Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association

 

On Monday October 3rd, 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. 

Fracking in PA

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. 

Fracking is the procedure of creating fractures in rocks and rock formations by injecting fluid into cracks to force them further open. Basically what they're doing in Pennsylvania is that companies such as the gas companies drill water, sand and chemicals deep underground at high pressure. This opens cracks that allows natural gas to flow into the wells. Some homeowners in the drilling areas says that tracking has polluted their water. According to scientist, the homeowners can be right. 

Natural gas or methane is flammable and potentially explosive. Having such dangerous chemicals coming through our pipes to our homes can cause many problems. Problems from drinking water to taking a shower or cooking food. Fracking has its benefits and consequences. 

flaming-water-fracking-natural-gas-us-drinking-water-supply-in-danger-photo_credit-gassland
flaming-water-fracking-natural-gas-us-drinking-water-supply-in-danger-photo_credit-gassland

SCOTUS Case: Howes v. Fields

Johniera McClain

American Government

B band

10/13/11

           

                                    SCOTUS Case: Howes v. Fields

 

Suspects are entitled to Miranda Warnings when they are being questioned about a crime while they are in custody. Was Randall Fields indeed custody when it was not clear that the police officer gave out an Miranda Warning to Fields?

 

            The Miranda Rights refer to the some of the rights that are contained in the Fifth Amendment in the Constitution. As in The Fifth Amendment it states: “Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was a landmark US Supreme Court case. Ernesto Miranda had signed a statement confessing to a crime, but he did not know he had an absolute right to remain silent and not talk to the police, as guaranteed to him by the Constitution, and the police did not inform him of his constitutional right before asking him questions and then having him sign a written confession. His conviction was based entirely on the confession he signed, and not on any independent evidence in the state's possession.”

 

            Fields convicted of several accounts of sexual behavior with a minor that had been affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which upheld the admission of the defendant's’ self incriminating statements that was told to the police officers at the prison while he was serving time for another reason.


            The Sixth Circuit affirmed a districts court’s grant of federal habeas relief on the ground that Fields was in custody when in questioned and that the statements that were said should have been suppressed due to the failure of the officer complying with the Miranda before interrogating Fields.

 
            People on the behalf of the Petitioner Ms. Carol Howes questioned why a prisoner who was mandated to leave his cell to go to another building to answer questions about another crime should not be considered in custody.

 

            Personal belief, is that the petitioner of the case will be what is going to come out of this. Randall Fields was incarcerated at the time due to unrelated reasoning of the circumstance in which he was questioned. Although, why wouldn’t Fields think that he was under the Miranda Custody due to the fact that he was already in the presence of a police officer questioning him? It could go somewhere else though because according to Fields he was under the impression that he was allowed to leave if and when he so chooses and also he was properly given his Miranda warning when by Constitution and particular the Fifth Amendment he was lawfully by right had to have that given to him. It shall be interesting as it all unfolds.

 



SCOTUS Case: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC

The question of this case is, if ministerial exception applies not only to ministers, but teachers that teach at a religious school.

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.

My original thoughts before the case was that, ministerial exception probably wouldn't matter, because as I have read that Perich was not a minister. So, I believed that it wouldn't count towards her. And I also thought that she wasn't hired by the church. And what it turns out to be, ministerial exception didn't apply at all.

Howes v. Fields Docket # 10-680

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


Howes v. Fields docket No. 10-680

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.”  These rights basically give the suspect a chance to clear his or her name by pleading the fifth (or, in other words, keeping your mouth 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

Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association SCOTUS Case

        The case I was assigned to follow was Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association. The state of California has been making cuts to the Medicaid reimbursements and the recipients and providers of Medicaid want to fight against these cuts the state is making. However, this case is not about the arguments against the state, but whether or not these people can even make arguments in the first place. The main constitutional issue in this case surrounds the Supremacy Clause, along with Ex Parte Young. The Supremacy Clause essentially establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as “the supreme law of the land.” So, the states judges must follow laws included in these areas even in state laws conflict with them. If the states don’t follow these laws, then, under Ex Parte Young, the state can be sued. Medicaid and the right of the people to have access to this is clearly stated under the Social Security Act, so the people believe that it is well in the laws of the country for the state of California and its officials to be sued for making cuts that make it harder for some families to get access to the care they need. However, some members of the Supreme Court feel that a new look should be taken at how open the courts should be to claims that states are violating federal law.

