Final Project: Legal Brief and Presentation

U.S. Supreme Court ENGEL v. VITALE,
370 U.S. 421 (1962) 370 U.S. 421

Facts of the case
In 1951, a non-denominational prayer was approved by the New York State of Regents to be recited daily in public schools.
The words to this prayer read: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg Thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”
The intentions of the school district to apply this prayer was to cause a positive reaction for the students through this prayer. State officials composed the prayer which they recommended and published as a part of their "Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools," saying: "We believe that this Statement will be subscribed to by all men and women of good will, and we call upon all of them to aid in giving life to our program." (http://www.wakeupamerica.org/html/1962Supreme.html).

Although voluntary, parents of 10 student from New Hyde Park, New York, argued that this prayer was contrary to their religious beliefs and that it goes against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar10.html). The parents argued that their children did not have these beliefs and that church should not be involved in state matters such as schools. The fact that it was voluntary was not a significant argument because it would cause influence to non-christian students.
Many of these parents came from a religious background which was not easily accepted in countries from which they came. Their ability to practice their specific beliefs in the United States gave them the freedom that was promised to them. With that in mind, for their children to be in a government institution such as a school, where are religion which was not their own, was a focus, the loss of freedom was felt.

Issue of the case
The First Amendment of The United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” ( http://www. infoplease. com/ us/ supreme-court/cases/ar10.html). Did the New York State of Regents violate this law by approving daily recital of this prayer in public schools? The Regents argued that because the prayer was voluntary, those who recited this were not influenced to establish any sort of religion. As far as the parents of the ten students, they argue that because this was applied at the school, they would be influenced and that it no longer separated church and state. The argument that the school was omitting the line between church and state was a strong issue in this case. Also, because the school district is the organization which applied this daily prayer, those students who attend would feel pressured to obey or follow along with the recital.

Decision of the court
Mr. Justice Hugo Black delivered the Supreme Court decision on the case. “We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause.” (http://www. wakeupamerica. Org /html/ 1962Supreme.html). Since the prayer, although not stated, was obviously a Christian focused prayer. It was not established in individual persons, but did “respect” a particular type of belief. Mr. Justice Douglas concurred and Mr. Justice Stewart dissented. “Justice Felix Frankfurter suffered a cerebral stroke that forced him to retire, and Justice Byron White took no part in the case.” (http://www. wakeupamerica. Org /html/ 1962Supreme.html).

Reasoning of the court
Being that a school district is an established organization, for them to create a prayer makes Christianity the established religion of that organization. The fact that it was a prayer made it a religious focus and there was no arguing on the part.
One of the main reason why immigrants came to the United States was to attain religious freedom, which did not in their own country. When the support of government is behind a certain religion, students are pressured to give in to the majority who volunteer in the activity.
Also, clearly in the past the lack of separation between government and the church has caused major issues, sometimes dangerous, this was considered by the Justice. This also applies to places of business.
The court referred to historical review on a book titled, Book of Common Prayer in England, to add explanation to their reasoning.
Rule of law
The prayer created by the government and implemented in the school was found to be a clear violation of the Constitutions Establishment Clause. The case was decided on June 25, 1962. “Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day -- even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited. Pp. 422-436.” (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0370_0421_ZS.html).

Argument
It’s difficult to really give a reasonable argument against the Supreme Court. However, one thing I would have an opinion on would be the the word “respect” in the stated Establishment Clause. To rule out a prayer due to other religions, wouldn’t that be respecting all the other decisions? Overall, it seems that the issue with the prayer being voluntary was overlooked but should not have been. Whether the student would be influenced to recite the prayer should not have a been an argument. Bottom line is, it was not forced and was not established on any person. In doing away with one religion, many were “respected”.
My personal opinion is that the prayers in school provided structure, but again that is a personal opinion. It seems they focused on giving freedom to those who did not chose to recite, when there was no freedom taken away from them. At the same time, those who

