• Log In
  • Log In
Science Leadership Academy @ Center City
Science Leadership Academy @ Center City Learn · Create · Lead
  • Students
    • Mission and Vision
  • Parents
  • Community
    • Mission and Vision
  • Calendar

American Government - Laufenberg Public Feed

Create a Post

Curfew In Philadelphia

Posted by Sade Skelton in American Government - Laufenberg on Sunday, October 16, 2011 at 8:12 pm

 ​I am lobbying to change the curfew for the youth in University City and Center City, Philadelphia. In the summer of August Mayor Michael Nutter enforced a curfew on the children of Philadelphia 18 and younger. The curfew restrictions are 10:00 p.m. for those under 13 10:30 p.m. for those 13 to 17 years old Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. If the curfew was violated parents would be contacted and will receive a fine from $100 to $300 for first violation and will face time in custody. The curfew was enforced because of the youth of Philadelphia is out at unreasonable hours "flash mobbing". There have been several incidents where the "flash mob" has assaulted people randomly out of pure ignorance. Not only is Mayor Nutter holding the children responsible he's holding their parents saying in one interview (to parents) "it is your responsibility to know where they are, what they are doing and who they are with. They are your children. You need to raise them. You are responsible for them." Parents will be fined and can face time in jail because of what their child committed and if parents did not come pick their child up the Department of Human Services and the parent could be taken to court for other violations, including neglect of their child. Towards the end of August the curfew was strictly enforced that minors 18 and younger have to be the house by 9 pm.

 

I am lobbying against the curfew in Philadelphia because I feel as though every minor has to suffer the consequences because of what a group of kids continue to do. I am 17 teen years old and I have never been apart of a "flash mob" and there are many other teens that have not been apart of one also. I like to go downtown to restaurants, parks and concerts.  And I can no longer enjoy myself in the city of Philadelphia because I can get arrested for violating curfew. I also have a job and the curfew makes it very hard for me to transport to work.

 

I do not think that the curfew should be completely canceled but I think the older teens should not have to be restricted to certain things.


 

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/video?id=8304098




Screen Shot 2011-10-16 at 8.08.32 PM
Screen Shot 2011-10-16 at 8.08.32 PM
Be the first to comment.

Lobbying For Better Schools In Philadelphia

Posted by Robert Broadwater in American Government - Laufenberg on Sunday, October 16, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    Children are the future and as such should be treated with the utmost respect and guided with discipline.  However this is a difficult task.  Children are changing but the methods of which they are dealt with have not.  Schools aren’t as stimulating the minds of the youngsters nor are the extra curricular activities provided.

    In relatively recent years access to information has rose exponentially.  What a child can get from a teacher, a text book, or even his or her parent is only a mouse click away.  This can can and has caused many children to develop authority issues.  With children knowing more than the people set to teach them there is very little left for them to use to differentiate themselves from adults.  They start to see themselves as equals to adults and some times police or other law enforcement officers.
Be the first to comment.

Lobbying For Better Schools In Philadelphia

Posted by Robert Broadwater in American Government - Laufenberg on Sunday, October 16, 2011 at 6:45 pm

    Children are the future and as such should be treated with the utmost respect and guided with discipline.  However this is a difficult task.  Children are changing but the methods of which they are dealt with have not.  Schools aren’t as stimulating the minds of the youngsters nor are the extra curricular activities provided.

    In relatively recent years access to information has rose exponentially.  What a child can get from a teacher, a text book, or even his or her parent is only a mouse click away.  This can can and has caused many children to develop authority issues.  With children knowing more than the people set to teach them there is very little left for them to use to differentiate themselves from adults.  They start to see themselves as equals to adults and some times police or other law enforcement officers.
Be the first to comment.

