Improving Native American Welfare: One Child at a Time
By: Hayley Perkins
In history stories of neglect, mistreatment, racial discrimination, and poverty plagued many, especially minority groups. Minorities include anyone that does not make up the majority of the population, like Hispanics and African Americans. Most people recognize those two groups as minorities, but many forget about the Native Americans, which according to the Census Bureau, makes up an estimated 1.7 percent of the total United States population- they too experienced many hardships in America. In the 1800’s President Andrew Jackson’s ordered the removal of all Indians to the West, known as the Trail of Tears. During this period they were unreasonably punished and forced from their homeland, and many of their possessions were taken away from them, along with their opportunities.
Due to the mistreatment, the federal government and state legislative should implement more laws and rules to help correct the past wrongdoings to the Native American Minority. That is why the new bill created by Alaska state governor Murkowski, North Dakota and other states with high Native American populations is a positive action by the state and federal government. The new bill will help counteract high poverty rates, poor education, abuse, and crime by providing $ 2 million dollars’ worth of financial aid and resources. It would also create a panel that would involve interaction between tribe leaders, governors, and local government officials, which would improve the quality of aid provided.
Some may say that the abundance of legislative is suffocating and restricting Native Americans rather than being beneficial; however we want to point out that many of the federal programs helped jump start their lives after the repeated hardships. A majority of the legislative acts helped protect Native American Culture, land, and well-being by creating federal organizations, like the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In addition the preponderance of the bills is to help give Native Americans the opportunity for higher education, to be business leaders, and to have improved health services within their communities. Without these bills many Native Americans would be living in poverty or have poor financial stability.
Overall, we as individuals and the federal government should feel obliged to provide equal chances of success for all people and minorities therefore the creation of bills providing equal opportunities for minorities, like Native Americans is a positive action. If we look at the effects of the civil rights movement and the NAACP had on African American’s welfare and rights, it has greatly improved. That is how it should be for Native American’s. We should continue to provide for the Native American minority and encourage others to do the same- after all, the United States was their home first.
The Great Vote Off- Who Will Win???
By: Hayley Perkins
Since the creation of our government there has much debate in what a successful government’s structure looks like- anti-federalists v., democrats v. republicans, state v. federal, and the list goes on. During the 1780’s many realized that the government need restructuring, however what was to replace it was the main challenge. Some people, the anti-federalist, believed that the central government was too powerful and that the states understood what the people really wanted. On the opposite side, the federalist supported the constitution and a stronger central government.
As we all know, they ended up compromising viewpoints resulting in the government we have today- a representative democracy. However, much debate still exist presently over federalism and how much power the states and central government has. A major current issue is on the Voting Right Act of 1965.Recently the Supreme Court decided that section 4 was unconstitutional.Now, Conversation revolves around how much government should be involved with individual state’s voting process and if minorities still encounter discrimination while voting.
Section 4 stated which states needed federal permission before changing anything related to the voting process. The main states that were impacted by this voting act were Alaska, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia. Alaska’s head elections official, Lt. GOv Mead Treadwell stated, “I have a notebook on the desk that's several inches thick with copies of preclearance requests we have made to the Justice Department for some of the most minor things." Due to the challenging process of making necessary changes to the voting process we believe that the court’s decision was an accurate and needed one.
Some may argue that by removing and changing parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 we are discriminating against races and minorities; however it states in the article Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act, “When it was first enacted, he said, black voter registration stood at 6.4 percent in Mississippi, and the gap between black and white registration rates was more than 60 percentage points.In the 2004 election, the last before the law was reauthorized, the black registration rate in Mississippi was 76 percent, almost four percentage points higher than the white rate. In the 2012 election, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “African-American voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout in five of the six states originally covered by Section 5.“(Liptak). The voting rights Act section 4 and 5 were written at a time in which they were needed, but in present day it seems as more of a burden than an achievement. In addition, states are now able to redraw districts, change where polls are, and other topics that are more of a state interest rather than national interest.
As said earlier much debate still revolves over government and what the ideal balance of federal and state power should be. This is only one of the many examples that can be seen in society today. Even with all this debate the only way any change will come about is through voicing yourself through your officials and voting on bills and laws that support your side of the battle.
Missouri’s Renewable Energy Commitment Still Has No Progress
By : Austin Jones
St. Louis, Missouri- Citizens of St. Louis are very upset on Missouri’s unreasonable use of renewable energy in their state. Missouri citizens are said to be big fans of renewable energy from their geographical area in the U.S.
