Saturday, March 28, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
My own argument
I agree with the Supreme Courts ruling to dismiss the case more than just because of the technicality. I believe that a child over the age of 5 can make some decision on there own. In this case Newdow was making the decision of weather or mot his daughter was harmed by listening to or reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. I know that most people would call me crazy and said children have little idea of right and wrong but when it comes to curtain things children have just as much idea as and adult like in this case religion.
I don’t agree with the 9th circuit courts ruling that the phrase “Under God” out of the pledge. When this country was founded it was founded on the bases of religion so having that stated in the Pledge of Allegiance. Children have the freedom to choose weather or not to recite the pledge at the beginning of the day. I believe that something like saying the Pledge of Allegiance is good it instills a sense of pride and nationality in a person. You don’t have to agree with everything a country believes to want to protect it. When I joined the military I didn’t agree with everything that the country was doing at the time but I wanted to protect the things I did agree with. Bad mouthing the beliefs of the founding fathers or our government I believe is an act of treason. If Newdow believed that the phrase “Under God” really hurt his daughter and took away his right to teacher his beliefs to her than he had better not take her near any churches or he better sue the churches also for displaying their beliefs for all to see.
I don’t agree with the 9th circuit courts ruling that the phrase “Under God” out of the pledge. When this country was founded it was founded on the bases of religion so having that stated in the Pledge of Allegiance. Children have the freedom to choose weather or not to recite the pledge at the beginning of the day. I believe that something like saying the Pledge of Allegiance is good it instills a sense of pride and nationality in a person. You don’t have to agree with everything a country believes to want to protect it. When I joined the military I didn’t agree with everything that the country was doing at the time but I wanted to protect the things I did agree with. Bad mouthing the beliefs of the founding fathers or our government I believe is an act of treason. If Newdow believed that the phrase “Under God” really hurt his daughter and took away his right to teacher his beliefs to her than he had better not take her near any churches or he better sue the churches also for displaying their beliefs for all to see.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Newdow vs. US Congress
In the case of Newdow vs US Congress Newdow, an atheist, was against the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools specifically the phrase “Under God”. Newdow stated that the Pledge of Allegiance force religion on the students especially his daughter and also violated the separation of church and state. He also stated the addition of the phrase “Under God” in 1954 was done unconstitutionally and therefore is should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Newdow said that even thought his daughter is not forced to say it she is injured just watching and listening to it and seeing a state-employed teacher leading it.Newdow requested that the president and the US Supreme Court remove the words “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance because it was unconstitutionally added and because it violated the separation of church and state. On this issue the district courts have no authority to make this request for one the president has no authority to amend statute or declare a law unconstitutional this act being reserved for congress and federal judiciary only. Thus the case was brought to the US Supreme Court."
Congress Confirms 'God' in Pledge, Motto ." US Government Info. 19 Mar
2009 ."MICHAEL A. NEWDOW vs United States District Court ." UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. June 26, 2002. 7 Mar 2009 .
Congress Confirms 'God' in Pledge, Motto ." US Government Info. 19 Mar
2009 ."MICHAEL A. NEWDOW vs United States District Court ." UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. June 26, 2002. 7 Mar 2009 .
Pacific Hieghts
Pacific Heights is a movie about a couple who buys a house and rent out the lower portion. The first couple is a nice oriental couple who seem very nice but the second occupant is trouble. The first sign of trouble is when he comes to see the studio and claims to have spoken to the girlfriend about the place already but when the guy asks her about it she has no idea who he is. Another is the fact that he can't give the landlord any of the information he requests to do a credit check instead he tries to buy him off and leads him on a wild goose chance. Then he invites himself in and saying he was told he could be there for the telephone install. I think I would have called the cops right away when he wouldn’t answer the door the first time I tried to go in. I really don't think the law is right in this case. If a bum takes up residents in my garage he doesn't have rights to anything and I should be able to kick him out right away without any legal recourse.
