Final

I believe that what the class went through during these past eleven weeks was quite close, maybe even exactly to the description of the class is. Everything listed for the course was presented in class in an organized way the entire class knew what was coming and there were not any surprises. As for the course competencies, most of those sound like end of class (EOC) blog postings and I don’t think it was coincidence.
When I would read the book to study for an upcoming test I found the book easily understandable. Having the vocabulary words on the side of the text was a great way to find words I was looking for. The text itself was easy to read and got straight to the point for the meaning of what the section was coming across. There were a few confusing sections in the book but it was cleared up in class later that week, so I had the chance to understand everything that was presented in the book.
For the movies we watched in class they were all involved with either what we have discussed in a previous class or what we will be covering in class. Even if I didn’t know the movie we were watching had little to do with our lesson of the day. Every class should have to show movies because everyone likes movies.
My personal evaluation of the class is this is a great class. It was taught in a very well organized way. Lessons were planned out a week or even a few weeks ahead. For once a teacher kept up with the grades so I could know where I was at anytime I wanted to check, Thank you. The teacher kept the class awake and alive for the most part but I think the three hour rush helped a little too the class felt jumpy and alive.
I truly believe I deserve an A for this class. I was here for every class, completed and turned in all of the BOC and EOCs of the class when they were due and I was professional or at least my version of professional. As for my three midterms I averaged about an eighty four and for my final I am certain I will get an A. That’s why I deserve an A and besides I had a good time being in the class.

Dissent

Dissent
The dissenters were Justices White, Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens came to these conclusions of the case. The first question presented to us in this case is whether non obscene nude dancing performed as entertainment is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. For guidance, the plurality turns to United States v. O'Brien, which held that expressive conduct could be narrowly regulated or forbidden in pursuit of an important or substantial governmental interest that is unrelated to the content of the expression. The plurality finds that the Indiana statute satisfies the O'Brien test in all respects. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/barnes.html The dissenters also believe that both the majority and Justice Scalia in his opinion concurring in the judgment overlook a fundamental and critical aspect of the case upholding the States’ exercise of their police power. None of the cases they rely upon, including O'Brien and Bowers v. Hardwick, involved anything less than truly general proscriptions on individual conduct. In O'Brien, for example, individuals were prohibited from destroying their draft cards at any time and in any place, even in completely private places such as the home. By contrast, in this case Indiana does not suggest that its statute applies to, or could be applied to, nudity wherever it occurs, including the home. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/barnes.html

My argument

My Argument

I agree with what the court decision that the state law’s purpose is not to interfere with how the establishments are ran but the state law is a general law that covers that there shall be no nudity or obscenity of any sort in public. I agree mainly with Justice Scalia because he points out the specifics of the Indiana statue in his opinion and how it doesn’t relate to offending the first amendment rights. He states that a law is "general" for the present purposes if it regulates conduct without regard to whether that conduct is expressive. Concededly, Indiana bans nudity in public places, but not within the privacy of the home. http://ussupremecourtcases.us/USSC/Vol_1991/1991_Barnes_v_Glen_Theatre_Inc_501_US_560.htm
Since the law is presented for the general public it cannot possibly be restricting the establishments from their right of free expression the law is only enforcing what has already been imposed in the state.

Rule of law

Rule of law
The main past references used to decide the case were United States v O’Brien, Glen Theatre Inc. v Pearson, “time, place, or manner” Ward v Rock against Racism, and Dallas v Stanglin.
In the case of United States v O’Brien this case was referred because of its four part test though in this case of Glen theatre v Indiana it had failed the third part of the test which was a test for whether the situation was violating the constitution right of expression from what I understand from going over all the courts references. The O’Brien case was also used as a reason for why everything we do can be look on as expression so where do they draw the line. Glen Theatre Inc v Pearson was a previous case which involved the same issues of nude dancing. Ward v Rock against Racism was saying that there is a time, place, and manner in which certain things should be done. In Dallas v Stanglin it states, "It is possible to find some kernel of expression in almost every activity a person undertakes - for example, walking down the street or meeting one's friends at a shopping mall - but such a kernel is not sufficient to bring the activity within the protection of the First Amendment. We think the activity of these dance-hall patrons coming together to engage in recreational dancing - is not protected by the First Amendment."
http://ussupremecourtcases.us/USSC/Vol_1991/1991_Barnes_v_Glen_Theatre_Inc_501_US_560.htm
These previous cases are what brought the majority justices to make their decisions.

