We believe the editor is directing their editorial toward an audience that includes same sex-spouses and people that either support or do not support the Defense of Marriage Act. The unspoken question to the audience is, “Why are the Republicans defending a law that has been found unconstitutional for over 2 years in several court systems without providing solid evidence to the
The University of California was the first big affirmative action case in history. It set a precedent that would help future Supreme Courts with their decisions. The precedent was that colleges could take race and nationality into effect while considering students for admission, but could not make it a sole requirement. In this case, Bakke was refused entry 2 consecutive years. The university had a quota system set up that 16 of the 100 spots open for that program would go to minorities, and Bakke argued that this was unconstitutional.
Alabama Immigration Law In June 2011, a new bill concerning illegal immigrants was signed into law. This bill is called the “Hammon-Beason Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act” or “Alabama HB 56.” It is an anti-illegal immigration bill and it is regarded as America’s harshest anti-illegal immigration law to date, just above Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law that caused quite a stir in the media and has been constantly challenged, headed to the supreme court soon. Signed into law on June 9, 2011 by Governor Robert J. Bentley, the law was written by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, and cosponsored by Alabama State Senator Scott Beason and Alabama Representative Micky Hammon. The law was passed by the Alabama House of
They were either pursuing a better life, new opportunities, or just running away from a political system. Here they found peace, tranquility and opportunity for advancement — the so-called” American Dream”. Illegal immigration is one of the most controversial issues in the United States, but the new the Arizona law has provoked intense debate from Texas to Montana, drawing support in several polls and generating rejection by major civil rights groups. That is, Americans are trying to correct unlawful immigration dilemma with laws that infringe people’s freedom, liberty and equality. Although the federal government stills working on the immigration reform, according to Arizona’s law, it is a state crime not carrying immigration documents.
Hayden Price 12/4/13 Poli Sci 2040 CASE BRIEF 10: Clinton v. Jones (1997) 1) Clinton v. Jones 2) 520 U.S. 681 3) Paula Corbin Jones, who was an Arkansas state employee, sued President Bill Clinton for sexually harassing her while Clinton was still the Governor of Arkansas. Her lawsuit sought more than half a million dollars in damages. Clinton insisted that the case be stayed, and resumed only after he had left office. He also insisted that Presidents could be sued for neither their official nor their unofficial actions while in office. In 1994 a lower federal court judge postponed the trail indefinitely and this postponement was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
She writes about how the government told the public nuclear testing was not dangerous and was needed to beat the enemy, and writes about the important law suit “Irene Allen vs the United States of America” which started educating the people and even the government about the harmful effects of nuclear testing near and around the public. Finally on May 10, 1984 the United States awarded plaintiffs for the damages. According to Williams, “it was the first time a federal court had determined that nuclear tests had been the cause of cancers.” However, the next year the Court of Appeals overturned the ruling based on a century-old idea from Monarchial England which meant that the United States was protected from suit by the legal
Wills’ claims that the federal government's chief law enforcement official might need a refresher course on federal law pertaining to legal immigrants. Some American legislators have taken up the position that prohibiting bilingual ballots would be racist. However, evidence shows that millions of other American citizens feel that prohibiting the bilingual ballot is a step in the right direction. Wills’ begins his article with a political anecdote quoted by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. When he was asked whether he would favor the prohibition of the bilingual ballot, he simply stated, “Of course not.” Wills’ continues in the next section stating that our national identity and our federal laws are being weakened by immigration that is influenced by these bilingual ballots.
U.S. Constitution Paper BUS/415 University of Phoenix In the last several months most of us have heard the word “unconstitutional” thrown about all over the media in regards to the proposed Healthcare Reform Bill. In order to fully understand why there is so much controversy surrounding this proposed bill, we must first understand the constitution. The constitution of the United States is a legal document, which provides the foundation for the functions of the federal government. It is the final standing law of the United States. The constitution of the United States frames the fundamental structure of the U.S federal government and provides standards for fundamental rights of the citizens.
“On April 23, 2010, Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed into law a discriminatory and un-American law that will require police officers in Arizona to ask people for their papers based only on some undefined "reasonable suspicion" that they are in the country unlawfully. We believe this law, which invites
Freedom? The immigration fight in the United States has been going on for a very long time and has proven to be quite controversial. Is immigration reform a product of what happen on September 11, 2001 and there is a genuine need for stricter immigration laws and higher national security? Or is it just a need to prevent certain groups of people from immigrating to the United States each year? Some people might say the immigration laws are put into place to protect Americans and their rights; however, studies have shown and will show there has been bias since the founding of the United States in the immigration laws.