First monday in October
In this movie some good points were brought up on both sides of the argument. On one side the fact of protecting the innocence of the country and the people and keeping the natural progression of decay in a sense down. Chief Justice Ruth is fighting to keep porn off the streets and people like Malhoney from calling their work art and defiling the beauty of innocence, while Chief Justice Snow is trying to keep the people from losing their freedom of speech. Justice Snow does not agree with the film in fact he called it crap but he is defending it simply on the fact that if they make Malhoney stop he is having his freedom of speech taken away.I feel that the Supreme Court should always be made up of men and women because of the fact that the opposite sex looks at things differently. If there were a case in front of the court about women’s rights than I don’t think that an all male court could make that right decision on the case because they don’t have the opinion of a female on the problem. There are always two arguments to every problem and I think having a female in the court can help view both sides.On the issue of pornography I feel to each his own. I don’t both with what other people do in their own life as far as that goes. On the other hand I would feel differently if they started making porn more easily accessible to children now I know that you can get it easily on the internet but you do have to provide so kind of proof that you are of legal age to view it via a credit card so it is not out there for the children to get easy access to
Reasoning of the court
The Supreme Court dismissed the case due to Newdow not having the right to speak for his daughter since he was is the middle of a divorce and losing parental control.
When congress passed their bill they listed many historical reasons in which it states the importance of God and religion in American government and history. One being Thomas Jefferson who wrote “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever." Also the phrase “The Year of our Lord” in Article VII of the Constitution would render the entire Constitution unconstitutional.
Cline, Austin. "Supreme Court Dismissed Pledge Case." 21 Mar 2009.
Longley, Robert . "Brief history of the Pledge of Allegiance." About.com. 19 Mar 2009.
When congress passed their bill they listed many historical reasons in which it states the importance of God and religion in American government and history. One being Thomas Jefferson who wrote “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever." Also the phrase “The Year of our Lord” in Article VII of the Constitution would render the entire Constitution unconstitutional.
Cline, Austin. "Supreme Court Dismissed Pledge Case." 21 Mar 2009
Longley, Robert . "Brief history of the Pledge of Allegiance." About.com. 19 Mar 2009
Decision of the court
In June of 2003 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in favor of Newdow but this was met with great opposing and the ruling was appealed and over turned. In the following month’s attorney from every state asked the Supreme Court to hear the case and the Supreme Court agreed. On March 24 2004 the Supreme Court heard the case.
The Supreme Court ended up dismissing the case on the grounds the Newdow did not have standing to challenge the Pledge of Allegiance.
Congress passed a bill in response to the case and along with it modified the manner in which the Pledge of Allegiance should be delivered. When not in uniform, men should remove any non-religious hat, cap or headdress. The previous requirement was for men not in uniform to remove any headdress.
In a previous case in West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette the Supreme Court had ruled that any government run school could not force students to say the Pledge of Allegiance or punish those who refused which contradicted a previous case Minersville School District vs. Gobitis which stated schools could require students to learn and recite the Pledge of Allegiance as a form of pride and nationality
Cline, Austin. "Newdow v. U.S. Congress." Agnosticism / Atheism. 19 Mar 2009.
Newdow vs. US Congress, et al. ." Knowledgerush. 19 Mar 2009
"MICHAEL A. NEWDOW vs United States District Court ." UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. June 26, 2002. 7 Mar 2009.
The Supreme Court ended up dismissing the case on the grounds the Newdow did not have standing to challenge the Pledge of Allegiance.
Congress passed a bill in response to the case and along with it modified the manner in which the Pledge of Allegiance should be delivered. When not in uniform, men should remove any non-religious hat, cap or headdress. The previous requirement was for men not in uniform to remove any headdress.
