A couple of days after Rand Paul won the Republican nomination for the senate race in Kentucky, he stirred up controversy by saying the government should not be able to tell businesses who they have to serve as is regulated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Realize, he is for the Civil Rights Act and what it has advanced for all people in the country. As a Libertarian, he believes a business should be able to do business with whom they choose and not have the government regulate their behavior. His stance, like most Libertarians, is that the public with their money will regulate a business better than the government. Dr. Paul was adamant, he does not like racists but does not believe their views should be restricted.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 signing was a joyous act and a sad act. It was joyous because it finally gave Americans with dark skin the liberties and freedoms that were supposedly bestowed upon them by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. It was a sad act because it took almost 100 years for those rights to be recognized. Think about that. The Constitution was amended to give all Americans the same rights; however, some states did everything they could to disallow those rights for certain individuals. It took the Country almost a century to put everyone on the same page with respect to rights! And, in reality, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was nothing more than a repeat, with specific wording this time, of the constitutional amendments ratified in 1868 and 1870.
After the end of the Civil War, the southern states passed "black codes" which were meant to restore the racial relationships which existed prior to the Civil War. After the ratification of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, which were used as bargaining chips to reinstate the southern states into the union, the southern states were not ready to bestow the same rights upon the black Americans as the white Americans enjoyed. The black codes morphed into what were called "Jim Crow Laws." These laws ensured separation of blacks and whites. This regulated blacks to a second-class citizenry. This was further aggravated by Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" facilities did not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This opened the door for the southern states to institute legal racial inequality.
Now I will go off course a little here but the discussion will be a good backdrop for the rest of the article. The Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson made an incorrect interpretation of the Jim Crow laws and their constitutionality. Mr. Plessy, 1/8 black, tried to ride in a white only railroad car. He was arrested and fined. He filed a lawsuit challenging the law. When the state Supreme Court found in favor of the state, he took it to the Supreme Court. Writing for the majority, Justice Brown wrote "So far, then, as a conflict with the fourteenth amendment is concerned, the case reduces itself to the question whether the statute of Louisiana is a reasonable regulation, and with respect to this there must necessarily be a large discretion on the part of the legislature. In determining the question of reasonableness, it is at liberty to act with reference to the established usages, customs, and traditions of the people, and with a view to the promotion of their comfort, and the preservation of the public peace and good order" (Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)). What the court failed to consider was the phrase from the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: "no person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." While most would say that the government cannot take a life or incarcerate someone or seize property without a court proceeding, it is short-sighted to interpret the statement only in this manner. Substantive due process places a limit on the government enacting any legislative matter that is not related to a legitimate government interest or could be unfair or unjust (Merriam-Webster, pg 153). The government is not served by passing a law which restricts the freedom of an individual which is not at the benefit of society. Granted, many people in that time felt separation was good for society because co-mingling should not be forced but only encouraged. However, the force of separation is the same as the force of co-mingling. If all the whites on a rail car or bus wanted to sit together and not sit with the blacks of their own free accord, then so be it. However, for the government to say that is the rule of the land is an infringement of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. One of the crucial elements of due process is the the opportunity to be heard and defend one's rights. When the state passed the separate but equal law, were blacks consulted or allowed to vote on the law? There isn't a way to verify the answer, but one can assume that for the most part, the answer will be no. Then by stating a black could not ride in a specific rail car that was not related to a valid government interest or for which did not violate the rights of someone else (mere presence in a public place is not a right infringement) limited the liberty of the blacks to ride in a specific car - a liberty which was infringed without due process of law. Thus the state law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court missed a key constitutional argument.
One of the elements in the court case which they did get right was stating that the state had the right to regulate commerce in their state. Since the railroad was a local railroad and not a interstate railroad, the state had the right to pass a law that applied only to local railroads. The Federal government does not have the right to regulate the commerce of a state. The Federal government under Art I section 8 to the US Constitution is given the right to regulate commerce among the states. I agree in this case. However, I reiterate, while the state has a right to regulate the commerce in their state, they don't have the right to regulate contrary to the US Constitution.
So now we come to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The southern states were denying rights to blacks under the guise of "separate but equal." The Federal government stepped in and passed a law to ensure the civil rights of all Americans. Did the Federal Government have the legal power to do this? Yes, section 5 to Amendment 14 states, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provision of this article." So Congress did have the power. But, now the question is, was the legislation appropriate? For the most part it was, for one specific section it was not.
Congress in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title II Section 201, defined any business that somehow partook in interstate commerce to affect interstate commerce and thus fall under their jurisdiction. For example, if a business gets most of its food from out of state, that business affects interstate commerce. But this is a far-reaching interpretation of the "commerce among the states."
Merriam-Webster defines commerce as "the exchange or buying and selling of goods, commodities, property, or services esp. on a large scale and involving transportation from place to place." The question then: is the buying of a good, commodity, property, or service which has been transformed from its original state after original exchange or buying or selling still fall under the purview of the Congress? To this extent, once something has changed form and is resold inside the state, even if it comes from another state, is intrastate commerce and not interstate commerce. Thus the Congress does not have the right to regulate commerce in a state even if the commerce is a direct result of interstate commerce. To better explain, Congress has the right to regulate the exchange of lettuce moved from one state to another state. Congress does not have the right to regulate the salad made from said lettuce once it is in the state. But this is what Congress in effect did with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus they over stepped their rights under the Constitution; therefore, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional in the respect where it regulates the conduct of business in a state when the business obtains goods or services via interstate commerce.
Now with that said, some of the regulation in the section 201 is legal. For example, the regulation of a sports arena which hosts teams from another state falls under the commerce clause - the exclusion of a team or their fans from a local site affects interstate commerce. The regulation of inns along the interstate highway system falls under the commerce clause - the purpose of those inns is to support interstate commerce, how could they support interstate commerce if they refused service to some customers trying to affect the same?
Section 202 of Title II to the Civil Rights Act does exactly what was really needed. This section specifically tells each state they cannot have a law which restricts access to anyone on the basis of color, race, etc. This restatement of the Fourteenth Amendment was needed in the Act.
To clarify the viewpoint of this article: Congress has the right under the commerce clause to regulate commerce among the states. This does include the regulation of how a business conducts intrastate commerce. Each state has the right to regulate the commerce inside its borders. This does not include the regulation which violates the Fourteenth Amendment, such as the Jim Crow laws, or "separate but equal." Each business should have the right to say who they will cater to including the refusal of service to a group or groups of people they don't like. Now while this standpoint might be reprehensible, it is a basic tenet of free speech and the power of the consumer. It is worse to stifle speech which one does not like than to be subject to the same. When you go into most businesses do you not see signs both in English and Spanish? Why is that? That's because there is a large consumer group with buying power that does not speak English, only Spanish. To tap that money, why not put signs in both languages if you want to cater to both groups? So how long do you think a business would survive in this day and age if it excluded a group based on race, color, national origin, etc?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, a great legal triumph which should be celebrated, is also, possibly, a good example of "the ends justify the means."
Mike
References:
Ourdocuments.gov. (n.d.) Transcipt of Civil Rights Act (1964). Retrieved 27 May 2010 from http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript
Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Retrieved 28 May 2010 from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=163&invol=537
New World Encyclopedia. (2008). Jim crow laws. Retrieved 28 May 2010 from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Jim_Crow_laws
Thompson, K and Dan Balz. (2010). Rand Paul comments about civil rights stirs controversy. DC: The Washington Post. Retrieved 28 May 2010 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003500.html
Nash, G and others. (1990). The American people: creating a nation and a society Volume 2 since 1865. NY: HarperCollins.
Merriam-Webster's dictionary of law. (1996). MA: Merriam-Webster.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Bully Politics
On Tuesday, I started researching the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after remarks by Dr. Rand Paul, the just-selected Republican Party representative for the state of KY's senate race. I obviously chose a different topic as evident by a two day discussion on pensions. I am again tabling my original intent on the discussion in lieu of another topic. To give a little teaser for tomorrow, I plan on arguing that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional. We'll see how that goes.
In my research on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I realized there were some aspects of the Reconstruction Era I did not remember. I also cannot remember if I was ever taught this in the first place. In my reading, I saw a pattern that was reminisce of recent times. Thus was born a discussion on bully politics.
One of the first indications of bully politics is found in our Country's history during Washington's second administration. After the Revolutionary War, the country had taken on the state's debt and needed to raise funds. In 1791, Alexander Hamilton proposed a tax on distilled spirits to help raise said funds. One of the problems was it was a tax that favorable large producers over small producers (globalsecurity.org, n.d.). In western Pennsylvania, farmers used grain not sold to distill whiskey. They even bartered in the distilled spirits. The excise tax (a tax at production not consumption) was an undue burden on the small producers. Tax evasion and abuse of tax collectors became prevalent throughout the western region of Pennsylvania. Riots even broke out over the tax. Fed up with the insubordination, Washington raised a militia from other states. Under the command of Virginia Governor Harry Lee (Gen Robert E. Lee's father), the militia went to Pennsylvania and put the uprising to an end (earlyamerica.com, n.d.). This was an event which showed the states the new federal government was ready to enforce its authority. A flex of its might, the nation showed its power. In 1801, the unpopular whiskey excise tax was repealed....
At the end of the Civil War, the former slaves were all freedmen. However, the plantation owners still needed their crops harvested. How could they get them harvested at a cheap cost? Pass laws which would force the freedmen back into lawful servitude, that's how! The southern states then passed what has become to be known as the Black Codes which reestablished white dominance (Nash and others, pg 545). For example, one state made it illegal to not have a job, in other words, vagrancy was a crime. If charged with vagrancy, the violator would have to pay a fine. Of course, the vagrant did not have the money to pay the fine. So the vagrant was given the option to "work off" his debt at the plantation (civilwarhome.com, n.d.). Wasn't this a great plan? Of course, the northerners weren't going to have any of this. In response, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1866. The southern states, at the urging of President Johnson, refused to ratify the amendment. So after flexing its muscle with the Fourteenth Amendment, the northern states flexed their muscles again with the Reconstruction Acts. They redrew voting districts and disallowed many rebels from voting. This ensured blacks could vote on a new state constitution. Only after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment were the southern states allowed to send representatives to Congress (Nash and others, pg 549). However, it wasn't until the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment become the way of life. Or has it?
In 2008, the state of California passed Proposition 8. This proposition defined marriage as between a man and a woman. These words were placed into the state's Constitution making it difficult for the court to allow same-sex marriages. The beginning of Prop 8 began back in 1999. In that year, the legislature wrote several laws recognising a domestic partnership. This effectively gave same-sex couples many of the rights as married couples. Then in 2000, proposition 22 was approved by the voters which defined marriage as between a man and a woman and stated California would only recognize a marriage from another state only if it matched the state's definition. In 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled proposition 22 unconstitutional. Thus the voters of the state which approved prop 22 flexed its muscle and approved prop 8. Same-sex couples were now prevented from using the word "marriage" to define their relationship even though their domestic partnership is legal....
In 2010, the Democrats holding a majority in Congress had to flex their muscles. Even though polls showed most Americans did not want the Democrats' version of healthcare reform, the muscles were flexed and the Democrats passed their healthcare reform over the objection of the public. We have yet to see the repercussions from this muscle flexing.
Throughout our Country's history, the majority has flexed its muscle in a bullying manner to get their agenda passed. Was it for the good of the country or for the good of themselves? Only history will tell...
Mike
Again, I recommend checking out the references.
References:
Nash, G and others. (1990). The American people: creating a nation and a society Volume 2 since 1865. NY: HarperCollins.
USconstitution.net. (n.d.) Notes on the amendments. Retrieved 27 May 2010 from http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html#Am14
Smith, P. (n.d.) Trial by fire, a people's history of the civil war and reconstruction. Retrieved from civilwarhome.com. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.civilwarhome.com/blackcodes.htm
Archiving early America. (n.d.) The Whiskey Rebellion. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/
Globalsecurity.org. (n.d.) Whiskey Rebellion. Retrieved 27 May 2010 from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/whiskey_rebellion.htm
For Prop 8 or Prop 22 just do a search for them. Obviously, wikipedia will something for you.
I'm sure you know the healthcare debate.
In my research on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I realized there were some aspects of the Reconstruction Era I did not remember. I also cannot remember if I was ever taught this in the first place. In my reading, I saw a pattern that was reminisce of recent times. Thus was born a discussion on bully politics.
One of the first indications of bully politics is found in our Country's history during Washington's second administration. After the Revolutionary War, the country had taken on the state's debt and needed to raise funds. In 1791, Alexander Hamilton proposed a tax on distilled spirits to help raise said funds. One of the problems was it was a tax that favorable large producers over small producers (globalsecurity.org, n.d.). In western Pennsylvania, farmers used grain not sold to distill whiskey. They even bartered in the distilled spirits. The excise tax (a tax at production not consumption) was an undue burden on the small producers. Tax evasion and abuse of tax collectors became prevalent throughout the western region of Pennsylvania. Riots even broke out over the tax. Fed up with the insubordination, Washington raised a militia from other states. Under the command of Virginia Governor Harry Lee (Gen Robert E. Lee's father), the militia went to Pennsylvania and put the uprising to an end (earlyamerica.com, n.d.). This was an event which showed the states the new federal government was ready to enforce its authority. A flex of its might, the nation showed its power. In 1801, the unpopular whiskey excise tax was repealed....
At the end of the Civil War, the former slaves were all freedmen. However, the plantation owners still needed their crops harvested. How could they get them harvested at a cheap cost? Pass laws which would force the freedmen back into lawful servitude, that's how! The southern states then passed what has become to be known as the Black Codes which reestablished white dominance (Nash and others, pg 545). For example, one state made it illegal to not have a job, in other words, vagrancy was a crime. If charged with vagrancy, the violator would have to pay a fine. Of course, the vagrant did not have the money to pay the fine. So the vagrant was given the option to "work off" his debt at the plantation (civilwarhome.com, n.d.). Wasn't this a great plan? Of course, the northerners weren't going to have any of this. In response, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1866. The southern states, at the urging of President Johnson, refused to ratify the amendment. So after flexing its muscle with the Fourteenth Amendment, the northern states flexed their muscles again with the Reconstruction Acts. They redrew voting districts and disallowed many rebels from voting. This ensured blacks could vote on a new state constitution. Only after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment were the southern states allowed to send representatives to Congress (Nash and others, pg 549). However, it wasn't until the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment become the way of life. Or has it?
In 2008, the state of California passed Proposition 8. This proposition defined marriage as between a man and a woman. These words were placed into the state's Constitution making it difficult for the court to allow same-sex marriages. The beginning of Prop 8 began back in 1999. In that year, the legislature wrote several laws recognising a domestic partnership. This effectively gave same-sex couples many of the rights as married couples. Then in 2000, proposition 22 was approved by the voters which defined marriage as between a man and a woman and stated California would only recognize a marriage from another state only if it matched the state's definition. In 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled proposition 22 unconstitutional. Thus the voters of the state which approved prop 22 flexed its muscle and approved prop 8. Same-sex couples were now prevented from using the word "marriage" to define their relationship even though their domestic partnership is legal....
In 2010, the Democrats holding a majority in Congress had to flex their muscles. Even though polls showed most Americans did not want the Democrats' version of healthcare reform, the muscles were flexed and the Democrats passed their healthcare reform over the objection of the public. We have yet to see the repercussions from this muscle flexing.
