Blog Feed

Philadelphia which is a corrupted city, is experiencing major problems which seems all connected to each other. Education, Poverty and Crime are three major problems that are going on in our community. Our crime rates keep increasing by a humungous amount and why? I believe it has a lot to do with educating our youth and poverty issues. Many teenagers don’t value education and one of the reasons is the household they live in.

Have you ever heard of the motto, “Education starts at home.”?  Many people disagree with that statement, but I agree.  Teens who grew up in a household where parents do not push education or aren’t as strict as most parents are about education don’t value education as much as he/she should. Teens, who live in poverty, turn to violence and selling drugs to make money because that’s the easy way out. The same teens who doesn’t value education and don’t have money get involved into the wrong things.

Many people around Philadelphia are sick of the violence that goes on in our community and are creating organizations to prevent this and to have people come out and talk to our youth about how serious this situation is. Plenty of organizations are trying to create more after school activities and other major events to keep teens and everyone.

Our city is trying to control our youth by setting curfews but I realized that is only in effect during the safer parts of Philly. Living in South Philly, nothing has changed and no curfews were enforced. Without police enforcing laws in every part of Philadelphia, how do they expect teens to take them seriously? If we have more people stand up instead of just letting things happen, if we have parents be a parent and actually take care of a responsibility and to have our officials make sure laws are set for every section and part of Philadelphia, I believe it’ll be a huge change.

The pending legislation dealing with The Electoral College is the:

H.J.Res.36 - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Electoral College and provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President by the popular vote of all citizens of the United States regardless of place of residence.

I believe this can really help my lobbying topic because with this and the graphs and explanations that let people know exactly how their votes are being used and counted if counted at all will really make people stop and think twice about whether or not they agree with the electoral college. 

Issue: Does petitioner have standing to challenge the Attorney General's interim rule making the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act retroactively applicable to those who committed their underlying offenses prior to its enactment date?

The case I was given was Reynolds vs. Us, and the case went before the Supreme Court on October 3, 2011. The constitutional question surrounding the case is does Mr. Reynolds have standing under the reading of the S.O.R.N.A. statute to raise claims concerning the attorney general's Interim rule. As well as does S.O.R.N.A. Violate the Constitution and should this Court hear Billy Joe Reynolds' case to resolve conflicting court opinions concerning the commerce clause, the ex post facto clause and due process?

            If you’re wondering what S.O.R.N.A its sex offender registration and notification act which is Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-248). SORNA requires sex offenders to register and notify the United States. To summarize the case, “Billy Joe Reynolds became a convicted sex offender Missouri in 2001 and sentenced to imprisonment.  Upon his release in 2005, he registered under Missouri law and subsequently updated and verified his registration as required by Missouri law. In November 2007, Reynolds was charged and indicted with violating SORNA’s registration requirements after he moved to Pennsylvania without updating his registration. Reynolds tried to dismiss the indictment saying that the Attorney General’s rule violated the APA. The district court denied the motion, and Reynolds entered a conditional plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.  The Third Circuit affirmed, ruling that SORNA’s registration requirements applied to pre-enactment offenders by their own force, even without the additional rule by the Attorney General.” Above was quoted from the scouts blog.” To put this into plain language Reynolds committed a sex crime before the SORNA ruling was enacted but section 1613(d) of the act says the attorney general has the authority to say whether and how the requirements apply to sex offenders that committed crimes before the act was created. The only problem with this is that Reynolds argues that this means that the Attorney General gets to say whether they apply at all.  He also claims that the second clause contradicts the language of the first clause. It give the attorney general the authorization to prescribe rules meaning the attorney general get to say how they are applied.

            The government/ court argues that the plain language of SORNA’s registration requirements means that all sex offenders, including pre-enactment offenders, must register.  The court also argues that it says that SORNA’s delegation to the Attorney General to is just to establish how it applies. The registration requirements further suggests that the SORNA’s requirements apply by their own force. The court also argues that the case is temporary and unimportant because this only applies to a small amount of sex offender that committed crimes before the act. And even after the ruling, either way, won’t affect the ability of pre-enforcement offenders to challenge registration requirements under SORNA.

            The decision has not yet been made on the case although I feel like its more than likely that the court will not rule in the favor of Reynolds

On Monday October 3^rd, the Supreme Court had a hearing for a public case that dealt with California’s health care providers moving to cut reimbursements for Medicaid care. In 2008 and 2009 the state legislature lowered the amount of possible reimbursements to the health care companies because they were having financial troubles. As expected there was a great fall back on the poor and disabled who are the main beneficiaries of Medicaid. This case isn’t as much about whether the health care cuts are legal because no one has a legal right to Medicaid, but whether or not independent parties have the right to sue to make sure the policy is working the way it should.

There is still however the question of whether or not it’s constitutional. The supreme clause says that the U.S. constitution is the supreme laws of the land and that state judges must follow federal law when there is conflict between state and federal law. Because the U.S. department of Health and Human Services is who enforced the federal law for each state to have an approved plan the change to the plan has been considered unconstitutional. 

