live_tv
Livestream Starting Soon
00
Hours
:
00
Minutes
:
00
Seconds
Up next in 10
Student debates on constitutional issues culminated in spokespersons for pro and con positions on each of 12 issues. 2013/09/24 at Palmer Events Center in Austin, Texas. Sponsored by Austin Community College, with participation of ACC students, some of which were high school students doing AP work at ACC.
Program document with issues http://constitution.org/event/c-day/con-day_acc_2013.pdf
http://constitution-day.org/events
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
smith and i'm attending acc the first time this semester um
0:08
you may begin thank you so much this week up here actually
0:15
the uh of being born outside the united states having american parents and whether or
0:20
not you'll be eligible to run for presidency so the person in question his name is
0:26
thomas smith and he was born in mexico to a mexican mother and an american father and at the age of
0:33
10 moved to the united states and became a california senator so in accordance with the u.s
0:39
constitution and current legal statutes we determined that he would be eligible for president in the 2016 election his
0:45
natural point of status was verified by his father's u.s citizenship and by the time he was democracy at the age of 35
0:51
it would be 25 years a citizen of the us we examined the legislation passed in
0:56
1954 and 1972 that liberalized the definition of natural foreign persons
1:02
born to an american system regardless of the geographical location of the birth uh we also searched for a real world
1:08
example that will kind of mitigate that claim and we examined the 2008 election which john mccain who was born to
1:14
american parents but was born in panama was still eligible to run for the presidency and so
1:20
that's what we determined excellent
1:34
are there any other positions
1:51
is there a descending view
2:05
decision was unanimous excellent uh well done
2:10
uh i want to recognize the facilitators and of course the
2:16
i believe constitutional guy who was involved i believe it's mr lashes is that correct
2:46
let's proceed with issue number two
2:59
so issue number two
3:09
issue number two for those of you who are interested deals with uh an issue concerning uh gay
3:17
gay marriage that was recognized in the state of virginia or apartment vermont
3:22
and the couple moved to mississippi over time
3:27
the marriage deteriorated and it's approximately 50 percent of them do and they wanted to seek a divorce
3:34
they tried to seek a divorce in mississippi however mississippi claimed that they do not recognize
3:41
gay marriage the question is does the privileges and
3:46
immunities clause apply as well as this
3:52
well as well as any other constitutional issues that might arise i'm not sure i believe that's the issue go right ahead
3:58
and proceed
4:12
okay so um the issue was whether or not the article four section one full faith and credit
4:20
clause should affect uh if vermont or uh mississippi is
4:25
vermont's marriage and the attorney general said it doesn't uh under mississippi constitution the state
4:31
constitution said they do not recognize their same-sex marriages but the full faith and credit shall be
4:37
given in each state to the public act their acts records and judicial proceedings of every other state so
4:45
the um the he was unconstitutional when he said that
4:50
they cannot get divorced because the constitution says that anything given one state must be recognized for the others here in the
4:56
other state that it is in so uh constitutionally the ag should allow them to get divorced even though their
5:03
marriage was not legally accepted in that state well done nicely argued
5:14
are there any other uh views or positions on the issue introduce yourself sir
5:20
hello my name is jordan robas i'm a junior at henderson high school and
5:26
i'm speaking on behalf of the legality of mississippi's decision and while i do agree with stacey and many others that
5:32
same-sex marriage and rights should be recognized in advance in all states forcing mississippi to recognize the
5:38
broad marriage by proxy through granting of a same-sex divorce is actually violating their full faith in credit
5:44
clause because this is holding vermont's laws over theirs this goes on to or
5:49
as um to be the constitution as an amendment goes on to know the power is
5:54
not delegated to the united states by the constitution which one of those is that of the right of marriage or nor
6:01
prohibited to it by the states are reserved to the states respectively for the people so thus by forcing vermont to
6:08
actually break or forcing mississippi to recognize disparage by proxy it's violating their full faith and clause
6:14
and because mississippi had lost prior to this prior to the community being formed saying that same-sex marriage is
6:20
not allowed while it is not morally right it is legally justified based on the fact that the united states uh
6:26
constitution says that all laws that are prohibiting something when it comes to states rights should be recognized and
6:33
since this was a marriage since this was after the um
