Same-sex marriage views according to team 5 - Tosin Onibiyo

   The third video created by team 5 was about the same sex marriage in the society today. In our respective opinions, we collectively agreed that Same sex marriage has been drastically accepted over the years; let's say since ten to 20 years ago. Same sex marriages were been categorized as abomination before (a sodomy act); that cannot be done or stand in the society and people who were involved will get convicted for it because it was classified as illegal; a crime. But today, it is a different story entirely. Even though in some part of the world, it's still looked upon as a sodomy and unusual act, the society is beginning to accept it as a norm in certain countries and for example, the United States as it's been legalized in certain states now including New Jersey! Even though same sex people are still most time stared out weirdly here and there, I believe as also the group agrees that within ten years from now, it will be more accepted by majority if not all and be classified as a social norm in our society. 

Video to this is in drop box. Enjoy! 

Justice McLean Analysis in Dworkin Perspective - Tosin Onibiyo

   Justice John McLean, in his dissent to the decision in the case Scott v. Sandford (1857), pointed out Taney's historical errors. First he emphasize the time of the Founding of the United States, and how several states had admitted free persons of the color to the suffrage-thereby recognizing them as citizens. Furthermore, he explained that being colored is not and has never been an inherent disqualifier for citizenship; right after the Mexican War, the U. S. made citizens of "all grades, combinations, and colors." According to Justice McLean, neither the Founders nor the Constitution explicitly promoted slavery; rather, slavery was a system imposed on the colonies by their mother-country and the Founders were careful to protectthe Constitution's language against the mentions of slavery. Justices McLean and Curtis argued, contrary to Taney, that every free person born on the soil of a state and a citizen of that state is also a citizen of the United States. Moreover, they also defended the Missouri Compromise's constitutionality; because it was passed intensely by Congress and approved as by the president as constitutional; no one had thought of questioning its constitutionality not until the Dred Scott decision,   for that would also call into question the constitutionality of Congress's first act: prohibition on slavery in the Northwest territories andthe renewal of the Northwest Ordinance.

If Ronald  Dworkin was to analyze the opinions of the case Scott V. Sandford, especially the dissent opinion been focused on in this paper, I believe he will argue about Judicial Activism; which is the theory under which judges may 'actively' interpret the law on a broad plane and are not necessarily constrained to relying on the sources and issues strictly before them as Justice McLean as done in his dissent He broadly interpreted the case and not narrowing it specifically to any source like the other Justices have done except Curtis. . In addition, as predicted of what Dworkin’s analyses will be; activism is a necessity when the other branches of government do not act to bring about social change. Just like when the other justices didn’t bring about any ‘social change,’ Justice McLean and Curtis did. They stood their grounds and broadly emphasized on the citizenship aspect, the constitution and Congress’ Act.

Shapiro's meaning of legal interpretation linked to Dred Scott decision -Tosin Onibiyo

         According to Shapiro, Interpretation is the activity through which a legal text is given a certain meaning: any act of interpretation, then, can subsumed under a certain “interpretive methodology,” that is, “a method for reading legal texts”

Every legal culture allows for a vast array of interpretive methodologies. Moreover in any case, (a): more than one interpretive methodology can be legitimately available to the interpreter, and (b)the different interpretive methodologies available to the interpreter can lead to different interpretive results. The conclusion immediately follows that the interpreter, in most cases (maybe, always), is supposed to make a choice between the various interpretive methodologies available. (Shapiro)

​And in this case, the Supreme Court diverted from what the framers intended when they created the Constitution. They gave their own meaning (interpretation) to what they think the constitution say and judged a fellow human as not a citizen, having no right to bring suit to federal court as well as just a property to another without any consideration; which makes them divert from the limits of the Constitution. And as Shapiro insinuated, before concluding any in any case, choices as supposed to be made as per what is the Constitution really means and say (in this case) instead of totally diverting from limitations of the constitution and making decisions based on their own beliefs or feelings.

Marijuana Scandal; Team 5. Tosin Onibiyo

So in this second video, there was a lot more going back and forth than the usual. I called it "angry birds video." We basically spilled our minds towards the legalization of Marijuana; how we think it will better the society or not. 

In my perspective, I think Marijuana should be legalized but to some degree/level. Not just legalizing it for the fun of it ( meaning people should just smoke anytime they feel they need to "chill" "relax" or be in their comfort zone - "high") but actually for a purpose, that will benefit people and make them better. It has been scientifically proven this plant - Marijuana helps some cases of health issues. It makes some certain types of sicknesses better and make them not sick instead of using all crazy chemicals from factories that make these people even more sick, nauseous, delusional and much worse. Some in my team believes it should be legalized to relief tax payers, reduce jail time of smokers who smuggled weed illegally and some other reasons. Marijuana shouldn't just be legalized because "I feel the need to be high right now" - kind of concept. It should be legalized for other reason that will benefit the sick and beneficiary to our society. 

Here's the link below. Enjoy! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNIcp_gwcaw

Part 2 - Leviathan; Hobbes. Tosin Onibiyo

Furthermore, as Hobbes has emphasized, three principals that causes men to quarrel and be at a stage of war are: Competition which makes men invade others for benefits and gain, Diffidence – act of self-defense; for safety, and Glory for reputation. To prevent this warre Hobbes believed that man needed some outside influence to keep them in awe, as man in the natural human state without this outside influence is in a state of war of 'every man against every man’. Men must choose to cede their rights (laying exact amount of rights as others) to a Leviathan; a state of Leviathan, (social contract) who must then have absolute control of things and their lives. In exchange, they will receive protection and security – civil rights and law which creates a civil society and civil society brings forth Common Wealth (Respublica) “The only way to erect such a common power… , is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all theirwills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or assembly of men, to bear their person; and every one to own and acknowledge himself to be author of whatsoever he that so beareth their person shall act,or cause to be acted, in those things which concern the common peace and safety; and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgements to his judgement. This is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all in one andthe same person, made by covenant of every man with every man, in such manner as if every man should say to every man: Iauthorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner.This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH” (Hobbes, 227).