Now days everyone is concerned Fracking, Is it good for us? Our kids? the environment? Fracking is good and bad in different ways. In a way it can help our economy because it can provide jobs to the society. Not only it can provide jobs but it also can but it can make this nation an independent nation and have its own resource. Even though there are good sides to tracking, there are also bad sides. Fracking can make own water, which we use on the daily basis contaimnated. According to scientist, they show that fracking can lead to gas coming through the pipes which waters comes out from at our homes. 

Cheryl Perich had filed a lawsuit against the church and the school for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. She was fired after she became sick in 2004. After a few months, she felt better and was able to work. But when the school urged her to resign, she refused to. So, they fired her.

The representatives believed that ministerial exception, which is under the first amendment in the Constitution, should apply in their case. Ministerial exception is basically gives religions certain rights to control employment matters without the courts interfering.

The funny thing about this case is that, Perich was not a minister. She was offered to be one, but she wasn’t. Also, she wasn’t teaching in a religious nature.

Natalie Sanchez

My case was Howes v. Fields. It dealer with a young man, Randel Lee Fields, who was imprisoned for a crime that he admitted to have committed. "How could he have ratted himself out like that?" you might be asking yourself. The answer is that he was not read his miranda rights before interrogation. Here's the whole story.  Fields was under custody for disorderly conduct in Lenawee County Sheriff’s Department. On December 23, 2001, Field was escorted form his cell to a conference room by a police guard without handcuffs. Once there, officers Deputy David Batterson and Deputy Dale Sharp began to question him. Fields continued to tell the guards that he did not want to speak with them at that moment, but the guards continued to question him. They told Fields that he was welcome to leave if he wanted. In the end, Field was interrogated for seven hours and told the officers about his sexual relations with a minor. During those seven hours of interrogation, Fields was not read his miranda rights. 

For those of you who do not know, miranda rights are the set of entitlements that must be read to someone before are incarcerated or before are taken into an interrogation. These rights state, “You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law.  You have the right to an attorney during interrogation; if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you.”  The Miranda rights are connected to the constitution in that they give the suspect a chance to clear his or her name by pleading the fifth ammendment (or, in other words, keeping their mouths shut). Because he was not read his miranda warning, Fields told the police officers what he did, hence, the Michigan court of appeals charged him with two counts of third degree sexual conduct and was given a term of ten to fifteen years in prison. The Questions in hand are as follows: Was Field's second sentence constitutional? Was the Michigan Court of Appeal’s decision against or in agreement with federal law? More importantly, "Does federal law automatically require Miranda warnings before questioning jail or prison inmates about issues unrelated to the cases for which they were incarcerated?" This is what congress was debating on October 4, 2011. They wanted to determine whether or not miranda rights should be read to prisoners even when they are being interrogated about a different crime than the one that got them in jail in the first place. 

Now there are two ways to look at this case. You could either justify Field's second jail sentence or deem it unlawful. The side that the Michigan Court of Appeals took was the one that justified Field's second sentence. They argue that 1. Field was under custody for another crime, 2. he was not wearing handcuffs when he was interrogated by the officers, 3. he was interrogated in a conference room, and 4. he was told that he could leave the room whenever he wanted to. Because of these small details,the Miranda rights were not necessary for this case scenario, according to the Michigan Court of Appeals. The other side argues that Miranda rights were created in order to give a suspect the chance to clear his name by not speaking about his or her acts during an interrogation. They argue that the person must be in custody in order to receive their miranda warning; Fields was in custody. Fields also stated that he was treated harshly during the impromptu interrogation, as one of the deputies used intimidation to get him to talk about his offense. The people who think that Field was treated unjustly argue that 1. a suspect in custody should be read their miranda rights, as anything they say can be used against them, 2. that this should happen regardless of what crime the criminal is going to be asked about, and 3. this is the only way that the miranda warning could serve its full purpose. I think that Field's sentence is going to be lifted-his sentence will be deemed unconstitutional. 

I feel like, though he was being asked about another crime he committed, he was tricked into giving information to the officers in a very unlawful way. The fair thing would have been to read Fields his miranda rights so that he would have been given a heads up that he was going to court and that what he was going to say to the officers would be used against him. I feel like Fields was treated unfairly and that he will soon receive justice. 

Sources: 

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0254p-06.pdf

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_10_680%20#

http://www.mirandawarning.org/historyofmirandawarning.html

Natalie Sanchez

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0254p-06.pdf

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_10_680%20#

http://www.mirandawarning.org/historyofmirandawarning.html

California spends more than $41 billion a year on the Medicaid Program (Medi-Cal), and it takes up approximately 13% of the state’s budget. However, California Legislature approved reimbursements cuts in 2008 and 2009 because of the worsening financial crisis. These cuts were between 1% and 10%. So, if looked at under the Supremacy Clause, these reimbursements violated the requirements of the Medicaid law of 1965 that state payments remain “consistent with efficiency, economy and quality of care” and overall sufficient for medical professionals. So, hospitals, unions, and organizations sued.