6:38
the writing of the constitution it should be held a higher president than that of article thank you very much
7:01
any other any other uh spokespersons from that group well done uh facilitators and the
7:07
constitutional guides let's proceed to issue number three issue number three deals with iran
7:13
launching a nuclear attack against sony oil fields and the consequences that
7:19
occur uh who are the spokespersons for issue number three
7:40
i'm levi i'm a senior high school and i'm taking my first semester of acc welcome
7:47
um i am against uh
7:52
given the scenario about saint who is being destroyed by atomic weapons the question is are the actions of the president at the
8:00
at that moment constitutional and although a majority of my group agreed with his
8:05
initial actions which was to nationalize all state national guard units to
8:10
support supplement the u.s armed forces i won't take time away from you just to give the rest of the group some context
8:18
what occurred was a complete breakdown within the united states we
8:25
responded the president of the united states was killed as part of the attacks
8:32
the vice president took over conditions were chaotic and the president of the united states decided
8:40
to be able to maintain order to take over a number of powers what
8:46
were some of the powers that he took over he took it to his hands he assigned us armed forces
8:53
to retaliate and he also nationalized
8:58
the trucking railroads flight airlines other departments of transportation also
9:04
energy companies and a variety of others in the interest of national security the question is is this constitutional yes
9:11
and that's what you're addressing and um although most of my group did agree with
9:17
the first uh one of his first actions which was he supplemented he was on forces to both
9:23
foreign and domestic services um i cannot find anywhere in the constitution that justifies his actions
9:30
actions for uh nationalizing the companies to my understanding the congress has
9:36
this power but they do not belong to the president and in this scenario congress wasn't absent they were on
9:43
leave so uh and to my understanding the president does not inherit congress's power while
9:50
they're absent so that's why i found it thank you very much
10:00
are there any other positions on this very intriguing and controversial issue
10:06
yes sir
10:12
um i believe that uh one moment introduce yourself no i'm elijah
10:18
benjamins uh i go to school at acc rio grande i'm a freshman
10:24
um my first semester ever in college well
10:29
good to see good to see you too okay
10:35
i believe that the actions undertaken by now president biden were constitutional
10:41
uh the justification he used to ensure domestic tranquility via which is outlined in the preamble
10:49
is ruled by the supreme court to be not a valid justification of federal
10:55
federal rights but it does say elsewhere in the constitution that the president may in extraordinary cir occasions
11:02
uh act um act on behalf of
11:09
the congress in a way to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed
11:14
and there are certain presidents in the united states constitution such as the takings clause and amendment 5 the
11:22
interstate commerce clause all of which can be used to justify nationalization of the
11:30
nationalization of the trucking industry of the energy industry and
11:36
this specific article article 2 section 3 i believe the president could make an
11:41
argument that he was simply making sure the laws were being faithfully executed
11:48
in that capacity in the uh situation of this extraordinary circumstance he was acting
11:55
constitution well done sir logical
12:00
thoughtful presentation
12:07
are there any other speakers on behalf of any other position
12:12
in that applies to issue number three
12:17
seeing none let's proceed to issue number four issue number four involves a
12:26
search at an airport an acc student returning from a trip to
12:33
turkey is stopped his laptop is confiscated
12:38
and all that it contains is revealed in the process of the
12:44
investigation and the search question is
12:52
homeland security have the authority to do that
12:58
do i see a spokesperson yes sir my name is keith brown i'm a student at acc i'm
13:04
a history major and to go over the first issue
13:10
can this information be used to convict the person who they seized the laptop
13:16
from we had a general consensus that it is unconstitutional
13:24
under the fourth amendment it states that you have to be issued with a warrant or a probable
13:31
cause and it specifically says that they uh picked this person at random therefore
13:37
breaking the constitution uh the second portion of this
13:43
was can this information be used to arrest the other conspirators that were
13:48
on the laptop we had two different opinions at our table
13:53
the first opinion is that being that the fourth amendment only
13:59
covers the person that's directly being related to he would they would still be uh
14:06
possibly able to be convicted and we had another person saying that