Reasoning of the Court

Reasoning of the Court
The reasoning of the court or of the majority came to their conclusions of why the Indiana statue should continue to stay in its place. Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Kennedy together came to the same opinions for the reasoning of their decisions. For Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justices O’Connor and Kennedy their reasoning for the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, deciding that previous litigation with respect to the statute in the Supreme Court of Indiana and this Court precluded the possibility of such a challenge, and remanded to the District Court in order for the plaintiffs to pursue their claim that the statute violated the First Amendment as applied to their dancing. Glen Theatre, Inc. v. Pearson, 802 F.2d 287, 288-290 (1986). On remand, the District Court concluded that [501 U.S. 560, 565] "the type of dancing these plaintiffs wish to perform is not expressive activity protected by the Constitution of the United States," and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. http://ussupremecourtcases.us/USSC/Vol_1991/1991_Barnes_v_Glen_Theatre_Inc_501_US_560.htm p3 While Justices Scalia and Souter came up with concluding opinions of for themselves. Justice Scalia reasoning was in his view that the Indiana statue is not directed towards the establishments dancing he states. In my view, the challenged regulation must be upheld, not because it survives some lower level of First-Amendment scrutiny, but because, as a general law regulating conduct and not specifically directed at expression, it is not subject to First-Amendment scrutiny at all. Almost the entire domain of Indiana's statute is unrelated to expression, unless we view nude beaches topless hot dog vendors as speech." The intent to convey a "message of eroticism" (or any other message) is not a necessary element of the statutory offense of public indecency; nor does one commit that statutory offense by conveying the most explicit "message of eroticism," so long as he does not commit any of the four specified acts in the process. http://ussupremecourtcases.us/USSC/Vol_1991/1991_Barnes_v_Glen_Theatre_Inc_501_US_560.htm p8 As for Justice Souter his conclusion was also different his opinion for the statue was that not all dancing is protected by expression in the first amendment. He states, This Court has previously categorized ballroom dancing as beyond the Amendment's protection, Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19, 24 -25 (1989), and dancing as aerobic exercise would likewise be outside the First Amendment's concern. But dancing as a performance directed to an actual or hypothetical audience gives expression at least to generalized emotion or feeling, and where the dancer is nude or nearly so, the feeling expressed, in the absence of some contrary clue, is eroticism, carrying an endorsement of erotic experience. Such is the expressive content of the dances described in the record. Although such performance dancing is inherently expressive, nudity per se is not. http://ussupremecourtcases.us/USSC/Vol_1991/1991_Barnes_v_Glen_Theatre_Inc_501_US_560.htm p13.

Decision of the Court

Decision of the Court
The final decision of the court came to be five to four with the majority deciding to uphold the Indiana statue of indecent exposure. The majority justices were Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O’Connor, Justice Kennedy, Justice Scalia, and Justice Souter whom came to this conclusion. Thus, the public indecency statute furthers a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality. This interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression. Some may view restricting nudity on moral grounds as necessarily related to expression. We disagree. It can be argued, of course, that almost limitless types of conduct -- including appearing in the nude in public -- are "expressive," and in one sense of the word this is true. People who go about in the nude in public may be expressing something about themselves by so doing. But the court rejected this expansive notion of "expressive conduct" in O'Brien, saying: "We cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled 'speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea." http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/barnes.html The ones against the majority were Justice White, Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens. The dissenters pointed out that far from being merely a restriction on “time, place, or manner,” the Indiana la was intended to prevent customers in establishments such as Glen Theatre form being exposed to the sensuality and eroticism that were the essence of the dancers’ expression. http://law.jrank.org/pages/12825/Barnes-v-Glen-Theatre-Inc.html

