Justice Department Supports Native Americans In Child Welfare Case by Eden Daniel
In this article, the issue at hand involves the state of South Dakota and its actions relating to the foster care of Native American children that have been displaced from their homes under unfair circumstances. A lawsuit was filed against state officials by the Native Americans, who claim the state is failing to adhere to the Indian Child Welfare Act, and has removed hundreds of children from families during court hearings where parents are barely even able to speak, and only have a brief amount of time to do so. The Justice Department has weighed in on the case supporting the plea of the tribes, and the Department has filed an amicus brief in the case stating that the state is violating the rights of Indian parents. Other groups, such as the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) have taken interest in the case and conclude that it has become a human rights issue and that “it’s disgraceful”. The lawsuit utilized the transcripts of court hearings from the state where Indian children were taken into custody, and not one parent was able to testify at those hearings. Moreover, in the brief filed by the Justice Department, they stated that state courts and officials with social services had to investigate the removals of these children and that they are returned to their parent(s) or tribe.
In Constitutional context, this case exemplifies the principles of Judicial Review and Federalism. Since this lawsuit had the involvement of the Justice Department, which is a federal court, and since the Department examined and involved itself in the case in order to create a favorable outcome, it is relative to the principle of Judicial Review. In relation to Federalism, the lawsuit had brought up the Indian Child Welfare Act, which is a 36-year-old federal law, and had claimed that the state of South Dakota violated its act with its policies of foster home placement of Native American children, ultimately creating a state and federal feud.
Judicial Review and Abortion Legislation by Jesus Galan
A federal judge in Austin, Texas struck down a part of a law in Texas that would have required all the abortion clinics in the state to meet the same standards as those in regular outpatient surgical clinics around the state. That part of the law would have shut down about a dozen abortion clinics around the state of Texas, leaving only eight abortion clinics in the state, and all of those clinics would be located in the major cities. Judge Lee Yeakel ruled that the law was unconstitutional, and that it would place a burden on Texas women, especially those women in rural Texas, and those living in the Rio Grande valley. Supporters of the law argued that the requirement would make the abortion process safer, but the judge ruled that it didn’t make a difference.
This story portrays two principles of the constitution. One is judicial review, and the other one is checks and balances. It portrays judicial review because the judge reviewed the legislation and ruled it unconstitutional. It portrays checks and balances because the judge from the judicial branch of the government used his judicial review as a check on the legislative branch of the government.
#agswarriors were excited to host Democratic Republic of the Congo presidential candidate Eddy Dishueme to speak during Global Seminar. Mr. Dishueme asked our scholars to help find ways to solve the challenges facing his country. We look forward to an ongoing relationship with Mr. Dishueme and are excited to explore the challenges and opportunities in the Democratic Republic of Congo!
NYPD in Trouble by Makayla Boyd
On July 13, 2014 police received a call form an apartment saying that the caller had heard screams and loud yelling and they thought a child was being abused. The problem was the police didn’t know what the apartment number was. The Police arrived at the apartment and went to an apartment where they heard some noises. When they knocked on the door a 48-year-old mother came to the door wearing only a towel and underwear because she had just gotten out of the shower.
Her name was Denise Stewart and she told police they had the wrong apartment. She tried to close the door but they grabbed her and began to try and get her arrested. There was a scuffle and Denise’s towel fell off. For two and a half minutes the Denise begged for police to stop and bring her some oxygen because she was having an asthma attack but police didn’t get her inhaler until almost the end of the video that was recorded by neighbors. Denise fainted during this time and was eventually charged with assaulting a police officer because she had bit an officer’s finger. A female police officer finally arrived and covered her breast with a towel. On top of all this the police had been at the wrong apartment. Denise’s 24-year-old son was charged with resisting arrest. Her 20-year-old daughter charged with acting in a manner injurious to a child, resisting arrest and criminal possession of a weapon. Denise’s 12 year-old daughter was charged with resisted arrest, and supposedly kicking out a police window, which cut an officer’s chin. Also the Administration for Children’s Services found no evidence of abuse.
This connects to popular sovereignty because the people of the jury, when this goes to court, will have the final say over who was right in this situation and who was wrong. People will be able to protest to say how they feel. The more people that do this the more the government will be willing to listen. If there are many riots like the Michael Brown case the government will be willing to do something right away and maybe even move the court day up. If , however this goes unnoticed and no one does anything about it the case will just be another case with police brutality that the police might just get away with and do you really think police should get away with this?
