Justices David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Ginsburg dissented. They believed that a woman’s body is hers, and she should have the freedom to do with it as she chooses. They claimed this ban is an invasion of a woman’s privacy.
The other five justices were in favor of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. They were Justices, Antonio Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
My Own Argument
Partial-Birth Abortion, there’s just no justification there. As was stated by the Supreme, It is never medically necessary for a woman to have this procedure done. There are supplementary steps that can be taken, other abortion procedures that are safer and much less evasive.
I absolutely agree with the ban. Had I been one of the Supreme Court Justices, I would have been amid those who ruled that the procedure be forbidden. Women today have so many choices, there are contraceptive methods. While I agree that human beings have the right to make their own decisions, I diverge that they should never be allowed to just terminate another human beings life at will. What’s the difference with a person just shooting someone? Yet, they would be charged with murder. Why then should a woman, with or without the support of a man, just determine to end a life.
A woman can have power over whether she wants to be pregnant, except for a case of rape, or if she’s in an abusive relation where her partner doesn’t permit contraceptive.
In normal circumstances, she can take the pill, ask her partners to use a condom, ask her Gynecologist for other options that is available. Daily, just by watching television, hundreds of ads are aired on birth control methods. We have a choice.
These unborn babies do not have a voice, therefore someone has to come forward on their behalf, and actions have to be taken to ensure that careless acts don’t result in the death of another human being.
Partial-birth is allowing the fetus to pass through the body half-way through, then killing it and extracting it from the woman’s body. D&E (dilation and evacuation), and D&X (dilation and extraction) are two safer ways to perform an abortion. Doctors argue that the ruling is vague, but their only trying to rationalize their acts, the part they take in assisting these women in these dreadful acts of murder.
Not only is this act illegal, i deem it unethical as well.
I absolutely agree with the ban. Had I been one of the Supreme Court Justices, I would have been amid those who ruled that the procedure be forbidden. Women today have so many choices, there are contraceptive methods. While I agree that human beings have the right to make their own decisions, I diverge that they should never be allowed to just terminate another human beings life at will. What’s the difference with a person just shooting someone? Yet, they would be charged with murder. Why then should a woman, with or without the support of a man, just determine to end a life.
A woman can have power over whether she wants to be pregnant, except for a case of rape, or if she’s in an abusive relation where her partner doesn’t permit contraceptive.
In normal circumstances, she can take the pill, ask her partners to use a condom, ask her Gynecologist for other options that is available. Daily, just by watching television, hundreds of ads are aired on birth control methods. We have a choice.
These unborn babies do not have a voice, therefore someone has to come forward on their behalf, and actions have to be taken to ensure that careless acts don’t result in the death of another human being.
Partial-birth is allowing the fetus to pass through the body half-way through, then killing it and extracting it from the woman’s body. D&E (dilation and evacuation), and D&X (dilation and extraction) are two safer ways to perform an abortion. Doctors argue that the ruling is vague, but their only trying to rationalize their acts, the part they take in assisting these women in these dreadful acts of murder.
Not only is this act illegal, i deem it unethical as well.
Rule of Law
Roe vs. Wade was the case used as precedence.
On January 22nd, 1973 the U.S Supreme Court decided the case of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), recognizing the inclusion of a woman’s decision to carry out or terminate a pregnancy under the constitutional right to privacy. The court sided with ‘Jane Roe’, an unmarried woman from Texas seeking a safe and legal abortion. The ruling decriminalized abortion and set a precedent for more than 30 future rulings involving access to abortion.
(http://www.prochoicepower.org/issues/roe-vs-wade.html)
In addition, the Court distinguished the Stenberg case, which previously struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion law. The Court held that the state statute at issue in Stenberg was more ambiguous than the later federal statute at issue in Carhart.
(http://www.priestsforlife.org/pba/05-1382respondent.pdf)
These cases have been the controversy for other abortion suits thereafter. While the courts have ruled to prevent the tragic deaths of these unborn babies, it has been said, that the courts only rule to prevent women from having the right to make their own determinations whether or not to keep an unwanted child.
On January 22nd, 1973 the U.S Supreme Court decided the case of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), recognizing the inclusion of a woman’s decision to carry out or terminate a pregnancy under the constitutional right to privacy. The court sided with ‘Jane Roe’, an unmarried woman from Texas seeking a safe and legal abortion. The ruling decriminalized abortion and set a precedent for more than 30 future rulings involving access to abortion.
(http://www.prochoicepower.org/issues/roe-vs-wade.html)
In addition, the Court distinguished the Stenberg case, which previously struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion law. The Court held that the state statute at issue in Stenberg was more ambiguous than the later federal statute at issue in Carhart.
(http://www.priestsforlife.org/pba/05-1382respondent.pdf)
These cases have been the controversy for other abortion suits thereafter. While the courts have ruled to prevent the tragic deaths of these unborn babies, it has been said, that the courts only rule to prevent women from having the right to make their own determinations whether or not to keep an unwanted child.
Reasoning of the Court
This case didn’t just start in the Supreme Court. Cases have to be tried at other levels and then appealed in order to make it to the Supreme Court. This case was very intriguing. This case was challenging the Constitution.
