By Abby Newman Opinions are everywhere. They affect our choices and they affect our behavior. They affect how we view ourselves and how we view others, along with how we perceive and interpret the events around us. Opinions reside even where opinions are not concerned. Conceivably the least absorbed area that opinions inhabit is the law. While personal opinions may possess a role in creating law, they encompass little position in interpreting it. Contradicting constitutional interpretations have existed since the beginning of the United States; in fact, this was intended by the founding fathers. Chief Justice John Marshall stated himself that if the Constitution was a fixed, rather than living document it would not be able to embody and challenge the human mind. The Constitution should be open to interpretations, but not opinions (1). In order to understand the difference between interpretations and opinions, one must know the legal meaning of interpretation. In the words of the Legal Dictionary by Farlex, interpretation refers to the art or process of determining the intended meaning of a written document, such as a constitution, statute, contract, deed, or will (2). This shows that the main goal of interpretation is to discover and proclaim the earliest and most authentic meaning of the law. While there are many different types of interpretation that are all carried out in many different ways, this goal lies central nonetheless. There is comparative interpretation, statistical interpretation, restrictive interpretation, rational interpretation and customary interpretation. Depending on which end of the political spectrum one lies, the form of interpretation one uses will change. While more conservative interpreters are restrictive and conventional, liberal interpreters focus more on the surrounding context (3). Whichever direction is taken, the interpreter must always have a factual basis. A common amendment that takes on different interpretations is the Second Amendment, concerning gun control. Conservative interpreters understand this amendment as saying every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, whereas liberal interpreters look more into what was happening when the founding fathers constructed the amendment, deducting that this amendment was specific to the time period in which it was written (4). While the interpretations are very different, both are based on positive statements, meaning that whether they are true or not, they are based on factual evidence rather than opinion. Another interpretation issue arising in the United States has little to do with context, but much to do with contrasting amendments, an example being the issue of the Tenth Amendment versus the Fourteenth Amendment when concerning same-sex marriage. Some interpretations consider the legalization of same-sex marriage on the federal level as a violation of the Tenth Amendment, which grants powers not stated in the Constitution to the individual states (5). However, other interpretations believe that the Fourteenth Amendment, bestowing the right of equal protection and citizenship to all people, overrides the Tenth Amendment and has more importance to the lives of people (6). Either view is based on fact rather than a biased opinion. Amendments are not the only aspects of the law to be interpreted, or misinterpreted. Statutes also cause controversy. The Murder Statute, 18 U.S. Code § 1111, states that, Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree. Any other murder is murder in the second degree (7) This raises a lot of controversy concerning opinions and interpretations. It is far more than bothersome to a lot of people that some killers are not put behind bars based on the literal interpretation of this statute. The murder of Trayvon Martin in February 2012 is a primary example of this. While Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, Zimmerman was not found guilty of murder because of this statute. The personal opinions of many people suggest that Zimmerman was guilty of murder, but the meaning of the law signifies that murder did not occur (8).
Controversy will always arise when interpreting the law, because all human minds are different. While the law may not always be popular, or even ethical, it is the truth by which we stand. If one is not content with a verdict, he or she should not blame those who interpret it, but rather make a motion to change the law at hand to better serve the people of this country. That is why the Constitution is considered to be a living document. Right and wrong is not always black and white. Opinions are not always in line with the law. Interpretation says it all. Works Cited
0 Comments
by Lisa Hamant
I’m here today with Judge Dan Hawkins, a judge for the Franklin County Environmental Court. We’ll be discussing his background in law and what he does in his current position as a judge. Q: Hi Judge Hawkins, thank you for taking time this afternoon to talk with me. I would like to start off with a few general background questions. A: Absolutely. Q: How long have you been a judge? A: A little over two years now, since July of 2013. Q: What law school did you attend? A: Ohio State. Q: What appealed to you about working in the field of law, and specifically about being an environmental judge? A: I did my undergraduate studies up at Bowling Green and I originally went to college studying criminal justice. I wanted to be a police officer. I think it was my junior year that I met a prosecutor up there and he asked me if I had thought about going to law school. I said I was thinking about it and decided I would give it a try. Ohio State was my first choice, so I attended law school there and during my time there, I got a job working at the prosecutor’s office. I fell in love with the job and working in a courtroom, and I went on to work at the Franklin County office for 13 years as a prosecutor until I got to the job I have now as a judge. The judge who was here before me retired in 2013, so that created a vacancy and I applied for it. The governor appointed me to the spot in 2013. I ran and won the election that following November to keep the spot and I’ve been here ever since. Q: What was it specifically about environmental court that appealed to you? A: What attracted me to this spot is that the environmental court is the only one like it in the state because of its exclusive jurisdiction. It’s only been around for twenty-four years now. It’s got issues related to housing and zoning, everything from vacant abandoned structures in Franklin County to nuisance hotels. If the city wants to close those down, those cases come to me. Littering, graffiti, pollution – all those cases come to me and only me. I thought it was neat to be the only judge that deals with those things and have exclusive jurisdiction over that. Q: What are some of your day to day responsibilities in your role as an environmental judge? A: Every morning, just like your normal judge, I have to work with court cases. It could be criminal cases or it could involve a