Oregon Law Case Study

After the death of Senator Sam Foley, Hubert Hopper, a governor, was pressured to select a newly appointed senator.

Maine Legislation is currently facing the task of deciding to ban flame retardant chemicals as proposed by Legislative Document 182 (LD182) (Kumiega, W. 2017, January 24). The environmental activist group Prevent Harm in conjunction with a group of Maine Firefighters have proposed LD 182, banning the sale of new furniture treated with any flame retardant chemicals. (Carrigan, D.2017, February 27) Risking the impact of sales and profits to businesses of Maine and the purchase price for Maine consumers. should Maine ban the sales of new household furniture manufactured with flame retardant chemicals?

Riley vs. California is one of the most imporntant supreme court cases during the 21st century. If ruled the in favor of the state of California it would fundmentaly change the fourth amendment officers would be able to search people’s phones with no other evidence other than they thought that it was in best intrest to them to serach it and you could have done nothing about it and that is a clear violation of the protection of unreasonable search and seizure that the fourth amendment gives us. To understand why this case was so important you have to know the backround of the situation. It started in San Diego were a man named David Riley was pulled over because he was driving with a expired license plate. The police officer during that stop found out that Riley was driving while his license was suspended. The

Throughout the course of this investigation, the following courthouse was researched to locate any all court documentation for Dennis Baker and Charlotte Baker, as the search was expanded to include Shawna Thornton’s affiliation with the Bakers’.

The human brain is a remarkably intricate organ. Therefore, simple mutations in its complexity can result in devastating conditions leading to acts of violence. Kinkel, a fifteen-year-old boy, demonstrates his partaking in the unnecessary murders of both his parents and innocent bystanders. Kinkel is said to have shown signs of his intentions through inconspicuous matters. Later holding the guilt of four deaths and twenty-six attempts via semi-automatic weaponry (para. 5). The mental instability of the subject is proven to be in effect, and a suitable cause for these behaviors. The document in question is “The State of Oregon v. Kipland Philip Kinkel”, in which encompasses a trial the young boy capable of murder. Kinkel is convicted of the absolute minimal sentence for the nature of his crimes, followed by his seemly confession. The defense and prosecution contemplate proper arguments given the defendants substantial witnesses to the crimes and articles of law. Justice is debated among the courts and how to satisfy these reprimands. Judge Haselton effectively uses ethos, logos, and pathos to support the higher courts decision to deny the appeal because the original sentence was constitutional and just.

The state does not have sufficient support to suspend the licenses of Mr. Jones and Mr. Roberts.

Miller v. California was one of the first attempts to define what would constitute as obscene matter in the eyes of the law. The prosecution came about because Miller started a mail campaign to advertise the sale of adult material. Some of the recipients found the material offensive and alerted the local police. This distribution was found in violation of a California act prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. The court case decided that obscene materials did not fall under the protection of the First Amendment in a 5-to-4 decision. Miller v. California also lead to the modification of both Roth v. United States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, which was a case that had originally set the tests for obscenity. This case set the standards

The court here looks to the actual result of the disputed action and whether it advances or prohibits religion. It held that the alleged effect must be seen,” from the eyes of a reasonable observer, informed and aware of his surroundings”. This objective reasonable observer must see a message of endorsement to the religion by the government. “the practice under review in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval” Also, not any benefit transferred to a religious source constitutes the unconstitutionality status. Rather, the benefit must be direct and substantial. “Whatever benefit to one faith or religion or to all religions inclusion of the crèche in the display effects is indirect, remote, and incidental, and is no more an advancement or endorsement of religion “.

At the turn of the twentieth century, a bourgeoisie fixation on capitalistic structures and mass consumerism often juxtaposed the call for meritocracy, thus placing some individuals at an advantage over others. Tension was soon evident between the beneficiaries and the exploited of the gilded economy. This push and pull relationship can best be observed in the 1908 Supreme Court case, Muller v. Oregon, in which the owner of a Portland Laundromat violated state legislation that disallowed women from working more than ten hours a day. Siding with the needs of the laborer, the Supreme Court overruled Muller’s claim for freedom of contract and right to property (Gagnon Lecture, 01/26/15). While many argue that this decision devalues the relationship between employee and employer as well as undermines an individual’s inalienable rights to life, liberty and property at the hands of another, there is an underlying, and perhaps even larger issue at hand. The ruling of the case indicates that judiciary actions taken only reinforce gender formations- once again attacking the plea for equal opportunity. Because of this alarming backlash in societal equity, the Supreme Court’s decision should be deemed unjust. Although the case recognizes the significance of employee rights in the workforce, the decision is restricted to the sole protection of female workers and only

