By William Weber
Interview with Alex Triantafilou, Chairman of the Hamilton County Republican Party, former judge for Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Q: So let's start with the big question. How likely is a contested GOP convention? A: I think it's highly likely given the delegate math. Wisconsin was a major step toward that. I’m crunching the numbers personally but I watch major media reports, I’ve been involved in conversations with my fellow Ohio delegates, and the delegation is prepared to go to what we call an open convention. Q: For those of us who aren't familiar with what that would entail, what exactly is a contested or open convention? A: The one thing I want to make clear to anybody that's going to be reading this is that there’s nothing new about this process. The interest in the process is new, primarily because we can’t seem to settle on one candidate as Republicans because voters in the primary process have not given us a clear front runner. We’re talking about one front runner, but there isn’t one person who is plainly going to win the delegates. So what it means is we are going to a convention without somebody having secured 1237 delegates. The bottom line is that under the Republican Party rules, delegates are bound to the candidate their states supported in the primary process. So if Ted Cruz won Texas, his delegates are bound under the rules to vote for him. Donald Trump won New Hampshire, so the New Hampshire delegates are bound to vote for Donald Trump so that's why all those early contests matter, because on the first ballot you’re bound by the people that sent you. But once that first ballot is completed, as I understand it, if there isn’t a candidate selected with 1237 delegates, then it becomes open, and it becomes a discussion between party delegates about who ought to be the nominee of the Republican Party. Q: At that point when the convention or if the convention goes to a second or third or fourth ballot, are there any particular rules that could have an impact on the result? A: There are certain rules that are getting some attention, but the rules for the 2016 convention will be set up by the Rules Committee, which will meet a few weeks before the convention. That committee will be comprised of about one hundred to one hundred fifty delegates. All of the states are represented. And those delegates will set the rules for the 2016 convention. Q: There is one rule in particular that I’d like to ask you about, and it's Rule 40, which was instituted in 2012. Do you expect that rule, which would leave only Donald Trump on the ballot currently, to stand? A: Those rules were for the 2012 convention and there will be new rules made for the 2016 convention, so that rule would have been only good for that nominating contest. Although that rule is the subject of a lot of conversation, as I understand it there is no such rule currently in place, so to pass such a rule again would require action by the Rules Committee. Q: What are the rules governing selection of the delegates themselves? Those would have a relatively large impact on a brokered convention? A: I can only speak to Ohio’s convention and election rules, and I’ve heard other media reports about how rules in other states are established, but in Ohio, the campaigns must file their slates of delegates by the filing deadline in that state to be on its ballot. My name was submitted on December 15, 2016 along with other Kasich delegates. Donald Trump’s campaign would have picked 66 people in Ohio that wanted to sign up to be Trump delegates, as was the case with the Cruz campaign. Ohio is a little different than other states because we don't select our delegates after the nominating contest. We do it before. I had to agree and sign a one page document putting myself as a delegate for Kasich. The voters voted and delivered Ohio to Kasich, and I was one of his preselected delegates and, as I understand it, I cannot be removed unless I violate a rule of the RNC. Q: If the convention eventually does go into a second or third ballot, at what point will you as a delegate vote for someone other than Kasich if necessary? A: My understanding is that on the second ballot, under Ohio rules and the RNC rules, we would be free to do whatever we want on the second ballot. But the political piece in this for me is that I intend strongly to honor the will of the voters. The voters in Ohio and specifically in my district in Hamilton County by majority said that they wanted John Kasich to be the nominee. To some people that's controversial. It shouldn’t be, because I’m going to honor the will of the voters of my county. I saw the numbers come in and I have final copy here on my desk, and I know that John Kasich won Hamilton County and won Ohio. I’m going to stay with Kasich as long as he's interested because the voters selected him in the primary process. So if I have discretion, I intend on doing what the voters sent me there to do, which is to support John Kasich. Q: So there are no laws that would keep you bound after the first ballot, just your personal convictions? A: That's right. Q: The conversation among the major media outlets now is that the party has begun, in a way, to revolt against Donald Trump, so are there any mechanisms, to your knowledge, that they might use to do so with