Nebraska was in the national news for an inadvertent error in its safe have law, which usually is put in place to allow mothers of newborns to drop their infants at a hospital or fire station and not be charged with child abandonment. Unfortunately, the legislative drafters dropped the ball in the final version, and just put down "children" with no age limit. Thirty-five children have been dropped off at hospitals under this law, most of them over 10 years old.
The Nebraska legislature (the Unicam) went into special session this week and changed it to children 30 days of age or less. The governor is expected to sign this bill into law on Friday.
Yet this begs the question: what made all these parents drop their pre-teen and teens off? A recent article indicates that most of these children had received services for mental illness. http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/11/20/nebraskas-abandoned-kids-are-mostly-mentally-ill/ Parents weren't dropping their children off because they wanted a free weekend, but because they did not know how to handle them. This highlights a need in Nebraska for social services targeted to this age group and their parents. Time for the executive branch to start planning on how to provide those services.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Federal resources at your fingertips!
I was moseying around President-elect Obama's new website (www.change.gov) and followed a link to a transition team website that contained links to the entire structure of the federal government. Neat! It lists the top positions and who holds them, when they were established, what their mission is, and more. Did you know, for example, that the federal Department of Energy has an Intelligence and Counterintelligence office? Here's a quote:
"Intelligence and Counterintelligence
The Office of Intelligence and
Counterintelligence ensures that all
departmental intelligence information
requirements are met and that the
Department’s technical, analytical, and
research expertise is made available to
support U.S. intelligence efforts. The
Office develops and implements
programs to identify, neutralize, and
deter foreign government or industrial
intelligence activities directed at or
involving Department programs,
personnel, facilities, technologies,
classified information, and sensitive
information. The Office ensures effective
use of the U.S. Government’s
intelligence apparatus in support of
DOE’s need for information on foreign
energy situations and hostile threats,
information on global nuclear weapons
development, nonproliferation, and
foreign hydrocarbon, nuclear, and other
energy production and consumption.
The Office formulates all DOE
intelligence and counterintelligence
policy and coordinates all investigative
matters with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
For further information, contact the Office of
Intelligence and Counterintelligence. Phone, 202–
586–2610."
This is good stuff, people!
The link is at:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gmanual/browse-gm-08.html
"Intelligence and Counterintelligence
The Office of Intelligence and
Counterintelligence ensures that all
departmental intelligence information
requirements are met and that the
Department’s technical, analytical, and
research expertise is made available to
support U.S. intelligence efforts. The
Office develops and implements
programs to identify, neutralize, and
deter foreign government or industrial
intelligence activities directed at or
involving Department programs,
personnel, facilities, technologies,
classified information, and sensitive
information. The Office ensures effective
use of the U.S. Government’s
intelligence apparatus in support of
DOE’s need for information on foreign
energy situations and hostile threats,
information on global nuclear weapons
development, nonproliferation, and
foreign hydrocarbon, nuclear, and other
energy production and consumption.
The Office formulates all DOE
intelligence and counterintelligence
policy and coordinates all investigative
matters with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
For further information, contact the Office of
Intelligence and Counterintelligence. Phone, 202–
586–2610."
This is good stuff, people!
The link is at:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gmanual/browse-gm-08.html
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Elected judges - now with websites!
In class we discussed the difference between electing judges and appointing them. One of the issues with electing judges is the need to campaign. Here are a couple of websites from judges running for office at the appellate level in Michigan. Note that the second one even has endorsement videos. What do you think?
http://www.kellyforcourtofappeals.com/
http://www.promotejudgemanderfield.com/
http://www.kellyforcourtofappeals.com/
http://www.promotejudgemanderfield.com/
Monday, October 27, 2008
A voter at 16? Governor at 25? Really?
Austria just changed its laws and lowered the voting age from 18 to 16. See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/austria-opens-the-polls-to-16yearolds-943706.html Why? Partly a move to attract more young people to the polls to maintain the "balance of the generations." But does a focus on sheer numbers outweigh a clear look at the voters themselves? Are 16 year olds even interested in voting? Willing to find out about the issues? Are they even going to be able to get to the polls, or will they be in school or have to wait for a ride from mom or dad?