landlord who isn’t taking care of his properties. It could be littering cases. I have court and cases will go to trial. I also get to do unique stuff where you take the court hearing to the property itself. If the city wants to close down a business or recycling plant, we’ll go out to the property and have Court there. It’s a great way to make decisions, because you get a better sense of what it is and you get a better experience than just looking at pictures. The defendants can point things out things while we’re on the property that I wouldn’t otherwise know. We do a lot of education and outreach in environmental court, everything from how to stay out of environmental court – by keeping up with properties to what you get to do with those properties in your neighborhood where people are breaking in and using drugs, so people know what to do when they see those sort of things. Q: Can you tell me a little bit about some of the cases you’re working on currently? A: Earlier this year, there was a recycling plant on the south end that caught fire, with a bunch of damage. The whole city was covered in smoke. So that case was involved in litigation here in this court. One thing that is neat is I deal with safety code issues, so when Uber and Lyft started operating in this city, the city of Columbus filed a law suit against them in my court to try to stop them from operating because they were without a proper taxi license. Red light cases fall under the safety code, so when they appeal those cases, those used to come to me. They’ve changed that since then, but that was something unique that I got to work on. We have a lot of vacant abandoned structures that need to be turned down so we have a boarding program the court started up with the local ADAMH Board. They helped set up a program where we could send people with hoarding tendencies to help them deal with those tendencies. You hear environmental court and you think of pollution and things like that, but the jurisdiction we have goes far beyond your typical ‘environmental type’ issues. Q: It sounds like a lot of what appeals to you about your job is that it’s more hands-on than a typical judge and that you get to see the things you’re dealing with firsthand. A: Yeah, you have to be a problem solver. Normally the judge hears court cases where the crime already happened, but in my case the problems are ongoing and you have to come up with a solution for what to do next. We try to think of the big picture. I could just give them a fine and be done with it, or I could put them on probation and give them deadlines, or if it’s someone who needs help we have contacts with different agencies to help those folks who need it. Q: With Ohio State located within Franklin County, how does having a college campus in the area affect the court system? A: The two biggest ways are first of all, we get a lot of students who rent off-campus housing. They rent from different landlords, so you have students who feel the landlords aren’t taking care of their properties the way they should or landlords might have issues with how well some of the students are handling the properties. So anything from that to littering cases, especially if students are down on game day and they leave an open container outside, to graffiti type cases. All of those cases will end up in my court. We’ll make them do community service and go out and clean up, to try to account for those damages. Q: On the other hand, you said you went to Ohio State for law school. How did having a court system so close to your law school contribute to your education? A: It was a big help because it allowed me to get to have an internship down at the prosecutor’s office while I was in law school. I took the COTA bus down to the courthouse; then I would be able to get back to class and get to class on time. It was a big help because I could do both schoolwork and maintain the internship. You get to meet a lot of people and get to know a lot of judges and attorneys, so you learn the nuts and bolts. The connections you make help too. Knowing lots of judges and attorneys and working down there during law school helped me get hired there when I graduated. Q: In closing, I’m sure our readers would be interested in hearing about one or two of the most interesting cases you’ve presided over, or cases that are out of the ordinary and you don’t see every day. Do you have any specific examples you can think of? A: The one that had the biggest impact, we had a string of cases involving hotels that were in the Route 61-71 area. There were 4-5 hotels in this area, all off the freeway. There were problems that had drug dealing going on, there was violence, there were shootings at the parking lot, and you had these hotels right in that same area that were essentially being run-over by all these things. So my court had to get these nuisance hotels boarded up. The businesses in the surrounding neighborhoods there are a lot of blue-collar workers and these businesses were being terrorized by all of these things going on around them. So I think people were very thankful for what we did up there. That felt good because when I was a prosecutor I got to lock rapists and sex offenders and that was rewarding, but what I get to do now and change an entire neighborhood feels like I’m making even more of a difference. There was another case involving a motel that was closed down for cases involving prosecution and violent crime. The property had been ordered for years to be torn down, because people were still using it to do drugs and commit crimes, but years later there was still wild activity going on at this hotel. The hotel owner was dragging his feet as far as tearing it down. When I got on board, I gave him one deadline and he didn’t even pull the permit for the place. I got excuse after excuse from him, so I put him in jail and two days later there were bulldozers pulling the place down. It was causing a big problem for the city, but I got up and put him in jail, and his excuses went away. That was something beneficial that I did for the city. I’m a Columbus kid and I grew up here, so it’s great to give back to the community. Q: Thank you so much for your time and the interview. I’m sure our readers look forward to learning about the responsibilities of the environmental court and its importance in their community. By William Weber