the RNC rules? A: Some of these delegate selection processes seem to be going against Donald Trump, but there aren’t specific rules working against him in those cases. Unlike the Democrats, who have over 1000 superdelegates, which are party insiders, we don’t have that option. But there will certainly be delegates who will be faithless delegates, which are delegates that do not support the candidate their state chose--I’m strongly cautioning against that. I think that's a dangerous place for the Republican Party to go. We better be very mindful of the way millions of voters were, regardless of one’s opinions about any of the candidates. The voters are expressing their opinion and the party should honor the will of the voters in an effort to keep voters interested in our party. Q: You mentioned superdelegates, but the GOP itself does have unbound delegates, at least in this cycle. What role will those play in your opinion? A: Those people have the same rights as regular delegates. They are selected at the state level and will have the ability to vote for whomever they want. Under the original rules they won’t be bound because their states didn’t vote. Q: This may require some prognostication, but what would be the most likely outcome from a brokered convention? A: I’m out the business of prognosticating. In July, on one of the local TV outlets here in Cincinnati I made a prediction about Donald Trump’s ability to be our nominee in 2016 and that was a mistake. In my position especially, where there’s so much distrust for Republican leadership, I shouldn’t be guessing, but I will make the following prediction: there will be some effort to make a deal. Frankly, if Donald Trump is the front runner, I think he will try to work with other people to make a deal, but we’ll see if it comes together.
0 Comments
By Olivia Worthington Small businesses face a variety of legal issues that can be detrimental to their business if not handled precisely and quickly. Many small businesses face the same common legal issues as large-scale businesses, but without multiple corporate positions to deal with these problems, common legal issues can quickly escalate into a massive problem. Even a small legal matter can severely hurt a small business, and at times put the company completely out of business if improperly handled. Small business owners must work carefully to take precautions when dealing with legal matters and problems, and they must recognize how to solve legal issues within their business when they arise. Small businesses also tend to make common legal mistakes because they lack the experience in managing a company and legal matters that having a business can bring (1). Failing to establish the right legal structure for a company through incorporation is the most common problem, and not having a shareholder’s agreement also ranks high in a legal issue small businesses fail to deal with until it is too late (2). Other common problems in the legal spectrum for a small business include spreading libel about their competition, not having proper patents or copyrights, and not having human resource guidelines for employees. Another common issue is filing too many lawsuits, as small businesses can lose a lot of money and investment by filing unnecessary lawsuits that ultimately do more harm than good to the firm (3). Common legal issues faced by small businesses are fairly universal, and can be avoided with the proper procedures and attention to the problem. Disgruntled employees can be an important problem as employees can sue for “wrongful termination” if they are not fired with the appropriate documentation (4). Having a clear termination package and policy can make this problem go away and keep former employees from suing the business. Discrimination and harassment cases are another dire problem for small businesses. Human resources and legal departments should be well-equipped to handle lawsuits that arise. Even false claims can hurt a company’s reputation, so problems should be dealt with quickly and carefully to avoid backlash from the claim. Dissatisfied customers can also search for small issues to file class-action lawsuits against the company, which again is protected against by the legal team of the small business (5). Intellectual property rights are crucial in a small business environment, as having a patent or trademark properly filed can ensure that the aspects of a business stay with their rightful owner (6). The time and effort to secure intellectual property rights are worth it for small business owners, as they can take legal action against another company that is copying their work with the proper trademarks and documentation. International trademarks are also important, as anyone can copy a business no matter where they are located, especially considering the current technological advancements in society (7). Small business owners value time and money, but the time and money spent on intellectual property rights are well worth it, in the long run, to protect a small business and ensure its aspects remain under the rightful ownership. Most small business claims are settled in small claims court, and disputes between business owners and employees, customers, and other businesses are relatively common. The disputes typically involve issues over a contract and