Habla sobre la percepción de Fidel Castro cuando ha visitado Estados Unidos en 1960
Hay una escena en America cuando Fidel Castro esta en Nuevo York que ilumina los elementos positivos de Fidel Castro y su influencia en los Americas. Yo estoy sorprendido de ver el fuerte apoyo que Fidel reciba en nueva york. A pesar de el hecho que el gobierno Americano odio Fidel, hay muchas americanos que miran Fidel como un liberador y salvador en Latino America. La escena en particular, muestra a Castro como un símbolo de esperanza y muestra muchas personas animando para ver Fidel. Sin embargo, pienso que esta película representado castro en una luz positiva y descuidado para mostrar los fracasos y defectos de su carrera política. Castro ha regido el gobierno desde que llegó al poder y ha creado una forma de gobierno tiránico. Castro no permite ideas de oposición o disidente de su gobierno y ha obstaculizado la democracia en Cuba.
How is the application of constitutional originalism flawed? Give one Supreme Court example.
Originalism, the practice of interpreting the constitution in its original meaning, has sparked intense debate amongst judicial scholars. Originalist scholars imagine a literal interpretation of the Constitution, contending that the words scribed in 1787 are still the rule of law. Specifically, the District of Columbia v Heller decision “marked the first time that a majority of the Court agreed to an opinion decidedly originalist in its methodology.” Highlighted by Justice Scalia’s opinion, this monumental ruling has become the cornerstone of originalist methodology. Yet, originalism is far from a monolithic position. Professors Thomas Colby and Peter Smith substantiate that originalism has diverged into multiple directions, maintaining that “rifts within the ‘originalist' camp are deep and many.” Along the spectrum between original and current meaning, Justice Scalia finds himself deeply entrenched in the conservative, strict interpretation of originalism. Lawrence Lessig highlights a more nuanced, moderate form of originalism, one in which original meaning acts as a foundational point, but understands that the interpretation of constitutional provisions may be altered with time. However, Justice Scalia does not subscribe to this moderate approach to originalism. Justice Scalia’s originalist ideology “takes to determine the original meaning of language” focusing on the interpretations knowledgeable individuals would have taken during the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. Justice Scalia actively practices strict originalist philosophies and finds that a true originalist interprets the constitution, “strictly according to its original understanding and does not ascribe evolving meaning to it.” That is to say, this approach attempts to use the language and understandings at the time of constitutional ratification to argue constitutional interpretations. Yet, an examination of originalist philosophies, especially those practiced by Justice Scalia in District of Columbia v Heller, reveal the inherent flaws in originalism.
Throughout the course of US history, Supreme Court rulings have had a lasting impact in spheres that extend beyond the political and legal realm. Talk about one ruling in particular, that you believe is either rather or egregious or beneficial for the American people. And why?
Brown v Board of Education, 1954, paved the route for desegregation of schools across America. With an ever progressing world, the need for a valuable education is magnified. Yet large disparities still remain in our educational system- disparities that Brown v Board attempted to address. Schools are still inherently segregated and certain racial groups are clearly disadvantaged because of this segregation. This then further places a strain on teachers who are expected to produce high student test scores despite minimal resources and funding in high-minority schools. To make matters worse, the nation judges teaching and education based off a set of testing standards, forcing teachers to teach to the test. Though Brown v Board was a landmark Supreme Court decision, it's impact has yet to be fully realized.