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 3rd, 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. 

Maples v. Thomas - Legal Abandonment (Docket 10-63)

Constitutional Question: In the case of Maples v. Thomas, the constitutional question being presented before the Supreme Court is "Whether the Eleventh Circuit properly held that there was no cause to excuse any procedural default where petitioner was blameless for the default, the state's own conduct contributed to the default, and petitioner's attorneys of record were no longer functioning as his agents at the time of any default." In plain English, this is asking weather a prisoner can argue that a death sentence is unconstitutional when proper filing procedures were not followed. This is specifically relevant to the sixth and eighth amendments since they specifically involve congressional proceedings.

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).

Lobbying:Continuous inflation of College Tuition

College fees are on a continuing rise. Each year, or mid-year, tuition increases are making it difficult for families to pay for their children's education. As a result some have no choice but to leave their colleges or  knowingly burry themselves in debt. Only to come out of college to pay off loans in an already damaged economy. Universities' aren't getting enough State financial support and are in turn charging more,cutting enrollment, and letting go os staff and teachers. If this stays the same only a small percentage of students will be able to afford graduating college.         
    In today's society it is difficult to be successful in life without a college education. The world needs educated people to continue to function. Without them there will be a shortage of phycisians,lawyers,teachers, and most of all students. Unless changes are made to the educational financial state that colleges are in , there will be a serious drop in qualified individuals to take certain roles in society.
    College students across the country have started to protest against these institutions that continue to raise tuition each year. Regrettably there haven't been many changes to help universities with the ever pressing issue. Eductions needs to be moved up on our nations list of priorities. Starting with a new budget for school districts and Universities all over the country. Students should be able to have a choice to  receive a form of higher learning or not. However, if nothing changes in the nations outlook on education then that option will be taken away for many.

Lobbying against "Rolling Brownouts"

The main things I am lobbying against are budget cuts. But I am leaning more towards a specific type of budget cuts called "rolling brownouts". Which are budget cuts towards firefighters. Because of these budget cuts they are taking away from things like education, policeman, and firefighters. instead of taking away from other particular things they are going after children's education and our safety. Its nuts. My dad is also a firefighter so this specific topic hits closer to home for me.

The main supporters of this are mainly Firefighters, families of firefighters, other people who are being effected by the budget cuts such as: schools, police, ect. Finding the main opponents of this lobbying act was a bit tricky. At the moment I can't find anyone mainly in charge of the budget cuts towards the firefighters. But since the Government is in charge of all the budget cuts, I am guessing a broad answer would be the Government.

I know there are already people lobbying that the school cuts and all the cuts that don't make sense to stop and such. Last year I remember going to Harrisburg and there were a bunch of schools there protesting about the school cuts at how they needed to stop hurting the children's education. I believe there were also many protest about the budget cuts towards the firefighters and the police. But I can not find anything other then protests happening in this area. I would like for the Government to stop cutting the firefighters because taking ladder trucks or engines away from the firehouses are not only putting everyone in more danger then they already are in but also not letting the firefighter do their job. How can you fight a fire without the proper equipment. So it needs to stop.

I am finding a lot of information about incidents that have happened because firehouses did not have the proper equipment for the job. The biggest one I have heard of is a fire that had happened in Olney and two kids had died because one of the firehouses were closed due to budget cuts so a firehouse farther away took the call only to find out that by the time they pulled the two boys out, they were already dead. It tragic and all because the Government is taking away need equipment from some of the men who keep this city safe. It ridiculous, I believe it should be stopped.

Lobbying Topic Guns

-The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. 

-They also feel as though CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS IN SELF-DEFENSE: FLORIDA ADOPTS UNIFORM REGULATIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMITS LAW is also being not use to its fairness so they want to just band guns all together. its states " THE FLORIDA Constitution provides that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms in self-defense and in defense of the state "shall not be infringed."[1] However, "the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law."[2] To further the citizens' right to bear arms in self-defense, during the 1987 Legislative Session the Florida Legislature passed two laws[3] regulating the carrying of concealed weapons and firearms. The broad intent of these laws was to preempt county and local firearms regulation in order to obtain uniformity of laws throughout the state[4] and to allow law-abiding citizens to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons for purposes of self-defense.[5]" 



