Legal Issues

The war on drugs in the American nation has proved to be an expensive battle. This is because of the amount of national resources used in arresting, convicting and accommodating in prisons those involved in the drug business. The fight against the use or possession of marijuana is leading in the drug war expenditure due to the fact that it is the most commonly used illegal drug in the nation. However, available scientific evidence show that the use of marijuana is to a bigger extent safer compared to some legalized drugs like cigarettes and alcohol (Yager, Linn,  Leake).

Still, the failure of the government to legalize the use of marijuana in the society has been identified as a revenue loss for the government. No government can collect tax on what it terms as illegal. This means that the government loses tax and at the same time spends in trying to eliminate the use of illegal drugs in the society (Messerli). Many claim that legalizing marijuana will lead to its increased used among the youths of the society. However, it should be understood that available statistics show that despite the many concerted efforts by the government to fight illegal drug use, the rate of use is on the rise.

This paper gives a discussion in support of the thesis that marijuana should be legalized in our nation. The author in particular gives the advantages that could be realized through legalization of marijuana.

Legalization of marijuana and its economic importance
The market value of marijuana has been approximated to be 8.50 per 0.5 grams (Manderson 56). It means that, in an unregulated market like the one we have now, marijuana sellers are making an approximated 6.70. Therefore, it is evident that imposing a tax on marijuana could give the government a substantial amount of revenue (Messerli).

Still, with the legalization of marijuana, the entrepreneurs involved in the business of selling will also increase their production. The market price could relatively fall to a reasonable one once legalized. This cannot happen for now due to the fact that the dealers have to sell it at a price that can afford them premium cost if caught. On the other side, consumption will also increase. All these will be due to the fact that possession and use of the drug will not be subject to legal measures. This means that the government will create a chain of reliable revenue source from a substance that could otherwise eliminate organized criminal groups (Messerli).

Marijuana and the cost on war on drugs
Statistical evidence has it that the rate of use of illegal drugs among the youths has been on the increase over the passed few decades (Gerber 17). This is despite the many efforts by both the federal and state government to eliminate their use in the community. Still clear from these statistics is the fact that the U.S. government is spending billions of dollars in the war against use of illegal drugs among its citizens. Such costs are not only in the sensitizing programs but more in the arrest and conviction of those found in possession of the drugs. Marijuana has been identified as the most common used illegal drug in the American nation (Yager, Linn, and Bake). This means that the biggest population in the American prisons on drug use is convicted of marijuana.

True to the evidence so far available, legal drugs such as tobacco are more dangerous compared to marijuana.  Therefore, first the government should consider the fact that its increased expenditure in the fight is yielding no substantial fruits. In fact, it is increase the cost of housing criminals in jail. Second the government should evaluate the safety of marijuana use compared to other legal drugs like cigarettes and alcohol (Moffate). This makes the legalization of marijuana more logical than investing more tax players money in housing non-dangerous citizens in jail for possessing marijuana.

Legalizing marijuana and the society
There have been many claims by opponents of marijuana legalization that it will increase its abuse among the youth. This is a misconception that must be reversed for the good of our community. It is common knowledge to all members of the society that alcohol and cigarettes are harmful to our health. Even with all this knowledge, how many in the society die of cigarette or alcohol related illness Marijuana has indeed been confirmed to have less harmful side effects compared to these legal drugs (Gerber, 26). It should therefore be legalized not only due to being safer but also as a respect for freedom in the society.

Another thing, failure to legalize marijuana has the impact of increase its secretive abuse by members of the society (Messerli). It is evidently clear that many parents are usually shocked by new that their children were caught by the police in possession of marijuana. This means that many use it without the knowledge of anybody who can offer them guidance. Since by legalizing marijuana many will start using them openly, it will be easier to guide and counsel our young youth on the harm of using it, thus greatly reducing risk of abuse of the drugs.

Marijuana and its medical value
Marijuana has been identified to have a medical value. It is in fact used for relieving the nausea common in people suffering from cancer. Due to its effect of lowering eye pressure, marijuana finds much use in the treatment of glaucoma (Yager, Linn, and Leak). Other medical applications of marijuana are in helping in relieving stress for people with AIDS and multiple sclerosis. Marijuana has been historically used to relieve the mind and thus relax the human. It abuse however could be harmful. Nevertheless, legalizing and creating awareness on the need for using marijuana for medicinal reasons could greatly improve our health.

Apart from these medical applications, it has been established that marijuana has no much side effects to the human body. Indeed, it is evidently clear that the only pronounced risk is the fact that marijuana smoke has more tar and carbon monoxide compared to cigarettes (Manderson 61). However, given the fact that it is rarely useable like cigarettes, it has been established that even the heaviest marijuana smoker will cannot exceed the smoke and carbon monoxide consumption of an average cigarette smoker. This makes marijuana less harmful compared to cigarettes.

Conclusion
From the on going debate on whether or not to legalize marijuana, it is quite clear that marijuana should be legalized. First is due to the fact that is spending so much of non-effective measures of prohibiting marijuana use. Still, the government is losing a lot of revenue in the underground dealings of the drug. It is therefore for the good of our economy and the society in general that marijuana should be legalized.

Causes of Events in the Case
Six business schools (Harvard, Dartmouth, Duke, Carnegie Mellon, MIT, and Stanford) have dismissed the application of several examinees after learning that these individuals were able to access the highly restricted pages containing the test results by following a hackers instruction on how to twist the security of the application software created by Apply Yourself, Inc.- the firm that designed the software being used by the six business schools to facilitate their admission tests and results. The undeniably huge amount of discomfort caused by having to wait for the official release of the results has disposed certain examinees to access the test-results, thinking that their doing so will not have any moral and legal consequence to the institutions. These unauthorized accesses have been traced by the software firm, resulting to the dismissal of applications made by those examinees.

