boc

3/28/2009
My Business Law class overall was very entertaining. I was very thankful for the control of the class making it easier to learn. I believe we covered everything on our course syllabus. This class really opened my eyes on our court systems. I know why we have a Supreme Court system since are laws are always tested on how effective there are in our society. I was a little scared coming in to this class since I haven’t been in school since 2002. I really didn’t know that much about the law but have been involved in the law. I can take my knowledge of what I have learned and protect myself from bad renters. I can same day own a company and know the basic principles you need to legally call it a business. I’m glad there were multiple movies and examples to help us understand the material since I’m a visual learner. You can tell me something all day but if I you don’ t show me don’t expect it to stay in the old noggin. I believe I should receive A – since I have meet all the requirements of this class. I have always turned in my assignments on time and have never missed class. I don’t think I deserve higher since I have been late and have received B’s on both midterms.

In this case there was only one Justice that did not agree in the final ruling. Justice Thomas felt , "Lopez’s state felony offense qualifies as a “drug trafficking crime” as defined in §924(c)(2). A plain reading of this definition identifies two elements: First, the offense must be a felony; second, the offense must be capable of punishment under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). No one disputes that South Dakota punishes Lopez’s crime as a felony. See S. D. Codified Laws §22–42–5 (1988). Likewise, no one disputes that the offense was capable of punishment under the CSA. See 21 U. S. C. §844(a). Lopez’s possession offense therefore satisfies both elements, and the inquiry should end there" http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-547.ZD.html. Justice Thomas believes that if you are convicted of a misdeamenor in a state and that crime can be classified as a felony according to the INA then it should be grounds for deportation. The problem is the termelogy of the different crimes. Illict trafficking is questionable under the INA. The court decides that only a Federal felonies can be classified as a drug trafficking crime according to thomas. " The Court, however, takes the inquiry further by reasoning that only federal felonies qualify as drug trafficking crimes. According to the Court, the definition of drug trafficking crime contains an implied limitation: “any felony punishable [as a felony] under the” CSA. The text does not support this interpretation. Most obviously, the language “as a felony” appears nowhere in §924(c)(2). Without doubt, Congress could have written the definition with this limitation, but it did not."http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-547.ZD.html. Thomas does make a good point that a felony in plain text is described as a conviction of more then one year in jail. "Thomas relied on the plain meaning of the word felony, which is any crime that is punishable by more than one year in prison.39 Also, Justice Thomas disagreed with the majority's claim that all trafficking offenses must contain a commercial element.40 In fact, by the majority's own admission, some possession crimes fall within the definition of "illicit trafficking."http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/DJCLPP/index.php?action=showitem&id=37. Its hard to disagree with thomas since it seems the decision has changed the law so that a legal alien can commit a drug offense and still given the opportunity to live in the US.

This case as really got me boiling. I can’t believe there are loop holes in the system that would allow this to happen. The fact that he was convicted of a crime after he was given his citizenship makes my blood boil. I have a lot of respect for those that do come this country and serve in the military because you know they want it bad and are willing to die for it. These people however did use the system to obtain their citizenship but took advantage of it. It’s scary that Lopez could commit a crime that is classified as a felony in his state and still get away with not having to be deported. The other case I discuss was one in which a legal alien is convicted of a DUI which is classified as a felony in his state but not in federal courts. They conclude that because he can’t be proven that his offense was a intentional crime of violence he can’t be deported. So If your an illegal alien and your reading this you would now realize that you could break the law and still have a chance to not be deported as long as the federal court system only classifies your charge as a misdemeanor even though it might be classified as a felony in your state.

The precedent that was established after this case is as follows. The supreme court ruled that even though you are convicted of a felony according to state law you are not necessarily convicted of felony in the federal courts. This First ruling on the case was, “The Immigration Judge ultimately ruled that despite the CSA’s treatment of Lopez’s crime as a misdemeanor, see 21 U. S. C. §844(a), it was an aggravated felony under the INA owing to its being a felony under state law”, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-547.ZS.html. Lopez filled for an appeal and the case was brought before the supreme court. The court had to decied what was the meaning behind Illict Trafficking. If they could prove that Lopez could be found guilty of this he would be considered a felony and would be grounds for removal. However they couldn’t because Trafficking is Trading and selling good for profit with lopez was not caught taken park in. “Conduct made a felony under state law but a misdemeanor under the CSA is not a “felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act” for INA purposes”, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-547.ZS.html. This final ruling help decide a case where a drunk driver ran a light and hit two cilivians crossing the street. He was conviced of a dui and according to the state was charged as a “crime of Viloence”. The definition of these words were very questionable for this case since the individual wasn’t intentionally trying to cause bodlily harm to the people he hurt. The federal court found that, “Other federal courts have held that crimes requiring mere negligence for guilt do not qualify as violent crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). Accordingly, the deportation of individuals based on DUI and similar convictions may vary geographically based on the local federal court’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 16(a).” http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certGrants/2004/leovash. As the Lopez case he was not deported since under federal law he hadn’t commited a aggrevated felony. So the precedent established here is even though you are convicted as a felony in a state, you haven’t necessasrily commited a felony according to the federal courts and can appeakl your deportation. Sad because living in this country is a priviledge especially if your not born here. These people should not have been given a second chance.

