Consider for a moment that we live in a country where there exists a legally obtainable weapon that allows a single person with malicious intentions to kill or injure multiple people in a crowded place within a few minutes, perhaps seconds. In fact, the U.S. is plagued with the highest rate of gun-related deaths in the developed world at over 33,000 deaths per year, more than a third of which are homicides.
The Supreme Court (and conventional wisdom) would say that everyone does have to follow the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. But challenges to that view – from history, legal scholars, and modern Kim Davises and Ted Cruzes – abound.
I don’t think giving the vote to 16-year-olds is a good thing, and many readers will likely agree. But the fact that many reasonable people in the UK support lowering the voting age should give us pause.
Matthew Cohen ’18 and Johnathan Bowes ’15 debate the need for a speedy implementation of international free trade policies. Cohen argues that Obama should be given the power to do this expediently while Bowes cautions giving the executive more power.
With the Court asking for an opinion, the government will be forced to pick a side, which could have a broader policy impact for federal drug enforcement across the nation.
Like many legal debates, this one reflects changing social ideas about what race, structural inequality, and discrimination mean, and how they are best addressed. Answers to those questions won’t come from a judicial opinion. But the Court’s decision here might demystify how states and citizens can talk about race and voting in a legal context.
In response to General Michael Hayden’s visit to campus last week, Super Tuesday columnists Veronica Anorve and Johnathan Bowes offer perspectives on domestic surveillance during the War on Terror. Anorve justifies some privacy incursions while Bowes believes that our Constitution protects from such actions.
From a broader perspective, Florida contends that it is simply inappropriate to defer to the private medical community for a constitutional judgment of such importance. If such a delegation of authority were made to clinicians, Florida argues it would create perverse incentives. After all, Florida’s goal is to prevent eligible death row inmates from evading execution, while many in the psychiatric community may seek just the opposite.