Facebook
Home Government Page 2

Government

Throng of Hundreds of Thousands March in Puerto Rico against Gay Rights

Throng of Hundreds of Thousands March in Puerto Rico against Gay Rights

 

Roughly 200,000 religious Christians marched to voice their anti-gay sentiment in Puerto Rico on Monday afternoon. The march is considered the largest anti-gay demonstration in the commonwealth’s history.
 
Forming around San Juan’s Capitol building, hundreds of thousands religious Puerto Ricans halted traffic while defending the traditional heterosexual marriage concept. Traffic was halted for miles as the throng protested against the premise of granting gay couple’s legal rights. 
 
The mass demonstration, which took over three weeks to organize, attracted protested from all sects of the Christian religion who vehemently oppose same-sex marriage. And while many of these religious individuals simply rallied against the premise of same-sex marriage, a decent percentage were openly opposed to granting any rights to homosexual couples, including protections against violence. 
 
The protest comes in light of efforts by some Puerto Rican lawmakers who are seeking to pass an amendment to the nation’s Domestic Violence Act 54, which would provide protection rights for all couples, gay or straight. 
 
Puerto Rican Senator Luis Vega Ramos claims that the measure is essential because it provides justice and equal access to protection from intimidation, assault or domestic violence. However, in Puerto Rico, massive opposition to the movement could prevent homosexual couples from receiving any sort of protection against acts of violence.
 
The throng of protestors, who blasted gospel music and brandished large posters and signs, alleged that the proposed law would discriminate against the church. 
 
“We are worried that the legislation will discriminate against the church, and we are concerned that public education will be used to damage our children because it presents them with behaviors that their parents don’t support,” said Pastor Cesar Muniz, a spokesman for the nation’s religious group Puerto Rico for the Family. 
 
Monday’s protest marks the largest anti-gathering rally in the history of Puerto Rico. The rally deeply offended members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, as many LGBT members held small counters protests that, unfortunately, went unnoticed. 
 
A number of Puerto Rican legislators have expressed opposition to same-sex marriages while still fighting for violence protections for gay couples. The American commonwealth remains largely divided over the issue, especially among the religious communities. 
 
 

 

German Chancellor Gives-in to Conservatives on the Issue of Gay Rights

German Chancellor Gives-in to Conservatives on the Issue of Gay Rights

 

German chancellor Angela Merkel has decided not to endorse an expansion of gay rights, even as many members of her Christian Democratic party are willing to embrace change. 
 
The chancellor is under pressure to take a stand after the nation’s high court ruled that same-sex couples should be legally permitted to adopt their partner’s adopted children; prior to this ruling, same-sex couples could only adopt their partner’s biological children. The ruling provided to momentum to some in Merkel’s party to introduce new laws that would equalize tax rights for gay couples; however, social conservatives among the Christian Democratic Party halted such efforts. 
 
That said, key members of Merkel’s Christian Democratic Party are pondering a U-turn in policy with regard to policy on gay couples after the court ordered the government to grant them extensive adoption rights. 
 
The nation’s constitutional court rules that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt a child who is already adopted by their partner and that the current ban on gay adoption was unconstitutional because it debased the principle of equal treatment for all. 
Germany’s court gave the German government until July of 2014 to implement the ruling into law. “We will implement the constitutional court’s ruling into law, but at the same time, we will evaluate whether tax amendments are necessary,” said the leader of the party’s parliamentary group. 
 
Last December, the Christian Democratic Party issued a proposal to provide same-sex couples with the same tax perks as heterosexual couples after fervent debate. The apparent change of heart was criticized by the opposing Social Democrats, who accused the Christian Democratic Party of being forced by the court to embrace social change. 
 
The Christian Democratic Party has sought to bolster its urban appeal ahead of the election in September by giving more defined roles to ethnic minorities and women. 
Historically a staunch supporter of traditional family values, the Christian Democratic Party also faced pressure from within to lure homosexual voters; however, such an initiative seemed too ambitious for many at Congress last December. 
 
In Germany, homosexual couples can form civil partnerships but are not allowed to wed. Gay activists and opposition parties accuse Chancellor Merkel’s center-right government of avoiding the issue of gay rights. Civil partnerships in Germany do not provide the same tax privileges awarded to married couples. 
 

Michigan Court Delays Decision on Gay Marriage Ban

Michigan Court Delays Decision on Gay Marriage Ban

 

A federal judge decided on Thursday that he will wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on two landmark gay marriage cases before deciding on whether Michigan’s ban on gay marriage is constitutional. 
 
“I think we must wait,” said U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman in a hearing brought by two women who are requesting joint custody of their three children. “I choose not to make a decision until I know what the Supreme Court is going to do.” 
 
