Reflect on the interviews you conducted in Albany this week. Discuss your findings on the role of the Bill of Rights in modern-day U.S. society. Are the fundamental principles of the Bill of Rights reflected or distorted more in modern-day America? This blog should be supported with direct quotes and findings from your interviews.
Photos are not required to be posted on the blog but can be if you choose. Images must be handed in with captions for class on Monday. Extra credit is available for creating a poster, Power Point, website or other creatively formatted photo essay using your Bill of Rights in Action photos.
Your interview transcripts are due on Monday as well. One set of notes per group is fine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Kristina O’Connor feels the No Child Left Behind Act is a good idea, but there should be a better incentive, such as making sure all these children continue through college. As for whether or not she feels Americans are really free, she has mixed feelings. She said it’s a good idea to limit some freedoms, but it’s not as efficient as it could be. “If laws are being passed, they better be followed through,” Kristina said.
A young man who preferred to remain nameless, said “So called ‘freedoms’ are being given away for security.” He also brought up the Patriot Act, which substantially expanded the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies for the purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad. In his own words, “they’re taking freedoms away that we ‘agreed to,’” he said while making air quotes with his finger. “By the way, we didn’t agree to them,” he added.
Another young man who simply wanted to be referred to as Jeremy, talked about the death penalty. He feels that it is circumstantial, but he is however against torture. He said the Bush administration is making it “more Texan, if that makes sense.”
Lastly, an Iranian Harvard graduate talked to us about a comparison between his experiences in America compared to Iran. In his opinion, abortion is both a federal and state issue. He said there is no massive education for young girls about their options. In America, you can have a partner but there is no major commitment. In Iran, he said there is more commitment, and women sometimes depend on men. In America, however, sometimes the men leave the women and it’s not just the woman’s responsibility, there’s also another life to think about: the baby. As a result, he feels women should have a choice. He added, “It should be a federal decision, but each state can expand or restrict it.” He continued on to talk about the death penalty, stating that “if they follow the guidelines, no punishment.” Another very interesting comment he added was “It’s not between good and bad, it’s bad and worse.”
On the whole, everyone had very different ideas, but it seems they feel the principles in the Bill of Rights are more distorted in modern-day America. According to the majority of the comments received through very different individuals, it seems each of them seems to think at least one thing about the government or the Bill of Rights needs to be changed.
Teresa Konopka
Block H
AP US
Eighty-five percent of people interviewed favored federal policies over state policies, in my case. Only one woman consented to participate in the interview, and she happened to be the only African-American participant. Also, the ages of interviewees ranged from 20 to 53. Additionally, one man was a fervent homosexual. These demographics may have played a role in the shift towards federalism.
Anyway, VR (woman from Albany, 49) felt that federal policies were the best. Being slightly vague about why, as well as where she worked, VR was completely for federalism. John S (man from Rennsler County, 53) believed that a general consensus was key. Thus day care center worker felt that everyone in America needed to agree on one law, federally. Brian H (man from Albany, 47) wanted federal universal laws so there’d be “no worries” and “just one rule.” This sales associate’s paradigms are ideal but may not be plausible. Greg B (man from NYC, 42) felt that capital punishment and gay rights should be legal in the whole nation. Adorned with many piercing and a goatee, this clerk from a labor union seemed to be the one interviewee that was for gay rights federally. When questioned, he began to become winded and made crude mentions of Vermont numerous times. In his discussion, he stated how “men and woman have the right to marry” and that homosexuals should “have that right, too.” Kevin S (man from Albany, 35) was very against gay rights. Being a chef, he liked salad to be between lettuce and tomato, and for marriage to be between a man and a woman, in the federal picture. John B (man from Albany, 36) sat with Kevin S and agreed wholeheartedly with his federalist friend. Smoking a cigarette with his pal, John B represented the lower middle class, seeing as how he is a factory worker. Lastly, Josh J (man from Albany, 20) stated that laws should be governed state by state. He works for NYC Higher Education and felt that “since states have different communities, they need different laws.” He was the only interviewee that sided with the states over the federal government. Being very nonchalant, Josh J was just speaking his mind. Perhaps he acknowledged the eclectic nature of America since he experienced a probably eclectic student body at his job.
Response:
Jackie’s blog is very detailed. Her part about the nameless interviewee was very interesting. No one I interviewed talked about their view on the Patriot Act thoroughly, so it was intriguing to hear what that person had to say. The quotes are also very helpful.