Throughout our Country's history, the majority has flexed its muscle in a bullying manner to get their agenda passed. Was it for the good of the country or for the good of themselves? Only history will tell...
Mike
Again, I recommend checking out the references.
References:
Nash, G and others. (1990). The American people: creating a nation and a society Volume 2 since 1865. NY: HarperCollins.
USconstitution.net. (n.d.) Notes on the amendments. Retrieved 27 May 2010 from http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html#Am14
Smith, P. (n.d.) Trial by fire, a people's history of the civil war and reconstruction. Retrieved from civilwarhome.com. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.civilwarhome.com/blackcodes.htm
Archiving early America. (n.d.) The Whiskey Rebellion. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/
Globalsecurity.org. (n.d.) Whiskey Rebellion. Retrieved 27 May 2010 from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/whiskey_rebellion.htm
For Prop 8 or Prop 22 just do a search for them. Obviously, wikipedia will something for you.
I'm sure you know the healthcare debate.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Who's in charge of your pension?
Yesterday during my research for retirement benefits I ended up at several union websites. All unions push the same type of retirement system, defined benefit (DB). This is the type of pension the military provides to their retirees. A defined benefit based system usually has some formula utilized to calculate a specific monetary benefit to the retiree for as long as they live. There is also an option associated with DB to ensure a retiree's survivors can partake of the retirement plan. The designated survivor will get a reduced award amount for as long as the survivor lives. This obviously will come at a price to the retiree as they will pay a premium for this "insurance." The military option is called the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP).
The other retirement system is called defined contribution (DC). This system is based on the contributions to the system vice the benefit of the system. An IRA or 401(k) plan is a DC system. One of the drawbacks to this system is that the account can reach zero before the retiree has passed on. Running out of money is a just concern.
So which retirement system is pushed by the unions? If you guessed DB, you are correct. In the DB system, the employer is responsible for the system; in the DC system, the employee is responsible for the system. Unions are anti-employer, so, of course, they would be for a system that puts all the burden on the employer. I think unions believe people cannot be trusted to run their own retirement fund; therefore, it should be left to someone else. (There's a covert message in that last sentence!)
Some argue that a retiree should have a three-legged stool approach (Almedia and Fornia, 2008). This approach is one of relying on social security while having both types of plans. A way to look at having all three types is one of diversification, or not having all eggs in one basket.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both plans. In the DB system a huge advantage is only the employer pays into the system (unless it is a public service sector job, then the taxpayer pays a portion while the employee pays another portion). For the most part, union pensions require only the employer to pay into the system. This creates a large pool of money that can be managed by one manager for optimum growth (another advantage). Again, I reiterate, only the employer pays into the system. So a company that pays into a DB system in order to keep the same profit rate will recoup that money a different way: raise the cost of their goods or service. This fact is a disadvantage to the consumer or user of the company.
In the DB system, the benefit is the same for how long the retiree lives. When looking at a DC system, remember, it can run out of money. This is a disadvantage to the DC system. However, a retiree can utilize the DC to purchase an annuity which would then pay a specific amount to the retiree for their life span. In the same report by Almedia and Fornia, they say most owners of DC plans won't do that or know to do that so a DB system is better. Again, a DC owner is not smart enough to take care of themselves, so a system that takes care of them is better.
From an employer standpoint, the DB has a huge advantage over a DC. This advantage lies in the fact that because the money is in one big pot, the employee cannot take the DB with them if they want to change jobs or employers (there's no way to say whose dollar in the account is whose). This makes the employee loyal to the employer thus the employer won't have to find a replacement and spend the money to train them to replace the employee who wants to leave. The DC system, though, is portable. An employee can take their retirement funds with them. In a DB, the funds belong to the employer until the employee retires. In a DC, the funds belong to the employee at all times. Of course, realize that if someone works for a DB system company and is not union, at sometime close to the retirement age, the company just might decide to let that someone go. This way the DB fund will not have to pay the benefits to the employee because the employee did not meet the retirement requirements. So I hope you if work for a DB system company, you are union!
Consider the following: from yesterday my scenario had someone working for twenty years then retiring. They paid $25,200 into a DB system and received $360,000 from the same system. Assuming matching funds actually paid into the system by the taxpayer, this requires a rate of return of over 20% per year to get to that amount. I really don't see a DC matching that. Or can it? But also consider the following, what happens when the retiree dies and has not received all of the funds? Who gets it? Even after paying the survivor, there will be money left over. Who gets that money? In a DC, the funds can be transferred to a survivor. All of the remaining funds (of course, this depends on a half-way decent estate lawyer). If a union has control of the DB fund, who gets the money?
To be honest, I don't like the benefits of the military system under which I retired. If the government doesn't have the money to pay me, how will they pay me? Look at what's happening in Greece. I am dependent on the government. I want to be dependent on me. I've already decided that when I get my second career started, I am going to look for a company or firm that offers a 401(k) or similar plan. This way I'm in control of my money. I'm the one who wants to retire, why should I not be responsible for my own retirement? Someone I met a few months ago, left their job to start their own business because they realized that all the money being brought into the business they worked for was going to the retirees and overhead, leaving not a lot of funds for the company. He left so he could provide for himself now and into the future.
So, who's in charge of your pension?
Mike
P.S. I hope you check out some of the following references:
References:
Credit federal. (2006). Retirement pensions. Financial News. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://creditfederal.com/article/articles/126/1/Retirement-Pensions
AFL-CIO. (n.d.). Defined-benefit pensions. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.aflcio.org/issues/retirementsecurity/definedbenefitpensions/
National association of state retirement administrators. (n.d.) Defined benefit/defined contribution issues. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.nasra.org/resources/dbdcissues.htm
Dinkytown.net. (n.d.) Investment rate calculator. Retrieved 26 May 2010 from http://www.dinkytown.net/java/InvestmentReturn.html
Almedia, B and William Fornia. (2008). A better bang for the buck: The economic efficiencies of defined benefit pension plans. National institute on retirement security. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.nirsonline.org/storage/nirs/documents/Bang%20for%20the%20Buck%20Report.pdf
National association of state retirement administrators. (2005). Myths and misperceptions of defined benefit and defined contribution plans. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.nasra.org/resources/myths%20and%20misperceptions.pdf
Sonnanstine, A and Brian Murphy and Paul Zorn. (2003). List of advantages and disadvantages for DB and DC plans. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.nasra.org/resources/GRS%20DB%20DC.pdf
CalPers benefit booklet. (2008). Retrieved 25 May 2010 from https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xxBu0jYBuPcir_pub-2-Aug2008.pdf
The other retirement system is called defined contribution (DC). This system is based on the contributions to the system vice the benefit of the system. An IRA or 401(k) plan is a DC system. One of the drawbacks to this system is that the account can reach zero before the retiree has passed on. Running out of money is a just concern.
So which retirement system is pushed by the unions? If you guessed DB, you are correct. In the DB system, the employer is responsible for the system; in the DC system, the employee is responsible for the system. Unions are anti-employer, so, of course, they would be for a system that puts all the burden on the employer. I think unions believe people cannot be trusted to run their own retirement fund; therefore, it should be left to someone else. (There's a covert message in that last sentence!)
Some argue that a retiree should have a three-legged stool approach (Almedia and Fornia, 2008). This approach is one of relying on social security while having both types of plans. A way to look at having all three types is one of diversification, or not having all eggs in one basket.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both plans. In the DB system a huge advantage is only the employer pays into the system (unless it is a public service sector job, then the taxpayer pays a portion while the employee pays another portion). For the most part, union pensions require only the employer to pay into the system. This creates a large pool of money that can be managed by one manager for optimum growth (another advantage). Again, I reiterate, only the employer pays into the system. So a company that pays into a DB system in order to keep the same profit rate will recoup that money a different way: raise the cost of their goods or service. This fact is a disadvantage to the consumer or user of the company.
In the DB system, the benefit is the same for how long the retiree lives. When looking at a DC system, remember, it can run out of money. This is a disadvantage to the DC system. However, a retiree can utilize the DC to purchase an annuity which would then pay a specific amount to the retiree for their life span. In the same report by Almedia and Fornia, they say most owners of DC plans won't do that or know to do that so a DB system is better. Again, a DC owner is not smart enough to take care of themselves, so a system that takes care of them is better.
From an employer standpoint, the DB has a huge advantage over a DC. This advantage lies in the fact that because the money is in one big pot, the employee cannot take the DB with them if they want to change jobs or employers (there's no way to say whose dollar in the account is whose). This makes the employee loyal to the employer thus the employer won't have to find a replacement and spend the money to train them to replace the employee who wants to leave. The DC system, though, is portable. An employee can take their retirement funds with them. In a DB, the funds belong to the employer until the employee retires. In a DC, the funds belong to the employee at all times. Of course, realize that if someone works for a DB system company and is not union, at sometime close to the retirement age, the company just might decide to let that someone go. This way the DB fund will not have to pay the benefits to the employee because the employee did not meet the retirement requirements. So I hope you if work for a DB system company, you are union!
Consider the following: from yesterday my scenario had someone working for twenty years then retiring. They paid $25,200 into a DB system and received $360,000 from the same system. Assuming matching funds actually paid into the system by the taxpayer, this requires a rate of return of over 20% per year to get to that amount. I really don't see a DC matching that. Or can it? But also consider the following, what happens when the retiree dies and has not received all of the funds? Who gets it? Even after paying the survivor, there will be money left over. Who gets that money? In a DC, the funds can be transferred to a survivor. All of the remaining funds (of course, this depends on a half-way decent estate lawyer). If a union has control of the DB fund, who gets the money?
To be honest, I don't like the benefits of the military system under which I retired. If the government doesn't have the money to pay me, how will they pay me? Look at what's happening in Greece. I am dependent on the government. I want to be dependent on me. I've already decided that when I get my second career started, I am going to look for a company or firm that offers a 401(k) or similar plan. This way I'm in control of my money. I'm the one who wants to retire, why should I not be responsible for my own retirement? Someone I met a few months ago, left their job to start their own business because they realized that all the money being brought into the business they worked for was going to the retirees and overhead, leaving not a lot of funds for the company. He left so he could provide for himself now and into the future.
So, who's in charge of your pension?
Mike
P.S. I hope you check out some of the following references:
References:
Credit federal. (2006). Retirement pensions. Financial News. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://creditfederal.com/article/articles/126/1/Retirement-Pensions
AFL-CIO. (n.d.). Defined-benefit pensions. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.aflcio.org/issues/retirementsecurity/definedbenefitpensions/
National association of state retirement administrators. (n.d.) Defined benefit/defined contribution issues. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.nasra.org/resources/dbdcissues.htm
Dinkytown.net. (n.d.) Investment rate calculator. Retrieved 26 May 2010 from http://www.dinkytown.net/java/InvestmentReturn.html
Almedia, B and William Fornia. (2008). A better bang for the buck: The economic efficiencies of defined benefit pension plans. National institute on retirement security. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.nirsonline.org/storage/nirs/documents/Bang%20for%20the%20Buck%20Report.pdf
National association of state retirement administrators. (2005). Myths and misperceptions of defined benefit and defined contribution plans. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.nasra.org/resources/myths%20and%20misperceptions.pdf
Sonnanstine, A and Brian Murphy and Paul Zorn. (2003). List of advantages and disadvantages for DB and DC plans. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.nasra.org/resources/GRS%20DB%20DC.pdf
CalPers benefit booklet. (2008). Retrieved 25 May 2010 from https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xxBu0jYBuPcir_pub-2-Aug2008.pdf
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Are you worth the pension?
One of the reasons stated for the economy mess in Greek is their pension system which allows some professions to retire early. For example, a trombonist can retire at age 50 because their profession can lead to late-life breathing problems (AP, 2010). European nations have called for an overhaul of the pension system but the beneficiaries of the system are obviously upset at the prospect of losing benefits, even if it would mean salvaging their country's economy. I guess the Greeks would rather lose all of their benefits as their country goes under than to reduce their benefits.
The state of California has faced their own budget woes for over a year. Pensions though have not been brought up in the discussion. However, in the city of San Diego, the city's pension system for its city employees was under funded for several years, and, in 2003, the Mayor formed a commission to figure out a way to back pay the system. There is still a fight over this issue to this date.
In California's and San Diego's retirement systems, employees can retire as early as 50. Unlike the Greek retirement system, this age is not job dependent. As a matter of fact, most of the service employees who can retire at this age are closer to desk jobs where I guess paper cuts and stress can lead to late-life difficulties. For the state, as long as an employee worked for five years they are eligible for retirement benefits. At least for the city, a city employee must have worked for twenty years before they are eligible for benefits.
For federal, state, and local retirement systems, the tax payer is the prominent payer of the pension system. The federal government gives the military a pension payment after twenty years of service. I currently am receiving a pension from the federal government. I am only 43. If I live for another 25 years, at a minimum, the taypayer will be on the hook for $938,400. That's right, I will be paid a million dollars if I live for another 25 or more years by the taxpayer. Not bad for service to my country. But what was the cost to me? I was on the hook to go into harm's way for my country. Did I do so? No, but the possibility existed. Those who are willing to put their life on the line should be compensated for their duty. Also, for most military members, life in the military is accompanied by family separation - an added stress to an already stressed life. Do we as a nation owe our military members this? I think so.
For state and local retirement systems, they pay into a retirement system that is similar to paying into a 401(k) or IRA. The employee pays a percentage of their income into the system and the employer (the taxpayer) pays into the fund also. When the employee retires they get a monthly benefit. (Note: the federal system is a pay-as-you-go system, which means funds are not deposited throughout the employee's life but, instead, are paid by the current taxpayers.)
The question I have is: are city employees really worth a pension? Unless the employee was a police officer or a firefighter, are they worth the burden to the taxpayer? Think about the Department of Motor Vehicle person or any other state worker who pushes paper. Should they be able to retire at 50 or 55 and continue to receive money that could possibly come from current taxpayers?
For the state of California, the retirement system pays using a formula: years of service times a benefit factor which is based on 2% at age 55 times the last year's average monthly salary. This means that a worker who worked for twenty years with a monthly salary of $3000 would get (20 X .02 X 3000) $1200 per month when they retired. Assuming they live for another twenty five years (55 + 25 = 80 years old), this person would get $360,000, assuming a zero cost of living adjustment. That amount is about 1/3 of the amount I should get.
Is this person worth this expense? The contribution rate is only 3.5%. This equates to a $25,200 ($3000 X .035% X 12 months X 20 years, assuming a constant salary) investment by the employee. So going back to the anticipated benefit of $360,000, this payment over 25 years works out to be a 1428% return on investment. Where else can you get a ROI that high for working for one entity and not having to put your life on the line?
The Greeks wanted state jobs. The jobs were easy and came with nice retirements. Greece is now in the throes of an economic crisis. Were the pensioners really worth the expense?
Mike
References:
City of San Diego Retirement Benefits. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.sandiego.gov/empopp/benefits/index.shtml
City of San Diego Retirement System: https://www.sdcers.org
Boitard, C. (2010). Greek cabinet agrees radical pension reform. Yahoo News. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100510/bs_afp/greecefinanceeconomy
Associated press. (2010). Greece's early retirement rules breed resentment. USA Today. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2010-05-18-europeretire18_ST_N.htm
The state of California has faced their own budget woes for over a year. Pensions though have not been brought up in the discussion. However, in the city of San Diego, the city's pension system for its city employees was under funded for several years, and, in 2003, the Mayor formed a commission to figure out a way to back pay the system. There is still a fight over this issue to this date.
