For some people, they feel as though the law is there merely to protect their interests, and that they have no need for daily interaction.  However, they assume that if the day comes where their behaviour is called into question, the law will operate, the course of justice will be run, and the will of the people will be fulfilled.  This is perhaps a naïve interpretation of the function of law, and indeed the way it operates in our lives throughout the day.  For instance, at the top level we have the constitution, establishing parameters within which the government can and cannot act to protect the citizens of our nation.  That has an overwhelming effect on the way in which our government and indeed our country is run, which has a knock on effect on everything we do throughout the day and how we do it.  Even at a local level, the law interacts with the services we are provided, the jobs we work and pretty much everything to do with the lives we lead.  A distant concept?  I don’t think so.

The law does not just operate in criminal spheres, nor is it confined to merely constitutional matters and the distribution of power.  Law is a significantly more sophisticated tool in the orchestration of the day-to-day organisation of society, through regulating not only personal conduct but also the way we act in business situations.  Take for example the everyday task of boarding a train.  The law regulates many aspects of this feat: (1) the criminal law and the constitution permits us to board public transport.  (2) The constitution permits us to make contract with another.  (3) The laws of contract permit us to form a contract for transport with the train company,  and ensure that that contract is fulfilled.  (4) The laws of contract and tort allow us to board without fear of injury, or with remedy should the worst happen.  Finally the law of ownership and currency allows us to hand over money in consideration for this service, which is of value to the other contracting party.  In fact, the law regulates just about everything we do, and is vital in doing so to ensure the smooth running of community and every aspect of our lives.

The law is not some abstract notion that can and will protect us when we need to rely on it.  The law is an integral part of democratic life, and something which regulates our conduct, and in essence allows us to act according to our own desires within reason.  Some may think the law is too restrictive in certain areas, but it works.  The law serves its function as regulating our behaviour very well, and if it doesn’t?  We can change it.

The fact is, law has been an important part of society since it began, with implied legal and social orders and boundaries that could not be crossed.  Today, it is a sophisticated network of guidelines and regulations which is adapted to shape the way we live our lives from one day to the next.  There is no doubt that the law is important to the citizen, and plays a profound impact on the lives of the people on a daily basis.

It is often said academically that the citizen enjoys freedom to act as he wishes in his life, subject to the regulatory provisions of the criminal law and the criminal justice system.  It is thought that as citizens of a particular country, largely at freedom to choose where we live in the world, we impliedly accept the authority of the relevant legal provisions which, for the most part, regulate on a moral level.  Of course there are exceptions, i.e. criminal laws of a regulatory or secondary nature which do not directly bear any moral message, such as speeding limits or parking restrictions.  So, then, to what extent does the criminal law reflect morality, and further from what source is this morality derived?

The criminal law is said to operate in mind of the public good, and the benefit of society.  It could, therefore, be argued to be crossing the boundaries into serious restrictions on liberty when it regulates personal conduct like drug use which may not have any wider impact than on that of the person indulging accordingly.  Why should the criminal law impose restrictions on what a person can do with his or her own body?  Surely our own freewill is a good enough justification for acting outwith the scope of the law in these types of scenario?

Furthermore an interesting area of the criminal law is potential liability for omissions.  In this sense, the citizen can actually be punished without acting at all in a specific way.  This takes the criminal law beyond a regulatory framework for the public good into an actual coercive force to make people positively act in a certain way.  For example, in some jurisdictions there is a legal duty to report a road traffic accident.  This means a citizen who is aware of the occurrence of such will have committed a criminal offence where he does not act in the prescribed manner.  Again, this is surely affording a broad scope to the criminal law, which may be seen by some as intruding on the fundamental freedoms and values upon which most modern nations were built.

It is interesting to consider the real impact of the criminal law, and the sheer breadth of conduct it regulates.  From the objectively morally wrong to the less obvious cases of imposition of liability, the criminal law places severe restrictions on the general principal of absolute liberty, which is clearly the subject of much academic and philosophical debate.