*Since I have a film camera, my pictures won’t come in the mail immediately from the York Developing Company. As soon as they come in, I’ll hand them in. Sorry for any inconvenience on my behalf.
John Harden
Block H
The people I interviewed all answered my query in a different way. I worked with Jeremy Smith and then separately with Fran C. and Ashley Cifu. I only have the answers from the interviews I ran in association with Jeremy Smith. I asked three different people if they believed “a hot button issue currently under congressional debate such as gay marriage should be a federal or state controlled issue?” A lady who would not give her name but seemed to be of young age replied to the question with the answer neither. She believed gay marriage should be legal in all states and should not be controlled by the government. She said that the way gay marriage is being handled is a flaw to democracy, and something personal to many people should be allowed. The 2nd lady we interviewed replied to the question in a very rude manner. Her name was Patricia and she seemed to be in her late twenties. Once asked the question she began pacing away and replied that gay marriage should be state regulated “like every other marriage law”. Lastly, Jeremy and I asked the question to a kind middle aged man walking out of a law office. The man named Francis who reminded me much of Otto Von Bismarck with his moustache replied to the question by choosing the choice Federal. He was homosexual and in a relationship with a man for twenty years. He was discouraged because he cannot share a lot of his benefits with his life partner because he is not allowed to get married in New York. He believes that gay marriage should either not be allowed at all or allowed in every state. He hopes that if it came under federal decision the law would be passed, because if passed it would be another positive reinforcement to our countries democracy and stance on freedom and human rights. Teresa and Jackie’s interviews are very interesting and it is great to learn of so many different opinions and stances on controversial issues. I really enjoyed this assignment as it showed me just how diverse the American citizen’s opinions are.
Elizabeth Che
Block H
As my group was comprised of Teresa and I, our interviews and findings were the same. As mentioned earlier by Teresa, our six interviewees ranged from ages 20 to 53 with a conclusion of 6/7 favoring federal regulating issues over state regulating issues. However, a similar pattern is apparent between the answers of the interviewees as those of the older ages favored the decision of the federal government whereas the younger favored differences. But, such views are represented in modern society as the fundamental principles of the Bill of Rights are distorted in modern-day America as personal difficulties impact the way people think.
When asked, “do you think issues such as abortion and capital punishment be a federal or state regulated issue...” Josh J., age 20 of New York who works for the New York State Higher Education replies with the decision of the state. In his reasoning, he noted how each state is different and needed their own decisions to better support the citizens in the area, “... since states have different communities, they need different laws.” In such ways, states are given the opportunity to govern over certain issues instead of relying on the government but may cause more problems.
As Teresa had also noted, Kevin S. who is a 35 year-old chef of Albany, NY and John B., a 36 year-old factory worker of downtown Albany, NY were sitting next to each other when asked for their opinions on the question “do you believe abortion to be a federal or state regulated issue.” Both men had the same views in believing controversial issues should be federal regulated. Kevin S. who replied first, also mentioned his stand against abortion. As stated “people should be responsible... birth control is not abortion.” John B. who nodded and stated “I agree with what he said” followed suit. Their views however were apparent in the past as any means of birth control was looked down upon.
On a higher note, Gregory B, age 42 who works as a clerk in the labor union of New York, noted his belief of having capital punishment be a federal regulated issue. With “one law there is less complication,” he then mentioned how gay marriage should be legal and same for every state. Presently in a 16 year marriage with his partner in Vermont, he noted the ridiculous situation of having to go elsewhere in order to marry which “...doesn’t make sense... if men and women have the right to marry, homosexuals have that right too.” Fundamentally, complications are lowered when there are no differences but, when that occurs, individuality is lost to the one-way laws throughout the nation with no areas to hold loop-holes for the citizens that have opposing views to the regulations.
Brian H, a 47 year-old salesman of Albany, NY also believed that controversial issues should be federally regulated so that there would be “no worries” for the entire nation is under “one rule.” Like Gregory B. complications arise when there is more than one saying and to ease personal movement, federal regulations are looked to. Diversions are noted for state regulations when asked the same question to John S., a 53 year-old day care center worker of Rensselaer County, NY, who states that federal regulations is better to create a single law. Meanwhile, V.R. a 49 year-old worker of Albany, NY stated her belief for federal regulation over state regulation without stating much of a reason.
