The Enduring Constitution Documentary Proposal.

By: John Mark Shorack, Katherine Szetu, Ibis Almada, and Paul Ji

 

Narrator: Morgan Freeman.

*He reads the title “Bill of Rights. A documentary by John Mark Shorack, Katherine Szetu, Ibis Almada, and Paul Ji. (Picture of the original Bill of Rights)*

*Transition into him narrating the introduction written by Paul about the BIll of Rights (Picture of Framers)*

“As the Framers of United States Constitution was debating over its content, their opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution might cause another tyranny by the central government.  They still remembered the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution.  In order to protect their rights, they demanded a “bill of rights” that would spell out the immunities of individual characters.  When the Constitution was ratified, some of the States merely agreed to it understanding that the amendments would be offered.”

*Transition (Picture of gavel) while Morgan Freeman continues to narrate.*

“On September 25th of 1789, the First Congress proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that the opposition argued mostly about.  The first two amendments that talked about the number of constituents were not ratified.”

*Transition (Picture of Bill of Rights up close).*

“However, Articles III to XII were ratified.  They constituted as the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.”

*Now we show Morgan Freeman on the screen talking to the camera.*

“Over the last couple of centuries, the Bill of Rights protected the basic freedom and alienable rights of the citizens of the United States of America.  One of the most noticeable amendment is the 1st Amendment, which ensures the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.  We are going to look at some examples in American history where the 1st Amendment protected the very rights entitled to us by the Bill of Rights.”

*Transition into a black screen that says “West Virginia Board of Education V. Barnette, 1943” with Morgan Freeman narrating.*

“The first case we will look at is the West Virginia Board of Education V. Barnette case of 1943.”

*Transition (Picture of kids saluting the American flag that is black and white).*

“During World War II, the West Virginia Board of Education required from all of the students and teachers a salutation to the flag. Going against that rule could get a student expelled, and parents could even lose the custody of their child. Jehovah Witnesses took, the requirement from the school, to court arguing that it violated the first amendment of the constitution, where they have freedom of religion. To them saluting the flag was like idol and/or image worship which goes against their beliefs.”

*Transition (Picture of kids saluting the American flag that is in color).*

“By a 6-3 votes, Court decided that forcing a student to salute the flag was in fact a violation of the first amendment. This was based on the first amendment that prohibits government officials from making individuals do something that goes against the individual’s personal belief. The majority opinion was that if a student did not pledge the flag, it would not affect other students and that they could skip the salutation if they reminded passive while other students did pledge.
Thanks to the first amendment, court abolished the rule that the school had, letting the Jehovah witnesses off the hook from giving their pledge to the flag them and today. This also applies for anyone whose religious beliefs restrain them from doing so.”

*Transition to black screen with “Schenck V. United States, 1919”.*

“The second case that we will look at the the Schenck V. United States case of 1919.”

*Transition (Picture of Schenck)*

“During World War I congress passed a number of laws restricting 1st Amendment freedoms to curb antiwar dissent. In 1917 the Espionage Act allowed the government to give penalties  to those who disturbed the military, interfered with the drafts or said “false” statements against war effort. In 1918 it became a crime, people were forbidden to published things that the government thought disrespectful to the country. Consequently, many leaders and journalists went to jail.”

*Transition (Picture of free speech)*

“However, a strong leader step out, Charles Schenck. Schenck was the general secretary of the socialist Party of America, who had participated in many antiwar activities and distributed pamphlets  that went against drafting. As a result, he was arrested using the espionage Act, by arguing that he was trying to make the military rebelled against the United States.

Schenck believed that the Espionage Act was unconstitutional itself, while the government thought it was necessary for times of war. Therefore, congress decided to make a vote in which they won 9-0 in favor of the Espionage act saying that reasonable limitations during war time are necessary.”

*Transition into the black screen with “Republican Party of Minnesota V. White, 2002”.*

“The last case that we are going to look at is the Republican Party of Minnesota V. White case of 2002.”

*Transition (Picture of Minnesota)*

“Gregory Wersal was a candidate to the Supreme Court of Minnesota. The Supreme Court of Minnesota had instituted a law that prohibited a “candidate for a judicial office” from “announc[ing] his or her views on disputed legal or political issues”.”

*Transition (Picture of George Wersal)*

“Mr. Wersal decided to appeal to the National Supreme Court claiming that the law went against the 1st Amendment. The National Supreme Court decided, “The announce clause both prohibits speech based on its content and burdens a category of speech that is at the core of First Amendment freedoms–speech about the qualifications of candidates for public office”. ”

*Transition (Picture of the Court)*

“Mr. Wersal’s point was valid. The Supreme Court overruled any previous decisions and declared it unconstitutional. A law cannot stop us from speaking our beliefs, because every citizen has the freedom of speech.”

