The Constitution and Religious Liberty

We live in ambivalent times. There have been external and internal threats to democracy that we cannot afford to neglect. Whether or not we agree or disagree with what’s happening, the fact that long-term contradiction between law and action will further result in chaos. Chaos usually ignites citizens in the wrong way. It gives people the signal to be hostile — all in the spirit of proving what argument or action is better.

The whole outlook that we are trying to bring up is to remove the sense of extreme competitiveness between individuals and in groups. Less bitterness, more encouragement. Sometimes encouragement just means understanding amidst differences. It means respect. It means expanding our knowledge about cultural and religious differences. We can never imagine a place where our ideas are rejected for a better one.

To combat cynicism, integration is a good step towards the desire to understand. And having that desire does wonder on people who experience a feeling of being isolated because of their beliefs.  The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment has been specific about accommodating religious liberty. (Cornell University Law School) There have been instances where practicing one’s faith (or one’s lack of faith) allows people to connect further with members of their municipality. It creates something shared. We connect more on the mentalities that religions created rather than its rituals. Catholic and Protestant schools and mosques thrive amongst secular households, and this diversity should bring an intellectual and communal wealth instead of division.

This definition of religious liberty is divided into two: that the government makes no partisan to any religion; that its priority will be to ensure the separation of Church and State (Cornell University Law School). Another is that every person in the United States has the right to practice his or her religion or none at all. We focus more on the latter definition – that each person, in each state and county and town, has the right to freely exercise their faith (American Civil Liberties Union) within the norms of the community.

The check and balances on how religious freedom is protected have always been subjected to various interpretations. These interpretations, therefore, could potentially cause a violation to other natural human rights. For example, opposition to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was accounted for by the LGBT community as this would prevent them from defending themselves on the grounds of discrimination for their sexuality. (Indiana General Assembly 2015) Legislation implying, quoting or supplementing the First Amendment usually aim to expound on its definition and to clarify its boundaries because circumstances of which the law may apply to can vary, and we want to broaden the scope of people that the Constitution protects. Values that represent laws have become highly competitive as the double-standard of equality builds the pressure on the groups who don’t want to be left behind with regards to security. (Russell-Kraft, 2017) Changes in the law should not pose a threat but rather a sense of accomplishment that groups who consider themselves a minority in the community now have a perspective.

If you are in need of a good constitutional lawyer then look no further than MRD Lawyers, who are the most trusted attorneys in Springfield, Missouri. You can trust them with your legal needs whether it’s a criminal matter, constitutional matter or if you’re in need of a traffic ticket attorney.


Find The Right General Practice Attorney For Your Law Problem

It can be a challenge to find a legal consultant to represent you and handle your legal case. If you are in a hurry, finding the very best general practice lawyer for your situation can be rather daunting. Not knowing where to get one can even be more stressful. Hopefully this list of information will help you find the right general practice lawyer for you.

Legal consultants often handle multiple cases at the same time, with each case advancing on its own schedule. They set priorities based on a number of factors, like upcoming filing deadlines and court dates, and every case should receive the attention it deserves. If you feel your case is being short-changed, do not hesitate to raise the problem with your general practice lawyer. When you want to hire them, search for much info about their background.

Truthful attorneys are frank about their abilities to represent your case. If your case rests outside of their field of expertise, they should tell you immediately. Do not use a general practice lawyer who lacks experience in the area where you have legal need. General practice attorneys might also handle a case simply to gain experience in a new field.

Regardless of how talented they’re, even top-rated general practice lawyers occasionally make mistakes. Smart general practice lawyers try best to learn from their errors and not repeat them later. A respected general practice lawyer knows that in this world there’s no one who is perfect. Responsible general practice lawyers take ownership of their mistakes and will apologize.

Building up their presence on the web is what all intelligent general practice lawyers will do. When looking at a particular legal consultant, search for their experience and qualifications to double-check that they are skilled enough for your case. You will have a much easier time locating a qualified attorney to hire by making use of online research tools. The attorney you eventually hire should have excellent online reviews.

A general practice lawyer should always have the ability to keep calm during the case. Sometimes, approaches may need to shift throughout the course of a case. It’s essential that your legal consultant keep a level head with a specific end goal to keep from making blunders while representing your case, despite the possibility that the law hurls him or her a curveball. Speak to clients who may have worked with your legal consultant before putting a sign on the contract to enable you know how they handle stress and surprises.