The European Convention on Human Rights was established as an international treaty to afford a uniform standard of human rights treatment across Europe.  Covering basic freedoms like the right to life through to trickier issues such as the right to liberty and the right to marry, ECHR has had an astonishing impact on Europe both legally and politically.  In passing legislation, European governments have to as a matter of law legislate in accordance with the provisions contained within the ECHR.  This means parliaments of signatory countries are being bound by their predecessors to legislate in a particular way, which has ruled out a number of would-be pledges and meant the reversal of certain national laws.

One area where this has caused problems is in abortion.  The perpetual morality debate aside, abortion has been held to contravene the right to life provision in certain European countries.  Although there is still great scope for challenge, this could potentially cause problems in the coming years as more and more cases of this nature are brought before the European court.  Another major problem area is that of same sex marriages.  The universal right to marry means that any provision stopping same sex marriage anywhere in Europe could potentially be struck down as illegal, requiring nations to actively realign their current provisions to avoid any discrimination.  For this reason, the UK, amongst others, have taken proactive measures to permit same-sex marriages to avoid the embarrassment of a public ruling against them.  This obviously raises problems of national power and freedom: nations are now utterly bound by the principles of European ‘liberty’, whether they like it or not.

Thankfully this social and legal upheaval is working towards a more liberty-orientated Europe.  It is certainly taking time, and given the fact that the ECHR is over half a century old, its impacts are becoming more and more apparent as time wears on and as courts are presented with modern challenges located within the context of the original ECHR provisions.  Additionally, the European Convention on Human Rights is being regularly updated and amended to provide a steadfast constitution for the citizen whilst retaining the flexibility to adapt to contemporary situations.  Although the ECHR and the provisions contained within it have met stiff opposition throughout their lifetime, most would now agree that the level of individual certainty provided by these fundamental freedoms is making for a better quality of life and reducing the scope for discrimination and prejudice across Europe.

Doctors can face up to 2 years in prison if they are convicted of performing the procedures, which will greatly limit the numbers of doctors performing the procedures and likely increase the number of states placing bans of the entire abortion procedure as well.  The decision came from a split Supreme Court, with two of the justices being hand picked by Bush himself.  This is a cause of great concern, suggesting that the Supreme Court has turned into a very conservative place, despite the lack of support for Bush and many of his ideas and practices on a broader level.  The Supreme Court’s involvement in politics is usually noted, but given the gravity of this decision it is clear where certain allegiances lie.

Is the Supreme Court really following the wishes of the majority, do they really have the legal right to determine that a medical decision can or cannot be performed?  The anti-abortion camps in the GOP are happy following the decision and are busily looking for more ways to put a damper on the rights of women in regards to abortions.  How will this decision be regarded when it comes election time, and the Presidential elections come around?  What about the midterm elections next time they are scheduled?

Many people are left to wonder if the Supreme Court decision is truly a legal decision, or nothing more than a very carefully selected group of ultra conservative judge’s who are following Bush’s wishes and desires in regards to the case.  The case was sitting before a panel of judge’s who seem to thrive off of the acceptance of Bush, and Bush was noted as being encouraged by the ruling and declaring it as a victory for his administration.

The court defended its decision by saying that it was doing nothing more than drawing a line between abortion and infanticide.  There is a difference between killing a child, or an infant, and an abortion.  One of the most notable differences is that a child or infant is not considered an infant until the first breath of air is taken into the lungs.  An abortion does not allow the infant to take that first breath of air, therefore, removing the term infant from their being.

While it is noble that the Supreme Court is looking and seeking to protect all forms of life, they should also concern themselves with the lives of the mothers who carry babies, who should not be allowed to continue to term for medical reasons.  There are numerous women each year who become pregnant who are unable physically to carry a child to term, and must abort the child, or risk their own life.  What has the Supreme Court done in order to protect those mothers, or improve their quality of life?