Perhaps ages indicate a common level of work and beliefs that are tolerated by each individual. With younger generations, work is just beginning and thus are able to tolerate changes whereas the older generations may feel that they have been through enough and should just let one regulation be passed to make their lives easier.
Like John’s group, Teresa and I encountered unfriendly people who were eager to rush away by saying they were “busy” and had “children to pick up” or “laundry to do.” Although the uncooperative attitudes were discouraging, the later part in the interviewing process was more smooth.
Heather Vale. :]
On November 13th, Tiffany Cho, Loretta Au, Ann Youssef and I roamed the streets of Albany interviewing random citizens of their thoughts on the Bill of Rights’ 10th amendment. Focusing on the topics of abortion and gay marriage, we questioned whether or not people believed these two should be handled in a federal or state legislature. Dedicating our time to two specific topics helped us gain a deep understanding of differences as we compared people’s thoughts to one another.
The first lady we encountered, Sue Greenberg, expressed her deep commitment towards pro-choice. Although she did not believe in the idea of abortion, she clearly found value in making sure women had the right to choose. Perhaps a strong component of feminism, Sue Greenberg did not believe women’s rights should be deterred in any way, shape or form. However, she still found that the topic of abortion should be dealt with the same way throughout the entire country, thus being a federal regulated issue. Not only did she view abortion as a federal issue, but gay marriage as well. “I think people who are gay or lesbian should have the right to marry with all of the rights that that brings.”
As for another woman we interviewed while walking to work, she believed abortion and gay marriage should be handled in a state legislature. She believed gay marriage belonged under equal rights. “Massachusetts has now approved equal rights but no other state will and I don’t think the feds will.” The woman continues on to explain how the ‘feds’ should honor and recognize marriage as equal for both genders. “Such as if you’re a woman and you’re in love with a woman in France, you can’t marry her or bring her here, but if you were a man you could. So, it’s not equal rights.” Besides strongly believing that gay marriage should be dealt by the states, she thought the same for abortion. “It should be a decision of consciousness”
As we were on the search for our third interviewee, we noticed the last two were females. Since abortion mainly affects females, they had stronger arguments towards the topic. Thus, our third interviewee was set to be a male. We bumped into a man on a rush who believed gay marriage should be state regulated. However, when asked about abortion, he simply said “Neither. It’s a federal regulation of law per say, but it should be choice” He didn’t seem very interested in the topic, perhaps abortion and gay marriage didn’t concern him.
Overall, the Bill of Rights in modern-day US society seems to have its holes and bruises. The Bill of Rights is not perfectly reflected in today’s society; however it still holds value to the people of America. Since people express different opinions and beliefs towards different situations, it is hard to indicate the Bill of Rights to be non-affective. Thus, the fundamental principles of the Bill of Rights are both reflected and distorted.
In response to Elizabeth, I also believe that age influences people to think differently. Based on their experience would reflect the values and priorites they hold. It would be interesting to hold a survey involving teenagers and senior citizens to compare and contrast their thoughts.
Justin Lefkowitz
AP US History
During the last week’s trip in Albany, I finally received a clear understanding of what other people think of the Bill of Rights and whether or not they think it is still relevant today in modern society. I did this by interviewing people on the streets of New York’s capital with a group of people from the other US History classes from our school. Some of the people’s views reflect my view of the Bill of Rights and how I believe its principals are not distorted in modern-day society.
The topics that we used to interview people on were the death penalty, abortion, and gay marriage. Seventy-five percent of the people we interviewed said that their topics should be decisions made by the state. The first person interviewed, whose name was Andy, was interviewed on gay marriage. He said, “Gay marriage is okay. It should be a decision made by the state. Also, if people want to get married, let them get married. Who are they to say they can’t get married?” The second person we interviewed, Steven, talked about his opinion on the topic of Abortion. Steven said, “I am for it, but against it. I am trying to say that it’s their choice. It should be the states decision to allow people to make the choice.” The next person we interviewed, Evan, was asked for his opinion on the death penalty. Evan said, “I am against the death penalty. It should be a state decision.”
I agree with what all of these people are trying to say. They are trying to say that the state should make all of these decisions, and they currently do. Topics like abortion, gay marriage, and the death penalty are all seen in laws made by the states. This is supported by the Tenth Amendment, which basically says, if there is no law in the Constitution and there is no law passed by the federal government, then the law is in the hands of the state. The sate could make the decision on whether to pass it, or restrict it, in certain ways. Since the state still controls these laws, and not the federal government, the Bill of Rights is working at its full potential. If the Bill of Rights were distorted, the federal government would be making laws that restrict these laws passed by the state.