Q: For those unfamiliar with your work, what would you consider your areas of expertise or interest? A: The classes I teach here are all in ethics or political philosophy, so I teach a range of courses from environmental ethics into advanced political philosophy as well as graduate seminars that usually have to do with my own specific research area. Almost all of my own research is on the work of John Stewart Mill, interpretive questions around his moral and political philosophy. I’m also editing a book on the idea of public reason and the history of philosophy, so my interests do extend beyond Mill, to other parts of the history of political philosophy as well as more modern political philosophy. Q: You’ve written previously on the role of the state in public life and whether or not it should intervene at certain times, so do you feel as though a central government has a responsibility to go beyond interfering only in the case of a public threat, to go beyond following the non-aggression principle? A: Personally, I do. Certainly following someone like Mill, I think it’s important to think about the ways in which government can be supportive of certain kinds of enterprises, creating opportunities for people, education, and not just thinking about government as something that should stay out of the way unless absolutely necessary or to keep people from hurting each other. Q: So what factors, in your opinion, would a government consider if it wants to act justly? A: Well, that’s a big question. Do you want me to answer specifically with my own take on that, or do you want me to say what others have thought about that? Let me step back a second. Justice is one of these words that, there are lot of different ideas associated with that term. Basically, it has to do with something about the rightness, or the goodness, or the correctness in some sense of social institutions. A lot of people think about that as the fairness of social institutions, and then in the Rawlsian context, the thought that “what would it be to fair terms of social cooperation to each other, and what kinds of situations would be justified in light of a conversation where we are trying to offer fair terms of social cooperation to each other,” and that’s kind of a leading way of thinking about things. Now, in my personal view, I tend to be more consequentialist or even utilitarian in the way I think about these things. So, on that kind of a view, what we are primarily interested in doing is creating social conditions through institutions that are going to help promote people’s happiness and wellbeing. So there is a difference between the way I tend to think about these things—in a utilitarian way—and the more dominant view, which has to do with John Rawls and finding what it is we can all agree to from a certain kind of impartial perspective that can be fair. Q: You talked about how there are different definitions of justice and how that definition could affect policy later on in a number of ways. So, at least in your opinion, does that definition vary in certain types of laws? You seemed to imply that it does very much so. Would you say that it varies in Supreme Court cases or certain governmental institutions? A: Certainly there’s a lot of disagreement about what constitutes real-world justice. Whether there’s some level at which people are agreeing on a kind of definition, to state it very vaguely, about the sort of goodness of social institutions or the rightness of them, perhaps there’s some perfect articulation of a formula that everyone would agree to, but then they just disagree about what would actually satisfy that definition, but I do think there are so many different perspectives on morality, first of all, that would form all of these different views of justice so that it’s hard—and those differences are at such basic ground level places that it is hard to just neatly think of people as agreeing on a conception or basic definition of justice. Also, justice has different elements; sometimes people are thinking of distributive justice—people getting what they deserve or what ought to be provided to them in some sense. Sometimes we think of justice in a more corrective context, like the criminal justice system… Q: Like the death penalty to some, for example… A: Right, like those kinds of things and what’s just in that context, so it’s really hard to say. What’s interesting that has happened in political philosophy in the last few decades is that there was this idea that justice was, in a sense, an aspect of one’s moral philosophy, so if you were utilitarian you had one view of justice, if you were a Catholic, you might have another, the whole range of views, and justice was an aspect of a basic moral outlook. And then what John Rawls did is, and it’s why I think he became so influential was that he tried to articulate this idea of justice into something that we achieve amidst moral disagreement so that justice is no longer an application of one’s particular moral theory, but rather something we can arrive at when we think about people with moral fundamentals engaging each other in a certain type of way in order to come to terms in a way that everyone can accept. Q: And would you say, coming from more from a public policy perspective, that there is one particular issue that—and I know you’ve mentioned climate change in the past and hosted a COMPAS on environmental sustainability—that would necessitate state action? A: At least for me, I think that’s a great case where I think that we have to ask some really tough questions about if the kinds of political institutions that we set up are able to respond to what seem like very significant problems. There are these questions about markets and what they can actually respond to or not respond to. This is an interesting problem, partly because it goes to the heart of democracy and if our democratic institutions are actually well set up to respond to this kind of problem, this international, global problem. We had a conference last week, which gave me a little bit more optimism that there are these very good people who are working on these international negotiations trying to solve these problems and make some headway, but I tend to be pretty pessimistic about all of this not just from the technological side, what we can actually do in terms of energy and resources and so forth, but also from the political side, because what it seems to need to mount that kind of political action to mitigate the worst consequences that could be coming our way. Q: And I’m curious to know if you think that our modern democracy is properly equipped to address these problems? A: I do think that a lot of us have faith that democracy finds a way of muddling through and solving the problems when they need to when it becomes clear to enough people that there’s something that needs to be addressed. The power of the people can put enough pressure on our leaders to make the changes that are necessary. One of the problems with the environmental case is that the problems are so far in the future and are so complex that it’s hard to know how we are going to generate the sort of political pressure for people who are only thinking about more near-term consequences for their own lives. Now, on the side of the functioning of our democracy, right now in terms of the influence that certain people have on it as opposed to other people, I think that’s another problem that we’ll have to think about. What we need is leaders who are as smart as can be and as oriented towards the public good as can be. We want them to be public-spirited—that’s the second part—and smart. There’s no doubt that our leaders right now are smart when you look at the educations they’ve had and their experiences, so