*Transition back to Morgan Freeman talking to the camera*

“As you can see, the 1st Amendment protected the very unalienable rights that are given to us by the Constitution time over time.  Maybe the opposers of the Constitution weren’t completely wrong.  After all, it is due to their efforts that we have the Bill of Rights that ensure our freedoms and rights.”

 

*Credits*

The Pentagon Papers set the precedent.

By: Paul Ji

In 1971, The New York Times sued the United States Defense Department for trying to stop them from publishing “the Pentagon Papers” because they had the right to publish whatever they want to under the 1st Amendment.

The newspaper had obtained a copy of documents known as “The Pentagon Papers,” which was an internal Defense Department report that detailed government deception with regard to the Vietnam War, illegally.  It revealed that the Johnson Administration had deceived Congress and the American people.

The New United States district court in New York, acting at the government’s request, issued a court order that directed the New York Times not to publish the documents.  The government believed that the publication of the papers would endanger the security of the nation, but the New York Times appealed to the United States Supreme Court arguing that this order violated the 1st Amendment.

The United States government argued that the 1st Amendment does not guarantee absolute freedom of the press, especially when it endangered the nation.  They believed that just like the press had the responsibility to inform the public, the government had the duty to protect the nation’s security.  They were afraid that the publication of these documents would establish a dangerous precedent for future cases.

However, the Court ruled in favor of the New York Times, stating that the Constitution and its amendments are indeed absolute.  Also, the government failed to demonstrate how the publication of the Pentagon Papers would endanger national security.

This case became a precedent for many other lawsuits to come infringing upon the 1st Amendment.

Work Cited

-“New York Times Co. V. United States.” Cornell University Law School. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0713_ZS.html (accessed September 24, 2012).

Work Battle for Women with Preschool Kids.

By: Ibis Almada

On December 9th 1970 Mrs. Ida Phillips started an action in the U.S Direct Court for the middle district of Florida, claiming she had been denied employment because of her sex.

Martin Marietta Corporation had a policy that did not accept mothers with pre-school age kids to be hired.  Mrs. Phillips applied and was not hired, when men on her same situation got hired. Mrs. Phillips sued the company under title VII claiming that the policy was discriminatory. The final decision was made on January 25th 1971 when the Supreme Court then decided that the policy was discriminate of sex basis and gave the case to lower court for trial. This case was the first discrimination case under Title VII to reach to the Supreme Court.

The public reacted saying that if would have been more relevant to the performance of the job then it could have been argued by the basis of distinctions under (703) (e) of the Act.

Section 703 of the Act, 78 Stat, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2  says “It shall be unlawful employment practice for any employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origins……”

In the end Mrs. Phillips won the case, the Supreme Court decided that the policy was discriminate of sex. Therefore now all women and men can not be denied a job because of their sex, race, color, religion, or nationality since it is now part of the Act.

Work Cited

-Phillips v. Martin, 400 U.S 542 (1971). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.plnavby=case&court=us&vol=400&invol=542

9 Made the Difference.

By: Katherine Szetu

In 1954  the Supreme Court made the crucial decision of declaring segregation by race in public education unconstitutional.

Moreover, in 1955 the court encouraged the states to fight segregation, and the federal districts were ordered to supervised the process.

State legislatures and school boards worked on the process of integration; nonetheless, there were states and schools that did not accept it, such as Little Rock Central High School located in Arkansas.

Little Rock Central High School was a school for white people, until the decision Brown Vs. Board of Education of Topeka made. Nine african americans were allowed to enter the school.

Thelma Mothershed, Elizabeth Eckford, Melba Pattillo, Jefferson Thomas, Ernest Green, Minnijean Brown, Carlotta Walls, Terrence Roberts and Gloria Ray.

However, neither the people or the governor approve this decision. Therefore, from the very first day of school the new students encountered hardships.

When they tried to attend school the first day, they met a white angry mob and the National Guard, which had been call  by Arkansas governor, Orval Faubus, in order to prevent their enrollment. So they could not go to school the first day.

The current president at that time, Eisenhower, had to intervene by bringing the U.S. Army’s famous 101st Airborne Division to protect the nine African Americans. The students got to go to school, but once they were inside it was like fighting a war.

They were harassed, beaten, insulted and mocked, but they decided to stay. There courage  made a difference, they help end school segregation in the United States.

Work Cited

-McClenaghan, William A., and Frank Abbott Magruder. Magruder’s American government. Boston, Mass.: Pearson, 2004.

