Facebook
Home Government Page 2

Government

Deeply Divided: Supreme Court Hears Both Sides on Landmark Same-Sex Marriage Case

Deeply Divided: Supreme Court Hears Both Sides on Landmark Same-Sex Marriage Case

 

As supporters and protestors alike fervently debated the issue of same-sex marriage outside the United States Supreme Court building, justices inside were hesitant to extend a sweeping constitutional right for lesbians and gays to wed in all 50 states. 
IN the first of two days of hearings on the landmark cases, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is considered the decided vote on the split court, questioned whether the court should even be hearing the matter. 
 
“This was a deeply divided Court, and a court that appeared to be grabbing for an answer here,” reported CNN’s Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who attended the arguments over California’s Proposition 8, which prohibits same-sex marriage. Voters approved the Proposition 8 proposal by a margin of 52 to 48 percent in November of 2008, less than six months after the state’s Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a right that must be extended to gay couples. 
 
The fundamental legal question in the California case is whether the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection prevents individual state from defining marriage and instituting their marital laws. 
 
That said, it is also the question of whether the advocacy group appointed to defend the matter even possesses the legal standing to argue the case in court. 
 
Justice Anthony Kennedy raised concerns regarding whether the possibility of gay marriage was enough to establish a harmful effect on the gay community. Established the community as suffering harm is a key jurisdictional hurdle that allowed the gay community to appeal the matter in the first place. 
 
If the United States Supreme Court dismisses the appeal on the grounds that the activists do not have the standing to defend the matter in court it might uphold the lower federal court rulings, which declared the proposition as unconstitutional. 
 
Tuesday’s hearing was the first of back-to-back hearings on gay marriage laws. The Supreme Court will listen to arguments Wednesday on a separate challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, which similar to the California law, defines marriage as between one man and one woman. 
 
The Supreme Court is expected to announce its final ruling on the matter sometime in June. 
 
Attorneys representing the couples seeking to overturn Prop 8 said they could not tell how the court would rule. “We are confident where the nation is going with this, but we do not know for sure what the United States Supreme Court is going to do. That said, we are very grateful that they heard the case, they asked the hard question and there is no denying where the right is.”
 
 
Source: whitehouse.gov

And the Wait Begins: Arguments end in Second Same-Sex Marriage Case

And the Wait Begins: Arguments end in Second Same-Sex Marriage Case

 

A majority of Supreme Court justices posed questions in oral arguments today regarding the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, indicating the court may strike down a key part of the legislation that denies legally married gay couples the same benefits provided to straight couples. 
 
The court is expected to offer a ruling with three months on the constitutionality of the 1996 federal law that defines marriage for federal tax and benefit purposes as only between a man and a woman. 
 
Today’s arguments ended two days of presentations before the Supreme Court on one of the most landmark social issues of this generation—the right  married esbian and gay couples to receive the benefits of law provided to straight couples. 
 
Following the arguments, Edith Windsor, aged 83 stood on the steps of the courthouse and proclaimed something she kept secret for decades prior to her challenge against the Defense of Marriage Act. 
 
“I am a lesbian, okay, who just filed a lawsuit against the United States of America, which is overwhelming for me,” she proclaimed. She had just listened to two hours of arguments before the Supreme Court on whether or not she was required to pay higher estate taxes than someone in a heterosexual marriage. 
 
Windsor attempted to explain to the media why she and her deceased spouse, Thea Spyer married in the State of New York when the law was established decades after they first met. 
 
Marriage, Windsor said, is a “magic word, for anyone who does not understand why we want it and why we need it.”
 
Under the Federal Defense of Marriage act, pension, Social Security and bankruptcy benefits, along with other federal provisions, are not granted to lesbian and gay couples who are legally married in states that allow such unions. 
 
As a result of this federal law, Windsor was required to assume an estate tax bill that was much larger than what straight couples were required to pay. Moreover, because Windsor’s decades-long partner was a woman, the United States government did not recognize their same-sex marriage, even though their home state of New York did.  
The United States Supreme Court was divided among ideological lines during the arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. If legally married, lesbian and gay couples were denied more than 1,100 federal benefits. 
The potential swing judge, Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned the reach of the legislation, saying it represents a “grave risk of running into traditional state police powers to regulate marriage.”
 
This statement caused observers to speculate Kennedy joining the four liberal-leaning justices to create a majority against the Defense of Marriage Act. 
 
