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