow up in abusive homes from parents who were not mentally or financially ready to bring a child into the world. Many woman suffer Post Traumatic Stress Disorder which leaves a heavy weight on the child.The person who has to deal with the consequences of bringing a child into this world should be able to make her own choices on whether she wants to do so if she is capable of making other mature decisions.

“Each child is an individual person, not merely an adjunct to this world; children are neither supplements to the lives of adults or accessories to surrounding adult. Children are not merely passive recipients of environmental and parental impact.”

“A mature child’s right to make her own decision regarding abortion and contraception is constitutionally protected from state or parental interference.”


FYLC Source Entry 4

Research Question:

“How does the media influence our ideas of implicit bias, especially when it comes to ideas of race and criminality.”


My Research question is important to me because as a African American Women living in a world where I watch people who remind me of a brother, a cousin, a sister, a aunt, and etc I come in connect with many News channels , and many videos where African Americans are being held down, and killed in the hands of people who job was to protect us, or killed by the hands of people who the media told them to protect themselves from. When researching this question I wanted to find maybe an answer or maybe even a reason to why some medias use their network to communicate this idea of African Americans being the main focus when it comes to “criminality”. As a result of media, they create certain groups for certain people which is a negative thing especially being that many people live in certain places where they cannot interact with all races, and by media labeling a certain group as criminals it becomes a major issue which results in deaths of innocent women, men, and children, also the arrest of many innocent Women, Men, and Children.


Bibliography Entry:

Bridgette Baldwin, BLACK, WHITE, AND BLUE: BIAS, PROFILING, AND POLICING IN THE AGE OF BLACK LIVES MATTER, 40 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 431 (2018), https://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/lawreview/vol40/iss3/4

A Summary :

In the Article BLACK, WHITE AND BLUE: BIAS , PROFILING, AND POLICING IN THE AGE OF BLACK LIVES MATTER, by Bridgette Baldwin the author explains how implicit bias and the idea of African Americans being “criminals” is something in which has been passed down from centuries. As a result of that the author tells the readers that media also plays a positive, and negative role to that. The author explains how the media plays a positive role when it comes down to recording and sharing the injustice that African Americans face when it comes not only from cops, racist, and individuals in which the media influence to fear people of color. Bridgette Baldwin explains to the audience that the injustice that African Americans face is real , and is something in which should not be controversial being that it is something we see through these videos where they shoot unarmed black men , woman,  and kids. She tales about how the media would forever have a impact on the way African Americans are viewed, and how these stereotypes are something in which would forever characterize African American individuals as the real threat of America.

A Reflection:

When reading this article I agree with the author because media as of today can have a positive and a negative impact on society. The media as of today broadcast to millions of people from everywhere these topics where people are taught that African Americans are dangerous compared to any other race. he author talks about how not only media but shows, movies, and songs has a impact on how people are viewed. Majority of the time African Americans are painted as criminals, thugs, abusers , prostitutes, ghetto, and so on. There has been a list of stereotypes that was made for black people in which as of today has affe ted the way that we are viewed.  When flipping through News channels , News articles , and Videos shared on my time line on facebook , twitter, and even instagram I am thrown with innocent African American people who are being made a mockery of. As of today people blame Tamir Rice parents for letting the 12 year old boy play with a toy gun outside, they blame Eric Gardner for not “complying” they blame Trayvon Martin for “looking Suspecious ” , they blame Sandra Bland for ” speaking up against the injustice that she was facing”, and they blamed the death of Ahmaud Arbery for ” looking suspicious while jogging” . As of today they blame the victims of these terrible killing, or even say it was a mistake on their part but not actually admitting to the “mistake on their part” . While Dylan Roof a white supremacist walked into a African American church and killed 9 innocent people, upon his arrest they later took the killer to Burger King before taking him to jail, Or maybe George Zimmerman who shot Trayvon Martin a unarmed black teen, he was later taken to trial but later was pronounced innocent, and as of today is trying to sell the gun that he use to kill Trayvon Martin. When looking at Dylan Roof people are more so influenced to the idea that white individuals are not criminals, even while Dylan Roof was on trial they blamed it on “Mental Illness even then Dylan Roof stated that he was proud of what he did. They tried finding ways around it , but hen it comes down to a African American Individuals they always find a way to label them as the criminal.  When speaking of the media and these ideas of Implicit Biases we are seen that African Americans who have not did anything wrong are more likely to be put in a life or death situation unlike the many other races of people who are seen committing a terrible act. As a result of that the media for example Fox News is a media that is broadcast all around the world openly that black people are the real criminals of America. It scares me being that at any time of the day someone can paint me as a criminal or maybe as a threat due to the color of my skin, or even paint one of  my family members, my friends, and my family friends as a threat and that could be the end of us only because the media has been influencing people that because I am black I am a criminal.


