Legal and Ethical Aspects of Electronic Monitoring and Surveillance of Research Paper

Legal and Ethical Aspects of Electronic Monitoring and Surveillance of Employees - Research Paper Example Electronic monitoring has been defined as "the computerized collection, storage, analysis, and reporting of information about employees productive activities" (Office of Technology Assessment, 1987). Employee monitoring has become much easier with the advent of new and cheap technologies. Electronic Monitoring and surveillance includes practices such as video and audio surveillance, monitoring employees’ usage of computer that includes checking of email, computer files and sometimes even keystroke speed. There are many reasons for instituting monitoring and surveillance. According to the American Management Association some of the main reasons are: performance evaluation, compliance with federal and local laws, protection against legal liability and cost control of the use of company phone and internet. Security and protection of business information can be cited as other reasons. There are several types of employee monitoring and surveillance systems. The most commonly used are 1)computer monitoring :With the help of computer monitoring systems an employer can check an employee’s speed and accuracy, monitor the number of errors, the number of jobs done, time spent away from computer. This information can then be used by the employer to maintain records of an employee’s performance and to set performance standards 2) Video surveillance: Employers use these systems to track employee theft, and wastage of time 3) Phone tapping: This is the most common method of monitoring used by employers. Here the number of calls, the frequency, the length and destination of the calls are all recorded. This information is then used to detect if an employee is passing on critical information about the organization to outsiders and to train employees for better customer service. 4) E-mail and Voice Mail tracking: In some workplaces employers monitor an employees e -mail and voice mail. With the help of new technologies, employers can easily track

Factors Influencing Public Policy

Factors Influencing Public Policy As for a good government, the valuable public policy, which refers to the government action or inaction to deal with particular issues, can be regarded as one of the evaluation criterions. Thus, it seems that the process of policy making, turning the government political vision into the actual programs and actions in the real world (Cabinet Office, 1999), becomes significant which should be put on much more emphasis. Especially, good quality policy making depends on high quality information, derived from a variety of sources-expert knowledge; existing domestic and international research; existing statistics; stakeholder consultation; evaluation of previous policies and new research(Cabinet Office, 1999). The high quality information here mainly refers to evidence which becomes more and more important part for the policy making. Even more, the increasing use of various kinds of evidence by government has determined the central role of evidence in policy making for 21st century. The te rm evidence-based policymaking naturally comes up at the same time. Actually, the rise role of evidence in policy making does have its own reasons. As the development of modern society, the growth of well-educated and well-informed public cast their interest to the exact information provided by the government and ask why. Thus in certain distance, it facilitates the government to explore the precise data of all types with the help of developed information technology(Davies, Nutley and Smith, 2000). Whats more, an increasing demand on accountability in government spurs on the significance of evidence in a democratic society. Due to the above reasons, in UK the Blair Government, who was elected on the basis of What matters is what works, announced that to produce policies that really deal with problems, that are forward-looking and shaped by evidence rather than a response to short-term pressure, that tackles causes; not symptoms(Modernising Government, 1999 White Paper), and demonstrated that it was a good time for the new government to begin evidenc e based- approach to public policy (Gary Banks AO, 2009), At the same time, they built a new relationship between social science and government as well as pointed out that public policy had to be driven by evidence. So, what exactly does evidence mean? UK Cabinet office defines it as analysis of the outcome of consultation, costings of policy options and the results of economic or statistical modeling(Cabinet Office, 1999) According to Chambers Dictionary, evidence consists of results of systematic investigation towards increasing the sum of knowledge (Davies, Nutley and Smith, 2000). Both two definitions can be divided into four kinds serving for policy making: descriptive data, analytic findings, evaluative evidence, and policy analytic forecasts(Carol Hirschon Weiss, 2001). Descriptive data is a tool to show objects condition, location, relation and direction of change. Consider, for instance, before the Hong Kong Government introduced the environmental levy scheme on plastic shopping bags, amount of data are collected to show the increasing danger brought by the plastic bags. 3-the average number of plastic bags is used by Hong Kong people per day. 13,503-the number of tons of solid waste is disposed of at landfills per day (EPD Hong Kong, 2009). 