Category: Law

Unions have played a significant role in shaping the policies and legislation of the Democratic Party for many years. They have been at the forefront of advocating for progressive policies that benefit working-class Americans. Some of the most notable examples of unions shaping Democrat legislation are the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the push for an increase in the federal minimum wage.

The ACA was a significant accomplishment of the Obama administration and was passed in 2010. Unions were instrumental in advocating for its passage, which provides affordable healthcare to millions of Americans. The ACA includes provisions such as employer mandates and subsidies that help make healthcare more accessible to workers. Unions continue to advocate for improvements to the ACA, such as a public option, which would provide additional healthcare coverage to working-class Americans.

Unions also played a key role in pushing for an increase in the federal minimum wage. In recent years, unions have advocated for a $15 minimum wage, which has gained support from many Democrats in Congress. This push has led to several states passing laws increasing their minimum wages, with some even reaching $15 per hour. The increase in the minimum wage is essential to ensure that working-class Americans can earn a living wage and support their families.

Additionally, unions have been fighting for stronger labor protections and worker rights. For example, they have pushed for laws that protect workers from discrimination and harassment in the workplace. They have also worked to strengthen collective bargaining rights and ensure fair wages and benefits for all workers. Unions recognize that their strength comes from the collective power of workers, and they continue to advocate for policies that protect workers’ rights and interests.

Beyond specific policy issues, unions are also crucial players in Democratic politics more broadly. Unions provide financial support to Democratic candidates running for office at all levels of government. They also mobilize their members to vote and get involved in political campaigns. Union members are more likely to vote than non-union members, and they tend to vote for candidates who support policies that benefit workers.

However, unions face challenges today that threaten their influence on policymaking. Union membership has been on the decline over the past few decades due to various factors such as anti-union legislation and globalization. This decline has weakened their influence on policymaking. The decline in union membership is particularly problematic because unions are essential for protecting workers’ rights and interests.

Despite these challenges, unions continue to play a vital role in shaping Democrat policies and legislation. From healthcare access to labor protections, unions have been instrumental advocates for progressive policies that benefit working-class Americans. The Democratic Party recognizes the importance of unions and their role in advancing social justice and economic equality in our society. As such, the party is committed to supporting unions and policies that benefit workers.

In 1998, Ronnie Lee Brezina was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This decision provoked a vigorous debate on the efficacy and fairness of capital punishment in modern society. Supporters of the conviction argued that Brezina’s actions were too heinous to warrant anything less than a life sentence, while opponents argued that executing him would be cruel and unusual punishment. Today, we will explore both sides of this controversial case, examining the arguments for and against capital punishment in light of Brezina’s conviction. 

Though many believe that criminal justice should reflect societal values, some argue that terrorists and murderers like Ronnie Lee Brezina should not be granted leniency merely because they are incapable of understanding moral implications. 

In this view, capital punishment serves as a deterrent from similar crimes in the future by providing a chance for law enforcement to send a message to these criminals: If you commit heinous crimes, you will face severe consequences. Furthermore, advocates on this side argue that executing criminals eliminates any chance they have at rehabilitation since their execution shows society’s inability to forgive them. 

While it is often argued that the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment due to the lengthy appeals process, some supporters of the death penalty argue that the high costs are worth it. They believe that executing a convicted criminal saves the costs associated with keeping them in prison for the rest of their lives.

In contrast, opponents contend that death sentences are simply too extreme and can violate the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishments. Advocates cite a myriad of potential problems with how executions are carried out—such as wrongful convictions or botched executions—and argue that society is better served without them altogether. 

The justice system is not infallible, and there have been cases where innocent people have been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. Once a person is executed, there is no way to undo the mistake. The risk of wrongful convictions is a major reason why many people oppose capital punishment.

Furthermore, most opponents point to research studies that suggest there is no evidence that death sentences actually act as an effective deterrent for other criminals (Zimring & Hawkins 2003). Consequently, supporters feel that leniency such as life imprisonment without parole is more appropriate for criminals like Brezina who show little remorse for their actions or attempt at rehabilitation. 

Ultimately, it is clear why the conviction of Ronnie Lee Brezina remains so controversial yet still divides public opinion today. To some extent both sides have valid points in support of their argument; however, it ultimately falls upon each individual person to decide what type of justice they believe best serves society in cases like these.

Nothing can be more frightening than when someone that you love and care about goes missing. Going that extended period of time without hearing anything can incite panic and make you think the worst has happened. Before you start to put the worst thoughts into your head about that person and their whereabouts, there are some myths that you should dispel first. Here are the five most common myths about missing persons.