Are we just pandering to an age group who's not even interested in the process?
Here in Hawai`i, we have another proposal for an age decrease: One of the ballot issues in next week's election is whether the age qualification for the office of governor and office of lieutenant governor should be reduced from thirty years of age to twenty-five years of age.
http://www.mauitime.com/Articles-i-2008-10-16-186208.112113_Constitutional_questions.html
The rationale for this seems to be the same as the lowering, in the 1970s, of the voting age from 21 to 18. The reasoning was that if 18 year olds could be be drafted, they should also be entitled to vote. Apparently this change was prompted in part by the fact that one can run for Congress at age 25. But as important as the right to vote is, or the right to run for one of the 435 members of Congress, are these really in the same realm as being Governor (we'll leave Lt. Gov. out of this)? The buck stops with the Governor. Any freshman year mistakes that a member of Congress makes, or a voter makes, will not have the same impact as those mistakes being made by the head of the Executive Branch. In my opinion, the job of Governor requires not just book smarts but life experience smarts, and keeping the minimum age at 30 will do more to ensure that we have someone with more of a balanced approach.
What do you think?
Are we just pandering to an age group who's not even interested in the process?
Here in Hawai`i, we have another proposal for an age decrease: One of the ballot issues in next week's election is whether the age qualification for the office of governor and office of lieutenant governor should be reduced from thirty years of age to twenty-five years of age.
http://www.mauitime.com/Articles-i-2008-10-16-186208.112113_Constitutional_questions.html
The rationale for this seems to be the same as the lowering, in the 1970s, of the voting age from 21 to 18. The reasoning was that if 18 year olds could be be drafted, they should also be entitled to vote. Apparently this change was prompted in part by the fact that one can run for Congress at age 25. But as important as the right to vote is, or the right to run for one of the 435 members of Congress, are these really in the same realm as being Governor (we'll leave Lt. Gov. out of this)? The buck stops with the Governor. Any freshman year mistakes that a member of Congress makes, or a voter makes, will not have the same impact as those mistakes being made by the head of the Executive Branch. In my opinion, the job of Governor requires not just book smarts but life experience smarts, and keeping the minimum age at 30 will do more to ensure that we have someone with more of a balanced approach.
What do you think?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Follow-up on Nebraska Safe Haven Law
Nebrasks must be even sorrier about its poorly-crafted Safe Haven law: now people are coming from out of state to drop their children off.
"An Iowa teenager who was abandoned at an Omaha hospital under Nebraska's safe-haven law is back home after her grandparents dropped her off to teach her a lesson but soon changed their minds, officials said Thursday.
The 14-year-old girl from across the Missouri River in Council Bluffs, Iowa, was left at Creighton University Medical Center on Tuesday. She was the 17th child left under a state law that took effect in July but was the first from out of state.
Her abandonment set off concerns that Nebraska's broadly written law could make the state a dumping ground for unwanted children. The law absolves anyone of abandonment charges for leaving a child of any age at a state-licensed hospital."
See the rest of the article at http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/09/safe.haven.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
In response, the Nebraska Legislature has "scheduled a hearing." http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/nebraska.safe.haven/index.html
Really? It doesn't think that it's obvious what to do? Curious....
"An Iowa teenager who was abandoned at an Omaha hospital under Nebraska's safe-haven law is back home after her grandparents dropped her off to teach her a lesson but soon changed their minds, officials said Thursday.
The 14-year-old girl from across the Missouri River in Council Bluffs, Iowa, was left at Creighton University Medical Center on Tuesday. She was the 17th child left under a state law that took effect in July but was the first from out of state.
Her abandonment set off concerns that Nebraska's broadly written law could make the state a dumping ground for unwanted children. The law absolves anyone of abandonment charges for leaving a child of any age at a state-licensed hospital."
See the rest of the article at http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/09/safe.haven.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
In response, the Nebraska Legislature has "scheduled a hearing." http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/nebraska.safe.haven/index.html
Really? It doesn't think that it's obvious what to do? Curious....
