This blog assignment is a follow up to your debate. I want you to explain how you really feel about your debate proposition. In your comments support your arguments with at least one source.
This assignment is due by Dec. 28
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think Pardon power isn't true.Because A lot of guilties can be pardoned by presidents.For example Marc Rich.According to Time Marc Rich's socialite ex-wife had effect on Rich’s pardon because she had funded an estimated $1 million to Democratic causes, including $70,000 to Hillary Clinton's successful Senate campaign and $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library fund. She also lobbied heavily for Marc's pardon. However Clinton had denied any connection, saying he relied solely on the information provided by Jack Quinn (former White House counsel and Rich's current lawyer) when he was weighing the pardon request. And New York Times claims that Mr. Clinton's irresponsible use of his pardoning authority has undermined the pursuit of justice.
ReplyDeleteSidal Karaman
ReplyDeleteLaw 149.22
I defens the exclusionary rule should be abolished and I believe it because it provide the evidence collected illegally isn't admissible by the court so the law dosen't worlk rightly for innocence people.And I think we use UK example , they think the evidence which find the real suspect is used by the court but ıf the police do bad things to collect evidence to prove the suspect is quilty, they will absolutely punish from governmet and it is really good system to provide justice between quilty and innocence people so when I defens the exclusionary rule should be abolished I believe this topic and my arguments
Çiğdem Yılmaz Law 149.22
ReplyDeleteI used to have no idea about necessity of term limits of President before this debate. Now i really support the idea of eligilibity of re-elections in presidential system which i defensed.Since it limits the citizens' right to elect at the same time.Limitations don’t suit meaning of democracy.It also limits succesfull presidents.It's said a system without limits creates horrible dictators like Hitler. However in the system without limitation Atatürk brought democracy to this country and he was president for 15 years, till his death. Most of us usualy say "i wish he hadn't die". Also limitation cannot be enough to stop someone to have permanant or long-term power in administration of country.For example despite of limitations Putin found a way to go on commending the country. I don't say Putin is a dictator but in the system of limitation dictators can turn up. Maybe Hitler can do same things in a system with limitation. So i think limitations isn’t the faithful way to put the risk of dictatorship down.According to Professor Serap Yazıcı it’s possible to create mechanisms to prevent this risk. The solution can be laws or special offices. Secondly in a system with no limits Presidents act resposibly to be President again and lame ducks' unresponsible acts don't occur. Also it's said term limits prevent young and new politicians to be blocked by older ones. First of all it's not important a president age or experience. Presidents aren't elected based on their age or experinces. Yes their successes can lead them to be president again if they are successful. Is it bad for country a successful president becomes president again thanks to his succussful experiences.
I was defending the idea of judges should be elected.I was happy about my argument topic because i firmly believe that it is true.As we know that to call a system democratic,we need people's votes and as i said in debate,we can't have a healthy democracy without including people into government branches.After my researches i saw that many people -generally lawyers- wrote articles about the need of the elemination.For example in one of my source lawandcourts.wordpress.com i read some articles from lawyers.People were discussing about this topic and many of them were sharing the same opinion about the point that people must have a right to choose judges who’ll make very important decisions that will affect their lives; otherwise it will be very unfair.I agree with that idea because judges can make mistakes sometimes but if we make the system elemination,judges will become more responsible of what they are doing,they will understand the importance of their job.For collecting the votes they will have to be more careful and make true decisions.Their oportunity to make mistakes will nearly disappear.
ReplyDeleteSabahat Elif İPEK
ReplyDeleteLaw 149.22
In my debate, I defended that flag burning should be protected speech. I am glad that I was given this argument because I believe in it for real. A flag is a symbol, it is a huge symbol. Expressing thoughts and beliefs with symbols is protected, so why should flag burning be illegal? It is considered as a disloyal and dishonorable act, the common thought is that burning a flag hurts the other citizens’ feelings, but nobody can judge anybody else because of their ideas. One may hate his/her county or the government just like he/she can love them. According to CNN’s web site, in Australia there were flag burning situations in the most honorable day of the country, Australia Day. It happened twice, in years 2006 and 2008. Still, flag burning is protected in Australia, because human rights and freedoms are fully protected. It is believed that people may say whatever they want however they want, the only condition is not to harm anyone else’s freedom. Australia’s attitude on this subject is worth considering. It should be an example to the whole world. We should put feelings aside and decide on what the law is actually trying to protect.