1. The Waiting Period

There’s a popular myth that you have to wait a certain time period before you report somebody missing. For most people, they think that the rule is 24 hours, while some wait for up to 72 hours until they file a report. However, the moment that you think a person is missing, you should alert the local authorities. The sooner that you call them, the better the chances are at finding that person.

There are also plenty that think it’s illegal to not wait a certain time period, while others feel that being a missing person is a crime in itself. Neither of these is true, and police aren’t going to shame you or hassle you for reporting someone missing. They’ve experienced missing person cases where they wish that someone had filed the report sooner because it would have increased the likelihood of finding them.

2. Telling Your Whereabouts

Those that have gone missing typically fear telling people the truth about where they were when they were reported missing. However, it’s only in the case of a missing child that the parents will be informed where they were and when. If you’re an adult that has gone missing and has been located by authorities, however, you don’t have to disclose your location to the reporting party.

Of course, you can give your consent to the police to let them know that you were somewhere safe and had just lost your phone or something innocent along those lines. If you worry about that person and were trying to get away from them, you can let the authorities know, and further action can be taken from there.

3. The Success Rate

In the news, we hear about missing persons who vanish into thin air and are never heard from again, either live or dead. These are sensationalized and turned into news pieces, documentaries, and even fictionalized films. However, it should be known that these cases aren’t just rare, but you nearly have a better chance of being born with 11 fingers or toes than a missing person does of not being found.

The success rate of finding a missing person is over 99.2 percent in the United States, and it’s a similar number for other developed countries around the world including France, Australia, and the United Kingdom. We fear the worst, but it’s usually the best that occurs in these missing persons cases.

4. The Repeat Missing Person Myth

Typically the first time that someone goes off the grid for the first 24 or 48 hours, people are afraid to alert authorities because they think that they’ll be shrugged off. They feel that because the person doesn’t have a history of going missing that their case won’t be taken seriously, but authorities want to make sure that everyone is found and accounted for.

Someone that doesn’t respond to calls, texts, or even answers the door might just be sick or have a broken phone, but they might also be in danger. Don’t be afraid to let authorities know that you have concerns about a person that’s missing for the first time in their life.

5. Information Access

There’s a lot of television shows and movies that will have you believe that there’s a large wiretapping operation that gets set up in living rooms around the country whenever someone goes missing. This is far from being the case, though, as police won’t access any personal data or technology that you’d only see from political wiretappings.

Instead, authorities will try to locate the missing person on social media to see if they made any indication of their whereabouts. From there, they’ll question possible witnesses, family members, and friends, while also scanning the area where the person went missing.

In terms of historical documents, there are few that are as valuable as the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution laid the groundwork for the laws of the new country when it was drafted in 1787 and ratified the following summer. All these years later and the Constitution remains the supreme law throughout the nation. While most people have read at least part of the Constitution, not many have gotten through the entire thing.

Because of this, there are a lot of popular beliefs that are actually myths when it comes to the Constitution. Let’s take a look at one of America’s most valued documents and dispel some of the myths that are often believed to be true.

5. There Is No ‘God’

Many people believe that the Constitution makes direct reference to God for a couple of reasons. The first is that the Declaration of Independence does use the word in the form of “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Also, many of the state’s individual Constitutions mention the word “God” in their texts.

The Constitution of the United States, however, makes no mention of God. The Constitution was written up to be as religiously neutral as possible for its time and allow Freedom of Religion. In ratifications, “The Year of Our Lord” is mentioned, but the original Constitution doesn’t mention God specifically. The phrase was slipped in at a later time following the original draft’s approval.

4. The Hemp Hoax

Hemp paper was one of the more popular formats to be used back in the early days of the United States. For that reason, there are a lot of people who assume that the Constitution was written on hemp paper. Many that started this myth have used it as a point of emphasis on hypocrisy as hemp and marijuana had become illegal in the country.

It turns out, though, that the Constitution was never written on hemp paper. The document was written on parchment, which is a paper that’s used from the skin of animals like sheep and goats. It’s also been found that the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights were also on parchment.

3. The President Can Start A War

When there’s a President that gets elected into the White House that we don’t like, we often breathe a sigh of relief thinking that they can’t go to war without Congressional approval. However, the President only needs Congress’s sign-off to declare war, but can engage in military movements if they see fit.

After all, the Constitution gives the President the title of Commander in Chief and can send troops to wherever he pleases. Think of the Iraq War that lasted from 2003 to 2011 as an example of this. George W. Bush sent troops to Iraq, and many recognized it as a war, but Congress never declared it as one.

