Respond to these four Kimberly HolcombThursdayMay 9 at 7:24pmManage Discussion Entry September 11, 2001 is a day that no one in America will forget.  I can still remember where I was, at the time, what I was doing, and how I reacted to it.  September 11, 2001 will always be remembered as 9/11.  This is the day that terrorist attacked America, on American soil. Terrorist hijacked 4 airplanes attacking the twin towers in New York, the pentagon, one was crashed in Pennsylvania. There were several people killed and injured, but America as a hole was wounded (Costly, 2019 para1).   Not long after 9/11, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, went to congress with several options to combat terrorism. Many of them was omitted by congress because they infringed on citizens rights, but they did approve the USA Patriot Act.  The USA Patriot Act stands for United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools, that will Intersect and Obstruct Terrorism (Costly, 2019).   The day after the Patriot Act was implemented, the House of Representatives passed a bill called 357-66.  357-66 is a bill that is 357 pages long and changed over 15 laws.  In 2005, President George W. Bush approved surveillance of cell phone and monitor all emails.  President Bush decision did not go over well with many people in America, they felt their civil liberties was being violated (Doherty, 2014).    The U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 made it where the government had to have a warrant to search someone’s property, so when President Bush made that decision, it made many U.S. citizens feel their liberties were violated.  Then there was NSL’s (National Security Letters).  The NSL’s allowed the government to access people “suspected” of terrorisms phone records, and the electronic communication (Doherty).    Paul HillmanPaul HillmanThursdayMay 9 at 7:53pmManage Discussion EntryThe landscape of National Security definitely changed after the attacks of 9/11. The war on terror and the way it was covered by the national media helped to put the nation into a state of near panic. Both political parties were looking for ways to increase ways to gain intelligence  A domestically they are hampered by the constitution. The patriot act enables the government to wiretap its own citizens without a warrant signed by a judge if it is believed it is in the best interest of national security. Ailong with the creation of the TSA and the increased regulations that come with flying commercially, there are numerous ways that our government has slowly took away more civil liberties. There is good argument that it has helped make our country a safer place because there have been multiple attempted terrorist attacks stopped before anyone was hurt. The civil liberties aren’t the only ones being stripped as the war on terror has also led to increased use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” or what some people call torture. While there is an argument that it has been gained to get information that has protected the country it is hard to look at some of the footage if you are a human being. There are two schools of thought, the more conservative, which include President Bush.  “The overall message of Bush’s argument is that torture is necessary in this new war. If we want to protect national security, we must torture detainees to gain intelligence that could be used to prevent an attack. By framing national security in conflict with the prohibition against torture, Bush justifies violations of basic rights in exchange for national security.” (Schofer, 2015). The other school of thought is the more liberal view that just because someone is suspected of an act of terror doesn’t mean that their civil liberties and human rights need to be violated to get answers. I have always thought that if it is going to save thousands of lives than go ahead and use the enhanced techniques but after reading a lot on the patriot act my views are changing somewhat.Jerryan ParksharrisFridayMay 10 at 2:15pmManage Discussion EntryHello Class,The U.S. Supreme Court only considers cases that at least four of the nine judges grant parties a Writ of Certiorari. “Certiorari” is a Latin word meaning “to inform. A writ of certiorari informs a lower court of the Supreme Court’s intention to review one of its decisions” (Spohn & Hemmens, 2012). People that want to appeal a lower court ruling they must file a petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court. If four judges vote to grant the writ of certiorari then the case will be heard. If four judges vote no to the writ of certiorari, the case will not be heard and the lower court’s decision stands. The Supreme Court by granting the writ of certiorari is agreeing that case is important a must be heard. Most of the time these cases involve a constitutional issue. However, The Supreme Court believes that when this decision is made they find that the lower courts are quite capable of ruling a case. But if the Supreme Court decides to hear a case it could uphold the lower court ruling it could establish a precedent for future cases and challenge local and state laws across the country.In my opinion, because the Supreme Court term begins on the first Monday of October and ends on the first Monday of October the following year and in that time well over 7,000 cases will be filed. It’s safe to say that’s asking for too much as the Supreme Court only hears about 80 of those case in that span of time. I don’t believe the Supreme Court should hear more cases because of the precedence of the cases and especially because these cases they decide on could possibly overturn other case or shed new light on issues dealing with the constitution. With that the increased volume of cases the Supreme Court wouldn’t be able to give a tactful verdict as they could as if they didn’t.Viviane NguyenThursdayMay 9 at 10:24pmManage Discussion EntryWhich cases must the Supreme Court review, and which cases do they have discretion on whether or not to render an opinion? According to Griffin v. Illinois (1956), the Supreme Court decided that indigent defendants must be given access to trial transcripts (Spohn & Hemmens, 2012). The Court held that the government cannot act “in a way that discriminates against some convicted defendants on account of their poverty” (Spohn & Hemmens, 2012). By law, if the person has physical evidence to prove that their Constitutional rights have been violated when the U.S. Supreme court must look into their case. The Constitution states that the Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction (United States Court, 2019). Appellate jurisdiction means that the Court has the authority to review the decisions of lower courts (United States Court, 2019). The Constitution limits original jurisdiction cases to those involving disputes between the states or disputes arising among ambassadors and other high-ranking ministers (United States Court, 2019).What is the court’s discretionary jurisdiction called?The court’s discretionary jurisdiction is called appellate jurisdiction. There are two one is called mandatory means that the appeals court must hear every appeal that originates from the courts within its purview (Study, 2019). This doesn’t mean that it reviews every decision the lower courts render, but if a party to any lower court decision submits an appeal, it must review it (Study, 2019). Discretionary jurisdiction means that when an appeal is submitted by a party involved in a lower court’s decision, they can choose to accept or deny the appeal(Study, 2019). If they deny, then the last decision rendered stands, and there are no more appeals possible within that court system (Study, 2019).I believe that the Constitution gave the right to the U.S Supreme Court for a reason, they need to have power over the lower courts to ensure that there is no violation of the Constitutional rights. Under the U.S Supreme court there are one Chief justice and eight associate justice, to create a check and balance. When the people feel as though the federal or the State did not give a justification of a ruling, the people have the right to appeal their case to the U.S. Supreme court as long as their attorney can prove tangible evidence in proving that their constitutional rights have been violated. The Constitution was made to protect the people’s rights and liberty against government abuse, the U.S Supreme court just upholds that rights and try to better the laws to protect the people.