Larry Echo Hawk

On April 27, 2012, Larry Echo Hawk will resign from his position in Washington DC as a member of the Bureau of Indian Affairs since 2009.

In his work in the BIA, Larry has lifted many barriers between the Indian Tribes of the US and the government.  A 13 year lawsuit again between the two bodies over billions of dollars is just one of the many conflicts Larry aided in. "There is no doubt that in the last three years a new era for tribal relations with the United States had emerged and Larry Echo Hawk played no small part in it...he listened with great conviction, setting a tone for consultation that we must always ensure is reflected in the federal government's approach to nation-to-nation meetings." -Jacqueline Pata

We all know of the history that scars this nation between the US government and the Indian Tribes of this nation.  The ability Larry brought tot he table mended some hard feelings and allowed for better relations.  It is important to remember law but we need to remember the negotiations that play a part.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=19941091&title=mormon-leader-removed-historic-barriers-between-tribes-government&s_cid=queue-2

War on Women

Politics are always ugly and because they are is the main reason I try not to get too involved.  Most the time reading about the happenings just makes my blood boil.  In the most recent events of the Presidential election of 2012 a "War on Women" was declared when Republicans and Democrats pointed fingers left and right at one another which ended in a comment, later reputed, by Democrat Hilary Rosen that attacked Ann Romney, wife of Mitt Romney.

Rosen stated, "What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, "Well you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife,  that's what I am hearing."...Guess what?  His wife has actually never worked a day in her life."

Later apologizing, Rosen received a ton of backlash for her comments.

Speak from experience, my mother has been a house-wife just like Ann Romney her entire life.  I can tell you now, she is by far the most knowledgble person of recent events, laws, and politics I know.  She is the exact person Rosen was "profiling" if you will.  NOW, free speech comes into play.  Rosen has the right to say what see wants about any group of people she chooses, I am not disputing the fact.  However,  is there a line in which her free speech crossed that became inappropriate?  Do people have the right without the ethics to slander individuals as so?  I don't think so.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/11/politics/campaign-wrap/index.html?npt=NP1

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/politics/campaign-wrap/index.html?npt=NP1

The Death Penalty

Lawmakers in Connecticut pass a bill this week doing away with the death penalty joining Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, New Jersey, New Mexico and New York all of which have abolished Capital Punishment.  

The 8th Amendment of the Constitution states that no "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" shall be used against individuals under the law. The Amendment since 1972 has been a hot topic of discussion among states and if the early method of punishment is unconstitutional.  The more and more it is discussed, by the looks of it, more and more states are changing it and doing away with the method.   

I personally don't have an opinion on the subject.  I don't have a whole lot of knowledge regarding the aspects of law and costs that play a role in the discussion.  What do you know?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/justice/connecticut-death-penalty/index.html?npt=NP1

Unfit to Stand Trial, but Sane Enough to Kill

In class we recently discussed the many rights the Constitution lays out that protects criminals.  In this case Gary Allen pleaded guilty to charges of capital murder of his wife then 24 years old when he shot her outside the daycare of their children.  Allen was declared unfit to stand trial when he was diagnosed with schizophrenia but later found sane and competent to be put to death.

Allen was granted by a federal judge a stay of execution that would give him 15 days to appeal his conviction.

This has always been an issue I just don't understand.  I don't necessarily agree with the protection of the handicapped under the law.  Giving these individuals rights that allow them to walk away because they are unfit to stand trial seems like bologna to me.  I am a strong believer of an "eye for eye."  If someone is sane enough to commit a crime, they are sane enough to receive the appropriate punishment, end of story.  I know this brings up a huge argument "of Mice and Men" but really everyone knows should know right from wrong even handicapped people.  I believe those that committed these crimes had to have some level of mens rea I just don't see someone accidentally killing someone because they didn't know what they were doing.  It just doesn't make sense to me.


http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=157&sid=19600731&title=judge-grants-okla-inmate-stay-of-execution

Wrongful Termination?

Kathy Samford was wrongful terminated from her job at a Christian Private School called Heritage Christian Academy for being pregnant out of wedlock.  At first glance one might immediately jump to the conclusion of a wrongful termination in favor of Kathy but others say not.

