Check out this video to learn about the complexities of filing for bankruptcy.

Posted by Jennifer on August 19, 2010 at 4:52pm.

There are many freedoms we have come to know and love as American citizens. From our rights outlined in the Constitution to barbecuing and setting off firecrackers on the fourth of July, calling yourself an American is a feeling of great pride for everyone born here – or is it? What exactly makes an American a citizen?

The answer has always been easy enough for those who were born here. Under the 14th Amendment, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.” The amendment dates back to 1868, overturning the Dred Scott decision that black people could not be citizens.  So why is a 142 year old Amendment to the Constitution making headlines?

According to a study by the Pew Hispanic Center, about eight percent of children, or one out of every 13 babies born in the United States have at least one illegal immigrant as a parent. U.S. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has recently suggested overturning the 14^th amendment in order to deter illegal immigrants from jumping the border so their child may become an American citizen. Calling them “anchor babies”, Graham says once these children reach a certain age they can help bring their parents and extended family to the U.S. in order to gain citizenship.

Although some may be concerned with the original intent of the 14^th Amendment and how it is now being used, is a change to the Constitution reasonable? Can it even be done? Passage of a new constitutional amendment needs a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate, plus approval from three-fourths of state legislators. Even if it was possible in this extremely divided political environment, should it be done?

I see this movement as a mere distraction from true immigration reform. Although the United States is in much need of better border control and a successful temporary work program, changing core constitutional values seems a little extreme. Although this issue is an emotional one for many people, I do not see it getting much support for any real change to occur. What do you think? Should we rethink granting US citizenship to everyone born here? If so, how should citizenship be determined?

Posted by Rachel on August 13, 2010 at 3:22pm

With President Obama’s signing of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act on July 22, most Americans still know very little about the bill or what the legislation actually means (if they’ve even heard of it at all). But considering that the Act is 2,300 pages long and tackles the more complex issues of Wall Street reform, it is understandable why many are confused. Add to the fact that others still don’t understand what caused the recession over the past two years and perhaps you’re thinking President Obama should have sat down for a question and answer session rather than attend a flashy signing ceremony.

Also known as Wall Street Reform or Financial Reform, the act is considered one of Obama’s largest accomplishments after passing health care, and what he calls “the strongest consumer financial protections in history.” But how will a few pages of paper (or many, many pages in this case) lift us from one of the worst recessions we’ve ever seen? Have we seen any changes since it went into effect last month?

The most immediate problem the act addresses is the lack of regulations that allowed Wall Street to monitor itself over the past several years. Although extremely high banker salaries and high credit card fees led in part to the economy’s demise (and made most of the headlines) more complex issues like credit default swaps and derivatives trading also played a major role. It’s enough to make anyone’s head spin. But with Obama taking a stand to pass this legislation, it’s the first step in saying enough is enough. Change is here – so what does this change actually entail?

Other than making the US financial system more transparent, the law promises to help “real” people, and not just punish Wall Street executives, as some believe. With the new legislation Obama hopes to end overdraft fees, makes student loans easier to get and end abusive mortgage practices. This news comes as a relief to many who were victims of unfair rate hikes in addition to losing their jobs, savings and house values in the recession.

The act also created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Financial Stability Oversight Council, creating new protections for Americans and their tax money. Many believe it was the lack of these authorities before that lead to the financial crisis. Those worried about executive salaries will also be happy to know that shareholders now have a say on CEO bonuses, limiting some of the outrageous salaries of the past.

But just like with any large sweeping change, time is needed. With the act in effect for less than a month, the results are still to be seen. Many argue that this reform will hurt rather than help the economy and that many financial institutions will move somewhere with less regulation. How successful do you think the new legislation will be? What is the change, if any, you would like to see in Wall Street reform?

Posted by Rachel on August 11, 2010 at 4:21pm.

In a victory for advocates of gay marriage, a U.S. District Court this week overturned California’s ban on gay marriage on the basis that it violated the constititional protections of due process and equal protection. Though Proposition 8 was enacted through a direct popular vote, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that ”The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples” and that ”Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of marriage licenses.” Judge Walker reasoned that the gay marriage ban denied one group of people a fundamental right that another group of people enjoyed and this was tantamount to violating equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

(As a side note, while reaction to the ruling has been for the most part along party lines, it’s interesting that Judge Walker was appointed by the first President Bush and that one of the two lawyers representing the Plaintiffs was Ted Olson, who famously represented the second President Bush in Bush v. Gore.)

