Right to Work Laws Liberty, Prosperity, and Quality of Life

This article looks into the different state laws and other legislations that have been passed over the decades with regards to the guidelines to be adhered to as far as employment and wages are concerned within the United States.  Specifically, it focused on answering the question as to whether or not such state laws and legislations violate the right of an individual to freedom of choice. 

    According to the article, one of the economic dimensions of individual liberty is the right to sell ones labor services without attenuationthat is, without limits on the terms of the agreement (Vedder 2010, p. 171).  With the implementation of various state laws and legislations since the 1930s beginning with the Davis-Bacon Act and the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, many have viewed these statutes and legislations to impede the freedom of employees in the United States with the restrictions and limitations provided on the amount of wages an employee receives with regards to the amount of hours worked.  The ability of an individual to be hired is also narrowed down based on his or her membership in a particular union, since the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 mandated that all individuals must be a member of a particular union for them to be hired (Vedder 2010).

    Over the years, efforts have been made in order to restore some form of freedom to individuals when it comes to their exercising their right to freedom of choice on whether they would want to become a part of a union, as well as not making this a requirement for them to receive employment.  At the present, 22 states in the country have been classified as right-to-work states, where individuals can be hired regardless on their membership to a particular union.  As a result, these 22 states have seen a rise in population due to migration.  In 2008, these right-to-work states saw a 40 increase in their population growth brought about by the migration of individuals seeking employment from states that still make it a requirement to be part of a union to be hired as an employee.  On top of this, right-to-work states have also reported lower unemployment rates as compared to non-right-to-work states as well as higher economic growth rate per capita experienced by right-to-work states compared to non-right-to-work states (Vedder 2010).

    In the United States, none is more important to the general public than their ability to exercise their right to choose.  From the type of religion that they practice to selecting the next president of the country, Americans practice this freedom each and every single day.

    It is common knowledge that while individuals may apply for a particular position in a certain company, it does not guarantee that they would be immediately hired.  Naturally, there are a number of things that must be taken into consideration such as their years of experience, the manner on how they answer the interview questions, and other credentials.  All of these things are carefully taken into consideration to make sure that the successful candidate for the position is able to fulfill the responsibilities of the job being applied for.

    The presence of certain states that require that a candidate for a particular position in a company to be part of a particular union to be even considered for the position being applied for is indeed a violation of the freedom of choice on the part of the prospective applicant.  While it is indeed the right of the American people to assemble and form an organization based on their beliefs and principles, joining these unions must remain to be a matter of choice on other individuals.  Prospective employees must not be pressured into joining a particular union just so that they would be able to land a job and to begin to establish themselves in the career path that they have selected. 

    Based on the information provided in the article, it is not surprising to see the negative effects these legislations mandating the membership to a particular union has on the growth of the economy of these states.  Because of this mandate, companies eventually compromise on selecting lesser qualified individuals for certain job positions on the grounds that the more qualified ones are not members of the union that is recognized in the company.  On top of this, many of the otherwise qualified candidates that do not wish to become a member of any labor union would migrate to other states where becoming a member in a labor union is a matter of choice and not a pre-requisite.  Not only is there depletion in competent workforce that is present in these non-right-to-work states.  This would also result to the slow economic growth of the state due to the favoring of membership in a particular labor union as opposed to the skills, experience and qualifications of the candidate.

    The United States has been considered as the Land of the Free.  Part of this freedom includes the right of an employee to choose whether or not he or she would want to be part of a particular labor union.  In closing, non-right-to-work states must be open to learn from the growth and quality of life experienced by individuals living in right-to-work states on the benefits of making membership to labor unions optional rather than mandatory, specifically in terms of economic growth and prosperity.