I tend to worry more about the public-spiritedness, and when you look at our system, it seems like, with the way elections are financed, that it’s not clear that our leaders are being especially well rewarded for being responsive to the public interest as opposed to the interest of particular, very wealthy donors. That really worries me because very smart people oriented in the wrong direction will still be going in the wrong direction, and we need to make sure that we have them thinking about the public good. Q: Would you say then that we would need widespread, sweeping changes to our election system, or perhaps just a better way of electing them? A: I think the one thing we always hope for is just to have as educated a citizenry as possible, and that if you start the process there, that they’ll make sure that they’re keeping tabs on their leaders and keeping them as good as they can be—and I think that’s thinking about the kinds of people that will be filling every role in a democracy, including the role of being a voter. But sometimes that’s asking for a lot, so I think we also need to think about the kinds of changes we can be making institutionally, and it’s not clear to me that the changes have to be that radical insofar as these other western democracies that look a lot like us in key ways that seem to do better than we do on some of these issues. They seem to be a little more responsive, at least to me. I am hopeful that if we could just do things like: public financing of elections, overturning Citizens United, things like that, that would have a pretty big effect on the nature of our politics and who our leaders feel they have to be responsive to. I prefer to tend to think about these things a piecemeal way, but I’m very sympathetic to the worry that, right now, there’s good reason for so many people, especially young people, to be cynical about politics. Q: You mentioned Citizens United, what are the philosophical implications, at least from your perspective, of very well financed candidates—not necessarily in the “Bernie Sanders way” of a large number of small donations—but ones sponsored by wealthy individuals that go through super PACs, who may then enact biased policies? A: The way I would answer that question as someone doing political philosophy, maybe I don’t know as much about the on-the-ground politics as some others do, but going back to my interest in John Stewart Mill, the worry about a decision like that is that, even though it seems to be in favor of free speech, what a decision like that seems to do is undermine the kind of discussion that we actually have to have in a democracy in order to hold our leaders accountable to the public interest, where that means that everyone has to be able to have a say, their voices need to be heard, and regular people are not getting drowned out by one segment of society, namely the rich. Mill made a big deal about the significance of discussion and free discussion in a society and somebody could come around and say “How is Citizens United making discussion unfree?” Everyone can still say what they need to say, but the whole point about the free discussion was that the public has to provide a kind of check on government, and we need to be able to talk to each other and learn from each other about better ways of living, and there’s all these great benefits of being able to discuss these things freely with each other, but we don’t get these benefits if only certain voices are heard. And, from my perspective, that’s the big worry about Citizens United. Q: Moving towards a more pragmatic approach, how would we go about doing that? The rich would be “targeted” by that policy and, as we have already agreed, have a disproportionate amount of influence over the system currently. So how would we go about solving that problem? A: It’s hard to get people to take as one of their main concerns the integrity of the democratic process itself. It’s interesting that Lawrence Lessig is running for president basically on that platform (Interviewer’s note: campaign finance), and, of course, he has no chance of winning, but he’s trying to get people motivated on just that issue. I suppose if things got bad enough, we could get motivated by that. But really, what I think needs to happen is, and I really hate to say it, certain things need to get bad enough in certain ways that affect enough people that people realize that they have to vote and that they have to form action groups and support political parties and primary opponents. I think a great model of this is actually the Tea Party, where they have had the influence that they’ve had not because they necessarily have many people at all of their demonstrations—sometimes it’s just a few dozen people—but they’ve gotten all of this press because they supported primary opponents, they became politically consequential in a way that you couldn’t just ignore them as a group because they were making a difference. The mechanism we have to do that is the voting booth, and when you think about, for instance, the African-American community and the kinds of problems that we’ve been seeing more of since Ferguson, and then you also note the very low turnout rates in many places among the African-American community, and I’m totally sympathetic to that and I understand why there’d be widespread frustration and cynicism in that community. But, unfortunately, the way our system is set up is that the only way to really make a difference and change things in a big way is by voting and putting pressure on people through those very same democratic mechanisms. Q: That does bring up a very interesting question because if you do need to form these powerful groups regardless of their size, how can we make sure that when things do get bad enough and the interest groups do start forming, it’s not too late, especially with climate change, where the effects are felt significantly after actions take place? A: I think that with most kinds of problems you can come to them a little bit late and there still will be a significant human consequences in individual people’s lives, and I don’t mean to discount those, but you can still think “better late than never.” With regard to climate change and other environmental issues, there is this worry that we’ve already passed the point of being able to stop certain kinds of bad consequences from happening and I don’t really know what to say about that because we are not really—I at least am not here today prepared to say that we should forgo our regular democratic processes in order to address that challenge. Part of it is, I guess, we have these—at least the lucky of us living in these countries—luxuries and the ability to adapt to certain kinds of changes in the temperatures and certain coastal areas might be affected and we’d have to deal with doubts and things like that, but we could adapt and still do well enough, and that’s a very privileged thing to be able to say, but I suppose things could get bad enough where I would start being tempted by the thought of somebody having