In a previous case in West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette the Supreme Court had ruled that any government run school could not force students to say the Pledge of Allegiance or punish those who refused which contradicted a previous case Minersville School District vs. Gobitis which stated schools could require students to learn and recite the Pledge of Allegiance as a form of pride and nationality
Cline, Austin. "Newdow v. U.S. Congress." Agnosticism / Atheism. 19 Mar 2009
Newdow vs. US Congress, et al. ." Knowledgerush. 19 Mar 2009
"MICHAEL A. NEWDOW vs United States District Court ." UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. June 26, 2002. 7 Mar 2009
Issue of Case
When the Pledge of Allegiance was first written in 1892 it was “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” then in 1923 it was revised to “I pledge allegiance to the Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” and was finally recognized by congress in 1942. In 1943 the Supreme Court ruled that students in public school were not forced to recite the pledge. The final change to the pledge was made in 1954 by President Eisenhower when he added the words “Under God” to the pledge stating that "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
In the Supreme Court the issues that were discussed where weather or not the act of adding the words Under God into the Pledge of Allegiance where protected but the Speech and Debate Clause or not. Also weather on not the phrase goes against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment where is says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” and also Separation of Church and
State, the court looked to see whether or not the acts fall within the legitimate legislative sphere, if they did congress was protected. The question was, was the phrase “Under God” added for worthy purpose if not the act was unprotected. Last the court looked to see if Newdow had standing to challenge the Pledge of Allegiance.
"MICHAEL A. NEWDOW vs United States District Court ." UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. June 26, 2002. 7 Mar 2009.
Longley, Robert . "Brief history of the Pledge of Allegiance." About.com. 19 Mar 2009.
In the Supreme Court the issues that were discussed where weather or not the act of adding the words Under God into the Pledge of Allegiance where protected but the Speech and Debate Clause or not. Also weather on not the phrase goes against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment where is says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” and also Separation of Church and
State, the court looked to see whether or not the acts fall within the legitimate legislative sphere, if they did congress was protected. The question was, was the phrase “Under God” added for worthy purpose if not the act was unprotected. Last the court looked to see if Newdow had standing to challenge the Pledge of Allegiance.
"MICHAEL A. NEWDOW vs United States District Court ." UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. June 26, 2002. 7 Mar 2009
Longley, Robert . "Brief history of the Pledge of Allegiance." About.com. 19 Mar 2009
Facts of case
In the case of Newdow vs US Congress Newdow, an atheist, was against the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools specifically the phrase “Under God”. Newdow stated that the Pledge of Allegiance force religion on the students especially his daughter and also violated the separation of church and state. He also stated the addition of the phrase “Under God” in 1954 was done unconstitutionally and therefore is should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. Newdow said that even thought his daughter is not forced to say it she is injured just watching and listening to it and seeing a state-employed teacher leading it.
Newdow requested that the president and the US Supreme Court remove the words “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance because it was unconstitutionally added and because it violated the separation of church and state. On this issue the district courts have no authority to make this request for one the president has no authority to amend statute or declare a law unconstitutional this act being reserved for congress and federal judiciary only. Thus the case was brought to the US Supreme Court.
"Congress Confirms 'God' in Pledge, Motto ." US Government Info. 19 Mar 2009.
"MICHAEL A. NEWDOW vs United States District Court ." UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. June 26, 2002. 7 Mar 2009.
Newdow requested that the president and the US Supreme Court remove the words “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance because it was unconstitutionally added and because it violated the separation of church and state. On this issue the district courts have no authority to make this request for one the president has no authority to amend statute or declare a law unconstitutional this act being reserved for congress and federal judiciary only. Thus the case was brought to the US Supreme Court.
"Congress Confirms 'God' in Pledge, Motto ." US Government Info. 19 Mar 2009
"MICHAEL A. NEWDOW vs United States District Court ." UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. June 26, 2002. 7 Mar 2009
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Final Project update
In reading up on this case I have found that Newdows issue is not so much that the words “In God We Trust” are offensive to him it is that making teachers lead their classes in the pledge of allegiance takes away some of the parents decision in the religious upbringing of their children and can contradict what they are trying to teach their children about religion. In this case Newdow is an atheist and by having the teachers state that there is a god it contradicts what he is teaching his daughter. His main argument is that the words “In God We Trust” never should have been allowed to be added because Congress went against the US Constitution.