Ethical Issues in the Case
 The ethical questions to be asked include (a) is it morally wrong for the examinees to disobey the institutions instructions to wait for the official release of results And (b) what grounds for the ethical judgment of the dismissal to be morally right

Consequences of the Actors Behaviors in the Case
 The incident may inspire doubt whether they (schools and software firms) can handle security threats adequately, and thus, lead to credibility issues upon proving that the system has serious flaws. These are negative consequences that can extend to damage the credibility of the academic institutions in general as the schools involved are the most respected ones in the industry as arguably, well-regarded institutions generate higher expectations from people. This picture may encourage other daring attempts to security. While the subjects have been rendered painful sanction for what took place, this cannot stop the creativity of human mind to seek ways by which the hacking can be done better next time. On the other hand, the incident also provides a blatant criticism to the flaws existing security measures being adopted by the firm who manufactured the software as well as the six academic institutions. This criticism has opened doors to the possibilities of security enhancements, thereby preventing possible future worse security attacks. Further to that, the sanctions received serve as warning signals to individuals who may desire to do the same, thereby lessening the chances of occurrence of the same incident.

Analysis Potential Solutions to the Case
As what we have seen, morality and legality are obviously not always in agreement on what should be permissible and not permissible. There are many gray areas of moral and legal conflicts, and these are seemed to be provided for by the very design of our laws and our society, extending to what seems to be the elite of the ethical systems followed within our society. It is important to note though that the main reason the law and other policies exist is because we would want to live a life and a society that we believe is morally right.

Any attempts to render judgment on right or wrong questions entail looking at the issue from the moral standpoint. Human beings, as moral agents, have the capacity to decide on moral things on their own and the price we have to pay for that is admitting that we are responsible for our own moral choices. A lapse in judgment entails imprudence or deciding with insufficient information to begin with. In the Harvard case, it was the lapse in integrity that took place as there was a deliberate and conscious effort to violate the academic institutions policy. It is impossible to think how an examinee would not be aware of the agreements he or she has with the school where the application is made. It is natural to think that when an individual submits an application, he or she knows will be informed about the manner by which they will inform about the results. It seems from here that the curious applicants were trying to twist the policy to satisfy their self-interests.  (5) This is indeed an aggressive behavior but whether the behavior will be useful in a business context is questionable because a business, for me, has to be well-grounded on sound ethical considerations.

In business, one deals with individual employees and the society as a whole and an action even if done within a business context necessarily would have an impact to the society as a whole. In my view, for it to thrive, it should be socially friendly and one that exercises its corporate responsibility. Any system is not perfect and even the most features-packed software can have its won flaws. But to take advantage of the imperfection is an opportunistic way to have gains. Not only that, the fallibility of the system cannot decide on moral issues, but humans can. Therefore, it is useless to blame the flaws of the system. (3) The subjects who committed the unauthorized access could have considered the aspect of a social responsibility they have formed upon giving consent to the policies of the schools to work and bound them. Policies exist to bring a certain sense of order and avoid the possibility of chaos. When the student made hisher application to the school, he or she automatically becomes subject to the rules implemented by the campus, as far as his admission applications are concerned. When one violates the policy, it inspires others lack of confidence towards the policy and an attitude of resilience towards that policy. People will start to challenge it and the results may be a disorder. (2) Utilitarians never like the possibility of disorder, especially if it does not bring any greater good. Saying that the incident actually triggered efforts to make the security better is easily undermined by the idea that we are still not sure whether in the end, the efforts to enhance security measures can prove to be essentially beneficial as human creativity will always find a way to work on a solution. Kant does not agree that such violation is universalyzable and passes the categorical imperatives. An action seems to pass Kants categories if and only if it is the best solution that can be adopted to resolve the issues. The issue I think is not really about painstakingly waiting but rather, its about knowing the results (the painstaking wait is a consequent of the desire to know the results anyway). In this case, we have an alternative way of resolving our issue of knowing whether we passed or not and that is to wait for the official release of the results. (1)

Legally speaking, examinees are told to wait for two reasons following the system is necessary for everything to be orderly and because that is supposedly the only way by which examinees could know the results. Apparently, agreement to wait and the schools instructions still holds true, regardless of whether another opportunity to retrieve the information exists or not. (3) The hackers instructions provided an alternative way of knowing the results but the moral significance of the action lies on the examinees social responsibility that entails dismissing a course of action that could possibly end other individuals in the society. The harm committed here is the formation of distrust as far as the capacity of handling security is concerned.  (4) Moral considerations render that the access is not permissible. Violating the rule may result to a degree of disorder as for sure, word of mouth goes out and that will encourage people to try hacking the results, if no sanctions were imposed.