In California's and San Diego's retirement systems, employees can retire as early as 50. Unlike the Greek retirement system, this age is not job dependent. As a matter of fact, most of the service employees who can retire at this age are closer to desk jobs where I guess paper cuts and stress can lead to late-life difficulties. For the state, as long as an employee worked for five years they are eligible for retirement benefits. At least for the city, a city employee must have worked for twenty years before they are eligible for benefits.
For federal, state, and local retirement systems, the tax payer is the prominent payer of the pension system. The federal government gives the military a pension payment after twenty years of service. I currently am receiving a pension from the federal government. I am only 43. If I live for another 25 years, at a minimum, the taypayer will be on the hook for $938,400. That's right, I will be paid a million dollars if I live for another 25 or more years by the taxpayer. Not bad for service to my country. But what was the cost to me? I was on the hook to go into harm's way for my country. Did I do so? No, but the possibility existed. Those who are willing to put their life on the line should be compensated for their duty. Also, for most military members, life in the military is accompanied by family separation - an added stress to an already stressed life. Do we as a nation owe our military members this? I think so.
For state and local retirement systems, they pay into a retirement system that is similar to paying into a 401(k) or IRA. The employee pays a percentage of their income into the system and the employer (the taxpayer) pays into the fund also. When the employee retires they get a monthly benefit. (Note: the federal system is a pay-as-you-go system, which means funds are not deposited throughout the employee's life but, instead, are paid by the current taxpayers.)
The question I have is: are city employees really worth a pension? Unless the employee was a police officer or a firefighter, are they worth the burden to the taxpayer? Think about the Department of Motor Vehicle person or any other state worker who pushes paper. Should they be able to retire at 50 or 55 and continue to receive money that could possibly come from current taxpayers?
For the state of California, the retirement system pays using a formula: years of service times a benefit factor which is based on 2% at age 55 times the last year's average monthly salary. This means that a worker who worked for twenty years with a monthly salary of $3000 would get (20 X .02 X 3000) $1200 per month when they retired. Assuming they live for another twenty five years (55 + 25 = 80 years old), this person would get $360,000, assuming a zero cost of living adjustment. That amount is about 1/3 of the amount I should get.
Is this person worth this expense? The contribution rate is only 3.5%. This equates to a $25,200 ($3000 X .035% X 12 months X 20 years, assuming a constant salary) investment by the employee. So going back to the anticipated benefit of $360,000, this payment over 25 years works out to be a 1428% return on investment. Where else can you get a ROI that high for working for one entity and not having to put your life on the line?
The Greeks wanted state jobs. The jobs were easy and came with nice retirements. Greece is now in the throes of an economic crisis. Were the pensioners really worth the expense?
Mike
References:
City of San Diego Retirement Benefits. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.sandiego.gov/empopp/benefits/index.shtml
City of San Diego Retirement System: https://www.sdcers.org
Boitard, C. (2010). Greek cabinet agrees radical pension reform. Yahoo News. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100510/bs_afp/greecefinanceeconomy
Associated press. (2010). Greece's early retirement rules breed resentment. USA Today. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2010-05-18-europeretire18_ST_N.htm
Monday, May 24, 2010
Click It or Ticket: Money for the Government
This weekend local television, at least in the San Diego area, has been barraged by "click it or ticket" advertisements. The intent is to get those who fail to utilize seat belts while operating a motor vehicle to actually do so. This morning the local news reported the fine for not having a seat belt on will be raised during the recent "click it or ticket" campaign which will run until June 6.
Not wearing a seat belt while operating or riding in a motor vehicle is not smart. Statistics show there is a higher probability of death for those who don't wear seat belts versus those who do (National highway traffic association, 2008). For me the question is not whether or not you should wear a seat belt, the question is should the government order you to wear a seat belt? For me the answer is a resounding NO.
If you visit my Facebook profile, you'll find under the favorite quotations section a personal quote. The quote is "laws should be made to protect man from man, not man from himself." I believe the seat belt law is a law that protects a person from themselves vice protecting a person from another person. If someone gets into a car accident and dies from their injuries because they were not wearing a seat belt has no bearing on me or any other person, including anyone involved in the accident.
Some may argue that a person who survives the accident but requires expensive medical care would be a burden on the insurance system because the insurance would have to pay to the limits of the policy. This then causes all other premiums to rise. The military informs all military personnel that if they are injured or killed in an automobile accident when they aren't wearing a seat belt, the US Government will not pay any expenses. Looking at my insurance documents on-line I cannot tell if this the same for my insurance company. If this policy of not paying for expenses in the case of non-seat belt use is not the standard, it should be. All insurance companies should refuse to pay for any expenses related to accidents when the claimer failed to wear a seat belt. This then would ensure the person not wearing a seat belt would not be a burden on the insurance system.
Think about that fine (insurance not covering medical if not wearing a seat belt when involved in an accident) for a minute. The state of California will fine a driver not wearing a seat belt $142. I want to fine them if they get into an accident thousands of dollars. My rule is a rule of self responsibility. The government is a rule of forced responsibility when something may or may not happen.
Some may also argue that a person's family should not be made to suffer because of the actions of an irresponsible person. Well, too bad, so sad. It's not the role of government to protect a family from emotional distress or from financial distress because someone failed to wear a seat belt then was injured or killed in a car accident. This happens every day even when the person wears a seat belt.
So what is the purpose of the law? The only purpose is to generate money for the government. There will always be people who don't wear seat belts - I'm not sure why, again, the statistics don't lie - so there will always be someone to ticket for not wearing a seat belt. My problem with this law is that it does not protect the society for the actions of someone. So, what we have is the government telling us we must do something or else we have to pay a fine. And I reiterate that this something does not protect the society as a whole. Is this a power we want to bestow on the government? It is not for me.
I have no problem if the law said the driver is responsible for ensuring the safety of the passengers of the vehicle. This falls under the "due care" aspect of the law. Due care is the care that an ordinarily reasonable and prudent person would use under the same or similar circumstances (Merriam-Webster dictionary of law, 1996). A driver would have the due care to ensure each of his passengers were properly seat belted or restrained, as in the case of a child too small for a seat belt, such that an accident would not harm them while in the driver's vehicle. This means I have no complaint against ticketing a driver who has failed to ensure his passengers have not put on their seat belt. I do have a complaint about ticketing someone who has failed to put on their own seat belt.
There's an old saying: The stupid shall be punished. The stupid are punished by their actions not by us punishing them prior to said actions because something "might happen."
If we give the government the thought they can fine us for not doing something that does not harm anyone but the person involved, there is no limit to what we will allow them to do. Hmmm, everyone must buy health insurance comes to mind.....
Mike
References:
Merriam-Webster's dictionary of law. (1996). MA: Merriam-Webster.
Thomas, K. (2010). Govt: About 45 million Americans don't buckle up. AP. Retrieved 24 May 2010 from http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/24/govt-about-45-million-americans-dont-buckle-up/
National highway traffice association. (2008). Fatality anaylsis reporting system. Retrieved 24 May 2010 from http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeopleRestraints.aspx
Not wearing a seat belt while operating or riding in a motor vehicle is not smart. Statistics show there is a higher probability of death for those who don't wear seat belts versus those who do (National highway traffic association, 2008). For me the question is not whether or not you should wear a seat belt, the question is should the government order you to wear a seat belt? For me the answer is a resounding NO.
If you visit my Facebook profile, you'll find under the favorite quotations section a personal quote. The quote is "laws should be made to protect man from man, not man from himself." I believe the seat belt law is a law that protects a person from themselves vice protecting a person from another person. If someone gets into a car accident and dies from their injuries because they were not wearing a seat belt has no bearing on me or any other person, including anyone involved in the accident.
Some may argue that a person who survives the accident but requires expensive medical care would be a burden on the insurance system because the insurance would have to pay to the limits of the policy. This then causes all other premiums to rise. The military informs all military personnel that if they are injured or killed in an automobile accident when they aren't wearing a seat belt, the US Government will not pay any expenses. Looking at my insurance documents on-line I cannot tell if this the same for my insurance company. If this policy of not paying for expenses in the case of non-seat belt use is not the standard, it should be. All insurance companies should refuse to pay for any expenses related to accidents when the claimer failed to wear a seat belt. This then would ensure the person not wearing a seat belt would not be a burden on the insurance system.
Think about that fine (insurance not covering medical if not wearing a seat belt when involved in an accident) for a minute. The state of California will fine a driver not wearing a seat belt $142. I want to fine them if they get into an accident thousands of dollars. My rule is a rule of self responsibility. The government is a rule of forced responsibility when something may or may not happen.
Some may also argue that a person's family should not be made to suffer because of the actions of an irresponsible person. Well, too bad, so sad. It's not the role of government to protect a family from emotional distress or from financial distress because someone failed to wear a seat belt then was injured or killed in a car accident. This happens every day even when the person wears a seat belt.
So what is the purpose of the law? The only purpose is to generate money for the government. There will always be people who don't wear seat belts - I'm not sure why, again, the statistics don't lie - so there will always be someone to ticket for not wearing a seat belt. My problem with this law is that it does not protect the society for the actions of someone. So, what we have is the government telling us we must do something or else we have to pay a fine. And I reiterate that this something does not protect the society as a whole. Is this a power we want to bestow on the government? It is not for me.
I have no problem if the law said the driver is responsible for ensuring the safety of the passengers of the vehicle. This falls under the "due care" aspect of the law. Due care is the care that an ordinarily reasonable and prudent person would use under the same or similar circumstances (Merriam-Webster dictionary of law, 1996). A driver would have the due care to ensure each of his passengers were properly seat belted or restrained, as in the case of a child too small for a seat belt, such that an accident would not harm them while in the driver's vehicle. This means I have no complaint against ticketing a driver who has failed to ensure his passengers have not put on their seat belt. I do have a complaint about ticketing someone who has failed to put on their own seat belt.
There's an old saying: The stupid shall be punished. The stupid are punished by their actions not by us punishing them prior to said actions because something "might happen."
If we give the government the thought they can fine us for not doing something that does not harm anyone but the person involved, there is no limit to what we will allow them to do. Hmmm, everyone must buy health insurance comes to mind.....
Mike
References:
Merriam-Webster's dictionary of law. (1996). MA: Merriam-Webster.
Thomas, K. (2010). Govt: About 45 million Americans don't buckle up. AP. Retrieved 24 May 2010 from http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/24/govt-about-45-million-americans-dont-buckle-up/
National highway traffice association. (2008). Fatality anaylsis reporting system. Retrieved 24 May 2010 from http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeopleRestraints.aspx
Friday, May 21, 2010
An Education: Arizona SB1070 The Final Chapter
Last night on The O'Reilly Factor, Megyn Kelly spoke on the Arizona immigration law. For once, someone was speaking about SB1070 who had actually read the law (besides me). Of course, what else do you expect from a lawyer? Megyn was not going to speak about something she had not actually read. She's a shining example that Eric Holder should emulate. Ms. Kelly actually said some enlightening facts which should be shared before I finish my SB1070 discussion.
Ms. Kelly pointed out that in a Supreme Court case from 2005, the Supreme Court had ruled on a case that involved a question of when a police officer can request someone's identification (Note: I could not spell the name of the case adequately to find it for reference purposes). The Supreme Court ruled a police officer can request identification from anyone at any time. A requirement of lawful contact or of reasonable suspicion does not exist according to the Supreme Court. In other words, the Arizona law is more restrictive over police actions than what the Supreme Court has ruled. This is something not reported in the media or by the opponents of the law. Shame on them.
Now to finish the discussion.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf
Section 13-1059. This section makes not carrying immigration documents or failing to obtain proper immigration documents by an alien against state law just as the same is against federal law. The best part of this section states that an alien not lawfully present on US soil, if convicted of a crime, is not eligible for parole, early release, probation, etc. In other words, the full sentence will be served prior to their release; and, as prescribed by section 11-1051, once released this individual will be turned over to ICE. The section also sets a fine and requires the individual guilty of violating this section to pay all court costs and fines. I'm not sure how the state will get some person who was not able to pay the cost for legal immigration to actually pay court costs.
Another aspect of this section not being discussed by the opponents is that a person who maintains federal authorization to be in the United States is exempt from this section of the law. In other words, this section does not apply to someone the federal government says can stay in the United States. This section sets the violation of this section as a misdemeanor, unless, the person is also found to be in possession of a substance that could be used to create a dangerous drug, is a dangerous drug, or is a weapon of some dangerous sort; then the violation is a felony. It is also a felony to violate this section a second or subsequent time. Let's be clear, it's a misdemeanor to violate federal law except in a few specific instances. The opponents of this law have stated it's a felony to violate the state law. I'm so glad they can read and relate the truth!
Section 13-2928. One of the arguments of those opposed to the law is the government should be going after those who hire illegal aliens. This section does just that; but, you don’t hear too much about this aspect of the law, from either side. This section makes it illegal to for someone to hire an illegal immigrant from their car or for an illegal immigrant to solicit for work or for an illegal immigrant to enter a vehicle for work. This means if an Arizonian ventures down to the local Home Depot and hires one of the day workers from the parking lot who is an illegal alien, they are in violation of the law. Now there’s a caveat. This section only applies if the vehicle is in the right of way. This means the person could park their vehicle in a parking spot and then hire the illegal. Of course, the agreement will be in violation of other aspects of this law, just not this section.
Section 13-2929. This section makes transporting, concealing, or enticing to enter the state of Arizona an alien who is in the country illegal a misdemeanor. Now the stature contains the words “recklessly disregards.” This means that the state will claim if someone who violates this section and did not first obtain verification of the alien’s immigration status did so with reckless disregard of the law. In other words, the “I didn’t know” defense will not be allowed.
It should be stated that the vehicle used to transport an illegal alien is subject to confiscation!
Also, a protective service worker and medical workers in the execution of their jobs are not subject to this law. There is also a caveat to the misdemeanor nature of this law – if someone is found transporting six or more illegal aliens, the crime is changed to that of a felony.
Section 13-3883. This section already existed under Arizona law and gave police officers the authority to arrest someone without a warrant under certain circumstances. The section is amended to include the situation where the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States. In other words, a police officer can arrest an illegal alien without warrant.
Section 23-221. This stature was passed as law in 2007. It prohibits employers from hiring employees who are undocumented aliens. It is strict in that an employer can be fined for every day the employer has undocumented aliens on the payroll. It also allows employees to turn in their employers for hiring undocumented aliens. Of course, the employee cannot base their suspicion on race, national origin, etc. This law, again, is not talked about by those who oppose Arizona’s immigration law.
This section is amended to allow entrapment as a defense against hiring an illegal alien. In other words, the state is trying to protect employers from entrapment by the police! WHAT? A state trying to protect employers, you’ve got to be kidding! Why hasn’t this been discussed in the media? Entrapment is where the employer is enticed or forced to hire the illegal alien when they normally would not have.
Section 23-214. This stature, also passed in 2007, requires employers to e-verify their employees prior to hiring the employee. The section is amended to require the employer to maintain the record of employee verification for the length of employment or three years, whichever is longer.
Section 31-1724. This section authorizes the establishment of the fund related to enforcement of this act. Fines and other monies collected under section 11-1051 will be deposited in this fund and then utilized to pay expenses under enforcement of this law. We’ll see if this actually works. Again, most illegal aliens don’t have the money to legally migrate into the country. I would like to see the state squeeze some blood from that turnip.