I will not be here next week but for the following week I hope to have the reason for the case being before the Supreme Court and the rulings of the case written
I will not be here next week but for the following week I hope to have the reason for the case being before the Supreme Court and the rulings of the case written
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Smash Me Customer Doll
I would design a smash me customer doll. It would have a detachable head with multiple different heads that you could replace it with. Working in the department store industry I have dealt with several customers that I wish I could strangle them and I know that I'm not the only one.
I had a customer come in the other day asking to return and Xbox that his kid had smashed out of frustration with a game. When I told him we could not accept it he got mad stating he had just bought it two weeks ago and we should take it back and give him a new one. I told him that if it was damaged when he took it out of the box I could return it but because it was damaged by his kid after he had used it then it voided the warranty.
I also hate the customers that come in five minutes before closing and then get mad when you tell them they have to leave at closing time. They knew that the store was closing because I told them when they walked and it is posted on the door but they think that just means you have to be in the door and then you can stay until you are done shopping.
I had a customer come in the other day asking to return and Xbox that his kid had smashed out of frustration with a game. When I told him we could not accept it he got mad stating he had just bought it two weeks ago and we should take it back and give him a new one. I told him that if it was damaged when he took it out of the box I could return it but because it was damaged by his kid after he had used it then it voided the warranty.
I also hate the customers that come in five minutes before closing and then get mad when you tell them they have to leave at closing time. They knew that the store was closing because I told them when they walked and it is posted on the door but they think that just means you have to be in the door and then you can stay until you are done shopping.
Greed is good
Greed can be good in some ways but it can hurt you also. To me greed means wanting something more than others. When you apply for a job you have to be greedy to get the job if you don’t want the job the most chances are it is going to show in the interview and you will not get hired somebody else who wanted I more will. You also want to be greedy went it comes to your family, you want to provide for them the best that you can and by being greedy when it comes to pay or time at work you can do that. The person that goes into a job and doesn’t fight for a bigger pay check is going to get the minimum wage and if you don’t work all the hour you are given or even more if asked you are going to be going home with less than you could have.
Then there is bad greed like we saw in the move. When you are out just to make money no matter what the expense it can come back to get you. "Executive who new the firm was heading for bankruptcy were queitly selling their share of stock while encouraging employees to retain and even buy additional share" Essential of Business Law Anthony L Liuzzo pg 18.People who sell a company just to get the big pay check but don’t care about the people that lost their jobs or everything they had because of the buyout. When that person goes to get a new job or a new investment may get turned away because of what happened at their last company.
Then there is bad greed like we saw in the move. When you are out just to make money no matter what the expense it can come back to get you. "Executive who new the firm was heading for bankruptcy were queitly selling their share of stock while encouraging employees to retain and even buy additional share" Essential of Business Law Anthony L Liuzzo pg 18.People who sell a company just to get the big pay check but don’t care about the people that lost their jobs or everything they had because of the buyout. When that person goes to get a new job or a new investment may get turned away because of what happened at their last company.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Myspace hoax Comment
"Even if she didn’t pull the trigger herself, as she exclaimed to reporters, she definitely handed the girl a loaded weapon and pointed it in the right direction."
I think Anthony brings up a good point. Sometimes we do things to people to make them do what they are already thinking about doing it called peer presure. Sometimes all people need is a little nudge. I work security for a department store here in town and i see it all the time. Kids will come in the store with friends and steal because their friends say they should it would be fun when we ask them why they don't now why they just do it. I think thats alot like this store she didnt make her kill herself but she gave her a good nudge in that direction.