Renewable energy should not be taken for granted by big businesses. The businesses need to realize that renewable energy should always be used as something that has value, not just something that should be thrown away for money.Citizens in Missouri made it clear that they want more renewable resources back in 2008, when more than 1.7 million of them passed “Proposition C” with a two-thirds majority. Voters in every one of Missouri’s 114 counties said they wanted the state’s regulated utilities to start investing in more renewable energy. With more solar power and more wind.
In the city of St. Louis, home to Ameren Missouri, the big business among regulated utilities, “Proposition C” passed by a three-to-one margin. But now America has asked the state Public Service Commission to suspend the one part of “Proposition C” that is actually working, rebates to encourage homeowners to install solar panels to provide electricity which is very popular in Missouri. The costs of solar energy in Missouri is dropping, about 1,400 solar photovoltaic systems have been installed in Ameren’s service area.
To solve the problem of more renewable energy of solar panels, Ameren needs to step up and figure out a way how to produce more solar panels from their company and support Missouri citizens in their need for more renewable energy. More solar will increase the efficiency of the electrical grid, reduce the need for dirtier energy produced by coal. It can save people money in the long run.
Keeping Important Issues at Bay North Carolina Passes New Bill
By: Amariyah Yisrael
On May/15/2013 a North Carolina bill was passed to ban the consideration of “foreign laws” in the states court system which makes North Carolina the eighth state to do so. The bill was advanced by the legislative committee after they made the bill pertain only to family law and child custody issues.
Even though there has never been an instant of foreign law being used in North Carolina’s states courts there State Rep.Tim Moore still believes that there needs to be a statute preventing it from ever happening. There are much more pressing problems facing North Carolina such as healthcare, education, and lack of jobs which is connected to poor education. One of the main arguments against this is that there is already a law that addresses this issue in the Bill of Rights which is the establishment clause so there isn’t any need for a state law to be made about “foreign laws”. Others argue for the bill by holding that there are specific laws that are in the Sharia law which can affect the people of the specific community. For example if a Muslim woman was brutally beaten by her husband she could not be defended because of the Sharia law which allows a man to beat his wife if she disobeys him. However the establishment clause would overturn because this clause separates the state from the church therefore in the district courts the man would be placed with criminal charges.
The House Bill 522 doesn’t directly mention the Sharia law by name however it is heavily regarded by critics as its main motive. As one critic puts it Jibreel Hough, spokesman for Islamic Center of Charlotte held that the bill intended to “alienate the Muslim community.” It is concerning for some community advocates because it could invalidate privately arranged marriage contracts which Muslim women seek for funding and child support.What the legislative committee should have been doing was enacting or repealing laws that help with the future of the state, finding new programs to help with these issues, and exciting the US citizens to become more enacted with new polls and events that can potentially change the community.
Mississippi and their Homophobia
By: De’Vaughn Williams
12-3-13
(Mississippi) A woman, Lauren Beth Czekala-Chatham is trying to force Mississippi to recognize her same sex marriage to Dana Ann Melancon, and to do this she is filing for divorce. She is trying to force Mississippi to recognize the marriage by simply granting the divorce. If the couple wants a divorce, why not simply give them the divorce?
Mississippi which is most likely one of the most conservative states in America, same sex activity has only been legal in the state since 2003, after the Supreme Court abolished their Sodomy laws in the case Lawrence v. Texas. But the state has also had laws that restrict same sex anything, such as forbidding recognition of same sex marriage even from other jurisdictions, and couples of same gender can’t adopt a child jointly. In a November 2011 poll, only 13% of Mississippi supported same sex marriage, while 78% opposed, and 9% weren’t sure. In a July 2013 poll, it was found that 36% of those in Mississippi support gay marriage, while 55% still oppose it.
Telling from these polls over the years, some people apparently have started to begin supporting gay marriage with a little time, so if the people of the government can change, shouldn’t that government be changing with those people, and if the governed have a huge say in government, do they have a say on the topic of same sex love. Why is there a ban on something, like marriage, no matter the sex of the couple getting married isn’t this basically a right you are born with that the constitution shouldn’t be able to touch or mess with. If the women want their marriage to be recognized, the only thing I know of them doing, is to sue the state of Mississippi, but if they do this I’m not able to see on what grounds they will be suing. The government could also have a vote or poll, to see who supports gay marriage and who would be opposed to it, because apparently over the years the numbers of those who support have started to grow, while those who oppose have apparently started to lower and don’t seem to have experienced much growth.