 
Source: Associated Press

Civil Rights Lawsuit Filed Against City of San Jacinto

Civil Rights Lawsuit Filed Against City of San Jacinto


On November 13, 2012, the Justice Department announced that it filed a civil rights lawsuit against the city of San Jacinto in California for violating the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act.  The lawsuit was filed for the city’s treatment of group homes for disabled persons.  


According to the complaint, the city has made it extremely difficult for group homes of people with disabilities to remain and operate in the city.  The zoning codes currently state groups homes that are not required licensing from the state—and even some licensed homes—are not allowed zoning in the city.  


The complaint also alleges that the city targeted housing for people with disabilities during a sweep in November of 2008.  During the sweep, armed officers and deputies in uniform showed up to multiple residences, interrogated the residents with disabilities, and made them fill out a questionnaire intended for people with mental disabilities.  


The lawsuit occurred after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) received a large number of complaints from operators of group homes around the city.  The Justice Department is asking the court to make the city stop enforcing the discriminatory laws and make reasonable accommodations for all group homes.  The Justice Department is also seeking monetary damages for victims of the civil rights violations.  


Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, stated, “No person should be denied an equal opportunity for housing in his or her community, or suffer harassment or intimidation, because he or she is a person with a disability.  The Justice Department is committed to preventing discriminatory treatment of people with disabilities.”


André Birotte, Jr., the U.S. Attorney for the Central district of California, stated, “This suit is part of my office’s continuing efforts, in partnership with DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, to ensure that all residents of the Central District are accorded the rights to which there are entitled under the law.”


Source: U.S. Department of Justice
 

U.S. Senate

U.S. Senate

A Look at the U.S. Senate


The U.S. government consists of three branches of government, the judicial branch, executive branch, and the legislative branch. The legislative branch is then further broken down into the Senate and the House of Representative, together being referred to as the Congress.
The Senate is made up of two Senators from each state, for a total of 100 Senators. The Vice President of the U.S. also serves as the President of the Senate and as the power to vote on a decision that is tied.
Each member must be at least 30 years old and a citizen of the U.S. for at least nine years, as well as a current resident of the state they wish to represent. A senator serves a six year term that can be renewed without limit if the state if voted for through a popular election as defined by the 17th Amendment.
These terms are staggered and thus elections for Senators occur every two years for approximately a third of the Senate. One major purpose of this is to prevent having elections for both seats of a state at once.
The powers of the Senate are very clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution. They are the only body that has the power to confirm any appointments made by the President that needs consent. The Senate also has the exclusive power to ratify treaties.
The only exception to the Senate’s powers is that any treaty involving foreign trade or appointments to the Vice President must be approved by the House of Representative as well. The Senate also has the exclusive power of declaring war
Any legislation that has reached the President for his signature has already been passed by majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. If a President chooses to veto a bill, it can still be passed as long as the Senate and House both pass it again with a two-thirds majority.
There are currently 17 different committees and 70 subcommittees within the Senate. These amounts are not definite and are subject to change with every new Congress. In order to pass a bill through the Senate, it is first introduced within a subcommittee and can then be accepted, rejected, or amended. After the subcommittee decides to move the bill forward, then then goes to the full committee and if approved again, moved to the Senate floor.
Once on the Senate floor, there is a debate process where members speak about the bill or introduce amendments. These methods are often used to filibuster or delay a bill. In order to break a filibuster, 60 members, or a supermajority is needed. After debate ends, a simple majority can pass a bill.