I agree with Heather and Elizabeth’s blog. I also believe that the age of people definitely reflects different opinions. I think if we want to do this, we should have interviewed the people on the college campus that we were on. Maybe then, more people would have agreed with the federal view and more people might have thought that the Bill of Rights is distorted in modern-day society.
Ashley Aydin.
Block H.
AP US History.
Working with Jackie M, Sarah B, Margaret S, Sylvia S, and Melissa C, I set forth to discover the true essence of what it is to be American. With each amendment question, my knowledge about the Bill of Rights expanded. The reactions, along with the passion of each response, gave me a clear understanding of how divided the American populace is regarding the receptive matters of abortion, education, the death penalty, and sovereignty. Considering the clauses included in the Bill of Rights, our essential question was: With meandering limitations on liberty and personal rights, do you think Americans are strictly free?
Kristin O’Connor, a college student, had an exceptional view on the Patriot Act. She felt more strongly about the safety of our country than distributed freedom. “Whenever I go to an airport, they always check my bags and miss things. Although the act limits our personal freedom, it is best to ensure safety. I was actually watching a special on CNN about this. Regarding emails, reporters are saying that the government is making copies of all sent messages,” she explained.
Contrastingly, a young man who chose to be anonymous believed that independence was more significant than security. He elaborated, “Our freedoms have been given away for security. The Patriot Act has taken away the very freedoms that we have ‘agreed to’. It’s a highly debated issue that needs to be acknowledged.”
Moreover, Jeremy, another youthful college student, talked about the death penalty and how the subject should be decided on. “The death penalty should be circumstantial. Torture should follow the same standard,” he proposed.
The most edifying of the interviewees was Kamiar Alaei, an Iranian Harvard graduate and humanitarian lecturer. He discussed his perspective comprehensively, suggesting where the nation needs improvement and how the American populace can make sure their rights are accredited. “Abortion rights and limitations are between the government and the people of this country. Truthfully, there is not enough information about it. If it were up to the state, the people would have the authority to expand or restrict it. If it were federal, there would be one set principle. Therefore, I believe it is a FEDERAL VS. STATE matter,” he said. Alaei furthered the debate by moving to the topics of criminal punishment and imprisonment. He clarified, “Capital punishment and the death penalty should be carried out carefully. If the criminal follows certain guidelines, he/she should not be punished or put to death. I also believe that this should be a state regulated issue.”
Accordingly, it can be inferred that the Bill of Rights is more distorted in modern-day America. We have no assurance on what rights we can practice and not be punished for. Although America is based on liberty and pursuit, the country still has gaps to mend and a population to satisfy. With any opinionated matter, there proves countless differences amongst the common people and federal/state talks.
* I agree with Elizabeth’s conclusion that age reflects how one views certain political affairs. Although it may not be factual in all cases, the youth of America seems to be the most broadminded and revolutionary. Conventional ways call for conformist measures and mindsets. As times have changed, so have judgments and aims.
Sarah Berfond
After almost 230 years it seems a little strange that America is still is divided on the application of the Bill of Rights. From our interviews with the citizens of Albany, there seems to be many issues which Americans feel passionate about. Questions about abortion, the death penalty, no child left behind and the patriot act elicited different yet compelling arguments. While Kristina O’Conner believed that it was a good idea for the federal government to intervene in educational issues reserved to the states, an Iranian Harvard graduate felt the states should have control over many issues. While Kristina O’Conner said “The No Child Left Behind Act is a good idea but isn’t being executed well by Bush,” the Harvard graduate explained “abortion It should be a federal decision, but each state can expand or restrict it.” The fundamental principles of the Bill of Rights are more distorted today then when written. Many people have lost sight of the importance of limiting the federal government’s power to control our daily lives. Each of the issues discussed during the interviews involve federal intrusion in local government and personal issues. Unfortunately, this did not seem to upset or disturb the some of the people we spoke to. For example a man only to be known as Jeremy said “cruel and inhuman treatment should be banned both domestically and internationally however if the death penalty can be implemented without inflicting pain and suffering on the criminal.” Another person who prefers not to be named talked about the personal issue of the Patriot Act. “The Patriot Act is taking away basic freedoms that are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.” It was interesting to speak to people who live in Albany and get their views on these important topics.