“Racial profiling allows certain ideas about behavior to be associated with a group of people simply because of racial identity. In the 1980s, African American mothers were profiled as welfare queens, which signified their hyper-sexuality and laziness.25 African American youth in the late 1990s were described as super-predators, which signified their criminality.26 The phenomenon that put racial profiling on the map, *436 “driving while black,” justified the overzealous roadside stops of African American motorists based on the view that black drivers were(…)”

“When it comes to minority suspects, police officers are more likely to use excessive force to initiate a stop or make an arrest. Minority suspects, particularly African American males, are perceived as more threatening, less compliant, and more violent. The linking of blackness to criminality will shape whether an unarmed African American will be shot when confronted during a traffic stop3”

“Yet, while these horrible acts of violence are made visible on computer and cell phone screens across the country, the meaning of these violent acts remains contested. We must remember that even the meaning of real-time reporting is never self-evident and that these visual images of violence are shaped by an older racial logic that continues to justify the killing of black people.”

“While thousands saw Eric Garner get choked to death, many responded that it was his poor health that killed him.47 When Cleveland police rolled up on twelve-year-old Tamir Rice and opened fire without asking a question, many responded that his parents should have taught him to take better care of a toy gun.48 The underlying theme in the interpretation of these racial assaults has been a notion of “noncompliance” by these African American victims.”



Legal source entry


My research topic is on if whether or not police attacking protesters infringes on their first amendment rights. This topic interests me for a few reasons. one reason being our current political climate with there being drastically different police action taken across country in response to protesters. Another reason being my own curiosity as to what special privilege’s is law enforcement given to violate the constitution.


Dye, Brent E. “NORTHERN KENTUCKY LAW REVIEW.” Northern Kentucky Law Review , chaselaw.nku.edu/content/dam/chase/docs/lawreview/v32/nklr_v32n2.pdf.


My source is a law review article. In the article, police clashed with anti-abortion protesters in Kentucky who were protesting using graphic images of mutilated fetuses. this allegedly causes some drivers to be distracted (without having caused an accident) but was brought to the attention of the police. The police had asked them to either move their protest away from the road or remove the imagery of fetuses. The protesters refuses both and were arrested under the cities loitering ordinance. The protestors brought the department to court and the court favored the police and granted them qualified immunity. I believe the authors main point is that the police need the necessary permission of qualified immunity in order to keep the public at peace. It is abundantly clear that the author of this reviews favors the police in this case. The authors conclusion agrees with the outcome of the case on the basis that the protesters first amendment rights were not violated and the police were correctly given qualified immunity because they were trying to uphold public safety.
I agree with the authors view point of this outcome with some exception. I agree in this instance that the imagery the protestors showed to drivers passing by could have potentially caused as accident which is a public safety danger. However, i do not agree with the arrest of the protestors and forceful removal of them. When the protestors tried to sue the police argued for qualified immunity. However, Qualified immunity for law enforcement sounds like a blanket get out of court free card for law enforcement which is not good. It allows them to violate a citizens rights and avoids law suits under common law. Also Law enforcement should not be allowed to use something like “loitering” as an excuse to arrest protestors.
“In Frye, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly held that because the police officers had a significant interest in upholding public safety, they did not violate the protestors’ First Amendment rights when the officers placed reasonable restrictions as to where the protestors could display their highly graphic and offensive signs.” This quote from the author clearly indicates his bias. I do not like his use of the word “correct” in this article because for the study of law, this should not be read as an opinion piece. The first amendment does allow for reasonable restriction such as time and place, however the officers used a claim of loitering to arrest the protestors which i do not think should be allowed.

