Eminent Domain Issues

Posted on by
Reply

Eminent domain refers to that right of the government to take property away from a private owner.  As current law states, eminent domain is to be exercised only in cases where the property will be used by the public at large, for example, state or national parks, highways, bridges, schools, etc.  The private owner must be compensated by the government for any property seized under eminent domain.  This law is backed up by none other than the Bill of Rights, in Amendment V; by the philosophy of John Locke; and most recently by an executive order of George W. Bush adding to the constitutional wording that eminent domain is not to be used for the purpose of “giving economic advantage to private parties”.

President Bush’s executive order was issued in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo vs. New London.   In this case, the Court upheld the city of New London, Connecticut’s, “right” to take Susette Kelo’s land and home, along with those of her neighbors in order to hand it over to a private firm for redeveloping.  This reverse Robin Hood scenario was approved by the Court under the auspices that economic development and tax income for the city constituted “public use”.

The outcome of this horrible abuse of government power?  The re-developer who obtained the stolen land in the name of eminent domain was never able to raise the funds necessary to do the mysterious unspecified re-development project.  The once lovely waterfront land is now a city dump.

Citizens in a free world should be concerned about any government’s abuse of eminent domain, because not only do eminent domain laws govern real property, but also personal property, contract rights, patents, trade secrets and copyrights.  John Locke’s philosophy was that right of ownership in property was vested according to the labor expended to create value in that property.  The United States Constitution upholds that right.  Citizens should be ever vigilant against the government’s abuse of eminent domain or any other power.

 

Arizona Immigration Laws

Posted on by
Reply

Arizona immigration laws have taken a lot of flack since April of 2010 when Governor Jan Brewer signed into effect America’s “toughest bill on illegal immigration“.  How tough is it?  This horrifying legislation states that immigrants must carry documentation affirming their legal right to be in Arizona or risk being detained.  Outrageous.  Or not.

Opponents of Arizona immigration laws say that it opens law enforcement officials to the opportunity of racial profiling.  Alabama, who adopted similar immigration laws, has recently been embarrassed by law enforcement officers hassling the execs of car makers with plants in their state.  Critics of the Arizona immigration law use words like “Nazi” to describe the way they perceive Arizona’s tactics.  And recently, the Supreme Court has challenged Arizona’s right to even make such laws.  They say that only the federal government has the right to control immigration.

Supporters of Arizona’s immigration laws say that’s just it.  The federal government doesn’t control immigration and it’s left up to the states to support illegal aliens who have no jobs and no money but get free healthcare, welfare, food stamps, housing and education all on the state’s – and ultimately the taxpayer’s - bill.

It seems that most people who advocate loose immigration laws would like to have completely open borders and no immigration laws whatsoever.  What they forget is that immigration laws were instituted for a number of purposes, like public health, safety, employment, and national security.  But what is the point of having laws if no one is going to enforce them?

Arizona immigration laws are an attempt to do just that.  Arizonans and most Americans realize that immigration is a good thing.  We need workers of certain skill levels at certain times.  We gladly open our arms to as many refugees as possible who are fleeing horrible circumstances in other countries.  However, immigration needs to be monitored.

Perhaps, if the federal government would do its job in protecting our borders, desperate measures like Arizona’s immigration laws would not have to be taken.  When the Supreme Court brings this case to docket, many eyes will be watching as the ruling on Arizona’s immigration laws will affect all 49 other states as well.

 

Cameras in the Courtroom

Posted on by
Reply

The case for cameras in the courtroom is a good one.  Trouble is, the case against cameras in the courtroom is a good one, too, so it’s a good thing that in most states, presiding judges have the discretion of allowing, prohibiting or restricting the use of cameras and other media devices in the courtroom.

Court procedures are supposed to be public.  From reading books like To Kill a Mockingbird, we can imagine a time when everybody in town had the time to crowd into the courthouse and watch the proceedings of the latest scandal.  These days, trials whose outcomes may greatly affect us take place in other states or countries.  In cases like these, cameras in the courtroom keep the public informed.