- Meaning that people have the right to protect them selfs in other words. but what florida wants is to bad guns every where and get rid of them but from all laws that have been made is so that the bear arms in self-defense can be used to help not harm so really what florida want is not in any of the laws because they want to band it all together. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/opinion/pandering-to-the-gun-lobby.html http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Getchell1.htm

Rockets score big against Kensington

   On Oct 7th the SLA boys soccer team played an amazing game against Kensington High School.  This was the second game against Kensington and a critical win for the playoffs.  The boys beat Kensington 6-2 with goals scored by Dan Wirt (#3) and Seamus Kirby (#5).  Wirt scored five of the goals, two were intercepted miss kicks by the Kensington goalie, one was a breakaway shot, one was done from an assist by Will Felinski (#11), and the last one was a penalty shot.  Kirby scored his goal off a breakaway shot in the beginning of the second half.  

     The defense played a especially stupendous game only letting seven shots on goal which Doug Wallace (Goalie) saved five of. Usually Wallace's save count is about 30.  A difference in this game from others played was that the midfield players completely controlled the middle of the field which gave the forwards more scoring opportunities. This change probably came from Coach VK's position changes and adding more defensive and offensive midfielders. Overall congratulations to the SLA Soccer team and good luck in next weeks games!

Ian McClendon - The Triangles on Grays Ferry Ave. Gateway Project - Lobbying

Ian McClendon
American Government                   

D Band

The Triangles on Grays Ferry Avenue Gateway Project


Last year for my American History class an assignment we had was to attend or assist a community meeting. I chose The Triangles on Grays Ferry Avenue Community to help. It was a very well organized group of citizens that came together to get the current and past residents ideas pertaining to businesses, traffic, safety, place identity, and green economic development for new structures of Grays Ferry.  

I lobby for this Community Project because as a neighborhood that is the start of a major avenue branching from the popular South street. Those areas(G.F. Triangles) should not be subject to speeding motorist disregarding traffic signs, J-walking pedestrians because of improper crosswalk placement, and limited vehicle space for businesses to load and unload product. At first I didn’t think that a meeting to improve someones community would be beneficial for me until these Break-Out groups were formed to initiate discussing every problem there is to know about it. Then you realize how much this area could be improved and be more of a convenience by living in Philly.

This committees foundation started with concerned neighbors and was progressively sponsored by many local associations such as SOSNA, CCRA, SOSCDC, and SSWBA. Besides all thel associations, what really makes collaborating click is the people at the meetings. Elder resident, business owners, previous/ current house owners, residents living outside the triangles, and guests of Traffic Planning and Design, Inc to contribute multiple solutions for the new design of Grays Ferry. The meeting I attended was Greater St. Matthews Baptist Church on the corner of a triangle. Everyday of Mass the main issue for the Church is parking spaces so the idea for change is in everyone mind for the surrounding organizations.


In my research for more information about how Grays Ferry was originated I came across a Congressional Meeting with the transcript of when the development of the area was still underway. It explains the statistics and proposed formulas to how the traffic flow and train yard transit can move easily together. This congressional text was made on April 11, 1914 by Mr. La Pollette and Mr. Fletcher and called it the “FIVE PER CENT CASE”. Through out the 1,000 pages it isn’t all about this topic. In the text it is debated about why and why not Grays Ferry was ever made for a interstate passageway that co-exist with the loading and unloading of businesses. The statistical numbers that was presented comes from Illinois Northern Railway and then broken down to accommodate the prime construction around Grays Ferry province... in 1914. It’s 2011 and their originally stated idea in 1914 was to integrate other major city shipment structures as a bias for the actual shippers. You can see how this community has been left out of touch with the 21st century.


Government officials have partaken in helping the community but recently none of the lobbying proposals have been put into action. It seems that the opportunity is there for the neighborhood but its all about the timing and right now in our economy, neighborhood reconstruction isn’t at the top of the To Do List for Philadelphia. I fully support The Triangles on Grays Ferry Gateway Project and hope to follow every step that the area can take on making a hidden historical landmark be discovered.

SCOTUS Case 09-958: Douglas vs. Indp. Living Center of California

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.


The question is: Who has the right and authority to enforce 30(A) of the Medicaid Act since Congress cannot? The Federal Government or the State?

I perceive that the Federal Government will have to set up another department solely for looking over the Medicaid act and the issues that come along with it like this case and hundreds before it since the Act was set in 1986.