2. Some Founding Fathers Are Missing

Thinking about the founding fathers of the United States, there are some instrumental names that include John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Their names are on the Declaration of Independence, and many assume that they’re also on the Constitution. That’s not the case, though, as both men were out of the country at the time.

Jefferson was in Paris while Adams was in London. Several other men were not at the final signing, even though there were 55 delegates as part of the Constitutional Convention. However, only 39 of them made the final sign-off including Benjamin Franklin, who was 81 years old at the time.

1. The First Amendment Was The Third

People really value the First Amendment of the Constitution, which allows for freedom of religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition. However, that was not actually the first amendment when the Constitution was written up. Instead, the original said that there should be one US Representative for every 30,000 people.

There was a minimum of 100 Representatives and a maximum of 200, which could be revisited as the country grew. However, the amendment wasn’t ratified and the one that we know as the first today was bumped up to second. Then, the original second amendment regarding Congressional pay wasn’t ratified and revisited many years later, meaning that the third amendment became our first amendment.

While laws have to be passed through the House of Representatives and the Senate before they can be signed into law by the standing United States President, the leader of the nation can sign an executive order into effect. Many of these go through a vetting process before being signed, as they can easily be overturned by the Supreme Court, Federal Court of Appeals, or members of Congress. There have been several instances of an executive order being taken to court, and here are the five most notable legal battles.

1. FDR’s 1935 Legal Battles

Franklin D. Roosevelt faced a lot of legal conflicts in 1935 when five of his executive orders were overturned by the United States Supreme Court. The first of which was the prohibition of transportation in interstate and foreign commerce of petroleum, with the next essentially being a duplicate. The next few ones get much different, though.

Executive order 6256 was to ensure that goods made with forced labor in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China didn’t enter the United States. There were two more that were overturned that were incredibly minor, and seem to be simply added to the list in one of those “while we’re here” situations that don’t have much information available from the U.S. government at all.

2. Reagan Starts a Snowball

Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12291 which required the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to provide a benefit-cost analysis for any large expenditures by the government that exceed $100 million. The original executive order wasn’t altered by George H.W. Bush but has been revised or replaced by every president ever since.

How much the president has been allowed to change on the original executive order has been taken to court several times over the years, and it seems that presidents fight one another to make the executive order their own. In fact, Donald Trump made several alterations before they were rescinded by Joe Biden.

3. Clinton’s Anti-Strikebreaking Challenged

In March 1995, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12954 that would bar companies from hiring employees on a permanent basis to replace employees that were legally on strike. While union workers were over the moon about this executive order, it didn’t last long thanks to a court appeal.

The Federal Appeals Court ruled that Clinton’s executive order couldn’t be signed into law because the National Labor Relations Act was signed into law in 1935. This act had more power than the executive order, causing Clinton’s ruling to be overturned. Known as the Wagner Act, it was signed by Franklin Roosevelt and has been amended in 1947 and 1959.

4. Trump’s Immigration Backlash

Donald Trump made a lot of promises regarding immigration to the United States when he became President, and within just a couple of weeks, he had signed Executive Order 13769 with immediate backlash. The executive order imposed travel restrictions from seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, all of which hold a Muslim majority.

Several lawsuits were filed as a result of the travel bans, most notably the case of Hawaii v. Trump, with the 50th state claiming that the executive order was simply a ban on religion with no other causation behind it. The executive order had been altered by Trump over the following 12 months and made its way to the Supreme Court where it was upheld before being revoked by succeeding president Joe Biden.

5. Biden’s Student Loan Appeal

Speaking of Joe Biden, he would end up undoing many of the executive orders signed by Trump while putting his own into effect. Biden announced in 2021 that he was set to cancel nearly $6 billion in U.S. student loan debt, and the following year, applications were being accepted to have up to $20,000 in debt relieved.

However, several states complained that their tax income would be affected by student loan cancellations, all of which were led by Republican governors. Shortly after student loan forgiveness was announced, it had to be suspended as it was taken to court, leaving more than 26 million Americans with their hopes dashed for the time being.

Whether you’re writing something professionally and have a tight deadline or you’re a student trying to churn out a massive paper that takes up most of your grade, it can be tempting to copy someone else’s work. However, directly copying someone’s work is an act of plagiarism, and can land you in hot water.

Plagiarism doesn’t have to be a direct copy, either. Simply stealing someone’s idea or converting their spoken word into your own print can also be considered plagiarism. There have been a countless number of people to commit plagiarism and not even know it. You can hear or see something once, and write it down as your own, completely unaware that you’re plagiarising at that moment.