Selling of fake products is bad but there is no stopping it. Especially on some outrageous brands that sell original items for thousands of dollars so the people who can make the products do it because it can make them easy money and there will easily is plenty of business. So many people will know what they are buying is fake but it is a look alike they will get the same kind of glory or fame as they might get from having the real one.
Moving on up to global and how huge these factories and head honchos can go with what they know what to do. It absolutely corrupts everyone it touches once you are in you are stuck there and all you want to do is buy more because it is convenient. Big players get involved such as senators, presidents, governors, and such because they see the money and they want in and they have the sources to help improve these factories do better, that is why they want the big players to join they for the protection.
I though the movie was good I have never really seen people walk through markets and get picked to go shopping in a black market. I am sure it happens very often and there are probably people who shop at black markets or these cheaper markets rather than even looking in the direction of the original provider. How they have to get rid of money I don’t see how it is dirty money yes it is a dirty business but who is going to know where you got your money or why you pay everything in cash. I think it is a easy business to make a profit in that’s why so many people get involved.

Issues of the Case

Issue of the Case
Glen Theatre, Inc. and The Kitty Kat Lounge Inc. want their dancers to be able to perform totally nude but the state of Indiana’s state public indecency law prohibits any public nudity. The Indiana’s public indecency statute states: a person who knowingly or intentionally, in a public place engages in sexual intercourse, engages in deviate sexual conduct, appears in a state of nudity, or fondles the genitals of himself or another person, commits public indecency. http://law.jrank.org/pages/12825/Barnes-v-Glen-Theatre-Inc.html The law requires that the dancers of The Kitty Kat lounge and of Glen theatres Inc. wear at least pasties and g-strings. The word nudity means by the court, the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple, or the showing of the covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. http://ussupremecourtcases.us/USSC/Vol_1991/1991_Barnes_v_Glen_Theatre_Inc_501_US_560.htm

The Facts

The Facts
Two Indiana adult entertainment establishments want to present full nudity of their dancers for entertainment and brought suit to the District Court because of the Indiana state public indecency law. The state Indecency law requires for dancers to wear pasties and a G-string. The Kitty Kat Lounge which provides go go dancers is one of the establishments and the other is Glen Theatres which provides adult movies, books, and female dancers to entertain guests through glass windows. “They claim that the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression prevents the State of Indiana from enforcing its public indecency law to prevent this form of dancing.” http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0501_0560_ZO.html

Case Progress

My case progress is going well I think I just have not started. I have done a couple of hours of research all online I would know if they would have published books on Supreme Court cases maybe some of the more famous cases. I have many links to choose from and at least half of them should be reliable and half of those I will actually use. I still need to do more research but I believe I will have a great start on this final even though I haven’t started the first part and it is now past due I still have a great feeling that I am going to do just fine.
What I plan on doing with the fifteen hundred word essay I think it would be best to have it broken up into the seven parts and each part having roughly about two hundred words and one of the seven parts will be about three hundred words. Two hundred words does not seem like much to cover each section especially when it is filled with two or three quotes that could take up half of the paragraph. I have a lot planned for the project and I won’t fall behind for sure and catch up shouldn’t be too hard though it probably will not be in today but tomorrow it will most likely be posted.