This article contains some information concerning the case of one of the Toronto Law firm by the name of Koskie Minsky which was during that time presenting Heather Robertson. The case is between this law firm and the claims administrator that was appointed by the court by the name of Cole and Partners. Among the other key players that are mentioned in the case are the freelance artists and writers who are receiving advice that there is some further listing of the publications of their works which has been reproduced in form electronic database that is available in court. In other words, this article is about a case of people who are filing claims to be paid because of violation of their copyrighted materials. In this case the plaintiffs are the freelance artists and writers and the defendant are a number of media companies. (Canada NewsWire)

There are times when people just copy materials from other people without consulting them. This is what is referred to as using copyrighted material without authorization of the owner. This is the subject that is discussed by the author in this article. Other than presenting the information about the reason why the case is to be taken to court, the author is also as asking all those freelance writers who may feel that their materials have been used without their jurisdiction to take action. It happens that some people or rather some companies have a habit of using other peoples materials for their financial gains. Some of these materials are then used to create documentaries and other interesting stories which are known to later sell very well. One of the main reason as to why such documentaries may sell well is the fact that there are some information in them from the freelance writers or other people which have been linked together. It is therefore obvious that the original holders of this information should be contacted. Because the material is more likely to be used for commercial purposes, the original holder of the information should be compensated.  (Canada NewsWire)
From the way the author has presented the information in this article, it is clear that he does not encourage people to use other peoples material for their personal gain. This is the reason as to why he is even giving us a figure of the amount of money that the media houses are being asked to pay for using copyrighted materials without permission. In addition, the author is also ready to assist all the other people who feel that their material has been used without their consent to get their justice. This is also the main reason as to why those freelance writers are not required to have any evidence of their material that has been used without their consent. (Canada NewsWire)

In my view, I understand that in the world, there are a good number of very good writers and other good artists. These people struggle very much in life because they do not have the funds to develop their talents. The worst thing happens when such people come from the developing countries. Their ideas and their work are stolen by large cartels which are known to sell these works and generate a lot of income. These people have no power and they have no strength and therefore, there is no way of dealing with these large cartels. It would be advisable to help these people where possible. In this case, I would say that this law firm is doing a good work by assisting these freelance artists and writers as they do not have any other organization to protect them. In addition, those companies that are found using copyrighted materials without the authority of the owner should be imposed great fines so that this can discourage all the other companies that may be engaging in that type of activity.

Facts of the Case
The infant plaintiffs in the case of Pelman v McDonalds Corp. have developed obesity and related heath disorders such as type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, coronary heart disease and elevated cholesterol intake. They aver that their ailments occurred because of frequently consuming the defendants products. The defendant failed to display nutritional information and refused to supply the same even on request. Consumers were not informed of the ingredients in the products or the level of the additives used to enhance the meals. The defendant did not warn consumers of the likely risks of consuming their product nor did they warn them that some products were addictive. An advert the defendant ran purported that consuming their products on a regular basis would lead to a healthier lifestyle.

Issues
The plaintiff accuses the defendant of four counts of violating the Consumer Protection Act. Count I alleges that the defendant failed to reveal the ingredients contained in the products andor warn consumers of the health consequences of eating foods with high levels of fat, salt  and cholesterol. They actively marketed their products as ideal food for healthier lifestyles without mentioning the health risks. Count II alleges that the defendant deliberately misled the public by asserting that eating McDonalds food everyday will lead to a healthier lifestyle. Count III alleges that the defendant devised advertising campaigns targeting minors with the knowledge that eating such foods leads to obesity and related health disorders. Count IV alleges that the defendant concealed information that some of their products had addictive properties and that prolonged consumption increased chances of the plaintiff developing health disorders.

The plaintiff also list four grounds of negligence that the defendant is liable. Count I alleges the defendant was negligent to inform consumers of the dangers in consuming their products  despite information revealing that foods with high cholesterol, fat and salt levels lead to obesity and related health disorders. Count II alleges that the defendant was negligent in withholding results that revealed their products had addictive properties and that consumption over prolonged periods increased the risk of obesity and heart disease. Count III holds the defendant negligent for running a campaign ad that alleged consuming their products on a daily basis led to a healthier lifestyle when they knew the claim to be false. Count IV accuses the defendant of negligence in failing to provide nutritional information about their products to assist consumers in making an informed choice.

The legal issues raised are whether McDonalds are liable for products liability and are in violation of the Consumer Protection Act. In their defense, they can argue that the plaintiff should reasonably have known that consuming large quantities of fast foods would lead to obesity and related health disorders. They can also claim that that the results of their tests concerning addictiveness were inconclusive which is why they did not release the findings to the public. McDonalds defense can argue that there was no proximate cause to the onset of obesity and other ailments as the plaintiffs did not eat all their meals at their outlets (Elsroth v. Johnson  Johnson, 1988)

Rules
To succeed in a claim for product liability, the plaintiff must prove that manufacturer has a liability touching either on the design, the finished products workmanship or that there was a failure to warn. The plaintiff must further establish that a duty to the plaintiff existed and that there was a breach of that duty. Such breach must have been the direct cause of the injuries suffered by the complainant.

Application
With regard to a breach of duty due to failure to display the ingredients or nutritional value of the food, the plaintiffs claims appear unjustified. It is impracticable to label everything that comes out of a kitchen due to the difficulty of establishing the correct measurement after cooking. As for the inherent dangers in the food, there was no evidence that the food from McDonalds was riskier than that produced from other fast-food outlets (Olliver v. Heavenly Bagels, Inc., 2001). The plaintiff should prove that the dangers in the food were unique and that the risk was unknown to other people.

While the Consumer Protection Act forbids deceptive advertising, the defendants advert does not encourage the consumers to over consume their products (Trevino v. Jamesway Corp., 1989). Had the advert proclaimed that every meal should be a McDonalds one, then the defendant would be liable for obesity and health claims provided the defendant ate all their meals from McDonalds.

Conclusion
The case against McDonalds should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to raise sufficient proof that the defendant breached their duty to the plaintiff by serving food without nutritional information. Secondly, the plaintiffs failed to prove thet their ailments were directly caused by eating food from the defendants outlets. Common sense should have informed the plaintiff of the possible risks of over consuming fast foods rich in cholesterol, fat and salt. Finally, the plaintiffs have a responsibility to take care of their health and should not abdicate this duty to the defendant. Such care would have ensured that the plaintiff ate healthy foods and exercised regularly.