20 to 1000-the years are needed to decompose the plastic bag. From the exact data, government could clearly see the negative environmental affect caused by the plastic bag. Thus, governments policy is made on the basis of large and comprehensive data. The second kind is analytic findings which refer to the identified information conducted by an academic research and analysis system, discovering the relationship between factors and current situations(Carol Hirschon Weiss, 2001). Also in the same policy-the environmental levy scheme on plastic shopping bags, after academic analysis, we can conclude that the low environmental consciousness of public endangers the situation of indiscriminate use of plastic bags. The analytic findings are the direction for seeking positive solutions in the process of policy making. Evaluation serves for directly examining the existing policies in other countries or places, and then selectively choo sing for own use. Taiwan, as one of the pioneers in environmental protection, provides valuable experience for the Hong Kong Government enacting the plastic bag levy scheme. After evaluating positive and negative sides of Taiwans Restricted Use Policy on Plastic Shopping Bags and Disposable Plastic Tableware (Our Groups Essay on Environmental Levy Scheme on Plastic Shopping Bags, 2009), the HK Government adopts the same policy of restricted use of plastic shopping bags while temporarily abandons the unavailable policy on plastic tableware. The last one is policy analytic forecasts. In common situations, analyst will calculate and predict the potential cost and benefits of the coming policy. The report of prediction will influence the final release of the new policy(Carol Hirschon Weiss, 2001). In short, these four kinds of evidence are used as the basis of the government policy making. Nevertheless, no matter how important evidence is, in the process of policy making, its nature has several limitations and difficulties. According to Gary Banks research on evidence-based policy making, methodology the government choose, data deficiency or overload, evidence transparency, people who research and analyze evidence, and the limited time to do the data collection are all the potential factors to influence the effectiveness of evidence used in policy making(Gary Banks AO, 2009). Sometimes, quantitative data could be collected, but that does not mean they are the real valuable data needed. The increase use of plastic shopping bags has no necessary correlation with the heavy air pollution problem. Thus, the evidence for air pollution should directly from car emission, industrial emission, waste deposition, etc. People with diverse political value or interest could be not reluctant to accept the evidence which obeys their interest. Whats more, even for the policy makers, the y would like to set the mode of policy first and then look for confirmation evidence. In this sense, evidence only can be regarded as one of the crucial factors in policy making. It will be much more appropriate to call that evidence-influenced policy making( H.K. Wongs lecture note). In addition, other three main factors-political, economic and social factors, also have a intensive power to affect the complex process of policy making. Politics here concerns with political system and crisis. On one hand, as we know, the stable political system determines the usual way of the government policy making. From the first beginning of policy proposal to the consultation and to the final policy making, every step complies with a certain regulate with minor change. Moreover, the same as the steady political system, political ideology and beliefs also become the major elements to force the policy made(Philip Davies, 2004). On the other hand, crisis explosion becomes the direct primacord to urge the government to enact and implement a new policy in the immediate time. After the explosion of the global financial crisis, once the economic situation in Hong Kong got worse rapidly, and the Hong Kong Government carried out series of policy to stimulate the recovery and development of economy. In the 2009-2010 Budget, the government introduced several measures to ensure the stability of financial institutions and the market to bols ter public confidence in our financial systems, including the provision of liquidity assistance to the banking system and the establishment of a Contingent Bank Capital Facility(The 2009-2010 Budget of Hong Kong). Meanwhile, in order to decrease the unemployment rate caused by the financial crisis, the Hong Kong Government also sustained the provision of more than 60000 employment chances, increased the recruitment of civil servants, and closely cooperated with Guangdong Province to create more jobs(The 2009-2010 Budget of Hong Kong). Thus, it seems that in some certain situations, political factors are more available than evidence which needs time to collect and analyze. The economy is often closely connected with the politics. The long-standing development of economy should base on