This also connects to separation of powers and checks and balances because only the judicial branch will be able to help with this case. The executive and legislative branches can’t step in to decide the case for the court. Even though in this case the executive branch (The police) will try to influence it somehow possibly using Amicus curiae brief. I, however think that this case will not be influenced because it is quite clear who is at fault for what happened that night of July 13, 2014.
Read more here: http://www.salon.com/2014/08/03/nypd_dragged_a_48_year_old_naked_woman_from_her_apartment_as_neighbors_protest_and_tape_arrest/
Where is the Limit? by Meklit Zenabu
The Texas governor Rick Perry has been indicted for surpassing his authority by threatening to veto, and actually doing so, about $7.5 million for the funding of the District Attorney’s Office. In the spring of 2013, the Travis county District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg was arrested for drunk driving. Because of this incident, Governor Perry threatened to veto the $7.5 million funding to the District Attorney’s Office unless Lehmberg resigned. Perry indeed vetoed the funding when Lehmberg refused to resign. The governor can veto whatever he wants, but the illegal part of his exercise of power was the threat.
Governor Rick Perry’s action embodies two of the six basic principles of the United States constitution—limited government and checks & balances. This case demonstrates limited government because although the governor has the power to veto the funding, his power is limited to the point where it becomes illegal for him to threat an elected official to get what he wanted. This event also demonstrates checks and balances because Perry’s indictment is the judicial branch’s way to make sure that Perry didn’t exceed his power. The court will review the case to determine whether or not Perry exceeded his power by threatening Lehmberg.
Goodwyn, Wade. "Rick Perry's Legal Trouble: The Line Between Influence And Coercion."
NPR. NPR, 30 Aug. 2014. Web. 01 Sept. 2014. <http://www.npr.org/2014/08/30/344436775/rick-perrys-legal-trouble-the-line-between-influence-and-coercion>.
Langford, Terry. "A Week After Perry's Indictment, Legal Case Begins, by Terri Langford." The
Neuman, Scott. "What's Behind Those Abuse-Of-Power Charges Against Perry?" NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 02 Sept. 2014. <http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/08/16/340882519/whats-behind-those-abuse-of-power-charges-against-perry>.
"Perry Begins Defense on Felony Indictment | News Radio 1200 WOAI." News Radio 1200
WOAI. N.p., 16 Aug. 2014. Web. 01 Sept. 2014. <http://www.woai.com/articles/woai-local-news-sponsored-by-five-star-cleaners-119078/perry-begins-defense-on-felony-indictment-12676446/>.
Federalism and Texas by Elvis Diaz
The Texas legislature that is controlled by the Republicans is issuing a law that requires an I.D. in order to vote. It is said that African-American & Hispanic/Latino citizens are less likely to carry an identification card, which is the big argument the Justice Department & civil rights lawyers are proposing. This is a significant argument because Texas’ population is growing more and more due to Latinos & they will overtake the racial category by 2015according to state demographers. If this law makes its way into the light; it made lead to the whole US using this structure, ‘The Return of US Oversights”. It would be the conversion of a state law into a federal.
This current event clearly demonstrates the principle of federalism. The state of Texas is proposing a law that could influence the nation as a whole. The law may not just be for this particular state, but for the entire United States. It is still uncertain whether or not this law will go through-- but if it does, it will have a huge impact on those who vote for the nations representatives. It also touches the Popular Sovereignty principle, since the government is run by the people & those who are not fortunate enough to afford an ID could possibly be stripped of their chance to vote.
Email and Limited Government by Alex Parker
Emailing is a source that has been used for years across the world. But did you know that your email is subject to U.S. government snooping even if it is stored in computer servers outside the United States? This led to a potential landmark case in which a judge ruled that governing privacy and the limits of government surveillance powers.
U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled that Microsoft have to abide by a U.S. law enforcement search warrant demanding a customer’s emails stored on computer servers in Ireland.
Microsoft challenged the government's search warrant, stating it violated constitutional privacy protections and that U.S. warrants only were valid in the United States.
This current event relates to the principle: Limited Government. It relates to this because the government is overstepping their power and they are taking away one of our most prized possessions, our privacy. Nothing is private anymore. You already can't do something without someone recording it and putting it on Facebook, Instagram, or YouTube. Now the government is taking away our privacy? What kind of world are we living in? The government needs to do their job but do it under the regulations of the constitution and within their boundaries, with limitations. That's how this current event relates to one of the constitutional principles.