Thursday, October 31, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Week 2 EOC: Supreme Court
My views on abortion are that if somebody is pregnant and
doesn’t want to give birth, they should be allowed to have an abortion. I don’t
understand why people think it should be illegal, and there are cases where
people threaten, or even kill doctors that do abortions. I believe that nobody
should be allowed to tell someone else what to do with their child. I would say
if I was against abortion, I would think that there are some reasons to let
someone get an abortion, one example being if they were raped, but really its
none of my business what someone else should do with their child, whatever they
want to do is their choice.
People who support a federal ban on abortion
believe that the federal government has a moral responsibility to protect
fetuses and embryos, and that there is no constitutional right to abortion.
Most supporters of a federal abortion ban would allow exceptions in cases of
rape, incest, or to protect the life of the woman.
I’m glad that some people who are prolife can have
exceptions for why someone should be allowed to have abortians, but I don’t get
the people that say that people have no constitutional right to abortion, we
don’ have any constitutional right to breath but we do that too, or is
everything we do supposed to be in the constitution, it doesn’t make any sense.
Most Americans, and most members of the U.S.
Supreme Court, believe that there is a constitutional right to abortion. Under
this view, most definitively articulated in the Supreme Court's majority ruling
in Roe v. Wade (1973), abortion must remain legal in
every state. State laws that ban abortion, or pose an undue burden on women
seeking abortions, are unconstitutional under this standard.
Though this is pro choice and I am pro choice myself, I
still don’t understand why people think that it’s a constitutional right to
have an abortion, in my opinion, it’s a right as a human being to have an
abortion.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Week 4 EOC: Copyrights
Copyright is a form of protection grounded in
the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed
in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and
unpublished works.
Copyright is a form of intellectual property law that
protects works of authorship and artistic works, however does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation,
although in se ways it ca protect the way they are expressed. Patents are
different because they protect inventions and discoveries, copyright only
protects intellectual property. Trademarks are different because they protects
words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifies them from one party and
distinguishes them from others.
Your work is under copyright protection the
moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either
directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
You don’t have to register for a copyright, but you do have
to register if you want to bring a lawsuit for an infringement of U.S. work.
Some reasons it is recommended to register is that many people prefer to do
this so they have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a
certificate of registration, and registered works may be eligible for statutory
damages and attorney’s fees in successful litigation. The last reason is if
registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law, Prima
facie is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial
observation. In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two
things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support
the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima
facie evidence).
Your Copyright is good in other countries but it is not good
in all countries, most countries honor citizen’s copyrights but some countries
like Afganistan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq and many more don’t.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Week 3 EOC: Erin Brockavich
Erin Brockavich got into a case with PG&E for polluted
water that caused multiple families to get sick. The first settlement PG&E
wanted was $200,00, but after they had refused to accept it and found more
evidence of how PG&E was responsible for the polluted water, the next
settlement was $20,000,000, and by the end of the case, 643 hinkley residents
had hired Masry & Vititoe to sue
PG&E, and the final settlement came out to $333 million dollars, which
became the biggest direct-action lawsuit in U.S history. I have mixed feelings
about this because Erin Brockavich got over $2,000,000 from this and I think
that is way to expensive, but then again I’m not an expert when it comes to law
so I don’t really have that much to say about it, the victims of the case got a
little over $300,000 from it, I’m not really sure if that would be enough
because of how long the water had been bad but then again, if Erin had never
done anything to begin with, they probably wouldn’t have seen any justice in
the case at all, and since the lawyers get paid part of what the clients are
paid, then it is worth it and since there was almost 700 people involved in the
case and their was probably a lot more that were harmed that didn’t come
forward, then it must have been pretty hard to divide the money up anyway. I
also don’t get why they finished on a settlement instead of taking it to court,
I get the company was trying to make a settlement so they wouldn’t lose a lot
of money, but they were also trying to go on a settlement so the news of the
case wouldn’t go out to the world, and even on a settlement they broke a record
for biggest direct action lawsuit in U.S history, so its not like they were
going to keep much of it a secret.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)