Supreme Court

Ultimately, I don’t see any problem with the Supreme Court. However, I don’t know enough to place judgment I will express my opinion by what I do know. I was once listening to the radio about the United States becoming a monarchy and it got me thinking about how we as a whole place too much power in the leaders of America when we the people should have the final say. Nevertheless, the opposite is true, we let the President, even the Supreme Court rule us. From what I know the President chooses who is appointed into the Supreme Court. I don’t really understand why the people of the United States don’t choose who is appointed. Ultimately, it stands to reason that if we understand the President’s philosophies then we would not have to worry about who is appointed into the Supreme Court. However, from what I see going on and the decisions that the Supreme Court has made I would have to say that they are doing a pretty good job making the decisions. I also know that there are a number of different organizations that will fight on behalf of the people of the United States. However, on the other hand when it came to the fact that President Obama’s birth place was in question the Supreme Court denied to hear the Case even though Hawaii, the place Obama says he was born, has no records of him being born there. I think that In cases like that one the people should have the right to speak out and demand an answer. So, therefore I think that the Supreme Court did not do that great of a job and should not have that much power.

Issue of the case

“Conflict between science and religion began well before Charles Darwin published Origin of the Species. The most famous early controversy was the trial of Galileo in 1633 for publishing Dialogue, a book that supported the Copernican theory that the earth revolved around the sun, rather than--as the Bible suggests-- the other way around.” (http://www.law.umkc.edu) The first case, in the short life of the United States, came in 1968: Epperson vs. Arkansas. When a Little Rock biology teacher found that a text book adopted by the local school board included evolution. She was faced with a difficult dilemma: she could either use the book and violate state law or she could refuse to use the text and risk disciplinary action from the board itself. Her solution was to remove the problem by getting rid of the law. The second case came in 1987 in Edwards vs Aguillard where the courts struck down a Louisiana law that required biology teachers who taught the theory of evolution to also discuss evidence supporting the theory called "creation science." Justice Brennan argued that Louisiana's law failed on all three prongs of the test. First, it was not enacted to further a clear secular purpose. Second, the primary effect of the law was to advance the viewpoint that a "supernatural being created humankind," a doctrine central to the dogmas of certain religious denominations. Third, the law significantly entangled the interests of church and state by seeking "the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose." (www.oyez.org)” In 1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School District, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the First Amendment's establishment clause is not violated and that religious beliefs are not injected into the public school curriculum. The court upheld a district court finding that the school district had not violated Webster's free speech rights when it prohibited him from teaching "creation science", since it is a form of religious advocacy.” (http://ncseweb.org)

Illicit

Thinking about illicit crime makes me think whether this crime is actually a slippery slope, as some people presume, or if it is just greed, or both. Buying a copied Gucci purse, or some kind of copied material, or some other kind of fake item does not necessarily entail some person behind the scenes ready to make a nuclear bomb. People will do whatever means necessary to make a quick buck, some of these people that are out there making these fake items are not going to save up to make a bomb. I do understand, however, that there are people out there that hate the United States and will do whatever means to wipe us of the map. I can see how a lot of these organizations are paying people to sell their throwback items to make money to support their efforts. Now, I agree that something needs to be done when it comes to these copied items. Every one of these items logos or items are being copied. Regardless if people don’t think buying a copied purse or some other article of clothing is not going to cause some worldwide catastrophe what is going on is still illegal and needs to be stopped regardless. It is kind of tricky when thought about because now days people are always hearing about one world government and how just about everything is leading up to that. When you hear about this illicit crime going on, you immediately feel a little skeptic when it comes to the movies brought out by our government telling us that the world needs to come together to stop this world wide attack on the economy. There is no doubt that this is going on, there is just a question of can this be stopped without making quite a fuss about it?

