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