In todays society, the need for safety stems out as a result of the increasing incidents of criminality in our neighborhoods and streets. Some of the citizenry, feeling that their persons, family or property is under threat from these lawless elements, resort to various means to protect themselves, including purchasing firearms.  But what does one do when the government steps in, placing severe restrictions on firearm purchasing, basically making it near impossible for one to buy a gun, even if it is meant for ones protection

District of Columbia vs. Heller
In more than seven decades, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments as to the core and essence of the Second Amendment of the American fundamental law and the relation to gun regulation and control statutes (United States Supreme Court Media). In the line of fire was the District of Columbias more than three decades old gun ban policy, being challenged that the ban was infringing on the ambit of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which reads
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed (Fox News, 2008).

Lawyers representing the District, that had banned its residents from bearing hand guns since 1976 for reasons of public safety, argued that the amendment allows the members of the militia and not the ordinary citizens are allowed to bear and keep arms. In the decision of the United States Court of Appeals in Parker vs. Columbia, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment did provide for citizens to bear arms and possess them, purging provisions from the Code of the District of Columbia and ruling these provisions as constitutionally infirm. In late 2007, the Federal Supreme Court granted a motion for certiorari in the motion for Parker, limiting the question to be resolved to the contested provisions in the D.C. law that allegedly impinge on the ambit of the Second Amendment regarding the rights of individuals to possess arms, though they are not members of any militia group and keep their firearms in their own homes for the owners protection. In Parker, also known as District vs. Heller, it is the first time in nearly seven decades that the Supreme Court of the United States will consider the nature of the rights enshrined in the Amendment that is imparted, and it is expected that the resolution of the case will have important repercussions on judicial and congressional considerations in the future (T.J. Halstead, 2008).

At the time that the issue came for deliberations before the High Court, The District of Columbia enacted laws that considered possession of handguns by private citizens as an illegal act, when the firearm is unregistered and banning the registration of handguns, but allows the Chief of Police to issue permits with a duration of one year, and mandates that residents to store the firearms that are legal in their homes, unloaded, disassembled or have the trigger locked or restrained by a similar device (Supreme Court of the United States, 2007). The questions raised before the High Bench were whether the following clauses in the District of Columbia Code- D.C Code 7-2502.02(a) (4), 22-4504 (a), and 7-2507.02-infringed upon the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, regarding the right of Americans who are not members of state militias, but desire to keep handguns and other types of guns in their homes for their own use (Cornell University Law School).

Case History
In the history of the case, the District of Columbia crafted three of the strictest gun control laws in the United States in 1976. The statutes specifically ban the ownership of hand firearms within the District, though the laws do allow the residents within the District to own shotguns and rifles that are disassembled or tied by a trigger locking device (Cornell). A group of individuals challenged the law, collectively known as the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975, was challenged by six residents in the District in 2003  saying in that the ban effectively infringes on their rights to possess and carry firearms within the District (Tom Head, 2010).

As earlier stated, Dick Heller, a special police officer detailed in the District of Columbia, undertook legal action  against the statutes that were enacted in the District and filed the actions in the United States District Court of Columbia, stating that the imposition of the ban on the possession of guns infringed on their rights to keep guns as enshrined in the Second Amendment rights in the Constitution. Represented by their counsel Robert Levy, the case was built and funded  by Levy with the express purpose in getting a decision from the Supreme Court. In the opinion of the District Court, the Court ruled that the ban applied to private citizens and allows the possession of guns only for members of the militia and as a result, allowed the motion of the District to rule against the plaintiffs in the case. Being denied judicial relief in their fight against the ban in the District Court, Heller with the other plaintiffs elevated their case to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, in Parker vs. District of Columbia, 478 f. 3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Cornell University Law School).

In the discussion of the case before the Appeals court, the first action of the appellate court was the determination After the motion of Heller was raised to the United States Supreme Court, of the legal standing of the plaintiffs in the case at hand. In order that the plaintiffs to legally satisfy this requirement, the aggrieved parties must prove to the court that the laws which are the under the contention of the parties are indeed victims of the law. In short, the plaintiffs must prove that the law that was enacted by the District, the ban on handgun ownership, impinged on the full exercise of the rights of the plaintiffs with regards to the Second Amendment. In the case of the plaintiffs, the parties, particularly Heller, must prove that the state, in this case the District of Columbia, created an injury when they denied the application of Heller for a permit to own a firearm (Cornell).

In contesting the ban, Heller sought to acquire a permit for him to legally keep his firearm at home, but was denied by the city authorities. This was filed on two grounds, using the Second as the basis of the actions, restraining the  city from enforcing the ban on the possession of unlicensed firearms at home, and the use of trigger locks as this clause prevents the use of the functional firearm at home. The district court affirmed the ban, but the Circuit court reversed the decision of the lower court, ruling that the protection of the Second Amendment on the right of the citizen to possess firearms also fell within the ambit of the contested amendment. The Court also ruled that the total ban on handgun possession and the imposition of the requirement that guns kept at home be rendered non functional even when the use of the firearm is for self defense purposes, infringed on the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs (Cornell).  

Scope of the Second Amendment and definitions
As earlier mentioned, the Second Amendment in the American fundamental law states that the keeping of firearms is a right that is granted to the American public and that right shall not be infringed or trodden down upon. Despite the short conveyance in the Constitution, the context of the right as essayed in the Second Amendment has been greatly debated in political, academic and legal arenas for many decades. In the study of the parameters of the Second, there are two contrasting models that can be used in the analysis of the Second. One of the models is the right of the person, or the  individual right model , which maintains that the wording and the historical background of the particular constitutional provision is definitive in its assertion that the right is a clear cut manifestation of the Framers thinking that the bearing of arms, and the right to keep those arms, is intended to benefit the citizens themselves, and not for the states in the Union. The other is the right of the states to organize militias, and the protection of that right, or the  collective right model  (Halstead, 2008).