quality of work. If arbitration or settling a dispute between parties on their own does not work, a small claims court can be useful in legally resolving an issue without too much hassle. Businesses who have a competent legal team and are well-researched on the precise nature of the issue typically perform well in the court (8). An issue with small claims court is that costs of going to this court are relatively high and are increasing, which can be difficult to maintain for a small business. This is why many business choose to settle issues outside of a court, which is less costly but can further complicate legal issues if handled poorly. It is important for small businesses to recognize that legal issues are common within their realm of work and that they are likely to come up at any moment. It is also crucial to try to avoid legal issues, as well as to be prepared for when problems do arise. A solid legal team and human resources department is essential to combat problems, no matter how large the business is. Individuals who are well-versed in the legal world are necessary for a small business to survive any form of legal trouble, whether a valid or false claim. Legal issues can be avoided by being well-informed on appropriate procedures in the world of business, and intellectual property rights are an example of a critical legal juncture. Small claims courts can work to solve legal disputes if no other solution can be reached between the parties, which helps ensure a fair judicial process for breaches of the law concerning small businesses. Works Cited
By Abby Newman The tensions and pressures faced by the United States have been growing rapidly due to the upcoming presidential election as well as the heated debate concerning foreign and domestic policy. These facets have caused a great divide among the American people, creating an atmosphere of constant competition between all different groups of people. Furthermore, the struggles over national security of the United States have created a barrier between the public and the private sector, especially with respect to foreign affairs. Recently, the FBI has been in a dispute with Apple Inc. over the issue of encryption, which is an issue over who has the ability to view messages exchanged between senders. The FBI asked Apple to create a new version of iOS, their mobile operating system, that would allow the government to tap into the phones of suspects of their investigations, more specifically the San Bernardino shooter, Rizwan Farook. In turn, Apple responded extremely negatively to this request, stating that the founding fathers would be absolutely revolted by the request, seeing that one branch of government is executing an enormous amount of unbalanced power (1). The CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, wrote a lengthy, yet fair response to the FBI’s order. In the letter, Cook describes the importance of encryption and the extreme dangers that could unfold in response to the requested software. He states that while Apple is happy to help the government, and has in the past, this is just something that the company cannot do in the spirit of security and democracy. While the FBI claims that the software would only be used to hack into the phones of terrorist suspects in extreme cases such as the San Bernardino attack, Cook believes that once the software is tangible, there would be no end to the potential governmental snooping. He believes that the government asking Apple to reverse its strongly held virtue of encryption would set a fatal precedent for many more policies to come, for the FBI is merely ordering the use of the All Writs Act of 1789 instead of working with Congress to enact policy. All in all, the overuse of power from this organization of government has sparked this reaction from Cook: “While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect” (2). The All Writs Act of 1789 says that, “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Acts of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions agreeable to the usages and principles of law”. This basically means that desperate times call for desperate measures. Clearly, an act of terror is a desperate measure, so it is fair for the FBI to consider their request necessary or appropriate to the safety of the American people. However, it is also fair for Apple to deem this request as unreasonable and unsafe to the security of the American people (3). While either side of this dispute can bring forth credible analysis, the more pressing issue is the immense overpowering of the United States government. Within the past week, the FBI dropped the encryption case and ended the dispute with Apple, which is cryptic in itself due to the extreme amount of force it was applying to the private sector. The FBI found a non-governmental third party to aid in the process of hacking phones. This way, Apple does not have to commit discomforting actions, while the FBI still exalts its overwhelming governmental power over the security of the American people (4). Evan Greer, the campaign director for Fight for the Future, claims that this whole case was merely another demonstration of a power-hungry government. He believes that “[t]he FBI already had the capability to hack this [Farook’s] phone using forensic tools, but they thought this case would be a slam-dunk -- a way for them to set a dangerous precedent that they've wanted for years" (5). While Apple may be in the clear for the time being, these events have brought to light the issue of extreme governmental power. Whether or not it is legally or morally correct for the FBI to demand such high stakes from the private sector, one can agree that the federal government’s power played a huge role in the procession of these events. It is important to be aware of the immense body that governs the United States. While the intentions of the government may be fair and wholesome, that does not mean that the power should be taken from the people. Works Cited