valuable policies. In every years policy address, economic policy is the most important one. According to the specific economic situations, the government have emphasised their policy on different aspects. For instance, when the Hong Kong market was heavily hit by the financial tsunami, the policy emphasis are placed on how to cope with it and how to recover this year. This is why the government make great effort to stabilize the financial system, support enterprises and preserve employment(2009-2010 Policy Address). Comparing to the previous year, there was no financial tsunamis hitting, the Hong Kong Government focused more on 10 large-scale Infrastructure Projects which aimed to improve Hong Kongs transportation and link up socio-cultural and business activities with more efficient transportation systems(2007-2008 Policy Address). When talking about economic factors, w e should notice that every policy is restricted within the government finance. As we know, if the budget of a policy is largely beyond the governments financial endurance after exact calculation and the cost effectiveness/efficiency system, the policy will be cut off. Social factors here include experience and judgement of policy makers, habit and tradition, pressure groups and consultants(Philip Davies, 2004). Normally, the experience and judgement of policy makers are precious conclusion on the basis on the previous policy success or failure, embodying rational capital and tacit knowledge(Philip Davies, 2004). They are consider as an influence factor. Actually, the use of experience and judgement often appears in the condition where the evidence is incomplete or non-existent(Grimshaw, et al, 2003). It can be regarded as a complement for evidence in the process of policy making. Habit and tradition constitutes another social factor affecting policy making. Some institutions stagnate due to the unchanging habit and tradition. They refuse to make and implement new policy to stimulate the development of themselves. To a certain extent, Changing traditional and habitual ways of doing things to accommodate the forces of rationality and modernity prese nts a major challenge for policy making(Philip Davies, 2004). The last social factor-pressure groups and consultants, increasingly influence the policy making in the current days. The fast development of think tanks in society, they have already deeply penetrated into the politics. Especially when a policy contradicts with think-tanks and pressure groups interest, their opinions are powerful enough to affect the policy making. In a word, all the above factors come together to influence the process of policy making. Evidence, political, economic and social factors supplement with each other, preparing for the fully consideration of policy making. However, factors come together here does not mean that every factor should become one necessary part in a policy. In most conditions, there are only two or three factors influence the policy making. Now, I will analyze how these factors come together to affect policy making within one case. Small Class Teaching in Hong Kong is a typical case which could prove many elements come together to influence policy making. As the development of modern knowledge-based society, more and more requirements are raised on education system and method. Especially, for the comprehensive development of younger generation, it is commonly supposed that small class with smaller number of students per class is much more helpful than the normal large class in primary and secondary school. As for the teachers in small class, they could reduce their heavy workload, pay more attention to every individual student and then teach students according to their ability. For the student, in small class they would have more opportunities to communicate with teachers and classmates, participant in class activities and get more immediate feedback of their own study from teachers(Group 2s Essay on Small Class Teaching). Since July 1998, an oral question on class size in primary and secondary schools was first raised by Hon Cheung Man-kwong in the Legislative Council. Till 2007, the Chief Executive finally announced that the small class teaching would be launch in 2009/10 school year in his 2007-2008 Policy Address. During the long period of policy making, in order to collect more resource as well as considering some controversy issues concerned with the small class teaching, the government conducted a pilot study in primary school with effectiveness strategies of class and group teaching in 2003/04 school year and another scheme in primary schools with high concentration of disadvantaged pupils with effect from 2005/06 school year. During the study, amount of feedback and quantitative data have been collected from teachers and students through the way of questionnaire. Qualitative data, carefully analyzed through systematic lesson observations and case studies, get a conclusion that schools and teac hers have not really benefited a lot from the small class teaching (Group 2s essay on Small Class Teaching). Even though the final result of the study has not been released to the public, from the aspect of evidence, it can be regarded as a good way to start. In addition, the evaluation and experience-learning on