Another but less known interpretation of the Second Amendment states that individuals do possess the right to own firearms, but is connected to the membership of the individual to  his service in the militia forces of the state. This is the  sophisticated collective rights model  interpretation. The major arguments in the affirmation of and the opposition to the right of the person to own firearms depends on the wording of the Amendment itself. In the context of the  individual right model , the interpretation rests heavily on the operating clause of the Amendment, which states that the  right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed . In the belief of the supporters of this model, the right affirms the position that the people are guaranteed, and not the rights of the states. In support of this policy, the context that the basis is the Tenth Amendment (Halstead, 2008), which reads
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people (American Law and Legal Information, 2010).

Enacted in 1791, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution outlines the general provisions of the concept of Federalism in the Republican type of government. In the Amendment, the American fundamental law gives the parameters of the authority that can be utilized by the different branches of the American government. The Amendment reserves to the disposition of the states all the powers that are not endowed to the Federal government by the Constitution, except the powers that the law states that the States cannot exercise. To cite an example, the Federal Constitution does not give the United States Congress the power to regulate or legislate on local matters such as health, morality and the safety of residents of the states in the Union. These rights are reserved to the application of the states, collectively known as the Police Powers of the states (American, 2010).

The 10th, in the belief of the practitioners of the individual right model, sets a clear distinction between the states and the people, the terminology making the clear cut difference  between the two sets of parties in the Amendment, and that the Framers of the Constitution put a definitive stance on the term  state . In this frame, it can be argued that they knew what or who they were inferring the right to. The argument here is that in the wording of the Second Amendment, the right conferred did not infer an individual right, the Second would have simply stated that the right to bear and posses arms is for the states and not to the individual.  For the supporters of the collective right interpretation, they oppose that assertion with the dependent clause of the 2nd, that with the insertion of the phrase  well-organized militia , that qualification will apply to the rest of the 2nd, as the right limits the rights of the people to bear and possess arms and imputing on the states the authority to regulate the conduct by which the arms are stored, and that the person who keeps and bears such items are members of the state militia (Halstead, 2008).

In the determination of the legal standing of the plaintiffs in the case, the appellate court refused to grant recognition  to the other five plaintiffs in the case, granting recognition to Heller who was the one that actually sought to acquire a permit to keep a firearm at home and was rejected by the city authorities. Heller, a security officer who does bear a gun while on duty guarding the administrative offices at the Federal court building, sought to acquire a permit to keep a gun at home for purposes of self defense (Linda Greenhouse, 2007). In the passage of time, the concept that the ownership of firearms is only for the membership of militia in the states is now applied into the members of the National Guard, and that the developments in the art of warfare has all but voided the need for the citizens to carry firearms. In the arguments of the supporters of the individual rights ideology, they aver that the militia as conceived by the Founders were comprised of every male that could serve in the militia, each of them had to have their own firearms (Halstead, 2008).

To buttress their notion, they infer the United States Public Law (10 U.S.C 311) that in part defines the different classes of militias that apart from the National Guard, there exists in society an  unorganized militia , made up of all males 17-45 years of age that are deemed fit to serve in the National Guard or the seaborne militia but are not formal and integral members of the two branches. Also, they aver that the theory cannot just be overridden or declared as academic given the rise of the technology in warfare or the changing mores of the society (Halstead, 2008).

The Second Amendment in the United States Supreme Court
United States vs. Miller
As earlier stated, the case of District vs. Heller was the first time that the Court had to deal with a case dealing with the interpretation of the Second Amendment in nearly seven decades, since the Court decided in the 1939 case of United States vs. Miller that only implied that the right under the Second Amendment can only be applied within the context of the membership in the state militias (Greenhouse, 2007). In deciding in Miller, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a provision in the National Firearms Act that mandated that sawed off shotguns be registered. In the discussion of the Second, the Court took note of the term  militia , understanding it to mean that it was commonly used to refer to males that are physically able that can act in concert for the purpose of defending the citizenry, that the members of the militia were civilians first and soldiers second (Halstead, 2008).

The Court crafted the rationale that a weapon that is in the possession of an individual must have a definable relationship to the maintenance or the efficiency of a well-organized militia force. It is noteworthy that in the discourse of Miller, the defendant in the case did not offer any pieces of evidence that will support his conviction. In the Supreme Court ruling, the Court states that there being no evidence that the possession or the use of a shotgun with a barrel less than one and a half feet in length at the time can have a reasonable relationship with the practice of a well-organized militia, the Court cannot declare that the ambit of the 2nd protects the individual from the restrictions that will allow the user to possess and own such a type of firearm (Halstead, 2008).

The decision of the Court in Miller is quite complex, in that the decision affirms the right of the individual to bear and keep a gun to the fact that the person be a member of the militia, but does not exhaust the logical repercussions of its findings, leaving vulnerable the question of the limits at what point does regulation or banning the ownership of firearms tends to infringe on the tenets of the 2nd. After the Miller decision, cases discussed in the years after the decision generally departed from the tenets set down in Miller. After this, the succeeding rulings with regards to the courts treatment of the 2nd for the rest of the 20th century generally carried a blanket modicum  that the 2nd only allowed a collective right to own guns and not to the individual right to keep and bear arms (Halstead, 2008).