Response to Heather’s comment- I agree with your comment. Isn’t it interesting that a document created when there was no electricity is still relevant today? It shows that the authors of the constitution and the Bill of Rights were brilliant people who chose their words very carefully. They probably intentionally left many of the areas grey and ambiguous to allow for different interpretations.
My group consisted of myself, Michelle, Veronica, Sam and Conrad. Our findings were that:
Alice Ostrowski, a 49 year old nurse, from Scahaoie, felt that all hot-button issues should be dealt with at the state level based upon the tenth amendment. Though she was unsure if her rights had ever been violated, she was positive that the Bill of Rights played a large part in her daily life, exemplified by her voting last week.
D. Fish, a 59 year old government executive from Albany felt strongly that all hot-button issues should be dealt with at the state level, identifying himself as a "constructionist." He also felt that the Bill of Rights is extremely important in his daily life as a blogger who needs freedom of speech. He also mentioned that "a white man might find affirmative action" discriminatory, since it gives minorities advantages not available to whites.
Liam Evans, a 29 year old student from Utah felt that issues such as abortion and gay rights should be dealt with at the state level, but hot-button issues cannot be generalized and must be dealt with individually, even though he felt that the tenth amendment means without question that anything "not specifically under federal jurisdiction" is delegated to state powers. He indicated the simple way he was able to talk about the government as a way the Bill of Rights played an important role in his daily life.
Working with Veronica, Sam, Kasey, and Conrad, we found out that two out of three people believe that all "hot button" issues should be dealt with the state government. Honestly, the three people that we interviewed had very different age differences. I believe that age and their experience with government influences their political beliefs.
Alice Ostrowski is a forty nine year old nurse from Scahaoie. Based on the tenth amendment, she believes that all the issues that are not up to the federal government should be left up to the state. She wasn't sure if her rights were ever violated. However, she was pretty sure that the Bill of Rights played an active role in her life. For example, her right to vote. After all, she voted a week ago.
Not giving his first name, D. Fish is fifty nine year old government executive from Albany. He is a "constructionist" and believed that all issues that did not belong to the federal government should be dealt with the state. He believes that the Bill of Rights is very active in his life. As a blogger, he believes that freedom of speech is extremely necessary and that he has to right to do so. He also stated "a white man might find affirmative action." He was a bit discriminatory. He felt that when it came to freedom of speech, the minorities had more advantages than whites.
Last but not least, is Liam Evans, a twenty nine year old student from Utah. He felt that issues like abortion and gay rights should be dealt with the state. However, he felt that the major issues "cannot be generalized and dealt with individually." He's the type who is more for the people. He believes it's up to each individual to decide what he or she wants. Yet, he felt that the tenth amendment means that anything "not specifically under federal jurisdiction" is delegated to the state powers. He felt that the government we have is simple and as a result, the Bill of Rights played a very simple role in his life.
Every person has his or her own views about government. Some people feel that our government is useless; while others feel that our government is a great benefit to our lives. Either way, people will always have their own opinions and there's nothing we can do to change them. Only the actions of the federal and state government can change or influence the minds of the American people.
Veronica Geager
11/18/07
During the interviews in Albany, nearly every person the group interviewed felt that hot button issue such as gay rights and abortion should be dealt with on a state level. One interviewee, a 59 years old state excecutive said that all hot button issue should be dealt with on a state level, and that as an internet blogger the Bill of Rights plays a major role in his life. Being a blogger, freedom of speech is extremely important. However, as an American citizens freedom of speech is extremly important. In many countries freedom of spech is denied. Millions of people around the world are denied their right to state their opinion.Another interviewee, a 29 year old student from Ohio alos fel that hot button issues should be dealth with on a state level, nut hey should not be generalized and must be dealt with individually, even though he felt that the tenth amendment means without question that anything "not specifically under federal jurisdiction" is delegated to state powers. He brings up a great point. Every hot button case is not always the same, so it is impotant to differentiate between each case, whehter it be gay rifht, abortion or any other contriversial issue.Going over the majority of comments, each seems to clearly indicate that hot button issues should be dealt with on a stae level, and should be brought up in a federal court case.
P.S. forgot my google email so im suing Liana's!