Lobbying Topic-Benchmark

Posted by Anonymous in American Government - Laufenberg on Sunday, October 16, 2011 at 11:17 am

 

Philadelphia which is a corrupted city, is experiencing major problems which seems all connected to each other. Education, Poverty and Crime are three major problems that are going on in our community. Our crime rates keep increasing by a humungous amount and why? I believe it has a lot to do with educating our youth and poverty issues. Many teenagers don’t value education and one of the reasons is the household they live in.

Have you ever heard of the motto, “Education starts at home.”?  Many people disagree with that statement, but I agree.  Teens who grew up in a household where parents do not push education or aren’t as strict as most parents are about education don’t value education as much as he/she should. Teens, who live in poverty, turn to violence and selling drugs to make money because that’s the easy way out. The same teens who doesn’t value education and don’t have money get involved into the wrong things.

Many people around Philadelphia are sick of the violence that goes on in our community and are creating organizations to prevent this and to have people come out and talk to our youth about how serious this situation is. Plenty of organizations are trying to create more after school activities and other major events to keep teens and everyone.

Our city is trying to control our youth by setting curfews but I realized that is only in effect during the safer parts of Philly. Living in South Philly, nothing has changed and no curfews were enforced. Without police enforcing laws in every part of Philadelphia, how do they expect teens to take them seriously? If we have more people stand up instead of just letting things happen, if we have parents be a parent and actually take care of a responsibility and to have our officials make sure laws are set for every section and part of Philadelphia, I believe it’ll be a huge change.

 

Be the first to comment.

Martinez v. Ryan

Posted by Anonymous in American Government - Laufenberg on Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 10:00 pm

​ My SCOTUSblog case was Martinez v. Ryan case. Some background information on this case is that Martinez is serving 2 consecutive sentences for having sex with a person under the age of 15. Martinez filed for a direct appeal with the help of a state appointed counsel. But the Arizona Supreme Court denied him.
The question is if the the prisoners have the right to argue that their lawyers were inadequate during post-conviction proceedings, does the the defendant have a right to appointed counsel during that proceeding? Or in other words he has a right to an effective assistance of post-conviction counsel in raising his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim. Martinez knows he has this right so he is trying to get an appeal so that things may be reconsidered. Arizona is arguing the whole right to counsel or lack there of as an opinion and that recognition should have been made prior to of the fact that the counsel was ineffective. In my opinion I don't think they will rule in his favor because it seems as though their mind is already made up. But I think that they will at least consider the constitution but still decide against it and go with the state's rules. This case is still pending. 
Be the first to comment.

Curfew Lobbying: Bettering Philadelphia Curfew Laws

Posted by Jareese Long in American Government - Laufenberg on Friday, October 14, 2011 at 9:20 am

I am lobbying to change the curfew in Philadelphia. I am not 100% for the curfew but I am not against it neither. Personally, the curfew laws is not a bad idea but there needs to be some adjustments. I feel like it’s a bit crazy for the curfew for those under 18 is 9pm. Me personally, on Saturdays, I attend a program called Teenshop which lasts until 1pm. From there I have to go home in which I will arrive about 1:45pm then from there, I have house cleaning I must do before I think about going anywhere. Around 6:30ish, I am done cleaning and if I plan to go somewhere, it’ll take me about a hour to get ready and when I finally do get out of the house, I have to come right back inside? That’s ridiculous. I feel like we should go back to regular curfew laws but raise the fine if children are caught out past 12:00am. I find that pretty fair because for one, if kids are given an extra mile, the consequences should be more severe if they take advantage of the scenario. I feel like the main supporters of my idea would be teenagers under the age of 18 who more than likely really wish to be outside beyond 9:00pm but my opponents would be the mayor, police and many adults. There isn’t any pending legislation dealing with my topic but I would like to see a way to make these laws fair. I mean yes, I understand how terrible our youth has been in recent years but should the entire generation be punished for the wrong doings of the few? I hope soon that there’s a lot of discussion about raising the curfew fine but going back to previous curfew laws.
Be the first to comment.