According to Law Professor Richard Garrett at Notre Dame Law School;
“For as long as Americans have known about partial-birth abortion,” Garnett said, “they have--by comfortable and consistent margins--agreed with the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan that it is ‘infanticide,’ and that ‘one would be too many.’ Nothing in our constitutional text, history, tradition, or structure supports, let alone compels, the conclusion that the American people may not affirm our commitment to decency and human dignity by rejecting partial-birth abortion.”
(http://www.nd.edu/~lumen/2006_11/Lawprofessorarguesforbanonpartialbirthabortion.shtml)
This case started in Nebraska in 1997 as Gonzales vs. Carhart. Dr. brought this suit against the State for ban on Partial-Birth Abortions. That case resulted in the 2000 Supreme Court decision, Stenberg v. Carhart, striking down Nebraska's law. Since then, this case has stirred several State suits across the Country, declaring this ban unconstitutional.
(Taken from the priestforlife website)
This appeal reaches this Court with a factual record compiled after a lengthy trial including testimony from numerous highly-credentialed and respected medical experts with expertise in second-trimester surgical abortions, and a District Court ruling containing detailed findings of fact that are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.
(http://www.priestsforlife.org/pba/05-1382respondent.pdf)
It is constantly argued that the ruling is vague, and that it should expand to a woman’s health, whereas the Court argued that Partial-Birth Abortions has no bearing on the health of the mother. Other options are given, therefore Partial-birth is never medically necessary. Abortionist, however, disagree with the court’s decision, and constantly find ways to protest.
According to Law Professor Richard Garrett at Notre Dame Law School;
“For as long as Americans have known about partial-birth abortion,” Garnett said, “they have--by comfortable and consistent margins--agreed with the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan that it is ‘infanticide,’ and that ‘one would be too many.’ Nothing in our constitutional text, history, tradition, or structure supports, let alone compels, the conclusion that the American people may not affirm our commitment to decency and human dignity by rejecting partial-birth abortion.”
(http://www.nd.edu/~lumen/2006_11/Lawprofessorarguesforbanonpartialbirthabortion.shtml)
This case started in Nebraska in 1997 as Gonzales vs. Carhart. Dr. brought this suit against the State for ban on Partial-Birth Abortions. That case resulted in the 2000 Supreme Court decision, Stenberg v. Carhart, striking down Nebraska's law. Since then, this case has stirred several State suits across the Country, declaring this ban unconstitutional.
(Taken from the priestforlife website)
This appeal reaches this Court with a factual record compiled after a lengthy trial including testimony from numerous highly-credentialed and respected medical experts with expertise in second-trimester surgical abortions, and a District Court ruling containing detailed findings of fact that are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.
(http://www.priestsforlife.org/pba/05-1382respondent.pdf)
It is constantly argued that the ruling is vague, and that it should expand to a woman’s health, whereas the Court argued that Partial-Birth Abortions has no bearing on the health of the mother. Other options are given, therefore Partial-birth is never medically necessary. Abortionist, however, disagree with the court’s decision, and constantly find ways to protest.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
What i think of the Supreme Court
As it is currently, the Supreme Court has two women and seven men as Supreme Court Justices. This consists of a Chief Justice, and eight Associate Justices. The Supreme Court is the highest court. Here is where matters that have not been suitably resolved in lower courts get decided, if they ever get taken. Despite the thousands of cases that are sent in to the court annually, only a small number gets chosen approximately 100.
These justices are put in place to protect the law of the country; they interpret and carry out the law. These people are supposed to be trust-worthy. Their decisions are final.
However, they are humans like everyone else. They may not be the people you like, people you trust, and your decisions may vary from theirs. Truth is, they disagree with each other sometimes, why then can’t you disagree with the final decision?
Changes are slowly being made. Women are chosen as justices. Even recently a Hispanic woman was chosen. What I would like to see is a more mixed pool of justices. More women, different races, varied religions, and just as the country itself is set up, the court should reflect that just the same.
This would make a tremendous difference. Cases would be decided differently. With more men, the decisions are one-sided, but add women to the mix and you have a wider perspective on things. When it comes to the issue of race, this will also be effective when everyone has a voice in these issues. If you’re not from a certain race or sex, it’s more difficult for you to make a decision on an issue concerning such, but if there is someone who is able to identify with that issue, then the discussion gets to be more interesting. More light will be shed and the decision might end up being more justified and fair.
These justices are put in place to protect the law of the country; they interpret and carry out the law. These people are supposed to be trust-worthy. Their decisions are final.
However, they are humans like everyone else. They may not be the people you like, people you trust, and your decisions may vary from theirs. Truth is, they disagree with each other sometimes, why then can’t you disagree with the final decision?
Changes are slowly being made. Women are chosen as justices. Even recently a Hispanic woman was chosen. What I would like to see is a more mixed pool of justices. More women, different races, varied religions, and just as the country itself is set up, the court should reflect that just the same.
This would make a tremendous difference. Cases would be decided differently. With more men, the decisions are one-sided, but add women to the mix and you have a wider perspective on things. When it comes to the issue of race, this will also be effective when everyone has a voice in these issues. If you’re not from a certain race or sex, it’s more difficult for you to make a decision on an issue concerning such, but if there is someone who is able to identify with that issue, then the discussion gets to be more interesting. More light will be shed and the decision might end up being more justified and fair.
Decision of the Court
Though the argument of the case Roe vs. Wade which was used as precedent for this case, which the ruling for that case was somewhat different, the court made a 5-4 ruling to ban partial –birth abortion.