Dissent
6-1 was the judicial vote due to issues with Justice Frankfurter and Justice Byron White. Mr. Justice Steward dissented, stating, “ A local school board in New York has provided that those pupils who wish to do so may join in a brief prayer at the beginning of each school day, acknowledging their dependence upon God and asking His blessing upon them [p445] and upon their parents, their teachers, and their country. The Court today decides that, in permitting this brief nondenominational prayer, the school board has violated the Constitution of the United States. I think this decision is wrong.”
(http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0370_0421_ZD.html).
He argues that no one’s freedom was violated by allowing those who wanted to recite the prayer, to do so. He also, explains that the prayer is a prayer that belong the the religion of our Nation and to deny students who wished to recite the prayer the opportunity to do so, takes away their freedom to express their belief.
Along with this dissention argument, he stated many other prayers and statement involved in government activities.

My thoughts on the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is just a smaller version of the public view. With only a number of members, we realize just how many opinions and views exist. Justice never truly exist. What seems fair to some may not necessarily be fair in the thoughts of another. The Supreme Court decision is not and can not possibly satisfy everyone.
Sadly, whether a decision is right or wrong, good or bad, the members are the ones in control. Although the Constitution has been written and laws are set, they seems to be control in the opinions and interpretations of the members of the Supreme Court. Our control only extends as far as voting. Even with this power to vote, our knowledge of the characters, views, ideas, thoughts, so on and so forth are limited. We may vote based on current issues or current knowledge, but instances always change. The race, gender, age and all similar factors play a big role and always will. This might one day vary, but who knows how far from know and if it will truly make a difference. Nothing is ever set in stone.
Certain cases they have decided on have caused us to hate them, and other cases decided on have caused us to agree and see their side. If there was a better way to handle a case then being taken to the Supreme Court, it would be just as imperfect. Bottom line is that I believe that this is as fair as it will get. Everyone will not and can not be pleased. Other countries, in my opinion would benefit from having this type of structure. It gives the people an opportunity to share their voice after all has failed.
Its true, certain decisions they have made have caused a burden to many, in schools, places of employment, churches, and numerous places, but we have technically given our rights to the government to decide what is best for us. I have read cases that I totally was troubled by, being someone who believes in public school prayers. It makes me furious to know that something I believe strongly is cancelled out by certain men's opinion. Whats I truly believe is that this fairness we are looking for does exist in the opportunity we have to take cases to a level as high as the Supreme Court. Overall, this structure is what makes this country stable and civilized.

What's the problem with SPAM?

First thing to consider when thinking about the dangers of SPAM email, is that we typically do not know who the senders are. For me personally, and I would assume, most people automatically delete SPAM emails once they receive them because we receive tons of them everyday, usually advertising the same products. They are irritating and frustrating, but surprisingly, people open and respond to them.
There are various reasons that make SPAM a danger to us all. One would be an attached virus. With today's technology, we could possibly be giving up very personal information to total strangers. Our computers are also in danger of being hacked or damaged, which means losing important files that we store in our computers. Not only do we potentially share our lives with strangers but also finances invested in our desktops or laptops wether it be for business or personal are being thrown out the window.
These are all avoidable if we just take precautions. Another danger applies more to one's without common sense who actually respond to these SPAM emails. When giving credit card information to unknown companies for their service or products, one should expect dangerous issues to come. If viruses can enter our computers and hackers can attain information on us, accesing our accounts would be a simple task. These Spammers steal from innocent people by offering a service or product that do not exist. People who are in desperate need of these products willingly give up account information and allow these companies to withdraw they're money and never receive what they expected. It doesn't necesarily mean that these people are losing alot of money but that is valuable information and in the long run, these fake companies would have made millions.
Its shocking to me that this actually happens. Im not the smartest guy but I figured this would be an obvious situation to avoid. It's hard enough for me to purchase products online through a credible company, let alone a company who solicited me through SPAM email. Thank God for filters that separate safe emails and SPAM, people just need to be more aware and smarter when purchasing or providing information online.

Classmate's thoughts on the legal system...

