USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
thanks
Assignment 1: Discussion—Analyzing Implications
Implications of arguments can be used as tools for evaluating and assessing arguments. These can help you decide whether you want to accept or support an original argument or not. In this assignment, you build on the skills you used in M3: Assignment 2, and go one step further.
Review the following articles:
Eastland, T. (2011, January 17). We the people. The Weekly Standard, 16(17), 7–8.
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/846785734?accountid=34899
Editorial: Human inventory control. [Editorial]. (2005). Scientific American, 292(5), p. 8–8. (EBSCO AN: 16729914)
http://libproxy.edmc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=16729914&site=ehost-live
Using these articles, complete the following:
Summarize two of the authors’ arguments.
Identify and discuss one further implication of one of those arguments. Considering the author is “right,” what sorts of claims or facts would follow from that argument?
Support your statements with scholarly references. Be sure to use concepts from the textbook relevant to the assignment.
Write your initial response in 1–2 paragraphs. Apply APA standards to citation of sources.
THIS IS THE FIRST ARTICLE “WE THE PEOPLE”
We the People
Eastland, Terry
.
The
Weekly Standard
16
.
17
(Jan 17,
2
011):
7-8
.
Turn on hit highlighting for speaking browsers
Abstract (summary)
Translate Abstract
Because members of Congress, like the president and members of the Supreme Court, take an oath to uphold the Constitution, it is fair to ask whether congressmen are living up to their oath if they pass a law without considering their constitutional authority to enact it in the first place. In Lopez, the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act on grounds that it exceeded congressional authority under the clause. Because of Lopez and a few other cases, there are some limits to what Congress constitutionally may legislate.
Full Text
Translate Full text
Whether House Republicans will succeed in limiting the national government is a question raised by a simple rule adopted on their first day in the majority. Under the rule, every bill when introduced must be accompanied by a statement citing the specific authority granted to Congress by the Constitution under which it may pass the proposed law. Lacking such a statement, the bill will be returned to its sponsor.
The new rule was promised last September in the Republicans’ Pledge to America. Its appeal is evident. Americans extol the virtues of self-government, by which we mean constitutional self-government. That is, we govern ourselves under our Constitution, the “supreme law of the land.” Because members of Congress, like the president and members of the Supreme Court, take an oath to uphold the Constitution, it is fair to ask whether congressmen are living up to their oath if they pass a law without considering their constitutional authority to enact it in the first place.
Congressional Democrats (and some Republicans, too) have often been dismissive of the obligation to consider constitutional questions of legislative authority, thinking such questions should be left to the courts. The debate over the mandate included in Obamacare – that every American buy health insurance or face a penalty – is illustrative in both respects.
When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked by a reporter “where specifically . . . the Constitution grant[s] Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate,” she seemed shocked by the question, and asked the reporter whether he was “serious.” In the Senate, meanwhile, Democrat Claire McCaskill responded to a question about the mandate’s constitutionality with the observation that, “if anything in this bill is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will weigh in.” (The courts must be too slow for McCaskill, who faces reelection in 2012, as she recently voiced opposition to the mandate.)
Odd as it may seem to put this way, the Republicans’ new rule makes it okay for the House to take the Constitution into account in its deliberations. Of course, the mere citation of constitutional authority will not make a law constitutional. Nor will it oblige courts, exercising the power of judicial review, to declare a law constitutional. What advocates of the new rule hope is that it will lead to more discussion among members about the congressional authority to legislate, and that the House will take a more restrained understanding of its capacity, one more consistent with the Constitution’s original meaning.
It is useful to put this issue of legislative authority in larger perspective. What might be called the unlimiting of the national government began to take place during the New Deal, when the Supreme Court understood congressional authority to be so capacious as to leave little that
Washington
could not regulate. Congress largely accepted the Court’s jurisprudence and extended its legislative reach, losing sight of the core purposes of government and building our big and costly welfare state.
Against this development, the Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist eventually pushed back, though with only modest success. In 1995, in
United States
v. Lopez, the Court found that congressional power had become virtually limitless when President Clinton’s solicitor general was unable to identify any principle that might confine congressional regulation under the commerce clause. In Lopez, the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act on grounds that it exceeded congressional authority under the clause. Because of Lopez and a few other cases, there are some limits to what Congress constitutionally may legislate. If the individual mandate is upheld, there will be fewer.
The unlimiting of government, never so well understood until now, is what House Republicans are responding to. They have the numbers to defeat any bill that they believe Congress lacks the authority to enact, and by requiring bills to be accompanied by a constitutional authority statement, they are indicating their interest in doing precisely that. That the House may be willing to give up authority established by case law and historical practice is startling, indeed a development without precedent in our politics. But it is nonetheless an encouraging development, one that House Republicans will be pushed by the Tea Party to follow through on. As they should.
