Class Posts

Friend of the Court – Amicus Brief Badge (150 points)

Written by american-government-3b2

I believe that the United States should recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. Just because Jerusalem is the center of main conflict in the East doesn’t mean that we can just not recognize them. Ari Zivotofsky wants his son’s birth certificate to state where he was actually born and I believe that his son has the right to have it stated on his birth certificate. Even though we don’t get along with Jerusalem doesn’t mean we shouldn’t recognize it as the capital of Israel. All of us have our actual place of birth on our birth certificate and this kid deserves nothing less just because we don’t get along with where he was born. I believe we need to stay on everybody’s good side and by not recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel we aren’t be nice to everyone. If we are nice to them and show them respect, then we are being the better people. We should recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel otherwise it will come back to ruin us.

Amicus Brief Badge

Written by american-government-344

My client, widely known to be an atheist group, supports Perich in this case not because they wish to go against all things religious but because she has worked hard to earn the certification she needs to be a teacher. She has undergone many classes in order to achieve her goal of becoming a teacher, and no one should be able to fire her because she has an illness. If you support the church groups in this case, you are saying that the church can fire anyone with a disability merely because they want to, and that means that they can take jobs away from anyone because they don’t want to have any issue where one of their employees has different needs than the others.
In the case Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich you ruled that the church has a right to fire its religious leaders, but in this case the religious school fired a teacher. This teacher may have referenced religion a few times in her teaching, but most of the time she was teaching secular classes where religion was not mentioned. Perich was not a leader of the church, so the religious school should not be able to fire her or anyone who is not a religious leader. She was not in any way performing insubordination, and it is unfair to her, or any other teacher, that she could be fired because of an illness. Terminating the career of a teacher in a public school because of a disability would not be allowed in any other case.

Education Badge

Written by american-government-344

As a director of a religious school, the decision in this case is important and could have different effects on the employees and the policies at the school. If Perich should win the right to sue the school that she worked at, the school would need to be more careful about the reasons they use for firing an employee. The religious school would also need to separate the teachers into those who teach religious subjects and those who teach secular subjects. The school could not afford firing a teacher of secular subjects because of any reason besides those that are criminal or an extreme incapability to effectively teach the students. Reversely, if Perich loses the case, the teachers may be more wary of losing their jobs, and that will either make them attempt to do their jobs better, or it could lead them to search out new teaching jobs elsewhere in order to find a more reliable job with better job security.

It would be in the school’s best interest if Perich won her case because the teachers would not have to worry as much about losing their jobs. Even though the school could no longer fire someone for a disability or any similar reason, the teachers would not feel the need to find a job elsewhere to teach. It might separate the subjects more at the school, but it could also make the teachers feel more motivated to teach the students as best as they can.

Write the Opinion – M.B.Z v. Clinton Badge (200 points)

Written by american-government-3b2

Evan- “I feel that being that there is already a law in place that goes against what the petitioner is going for that is should have already been dismissed in district court and court of appeals. However, he does have the right under the constitution to question the said law that was in place if he feels it to be unconstitutional especially in a family matter dealing with his son. Regardless if it is written in law books that this was signed in as a “law” or not, a president shouldn’t have that right to give a signing statement that rules out the whole purpose of the law in the first place. I believe that signing statements are unconstitutional. I think that Mr. Bush was only trying to “save” the United States from an tension that could have been caused between the two warring countries and ourselves, something which can not ever be done. Personally, I feel that this case should be heard in the supreme court, I think it was right of them to dismiss it in earlier courts, as well as the families decision to keep pushing forward with it. I really do hope that they win their case on their own son’s birth certificate.