Pornographic material

I believe the film we watched today is still relevant since there are towns till this day that still outlaws pornography. When I was stationed in Abilene Texas, the community completely outlawed strip clubs, porn stores and even Hooters. The community was funded primarily by the churches and since the major college there was a Christian school they made it clear that there will never be anything offensive and anything promoting sex in that city. There is no longer an issue about appointing a women to the high court since we do have one on the stand today. However, the fact that she is going to have to step down and the person who is going to fill her position so far are only women applicants. I believe that’s wrong not because I don’t believe women could do that job but the position should go to the most qualified. My options on pornographic material is it should still be outlawed for minor’s and have strict laws that prevent minor’s from viewing such material. I do have to agree that it is a form of art and people have the right to express themselves in that manner. With the changes on the internet people are free to view whatever material they so desire. That scares me because one day I’m going to have children and they will be easily exposed to such material. I won’t have to sit him down and talk about birds and bees because his friend already burned a copy of the Pamela tape. That really scares me. I wish they can develop a better system that controls who gets to view such material without compromising people’s own right to privacy.

The judge that convicted Lopez in south dakota threw the book at him which i thought was very necessary. Once the supreme court got a hold of it the judges have to clairy what aggravated felony is and should state law over rule federal Law. The problem was the definitiion of a aggrevated felony offense. According to the CSA ( Controlles Substance Act) and INA (Immigration and Nationality act), "The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) lists as an "aggravated felony" "illicit trafficking in a controlled substance . . . including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of title 18)," 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(43)(B), but does not define "illicit trafficking." Title 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(2) defines "drug trafficking crime" to include "any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act" (CSA)."http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-547.pdf . The juge had deciceded that because the offense had to do with drug possession it would be considered a felony under the state law and be grounds for deportation. Lopez of course fought for an appeal on the grounds that his offense according to the Controlled Substance Act was still only a misdeaminor and is not grounds for deportation since the INA requires the offense to be a Felony. The judge reasoning was the offense was charged as a felony since state laws states any drug possion as a felony. According to the CSA it must be a Illicit Trafficking offense for them to be considerderd a felony. Lopez was not trafficking since the definition of trafficing is, "To pass goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money; to buy or sell goods; to barter; to trade."http://www.dictionary.net/trafficking. He was only convicted of Aiding and abetting another person's possession of cocaine.

In the court case of Lopez v Gonzalez the final supreme court ruled in favor of Lopez. The court ruled , though Lopez was convicted of a felony and had to serve time in jail , he was only convicted of a misdemeanor according to federal and not subjected to deportation. So the final ruling was if you are convicted of a felony in a state but is only classified as a misdemeanor you cannot be convicted as a felony by the federal court."The Court rejected the government's interpretation of immigration law, ruling that a non citizen is not subject to mandatory deportation for a drug crime that, while a felony in the state where the crime was prosecuted, is only a misdemeanor under federal law."http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/scotuscases_IMMIGRATIONLAW.html. It's hard to believe that a felony of state could only be treated as a misdemeanor in federal court. There is a similar case about a drunk driver who was in the united states illegally could not be deported because under federal law he is not consider a felony offense.LEOCAL v. ASHCROFT (2004) Is driving under the influence of alcohol, even when serious bodily injury results, an "aggravated felony" for which an immigrant can be subject to automatic deportation?http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/scotuscases_IMMIGRATIONLAW.html. The court Rules that defendant was not intentionally trying to hurt anyone that drunken driving according to federal law is only to be considered a accident. Hence the could not be treated as a felony and deported. "The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that driving under the influence of alcohol, even when serious bodily injury results, is not a ''crime of violence'' for which an immigrant can be subject to automatic deportation." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01EEDA113CF933A25752C1A9629C8B63&scp=2&sq=LEOCAL%20v.%20ASHCROFT%20(2004&st=cse. This case further supports federal law over state law. It really makes you think about the loop holes there are for immigration and why are government wonders why we are still have problems with illegal entry into this country. Why would you not want to stay in a country that allows you to break the law and still can't deport you.