Essay on A Good Samaritan Law is Never a Good Idea

Yes, the statute does unconstitutionally interfere with a parent’s right to make child-rearing decisions as desired.

The (Plaintiff) Johnny Singstealer is seeking the sum of $1 million from the (Defendant) Bobby Bandleader, for alleged copyright abuse of the song “Happy Birthday to You”. The (Plaintiff) Johnny Singstealer is the copyright holder to the said song. The (Defendant) Bobby Bandleader is a Bistro owner who performs the song in an altered version (his own words are used) to his customers on their birthdays and have been doing so for the past twenty years without obtaining any licensing or permission from the copyright holder (Plaintiff) Johnny Singstealer.

Traditionally, the positive image of a company or a brand is very important in the contemporary world. As a result, the question of morality of each individual working within an organization is of a paramount importance. In such a situation there should be no exceptions from the rule and executives could not be in a privileged position. This is the desirable ideal many companies strive to achieve at least in a public eye. However, the reality turns to be quite different from what is expected and the analyzed case of an executive’s double standard is just another evidence of the fact that the real life is so complicated that the common rules, including moral

Have there been any major recorded votes on the bill? If so, did the vote take place in the House or the Senate and what was the result?

When reviewing the history of these laws and researching their application throughout the various states, one law stood out to me as remarkably insensitive:

Brilliantly put by what many deem to be America’s greatest president of all time, Abraham Lincoln, “Let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his children’s liberty.” Civil disobedience is defined as the refusal to comply with certain laws as a form of political protest. Although many may argue that this is the sole way to keep the government in check and to make minorities heard, rational people will realize that it is not this disrespect of the law that proves the democracy of our nation.

Envision if everyone in the world decided to go around breaking laws because they did not agree with them. There would be a bunch of unnecessary arrests, great amount of violence, and the world would be a terrible place to live. As citizens of this country we have the commitment to adhere to the rules, laws, and submit to any consequences we may receive. In the great words of Socrates, “One should never do wrong in return, nor do any man harm, no matter what he may have done to you.” Breaking laws is never morally justifiable.

For a bill to pass in either chamber of Congress, it must receive the support of a simple majority of its members.

Humans are typically very emotional. Sometimes, we even mess with our emotions on purpose, like watching a sad movie, or going on a rollercoaster. This is all great, but crying over a dog dying in a movie, yet not caring enough to help a person in need, isn’t. Seeing someone in need should cause us to feel enough pain for them that we want to do anything we can to help. Walking on by “should insult our values”, knowing that we could’ve done something (Allred and Bloom 334). Being worried about your own safety is understandable. However, not helping someone because you are scared they might sue you is just selfish. People are scared because “under American law, liability generally exists for action, not inaction” (Allred and Bloom 335). We may be liable for helping or possibly at financial risk, but that is a chance that should be taken to save a life. Changing the law would allow people to aid others without feeling

Every law, whether its unreasonable or not, establishes morality. While drafting the Constitution our Founding Fathers did so based off their challenging belief system of what was right and wrong. In today’s society many citizens still challenge this question and the stances of their morality. In my personal opinion I believe that it’s very important that citizens hold firm to their moral beliefs but in doing so they must truly understand it from a political perspective. Growing up in Georgia one of the “Bible Belt” states I have come to realize that many citizens have a hard time understanding the difference between the separation of church and state and morality from law. This has continuously led to more direct issues arising among citizens in the United States than ever before. Therefore justifying why one should perform morally can be a very difficult task to answer. I believe the solution to the problem needs not to be based on any religious views because morality is not based on the principles of commands but rather the motivates of Gods commands and exist individually. Social morality helps enable everyone in a society to live better and is very beneficial for all citizens. Yes, I believe that holding firm to your moral is important as a citizen when you have knowledge of it from a political standpoint.

The report passed and was adopted. At this point, sever cosponsors were adopted and the bill entered its second reading in the Senate. During the Senate’s third reading of the bill it passed with 32 yeas and 16 nays. From there the bill was returned back to the House with no amendments. After this the bill was signed by the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. The signing happened on April 11, 2017. Thuw far we are six days in, thus following four more days of inaction on the part of the governor the bill will become a law. The governor may also choose to sign the bill before the 10-day span ends, or veto the bill sending it back into the legislative

An ethical dilemma is an incident that causes us to question how we should react based on our beliefs. A decision needs to be made between right and wrong. I have experienced many ethical dilemmas in my lifetime, so I know that there is no such thing as an ethical dilemma that only affects one person. I also know that some ethical dilemmas are easier to resolve than others are. The easy ones are the ones in which we can make decisions on the spot. For example, if a cashier gives me too much change, I can immediately make a decision to either return the money or keep it. Based on Kant’s, categorical imperative there are two criteria for determining moral right and wrong. First, there is universalizability, which states, “the person’s

The weather is sizzling hot and tensions are slowly coming to a boil in this Bedford-Stuyvesant Brooklyn neighborhood. Slowly but surely we see the heat melt away the barriers that were keeping anger from rising to the surface. The Blacks and the Hispanics own the streets the Koreans own the corner store and of course the Italians own the pizzeria, the Cops who happen to be all Caucasian, prowl the streets inside out, looking for anyone to harass. Toes are then stepped on and apologies are not made. Spike Lee creates the perfect set-up for a modern day in Bed-Stuyvesant. Without fail Spike Lee is transformed into an anthropologist. Spike Lee’s goal is to allow viewers to glimpse into the lives of real people and into a neighborhood they

Throughout the United States there are many different laws among the fifty states that make up this union. The laws are different throughout the states because of the need of the laws. Living in one state and not having the advantages or disadvantages of a law in another state would not be that unfair or unequal. This is true because if you don’t like a law in your state you could always fight it and try to change it or you could always move out of that state and go to one that has the laws that you like.

The rule of law is a difficult concept to grasp and proves elusive to substantive definition. However, the following work considers the attempts of various social and legal theorists to define the concept and pertinent authorities are considered. Attitudes and emphasis as to the exact shape, form and content of the rule of law differ quite widely depending on the socio-political perspective and views of respective commentators (Slapper and Kelly, 2009, p16), although there are common themes that are almost universally adopted. The conclusions to this work endeavour to consolidate thinking on the rule of law in order to address the question posed in the title, which is at first sight a deceptively simple one.