the basis of overseas experience is also a kind of evidence. The United State is a successful example on the implementation of small class teaching, who conducts specific cost-effectiveness analysis and fully considers the allocation of funds, the target popularity, the class size and so on(Group 2s essay on Small Class Teaching). From the aspect of social factors, most of academic and parents representatives concurred with the policy of small class teaching with the reasons that teachers should be professionally trained and care more about individual students need. Moreover, political parties such as Democratic Party and Liberal Party, also agreed with the implementation of this policy. Thus, a great major of stakeholders were unanimous the implementation of small class teaching which they believed students and teachers would benefit a lot from it. In this sense, the strong opinions for stakeholders have a certain impact on the whole policy process. From the aspect of political factors, in 2002, the Consolidating High Cost and Under-utilized Primary Schools policy was introduced by Education and Manpower Bureau, leading to a threaten to amount of teachers jobs. Thousands of teachers hold a march and protested against the policy in July 2003(SING TAO, 2003). This political pressure became one element to influence the making of small class teaching policy. Originally, the Hong Kong Government attempted to practice evidence-based policy making by conducting the pilot study, evaluating and analyzing the research as well as learning from overseas experience. However, political and social factors partially become the elements of affecting the policy making. Thus, evidence in this case is still the most important factor and the policy of small class teaching could be called evidence-influenced policy. To conclude, in the complex process of policy making, evidence as well as the political, economic and social factors constitutes the influence elements. On one hand, Evidence, by means of descriptive data, analytic findings, evaluative evidence, and policy analytic forecasts, occupies the most significant position in policy making. On the other hand, to some extent, the limitations and difficulties of evidence restrict the policys formation. It leads to the evidence-influenced policy, instead of evidence-based policy. Yet, the existence of the political, economic and social factors makes up the limitation of evidence in a certain distance. They all serve for the whole policy process. Reference Cabinet Office, 1999, Professional Policy-Making for the Twenty-First Century, Strategic Policy Making Team, London, Cabinet Office. http://www.civilservant.org.uk/profpolicymaking.pdf ( accessed on 18 November, 2009) Cabinet Office, 1999a, Modernising Government, White Paper, London, Cabinet Office. Carmen, Fiona, Helen, Gloria, Selin and Yvonne, November 2009, Group Paper: Environmental Levy Scheme on Plastic Shopping Bags Carol Hirschon Weiss, 2001, What Kind of Evidence in Evidence-Based Policy? Third International, Inter-disciplinary Evidence-Based Policies and Indicator Systems Conference, July 2001 http://www.cemcentre.org/Documents/CEM%20Extra/EBE/EBE2001/P284-291%20Carol%20Weiss.pdf (accessed on 19 November, 2009) Chau Kam Yan, Hon Heung-Kwan, Kung Tin Ho, Leung Lok-Sum, So Tsit, October 2009, Group Essay on Small Class Teaching Donald Tsang, 2007, Policy Address 2007-2008: A New Direction for Hong Kong, policyaddress.gov.hk, http://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/07-08/eng/agenda.html (accessed on 20 November, 2009) Donald Tsang, 2009, Policy Address 2009-2010: Breaking New Ground Together, policyaddress.gov.hk, http://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/09-10/eng/index.html (accessed on 20 November, 2009) Environmental Protection Department Hong Kong, 2009. Environmental Levy on Plastic Shopping Bags. http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/prob_solutions/env_levy.html (accessed on 3 November, 2009) Gary Banks AO, 2009, Challenges of Evidence-Based Policy-Making, Australia Public Service Commission, http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications09/evidencebasedpolicy.htm (accessed on 19 November, 2009) Grimshaw, J.M., Thomas, R.E., MacLennan, G., Fraser, C., and Ramsay, C.R., 2003, Effectiveness and Efficiency of Guideline Dissemination and Implementation Strategies, Final Report, Aberdeen, Health Services Research Unit. H.K. Wong, 2009, Lecture Note 3: The Rhetorics and Reality of EBPM Hum Davies, Sandra Nutley and Peter Smith, 2000, Introducing Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Public Services, In What Works? Evidence Based Policy and Practice in the Public Services, Chapter One, 1-11, Bristol: Policy Press John Tsang Chun-wah, 2009, the 2009-2010 Budget, http://www.budget.gov.hk/2009/eng/speech.html (accessed on 19 November, 2009) Philip Davies, 2004, Is Evidence-Based Government Possible? To be presented at the 4th Annual Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Washington D.C., 19 February 2004 http://www.nationalschool.gov.uk/policyhub/downloads/JerryLeeLecture1202041.pdf (accessed on 20 November, 2009) http://www.singtao.com/archive/fullstory.asp?andor=oryear1=2003month1=07day1=21year2=2003month2=07day2=21category=allid=20030721a01keyword1=keyword2= (accessed on 20 November, 2009)