In the Roe vs. Wade case, it dealt with a young woman wanting the right to terminate a pregnancy under the advice and supervision of her doctor.
The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters.
(The Oyez Project, Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973) available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18)
Meanwhile, abortion is still legal. Certain types of abortions, that is. There is D&X, which is dilation and extraction. In this method the doctor uses forceps to extract the fetus from the mother. The other legal procedure is D&E, dilation and evacuation; this is a more evasive method.
In the court’s decision, it stated that it was never medically necessary for a woman to have this partial-birth procedure to ensure the mother’s health. It was however a very cruel way to end life. Some stated that the decision made by the supreme court was vague because it raised the question on who could perform this procedure, and under what circumstances.
Below, taken from Cornell University’s website, is a brief description on the court’s decision and the argument raised from it:
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 does not include an exception for situations that endanger the health of the woman. Pursuant to Casey and Stenberg, an abortion regulation is unconstitutional when it fails to include such a provision if the regulated procedure may occasionally be necessary “to preserve a woman’s life or health.” In the wake of Stenberg, however, Congress concluded that the partial-birth abortion procedure would never be so required. Congress’s finding notwithstanding, a number of circuit courts have found the Ban unconstitutional on its face because of the lack of a health exception or otherwise. Thus, the Court’s decision will not only impact the future of abortion regulation, but also resolve the conflict between Congress and the courts.
(http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/05-1382)
In the Roe vs. Wade case, it dealt with a young woman wanting the right to terminate a pregnancy under the advice and supervision of her doctor.
The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters.
(The Oyez Project, Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973) available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18)
Meanwhile, abortion is still legal. Certain types of abortions, that is. There is D&X, which is dilation and extraction. In this method the doctor uses forceps to extract the fetus from the mother. The other legal procedure is D&E, dilation and evacuation; this is a more evasive method.
In the court’s decision, it stated that it was never medically necessary for a woman to have this partial-birth procedure to ensure the mother’s health. It was however a very cruel way to end life. Some stated that the decision made by the supreme court was vague because it raised the question on who could perform this procedure, and under what circumstances.
Below, taken from Cornell University’s website, is a brief description on the court’s decision and the argument raised from it:
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 does not include an exception for situations that endanger the health of the woman. Pursuant to Casey and Stenberg, an abortion regulation is unconstitutional when it fails to include such a provision if the regulated procedure may occasionally be necessary “to preserve a woman’s life or health.” In the wake of Stenberg, however, Congress concluded that the partial-birth abortion procedure would never be so required. Congress’s finding notwithstanding, a number of circuit courts have found the Ban unconstitutional on its face because of the lack of a health exception or otherwise. Thus, the Court’s decision will not only impact the future of abortion regulation, but also resolve the conflict between Congress and the courts.
(http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/05-1382)
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Issues of the Case
The issues of this partial-birth abortion case, was whether or not it was clear enough for the doctors to be able to differentiate what abortion procedures were covered under the law and what weren’t.
Doctors claim this is a necessary procedure. They are in the business of saving lives, why do they feel obligated to kill the innocent?
In an interview conducted by Chief Justice Roberts with Mr. Clement, a representatives for the doctors who performed these operations, when asked:
Justice Kennedy: Well, my question is the same as Justice Breyer's.
Is there anything in the literature, including medical literature, that talks about significant or minor risks?
I mean, you fill out forms when you go to the dentist about risks.
Now, if... if the chance of death is one out of 100, is that significant?
I mean, I don't know.
His response was:
Mr. Clement: Well, it's a very difficult question to evaluate in the abstract, Justice Kennedy.
And I think it actually, that question, though, has direct bearing on this case, because Congress after all found that there was some risks with the D&X procedure.
The most prominent one that I would point to is the risk of cervical incompetence because the D&X procedure does... it does require additional dilation, which can be associated with risks of losing future pregnancies.
And that was born out, although not at a level of statistical significance, in the Chasen study by a plaintiff practitioner, where 2 of the 17 women who had the D&X procedure and were available for follow up care had an early preterm pregnancy in the follow up.
So I think those risks are born out in the only study that's available.
And I think the question becomes, now, if D&X were some life saving procedure for something that there was no other known cure for, you might think, well, those are the risks you run.
But when there remains available the D&E procedure, which has been well tested and works every single time as a way to terminate the pregnancy, then I think risks that, if you were talking about a life saving treatment for some life threatening condition with no known cure, those risks might not be significant in that context.
(Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood - Oral Argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1382/argument/)
If these people know of the risks, yet deem them insignificant, how can they be trusted?
These are the people you trust with your health on a daily basis.
Doctors claim this is a necessary procedure. They are in the business of saving lives, why do they feel obligated to kill the innocent?
In an interview conducted by Chief Justice Roberts with Mr. Clement, a representatives for the doctors who performed these operations, when asked:
Justice Kennedy: Well, my question is the same as Justice Breyer's.
Is there anything in the literature, including medical literature, that talks about significant or minor risks?
I mean, you fill out forms when you go to the dentist about risks.
Now, if... if the chance of death is one out of 100, is that significant?
I mean, I don't know.
His response was:
Mr. Clement: Well, it's a very difficult question to evaluate in the abstract, Justice Kennedy.