This concludes the discussion on Arizona’s immigration law. Now you are knowledgeable of what is in the law and should be able to carry on an informed discussion. Even if you don’t support the law, you now know more than most of those who agree with your position and you now know more than most of those who disagree with your position (except me).
Mike
Ms. Kelly pointed out that in a Supreme Court case from 2005, the Supreme Court had ruled on a case that involved a question of when a police officer can request someone's identification (Note: I could not spell the name of the case adequately to find it for reference purposes). The Supreme Court ruled a police officer can request identification from anyone at any time. A requirement of lawful contact or of reasonable suspicion does not exist according to the Supreme Court. In other words, the Arizona law is more restrictive over police actions than what the Supreme Court has ruled. This is something not reported in the media or by the opponents of the law. Shame on them.
Now to finish the discussion.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf
Section 13-1059. This section makes not carrying immigration documents or failing to obtain proper immigration documents by an alien against state law just as the same is against federal law. The best part of this section states that an alien not lawfully present on US soil, if convicted of a crime, is not eligible for parole, early release, probation, etc. In other words, the full sentence will be served prior to their release; and, as prescribed by section 11-1051, once released this individual will be turned over to ICE. The section also sets a fine and requires the individual guilty of violating this section to pay all court costs and fines. I'm not sure how the state will get some person who was not able to pay the cost for legal immigration to actually pay court costs.
Another aspect of this section not being discussed by the opponents is that a person who maintains federal authorization to be in the United States is exempt from this section of the law. In other words, this section does not apply to someone the federal government says can stay in the United States. This section sets the violation of this section as a misdemeanor, unless, the person is also found to be in possession of a substance that could be used to create a dangerous drug, is a dangerous drug, or is a weapon of some dangerous sort; then the violation is a felony. It is also a felony to violate this section a second or subsequent time. Let's be clear, it's a misdemeanor to violate federal law except in a few specific instances. The opponents of this law have stated it's a felony to violate the state law. I'm so glad they can read and relate the truth!
Section 13-2928. One of the arguments of those opposed to the law is the government should be going after those who hire illegal aliens. This section does just that; but, you don’t hear too much about this aspect of the law, from either side. This section makes it illegal to for someone to hire an illegal immigrant from their car or for an illegal immigrant to solicit for work or for an illegal immigrant to enter a vehicle for work. This means if an Arizonian ventures down to the local Home Depot and hires one of the day workers from the parking lot who is an illegal alien, they are in violation of the law. Now there’s a caveat. This section only applies if the vehicle is in the right of way. This means the person could park their vehicle in a parking spot and then hire the illegal. Of course, the agreement will be in violation of other aspects of this law, just not this section.
Section 13-2929. This section makes transporting, concealing, or enticing to enter the state of Arizona an alien who is in the country illegal a misdemeanor. Now the stature contains the words “recklessly disregards.” This means that the state will claim if someone who violates this section and did not first obtain verification of the alien’s immigration status did so with reckless disregard of the law. In other words, the “I didn’t know” defense will not be allowed.
It should be stated that the vehicle used to transport an illegal alien is subject to confiscation!
Also, a protective service worker and medical workers in the execution of their jobs are not subject to this law. There is also a caveat to the misdemeanor nature of this law – if someone is found transporting six or more illegal aliens, the crime is changed to that of a felony.
Section 13-3883. This section already existed under Arizona law and gave police officers the authority to arrest someone without a warrant under certain circumstances. The section is amended to include the situation where the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States. In other words, a police officer can arrest an illegal alien without warrant.
Section 23-221. This stature was passed as law in 2007. It prohibits employers from hiring employees who are undocumented aliens. It is strict in that an employer can be fined for every day the employer has undocumented aliens on the payroll. It also allows employees to turn in their employers for hiring undocumented aliens. Of course, the employee cannot base their suspicion on race, national origin, etc. This law, again, is not talked about by those who oppose Arizona’s immigration law.
This section is amended to allow entrapment as a defense against hiring an illegal alien. In other words, the state is trying to protect employers from entrapment by the police! WHAT? A state trying to protect employers, you’ve got to be kidding! Why hasn’t this been discussed in the media? Entrapment is where the employer is enticed or forced to hire the illegal alien when they normally would not have.
Section 23-214. This stature, also passed in 2007, requires employers to e-verify their employees prior to hiring the employee. The section is amended to require the employer to maintain the record of employee verification for the length of employment or three years, whichever is longer.
Section 31-1724. This section authorizes the establishment of the fund related to enforcement of this act. Fines and other monies collected under section 11-1051 will be deposited in this fund and then utilized to pay expenses under enforcement of this law. We’ll see if this actually works. Again, most illegal aliens don’t have the money to legally migrate into the country. I would like to see the state squeeze some blood from that turnip.
This concludes the discussion on Arizona’s immigration law. Now you are knowledgeable of what is in the law and should be able to carry on an informed discussion. Even if you don’t support the law, you now know more than most of those who agree with your position and you now know more than most of those who disagree with your position (except me).
Mike
Thursday, May 20, 2010
An Education: Arizona SB1070 Part II
This morning I was contemplated writing something else instead of the continued teachings on Arizona's immigration law. After careful thought and much hand-wringing, I decided to continue my discourse on the immigration law. So here we go.....
The link to Arizona's immigration law: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf
Continuing with Arizona Revised Statues Art 8, Title 11, Section 1051:
C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ON THE ASSESSMENT OF ANY MONETARY OBLIGATION THAT IS IMPOSED, THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED.
This portion of the statute requires any unlawfully present alien to be turned over to ICE upon their release or payment of fine. Ok it says notify ICE but let's read on...
D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO THE AGENCY HAS RECEIVED VERIFICATION IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SHALL OBTAIN JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION BEFORE SECURELY TRANSPORTING AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES TO A POINT OF TRANSFER THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE.
Now once someone is verified to be an unlawfully present alien, the law allows the agency currently holding the unlawfully present alien to transport said alien to a federal facility. This is one section of the law that actually places a burden on taxpayers. Arizona taxpayers will have to pay for their local agency to transport the alien who is unlawfully present. The law doesn't actually state this; but, who else will pay?
E. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING, RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS, LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL, OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:
This seems a little big-brotherly to me. The passage basically gives any state agency the authorization to maintain and share information about immigration status of anyone the agency comes in contact with. Now, the times this applies is when an agency has under lawful contact requested the immigration status of a person suspected to be in the country illegally. The real gist though is to allow the free-exchange of information among the state agencies without any restrictions by anyone in the state. Of course there are the acts this information are to be used for:
1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE.
This is a beautiful aspect of the law. SO the free-exchange of information about aliens will be allowed prior to ensuring the person is eligible for benefits. In essence, if you're in the country illegal, no welfare for you!
2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.
3. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.
4. PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373 AND 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1644.
The other three are just other examples of purposes for sharing information among agencies.
F. THIS SECTION DOES NOT IMPLEMENT, AUTHORIZE OR ESTABLISH AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO IMPLEMENT, AUTHORIZE OR ESTABLISH THE REAL ID ACT OF 2005 (P.L. 109-13, DIVISION B; 119 STAT. 302), INCLUDING THE USE OF A RADIO FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION CHIP.
This is a curious section of the law. It basically states this section (1051) does not enact the REAL ID ACT of 2005. I had never heard of this act. Here is a link for information about the act. This act might be fodder for a later discussion....
http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Transportation/RealIDActof2005Summary/tabid/13579/Default.aspx
G. A PERSON WHO IS A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THIS STATE MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.
Here the state is telling all agencies of the state, if they fail to follow the stature, anyone can turn the agency in, and the agency will be fined for each day it fails to follow the law. This is another aspect of the law preventing a sanctuary city.
H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G OF THIS SECTION AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE STATE TREASURER FOR DEPOSIT IN THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.
Straightforward detailing where any fines collected via this stature will go in the state fund.
I. THE COURT MAY AWARD COURT COSTS AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES TO ANY PERSON OR ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT PREVAILS BY AN ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS IN A PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.
This is a curious aspect of the law. Basically, if an agency is accused of violating the law and is subsequently found not guilty, the court costs for that agency in its defense can be awarded. This aspect of the law is not fully defined as to who will pay the court costs. In the end, I'm sure it is the taxpayer.
J. EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH, A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IN WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A DEFENDANT BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
Basically, if a police officer is accused of violating the law by following the actions of the agency, then that police officer, as long as they did not act in bad faith (intentional deception or dishonesty), will be reimbursed for their court costs by the agency they for which they worked. To me this sounds like a "I was following orders" defense. I'm sure there was a good reason to try to protect individuals who follow the orders of an agency which is in violation of the state law.
K. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS.
This is another section not voiced by the opponents of the law. The state is basically stating, in carrying out this law, the agency must still protect civil rights of everyone (including aliens in the country illegally) and must still respect the privileges and immunities of US citizens. I like the part that privileges and immunities are not stated for all persons; they are reserved only for citizens.
Tomorrow I will finish my discussion. Instead of going line-by-line as I have done for the first section of the law, I will give an overview of what the other sections of the law entail.
Mike
Reference:
Merriam-Webster's dictionary of law. (1996). MA: Merriam-Webster.
The link to Arizona's immigration law: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf
Continuing with Arizona Revised Statues Art 8, Title 11, Section 1051:
C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ON THE ASSESSMENT OF ANY MONETARY OBLIGATION THAT IS IMPOSED, THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED.
This portion of the statute requires any unlawfully present alien to be turned over to ICE upon their release or payment of fine. Ok it says notify ICE but let's read on...
D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO THE AGENCY HAS RECEIVED VERIFICATION IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY'S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SHALL OBTAIN JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION BEFORE SECURELY TRANSPORTING AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES TO A POINT OF TRANSFER THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE.
Now once someone is verified to be an unlawfully present alien, the law allows the agency currently holding the unlawfully present alien to transport said alien to a federal facility. This is one section of the law that actually places a burden on taxpayers. Arizona taxpayers will have to pay for their local agency to transport the alien who is unlawfully present. The law doesn't actually state this; but, who else will pay?
E. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING, RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS, LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL, OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:
This seems a little big-brotherly to me. The passage basically gives any state agency the authorization to maintain and share information about immigration status of anyone the agency comes in contact with. Now, the times this applies is when an agency has under lawful contact requested the immigration status of a person suspected to be in the country illegally. The real gist though is to allow the free-exchange of information among the state agencies without any restrictions by anyone in the state. Of course there are the acts this information are to be used for:
1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE.
This is a beautiful aspect of the law. SO the free-exchange of information about aliens will be allowed prior to ensuring the person is eligible for benefits. In essence, if you're in the country illegal, no welfare for you!
2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.
3. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.
4. PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373 AND 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1644.
The other three are just other examples of purposes for sharing information among agencies.
F. THIS SECTION DOES NOT IMPLEMENT, AUTHORIZE OR ESTABLISH AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO IMPLEMENT, AUTHORIZE OR ESTABLISH THE REAL ID ACT OF 2005 (P.L. 109-13, DIVISION B; 119 STAT. 302), INCLUDING THE USE OF A RADIO FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION CHIP.
This is a curious section of the law. It basically states this section (1051) does not enact the REAL ID ACT of 2005. I had never heard of this act. Here is a link for information about the act. This act might be fodder for a later discussion....
http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Transportation/RealIDActof2005Summary/tabid/13579/Default.aspx
G. A PERSON WHO IS A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THIS STATE MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.
Here the state is telling all agencies of the state, if they fail to follow the stature, anyone can turn the agency in, and the agency will be fined for each day it fails to follow the law. This is another aspect of the law preventing a sanctuary city.
H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G OF THIS SECTION AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE STATE TREASURER FOR DEPOSIT IN THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.
Straightforward detailing where any fines collected via this stature will go in the state fund.
I. THE COURT MAY AWARD COURT COSTS AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES TO ANY PERSON OR ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT PREVAILS BY AN ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS IN A PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.
This is a curious aspect of the law. Basically, if an agency is accused of violating the law and is subsequently found not guilty, the court costs for that agency in its defense can be awarded. This aspect of the law is not fully defined as to who will pay the court costs. In the end, I'm sure it is the taxpayer.
J. EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH, A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION IN WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A DEFENDANT BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
Basically, if a police officer is accused of violating the law by following the actions of the agency, then that police officer, as long as they did not act in bad faith (intentional deception or dishonesty), will be reimbursed for their court costs by the agency they for which they worked. To me this sounds like a "I was following orders" defense. I'm sure there was a good reason to try to protect individuals who follow the orders of an agency which is in violation of the state law.
K. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS.
This is another section not voiced by the opponents of the law. The state is basically stating, in carrying out this law, the agency must still protect civil rights of everyone (including aliens in the country illegally) and must still respect the privileges and immunities of US citizens. I like the part that privileges and immunities are not stated for all persons; they are reserved only for citizens.
Tomorrow I will finish my discussion. Instead of going line-by-line as I have done for the first section of the law, I will give an overview of what the other sections of the law entail.
Mike
Reference:
Merriam-Webster's dictionary of law. (1996). MA: Merriam-Webster.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
An Education: Arizona SB1070 Part I
Today begins my discourse on Arizona's immigration law. The goal is for anyone, after reading this, to be able to discuss the law based on the law vice conjecture. Maybe when the discourse is complete, I'll send email to Eric Holder and others who have failed to read the law with a link to this blog. They might learn a thing or two.
I know I've given the link before but here's the link for the Arizona law again:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf
The law amends the Arizona Revised Statutes to add article 8. Title 11 section 1051 para A states:
NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
This passage is directing all government entities of the state to enforce federal law. The essence of this is to ensure a San Francisco-esque city doesn't exist in the state. As a total force, the entire state is directed to enforce federal law.
para B:
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION.
This is the sticking point of the law; the section most opponents are against. First let's define the word lawful. Lawful is "legitimate" (New Standard Dictionary); "being in harmony with the law" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law). So if someone has contact that can only be construed as lawful and nothing else and they are an official of the state or some other entity of the state, then they are bound to follow the rest of this sentence. If the contact is not within the bounds of the law, then the rest of the sentence has no bearing and cannot be followed. The opponents of this law cry that this provision will lead to racial profiling. It would be naive not think there are unscrupulous police officers in our country. Let's face it, every day a news story can be found that documents abuses by the police. Some of these abuses are innocent while some are not. Those that are not are perpetuated by those who are unscrupulous. However the unscrupulous police officers will racial profile without this law so the wording or passage of this law is immaterial to their actions. Those opponents who cry that this law requires racial profiling are also incorrect. The law officers who follow the law know that if the initial contact between the law officer and someone else does not meet the definition of lawful such that the contact would not stand up in a court of law as being lawful if challenged, then the officers will not follow the rest of the passage because they know that if they do, then whatever action occurs after the violation of the statute is inadmissible. Some may argue that the law officer might innocently engage in racial profiling; however, a later sentence addresses this issue, so I'll delay comment.
(Please note: I interchange law officer, police officer, and official. Granted these are separate roles but for the discussion based on who is required to follow Arizona law, they will mean the same.)
So once a lawful contact has been made, the law officer must have reasonable suspicion. This term is defined as an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances. The legal standard here is that the law officer must be able to point to the specific facts or circumstances. A hunch does not point to specific facts.