By William Weber This interview has been edited for clarity
Q: You seemed to have addressed interfaith relations and those play a very critical role in American law. Could you explain a little more about that? Sure, I’d say a couple things there. One is that I don't want to make it sound like religion is only the source of conflict or controversy, though it's interesting is that many of the cases that I study, you also have people just as adamantly saying “Yes, of course religion belongs in public and not only any particular religion but all religions,” and America is a place where the public practice of religion, of all religions, is celebrated as a wonderful thing. Part of, for example, what makes the U.S. tradition different than that of a place like France, for example, is that in France for historical reasons, there has often been a presumption that religion is not something that be practiced in public. In comparison, the U.S. has a strong tradition that suggests a strong public place for religion. In many of these cases advocates for religious pluralism or interfaith coalitions come together to defend and support the right of religious minorities to practice their religions in public. Most vividly, for example, in 1990 there was a really important, controversial Court decision called Employment Division v. Smith. It was about Native Americans using peyote, and the Supreme Court did not offer an exemption in that case to the Native Americans. It’s a complicated set of issues, but what’s important is that growing out of that case was a kind of uproar from across the political spectrum. Ranging from groups on the left, like the A.C.L.U.. to groups on the right, to Conservative Christians and atheists, different kinds of religious forces all came together to pass through Congress an important piece of legislation called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In the last few years, however, we've seen a splintering of that coalition, as some groups claim it’s been taken too far, and others claim it hasn’t been taken far enough. Religious freedom as an idea has emerged over the last several years as yet another kind of political issue in the culture wars that our country sees again and again. It’s become more and more of a liberal/conservative issue, and the characters have really changed. There was a time in the earlier part of the twentieth century when political liberals were the strongest advocates for religious freedom whereas today religious freedom has in many ways become a political watchword for the right, and there are really interesting historical reasons as to how those shifts have come about. Q: It’s interesting to see how religious freedom has shifted from, as you said, a universal objective to a political buzzword over the past decades. A: It's even more recent than that; I think that's really grown out of just the last five or ten years, that it’s really become this dog whistle for the right. A lot of that centered around questions of sexuality that, with very rapid growth of support for same sex marriage and extending civil rights to homosexual couples, led “religious freedom” as a term to become this kind of dog whistle or buzzword being defined as pitted in opposition to those things. Q: It seems to me that when individuals use the term of religious freedom question, both sides are pursuing religious for him but in different ways. A: I think that the problem with talking about religious freedom in the abstract is that it’s not clear what people mean by religion, or by freedom, or by the two words together. For that reason religious freedom can mean a lot of different things in different contexts, and does not have a singular, essential content. So to say one is for or against religious freedom is a political statement that signifies certain things in the world we live in, but doesn't necessarily have obvious substantive content of what it means to be for religious content. Nobody will say that they aren’t for religious freedom, but what one means by that can vary widely depending on the context and the speaker. Q: What actually constitutes a religion? A: The great paradox, the great tension, that we find in the systems of secular governance that assume the protections guaranteed to people in the name of religion is that in order to extend those protections and rights that are based in the category of religion, we have to first know what religion is because we have to know who gets those rights and who doesn’t and what is it that we're protecting when we protect “religious freedom.” The problem is, as scholars of religious studies love to point out, is that there is