And I think it actually, that question, though, has direct bearing on this case, because Congress after all found that there was some risks with the D&X procedure.
The most prominent one that I would point to is the risk of cervical incompetence because the D&X procedure does... it does require additional dilation, which can be associated with risks of losing future pregnancies.
And that was born out, although not at a level of statistical significance, in the Chasen study by a plaintiff practitioner, where 2 of the 17 women who had the D&X procedure and were available for follow up care had an early preterm pregnancy in the follow up.
So I think those risks are born out in the only study that's available.
And I think the question becomes, now, if D&X were some life saving procedure for something that there was no other known cure for, you might think, well, those are the risks you run.
But when there remains available the D&E procedure, which has been well tested and works every single time as a way to terminate the pregnancy, then I think risks that, if you were talking about a life saving treatment for some life threatening condition with no known cure, those risks might not be significant in that context.
(Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood - Oral Argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1382/argument/)
If these people know of the risks, yet deem them insignificant, how can they be trusted?
These are the people you trust with your health on a daily basis.
"Illicit"
When one develops a certain product from their own mind, using their own skill, one then owns the right to that product, namely, the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. It is owned and therefore gives such person to do with it what they choose. This illuminates other people from using this idea without the inventor’s/owners consent.
Stealing ones’ invention constitutes an infringement. After a person dedicates their time and efforts into a creative, artistic, or literary idea, someone comes along and with very little effort, takes that idea and make themselves into millionaires, depriving the creator/inventor the revenue they could have made without having an illegal competition.
People who do these things never consider the risk they are taking. This stems to numerous items; fake purses, medicines, drugs, whatever can be copied. Then it doesn’t just stop there, it has to be shipped. This usually is where it gets nasty. Everyone needs to have their product out, so by any means necessary, they ensure a way in doing just that. They incorporate a bunch of people who are in authority to make their venture a success.
Greedy politicians become allies. They side with these shady individuals in accepting bribes to ensure that their goods make it to its destination. We’re talking drugs, guns, pharmaceuticals, organs, and all types of illegal goods, just to make money in the meanwhile placing the people at risk.
The ingredients used to make the drugs, the means to obtain the organs, the numerous weapons that are brought in daily, and the money laundering, surprisingly is being supported by our politicians is unbelievable. They deserve to be arrested and charged.
Think of all the time spent on these goods and the people who have created them, that they invented this for their own gain and they have a right to their product. It is harmful to them when someone mass-produces off their idea and make money. We all at one time or another, made something and have someone steal it. Think of how that made you feel before you go out and support someone knowing full well it is illegal.
Stealing ones’ invention constitutes an infringement. After a person dedicates their time and efforts into a creative, artistic, or literary idea, someone comes along and with very little effort, takes that idea and make themselves into millionaires, depriving the creator/inventor the revenue they could have made without having an illegal competition.
People who do these things never consider the risk they are taking. This stems to numerous items; fake purses, medicines, drugs, whatever can be copied. Then it doesn’t just stop there, it has to be shipped. This usually is where it gets nasty. Everyone needs to have their product out, so by any means necessary, they ensure a way in doing just that. They incorporate a bunch of people who are in authority to make their venture a success.
Greedy politicians become allies. They side with these shady individuals in accepting bribes to ensure that their goods make it to its destination. We’re talking drugs, guns, pharmaceuticals, organs, and all types of illegal goods, just to make money in the meanwhile placing the people at risk.
The ingredients used to make the drugs, the means to obtain the organs, the numerous weapons that are brought in daily, and the money laundering, surprisingly is being supported by our politicians is unbelievable. They deserve to be arrested and charged.
Think of all the time spent on these goods and the people who have created them, that they invented this for their own gain and they have a right to their product. It is harmful to them when someone mass-produces off their idea and make money. We all at one time or another, made something and have someone steal it. Think of how that made you feel before you go out and support someone knowing full well it is illegal.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
What's the problem with SPAM?
SPAM, a small four letter word with a very big meaning. It is an unsolicited, often commercial, message transmitted through the Internet as a mass mailing to a large number of recipients. It is also quite an annoying piece of mail. This usually pops up whenever you go to check your online messages.
The major problem with this type of message however, is that, upon opening it, it usually has some enticing product that may fit with your particular need. This is not the problem. After reading, here’s where it becomes an issue. The decision you make is what’s devastating. You will choose to click on the link, insert your payment information, and never receive a product. If you are one of the “lucky ones” who receive something, you are now in jeopardy of losing your identity. Your payment information is now in the hands of criminals who will sell it for a profit and put you in financial strains.
From a legal standpoint this is a crime. Under federal laws, this is a use of false claims to entice consumers of products that usually do not exist, in order to attain payment information.
People should be aware of these internet scams and only provide such important information to reputable sites. There are ways to research these sites, if they are not properly registered businesses, you should take caution. Contacting the Better Business Bureau (BBB), is another way of finding out such information. Spam is illegal and should be reported whenever you come across them.
Stop them from preying on consumers.
The major problem with this type of message however, is that, upon opening it, it usually has some enticing product that may fit with your particular need. This is not the problem. After reading, here’s where it becomes an issue. The decision you make is what’s devastating. You will choose to click on the link, insert your payment information, and never receive a product. If you are one of the “lucky ones” who receive something, you are now in jeopardy of losing your identity. Your payment information is now in the hands of criminals who will sell it for a profit and put you in financial strains.