"I think the acts committed by Lori Drew and her daughter, are not criminal. Life is life and people can’t legally be held responsible for causing someone to have a bad day. Lori Drew is not responsible for the state of mind of the 13 year old, nor her weight or her choice in friends."
I can’t believe somebody could think like this. No Lori Drew is not to blame for the girl state at the time but she knew about it and she knew that was she was doing was only going to make makers worse. Lori and her daughter didn’t just cause the girl to have a “bad day” they cause all sorts of undo harm to her selfasteem and reputation. Loriand her daughter didn’t know that was going to end up how it did but they certainly played a role in making it happen
“In all, I feel that Megan’s parents are to blame in this situation. If they did not allow Megan to start a MySpace account, this would have never happened.”
I somewhat agree with this. Yes the parents are partly to blame because they should have been regulating her MySpace use better but kids are going to be kids. It doesn’t matter what you do if they want to do something then they are going to find a way to do it.
I think Anthony brings up a good point. Sometimes we do things to people to make them do what they are already thinking about doing it called peer presure. Sometimes all people need is a little nudge. I work security for a department store here in town and i see it all the time. Kids will come in the store with friends and steal because their friends say they should it would be fun when we ask them why they don't now why they just do it. I think thats alot like this store she didnt make her kill herself but she gave her a good nudge in that direction.
"I think the acts committed by Lori Drew and her daughter, are not criminal. Life is life and people can’t legally be held responsible for causing someone to have a bad day. Lori Drew is not responsible for the state of mind of the 13 year old, nor her weight or her choice in friends."
I can’t believe somebody could think like this. No Lori Drew is not to blame for the girl state at the time but she knew about it and she knew that was she was doing was only going to make makers worse. Lori and her daughter didn’t just cause the girl to have a “bad day” they cause all sorts of undo harm to her selfasteem and reputation. Loriand her daughter didn’t know that was going to end up how it did but they certainly played a role in making it happen
“In all, I feel that Megan’s parents are to blame in this situation. If they did not allow Megan to start a MySpace account, this would have never happened.”
I somewhat agree with this. Yes the parents are partly to blame because they should have been regulating her MySpace use better but kids are going to be kids. It doesn’t matter what you do if they want to do something then they are going to find a way to do it.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Video Game Lawsuit
The lawsuit over Grand Theft Auto San Andreas is nothing new in this country. People are always shocked about what they see when they now it’s there. When you buy this game you know that there is going to be scenes of graphic nature in it there always has been in these games. The lady that bought it for her underage grandson should not be shocked, it has an “M” rating on it and it says on the cover what is in the game.
The game developers should not be responsible for people going online and getting codes for their game. They did provide the codes but they did not force people to buy the code and use it so whoever uses the code knowingly void the rating provided on the game and breaking the contract. I that Take Two did more than they had to buy offering to buy back the game from all those who found it offensive.
This brings up another issue of this nations sensitivity toward violence. The grandma bought the game for her 13 year old grandson knowing it had violence and graphic scenes but that didn’t bother her, the think that did was the sexual content. When I was younger it was rare to find games that you would shoot people in but know if it’s not a sport game there is lots of violence in it. For instance I bought a golf game the other day that you can beat the crap out of your caddy if you want know I knew that you could do this before I bought the game so I’m not saying that I am completely against all violence in game I just want to get everybody thinking about what road we are on.
The game developers should not be responsible for people going online and getting codes for their game. They did provide the codes but they did not force people to buy the code and use it so whoever uses the code knowingly void the rating provided on the game and breaking the contract. I that Take Two did more than they had to buy offering to buy back the game from all those who found it offensive.