not a singular, essential, coherent, understanding of religion, but instead that very often different understandings of religion are grounded in particular religious histories and ideologies. Most famously, the way the courts in the U.S. have very often defined the term, which is usually in terms of individualistic personal belief, is a way of thinking about religion that is grounded both in the history of Protestant Christianity and also of the European enlightenment. That notion of religion itself has a particular history. The paradox is that the more government wants to get out of the business of regulating religion, the more it finds itself entangled in it by having to draw these kinds of lines and boundaries about what actually counts. One of the great debates among scholars of these questions over the last few years has been whether or not achieving religious freedom is actually possible. One scholar named Winifred Faller Sullivan argues quite strenuously that religious freedom may, in fact, be impossible. Not that it's undesirable, but rather that there is no coherent way for governments to draw these kinds of lines or boundaries and therefore it’s an inherently flawed project. I would say that such a statement doesn’t necessarily have to be heard as a positive or negative. The next question, however, I think is complicated to answer is “What comes next?” If the goal really is to protect and accommodate diversity in society, we must wonder if are there other ways to do that besides by guaranteeing certain rights in the name of religion to achieve those broader goals. Q: So what would be an example of an alternative method? It seems that in the American system the only, or at least the most powerful way, to give those protections is through the judicial system. A: First, I’d say the legislature plays a role as well and that historically there are many examples where the legislature has been in some ways more accommodating of religious freedom than courts have been. But to your broader question, it is one that does not have obviously a simple answer, and it’s one that scholars have been debating a lot these days. One could imagine simply needing to define this category of religion more expansively, and we have seen people trying to move in that direction by thinking about, for example, the category of conscience, which might involve what we would think of as traditionally being religious or secular. That may solve certain problems, but doesn't solve others. Others suggest that we really have to find ways of thinking about human difference and equality that don't draw lines on the basis of religion, but rather simply on the basis of the variety of different kinds of categories of difference that overlap and intersect. Others might suggest that courts and judges are simply unequipped to deal with these questions and that these are political negotiations that have to be dealt with a case by case basis of the level of particular communities. I'm not sure, is the short answer, other than that I'm convinced that these are incredibly important questions that we as society need to wrestle with in a more sophisticated, thoughtful way. The solutions aren’t easy and it's not as simple as saying “I'm for religious freedom” or “I’m against it,” which is often I think how it gets caricatured. Q: So if we do move to a more conscience-based protection system, what stands to prevent abuse of the First Amendment? This is the nature of the dilemma. It’s difficult. If anyone can say that he’s doing something in the name of religion, it feels fundamentally un-American to tell them otherwise, yet lines have to be drawn. This is the fundamental paradox. I can tell you how courts have approached that question in the past, but what is the way out of it, or what's the solution. I'm not sure. By Samuel Huryn In the current months leading up to the presidential election, student debt has become a focal point in public policy debate. Student debt has traditionally not been dischargeable in bankruptcy court. However, while law school debt is not, a recent ruling in New York may benefit those tied down with thousands of dollars in student debt. Judge Carla Craig of the Eastern District of New York Bankruptcy Court ruled in March that Leslie Campbell was allowed to “discharge the unpaid portion of a $15,000 Citibank loan that she took out when studying for the bar.” While this ruling is not binding in other areas, it may provide a relevant precedent in future bankruptcy cases concerning student debt. While it has been challenged before, this is the first time a court has ruled debt related to Bar exam expenses are dischargeable. Previously failed court cases were unable to demonstrate that Bar-related debt was not an educational loan. However, in her ruling, Judge Craig wrote that “the Bar loan is not an “educational benefit” within the meaning of §523(a)(8)(A)(II), and is not encompassed in any other exception to discharge set forth in §523(a)(8), the Bar loan is dischargeable” because “a loan is a commercial transaction, it’s not a benefit.” The long-term ramifications, both for lenders as well as students and schools, will be interesting to observe. Source: http://abovethelaw.com/2016/03/broke-law-grad-gets-bar-study-loan-discharged-in-bankruptcy/?rf=1
|
Archives
March 2018
Categories |