FYLC Collaborative Assignment #2


My research question is new findings of the multiverse is it truth or a conspiracy? This interested me because it’s something I found fascinating about the,galaxy, something so unknown and yet known. Astronomy is not a field I see my self studying but once and a while I try to keep up with the new achievements they had made and discoveries. It something that we might need to know if global warming happens we should evacuate to a new place to which is possible with the multiverse.

Bibliographic Entry:

Babak Shakouri HassanabadiMonday, June 15, and Babak Babak Shakouri Hassanabadi has an LL.M. in International Law. “Legal Implications of an Encounter with Extraterrestrial Intelligence.” The Space Review: Legal Implications of an Encounter with Extraterrestrial Intelligence, 2015, www.thespacereview.com/article/2770/1.

Summary of my source:

This source is a law journal article review is basically stating that as humans we believed we are the only ones and a superior species and no one else or thing can come half way of comparing to us. However, it might not be that way it’s probably that there are extraterrestrial that equals us or even are better that us but now we need to figure out a way to address this concern if they ever come. The main point I think was the law that will be applied on aliens if they land in earth will be subject to the territorial jurisdiction. The most important points are to avoid a fight between alien newcomers and human host societies, we should be open minded of both communities both aliens and human treating each other with respect. If they come in peace then existing international law shall cease but this is all under the control of the United Nations. The data that is used is the SETI Institute who investigate a number of activities regarding the search for intelligent extraterrestrial life and, along with their search activities, they have also made a “Protocols for an ETI Signal Detection” of activities detecting extraterrestrial intelligence. A fact is the United Nations is the international organization of all countries recognized in global ruled through preserving the UN agreement and legal documents. The UN Social General is more likely to be responsible in the representation of the human civilization if it comes to that. An evidence is even though we don’t now what’s out there yet doing business and making a partnerships with extraterrestrial its the best way not to start a war. Finding a similarity with intelligent life forms that can lead to a legal doctrines. The authors conclusion is whether or not extraterrestrial intelligence exist or not we will need to be prepare of how our laws will be made accordingly to them.


I agree with this article because since we are talking of the multiverse not knowing if it’s true or not, why couldn’t aliens be such a thing and probably behind them is the answer of the multiverse question. So, if scientist are going to keep investigating the multiverse then they should begin making laws dedicated to the research they are doing. Questions I have is, will the president have any say at all if making these laws? Will scientist have any control if anything is found to claim it as there’s? The UN nations are in charge over these topics relating to my research question is that whoever is thinking of life outside our universe. Whether it’s the multiverse or not someone should be coming up with ways to prepare ourselves for the glory or the downfall if that day ever comes to better all of our the lives. Right now there is no answer of what will occur and it will be a tragic if the same thing happens to us as it did centuries ago with the Native Americans and Christopher Columbus this time us being the Native Americans. There is a solution but what about making it valid or official.

Some rhetorical features in this source is the repetition of laws and aliens and we should begin thinking of them. Another one is hypophora they asked several questions and immediately gave an answer they believed it’s right. The genre’s and the author’s credential seem to be reasonably used here because it’s something scientist do research for trying to find answers to these questions and one prime example is the multiverse they haven’t stop investigating that until is either disproven and proven.  Not sure if these person is also a scientist but she sure knows of laws so she’s taking her point of view on that subject and trying to incorporate it to our daily lives and how helpful it will be, good to know this in a near future or so. Which help be aware of the audience trying to reach scientist, judicial branch, the government etc. more people who should start thinking of this topics for an emergency. The choice of genre affect the meaning and credibility of the document because it’s something that didn’t come from a random, unknown person who is just making stuff up but from someone who is in the field of laws and answering questions that many might have, with evidence and data.


