I.
A.) In 1996, Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). One of DOMA’s provisions defined marriage in terms to whether same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits as a legal union that could only be consummated between a man and a woman. In the 2012 case, United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court invalidated the provision, arguing among other points that it violated same-sex couple’s liberty as guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause as well as denying them the equal protection of the law (Liptak, 2013). While the ruling was focused mainly on the federal government, following its announcement, states that allowed same-sex marriages within their jurisdiction also began extending the same allowance for state benefits that traditional had only been available to heterosexual couples to same-sex couples. In practical terms, the actions by the states was more significant than the ruling in terms of showing how governments responded in a socially responsible manner. First, as the ruling was only meant for federal authorities, states were not necessarily required to apply in in terms of the state benefits to married couples. Secondly, while the ruling did not apply to states where same-sex marriage was illegal, it did create pressure on those states to at least apply the ruling to same-sex couples legally married in other states that move to states were it is prohibited.
B.) One of the fundamental effects of the Edward Showdown revelations of 2013 was that the U.S. government had built and implemented an extensive electronic surveillance organizational infrastructure that aggressively and with little oversight focused on the American public. To be sure, in the name of national security and he furtherance of the global war on terrorism, government departments such as the National Security Agency were invading our privacy, bulk-collecting our metadata and breaking into our Internet services providers without reason or proof that we were acting criminally. With little direct ability such as through election to affect changes to the system, the public relied on its state and federal representative to take action and ensure that the government would not violate our rights. One of the results of that government activity was the passage of Freedom Act in June 2015. While the Freedom Act does not entirely resolve the problem of overly-aggressive government surveillance, it does limit a well-known element of the surveillance, namely the ability of the NSA to collect bulk information on its own and store it on NSA servers. Under the Freedom Act. The NSA must not only obtain the information that it wants from private data providers but must also first get court approval to access the information in the first place.
II.
A.) Flint is a city in Michigan that is located equi-distant from Lansing, the state’s capital and Detroit, the state’s largest city. The majority of Flint’s population is African American. As a result of the Emergency Manager Law, the Governor of Michigan has the power to appointed an emergency financial manager (EFM) with powers over a city’s elected leaders, if that city is deemed to be in a financial crisis. In 2011, an emergency manager was appointed for Flint. In 2014, in an effort to cut costs, the EFM at the time made was to switch Flint’s source of drinking water from Lake Huron and the Detroit River to the Flint River, which was notorious as being polluted. The EFM persisted in switching the water source despite later studies providing that water from the Flint River was polluted and that it would put the population drinking it, namely the majority African American residents of the city at risk to their health. Until the national media to exposed the story to the world. No steps were taken by the EFM, state environmental authorities, or the governor. Only then did the world see the Michigan authorities as local residents saw them. Prior to the reporting not many outside of Flint cared. Once the reports started however, almost overnight the perception of Michigan authorities plummeted. Not only did the coverage affect public opinion but the opinion of the federal government as well. Accordingly, while the acts of the EFMs or the Michigan state government did not specifically constitute a crime, although the FBI has just announced that they have begun investigations into whether criminal activities did occur, it is hard to disclaim the discriminatory undertones of the government’s actions or the fact that the victims were predominantly African American.
B.) Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away suddenly on February 13, 2016. As is befitting for any Supreme Court Justice that dies and especially a Justice of Scalia’s stature the mainstream media began running stories of his life and death. Almost at the same time, media also began running stories of how Republican senators in Congress were moving to block and delay any nominee that President Obama makes to fill the position (Eilperin & Kane, 2016). Moreover, news reports stated that the Republican would persistent in blocking the nomination until after Obama leaves office next January. While the public has consistently had a low-opinion of Congress over the past few years, especially in regards to what is perceived as the Republicans stance to rather “do-nothing” in fulfilling their duties than work with Obama to effectively run the country. However, the reports of their statements after Scalia’s death take those perceptions to an even lower level. The consequences, which are yet to be seen is that Congress, and especially congressional Republican may never be able to recover a positive public perception again.
III.
A.) Ever since the Supreme Court ruling in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, the United States has remained intensely divided on whether or not it is proper, legal, or moral for abortions to be allowed. One of the more noticeable divides on this issues is founder between Democrats and Republicans. According to a 2010 Gallup survey, 61 percent of Democrats support the availability of abortion options for woman that choose to have one (Gallup, 2010). Conversely, only 26 percent of Republican feel the same way. From an ethical impact perspective what this difference could mean is being illustrated in public support or opposition to the statements of some Senators that they will block Obama’s next nomination to the Supreme Court as mentioned above. Simply blocking a nomination because one wants Justice as conservative as Scalia which could increase the possibility that Roe will be overturned is ethically questionable. As is putting forth a nominee simply because one feels she or he will support Roe’s continued confirmation.
B.) Another area of significant difference between Democrats and Republicans is in regards to immigration. According to a 2014 PEW survey, 51 percent of Democrats think that granting illegal immigrant legal status will encourage other people to illegally immigrate (PEW, 2014). On the other hand, over three-quarters of Republicans feel the same way. From an ethical point of view these differences I opinion will have substantial effects on how the nation views responding to refugees from Syrian or other troubled spots across the world. More short-term it will affect policy addressing illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America as well as the treatment of illegal immigrants already in the country. Moreover, since this is an election year, immigration is likely to be one of the more hotly discussed topics and platforms.
References
Eilperin, J. & Kane, P. (2016, Feb. 13). Supreme Court nomination process sure to be an epic debate. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-nomination-process-sure-to-be-an-epic-debate/2016/02/14/63cd2cd6-d32a-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_next625p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Gallup (2010, May 26). Four Moral Issues Sharply Divide Americans. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/137357/four-moral-issues-sharply-divide-americans.aspx
Liptak, A. (2013, Jun. 28). Supreme Court Bolsters Gay Marriage With Two Major Rulings. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gay-marriage.html?_r=0
Pew Research Center (PEW). (2014, Jan. 28). On immigration, Republicans favor path to legal status, but differ over citizenship. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/28/on-immigration-republicans-favor-path-to-legal-status-but-differ-over-citizenship/