Lobbying to stop Music and Athletic Program cuts

I am lobbying to change the budget cuts in philadelphia public schools, more specifically cuts to music and athletic programs within schools. In urban areas, the music and athletic programs are a large reason why many students actually show up to school each day, if you take these programs out of schools, you lose attendance cause the dropout ratio to increase.

My motivation stems from my actual interest in sports & music. I have a strong respect for athletes and musicians who are serious about becoming great at whatever talent they posses. I feel as though these public schools are where the future professionals start and if you take away the programs then you take away the professionals.

The main supporters of my lobbying ideas are higher institutions, as well as parents. If you cut these programs, you take away the college & universities prospects. They can't recruit students for these programs at their own school because they are being prevented from displaying these skills seeing as there is no opportunity to show it.

The main opponents of my lobbying idea are the members of the school district of philadelphia. They are the ones that have put these laws into effect and I don't think that they will support spending more money on what they don't think is necessary.

Currently there is no pending legislation dealing with my lobbying idea. I feel as though there should be one proposed making so that their must be a certain amount of money invested into these programs throughout the district each year.

http://articles.philly.com/2011-04-28/news/29483260_1_cuts-in-state-aid-full-day-kindergarten-individual-school-budgets

Education Reform -Jason m. Davis

Jason M. Davis

​In addition to the countries economic struggles, there is key aspect of the social spectrum that is currently tainting America's system, the youth. While the reasons for this is widely debated, a highly expected contributer is the current economic system. In my lobbying topic, I choose to take the side of the struggling youth in this country, who have fell victim to the incompitence of the adults who make decisions on that political stage that have effected our education.


Education reform and public education, in the role of the fight against standardized teaching, is a widely liberal approach. Liberal believes tend to favor he idea of public education, because it supports all children in the U.S. Recently, many movements have pushed towards the reform of public education because many believe that the people making decisions about the curricullum and standards of schools do not represent education in all parts of the United States. 


Many people, both liberal and consertive approach education in a more standardized way. These create specific standards for students in specific grades, which is sometimes viewed as treating students as if they are all the same. Educators around the country are pushing for reform in the system which has resulted in some political effects. On a national level, the most recent legislation has been the addition of secondary standards to the "No Child Left Behind Act" which was signed into law in 2001. These changes have been minor, but show examples of the voices of these lobbies being heard.

Lobbying For Tighter Economic Regulation

I am lobbying for tighter government regulations in the wake of our economic meltdown. From what I know of the economic meltdown, at the very least in the sub-prime mortgage meltdown, it would not have happened if the government had regulated it more tightly. What I am not saying is that a world where the government runs the economy and is in every aspect of the market is a good one. What I mean is that Government involvement in the economy is justified in order to prevent force and fraud. They need to be involved in the economy enough to prevent fraud and dishonesty but not enough to prevent small businesses to grow.

My motivation for lobbying this is the wrong that was done to people who invested and lost everything due to dishonesty and corruption. My motivation was first sparked by watching a documentary called" Inside Job" and it basically exposed Government corruption, and what? Oh yeah, nothing happened! It even went as far to talk about the CEO's of these giant companies and they took about 400 million each and resigned without even a damn slap on the wrist. It is legitimately one of the biggest travesties that I think anybody that was born in the 1990's has ever witnessed. But regardless of that Occupy Wall Street and even further Occupy Everything have been trying to get the point across. Although misguided it is a step in the right direction for my lobbying topic.

Sadly enough even with this problem that had happened there are no new bills regarding government regulation and honestly I expected a lot of bills to come flying in after the revelation that "Inside Job" brought to the public but, I guess some people look at things like this as a part of life. Although "The Volcker Rule is pretty effective, I need a lot more regulation to truly feel safe and it still does not completely end the dangerous . I find it really difficult to create a bill that will satisfy both those who are outraged at big business and those small businesses who are angry at the cost of government regulations. Not a bill at all but I guess it could be done but it would take a brain trust with the creativity and ingenuity of F.D.R's to create this bill, but a start would be that is required of both financial advisors and a political advisors to agree on something before giving a 535 million dollar loan to a company. Or Something like that, I guess?




http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/12/our-government-doesnt-create-jobs-it-kills-them/
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aOOSejLq_BSM
http://m.spokesman.com/stories/2011/sep/29/solyndra-had-gop-backing/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/business/27gret.html
800px-Northern_Rock_Queue
800px-Northern_Rock_Queue

Lobbying Against Middle School Athletics Being Cut

​I am lobbying against the cutting of funds for middle school athletics in Philadelphia public high schools. The middle school athletics funding has been cut from $1.4 million  a year to a miniscule $400,000 a year. They are replacing interscholastic competition, and replacing with intramural competition. The only sports that will continue to have interscholastic competition are boy's football and girls' field hockey and lacrosse. 

