Blog Stage 3: Drones in the Courts

With the Obama Administration's drone program, the idea of "drone courts" has come to attention in which executive decisions concerning the usage of drones to target and kill individuals would be reviewed by the Judicial branch. In the New York Times Opinion section, an editorial titled "Who Will Mind The Drones?" discusses an alternative. The primary audience of this article would seem to be the general public, especially near the end of the editorial when he states "our Constitution's greatest virtues," which lends support that it is directed towards the average American.

In his argument, the author claims that this is not the best plan of action. He favors the idea of a separate "national security court" within the Executive branch itself in which this new executive court would be better suited for reviewing executive decisions on whether to allow drones to kill targets or not. He supports this by pointing out that judicial courts "lack national security expertise, they are not accustomed to ruling on lightning-fast timetables" and that "their primary work is on domestic matters and they usually rule on matters after the fact, not beforehand." So in other words, the courts in the judicial branch have little to no experience when dealing with military matters that involve quick decisions as they usually deal with legal matters that pertain to domestic issues. He also goes into detail as to how the national security court would function within the executive branch. 

I support the author in his argument against allowing the Judicial branch to review decisions concerning drone usage because I also feel that there are better alternatives that would be more suited, such as his national security court idea. There would be experts well qualified for the job as opposed to Supreme Court Justices. The Executive branch deals with military decisions involving strikes, not the Judicial. Therefore, it is more reasonable to create an executive court that could review these decisions and assume that they would review decisions better than judicial courts.

Blog Stage 2: Rejection of Gun Laws

As many as fifteen states, from South Carolina to North Dakota, have rejected the new US gun laws, introducing bills that would nullify the new gun policy. Much criticism and rejection stem from the fact that these new gun laws are viewed as unconstitutional and according to Casey Guernsey, who is state representative for Missouri, state that “We aren't here to do the bidding of the federal government,” and that “Whenever they go out of bounds, it’s our responsibility to step up.” 

In Wyoming, who has some of the least restrictive gun control in the nation, claims that any gun law that restricts ammunition clip sizes and outlaws semi-automatic weapons is unenforceable and that federal agents who attempt to enforce the new gun laws will succumb to the Firearm Protection Act. This act defends Wyoming residents from the new gun laws and prosecutes any federal agent that attempts to enforce them, which can leave them with five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. 

Many states challenge and nullify the new gun laws. This article touches on an important issue facing America, especially since the recent Sandy Hook elementary school shooting. Should Washington outlaw semi-automatics and limit clip sizes? Many believe that it is not within our government's power to do so, but many support Washington's decision. 

To read the article, click the link below: 

Some States Push Measures to Repel New U.S. Gun Laws