“That is to say, the principles of the Geneva Convention and its additional protocols on the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war, and soldiers who are otherwise rendered hors de combat, or incapable of fighting, should apply for aliens equally and without discrimination as well.”
“However, along with legal issues, there might be a tremendous amount of scientific and technical issues that require the assistance of either UN specialized organs like Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) or non-UN institutions such as the SETI Institute or universities. In either case, outsourcing any part of the negotiation will be within the discretion of the secretary general of the United Nations.”


Legal Source Entry

 My analysis question is about how a soldier fights with him in self? I am interested in this query because I noticed that being a soldier it’s not simple. 


Mahoney, Kara. “WHOSE CHOICE? PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATION AND THE ARMED FORCES.” Whose Choice? Psychotropic Medication and The Armed Forces Kara Mahoney, Kara Mahoney, 2013, winter, weblaw.usc.edu/students/journals/rlsj/issues/assets/docs/volume22/Winter2013/3.Mahoney.pdf. 


In this Legal article called who is the choice? Psychotropic medication and the Armed Forces. The soldiers encounter many obstacles while performing a Mission a Soldiers face a lot of health issues in every mission especially for a long-term mission they use medication that can help them stay alert and focused on the mission. A Soldier is trained To ignore every kind of situation that affects the mission however if a soldier can’t ignore his pain or health issues then he has to take some medication like a drug so he can stay active and perform his mission effectively.  As evidence, the author states that as evidence the author states that “ If mental health problems become impossible to ignore, there are pressures to quietly take psychotropic medications in lieu of any other mental health treatment, such as psychotherapy.4 There are also coercive pressures to take medications like stimulants to perform missions lasting twenty-four hours or longer”.They are for being a soldier it’s not easy however it takes a lot of courage and strength to be the one different person from all other than in the world.  


After reading this article I strongly agree with the author that the soldiers Suffer a lot not just on the battlefield although with their own selves as well for example as I read it in the article suffer a lot not just on the battlefield although with their own selves as well for example as I read it in the article “Walk into any of the larger-battalion-aide stations in Iraq or Afghanistan today, and you’ll find Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft to fight depression, as well as Wellbutrin, Celexa, and Effexor. You’ll see Valium to relax muscles (but also for sleep and combat stress) as well as Klonopin, Ativan, Restoril, and Xanax. There’s Adderall and Ritalin for ADD and Haldol and Risperdal to treat psychosis; there’s Seroquel, at subtherapeutic doses, for sleep, along with Ambien and Lunesta. Sleep, of course, is a huge issue in any war. But in this one, there are enough Red Bulls and Rip Its in the chow halls to light up the city of Kabul, and soldiers often line their pockets with them before missions, creating a cycle where they use caffeine to power up and sleep meds to power down.” Therefore as my research question being a soldier, is not being an ordinary person therefore as my research question being a soldier he’s not being an ordinary person. In addition, soldiers miss their family in addition soldiers miss their family and they can’t go back until they don’t perform their duties given by their country. The rhetorical factors that I learned in professor Hall’s English class are about genre like my purpose of writing this legal source and other genres about my research question are to spread awareness to the youth of this country so they know that being a soldier is not obvious. 


A quote that triggers me and it exemplifies the document claim  “ The military has acknowledged the problem and, as will be discussed, has made recommendations for dealing with the overmedication of its service members. Yet in practice, individual service members continue to bears the full weight of choosing to take care of their health while risking stigma and their careers, or choosing to hide their mental health concerns while risking their long-term health, their safety, and the safety of their fellow service members”. This quote explains that being a soldier is not easy it demands perfection strength courage this quote truly triggers me that what are soldiers what are the obstacles that a soldier face furthermore soldiers have to take pills medication so that they can restore their energy. And to sleep, they still have to take medication that will help them to sleep. 



