“An Uphill Climb for Gun Laws” Us Laws and World Report. 142.15 (2007) 46-47 Academic Search Premiere. Ebscohost. Owens Lib. 12, March 2008 Http://www.ebscohost.com Sullen, Jacob.
2009. "Conservatorship of Burton: mental illness and the right to refuse." The Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics: A Journal Of The American Society Of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37, no. 2: 380-382. MEDLINE, EBSCOhost (accessed June 1, 2010).
Sherman, M. (2008). High Court: Gitmo Detainees have Rights in Court. Associated Press, June 12, 2008, Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fap.google.com%2Farticle%2FALeqM5iS3b8PdQ_oVlJA2eFtDvhnnTUvFwD918J1QO0&date=2008-06-12 on June 12, 2008, Retrieved October 10, 2014. United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9, clause 2. United States Constitution, Article II, Section
Test for California’s pot economy (Article 08827729). Retrieved from KU library: http://web.ebscohost.com.kaplan.uah.edu/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=119&sid=71012fd6-b5db-4aa5-ac1f-844652e8df3d%40sessionmgr111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=43433489#db=aph&AN=43433489 Wood, D. B. (2009, November 22). Medical marijuana gains momentum -- 13 states and counting. (web site 45635198).
Retrieved April 20, 2009 from: http://hsc.unm.edu/about/Databook/29.pdf. J. Pearce and R. Robinson, (2004). Strategic Management: Formulation, Implementation, and Control. The McGraw-Hill Companies. Governor Richardson’s Health Care Summit on the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center.
Schenck said he was protected under first amendment rights. At the end of the trial, the Supreme Court ruled that Schenck was guilty because his actions created clear and present danger to the country. This is why someone cannot shout “fire” in a crowded theater. The book Hitman created a clear and present danger to citizens. It created trained killers and told them how to get away and not get caught.
Also, the attempt on President Reagan, as well as the recent string of shootings in American schools. Following the assassinations, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, with its central aim being a national standard on how and to whom guns were sold. This was added on to in 1994 with the Brady Act, which required gun dealers to run background checks on gun buyers before selling them to the buyers. While there are some gun regulations currently in affect in the United States, pro gun control advocates still want more, while anti gun control advocates strongly oppose them. Along with a number of other things, the two opposing views are backed by different interpretations of the Second Amendment.
(2008). Employer adoption of evidence-based chronic disease prevention practices: a pilot study. Retrieved November 10, 2010, from http://www.cdc.gov/PCD/issues/2008/jul/07_0070.htm Geyman, J.P. (2005). Myths and memes about single-payer health insurance in the United States: a rebuttal to conservative claims. International Journal of Health Services, 35(1), p. 63–90.
Forced Drug Testing CJA/373 Forced Drug Testing Drug testing is being given to many people for different reasons such as obtaining employment. One may ask should drug testing be forced upon those entering the prison system. Is it fair for those obtaining employment be given a drug test but not to those that are criminals. Criminals are given drug tests to ensure bail is set at a level that can be obtained and so that the courts can recommend that, they receive help for their addictions. Looking at individuals having to do drug testing to obtain employment I do not see why a defendant should not have to do the same.
As many have heard discussed on the news, there is much debate about the new law to require welfare recipients to under go drug testing. While there are many states to follow this law, there is still much deliberation on whether this law is ethical or unjust. A recent Rasmussen poll showed that 53 percent of American’s believed that recipients should be tested before receiving benefits, 13 percent supported random testing, and 29 percent thought testing should be used only if there was a reasonable suspicion of illegal drug use. The aspect on discipline resulted in 70 percent believing recipients who are found using illegal drugs should have their benefits cut off and 58 percent believe the rule should be one strike and you’re cut off. Florida, being the first state to pass the law, decided that applicants who test positive for controlled substances will either have to complete a substance-abuse program or be banned from receiving benefits for a year.