Serkan Temizel
ReplyDeleteLaw 149.21
I was defending the wiew of there should be no term limits for the president, and i was thinking so before debate. The cause of all argue is so simple, there is no the side of totally right because term limit convention has not specific purpose, it seems like to put down the dictatorship but term limit can't provide this, russia is the best example to proff that. If the country is democratic sufficiently, i think the term limit become purposeless, because nobody does not feel fear for dictatorship, and the successful presidents can stay on duty until people change their minds. But if the country is not really democratic, it means the term limit convention will not work to stop the dictatorship. The dictator will not defy the law anyway.
ELİF KOCA
ReplyDeleteLAW 149.22
In my debate, i supported the president should not have the pardon power. Because it is not ethic and fair. For example George Bush pardoned Scooter Libby. He was White House's adviser and Dick Cheney's chief of staff.He leaked the identity of an undercover agent to the media and lied to a grand jury. But George Bush pardoned his imprisonment penalthy. Because he thought that this penalty is very heavy for him.But i think it isn't true because he is guilty and if it is a guilt it is a guilt. He must take penalty.Otherwise it is not fair for the rest of the citizens.
Varis Alakbarov
ReplyDeleteLAW: 149.21
In my debate, I defended that the exclusionary rule should not be abolished.
I think then that it should not be abolished, to me that is a good law to have to protect the public from cops searching illegaly and getting away with it.
The exclusionary rule is one of the fundamental ways the rights of the individual are protected from the abuse of police power and governmental power in general.It is probably the primary reason that the criminal legal process in the United states of America is the most fair and equitablein the world.It is a tough rule,but necessary to keep the government honest and to protect against abuse.Almost half the states subscribed to it during the period from 1920 to 1960 by either legislative or appelate court action,but it was not until the 1961 case of Mapp v.Ohio that the exclusionary rule was elevated to the status of a constitutionally derived policy.The exclusionary rule allows the court to check the lawlessness of the policy.If the policy make illegal search,the court punishes the misbehavior the only way it can by excluding the evidence from the trial.
My debate topic was “judges should be elected.” and I was against for it. While I was making my debate research I realise that judges shouldn’t be elected. Because of the campaign speeches and contributions, Judges can’t practise their job impartially. Judges must decide controversies without bias but with the electoral system they couldn’t be objective for example in 2003, judicial elections were held in Mississippi and one of the candidates whose name was Jess Dickinson, present himself as a “strong leader who supports the death penalty.” According to Michigan Law School, candidates invoke their beliefs on controversial issues and these campaigns are becoming competitive and visible. In Weaver v. Bonner case, during his campaign George Weaver distributed brochures Justice Sears’s views on same-sex marriage and electric chair. For example on the brochure it says “Justice Sears has called the electric chair silly!” . Judiciary has to protect rights of the minority but in an electoral system judges will feel beholden to their votes, so they would follow the popular decisions instead of the right decisions.
ReplyDeleteSerra Böhürler
ReplyDeletelaw 149.22
in my debate, i defense that exclusionary rule should be abolished. One of my reasons is about psycology. Firt reactions should be evaluated as evidence, because these reactions are real. I defense that if the suspect are real criminal other thinks shouldn't provide against the real criminal suspect paying for the punisment. this is realy dangerous for people to live with them. When we do exclusionary rule we give them time to think and enable them to change their attitude which is veryt important for courts decision. I believe that this is not protect us against the police. Polices duty are diffrent and if they do the bad thinks they'll punish by the government.
Demet GECEBEGİ
ReplyDeleteLAW 149.21
As an advocate of freedom of speech, I believe that flag burning should not be penalized or considered as a crime. By not looking at the action of burning a flag as a free speech, people who argue that a flag is a symbol of freedom in fact disregard the meaning of freedom itself. The major argument that defenders of prohibition of this action state, is the significance of a flag for a nation and what it symbolizes. Nevertheless, we should also consider flag burning as a way of expressing thoughts and ideals, which is an essential part for freedom and individuality. Even today several countries do not count this action as free speech, where others have legislations protecting the right to burn a flag under the law concerning free speech. According to sabah.com, Norwegian court legalized flag burning in 2008. Flag desecration is also not forbidden in Belgium, Canada and many other countries. Furthermore, as the deputy leader of the justice committee Jan Arild Ellingsen of the Progress Party states that “for them, freedom of expression is the most important”. Therefore, the law against flag burning should be discussed thoroughly including the debate of freedom of speech. Before this argument, I have never critically thought about free speech, flag burning and their relation. However now, I strongly believe that if we really care about freedom and support the meaning behind having a flag, we should firstly consider and respect the thoughts of the people creating the nation.