State and Federal laws protect individuals with acts such as the Family and Medical Leave Act that in cases including pregnancy and individual cannot be fired from their job solely based on that reasoning.  However, because Heritage Christian Academy is a private christian school they are not violating any laws as a private entity.  They claim they have the right to a standard of conduct for their employees siting cases heard by SCOTUS ( I tried looking for them and couldn't find any) ans Kathy violated her contract with them.

I honestly don't know what to think on the matter.  I side with Kathy, no one should lose their job over becoming pregnant out of wedlock.  I then side with Heritage that they are subject to some rules because they are a private school.  Where is the line drawn and what rules apply in this matter?  I would think as a school in the US would be subject to all laws accordingly.  Is this a separation of church ans state issue?  And again, if so, where is the line drawn?

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2012/04/11/dnt-teacher-fired-for-being-preggers.wfaa#/video/us/2012/04/11/dnt-teacher-fired-for-being-preggers.wfaa

Marine fights his "other-than honorable discharge."

St. Gary Stein was recommended by the military board for an "other-than honorable" discharge of his duties as a marine from comments he made regarding President Obama calling him a liar and suggested that he would not follow orders given by the president himself, on a social network page titled "Armed Forces Tea Party."

The military board claims that Stein violated the "no political conduct by service members" rule that limits servicemen from engaging in heated political issues while in the service.  The military board did not allow Stein's attorney to present his case in which expert testimonies would tell a different story in which they would testify that the "rule" in question would only apply to commissioned officers.  As well as a battle of testimony that would claim a violation of Stein's first amendment and ultimately by not hearing the testimony would be denying him due process of the law.

A hearing is scheduled for this Friday in which Stein will accuse the military of denying his free speech and due process rights in front of a federal judge.

Although I briefly know little about military proceedings and how they deal with violations, but if their rule does state that the rules apply to commissioned officers why can't Stein be entitled to his first amendment rights?  It will be interesting to see what the federal judge decides on this matter.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/10/us/marine-obama/index.html?npt=NP1

Privacy Act

I caught wind of this case a few weeks back and recently read the decision the Supreme Court made.  Stanmore Cooper a California Pilot with an HIV status. Over the years he left his work and eventually came back to work unaware of an act called Operation Safe Pilot Cooper did not notify the agency he was working for of his HIV status and after being entered into a database of pilots was found as a person of interest in which he was confronted and admitted to filing a false report with the agency and government for not disclosing his status.  Through the prosecution which resulted in a misdemeanor, Cooper's medical history became public record.  Cooper had become humiliated that the most intimate details of his health were out for the anyone to read.  Cooper admits that not disclosing his HIV status was a mistake on his part but he feels he owned up to that mistake and was punished for it, but wonders why it is still haunting him.  He claims that the government violated his right to privacy and they should take responsibility for their actions as they made him.  A federal judge ruled in Cooper's favor finding the FAA and Social Security Administration in violation of the Privacy Act.  Higher courts intervened and in which they soley focused on Cooper's claims of emotional harm and what the laws constitute emotional harm as. Because the law states "actual" damages, in a vote 5 to 3 ruled against Cooper's claims of mental and emotional damages stating "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish...because the phrase "actual" damages remains vague, the government should get the benefit of the doubt, tipping the case in its favor."

 I personally am disgusted with the ruling in this case.  I feel Cooper was robbed of his right to privacy a basic constitutional  right.  The government had not right to post his medical history for public record.  I agree with what was said "Congress passed this act to restore the citizens' faith in their government, and it mad a solemn promise to the American citizen that in cases of intentional and willful violation, the United States shall be liable for actual damages...Today, the government is proposing that 'actual damages' be read in a way that renders this act virtually irrelevant.  That makes a mockery of that solemn promise." 

What is your opinion? Feel free to read the article to better understand the issue.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28/us/scotus-hiv-privacy/index.html?hpt=us_c2

May The Odds Be Ever In Your Favor.....

On March 22 I had the opportunity to view the first movie in The Hunger Games Trilogy.  The movie made quite the grand entrance making close to $155 million dollars opening weekend.  I have read all three books and loved them.  Now how does this related to Constitutional Law, I may be stretching the relation but it makes sense in my head.  In the Trilogy you journey with a character who volunteers in place of her young sister to compete in the 74th Annual Hunger Games.  In the Hunger Games the players compete to the death, it is survival of the fittest. 2 people are chosen from different districts.  Each district is like a social class if you will.  Coal, Agriculture, Livestock, Textiles, Lumber, etc., are the many livelihoods of each district that are controlled by the Capital.   To maintain control and balance the Capital keeps the districts in extreme poverty and hosts the Hunger Games to maintain said control.  Throughout the Trilogy the characters realize the control the Capital has and uprisings occur to establish a world where no Hunger Games exist and equality is present.