Monday, October 6, 2008
United States Supreme Court agrees to hear Hawai`i case
As mentioned in class, thousands of cases are appealed to the United Satates Supreme Court every year, and less than 100 are heard (with about 50-60 decided without oral argument). Four of the nine justices must agree to have the case taken up by the Court. Simply put, the US Supreme Court only takes significant cases, which is why whenever they agree to take up a Hawai`i case, we should sit up and take notice. The case they're taking up this session is Hawaii v. OHA.
Here's a summary of the issue from the certiorari petition by the attorney general's office:
"In 1993, Congress marked the 100th anniversary of
the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy by enacting a
joint resolution--the Apology Resolution--that expresses
the federal government’s regret for its role in
that incident. In this case, the Supreme Court of Hawaii
held that this symbolic Resolution tacitly, but materially,
impairs the State’s sovereign authority over its
own lands. Specifically, the court held that the Resolution
should be read to prohibit the State from selling,
exchanging, or transferring approximately 1.2 million
acres of State land almost all of the land owned by the
State and about 29 percent of the total land area of the
State--until it has struck a political settlement with
native Hawaiians who assert aboriginal rights to that
land."
To be fully informed on the issue, here are links from the Hawai`i Supreme Court's blog to news releases by the parties:
http://hisupremecourt.blogspot.com/
Here are links to the court documents in the case:
http://planetkauai.blogspot.com/2008/09/this-is-it-will-supremes-hear-hawaii-v.html
Here's a summary of the issue from the certiorari petition by the attorney general's office:
"In 1993, Congress marked the 100th anniversary of
the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy by enacting a
joint resolution--the Apology Resolution--that expresses
the federal government’s regret for its role in
that incident. In this case, the Supreme Court of Hawaii
held that this symbolic Resolution tacitly, but materially,
impairs the State’s sovereign authority over its
own lands. Specifically, the court held that the Resolution
should be read to prohibit the State from selling,
exchanging, or transferring approximately 1.2 million
acres of State land almost all of the land owned by the
State and about 29 percent of the total land area of the
State--until it has struck a political settlement with
native Hawaiians who assert aboriginal rights to that
land."
To be fully informed on the issue, here are links from the Hawai`i Supreme Court's blog to news releases by the parties:
http://hisupremecourt.blogspot.com/
Here are links to the court documents in the case:
http://planetkauai.blogspot.com/2008/09/this-is-it-will-supremes-hear-hawaii-v.html
Monday, September 29, 2008
Congress rejects the $700 billion bailout
The President's rush to bail out the Wall Street meltdown was handed a severe blow today when, after a weekend of messages indicating that he had pulled together enough votes in each house of Congress for passage, the House voted against the bill. Reaction on Wall Street was drastic; the stock market plunged a record 777 points. Acrimonious finger-pointing broke out between pro-bailout factions as to whose fault it was (one Republican POV was that Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who favored the bill, was responsible for the massive "no" vote of the Republicans. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PersonalFinance/story?id=5908293&page=1 I'm still scratching my head over her awesome powers, being from another party and for the bill, and yet having the ability to make the other party vote the opposite. Why didn't she use this power when she voted against the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act?).
I am not an economist and am making no judgments as to whether the bailout should have been accepted or rejected. What I do think is interesting, and worth discussing, is why people seem to take it for granted that Congress is the rubber stamp for the Executive branch. Is it because they truly do think that the massive, $700 billion bailout was either the only way, or the best way, to deal with this crisis? Or has the general opinion of Congress's independence been so eviscerated by their eagerness in the past 7 years to say "how high?" when the President says "jump" that any show of independent thought is considered irresponsible?
"Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., called her decision to vote no “one of the most difficult I have faced.”
“I agree this bill is much better than the one we started with,” McMorris Rodgers said. But “committing 700 billion of our tax dollars requires a longer, more thoughtful debate.”" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26946382/
Is this more thoughtful debate something that we are no longer capable of expectng from Congress?