Part 1:

The New Deal was the plan introduced by President Roosevelt during the great depression.  New Deal projects and programs, such as the CCC, the WPA, the TVA, the SEC, and other new deals was introduced by FDR, and how these programs helped America to build up its economic system back to where it was. It put people back to work, saved capitalism, restored faith in the American economic system, and at the same time, it built a sense of hope in the American people. President Roosevelt introduced many programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Farm Security Administration (FSA), the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA), and the Social Security Administration (SSA). Which help America’s economy better



Part 2:

Today my legal research is about racial discrimination in labor law and how mostly African Americans and minorities got affected by this. This racial discrimination is going on for so long. Common people were actual victims of that situation. During this new deal program, taxes got so high to be paid. FDR put taxes on every little thing that didn’t matter was it a cigarette, beers, or even candy. They all taxes were paying mostly by middle-class people and the poor. Taxes were exceeding their limits and were getting high day by day and people were losing their savings because it was all going to the taxes. New Deal taxes were the major reason for unemployment because whatever people earned, it all went to taxes and if someone had a business that meant, they’d got to pay high taxes and remained with less money for growth and jobs. So that was one of the reasons, they didn’t really hire any for more jobs. According to these sources, the reason for unemployment was that  FDR increased the price of money which led to more unemployment and human suffering. At the time, white industrialization was on the top, and how they decided to get rid of people including African Americans, women, and “defective” people. The second reason was unionization that how this should be helpful for every community but it went really bad. Under the Federal law at that time, every employer of the unions regardless of any race would have equal rights through selective bargaining. Because it gives every employee the basic rights but they still prioritized white over black. As per these sources, they give them “separate but equal rights”. Which simply meant that white didn’t accept African Americans working with them.

Part 3:

It’s true that these programs indeed helped its country. However, as I said that something went bad with this deal. And those got discussed in this article by Jim Powell. Yes, poor people were the actual target of this program. Because they had to paid taxes. At first, obviously, it was good but it got affected after seen that a lot of people had lost their jobs, high taxes, and unionization.  President Roosevelt and his cabinet never really had a master plan but a lot of programs and laws that just imposed on the public which later created big problems. During this period of time. mostly white people were working in steel mills, plants, and other Industrial workshops and didn’t allow other races to entered and work with them which caused a big problem for the country in the way of unemployment. They just work with people like them and helped people like them. The middle-class public couldn’t really be saved for themselves because whatever they’d earned, had to go in taxes. That’s why most corporations got scared to hire people because of high wages and less production. National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA)  made people paid more taxes than their actual product made and  Agricultural Adjustment Act( AAA)  forced Americans to pay more for food, In other words, pay tax. I agree with these sources that how congress enacted the fair and equal rights during the new dal program called labor act but legislation tried hard to go against it. It’s really disheartening how minorities got hurt by this and this labor movement intentionally brought racism through it. This act actually brutally led to racism in America till now and shows the real face of unionization back then that how they used and basically disrespected other racial groups for their self-advancement. NIRA was the one act that really differentiates in wages of blacks and white workers for example, if blacks did more work than whites. Blacks still certified as lower wages workers and whites would have higher wages than them. That’s how unfair it was at that time. African Americans who were sharecroppers, didn’t own property and got no compensation from its state government. In these New Deal programs, $1.6 billion to $5.3 billion federal taxes were paid between 1933 and 1940. The government mostly cared about the west and east side of its country but they didn’t really care about the south where they (democrats) won. Social Security Act put taxes on payrolls made it more expensive for employers to hire people, which discouraged hiring.

Part 4:

“This disheartening picture comes into sharper focus when considering members of minority groups. The American labor movement is inescapably linked to intentional racist oppression.”

“democratic governments tend to give the greatest benefits to those who are the best organized and have the most influence categories that include a few Blacks. Such results are consistent with the thesis that labor unions benefit the few and subjugate the many by protecting “superior” races from the competition with “inferior” ones”.

“collective bargaining would substantially reduce and appropriately channel the economic strife inherent in contemporary employment relationships in an industrialized capitalist society. Collective bargaining was required because inequality of bargaining power existed between the individual worker and his corporate employer, making individualized bargaining one-sided”.


Environmental Law Source Entry

My research question is, what can be done about climate change right now? This research question interests me because I am noticing a devastating change of the planet and have wondered for a long time on what we can do to save it.