I was defending in debate, there should be no term limit for president. I was happy about this defense because I don't believe there should be term limit for president. In my opinion, people can choose similar president if they want. Because, for example, there is a political problems "Demokratik Açılım" in Turkey. The president is chief for this project. When the president complited his term, if people can't choose him, the project will be not complited.
ReplyDeleteI defended to presidential pardon power.At first I actually didnt want defend this topic but when I started to search I understood that it's not something as bad as I thought.I saw that presidents need this power to make peace in society sometimes
ReplyDeleteIn my debate, i defended that flag burning must be protected speech. Before of the research i was thinking that was not true but when i did the research i understand that people can express their ideas in different ways. According to about.com: Students have a right to wear black armbands to school. Christians have a right to wear a cross. People have a right to fly an American flag outside their homes. People have a right to fly communist, Confederate, and Nazis flags. People have a right to draw satirical cartoons which criticize the president. If these rights are protected flag burning must be protected too.
ReplyDeletei could not say that my debate was good..i was prepared for debate but i did not talk because i excited so i did not feel good myself.i could not express.Further you have asked something to students..that has stretched me.my presentation was not like i want or think.
ReplyDeleteAybüke Çakırel
ReplyDeleteLaw 149.21
In my debate, i defended that flag burning should be protected speech. Before the debate, i thought that it shouldn't be and my idea didn't change. Many country like USA have a rule about this and they procetec flag burning because they think it's sybolic speech. Of course symbolic speech must be protected, but people must be respectful when they are expressing ideas. i think this is demean the country. When people demean other people, they will get punishment. Also government has an incorporated body and it has benefits too. So we can't demean the government. It isn't about expressing ideas or respect, it is about benefit of personality. I think flag burning shouldn't be protected speech.
DİDEM SAHİN LAW 149.21
ReplyDeleteMy debate topic was'judicial review is undemocratic' and I was against for it.Before i learned that i was against or i was for this topic, i think that judicial review is undemocratic.Also i thought it was hard to find sources which defends that is democratic.Anyway, in the end of my research i realized that judicial review is the main thing of juridical power.In this way,it's important value which helps to work checks and balances system.as we learned at class by creation of judicial review, judiciary became equal branch of government.No doubt the absence of this equality will destroy the checks and balances system and democracy.
Yalım Yarkın ÖZBALCI law 149.23
ReplyDeleteMy topic was Judicial Review is Undemocratic, and i was against. So i tried to explain why it is democratic. When you look, how it is used, by whom it is used, it looks undemocratic. But if we think about it really, it serves democracy maybe more than any other checks. It controls laws, it cancels law, but Judiciary doesnt use Judicial Review all the time and just as i told as my main argument, Other branches can make new laws, even new consitutions. I liked my topic, because it gives me a chance to defend my own ideas. So, yes, i liked the debate
MERVE EYÜBOĞLU
ReplyDelete149.21
my debate topic was 'judicial review is undemocratic' and i was against it.I think that our audience believes that it is undemocratic and also i think it was going to be hard to defend that the judicial review is democratic but after my researches i saw the system in USA is more democratic(just)system than others in the world.and also i defend my idea based on the seperation of powers.in my group my speech is about the judicial review in america.I learned about U.S trial procedure which is the part of judicial review system.In addition to that i learn how the american trial process works.
after my debate and my researches i saw that the system which is standing now can not be changed unless the foundation of a better judicial review system.
It was a good experience for me to try to defend the part that actually i don't support.
My debate topic was the exclusionary rule should not be abolished. this rule is one of the fundamental ways the rights of the indiviual are protected from the abuse of police power in general. It prevents all the innocent people tainted evidences from being introduced against a defendant a trial. I think this rule works because it creates an incentive law enforcement officers to know legal search and seizure standards. Thats why the codes of the constitution is enforced by the public. In debate, i had some statements which were support my ideas. For instance, a representative in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi states: the exclusionary rule is what protects all Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures and the invasion of privacy by law enforcement officers. it doesn't undermine the ability of the police to enforce the law. it has been part of the training given to all federal law enforcement agents since 1914. the directors of FBI have endorsed the exclusionary rule and have stated that the rule doesn't hinder the FBI's work. as a result, my topic was appropriate and adequate for my estimates.