Cases vs. United States
The progressing departure from the tenets of Miller came to a head in the 1942 decision of the Court in Cases vs. United States. In the Cases issue, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that a strict application of the provisions in Miller could restrain the government from monitoring the possession of high powered weapons such as machine guns that serve military purposes. Using the inference of Miller, the Court that decided in Cases ruled that the Founders could not have meant for the citizenry to come into possession of such high powered weaponry such as machine guns or other such high powered guns to be kept in their arsenals at home. In the decision, the Court formulated a new set of tests to the application of the 2nd, that of the individual having possession of the banned weapon as a member of the militia. The defendant in the case failed in that test, with the Court ruling that the owner of the weapon merely had the weapon as a result of caprice without intention to contribute to the efficiency of the militia (Halstead, 2008).

The Cases decision reaffirmed the constitutionality of the Federal law that bans the possession of such weaponry that can be perceived as a weapon that can be used in the militia but the weapon was not utilized for that purpose. To further strengthen the position of the Cases court, the High Bench used two decisions in United States vs. Cruikshank and Presser vs. Illinois . In both cases, the doctrine that the 2nd did not confer a right to individuals to keep and bear arms was again sounded off by the Court. In their assertion, the 2nd , as well as the United States Constitution, does not confer the right to bear arms on individuals, and that the only function of the 2nd was to bar the Federal government, and that agency only, from impinging on the rights in the Second (Halstead, 2008).

After the motion of Heller was raised to the United States Supreme Court, the debate on one of the most stringent gun control laws will begin to determine whether the Supreme Court will rule on the assertion that individuals can keep the guns that they have even if they are not members of the militia or as discussed earlier, the National Guard. The High Bench will see if the Second Amendment will support the argument of those like Heller who wish to be able to possess firearms in their homes. If the High Court rules in favor of the Constitutional provision and states that the 2nd allows gun possession for individuals, this could begin a rash of legal challenges to laws that control the restrictions on gun possession across the United States. In the opinion of Northwestern University constitutional law professor Martin Redish, the decision of the Supreme Court can either add fuel t the efforts to quash existing gun control laws or strengthen the actions on restricting ownership of firearms (Emma Schwartz, 2008).

In the chronology of the United States, there has been the opinion that the 2nd conveys a collective right of assembling citizens together as an action of the states, such as the National Guard. In the judicial arena, nine Federal Circuit courts have ruled in favor of the position, and the Supreme Court indirectly ruled in favor of the position in the 1939 United States v. Miller case, though the case concerned an issue of possession of  sawed off shotguns. But in the more recent times, there is a growing opinion that the 2nd does grant a right for individuals to own firearms. After a 2001 decision in the Federal appellate court upheld a individual right issue before it, the Department of Justice, headed then by Attorney General John Ashcroft, shifted the administrations policy in advocating for an individual right. The general reasoning is that most of the rights in the Constitution, particularly in the Bill of Rights grant individual freedoms, then the tenets of the 2nd should not differ from the others (Schwartz, 2008).

In favor of the right to bear arms
The United States Supreme Court, by a narrow 5-4 decision ruled on the case of the District of Columbia that the D.C ban on the possession of handguns as unconstitutional, stating that the ban was violative of the rights of the citizens to own guns and keep them in their homes for purposes of self defense. The ruling effectively purged the more than 30 year ban on handguns as an infringement on the rights of individuals to own firearms, exceeding even the expectations that were hoped for by officials of the Bush administration, but at the same time leaving most of the gun control laws in the country virtually unscathed.  But in deciding against the ban, the Court had not definitively essayed on the qualifications on the tenets of the Second Amendment since the 1791 enactment. Justice Antonin Scalia, ponente for the majority decision, avers in the decision that the individual right to bear arms is supported by the chronological narrative, both in the times before and after the adoption of the 2nd. The High Court ruled that the United States Constitution does not allow a total banning ownership of handguns that are kept and used for purposes of self defense at home, and also quashed the requirement that guns be equipped with trigger locks or be disassembled, but allowed the registration of firearms in the District (Fox News, 2008).

In the decision of the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia vs. Heller (07-920) decided on June 26, 2008, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment does protect the right of an individual to possess a gun even though that person is not affiliated with a militia in any of its branches, and allows the use of the gun for legally acceptable purposes such as for the purpose of defending oneself or the members of his family at home. In their ruling, the prefatory clause of the Amendment does state a purpose, but does not expand on the operative provision of the Amendment. The context and background of the operative clause of the Amendment sets in no vague terms that the individual has the right to bear arms. (Cornell).

But in writing the decision, Scalia was careful not to provide a sweeping purge of all gun control statutes in the United States. Scalia noted that nowhere in the decision is the permission given to the criminals and mentally challenged to be able to own firearms. These firearms may be banned if they are considered as uncommon and dangerous, a qualification that the handgun does not satisfy (Head, 2010).

In the run up to the decision of the Court in Heller, some of the Justices already held that the 2nd did afford the right to individuals to keep and bear arms. Among the  Justices that stated that they were in favor of ruling for the matter were Chief Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas (Halstead, 2008). Writing for the minority, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the majority in the Court would have the minority believe that the Framers gave the necessary tools to local officials to monitor civilian use of weapons. Joining Stevens in opposing the ruling were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter (Fox, 2008).

Conclusion
Even as the Court accepted the oral manifestations in Heller as support for the interpretation of the 2nd as an affirmation of the individual model, the Court also found merit in the application of the District of the ban on handguns, that the citizenry did not have a right to possess guns as individuals apart from the context of being members of a militia. To resolve the impasse, the Court can use the collective model of interpreting the  2nd, that would validate the arguments against the laws being discussed, given that no individual laws are infringed in the process. Or the Court could also adopt the tenets of the sophisticated collective model, as the rights sought in Heller, that of possessing the arms would be utilized in the context of the militia (Halstead, 2008).

