Editorial comment

In this blog by Ann Coulter, she blames “the Supreme Court for the attempted car bombing at Times Square” that just happened recently. She states that “Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, five Supreme Court justices have repeatedly voted to treat jihadists like turnstile jumpers.” They are trying to convince President Obama to treat them like American citizens and so give them those rights such as Miranda rights.

She believes that because of this, simple “amateurish” terrorist attacks are still continuing to occur. She refers to how FDR ordered to have 6 German and 2 American to immediately arrested and tried when they were suspected of plotting an attack on an U.S. munitions plant during World War II. Some of the suspects were either executed or placed in prison for at least 30 years. She implies that if we take a more aggressive approach towards suspected terrorists then it will limit how often terrorist attacks will occur. The author also said that we are at war and that the Supreme Court has no right to intervene with the commanders in chief’s constitutional war powers.

The author is making an appeal towards political leaders and to some extent, the public. She wants them to realize how ignorant the Supreme Courts actions are. She tries to make herself credible by referring to FDR during WWII and to use basic common sense to make her ideas clearer. My only criticism in her blog was that her evidence was not clear. The only clear evidence was her reference to FDR but that was it. Her argument was how the Supreme Court’s decision to intervene in the president’s job was causing the problem, and she does not believe that they have the right to do so. If she included more constitutional reason as to what the Supreme Court can and cannot do in relation to the president, then it would make her argument more compelling.

Based on what I’ve read, I believe that the author’s argument is clear, but I think that the only thing that is lacking heavily is her evidence which will therefore hurt her credibility.

Opposing the Court

As I’m reading the editorial section of the Los Angeles Times, I noticed an article, ‘Countering the court’, in regards to the Congress’s attempt to counter a decision that was made by the Supreme Court last month. The Supreme Court ruled “that corporations have a 1st Amendment right to advertise on behalf of political candidates.” Sen. Charles E. Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen have announced to legislation a counter for this by proposing a bill that would “require corporations to disclose their political expenditures to shareholders.”They also proposed another bill that would “require fuller disclosure to both the Federal Election Commission and to voters of the role played by corporate money in campaign advertising.” The author wrote this for the concerns of the voters. He believes that having corporations advertising for candidates will place “burdens on the voters to discern the motives of those speakers.” The editor argues that although the attempt to counter the Supreme Court’s ruling was a decent start, it still did not keep corporations from advertising for political candidates. In other words, they are still allowed to advertise for the candidates. Based on the sources from the speakers, the editor did make a reasonable argument. As I read through the rest of the article, the author did not explain at all why it is bad for corporations to advertise for political candidates. He only stated that they shouldn’t do it and how it will confuse the voters. For the majority of his article he explains his suggestions on how to improve the speaker’s proposal. As far as what I’ve read from his article, I’m not convinced as why Congress should place the higher restrictions.

There is still no success in the government’s attempt at fighting obesity

Obesity has been a big issue among children in the U.S. “with 17 percent of children considered obese and about one in three of them overweight.” Mrs. Obama announces her “Let’s Move” campaign on Feb. 9 to upgrade The President’s Council on Physical Fitness and sports that was established by President Eisenhower in 1956. The President’s Council with its $1.2 million budgets has barely affected childhood obesity due to its insufficient funding. In the 1960s, President Kennedy sponsored the program by setting up a nonprofit charitable foundation to support the fight against childhood obesity, but it didn’t last very long. The council was also led by Arnold Schwarzenegger under President George H.W. Bush in hopes of gaining more support for the program but issue became worse with the rise in video games, smart phones, and iPods.

This article is worth reading because it reveals the government’s previous attempts at fighting obesity. If the government had already attempted and failed, what makes Mrs. Obama’s program seem like it will be successful? Also, with the increase in convenient technology; it seems that this program will fall just like its predecessors did.