EPA 2012). When the EPA succeeds in a civil action, the civil penalty is not to exceed 37,500 per for each violation (Sackett v. EPA 2012). Once the Sacketts did fill out the proper documentation the permit still needed to go though proper channels for approval the punishment just comes across extreme. After everything that took place with the cases filed to fight the compliance the Sacketts would still be unable to get the approval needed to continue on with the work they were doing on their property. The Sacketts still would need to go through the permit process through the Army Corps of Engineers (Sackett v. EPA 2012).
Basically the MSPB put the ball back in Charles Richmond ballpark saying he should have known better. The MSPB claimed that OPM cannot be held liable when the statues are posted about eligibility. Charles Richmond appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after MSPB denied his claim. Decisions The Court of Appeals granted certiorari. The Federal Court was divided and reversed the decision agreeing with Charles that the misinformation of the Navy specialist estopped the
In her conclusion she also states that it is not appropriate for Indian remains to be used for future research, and that this problem has been going on for to long. She wishes for the reburying of her ancestors, so they could be given a chance to rest. 3. What evidence does Harjo present to refute the claim that housing skeletal remains of Native Americans in museums is necessary for medical research and may benefit living Indians? Harjo presents the observation of a Dr. Emery A. Johnson, as evidence to refute the claim that housing skeletal remains of Native
“The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011(P.L. 112-78), enacted on December 23, 2011, included provisions requiring the Secretary of State to issue a permit for the project within 60 days, unless the President publicly determined the project not to be in the national interest”(Parformak). Well President Obama found the 60 days too short to fulfill such a permit and he denied the permit once again. I honestly think all the veto power that is issued in our government is ridiculous. With this power in our political system nothing new ever gets a chance to be implemented into our lives.
The highly political aspect of the Yucca Mountain issue is shown in a directive issued by the NRC to begin closing out the evaluation of Yucca Mountain. In an article by Steve Tetreault “one of the five commissioners for the independent nuclear safety agency protested the directive.” The result was two commissioners recommended releasing an upcoming safety evaluation, while the other three commissioners abstained from the vote. As a The result was a quorum was not achieved and the directive is being will be carried out. This came shortly after Kenneth Rogers (who served on the commission from 1987-1997) said he did not believe the NRC Chairman, Gregory Jaczko, had the authority to issue a shutdown order. Rogers also feared the NRC’s reputation for independence was being tainted (Tetreault).
In the article “No Sympathy” was a quote by Prime Minister David Tusk stated two years before as he replied to a human rights group as said “I do not believe that we can call these individuals -- these creatures -- human beings," he added. "So in this case, we don't need to discuss human rights." At the end of the day the important question to ask is this. Is castration about punishment of offenders or public safety? Dr. Keith Albow gave his analysis on Fox News.com in the article “chemical castration” his article conveniently contains info discussing of a scientific study that found that offenders on Depo-Provera re-offended less than 1 percent in comparison to 68 whom were not taking the drug.
Anth 202 Indian Gaming Native Americans being allowed to build casinos on their native land, in my opinion, should not even be an argument. I think whether or not a casino would be good for the area is what should be important when a tribe is considering building a casino. According to federal law, any state where a nationally recognized Native American tribe wishes to engage in class 3 gaming on their own land must engage in negotiations of a tribal-state compact with the tribe in good faith(IGRA, 1988). Basically what this means is that if a tribe wants to build a casino the state must allow them to do so unless they can prove the casino will have more of a negative impact than a positive one. I think in most cases that would be hard to prove but there are many things to consider when weighing the pros and cons of building a casino.
Instead, in a series of decisions dating back to the late nineteenth century, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protected either the states' right to maintain militias or the individual's right to bear arms “in the service of military”. But in 2008, the Court reversed course, holding that the amendment does protect a basic individual right to own and use guns for lawful purposes including self-defense. Supporters of gun rights and advocates of gun control will surely continue to debate the true meaning of the Second Amendment long into the future. The text of first amendment of The United States Constitution is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
Can Congress pass legislation that allows for the creation of citizen suits that confer standing upon citizens who would not be able to allege an injury in fact? Opinion of the Court: Even if the Court were to assume that the agency-funded projects at issue threatened listed species, there was no proof that these actions would produce "actual or imminent" injuries to particular respondents who might someday wish to visit the foreign countries in question. The Court disregarded the proposed theory of "ecosystem nexus" which claimed that any person who used any part of a "contiguous ecosystem" adversed affected by a funded activity had standing to
This IS reverse discrimination, and it should not <br>be practiced. Race should NOT be considered at all in any admissions <br>program that is federally funded. By trying to right past wrongs on <br>minorities by incurring wrongs on the majority today, it will start a cycle <br>that will, in th e worst case, be never ending. For example, if yesterday <br>a Negro could not get into a college because of discrimination, then today <br>we'll let him in because we want to try to right the wrong of yesterday. <br>But in doing so, we must not admit a white because he is white.