So what would constitute a reasonable suspicion that someone might be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States? Currently case law does not exist to establish this (or at least none that I have come across in my research). Consider the following scenario: a police officer engages a speeding vehicle. After the offender has pulled over, the police officer discovers a driver who does not speak English. This person also presents a foreign driver license. The officer has engaged the speeder via lawful contact and now has reasonable suspicion the person behind the wheel might not be in the country legally (non-US driver license and non-English language). The officer now has a duty to inquire about the immigration status of the individual. Another scenario: a police officer is responding to a domestic dispute. This time the accuser speaks broken English or maybe even zero English. The accuser gives a statement but does nothing else to arise suspicion. The police officer has engaged the accuser via lawful contact; however, facts or circumstances have not arisen to provide reasonable suspicion the accuser is an alien in the country illegally. This means the officer cannot inquire of the accuser's immigration status. I, for one, look forward to reading the case law as it becomes available.
ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED.
This sentence is straight forward. If someone is arrested, before the police can allow them to walk out of the station, the person's immigration status must be verified. This sentence does not differentiate between a suspected alien here legally and a resident of the state. If someone is arrested, their immigration status will be verified. This provision prevents what has happened in the past where an alien in the country illegally was released only to commit another crime.
THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
Another straight forward sentence. 8 USC sec 1373(c) basically states ICE must respond to inquiries from state or local officials about the immigration status of someone.
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.
Here the Arizona government is specifically stating that the facts or circumstances required for reasonable suspicion cannot be based on race, color, or national origin; in essence, racial profiling is not allowed in enforcement of the law. This particular sentence of the law is usually ignored by the opponents of the law.
A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
Here the Arizona government states that if someone holds one of the identification methods above the automatic assumption is that they are a legal immigrant or resident. No further questions can be asked after this. For me the amusing aspect of this section of the law is "if the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance." The city of San Francisco issues city identification cards to anyone who resides in their city, whether that someone is here unlawfully or not (see: http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=113). Because San Francisco does not require legal presence for the city (local government) issued identification card, this section of the Arizona law prohibits the city issued ID card from being used as a presumption the card holder is in the United States legally. Good for Arizona!
I'll finish later this week. I'm not sure I will write my blog tomorrow (5/19) as it is my birthday and after spending over twenty years in the service of our Country by being a member of the US Submarine force where my birthday was not a guaranteed day-off, I desire to take a day off!
Mike
I know I've given the link before but here's the link for the Arizona law again:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf
The law amends the Arizona Revised Statutes to add article 8. Title 11 section 1051 para A states:
NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
This passage is directing all government entities of the state to enforce federal law. The essence of this is to ensure a San Francisco-esque city doesn't exist in the state. As a total force, the entire state is directed to enforce federal law.
para B:
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION.
This is the sticking point of the law; the section most opponents are against. First let's define the word lawful. Lawful is "legitimate" (New Standard Dictionary); "being in harmony with the law" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law). So if someone has contact that can only be construed as lawful and nothing else and they are an official of the state or some other entity of the state, then they are bound to follow the rest of this sentence. If the contact is not within the bounds of the law, then the rest of the sentence has no bearing and cannot be followed. The opponents of this law cry that this provision will lead to racial profiling. It would be naive not think there are unscrupulous police officers in our country. Let's face it, every day a news story can be found that documents abuses by the police. Some of these abuses are innocent while some are not. Those that are not are perpetuated by those who are unscrupulous. However the unscrupulous police officers will racial profile without this law so the wording or passage of this law is immaterial to their actions. Those opponents who cry that this law requires racial profiling are also incorrect. The law officers who follow the law know that if the initial contact between the law officer and someone else does not meet the definition of lawful such that the contact would not stand up in a court of law as being lawful if challenged, then the officers will not follow the rest of the passage because they know that if they do, then whatever action occurs after the violation of the statute is inadmissible. Some may argue that the law officer might innocently engage in racial profiling; however, a later sentence addresses this issue, so I'll delay comment.
(Please note: I interchange law officer, police officer, and official. Granted these are separate roles but for the discussion based on who is required to follow Arizona law, they will mean the same.)
So once a lawful contact has been made, the law officer must have reasonable suspicion. This term is defined as an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances. The legal standard here is that the law officer must be able to point to the specific facts or circumstances. A hunch does not point to specific facts.
So what would constitute a reasonable suspicion that someone might be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States? Currently case law does not exist to establish this (or at least none that I have come across in my research). Consider the following scenario: a police officer engages a speeding vehicle. After the offender has pulled over, the police officer discovers a driver who does not speak English. This person also presents a foreign driver license. The officer has engaged the speeder via lawful contact and now has reasonable suspicion the person behind the wheel might not be in the country legally (non-US driver license and non-English language). The officer now has a duty to inquire about the immigration status of the individual. Another scenario: a police officer is responding to a domestic dispute. This time the accuser speaks broken English or maybe even zero English. The accuser gives a statement but does nothing else to arise suspicion. The police officer has engaged the accuser via lawful contact; however, facts or circumstances have not arisen to provide reasonable suspicion the accuser is an alien in the country illegally. This means the officer cannot inquire of the accuser's immigration status. I, for one, look forward to reading the case law as it becomes available.
ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED.
This sentence is straight forward. If someone is arrested, before the police can allow them to walk out of the station, the person's immigration status must be verified. This sentence does not differentiate between a suspected alien here legally and a resident of the state. If someone is arrested, their immigration status will be verified. This provision prevents what has happened in the past where an alien in the country illegally was released only to commit another crime.
THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
Another straight forward sentence. 8 USC sec 1373(c) basically states ICE must respond to inquiries from state or local officials about the immigration status of someone.
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.
Here the Arizona government is specifically stating that the facts or circumstances required for reasonable suspicion cannot be based on race, color, or national origin; in essence, racial profiling is not allowed in enforcement of the law. This particular sentence of the law is usually ignored by the opponents of the law.
A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
Here the Arizona government states that if someone holds one of the identification methods above the automatic assumption is that they are a legal immigrant or resident. No further questions can be asked after this. For me the amusing aspect of this section of the law is "if the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance." The city of San Francisco issues city identification cards to anyone who resides in their city, whether that someone is here unlawfully or not (see: http://www.sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=113). Because San Francisco does not require legal presence for the city (local government) issued identification card, this section of the Arizona law prohibits the city issued ID card from being used as a presumption the card holder is in the United States legally. Good for Arizona!
I'll finish later this week. I'm not sure I will write my blog tomorrow (5/19) as it is my birthday and after spending over twenty years in the service of our Country by being a member of the US Submarine force where my birthday was not a guaranteed day-off, I desire to take a day off!
Mike
Monday, May 17, 2010
Sticks and Stones
Last Friday, May 14, John Albert Gardner III was officially sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. John Gardner received consecutive life sentences for raping and murdering two young teenagers. John Gardner's sentencing should've taken less than fifteen minutes; instead, the sentencing lasted over an hour and a half and was broadcast on local television stations and over the internet by various websites. At the sentencing, the victims' families were allowed to make "victim impact statements" to the court. None of these statements were directed to the court; instead, every statement was directed towards the defendant. As I watched the sentencing unfold, I could only wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of this sensationalism.
In late February, a seventeen year-old runner disappeared in a park in Poway, California. A few days later, John Gardner was arrested after his DNA was discovered on clothing found at the scene of her disappearance. Her body was found in a shallow grave. (see: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/A-Community-Mourns-86202377.html) A week later, the body of another teenager, Amber Dubois, who had disappeared over a year prior was found in northern San Diego county on the Pala Indian reservation. Last month, John Gardner pleaded guilty to raping and murdering both teenagers along with attacking a young woman in Dec 2009. He did this to avoid the death penalty. (see: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/For-Ambers-Family-Closure-91114589.html). I give the back drop to this story to show John Gardner is a despicable human being. I agree with the father of Chelse King, Brent King, who said Gardner is "a coward who preys on young women half his size."
Victim impact statements were first introduced in 1976 in Fresno, California (Alexander and Lord, 1994). Now every state allows some form of victim impact statement either at pre-sentencing, sentencing, or at parole (National Center for Victims of Crimes, 1996). There are some states that do not allow victim impact statements in cases with the death penalty. The purpose behind a victim impact statement is to allow the victim or the victim's family to appear before the court and deliver a statement detailing the effect of the crime on the victim. It is a way to "humanize" the justice system so that the victim feels they have a voice in the system.
What transpired during the Gardner sentencing was far from a victim impact statement. Instead the victims' families unleashed anger and hurtful statements at Gardner. The parents of Chelsea King even unleashed anger at Gardner's mother. None of the victim impact statements were actual victim impact statements.
For one state, a victim impact statement should include a summary of the harm the victim has experienced due to the crime. The statement should also include the economic impact on the victim due to the crime. The statement can also include the victim's position on the sentence for the criminal. None of the rules state the victim should or can address the actual criminal. (Minnesota Center for Crime Victim Services, n.d.).
I could only wonder while watching the victim impact statements which included video memorials that what I was observing some how violated the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. The Eighth Amendment states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." What does cruel and unusual punishment mean? While researching punishments during the 1700's, the biggest gripe by the people was that criminals were being punished in a manner that did not fit the crime. For example, thievery was punished by hanging which would mean that someone stealing 5 cents could be sentenced to hang. Because of excessive required punishments, some juries would find a criminal innocent vice facing the knowledge they helped to put someone to death for a small infraction. In 1689, a Bill of Rights was presented to the King of England which included the above phrase. George Mason relied upon the 1689 bill of rights when he drafted the Commonwealth of Virginia's Declaration of Rights. During the debate over the Constitution and its ratification, James Madison utilized Virginia's Declaration of Rights when he drafted the Bill of Rights.
So is verbal assualt of a criminal cruel and unusual punishment? For John Gardner, I'd like to assault him with a baseball bat. Like I said before, I agree with the father of one his victims that Gardner is a coward. But much like justice is blind, punishment should be metted out without emotion. This ensures the punishment is not cruel nor unusual. A just society will hold criminals accountable for their crimes but will do so with restraint. Once emotion is allowed into the sentencing phase, the punishment may exceed the crime. Our Founding Fathers knew the importance of just justice which is why the eighth amendment exists.
It amuses me that the website advocating the need for victim impact statements includes the following quote: "There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice." Montesquieu, 1742. What I witnessed on television on Friday was tyranny inflicted under the shield of law and in the name of justice. John Gardner was given three life sentences without the possibility of parole. The life sentences are to be served consecutively. One life sentence alone is enough to ensure he stays off the streets. Only a judgment based on emotion would make three life sentences back-to-back-to-back.
John Gardner's mother was there to see her son sentenced. Instead she was vilified by her son's victims' parents. She suffered cruel and unusual punishment. Where was her protection?
Sticks and stones may break my bones, words may never hurt me. But sometimes words do hurt. And please, don't throw sticks and stones.......
Mike
References:
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Timeline-for-Chelsea-King-and-Amber-Dubois-Cases-91064789.html
English Bill of Rights. (1689). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm
The Charter of Freedom. (n.d.). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
Crime and Punishment websites. (n.d.). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/REVhistoryCrime.htm
The Bloody Code. (n.d.) Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/17724/The-Bloody-Code
Reggio, M. (1997). History of the Death Penalty. Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/history.html
Wilkens, J. (2010). At sentencing, families unleash rage at murderer. SD: Union-Tribune. Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/14/victim-families-say-gardner-will-burn-hell/
Victim Impact Statements. (n.d.). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.letswrap.com/legal/impact.htm
Victim Impact Statements. (1999). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32515
Alexander, E and Janice Lord. (1994). A victim's right to speak: Impact statments. A nation's responsibility to listen. Retrieved 17 May, 2010 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/impact/welcome.html
In late February, a seventeen year-old runner disappeared in a park in Poway, California. A few days later, John Gardner was arrested after his DNA was discovered on clothing found at the scene of her disappearance. Her body was found in a shallow grave. (see: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/A-Community-Mourns-86202377.html) A week later, the body of another teenager, Amber Dubois, who had disappeared over a year prior was found in northern San Diego county on the Pala Indian reservation. Last month, John Gardner pleaded guilty to raping and murdering both teenagers along with attacking a young woman in Dec 2009. He did this to avoid the death penalty. (see: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/For-Ambers-Family-Closure-91114589.html). I give the back drop to this story to show John Gardner is a despicable human being. I agree with the father of Chelse King, Brent King, who said Gardner is "a coward who preys on young women half his size."
Victim impact statements were first introduced in 1976 in Fresno, California (Alexander and Lord, 1994). Now every state allows some form of victim impact statement either at pre-sentencing, sentencing, or at parole (National Center for Victims of Crimes, 1996). There are some states that do not allow victim impact statements in cases with the death penalty. The purpose behind a victim impact statement is to allow the victim or the victim's family to appear before the court and deliver a statement detailing the effect of the crime on the victim. It is a way to "humanize" the justice system so that the victim feels they have a voice in the system.
What transpired during the Gardner sentencing was far from a victim impact statement. Instead the victims' families unleashed anger and hurtful statements at Gardner. The parents of Chelsea King even unleashed anger at Gardner's mother. None of the victim impact statements were actual victim impact statements.
For one state, a victim impact statement should include a summary of the harm the victim has experienced due to the crime. The statement should also include the economic impact on the victim due to the crime. The statement can also include the victim's position on the sentence for the criminal. None of the rules state the victim should or can address the actual criminal. (Minnesota Center for Crime Victim Services, n.d.).
I could only wonder while watching the victim impact statements which included video memorials that what I was observing some how violated the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. The Eighth Amendment states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." What does cruel and unusual punishment mean? While researching punishments during the 1700's, the biggest gripe by the people was that criminals were being punished in a manner that did not fit the crime. For example, thievery was punished by hanging which would mean that someone stealing 5 cents could be sentenced to hang. Because of excessive required punishments, some juries would find a criminal innocent vice facing the knowledge they helped to put someone to death for a small infraction. In 1689, a Bill of Rights was presented to the King of England which included the above phrase. George Mason relied upon the 1689 bill of rights when he drafted the Commonwealth of Virginia's Declaration of Rights. During the debate over the Constitution and its ratification, James Madison utilized Virginia's Declaration of Rights when he drafted the Bill of Rights.
So is verbal assualt of a criminal cruel and unusual punishment? For John Gardner, I'd like to assault him with a baseball bat. Like I said before, I agree with the father of one his victims that Gardner is a coward. But much like justice is blind, punishment should be metted out without emotion. This ensures the punishment is not cruel nor unusual. A just society will hold criminals accountable for their crimes but will do so with restraint. Once emotion is allowed into the sentencing phase, the punishment may exceed the crime. Our Founding Fathers knew the importance of just justice which is why the eighth amendment exists.
It amuses me that the website advocating the need for victim impact statements includes the following quote: "There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice." Montesquieu, 1742. What I witnessed on television on Friday was tyranny inflicted under the shield of law and in the name of justice. John Gardner was given three life sentences without the possibility of parole. The life sentences are to be served consecutively. One life sentence alone is enough to ensure he stays off the streets. Only a judgment based on emotion would make three life sentences back-to-back-to-back.
John Gardner's mother was there to see her son sentenced. Instead she was vilified by her son's victims' parents. She suffered cruel and unusual punishment. Where was her protection?
Sticks and stones may break my bones, words may never hurt me. But sometimes words do hurt. And please, don't throw sticks and stones.......