Jurisdiction

1. What should law enforcement agents do when the state law is in conflict with a federal law that has been based on treaties with Native Americans signed by federal government

Drafters of American constitution noted that laws that govern the states may one day contradict the constitution. For the constitution to be supreme, they drafted Article IV, which is also called the Supremacy Clause. Case law also elaborates that whenever state laws contradict the federal law, federal law always prevail. To add on, the Supreme Court is the only court that binds state laws and guides them when it comes to interpreting federal law and federal constitution. Minor cases where state laws can prevail occur when it comes to matters concerning labor laws. Moreover, individual states drafts laws that apply to their own employees and whenever both the state and federal law address the same matter, an employee is at liberty to choose which law benefits him the most (Jackson, 659). Since all states are sovereign, with own government and constitution, they have the authority to make laws. But those laws must not supersede federal constitution, statutes and international treaties authorized by the federal senate.

            In America, tribal governments play an important role in politics. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case involving Cherokee Nation v Georgia (1831) that tribal governments are neither states nor foreign state. However, they are nations with authority to exercise sovereign power. Since tribal governments have powers to draft their own laws, some of them may preempt the state or the federal law. In such a situation, the congress posses plenary power over the natives affairs Lone Wolf v Hitchcock, 187 U.S.553 (1903) which are directed towards regulating tribal powers. Whenever conflict arises, authorities make use of federal interpretations to solve the case. For example, after the 1968 Civil Rights movement, the federal government passed a statute which required the tribal governments to adopt several bills of rights as well as adhere to other regulations. Limitations provided for in the Indian Civil Rights Act are statutory and not constitutional. People whose Indian rights have been violated can not challenge the matter through a federal civil suit (Anderson, 127). Therefore, he or she can only challenge the case in a tribal court. To add on, the development of tribal economic activities has been a major discussion in federal Indian policy. Several Acts provide for the development of Indian economic projects, for example, mining, mortgage and establishment of companies. 

2. How can officers who are on the front lines win respect and cooperation on native Americans when they asked to enforce something that goes against the treaty rights of the Indians

           According to the U.S. law, all indigenous people living in America during the European colonization are referred to as Indians. Law enforcers are empowered by the constitution to ensure that all individuals adhere to the rule of the law. However, certain regulations may conflict or oppress certain groups of people in the society. Thus for people in authority to win the trust of Indians, the state can recognize the practice of a given group of Indians, even when the federal government fails to recognize it. In September 1993, a National Agenda aimed at solving disputes and improving working relations between the tribal, state and federal judicial system was held in New Mexico (Isaac, 29).  Reasons that can influence the state to recognize a particular group are varying.  First, the state court and legislature can investigate the level of Indian governmental influence over peoples way of life. Second, the state can examine the political control of a particular group across a given territory. Lastly, the extent to which a groups history extends can be considered by the state.

              Indian sovereign authority is also recognized by the federal law and thus given special authority to rule themselves. However, this authority must not conflict with federal law. Moreover, the federal law recognizes Indian tribes as domestic and dependent nations. Furthermore, this sovereign authority was meant to protect the Indian groups and was enacted by the congress. Tribal courts of the Indians which preside over matters concerning the Indians get their mandate from the federal law (William, 31). In essence, Native Americans can respect the authorities when they are given the authority to run their own institutions and exercise their own rights

              When treaty rights of the Indians are violated, tribal governments can enter into agreements with state governments and iron out the differences. Examples of agreements which have been documented include law enforcement agreement, tax agreement, gaming compacts, human service agreements etc. The legal status of Native Americans has a unique perception. First, they are American citizens who enjoy the same rights and privileges as other Americans. Second, natives are considered as a special group of people with individual governing tribes. Despite the fact that natives have equal rights as all Americans, they have special rights in hunting and fishing, gaming activities and water usage (Edling, 43). Several arguments have been brought forth to subject Native Americans to the fishing and hunting rights as those of other Americans. However, the state lacks authority to control the activities of individuals in Indian reservations.

