The Supreme Court consists of nine justices, one of which is the Chief justice. It is nine people so that there is always a majority and no ties. What would happen if there were only eight justices and they came to a 4 – 4 decision? So because there is an odd number there will always be a majority. The Supreme Court has the power to create explain and apply the laws at hand. They decide whether or not something is illegal or unconstitutional.
One of the powers the Supreme Court has is called ‘judicial review’ which allows them to overturn state laws and also laws passed by congress. In one of my previous posts and the legal system, the Supreme Court is part of checks and balances system, so that not one branch of government has power over another.
I think the supreme court should have varying opinion because all nine justices were conservative, they have would conservative viewpoints, and the same goes for liberal views and even gender based views. It’s good that women have been appointed as a justice because it shows a step in the right direction. This also applies to different religions and races. We need different viewpoints so that the decisions aren’t clouded by a majority but by careful thought, reason, and historic or past events. The fact that the Supreme Court is something that has power over another just means that there must be variation.
In the movie “First Monday In October,” there has been a female appointed as a court justice. She is very conservative and by the book. On the other hand, one of the male justices is very liberal and a humanist. They have conflicting viewpoints which are clearly set apart from one another. Because of the conflicting viewpoints there will be more thought process put into the overall decision. And that is a very good thing in my opinion because if everybody agreed on the same thing, then there would be no point in going over the subject at hand.
Showing posts with label eoc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eoc. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Illicit
Illicit trade is going on throughout the world 24/7, 365 days a year. It happens everywhere but there are places where it happens more often such as Hong Kong, China. Products ranging from fake Rolex watches knock-off designer hand bags, and even pharmaceutical drugs. And buyers are either unaware of the things they are purchasing or are ignorant in the fact that they don’t care if they are fake, they just want to have the product by whatever means necessary. Sometimes the fakes are so good that even people in the company can't tell the difference between them and the real thing. And consumers, who buy the more affordable fakes to obtain the social and fashion status the brand names bring, are willing to pay more for the improved copies. It is a disease that is growing at an exponential rate. It doesn’t seem that there will be a stop to illicit trade.
As far as consumers go I can’t say that it is their responsibility to not buy the product, but a lot of the time they are unaware that they are buying illegal merchandise. You have to leave it to common sense: is it really legitimate that the bag you’re buying is one hundred dollars when it actually costs three thousand dollars? People aren’t the smartest when it comes to these kinds of things and if they are smart enough to know better than they could be people who are easily influenced into buying because of the deal they are given. In my personal opinion the vast majority of people have given up their sense of perspective when it comes to buying. People nowadays trust commercials and people if they can give you a reasonable explanation why they should buy the product. People forget to read in between the lines when it comes to buying. Is the consequence greater than the profit? Sure I sold some fake Gucci bags, but if I’m caught I could be fined or even sent to prison (just an example). A person is smart, but its people who are dumb and ignorant.
As far as consumers go I can’t say that it is their responsibility to not buy the product, but a lot of the time they are unaware that they are buying illegal merchandise. You have to leave it to common sense: is it really legitimate that the bag you’re buying is one hundred dollars when it actually costs three thousand dollars? People aren’t the smartest when it comes to these kinds of things and if they are smart enough to know better than they could be people who are easily influenced into buying because of the deal they are given. In my personal opinion the vast majority of people have given up their sense of perspective when it comes to buying. People nowadays trust commercials and people if they can give you a reasonable explanation why they should buy the product. People forget to read in between the lines when it comes to buying. Is the consequence greater than the profit? Sure I sold some fake Gucci bags, but if I’m caught I could be fined or even sent to prison (just an example). A person is smart, but its people who are dumb and ignorant.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
What Are Your Rights as a Property Owner?
In the movie "Pacific Heights," a landlord has to deal with a tenant who is not paying rent, has changed the locks to the apartment, and has no intent on moving out. The rights of the landlord should cross this threshold as to being able to evict the unruly tenant. Because the landlord owns the property, he/she should have undeniable grounds to evict a tenant not paying their rent and has made modifications to their property without consent. The movie is very loose on actual law and there was not much interpretation of the law, other than saying that because the tenant is now living there (even without a lease or rent) the tenant has a right to stay there unless a certain amount of evidence has deemed them able to be evicted or is dangerous.
Some rights that the landlord is entitled to are:
The Right to Prompt Payment- You have the right to receive the rent on the first of each month unless the parties otherwise agree.
The Right to Have Compliance With Tenancy Agreement - You have the right to have the tenant abide by the terms of the tenancy, whether it is oral or written. If the tenant breaches terms of the tenancy, for example by having unauthorized sub-tenants, pets, smokers, or other prohibited uses such as raising pigeons in the apartment, you have the right to terminate the tenancy and to move to evict.
With these said, it would seem that the landlord has rights to evict his tenants if they don’t issue rent and/or have breached terms of tenancy. But the tenant in the movie has not agreed or signed any contract, so because he hasn’t done these things, he may be exempt from the contract and is living there on a purely word of mouth basis, in which the landlord has given the tenant the key to the apartment and agreed to live there. But the details are sketchy.
Some rights that the landlord is entitled to are:
The Right to Prompt Payment- You have the right to receive the rent on the first of each month unless the parties otherwise agree.