14:11
was a moot point because uh they broke the violated amendment
14:17
sir well done you summarized your entire group's positions even the one that you
14:22
didn't embrace well done thank you
14:32
hello my name is emma barrera i'm a freshman college student at riverside
14:38
and i'm studying general sciences welcome thank you so the search involved occurred at an
14:45
airport which has the same equivalence as that of a border and the country does have a primary
14:50
interest for protecting uh border security so right off the bat travelers
14:56
should know that they have that they need to have a reduced expectation of privacy and crossing the international
15:01
border simply because people's safety could be at hand furthermore
15:08
people regard the emails that were found in this man's laptop
15:14
included some emails about blowing up some elementary schools so regardless
15:20
of whether those emails were true or not people's lives are in danger so this is why this government should put his
15:26
information to convey joseph apple stop stop stop lawyers
15:32
judges did you hear that did you hear the mobilization of legal
15:38
doctrines to make an argument somebody learned a lot of law in a short
15:45
amount of time and presented it very well you are
15:51
very
16:01
are there any other spokespersons for uh issue number four
16:06
seeing none let's move on to issue number five
16:12
issue number five deals with a very controversial issue that is very much alive
16:18
uh throughout the country and in the state of texas constitutional issue the issue of a right to an abortion
16:27
who is our spokesperson on this question how's it going my name
16:35
anderson high is yes sir brazil so we talked a lot about the 30 mile
16:41
restriction where you have to have an abortion plan within 30 miles of hospital that will admit people with
16:47
complications and we said that it was unconstitutional to require the hospitals to admit these
16:53
patients just because a lot of them leaked privately owned would not work but also the 30-mile restriction is
17:00
unneeded because there's only a point seven complication rate and in texas there's
17:06
nearly zero deaths in all of the statistics shown
17:11
we also talked about that there's just really no way to enforce
17:16
the doctor they can admit patients to a hospital can be there and the fact that they have
17:22
to the fact that they have to be present in order for the abortion part to be open
17:28
running is unconstitutional and is in fact and a violation of uh
17:34
presumably for women's right to have an abortion yes sir understand your conclusion understand
17:40
your argument because you made it so well thank you sarah
17:53
just like to give a shout out to this cause
18:06
next let us proceed
18:12
we are on issue number five
18:17
issue five do we have any more spokespersons for issue five no
18:23
seeing none let us move to issue six
18:38
hi everybody my name is i'm ashley thompson
18:45
our issue was on the united states congress passing authorization from the president to an
18:52
attack on syria syria and then stating that the president went over his boundaries have been declared
18:59
although our group did not support the resolution of congress passed but given the authorization was vaguely
19:05
worded for example number three degrade serious capacity to use women's in the future
19:10
the president's power's first constitutional under article ii section one as chief executive and article two
19:16
section two as commander-in-chief well done clear sustained to the point
19:23
so you're saying the president did have the power to authorize the
19:29
attacks on the oil fields in syria okay
19:35
and ma'am you are i am ashley thompson and ashley do you
19:42
have a uh alternative position or a descending view um
19:58
our congressional resolution that congress authorized by the president is authorized to use armed forces of the
20:05
united states as he determines to be necessary and appropriate so in saying that
20:12
it was up to the president to determine an appropriate action and he took those
20:18
actions and if congress did not want it to happen they should have been so fake
20:24
about it so you believe that the congressional authorization the language
20:29
and the authorization uh permitted the president to take the action that he did is that correct
20:35
very good both of you outstanding jobs
20:43
let us uh proceed have another spokesperson ah
20:49
go right ahead good evening i'm virginia roberts
20:54
jr and i attend multiple acc campuses and i am in opposition
21:01
to the president having the right to declare
21:06
this um after this liberation agrees in general that declaring war is
21:12
not the first choice nor the best choice in the case of syria some reasons backing this is that
21:18
it's posting a war without imminent threat our group felt that syria has not
21:25
presented a imminent threat to the united states our allies are saying no we do not
21:31
support you we're not we will not back you what is our interest in what cost is the
21:37
u.s willing to pay to go to a war and
21:42
