My own argumnt

My own argument.

I agree with the ruling of the case. I thought the court’s decision were fair and balanced. The court looked at both sides and it was pretty clear who had made the injustice. The court provided valid reasons why this Arkansas statute was out of line. It was wrong for the state of Arkansas to have a law that forbids the mentioning of evolution in a classroom environment. I think Justice Stewart put it best, “The States are most assuredly free 'to choose their own curriculums for their own schools.' A State is entirely free, for example, to decide that the only foreign language to be taught in its public school system shall be Spanish. But would a State be constitutionally free to punish a teacher for letting his students know that other languages are also spoken in the world? I think not.” This was definitely an interesting case for me to research. Being a Christian myself, I’ve had mixed feelings about the subject. On one hand I have my faith and on the other I have the government. I would like the word of god to be known as much as possible but at the same time I know it would be wrong to share that in a public school system. I understand that church and state must be separated in order to have a balanced government. For instance, the only reason I supported the Arkansas school board was because it shared the same beliefs as me. If the school system taught the beliefs of another religion I would be angry. I see the errors in my ways. A person has to want to believe in god. You can’t force them otherwise.


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/Epperso.htm

Rule of law

Rule of law.

At first, the Epperson vs. Arkansas case didn’t seem to make much of an impact on history but it actually set a huge precedent in the fight against the teaching of creation science in the classroom. Though the case was a more quiet case because Susan Epperson was never actually prosecuted for anything, it did create a major setback for creation science believers in the state of Arkansas. It was the first in a line of Supreme Court cases that went against the theory of creation science. The Epperson vs. Arkansas case brought light to the subject of evolution in the classroom. For example, Daniel vs. Waters was a 1975 legal case in which the United States Court of Appeals struck down Tennessee's law regarding the teaching of "equal time" of evolution and creationism in public school system classes because it violated the Establishment clause of the Us Constitution. Following this ruling, creationism was stripped of all overt biblical references and was then renamed creation science. Another major case was in1987, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Edwards vs. Aguillard that the teaching of "creation science" constituted an establishment of religion and thus violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. These are just some of the many cases that have setback creation science as a method of teaching in the United States.

Reasoning of the court

Reasoning of the court.

The case was presided over by Judge Fortas, Judge Black, Judge Harlan, and Judge Stewart. The whole court seemed to be in agreement with each other on this case. The amendment to the law in Arkansas stated that any instructor who taught evolution science would be terminated from their position and prosecuted under Arkansas law. The court noted that this Amendment included the prohibitions upon state interference with freedom of speech and thought which are found in the First Amendment. The court found the amendment in Arkansas hindered the quest for knowledge, restricted the freedom to learn, and restrained the freedom to teach. These basic rights are all covered in the first amendment. When the court saw it from this point of view, the Arkansas amendment “was an unconstitutional and void restraint upon the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution.” The court didn’t claim that the theory of evolution was true, they just didn’t believe that teaching it should be an illegal thing to do. To the courts agreement, Justice black stated, "A teacher cannot know whether he is forbidden to mention Darwin's theory, at all or only free to discuss it as long as he refrains from contending that it is true. It is an established rule that a statute which leaves an ordinary man so doubtful about it’s meaning that he cannot know when he has violated it denies him the first essential of due process.”


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/Epperso.htm

Decision of the court

Decision of the court.

At the time the current law of the Arkansas court forbade the mentioning or teaching of any sort of Darwinian theory in the Arkansas school system. It only accepted the teaching of divine creation. Arkansas definitely sought to prevent its teachers from discussing the theory of evolution because it is contrary to the belief of some that the Book of Genesis must be the exclusive source of doctrine as to the origin of man. The law that was currently being held was a form of the state of Tennessee’s “monkey law”. Tennessee’s “monkey law” made it unlawful to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals. The decision of the court ended up ruling in favor of Susan Epperson and the reversed the Arkansas law on teaching evolution in the classroom. The court found the law a violation of the fourteenth amendment in which protects against the violation of a person’s basic rights. In addition, the court found the Arkansas law in violation of the first amendment. The decision was a big step toward the evolution teaching movement in schools.

Issue of the case

Issue of the case.

In 1968 a case was brought to the United States Supreme Court concerning the issue of creationism in the Arkansas public school system. Susan Epperson was a public school teacher in Arkansas in the nineteen sixties. At the time the Arkansas school system banned the teaching of evolution in classrooms all over the state. This appeal challenges the constitutionality of the anti-evolution statute in which the State of Arkansas adopted in 1928 to prohibit the teaching in its public schools and universities of the theory that man evolved from other species of life. The statute was a product of an upsurge of a fundamentalist religious following in the twenties. The Arkansas statute was an adaption of the famous Tennessee “monkey law” which that state of Tennessee adopted in 1925. The Arkansas law makes it unlawful for a teacher in any state-supported school or university to teach the theory that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals, or to adopt or use in any such school a textbook that teaches this theory. The violation is a misdemeanor and subjects the violator to the termination of their job position. The case deals with the teaching of biology in a high school in Little Rock. According to the testimony, the official textbook for the high school biology course did not have a section on the Darwinian theory. Susan Epperson had just graduated with a Masters degree in zoology. If she didn’t teach the theory of intelligent design then she would be fired. She brought the case to the Supreme Court because it was a violation of the fourteenth amendment.

The facts of the case

The Facts of The Case.

There are several facts that contribute to the argument of this case. The case was brought to court when a teacher in Arkansas by the name of Appellant Epperson filed it in 1968. Epperson wanted to challenge the constitutionality of Arkansas' "anti-evolution" statute. This was a major case because it was the first of many to try to stop creation science from being taught in a classroom. Here are the basic facts of the case. The first is “the Court does not decide whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague, since, whether it is construed to prohibit explaining the Darwinian theory or teaching that it is true, the law conflicts with the Establishment Clause.” The second is “the sole reason for the Arkansas law is that a particular religious group considers the evolution theory to conflict with the account of the origin of man set forth in the Book of Genesis.” The third fact of this case is “the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” The fourth is “state's right to prescribe the public school curriculum does not include the right to prohibit teaching a scientific theory or doctrine for reasons that run counter to the principles of the First Amendment.” The fifth and final fact is “The Arkansas law is not a manifestation of religious neutrality.”


“http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/epperson.html”

Illicit Trading

What i think about illicit trading.
I’ve never really thought about illicit trading as a big deal or a major crime. I have a lot of female friends that buy knock off designer bags. When I ask them why they purchase these bags they give me a reasonable explanation. They tell me why should they pay thousands of dollars on a designer handbag when they can purchase the same bag for hundreds of dollars cheaper. When a person pays for a designer bag they are essentially paying for the name. Raising the prices is frustrating to me because it seems like the designers are ripping off people. I never have felt any remorse for buying illicit goods because I feel like I’m sort of getting even with the major corporations. I believed in all of these things until I saw the video today. The video totally changed my views on illicit trading. I never realized how many people were affected by it. I think I’m like a lot of people and don’t realize the impact that illicit trading has on the world. Instead of giving money to a legitimate business a person is funding criminal organizations and providing them with a means to possibly hurt people. I was saddened to see that people get sucked into a sort of life debt and are forced to work for these organizations. It is crazy to think that there are really no ways to stop the trade either. For every organization a police force stops it seems like two more seem to pop up. Before this video I couldn’t care less that I was buying counterfeit but now I’m definitely not buying anything bootleg. I’m also going to spread the word to all my friend’s and tell them not to buy those products anymore.