I believe that youth that are in better shape lead a happier life, than teens that are overweight and obese. Currently, the biggest supporter is Michelle Obama, she is running her own "Move your Body Campaign" along with her pushing legislation on a bill that will make food in school cafeterias healthier. Locally, however an organization by name Sports Teaching and Reaching Students (otherwise known as STARS.) Opposing middle school athletics is the Philadelphia school district, it's not as though they hate it, they are cutting it because they think it less important than other 

Locally there is no pending legislation, however the bill proposed by Michelle Obama to improve school lunch's has been approved. I would like to see all middle schools have interscholastic sports and possibly intramural sports too. 


Lobbying for Same Sex Marriage

 

I am lobbying for a change in marital law in the city of Philadelphia. Same sex marriage is only legal in 6 states currently but Pennsylvania’s congressional representatives are not majorly in favor of making this legal in our state. Joe Sestak hopes to lobby for this as well and unseat Arlen Specter. My main motivation to lobby this topic is basically the fourteenth amendment. Although I’d be stretching the meaning slightly, I feel that disallowing same sex marriage is infringing upon the rights of American citizens. For gay couples one person might be the worker while one is the homemaker. In different sex couples this means the house person receives benefits from the other’s job. However, if same sex couples aren’t allowed to marry, the partner receives no benefits.

This isn’t protecting American citizens. Homosexuality isn’t a choice, just like race and gender aren’t choices. Why should homosexuals be treated differently because of something they cannot control? There was once a time that colored people were prosecuted but that was deemed unconstitutional. There was a time where women were treated unfairly but that as well was deemed unconstitutional. Why is this any different?

Currently there is almost 50% support in Pennsylvania for same sex marriage, which is 8 points higher from last year. Hopefully a change in representation will change perspective. 

Lobbying To Change Curfews in Philadelphia

medium_curfew
medium_curfew
I am lobbying to change the "Curfews" in Philadelphia that mayor Nutter has given. I know that there are many kids all around who don't support Mayor Nutter's opinion inn the curfews. I know that he did it for a good cause it's to avoid and try to protect teenagers from "Flash mobs." The issue that I want to change is the curfews rules. I think it would be better if Mayor Nutter had the ages vary and have the times vary based on age. Mayor Nutter has minors going inside at 9:00 on weekends. WHat if some kids have to work? What then? Not everybody agrees with the situation at hand. His main reason was because of "Flash Mobs" no? Was it a bad thing what he did? I say yes but it was for a good cause but several of the "flash mobs" have not been solved, this situation might have gotten worse.
I think that this change will be able to help elders witness and be able to see how much responsibility and leadership teenagers have. I am interested in this topic because there has been so much change in our generation and I think that one of the changes is the maturity rate in teens over the years. There is an article about a teen mom asking a question about how she knows if her teen is able to make their own decisions especially when it comes to curfews.
I believe that the main supporters are minors who must be inside their home at 9:00. There are teens who feel as if they don't get to express themselves they need a voice, they need someone to speak for them someone who is in support of them. The main opponent is Mayor Nutter because he is fully against minors being out past 9:00 on weekends. His view on it I believe is protectiveness but if he gave teenagers a bit more freedom teens will be able to show how responsible they are. It is also that fact that teens need freedom in order to develop although teens maturity rate levels vary depending on the teens.
I would love to here teens opinions. "Freedom of speech" they have the right to speak what is on their mind they have to opportunity to be heard. it seems as though teens aren't stepping up to plate and letting others hear them out.

News Article and Editorial

​Rick Kinard 10/11/11  Editorial-Creon takes over              

 New laws and rules were established as soon as Creon sat on the throne. One of his first rules was that Eteocles and his men were to be buried with full military honors. Those who die on the battle fight against him were to be left there, forbidding any anyone to bury them. If were anyone was caught trying to burying Polynieces or his allies, they would be stoned to death.  

The Thebian have always treated the dead with regard and respect, no matter how bad they were to them. So Creon’s orders seemed to go against the belief of many of the Thebes, and it seems to go against basic human. Talk went around that the gods would also be unhappy with these actions.  

