The bill is termed as the ‘anti Sharia’ law. 20 other states in America are considering similar laws.

Although many of these proposed bill do not name Islam or Sharia directly this is the intended target of these laws.

While the bill might be a vote winner, there are several problems with such bills. Firstly, it is illogical to talk about 2 laws. There is only one law, and that is the law that is applied by the police and upheld by the courts. We don’t have a law that allows stoning of adulterous women and one law that forbids women being stoned for cheating on their husbands. It would be contradictory to do so.

There is sometimes a contradiction between state and federal law, but that is an issue of jurisprudence.

Secondly, there is a constitutional problem with the proposed Kansas law. The constitution gives people the freedom of speech and the freedom to pursue their religious beliefs. If Jewish people insist that their children must marry other Jews to continue the line of their religion then it is not a matter for the courts to rule upon. Muslims have similar rights in America.

Moreover, Islam has been in the USA since Malcolm X in the 1960s. It is hardly a non-US religion, just as Judaism is also not considered non-American.

The bill is a statement of bigotry and a stain on the state of Kansas.

Try the shipping of wine and see what you think in regards to simplicity.  For wine clubs, this is a major issue.

First, states are allowed to make their own laws.  It’s been like that since Prohibition ended close to 100 years ago!

Some states allow wineries from out of state to ship directly to their citizens.  Others do not.

Some states allow out of state retailers to ship to their citizens.  Others do not.

Some states allow in state wineries to ship to their consumers.  Others do not.

Some states allow in state retailers to ship to consumers.  Others like Utah clearly hate wine and all alcohol and do not.

Other than states are allowed to do whatever they want, what’s simple to understand about these laws? Why are they so different from one state to another when there is a federal drinking age?

The reason for the strength of the UK and American judiciary is that judges do not feel threatened. They are revered by society and protected by the police. In Italy where judges have to deal with mafioso cases this is sometimes not the case. There is always a constant fear that the judge and witnesses will meet an untimely end in order to spoil the trial.

Part of the strength of a free and independent judiciary depends on a free press. Unless the press can report injustices, attacks on lawyers, bribery, corruption etc. then it is difficult for a judge to feel secure in his or her position. After all judges are able to decide if the president or prime minister is worthy of criminal prosecution. And if he or she is found guilty it is the judge that decides the punishment.

In Thailand it is noticeable that judges feel insecure. They tend to keep quiet during coups and never question the legality of constitutional amendments.

I once met a Thai judge in riverside hotel in Bangkok. He told me in confidence that the judiciary is far from independent.  The third estate is the army not the judiciary.

These are all vital theoretical questions concerning the law that all students of law need to think through. It is not a purely an ‘academic’ exercise. Rather these issues are at the heart of a healthy democracy.

It was the French Enlightenment political philosopher Baron de Montesquieu who first wrote about the idea of the separation of powers in the state. He was influenced by the British constitutional monarchy system and also the ancient Greek notion of preventing tyranny by separating out the 3 principle arms of the state – the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. It from Montesquieu that the notion of ‘checks and balances’ that is part of the American Constitution comes from.

It is interesting to note that Montesquieu noted that:

“The independence of the judiciary has to be real and not apparent merely”.

Elsewhere he wrote:

“The judiciary was generally seen as the most important of powers, independent and unchecked”

In short Montesquieu realized the danger of the judiciary. It is a fear that is found today in American society. In the field of morality and the law the Supreme Court appears to hold all the aces. It was the case of Roe v. Wade in 1973 that resulted in a Judge deciding that a woman had the right of privacy under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that allowed her to have an abortion.

It is difficult to tell whether that was the wish of the majority of the people. Sovereignty lies with the people and they elect representatives to the legislature and executive to represent their opinions both morally and otherwise. Does a judge have the right to decide to change societal practice in such an extreme way?

Since that land mark decision every Republican President has used his executive powers to try and alter the judges presiding on the Supreme Court with the hope of over-ruling Roe v. Wade.

Why is it that the judges on the Supreme Court have life tenure? Why are they not elected representatives? Why do their decisions have the power to change laws dramatically in a society?

These are all questions that lawyers have to ponder. They must be servants of the law; and realize that have been given a massive responsibility. They must not abuse their considerable power. Rather the judiciary has to judge the feelings of the people to give the people the laws that make sense to them.