ReplyDeleteMy debate topic was judges should be elected. I was happy about my topic since it is true. Making the system elimination is neccessary for the healthy democracy. Acording to one of my research which is Nation Wide Water Opinion Survey seventyfive percent of people believe that judges should be elected by the voter. The system of elimination give a chance to women and young lawyer to be judge in the supreme court. If judges have to get elected they have to raise money to fund campaigns which in recent years have sometimes cost millions of dollars. Money is the problem while in campaign but it does not mean that judges should be appointed. Using common fund is the good suggestion to prevent corruption.
ReplyDeleteIn America the system of elimination is used for president but there are still few women so many people think that election is really neccessary for the judges.Actually we were talking about future. Election is kind of a chance for them but appointed is handicap. According to Pennsylvanian Bar Association thirtyone of the sixtyseven countries have no women judges.
Çağrı Ceylan Law 149.21
ReplyDeleteI defended that there should be no term limits for the president. Limiting presidential term prevents development of democracy. I believe that citizens should have the right to select more than two terms. Because when the rights of citizens increase, democracy will develop, too. Also, the countries which limit presidency term, either are afraid of dictatorship or can not trust their democracy. İf democracy provide freedom to people, all countries which is democratic must abolish the obstacles in favor of independence.Actaully, a lot of examples in history showed that citizens always create their own regime. The latest example can be Venezuela that repeal term limits.
Sıla Öztürk Law 149.21
ReplyDeleteMy debate topic was 'judicial review is undemocratic' and I was against for it. During my research, I have met with arguments some of which are against or supporting and after I have brought them together, thinking about their positive and negative parts. Finally my idea is judicial review is democtratic. Here are the arguments which supports me.
Judicial review gives chance of evaluating if a governmental act or laws are constitutional from different points of views. On the other hand judicial review may also decrease democratic failure by alerting voters to unjustified government actions. So, they will be aware of the situation that they are in. That means it has a passive and an active role depending on the regulating social life of the society. With this debate I discovered that the start point of the discussion subject can be easily changed 180 degree either searching the subject in internet or discussing in the class. That was a great experience for me and I am sure I will perform better next time.
Oğuz Savaş Law 140.22
ReplyDeleteIn debate i defend that there should no term limits for president. Before the debate, i have no more ideas about this topic but debate provide me to learn academic sides of this topic. Now ithink really there should no term limit for president. While my resarch, i benefit from contra idea's arguments. I research that their arguments' bacround. Almost i condensed on democrasy arguments. They said that without term limits democrasi will have droped.So, i researced this argument, and i saw that this wa no true. Becasue most democratic countries of world have no term limits however there are more countires which have term limits but have not real democrasies. I formalized my defence and arguments these topics. Now, i can say that term limits stop stabilization and development. Almostly non-develop countries need stabilization. İf you set up term limits for politic life in these countries, you prevent stabilization . Becasue a new man means new projects. so previosn project may stop. Also, term limits means only changing of faces, not politics or ideas. For example, in USA there are two parties. Democratic Party and Republician Party. By tertm limits only you can change names of presidents. But they have almostly same politic ideas and projects. So that term limits are only sample for politic life. So, i want to explain that needlesness of term limits.
Oğuz Savaş
ReplyDeleteLaw 149.22
In the debate I argued that judges shouldn't be elected. Before my research for the debate I thought that the idea of electing judges is better than appointing them. It sounded more democratic and persuasive to me. But after my research I realised that judges should be appointed instead of elected. The biggest reason why judges shouldn't be elected is contributions. The partisan election system makes the judges turn into politicians who do everything to get more votes. Also judiciary's decisions shouldn't be subjected to popular opinion. (www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/04/20/0420judgeelect.html) For these reasons I agree with my debate topic.
ReplyDeleteMy debate topic was "Judicial Review is undemocratic" and we were against. I think Judicial review can be used in undemocratic ways. It is'nt completely democratic. If you have power, you can control Judicial Review. But It has important features. Judicial Review can examine and criticize executive and legislative acts.. For each side, There are a lot of arguments for supporting.
ReplyDeleteZeynep Aslıhan SARI 149.23
ReplyDeleteMy debate topic was "Judicial Review is undemocratic" and we were against. I think Judicial review can be used in undemocratic ways. It is'nt completely democratic. If you have power, you can control Judicial Review. But It has important features. Judicial Review can examine and criticize executive and legislative acts.. For each side, There are a lot of arguments for supporting.