When you’re met with a legal situation that needs to go to court, make certain you pick a honorable legal advisor who can represent you using all of his knowledge, expertise and understanding. If the legal consultant you approach initially lacks the specialized skills and experience your case requires, you should be referred immediately to someone better suited to the job. Continue your search if the attorney you were set on transfers you to someone else, we can recommend the top lawyer in Springfield, MO for your needs..

One of the first steps you want to take when searching for an attorney is to determine exactly what kind of lawyer you need and what type of cases they specialize with. It is always preferable to find an attorney who has prior specialized expertise and practice in the specifications that your case involves such as delayed diagnosis related to a medical malpractice claim. It’s also a good idea to find attorney familiar with the courts and laws of the area where you live.

A common practice that can aide you in the search for a Chicago divorce lawyer would be to get referrals and recommendations from friends and family. Talk to friends and family who used an attorney as you can find out what their first hand experience was. Find out who they hired, for what type of case, if they were happy with how the attorney handled things, and why or why not. This can determine whether or not the attorney is someone who you would want to represent you in the court room !


Conventions, Norms, Behaviors in Congress

The Constitution provides little guidance for congressional behavior

members of the House of Representatives and the Senate make their own rules, establish their own norms, choose their own structures. They are free to make it up as they go along. But one should hope that the Constitution’s empowerments and constraints – Congress’s specific constitutional obligations and specific areas in which it is prohibited from acting — will not be the only guides to appropriate congressional behavior.

In writing about the Founders’ concerns about corruption, Fordham’s Zephyr Teachout has argued that one can discern clear underlying principles threaded throughout the Constitution, even if not specifically stated. I would contend that the same concept – discernible unstated principles – applies to much of the constitutional framework regarding Congress, specifically in regard to the Founders’ expectations regarding behavioral norms: deliberation, debate, compromise, and in its interaction with the executive branch, a strong defense of institutional prerogatives. Almost all of these suppositions have proved to have been overly optimistic. There have been few James Madisons in the 21st century versions of the legislative branch.

The Rising Effectiveness of Progressive Federalism

*This piece is part of the ACSblog Symposium: 2017 ACS National Convention. The symposium will consider topics featured at the three day convention, scheduled for June 8-10, 2017. 

When Ronald Reagan used his 1983 State of the Union Address to foreshadow a sweeping proposal to devolve vast powers from the federal government back to states and localities, he described his New Federalism initiative as an effort “to restore to states and local governments their roles as dynamic laboratories of change in a creative society.”

Liberal critics at the time regarded the New Federalism as a thin veiling for a full-scale federal retreat from progressive social policy — which, of course, it was. In subsequent years, as successive Congresses grappled with mounting budget deficits and as the federal bench grew increasingly conservative, Reagan’s efforts to return power to local governments would indeed take hold among his presidency’s most enduring legacies.

Today, progressive state and local governments should embrace the principles behind New Federalism as a way to push back against a federal administration that threatens constitutional protections and many of the values these localities hold. In the few months that President Donald Trump has been in office, state and local governments have successfully thwarted his attempts to carry out some of his most misguided initiatives.

When President Trump issued an executive order that sought to strip federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions, San Francisco and other local governments acted swiftly to fight back. My office filed the first lawsuit in the nation to challenge the Executive Order, and the County of Santa Clara and other local jurisdictions soon followed us. In April, Federal Judge William Orrick issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that temporarily halted enforcement of the president’s executive order, recognizing the Executive Order likely violates the Separation of Powers, the Spending Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and other constitutional provisions.

We Can’t Count on Robert Mueller to Tell Us What We Need to Know

Robert Mueller’s appointment as a special counsel to oversee the Justice Department’s investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election does not in any way preclude muscular congressional oversight into the matter.

Nor does it give congressional witnesses carte blanche to duck questions they do not feel like answering in public.

Within hours of the announcement about Mueller, Republican members of Congress started using his leadership of the investigation as an excuse to stand down.

“You’ve got a special counsel who has prosecutorial powers now, and I think we in Congress have to be very careful not to interfere,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters on Thursday. “Public access to this is probably going to be very limited now. It’s going to really limit what the public will know about this.”

And one of several congressional witnesses-in-waiting cited Mueller as an excuse not to answer even basic questions from his ostensible congressional overseers. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who played a highly controversial role in Comey’s firing, briefed Senate and House members last week — in a closed session, despite the lack of any discussion of classified material.

“Basically any question of any substance, it was, ‘I can’t comment because it may be the subject of an investigation by Mueller,’ ” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) told the New York Times.