Mike
References:
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Timeline-for-Chelsea-King-and-Amber-Dubois-Cases-91064789.html
English Bill of Rights. (1689). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm
The Charter of Freedom. (n.d.). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
Crime and Punishment websites. (n.d.). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/REVhistoryCrime.htm
The Bloody Code. (n.d.) Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/17724/The-Bloody-Code
Reggio, M. (1997). History of the Death Penalty. Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/history.html
Wilkens, J. (2010). At sentencing, families unleash rage at murderer. SD: Union-Tribune. Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/14/victim-families-say-gardner-will-burn-hell/
Victim Impact Statements. (n.d.). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.letswrap.com/legal/impact.htm
Victim Impact Statements. (1999). Retrieved May 17, 2010 from http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32515
Alexander, E and Janice Lord. (1994). A victim's right to speak: Impact statments. A nation's responsibility to listen. Retrieved 17 May, 2010 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/impact/welcome.html
Friday, May 14, 2010
An Exemplary Example
Even before April 23rd, when Governor Jan Brewer signed Arizona senate bill 1070, the Arizona immigration enforcement bill, into law, a firestorm of protest began. Like a Southern California Santa Ana fueled brush fire, the firestorm has only gathered strength and intensity. From school boards to cities to even the President, everyone seems to have something to state about the new law. The question is whether or not the comments are actually valid.
A few days after the law was passed, the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, was queried about the law at a press conference for another issue (AP, 2010). Mr. Holder stated the new law might be subject to abuse. Of course, this is a political statement where a politician states facts without substance. Any law, as written, might be subject to abuse. Thanks for stating the obvious, Mr. Holder. Oh and thanks for reporting it news media people. Much like a Molotov cocktail lobbed into an already burning fire, these words helped the firestorm continue.
The President made an indirect statement about the Arizona law. This is another political covert word ploy. The President said the federal government needed to take action so that quote "misguided efforts" unquote would not continue to be taken around the country. In essence, the President alluded to the new Arizona law as being misguided without actually stating such words.
Lindsay Graham (R-SC) came out saying he thinks the law is unconstitutional. What does he mean by "thinks?" He stated this without even justifying his comment. Has this even helped the discourse over the law? If he had stated he thinks the law is unconstitutional with supporting statements of why he thought the law was unconstitutional, his statement might actually mean something. Instead his statement is like a colander being used to retain water.
Yesterday, May 13th, the truth be told. Eric Holder admitted that he had not read the Arizona law at all. Instead he had glanced at it (Foxnews, 2010). So Mr. Holder two weeks ago makes a statement, albeit a standard political one, against the law; yet, he had not even fully read the law. Would it not have been easier when questioned about the law for him to have said, "I reserve my comments about this issue to a later date as I have not read the law"?
This fact now begs the question to how many of the other personnel making statements about the Arizona law have actually read the law. Especially in light of Mr. Holder's comment that he based his opinion on newspaper and television accounts and briefings by other people who had read the law. He, a lawyer, made a statement based on hearsay. Hearsay, for the most part, since there are always exceptions to any rule, is not admissible in court because of the inability to test the accuracy of the statement under cross-examination. In other words, Mr. Holder's statement would not hold up in a court of law.
The Attorney General stated he had made his statement based on newspaper accounts. In the article relating Sen. Graham's comments, the author, Stephanie Condon of CBS News, states the Arizona law would require immigrants to carry documents verifying their immigration status. I've read this article four times attempting to see a different viewpoint. Unfortunately, each time I read the article, my opinion is she is stating the law is doing something new - instructing immigrants to carry documentation of immigration status. While there is some fact in this statement, the word choice is poor and full of untruths.
Section 3 of SB1070 amends section 13-1509 of Arizona Statutes to read "In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 United States Code Section 1304(e) or 1306(a)." This statement does not state that each immigrant must carry documentation. This statement states it is a violation of state law if an immigrant is in violation of federal law. Section 1304(e) of 8 US Code states, "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card." It is already a federal law that every immigrant have in their possession documentation. Wait, I've just stated a misnomer. Only adults of legal age, 18, are required to have said documentation on their person. This means if an immigrant child does not have their documentation on them, they are not in violation of federal law and, as such, are not in violation of Arizona state law.
The CBS News article makes a statement that is not totally factually correct. Mr. Holder based his opinion on newspaper accounts. How many others have done the same action? How many others have set such an exemplary example for their country?
The spreading of innocent ignorance is just as dangerous as the spreading of intentional lies. In the references are the links to Arizona's SB1070 and 8 United States Code for your review.
Mike
References:
AP. (2010, Apr 27). Holder: U.S. may fight Arizona immigration law. CBS News.com. Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/27/politics/main6437887.shtml
Condon, S. (2010, Apr 27). Lindsey Graham: I think Arizona immigration law is unconstitutional. CBS News.com Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003549-503544.html
FOX News. (2010, May 13). Holder admits to not reading Arizona's immigration law despite criticizing it. FOX News.com. Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/13/holder-admits-reading-arizonas-immigration-law-despite-slamming/
Arizona SB 1070. (2010). Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/SB_1070_Signed.pdf
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.) United States Code Title 8 Section 1304. . Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1304.html
A few days after the law was passed, the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, was queried about the law at a press conference for another issue (AP, 2010). Mr. Holder stated the new law might be subject to abuse. Of course, this is a political statement where a politician states facts without substance. Any law, as written, might be subject to abuse. Thanks for stating the obvious, Mr. Holder. Oh and thanks for reporting it news media people. Much like a Molotov cocktail lobbed into an already burning fire, these words helped the firestorm continue.
The President made an indirect statement about the Arizona law. This is another political covert word ploy. The President said the federal government needed to take action so that quote "misguided efforts" unquote would not continue to be taken around the country. In essence, the President alluded to the new Arizona law as being misguided without actually stating such words.
Lindsay Graham (R-SC) came out saying he thinks the law is unconstitutional. What does he mean by "thinks?" He stated this without even justifying his comment. Has this even helped the discourse over the law? If he had stated he thinks the law is unconstitutional with supporting statements of why he thought the law was unconstitutional, his statement might actually mean something. Instead his statement is like a colander being used to retain water.
Yesterday, May 13th, the truth be told. Eric Holder admitted that he had not read the Arizona law at all. Instead he had glanced at it (Foxnews, 2010). So Mr. Holder two weeks ago makes a statement, albeit a standard political one, against the law; yet, he had not even fully read the law. Would it not have been easier when questioned about the law for him to have said, "I reserve my comments about this issue to a later date as I have not read the law"?
This fact now begs the question to how many of the other personnel making statements about the Arizona law have actually read the law. Especially in light of Mr. Holder's comment that he based his opinion on newspaper and television accounts and briefings by other people who had read the law. He, a lawyer, made a statement based on hearsay. Hearsay, for the most part, since there are always exceptions to any rule, is not admissible in court because of the inability to test the accuracy of the statement under cross-examination. In other words, Mr. Holder's statement would not hold up in a court of law.
The Attorney General stated he had made his statement based on newspaper accounts. In the article relating Sen. Graham's comments, the author, Stephanie Condon of CBS News, states the Arizona law would require immigrants to carry documents verifying their immigration status. I've read this article four times attempting to see a different viewpoint. Unfortunately, each time I read the article, my opinion is she is stating the law is doing something new - instructing immigrants to carry documentation of immigration status. While there is some fact in this statement, the word choice is poor and full of untruths.
Section 3 of SB1070 amends section 13-1509 of Arizona Statutes to read "In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the person is in violation of 8 United States Code Section 1304(e) or 1306(a)." This statement does not state that each immigrant must carry documentation. This statement states it is a violation of state law if an immigrant is in violation of federal law. Section 1304(e) of 8 US Code states, "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card." It is already a federal law that every immigrant have in their possession documentation. Wait, I've just stated a misnomer. Only adults of legal age, 18, are required to have said documentation on their person. This means if an immigrant child does not have their documentation on them, they are not in violation of federal law and, as such, are not in violation of Arizona state law.
The CBS News article makes a statement that is not totally factually correct. Mr. Holder based his opinion on newspaper accounts. How many others have done the same action? How many others have set such an exemplary example for their country?
The spreading of innocent ignorance is just as dangerous as the spreading of intentional lies. In the references are the links to Arizona's SB1070 and 8 United States Code for your review.
Mike
References:
AP. (2010, Apr 27). Holder: U.S. may fight Arizona immigration law. CBS News.com. Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/27/politics/main6437887.shtml
Condon, S. (2010, Apr 27). Lindsey Graham: I think Arizona immigration law is unconstitutional. CBS News.com Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003549-503544.html
FOX News. (2010, May 13). Holder admits to not reading Arizona's immigration law despite criticizing it. FOX News.com. Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/13/holder-admits-reading-arizonas-immigration-law-despite-slamming/
Arizona SB 1070. (2010). Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/SB_1070_Signed.pdf
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.) United States Code Title 8 Section 1304. . Retrieved 14 May 2010 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1304.html
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
A Rose by any other Name
Three times I've heard the same insinuation. Two of those times were heard yesterday (May 12th) on the same cable station but from two different shows. What I heard was that a representative from our Congress had switched his vote on the health care vote after being assured by the President that the immigration issue would be taken up this year.
The radio station I used to listen to (I'm currently boycotting them for a business decision the station made) has their broadcast tower located in Tijuana. Because of this, the station routinely broadcasts Mexican commercials. They even broadcast the Mexican national anthem at midnight and 5 a.m! Anyway, the station was broadcasting several public service announcements about the upcoming Mexican elections. One of those announcements warns of someone asking for a vote in exchange for a favor. The announcement proclaims someone doing this is guilty of corruption and engaging in illegal activity.
So, let me get this straight. If you promise one thing in exchange for another when related to voting in the government, this is called corruption? Now this is from Mexico. Does this apply in America?
Corrupt is defined by Merrian-Webster as characterized by improper or unusually unlawful conduct intended to secure a benefit for oneself or another (as by taking or giving a bribe). Another definition is capable of being bribed. So what does bribe mean? Bribe is a benefit given, promised, or offered in order to influence the judgment or conduct of person in a position of trust.
One of the necessary elements of bribery is intent. When someone offers a bribe that person commits the crime of bribery. When the person receiving the bribe accepts the bribe, then that person is also guilty of the crime of bribery. Since the offeror shows intent when offering a bribe, the crime is immediately committed by the offeror. Not until the offeree shows intent by accepting the bribe is that person guilty of bribery. (Cheeseman, 2007).
On March 12, Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) released a statement declaring his decision to vote no on the pending healthcare initiative (Frumin, 2010). He even states he would find a yes vote very difficult if not impossible. Then on the day of the vote, he changed his vote to yes. Realize that originally, he was a yes-man on healthcare; but, he didn't like the fact that undocumented immigrants would not be covered under the plan even if they paid the premiums themselves. His argument was that even if they are undocumented, immigrants should be allowed to pay for their healthcare plan. At least, he wasn't advocating a total free ride for those who want to bypass the immigration process!
So let's recap. Rep. Gutierrez was for the healthcare plan. Then he was against the healthcare plan. Then at the last moment prior to the vote for healtcare, he was for the healthcare plan. Talk about a flip-flopper! Remember his words, "very difficult if not impossible" to vote yes on the healthcare plan as proposed. Nothing changed in the proposed healthcare plan from his impossible-to-vote yes response to his actual vote of yes. So what happened to change his mind?
In Rep. Gutierrez's own words: "Discussions with Obama ensure we can have
a victory for health care and for the immigrants of our nation." (Sweet, 2010). The insinuations I heard from the television was that Rep. Gutierrez changed his vote because he was assured that immigration would be the next priority for Obama's administration. Rep. Gutierrez changed his vote from an almost impossible yes after assurances that his issue would be tackled by the President.
These types of back room deals I believe have been occurring for the history of our country. In the movie Milk, tension between Dan White and Harvey Milk develops when Harvey and Dan agree to vote for each other's campaign issues but after the vote for Harvey's concern, Harvey changes his mind and votes against Dan's concern. (Milk is another fantastic movie that is highly recommended.)
You vote for my issue and I'll vote for your issue. Is there a difference in that statement and you vote for my issue and I'll give you money or something else in return? What about, if you vote for my bill, I'll push for your issue before Congress? I think not. Back to the definition of a bribe - something offerred to influence the judgment of someone else in trust. If you are giving or accepting bribes, then you are also corrupt.
Some may argue that in today's politics, in order to accomplish tasks (i.e. get things done), these back room deals must be made. I disagree. You are either for a bill or you are against a bill. Your vote should depend on your view of the bill not upon what you can get for your vote. The bill either passes or fails based upon its viewed merits of those voting for it. A bill's vote should not be determined by a vote on another bill. A vote for a vote is nothing more than a form of corruption.
A rose by any other name smells as sweet. The healthcare plan approval process does have a smell to it.....
Mike
For the record, before anyone else chimes in on the merits of this post, the U.S. Constitution was almost not ratified by several states because it did not contain a bill of rights. After assurances that the topic would be taken up by Congress, those states then ratified the Constitution. This comes close to vote for this and we'll do what you ask; however, there is a big difference. The states did not want to vote for the bill because of something it did not contain. They were assured but not guaranteed their concerns would be addressed about the merits of the bill as proposed. The fate of the United States depended upon their vote on the Constitution so the states ratified the Constitution and sent back to the Congress their ratification notice with requests for amendment. While murky, this episode is not corruption or bribery. I'm sure there are other examples in our Country's history that aren't so murky. And I'm sure there is more to the Obama-Gutierrez conversation than has been reported. I utilized what is available to make a point.
References:
Cheeseman, H.R. (2007). Business law: Legal environment, online commerce, business ethics, and international issues (6th ed.). NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Merriam-Webster's dictionary of law. (1996). MA: Merriam-Webster.
New standard encyclopedia dictionary. (1984). IL: Standard educational corporation.
Frumin, B. (2010, Mar 12). Dem Rep. Gutierrez Confirms Plans To Vote 'No' On Senate Health Care Bill. Talkingpointsmemo.com. Retrieved 12 May 2010 from http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/dem-rep-gutierrez-confirms-plans-to-vote-no-on-senate-health-care-bill.php
Sweet, L. (2010, Mar 18). Luis Gutierrez a yes on Obama health care bill. Updated. Chicago Sun Times. Retrieved 12 May 2010 from http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/03/luis_gutierrez_will_be_a_yes_o.html
The Bill of Rights. Retrieved 13 May 2010 from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
United States Bill of Rights. Retrieved 13 May 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
The radio station I used to listen to (I'm currently boycotting them for a business decision the station made) has their broadcast tower located in Tijuana. Because of this, the station routinely broadcasts Mexican commercials. They even broadcast the Mexican national anthem at midnight and 5 a.m! Anyway, the station was broadcasting several public service announcements about the upcoming Mexican elections. One of those announcements warns of someone asking for a vote in exchange for a favor. The announcement proclaims someone doing this is guilty of corruption and engaging in illegal activity.
So, let me get this straight. If you promise one thing in exchange for another when related to voting in the government, this is called corruption? Now this is from Mexico. Does this apply in America?
Corrupt is defined by Merrian-Webster as characterized by improper or unusually unlawful conduct intended to secure a benefit for oneself or another (as by taking or giving a bribe). Another definition is capable of being bribed. So what does bribe mean? Bribe is a benefit given, promised, or offered in order to influence the judgment or conduct of person in a position of trust.
One of the necessary elements of bribery is intent. When someone offers a bribe that person commits the crime of bribery. When the person receiving the bribe accepts the bribe, then that person is also guilty of the crime of bribery. Since the offeror shows intent when offering a bribe, the crime is immediately committed by the offeror. Not until the offeree shows intent by accepting the bribe is that person guilty of bribery. (Cheeseman, 2007).