The three people Kasey, Michelle, Veronica, and Conrad and I interviewed were all of varying age. However, most of them seemed to be politically aware. All three felt that the state should have jurisdiction over hot-button issues. The first, forty-nine-year-old Alice Ostrowski, did not know if her rights had been violated, but felt strongly that the Bill of Rights played a large part in her life. Thirty-nine year old Liam Evans also felt that hot-button issues should be handled by the state, and suppourted the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. He did not find the Bill of Rights intrusive, and stated that it did not have much of a role in his day-to-day activity. D. Fish, a fifty-nine year old government executive who did not wish to give his first name, said that he was very dependant on the Bill of Rights due to his blogging. He felt that minorities have an advantage in terms of freedom of speech, and felt that freedom of speech was very important. Based on the views of all of these extremely varying individuals, it is safe to say that many Americans are grateful for the freedom the Bill of Rights allows.
Marco Muniz
AP US History Blog post
Reflect on the interviews you conducted in Albany this week. Discuss your findings on the role of the Bill of Rights in modern-day U.S. society. Are the fundamental principles of the Bill of Rights reflected or distorted more in modern-day America? This blog should be supported with direct quotes and findings from your interviews.
The interviews that I conducted in Albany went great, and I obtained a glimpse on what common adults know about the Bill of Rights. For the most part, the people I interviewed knew the basics about the Bill of Rights. All of them felt the Bill of Right’s purpose is to ensure the government respects the rights of the people. “The Bill of Rights is a constant reminder to everyone the rights guaranteed to the people,” stated John, The interviewed also enjoyed the rights guaranteed in the Bill of rights. “I enjoy the right to vote,” Kate said, a 26 yr old Barista who works at a coffee shop. Still, some did disagree with some amendments. For example, Stephanie, a 27 yr old barista at the same coffee shop as Kate and Kate felt the sixth amendment, guaranteeing the right to bear arms, should be abolished. “People abuse the right to bear arms,” states Stephanie. “A lot of people are killed every day by bullets!” Meanwhile, some people such as Dabe, a disabled 60 yr old, believe citizens should be able to defend themselves if the government becomes too powerful.
Moreover, they all felt the fundamental principles, unalienable rights, of the Bill of Rights are distorted in modern-day America. “There were acts passed that limited privacy,” states Kate. “It’s a violation of the 4th amendment.” The Patriot Act is one example. They also felt the restrictions on freedom of expression sucked. “Students are limited to what they can write,” stated Dabe. “It’s horrible.”
Overall, I enjoyed interviewing people in Albany, and I learned a vast amount on opinions regarding the Bill of Rights.
“After almost 230 years it seems a little strange that America is still is divided on the application of the Bill of Rights,” states Sarah B. I completely agree with Sarah. It is odd. Though, we can’t have the same opinion. That would be even weirder. Different opinions allow for progress, as if things weren’t challenged, there would still be monarchy.
Anam Baig, Block H
Being in Albany revealed to our group that not many people know about the 10th Amendment and some don’t even care about the laws of this nation.
After talking to Mike Anthony, or Mike One, we came to the conclusion that A) not many people care about politics and B) many people in Albany are named "Mike." However, Mike One had some interesting things to say about the 10th Amendment. He felt that the states should be able to choose their own laws and the federal government should decide on the more important things, like safety from terrorist attacks. On gay marriage, he said, "They have a right to be miserable as the rest us."
Mike Two was very apathetic about the government. He said very bluntly, "I don’t like this political stuff." What we did find out from him was that he was against gay marriage, and wanted the federal government to make decisions for the state government that way the whole nation would have to follow.
Josh, 20 year old college student, gave us plenty of insight on the matter. He felt that if the states disputed about the laws they had to decide, then the federal government should intervene and resolve the problems. He felt that the federal government should lay a foundation for the state government to decide on.
Based on these interviews, the principles of the Bill of Rights still seem to be reflected in today's modern society, yet they have a certain twist pertaining to each individual's opinion. The people today enjoy exercising their freedom of speech to the fullest. However, not many people know about the jurisdictions of our nation. It is interesting to find that some are very complacent as well. From these three interviewees, at least two others turned us down because either they did not know much about the amendments or they didn't care to talk about them. But people's opinions remain diverse and are a reflection of their surroundings.
Anam Baig, Block H
Short Response
Teresa and Elizabeth conducted very thorough interviews. The multitude of people they interviewed were all very diverse and had interesting opinions. They considered every factor about the interviewees to come to a concise decision about them.