When the case of whether or not the state can even be sued in the first place reached the Supreme Court on October 3^rd, 2011, Justice Stephen G. Breyer argued that if hundreds and hundreds of lawsuits come into the Court saying that the states are not following federal law, then the federal agencies responsible for enforcing these laws will be too overwhelmed with cases to do their “business.” He was quoted as saying, “It’s a mass, in other words.” This is why the Court wants to take a new look at this process of lawsuits because they believe that there will be simply too many to handle. The lawyer for California Medicaid patients and care providers, Carter G. Phillips, argued that he was not fighting for this kind of expansion of litigation, however. He pushed that his intention was to only make sure that people had the right to fight to make sure that federal supremacy is maintained and their “life or death” benefits were safe. He also made the pint that federal courts have been hearing and deciding these cases for generations. However, the Court found merit in what Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler was saying about Medicaid being different since it was a joint enterprise managed by administrative agencies, not the courts. He also argued that he was only trying to make an exception in litigation.

The Supreme Court is not expected to make a ruling until spring of 2012 on this case and the other related cases that were also argued. However, based off of the feeling the court gave (expressed through what I read), there seems to be a good chance that the court may rule against the Medicaid patients and care-givers. They seem to be in favor of making this exception in litigation for this case, which would leave them to depend on federal officials who can only shut off federal funds entirely in this case. I kind of see this as making sense. In this time of economic turmoil and also accessibility of law to citizens, the Courts may just see countless cases like this throughout the United States. By allowed the citizens to sue, the floor will be opened to who knows how many other cases. The courts want to save as much time and energy as possible and keep the system from overflowing. So, while it is in their rights to sue the state for violating federal laws, an exception might just be made by the Supreme Court. 

Facts of the Case: Cory Maples was arrested and convicted for first degree murder in Alabama. In Alabama, once someone is convicted, they are not given free council. Since he could not afford an attorney, he contacted two New York legislators who would act as his out-of-state council pro-bono. As with any out of state council in Alabama, there needed to be a local council to oversee the case on the local scale. After filing for post-conviction relief (where Maples petitioned the court to have his death penalty overturned), he request was denied. The copy of that denial was sent to the New York lawyers and the Alabama lawyer. However, both of his New York lawyers left their firm, and the ruling was returned to the county clerk. In addition, the Alabama lawyer did not convey the ruling to Maples, since he assumed the New York lawyers would have done so. After not hearing his ruling, he contacted the county clerk who sent a copy of the ruling directly to the prison (where it would be given to Maples). Unfortunately, upon receipt of said document, he noticed that the deadline for him to appeal the petition had already passed. Therefore, he wished to argue that continuing his death sentence would be unconstitutional since he was not given ample time to appeal (due to his lawyers' inability to represent Maples in this scenario).

Summary of the Arguments before the SCOTUS: In the supreme court hearing, the story was conveyed before the court by a representative of Maples to explain the ways in which his appeal deadline should have been extended in this instance (or his case be re-evaluated). Some members of the supreme court questioned whether the court should be punished by having to re-hear the case (taking up the court's valuable time). In addition, the Maples representative reiterated that Maples should not be punished for the abandonment by three responsible lawyers. However, the court did seem be particularly hesitant at the vast implications that a ruling for abandonment could bring.

Prediction: While the court did not want to have huge implications, it appears as though they will side on behalf of Maples. This will probably be done with a complex ruling explaining the numerous factors for abandonment by lawyers to be considered ineffective council (which is prohibited by the sixth amendment).

The state of California made cuts to many medical facilities and doctors due to their lack of money. This is seemingly allowed in the Medicaid Act, section 30(A). In three different cases the state was sued, one being the Independent Living Center of Southern California. They each won their cases, stating that if the cuts in funding went through then the quality of their services would also suffer and not meet up with the standards of the Medicaid Act. However the Director of Heath Care Services has brought the case to the Supreme Court.

In the Case: California Director Toby Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, Petitioner Schwartz claims that the 30(A) clause of the Medicaid Act - A Spending clause that says services are paid by the state with recognition to the economic stability of the state itself - is too genaral and does not allow a single service to enforce the Act when finances are cut due to the state’s own recession. Basically saying 30(A) is not enforcible and wants there to be a amendment that allows private services to sue and claim the appropriate reimbursement for their work.

Petitioner Kneedler disagrees saying that Medicaid is an agreement between the Federal Government and the States. Not the private facilities within the states. Schwarts and the other hundreds of thousands of doctors shouldn’t be able to sue becuase it would cause problems across the state when hundreds of judges can make different judgements for each similar case. That would be unfair. Yet he does agree that 30(A) is not complete.