Essay On Ohio State Issue 2

Until 1951, there was no law restricting the number of times the president of the United States could run for office. After the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress proposed the 22nd Amendment. Since its ratification, the highly controversial amendment has survived every attempted repeal. Contemporary presidents of both parties, President Regan and President Clinton, supported repealing or modifying the amendment whereas other presidents believed a repeal would result in political stagnation. While there are certain benefits of restricted term limits, the otherwise undemocratic 22nd Amendment should be repealed.

When analyzing the use of drugs, the first theory that resonates with my thoughts and view point is conflict perspective. The legalization of drugs would benefit the powerful such as local and state government. Retail and medicinal weed generated more than $60 million in tax and licensing revenue for the Colorado in 2014, the lion’s share of which is helping to pay for school construction and the regulatory system that legalization requires (2015).

Drug policy is a crucial topic in the country today. Substance abuse, as well as drug-related crime rates, are a huge problem. This is a fact. The way to fix the problem of substance abuse, however, is widely disagreed upon. Some think that stricter laws regarding drug possession and use would solve the problem, while others believe that loosening the restrictions would be a better option. The issue of legalizing drugs, especially marijuana, is one that is debated all the time. In fact, in 1995, a survey was conducted on the most important policy issues and eighty five percent of the country placed drugs at the top of the list (Falco 1996). Many states are actually beginning to decriminalize, and even

Question two explains with more detail the measures that would need to be taken in order to create or expand health insurance to every American, which in turn, makes it sound more complicated and how taxes would be increased. Most American’s do not want their taxes increased so they have an easier time voting opposed.

In every day life one must make decisions, and with decisions there comes options from which to choose from. One decision from Texas that has caused concerned has ties to one of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act. This provision wants to expand Medicaid coverage to low income Americans. However, the Supreme Court ruled a decision to make the Medicaid expansion optional for states. Therefore, Texas opted out on this idea but is still indecisive on weather or not this expansion is beneficial to the state. As we all know factors like politics enter into the mix, as does the costs of the expansion, availability, and quality of care for these new “enrollees”. The idea of medical care for all seems like a simple effective idea, but the effects overall is detrimental to Texas citizens like myself and my family, who doesn’t necessarily fit into this “mold” of the uninsured citizen the act is trying to attract. The decision Texas made to not expand, in my opinion is a reflection of all citizens who feel that they will not benefit from this implicated Medicaid program.

I’m running I hear laughter a white figure moves and jumps on me, I dodge and get away with my life...barely. All this because of one thing ghosts they're out there and i'm here to prove it. Ghosts do exist!

Both the fourth and fifth amendment protect the privacies of individuals from governmental intrusion. Appellant Boyd complained that she was denied her constitutional right to testify. The right to testify comes from many amendments and clauses in the constitution such as the due process clauses, the Fifth, and Fourteenth amendment. The court held that “ the search for and seizure of evidence within an accused’s possession might well result in compelling the accused to be a witness against himself.” Then, the court reasoned that the search was unreasonable “ab initio” and it makes it a violation of the fourth amendment. Justice Black mentioned in his concurrence that if something is obtained illegally, it cannot be used again the appellant. The Boyd’s case was not the only case mentioned in the Mapp v. Ohio opinion. Additionally, Weeks v. United States (1914) was a case that determined the warrantless seizure of items from an individual is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been a primary debate topic since it was enacted in 2010. The conservatives completely disagree with the Affordable Care Act and believe that “Democrats used it as an assertion of power than they used it to improve health care conditions” (“Republican Views on Health Care”, 2014). They believe that the act was a waste of taxpayer’s dollars and would inevitably ruin our health care system. In contrast, the liberals supported the ACA and “pride themselves on the fact that health care costs are growing at the slowest rate since 1960” (“Democratic View on Health Care”, 2014). The liberals believe that every American should have access to health care by making premiums affordable. However, in order to do so

What is the future of drug and tax laws in America and how does Jeff Flake, a U.S. senator, view them? Drugs and Taxes are important issues that people should recognize as big factors in our lives. Drugs and taxes are an important issue because of how they affect you and me. Drugs can affect your privacy and taxes affect your work and financial stability. Jeff Flake is the senator in question on these two subjects. Jeff Flake is serving his fifth term in congress. Jeff is a fifth-generation Arizonan, raised on a ranch in Snowflake, Arizona. Jeff graduated from Brigham Young University where he studied international relations and political science (“Rep. Jeff Flake”).

In this essay, I propose to amend the Constitution to modify the second amendment with: A well regulated State National Guard is necessary to provide safety of a free country when needed, the rights of people who pass the background check, shall not be infringed.

In this article “Minimum Drinking Age: Should the minimum drinking age in the United States remain 21?” the author describes both sides of the argument with lots of evidence and facts to back up both sides. Just before that the article states some background information about the topic and what it was like in the 1970 - 2000. He says that before 1970 the Legal Drinking Age was lower than 21 but got changed because of an outcry of people complaining of a lot of drunk driving accidents. The first stars starting changing their laws in 1975. Ever since that date it has been a debate whether it should’ve changed back or not. The author then goes into the first argument. The first argument was what the supporters argue: what supporters say. The author

There are many differing viewpoints in the United States when dealing with drug policy. Within the political arena, drug policy is a platform that many politicians base their entire campaigns upon, thus showing its importance to our society in general. Some of these modes within which drug policy is studied are in terms of harm reduction, and supply reduction. When studying the harmful effects of drugs, we must first to attempt to determine if drug abuse harms on an individual level of if it is a major cause of many societal problems that we face today. In drawing a preliminary conclusion to this question we are then able to outline the avenues of approach in dealing

To the everyday US citizen the United States Supreme Court is a nonexistent entity that is not often heard from or seen unless it reaches a decision on a controversial case. Mapp v. Ohio was one of the controversial cases that the Supreme Court made a decision on in 1961. What were the facts of the case? What constitutional issues are in question? What did the court decide, and what were there reasoning of the justices? What is the significance of the case?

Drug legalization is an enduring question that presently faces our scholars. This issue embraces two positions: drugs should not be legalized and drugs should be legalized. These two positions contain an array of angles that supports each issue. This brief of the issues enables one to consider the strengths and weakness of each argument, become aware of the grounds of disagreement and agreement and ultimately form an opinion based upon the positions stated within the articles. In the article “Against the Legalization of Drugs”, by James Q. Wilson, the current status of drugs is supported. Wilson believes if a drug such as heroin were legalized there would be no financial or medical reason to avoid heroin usage;

Some of the arguments for legalizing the sale and possession of drugs have been made on purely economic grounds. Staggeringly large sums of money are being generated through the illegal drug trade. All of this money escapes direct taxation. If an excise tax, like those placed on alcohol and cigarettes, billions of dollars would become available for public projects. The U.S. department of Health and Human Services’ agency SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health