These positions were not possible previously, with widespread social reform needed to bring about this change.  In previous years, women were only allowed to work on the family farm, or be a teacher, rather than being afforded experience in practical situations.  Women were expected to be married by the end of their teenage years, and were overlooked in conversations as being unable to contribute anything valid.  When elections were first started, women were not allowed to vote, they were barely allowed the right to run their own homes.

As society has progressed, we have seen women moving from the back of the line, to the front of the public eye, occupying more and more positions of authority and respect.  More women now than ever are working outside the home, and proving their own worth without a man to hold them up.  Many women are even choosing to not get married, as well as not have children, although experts are suggesting this will have implications for future generations.

With the push towards women’s rights, there has also been pushes towards expanding the rights for the lesbian community.  More women are stepping forward to fight for the rights that they are owed and due, alongside those already afforded to the male homosexual community.  Women have been taxpayers for as long as men have, at the same rates, and there are daily battles and struggles to overcome the problems and oppression that women are faced with, especially within the homosexual community to level this unfairness.

Even in today’s society and the move away from sexism there is still a notable difference in the amount of money a man earns compared to the amount of money a woman earns for the same job.  This is regardless of experience, training, and education, as many employers still feel women lack the competence to work within a competitive environment.  There are always major differences in the way issues are handled and there seems to be new differences appearing each and every day.

How society adapts is the important part, we are on the brink of the first woman in history winning a democratic party bid for the Presidency and this makes a wonderful time for women.  We are in the days, weeks, months and years following the Clinton presidency, and since then, Hillary Rodham Clinton has set an exception example for women by stepping out from behind her husband’s shadow and making a name for herself in the political arena. With her impact on the forthcoming Presidential elections still unknown, it will be interesting to see the effect this has on women’s rights both domestically and across the world.

Women are fighting and struggling each and every day to prove their worth, but with each day that passes a small victory for women’s rights, we are proving each and every day that we are a force to be dealt with.  Many people are eagerly awaiting the day when men and women are truly treated as equals.  It might be 2 days from now or perhaps 20 years from now, but it is a work in progress and will be accomplished.  By working together with the community as a whole, and avoiding a destructively defensive view point, women can promote their interests, as can men, to create a truly equitable environment.

It comes into question, how many ordinary Americans really know and understand what stem cell research is, how it can effect our lives, and what does it have the ability to do in the future?  With topics such as abortion being very hot and causing pressures on all sides, it only seems natural that stem cell research should cause just as much controversy.  Many supporters argue that the research gathered will be able to save millions of lives, while those opposing the research all argue that they are killing thousands of innocent children in the process.

This brings the question, where do the embryos come from?  The majority of the embryos used in the research come from couples that have donated them, following a treatment for infertility; there are often 10 or more embryos left over after such procedures, which can be put to use in the laboratory environment.  The options for those embryos are limited; they can be preserved, adopted to a needy couple, destroyed, or donated to medical research.

The embryos are only a few mere days past conception when they are frozen, and are unable to sustain life in any form on their own.  From a legal standpoint, they are not living humans, and are not an infant since legally an embryo becomes an infant once the first breath of air is taken.  This leaves the questions of who has the right to determine what can happen to them.

The embryos are the building blocks of people, yet, they have no rights themselves.  Whom do they belong to?  Who is responsible for ensuring they are taken care of?  Many consider the embryos being used in research as the same category as murder.  Is it actually murder when the child is never born, and is only conceived in a test tube?  Who should really make the decision about how these embryos should be handled?

The embryos themselves are rich in stem cells, which scientists have said can help cure some of the worst diseases and conditions in the world.  This makes the concept very tempting, but is this dabbling in aspects of science that shouldn’t be used?  Should humans really be trying to recreate whole body parts and organs from the stem cells in order to help a few, but at the expense of a few other lives?