Federalism

Federalism

A Look at Federalism in the United States


In the United States, government is recognized on both the state and national level. This relationship between the levels is known as federalism. While federalism in the United States responds to the political atmosphere, there still a balance between state and national government. 
The first American governments after the revolutionary war did not use federalism. Prior to the U.S. Constitution, America was made up of colonies that were under the rule of England. While these colonies did cooperate with each other, particularly during the Revolutionary war, they were essentially self-sustained bodies of government.
The idea of combining these smaller divisions to centralize government as is found in federalism was heavily criticized. These colonies had fought against the oppression of England, which had a central government, similar to the national government suggested in the U.S. Constitution. However, soon after declaring independence, it was clear that individual states would not be able to sustain themselves without creating some form of a central government 
Federalism helped unify the states without destroying all of their governing powers. For example, a centralized government allows the states to use the same currency. However, states would still be able to set their own laws as well, for example, whether a death penalty would be used in the state.
The U.S. Constitution was drafted, which carefully defined just how federalism would be and the relationship between the state and national government. It also worked to limit the national government’s power while protecting the rights of citizens.
While the type of federalism in the United States has varied throughout American history, there are still certain powers that will always remain so by the authority of the U.S. Constitution.
• Reserved Powers: These are specifically for just the state, such as police powers, licensing, education, conducting elections, regulating intrastate commerce, and health regulations.
• Granted Powers: These powers, sometimes called the enumerated or express powers are listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. These consist of the powers that the federal government have. Some examples include regulating commerce, coining money, declaring war, establishing post offices, collecting taxes and making legislation that enforces the Constitution.
• Concurrent Powers: Powers that are held by both the state and federal government, for example taxation, setting up courts, creating and enforcing laws, constructing and maintaining roads, and certain spending.
While the powers of both the state and national governments are defined in the U.S. Constitution, there can be shifts to the balance in federalism.
For example, in the late 18th century, Americans were more concerned on strongly limiting the Federal government, but doing so made the Federal government effectively useless. It was necessary move away from the Federalist papers and to create a new government through the U.S. Constitution since states could not be expect to have objective and educated views on a national level.
The Federal government was given more power in the 19th century by Justice John Marshall who felt that the U.S. Constitution did not create defined layers of the government and portrayed this view in many of his rulings, such as how the Commerce Clause could be used by the Federal government as seen in Gibbons v. Ogden.
Justice Marshall’s attempt and strengthening the national government in federalism was slightly undone by Justice Taney, his successor who would felt that the national government was limited exclusively to the enumerated powers while the states would receive everything else.
Since the Regan administration up until the beginning of the 21st century, there was a push to return powers to the states from the Federal government, particularly through court decisions that evaluated the Federal government’s powers through gun possession, police powers, the Commerce clause, and agriculture.

Structure of the U.S. States

Structure of the U.S. States

The Structure of the U.S. States
 
The United States is made up of 50 federated states that share sovereignty with the federal government. Because of this, an individual can be a citizen of both the State and the Federal entity simultaneously. This comes from the United States Constitution, which gives power to the both the state and federal government.
The U.S. state’s power is specifically delegated by the constitution in the 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights which says that any power that is not given to the federal government or is then received by the States or to its people, as long is the power has not been specifically prohibited to the states.
Traditionally, the 10th amendment leaves certain things to be regulated by the U.S. states such as:
• Public health
• Public education
• Transportation
• Water supply
• Electrical grids
• Local law enforcement
• Roads
• Telecommunications
• Intrastate commerce
With certain amendments and interpretations of the Constitution, there has been an increasing trend of the federal government playing a stronger role.
U.S. states have the power to organize their governments however they see fit as long as it is constitutionally sound and it is a republic.  Most states have used a three-branch system that imitates that of the Federal government, with an executive, legislative, and a judiciary branch.
• The executive branch of a U.S. state is led by the governor, who is the chief executive. He leads the Cabinet of the State in states that have a plural executive and has the power to veto legislation.
• The legislative branch of a U.S. state is usually a bicameral legislature (the exception being Nebraska’s unicameral legislature). There is the state Senate, which is the upper house, and the lower house which can be the State Assembly, House of Delegates, or the House of Representatives.
• The organization of the judiciary branch can vary between U.S. states, but their purpose is to still protect an individual’s Constitutional rights through due process. Many states have different levels of courts, from trial level, to the first appellate, and the state Supreme Court. With the exception of Louisiana which uses civil or code law, all U.S. states use common law.
The U.S. started with just the original 13 and since then has expanded to 50 states. Article 4 Section 3 of the Constitution points out that while new states can be admitted into the Union by Congress, the new state cannot be made up from jurisdictions of other states, or the combination of multiple states, whether partially or fully, unless all involved state legislatures and Congress agree to it. However, most states have been incorporated after being a territory organized under Article 4 section 3’s Territorial Clause.

French Lawmakers Approve Same-Sex Marriage Bill

French Lawmakers Approve Same-Sex Marriage Bill


Same-sex marriage in France is now one step closer to legality, as lawmakers in the lower house of parliament approved a bill that extends the right to adopt and marry to same-sex couples.


The initiative secured approval in the National Assembly by a vote of 329 to 229 and 10 abstains. Before it can be placed into law, the bill must still go before the Senate; if passed, it would formally mark the most critical advancement for French gay rights advocates in more than 10 years.