Womens Suffrage and World War I :: Papers

Women's Suffrage and World War I In my opinion British women would not have gained the right to vote in 1918 without the First World War. In my research to substantiate my view, I obtained my information from my history book and the Internet I will state the source of my information and explain how the information links to the causes and effects that enabled women to get the vote. During the war, women were given responsibility and knowledge to carry out skilled work. They became more confident in their ability to influence people and to have their say. They learnt to juggle home and family, and manage financially. They wanted change and knew this had to come from the government. They wanted to choose a government with the policies they approved of. Realising that they were a valuable workforce and could become as skilled as men made them want to be valued and to have a say in the country's affairs. One argument in favour of women shows pictures of what men could be: A convict, lunatic, owner of white slaves, unfit for service and a drunkard. This portrayed men as being responsible, but they still could vote. Then it shows what women could achieve: Mayor, nurse, mother doctor or teacher or a factory hand, which showed them as responsible but they still couldn't the vote.1 Men's attitude towards women during the First World War was still negative. The ability of women to take on the roles of men meant that increasing numbers of men were vulnerable to conscription.2 The women were told that they couldn't vote because they weren't fighting for their country. They couldn't fight because they weren't allowed to. Women helped in the ammunition factories, where dangerous sulphur made their skin turn yellow.3 The government's opinion changed from thinking that women were incapable of responsible positions. The government tried to ignore the fact that they worked in the ammunition factories, and said that they weren't serving their country, but they finally accepted that through this and other types of work, women were

Doma Debate

DOMA: Support or Repeal? BCOM 275 DOMA: Repeal or Support? Abstract This debate argues whether the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) should be supported or repealed on the basis of its definition of marriage, its constitutionality, and its impacts on non-heterosexual families. This debate argues that the Defense of Marriage Act should be repealed because its definition of marriage is heavily based on values of tradition in this country and because the definition violates the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.DOMA: Support or Repeal? The Argument in support of DOMA The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a federal law that was first introduced by Republican Bob Barr from Georgia in May of 1996. The bill passed in the house by a vote of 342-67 and in the Senate by a vote of 85-14. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. DOMA gives states the right not to recognize same-sex marriage that another state has already recognized. Secondly, the law p rovides a federal definition of marriage.DOMA defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In this paper, we are going to outline the two major provisions of DOMA. We will explore the federal definition of marriage and whether this is justified. We will further discuss the rights granted to the states and their ability to decline same sex marriage from other states. We will discuss both pros and cons of each part of DOMA, and then provide our teams determination on which is the more persuasive argument. First let’s explore the DOMA mandated federal definition of Marriage.The language, taken directly from the law itself, is defined as follows: â€Å"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse' refers only to a per son of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. † By this definition, it is very clear cut that DOMA defines marriage as a traditional man and woman union.Since 1998, following in the footsteps of DOMA, 30 states have had their voters approve constitutional amendments to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Although not overwhelming, it is a majority and represents 60% of our states that have taken steps to protect the traditional definition of marriage. The question next becomes a matter of whether this definition, based in tradition is justified? The traditional argument is based in the belief that marriage, rooted in tradition has always been between a man and a woman, and that this is also the best environment to raise children.The belief that marriage should be defined traditionally is not about taking away rights from anyone, it is just about not redefining the word marriage. Many supporters of a marriage definition argue that they don’t have any issues with gay couples; they just want the definition of marriage to be traditional. They are not proponents of banning anyone’s rights. The definition of marriage, is only part of DOMA’s mandate, the second part is the power granted to the states. The second part of DOMA that we will discuss is the rights granted to the state.It is defined as: â€Å"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. † This