I am not an economist and am making no judgments as to whether the bailout should have been accepted or rejected. What I do think is interesting, and worth discussing, is why people seem to take it for granted that Congress is the rubber stamp for the Executive branch. Is it because they truly do think that the massive, $700 billion bailout was either the only way, or the best way, to deal with this crisis? Or has the general opinion of Congress's independence been so eviscerated by their eagerness in the past 7 years to say "how high?" when the President says "jump" that any show of independent thought is considered irresponsible?
"Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., called her decision to vote no “one of the most difficult I have faced.”
“I agree this bill is much better than the one we started with,” McMorris Rodgers said. But “committing 700 billion of our tax dollars requires a longer, more thoughtful debate.”" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26946382/
Is this more thoughtful debate something that we are no longer capable of expectng from Congress?
Monday, September 22, 2008
Two houses? or one?
One of the things we take for granted in state and federal government are the two houses - the Senate and the House of Representatives. But why should there be two? What about a system that has only one house in the legislature?
This is not as far-fetched as it may see,; after all, the County Councils are unicameral bodies (the word "unicameral" means "uni" - one, "camera" - chamber), and one state has a unicameral legislature as well - Nebraska.
What are some advantages of a unicameral system? For one thing, it's cheaper, as there are fewer members. It's a lot more streamlined. A bill simply has to pass the unicameral, and it becomes law - no crossover, no negotiation with another house. It may be argued that sometimes bills can pass too quickly - there's no time for the deliberation that naturally occurs when a bill has to be scrutinized by two houses - although Nebraska states that because it requires at least 5 days between a bill's introduction and its passage, it has built in time for the necessary deliberation. However, compare that to the Hawai`i system, where bills typically take several months to pass. Is 5 days enough time?
Here's a link to the history of the Nebraska Unicameral:
http://nebraskalegislature.gov/web/public/history
This is not as far-fetched as it may see,; after all, the County Councils are unicameral bodies (the word "unicameral" means "uni" - one, "camera" - chamber), and one state has a unicameral legislature as well - Nebraska.
What are some advantages of a unicameral system? For one thing, it's cheaper, as there are fewer members. It's a lot more streamlined. A bill simply has to pass the unicameral, and it becomes law - no crossover, no negotiation with another house. It may be argued that sometimes bills can pass too quickly - there's no time for the deliberation that naturally occurs when a bill has to be scrutinized by two houses - although Nebraska states that because it requires at least 5 days between a bill's introduction and its passage, it has built in time for the necessary deliberation. However, compare that to the Hawai`i system, where bills typically take several months to pass. Is 5 days enough time?
Here's a link to the history of the Nebraska Unicameral:
http://nebraskalegislature.gov/web/public/history
Friday, September 12, 2008
President/Prime Minister
We looked at other governments in our first class, and one of the issues I brought up was the difference between the powers shared by a president (or Queen, in the case of England) and the prime minister. I said that this distinction was fluid and differed between countries.
Here's a fascinating look at that president/prime minister compromise being forged in Zimbabwe. Long-time President Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai agreed Thursday to a power-sharing deal. Under a compromise announced Thursday, Mugabe will remain as president and stay in charge of the cabinet. Tsvangirai will join the government as prime minister and will head a twin body of the same ministers, known as the council of ministers. Who has the last word remains unclear. Details are supposed to be released on Monday.
Zimbabwe is in desperate straits, as inflation in that country is at 11 million percent. Observers see giving power to the new prime minister as the key to a successful government. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/world/africa/13zimbabwe.html
Here's a fascinating look at that president/prime minister compromise being forged in Zimbabwe. Long-time President Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai agreed Thursday to a power-sharing deal. Under a compromise announced Thursday, Mugabe will remain as president and stay in charge of the cabinet. Tsvangirai will join the government as prime minister and will head a twin body of the same ministers, known as the council of ministers. Who has the last word remains unclear. Details are supposed to be released on Monday.
Zimbabwe is in desperate straits, as inflation in that country is at 11 million percent. Observers see giving power to the new prime minister as the key to a successful government. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/world/africa/13zimbabwe.html
Saturday, September 6, 2008
How much will a ConCon cost?