The gods would be unhappy because it is a to refuse to bury the dead. Religion says that all life comes from the ground, and all of it must go back to the ground. When person dies, it is natural and proper for the soul move on one their body has been put to rest. If they are not put to rest their soul may be doomed to wander the earth.

The afterlife and rights of the dead are taken away by Creon’s orders. This is know among the Thebian people. They just sit is fear and do nothing to help the dead. They dear not do anything against Creon because he is the king how and hold all power over them.  

It is impossible be completely against the king because in the past this paper has been loyal to him but on the other hand it is hard to stand by and just accept his actions and not say a word. Creon has taken it upon himself to go against those who’s power and authority surpass his own the reason the people have been so fortunate, the gods. 


Todays New: A family divided

 

After the traitors of Thebes Polynieces and his allies were destroyed, Creon stepped into power. To bury and honor Etecoles, with full military rights and honors was half of his first command. The second was to leave his brother and his fallen comrades on the battlefield to rot. All the Thebian people were hesitant because of gods’ decree as to how the dead should be cared for but would surely support this decree. However, not all the people in Thebes accepted and carried out Creon’s order.

Soon after Creon mad his orders and will clear, the guards on watch at the gates of Thebes found the body of Polynieces with a thin layer of soil covering it. The culprit was at large. This enraged Creon so he threatening to charge the guard who made the discovery with treason. Eventually the truth came out, and with further under more investigating it was found that…

The sister of Polynices and Ismene, Antigone went one night with a child’s shovel and began to cover the body of Polynices with dirt and disobeyed King Creon.

Antigone tries to defend herself by explaining that it is her duty to bury him no matter what her relationship with him was. By burying him she will be allowing him into the underworld and therefore sending him home, to the dead. From the beginning Creon made it clear, anyone that who is caught trying to bury him will be sentenced to death. His plan was to make an example of whoever tried to bury Polynices, by killing them.  

Thebian Tells Weekly was told by the sister of Antigone Ismene, that Antigone told said that she would disagreed with Creon’s commands and she would bury her brother regardless of what Creon says or does to her.


Douglas vs. Ind. Living Center


An Article about this case from the New York Times can be found HERE.


Question:

Can Medicaid recipients sue a state for reducing the rates required by Medicaid?


Summary:

The state of California reduced rates of reimbursement from Medicaid to the recipients, which is a Federal-State law. But State law cannot trump Federal law because of the supremacy clause in Article 6 that basically states that Federal law is supreme.


Arguments:

California-

They are using Article 11 as a defense. Article 11 refers to a state's immunity against being sued by an individual.


Douglas-

The prosecution is using the Ex parte Young case in their argument. The case was about when Minnesota limited railroads charge, which violated the 14th amendment and was sued by shareholders of the railroad



Prediction:

I think the court will give the individuals the right to sue California because the Supreme Court will take into account the Federal Government before the State Government. 

Lobbying Bike Paths - Philadelphia

Philly-Bikers-490x225

Philadelphia has twice as many bicycle commuters than in any other city in the United States, which ranks it among the most bicycled city in the country. According to a census report of 2,100 population, Center City and South Philadelphia rank in the top 25 of the part of the city that uses bicycles as a form of transportation the most, in the country. However, Philadelphia lacks bike paths. Bikes are considered a vehicle. Vehicles are not permitted on sidewalks. There are not enough bike paths in different parts of the city to satisfy riders. They would be less likely to ride on the side walk if there were bike paths in the street. There are bike paths in the east and west direction on Spruce and Pine streets. " The rate of sidewalk riding on Spruce and Pine is eight times lower than on streets with no bike lanes." According to Research Director John Boyle. What about North and South? Or 10th and 13th streets? Having bike lanes on busy and important streets throughout the city is the key to make Philadelphia sheets safer for drivers, bikers and pedestrians.

I am extremely for the bike lanes because I have biked in the city. Biking through traffic is intimidating and scary especially since there are drivers who do not pay attention or are texting and not focusing on the task at hand. Therefore putting their lives and mine at risk. I would rather go around the world to get to the bike paths on Pine or Spruce than bike through the city with cars. Bicycles are considered vehicles. We all know bicycles do not go nearly as fast as cars, so although drivers should share the road, it is much more convenient for bikers to have their own paths and for drivers to have their own. EVERYONE'S HAPPY! The Bike Coalition of the greater Philadelphia area are constantly on a move towards improving the safety of bikers. Recently the City is even doing trials in order to test the feasibility of riders by removing a traffic lane on JFK and market. They are testing whether or not three lanes can handle the motor vehicle traffic, who are used to having four lanes. If the test is successful than they will permanently add physically separated bike lanes, which will be the first for Philadelphia.