In the recommendations of the Cato Institute in response to the Heller decision, the American Congress should be compelled to obey the provisions as laid out in the decision. Also, Congress should work for the revocation of the government ban on the purchase of handguns across  state lines, and repeal the age requirements on the buyers and the possessions of handguns. But the first victory in Heller must come with guidelines on the types and  persons that are allowed to be owned and to own handguns, respectively. In the opinion of the Institute, the case of Heller presents a most opportune time to finally resolve the case of gun ownership in the United States (Cato Institute).

Sexual harassment is the act of discriminating people on the basis of their gender through unacceptable sexual approaches. This kind of issues can be found in different areas of the work environment, in different organizations. Sexual harassment also covers verbal and physical acts that are sexual. Requesting for sexual favors during the service of duty is also considered to be sexual harassment. These conditions are applicable when the complainant submits or rejects sexual advances due to the conditions of the offenders job, salary or career. In addition, the conditions are applicable when offender uses his job position to create employment or career development to another person on the basis of achieving sexual favors. Persons are also guilty of this offense when they interfere with the performance of other peoples work or create a work environment that intimidates, offends or is hostile to people so that they can get sexual favors from them (Paludi,  Paludi, 2003).

Sexual harassment happens when a soldier or a civilian worker is influenced, controlled, or affected by the acts of a supervisor or any person in a command position. Unacceptable physical contact, talks or gesture that are sexual in nature are considered to be sexual harassment. It may also occur though nonverbal communication of gender biased messages. Any information that has an irritating effect on the other person is not good and should be stopped. Gender discrimination is also covered in sexual harassment (Shrier, 1996).
The categories of sexual harassment are verbal, nonverbal and physical contact. Verbal sexual harassment includes making calls, talks, whistling or any other verbal communication which is sexual in nature directed to a civilian employee, soldier or family members of either the soldiers or the civilian employees (Hpfl  Czarniawska, 2002). Nonverbal sexual harassment includes acts such as staring at somebody in a sexual manner, or any other body languages that are suggestive in nature. It also includes printed materials such as pictures, cartoons that display sexual objects. The application of sexual screen savers on computers is also considered nonverbal sexual harassment. Physical contact sexual harassment includes the acts of touching another person in a sexual manner. Sexual assault and rape are the worst forms of sexual harassment. These offences are serious criminal acts which attract very severe punishments. People are requested to report such cases to the law enforcing bodies to ensure the culprits are punished (Berger  Searles, 1995).

The types of sexual harassment are Quid Pro Quo and Hostile environment. Quid Pro Quo means something for something. It involves asking sexual favors so as to perform certain tasks. It also covers threats if a person does not accept certain conditions. For example, when superiors demand for sexual favor so that they can promote an employee, and disciplining employees who fail to offer the sexual favors as asked by the superiors. Quid Pro Quo results in discrimination to a person based on sexual relationships. Hostile environment is a type of sexual harassment that happens when a soldier or a civilian is subjected to comments that are unwelcome and relating to sexual harassment.  It is a nonviolent sexual act that creates biases according to the gender of an individual. Such acts include jokes, unwelcome touching, comments, or pictures that relate to sexual harassment. Hostile environment is created in the work place when people suggest sexual statements that are irritating to others. Gender biased activities are also not acceptable and are considered to be sexual harassment (Berger  Searles, 1995).

Methods of dealing with sexual harassment
Soldiers and civilians are responsible to assist in solving problems related to sexual harassment. This can be accomplished through first, direct approach. This involves confronting the person harassing the other and telling himher that the behavior is not acceptable and that they are not pleased by their behavior (Hpfl  Czarniawska, 2002). Courtesy should be used when approaching the harasser so as to avoid conflicts. The procedure and points to deliver to the person involved should be written down so as to have an organized and presentable work. Secondly, indirect approach can also be applied. The person affected can write a letter or an email to the harasser so that they can express their feelings and also suggest the resolutions to them. The letter should state the legal as well as any other remedy that may be sought by the offended person in case the behavior continues (Hpfl  Czarniawska, 2002). Thirdly, the offended party can use a third party to deliver the message to the offender. This involves requesting assistance from another person so as to be directed on the way to stop the behavior of the offending party. The third party is sent to talk to the harasser. Third party can accompany the offended person so as to enable him deliver the message. He can also intervene on behalf of the victim. Fourthly, the victim can use chain of command. The victim reports the harasser to the supervisor or any other responsible person. Other people in the chain of command can be used to resolve the situation. These people have the authority to deal with such cases and can assist in preventing any other similar acts in future. Lastly, the victim can file a formal complaint. There are procedures for filing formal and informal complaints. The victim seeks redress from the court and the harasser is subjected to punishment. This method is used when other methods have failed or when the situation is severe. The court gives remedy to the offended party while the offender is punished so as to stop any future occurrence of a similar situation (Crouch, 2001).

Training
To eliminate sexual harassment within an organization, it has to begin by training the people about identification and prevention of behaviors that are unacceptable. The training should be aggressive and progressive so that the individuals participating in the program can understand the concepts well. Soldiers need to be trained on how to recognize and understand sexual harassment. They also ought to know methods of preventing it and the means of reporting such cases to the relevant authorities. The consequences of such activities are taught to the soldiers so as to equip them fully with all the required skills. Annual training of soldiers should be conducted to ensure they refresh their skills. It can also be done twice per year depending on the severity of the situation (Paludi,  Paludi, 2003).