France is not the only nation debating the polarizing issue of gay marriage, as UK lawmakers also took a big step last week toward legalizing the measure when they appropriated the second reading of a bill in the House of Commons.


While a significant number of Parliament members backed the legislation, which is backed by Prime Minister David Cameron, the push has prompted widespread controversy and rebellion within Cameron’s conservative party. The bill in the United Kingdom must go through several more stages before it can officially be made into a law. The Church of England, and other religious institutions, are among the organizations vehemently opposed to UK legislation.


Extending the right to adopt and marry to homosexual couples in France was one of President Hollande’s electoral pledges during his campaign efforts last year.


France’s National Assembly, which is dominated by Hollande’s Socialist Party, approved the most critical article of law with an overwhelming majority earlier this month. The left, which also controls the majority of the Senate, faces stiff opposition from social conservatives and the Roman Catholic Church as huge numbers routinely turn out for protest marches in the nation’s capital of Paris.
The archbishop of Paris, Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois, claims that offering marriage and adoption to same-sex couples would be viewed as a transformation of marriage that would impact everyone. The bishop went onto say that failing to recognize gender difference within the union of marriage would be a deceit that would damage the foundations of society and lead to widespread acts of discrimination.


That said, the legislation has secured wide backing from gay rights advocates, including from the French, gay, lesbian and transgender organization Inter-LGBT who claims that legislation would be a significant step forward for France in terms of equality of rights.


A law legalizing civil unions in France was passed in 1999 under a previous Socialist government. Known in the nation as PACS, the civil union agreement may be entered into by straight or homosexual couples and offers many but not all of the rights of a traditional marriage.
 

Texas Filibuster Kills Anti-Abortion Bill

Texas Filibuster Kills Anti-Abortion Bill

Austin, TX—A lone Texas legislator held an 11 hour solo filibuster on Tuesday night, in a successful attempt to stop the state from passing one of the nation's most restrictive anti-abortion laws.

According to Texas state law, the bill was required to pass by midnight on June 26 in order to go to Governor Rick Perry's office for a signature.  The new law would have required all abortion clinics to meet a series of onerous requirements, which pro-choice advocates in the state say would have made it difficult for any clinic in the state to remain open.  It would also have implemented a blanket ban on all abortions performed at more than 20 weeks' gestation.  Perry, an abortion opponent, was expected to sign the bill. 

Texas Senator Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, faced an uphill battle when it came to filibustering the bill.  While Americans may be more used to federal filibusters, which allow U.S. Senators to talk about nearly anything—even just to read the phone book—Texas has substantially stricter rules when it comes to the filibuster.

While Texas senators are allowed to have the floor to speak for an unlimited amount of time, they are subject to a “three strikes” policy.  If they go off-topic three times, they are required to sit down.  Unlike their counterparts in Washington, state senators in Texas are not allowed to eat or drink during the filibuster process.

After 11 hours, Davis had used her three strikes: two by discussing topics that the legislature decided were not relevant to the abortion bill, and once by having another legislator assist her in putting on a back brace.  According to the strict Texas filibuster rules, sitting down or leaning on the podium during a filibuster allows the filibuster to come to an end.

When Republicans issued the third strike to Davis, they were able to make a vote on whether to end her filibuster.  However, several of Davis's fellow Democrats assisted by asking questions relating to parliamentary procedure, making several motions that delayed the vote for an additional two hours.

By the time the bill was up for vote, midnight had nearly arrived.  During the course of the vote, spectators at the legislature began what has become known as the “people's filibuster,” vocally disrupting the legislators in order to gain a few crucial minutes.

While the legislature initially declared that the bill had passed, subsequent examination revealed that it had in fact been passed after the midnight deadline, rendering it dead.  While the victory caused an outpouring of support for Wendy Davis, the celebration was short-lived: Rick Perry has announced that he intends to hold an additional special session of the legislature in order to pass the abortion restrictions.

Texas Mayor Arrested for Stealing Money from Toyah

Texas Mayor Arrested for Stealing Money from Toyah


On November 30, 2012, the US Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas announced that Bartolo Sanchez, the mayor of Toyah, Texas, was arrested for fraud and identity theft charges.  He is suspected of stealing $300,000 from the city through fraudulent mileage reimbursement claims and personal expenditures while using the city’s funds.  