An issue that has hit the news lately is the cost of a potential ConCon. Two different studies on that issue were recently released; one done by the Constitutional Convention Cost Task force, headed by Lt. Gov Duke Aiona and composed of a cross-section of Republicans, Democrats, neutral pruvate agencies, and state agencies, and the other done by the Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB), the nonpartisan research and drafting agency of the state legislature.
The Lt. Governor's report, "Projecting the Cost of a Constitutional Convention in Hawaii: Final Report," which came out on August 1, 2008,
The two studies list a different range of costs. The Lt. Governorn's range is $2,329,656 to 11,114,045. The LRB study,"Cost Estimates for a Constitutional Convention," which came out later in August, has a range from $6,936,778 to $45,145,198 (in 2010 dollars).
The LRB's study has the advantage of being done by professional researchers, and of having access to the Lt. Governor's (LG's) study for comparison purposes. The LRB study is able, for example, to not only cite its own research and findings in an area such as ConCon facilities, but to comment on the assumptions that the LG's study made. For just one example, while the LG's study gives a cost estimate for the Department of Defense's 298th Regiment Regional Training Institute in Waimanalo, the LRB study gives a more nuanced evaluation of the space, which has only "6 small (cap. 30) and 2 large (cap. 50) classrooms. Additionally, there is an auditorium with a seating capacity of about 252." The LRB study also includes a warning from the DOD that this space may not be available at all.
The LG's study is 44 pages while the LRB's, which examines more variations and projections in data than the LG's study, is 98 pages of text. I recommend reading both to get an idea of what factors were considered, the reality of those projections, and also, what factors both studies say they did not factor into these totals, such as the cost of the elections.
Is cost the main question we should be asking ourselves, however? Or should it be whether we need a ConCon at all? To the extent we determine we do, how much should cost really be a factor?
Here's a link to the Lt. Gov's page with the report (it's in pdf format):
http://hawaii.gov/ltgov/concon
, also in pdf format
Here's a link to the page with the LRB report:
http://hawaii.gov/lrb/reports/2008.html
The Lt. Governor's report, "Projecting the Cost of a Constitutional Convention in Hawaii: Final Report," which came out on August 1, 2008,
The two studies list a different range of costs. The Lt. Governorn's range is $2,329,656 to 11,114,045. The LRB study,"Cost Estimates for a Constitutional Convention," which came out later in August, has a range from $6,936,778 to $45,145,198 (in 2010 dollars).
The LRB's study has the advantage of being done by professional researchers, and of having access to the Lt. Governor's (LG's) study for comparison purposes. The LRB study is able, for example, to not only cite its own research and findings in an area such as ConCon facilities, but to comment on the assumptions that the LG's study made. For just one example, while the LG's study gives a cost estimate for the Department of Defense's 298th Regiment Regional Training Institute in Waimanalo, the LRB study gives a more nuanced evaluation of the space, which has only "6 small (cap. 30) and 2 large (cap. 50) classrooms. Additionally, there is an auditorium with a seating capacity of about 252." The LRB study also includes a warning from the DOD that this space may not be available at all.
The LG's study is 44 pages while the LRB's, which examines more variations and projections in data than the LG's study, is 98 pages of text. I recommend reading both to get an idea of what factors were considered, the reality of those projections, and also, what factors both studies say they did not factor into these totals, such as the cost of the elections.
Is cost the main question we should be asking ourselves, however? Or should it be whether we need a ConCon at all? To the extent we determine we do, how much should cost really be a factor?
Here's a link to the Lt. Gov's page with the report (it's in pdf format):
http://hawaii.gov/ltgov/concon
, also in pdf format
Here's a link to the page with the LRB report:
http://hawaii.gov/lrb/reports/2008.html
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Welcome to Law 101, Fall 2008!
Aloha--
This is a forum that I wil use each week to comment on some area relevant to this course - whether on government, legal ethics, the paralegal profession in specific or legal professionals in general. Please feel free to read and respond. This is optional, and you are not graded on it. Think of this as bonus background material.