This brings up another issue of this nations sensitivity toward violence. The grandma bought the game for her 13 year old grandson knowing it had violence and graphic scenes but that didn’t bother her, the think that did was the sexual content. When I was younger it was rare to find games that you would shoot people in but know if it’s not a sport game there is lots of violence in it. For instance I bought a golf game the other day that you can beat the crap out of your caddy if you want know I knew that you could do this before I bought the game so I’m not saying that I am completely against all violence in game I just want to get everybody thinking about what road we are on.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Lawyer blog comment
I went to Barnhurst, Valerie Louise blog on lawyers and I would have to agree with what she has to say. This nation was built on the blood sweat and tears of many people and then there are those who chose to take advantage of that. I have worked since I was 12 in many different places and for many different people including the military. I have seen people work hard to get promoted but I have also seen people get promoted because they know somebody in a position of power that pulled some strings. They had no idea what they were doing and things got messed up but because they knew somebody they didn’t see any repercussions. Lawyers who have ties to people in power don’t have to work as hard to get a favorable verdict in their case and in some cases people suffer because of it. If a child if being abused but he can’t get a big lawyer to take their case and the parents are able to afford somebody with power the child’s case may be thrown out and they have to return to an abusive family. It not right
Myspace Hoax
The story of the young girl who committed suicide because of a failed internet romance is sad but the thing that is sadder is the fact that the women who created the hoax feeling no remorse for what she had done. I’m pretty sure she never intended on making the girl kill herself but she did a pretty good job of taking a girl who she knew was unstable and dragging her through the mud.
Megan trusted “Josh” which is what his creator said she want so she could get to know Megan but she took it a step further and started to create a romance. After getting Megan to believe they had something she took that and made a mockery of Megan by starting to post mean things about her calling Megan names and dragging her name through the mud where everybody could she. Megan in her unstable state got really depressed and took her life.
I think the lady responsible should be prosecuted for harassment because she knew what she was doing and she knew who she was doing it to. She started by making a false identity for herself presenting herself as somebody she wasn’t to get closer to Megan, this is no different than a sexual predator. Now she didn’t go to the extremes that a sexual predator does but she did betray Megan’s trust just the same.
“Ethical issues involving Internet and computer technology also have prompted people to consider ethical issues such as privacy and free speech on the internet” (Essentials of Business Law, Anthony L. Liuzzo, pg 19) “An individual’s values are significantly influenced by those held by the group to which he or she belongs” (Essentials of Business Law, Anthony L. Liuzzo, pg 19)
Megan trusted “Josh” which is what his creator said she want so she could get to know Megan but she took it a step further and started to create a romance. After getting Megan to believe they had something she took that and made a mockery of Megan by starting to post mean things about her calling Megan names and dragging her name through the mud where everybody could she. Megan in her unstable state got really depressed and took her life.
I think the lady responsible should be prosecuted for harassment because she knew what she was doing and she knew who she was doing it to. She started by making a false identity for herself presenting herself as somebody she wasn’t to get closer to Megan, this is no different than a sexual predator. Now she didn’t go to the extremes that a sexual predator does but she did betray Megan’s trust just the same.
“Ethical issues involving Internet and computer technology also have prompted people to consider ethical issues such as privacy and free speech on the internet” (Essentials of Business Law, Anthony L. Liuzzo, pg 19) “An individual’s values are significantly influenced by those held by the group to which he or she belongs” (Essentials of Business Law, Anthony L. Liuzzo, pg 19)
Lawyers
I have family members that are lawyers and I have a few friends who are also lawyers so I have no real issue with them. In my job I have to appear in court from time to time as a witness in theft cases and the lawyer I deal with is a pretty cool guy. Everybody needs to be able to provide for their family if being a lawyer is the way you do that than good on you. Somebody has to protect the people who have been wronged or those who don’t have the ability to protect themselves like children. The problem that I do have with lawyers is when they take advantage of people because they are lawyers. When a lawyer takes on a case that deals with some money settlement between two individual and they push their client to go for a big settlement whether it’s necessary or not just because they will get a big pay check for it, that’s where I have a problem. The other family may not be able to pay the settlement but the lawyer doesn’t care because he got a new car out of the deal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)