to something in a nondemocratic way, but that is such a radical thought that I don’t really want to entertain it. Q: How should you decide, at least from your perspective or even a philosophical one, what side of an issue to generally focus upon? Because when one political party, specifically Marco Rubio who recognizes that climate change may indeed be a problem, but also claims that we should focus on energy costs. So how should we know which side of an issue is relatively important? A: It’s hard to know. A lot of our values overlap, we just value them differently, and I’m not going to tell people exactly how they should balance those, and part of the political process is to have people of goodwill come together and deliberate about it and have a decision procedure that we’ve all accepted for deciding among those different proposals we might make. But, I do think that there is sometimes a kind of emphasis on a certain narrow idea of liberty and personal freedom that gets in the way of productive activity and work by the government that I think in the long term would actually be liberty promoting. Not to put too fine a point on it but, if, for instance, we don’t do anything about climate change, then there are going to be effects for the world that are going to significantly affect our personal liberty,, because we will have to be dealing with things like climate crises or, in terrible scenarios, refugee crises or food rationing. That’s a little bit sci-fi, but you can see how liberty would be affected, ultimately, by not acting, even if it seems that, in the short term, doing something is imposing things on people who would otherwise rather be left alone. Q: You did mention earlier how the wealthier countries would be able to adapt appropriately, if not necessarily as quickly as necessary, but what is your perspective on the more poor nations like South America or large portions of Asia, where they might not be able to react to these crises? A: I think if we don’t act, on these issues, than I think that a lot of those countries are going to face really major problems. One of the interesting things about the environmental agenda globally is that there’s this tension—on one hand the climate change negotiations and when people are focused on targets of emissions and trying to limit temperature increases, but there’s this broader agenda about sustainable development, where on one hand the idea is to see if we could globally be living in our means ecologically in terms of our energy resources while simultaneously developing poorer countries so that they can enjoy a better standard of living that’s closer to what the western world might be enjoying. There’s a lot of optimism from some quarters that you can pursue those things simultaneously, and I think if you’re just a little bit optimistic about technology and that we’ll find more efficient ways to use our resources that that’s a reasonable point of view. But I also think that there’s reason to be worried that, in a world with seven billion people, where half of them live in very poor conditions, that, as we try to bring those people out of poverty, it’s reasonable to worry that we’re going to put even more of a strain on the world’s natural resources. So I think that’s a really big problem, and what I worry about politically is that, when push comes to shove, if there’s not enough for everybody, the rich countries will hold on to what they have and not be willing to make the sacrifices I think that they ought to be willing to make to help improve the lives of people living in other countries. Q: That does move back to our discussion of the sacrifice of personal liberty in the short run in exchange for, perhaps, more liberty, or safety, or stability, for that matter, in the long run. Do you think that voters here would be willing to give up our resources and cope with a lower standard of living to help someone they’ve never seen before? A: I don’t want to be so pessimistic, so I’ll say yes. I do worry that a lot of people think of politics in self-interested or nationalistic terms, but I think there are also a lot of people of goodwill all around us who are worried about these problems and are working to solve them which see America as a moral leader in the world who ought to be doing something and we have of course done all kinds of humanitarian interventions that wouldn’t necessarily be justified just by our national interest in geopolitical terms, and that gives me some hope. Q: Moving more towards global agreements and cooperation, then, do you think nations, particularly the U.S, have a moral responsibility to work together? A: Absolutely. One thing I think people don’t seem to always take note of as much as they should is just the massive consequences of war. I’m not sure how many Americans really understand how many lives were lost in Iraq. The numbers are staggering, so if we’re going to go to war, it has to be because we can really see some important benefit for the region or the world that justifies that massive loss of life. I just worry that sometimes people don’t take that into account enough. If that means talking a little bit longer than some people feel like talking because they just want to act, I want to say, “Look, we should exhaust every possibility we can, short of war, before actually imposing those kinds of costs on these people, most of whom are just good, innocent people who happen to be living in a difficult region.” Q: Is there ever an instance in which military intervention is the only policy? A: There was nothing good about WWII, except it did show us a case where the only thing to do was to stand up in a military way against a threat that Hitler and his allies were posing to the rest of the world. I think that that example really tests the principles of pacifism. Q: What ethics or ideals should a leader try to find in certain public policies, or, what should his ultimate end goals be? A: The main thing is to be thinking about the public good and the general good, and to appreciate how the interests of particular groups can be at odds with the public good, and to make sure that you’re never mistaking one for the other. Now, how to do that, I’m not exactly sure, but I think again that campaign finance reform is an important element of that, and going out and talking to people from all walks of life is important. Q: Thank you for your time, I really appreciate it. A: Thank you, that was really fun. By Olivia Worthington