it was proposed to be a limited war of up to 90 days but what really is limited
21:48
we feel it was a violation of the congressional power to make the attack
21:54
and as an alternative we would have
22:01
well done thank you very much
22:09
an issue that certainly is in the news you had a chance to debate and discuss
22:15
it we are on issue number seven i believe
22:21
issue seven spokesperson
22:28
okay
22:48
you introduce yourself sir hi my name is joshua thompson i attend
22:54
accf how can i major in music theory and composition yes sir go right ahead
23:00
our conclusion at least at my table excluding one of us was that the execution
23:06
of was unjustified because he was not given his right to
23:12
due process as an american citizen whether or not he was in or out of the country in this case he
23:21
though was speech may have been a credible threat words are just words and should not have enabled the united
23:27
states government to take action so you find the conduct unconstitutional
23:34
yes sir thank you well done
23:41
we have a descending view
23:48
is that the consensus
23:54
are you are you speaking uh sir uh we have someone at the microphone right now are you speaking yes sir are you
24:00
speaking on behalf of uh issue number seven listen okay go right ahead introduce yourself my name is
24:07
ibrahimovic yes i am here at acc i am the acc
24:12
senator i have been at acc for two semesters and i love it so
24:18
um what so do i all right again uh what our panel
24:23
concluded was similar to what the fact there said um so we are on the uh of the
24:29
opinion that the issue wasn't taken into account because
24:37
for the most part
24:43
it hasn't been explored enough um when we took into account the fifth and
24:48
fifteenth amendments um the right to uh fair trial grand jury he was given
24:54
that as well as the provisions granted by the 14th amendment the provisions which are
25:01
the doctrine of the corporation we feel that the government has taken steps uh too far in the modern era
25:07
and this was our viewpoint on the decision
25:12
so you find it unconstitutional but you find it unconstitutional based upon different reasons is that
25:19
correct concern well done
25:30
before i move on just to be honest out of an abundance of caution are there any other views or positions are to be
25:38
presented on issue number seven
25:43
yes boy issue number seven that's been an exciting group
25:48
let me bring it on
25:57
good evening i was the only person that was in the microwave i'll proudly
26:04
announce your name um my name is reese and i'm a student acc
26:22
because he um supposedly was mixed up with wrong people in the united states and was
26:28
involved in poorhead the shooting man so i think that it's completely
26:34
constitutional that he was executed by drone because if he was not executed
26:40
the american hegemony would completely fall the way that we've seen examples of
26:45
america jimmy fall were in iraq uh
26:50
like um they basically gave me these speeches just like this guy was doing
26:56
so how exactly could we have gotten is an important question because this is the only way that we
27:02
could have gotten imminent reality so one cost cost-benefit analysis what it costs united states and what
27:08
benefited the united states is something that we have to realize but it's extremely beneficial
27:14
even if it migrates some of your personal needs i want to stop before anybody says a
27:20
word but this gentleman just did whether you agree or disagree
27:27
epitomizes what this night is all about the ability and the right of a single
27:35
individual to articulate of you
27:40
different from everyone else
27:45
the bill of rights protects against the tyranny of the majority
27:52
and it provides people like you and each and every one of you
27:57
with the right to articulate your views well done sir
28:11
anyone else in that group
28:29
let me get uh attention um i have to selfishly say i am so proud to
28:35
see my students volunteering they know i don't bite good to see you
28:41
you're all doing great hi you'll get you'll get your credit don't worry
28:46
um before we move on let's wake up for a
28:52
moment this issue deals with enhanced terror interrogation
28:58
this is the issue dealing with really order
29:05
so i am waiting with baited breath
29:11
for the results of your deliberations so introduce yourself and tell us what you've done my name is rj rohn i
29:17
attended hcc uh so while debating this topic we came up with one main question that we asked
29:24
ourselves and that was to someone who has prepared or preparing to commit an act of terror innocent population of
29:30
people who deserve ceremonies we said no and because by committing this act of
29:36
terror the terrorist is inflicting cruel unusual punishment in a population of
29:41
innocent people therefore he does not deserve the constitutional right of not being full and unusually punished
29:48
also the fifth amendment does not apply to him because you are not asking him to
29:53
incriminate himself and finally the emergency of the situation would create
29:58
an exception to the 14th well done proud of you
