Letter to my Senetor Response

Dear Trysten:

 

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and funding for its programs. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond. 

 

I oppose the ACA and believe it should be repealed, dismantled, or delayed.  This year alone, I voted for an amendment on March 13 to prohibit the use of funds to implement the ACA, and on March 22, I voted to repeal the law.  On July 11, I voted against the FY14 Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill in Committee because of ACA funding, and on July 25 I voted against the FY14 Financial Services Appropriations bill for the same reason.  During the continuing resolution debate, I supported moving forward with the House bill that would defund the ACA.  Despite my opposition and that of every Republican in the Senate, we simply do not have the votes to defund the ACA. Given that, I do not believe it was a wise strategy to shut down the government because we were unable to prevail in our legislative priority.

 

We need real health care reform that will improve Alaskans' access to care, reduce costs by allowing individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines, reform medical liability so we can limit the practice of defensive medicine, and restructure the delivery system of health care to make it more affordable and accessible.  What we don't need is a law that made promises that haven't been kept, including that Americans would have lower premiums, Americans would not see their taxes increase and that the elderly and disabled on Medicare would be protected.

 

The nation's economic path is currently unsustainable, and the rising cost of health care is a major reason for this.  America's health care system is entirely too expensive and entirely too inefficient.  I stand ready to work with anyone who wants to replace this law with something smarter, leaner and more responsive to Alaskans.

 

Again, thank you for contacting me. 

 

 
 

     

United States Senator

http://murkowski.senate.gov*

First Amendment and Social Media

As social media becomes more and more prevalent in everyday American life, we have to reevaluate the way that the first amendment applies to these medias. People post their thoughts on websites like Facebook or Twitter, without thinking about the consequences of what their saying. It is second nature to vent your feelings on Facebook when you are upset about someone or something, without taking into consideration the people who can see and share these comments. It is common practice for future or current employers to look at an employees social media account.

Sally Bercow, the wife of the Speaker of the UK Parliament, has recently been sued for accusing Lord McAlpine of sexual abuse against a child on her Twitter account. Mrs. Bercow lost the case and is warning others to be cautious of what they say on the internet. Cases like Bercow vs. McAlpine will most likely become more and more common.  To read about the case, go to the link below:

Sally Bercow's Libellous Tweet

Ch.6 Sec.2 Answers

1) List and describe the three types of speech.
    a. Pure Speech
        I. The verbal expression of thought and opinion before an audience that has chosen to listen
    b. Speech Plus
        I. Actions such as marching, demonstrating, or picketing as well as words 
    c. Symbolic Speech
        I. Using actions and symbols in place of words to express opinion

2) How has Congress regulated speech? List three ways and describe each.
     a. Clear and Present Danger Test
         I. When the speech presents a danger to the nation, especially during a time of war the first amendment doesn't protect them
     b. The Bad Tendency Doctrine
         I. Speech can be restricted even if it has a tendency to be harmful, this hasn't really been used sense the 1920's but could lead to the unnecessary revocation of the first amendment
     c. The Preferred Position Doctrine
         I. This doctrine is in place to hold the first amendment over most other rights because it is viewed as more important, and stops the making of unnecessary laws that limit this freedom 

3) Why types of speech is not protected?
     a. Defamatory Speech
         I. The use of oral or written forms of speech, to falsely ruin someones reputation or good name
     b. Fighting Words
         I. The use of any offensive, derisive, or annoying words in an attempt to provoke physical violence
     c. Student Speech
         I. Student speech has been limited so that activities pertain to the curriculum such as the regulation of speech in school newspapers, theater productions, and other school activities 

4) How have changes in Supreme Court definitions of seditious speech expanded First Amendment rights? Cite cases to support your answer.
At first seditious speech referred to anyone who even spoke of rebellion as well as people who acted on it (Dennis v. United States). Later on the needed to narrow the definition of seditious speech, (Yates v. United States) Just because someone talked about acting out is not illegal and isn't the same as actually taking action.

5) List how the Supreme court has limited student speech.
The have regulated what the students can freely say during school activities or classes. 

Ch.6 Sec.3 Answers

 1) Why do most groups have to obtain a permit to parade or hold a demonstration? 
 It was made to make sure that they do not interfere with other citizens using the area.

2) Why was the Nazi party in Skokie allowed to march?  What dilemmas or controversies does this case bring up? 
A federal district court determined that residents can't require such a high price for a parade permit just because the group is unpopular. The Nazis believed that the high price of the permit was going against their freedom of speech and of assembly. Also, the citizens felt as if the demonstration would infringe on their rights as well.   

3) Describe dilemmas that a free society faces in setting limits on freedom of assembly.  
People would feel as though their voice is being suppressed. We set limits on the freedom of assembly to protect other people's rights. Whose rights do we protect? The people who are assembling of the people who feel that the assembly is infringing on their rights?

4) When may the right to assemble be limited on public and private property?
When it goes against the rights of others and interferes with the intended purpose of the facility. The right to assemble doesn't allow for people to protest on private property, even when it is open to the public.

A Letter To My Senator

Trysten Burnham
P.O. Box 342
Skagway, Alaska 99840
October 9, 2013

The Honorable Senator Murkowski
 709 Hart Senate Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Murkowski:

My name is Trysten Burnham and I reside in Skagway, Alaska. I am in the eleventh grade attending Skagway High School. I am writing to you to voice my concern about the issues currently facing our nation.

The Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590) and the government shutdown are two issues that I would like to discuss. I can explain my position on The Affordable Care Act in three points: insurance prices will be more competitive, it offers coverage to people with pre-existing health problems, and it benefits young adults under the age of 26. Then, I will offer my opinion of the government shutdown.

The Affordable Care Act will force insurance companies to offer more affordable prices due to a more competitive market. This new "Health Insurance Marketplace" makes it easier for individuals, families, and small businesses to get insurance. This is a good thing for young families who want to ensure the health of their children, giving these young parents much needed piece of mind.

Next, insurance companies will not be able to deny applicants with pre-existing health conditions. Also, insurance companies will be unable to drop their insurance clients just because their ailment gets too serious. This benefits Americans who become ill and need support to pay their medical bills.

I will be 18 years old in less than two years. The idea that I can be covered by my father's insurance until the age of 26 is reassuring as I go to college and begin my career. Students and young Americans around the country won't have to worry about finding their own insurance until they are well on their way to financial stability.

I find it irresponsible that both political parties are unable to find middle ground and pass a spending bill.The government shutdown is a direct result of the republicans and democrats not having concern for the good of the people. Thousands of citizens, who depend on their government paychecks, are sitting at home instead of working due to this shutdown. The negative aspects of The Affordable Car Act are not worth shutting down the government. Using the importance of the spending bill as leverage to destroy the Affordable Care Act is petty.

These matters are all very important, and I understand that there is no easy answer. Thank you for your time, I would appreciate you taking the time to consider what I have expressed in this letter. Please send me a response with your standpoint on these issues, I would love to hear the opinions of my state senator.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Trysten Burnham

The Responsibilities of Citizens

1) Knowing About Rights and Laws
     a. To know and understand the laws throughout the U.S.
     b. To know and utilize their rights

2) Take part in politics and be aware of whats going on

3)Voting
    a. Take part in choosing our nations leaders

4) Voter Participation
     a. Everyone should take part in elections

5) Give support to political groups you believe in