The controversy erupts, however, over the effects that cameras in the courtroom may have on the outcome of trials.  If the trial is liable to stir up public opinion, the jury or judge may feel compelled to adjust their decisions according to the public bent.  Trials of this category that come to mind are the O.J. Simpson trial, the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, and any trial where a judge may be hearing a controversial topic, such as gay marriage.

Other instances when cameras in the courtroom are just not a good idea are when juveniles or rape victims are involved, or on ocassions when a witness may feel intimidated if there are cameras in the courtroom.

Like most controversial subjects, there are pros and cons to having cameras in the courtroom.  However, the judge’s use of his best discernment when making decisions regarding cameras in the courtroom protects trial outcomes while keeping courts as public as possible.

Pro and Con Arguments on Gun Control

Posted on by
Reply

Gun control is a term that refers to a government disallowing or limiting its citizens’ right to own firearms.  The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly provides for the citizens’ “right to keep and bear arms”, and yet both state and federal governments have imposed gun laws on the citizens and the current government threatens to further tighten these laws.

Ostensibly, pro and con arguments on gun control hinge on crime.  And while many feel that free access to firearms increases crime, they fail to consider that most gun-related homicides are commited by people who are not legal gun owners.  Other arguments against gun control cite the gun-related deaths of children, whether accidental or purposeful, such as school shootings - again perpetrated by people who are not allowed to own a gun, as in the case of school shootings.  Accidental gun-related deaths of children are normally the result of someone breaking the law and leaving a firearm where a child or adolescent can get to it.  Either way, the laws already exist and lawbreakers will find a way to obtain outlawed guns.

Though socialist governments will perpetuate statistics about crime and the death of children in arguments over gun control, our founding fathers added the Second Amendment to the Constitution for one very important reason.  Having just won a hard-fought independence from an oppressive government, these men knew the importance of of gun ownership in protecting their own personal freedoms.  When only government officials have the right to own guns, then private citizens are at the mercy of the state.  Russia, Germany, China and Guatemala are a few modern-day examples of countries where gun control laws were enacted immediately prior to government performed mass-exterminations.

So maybe that particular gun control argument is a bit over the top.  Like most other arguments, there is plenty of spin on both sides, and regardless of what side you empathize with in the pro and con argument over gun control, the fact remains that strict gun laws exist in the United States today.  Are they saving lives or are they simply another means of increasing government control over the rights of free people?

Stem Cell Research Legal Issues

Posted on by
Reply

Stem cell research has raised hopes for scientists and disease sufferers worldwide.  Here’s how it works:  Not all cells in the human body are alike.  Instead they are little specialists that know how to operate the skin, brain, heart or other body organs.  Stem cells, some of which come from bone marrow, are like clean slates and can be trained to perform wherever a patient might need them.  The most successful stem cell research thus far has been with bone marrow transplants, but multiple sclerosis patients have also reported relief from symptoms after stem cell therapy.  The hope is that stem cell research will eventually help in the treatment of cancer, cardiac failure and all sorts of neurological diseases.

Stem cells can be harvested from adults, but where stem cell research legal issues generally arise are over the issues of in-vitro cloning of stem cells and the use of embryonic stem cells.  Stem cell research legal issues deal with embryonic stem cells that are closely akin to the debates over abortion and euthanasia.  This is because harvesting embryonic stem cells causes the death of living embryos and many believe that life begins at conception.  Complicating the dilemma is the fact that scientists breed embryos for the specific purpose of stem cell research.

Amidst all the controversies about stem cell research legal issues, worldwide laws vary from completely outlawing stem cell research to fully funding it.  Also, some countries who permit stem cell research have restrictions regarding cloning and the creation of embryos for the purposes of research.  Within the United States, these laws are just as variable among each state. 