Megan- “I believe this could easily be a tricky case to solve. There are many issues that go into this. I understand both points of view in this case. From Clinton’s side, I understand why they wouldn’t want to sign it because of not wanting to take sides and get involved with it. But from Ari Zivotofsky’s side, I can see where he would think it is perfectly right to have matter signed and accepted. I also think that if the President signed a law previously saying something was the law, it shouldn’t be questioned anymore after that. I think it’s a good thing Bush signed that Act because I believe he was just trying to prevent argument that could have been brought up between the two countries and the U.S. itself. I am glad that this family kept going with it and that it got dismissed earlier in the courts. To be honest, I think I am on both sides of this case. I agree and disagree with both sides. It would tough for me to make a decision about this.

Erika- “I believe that this case has reasons to agree with Clinton and reasons to agree with Ari Zivotofsky. The House of Representative and the Senate passed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act which stated that for Americans born in Jerusalem, the State of Department must list Israel as the place of birth because Jerusalem is the source of conflict in the Middle East. Since there is a the FRAA Section 214(d), I feel that this shouldn’t have even been brought up in court and that the Supreme Court should favor Clinton. But then I go on to read and I change my mind. George W. Bush, the President at the time, signed a bill declaring that the FRAA Section 214(d) was unconstitutional and would therefore not be enforced. If the President said that he wouldn’t enforce this law because I was unconstitutional, then it should always remain that way and they should list his real birth place. The President should have the main decision on an issue like this. Since the President at the time, George W. Bush, thinks it is unconstitutional then they should have listed Jerusalem as the birth place. Even though Jerusalem is the source of conflict in the Middle East, I don’t think that is a reason to not list it as a place of
birth on a birth certificate. Just because the U.S. might have conflict with Jerusalem, it doesn’t mean that we should list that as salmons place of birth. If they were born there, then they should have that on their birth certificate, no doubt. So after reviewing what I believe, I would agree with Zivotofsky and put Jerusalem on his sons birth certificate.”

The Free Exercise Clause

Written by american-government-344

The First Amendment gives Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School the right to hire and fire who they want because they are a religious institution. I agree that they should have this right but in this case I do not think their decision was fair on Perich’s side. She has worked hard to obtain the position she had at the school. When she went on medical leave the school promised her that her position would be waiting for her when she got back. When she returned after having been treated for narcolepsy the school all of a sudden had decided that she was unfit to teach. I can see both sides of this case because they should be able to hire whoever they see fit to teach religion, but in this case I do not believe after she was treated and cured of narcolepsy she no longer was stable enough to teach.

Legislative Process Badge

Written by american-government-344

Amending the Americans Disabilities Act so that it applies to everyone would limit the rights of churches and other religious groups, but in this case, it would help support Perich. Although it would limit their right it would prevent them from firing someone just because they have a disability, which would be considered discrimination. Some people could have a more severe disability that would really prevent them from successfully teaching whether it be religious or not. Perich was diagnosed with narcolepsy and underwent treatment for it. There is no reason when she returned that she would have been unfit to teach. She would even have been healthier and in a better mind to teach after the treatment. It makes sense that churches and religious institutions have the right to hire whoever they want to teach religion, but I feel they may have been abusing that right by trying to fire Perich for her disability.

Justice Badge

Written by american-government-344

It is not fair that different court circuits interpret federal laws differently, but there is nothing that can be done about it. Unless the law is rewritten far more specifically than it already is, there is always a chance that there can be different interpretations. There may even still be multiple interpretations of the law regardless of how specific it is. So even though it is not fair for the different courts to have different interpretations, there is little that can be done about it.

When disagreements between these courts arise due to the different interpretations, the Supreme Court needs to mind the way the law was written instead of how other courts are deciding. Regardless of how many courts support each side of the disagreement, the arguments all focus on one law, the Supreme Court should focus on this law to form their own interpretations and decisions. After they make their own decision, they can review what the other courts have said. Overall, the Supreme Court needs to create its own fair interpretation.

Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC Badge

Written by american-government-344

Our vote and opinions have come to the conclusion that Perich has the right to fight for the job that the school has taken away from her. While the First Amendment states that the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of a religion, Perich’s job was primarily the teaching of secular subjects. Therefore she was fired from a non-religious position, and, considering that she has a disability and was a qualified teacher, this is in direct conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Her position at the school was not directly involved with the worship of any religion, so, although she worked at a religious school, she was not a church official, so this case should not fall under ministerial exception.

Though this case is a question of how far ministerial exception and freedom of religion extends, there are cases in which the law has won and lost against it. In Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich the Supreme Court ruled that the church had a right to fire there religious leader because of his insubordination, but, in this case,Perich was not a religious leader because she was a teacher that taught secular subjects regardless of teaching at a religious school. In Employment Division v. Smith the question of religion was removed when it was realized that there was illegal activity. In this case, the school has ignored a federal law that applies to all people with disabilities, and this includes Perich. More recently, in the case Christian Legal Society, Hastings Coll. of Law v. Martinez, there was a question of non-discrimination and how that affects religious organizations in which it was decided that non-discrimination policies did not violate the First Amendment. Non-discrimination is also used in employment, with laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, which should apply to all schools including the religious ones like where Perich worked.

Employees’ Rights Badge

Written by american-government-344

Yes, I could see the deference being abused. If some religious leader decided a certain race, culture, or type of person was an abomination, they could discriminate without any consequences because the courts think it’s too sensitive of a subject. The courts need to decide what is and is not discrimination that has to do with churches and religion. If she was in fact discriminated against, it should not matter who her employer is. The proper action should have been taken and that employer should have to pay the consequences even if they do work for a church. Discrimination is discrimination no matter where you are or who you are. If a law is enforced in one case, it should be enforced in every other case that has to do with that law. Basically, the court put the leaders of that church above the law. In this case, I think they could refuse to hire someone because of race or ethnicity because the court feels it is to sensitive a subject to get into and would side with the church.

The President and National Security Decisions – Podcast Badge (150 points)

Written by american-government-3b2

The President and National Security Decisions – Podcast Badge (150 points)

Megan Storvick & Michael Gordon

Megan- “I believe that with all the things that have happened in our country as far as terrorist attacks that is is necessary to declare a War on Terror. I think it’s a good thing that that Congress and President Bush signed the U.S. Patriot Act in order to attempt to prevent more problems in the future.”

Michael- “I know that we had to set some laws to protect everyone, but I still think there has to be some restriction on law enforcement.”

Megan- “Yes you are right, and although I do believe these might be considered some extreme measures in order to confirm security in our country, sometimes, desperatetimes call for desperate measures.”

Michael- “If they begin doing this wiretapping and other things, what will be next???”

Megan- “I think there is only so much the government can do as far as that is concerned. I mean, we have been through some pretty intense circumstances here in our country so sometimes it’s just what we must do.”

Michael- “Well, what happened to having free rights in this country, as far as not being so ‘watched’ over? We deserve freedom in this country considering that is our right. If the government is going to start taking more action that could possibly take that away from certain citizen’s.

Megan- “9/11 was a very serious attack on our country and took many, many lives. If we want to prevent this from happening we must start taking affirmative action! Many people believe this is right because they had loved ones lost from the incident. It was a very horrible time for many Americans.”

Response to: Social Cost

Written by american-government-93

This topic of strip searches and blanket policies in prisons have caused much debate. In this case Mr. Florence proved he had paid his fine and he had no criminal background, so in the first place he should have not even been arrested. Theoretically I think it would make sense that Mr. Florence should not have to be held to the same standards as more dangerous criminals. He was not a threat to society and he showed he had paid his fine. Now logically speaking I think it makes more sense that the prison had a blanket policy for strip searches. It was the easiest and most effective way to ensure safety in the prisons. Because Mr. Florence was no threat to society and had paid his fine he shouldn’t have been treated the same way a harmful criminal was treated, however he was treated that way because it made sense the prison had a blanket policy to make sure they had done all they could to make the facility a safe place.