very simply means that if you are a same sex couple and were married in a particular state that recognizes same sex marriage, then other states are not required to recognize that marriage.It se rves to protect the rights of the states and the voters who have enacted rules in their states that define marriage as only between a man and a woman. These rights granted to the states are extremely important to respect the laws of the states that are already in place and are being adhered to. It is very important for people who live in a certain place to be able to rely on the community beliefs being upheld legally and not be changed when couples from other states move there and want the same recognition as they had in another state.It helps protect the states’ rights, and although some will argue that what is good for one state should be good for another, it is important to have the voters of each state decide what is right and wrong. The decision of DOMA to grant this power to states helps preserve this sense of community and provide a stable way ahead in this matter. The Argument to repeal DOMA The Defense of Marriage act should be repealed because it discriminates again st same-sex couples; it violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment: and because it simply is not necessary.Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 because of the concern of states that do not support same-sex marriages. Section 3 of DOMA states:   â€Å"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife† (CNN Washington, 2011).This definition of marriage clearly discriminates against those individuals who desire to legally enter into marriage with persons of the same gender because it prohibits such individuals from obtaining any of the rights afforded to persons who marry opposite their gender. This act of disc rimination toward same-sex couples violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment by requiring the federal government to deny recognition of the existing legal marriages of same-sex couples (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, 2012).The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the Federal Government not deprive individuals of â€Å"life, liberty, or property,† without due process of the law and an implicit guarantee that each person receive equal protection of the laws (Find US Law, 2012). Because Section 3 of DOMA excludes same sex couples from having their marriages recognized legally under federal law it does, in fact, deprive those individuals of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law. For many people, regardless of their sexual orientation, marriage is a major event in life.DOMA deprives homosexual individuals from fully participating in marriage because they do not reap the same benefits from marriage as their heterosexual cou nterparts. DOMA treats married same-sex couples as unmarried for purposes of all 1,138 federal laws in which marital status is a factor (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, 2012). For example, at tax time, legally married same-sex couples suffer financially because of they are unable to file their federal tax returns jointly, as heterosexual married couples do. They also they don’t have the same access to Social Security benefits as heterosexual couples.Children of same-sex couples do not have the same inheritance rights in regards to Social Security and retirement benefits as do children of heterosexual couples, because both parents cannot be listed on their birth certificate. Same-sex spouses also do not have the same next of kin rights in making medical decisions during a medical crisis for their spouse. In order for them to have any decision making role, they are forced to take additional legal steps just to provide their spouse with a decision making capacity, that is a utomatically and freely afforded to married heterosexual couples.The fact that Section 3 of DOMA discriminates against homosexuals was supported on February 23, 2011, when a public letter was sent to the House of Representatives by Attorney General Eric Holder. In his letter Holder wrote, â€Å"The President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. In the letter, Holder also informed the Speaker of the House that the Department of Justice of the United States would no longer defend DOMA â€Å"unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality. †Ã‚   The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted by Congress to exclude same sex married couples from being able to receive the same benefits afforded to opposite sex married couples.S ection 2 of DOMA states: â€Å"No state, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. † Only states can marry people and Congress has always deferred to state status determinations.The Tenth Amendment provides that powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the states from exercising, are â€Å"reserved to the States respectively, or to the people† (New World Encyclopedia, 2009). Since each state has the sovereign right to decide on whether same-sex marriage is legal or not, there is no need for the Defense of Marriage Act. Additionally DOMA not only violates the Fif th Amendment, it violates and was written to circumvent Article