The delay disappointed Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer of Hazel Park who were involved in a custody case that prompted the hearing to question the gay marriage ban that Michigan voters approved in the 2004 election.
 
“We were hopeful that Judge Friedman would make a decision today, but it was cautious optimism,” DeBoer said. “We are still confident that he will rule in favor of us, and we will just have to wait until the end of June to see if that is what he is going to do.”
 
Rowse expressed shock when Friedman said the Supreme Court would not consider his opinion when deciding one of the country’s most widely debated social issues. “I believe his opinion would have carried significant weight,” said Rowse after the hearing. 
 
Friedman; however did acknowledge that the lawyers representing the women presented a “compelling case” in claiming they were denied equal protection rights. That said Friedman also stated that the state attorney’s office argued the law efficiently as they relied on precedents that could be upheld or overturned by the United States Supreme Court. 
 
Friedman expects to be ready to rule on the state law in late June. “Hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court will provide us with some direction, and I believe they will,” Friedman opined. 
 
The delay came after an hour of arguments from assistant attorney general, Joseph Potchen who represented the state and Carole Stanyar, who defended the women. Potchen began his statement by complimenting the couple on their parenting skills, but then shifted course by saying the women’s right were not violated based on the Constitution. “There is no right to marry someone of the same sex; it is our position that the public of Michigan should decide this issue, and not the federal court system,” Potchen stated. 
 
Potchen believes that social policy decisions such as same-sex marriage are more accepted if they come from the will of the general public rather than the courts. Staynar countered this claim by saying marriage is a fundamental right and cannot be infringed upon, even with a vote from the public. “Fundamental rights should not be subjected to popular votes,” she claimed. “This is the prominent civil rights issue of our generation; this is the last remaining group in American society that is denied equal protection under the law.”
 
Currently, 37 states in the U.S. have constitutional provisions or laws defining marriage as only taking place between one woman and one man. 
 
 
Source: Associated Press

Hillary Clinton Announces Her Support of Same Sex Marriage

China’s Government Looking to Fight Inequality

China’s Government Looking to Fight Inequality

 

Last month, a report issued by the China National Bureau of Statistics revealed that inequality in the nation is slowly narrowing. Although good news, public outrage concerning unearned privilege is still growing as China’s online public is growing furious over the parade of corrupt public officials partaking in the illegal procurement of properties. Gong Aiai, one of the latest officials in a long-line of corruption was a former bank official who was arrested this week on suspicion of procuring 41 homes in Beijing with improper identity papers. Ms. Aiai; however, appears to be an amateur when compared to Zhao Haibin, a former police chief, accused of owning 192 properties throughout the Guangdong province.

Given the obscene amount of corruption taking place in the nation as of late, this week marked an opportune time for China’s cabinet to pass a plan to fight inequality. The plan however, is broad in scope and thin in details.

Supported by the National Development and Reform Commission, the nation’s planning body, the plan points to 35 goals, including some direct remedies to combat inequality, such as increasing taxes on the rich and transferring said funds to the poor. The goals also encompass subtle measures, such as liberalizing the nation’s artificially low interest rates, which diverts income from savings to investment.

A number of governments throughout the world redistribute income after it is earned; however, China’s plan aims to intervene far earlier in the process. China wants a higher proportion of income to be a pain on wages as oppose to profits. To this end, the minimum wage will increase by at least 40% by 2015. Moreover, the plan demands more respect for fairer compensation when land owners sell their properties.

Many of these initiatives keep with existing trends as the nation has increased spending on social security, education, health care and public housing from 30% to 36%. These percentages should continue to rise over the next three years according to the initiative.

The plan shows the government is aware of the nation’s disturbing divisions; however, execution and respect for the imposed regulations remain a question.

Officials close to the government expressed doubts concerning the practicalities of expanding pilot property taxes on luxury homes and other measures that would distribute income. Corrupt officials in the nation’s government holding scores of potentially taxable properties will invariably hope that such delay and doubt continues.

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

U.S. Treasury

U.S. Treasury

The Basics about the U.S. Treasury
The United U.S. Department of the Treasury, or just the U.S. Treasury, is an executive agency that acts as the federal government’s treasury. 
While many of the functions of the U.S. Treasury were being carried out even before the Declaration of Independence was signed, it was officially established in 1789 by the First Session of Congress.
Purpose of the U.S. Treasury
The U.S. Treasury works to maintain a strong economy and promote conditions that allow for stability and growth, while protecting the integrity of the financial system and effectively managing the government’s resources.
The Department works alongside other agencies within the federal government, with foreign governments, and financial institutions across the world to manage economic growth throughout the world.
Some of the responsibilities of the U.S. treasury include mainlining systems within the country’s financial infrastructure, advising the President concerning on issues related to finance or the economy, revenue collection, borrowing funds to run the federal government, and implementing economic sanctions against possible foreign or national security threats to the U.S. government.