30:04
thank you
30:10
do we have any other views from that group or is that the consensus now we have another view
30:16
excellent introduce yourself hi my
30:33
this version of torture anything that requires a torture
30:40
that would violate our constitutional
30:46
rights it would violate the movement because he would be incriminating himself using this torture is not a guarantee of
30:54
any information on our behalf also if we reviews our limitations and restrictions on what conditions torture
31:01
might be allowed if you are allowed to torture this on these provisions who's
31:07
to say when and when it may not be acceptable
31:13
also it will lose confidence in protecting our citizens
31:29
being able to express a view that may not conform with the majority well done
31:35
any other views from that group seeing none we're moving on to mission
31:40
number nine issue nine deals with the whole question of voter identification
31:49
do we have a spokesperson to speak on that issue
31:56
yes sir my name is matt corey
32:01
uh came out against this voter id law uh finding that
32:08
according to the 14th amendment no state should make workforce any law
32:19
jurisdiction equal protection of the laws in amendment 24 the right of citizens of
32:24
the united states to vote in any election shall not be denied bridge by the united states or any state by reason
32:30
that they were to pay any goal or other tax being that the voter id law would uh
32:35
put a financial burden on impoverished people and elderly
32:41
we will see that it would actually be viewed as a full tax
32:46
legacy of taxes as a section 5 state that you really like to suppress voters
32:55
this i find to be abhorrent
33:02
in the state of texas the past 10 years 51 cases of fraud and 24 would have been
33:08
prevented by this law this law does nothing but disenfranchised voters if you
33:13
disenfranchise one electoral voter then the whole system might as well be thrown
33:18
away because you ruin the rights of anyone it could be any one of
33:34
any other spokespersons on that issue yes we i would reported
33:40
for this law actually um my name is attending the rio grande
33:45
campus at acc and majoring in psychology and
33:50
so what we talked about is that he only spoke about the problem about the fraud
33:56
we would actually say that picture ids or id voting would protect your
34:03
your right to vote we would provide free id so there would be no cost associated with that
34:10
we would have a better accountability as well as accountability
34:17
and it would actually who would not be motivated by knowing there would be less fraud if you go vote
34:24
and um to make you feel or to make you feel
34:29
that you will actually be accounts and about the older people and the less
34:35
fortunate people um there will be other ways to make it accessible we for
34:40
example would be talking about making pictures available at the voting
34:46
booths so that we would take pictures to put it in a system and actually save it there
34:52
for next year and so on and that way for like from that point on
34:58
always
35:12
should give you the courtesy of listening
35:28
yes for voter id is constitutional thank you
35:40
any other spokespersons for our division
35:46
let's move to issue number 10. issue 10 deals with the university of texas law school
35:52
admissions policy and the question of alleged reversal discrimination we have a spokesperson
35:59
we do
36:09
hello mike i'm a first-year student at accc corporation
36:16
we signed our day and discussed many aspects of cindy hooper's uh
36:39
equal protection causes the abilities of states discriminating against people based on a race origin
36:45
gender or national status and for her to score higher than any one of the uh
36:52
other people in minority groups and foreign admission to ut
36:58
was quite
37:03
quite unconstitutional in our eyes
37:09
their website says that they are 51 white and 49 minority and according to
37:15
the us census uh the state of texas is 44 white and it just doesn't see that affirmative
37:21
action is the underlying cause behind that is good enough uh
37:28
minorities are good enough to get into their uh universes that they would like to go to
37:33
based on their status they don't need additional help well done thank you
37:40
thank you are there any other this is a controversial issue are there
37:45
any other positions on this question yes ma'am
37:57
hello everyone my name is my first semester here at acc northridge and i
38:02
would like to say that um ut was not discriminating
38:08
against angel of american acceptance but instead uh they were
38:14
pressured to act a uh because here it says black and hispanic
38:20
legislators were pressuring to increase the number of minorities in law school
38:27
so ut did not act on racial discrimination itself they were striving to reflect racial makeup of texas and
38:34
increase diversity in schools instead substantive
38:39
substantive due process under the 14 the amendment states that more than
38:46
and i forgot my little booklet if someone could help me out
39:01
you're doing fine thank you