The legalization of marijuana in the United States has become a prominent issue, especially in regard to upcoming elections with initiatives to legalize marijuana in multiple states. In 2012, marijuana was legalized in Colorado and Washington for recreational use, which was a landmark decision. Amendment 64 was passed in Colorado, which allows those over twenty-one years of age to possess up to one ounce of marijuana legally. (1) Initiative 502 accomplished this same decision in Washington, in which marijuana possession was initially decriminalized and then legalized. Other states have passed legislature to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes as well, including Alaska and Oregon. Some states have legalized marijuana for medical purposes, but not recreational purposes. The debate over whether marijuana usage is technically legal in federal terms after being passed as state initiatives is ongoing. Controversy arose in the District of Columbia over the passage of the legalization of marijuana initiative. Member of Congress, specifically Republicans, threatened Mayor Bowser with jail time for allowing the law to take effect. Congress finds it in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act that “prevents the incurring of obligations or the making of expenditures in excess of amounts available in funds.” (2) Basically, Congress members are arguing that Mayor Bowser is spending federal funds on this law that have not been appropriated to her. District officials argued that the law was enacted by the state, and therefore the Congressional disapproval has no bearing towards the legality of the legislation. Congress has blocked the District from creating a system to tax and regulate the sale of marijuana, but multiple confusing elements remain about the new law. The large debate over state law superseding federal law has become a large legal issue with the passage of marijuana legislation in some states. The federal government still classifies marijuana as a dangerous and illegal drug. The Justice Department has stated they will not challenge states' marijuana laws as long as they do not run counter to other federal laws. (3) This includes selling marijuana to minors, or possessing over the legal amount specified by that state’s new legislation. Congress still sees marijuana as a dangerous drug and the illegal distribution and sales of marijuana as a serious and federal crime. This creates conflicting information on the legality of marijuana. The Constitution states federal law always rules over state law, but in the case of legalizing marijuana, it appears that states have found a way around this by using voter-based initiatives to enact legislation. This issue is all the more pressing, because seven more states are on the verge of legalizing marijuana by the elections of 2016. In Massachusetts, the referendum has been filed for marijuana legalization. Legalization in California would have drastic economic implications because California has a large economic output in the United States and would have the entire U.S. west coast complying with marijuana legalization initiatives. (4) The typically conservative state of Missouri is not far from legalizing legislation, as is Hawaii, which is already currently home to a large amount of marijuana growth. Maine is also finalizing marijuana legislation, which could push the rest of the east coast further to legalization. Nevada is also close to legalizing, and in a surprising move, so is the state of Ohio. Ohio is pushing a constitutional amendment in the 2015 election known as Issue 3, and it would legalize the limited sale and use of marijuana. Ten facilities would also be created with exclusive commercial rights to grow marijuana. If the elections occurred right now, public polling shows the issue would pass and make Ohio the fifth state to legalize marijuana. The issue presented here is that Issue 2 is also on the ballot, which was added to prohibit an economic monopoly by the Issue 3 amendment. If both issues pass, they are in conflict with each other, and the issue would likely proceed to the Ohio Supreme Court to be resolved. (5) The legalization of marijuana has created legal conflict and confusion as more states are passing initiatives in favor of legal marijuana recreational usage. Federal law states marijuana is classified as an illegal drug, and yet states are passing voter-based initiatives that support marijuana being legalized. Federal law is above state law in the Constitution, but in punishment for possession or selling the drug it is rather unclear who holds authority in certain instances. Because states have differing laws on this, it makes setting a firm precedent for any incident difficult, meaning the law is rather variable depending on the setting. With more states becoming closer to marijuana legalization, many political actors are calling for greater clarity in federal and state marijuana laws, which would ultimately lead to more clarity on this widely debated issue. Works Cited (1) Office of National Drug Control Policy, “Marijuana Resource Center” (The White House, 2015) https://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/state-laws-related-to-marijuana (2) William Cummings, “Pot Now Legal in D.C. Despite Threats from Congress” (USA Today February 26, 2015) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/25/dc-marijuana-legalization/24033803 (3) Office of National Drug Control Policy, “State Laws Related to Marijuana” (The White House, 2015) (4) Sam Becker, “Seven States on Verge of Marijuana Legalization” (TCS October 15, 2015) www.TCS.com/business/5-states-and-one-city-ready-to-legalize-marijuana.htm/?a=viewall (5) “Ohio Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Issue 3 (2015)” (The Encyclopedia of American Politics 2015) ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_Issue_3_(2015) By Maya Tener On November 3, General Elections will once again be held across the United States. Voting is arguably the most important civic opportunity given to citizens in the United States. In recent elections, a great deal of attention has been focused on the percent of young citizens casting ballots. Since the end of WWII it has been a growing trend that young people have a consistently low level of electoral participation in American elections (USCB). "It's been clear for some time now that young people are growing more disillusioned and disconnected from Washington," said Harvard Institute of Politics Polling Director John Della Volpe. "There's an erosion of trust in the individuals and institutions that make government work — and now we see the lowest level of interest in any election we've measured since 2000.” But, it is not because the younger generation is disinterested or uncaring about political issues that they fail to vote. They feel as if their vote will not affect the outcome of elections. This voting season there is an issue that should increase voter turnout, at least amongst the college aged electorate in Ohio--Issue 3. Well, you say I am not registered to vote in Ohio, not a problem because not only will Ohio be faced with this decision but Pennsylvania will also have a similar issue on their ballot. Voting for Issue 3, “Grants a monopoly for the commercial production and sale of marijuana for recreational and medicinal purposes.” The proposed amendment to Section 12 of Article XV of the Constitution of the State of Ohio would: Endow exclusive rights for commercial marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction to self-designated landowners who own ten predetermined parcels of land in