With spring and the warming weather, of course, comes the sprint to the end of the semester and the accompanying illness (which explains timing on this post). But, the show must go on, and, as always, the student bloggers in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties did not disappoint. While there is not one recurrent theme, per se, to the blogs this week, many of the posts do link up current political issues with past topics the Court has ruled on, showing how many legal disputes reoccur through slightly different forms.
Megan’s post addresses a topic we have recently covered in our class: symbolic speech. She addresses some of the Court’s rulings on this issue, and explains some of the considerations on when symbols are an important, protected part of speech and when they are not. As Megan explains, key here is the political context of the symbolic expression, as well as the political importance of it.
Shai’s post takes on, perhaps, another realm of symbolic speech. She writes about the proposed (and rejected) Texas license plate displaying the confederate flag on it. Nine states already allow the optional plate design regarding the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and some within Texas sought for that state to become the 10th. Shai acknowledges the difficulty in this case, but comes down thinking that Texas has the power to regulate speech in this case, largely do to the nature of license plates and that the people are trying to express their speech through state-granted license plates.
From symbolic speech to questions of discrimination (our current topic of discussion in class), we move to Indiana and the Religious Freedom Bill that has garnered so much attention, including from two of the course bloggers, Sam and Jules. Sam’s post takes on Indiana and the Religious Freedom Bill and its effects on the LGBT community. She wraps up by connecting this back to the Court’s impending case on same-sex marriage and what this could, potentially, mean for LGBT rights.
Jules also addresses Indiana and religious freedom. Jules likens the Religious Freedom Law to the idea of separate but equal (which we are discussing in class this week), but without the pretense the Court maintained about equality in its Plessy ruling. She writes, “The presence of this law would create a new social environment much akin to “separate but equal” but without any addendum requiring alternative services to those who have been previously denied on religious premise, the environment could more appropriately be considered “separate, but not really equal either.”” True to the theme of her blog—the 1st and 14th Amendments—she highlights that violating one amendment to serve an interest in another is still unconstitutional.
Dalton’s post is about Marco Rubio’s proposed legislation to address D.C.’s restrictive gun laws. Dalton begins by acknowledging the political significance of this proposed legislation, not just about the rights in question, but about a probable 2016 presidential bid from Senator Rubio. Dalton lays out the various provisions in the proposed legislation, and discusses the potential benefits and problems from the different components of the legislation.
Lyco Rights and Liberties 
One Pingback