rights of landlord

My rights as a property owner I believe are basically if my tenant pays and keeps the noise down for respect of the other residents and does cause damage to the room then I am fine I don’t bother him until the rent is due. If anything the tenant does offends me or distrupts the other residents then I take steps to search out the problem and attempt to fix it, if I can’t fix the problem and it continues then next step for me is to bring in the authorizes, and if they can’t do anything to help me then I talk to a lawyer about this problem and also with the police officer and any questions about laws that might stop me from kicking out this rude tenant. Then kick this guy or residents out of the house and say good ridence to them. It really should be that simple as the owner doesn’t like someone they should have the right to not allow them to stay in their home it is their property. If he will absolutely not leave then I will take the residedents to court and file as many charges against the residents and hope most hit them hard. If it turns out that I had done something wrong and broke some of the residents then whatever get up, dust off your pants and try again.
I do not know the rights that the owner would have on his house but it would be smart of him to have a general idea of these rules for what he can and cannot do. The owner should really be careful of scandals that might destroy his business or cause him to go crazy. The owner I believe should have strong rights as to what can go on throughout his home so he can settle disputes.

3's about me

3’s about me
Three Names I have been called: Robin, Robby, Superman
Three Jobs I have had in my life (include unpaid if you have to): maid, cashier, big brother
Three Places I Have Lived: Harlingen, Texas; las vegas, florida
Three TV Shows that I watch: Big Bang Theory, Naruto, Spongebob Squarpants
Three places I have been: six flags, Disney World, Universal Studios
People that e-mail me regularly: Ailv, Dictionary, Borders
Three of my favorite foods: Lasagna, Sloppy Joes, Pizza
Three cars I have driven: Taurus, Mustang, Station wagon
Three things I am looking forward to: Study abroad this fall, end of Political issues class, tonight’s free food.

Greed is Good EOC

Greed is Good

We cannot deny that greed is good. It brings competition throughout business. Being the consumer we are greedy in the way of looking for a compromise between cheaper prices but also looking for a great quality for the price. Americans are lucky we get dozens of choices to choose from, though we may be looking for one item like shampoo we get to choose from the Walmart that might be a few blocks away, or a Target, and more smaller stores I pretty sure you can think of. Thanks for those greedy business men they want our money so badly in order to compete with the other dozen stores which might be placed in the same plaza they must lower prices, deal with great customer service and other nonsense that make us, the consumer, happy. Yay us!

The great down fall for those small businesses that try to make a name for themself have to compete with the greats. Meaning it’s not that they do not try hard enough but it could be that the new small businesses have no chance of competing with the big leaguers. When the big leaguers start to slide what are they to do but cut their expenses somewhere and most will take it from their work force or benefits that they might have but is that fair. I would say it is fair I rather have some benefits cut then my job lost or other employees getting laid off because wants to keep some of us safe but it has always be up to management to solve the problem so how each company works it is their business.

I know nothing of wall street or stocks all I know is buy when they are cheap, keep when your down, sell when there is profit to be made.

I agree with what the court had ruled. A student was at a school event and he made a banner to show. I do not know how else this banner could have been interpreted any other way other than promoting drug use. The boy, Friedrich, banner clearly stated “Bong Hits for Jesus”. Bong hits clearly displays the use of drugs and the use of drugs for any cause whether good or bad still requires the use of drugs, which is against law. I don’t know why the boy would even bring it up at a school function and what point he was trying to get across as the meaning of his banner.

The argument between the teacher, Morse, and the boy, Friedrich, was Friedrich felt that his 1st amendment right was abused because Morse had confiscated his banner from him and was not able to express himself following the event he was also suspended for displaying the banner at a school campus.

What I do not get is the only point having Friedrich’s constitutional right violated and let off the hook was that he was at a school event. Since he was at a school event with teachers supervising the teachers were allowed to confiscate his banner and restrict him from speaking because he may have been promoting but if he had been anywhere else it would have been perfectly fine for him to do what he did.