The current administration has tried to place a ban on this research and block the use of the embryos.  This has upset many supporters who feel this research is vital to the survival of the human race, while those who digress the ideas are upset that is has not been banned fully yet.  Where is the better side to stand?  Should we allow the government to meddle into the scientific aspects of medicine, or should we continue the research to save thousands, or millions of lives?

Barack Obama has enjoyed adding 100,000 friends to his MySpace page, and other campaigns are even adding other MySpace pages as well as joining into the Second Life craze that has struck recently, with many people looking to expand the internet as one of their major sources of advertisement.  Each candidate has their own website of course, with a great amount of information on their individual views, their position on the issues, and what they wish to see happen in the country.  Never before has the democratic process reached so close to home, now pulling in a new generation of voters to guide the future of the country.

Is this a good idea?  Should candidates really be losing that personal and physical touch?  However, this is actually one of the most prevalent ways to get information out recently, with websites popping up everywhere where political opinions can be viewed, and with sites such as digg.com becoming popular it enables sites with good content that is full of information people find fascinating or helpful to rise to the top, and help spread the word to the masses.

Seems almost like a grass roots type campaign.  Yet it does not involve any physical interaction from the candidates.  This is the ultimate tool that can be used to spread the word quickly about progress and updates in their campaign without ever leaving their house or office and interacting with those they so desperately need votes from. This seems to be a bit of a strange position to be taking, but with the internet reaching so wide and far, it is a tool that many politicians are utilizing, and to great practical effect.

Many are even recruiting volunteers to manage their spaces in Second Life as well as MySpace so that their time is better spent and their ability to reach even more people is extended further.  Seems almost strange that volunteers are now able to help on campaigns that they never would have been able to work on before, but thanks to the internet, they are able to show support for their favorite candidate in a way never before seen.

How much further can this really go, with the possibility of the internet growing into an even larger portion of the campaign, it is very much possible to keep track of all the happenings and events in almost every political campaign and race without ever leaving the comfort of your home.  Whether this engages the ordinary citizen on a more direct level will remain to be seen, and the outcome this will have on the voter demographic at the next election will surely be profound. Now if only the election voting could be handled online, securely it would truly be a virtual world…

The White House has already formally registered its opposition to such a plan, however the backers are unconcerned.  Many feel that the compensation plans of the major officers of the publicly traded companies should be tied to the performance of the company and the officers themselves, and not to the figures that the officers wish to receive.

This bill if passed could place an enormous amount of power into the hands of stockholders who are upset with the way several companies have behaved lately, with declining profits and horrible business practices while the officers of the companies have picked up large compensation packages that include their salary, benefits, and stock options.  Each officer can end up with hundreds if not thousands in profits even while the company is performing badly, which stockholders believe is an inequitable outcome.

Many have wondered if the officers in charge of these companies would tighten the belts on spending if their own pay was tied to their performance rather than their wishes, and with numerous companies falling short of profits with huge pay packages going out, and raises occurring almost yearly many investors have started complaining loudly.

While current President Bush has urged the officers of the companies to step up and take responsibility.  He has also said that it is not an issue that the government should become involved in.  How far should the government extend into a private business?  How many people would really feel comfortable with the idea of having the government determine what their pay could be?  Most Americans can agree that they would not like the idea of the government interfering with their job and pays.

At the same time, while most Americans do not wish to have the government intruding into their jobs and careers, many still want some measures put into place to hold the executives accountable who are responsible for multi-million and multi-billion companies that employ hundreds to thousands of people.

Many have argued that the concept is nothing new; it is similar to ideas that are currently in place in countries such as Sweden, Australia and even in Britain.  With examples such as those to follow, it makes people wonder if this actually does have the chance to pass through the House of Representatives and the Senate once the voting time has arrived.

With time as the key factor, there is scheduled to be a vote on the issue in the House of Representatives in the very near future, which is very much expected to pass without much opposition.  It is the next step in the Senate that is where it starts getting sticky with people unsure of the results once the voting in the Senate starts.  However, with increasing support from the people, many of whom work for companies affected by this issue, there is scope for a mass political influence, which will certainly make the outcome interesting.