Butler, Clermont, Franklin, Hamilton, Licking, Lorain, Lucas, Delaware, Stark, and Summit Counties. One additional location may be allowed for in four years only if existing facilities cannot meet consumer demand. Permit retail sale of recreational marijuana at approximately 1,100 locations statewide. Such retail establishments must have a state license that may be obtained only if the electors of the precinct where the store will be located approve the use of the location for such purpose at a local option election. Legalize the production of marijuana-infused products, including edible products, concentrates, sprays, ointments and tinctures by marijuana product manufacturing facilities. Allow each person, 21 years of age or older, to, grow, cultivate, use, possess, and share up to eight ounces of usable homegrown marijuana plus four flowering marijuana plants if the person holds a valid state license. Allow each person, 21 years of age or older, to purchase, possess, transport, use, and share up to 1 ounce of marijuana for recreational use. Authorize the use of medical marijuana by any person, regardless of age, who has a certification for a debilitating medical condition. Prohibit marijuana establishments within 1,000 feet of a house of worship, public library, public or chartered elementary or secondary school, state-licensed day-care center, or public playground, however: after a certain date, a new day-care, library, etc., cannot force a preexisting marijuana establishment to relocate by opening a new location within 1,000 feet of the business. Prohibit any local or state law, including zoning laws, from being applied to prohibit the development or operation of marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction facilities, retail marijuana stores, and medical marijuana dispensaries unless the area is zoned exclusively residential as of January 1, 2015 or as of the date that an application for a license is first filed for a marijuana establishment. Create a special tax rate limited to 15% on gross revenue of each marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction facility and marijuana product manufacturing facility and a special tax rate limited to 5% on gross revenue of each retail marijuana store. Revenues from the tax go to a municipal and township government fund, a strong county fund, and the marijuana control commission fund. Create a marijuana incubator in Cuyahoga County to promote growth and development of the marijuana industry and locate marijuana testing facilities near colleges and universities in Athens, Cuyahoga, Lorain, Mahoning, Scioto and Wood Counties, at a minimum. Limit the ability of the legislature and local governments from regulating the manufacture, sales, distribution, and use of marijuana and marijuana products. Create a new state government agency called the marijuana control commission (with limited authority) to regulate the industry, comprised of seven Ohio residents appointed by the Governor, including a physician, a law enforcement officer, an administrative law attorney, a patient advocate, a resident experienced in owning, developing, managing and operating businesses, a resident with experience in the legal marijuana industry, and a member of the public. Those opposed to such an amendment should vote yes on Issue 2 which is an anti-monopoly amendment of Section 1e of Article II, part and parcel to Issue 3, that protects the initiative process from being used for personal economic benefit. The amendment prohibits the creation of monopolies, and if both issues pass a legal battle will ensue: ... any petitioner from using the Ohio Constitution to grant a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel for their exclusive financial benefit or to establish a preferential tax status. Prohibit any petitioner from using the Ohio Constitution to grant a commercial interest, right, or license that is not available to similarly situated persons or nonpublic entities. Require the bipartisan Ohio Ballot Board to determine if a proposed constitutional amendment violates the prohibitions above, and if it does, present two separate ballot questions to voters. Both ballot questions must receive a majority yes vote before the proposed amendment could take effect. Prohibit from taking effect any proposed constitutional amendment appearing on the November 3, 2015 General Election ballot that creates a monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel for the sale, distribution, or other use of any federal Schedule I controlled substance. The Ohio Supreme Court has original, exclusive jurisdiction in any action related to the proposal. For one to make a decision on whether to endorse or vote against Issue 3, it is helpful to understand the effects of similar legislation in other states. It is not my intention to either endorse Issue 2 or 3, but I do want to encourage voting. Vote because college aged students have the possibility of creating a majority on important issues. We as members of the United States should not disbelieve that our vote has no impact. Citizens’ are not obliged to run for office or lobby for governmental changes, but voting is a way for our generation to be engaged in crucial processes helping to influence policy and the direction government takes. We should not stand idly and let others make decisions for us, or we will end up being the passive victims of others decisions. Stop having sit-ins, complaining over the government’s inaction, and asserting that you don’t matter. Until you exercise your right to vote, you will not make an impact on your life as an American citizen. By Sam Huryn
If you are reading this, there is a very good chance that at some point in your life, you have had to take a standardized test. Standardized testing is a common practice throughout America and other countries to aid in determining admissions to educational institutions. For those like myself who plan on attending law school in the future, the standardized test for admission is the Law School Admission Test, or LSAT. The LSAT “consists of five 35-minute sections of multiple-choice questions”, four of which are scored, along with an additional un-scored, 35-minute writing portion".1 The sections cover logical reasoning, analytic reasoning, and reading comprehension. In the United States, the LSAT is administered four times a year, in June, October, December, and February. For those curious, the next upcoming date for the LSAT is Saturday, December 5. There is a 175 dollar fee for registration. Preparation is extremely important for a tester who wishes to test to the utmost of their potential. LSAC.org recommends that “at a minimum, you should take a practice test, including the writing sample”.2 Also offered are sample questions, as well as a complete sample test from June 2007. There are many companies that offer tutoring, practice tests, and other preparation services as well, and use of a variety of methods is often recommended. The test itself is graded on a predetermined bell curve, with the raw scores adjusted to fit. One’s score report is