Supporters of Proposition 8 have already appealed and asked Judge Walker to stay the ruling. The matter will now go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Even if a stay is denied, the fact that the decision is appealed would put the ruling on hold. So for now, the ban is still in effect. Since Judge Walker’s ruling is the first by a Federal court on voter-approved bans on gay marriage, this is very possibly heading to the Supreme Court, which means the ban could be in effect until the Supreme Court issues a ruling. If the Supreme Court sides with Judge Walker, the gay marriage bans that exist in 45 states would be overturned on constitutional grounds and would have the de facto effect of legalizing gay marriage.

Though this issue is far from over and Judge Walker may very well be overruled by the 9th Circuit and/or the Supreme Court, it is clear that both sides are gearing up for a long legal battle. What is equally as clear is that in light of this ruling, another ruling last month that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional, and that most young people are in favor of gay marriage, it seems that gay marriage is inevitable in this country. The only question is when and whether it will be acheived through the legislature or the courts.

Posted by Anish on August 6, 2010 at 4:14pm.

This video looks at workers compensation and how to file a claim.

Posted by Jennifer on August 5, 2010 at 5:02pm.

Take a look at this video about personal injury law and learn what it takes to have a successful personal injury lawsuit.

Posted by Jennifer on July 30, 2010 at 11:56am.

How do you define marriage? After the costly ceremony, exchange of rings and a day full of lifelong memories, what does it really come down to? Some would say spending the rest of your life with the person you love. For others it’s the beginning of the end. But jokes aside, should everyone get to experience marriage and the benefits that come with it if they want, no matter who they choose in a partner?

Earlier this month a federal judge in Massachusetts thought so and ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. The law was signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton and banned federal recognition of same sex marriages. Massachusetts has recognized same sex marriages since 2004, but some couples were still being denied federal benefits and decided to take their cases to court.

U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro’s ruling was based on the fact that family law, including defining what constitutes a legal marriage, falls under state’s rights according to the Tenth Amendment. State marriage laws are usually organized around a list of restrictions and vary from state to state. These limitations include being underage or too closely related to the other person (which is why in some states you can marry your cousin and others you can’t. It’s weird but true.) Other restrictions are written into every state law, such as those banning polygamy. Marriage laws have had a long history in falling under state power, but should the federal government have a role in regulating marriage? Some members of Congress have even gone so far as to try to pass an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage between a man and a woman, but have never been successful.

But while some see the decision in Massachusetts as historic, others wonder about its staying power. Part of Tauro’s ruling established a need for state’s rights to define marriage as well as a federal government requirement to regulate family federal programs and benefits to gay couples – two opinions that seem to contradict one another. Although Tauro’s ruling has been praised, many others see the decision being overturned by a higher court in the near future.

So what does this decision mean for gays and lesbians and what does it mean for the future of family law? The Obama administration is now reviewing the ruling to see whether the federal government will file an appeal. Although President Obama is said to disagree with the Defense of Marriage Act, the administration will continue to defend the statute until Congress repeals the law. Although many see the definition of marriage changing in the future, this might not be the way it happens.

Posted by Rachel on July 28, 2010 at 3:57pm.

Protests have taken place in the United States for hundreds of years. From the revolutionaries protesting with the Boston Harbor Tea Party to the marches led by Dr. Martin Luther King, to those of today, protesting is something that we associate with ultimate freedom. However, hundreds are arrested every year for being involved in protests that turn violent or break laws. While the Constitution does grant rights to free speech and free assembly, there are limits on the content, time, place and manner of protests. It is important to remember these restrictions when protesting in order to get your message across safely and avoid going to jail.

Peaceful and legal protests generally include the distribution of pamphlets, speeches, parades, picketing and marches. However, some require permits so it’s crucial to know the applicable laws before you begin. Street parades, activities in parks and other public places usually require permits, while street corner speeches do not. Still, if you are unsure it is always best to apply for a permit to be on the safe side.

