Archive for April, 2011

The United States Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision ruled that while federal law protects a prisoner’s right to exercise religious liberty, that right does not entitle the prisoner to monetary damages from the state if the right is violated.

The Texas prison inmate sued the state under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which aims to protect religious freedom in prisons and in land use situations.

The court said that inmates could file suits to seek a change in prison policies that might violate their Constitutional rights, but money does not constitute
appropriate relief” from the state.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority stating that mere acceptance of federal money is not a waiver of immunity under federal law. In order for a state to be subject to this type of lawsuit, a state must expressly waive their sovereign immunity.

Dissenting judges argued that damages have typically included monetary relief; and the majority undermines religious freedom for prisoners.

If ‘money talks’ – doesn’t this decision alleviate the pressure on states to enforce prisoner’s constitutional rights?

President Obama signed legislation into law repealing a mandate which required small businesses to file 1099 forms with all vendors paid more than a sum of $600 for goods and services in a calendar year.  The law will take effect in 2012. Congress had approved the repeal earlier this month.

Small business owners, including many automotive groups are relieved considering they saw the 1099 as an unnecessary burden on small businesses who already complied with tax laws.

The law is designed to encourage small business owners to keep persevering through this tough economy, focus on job creation and create sustainable business strategies rather than focus on tedious paperwork. Small businesses play a vital role in the American economy, and this measure simply acknowledges that.

The Bolivian legislature is trying to pass a law known as the ‘Law of Mother Earth’ granting the environment the same rights as human beings. The rights would include: the right to life and existence, the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air and many others.

In recent decades, Bolivia’s natural resources have been threatened by environmental changes, particularly rising temperatures, which are leading to the dissipation of glaciers that have long been a source of water and electricity for Bolivians.  The law seeks to mitigate some of the damage caused by these changes.

The law is the first of its kind and may be a revolutionary step in reforming the legislative stance on environmental issues.

So does this law really have potential to curb environmental damage or is it more about a reform in attitude?

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed into law a measure that would require a doctor to get a notarized signature from both parents, if they are married, to perform an abortion on a girl 17 years of age or younger. The two-parent requirement is inapplicable in situations where the nuclear family is not intact.

Under current law, only one parent needs to be notified about the abortion and most states across the nation only require one parent to be informed.

It seems as though girls who come from an intact family face an additional obstacle in obtaining an abortion. The law has undone the level playing field in terms of equal access for minors. The law fails to address cases in which abuse may be prevalent and a minor may be reluctant to tell one parent due to fear; or a situation in which a minor knows abuse will ensue if she tells one parent that she is pregnant.

The law also unnecessarily infringes on a minor’s right to prompt confidential medical assistance. The one parent requirement can be rationalized because a minor presumably needs advice, guidance or support before and after the procedure. However, a two-parent requirement goes beyond the presumed necessity and simply serves to hinder a minor’s ability to obtain an abortion.

Teenagers may now be deterred from having an abortion, or may be forced to lie or withhold information out of fear or embarrassment considering both parents will be notified.  The law reduces a very complex decision into a single piece of legislation that is unable to tackle the multitude of issues that may arise.

Brownback also signed a bill into law banning abortion in Kansas after 21 weeks under the assumption that a fetus can feel pain at about 20 weeks.  According to Brownback, the rationale for limiting abortions to this particular time frame is to promote a “culture of life.”

It is ironic, because the law may lead to women hastily aborting before 21 weeks as they feel the option is being foreclosed. By creating a bright line time limit for abortions, the law fails to take into account complicated pregnancies where problems are undiscovered until a later stage.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge’s earlier ruling blocking the most controversial aspects of the Arizona immigration law.

The law would require Arizona police officers force to demand documentation from suspected illegal immigrants. Furthermore, police would be forced to detain those who are arrested until their immigration status was verified with the federal authorities before releasing them from police custody.

The Obama administration fought against the law saying it is unconstitutional because it intrudes on federal authority. The law would essentially turn state police officers into immigration officers, something that is impermissible according to the Constitution, which explicitly gives the federal government power over immigration policy enforcement. The Arizona law could also adversely affect foreign policy according to the administration. Two judges agreed and ruled against Arizona, while one judge dissented in part.

Naturally, the concerns surrounding this law stem from the unequal treatment of visible minorities that is likely to follow if the law is passed. The law’s implementation would make stereotyping legal by law enforcement, creating a state in which officers stop individuals who have “Hispanic” features, darker skin or an assumed race. The law would embed racial factors into Arizona’s legal fabric, and reinforce stereotypes rather than undoing them.

The U.N. is still concerned about Hungary’s media law despite EU requested changes.  Frank La Rue, the U.N. Human Rights Council’s special investigator on freedom of expression expressed concern about Hungary’s media regulations unnecessarily limiting the press and falling short of the acceptable benchmark for freedom.

The legislature passed a media law, which took effect January 1^st allowing the media council to impose high fines or close down media outlets if editors and publishers are caught violating vaguely defined laws. La Rue conveyed deep unease over the “framework of control” set up by the government; and encourages the nation to remove such limits on free press to allow free flow of dialogue between different groups.

Hungarian officials have said they believe in freedom of press but they must also consider the context and local peculiarities of the region.

In theory, a free media allows a country to debate controversial local, national and international issues; allows transparency in the political process and demands accountability from politicians. By limiting the press, a government denies its people access to information and consequently the choice to make informed decisions.

So, is cultural context a valid factor to assess when contemplating limiting the media, or is it simply an excuse by the government to retain control and uphold the status quo?

Now that’s what I’m talking aboot.

A Michigan law recently went into effect for teenagers comparable to the driving regulations in parts of Canada. The law applies to every teenager with a level two license and aims to reduce distractions and make the roads safer.

Teenagers are prohibited from driving between the hours of 10:00pm and 5:00am unless accompanied by a guardian or someone over 21, or if the teenager is driving to or from work.

Additionally, teenagers can only have one person under the age of 21 in the vehicle unless it’s a family member. There is a limited exception allowing multiple individuals under the age of 21 in a teenager’s car when driving to or from a school event.

Insurance companies generally favor the law considering studies have consistently shown that each additional passenger in the car increases the risk of an accident. Seems like lawmakers purposely planned the law to take effect right before prom season.