Bikes lanes to be added to 10th and 13th streets
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/04/29/philadelphia-adding-bike-lanes-to-10th-and-13th-streets-in-center-city/

Pennsylvania Bike Laws

New Bills

MORE FACTS

Of the nation's 10 biggest cities, Philadelphia's bicycle mode share is twice as high as next-best Chicago.
Percent of commuters who bike to work: 2009- 2.16 %
Female cyclist % very high
Between 2000 and 2009, percent of workers who bike grew by 151 %

This rate is similar to what the Bicycle Coalition documented by counting bicyclists on the street during the morning and evening rush hours; between 2005 and 2010, the average number of bikes per hour counted grew 127 percent. Between 1990 and 2009, the number of bicyclists crossing the Schuylkill River grew by 361 percent

Bike lanes, and more bicyclists, lead to better behavior.
Sidewalk riding drops from 19.8% on streets with no bike lane to 8.6% on streets with a bike lane to 2.4% on streets with a buffered bike lane. The Bicycle Coalition's counts document that, between 2006 and 2010, while helmet use has risen, sidewalk riding and riding the wrong way have fallen at all counted locations.

Bicyclists like bike lanes, and they like buffered bike lanes even better.
The Bicycle Coalition's counts found streets with bike lanes had more cyclists than streets without them, and had more growth in bicyclists than streets without bike lanes.
google-bike-lanes

Private Election Funding - Lobbying Blog Post #1

A person can't watch TV without seeing an advertisement claiming that one election candidate, whether it be for mayor or maybe president, has does this and that and is worse than the other candidate because of that and this. Or, you can get those passionate and all-American support-my-campaign-and-vote-for-me ads, such as the recent commercial by Republic candidate Rick Perry. They air all the time, night and day, and are eye-catching. This takes serious money. You also can't forget about all the traveling and hand-shaking candidates do. Plus, who can forget about the countless speeches you hear that this person made in this state for this cause. It's everywhere, in all forms of media. Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with advertising. The candidates need to get their names and faces out there. Who will vote for someone they never saw before or know absolutely nothing about? Also, it's not like a candidate will openly admit all the contradictions and mistakes they have in his or her career. Nope, that's left up to the opponents to handle. But, what I do have a problem is where this money for all this comes from. 

Our government can say as much as they want that all money is fair game for any candidate to use in anyway they please, because that's true. This is where the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) comes into play. But this handy Act wasn't always as restricting as it is now in 2011. Before 1974, it was perfectly okay for corporations and groups to fund election campaigns, and most candidates took as much as they could, such as Richard M. Nixon. One of the most notorious presidents in American history, Nixon was funded $2.8 million by issuance executive W. Clement Stone during his re-election campaign. Of course, after the Watergate scandal, Congress needed to spring into action to help reform the trust and confidence of the public. What's one thing they choose to do? Reform private financing for election campaigns. 

So, much to some candidates disappointment I'm certain, the FECA was amended. Now, corporations, labor organizations, federal government contractors, and foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing to election campaigns. Also, in federal campaigns, a contributor may not make a contributions in another's name or place a donation of more than $100. For the rest of the contributors (individuals, national parties, political committees, etc) there are several contribution limits they have to follow. 

Alright, so what's my problem? Everything seems all hunky-dory now, right? Nope. The FECA still has its loopholes, the most important being soft money. While corporations and lobbyists can't make contributions to and individual candidate, they can put funds into the political party finances. The candidates then take the necessary funds from these finances. So, there is basically just a middle-man in the situation now, but the candidates will still get their money. But wait, political parties and candidates need to disclose where they get their contributions according to FECA. Well, of course they do - to the federal government. When was the last time you actually heard a candidate openly list all their sources of money in a speech? That would be ridiculous. Some voters may actually connect some dots along the money trail. 