From a legal standpoint this is a crime. Under federal laws, this is a use of false claims to entice consumers of products that usually do not exist, in order to attain payment information.
People should be aware of these internet scams and only provide such important information to reputable sites. There are ways to research these sites, if they are not properly registered businesses, you should take caution. Contacting the Better Business Bureau (BBB), is another way of finding out such information. Spam is illegal and should be reported whenever you come across them.
Stop them from preying on consumers.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Week 7- What are Landlords' Rights
Based on the movie, Pacific Heights, the landlords had very limited rights. Even though it was their building, they could not get rid of a tenant any way they wanted to. The tenant was not given proper permission to move into the apartment, but because he already took residence there, he was now the occupant of that apartment and only legal action could be taken to remove him.
As the owner, turning off utilities is illegal, because tenants, though illegally occupying the property, have a right to necessities to survive, like heat and water.
The landlord has to go through the routine of serving the tenant with notices of eviction, giving reasonable time to vacate. They can legally evict someone on the grounds of; non-payment of rent, disturbing other tenants, destroying property, or anything that does not coincide with the terms of the lease.
After they have been served and taken to court for eviction, if granted on the legal terms, the landlord would then have to take them back to court and sue for the balance of rent owed, damages to the property, or any other wrongs done while the tenant had occupancy of the apartment.
Rights for the landlord are tricky, such person has to still be hospitable as not to harass the tenant they are trying to evict.
It is important to check references and do a background check on any prospective tenants before granting them permission to take residence on your property. State specific requirements on the lease, as this will be a good form of legal document incase problems arise later.
Tenants can be a real hassle, but landlords have their part to play, both to cover themselves and to ensure that the tenant is comfortable within reason.
As the owner, turning off utilities is illegal, because tenants, though illegally occupying the property, have a right to necessities to survive, like heat and water.
The landlord has to go through the routine of serving the tenant with notices of eviction, giving reasonable time to vacate. They can legally evict someone on the grounds of; non-payment of rent, disturbing other tenants, destroying property, or anything that does not coincide with the terms of the lease.
After they have been served and taken to court for eviction, if granted on the legal terms, the landlord would then have to take them back to court and sue for the balance of rent owed, damages to the property, or any other wrongs done while the tenant had occupancy of the apartment.
Rights for the landlord are tricky, such person has to still be hospitable as not to harass the tenant they are trying to evict.
It is important to check references and do a background check on any prospective tenants before granting them permission to take residence on your property. State specific requirements on the lease, as this will be a good form of legal document incase problems arise later.
Tenants can be a real hassle, but landlords have their part to play, both to cover themselves and to ensure that the tenant is comfortable within reason.
Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood
This case is on partial- birth abortions. Partial birth abortion is the killing of the fetus after any part from the head to the navel is already outside of the mother.
In 2003, Congress passed and the President signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The controversial concept of partial-birth abortion is defined in the Act as any abortion in which the death of the fetus occurs when "the entire fetal head [...] or [...] any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."
The case Roe v. Wade was used as precedent for this trial.
It was decided that this was indeed unconstitutional and banned.
Docket No.:
05-1382
Petitioner:
Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General
Respondent:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., et al.
Decided By:
Roberts Court (2006-2009)
Opinion:
550 U.S. ___ (2007)
Granted:
Monday, June 19, 2006
Argued:
Wednesday, November 8, 2006
Decided:
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Source: The Oyez Project, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood , 550 U.S. ___ (2007) available at: (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1382)
This case is on partial- birth abortions. Partial birth abortion is the killing of the fetus after any part from the head to the navel is already outside of the mother.
In 2003, Congress passed and the President signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The controversial concept of partial-birth abortion is defined in the Act as any abortion in which the death of the fetus occurs when "the entire fetal head [...] or [...] any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."
The case Roe v. Wade was used as precedent for this trial.
It was decided that this was indeed unconstitutional and banned.
Docket No.:
05-1382
Petitioner:
Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General
Respondent:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., et al.
Decided By:
Roberts Court (2006-2009)
Opinion:
550 U.S. ___ (2007)
Granted:
Monday, June 19, 2006
Argued:
Wednesday, November 8, 2006
Decided:
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Source: The Oyez Project, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood , 550 U.S. ___ (2007) available at: (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1382)
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Greed is good?
It is said in the movie, WALL STREET, that “Greed is Good.” Well, is that true? I don’t believe that. It is explained that it is good because the more you have the more you yet desire, greed is gluttony. Wanting too much of any one thing, whether or not it is money, is a very bad thing. When is enough, truly enough?
For a person to take this notion into reality, they would usually do anything for their personal gain. Anything, including robbing people of their hard earnings for themselves. Take the workers on Wall Street for instance, they were robbed of their earned bonuses so that the managers and team leaders could have there’s more abundantly, how unfair is it that you work so hard for a company and then have the upper-class men strip you of what you’ve been working for?
Company leaders and owners hardly ever take into consideration the little people. You pour your heart and soul into your job and before you know it, you have two weeks to find another job because the company is closing. The Managers and CEOs carefully strategize to grab their winnings and ignore the fact that hundreds and thousands of people are going to be out of work. They close the company, file bankruptcy, and what they are truly doing is taking their money out of the company before it goes under and they won’t have to lose anything. Meanwhile, the employees lose their benefits and bonuses and no one seems to care. We need to care more about our fellow men; otherwise, change will never happen.