39:31
all right it says that more than offering a process of fairness
39:36
take a deep breath you found your source what are you referring to
39:45
you're referring to the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution yes sir good it's sorry so
39:51
the rest of the group can look up the 14th amendment to the constitution they have copies of that
39:57
and refer them to the particular portion of the 14th amendment that you are relying on as authority
40:05
right it says that more than offering a process of fairness reports have found that the 14th amendment prohibits states
40:12
from harming an individual's ability to fully participate in society
40:18
just because you t reject it
40:36
appreciate
40:45
to obtain a higher education in general given her high customers anyway so the
40:52
14th avenue does not give her weight
40:58
does not give her away does not need to give her way into the ut institution
41:13
any other spokespersons on that issue
41:21
any other spokespersons on that issue yes
41:27
hello my name is jason simpson um i had to point out that she said that
41:34
she scored higher than any of the other minority groups and also that she scored higher than 50
41:41
of the whites who were accepted now i have to point out that if she scored higher than any of
41:47
the minority groups and still pretty low in the white section doesn't that point out that there's already some
41:52
discrimination inherent in society doesn't the university of texas should isn't it compelled to sort of make up
41:59
for that discrimination maybe other races didn't have as much of an educational opportunity in the k-12
42:05
system maybe they do need to be given some sort of consolation when they get to the
42:11
university level in order to eventually bridge the gap and
42:16
you know unify the races get rid of racism i mean reverse racism is wrong it's as
42:23
wrong as racism is but how else are you going to take any steps to make sure
42:29
that minorities can get into college good good for you
42:39
thank you any other spokespersons on that issue
42:44
you must have had a very interesting and lively discussion in that group
42:50
seeing no additional uh spokespersons uh i think i may have gotten some issues confused let me go to
42:57
issue number eleven issue eleven or number one
43:02
we did eleven first my mistake issue number one
43:12
thank you
43:19
so just for some brief background on the issue and introduce yourself yes my name is zach caldwell i'm a
43:25
junior at hendrickson high school and the issue we're dealing with here today regards a
43:31
law passed by the state of texas requiring all students to say the pledge of allegiance in schools the issue at
43:36
hand comes inherent within the under god clause in the pledge itself and many atheist
43:43
parents sued the state of texas on behalf claiming that this was an infringement of the establishment of
43:48
religion under the first amendment and so in order to clarify such hot topic issues as this it's important to
43:55
note that it's not about whether or not the phrase under god should be taken out of the constitution or not but rather if
44:02
the state should mandate it and we're looking to pass president of as the west virginia state board of
44:09
education versus burnett or the elk grove unified school district versus new doubt it's important to note that not
44:15
only do past court cases set the precedent that students are not required to say the pledge of allegiance in
44:21
school in the first place thus making this piece of or thus making this law
44:27
inherently unconstitutional and of itself when you look at the issue at hand in and of itself
44:33
the when looking to the first amendment stating that congress shall make no longer respecting the establishment of
44:39
religion or riveting free exercise thereof by forcing those who may not confirm the existence of a particular
44:46
monotheistic god in the first place to state this in a form like this is
44:51
directly unconstitutional because it is acting in essence as an establishment of
44:56
religion where they should not be forced to or able to and this is an
45:02
unconstitutional issue at hand well done
45:11
prior cases put your argument together in a clear fashion well done
45:18
we have a either a concurring or a descending view
45:24
my name is todd valentine i am a criminal justice major with acc
45:29
under god is more of an of patriotism i do not feel that his religious belief
45:35
under god has added to the pledge to fight communism and is how we today have pride for our
45:40
country our children should grow our own pride for our country and our soldiers
45:45
who have died for that right the pledge should stay required by all students because it is an act of
45:51
patriotism and not the practice of religion thank you sir
46:02
do we have any other any other views on this issue
46:07
if i may speak twice um you spoke on another issue did you not i did
46:13
no you may not okay do we have any other participants
46:19
in that crew who spoke wish to speak on the issue under
46:25
discussion scene none let's move on to
46:31
issue number 12.
