Discussion Board 2

Classmate's Post

Aimee Holtz The attorney generals of Maryland and Washington D.C. are preparing an emoluments lawsuit against President Trump. Trump requested a stay in the case but a Federal District Judge denied his request and told the parties to start the process of discovery. The case will be analyzing Trump's business dealings, especially those concerning foreign diplomats.

1. The case is involving a federal constitutional law. As stated in the textbook, a constitutional law "is the branch of law that is based on the Constitution for a particular level of government (Textbook, pg. 7, para. 2)."The specific provision of the Constitution are the emoluments clauses. One clause states that government officials are prohibited from receiving gifts/payment from other foreign officials. The second clause involved states that the President cannot accept benefits from state governments. The plaintiffs in this case will specifically be looking into Trump's dealings with foreign officials at the Trump International Hotel.

2. The court hearing the case is not mentioned in the article.

3. The business is not the party being sued, however, the dealings of the Trump International Hotel will be the focal point of the case. The hotel will have to turn over all of the records and documents so that they can be analyzed for wrong doing. Although the hotel won't be shut down, the owner, Trump, will face consequences if he loses the case.

4. There is an ethical issue in terms of integrity. If the case is proven that Trump offered foreign officials favors and expected a return, it puts Trump's integrity as well as the businesses integrity in question. He is essentially doing a secret deal and not disclosing the details, which creates the impression that there is something to hide. As president, Trump is especially not allowed to engage in these types of activities.

*Article on The National Public Radio website

Reese Murphy

1. I found an article on (wbur.org) called "Airbnb is Tough Competition For Berkshire Inns; New State Law May Have Impact". This news article involves state constitutional law. Berkshires is located in Berkshire County, Massachusetts. People have been renting out their rooms in their homes in this area for decades now, in order to earn extra income. The law that was passed by Massachusetts state legisislature essentially "leveled the playing field" between Airbnb's and these local Berkshire rentals. There are plenty of valid arguments on the side of Airbnb, with this providing income for people that rely on it due to injury or retirement. This is what the Massachusetts law requires: it requires a state-room tax to be charged to short term renters, purchase liability insurance for $1 million per year, and register with the state. This is requiring short term renters to essentially make their personal information public, which Airbnb is not happy about. I believe this relates to the fourth amendment of the constitutional bill of rights. The fourth amendment does normally apply to warrants and seizures, but it still states that no

person should have their person, houses, papers, and effects violated, which is what I believe is happening with their personal information being made public.

2. Jeffrey Lynch is an attorney that represents 10 Airbnb's and Inn's in Lenox, Massachusetts. The article does not specify a court that the case was held in, but I'm assuming it was within the Berkshire county in Massachusetts where the issue has arrised.

3. This case is heavily business related. It involves Airbnb, which is one of the most valuable recent startups (valuation of +/- $30 Billion) and residents of the Berkshires in Massachusetts that rent out rooms in their house to make income. Business ethics are being questioned by residents of Berkshire. Business ethics as defined in the text, are balancing profits with values (textbook 3-1 paragraph 2). With more Airbnb's popping up in this town, renters are moving from the Berkshire rentals into the Airbnb's, impacting berkshire's rentals negatively.

4. Similarly to question 3, the business ethics of the Airbnb renters are in question. Personally, I understand the point being made by the Berkshire residents, but their argument is invalid. They are simply disputing free trade, capitalism, and competition, which drives business and the market in the United States. I believe this law that is set to "level the playing field", is challenging the morales of our country in business. Without competition, we would have much higher prices for every consumable and service. The rights theory, described in the text (textbook 3-1c paragraph 7) state that we all have a set of rights that must be honored and protected by government. Are the Airbnb renters being protected and treated justly? No. The Berkshire residents are being favored simply because they were there first, which is totally unjust.

Robert Dlugaszewski

In Bladensburg, Maryland a giant Latin cross sits in the middle of a busy traffic intersection on public land honoring WWI deceased and has been there for over 90 years. Now the question is asked,"Does the monument violate the First Amendment, which prohibits government establishments of religion?" (Garnett). This is one of those Federal Constitutional Laws that the outcome of the case in unpredictable and manipulable,"For more than three decades, justices' opinions in these cases have consisted mainly of speculation about the message various symbols convey to imaginary observers,"(Garnett). This case hasn't yet been brought up in court and is has been almost 15 years since a case like this has surfaced, this case goes to Supreme Court on the 27th of February which is next Wednesday. The big thing that the Supreme Court is going to have to worry about is the ethics, a branch of philosophy dealing with values that relate to the nature of human conduct and values associated with that conduct(Section 3-1, para 2), on their final decision that could put justices in a unembellished and uncomfortable conflict with longstanding practices. In the end the Supreme Court is gonna have to come up with a solution that is primum non nocere, ​which means,"above all, do no harm,"(Section 3-3a, para 3), which some of the justices, who have been on the Supreme Court for some time, have been proposing. This being to make the ruling on the case,"that because memorials and displays using religious symbols do not coerce

religious activities or entangle church and state, they are simply not ‘establishments’ of religion,"(Garnett).

Source: Garnett, Richard W. “Supreme Court Memorial Cross Case to Help Clarify Law Regarding Public Religious Symbols, Notre Dame Expert Says | Newswise: News for Journalists.” ​Newswise = Smart News Connection​, 21 Feb. 2019, 10:05am

Jacqueline Campbell https://www.concordmonitor.com/New-Hampshire-marijuana-legalization-hearing-State-House-2326848 0

The news article that I picked out is "Marijuana legalization showdown in New Hampshire State House." This article has state constitutional law involved and involves civil liberties amongst Americans in New Hampshire fighting for this bill to be passed. There are two sides to this issue and that is those that want marijuana to be legalized and those who do not. The first public hearing will take place at the New Hampshire State House and discuss the differences of if this bill should be passed. The American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire states that legalizing marijuana is a way to eliminate unfair penalties by law enforcement. They think that communities of color and minorities are targeted most by law enforcement and think passing this bill will put an end to the war on marijuana. The opponents, such as the Governor, are arguing that the bill should not be passed now, especially with the opioid crisis occurring. The opponents are thinking of protecting the state, (Textbook pg, 42, para 1) and trying not to put citizens in more danger if this bill is passed. They stated in the article that statistics show that marijuana is a dangerous drug right now and passing this bill will increase it further in harming more citizens of New Hampshire. There are ethics that are seen on both sides (Textbook pg. 34, para. 2) and their goals are to value their society in the right way no matter the outcome.