All I have to say is why do people always think they have a right to do whatever they want or a right to do get away with anything they do. We were all given a brain and a mouth that shuts why don’t we try to think a little more and talk a little less.

crimes and torts

Bribery- CrimeIllegal Gambling- CrimeIllegally tampering with evidence- CrimeFake contract- TortVandalism- TortPurgery- CrimeSexual harassment- TortUnder aged driving- CrimeNo seatbelts- CrimeVehicles not registered- CrimeAssault- TortUnlicensed driving- CrimePossession of firearms- CrimeSpeeding- CrimeReckless driving- CrimeReefer- CrimeEvading arrest-CrimeLittering- Crime

TEAM: Robin, Alex, Christine, Art

comments to others

Comments
To: http://websitedivisions.blogspot.com/
True that laws are meant to protect and the reason i mainly think that the reason americans turn so badly against gun laws whether to restrict or allow is because we are americans and we like to stretch our right to talk and come up with any reason to argue just for argueing. Americans really do not like change. We are a sue happy country some people really do not care what happens to others. The thing about Switzerland is the gun tolerance there is part of their culture just like in Amsterdam and their young drinking age and its americans who cause the most troubles in other countries.You made your point clear at the top of the page how our system is corrupt but I lose you throughout the rest of the paper of your reasons why it is corrupted. I think it is becuase you have to many examples and your examples aren't proving your point.
To: http://trindaddy.blogspot.com/
I don't think we would need a new branch of government because just forming that would go against the constitution. It would probably take years just to form this um I don't even know what to call this law checking group. Who would be brought into this group and would they have to be elected into office. Besides that I believe it is the judicial branch purpose is to enforce the law and maybe they should make their own division and refine and interpret these laws.

I do agree that the law is a great thing and most make sense and are for the good and few are just plain dumb your blog is well written and your view is easily readable.

What I think about the law

I think the law is a mandatory thing to make a society to be known as civilized. What is the law but men coming up with reasons to keep control of the masses and keep them from revolt or doing anything stupid such as murders and starting fires. If we didn’t have police officers would it still only be the ‘bad people” stealing or people knocking off other people every time someone pissed them off or was just having a bad day. Another point would be there would still be an alpha male either controlling by fear or by respect. Wouldn’t you prefer to have chosen someone who can take the lead of the group or by the only person who has the gun or higher power and he takes the lead because no one is willing to stand up?

How laws can be passed can be really difficult, I believe it is too difficult. The law, government and congress are all difficult subjects to deal with or amend. With America we like a majority rule, well I think that’s a great idea but it should be a high majority at least forty percent of the civilization if there are more than two candidates to take the leadership. Same thing goes for passing bills but it’s more like seventy percent of the voters which is incredibly difficult because there are always two side of every story. Now at times the law or government can seem very dumb or the interpretation of a law is nothing close to what I or you might interpret.

I still strongly believe that the law can stimulate people with fear of consequence and that we actually need laws because one will always affect us and that’s gravity. Since we live in nature and nature has her laws of her own it makes sense for us to have our own. The law helps and everyone should be able to see that. If you can’t sorry you still have to live with and you’re only going to make your life feel worst.

What I think about Lawyers

The thing about lawyers is they have a possibility to gain a huge income from one client because of the average cost for a lawyer. A forty percent fee on average I just have to say “unbelievable” but what do they do to deserve such an income. Lawyers understand the law and defend their client my main question is what do lawyers go through to win a case to earn such a large gross pay.

I personally think they don’t work hard at all, if any work that needs to be done would be pushed on some of their lackeys who do not present well in court. What research do they go through, how many hours spent, is any sleep lost, do they feel stressed during these times, who else gets a cut of the pay, do they receive full pay, does anyone else help with any problems or struggles these lawyers may go through. If they do go through struggles, have stress about the case, or go a day without sleep do lawyers still deserve to take forty percent of the client’s profits if their side wins. Even if the client does not win the trial does the lawyer still get paid something for his time I would assume, yes lawyers would still receive compensation.

I have no idea what to think about lawyers about whether they work hard or are lazy, or if they should work for a known guilty person. Who I am to say lawyers should only defend the good side they might have families to feed and the defendants they have are for sure guilty. I still have many questions about lawyer’s about work studies, stress life, moral beliefs whether or not to defend the good guy or which is the good guy.

yum yum yum donuts are good yum yum yum