IV, Section 1, of the U. S. Constitution, more commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause.The Full Faith and Credit Clause provides â€Å"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. † (Wikipedia. org, Full Faith and Credit Clause). Essentially, the clause states that evidence, judicial proceedings, and the like, if accepted by in the state it took place in, must be accepted in any other state. This is exactly how a marriage in good legal standing in Michigan is recognized in good legal standing, in California.While this clause has been applied to family law protective orders and child support collection, it was never applied to force any state to recognize an interracial marriage, p rior to all laws banning such marriages were struck down by the Supreme Court, in 1967. To date, the clause has never been applied to any same sex marriage. DOMA unnecessarily contradicts this clause and creates a needless legal quandary by allowing states to pick and choose which regulations they will honor, from other states, all the while further engendering further discrimination.Not only does this clause apply to interstate legal matters, it is applied to international marriages. The definition of marriage, as defined by DOMA, prevents the federal, and thus the state government from recognizing same sex marriages from countries where it is legal. This then also impacts the legal and economic rights of immigrants and international travelers. DOMA has been cited as protecting traditional marriage and supporting the family unit. DOMA only provides a definition of marriage, it does nothing to upport or protect traditional, heterosexual marriages or the children of those marriages. DOMA only protects economic and legal privileges for heterosexual married couples. As such, it condones and enforces discrimination based on the gender of married couples. Non heterosexual families have and raise children, our future community members, just like heterosexual couples. By not repealing DOMA, we as a nation, are telling future generations that it is acceptable to withhold legal, inheritance, medical and economic rights and privileges, based upon someone’s gender.Conclusion The arguments of this debate have been made a team of individual who have differing views on this legislation. We have respectfully agreed to conclude our arguments, based on a majority vote, which in this case, is for repealing DOMA. While DOMA established a federally determined definition of marriage based on tradition, that very definition unjustifiably restricts certain rights afforded to heterosexual couples from non-heterosexual couples.DOMA serves to act as a divisive piece legislation that does nothing to protect heterosexual married couples, or their families, all the while, endangering same-sex couples’ financial, legal, medical, and inheritance rights, and destabilizing their families. DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, as well as contradicts Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, the Full and Fair Credit Clause, and needlessly creates national and international ligation.Ultimately, DOMA should be repealed because it is discriminatory, divisive, and unconstitutional. References CNN Washington. (2011, February 23). The 1600 Report`. Retrieved from CNN Politics: http://whitehouse. blogs. cnn. com/2011/02/23/attorney-general-declares-doma-unconstitutional/ Dayna K. Shah. (2004). GAO-04-353R Defense of Marriage Act. Washington D. D. , : U. S. G. A. O. Defense of Marriage Act. (2004). Retrieved from http://www. pbs. org/newshour/bb/law/gay_marriage/act. html Find US Law. (2012). U. S. Constitution- 5th and 14th Amendments. Retri eved from

Documents of American History Essay

John Adams is an important figure in the history of this country at the most important time in its history: the time of its birth. He is a towering figure in American History and his accomplishments speak to protecting the rights of his fellow men, even if those men were British soldiers accused of shooting Americans as was the case with the Boston Massacre of 1770. John Adams served as minister to France in 1777 when at that time, the colonists badly needed French intervention if they ever hoped to win the American Revolution. Adams also had a contributing role in America’s Declaration of Independence as he was a vocal member of the Continental Congress. Adams also wrote the Massachusetts State Constitution, including its Bill of Rights. All of the above mentioned speak to the love of freedom and the protection of these rights to which Adams spoke so dearly. So then why during the 20th century, was Adams almost vilified compared to his friend and one time enemy Thomas Jefferson? It is peculiar how History seems to take sides over one issue of vilifies or glorifies one person above his real role in life.   