Plessy lost! The law was separate but equal.

By: John Mark Shorack

In this year, 1896, after a long fought battle the Supreme Court upheld Judge Ferguson’s ruling. The Louisiana law that makes railway companies segregate white and black iin different coaches is constitutional (McClenaghan et al. 2009, 619).

The court decided the 14th amendment was “not intended to give Negroes social equality” (McClenaghan et al. 2009, 810) and due to this believe that the Louisiana law was constitutional and they could segregate white coaches from black ones.

It all started, in Louisiana where a law states that railroads must “provide equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races.” Homer Plessy was less than half African-American and decided he wanted to sit in the white coach. Once he had sat down, he was asked to go to the black coach, but he refused to leave. He was then arrested (McClenaghan et al. 2009, 619). At first he was taken to the Louisiana Court where Judge Ferguson ruled the law constitutional. Then he appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that his “equal protection of the laws” was infringed upon (McClenaghan et al. 2009, 810).

After the long debates, and sessions the Supreme Court upheld Fergusson’s ruling. They decided that the Louisiana law segregating races was constitutional because it allows equal facilities for each of the races. Everything was then equal but separate (McClenaghan et al. 2009, 619).

Works Cited

-McClenaghan, William A., and Frank Abbott Magruder. Magruder’s American government. Boston, Mass.: Pearson, 2009.

Collapse of Zimbabwe

By: Paul Ji

 

Zimbabwe, like many other countries in history, collapsed when a financial crisis hit it.  Although it’s economy appears to be stabilising after years of crisis rampant inflation, shortages of food due to agricultural productions decrease are ubiquitous.  According to the CIA World Factbook, Zimbabwe’s economy economy recorded a real growth of 6% in the course of a decade.

For quite a long period of time, Zimbabwe was known as the “jewel” of Africa because it was abundant in natural resources and productive farmland.  Not only that, they were leading manufacturers, had a strong banking sector, vibrant tourism, and more dams than any other Sub-Saharan countries.  Such economy lead to a strong GDP growth of 4.3% annually.  However, everything started change at the end of the 1990’s when Mugabe started the land reform.

Mugabe, was the veteran pro-independence leader who won the British-supervised independence elections, declared that the large farmlands owned by the white “settlers” were stolen from the native people of Zimbabwe.  Although some of Mugabe’s advisers knew better than to upend property rights and advised him against him, Mugabe authorized the seizure of nearly all of the 4,500 commercial farms.

These farms made up 60% of the country’s economy, and just as the advisers expected, the farmland seizures resulted in a pullout of foreign investment, defaults on farm bank loans, and a massive decline in agricultural production.  As the production went down, the prices of food went up simultaneously.  Mugabe, in order to stay in power, tried to coin money in order to match the rise of the cost of food.

Within one year, the majority of the financial investors fled because they did not want to risk their business being seized, dozens of banks collapsed, commercial farmland lost an estimate of three-quarters of its aggregate value, and the demise of the agricultural sector led to a widespread famine.  The Zimbabwean government tried to blame the country’s economic collapse on Western conspiracies, racism, and the continuous years of drought, but everybody knew what had caused the economic collapse.

As a result, the exorbitant amount of inflation was so bad that at point, the inflation rate surged to 3,732%. In order to tackle the inflation crisis, they brought in a new currency.  Ten billion dollars in the old Zimbabwe currency became one zimdollar dollar.

Over the last few years, the Zimbabwe’s economy settled down a little bit, but they are still in a lot of political uncertainty.  They are hoping that they would be reform their whole economic system and stabilize a constant GDP growth.

Works Cited

-“Zimbabwe Profile.” BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14113249 (accessed September 21, 2012).

-“Africa: Zimbabwe.” CIA World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/zi.html (accessed September 21, 2012).

-Richardson, Craig. “How the Loss of Property Rights Caused Zimbabwe’s Collapse.” CATO Institute. http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/how-loss-property-rights-caused-zimbabwes-collapse (accessed September 21, 2012).

Collapse of Mexico

By: Ibis Almada

 

The Mexican Revolution started with the conflicts between the Liberals and the Conservatives. They had fought an intense war with tons violence and destruction. The costs of the war bankrupted Mexico’s economy, and therefore Juárez, the current president, was not able to pay the foreign loans of the country. After receiving help from the U.S and fighting to make the French leave the country he was able to regain the economic stability.