Illicit

Thinking about illicit crime makes me think whether this crime is actually a slippery slope, as some people presume, or if it is just greed, or both. Buying a copied Gucci purse, or some kind of copied material, or some other kind of fake item does not necessarily entail some person behind the scenes ready to make a nuclear bomb. People will do whatever means necessary to make a quick buck, some of these people that are out there making these fake items are not going to save up to make a bomb. I do understand, however, that there are people out there that hate the United States and will do whatever means to wipe us of the map. I can see how a lot of these organizations are paying people to sell their throwback items to make money to support their efforts. Now, I agree that something needs to be done when it comes to these copied items. Every one of these items logos or items are being copied. Regardless if people don’t think buying a copied purse or some other article of clothing is not going to cause some worldwide catastrophe what is going on is still illegal and needs to be stopped regardless.

What is the problem with spam? Why from a legal perspective is it dangerous? “Spam messages waste the Internet's two most precious resources: the bandwidth of long-distance communications links and the time of network administrators who keep the Internet working from day to day. Spam also wastes the time of countless computer users around the planet. Furthermore, in order to deliver their messages, the people who send spam mail are increasingly resorting to fraud and computer abuse.” (http://oreilly.com.) When people check there e-mail they want what they are expecting to get. People are not looking for spam that will just waist there time. “E-mail addresses generally are not private (just like your phone number is not private if it is listed in the phone book). Once a spammer gets a hold of your e-mail address and starts sharing it with other spammers, you are likely to get a lot of spam. If you would like to send a lot of spam, then there are a number of companies set up to send "bulk e-mail." The largest of these companies are able to send billions of spam e-mail messages a day. They increasingly operate out of foreign countries to avoid U.S. laws and lawsuits trying to block spam.” ( howstuffworks.com)” “If one country passes laws against spam, professional spammers will just move abroad, the same way that the phone sex lines moved to the Carribean after the U.S. regulations on them became too restrictive.”(http://spam.abuse.net/faq/)By definition, spamming is illegal under the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (the "CAN-SPAM Act"). Spamming is the transmission of any unsolicited "electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service (including content on an Internet website operated for a commercial purpose)." (15 U.S.C. § 7702(2)(A).) The obligations of the Act apply to both the sender of the message and the person whose product, service, or web site is promoted by the message, both of whom are "senders" for purposes of the Act. (http://www.avvo.com)

What are the rights of a Property Owner?

Watching the move Pacific Heights, I first thought that all the property owners would have to do when the “ squatter” came onto their property was call the police and have him kicked off of their property. It is obviously not that easy. Apparently, “adverse possession, a law rooted in Anglo-Saxon history that has created a cottage industry of people who are attempting to capitalize on the weakness of others.”(PE.com)
“Almost every state allows adverse possession in some form. California law allows an individual to acquire title to a property if they've fenced it, openly occupied it without permission and paid property taxes continuously for five years.” Nevertheless, it seems the movie is a little dramatic, when the tenant first locked himself in the property owner should have broken down the door down because the tenant was not in right conduct. According to http://real-estate-law.freeadvice.com The length of time required for adverse possession in title varies - it could be as short as a few years or could run for twenty years or more. Typically public entities must establish a longer period of possession than individuals. Some states have adopted a rule which requires the adverse possessor to pay taxes each year on the land. The possession must be open for all to see. The possession must be exclusive to him or her (e.g., the fence in the above example, a driveway, road, etc.) The possession must be hostile to the actual owner of the land. To gain title to land through adverse possession requires strict compliance with the law, but can have dramatic impact upon land ownership rights.”

Part 1 Facts of the Case? Edwards v. Aguillard

Edwards v. Aguillard.


“In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Brennan in 1987, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's "Creationism Act" because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” (http://atheism.about.com/)
“A Louisiana law entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act" prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in the public schools unless that instruction was accompanied by the teaching of creation science.”(oyez.org) This of course violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Brennan found first that the Act did not have a secular purpose, and second that it did not advance academic freedom and restricted the abilities of teachers to teach what they deemed appropriate. Moreover, Louisiana provided instructional packets to assist in the teaching of creationism but nothing of the sort for the teaching of evolution - thus demonstrating an interest in promoting creationism and religion.