Exciting benefits may well derive from stem cell research, but since studies have shown that adult stem cells may prove even more useful than embryonic stem cells, conclusive evidence to that effect would virtually eliminate both stem cell research legal issues and conflicts between ethics and medicine.

Separation of Church and State

Posted on by
Reply

For many years, “progressives” have used the term “separation of church and state” as a tool to effect changes they themselves deem necessary, namely to remove every vestige of Christianity from the lips and minds of Americans.  As a consequence, separation of church and state has come to mean that Christmas and Easter must now be referred to as winter and spring holidays, crosses on graves are offensive, and school prayer is now a thing of the past.

The sad thing is that the words that progressives always cite to credit Thomas Jefferson with the idea of the separation of church and state, actually mean quite the opposite of how they are used today.  Jefferson’s exact words were that the legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Meaning, in essence, that the United States government should leave religion alone, neither advocating a certain religion, nor prohibiting citizens from practicing their religion as they so choose.

Somewhere, unfortunately, between 1802 when Thomas Jefferson penned the letter that contained those words and the mid-20th century, certain factions devoted to humanist zealotry decreed that separation of church and state means that no mention of Christianity should ever be made by government or government operated entities such as the public school system.

If these same zealots had had an equal zealotry for teaching students basic American history instead of histrionic sound bites, then today’s leaders would have an understanding of the context of Jefferson’s idea separation of church and state.  Jefferson, an enlightened and educated man, understood from the history of Great Britain what it can mean to a country to have it’s king also ruler of the national religion.  These issues are quite different than allowing children to pray or even teaching them about Christianity in public schools.

Separation of church and state legally means that we should not require candidates for government office to adhere to any certain religion.  But separation of church and state also means that the state should have no control over any individual’s religious belief or expression, whether private citizen or public official.

No Child Left Behind

Posted on by
Reply

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was a bipartisan effort led by President George W. Bush, the purpose of which was to “close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility and choice so that no child is left behind.”  Since at least a couple of this year’s Republican party primary candidates have said that they would shut down the Board of Education, it is safe to say that many don’t think the No Child Left Behind Act has achieved its goal.

The No Child Left Behind Act works by forcing state schools to increase standardized test scores every year in order to receive federal money.  The National Assessment of Educational Progress, a report ultimately emanating from the National Board of Education, proffers numerous positive statistics on the improvement of overall results in the nation’s test scores, but analysts say the results may be skewed.

Critics of the No Child Left Behind Act believe that No Child Left Behind actually hurts students because it incentivizes states to lower achievement goals, while encouraging teachers to “teach to the test”.  “Teaching to the test” means that teachers focus most, if not all, of their classroom time on teaching basic facts that will be on the test, as well as test passing skills and techniques.

While these narrow-focused techniques may be unlike those late night cram sessions most of us remember, most of us would probably agree that facts are easily forgotten.  The toll that No Child Left Behind may be taking on the nation’s children is the absolute loss of the ability to think creatively.  Out-of-the-box problem solving and independent thinking skills are the building blocks of our country and may be what is causing our country to fall behind in today’s high-tech world.

A final point:  No Child Left Behind promised “choice”.  That “choice” comes when schools fail and students are allowed to attend higher performing schools outside of their district.  Real choice would be the privatization of education, letting schools compete in a free market system and giving parents vouchers to educate their children as they see fit.

Legalization of Gambling

Posted on by
Reply

People often have a knee-jerk reaction when it comes to the legalization of gambling.  Some feel that those who would outlaw gambling are attempting to legislate morality, since they see gambling as a harmless personal privilege akin to smoking marijuana.  In other words, if it doesn’t hurt anyone but the partaker or the participant, then it should be legal.  Those who would oppose the legalization of gambling say that gambling is destructive to families and to the community at large.