The quality of training should be emphasized so as to ensure the effective delivery of the required skills in combating sexual harassment. Small groups composed of a mixture of both men and women are established so that they can discuss and interact during the training. Soldiers and civilians are given different scenarios so that they can visualize different situations. The training can also use role playing so that the trainees can understand the concepts well. Training should be appropriate so that different groups can be trained according to their lines of duty. The commander to each unit should assess the quality and contents of the training to ensure adequate skills are taught to their personnel (Shrier, 1996).

Civilian employees are trained on how to define sexual harassment and other gender discrimination activities that they may encounter during their duty of service. They are also taught about the sanctions used to punish people involved in sexual harassment. Methods of dealing with harassers are taught to enable the civilian employees handle the cases with professionalism. The techniques and procedures of filing formal and informal cases are trained to the civilian employees so that they can assist victims of sexual harassment. Adequate training is required of the civilian employees since they are in direct operation with the soldiers and the civilians. They ought to have skills to deal with all groups of people so that they can resolve any problems that are reported to them (Crouch, 2001).

Other officers who need training are junior officers, noncommissioned officers and civilian supervisors. This will enable them reinforce their skills in handling cases that have been brought to them. The training promotes healthy work environment so that the departments can accomplish their mandates. The officers are trained on how to handle and resolve complaints that they encounter. The officers should be responsible when processing formal and informal complaints from victims. They ought to have the skills to deal with the complaints in a professional manner so as to avoid poor handling of cases as well as improve on their communication with superiors (Stein, 1999).

Senior officials are trained on how to foster a healthy command environment. Such senior officials include noncommissioned officers, warrant officers, civilian, managers and other senior officers. They should be trained on how to use appropriate methods to determine a healthy command environment. This training is aimed at increasing the skills learnt during the junior level. They are trained on how to apply the laws relating to sexual harassment (Berger  Searles, 1995).

The training is done by professionals who are qualified enough to handle the topics of sexual harassment. The trainers should be people with good education backgrounds to ensure compliance with the regulations that have been stipulated by the law. They should have a wealth of experience in handling similar cases (Stein, 1999).

Conclusion
Sexual harassment in work environment and command climate has very complicated and serious impacts socially, legally, and ethically. Civilian employees as well as officers should have adequate skills to handle cases concerning sexual harassment. These skills are trained on a regular basis so as to avoid poor handling of complaints by the officers. The work environment should be conducive for all employees to work. The legal system has established measures to prevent cases of sexual harassment. There should be adequate remedies to the victims of sexual harassment since statistics show that there is an increase in the number of cases of sexual harassment recently. More sanctions should be implemented to reduce the cases of sexual harassment.

When you think about starting any business, the most important thing that you have to decide upon is the business structure you choose for your business. It is important to consider this because this will determine the amount of taxes we will be paying, the documentation that will be done, the obligations and liabilities we face and the way we finance our business operations.

In this situation where we are starting an online business for making and selling craft items through the internet but in many ways the process of formation of an online business is similar to the conventional business venture and the legal structure applicable for the conventional entity is also valid for an online company. Before deciding on a certain business structure we should first look at the business legal structures available to us so that we can analyze them to suit our situation.

The most common business structures that we can follow are
Sole proprietorship is a form of business structure where owner and his company are considered a single entity for tax and liability purposes (Adler  Franczyk, n.d.).

Partnership is a form of legal structure for business where two or more persons are wholly responsible for the obligations of the business. They share in the profits and losses of the business (Adler  Franczyk, n.d).
Limited Liability Company (LLC)is a form of legal structure where the owners of the company are only liable to the amount that they have invested in the business It is more of a hybrid form of partnership because it gives the owners some of the benefits of both partnership and corporation form of structure. (entrepreneur.com n.d.).

Corporation A corporation is a legal entity, separate from its owners (those who are responsible to run the operations of the business).The corporation pays taxes and is legally liable for its liabilities and obligations. The owners benefit from this form of business structure by avoiding personal liability, but the cost of setting up a corporation offsets many of its benefits.
             
 Based on the above analysis, we need to evaluate our decision, on the type of
               
Our business structure against the following criteria                          
Legal liability We should consider whether we can meet the liabilities and obligations that arise from the operations of the business. If we want to avoid any obligations occur from the potential losses of the business than the partnership and sole proprietorship is not the best option for us.

Cost of formation and ongoing administration There is a lot of high cost associated if we choose to incorporate, though the tax options and benefits we can avail if we decide to form a corporation are far greater than what will be available to us if we choose a partnership business structure. However, this tax benefit cant be enough to offset the high running cost of corporation .Moreover, the high costs of record keeping and paperwork associated with incorporation makes it an unviable option for us.

Future needs We also need to consider the long term issues related to our business. Because the partnership and sole proprietorship may offer greater benefits and rewards as compared to the other form of business structures, but it has risks like sustainability issues. We should be mindful of the fact that our business needs to survive when the owners are no longer available.

We need to consider whether we will be able to meet the financial needs of the business on our own, because if we decide to form a partnership business structure we two will be solely responsible to raise finance. A corporation is considerably in a better position to meet it financial and investment needs through issue of shares and etc.

Another question we need to ask ourselves is, What will be the fate our company when we both or either one of us is no longer around to run it (entrepreneur.com n.d.).
                 
4. Flexibility Partnership form of structure offers more flexibility as we will be in a better position analyze our personal needs.While corporate presents many complexities with regards to the decision making about the strategic needs of the business.

The above analysis suggests that general partnership type of business structure will be best suited for our internet business because it gives us the opportunity to take control of our business, reaping all the rewards to ourselves while being responsible for all the liabilities and obligations that arise from the business.