Toyah is located about 22 miles west of Pecos, Texas.  The city covers about 1.6 square miles and has a population of about 100.  According to court documents, Sanchez entered into a settlement agreement with Chesapeake Operating Inc without knowledge of the Toyah City Council.  The company gave Sanchez $228,132.54 for surface damages caused by Chesapeake vehicles, but Sanchez placed the money in a Toyah bank account he formed.  


Sanchez is also suspected of writing checks to himself from city accounts because he had signatory authority on all city bank accounts.  The checks were mainly written for false mileage reimbursement claims, but other checks had nothing to do with city business.


Sanchez forged a second signature required on all checks issued to himself.  


Sanchez is charged with one count of bank fraud, one count of wire fraud, and four counts of aggravated identity theft.  He faces up to 30 years in prison for bank fraud, up to 20 years in prison on the wire fraud charge, and a mandatory two years in prison for each aggravated identity theft charge.  


Sanchez is assumed innocent until proven guilty.  


The case was investigated by the FBI.  Assistant United States Attorney Austin Berry is prosecuting the case for the government.  


Sanchez’s charges and crimes were announced by United States Attorney Robert Pitman and FBI Special Agent in Charge Mark Morgan.  


Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Electoral System of Australia

Electoral System of Australia

 


Summary of Electoral System of Australia

Many regard the electoral system of Australia as one of the best voting systems in the entire world.  The voting system is often required under law, and preferential voting elects the candidate with the most votes, regardless of jurisdiction. 

Compulsory Voting

Voting for federal, state, and territory legislatures is required under Australia law.  Voting in municipalities is often required as well.  During the most recent federal election, about 95 percent of the population voted.  Only 5 percent of the population left a ballot blank or failed to properly fill out the ballot. 

If a citizen of Australia fails to vote, they are subject to a $20 fine.  Prosecution is allowable under Australian law, but prosecution does not usually occur. 

Preferential Voting

Preferential voting is used in federal, state parliament, and municipal elections throughout Australia.  The electoral system of Australia is also used in political party elections, trade unions, churches, company boards, volunteer organizations, and sports clubs.  There are two types of preferential voting used in Australia: ‘full’ preferential voting and ‘optional’ preferential voting. 

In full preferential voting, all of the number-one votes are counted for each candidate.  The election goes to the candidate with the majority of the vote (51%).  If none of the candidates have a majority, the candidate with the least votes is excluded right away.  The votes for the excluded candidate then go to the second preference of the voter as described on the ballots.  The process continues until a candidate has over half of the total votes. 

Full preferential voting is used for the federal House of Representatives and the following lower houses: Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory.  Optional preferential voting is used in the lower houses of New South Wales and Queensland. 

Determination of Parliamentary Seats in Australia

The majority of parliamentary seats are determined by proportional representation in Australia.  Proportional representation lets the party’s percentage of overall votes determine the number of seats—40% of the vote ensures 40% of the seats.  There are two variants used in Australia as well, which include the ‘Senate’ model and the Hare-Clark system. 

The Senate model makes it easier for a minor party and independent to win seats.  The system makes it hard for a major party to control the Senate and throughout the following upper houses: New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia. 

The Hare-Clark system lets party members fight for seats as often as compared to fighting for seats against an outside opponent.  This system lets minority governments operates more than compared with preferential voting.  This system is used for the Tasmanian House of Assembly and the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. 

Electoral System of Australia: The Breakdown

Commonwealth House of Representatives: preferential, full allocation

Commonwealth Senate: proportional representation, Senate model

New South Wales Legislative Assembly: preferential, optional allocation

New South Wales Legislative Council: proportional representation

Victoria Legislative Assembly: preferential, full allocation

Victoria Legislative Council: proportional representation, Senate model

Queensland Legislative Assembly: preferential, optional allocation

Western Australia Legislative Assembly: preferential voting, full allocation

Western Australia Legislative Council: proportional, Senate model

South Australia House of Assembly: preferential, full allocation

South Australia Legislative Council: proportional, Senate model

Tasmania House of Assembly: proportional, Hare-Clark model

Tasmania Legislative Council: preferential voting, partial allocation

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly: proportional, full allocation

Australian Capital Territory: proportional, Hare-Clark model

Source: https://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/electoral_system.html

 

123...7Page 2 of 7
Disclaimer: There is no confidential attorney-client relationship formed by using Laws.com website and information provided on this site is not legal advice. For legal advice, please contact your attorney. Attorneys listed on this website are not referred or endorsed by this website. By using Laws.com you agree to Laws.com Terms Of Use.
Facebook
©