If I were to make “A WHACK ‘EM DOLL,” it would be of the CEO of the company that I recently worked for. The similar thing happened, they were an LLC before said genius decided to go cooperate. Now I’m currently unemployed along with 728 other employees due to company closure. Thanks. I want to whack him with a mallet!
For a person to take this notion into reality, they would usually do anything for their personal gain. Anything, including robbing people of their hard earnings for themselves. Take the workers on Wall Street for instance, they were robbed of their earned bonuses so that the managers and team leaders could have there’s more abundantly, how unfair is it that you work so hard for a company and then have the upper-class men strip you of what you’ve been working for?
Company leaders and owners hardly ever take into consideration the little people. You pour your heart and soul into your job and before you know it, you have two weeks to find another job because the company is closing. The Managers and CEOs carefully strategize to grab their winnings and ignore the fact that hundreds and thousands of people are going to be out of work. They close the company, file bankruptcy, and what they are truly doing is taking their money out of the company before it goes under and they won’t have to lose anything. Meanwhile, the employees lose their benefits and bonuses and no one seems to care. We need to care more about our fellow men; otherwise, change will never happen.
If I were to make “A WHACK ‘EM DOLL,” it would be of the CEO of the company that I recently worked for. The similar thing happened, they were an LLC before said genius decided to go cooperate. Now I’m currently unemployed along with 728 other employees due to company closure. Thanks. I want to whack him with a mallet!
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
What my classmates think of the Legal System
This week I read my fellow-classmates blogs on what they thought of the legal system. Their thoughts were very interesting, they had some strong opinions, while others just merely stated what they have heard.
Here I have chosen three that I would like to comment on:
“But based on what I have seen since I got here, I think that the legal systems tend to make small situations, extremely big situations for no reason and both parties could save money, if they left out some of the unnecessary procedures.” (Najbicz, Tristan http://safadrafting.blogspot.com/)
This is solely a matter of opinion, it depends on what each person deem as necessary versus unnecessary. Though Tristan further in his blog explains this, I must say, the government is doing what they think is right and necessary for non-immigrants in the U.S.
“I think that the legal system is the entity that holds the power to keep things in order in our everyday life, which is necessary for a civilized society. Just as it says in the book.” (Perez, Angel L. http://alperez322.blogspot.com/)
I believe in this as well, Angel makes a good point here. The system does in fact keep things in order, even though through our eyes at times it may seem a little over the top, but it is for the benefit of our society. Everything is fine, until something happens to us.
“I strongly believe that there’s a lack of moral values and as people we get so caught up trying to do everything the easy way because god forbid we have to work hard for anything. That we throw our morals right out the window, doing anything to make a quick buck or to be head of the committee.” (Hernandez, Jaqueline http://fashionvsstyle-jackie.blogspot.com/)
While I admit that there is a lack of morality, the society can create its own monsters. Bad things happen to good people. Though we should never compromise our morals, who are we to judge?
Here I have chosen three that I would like to comment on:
“But based on what I have seen since I got here, I think that the legal systems tend to make small situations, extremely big situations for no reason and both parties could save money, if they left out some of the unnecessary procedures.” (Najbicz, Tristan http://safadrafting.blogspot.com/)
This is solely a matter of opinion, it depends on what each person deem as necessary versus unnecessary. Though Tristan further in his blog explains this, I must say, the government is doing what they think is right and necessary for non-immigrants in the U.S.
“I think that the legal system is the entity that holds the power to keep things in order in our everyday life, which is necessary for a civilized society. Just as it says in the book.” (Perez, Angel L. http://alperez322.blogspot.com/)
I believe in this as well, Angel makes a good point here. The system does in fact keep things in order, even though through our eyes at times it may seem a little over the top, but it is for the benefit of our society. Everything is fine, until something happens to us.
“I strongly believe that there’s a lack of moral values and as people we get so caught up trying to do everything the easy way because god forbid we have to work hard for anything. That we throw our morals right out the window, doing anything to make a quick buck or to be head of the committee.” (Hernandez, Jaqueline http://fashionvsstyle-jackie.blogspot.com/)
While I admit that there is a lack of morality, the society can create its own monsters. Bad things happen to good people. Though we should never compromise our morals, who are we to judge?