– Terry Eastland
Word count: 705
Copyright
Weekly Standard Jan 17,
2011
Indexing (details)
Cite
Subject
Supreme Court decisions;
Constitutional law
Title
We the People
Author
Eastland, Terry
Publication title
The Weekly Standard
Volume
16
Issue
17
Pages
7-8
Number of pages
2
Publication year
2011
Publication date
Jan 17, 2011
Year
2011
Publisher
Weekly Standard
Place of publication
Washington
Country of publication
United States
Publication subject
Political Science
ISSN
10833013
Source type
Magazines
Language of publication
English
Document type
Commentary
ProQuest document ID
846785734
Document URL
https://login.libproxy.edmc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/846785734?accountid=34899
Copyright
Copyright Weekly Standard Jan 17, 2011
Last updated
2011-01-22
Database
2 databases
View list
Tags
– this link will open in a new window About tags|Go to My Tags
Be the first to add a shared tag to this document.
Add tags
Sign in to My Research to add tags.
Back to top
THIS IS THE SECOND ARTICLE “HUMAN INVENTORY CONTROL”
Human Inventory Control
.
Authors:
The Editors editors@sciam.com
Source:
Scientific American. May2005, Vol. 292 Issue 5, p8-8. 1p. 1 Color Photograph.
Document Type:
Editorial
Subject Terms:
*ELECTRONIC surveillance
*RADIO
*TRACKING & trailing
*MIDDLE school students
*IDENTIFICATION cards
*RIGHT of privacy
SOCIAL conditions
NAICS/Industry Codes:
515111 515111
Abstract:
This article comments on the use of radio tags used to track students, and how it is indicative of a growing surveillance society. It was inevitable that the radio tags that let cars breeze through toll plazas would get placed on, or in, people. The Brittan Elementary School in Sutter required the seventh- and eighth-grade students to wear a badge that sported a name, a photograph and a radio tag containing identification data that could be read automatically at attendance time. Parents staged a protest. After the local company that developed the technology reacted to the controversy by withdrawing from the project, the school abandoned it. The radio tags deployed in Sutter are, like all new technology, neither inherently good nor bad, but tagging junior high kids becomes a form of indoctrination into an emerging surveillance society that young minds should be learning to question.
Full Text Word Count:
566
ISSN:
00368733
Accession Number:
16729914
Database:
Academic Search Elite
Publisher Logo:
Publisher Logo
Translate Full Text:
HTML Full Text
Human Inventory Control
Section:
SA Perspectives
It was inevitable that the radio tags that let cars breeze through toll plazas would get placed on, or in, people. The sole elementary school in a California town 50 miles northwest of Sacramento raised hackles far and wide this past January when it tagged students with the same technology used to determine the whereabouts of cattle and to keep tabs on toilet paper rolls at Wal-Mart. The Brittan Elementary School in Sutter required the seventh- and eighth-grade students to wear a badge that sported a name, a photograph and a radio tag containing identification data that could be read automatically at attendance time. Purportedly, the radio-equipped badges would have also helped improve safety and prevent vandalism.
The situation in Sutter quickly turned incandescent. One tagged student returned from school and told her parents that she felt like a piece of supermarket produce, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times. Parents staged a protest.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups jumped in. After the local company that developed the technology reacted to the controversy by withdrawing from the project, the school abandoned it in mid-February.
The radio tags deployed in Sutter are, like all new technology, neither inherently good nor bad. Their value, of course, depends on how they are used. Tags could help detect a container shipped into the Port of Baltimore carrying a dirty bomb. In Brazil, businessmen have of their own accord taken more drastic steps than those imposed at Brittan Elementary. In response to that country’s rash of kidnappings, forty of them have gone so far as to implant radio-tracking chips under their skin. The company that imports the chips from the U.S. told the Brazilian daily O Globo that it has a 2,000-person waiting list.
But, unlike the Brazilian empresários, students in Sutter had no choice in the matter. They faced the threat of expulsion if they showed up in the morning without badges strung around their necks. A seventh-grade classroom was clearly the wrong place to implement radio tags that convey precarious implications for individual privacy. The Brittan school board may have had the best intentions, but tagging junior high kids becomes a form of indoctrination into an emerging surveillance society that young minds should be learning to question.
Public education and debate about the proper framework for protecting electronic privacy is desperately called for because we are beginning to see the floodgates open. The U.S. government is pushing aggressively ahead with plans for radio tags in passports, which will store personal information and be readable remotely by anyone, whether a customs official at a desk or a terrorist standing nearby. The Department of Homeland Security has already strapped more than 1,700 immigrants applying for permanent residency with ankle bracelets to prevent those who may be ordered for deportation from fleeing. The respite for the student-tagging business, moreover, may be shortlived. InCom, the company that outfitted Sutter students, has received calls from many other school districts interested in implementing similar programs.
Some segments of U.S. society have always had a visceral aversion to a national identity card. Those instincts are sound and should be reinforced. Widespread adoption of human-tracking devices should never be embraced without serious and prolonged discussion at all levels of society.
PHOTO (COLOR): STUDENT obeys the rules.
~~~~~~~~
By The Editors