Caraco v. Novo Nordisk

Posted by Trevor Hinton in American Government - Laufenberg on Friday, October 14, 2011 at 9:02 am

The Case I was giving was Caraco vs. Novo Nordisk
which will be argued December 5, 20ll 
Dockett Number: 10-844

Caraco v. Novo Nordisk: 

Summarization- basically the argument stems from whether or not a generic drug making company can sue for having another company for making the name brand version of that exact drug without the prior knowledge of the FDA.

Constitutional issue: Commerce clause; which says that "no person shall introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any new drug unless with an approval.


From the Scotus Blog: 


Whether a generic drug manufacturer may sue the company that produces the brand-name version of the drug to require it to correct information filed with the Food and Drug Administration, information that is relevant to the agency's decision whether to approve the generic version of the drug.


With this case it looks at whether states can legally sell drugs under a different name in a different state without The Food and Drug Administration knowing anything about the effects of granting the state the right to sell the product in pharmacy stores or over the counter.
Be the first to comment.

Reynold Vs. US.

Posted by Brooke Thompson in American Government - Laufenberg on Friday, October 14, 2011 at 8:31 am

​ 

 

 

Issue: Does petitioner have standing to challenge the Attorney General's interim rule making the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act retroactively applicable to those who committed their underlying offenses prior to its enactment date?

 

 

The case I was given was Reynolds vs. Us, and the case went before the Supreme Court on October 3, 2011. The constitutional question surrounding the case is does Mr. Reynolds have standing under the reading of the S.O.R.N.A. statute to raise claims concerning the attorney general's Interim rule. As well as does S.O.R.N.A. Violate the Constitution and should this Court hear Billy Joe Reynolds' case to resolve conflicting court opinions concerning the commerce clause, the ex post facto clause and due process?

            If you’re wondering what S.O.R.N.A its sex offender registration and notification act which is Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-248). SORNA requires sex offenders to register and notify the United States. To summarize the case, “Billy Joe Reynolds became a convicted sex offender Missouri in 2001 and sentenced to imprisonment.  Upon his release in 2005, he registered under Missouri law and subsequently updated and verified his registration as required by Missouri law. In November 2007, Reynolds was charged and indicted with violating SORNA’s registration requirements after he moved to Pennsylvania without updating his registration. Reynolds tried to dismiss the indictment saying that the Attorney General’s rule violated the APA. The district court denied the motion, and Reynolds entered a conditional plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.  The Third Circuit affirmed, ruling that SORNA’s registration requirements applied to pre-enactment offenders by their own force, even without the additional rule by the Attorney General.” Above was quoted from the scouts blog.” To put this into plain language Reynolds committed a sex crime before the SORNA ruling was enacted but section 1613(d) of the act says the attorney general has the authority to say whether and how the requirements apply to sex offenders that committed crimes before the act was created. The only problem with this is that Reynolds argues that this means that the Attorney General gets to say whether they apply at all.  He also claims that the second clause contradicts the language of the first clause. It give the attorney general the authorization to prescribe rules meaning the attorney general get to say how they are applied.

            The government/ court argues that the plain language of SORNA’s registration requirements means that all sex offenders, including pre-enactment offenders, must register.  The court also argues that it says that SORNA’s delegation to the Attorney General to is just to establish how it applies. The registration requirements further suggests that the SORNA’s requirements apply by their own force. The court also argues that the case is temporary and unimportant because this only applies to a small amount of sex offender that committed crimes before the act. And even after the ruling, either way, won’t affect the ability of pre-enforcement offenders to challenge registration requirements under SORNA.

            The decision has not yet been made on the case although I feel like its more than likely that the court will not rule in the favor of Reynolds

Be the first to comment.

Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association

Posted by Alexis Beckton in American Government - Laufenberg on Friday, October 14, 2011 at 8:14 am

 

On Monday October 3rd, the Supreme Court had a hearing for a public case that dealt with California’s health care providers moving to cut reimbursements for Medicaid care. In 2008 and 2009 the state legislature lowered the amount of possible reimbursements to the health care companies because they were having financial troubles. As expected there was a great fall back on the poor and disabled who are the main beneficiaries of Medicaid. This case isn’t as much about whether the health care cuts are legal because no one has a legal right to Medicaid, but whether or not independent parties have the right to sue to make sure the policy is working the way it should.

There is still however the question of whether or not it’s constitutional. The supreme clause says that the U.S. constitution is the supreme laws of the land and that state judges must follow federal law when there is conflict between state and federal law. Because the U.S. department of Health and Human Services is who enforced the federal law for each state to have an approved plan the change to the plan has been considered unconstitutional. 

Be the first to comment.

SCOTUS Case: Howes v. Fields

Posted by Johniera McClain in American Government - Laufenberg on Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 10:29 pm

Johniera McClain

American Government

B band

10/13/11

           

                                    SCOTUS Case: Howes v. Fields

 

Suspects are entitled to Miranda Warnings when they are being questioned about a crime while they are in custody. Was Randall Fields indeed custody when it was not clear that the police officer gave out an Miranda Warning to Fields?

 

            The Miranda Rights refer to the some of the rights that are contained in the Fifth Amendment in the Constitution. As in The Fifth Amendment it states: “Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was a landmark US Supreme Court case. Ernesto Miranda had signed a statement confessing to a crime, but he did not know he had an absolute right to remain silent and not talk to the police, as guaranteed to him by the Constitution, and the police did not inform him of his constitutional right before asking him questions and then having him sign a written confession. His conviction was based entirely on the confession he signed, and not on any independent evidence in the state's possession.”

 

            Fields convicted of several accounts of sexual behavior with a minor that had been affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which upheld the admission of the defendant's’ self incriminating statements that was told to the police officers at the prison while he was serving time for another reason.


            The Sixth Circuit affirmed a districts court’s grant of federal habeas relief on the ground that Fields was in custody when in questioned and that the statements that were said should have been suppressed due to the failure of the officer complying with the Miranda before interrogating Fields.

 
            People on the behalf of the Petitioner Ms. Carol Howes questioned why a prisoner who was mandated to leave his cell to go to another building to answer questions about another crime should not be considered in custody.

 

            Personal belief, is that the petitioner of the case will be what is going to come out of this. Randall Fields was incarcerated at the time due to unrelated reasoning of the circumstance in which he was questioned. Although, why wouldn’t Fields think that he was under the Miranda Custody due to the fact that he was already in the presence of a police officer questioning him? It could go somewhere else though because according to Fields he was under the impression that he was allowed to leave if and when he so chooses and also he was properly given his Miranda warning when by Constitution and particular the Fifth Amendment he was lawfully by right had to have that given to him. It shall be interesting as it all unfolds.

 

​


Tags: supct11
Be the first to comment.
230 posts:
← Prev
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
  17. 17
  18. 18
  19. 19
  20. 20
  21. 21
  22. 22
  23. 23
Next →
RSS

AMGOV-003

Term
2011-12.S1

Blog Tags

  • American Government 12
  • Elona Myftaraj 7
  • supct11 6
  • Laufenberg 5
  • elona 4
See all See less
  • Lobbying
  • Diana Laufenberg
  • curfew
  • Myftaraj
  • Thomas Nicolella
  • Q1 Benchmark
  • History
  • Emilisa Lopez
  • AM GOV
  • Bureacracy
  • emyftaraj
  • B Band
  • scotus case
  • bill
  • suspect 11....
  • reflection
  • Agov
  • flowchart
  • blog post 3
  • Alexis Beckton
  • Blog post 4
  • Q2 Benchmark
  • C-SPAN

Teacher

  • Diana Laufenberg
    Science Leadership Academy @ Center City · Location: 1482 Green St · Shipping: 550 N. Broad St Suite 202 · Philadelphia, PA 19130 · (215) 400-7830 (phone)
    ×

    Log In