Permits do not always have to be approved but should be granted when “reasonable”.  A protester’s permit cannot be denied based upon content of the protest alone. This even includes hate speech, based upon the Constitutional right to free speech. However, permits can sometimes be denied based upon other factors, such as time of day or the amount of police force needed to ensure compliance with all laws at the event. For example, when a neo-Nazi group applied for a parade permit in 2008 in my college town of Columbia, Missouri, police denied their request because Columbia did not have enough personnel to man both the parade and home football game that day. If the police simply denied the permit based upon the content of the protest, it would have been unconstitutional.

During the actual protest is it important to not block roadways or private entrances. Entering onto private property without permission or stopping the flow of pedestrian or vehicle traffic are other issues that can land protesters in jail. Time of day is also an issue to consider. Leading a march on a neighborhood sidewalk at 3am with speakerphones is obviously not acceptable. But besides place, time and permission, it is important to remember behavior when protesting as well.

You should never make threats or engage in violence – these situations can escalate out of control very quickly and lead attention away from your main cause. Any act of violence could potentially result in an assault charge and heavy penalties. Profanities should also be kept in check as they can result in arrest in some jurisdictions. It is also important to remember your behavior if you are an onlooker to a protest or even chose to counter-protest because you do not share the same beliefs. Many times violence starts from opposing groups and reacting to protesters with anger or violence will only cause more trouble.

Always cooperate with police and do not resist arrest even if you feel that you have protested within your rights. If you are arrested, despite your best efforts, contact a lawyer and keep calm. Many protesters are eventually released without any charges – but it’s always best to know your rights.

If you feel like protesting is not for you there are other ways to get your message across. Boycotting certain companies, voting in elections and volunteering all can lead to change without picking up a picket sign. However if you wish to get your message across with a protest or demonstration remember these rules on how to do it most effectively within your constitutional rights.

Posted by Rachel on July 23, 2010 at 5:03pm.

Check out this informational video about divorce law to understand the difference between “fault” and “no-fault” divorce. What you learn may surprise you: even the most tremulous of divorce proceedings are filed under “no-fault” of either party. Actress Sandra Bullock comes to mind: last month she finalized her divorce from Jesse James after he checked into a rehabilitation center and allegedly had several affairs. Still, the final divorce papers cited “conflict of personalities” as the reason for the split.

Posted by Jennifer on July 21, 2010 at 2:44pm.

It seems to happen all the time – people become addicted to their cell phones. From Blackberries to iPhones to the Droid, smartphones have given us a way to instantly connect to the world from the palm of our hand. Used to sharing personal messages, work related emails or even funny Youtube videos, the line between your social life and work responsibilities on your phone can become easily blurred. Most people are very protective of their personal cell phone, but what if your phone was issued to you from your employer? Do your rights change in terms of your privacy?

The Supreme Court was asked just that last month in the case of Ontario, California v. Quon, after a supervisors reviewed personal messages on a police officer’s department issued pager. As it turns out, the officer, Sgt. Jeff Quon was using the pager to send sexually explicit messages despite warnings that messages may be monitored. Still, Quon argued the searches were illegal and violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

How would you rule on this case? Even though the phone was issued by a governmental agency, should a phone or pager be protected under Fourth Amendment rights because of an individual’s daily use? Or should people know not to send private messages in the first place?

The Supreme Court ruled against Quon and established a new legal standard for these kinds of privacy cases – when government employees are issued interactive communication devices, and they are told ahead of time they will be monitored, the government agency can look into employees’ communication log without violating their constitutional rights.

Many see this ruling also extending into private sector jobs. Other than the fact that they are not government workers, as long as employees are notified that their messages may be monitored, this ruling could extend to private companies as well. Since private employers can easily set their own policies, most could easily put this rule into effect.

So you might want to think twice next time before sending a personal message on your company phone. Before you hit send, is it something you would really like your boss to see? You might want to even think about getting a second phone; we all know it’s a slippery slope once you start mixing business with pleasure.

Published by Rachel on July 21, 2010 at 3:57pm.