The fundamental principles of the Bill of Rights are more distorted in today's modern society. Instead of people voicing their own opinions and thinking for themselves, their individual voices are suppressed so that they can be categorized into a group with similar ideals. Many people living in the United States don't even know what many of the amendments of the Bill of Rights consist of, or what they mean, which is a definite distortion of the principles of the Bill of Rights. When Anam, Vinny R. and myself asked people if they even knew for the 10th Amendment was, they had no idea. When asked about gay marriage, we encountered a very interesting answer from our first interviewee, Mike Anthony. He felt that "Gay people should get married. They have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us." It seemed also, that a lot of the people that we talked to were very apathetic to the whole situation. No one cared too much about the 10th amendment, or what the state or federal government should do with hot-button issues.
During the Junior Albany Trip myself, Steven Rivera, Anthony Fontana and a variety of other people who would walk around with us scouted the streets of Albany for victims to torture with sensitive questions. We noticed that the people we asked, or those who bothered to answer, were very liberal. At times, i thought i was in Europe as Albany has a very European style of architecture. The first three people we tried to interview ignored us or said they were busy. But they didn't look like very friendly people. We didn't ask for any names or other personal information at all due to the first three interview failures.
An African-American women with a child in a baby stroller was asked about her point of view on abortion. She said, "I am for abortion because I believe that should have the right to do as they please."
With a little more "busy" people in the streets an Indian boy with not so good English was asked about gay marriage. "I am against gay marriage because if I was for it my family would kill me." ROFL! Even though this is a funny statement it shows one how an Indian culture react respond to gay marriage. Also, the boys religion could have had something to do with the topic.
An elderly man was asked about his opinion on stem cell research and he claimed that he was for Stem Cell. "Stem cell research is a very advanced technology that will shape our future whether we like it or not. There are two types of stem cells: embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. One is more controversial than the other. Adult stem cells help the adult body repair any injuries while embryonic stem cells are 'killed' to create new life. I disagree with them being killed because it is an still the early stage of an embryo. It's nothing to me. Therefore I am for stem cell research because I do not think it is used to kill but rather it can be used to treat major diseases and will be very important in the future."
In modern-day America, the fundamental principles of the Bill of Rights is definitely more distorted than it is reflected. Like Heather said, “The Bill of Rights is not perfectly reflected in today’s society.” Basic principles of modern-day American society pushes everyone to analyze everything and fight for what each individual sees as the true meaning of a statement. In the case of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, people are constantly analyzing it in search of loopholes or even simply the real meaning of what it’s saying. In the case of gay marriage, people often try to find something they could use as a basis for whether or not gay marriage should be legal. People are attempting to have the Constitution changed so that it would clearly state that marriage is only legal between a man and woman. Although this is an attempt to clarify, the result simply distorts the United States Constitution because it’s being changed from its original status. On the junior trip to Albany this past week, we split up into groups to walk around Albany and receive the input on some hot-button topics from people on the street. My group was comprised of Kaitlin, Kimmie, and me. On the topic of abortion, we decided to visit the Planned Parenthood in Albany, where we met with the Vice President of Public Affairs, Blue Carreker. We asked Ms. Carreker what Planned Parenthood’s position on the whether abortion should be federally or state regulated. She firmly stated that it should be a federally regulated issue so that every state could be on the same page in terms of laws and regulations regarding abortion. When we approached Brian Hemsworth on the topic of gay marriage, he said, “"It should be state regulated. The individuals of each state should be able to vote to decide on whether or not gay marriage should be allowed in that individual state. Each state is different; therefore, they need different laws."
Much to my delight, I spoke to a man named Kyle S. He was truly educated about his rights and how he was entitled to them. He actually congratulated my group and I for starting a political dialog with a complete stranger at such a young age.
I inquired about the bill of rights and if they effect his life and routine, and he replied "Yes of course, we're assembling right now... The right to assemble, without that - this whole conversation could be punishable by law."
When I asked about how much power the government should have over our civil liberties. He responded "very, very little" To which I could only agree. He began to talk about how if we gave them more power over our civil liberties, we could be looking at a borderline fascist society.
Kyle was a straight male, so when I asked him his opinion on same-sex marriage, he looked at me and said "100%, they deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us." He did begin to say that they deserved th exact same rights as heterosexual marriages do. Last time he checked, church policy and state policy are separate. He also said that it should be a uniform, federal decision.