But is plagiarism a crime? The answer is both yes and no. Let’s take a look at the specifics of plagiarism and see the scenarios in which legal action can be taken against someone that commits it.

Not Criminal

If you think that because you copy and paste something out of a textbook onto your semester-end research paper you’re going to go to jail, don’t worry. Doing so is not considered a criminal act, but you could face serious repercussions with your school. Committing plagiarism on accident or in a very small dose will likely just lead to the paper having to be edited or a knock against your grade. The most egregious forms of academic plagiarism, though, can lead to a full expulsion.

However, we’re talking about the United States, where plagiarism itself is not a crime at the federal or state levels. That doesn’t mean that you can’t go to jail in other countries. In certain parts of the world, plagiarism is a jailable offense. In fact, Montenegro made plagiarism a crime in 2017, but that’s a rare case. For the most part, the worst that can happen legally when someone commits plagiarism is a civil infraction.

Paying the Price

In more severe cases of plagiarism, someone that commits this act may be looking at infractions linked to plagiarism. This includes copyright infringement, which frequently leads to civil suits when monetary gain was made with copyrighted work. If you’re posting a quote from Bill Gates in your essay or using Mickey Mouse’s likeness in an office memo, the chances of facing any punishment are basically zero.

There are a lot of cases in which plagiarism can be avoided simply by giving credit to the person that created the original work. Instead of simply copying and pasting what someone wrote word for word, you can make a reference to it. The standard is to cite the work, give it its own paragraph in your writing, and italicize it (if digital). This makes it clear that you’re simply using this work as a source instead of your own creation. For example:

“To engage in downright plagiarism is disappointing. It’s cynical, opportunistic and hypocritical.” -Saul Bass

Checking For Plagiarism

These days, it can be more tempting to plagiarise since there are so many thoughts that have already been put out into the internet thanks to the countless blogs and websites available. However, it’s also easier to detect. Instead of waiting until someone else checks your work for plagiarism and facing serious consequences, check for any potential plagiarism yourself through one of the online trackers.

A plagiarism tracker will scour the internet to see how much of your work matches with someone else’s. If there is a small overlap, it’s not a big cause for concern. You may be writing about the exact same topic, and therefore will be using a lot of the same words. The higher the score on a plagiarism checker, though, the more you’ll want to proofread your work and edit what you need so that you don’t get into trouble.

Are you facing an unprecedented situation? Are you concerned that it may involve some legal complications? If you are concerned about a legal problem, then you may wonder if it’s time to work with a lawyer. While the specifics of your situation may vary, some common factors may help you determine if you should reach out to an attorney.

Accidents and Injuries

Car accidents, injuries in another person’s home or property, accidents at work, or similar situations may require an attorney. When you are involved in an accident and it causes a severe injury, you may need a lawyer to determine your options. Although state laws may vary in relation to the party-at-fault in accident cases, many states allow individuals to seek compensation if they are injured in a car accident, a workplace accident, or similar situations.

Family Court and Family Law Situations

When you are going through a major change in your family, such as a divorce, then you may need a lawyer. A lawyer may help in three primary situations: custody of children, divorce settlements in relation to assets, and prenuptial agreements. Depending on the situation, you may need a lawyer to represent your interests in court or to assist with court-related documents.

Estate Planning

In the case of individuals who are planning for the possibility of passing away, you may need to work with an estate lawyer. Even young individuals may consider estate planning services that focus on writing a will in some situations. For example, you may write a will with a lawyer if you have young children and need to put assets in a trust until they reach adulthood. Most individuals will work with an estate planning professional at some point in their lives, though the exact timing may vary.

Facing Arrest

If you were arrested for any reason, then you want to hire a lawyer. In the case of an arrest, you do not want to speak to police or other authorities until you have a lawyer present. A lawyer helps you determine the appropriate way to approach your case.

Handling Legal Paperwork

Legal paperwork falls into a variety of categories, such as business contracts, real estate contacts, or filing for bankruptcy. If you need assistance with legal paperwork, then you should consider working with a lawyer to help with your concerns. In some cases, a lawyer reads through your documents to ensure that contacts are fair to all parties involved in the document. In other situations, a lawyer crafts a contract or document on your behalf.

Whether you are facing a court case or you are looking for assistance with legal documents, working with a lawyer may assist with your concerns. Keep in mind that law firms may offer a consultation to help you clarify when to work with their firm or when to seek different services for your needs.