Proponents of the legalization of gambling maintain that tax income from gambling, including state lotteries, is beneficial to society and saves tax payers from digging deeper into their own pockets.  Legalized gambling also bolsters the economy when it is done in grand style as in the cases of Las Vegas and Atlantic City.  Tourists attracted to these areas create job opportunities in hotels, restaurants and other entertainment venues, as well as the casinos themselves.

When lawmakers attempt to determine the long-term and far-reaching effects of legalizing gambling, they tend to look at moral issues.  When evaluating legalizing state lotteries, for instance, it is often said that those that can least afford to particpate – the chronically poor, hoping for a way out of poverty – are those harmed the most as they spend their grocery money on lottery tickets.

Then there is the personality to which the legalization of gambling is deemed most harmful, the pathological gambler.  These individuals become addicted to gambling, taking ever greater risks – disregarding the well-being of themselves or their families.  The legalization of online gambling makes this even easier, as abusers need not leave their homes to lose everything.

Experts say that those who abuse gambling will do so whether or not gambling is legal, in the same way that in outlawing guns, only outlaws will have guns and alcoholics find liquor even in times of prohibition.  When both sides of the issue of the legalization of gambling are thoroughly analyzed, it seems that one side may heavily outweigh the other.

Child Labor Laws

Posted on by
Reply

Child labor has been employed throughout history when perhaps all but the most privileged children worked on family farms or establishments.  It was not until the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century that a need for child labor laws was widely recognized.

During the Industrial Revolution, people began to move from rural areas into larger cities in order to find employment in factories.  The influx of immigrants into the United States at this time also saw children entering the labor force.  In the early 1800′s, the term “sweatshop“ was coined and it now means any work environment where at least two labor laws are broken, child labor laws being one of the several from which to choose.

As working conditions in these sweatshops were often dangerous or fatal, public interest caused child labor laws to come into force.  The benefits were gradual.  Whereas children as young as four had worked in factories, the child labor laws began with setting the minimum age to 9 and allowing only 12 hours of work per day.  Current child labor laws strictly govern labor practices for all children under age 18, depending on the environment and the child’s extenuating circumstances, but in general, child labor laws permit children 16 years and older to work only three hours per day on school days.  The exception to this is in the field of agriculture where children of any age may work any non-school hours.

Before the 19th century, children were seen as small adults until developments in psychology seemed to indicate that children think, behave and have specialized needs apart from those of adults.  These developments led to child labor laws, as well as other considerations, such as a separate justice systems for juvenile offenders.  Societal concern over child labor has even led to ethical concern over buying products from other countries that are produced with child labor.

Plea Bargaining Pros and Cons

Posted on by
Reply

 

Plea bargaining pros and cons involve public perception as to weighing the importance of justice or the use of tax dollars in court cases and jail terms and whether either are being served in the plea bargaining system.

Plea bargaining arrangements have become what some see as an overused practice in the American judicial system.  Though a thorough dilineation of all plea bargaining pros and cons will be impossible to accomplish in this short space, we will endeavor to cover just a few in general and as specifically pertains to plea bargaining in the juvenile court system.

The advantages of plea bargaining are presented to the defendant as a way to lessen the penalty for a crime he allegedly committed.  The prosecutor endeavors to pursuade the defendant that if he goes to trial, he runs the risk of being convicted of all the crimes with which he has been charged and of receiving the harshest available sentence.  And again, the benefits of plea bargaining are presented to the American public as saving tax payer dollars.

However, the risks of plea bargaining to the defendant are that he may be intimidated into pleading guilty to a crime he did not commit.  For instance,  if it is suggested strongly enough to a defendant that the prosecution has enough evidence to put him away for life, he may be more likely to strike a plea bargain for a lesser sentence.

Plea bargaining pros and cons are of particular concern in the juvenile justice system.  In most states, juvenile defenders are overworked and many children accept plea bargains before they have had a chance to thoroughly consult with their attornies.  Because of the many special considerations necessary in dealing with juvenile offenders, the pros and cons of plea bargaining should be carefully examined in regards to juvenile sentencing.