Scott, Takacs, Bratspies, Pérez, Craig, Hirokawa, Hudson, Krakoff, Kuh, Owley, Powers, Roesler, Rosenbloom, Ruhl, Ryan, I. (2018, December 31). Environmental Law. Disrupted. Retrieved November 07, 2020, from https://elr.info/news-analysis/49/10038/environmental-law-disrupted

*Cited in APA Format*

In this environmental law news article, the environment in the United States changes rapidly there are impacts and visibility of climate change around the world. However, in the future that is not so distant there are potential, existential threats that are making way for an unsettling planet. The authors who are also members of Environmental Law Collaborative (ELC) have a question about the future of environmental law. They ask, “What does it mean to think about and practice environmental law in this setting?” They complied a collection of essays and postings by putting their take on environmental law as we know it and hopes that it addresses the threats and/or path we should take to move forward. The authors stated themselves, “As we are a diverse group of scholars and thinkers, our conclusions are by no means uniform, but they share a common thread: this is not time for business as usual. The system requires significant, potentially disruptive changes, some of which may make us profoundly uncomfortable. We hope these essays disrupt your thinking in provocative, productive ways, and we look forward to opening a dialog with you about how we can reframe, reshape, and ultimately disrupt environmental law to meet the challenges of our day.” They couldn’t be anymore right and want the same result as I do or at least have my question answered. At the end of the day we share a common goal and as the saying goes “great minds think alike.”

As I read the sections the members of Environmental Law Collaborative wrote about I strongly agree with their points and their approach on environmental law being important especially at the time of climate change. I am going to focus on Inara Scott’s section the most because it relates to my research the most, principles of environment law, and a source of law that I learned in Intro Law class. Scott talks about genres (in books) as well as the term of environmental law and how it is changing. Scott states, “Picking a genre determines how the book is marketed and who becomes the audience. Genres also carry deeply embedded connotations: for example, who do you picture reading romance novels? Who do you picture writing them?” This is true because when someone picks up a book and finds interest in the genre they are reading, the book is catered to that audience. Scott also states, “Like fiction authors, lawyers are trained to think about law in discrete categories. Interdisciplinary efforts may be viewed with skeptical or even disapproving eyes.2 As a professor teaching environmental law at a business school, I can say from firsthand experience that many do not consider me to be part of the “environmental law” community simply because of where I teach.” This quote follows my previous response that if someone likes a genre of a book they are reading it’s catered to them, so Scott is trying to connect that idea with environmental law and how she teaches it in a business school catered to folks who could be interested in it. She goes on to explaining the definition of environmental law and where it stands in many cases. Scott says, “Most definitions of “environmental law” describe statutes and regulations that govern how people interact with the natural environment–the ““natural environment” in this context being nonhuman species, plants, and natural resources.4 Environmental law is also generally understood to include pollution control and management of public lands and natural resources.” The keywords in this quote are “pollution control, management of public lands, and natural resources.” I feel as though these words are vital because it relates to climate change and how we are failing in maintaining the stability of planet Earth. If we don’t recycle, reduce, and reuse then there is no natural habitats. In my Intro Law class I learned about the sources of law which is in the M&M chapter 5 ‘Sources of American Law’ and I am referencing this text is because Scott talks about the new genre of environmental law that is common law. Scott writes, “By using the term “commons,” I hope to draw attention to a few issues. First, I recognize that the traditional notion of the commons is a resource shared by the public that is not privately owned. However, commons law will refer to regulation of public and privately owned resources.” This is a great way to attract people by pointing out the obvious that Earth is our “commons” and the activity on our land is private or public, but it has a significant impact on people who live on it.

“Commons law must be broad, diverse, and big enough to contain seeming contradictions. It must recognize that creation of sustainable communities includes economic activity and must include, or even focus on, the regulation of this economic activity. It must address the governance of corporations that control the majority of global resources and threaten global ecosystems.17 It must also recognize the value in nonhuman species, biodiversity, and the preservation of spaces that are free from human development. (Section I Inara Scott Page 3 Paragraph 8)”