Angels of Apathy

The Validity of Signing Statements – Separation of Powers Badge (50 points)

Written by american-government-3b2

I feel that a Signing Statement is incredibly unconstitutional. Once a law has been passed through Congress and thoroughly worked over and perfected, I don’t feel that the president has the power to all of a sudden make his own decisions on what he wants done with it. Not only is it wrong, but it’s also not in the Constitution, it even states in the Constitution that “…with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it”. That’s directly stating that it’s the House that made the law’s job to reconsider it, not the presidents. If the president doesn’t enforce the laws he made himself on a Signing Statement, then why have them at all? Once it’s signed into law, you can never go back on your word, let alone your oath and signature. To do so should bring upon charges against working unconstitutionally.

The Validity of Signing Statements  - Separation of Powers Badge (50 points)

Response to: Medical Professionals

Written by american-government-93

Prisons should not be forced to have highly trained medical professionals to perform strip searches just so they can identify other symptoms of prisoners. I believe that as long as the prison guards are trained to perform strip searches and body cavity checks, prisons should not be forced to have highly trained professionals just to be able to detect symptoms of the prisoners. A good reason for this is because having these professionals would probably prove to be more expensive to pay to come in and perform strip searches. The money that would be used to pay these people would come from America’s tax dollars, which needs to be put towards bigger problems right now. Another reason for not hiring these professionals is a matter of time. These medical professionals would require more time to perform searches in the prison, and time is something prisons do not have when it comes to getting prisoners back in their cells or where ever they need to be. With these professionals needing more time to perform strip searches and cavity checks, they will also have to be paid more for taking the extra to do the searches. Relating back to which money is something that needs to be used for better things.

Angels of Apathy

Response to: Adminstrative Concerns

Written by american-government-93

Whether a prison has the staff or training to perform sophisticated searches, or just every day guards trying to do their jobs, they need to search the prisoners in some way in order to keep safety.  I believe that their should be some set guidelines for the searchers to follow though.  The costs associated with more sophisticated screening should not matter to the constitutionality of strip searches and they should be allowed to happen.  The safety of prisoners is important and if some prisons are unable to perform other searches being too difficult or too costly, their should be guidelines set up for every prison.  The guidelines can be less invasive, but enough to get the job done.  If the guidelines are not followed completely, then some kind of punishment can be enforced.  If all prisons had the same rules to follow, there would be less arguments.  Whether the prisoners like them or not, it ensures them safety.

Angels of Apathy

Response to: The Cost of Safety

Written by american-government-93

We often complain or be difficult about the procedures we are subdued to to promote security. I think we often forget that these procedure protect us from many things that people don’t stop to think about.

   One of the things I hear about most are the airport procedures. People complain about the fact they have to go through so much to ride a plane, and that makes me ask, how long does it take to forget what happened? It was ten years ago that people used our airlines to successfully attack our country. So personally I feel that to an extent there security measures are reasonable, but there have been instances where I believe things were taken “to far”.

   I think that we  are doing a good job as of right now in this country about keeping us safe, but pertaining to the case at hand I still think that every person should be treated uniquely in the fact that there shouldn’t be blanket policies to cover all people.

Angels of Apathy

Response to: Friend of the Court

Written by american-government-93

Prisoner safety is a big issue in today’s society and every precaution should be taken to insure the safety of all prisoners.  Prisoners may be naughty people, but they still have the right to safety in prisons.
In a previous case Brown v. Plata, some prisoners were released in order to ensure safety because of dangerous overcrowding in prisons. This shows how important it is to require strip searches in prisons. A blanket policy for strip searches is the easiest and most convenient way to provide safety precautions. Some prisoners feel that the mandatory strip searches may be a violation of their 4th amendment rights. In a previous case Powell v. Barrett showed if the prison had need for a blanket policy, strip searches were not intrusive and unconstitutional. Security screenings are used all around the country in airports, prisons, and government buildings.
Prisons just try to ensure the safety of their prisons, prisoners, administration, and staff. Strip searches may be what needs to be done to provide safety in prisons, they are the fastest and safest ways to search and confiscate illegal material or material that may harm other people.  They won’t be able to serve their prison term if they die.