The Right to Have Compliance With Tenancy Agreement - You have the right to have the tenant abide by the terms of the tenancy, whether it is oral or written. If the tenant breaches terms of the tenancy, for example by having unauthorized sub-tenants, pets, smokers, or other prohibited uses such as raising pigeons in the apartment, you have the right to terminate the tenancy and to move to evict.
With these said, it would seem that the landlord has rights to evict his tenants if they don’t issue rent and/or have breached terms of tenancy. But the tenant in the movie has not agreed or signed any contract, so because he hasn’t done these things, he may be exempt from the contract and is living there on a purely word of mouth basis, in which the landlord has given the tenant the key to the apartment and agreed to live there. But the details are sketchy.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Greed Is Good
In the movie Wall Street, the character Gordon Gekko says that “Greed is good.” Greed, according to Merriam-Webster dictionary: is the selfish and excessive desire for more of something (money/power) than is needed. But to what extent is greed good? I believe that the initial intention of greed arose from the desire to obtain more than what they had, but rose to an elevated intention of power instead of acquisition of needs. Because as our history shows, money means power. The more you have the more power you can obtain. This country was not based on greed, but to advance and improve upon a system of government where there was greed and corruption, which led America to adopt the system of a free market.
With the recent recession our country is facing and the huge so called “bailouts” that the government is handing out, people are wondering what went wrong? I am not too sure on the details because it doesn’t matter at this point. All that matters is correcting the problem. But people became outraged when some people, such as John Thain, used the money from the bailouts for themselves. John Thain, who was the last chairman and chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch before its merger with Bank of America, spent $1,000,000 from a so called “bonus” to redecorate his office. Despite the dreadful year that Wall Street experienced in 2008, some questionable bonuses were paid to already well-off employees, and that set off the outrage. And with these questionable bonuses is the act of pure greed on their part. Why did he need to spend one million dollars to redecorate his office? I’m sure that there was no valid reason other than the fact that he was greedy and thought he could spend taxpayer’s money for something trivial. Greed is good, but is taken too far, and it leads to bad things.
Mini-Me ModelWorks makes a toy called the Smash-Me Bernie doll, depicting Bernard L. Madoff in a red devil suit and pitchfork. It comes with the doll itself along with a hammer to smash the doll with. If I had to make a smash-me doll of someone, it would be our previos president George Bush, because if it wasn’t for him and his cabinet, our recession would not be as bad as it is today, and there would never have been a war in Iraq, which in my opinion has now become an act of greed for oil, among other things.
With the recent recession our country is facing and the huge so called “bailouts” that the government is handing out, people are wondering what went wrong? I am not too sure on the details because it doesn’t matter at this point. All that matters is correcting the problem. But people became outraged when some people, such as John Thain, used the money from the bailouts for themselves. John Thain, who was the last chairman and chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch before its merger with Bank of America, spent $1,000,000 from a so called “bonus” to redecorate his office. Despite the dreadful year that Wall Street experienced in 2008, some questionable bonuses were paid to already well-off employees, and that set off the outrage. And with these questionable bonuses is the act of pure greed on their part. Why did he need to spend one million dollars to redecorate his office? I’m sure that there was no valid reason other than the fact that he was greedy and thought he could spend taxpayer’s money for something trivial. Greed is good, but is taken too far, and it leads to bad things.
Mini-Me ModelWorks makes a toy called the Smash-Me Bernie doll, depicting Bernard L. Madoff in a red devil suit and pitchfork. It comes with the doll itself along with a hammer to smash the doll with. If I had to make a smash-me doll of someone, it would be our previos president George Bush, because if it wasn’t for him and his cabinet, our recession would not be as bad as it is today, and there would never have been a war in Iraq, which in my opinion has now become an act of greed for oil, among other things.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
What my classmates think of the Legal System.
I think the government in general has too much bearing on our lives as individuals, I think there are many issues in this country today in which it should be left up to the individual to decided whether its right or wrong. For example, I think that all drugs should be made legal and it should be a matter of personal responsibility, not a matter of law. (Jonathan Boyer, http://damnationcreative.blogspot.com/ )
My definition of the, legal system is a panel of individuals that are deciding on your punishment to your decision of an act. (Gustavo Ibarra, http://legionsphotography.blogspot.com/ )
The law works wonderful in the way it establishes a set order and standard of operation that allows for the coexistence of many interacting individuals. (Andrew Veliz, http://sincidkid24.blogspot.com/ )
My opinions on these three individuals are different from each point of view. Jonathan Boyer states that some things, like drugs, shouldn’t be governed by our legal system. While he has a valid argument, there are just some things that just need to be governed. The reason why drugs are illegal, such as cocaine, is because of the harmful effects that may be resulted from. While other drugs, such as marijuana, have no need to be regulated because they are not a serious drug and like he said, should be left up to the individual.
Gustavo thinks that the government is a cruel world where a group of people decide your punishment, but that is wildly exaggerated. There is the other side to the story. What about the people trying to prove someone is guilty because they are, what about the criminals that deserve the punishment they are given? While there are times when innocent people were punished for no reason, or there are people who were punished unfairly, there are many positive aspects to the way or legal system works.
And I completely agree with what Andrew says. It goes back to how I explained the legal system with checks and balances and the three branches of government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