In modern day America we have the Constitution, specifically Article 1 outlines the duties and limitations of the branches of government as well as the state and federal governments.  Without these provisions could a scenario like the Hunger Games be possible?  As inhuman it is I guess it could be possible, a totalitarian society  The more and more I think about the protection the Constitution provides to form a more perfect union, the more I am a strong believer in the words it contains.  It has more purpose than any of us could ever analyze.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/opinion/seymour-hunger-games-john-carter/index.html

The Wrong Guy

Alan Northrop was arrested and found guilty of a crime he did not commit.  In 1993 Northrop was convicted of raping a young girl in which he never once committed to doing.  He stood his innocence and from behind bars fought for advanced DNA testing.  In 2010 a state law was passed and Northrop's DNA was tested against the rape kit of the victim and the results came back and his DNA did not match the DNA found on the victim.  Upon release Northrop was given $2500 in which he earned working his prison job of 42 cents and hour.  He was given no compensation for his wrongful imprisonment.

In recent proposals called the Innocence Project, which I agree with, would provided individuals compensation for the time they spent in prison for crimes they did not commit.  Federal Law compensate Federal offenses but State Law compensation varies.  The project would set higher standards of compensation the mirror the Federal Laws.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/25/justice/wrongful-conviction-payments/index.html?hpt=us_mid

Do you agree?

Trayvon Martin

In the awake of the tragedy coming from the untimely death of Trayvon Martin a young black man has been the center of much controversy. I have read several articles of personal stories of many black men of being racially profiled and the reality they have to live with.  I know personally of this issue being in a family of adopted individuals that are black men.  As adoptive parents, you are taught to counsel your child in situations involving police enforcement to be 110% cooperative.  In simple traffic violations they are taught to immediately place their hands on the steering wheel from the beginning and ask for permission to move when needed.   Personally I feel this is a violation of their right of equal protection under the law.  There shouldn't be any criteria to qualify you as an individual to receive protection under the law, especially because of the color of ones skin.

Do you agree?

http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/27/opinion-what-the-death-of-trayvon-martin-says-about-being-a-black-man-in-2012/?hpt=us_bn1

IN TIME

I recently watched a movie that sparked a lot of questions into my head.  The movie is called "In Time" in which it follows the life of a young man who lives in the futuristic America that is mandated and ruled by time.  In the movie instead of money being the root of all evil and the subject in which people work for they substitute it with time.  When you went to work or received loans you were given time that was recorded on their arms.  The rich had decades of time and the poor had only hours, when you ran out you were dead.  Throughout the movie, you follow the concept on the government controlling the amount of times certain Time Zones had to distribute to keep the country in "balance."  


As I watched this I first was grateful for the system we have now that even if I didn't have money I can somehow still survive but as I got thinking I began to question the intent of the movie.  Is this movie trying to make the point the government has too much control even though we aren't bending over backwards for time but other things?  As much corruption as some may argue I am assured that the Constitution in which it lays out rights for its citizens, and the rights and powers and limitations of each branch of the government has a purpose.  I am a little more comforted.

What is your opinion?

OBAMACARE......

In this article I read regarding the current legal debate over the proposed "Obamacare" it reports the progression being made in which it quoted many of the supreme court justices feelings towards the healthcare plan.  


One quote that struck me was made by Michele Bachmann in which she said, "If federal government can tell you, when you are not doing anything, that you must do something, then the federal government can tell you anything." As soon as I read this a million questions on what rights of mine are being violated in the proposed healthcare and if it is passed, what rights will be taken next.