This is seen in the on-going struggle between state and federal law agencies and judiciaries regarding the issue of decriminalizing marijuana. It is something that the people want. It is the central executive and judiciary that are out of touch.

Independent online entrepreneurs in particular need to be careful to dot their i’s and cross their t’s when it comes to the law. For example, a discount code provider website can run foul of their partners if publishing any promotional code comes into conflict with the terms of their affiliate agreement. A blogger must then choose whether to continue on in the affiliate capacity or publish the codes and generate income through alternate methods. Doing otherwise may result in an abrupt termination of the partnership and significant loss of income.

For decision-making, it is important for the law firms to have the right information acquired as this will help them for analyzing it. Business Intelligence Tools in law firms can be a big help in order for them to make their work and job done appropriately. Law firms needs to have more information gathered as they have to analyze it first and read information based on the problem that they are dealing with. So, business intelligence will probably their best way and technique not to experience difficulties on their decision-making. Business intelligence software is an important tool that will help law firms gather, analyze and manage information on the problem or issue that they are facing as it will assist them for the decision-making that they are going to finalize.

For all the information that can affect all of the law firm’s decisions, operations and plans is needed. And with the use of business intelligence, gathering and storing important information and data will be simple for law firms. It is important on law firms to gain sufficient market analysis such as entering into a merger or to gain a profitable client. The lawyers are giving many stock with competitive ideas and knowledge because the work market becomes more and more trendy and have an increased competition. We can expect to see a huge boost of the use of business intelligence tools in the various law firms that are around today.

This is quite a shame on a few levels, for one students who want to practice law solely based on financial gain instead of the love for practicing law, and two the greed of the schools to prey upon these budding young scholars.   The NALP organization is one that allows for realistic expectations of what to expect once you graduate; in fact the organization is founded with the goal of making the transition from school to practicing law much smoother.  A bankruptcy lawyer I knew got into law because of the money he could make, and not long after found that running a credit card debt relief business was more suiting to him.  The only benefit his law degree has at this point is the power of the paper in which it was written, strictly to afford his company more prestige.  No longer does he truly practice law but only uses his name to strengthen people’s confidence in his ability.

The bottom line is that this guy like many others were duped into thinking their law degree would make them a lot of money, but in the end it was this man’s business skills that really had nothing to do with law that made him successful.

A winemaker receives training, largely through hands on working in the field.  While a few Universities have programs which train winemakers, the bulk of the training truly starts after graduation.  Of course, that education allows the average graduate to hit the ground running on their first day at a winery.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for attorneys.  Too many law schools these days are training good general attorney’s who can pass the bar.  Unfortunately, those same attorney’s leave law school with little practical experience.  That lack of experience can be partially made up with a quality summer internship, but the average law firm counts on spending at least six months training their new hires on how to file even rudimentary paperwork for their clients and other staff.

That’s something which needs to change for both graduates as well as for law firms alike.

As for my viewpoint, I am outraged by those who attempt to justify the actions taken by those who enter the country illegally. If my ancestors from Scotland, Ireland, Germany, Poland, and so on, attempted to enter the country illegally, they would have been deported without any doubt. Allowing people to enter the country illegally is an insult to all past and present immigrants that came here to live the American Dream legally. When I shared this statement with an African-American friend who graduated from Stritch not too long ago and who adheres to the extreme leftist ideology on this issue, I was told that I was being a racist. How is this racist? Is it because I just happen to be a male descending from Anglo-Saxon ancestry? Perhaps if my friend had said this, it would not be racist? I don’t know. That is a whole other debate. Personally, I think the sympathizers of the illegals try to make it a racial issue when they know that they are losing the argument.

In any case, this issue has nothing to do with race. Ideally, it should have nothing to do with petty politics either. I see the issue as only being a matter of law, which is separate from politics. This issue has everything to do with respect for our laws and for equal justice for everyone under those laws. It does not matter if a person came here illegally from Mexico, Ireland, Canada, or anywhere else in the world. The law is the law.

Speaking of laws, sympathizers of the illegals should consider this one question: “Would you like it if someone trespassed on your property and left it vandalized?” Many ranchers just beyond the U.S. side of the border have had their fences and other property damaged or destroyed because some sociopath doesn’t really give a damn about somebody else’s property & damage. Many report missing items as well. So, not only are they breaking the law by crossing illegally, but they are breaking countless other laws along the way dealing in such areas as trespassing, vandalism, larceny, and so on. Food for thought.