Along with adding a member of the house for the D.C. area, Utah has been given a fourth seat.  Now the bill is passed along to the Senate to have a final approval but with the District of Columbia not being a true state, many are expecting the bill to be squashed.  Some may not have realized but 200 years ago it was determined that the District of Columbia would be banned from a seat in the House since it was not a state.

Utah was declined an additional seat in the house after falling shy of the required residents to acquire a fourth seat after the last census.  However, since they are in the process of adding additional seats and Utah is so very close to the requirements it is expected that by the next election they should have the required number of residents to justify the additional seat.

This is a major milestone in the House of Representatives, which has sat at 435 seats since 1960; it has been over 45 years since additional seats were added to the house.  Opponents of the new bill have all been quick to point out that while it’s wonderful that the House is looking to grow, the Constitution clearly states that the members of the House are chosen by the people of the states, which since the District of Columbia is not a state, causes a major snafu in the plans of the Democratic majority House.

The House is slated to keep the 437 seats even after the 2010 census, which is when Utah is slated to be expanding to a 4th district.  While this is the first time this measure has actually passed the House, it is not the first time it has been discussed, nor debated.  Back in 1978, it was mentioned that the District of Columbia should be given a vote in the House of Representatives; however, the amendment was discarded after it was unable to be ratified by a quorum three-fourth majority of the states.

Once again, the measure was attempted in 1993; however, this attempt was focused around moving the District of Columbia into statehood and transforming the District into a full-fledged state of the United States.  This proposal was also rejected, so this is a major victory that has been attempted several times previously.  Whether it will pass through the Senate, and ultimately receive legal effect, is still left to be determined.

Many have argued that the District should be allowed a seat in the House, since the residents of the District pay taxes and fight in the wars of this country just like residents of any other state.  The debate and battle rages on, and it will be a rather interesting experience to see if the District is able to win their bid to a permanent seat in the House.

The INS is now responsible for many tasks that it never had before, including inspecting travelers who are entering and exiting the United States gates through more than 300 points of entry nationwide.  Whether you are coming or going from the United States, you are likely to be passing through an INS worker who is responsible for helping make sure anyone who is wanted by the law is not able to gain entry to the country.  Although largely a precaution, it is thought that this will be most helpful in preventing possible threats to national security.

Other tasks of the INS include handling the residence status of all who apply for residence and citizenship.  They also handle and seek to regulate the status of all permanent and temporary immigration requests.  The INS. also handles tourists, and students, as well as those coming for conventions, special classes, visiting family and all other business.

The INS has also been given the tasks of controlling all of the borders into the United States, especially the borders between Mexico and the United States and Canada and the United States.  This is an extremely large task since the United States shares such large land borders with two other countries.  This allows for an almost daily flow of people trying to enter the country illegally.

INS workers are also responsible for handling and removing all people who have no legal rights to be in this country.  They are responsible for removing the parties in accordance with the laws, and by following all of the standards that are set in place for obtaining temporary status, or returning the person to the country where they came from.

In a report the INS released in 2001, there was 31,971 employees on staff.  This resulted in a rate of 24,233 of these employees being classified as enforcement personal were used to enforce the laws, rulings and policies of this country.  The INS today is a function of the Justice Department and serves mostly as an investigative unit, unlike many other departments, which serve as law enforcement units instead.

In recent years, the borders have had more illegal entry than previously, which has resulted in larger amounts of staff being added to help secure the borders and protect our country.  Without being able to know who is entering our country, we are unable to truly protect our citizens and other people.  Border patrol agents is the one largest area where the INS has seen growth in jobs available.  Due to the increase of jobs in the border patrol, we are able to see much fewer illegal entries into the country.

As we progress into a country that is, more accommodating of people from various cultures it will be quite interesting to see how the INS is changed to adapt and become more friendly to the needs of all people, even those entering the country.