Question 1: Gov. McAuliffe’s actions were based on substantive concerns as a result of consequences legal formalism created. His actions were of substantive justice because he was concerned with how the laws were disenfranchising minorities who had been released from prison by taking away their right to vote. This is substantive justice because Gov. McAuliffe is trying to get justice for prisoners to be able to vote since it is their human right to do so in the United States. This is substantive because it is working towards doing what is right for individuals when the laws are not able to uphold fairness and justice (Sutton 2001). I think the VA Supreme Court’s were mainly formal concerns because they were upholding the laws and basing all of their decisions based on what the laws stated and how they were carried out (Sutton 2001). For example, the fact that they did not support Gov. McAuliffe passing the executive order because he did not legally have the power to do so. Then when Gov. McAuliffe starting individually signing orders to give back voting rights to individuals the VA Supreme Court did not stand in his way of doing so because his actions were within the law. I think Gov. McAuliffe’ decision to individually restore the voting rights of felons is illegitimate because his actions did not fall under every part of legal-rational authority that he does have. Under legal-rational authority, obedience to laws are expected because the laws are seen as legitimate,
One of the more controversial debates in today’s political arena, especially around election times, is that of felon disenfranchisement. The disenfranchisement of felons, or the practice of denying felons and ex-felons the right to vote, has been in practice before the colonization of America and traces back to early England; however, it has not become so controversial and publicized until recent times. “In today’s political system, felons and ex-felons are the only competent adults that are denied the right to vote; the total of those banned to vote is approximately 4.7 million men and women, over two percent of the nation’s population” (Reiman 3).
In an era of organizational flux due to competition and globalization, companies and employees are faced with constant change. Leaders must be able to adapt to change as the environment shifts. HR has been known as the organizational change agent, administrative expert, and employee advocate. More recently they have been regarded as business strategic partners for many organizations. In order to be successful and remain competitive in today’s market, Human Resources (HR) must be considered a strategic partner if an organization wants to flourish. Top executives today commit significant resources to ensure that their company’s functions are capable of rapid change and achieving their
This letter is to advise you that your tax appeal hearing is coming up on March 6, 2005 at 10:35 a.m. at the Office of the Tax Assessors of Lackawanna County. The office is located on the 5th floor of the County Office Building; 211 Ace Road, Clark, Pennsylvania 18111. Attorney Smith would like to remind you to arrive at the County Office Building at 10:25 a.m. with all of the pictures you have of the comparable houses in your area.
There are few things in life that could be worse than loosing you child to such a horrible disease as leukemia. One can only imagine having such a tragedy repeat itself throughout you community time after time. To compound such tragedies, imagine being poisoned yourself and having to fight some of the largest local corporations to prove the truth and get it stopped. This is the community setting for Jonathan Harr's true-to-life legal thriller A Civil Action. The book was an award winner for "Best Seller" in 1995 and was named the 1995 National Book Critics Circle Award.
In this paper I am going to identify some the legal and ethical issues in My Sister’s Keeper. Some of those issues include emancipation of a minor, genetic engineering, and limited termination of parental rights. I will be giving my opinion on these matters also.
The United States Supreme Court was, and still is today, the important backbone of America’s judicial system. This court deals with numerous cases throughout the year and keeps the country and government fair with its decisions. However, being responsible for giving justice where it is due, the Court is sometimes faced with hard choices that will make a lasting impression on the U.S. and its people. In the case of Loving v. Virginia, it did just that. As a Supreme Court landmark case, Loving v. Virginia definitely indicated a critical moment of change in civil rights for America and interracial couples everywhere.
“Their present decision is equivalent to a repeal of law and the making of law. This is not adjudication, it is mere usurpation. It is the substitution of mere arbitrary will in the place of the solemn and responsible functions of an impartial judicature.”[1]
3. What are some examples of alternative dispute resolutions (ADRs)? What are the advantages and disadvantages associated with ADR versus litigation? What are some examples of arbitration that can occur in your professional and personal life? Explain.
The voice of millions of Americans can’t be heard due to the disenfranchisement laws, which is vital living in a country that depends on votes for elected officials. There are many supporters and non-supporters of the disenfranchisement laws, and “since 1975 there have been 13 states that liberalized their laws, 11 states have passed further limitations on felons, and 3 states have passed both laws” (Manza, 2004). There is an on going debate among citizens and states whether or not to amend the disenfranchisement laws and allow more convicted ex-felons to use their voting rights. Some believe their voting rights should not be restored, because they are criminals, and it’s a part of being a criminal. Others are fighting that their voting rights should be restored, that people make mistakes, and if they have completed their sentence then they have served their punishment. Research shows a consensus
The legal system is an essential element in the successful operation of this country. It is a system that is utilized every day, by every type of person, from the average blue-collar worker to the average Wall Street broker. There is a multitude of ways that the legal system is put to use. One such way is the class action lawsuit. A Civil Action, by Jonathan Harr, uses the account of a single case, Anne Anderson, et al., v. W.R. Grace & Co., et al, to illustrate the power and importance of class action lawsuits in the civil justice system.
Consequentialism and non-consequentialism are both action based ethical frameworks that people can use to make ethical judgments. Consequentialism is based on examining the consequences of one’s actions as opposed to non-consequentialism which is focused on whether the act is right or wrong regardless of the outcome (Burgh, Field & Freakley, 2006). The three sub-categories of consequentialism are altruism, utilitarianism and egoism.
1. The issue is whether public school officials have the authority to perform strip searches of students in suspicion of hiding illegal drugs.
The disclaimer that protects Sierra Nevada Trees Inc. from liability in a claim for consequential damages contained in the purchase order acknowledgement is part of the agreement with Burger Ranch Inc. Burger Ranch Inc. accepted the terms of the offer and there was proper performance by both parties.
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 Constitution indicates that the Preeminent Court may practice unique purview in cases influencing ministers and different negotiators, and in cases in which a state is a gathering. In every other case, be that as it may, the Incomparable Court has just redrafting ward. The Preeminent Court considers cases in view of its unique ward once in a while; all cases are conveyed to the Incomparable Court on claim. By and by, the main unique purview cases heard by the Court are question between at least two states. The energy of the Preeminent Court to consider offers from state courts, as opposed to simply government courts, was made by the Legal Demonstration of 1789 and maintained right on time in the Court's history, by its decisions in Martin v. Seeker's Resident (1816) and Cohens v. Virginia (1821). The Preeminent Court is the main government court that has purview over direct interests from state court choices, despite the fact that there are an assortment of gadgets that allow purported "security survey" of state cases, in light of the fact that, under Article III, elected courts may just engage "cases" or "discussions", the Court