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Used Cars- Crimes and Torts
Crimes
1. Assault- the guy accuses the kurt Russell things he might not have done
2. Battery- the guy in the bar slaps him and the guy fights him back
3. Fraud- Tampering with videotape
4. Illegal Gambling- betting on sports games
5. Bribery of a Public Official- while they were in the car
6. Bribery of the Attorney- other lawyer bribed others in the room
7. Obstruction of the Courtroom- disrupting the court, coming in late
8. Perjury- the girl lied under oath
9. Sexual harassment- the guy who sold the cars, grabbed the girls boob
10. Speeding- driving over the speed limit
11. Reckless driving-
12. Drug Dealing- on with the reefer
13. Unlicensed drivers
14. Driving on the the wrong side of the road
15. No registration/insurance
16. Illegal weapons/
17. Attempted assault with a deadly weapon
18. Battery with the chain when he was whipping him
19. Kidnapping/hostage- while that old man jumped on the car
20. Trespassing on private property- driving offroad
21. Driving on the shoulder
22. Cutting the car off the tow truck
23. Crossing a railroad crossing with a train in motion
24. Knowingly falsifying information to make a sale
25. Didn’t yield to the intersection while driving on the way to the lot
26. Speeding in a construction zone
27. Knowingly crashed through a police barricade
28. Damaging to federal (police) property
29. Leaving the scene of the crime
30. Jaywalking- in the end the guy who hates driving red cars
Torts
1. Damaging private property- in the bar, the guy threw the chair at the bar mirror
2. Damaging Private property- taking the girls umbrella, ruining their dinner
3. Cutting the car off the tow truck
4. Slander- accusing the judge of being crooked/ taking bribes
5. Violating the people’s dinner at the bar
6. Violation of personal property- tampering with tow truck
7. Violation of private property- letting the car loose
8. Damaging the car lot- kids crashing through warehouses
Group members - David Resto, Andrew Veliz, Richmond Pham, Stacia Woody
1. Assault- the guy accuses the kurt Russell things he might not have done
2. Battery- the guy in the bar slaps him and the guy fights him back
3. Fraud- Tampering with videotape
4. Illegal Gambling- betting on sports games
5. Bribery of a Public Official- while they were in the car
6. Bribery of the Attorney- other lawyer bribed others in the room
7. Obstruction of the Courtroom- disrupting the court, coming in late
8. Perjury- the girl lied under oath
9. Sexual harassment- the guy who sold the cars, grabbed the girls boob
10. Speeding- driving over the speed limit
11. Reckless driving-
12. Drug Dealing- on with the reefer
13. Unlicensed drivers
14. Driving on the the wrong side of the road
15. No registration/insurance
16. Illegal weapons/
17. Attempted assault with a deadly weapon
18. Battery with the chain when he was whipping him
19. Kidnapping/hostage- while that old man jumped on the car
20. Trespassing on private property- driving offroad
21. Driving on the shoulder
22. Cutting the car off the tow truck
23. Crossing a railroad crossing with a train in motion
24. Knowingly falsifying information to make a sale
25. Didn’t yield to the intersection while driving on the way to the lot
26. Speeding in a construction zone
27. Knowingly crashed through a police barricade
28. Damaging to federal (police) property
29. Leaving the scene of the crime
30. Jaywalking- in the end the guy who hates driving red cars
Torts
1. Damaging private property- in the bar, the guy threw the chair at the bar mirror
2. Damaging Private property- taking the girls umbrella, ruining their dinner
3. Cutting the car off the tow truck
4. Slander- accusing the judge of being crooked/ taking bribes
5. Violating the people’s dinner at the bar
6. Violation of personal property- tampering with tow truck
7. Violation of private property- letting the car loose
8. Damaging the car lot- kids crashing through warehouses
Group members - David Resto, Andrew Veliz, Richmond Pham, Stacia Woody
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
What I think of the legal system
I have very strong opinions on the legal system. Firstly, I do believe that it needs improvement. The law was made to protect and enforce, but nowadays, more enforcing is being done than protecting. It is no longer uncommon for innocents to be locked. It’s hard to differentiate between the innocent and guilty due to the fact that the treatments are usually the same.
I was watching television just recently and saw, where a mentally challenged person was tear-gassed and shocked because He stayed too long in a public bathroom. The guy was simply having difficulty when suddenly he started making a mess on himself. The store-clerk called the police and without proper querying, they started applying force. Where’s the protection there?
The legal Officials need more training on how to carry out the law. There are always complaints. Whilst you cannot please everyone, there still should be some form of strict recourse to the ones who corrupt the system and place a bad reputation on the system as a whole.
I don’t believe they are being punished enough. If they break the law, it seems to be a slight tap on the wrist, while a civilian or just an ordinary person, commits lesser offenses and gets treated as hardcore criminals. This then tells me that the legal system is unfair, unjust, corrupt, and needs a change.
The law-makers are the biggest law-breakers. The legal system should never be just for the common people. It is for all. Everyone is under the law, and no one above it.
“The law assures each person certain rights and assigns each person certain duties. The law enforcement authorities… enforce specific laws called statutes…A violation of these statutes is a crime.” (Essentials of Business Law, Anthony L. Liuzzo, page 31)
I was watching television just recently and saw, where a mentally challenged person was tear-gassed and shocked because He stayed too long in a public bathroom. The guy was simply having difficulty when suddenly he started making a mess on himself. The store-clerk called the police and without proper querying, they started applying force. Where’s the protection there?
The legal Officials need more training on how to carry out the law. There are always complaints. Whilst you cannot please everyone, there still should be some form of strict recourse to the ones who corrupt the system and place a bad reputation on the system as a whole.
I don’t believe they are being punished enough. If they break the law, it seems to be a slight tap on the wrist, while a civilian or just an ordinary person, commits lesser offenses and gets treated as hardcore criminals. This then tells me that the legal system is unfair, unjust, corrupt, and needs a change.
The law-makers are the biggest law-breakers. The legal system should never be just for the common people. It is for all. Everyone is under the law, and no one above it.