U.S. Agencies Coordinating Haiti Rescue Efforts

The Haiti tragedy that left thousands of people dead and thousands more homeless has been well coordinated. Every department of the government United States of America has been deeply involved in the rescue efforts. The U.S President Barrack Obama in a statement to the members of the national security shortly after the earthquake struck was quick to assure the world that his government would lead in aggressive and coordinated rescue efforts.

As far as mitigation of the tragedy is concerned most analysts argue that better buildings would have worked in prevention of this particular tragedy. Analysts argue that the manner in which most of the buildings in this area were built contributed a great deal in the magnitude of the tragedy.

However as far as preparedness is concerned some analysts argue that Haiti was caught off guard by the striking of the tragedy and that they were not as prepared. Although one thing for sure is that one can never be prepared for a tragedy, measures must always be put in place to cope with such tragedies whenever they occur. The measures put in place in Haiti were not adequate and that was perhaps the reason why the tragedy was quite severe.

Despite the various efforts that the U.S have made in response to the Haiti tragedy there has been massive criticism over the manner in which the US government has handled the Haiti issue. The first thing that the US government did was to send military troops to the affected families so as to offer them protection. However there is a public outcry over the slow place in which food and other amenities were taken to Haiti. Critiques argue that the U.S government has not shown commitment in the rescue efforts in Haiti. There was a slow pace by the government of sending troops to Haiti and yet more than 250,000 thousands soldiers were sent by the same government during the attacks on Iraq and Baghdad. The government has therefore been accused of being indifferent and lacking care of human life.

The recovery efforts on the other hand were somewhat difficult as most of the bodies were trapped under the rubbles. However with the use of heavy and sophisticated machinery the U.S government has managed to excavate thousands of bodies that were trapped inside. However the rescue efforts are far from over as it is believed that there are many more bodies that are yet to be unearthed.
According to President Obama who issued a statement shortly after the tragedy occurred one of the priorities of his government was to locate all the Americans that were in Haiti by the time the tragedy occurred. This was going to be done in conjunction with the U.S. Embassy in Haiti.

Since the Haiti tragedy struck there has been mixed reactions regarding the manner in which the U.S. government has handled the issue. While some feel that the government has shown commitment most others feel that the government has handled the issue a little too casually. Reports indicate that the government has been reluctant on this particular issue since Haiti has never been considered as important to the United States.

Review Response

The issue as to whether American judicial system ought to go is no doubt one of the contentious issues with regard to the efficacy of the judicial system to deal with crime. As it has been presented by the writer of this work, Neubauer, (2008), holds the view that indeed crimes are normally defined subject to the respective state laws. This stems from the fact that the American judicial system is founded on the premise of allowing states to have absolute power. In this way, they are usually able to pass laws which promote welfare, public health as well as safety. It is note worthy that Americas criminal and justice is based on the two fundamental crime models.

    The due process model takes into account the need to prevent the conviction of innocent persons while at the same time ensuring for the protection of the rights of the defendant. As it has been put forward by Neubauer, (2008), this model has put limits on both the legal system and enforcement agencies under the auspice of protecting the rights of the accused. By so doing it seeks to ensure that it is proved beyond polices facts before the pretrial time to reduce the possibility of any errors the accused is convicted. The crime control model on the other hand seeks to pay significant attention on the rights of individuals within a given society in order to reduce crime in totality as presented by this writer. The primary objective of this model is usually to ensure that criminal face consequences of their actions.

    Against this backdrop, federalization of state crimes does not appear to be a feasible option in terms of dealing with crime. As it is argued by the writer, this system would in no doubt be inclined towards the crime control model which thus posses the danger associated with ignoring the due process model. In addition, implementation of this system would be extremely difficult due the fact that crimes usually occur in different regions yet federal statues are not uniform throughout the country. That this would reduce the efficacy of proving the due process is no doubt an issue worth considering.