Then came Porfirio Diaz, who was the main direct cause of the revolt and collapse of 1910. Diaz continued the reforms from Juárez. He developed industries, modernized the agriculture and mining with new technology. Economy grew and foreign trade increased, but later on he created massive inequality in Mexican society; close to a 90% of the land was owned by foreigners, which gave them huge involvement in the Mexican economy. Two strikes in Mexico, one against the Cananea Copper Company in Sonora and the second at the Rio Blanco textile mills in Veracruz, created national political discontent. Consequent to these events, serious financial troubles disrupted the last years of the Diaz dictatorship.

When Diaz was forced out of power Zapata took over and seized southern haciendas and divided them with peasants farmers, trying to fix the inequalities that Diaz had caused. Sadly Mexico again became involved in ruinous violence. A civil war broke out between Huerta’s forces with Villa in the North and Zapata in the South. In 1920 Obregón was elected president and in the next four years put down several rebellions and built a new consensus among the leading forces of the revolution.

The revolution created a sense of nationalism for the Mexicans and the leading force for the economic and cultural change.

Work Cited

Graseck, Susan. Caught between two worlds: Mexico and the Crossroads. Edited by Julia Liu.

Collapse of China

By: Katherine Szetu

 

During the Qing Dynasty there wasn’t a national army but rather regional armies. Out of all the armies the most powerful was the northern-based Beiyang army under Yuan Shikai. In 1911 the Xinhai revolution took place and rebels establish a provisional government in Nanjing under Sun Yatsen’s command. Since the revolutionist were not strong enough to defeat Beiyang army they decided to do a deal with Yuan Shikai, who was incharge of Beiyang army. The negotiation was to end the reign of the Quing and unify China, and Yuan to become president. However, Yuan became authoritarian and the south rebelled again but they were too weak. In 1915 he wanted to become emperor and the south rebelled again, but this time Yuan was by himself because his commanders had abandoned him. He died in 1916 and left china fractured politically.The warlord era began.

This era lasted from 1916-1928 when the country was divided into military cliques. Each warlord owned a piece of land as small as a district or as big as a province and they ruled it however they wanted.They governed with terror and exploited the people by taxing them really high. They fought with each other often in order to obtain land and were always recruiting people for their armies. However, their soldiers were not trusted people because they fought for the person that paid them the most.They killed many people, destroyed farms, and worsen the economy. While this warlords were fighting for land, in the north warlords were fighting for the control of Peking, the capital. Claiming that they wanted to unify China. The warlord period delayed China’s development, increased suffering and political disorder, since the people with military were the ones that could rule.

Work Cited

-“Warlord Era.” Cultural China. http://history.cultural-china.com/en/34History7222.html (assessed September 9, 2012).

Collapse of Soviet Union

By: John Mark Shorack

In 1991, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, commonly known as the USSR, dissolved. This was not due to economic or political failure, it was the liberation and democratization of the states inside the USSR that led to its collapse (Brown 2011).

At the time of the fall, the USSR was already falling behind in terms of technological advances, and their economy was suffering severely (Brown 2011).

Mikhail Gorbachev, the last General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, during his time still tried to restore the Soviet Union and stabilize its economy (History 2012). But, three fatal transformations inside the Soviet Union let them to collapse.

First of all, the breakdown of the “Command Economy.” The Command Economy is where the government controls everything. From how much you make of each product, to how much your price is. During Gorbachev’s ruling, he slowly started giving more freedom to the companies, but this backfired. There was no other stable economy in the USSR that was not a command economy, so the new freedoms did not help (Brown 2011).

Secondly, another fatal transformation were open elections for a new legislative. In these elections many pro-Soviet leaders lost, and some anti-Soviet leaders one. This turned out to be more of a problem than it seemed, because soon there was freedom of Speech, and even Freedom of Press. Even banned books started being printed. This was a step towards democratization, but it went farther than intended (Brown 2011).

The third, and final transformation that led to the fall of the Soviet Union, was when the Eastern European Soviet Satellites had their own elections and Communist leaders lost. Each country, slowly, had their own election and decided to move away from the Soviet Union, and become independent. This however was not the last fatal death of the USSR (Brown 2011) .

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics finally dissolved in 1991 when Boris Yeltsin, demanded for Russia’s sovereignty. This caused shock over all of the Soviet Union, but in the end without a shot being fired, Russia became sovereign, and the USSR collapsed (Brown 2011).

Works Cited

-Brown, Archie. “BBC – History – World Wars: Reform, Coup and Collapse: The End of the Soviet State.” BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/soviet_end_01.shtml (accessed September 9, 2012).

-A&E Television Networks, LLC.. “Fall of the Soviet Union” History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts.” History.com “History Made Every Day ” American & World History. http://www.history.com/topics/fall-of-soviet-union (accessed September 9, 2012).