In the midst of the Lochner era, many men, women, and children were forced to work long hours with minimal pay. The national government struck down state laws that standardized work regulation in order to promote a free economy. However, a new work precedent was set when Muller v. Oregon was decided upon. In Muller v. Oregon, Justice Josiah Brewer, along with the unanimous consent of the Supreme Court, decided to enforce a labor law on the basis of sex. Curt Muller was fined for forcing a woman to work more than ten hours and the Supreme Court upheld the charge because women are perceived as physically weaker than males at the time. (Brewer 82). This case used the hegemonic idea of the male patriarch in order to support the usage of labor

Freedom of assembly defines the right to hold public meetings and form associations without interference by the government. In the case of “De Jonge v. Oregon,” the Court protected freedom of assembly from state actions and rather referred to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). Dirk De Jonge was a member of the Communist Party. De Jonge protested against “police brutality.” Oregon charged De Jonge as wanting to cause civil unrest. However, in the end, the case made it to the Supreme Court who stated the following, “No State . . . shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). “The Court said this means that peaceable assembly cannot be made a crime” (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). Another freedom of assembly case, Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network involved pro-life protestors who surrounded abortion clinics. The Pro-Choice Network complained that pro-life protestors were hassling their clients outside their clinics (“Schenck v. Pro-choice Network (1996) - Bill of Rights Institute”). This case was about the assembly rights of citizens who wanted to protest abortion, which was their First Amendment right (“Schenck v. Pro-choice Network (1996) - Bill of Rights Institute”). The Supreme Court struck down the “floating buffer zone” due to safety concerns, yet upheld that pro-life protesters can still pass out leaflets and make statements from the approved buffer zone (“Schenck

The state of Mississippi is taking a step back into the past. The new lesbian, gay, bio-sexual, and transgender law is a law that gives business owners the right to refuse service based on religious objections. House bill 1523: it protects a specific group of beliefs that are commonly expressed by religious conservatives. Second, it states that marriage must be limited to one woman and one man. Sexual activity between two persons is restricted to married couples. Gender is defined at birth by anatomy and genetics. Finally, the bill allows religious organizations, and their employees, for-profit companies, and their employees, and state employees to freely refuse goods, and services to anyone if it would conflict with their sincerely held

For example, when a customer purchases a fifty-cent can of Dr. Pepper from his/her local 7-11, s/he would end up paying fifty-five cents, which would include a five-cent deposit. At any time after consuming the thirst-quenching beverage, the customer may return his/her can to any store for his/her five-cent refund. This definitely provides an incentive to recycle beverage containers. In fact, in a recent survey I conducted on my plane trip home from Thanksgiving, consumers said they often feel they are getting back free money for recycling. Either because they think of the price of the beverage as fifty-five cents, or because they wait until they have several bottles or cans to return making their refund much larger than the original nickel they put down. The consumers are not the only ones who benefit because the retailers in most states also get reimbursed for the extra labor involved. This basic form of bottle bill is effective and very useful.

Well first off i'm all for recycling more but making it a law would be going to far in my option. The three tash can idea is to much if you ask me. Food an normal trash should be in one can and recyclables she be in another. If its a law and someone messes up then they get a ticket for putting the wrong thing in the wrong trash can. Because if you have three cans that will probley end up confusing for some poeple, like older men and women.

The original bottle bill was passed in 1981, after being vetoed by Governor Ed King. Three years after the bottle bill passed, Massachusetts had recycled thirty five billion containers ( ). MassPrig led a coalition to gain legislature support to ensure the passing of the bottle bill. The bottle bill was created into three sections, Chapter 94 Section 321, Chapter 94 Section 322, and Chapter 94 Section 323. Section 321 laid out the definitions for the legal terms used to create the concepts in the two sections that follow. Section 322 states the bottle deposit amount and what it covers. Section 323 and it’s sub-sections outlined the provisions for the distributors to follow when selling plastic containers, the appropriate way to accept recyclable items from a consumer, and what the state would do with business that are below their quota ( ). In 2003, Mitt Romney led an effort to utilize forfeited nickel deposits as a supplement to the state’s general fund instead of the environmental funded created under the original bottle bill.