Angels of Apathy

Response to Amicus Brief Badge

Written by american-government-8f

Amicus Brief Badge

I am a lawyer that is for the victim right group that wants to make it easier to sue police officers. My client was accused of assault, burglary, and harassment and was arrested twice. The government official that is entitled to absolute immunity will continue to provide false testimony in the future. Are we just going to let a government official lie to the Supreme Court? If we don’t have suits against government officials false testimony will be brought up. I want my client freed from all citations that were brought upon him. If Paulk wins, how much worse could they do and not get sued? There’s more questions, but I’m going to summarize how i feel. Paulk and Hodges argument was one sentence, Rehberg’s argument was a few paragraphs that were meaningful and written by a free man. If the court supports Rehberg, the case will be in favor of not only Rehberg, but everyone who has to deal with this type of situation. In the case of Kalina vs. Fletcher in 1997, all the judges on the Supreme Court voted in favor of the government officials not having absolute immunity. 14 years later, I think the same decision should be made.

Team Tebow

Response to Justice Badge

Written by american-government-c4

If the Court were to entitle certain immunities to suit to police witnesses, there would be an enormous amount of controversy. Our country is about giving everyone a chance. If the Court decided it would allow more suits to be filed, it would definitely support the belief in equal opportunities. The Court would have to decide whether or not giving so many people the right to suit, would be worth all of the manpower it would take to go through them all. Many of the suits would be just out of anger, and wouldn’t stand much a chance in court. With this new amount of suits coming in, it would be very easy for Court Officials to overlook the suits that actually do have a chance. If the people going through all of the suits actually took the time and effort to give everything a chance, it would be worth it to the people of the community.

Team Tebow

Executive Authority and Foreign Conflict – Constitutional Law Badge (50 points)

Written by american-government-3b2

I believe that the line between these has already been drawn when the forefathers set up the constitution and created the separation of powers. The president of the United States has the power to send troops anywhere at any time, but congress has to approve of it within 30 days or they are taken back. So, if congress were to disagree with the president’s decision about sending troops over somewhere, they have that power to take them back in a short amount of time so the damage is minimized and time and lives are saved. Given the political doctrine that has been presented here, I don’t believe that issues between the president and congress should be heard in the public courts, perhaps not even in the Supreme Court of the United States because of the nature of high status of the people in reference to the case. If this were a case between the president and his constituents, I feel that this would easily be held in public court, but not in a matter between the president and congress. This also further proves that this case between M.B.Z. v. Clinton should be heard in court.

Thunder Ducks

Historical Context – Separation of Powers Badge (50 points)

Written by american-government-3b2

I believe that the framers of the Constitution separated the powers in such away to further divide themselves from the British Monarchy that they came from. It’s also a great way to make sure that things stay in balance. Without it, one or more branches would have significant power over one another, and not be able to use any force of law to push forward its interests or be of any use to the United States. An example would be a presidents use of pardons, this is an example of one branch having more power than another, however, he can only give out so many, so as to not over rule the judicial branch and it’s powers. I think that they broke further away from the British Monarchy in this way because with the king having so much power, the people he was supposed to represent had no voice in what was decided and weren’t a part of issues that affected them in their everyday lives, and even issues that didn’t.

Thunder Ducks

Response to Rehberg v. Paulk Badge

Written by american-government-182

The members of Team Tebow have unanimously decided to reverse the Court of Appeal’s decision to allow Paulk to enjoy absolute immunity. We believe that Paulk can and should be tried for using false testimony. Paulk should not be protected by absolute immunity from a civil lawsuit in this case.

