May 6, 2014
McCreary County vs. American Civil Liberties
In the case of McCreary County and American Civil Liberties, I believe that these county’s courthouses did violate the Establishment Clause. This is a clause of the First Amendment that bans the government (which the courthouses are part of governmental properties) from either creating a state religion or encouraging one religion over another religion (Cheeseman, 2013 pg.100 para.2). With the commandments positioned in an open view from other documents, for the visitors to see as they entered the courthouse, however, makes me believe that they were trying to lead people into a religion that they may not like or a religion they are against. This could cause a riot between religions, which this would not matter to because I know who I believe in and worship. The courts or any governmental property cannot put any kind of religion on any person. The Ten Commandments do not have a set religion under the First Amendment, but all religions do not accept the Ten Commandments. Judaism and Christianity are the only religions that follow the books of Moses, which has the Ten Commandments. The other religions have similarities of the Ten Commandments. They also have some of the same words, but they broke them down into different ways to give a different meaning or interpretation that may stray away from the original Ten Commandments.
City of Oakland, California vs. Oakland Raiders
Eminent domain is defined as the government’s power to take private property for public use. The owner of the property must be allowed by the government to make a case for the reason why they such be given the right to keep the property. If the government does take the property, compensation will be paid to the private property owner. Also, if the property owner feel like the payment offered to them is not enough, they can bring this action in front of the courts so that compensation can be paid to the owner. In addition, I believe that an example of eminent domain would be a hair salon that is secretly owned, but the government chose to use this area and surrounding area that the salon is about to form a community building. The community structure would be used to help kids with disabilities, after school kids, and etc. The program is designed to keep kids active doing something useful.
In the case of the City of Oakland and Oakland Raiders I feel like this professional sports team is not socially responsible for moving from one city to another. The purpose of the change was to “take advantage of the greater seating capacity” basically bring more attention and money to the team to gain profit any way they could (Cheeseman, 2013 pg.106 para.2). Since, the Oakland Raiders were a franchise (which is considered personal property) they were able to move anywhere in the surrounding area of Oakland, California. The consequences of this adjustment could cause people to be furious and choice a different team to represent. The best of the move could be that the team makes extra money and gain more fans.
The City of Oakland cannot obtain possession of the Raiders through the eminent domain, because they do not have any governmental powers to take something that does refer to land. In conclusion, I believe that the City of Oakland cannot acquire something that rightfully belong to someone else that has a franchise. Also, I believe that a franchise if consider a personal property rather than a private property that the eminent domain refers to. Personal property is considered property individually owned, which is movable and is not attached to or related to land (Murray, 2014).
Clancy vs. Goad
In the Clancy vs. Goad case I believe that Tim Clancy was being neglectful about getting behind the wheel of a truck when he was tried. I believe Tim was being careless about driving home, knowing that he was sleepy before he fail asleep at…