8/11/2019 Wtp Current Events

1/2

Current Events

Week 1: 6/24/13

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/us/supreme-court-rules-human-genes-may-not-be-

patented.html

This article discusses the patenting o human genes. The article discusses how the !upreme "ourt

unanimously ruled that human genes could not be patented. #t irst discusses the bac$ground o the

case. %yriad genetics tried patenting human genes. &owe'er( the "ourt ound that patenting human

genes was illegal because genes did not constitute an actual inno'ation. #nstead( genes were ruled

to be a product o nature. The court ruled that only methods o isolating genes( not tests based on

the genes themsel'es could be patented. This o'erruled protests that disco'ering genes was not

only inno'ati'e( but speciically isolated )*+ se,uences were not actually ound in nature actually

a alse premise scientiically but....

+t irst( this article seems not to be directly related to the "onstitution. &owe'er( besides its

direct subect matter discussing patenting genes( this article is interesting or a number o otherreasons. irst( the issue o patenting genes raises a pri'acy ,uestion. The products that %yriad

produced were obtained rom patients thus patenting could raise the ,uestion o whether genes are

a part o persons property. hat is "onstitutionally deined as the limits o what a person5 really is

!econd( 7ustice !calia nicely summari8ed some o my suspicions about this case. &e stated that he

is unable to airm those details 9o molecular biology on my own $nowledge or e'en my own

belie.5 )oubtlessly( the "ourt must rule on a 'ariety o issues that not all the ustices can be e;perts

on. &owe'er( as gray areas o science and especially biology arise( should ustices who cannot be

e;pected to understand the ull nuances o these processes be entitled to pass udgement

regardless

Week 2: 6/25/13

http://online.ws.com/article/!>=324412604?=>?1=602??@?044@>.html

This article discusses the recent !upreme "ourt decision regarding airmati'e action. The article

began by pointing out that the !upreme "ourt a'oided ruling on the constitutionality o airmati'e

action. #nstead( it called or states to ree'aluate programs with airmati'e action and e'aluate i

these programs really enhanced learning e;periences. %oreo'er( this article discussed precedent

or airmati'e action. #n Arutter 's

8/11/2019 Wtp Current Events

2/2

di'ersity5 has a measurable positi'e eect upon education and is necessary or a good education.

inally( e'en i di'ersity is pro'en to ha'e a measurable positi'e eect something which is 'ery

much in ,uestion( it still remains to be seen i this is good enough o a prerogati'e to 'iolate the

basic rights to e,uality set or the in the C,ual Drotection "lause.

Week 3: 7/6/13

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21?>04=?-getting-bill-through-house-will-be-harder-

climbing-border-ence-highest

This article discusses the new immigration bill. #t discusses the hurdles that this bill is acing getting

through the &ouse. There is a national consensus that we need a change in our current immigration

policy. &owe'er( the orm that this change will ta$e is not well agreed upon. This particular article

touches upon how there is a sharp di'ide in 'iews o how to treat illegal aliens. %any Eepublican

senators disappro'e o any attempt to grant amnesty because they eel that granting amnesty will

simply encourage more illegal immigration. Eepublican senators also do not want to grant a path tociti8enship( while )emocrats are embracing this policy at all costs. C'en in light o the possible

political allout or the Eepublican party as a whole i they oppose a popular measure among a ast

growing constituency( most Eepublicans do not support a path citi8enship nonetheless.

This issue is interesting or two reasons. irst( the ,uestions o citi8enship is an important one in

conte;t o the "onstitution. The ,uestion o how to treat illegal aliens under the law while not

'iolating the undamental rights that the "onstitution itsel rests on is an interesting one. &owe'er(

e'en more interesting is the sharp contrast between the &ouse and the !enate( especially among

Eepublicans. The &ouse is set up as an institution to relect the local 'iews o people. &owe'er(

because o gerrymandering( the &ouse is seeing an e'er increasing split. #t tends to a'or the more

rural( white population that occupies a geographically dominant part o the country. &owe'er( other

institutions( li$e the !enate and the Dresidency more relect the 'iew o the urban and more liberal

leaning( but geographically concentrated section o the population. This split is leading to both the

gridloc$ we see stopping this bill( and a contrast between national interests and local interests.

#n a broader historical and constitutional conte;t( this ,uestion o urban rural di'ide is

bemoaned by pundits as a undamental and irreconcilable bloc$ade to progress as e'idenced by

this article. &owe'er( this ,uestion has persisted since the early days o the republic( as seen by the

di'ide between localists and the cosmopolitanists at the end o the 1>th century.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21580475-getting-bill-through-house-will-be-harder-climbing-border-fence-highesthttp://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21580475-getting-bill-through-house-will-be-harder-climbing-border-fence-highesthttp://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21580475-getting-bill-through-house-will-be-harder-climbing-border-fence-highesthttp://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21580475-getting-bill-through-house-will-be-harder-climbing-border-fence-highest