This arrangement will last until such time as the sovereign is no longer able to provide protection and security, at which time it will dissolve. How can the Leviathan crash or dissolve? According to Hobbes, being taken back to the State of Nature can happen when men who gave up their rights to the Leviathan; and those rights are being taken back or when a man asks for more benefit for example from the Leviathan and another, then another; he also said it to be void when the Leviathan could no longer protect you, no security of your life and property; thisautomatically leads to the crash of the governmental body and then goes right back to the state of nature which is the state of chaos. This is why according to Hobbes, it is impossible to take back rights when laid down to the Leviathan. Therefore, without a strong central government like the leviathan, life is just grief because of man’s daily struggle. This is why he argues thatsecurity and peace is a better way of life. And to obtain and maintain this peace and security, every person agrees to give up the right to govern themselves and by giving the power to an individual, or group, who would create peace and security for all subjects with all means necessary. Hobbes also argued that people after laying down these rights must obey the law in return for order and security.

Overall argument of Hobbes. Part 1 - Leviathan. Tosin Onibiyo

In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes emphasizes about the account of an unchangeable human nature, with his prescription for a system in which a supreme sovereign rules with absolute power given up by all subjects to a person or persons that would then govern all. “Right is layd aside, either by simply Renouncing it; or by transferring it to another. By simply renouncing; when he cares not to whom the benefit thereofredoundeth. By transferring; when he intendeth the benefit thereof to some certain person or persons. And when a man hath in either manner abandoned or granted away his right; then is he said to be obliged, or bound, not to hinder those to whom such right is granted, or abandoned, from the benefit of it: and that he ought, and it is duty, not to make void that voluntary act of his own: and that such hindrance is injustice, and injury, as being sine jure; the right being before renounced or transferred”(Hobbes, 191). Hobbes, here tries to clarify how we collectively as a whole create the power that rules and governs over us, it does not come from God but from every one of us by laying/giving up our rights all equally to that person or persons. We are the artificer of the state, creator of our society and not society or politics creating us. Why does Hobbes believe we have to lay down our rights to this one body?

Hobbes believes this is the best form of government because men are equall in nature, men are not good or bad, men just wants to survive and to survive, will do anything; Natural Right. Hobbes believed that the life of man in a state of nature is“solitary, poor, nasty, and brutish and short… Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he”(Hobbes, 186; 183). And to Hobbes, this is a problem. Why? Because men are self-centered, selfish, driven by a perpetual andrestless desire for the same things such as power and other things needed to survive, he argued that man's fundamental concern is with self-preservation. “And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavour to destroy or subdue one another.And from hence it comes to pass that where an invader hath no more to fear than another man's single power, if one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united to dispossess and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labour, but also of his life or liberty. And the invader again is in the like danger of another” (Hobbes, 184). In the pursuit of these desires, men have to fight one another (competition) become enemies which leads to warre of all against all, in which the constant threat of violent death will loom over every man. Why warre? Because at this time, before everyman gave up one right or the other, men lived without a common power; i.e. no rules, regulations or law to keep men in awe “during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man” (Hobbes, 185).

My little summary and perspective on Dred Scott and the awful decision! - Tosin Onibiyo

Dred Scott V. Sandford

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) was about Scott who was a slave in Missouri.  From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state where slavery was forbidden) with his master Dr. John Emerson, an Army Surgeon. In 1836, Emerson moved with Scott from Illinois to Fort Snelling, in present – day Minnesota, well north of 36 degrees 30’ in old Louisiana territory, where slavery had been banned by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. In 1838, Emerson returned to Missouri with Scott. After returning to Missouri, Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. The lower court held for Scott, but the state Supreme Court reversed the decision in 1852 claiming whatever Scott’s legal status outside Missouri, he remained a slave under Missouri law.  Scott then brought a new suit in federal court. Where the Supreme Court denied Scott’s request to be a free man and ruled in a 7-2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules and also that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States, ruling an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional for the second time in its history.

In my opinion, honestly, this was sincerely the worst decision in the American history. Like Nussbaum (under the disgust perspective) - I am highly "disgusted" by the decision of the Justices.  7-2 decision, not even a 5-4 (something closer) it's highly disappointing how humans can label other human like themselves properties, a second hand citizen, minorities and all sort. Just disgusting! 

Team 5 - Show and tell video blog - Tosin Onibiyo

    To start with, actually this video was fun and amazing. All we had to do is relax and give our own personal views and opinion on slavery, particualry; Dres Scott case decision by Chief Justice Taney's Court. We equally spake and voiced our opinions on how it was wrong or right and how it has helped black people generally in our society today. Since the decision as emphasized on in the video, it has drastically changed the way black people are treated upon in the society one way or the other; either as a slave, property or as a minority. It has helped changed the society's view on black drastically since the decision if not all quite yet. Overall, the video helped bring us all together and learn as well from one another. Link to the video below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l0wvxSxuPo

Enjoy!