46:40
issue number 12 deals with uh the second amendment the issue of gun regulations
46:49
okay my name is jessica morrison um and i'm a student at acc i am taking
46:56
the food law classes to hopefully prepare me for law school in 2014.
47:01
so our topic that we talked about was whether the legislature from vermont passed the law
47:08
banning the sale and use of public military sound assault weapons clips with more than
47:14
eight bullets and the sale and use of teflon cover cop killer bullets is constitutional or not
47:22
my group came up with the belief that the statute itself would be unconstitutional not because
47:29
we went one way or another on gun rights in total which we had very differing levels and opinions on but
47:36
because the statute itself is far too big and it's
47:42
it would be very hard to enforce it the vegas that we were talking about was
47:47
more of this the word sailing use does that include the sale to
47:53
police officers to military personnel would they have the ability to have those things to protect themselves from
48:00
smart criminals or criminals in general who don't necessarily obey the law
48:05
is eight rounds enough for the military or police personnel so those were kind of the big things that we found were
48:13
too too much of an issue to determine whether this would be constitutional
48:30
do we have another spokesperson on the issue of gun regulations we do indeed my
48:36
name is art whitman i'm a political science major at ut and acc
48:42
and we found this at my table to be unconstitutional because it comes into direct conflict with the second
48:48
amendment which clearly states that a road regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state is the
48:55
right of all people to keep and bear arms and that shall not be in french
49:00
a ban in itself is a direct infringement of this amendment
49:05
now the second amendment also is the only amendment that comes from the preamble
49:10
it is where it states that a well-regulated relationship being
49:16
necessary to the security of the free state which is the preamble itself we as citizens are the militia
49:23
we are well the second part of this amendment states that it's the right of us the militia the people
49:30
to keep and bear arms and any ban there so whatever it may be is an infringement of
49:36
that second amendment right thank you
49:46
okay my name is johnson i'm an acc student at rio grande
49:52
and i'm here to represent a project
49:59
as far as respect to the individual collective safety
50:04
rationally collective safety outweighs rational
50:10
individual rights
50:17
thank you sir thank
50:25
of you positions on a very hotly contested issue do we have any other spokes
50:32
spokespersons on that issue all issues have been addressed
50:38
we have had an evening deliberating and discussing and debating the constitution
50:44
we've done done so civilly intelligently and hopefully you've had some fun
50:52
some people would say can you imagine a group of students getting together for two hours and discussing the
51:00
constitution and constitutional issues what a better way i can't think of a
51:06
better way to celebrate the birthday of this magnificent document
51:14
give yourselves
51:22
all of you should be able to now receive your certificates of participation they will
51:28
be distributed thank you and good night
51:38
that you need to get credit for your professors and be picked up at the back
51:43
you're not leave if you want credit for your professors without it facilitators facilitators please come forward
51:50
facilitators and guides who are still here please come forward we want to get a group picture
51:56
facilitators please come forward on a group picture
#Discrimination & Identity Relations
#Human Rights & Liberties
#Constitutional Law & Civil Rights