Some other tasks of the U.S. Treasury include the following:
• Overseeing coinage and currency production
• Collecting taxes paid to the U.S.
• Supervising national banks
• Investigating and prosecuting those forgers and tax evaders
• Enforcing tax laws and Federal finance laws
• Advising on policies related to domestic and international finance
Organization
The U.S. Treasury is headed by the Secretary of the Treasury.  This position is fifth in line in the U.S. presidential line of succession. Furthermore, the Secretary is traditionally a member of the President’s Cabinet, and after the Clinton administration, a member of the U.S. National Security Council.
The Secretary of the U.S. Treasury manages the U.S. Emergency Economic Stabilization fund and also signs Federal Reserve notes that later go on to become legal tender. As of January 2009, Timothy Geithner has been acting as the Secretary of the Treasury.
After the Secretary of the Treasury, the next positions highest positions are the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, followed by the Treasurer of the United States and the Chief of Staff to the Secretary of the Treasury. These positions are currently held by Neal S. Wolin, Rosie Rios, and Mark A. Patterson, respectively.
The U.S. Treasury is organized into two major sections: the Departmental offices along with the operating bureaus. The Departmental Offices are mainly responsible for creating policy and managing the entire department. The operating bureaus execute specific operations given to the department. 
Beyond the major sections, the U.S. Treasury is further divided into divisions which are headed by the Assistant Secretaries. These offices include:
• Domestic Finance
• General Council
• Economic Policy
• International Affairs
• Management
• Tax Policies
• Legislative affairs
• Public Affairs
• Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
• Treasurer of the United States

What Are Government Programs

What Are Government Programs

What are Government Programs?
Within the legal realm of Government Programs, any laws, acts, ordinances, any and all legislation latent within interaction(s) in which the Federal Government of the United States undergoes with regard to its citizens may fall within the scope of Administrative Law and Federal Law. Government Programs are offered in a variety of forms, which typically provide assistance and relief to individuals in need; the nature of being in the state of ‘need’ can vary depending on the expressed details of a given situation – Government Programs can include insurance, financial assistance, housing assistance, and additional compensatory measures.

The Federal Process of Government Programs
Due to the fact that the United States government exists as a conglomeration of three primary branches, the legal process of establishment – and subsequent regulation – of Government Programs is required to adhere to a multilayered procedure adhering to any or all expressed legality; this process takes place as follows with regard to the 3 primary branches of the Federal Government – the Executive, Legislative Branch, and Judicial Branch(s):
Executive Branch
Comprised of the President of the United States, the Cabinet, and Presidential staff and advisors
Responsible for the approval process, as well as the proposal of prospective legislation
Falls under the jurisdiction of Federal Law and Administrative Law
Legislative Branch
Comprised of the United States Congress; the Senate and the House of Representatives
Responsible for the approval process, as well as the proposal for legislation
Falls under the jurisdiction of Administrative Law 
Judicial Branch
Comprised of the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice
Responsible for undertaking, protecting, and upholding legal judicial review with regard to American legislation
Falls under the jurisdiction of Federal Law
Types of Government Programs
The following are some examples of various Government Programs:
Government Program: Workers’ Compensation
Workers’ Compensation is a form of financial restitution that is awarded to an individual who is employed by a company or business subsequent to an injury sustained on company property while performing in a task related to their respective employment; the acceptance of Workers’ Compensation prohibits and individual from partaking in any additional legal recourse filed against the employer in question – such as additional lawsuits and claims
Legal jurisdiction: Employment Law, Labor Law, Administrative Law, Business Law, Business and Finance Law, Commercial Law, Personal Injury
Crimes associated with this program: Workers’ Compensation Fraud

Government Program: Unemployment Insurance
This Government Program allows individuals who have been ‘laid-off’ or wrongfully-terminated from their respective place of employment access to government-provided compensatory means; Unemployment insurance is typically calculated in accordance with past income
Legal jurisdiction: Employment Law, Administrative Law, Business Law, Business and Finance Law, Commercial Law
Crimes associated with this program: Unemployment Fraud

Government Program: Welfare
This Government Program allows individuals are in the midst of enduring financial hardship or insolvency the ability to receive government funding in the form of monies and residence; welfare payments are calculated as per the presumed need of the individual recipient
Legal jurisdiction: Administrative Law, Property Law
Crimes associated with this program: Welfare Fraud

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.

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
©