This is a forum that I wil use each week to comment on some area relevant to this course - whether on government, legal ethics, the paralegal profession in specific or legal professionals in general. Please feel free to read and respond. This is optional, and you are not graded on it. Think of this as bonus background material.
Monday, April 28, 2008
UPL - a bill too far?
The Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee added a very restrictive definition of UPL to a bill with different content but the right title (similar to a gut and replace, but adding to the existing content instead of adding new content while deleting the old content). The new language is:
"(b) For purpose of this section, "practice of law" means the provision of professional legal advice or services by a person, firm, association, or corporation if there is an attorney-client relationship of trust and reliance; provided that the term "practice of law" does not include a person, firm, association, or corporation that is licensed under chapters 431, 466, or 467, and is doing business accordingly, and while in the course of doing the licensed business does not provide or profess to provide professional legal advice or services based on legal competency or standing in the law."
Did this language create a big hole in the law? The first sentence encompasses "legal advice or services." What is a legal service? The exemption for Chapters 431, 466, and 467 cover insurance companies, realtors, and accountants. This excludes everyone else who might provide legal "services," which can be much broader than legal advice, such as hospitals (which pass out advance health care directives ("living wills")) and have to explain their legal implications, mortgage companies (who have to explain the legal consequences of the choices people make in buying property), etc.
HPA sent key legislators a letter in opposition, as did the Hawaii State Bar Association. The bill passed out of conference committee, but without the UPL language.
"(b) For purpose of this section, "practice of law" means the provision of professional legal advice or services by a person, firm, association, or corporation if there is an attorney-client relationship of trust and reliance; provided that the term "practice of law" does not include a person, firm, association, or corporation that is licensed under chapters 431, 466, or 467, and is doing business accordingly, and while in the course of doing the licensed business does not provide or profess to provide professional legal advice or services based on legal competency or standing in the law."
Did this language create a big hole in the law? The first sentence encompasses "legal advice or services." What is a legal service? The exemption for Chapters 431, 466, and 467 cover insurance companies, realtors, and accountants. This excludes everyone else who might provide legal "services," which can be much broader than legal advice, such as hospitals (which pass out advance health care directives ("living wills")) and have to explain their legal implications, mortgage companies (who have to explain the legal consequences of the choices people make in buying property), etc.
HPA sent key legislators a letter in opposition, as did the Hawaii State Bar Association. The bill passed out of conference committee, but without the UPL language.
Monday, April 21, 2008
It's your ConCon. What do you want to do with it?
Aloha--
Former Congressman Ed Case sent out a mailing with a link to this site:
http://www.hawaiiconcon.org/
It's a great site to visit to determine what your position is on this issue. While the overall tone is pro-ConCon, it also discusses the drawbacks of a ConCon. Perosnally, I like the tone, the information (there's a copy of the State Constitution on the website), and you already know that one of my favorite local commentators is David Shapiro of the Advertiser, and he has a great article on how to judge a ConCon speech.
It's going to be your decision. As I said earlier, I don't care how you vote; I just care that you have an informed opinion and that you vote based on it.
Former Congressman Ed Case sent out a mailing with a link to this site:
http://www.hawaiiconcon.org/
It's a great site to visit to determine what your position is on this issue. While the overall tone is pro-ConCon, it also discusses the drawbacks of a ConCon. Perosnally, I like the tone, the information (there's a copy of the State Constitution on the website), and you already know that one of my favorite local commentators is David Shapiro of the Advertiser, and he has a great article on how to judge a ConCon speech.
It's going to be your decision. As I said earlier, I don't care how you vote; I just care that you have an informed opinion and that you vote based on it.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Gut and replace
Here's a blast from the past - conference time at the Legislature. Here's an example of a "gut and replace" - a bill that has its original contents totally scooped out and another bill reinserted. Check it out and see what you think:
http://capitolnotebook.honadvblogs.com/2008/04/15/gut-and-replace/
http://capitolnotebook.honadvblogs.com/2008/04/15/gut-and-replace/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
