Inglewood Today
Page 2
April 23, 2015
Community
President Obama’s Mandatory Voting Idea Debated
T
he moment President Obama announced his proposal for mandatory voting in America, it sparked fireworks. Scholars from different political parties did not hesitate to offer their input, including legal knowledge, according to Fox News, CBS, Washington Post, etc. To quickly illustrate, a number of scholars from prominent law universities made it crystal clear that mandatory voting is illegal in the USA, as it violates American citizens’ constitutional rights, especially the First Amendment that entails a person’s free speech. As an example, the First Amendment declares that a person has freedom of religion. Perhaps that may explain why some religious people refuse to vote. Voting, in their eyes, violates some people’s religious beliefs.
By Barbara Hobbs
Barbara Hobbs Other scholars argue that mandatory voting is a violation of everybody’s constitutional rights. An individual should not be forced to vote against his or her own will. President Obama explained what prompted him to introduce the idea of mandatory voting in the USA, according to Washington News. The President emphasized that mandatory voting would draw more young,
middle-class and working-class Democrats to the polls to vote in the mid-term elections. To paraphrase, Mr. Obama said, some young people tend to stay at home during the midterm elections. That has eventually led to Republicans taking control of both the House and Senate. As an example, statistics show that nearly 37% of Democrats voted in the 2014 mid-term elections. Obama debated constructively. From my viewpoint, I can understand why President Obama’s idea of mandatory voting in the USA may have some merit. Yet, I feel that some debaters may have overreacted. By conventional wisdom, President Obama, a former Harvard Law School scholar, is fully aware that it will most likely take some action by the Supreme Court and/or Congress to amend the US Constitution under most circumstances.
Inglewood Celebrates First Pop-Up Farmer’s Market (Continued from page 1) “We strive each year to make this event more informative, memorable, and fun so that Inglewood and its community members are encouraged and empowered in their own way to lead in making the Earth a better place,” Derek Steele, Health Equity Programs Director of the SJLI was excited to share. “It’s a fabulous day here in the beautiful city of Inglewood, we’re getting it on here today,” Willie Agee, long time Inglewood resident, said passionately. “The music is out of sight, and the education is really something. This is for the people.” The Pop Up Farmer’s Market
was a huge success, from a freshly squeezed orange juice vendor, to organic herbal teas, jams, to cobblers and freshly made pupusas, folks were lining up throughout the day to partake of the wonderful selection of goods provided. Mami Jolly proprietor Amber said, “As a vegetarian, a few years ago, I was putting this paste like fruit spread on my jams and I was like, this is all fillers and preservatives and it’s not good for me. So I decided to make my own jam, its real chunks of fruit, and it’s healthier. I always wanted to do a Farmer’s Market for Earth Day because I’m so into the organic, reduce, reuse, recycle (stuff), so I’m very big into the environment, so I wanted to
come out and support.” Executive Director of the Social Justice Learning Institute Dr. D’Artagnan Scorza said, “Looking around at the health disparities we have in communities like Inglewood’s, with the 405, the 105 and the 110 (which create disparities for people to breathe, and eat healthy), we realized that not only was it important to increase awareness of the folk in our community, but to make sure they were educated.” Healthy soils are the foundation for food, fuel, fiber and even medicine, said the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as it kicked off 2015 the International Year of Soils on the first-ever World Soil Day back in December 2014.
Ruling Limits Traffic Stop Delays (Continued from page 1) able suspicion, the high court said further delays constitute Fourth Amendment violations. “Without additional reasonable suspicion, the officer must allow the seized person to depart once the purpose of the stop has concluded,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the majority opinion. Lower courts had found that a wait of less than ten minutes constituted only a minimal intrusion on the driver’s Fourth Amendment rights, which prohibit unreasonable search and seizure, and therefore did not outweigh the government’s compelling interest in thwarting the illegal-drug trade. But Tuesday, the Supreme Court said the duration of the stop could only last as long as necessary to conclude its
purpose. “The critical question is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, but whether conducting the sniff adds time to the stop,” Ginsburg wrote. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy dissented. The most common reason for contact with the police is being a driver in a traffic stop. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (www.bjs.gov), in 2008 an estimated 44% of face-to-face contacts that U.S. residents had with police occurred for this reason. For black drivers, traffic stops are also the tipping point for a disproportionate number of arrests, searches and seizures and—as shown in recent high profile cases—unwarranted violence by police. About 74% of black drivers
believed police had a legitimate reason for stopping them compared to 86% of white and 82% of Hispanic drivers. Black drivers (12.3%) were about three times as likely as white drivers (3.9%) and about two times as likely as Hispanic drivers (5.8%) to be searched during a traffic stop in 2008. A report by the Missouri Attorney General’s Office revealed that of the 5,384 total traffic stops the Ferguson police made in 2013, 4,632 involved black residents. Only 686 involved white ones. In Rodriguez’s case, the Supreme Court only examined the issue of whether police officers could keep him detained beyond the scope of the moving violation. They didn’t address whether Struble had reasonable suspicion to conduct the search. That determination has been remanded to the Eighth Circuit.
President/Publisher/ Editor Willie Brown Vice President Gloria Kennedy Assistant Editor Veronica Mackey Contributing Writers Veronica Mackey Thomas Bunn Brooke Stanley Staff Photographer Thomas Bunn PRODUCTION Manager Dené Glamuzina Quality Control Manager Gloria Kennedy Inglewood Today Weekly is a legally
adjudicated newspaper of public cir culation, published weekly by Ads Up Advertising, Inc. News and press releases may be submitted for consideration by mail to 9111 La Cienega Boulevard, Suite 100, Inglewood, CA 90301 or by email to itnetworks@msn.com.
You can reach us at 310-670-9600 or by fax 310-338-9130 www.inglewoodtoday.com The artistic contents of Inglewood Today Weekly are copyrighted by Ads Up Advertising, Inc. and permission to reprint any article herein must be obtained in writing from the Publisher. Display Advertising 310-670-9600 X107 Classified Advertising 310-670-9600 X104 Subscription Information Subscriptions are available by mail for $100.00 per year. Home Delivery may not be available in all areas, or gated communities.
We want to hear from you! Tell us what you think about local issues. Letters should be addressed “To the Editor” and include your name, address and phone number. (Only your name and city will be published.) Email: itnetworks@msn.com Online: www.inglewoodtoday.com Mail: 9111 La Cienega Blvd., Suite 100, Inglewood, CA 90301 Fax: 310.338.9130 Letters may be edited for clarity or length. Not all letters will be published. Submission of a letter to the editor constitutes permission to publish the letter in the printed version of Inglewood Today Weekly and on www.inglewoodtoday.com.