On March 12, Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) released a statement declaring his decision to vote no on the pending healthcare initiative (Frumin, 2010). He even states he would find a yes vote very difficult if not impossible. Then on the day of the vote, he changed his vote to yes. Realize that originally, he was a yes-man on healthcare; but, he didn't like the fact that undocumented immigrants would not be covered under the plan even if they paid the premiums themselves. His argument was that even if they are undocumented, immigrants should be allowed to pay for their healthcare plan. At least, he wasn't advocating a total free ride for those who want to bypass the immigration process!
So let's recap. Rep. Gutierrez was for the healthcare plan. Then he was against the healthcare plan. Then at the last moment prior to the vote for healtcare, he was for the healthcare plan. Talk about a flip-flopper! Remember his words, "very difficult if not impossible" to vote yes on the healthcare plan as proposed. Nothing changed in the proposed healthcare plan from his impossible-to-vote yes response to his actual vote of yes. So what happened to change his mind?
In Rep. Gutierrez's own words: "Discussions with Obama ensure we can have
a victory for health care and for the immigrants of our nation." (Sweet, 2010). The insinuations I heard from the television was that Rep. Gutierrez changed his vote because he was assured that immigration would be the next priority for Obama's administration. Rep. Gutierrez changed his vote from an almost impossible yes after assurances that his issue would be tackled by the President.
These types of back room deals I believe have been occurring for the history of our country. In the movie Milk, tension between Dan White and Harvey Milk develops when Harvey and Dan agree to vote for each other's campaign issues but after the vote for Harvey's concern, Harvey changes his mind and votes against Dan's concern. (Milk is another fantastic movie that is highly recommended.)
You vote for my issue and I'll vote for your issue. Is there a difference in that statement and you vote for my issue and I'll give you money or something else in return? What about, if you vote for my bill, I'll push for your issue before Congress? I think not. Back to the definition of a bribe - something offerred to influence the judgment of someone else in trust. If you are giving or accepting bribes, then you are also corrupt.
Some may argue that in today's politics, in order to accomplish tasks (i.e. get things done), these back room deals must be made. I disagree. You are either for a bill or you are against a bill. Your vote should depend on your view of the bill not upon what you can get for your vote. The bill either passes or fails based upon its viewed merits of those voting for it. A bill's vote should not be determined by a vote on another bill. A vote for a vote is nothing more than a form of corruption.
A rose by any other name smells as sweet. The healthcare plan approval process does have a smell to it.....
Mike
For the record, before anyone else chimes in on the merits of this post, the U.S. Constitution was almost not ratified by several states because it did not contain a bill of rights. After assurances that the topic would be taken up by Congress, those states then ratified the Constitution. This comes close to vote for this and we'll do what you ask; however, there is a big difference. The states did not want to vote for the bill because of something it did not contain. They were assured but not guaranteed their concerns would be addressed about the merits of the bill as proposed. The fate of the United States depended upon their vote on the Constitution so the states ratified the Constitution and sent back to the Congress their ratification notice with requests for amendment. While murky, this episode is not corruption or bribery. I'm sure there are other examples in our Country's history that aren't so murky. And I'm sure there is more to the Obama-Gutierrez conversation than has been reported. I utilized what is available to make a point.
References:
Cheeseman, H.R. (2007). Business law: Legal environment, online commerce, business ethics, and international issues (6th ed.). NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Merriam-Webster's dictionary of law. (1996). MA: Merriam-Webster.
New standard encyclopedia dictionary. (1984). IL: Standard educational corporation.
Frumin, B. (2010, Mar 12). Dem Rep. Gutierrez Confirms Plans To Vote 'No' On Senate Health Care Bill. Talkingpointsmemo.com. Retrieved 12 May 2010 from http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/dem-rep-gutierrez-confirms-plans-to-vote-no-on-senate-health-care-bill.php
Sweet, L. (2010, Mar 18). Luis Gutierrez a yes on Obama health care bill. Updated. Chicago Sun Times. Retrieved 12 May 2010 from http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/03/luis_gutierrez_will_be_a_yes_o.html
The Bill of Rights. Retrieved 13 May 2010 from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
United States Bill of Rights. Retrieved 13 May 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
Yesterday, May 11, the San Diego Unified School District entered the realm of politics by passing a resolution condemning Arizona law SB1070 as unconstitutional. (See story at: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/11/school-board-condemns-arizona-immigration-law/). The resolution originally was going to warn parents and students not to travel to Arizona because the travelers might be subject to harassment or racial profiling but was dropped prior to the resolution's passage. Now why would a school district whose mission statement and vision statements relate to education take a stand on a law that is not related to the education process?
The answer can be found all over the Internet in the form of social justice websites. There are teacher organizations that believe teaching is a political act. They see the children entrusted to their daily care as critical change agents essential to the struggle for social justice (Teachers for Social Justice, 2004). These organizations desire to change society by ways of the education of the country's youth. They are doing this in the guise of justice - social justice.
Instead of instructing children in English, Mathematics, History, etc, these "teachers for social justice" desire to teach with a spin. They desire to indoctrinate someone else's child so that the child thinks like them. Is this the role of teachers in our society?
Every day parents send their children off to school to learn the basics so that when the children become of age, the children can go out and be productive members of society. What is being a productive member of society? This is where the crux of the argument begins. Each of us might define productive in a different way - we are human beings and sometimes we do think and act differently than others. A productive member of society should contribute to said society and not be a drain on the resources of the society. Does this mean each student who enters society needs to be rich? Not necessarily. A mother who stays at home raising her children is a productive member of society just as much as the mother who enters the workplace to provide for her family. A person who works as a garbage collector to put food on the table every day and have a roof over his head is a productive member of society as much as the Wall Street executive who makes more money than all garbage collectors combined.
Each individual who relies upon their abilities to function and does not expect others to give them aid is a productive member of society. The individual who violates the law of society is not a productive member of society. The individual who lives as Mary, the mother of Precious in the movie "Precious: based on the book Push by Sapphire," is not a productive member of society. (If you have not seen this movie, I highly recommend it. Mo'Nique's performance as Mary is stellar.) People who expect others to provide for them are not productive. Now every once in awhile people need assistance. There's a difference in asking for assistance versus expecting assistance.
In November of last year, I read a story in the newspaper that saddened me. It related the story of a homeless man who had passed away in late August. This man suffered from mental illness which was, more than likely, the reason he was homeless. Every day this individual could be seen on a park bench on Point Loma in San Diego. Every day on my way home from the Submarine Base on Point Loma, I observed this homeless man sitting or laying on the park bench. He was a constant fixture of the park. His presence to me was always calming. I could never put my finger on why. I just know that every day I looked for him in the park and every day he was there, until August of last year. Then I didn't see him anymore. I wondered what happened to him. Then in November when reading the newspaper story I found out he had died. This man never asked for any assistance. He was not one of the homeless people seen standing on the corner begging. He just wanted to be left alone to live life his own way. Was this man a productive member of society? By my definition he was. His was not a drain on society's resources as evidenced by the newspaper story. But did he contribute to the society? My calmness every day when seeing him should answer that question. The people who brought him food and clothes and enjoyed his presence should answer that question. I miss him.
Now back to our educators who feel they should be instructing our children to be instruments of change. We entrust them to do a job of education of the basics. The teacher's viewpoints on society are not a part of the basics. Granted the teachers are humans and their political and personal viewpoints will come out from time to time, but their curriculum should not resolve around their beliefs. They should not view themselves as change agents to end a cycle of oppression (Russo, 2004). That is not their role in society.
The San Diego Unified School District has removed their mask. The wolf in sheep's clothing is coming out into the open. Our educators should be just that - educators, not political activists. We and our posterity deserve better.
I wanted to go to the open forum before the vote so I could ask a question. My question would've been, "who has actually read the law as approved and amended by the Arizona legislation at the Arizona government's website?" Anyone who voted for or against the resolution (they all voted in favor of the resolution) without first reading the law set a poor example to the parents and children of their school district.
I recommend you check out some of the websites listed in the references.....
Mike
References:
IMBd. (2010). Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire. Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929632/
Teachers for Social Justice. (2004). About Teachers for Social Justice. Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.teachersforjustice.org/2007/09/about-tsj.html
Russo, P. (2004). What does it mean to teach for social justice? Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.oswego.edu/~prusso1/Russos_what_does_it_mean_to_teach_for_s.htm
Teachers for Social Justice: http://www.t4sj.org/
San Diego Unified School District vision statement: http://www.sandi.net/20451072010212567/site/default.asp
San Diego Unified School District mission statement: http://www.sandi.net/20451072095932967/blank/browse.asp?a=383&bmdrn=2000&bcob=0&c=56612
Wilkens, J. (2009). Community pays its respects Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/08/community-pays-its-respects/
The answer can be found all over the Internet in the form of social justice websites. There are teacher organizations that believe teaching is a political act. They see the children entrusted to their daily care as critical change agents essential to the struggle for social justice (Teachers for Social Justice, 2004). These organizations desire to change society by ways of the education of the country's youth. They are doing this in the guise of justice - social justice.
Instead of instructing children in English, Mathematics, History, etc, these "teachers for social justice" desire to teach with a spin. They desire to indoctrinate someone else's child so that the child thinks like them. Is this the role of teachers in our society?
Every day parents send their children off to school to learn the basics so that when the children become of age, the children can go out and be productive members of society. What is being a productive member of society? This is where the crux of the argument begins. Each of us might define productive in a different way - we are human beings and sometimes we do think and act differently than others. A productive member of society should contribute to said society and not be a drain on the resources of the society. Does this mean each student who enters society needs to be rich? Not necessarily. A mother who stays at home raising her children is a productive member of society just as much as the mother who enters the workplace to provide for her family. A person who works as a garbage collector to put food on the table every day and have a roof over his head is a productive member of society as much as the Wall Street executive who makes more money than all garbage collectors combined.
Each individual who relies upon their abilities to function and does not expect others to give them aid is a productive member of society. The individual who violates the law of society is not a productive member of society. The individual who lives as Mary, the mother of Precious in the movie "Precious: based on the book Push by Sapphire," is not a productive member of society. (If you have not seen this movie, I highly recommend it. Mo'Nique's performance as Mary is stellar.) People who expect others to provide for them are not productive. Now every once in awhile people need assistance. There's a difference in asking for assistance versus expecting assistance.
In November of last year, I read a story in the newspaper that saddened me. It related the story of a homeless man who had passed away in late August. This man suffered from mental illness which was, more than likely, the reason he was homeless. Every day this individual could be seen on a park bench on Point Loma in San Diego. Every day on my way home from the Submarine Base on Point Loma, I observed this homeless man sitting or laying on the park bench. He was a constant fixture of the park. His presence to me was always calming. I could never put my finger on why. I just know that every day I looked for him in the park and every day he was there, until August of last year. Then I didn't see him anymore. I wondered what happened to him. Then in November when reading the newspaper story I found out he had died. This man never asked for any assistance. He was not one of the homeless people seen standing on the corner begging. He just wanted to be left alone to live life his own way. Was this man a productive member of society? By my definition he was. His was not a drain on society's resources as evidenced by the newspaper story. But did he contribute to the society? My calmness every day when seeing him should answer that question. The people who brought him food and clothes and enjoyed his presence should answer that question. I miss him.
Now back to our educators who feel they should be instructing our children to be instruments of change. We entrust them to do a job of education of the basics. The teacher's viewpoints on society are not a part of the basics. Granted the teachers are humans and their political and personal viewpoints will come out from time to time, but their curriculum should not resolve around their beliefs. They should not view themselves as change agents to end a cycle of oppression (Russo, 2004). That is not their role in society.
The San Diego Unified School District has removed their mask. The wolf in sheep's clothing is coming out into the open. Our educators should be just that - educators, not political activists. We and our posterity deserve better.
I wanted to go to the open forum before the vote so I could ask a question. My question would've been, "who has actually read the law as approved and amended by the Arizona legislation at the Arizona government's website?" Anyone who voted for or against the resolution (they all voted in favor of the resolution) without first reading the law set a poor example to the parents and children of their school district.
I recommend you check out some of the websites listed in the references.....
Mike
References:
IMBd. (2010). Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire. Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929632/
Teachers for Social Justice. (2004). About Teachers for Social Justice. Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.teachersforjustice.org/2007/09/about-tsj.html
Russo, P. (2004). What does it mean to teach for social justice? Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.oswego.edu/~prusso1/Russos_what_does_it_mean_to_teach_for_s.htm
Teachers for Social Justice: http://www.t4sj.org/
San Diego Unified School District vision statement: http://www.sandi.net/20451072010212567/site/default.asp
San Diego Unified School District mission statement: http://www.sandi.net/20451072095932967/blank/browse.asp?a=383&bmdrn=2000&bcob=0&c=56612
Wilkens, J. (2009). Community pays its respects Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/08/community-pays-its-respects/
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The Kagan Experience
Yesterday President Obama nominated Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens on the highest court in our Country, the Supreme Court. As usual, there will be moans and groans as the Congress proceeds through the affirmation process. These moans and groans began even before she was officially nominated (see New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10court.html?scp=2&sq=Elena%20Kagan&st=cse). The biggest moan is that she is the first justice nominated in over 40 years without any judiciary experience.
The above article does point out there have been many justices that have been selected who did not have any judiciary experience. What's humorous is the article pointed to "even a former president." When I was watching the news this morning and heard a Republican senator moaning about her lack of experience, I decided to look up the only President of the United States to also serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William H. Taft. At first glance, President Taft's bio timeline does elude to the misconception he had zero judiciary experience. However, after digging a little deeper another story unfolds.
One point which elicits a smile on my face is the fact that President Taft served as solicitor general of the United States - the same role Ms. Kagan currently fulfills - from 1890 to 1892. A shared trait between a former Chief Justice and the current appointee to associate justice. After reading a little more one learns the truth, President Taft served as a judge of the Superior Court at Cincinnati from 1887 to 1890 and as a federal circuit court judge from 1892 until 1900 when President McKinley asked him to serve on the United States Philippine Commission from which he served as the first civil governor of the Philippine Islands. Even the big 'ole New York Times allows misconceptions to enter their writings!
A justice that also did not have any judiciary experience when he was appointed was Charles E. Hughes. I picked him due to an interesting fact, but I'll get to that fact later. First, Chief Justice Hughes practiced and taught law after graduating from Columbia Law School. His rise to fame came when he defeated William Randolph Hearst for governor of New York. He served four years before accepting an appointment as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. So Chief Justice Hughes never served in a judiciary capacity before becoming an associate justice. He didn't even come close to Ms. Kagan's resume. She at least argues cases before the Supreme Court.
Now the interesting fact. Chief Justice Hughes resigned his justice position after receiving the nod from the Republican party for nomination for President. He lost to Woodrow Wilson in a very close election. After several other positions including secretary of state, President Hoover, in 1930, nominated him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This makes Chief Justice Hughes as the only individual to leave the high court to only return at a later date (hopefully, I devoted enough research to this fact that it remains fact!).
Do those nominated to the Supreme Court require judiciary experience? Our history provides the answer to this question and the answer is an emphatic NO. Those who sit on the high court should be schooled in law, the application of the law, and the interpretation of said law. They should be knowledgeable of the Constitution, its meaning, and its origin. Other than that, there shouldn't be any other requirements.