The very first statement that caught me attention was Jordan Grables first statement in his thought on the legal system. "There is an underlying theme within our society of a need and want for justice, but a lack of courage and trust in those charged with upholding the law".(http://grableaudio.blogspot.com/) . I feel alot of "justice" actually isn't justice for all. We all want to make a changes but do our efforts really matter? Its a tough world to deal with and sometimes it seems that the legal system works more agaisnt us than for us. The innocent do not always win. The tough part is that crooks know the law better than those who have never dealt with the law.
Which brings me to my next thought. We feel safe because we have a legal system, but when it's time to really rely on on it, will it be there for us? “Our legal system is very tricky and it tends to play with our emotions. It will make us feel protected until we really need it. Then sure enough, they’ll go and stab us right in the back.” ( Jaqueline Hernandez http://fashionvsstyle-jackie.blogspot.com/ )
At the point where we are faced with a situation when we need to take legal action for our protection, how easy will this process be? We hear different laws over and over and think that we know what to do, but laws change, and they are manipulated by those who have more knowledge of them. "The legal system in the United States is so vast, even my business law instructor recommends us to get a lawyer when dealing with it". (Richmond Pham http://ailvbus111.blogspot.com/)

Week 4 Used Cars, crimes and torts

Group Members: George Teh, David Thomas, Ryan Edwards

1. Trade Libel- Tampering with video - crime
2. False Advertising- “mile of cars”- crime
3. Illegal gambling on footall game- Crime
4. Vandalism, property in bar; salt mirror; umbrellas- crime
5. Perjury, woman lies in court- crime
6. Illegal drugs mentioned at car lot- crime
7. Stolen vehicles- crime
8. Underage drivers- crime
9. No driver’s license for students- crime
10. No seatbelts- crime
11. Sexual harassment at the lot on the woman- tort
12. Speeding- crime
13. Reckless driving- crime
14. Running from the police at the car wreck scene- crime
15. Drinking on the job with other car lot owners- tort
16. Assault with deadly weapon- gun during car chase and chains
17. Battery at the bar- crime

Myspace Hoax Week 2

Its sad that there is no specific law for what Lori Drew has done. Bottom line is, she was the cause for this 13 year old girl's suicide. It would be hard to argue this case for the fact that my knowledge of the law is limited, but the obvious is there. The girl was, first of all, had issues with self-esteem and was not mentally stable. The account of "Josh Evans" was false, created by an "adult", and was used to play with the mind of a 13 year old girl. I do not see how this is any different from an internet predator. Like an internet predator, she claimed to be someone she's not, influenced a minor and caused harm to her, mentally and physically. Although it wasn't direct, she was still the cause of it. It's ridiculous that a crime as clear as this does not have a section in the law. I can't believe that this lead to Lori Drew being convicted of only a misdemeanor when a life was taken due to her actions. It seems that all we have to do nowadays to get away with a crime is to find a loop hope in the system, which doesn't see so hard. If we commit murder or any type of crime, as long as we abide by the words of the law, we can get away with anything. This is just another example that shows that there needs to be alot of improvements made in the government.

What do I think about lawyers?

It's hard for me to put all lawyers into one category. Some defend the innocent and some defend the guilty. People say all lawyers are liars. I agree with that, but not necessarily in a negative way. It used to irritate me when I hear lawyers on TV, both fictional or non fictional. They would say anything to win a case, even if it meant having an innocent man sentenced and letting a murderer continue to be free. However, being an attorney is a career, just like any other. I thought about the role they play and how pure honesty would affect their success. Their job is to lie! Sad but true.
In the past I've worked with a lawyer in a case that ended in a big check for me. I cant complain, but I can say the truth was bent. The accident was the pther parties fault, but a little change in the story sure did make the case alot easier. Currently I am dealing with a case, and the lawyer, even though he seems like he has no sense of urgency, is honest and credible.
Bottom line is I am not one-sided when it comes to this topic. Im sure not one honest lawyer exist, but it's just part of the job. then there are those who take it too far. In my opinion, these guys are just as guilty as the crooks they defend. We just have to hope that these guys dont send an innocent person to live their lives in prisons or send murderers, drug dealers, rapists, etc... back to our neighborhoods.