Washington Post has posted on May 24, 2015 that the FBI confirms that no major terrorism cases were caught form the Patriot phone data collection (Krieger, 2015) The American Civil Liberties Union filed a law suit against the government in 2013. The case provides evidence that the Patriot Act is infringing on American’s privacy, freedom of speech and association. Within the Patriot Act, surveillance of phone records such as phone numbers, and duration is being collected across the United States. The ACLU deals with defending the civil liberties and those phone surveillance and would have drastic impact on how they advocate for Civil rights (Kaufman,
the court to substitute a new law firm. However, almost a month later, Garrison, still under Patterson’s litigation management, filed a corrected motion to substitute, correcting only that she was the attorney for BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, not Bank of America, NA. Although it is common to switch the two demonstrably different entities—one a limited partnership and the other a banking institution regulated by banking laws—as if they are interchangeable at the will of an attorney, Complainant will demonstrate why this is not a presumption to be made. Who can I ask for help in my time of need?
Client continues to report no family support here in the USA. Client is undocumented and have no source of income. CM advises the client to participate in free immigration to secure Amnesty or Legalization that would allow a client to file for legal residence (Green Card). Client continues to report she actively participating in Court mandated Individual Mental Health session at Woodhull Hospital and next upcoming appointments are as follows: Jane Lima Negron SW scheduled for 12/22/2016, Dr. Faisal Chaundhry MD scheduled for 12/29/2016 and Dr. Asano-CIH scheduled for 1/18/2017. Client also reported the following psychotropic medications: Naproxen 250mg (1x daily) and Zoloft 25mg (1x daily).
•Explain what the amendment says (in plain English) – Search and seizure: the fourth amendment. This amendment prohibits officers and active members of the law to unlawfully search or enter a home or school without a search warrant; and even with a warrant you can only search where evidence might be found. If you are looking for a stolen car, you cannot check the kitchen cabinets the car won’t be there. If an area is improperly searched and something is found that cannot incriminate anyone, and is not allowed to be displayed in the court of law. •Explore what issues made it important for lawmakers in the Early Republic--important enough to add this amendment to the Constitution.
The Impact of Miranda V. Arizona When the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession during trial because the police had failed to inform the suspect of his right to have an attorney present and that he did not have to incriminate himself, the impact the ruling would have on the entire U.S. judicial system was only beginning to become clear. The court said that police are compelled by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth and Sixth Amendments to make sure suspects know they are not compelled to be a witness against him or herself, and that they have a right to have a lawyer present during questioning (McBride, 2006). The Court further held that ‘without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures
They all stated that we as American’s should not worry about the government looking into our business if we have nothing to hide. However, on June 12, 2013 Rand Paul explained the importance best when he stated” In the United States, we are supposed to have a government that is limited with its parameters established by our constitution. This notion that the federal government can monitor everyone’s phone data is a major departure from how Americans have traditionally viewed the role of the government. If this is acceptable practice, as the white house and many in both parties now say it is, then there are literally no constitutional protections that can be guaranteed anymore to citizens. In the name of security, the Constitution has become negotiable.” Because of this, the American
The Bill of Rights represents the first ten amendments of the U.S Constitution. The First and Fourth amendment does protect the citizen privacy, however it does not regulate the choice of medical care. The Supreme Court has overruled the Obama care in which has made a decision of making every citizen must have health care or will be subject to a penalty on their annual tax and by 2016 the fine is $695 per adult or 2.5 percent of annual income whichever is greater. The Bill of Rights does not regulate the citizen of free exercise of health care nor the decision to suicidal. Although suicide can be considered a “common law” crime, there has no laws against suicide or suicidal, but all 50 states have laws that say that assisting in suicide is
The Origins of Parliamentary Sovereignty Parliament is supreme is creating the law and no authority, not even the courts, are above it. In the case Pepper v Hart  3 WLR 1032 House of Lords, the issue was whether a teacher at a private school had to pay tax on the perk he received in the form of reduced school fees. The House of Lords departed from Davis v Johnson and took a purposive approach to interpretation holding that Hansard may be referred to and the teacher was not required to pay tax on the perk he received. However, this decision did not affect the supremacy of the parliament. From 1688, the supremacy of the parliament over the Crown was established and can be seen in the Bill of Rights 1688(9).
Ontario v. Quon (2010) was a case in which protected the rights of government employee’s emails through the fourth amendment, however, these privacy rights do not extend to the private sector. The private sector must depend on the laws of the state they are located in to know the boundaries the company can invoke on their workers. A telephone case was seen in 1983, Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Company. This case involved L.M.
The Dodd-Frank Act introduced major American regulatory reform such as the end to protect financial institutions that are too big to fail (Lasher, 2014). During the financial crisis, the government was involved in protecting some institutions (e.g., Washington Mutual, Wachovia, etc) while not protecting others (e.g., Lehman Brothers). Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act established changes requiring “mortgage lenders to ensure that borrowers have the ability to make payments,” which could have led to penalties if the lenders were not in compliance (Lasher, 2014). This provision of the Act can avoid lenders to offer products (e.g., no documentation loans) that could increase foreclosures. Due to the inconsistency of credit ratings on CDO’s during the financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act created a department that oversees rating agencies (Lasher, 2014).
Big Brother is watching you: Government Surveillance through cell-site location information and the Fourth Circuits Attempt to stop it. Retrieved April 15, 2017, from http://content.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.dacc-ad.nmsu.edu:2048/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=116681901&S=R&D=ofs&EbscoContent=dGJyMNLr40Sep7Y4v%2BbwOLCmr0%2BeqK5Ssaa4TbaWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGvsk2vqrdLuePfgeyx43zx Mass government surveillance pros and cons: NSA spying. (n.d.). Retrieved April 19, 2017, from https://netivist.org/debate/government-surveillance-pros-and-cons-nsa-spying Salper, R. (n.d.). U.S. Government Surveillance and the Women 's Liberation Movement, 1968-1973: A Case Study.