“The law assures each person certain rights and assigns each person certain duties. The law enforcement authorities… enforce specific laws called statutes…A violation of these statutes is a crime.” (Essentials of Business Law, Anthony L. Liuzzo, page 31)
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Myspace Hoax EOC Week 2
Having read the story of the MySpace hoax, I’m appalled that grown-ups would be involved in such a thing. The mom in question, Lori Drew, claims she got involved to find out if then, 13 years old Megan Meier, was spreading unsatisfactory comments about her daughter so therefore she created this fictitious character named Josh Evans.
“Josh” quickly became friends with Megan, messaging back and forth on a daily basis. Constant monitoring of the site was done by Lori, her daughter and a colleague. Suddenly, it went sour, hateful messages were then sent which caused Megan great grief.
With Megan already a medicated, depressed soul, she took all this to heart and committed suicide.
How cruel. I seriously don’t believe Lori Drew wanted the child dead, but it was a senseless act to begin with for her to even be involved in something so petty and childish. Had it been just her daughter, it would have been a lot more understandable. Children, especially teenagers are usually hurtful towards each other, but for an adult, a parent, to get caught up in that sort of scheme is down-right wrong.
I do believe she should be punished severely especially since someone lost their life dud to their particular prank. She does deserve some jail time and all the other parties involved should also face circumstances.
As a mother, I can’t imagine losing a child. Maybe to an injury or a disease, one can understand, but to the hands of someone pulling a cruel prank, that’s just unforgiveable. Lori , being a mother herself should have some remorse knowing how it would feel if she was the one to lose her child to some senseless act.
People should really wise-up. Think of consequences before taking actions. Choose your battles, and parents should know what they’re getting into when dealing with teenagers. They’ll always be vendettas among them, but it should be approached with less evasive methods.
“Josh” quickly became friends with Megan, messaging back and forth on a daily basis. Constant monitoring of the site was done by Lori, her daughter and a colleague. Suddenly, it went sour, hateful messages were then sent which caused Megan great grief.
With Megan already a medicated, depressed soul, she took all this to heart and committed suicide.
How cruel. I seriously don’t believe Lori Drew wanted the child dead, but it was a senseless act to begin with for her to even be involved in something so petty and childish. Had it been just her daughter, it would have been a lot more understandable. Children, especially teenagers are usually hurtful towards each other, but for an adult, a parent, to get caught up in that sort of scheme is down-right wrong.
I do believe she should be punished severely especially since someone lost their life dud to their particular prank. She does deserve some jail time and all the other parties involved should also face circumstances.
As a mother, I can’t imagine losing a child. Maybe to an injury or a disease, one can understand, but to the hands of someone pulling a cruel prank, that’s just unforgiveable. Lori , being a mother herself should have some remorse knowing how it would feel if she was the one to lose her child to some senseless act.
People should really wise-up. Think of consequences before taking actions. Choose your battles, and parents should know what they’re getting into when dealing with teenagers. They’ll always be vendettas among them, but it should be approached with less evasive methods.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
What I really think of lawyers
Some lawyers are really hard-working and know their stuff. They will go the distance for you to get your case solved in a way that will be satisfactory to both you and them.
Others, however, are just down-right corrupt. They give into bribery and condone anything that is immoral or unethical to get the monetary gain they seek. These types of lawyers have judges in their pockets that they have so-called given contributions for re-election. I call it bribe despite whatever fancy names they want to call it.
People generally will chose the lawyers with less morals because due to their immoral and unethical practices, they have a higher winning rate and their reputations go widespread. The lawyers, who are by the book, get the least clients and lower ratings even though they have a better conduct in how they perform their duties.
Personally, I would choose the ones who are moral and ethical to do my case. If you’re a person who upholds certain conduct and consider yourself with morals, then take your case to one of those corrupted lawyers, you are then considered a hypocrite. Why else would you chose a lawyer whom you know is doing his/her practices through the back door when you claim you have standards and they don’t.
I believe lawyers should be exposed. For people who claim to know and study law, they surely do a lot of things illegally. They buy judges and other officials to get ahead in their profession and ignore the little people who cannot afford their services. If they would apply good morals and ethics in their lifestyles I know they would still be successful in their professions. Everyone working together for the good cause of the law and getting proper results would be more rewarding that doing it just wrong.
Someone should speak out on this, maybe it will be me.
Others, however, are just down-right corrupt. They give into bribery and condone anything that is immoral or unethical to get the monetary gain they seek. These types of lawyers have judges in their pockets that they have so-called given contributions for re-election. I call it bribe despite whatever fancy names they want to call it.
People generally will chose the lawyers with less morals because due to their immoral and unethical practices, they have a higher winning rate and their reputations go widespread. The lawyers, who are by the book, get the least clients and lower ratings even though they have a better conduct in how they perform their duties.
Personally, I would choose the ones who are moral and ethical to do my case. If you’re a person who upholds certain conduct and consider yourself with morals, then take your case to one of those corrupted lawyers, you are then considered a hypocrite. Why else would you chose a lawyer whom you know is doing his/her practices through the back door when you claim you have standards and they don’t.
I believe lawyers should be exposed. For people who claim to know and study law, they surely do a lot of things illegally. They buy judges and other officials to get ahead in their profession and ignore the little people who cannot afford their services. If they would apply good morals and ethics in their lifestyles I know they would still be successful in their professions. Everyone working together for the good cause of the law and getting proper results would be more rewarding that doing it just wrong.
Someone should speak out on this, maybe it will be me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