I personally feel that the one of the most important rights I have is my first amendment right.  If I am forced into a healthcare that I don't want, why aren't my rights protecting me?


http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/justice/scotus-health-care/index.html?npt=NP1

Pre-Abortion Sonogram

On Tuesday February 1, 2012, Texas health officials began enforcing a new law that requires them to provide a pregnant woman who is seeking an abortion, with a sonogram of her embryo or fetus along with a full description of its development, before executing said abortion.
I have always been on the fence when it came to abortion.  I am Pro-life with a few exceptions to Pro-choice where intercourse was not consensual which resulted in conception.  BUT in other situations, I strongly believe that a person should take responsibility for their actions.  If you are responsible enough to have sex, you are responsible to live with the consequences of becoming pregnant. In these situations, abortion is just an easy way out. That is my opinion.
Regarding the law in Texas, I wonder if this law will be contested in the near future.  Though I agree with it 100% and a woman should know the nature in every aspect that she is pursuing, I am open minded enough to see that this could very possibly upset a lot of people.  Duress being the key here.
What do you think?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/us/texas-abortion-sonogram/index.html?hpt=us_c2

Too Rich....

I have read a series of articles and watched several news reports on the recent release of Mitt Romney's, a GOP candidate, tax information.  Mitt Romney and his wife made an estimated $45 million in 2011 and will be paying $6 million in taxes at a 15.4 percent rate. Most are in an uproar of the insane amount of income the Romney's earn in a year and believe they should be held to a higher tax rate.  What I am confused about is why people are attacking Romney and not those that set those rates?

I think people need to do their research first before they shoot the wrong bird.

The top rate of 35% is tax to the ordinary income that the average middle class citizen pays in taxes.  The rate of 15% that we see the Romney's paying is because it is the rate they are held to for long-term capital gains and dividends.  The Romney's are just following the set rates set by our government. Though I think there is a huge discrepancy in these rates, I don't think it is the Romney's fault in the least but Congress who set the rates.  People are blaming the wrong person.  As we discussed in class, the Constitution lays out the duties of our Government.  Congress make the tax laws and are the ones to blame for the discrepancy.

Now for a tangent, the article attached below compares two of the front runners of the GOP race based on the taxable rates and the amount of incomes each make.  Ragging on Romney because he is one of the wealthiest Americans to run for Presidency.

I don't know about most American's thinking but I personally would feel more comfortable in this troubled economy to be lead by a man who knows how to and can make insane amounts of money for himself.  Just think of the turn around to our economy he could perform.  Look at the facts they are right there!

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/26/politics/north-florida-conservatives/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/mitt-romney-tax-returns-released_n_1225247.html

January 16th we celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. and Civil Rights.  As I reflected on this holiday and the current Presidential race of 2012, the 15th Amendment (Race No Bar to Vote), 19th Amendment (Women's Sufferage), and the 26th Amendment (Voting Age Set to 18).

Currently at hand, I read an article Holder Vows to Protect Voting Rights at MLK event in South Carolina, where Attorney General Eric Holder promised the "aggressively protect" the voting rights of minorities." South Carolina recently proposed a bill that when an individual goes to poll they will be required to show government issued photo id.  The bill was denied when judicial refused to grant approval to require the photo id at the polls.  Holder stated, "After a thorough and fair review, we concluded that the state had failed to meet its burden of proving that the voting change would not have a racially discriminatory effect."

Okay now, this to me seems a bit dramatic.  Where did race even come into the picture? Just cause it was MLK day?  How does it apply to the bill?

 I would think this bill only protected the rights of citizens who through the three previously stated rights have the right to vote.  The bill would control and verify the identity's of these citizens who have the right to vote, not referring to race and minority. What do you think?

I read a few articles regarding and have been following the GOP race closely. From the start, attacks have been geared towards some of the Republican candidates because of their faith and practicing religion. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are both Mormon or more properly, LDS. Because of this fact, Romney more than Huntsman, have taken a lot of hits because of his proclaimed beliefs. Though this may not be hurting him because of his recent taking of the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses, I fear the opposing media articles that are flooding the mainstreams currently. 

As I look into the coming months leading to the Presidential election of 2012 and the obvious Obama campaign for re-election, hind sight is 20/20 and I would hope many see the empty promises and failed attempts on the previous played cards by Mr. Obama in 2008. 

IF one of the two Republican candidates become the republican nomination and ran against Obama and people used the fact of religion as the deciding factor on which individual to vote for, I would be disgusted. 

As a citizen of this country we are protected by our Constitution. Stated in the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." There is no arguing a basic right of this country so why should we target someone because of their right to choose and their choice being one we do not agree with? 

I hope ignorance doesn't get the upper hand here and people take the time to realize the issues at hand and educate themselves of factors other then the personal lives of the candidates. In the end religion doesn't make a difference in foreign policies, national debt, and a failing economy.