Both Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln enjoyed such an honor during the latter half of the 19th century and into the 20th. Only recently, when it is almost certain, that Jefferson fathered children of a mixed breed, yet still owned 200 slaves at a time, when Adams spoke to the emancipation of slavery, does the playing field become more level. This is especially true with David McCullough’s book John Adams, which actually sparked a Congressional insight into the importance of John Adams and a rethinking by the American public, spoke about the legacy of a man who was vital to the survival of this new experiment called the American Republic. Adams is vilified to a certain degree for two actions: forcing his bitterness over the loss of the 1800 election, not to greet the incoming President as is the custom now, and the dreaded Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 which horrified Thomas Jefferson and helped lead to the one time best friends, not to speak to speak to each other for another twelve years. Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson will be forever linked together in American history. The 2nd and 3rd presidents of The United States and one time best friends, who later became political rivals and has the distinction of dying on the same day; the 50 anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, were giants in the quest for American Independence. John Adams, twice, served as a diplomat to France both during the American Revolution as well as in the years immediately following the war. â€Å"Both Jefferson and Adams were very important times since historians later hailed French involvement in the American Revolution as what helped turned the tide of the war in the favor of the colonists.† (McCullough, 2001 p. 322) And as the war was nearing its end, John Adams wrote his state’s Constitution as well as its Bill of Rights. This Constitution, more than any other of its time, expanded these rights, to a greater degree than had been seen previously. Adams was instrumental in procuring the freedom of African Americans, who in Jefferson’s Virginia, would continue to be slaves or live in slave like conditions well after the end of the Civil War and despite the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. But it would not be until the 20th century that such ironies were given their proper attention. â€Å"But it would be the passage of the 1798 Alien and Sedition Act that would puzzle and infuriate all those that had been a part of the construction of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights in 1791 and specifically, the 1st amendment which protected, among others, a person’s right of free speech.† (Burns, 1997) This meaning has been expanded over the years but then as well as now, its first usage was to protect one who criticized the government, from reprisal. The 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts seemed to come in stark contrast to this most sacred of rights within the American Constitution. It said: â€Å"That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States†¦ Shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or a term in prison between five months to six years.† (Commanger, 1947 p. 177) This Act would later be repealed only to see the light of day again in 1918 during WWI. But such measures, horrified Thomas Jefferson and in response, wrote along with his friend James Madison, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which were in direct response to the Sedition Acts and portrayed the further split between the Federalist and Democratic Parties, made even wider by the personal disunion caused by Adams and Jefferson. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions stated that: â€Å"no power over freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated by the   United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States, or to the people.† (Commanger, 1947 p. 179) This meant that Jefferson, always distrusting of big government and in line with his belief in states’ rights, proclaimed that the federal government had no jurisdiction in enforcing the Alien and Sedition Acts as well as the fact that such restrictions on human freedom was in express contradiction to the Constitution and the ideals in which the American Revolution was fought in the first place. Everyone who had been locked up or fined under the Alien and Sedition Act was either set free or reimbursed by the federal government along with written apologies when Thomas Jefferson took over as President in March of 1801.The feud between Jefferson and Adams, made even larger by the ugliness of the 1800 Presidential election, lasted until 1812, when both were out of public office. Jefferson started a correspondence with Adams in what would become one of the most poignant and heart filled pieces of American literature. They both reminisced about their time together, hoping that this experiment in human democracy called the United States was actually going to work or not. Apologies were not given but rather regret that so much time has been lost to two people that were so important to the nation as well as to each other, were expressed in the correspondence. And what has to be one of the greatest coincidences in American history, two giants of American freedom who did not always practice what they preached; Adams’ enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Acts, and Jefferson personally owning more than 200 slaves for most of his lifetime, but still responsible for the expansion of human rights in America, died on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Each died while saying that the other still lives. They were both right in that respect.