Too often those in government look to ideology to determine nominees to the Supreme Court. The only time this should be looked at is to ensure a balance exists on the Court. We've seen too often that a singular power will exert their will when there isn't enough balance to counter the will of that majority power. A balance should always exist to limit the effects of personal and political beliefs. The ideal situation is where the interpretation of the law and the Constitution is accomplished without influence of one's own personal and political beliefs. The ideal situation can never occur because, as humans, our beliefs will guide our thoughts and actions, even in the face of logic and common sense.
Is Elena Kagan a good nominee? That is a question for each of us to answer ourselves. She is definitely well educated in the law, even serving as Harvard Law School's first woman dean. She is a liberal replacing a liberal. Hopefully, she'll be closer to the ideal than closer the extreme. One day in the future, we will know what the Kagan Experience is all about.
Mike
Reference:
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. Chicago: Standard Educational Corporation.
The above article does point out there have been many justices that have been selected who did not have any judiciary experience. What's humorous is the article pointed to "even a former president." When I was watching the news this morning and heard a Republican senator moaning about her lack of experience, I decided to look up the only President of the United States to also serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William H. Taft. At first glance, President Taft's bio timeline does elude to the misconception he had zero judiciary experience. However, after digging a little deeper another story unfolds.
One point which elicits a smile on my face is the fact that President Taft served as solicitor general of the United States - the same role Ms. Kagan currently fulfills - from 1890 to 1892. A shared trait between a former Chief Justice and the current appointee to associate justice. After reading a little more one learns the truth, President Taft served as a judge of the Superior Court at Cincinnati from 1887 to 1890 and as a federal circuit court judge from 1892 until 1900 when President McKinley asked him to serve on the United States Philippine Commission from which he served as the first civil governor of the Philippine Islands. Even the big 'ole New York Times allows misconceptions to enter their writings!
A justice that also did not have any judiciary experience when he was appointed was Charles E. Hughes. I picked him due to an interesting fact, but I'll get to that fact later. First, Chief Justice Hughes practiced and taught law after graduating from Columbia Law School. His rise to fame came when he defeated William Randolph Hearst for governor of New York. He served four years before accepting an appointment as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. So Chief Justice Hughes never served in a judiciary capacity before becoming an associate justice. He didn't even come close to Ms. Kagan's resume. She at least argues cases before the Supreme Court.
Now the interesting fact. Chief Justice Hughes resigned his justice position after receiving the nod from the Republican party for nomination for President. He lost to Woodrow Wilson in a very close election. After several other positions including secretary of state, President Hoover, in 1930, nominated him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This makes Chief Justice Hughes as the only individual to leave the high court to only return at a later date (hopefully, I devoted enough research to this fact that it remains fact!).
Do those nominated to the Supreme Court require judiciary experience? Our history provides the answer to this question and the answer is an emphatic NO. Those who sit on the high court should be schooled in law, the application of the law, and the interpretation of said law. They should be knowledgeable of the Constitution, its meaning, and its origin. Other than that, there shouldn't be any other requirements.
Too often those in government look to ideology to determine nominees to the Supreme Court. The only time this should be looked at is to ensure a balance exists on the Court. We've seen too often that a singular power will exert their will when there isn't enough balance to counter the will of that majority power. A balance should always exist to limit the effects of personal and political beliefs. The ideal situation is where the interpretation of the law and the Constitution is accomplished without influence of one's own personal and political beliefs. The ideal situation can never occur because, as humans, our beliefs will guide our thoughts and actions, even in the face of logic and common sense.
Is Elena Kagan a good nominee? That is a question for each of us to answer ourselves. She is definitely well educated in the law, even serving as Harvard Law School's first woman dean. She is a liberal replacing a liberal. Hopefully, she'll be closer to the ideal than closer the extreme. One day in the future, we will know what the Kagan Experience is all about.
Mike
Reference:
Downey, D. (Ed.). (1987). New Standard Encyclopedia. Chicago: Standard Educational Corporation.
Monday, May 10, 2010
A Day at Berry
Nestled in the foothills of north Georgia in the small town of Rome is one of the world's largest college campuses, Berry College. Founded in 1902 as a school for rural children on 83 acres of land, Berry College, today, boasts a campus size of 26,000 acres and a student body of just under 2,000. This is one of the most beautiful campuses a person could visit. On any given day, deer can be seen grazing on the abundant grass fields that grace the campus. A trip along the trails of the campus lead to an old corn mill and large reservoir. Beautiful trees line the campus.
A story related about Martha Berry, the founder, speaks of someone coming across her planting a row of trees in the middle of a field. The person asks her what she is doing to which she replies "planting trees that someday will line a road that people will drive down to access an education." Today that row of trees can be seen along the old school entrance running from Martha Berry highway towards the house in which Martha Berry at one time lived. The old "gate of opportunity" is beautiful to behold. Martha Berry was a visionary and an admirable philanthropist. (You can visit the website of Berry College to review their campus and learn more about Martha Berry: www.berry.edu).
The college promotes the believe of Martha Berry to deliver an education of "the head, the heart, and the hands" (Berry.edu, 2010). Martha Berry believed in an education which emphasized learning (imagine that - a college that promotes learning), emphasized being a volunteer for others, and promoted work. This belief is still held today and was a continuing theme of the various speakers at the class of 2010's graduation.
My original plan was to begin my dissertation on the Arizona immigration law, SB1070. After attending my daughter's graduation from the aforementioned institution this past Saturday, May 8th, I changed my plans. This change came about due to the guest speaker and a quote from Martha Berry related by another speaker.
I cannot remember the Martha Berry quote word-for-word so the quote will have to paraphrased. The gist of the quote is "those that seek out the easy make themselves weaker, those that seek out the difficult make themselves stronger." This is a powerful quote and a great lesson to learn. In an easy analogy, look at muscle building. It is easy to lift ten pounds. One who continues to lift ten pounds will not be as strong as someone who continues to increase the weight they lift to a weight that is difficult for them to lift. The quote is also analogous to Robert Frost's famous poem, "The Road Less Traveled." It is easy to continue on the path others have taken; might not be as easy to travel on the road that others have not taken. Who is more enriched by their specific road of choice?
The guest speaker at the graduation was Rev. Meisel, president of The Corella and Bertram F. Bonner Foundation, a national philanthropic organization based in Princeton, N.J. During his speech he mentioned the importance of social justice. This is where today's diatribe began to take shape.
I wondered if Martha Berry would be a proponent of social justice? Or at least, how I view social justice. Reflecting on her quote versus my believe of what social justice means, I have my doubts. When I researched what social justice means, I began to develop a different answer. So today I will discuss social justice.
When I hear the words "social justice," I envision taking from one group of people and giving to others, especially used to redistribute wealth. Social justice is, in fact, more complicated than my simple meaning. The definition of social justice is "the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society" (dictionary.com, 2010). A good example of this would be affirmative action which redistributed advantages Caucasian individuals had with respect to hiring practices to minority groups, such as African-Americans.
Another viewpoint is social justice is the view of a strong value system which promotes equal economic, political, and social rights and opportunities (National Association of Social Workers, n.d.). Yet another viewpoint, would make equal rights with respect to social justice to mean equal access to programs that make it possible for people from any societal sector or standing to be successful (Ellis-Christensen, 2010). In each case, something is taken from one group and given to another group in the name of justice, in the name of fairness. But who is defining what fair is?
This is the crux of the right versus the left. Leftist views would have you believe that government must tax the rich to pay for programs that benefit those who have been disadvantaged. Rightist views would have you believe that government must only encourage philanthropy while ensuring everyone has the opportunity to pursue their success.
Social justice should not be confused with socialism. Socialism is the ownership of capital and property in the community as a whole which some view as government ownership of business. Socialism will be discussion for later.
Social justice has a place in our country. There are some who have been disadvantaged to misbelieves, I refer back to affirmative action. Our history is ripe with injustice towards the ex-slaves after the Civil War and their decendants for generations. Black Americans were disadvantaged due to their skin color and nothing more. Our country had to do something to bring justice so that black Americans have the same equal opportunity as white Americans. Of course, at some point, this disadvantage should go away. That is the purpose of social justice to make it equal for all.
However, the line must be drawn at economic justice. Governments cannot be a Robbing Hoodlum to take from the strong to give to the weak. Nor should they over tax one group to give benefits or pay for programs to another group. Going back to Martha Berry's quote, what message does it send when someone who works hard to be strong is rewarded by having what is rightfully theirs taken to give to someone who is not as strong as them or chooses the weak path? This policy creates animosity between the two groups. The strong resent the weak for not trying to be strong and the weak resent the strong for being strong. It is not a win-win situation.
So what would Martha Berry support? I believe the answer lies in her actions. She founded a school to educate the head, the heart, and the hands. She did this by taking action and not expecting others to give up what they had for her to accomplish her dream. She attempted the difficult to become strong. Her legacy lies in the education given to the graduates, the promotion of giving from the heart, in other words, the education in philanthropy, and the education of doing work with your hands. I doubt Martha Berry would've supported that work of the hands to be done with a gun pointed towards another.
So when looking at social justice, we need to ponder why someone is advantaged while someone else is disadvantaged. Is the disadvantage due to something the disadvantaged had no control over? For example, no one has control over their race, their sex, or their sexual preference. Some may throw in ability. But some ability is controllable and some is not. For example, I have the ability to catch a football thrown at me. However, I do not have the ability to do it as a profession in the National Football League. Should I use the cause of social justice to force the issue? No. The use of social justice needs common sense. Some may also throw in class. However, this is the land of opportunity. If you want to improve your class, at least in our country, there is opportunity to do so. But you can't take the easy road.
In the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers stated, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It does not say you will actually be happy.
Mike
References:
Declaration of Independence (1776). Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/
Dicitionary.com (2010). Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social+justice
Ellis-Christensen, T. (2010, May 2). What is Social Justice? Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-social-justice.htm
National Association of Social Workers. (n.d.) Issue fact sheets, Social Justice. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://www.socialworkers.org/pressroom/features/issue/peace.asp
A story related about Martha Berry, the founder, speaks of someone coming across her planting a row of trees in the middle of a field. The person asks her what she is doing to which she replies "planting trees that someday will line a road that people will drive down to access an education." Today that row of trees can be seen along the old school entrance running from Martha Berry highway towards the house in which Martha Berry at one time lived. The old "gate of opportunity" is beautiful to behold. Martha Berry was a visionary and an admirable philanthropist. (You can visit the website of Berry College to review their campus and learn more about Martha Berry: www.berry.edu).
The college promotes the believe of Martha Berry to deliver an education of "the head, the heart, and the hands" (Berry.edu, 2010). Martha Berry believed in an education which emphasized learning (imagine that - a college that promotes learning), emphasized being a volunteer for others, and promoted work. This belief is still held today and was a continuing theme of the various speakers at the class of 2010's graduation.
My original plan was to begin my dissertation on the Arizona immigration law, SB1070. After attending my daughter's graduation from the aforementioned institution this past Saturday, May 8th, I changed my plans. This change came about due to the guest speaker and a quote from Martha Berry related by another speaker.
I cannot remember the Martha Berry quote word-for-word so the quote will have to paraphrased. The gist of the quote is "those that seek out the easy make themselves weaker, those that seek out the difficult make themselves stronger." This is a powerful quote and a great lesson to learn. In an easy analogy, look at muscle building. It is easy to lift ten pounds. One who continues to lift ten pounds will not be as strong as someone who continues to increase the weight they lift to a weight that is difficult for them to lift. The quote is also analogous to Robert Frost's famous poem, "The Road Less Traveled." It is easy to continue on the path others have taken; might not be as easy to travel on the road that others have not taken. Who is more enriched by their specific road of choice?
The guest speaker at the graduation was Rev. Meisel, president of The Corella and Bertram F. Bonner Foundation, a national philanthropic organization based in Princeton, N.J. During his speech he mentioned the importance of social justice. This is where today's diatribe began to take shape.
I wondered if Martha Berry would be a proponent of social justice? Or at least, how I view social justice. Reflecting on her quote versus my believe of what social justice means, I have my doubts. When I researched what social justice means, I began to develop a different answer. So today I will discuss social justice.
When I hear the words "social justice," I envision taking from one group of people and giving to others, especially used to redistribute wealth. Social justice is, in fact, more complicated than my simple meaning. The definition of social justice is "the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society" (dictionary.com, 2010). A good example of this would be affirmative action which redistributed advantages Caucasian individuals had with respect to hiring practices to minority groups, such as African-Americans.
Another viewpoint is social justice is the view of a strong value system which promotes equal economic, political, and social rights and opportunities (National Association of Social Workers, n.d.). Yet another viewpoint, would make equal rights with respect to social justice to mean equal access to programs that make it possible for people from any societal sector or standing to be successful (Ellis-Christensen, 2010). In each case, something is taken from one group and given to another group in the name of justice, in the name of fairness. But who is defining what fair is?
This is the crux of the right versus the left. Leftist views would have you believe that government must tax the rich to pay for programs that benefit those who have been disadvantaged. Rightist views would have you believe that government must only encourage philanthropy while ensuring everyone has the opportunity to pursue their success.
Social justice should not be confused with socialism. Socialism is the ownership of capital and property in the community as a whole which some view as government ownership of business. Socialism will be discussion for later.
Social justice has a place in our country. There are some who have been disadvantaged to misbelieves, I refer back to affirmative action. Our history is ripe with injustice towards the ex-slaves after the Civil War and their decendants for generations. Black Americans were disadvantaged due to their skin color and nothing more. Our country had to do something to bring justice so that black Americans have the same equal opportunity as white Americans. Of course, at some point, this disadvantage should go away. That is the purpose of social justice to make it equal for all.
However, the line must be drawn at economic justice. Governments cannot be a Robbing Hoodlum to take from the strong to give to the weak. Nor should they over tax one group to give benefits or pay for programs to another group. Going back to Martha Berry's quote, what message does it send when someone who works hard to be strong is rewarded by having what is rightfully theirs taken to give to someone who is not as strong as them or chooses the weak path? This policy creates animosity between the two groups. The strong resent the weak for not trying to be strong and the weak resent the strong for being strong. It is not a win-win situation.
So what would Martha Berry support? I believe the answer lies in her actions. She founded a school to educate the head, the heart, and the hands. She did this by taking action and not expecting others to give up what they had for her to accomplish her dream. She attempted the difficult to become strong. Her legacy lies in the education given to the graduates, the promotion of giving from the heart, in other words, the education in philanthropy, and the education of doing work with your hands. I doubt Martha Berry would've supported that work of the hands to be done with a gun pointed towards another.
So when looking at social justice, we need to ponder why someone is advantaged while someone else is disadvantaged. Is the disadvantage due to something the disadvantaged had no control over? For example, no one has control over their race, their sex, or their sexual preference. Some may throw in ability. But some ability is controllable and some is not. For example, I have the ability to catch a football thrown at me. However, I do not have the ability to do it as a profession in the National Football League. Should I use the cause of social justice to force the issue? No. The use of social justice needs common sense. Some may also throw in class. However, this is the land of opportunity. If you want to improve your class, at least in our country, there is opportunity to do so. But you can't take the easy road.
In the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers stated, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It does not say you will actually be happy.
Mike
References:
Declaration of Independence (1776). Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/
Dicitionary.com (2010). Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social+justice
Ellis-Christensen, T. (2010, May 2). What is Social Justice? Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-social-justice.htm
National Association of Social Workers. (n.d.) Issue fact sheets, Social Justice. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from http://www.socialworkers.org/pressroom/features/issue/peace.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)