We also conversed about corporal punishment, he said that we are no better than nations who practice it openly, if we adopt it into the American law system.
Generally, I benefited from the conversation with Kyle. It felt good to talk to someone who was more knowledgeable about his rights as an American and what issues are being debated in our society today.
Jaclyn - E - it seems you held some very engaging interviews with informed subjects. Great work.
Theresa - E- -Again, engaging journalistic work! I would be a little more reserved when it comes to assigning the opinions of one or two members of an identiy group as representitive of his/her enclave (factory worker, "flagrant homosexual") as this is one way we see stereotypes and inaccuracy arising in mass media.
Elizabeth - E - I'm impressed with your analysis. Your notes on the effects age seems to have on political opinions makes me wonder - is it a problem that in a nation of old and young, is it a problem that most of our elected officials are technically senior citizens? Is this a conflict of interest?
Heather - E - I appreciate that you reflected on the journalistic process as well as the issues at hand. I would also like to hear your views on wether or not certain age groups seem to dominate major political decisions.
Justin - E - your suggestion to interview on the campus was a good one. Unfortunately, time was an issue. I encourage you to further investigate on the CSI campus - this can be an extra credit blog posting if you like.
Ashley -E- detailed and analytical. As always excellent work!
John - G - Not your best blog, though I'm glad you enjoyed this assignment. I'd hoped to hear a conclusion from you about wether or not the Bill of Rights is more upheld or violated in modern society.
Sarah - G+ - strong analysis, but i was left wanting to know more about the interviews themselves.
Kasey - G- - I'd like you to work on depth in your blogs. There's a fine line between being concise and being vague; your analtical skills are stronger than reflected in this piece.
Michele - G+ - solid work; interesting to see how you and Kasey had different reads on the same interview subjects.
Sam- G- - since you were the third in your group to post, it would have been a good idea to elaborate on a new topic. Try to write more in your blogs.
Veronica - don't SUE Liana, but feel free to use her blog. Kidding. G+ - you provided new insight and details. Strong analysis.
Marco - G+ - strong use of quotes and analysis. "Sucked" as a description is not exactly an academic term, but you do posess the right to free expression in the blog!
Anam - G+ - funny! I appreciate your candidness and know "on the street" work is sometimes a hit or miss endeavor. With that said, I'd like to see you draw on political knowledge to fill in any gaps in your interviews.
Ashley - S+ - I know it can be difficult to draw information out of interviews but this is exactly where it would be useful to evaluate the findings of other groups and include your own analysis.
Jakub - G- -What does ROFL mean? Same comment I gave to Theresa applies, since you don't really know your subjects, watch out for presenting their opinions as representitive of their identity groups. Since your interviews lacked political "meat" you could benefit from more reflection on the Bill of Rights in modern society as you see it.
Rachel - G - you ladies took an investigative approach and conducted in depth interviews with great results. I wish you had shared more here.
Liana - G+ - this is well written and spirited but it would have worked to your benefit to compare Kyle's views with at least one other account (either based on interviews you conducted or others posted about on the blog.)
GREAT JOB EVERYONE. I AM IMPRESSED, AGAIN!
Dominique D. Johnson
Block H. AP U.S. history
During the trip to Albany, which was also one of the most exciting parts of the trip by far, surprisingly many of the interviewees were not familiar with the 10th amendment. My group consisted of Katie, Cristy, Paige, Janell, and Ciara. We spit up and aimed to target a variety of people. One of the interviewee was Bob, a mail man who strongly believed that “although I am not aware all that much with the amendments, I believe that people should be able choose freely on who they want to be with if they are gay or straight.” Another individual who sat outside of a coffee shop and was reading the newspaper said that “I am familiar with the 10th amendment and as a gay man I think that personal feelings are influenced into laws.”
A female bartender suggested that she does not believe in abortions but believes that women should be able to choose whether they want to abort or not instead of the government making the unjust decisions. Also she suggested that with gay marriage being in the spot light, it would just be another debate like the 1970s debate on interracial marriage. A car garage-man suggest that “maybe people should be more careful when it comes to having sex early and not protecting yourself and relying on abortion as an easy way out. And the government should not ignore the fact that we have freedom of choice.”
The fundamental principles of the Bill of Rights are reflected more in modern-day America because more people are becoming aware and are opening and in favor for the freedom of choice.
Dominique- G
Post a Comment