So, while some people are completely open to their opinions and even have valid points about "stupid voters," but its the tricky politicians at work, too. This is why I propose we put a lock on donations. Why is it okay for Sarah Palin to ask donations from her supporters during a time of desperate economics times just so she can think about running for president? Seriously? Corporations need to get their little noses out of elections altogether. In the state our country is in, the last thing candidates need to be doing is spending millions of dollars to just bash their opponents on TV. It isn't' even fair since the people from the smaller political parties won't get the same kind of funding as the larger ones for the campaigns. No one will hear the little guy when the big guy is shouting at the top of his lungs. There is currently a Bill pending, Fair Elections Now Act. This basically calls for fair political funding to help gain public confidence in a time of government distress. It speaks of a government funding pool that will take away the power of big donors and better control private funding by putting more weight on public funding. So, who supports this Bill? Senator Dick Durbin and Rep. Walter Jones are all for it, saying that more time desperately needs to spent on fixing the issues than raising more money for advertisements. Common Cause is a group that is majorly pushing for the Bill to be passed. Of course, there are many candidates currently running for office such as Rick Perry that have no problem with private funding and corporations to help with their election campaigns to push along their career. So, the question is, what do the voters want to see?  

Lobbying for Stem Cell Research

Stem Cells have been being researched and studied since 1908, when Russian histologist Alexander Maksimov proposed stem cells for scientific use. Up until this day, there is much controversy surrounding stem cell research and it is a heated ethical debate. Although, there are many types of stem cells, including (but not limited too) ; amniotic, adult, and fetal. But, most of the controversy surrounds embryonic stem cells. Research on these specific stem cells is controversial because of the creation, using, and destruction of human embryos. 
Stem Cells

I'm lobbying for more funding and support towards embryonic stem cell research due to the medical breakthroughs that can come as a result of more research. I understand that there are some cons, but the pros definitely outweigh them. There is a plethora of diseases that stem cells can potentially fix including: 
"Parkinson’s Disease
Alzheimer’s Disease
Heart Diseases, Stroke and Diabetes (Type 1)
Birth Defects
Spinal Cord Injuries
Replace or Repair Damaged Organs" (http://bit.ly/2Bgbu9) 
Embryonic stem cell


Among many more solutions/cures. The biggest con to stem cell research however is that a human embryo must be destroyed to work with the most beneficial stem cell - the embryonic stem cell. However, this is being tackled in many different ways. There are some stem cell researches working around the controversy by discovering and creating techniques of isolating stem cells that are as beneficial as embryonic stem cells, but a human embryo doesn't have to be used or destroyed. Also, many parents can actually donate their unused embryos towards stem cell research after going through In vitro fertilisation (IVF). 

Now that the controversy has been resolved, why not support stem cell research 100%? I was interested in stem cell research and lobbying FOR it because I thought it was interesting that something so beneficial to the future of medical science was being kept mostly in the dark because of controversy and heated ethical debate. In my head, I knew there had to be some way to get around the controversy, and there actually is. Making the public aware of the cons and how they've BEEN addressed already is important - to get rid of controversy, in order for stem cell research to get the ball really rolling. 

One of the main supporters of stem cell research is actually Pennsylvanian Republican Arlene Specter. Along with Iowa Democrat, Tom Harkin. In 2009, these two offered a Senate bill that would allow federal funding for stem cell research using stem cells of human embryos "left over from fertility treatments". Pretty much, taking what was going to be wasted anyways, and using it for something good - for a potential medical breakthrough. 

There are also major opponents of stem cell research. One of the largest members of opposition for stem cell research was President George W. Bush during his terms as president. In 2001, Bush restricted gov't funding to certain stem cell lines and threatened to veto at any expansion. Bush has stated that he thinks it is immoral to "experiment on or destroy human embryos". 

Over the years however, things have changed for the better. President Obama has overturned Bush's stem cell policy and created his own, which is more in favor of funding for stem cell research. There is more federal funding provided to stem cell research now, with less restriction to the once banned - 60 cell lines. However, Obama has put in some guidelines to make sure that human cloning does not become a possibility. 

Overall, the pros outweigh the cons. There have been many ways to tackle the cons in an efficient way and I believe the continuation of stem cell research should last for as long as possible under the future policies. I would not like to see the federal funding cut as it was just recently opened under President Obama. Stem cells have the power to potential change so much of medical science, saving and curing thousands and thousands of people. All, stem cell research needs is full support and a constant supply of federal funding to make these medical breakthroughs of the future something even closer than we imagined.