usually available three to four weeks after the test. The report itself includes five things: “Current score. Results of all tests—up to 12—for which you registered since June 1, 2010, including absences and cancellations. Scores earned prior to June 2010 are not reportable. An average score, if you have more than one reportable score on file. Your score band, if your score was earned on the 120–180 scale… Your percentile rank, which reflects the percentage of candidates whose scores were lower than yours during the previous three testing years.”3 Scores are only available for five years. The scores range from 120 at the lowest to a maximum of 180, with averages hovering just above 150.4 For reference, many more well-known law schools have average LSAT acceptance statistics between 155 to 170.5 When applying for law school, schools will be able to see and judge candidates based on all of these criteria. For those wishing to attend law school in the future, taking the LSAT at least once is mandatory. There are many steps to do so in a successful manner. First, a prospective student would have to find when and where the next test is being offered, sign up, and pay the registration fee. After that, preparation is key. Students should seek out a number of different sources of preparation, including practice tests, helpful books, and tutors. The test itself has six sections, and lasts approximately four hours. After the test, five different scores are reported, both to you and to universities. I hope this short guide helps to all those wishing to apply to law school! 1“About the LSAT”, (Law School Admissions Council, 2015), http://www.lsac.org/jd/lsat/about-the-lsat 2“Preparing for the LSAT”, (Law School Admissions Council, 2015), http://www.lsac.org/jd/lsat/preparing-for-the-lsat 3“Your LSAT Score”, (Law School Admissions Council, 2015), http://www.lsac.org/jd/lsat/your-score 4 “LSAT Technical Report Series” (Law School Admissions Council, 2012), http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source/research-(lsac-resources)/tr-12-03.pdf 5“Ranking, Acceptance Rates, LSAT”, (Start Class), http://law-schools.startclass.com By Abby Newman
In order for this country to uphold the truest form of liberty, it must allow its inhabitants their most basic human rights. This includes freedom of speech, religion and press, as well as a right to protest the government, the right to citizenship and the right to protect oneself, more specifically through the ownership of firearms. However, does this prerogative to protection cause more harm than help? The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", but as time passes, this country metamorphoses, implying that it may be time to reanalyze this provision to the Supreme Law of the Land. A common conspiracy indicates that when crafting the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers only considered the right to bear arms as an aid to the militia and not an individual right. This is because in early America time did not always allow for a highly trained militia in the event of spontaneous attack, in which case the individual was the militia. For that reason, the Founding Fathers did not see a need to specify. There is no proof that the “bearing of arms” mentioned in the Constitution relates to self-defense (1). Now that the militia of the United States stands strong and prestigious, does the original essence of the Second Amendment still apply? The Democratic Party respects the individual right to bear arms to an extent. The party blames gun violence to the lack of gun control. Numerous acts of legislation have been passed to instate stricter gun control laws, especially as the number of mass shootings in this country increase. Provisions of this legislation include background checks and a required photo I.D. in order to purchase and carry firearms (2). The Republican party on the other hand, considers these sort of provisions a violation of privacy and against the Second Amendment. The Republican Party considers itself much more trusting of the citizens of the United States, and considers the licensing of firearms invasive (3). As of now, gun control in the United States is ultimately a decision of the individual states. However, after the recent mass shooting that occurred at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, many passionate citizens are pushing for the federal government to step in and make some changes. While Republicans are sending thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims, Democrats are screaming tremendous pleas, begging for stricter gun control legislation. President Barack Obama said in his official statement on the shooting, “But as I said just a few months ago, and I said a few months before that, and I said each time we see one of these mass shootings, our thoughts and prayers are not enough. It’s not enough. It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel. And it does nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America -- next week, or a couple of months from now” (4). President Obama also alludes to the examples of Great Britain and Australia: two civilized countries with strict gun control laws that have not seen a mass shooting in years. On the other end of the political spectrum, Republican Presidential Candidate Marco Rubio said, “we're focusing too much on what it is people are using to commit violence, and not enough on why it is that people are committing violence. . .” (5). While Democrats try to fix the problems concerning guns in this country, Republicans focus on fixing the problems of those behind the trigger. As violence in this country increases drastically, it seems as if it is no longer a matter of who is right and who is wrong, but a matter of action. Whether the solution is stricter legislation or stricter institutionalization, something needs to be done to eliminate the savagery that is becoming of the United States. Works Cited 1. "Background: "Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?"" ProConorg Headlines. ProCon.org, 2015. Web. 03 Oct. 2015. <http://gun-control.procon.org/#background>. 2. "Democratic Party on Gun Control." Democratic Party on Gun Control. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Oct. 2015. <http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm>. 3. "Republican Party on Gun Control." Republican Party on Gun Control. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Oct. 2015. <http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_Gun_Control.htm>. 4. Holst, Lindsay. "Watch President Obama's Statement on the Shooting in Oregon." The White House. The White House, 1 Oct. 2015. Web. 04 Oct. 2015. <https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/10/01/watch-president-obamas-statement-shooting-oregon>. 5. "Reaction of 2016 Candidates to Oregon Shooting." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 2 Oct. 2015. Web. 04 Oct. 2015. <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/reaction-of-2016-candidates-to-oregon-shooting/>. |
Archives
March 2018
Categories |