In the Malley v. Briggs case, Malley submitted an arrest warrant, criminal complaints and affidavits to a judge that Briggs illegally possessed marijuana. Briggs was arrested, but then later the charges were dropped. Briggs then sued Malley under Section 1983. Malley argued that because he was a complaining witness, he should have absolute immunity from suit. The Court disagreed with Malley and stated that government officials who act as complaining witnesses and whose arrest warrant affidavits do not establish probable cause for arrest, are only allowed qualified immunity and not absolute immunity.

In the Kalina v. Fletcher case, a prosecutor filed for a warrant to arrest Fletcher, but the prosecutor used false evidence in the affidavit. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor who makes false statements of fact in an affidavit for an arrest warrant is not protected by absolute immunity.

In the case of Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, a man was charged with murder, but was later released after it was found that the testimony came from an untrustworthy prison informant. Goldstein went on to sue many officials involved with the case saying that they didn’t share their knowledge of the informant’s identity adequately. The district court said that their actions were considered “prosecutorial” but the Supreme Court unanimously agreed and ruled that they had absolute immunity from the case.

The way these cases were ruled show that Paulk should not be allowed absolute immunity. Paulk is a complaining witness in this case, therefore he is only entitled to qualified immunity.

-Team Tebow

Respone to Constitutional Law Badge

Written by american-government-c4

The world has changed a lot since the 1800’s. Something that may have been considered obstructing to justice, may not be today. People’s morals have changed completely. If Judges try to compare cases today with cases from the 1870’s, there might be some comparisons, but we have a different view on certain matters than people did over a century ago.
The Congress in 1871 had some great minds when passing the Civil Rights Act. It provides many great things for America, but everything can undergo change at some point. It wouldn’t be an insult to the Congress of 1871 to change it. Things can’t be expected to last forever just because it was commonly accepted when it was established.
The intentions of the Congress were definitely not bad though. I’m sure they created the Act so that it could relate to people of the future.
Things do change and change is not a bad thing. Just because something has worked for the past 100 years, it doesn’t mean it will be always be that way. Look at the format of NCAA football. They established this bowl system years ago. It worked for awhile, but people today are very upset with the system. Change is not a bad thing.

Team Tebow

Response to Civil Rights Badge (50 points)

Written by american-government-c4

I think that the Supreme Court allows certain government officials to be absolutely immune from suit because they want the officials to feel protected. Government officials make a lot of claims against people and do a lot of investigating. If some officials weren’t immune to suit, so many people would be trying to take them to court. It would get out of control. The district attorneys and other positions within the government are always doing controversial things that certain people do not like. Congress might have also passed Section 1983 so that they can do more without having to worry about being suited. I think that this section gives government officials more confidence to investigate things. I believe that in come cases the government officials do have the right to be protected, but they should not be granted absolute immunity from suit. There should be come restrictions and some instance where the officials are allowed to be tried.

Team Tebow

Response to: Write the Opinion

Written by american-government-93

I think that he’s getting treated unfairly by these charges. He apparently didn’t pay a fine, but then proved that he did and still got arrested. Then got strip searched for again not allegedly paying a fine that he used documents to prove otherwise. He could probably sue both the officer and the prison or the “correctional facility”. Although there was a blanket policy in place I still don’t think it’s right for all people to be strip searched.
I think that he is suing the wrong people. I think he should sue the trooper for arresting him. I think that for the safety of the prison that the strip search was a normal policy to do, but he shouldn’t have went to the correctional facility in the first place because he proved he paid the fine.
I think that the policies that they have in place for “all” prisoner’s should change. Why do they have the same policies for a person that didn’t pay a fine and a person that is accused of murder or domestic violence? Should they be treated the same? I don’t think so. It’s not right. Maybe this should be a clue that things should be changed in the near future because things like this are going to keep happening.
In the end I believe that the attempt to sue the whole correctional facility is going to be hard because there are many facilities that do the same things and have very similar policies. He should be in this battle with the Officer and his practices.

Angels of Apathy