Social groups and forcible rape

Forcible rape refers to sexual act whereby there is vaginal, anal or oral penetration without the consent of the person. It differs from other types of rapes in that the victim is assaulted using force if not threats of force with injury being a common experience to the victims (Kilpatrick et al, 2007). The prevalence of this crime is surprisingly high in America with about 18 million women having gone through forced rape in their life time (Kilpatrick et al, 2007). There are various factors that increase the risk of forcible rape, social groups being one of them. It is important to note that a social group is made of not less than two people interacting and identifying themselves as a discrete social unit (Sociology Guide, 2010). With a social group having a customary and predictable behavior, a group that is linked to behaviors likely to lead to rape can almost be predicted to have cases of forcible rape.

    Studies show that among the many forcible rapes that are reported, the victims have good knowledge about the perpetrators. This is in tandem with social groups where individuals know each other well out of several interactions. Cases of date rape (also known as acquaintance rape) are very common and considering that this relationship fits the definition of a social group, it can be counted as a risk factor for forcible rape. In a social group such as an acquaintance relationship, forcible rape is likely to occur without the acknowledgement that it is rape due to a common misconception that a person in such a relationship must always be willing to have sexual contact (Curtis, 1997). The risk of forcible rape involving dating individuals is very high since the victim is very close to the perpetrator and they may not anticipate such an experience to happen due to the much trust they have on them.

    Taking the family as a social group, it is well known that there are many cases of forcible rape in the family circle some involving very close family members such as natural parents. Statistics show that 27 percent of all rape crimes are perpetrated by family members compared to 14 percent of strangers (Encyclopedia of Medicine, 2006). In a family setting, it is possible to have children being raped by their parents or a more common rape scenario known as spousal rape. Again, lack of anticipated molestation in combination with closeness of individuals in a family may increase the risk if there is a rapist in the setting.

    It is often hard to avoid becoming a victim of forcible rape occurring in a social group. However, an individual should take several precautions. To avoid acquaintance rape, a person should be able to have a profile of their partners behaviors and tendencies and look for warning signs such as the partner being unable to handle sexual frustration, as well as certain body postures (Curtis, 1997). A person can then take the necessary actions such as keeping away from the person at such a time. Date rape can also be avoided by ensuring that dating takes place outdoors since rape is less likely to occur in public places. It is possible to protect children from being raped by family members and caretakers by separating them from these risky individuals. Important to adhere to is to try to learn as much as possible the members of any social group one is a member of and avoid those that carry a risk of being raped.

Criminology

Any person can fall victim to crime but there are some individuals traits that may play part to some becoming victims than others. From this argument, it is then clear that some crimes are not random occurrences (Dignan, 2005). Crimes can be random yes, but there are certain circumstances that can make someone become a crime victim. This is evident mostly in a situation where one person is preferred from a group of potential victims. The people who are always at a greater risk of being victims to sex crimes are females than men. Nevertheless, there is no adequate research to support the allegations that their personalities andor physical appearance contribute to this (Williams, 2005).  
There are hypothesis that suggest that both passive and aggressive personalities may fall victim to sex crime. Aggressive victims may be picked because they are considered bad women who deserve whatever is done to them. Passive victims may be selected as they tend to easily succumb to threats and may fail to stand up in their defense they are not capable of resisting and thus the perpetrators can easily gain control over them (Williams, 2005). These two characteristics offer potential criminals more control over the victims, ensuring compliance and secrecy (Dignan, 2005). It is also argued that some women who fall victims to sex crimes are those that were abused as children. It is presumed that the trauma they went through affect their instinct for self-preservation and hence their ability to avoid dangerous situations. It is also suggested that the victims dressing, behavior, the ability to resist and say no in a way that the perpetrator understands, and the physical attractiveness cause some people to be in more danger than others (Dignan, 2005). These arguments may be the reasons why a perpetrator will pick one child from a house with many, as his victim. However, due to the inadequacy of research, it is not known whether these are the precise reasons or whether there are others (Williams, 2005).

Police discretion

Discretion of police is a tool they use that provides them with the capacity and ability of applying the laws of the land to the latter as opposed to enforcing the latter to the law. There are some people who argue that latitude in making of decisions by the frontier staff is a major way of describing the human service institutes characteristics. Discretion mainly involves making the best and right decisions on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and the situation input the police officer is surrounded with. The regulations and the laws established under police discretion in the US do not put into consideration the nature of human beings thus giving some room for abuse of such discretion by some officers. However, police officers have over the years proved prudent in the application of the discretion powers given to them and hence discretion in the US should not be curtailed (Scott, 2010).

Police discretion
The discretion of the police is a very crucial component in the functions they carryout while on duty. On a daily basis, police are faced with decisions regarding arresting people, releasing them before taking them to court or police stations with simply a verbal warning or citation. The discretion of the police has a lot of power, and it is notable that despite the fact that there are a few incidences of abuse of this power, most officers rarely abuse it. In virtually all instances, power is accompanied by responsibility and the power of the police discretion is no different. In order for them to be in a good position of exercising the power of discretion, it is very important for the officers to have adequate knowledge of the law. The officers must be in a position of establishing whether the crime which has been committed by an individual is a felony or a misdemeanor, they can only know this through proper knowledge of the law elements which has been broken. The training of the police officers in the US, together with various upgrading programs enables them to acquire ample knowledge in the field of law and hence they are in a position of applying discretion in the right manner. Their discretion should therefore not be curtailed as it serves a very crucial purpose, instead their training should be upgraded in order to enable them apply it even more effectively in future (Urbonya, 2003).
Police officers have to know the significant case laws, like Miranda warning and Terry frisk and so forth. Making a choice of whether to give court summons or to arrest should remain at the discretion of the police. If officers were compelled to only arrest and never give court summons to crime suspects, then numerous unnecessary arrests that would be made by officers would be overwhelming thereby increasing not just their work but indeed the entire judicial system. It is very important for the police to be allowed to have some discretion and hence give them a chance of making reasonable decisions based on the prevailing circumstances (Moody  Musheno, 2000).

Police discretion is inevitable and every officer has to face it on a daily basis in the course of his or her duty. It is in fact one of the most essential tools they have that enables to carry out their duty with considerable effectiveness. Police discretion basically enables a police officer to make a reasonable decision that is objective on whether to arrest someone or not. Despite the fact that discretion is not well defined and thus gives a police officer the freedom of making a decision on whether or not to make an arrest, most police officers make good decisions when arresting a wrongdoer. By giving the officers the discretion of making verbal warning to individuals who have committed a petty offence for the first time, deters such a person from repeating such offences and thus prevents them from committing more serious crimes in the future (Moody  Musheno, 2000). 

In traffic violations where a driver fails to stop at when necessary such as when the red light appears, the officer should have the discretion of either arresting the driver or releasing him or her. It is possible for the driver to fail to stop because he or she has accidentally missed the red sign, or is not conversant with the road. If the police officer verifies such and does not detect any use of narcotics or alcohol by the driver, he can opt to release such a driver but only warn him or her. In this case, police discretion is applied effectively and without it, police officers might be compelled to make several unnecessary arrests. The discretion of the police should therefore not be curtailed as it will add no value to their work, in fact by curtailing it will make it even more ineffective (Scott, 2010). 

The discretion of the police mainly involves the making of decisions and choices by police officers in order to achieve their institutional goals. Police officers have the obligation of enforcing the laws of the land and hence ensure that neighborhoods are secure and safe. It would however be very difficult for the police officers to be in a position of carrying out their duties effectively and diligently without the discretion power. Denying police the use of discretion power would basically make them more of machines than human beings and therefore carry out their duties mechanically. Police discretion should therefore not be curtailed since it is more of a blessing than a curse, it should in fact be enhanced.