After being told no for the last 200 years, the House of Representatives have okayed a bill that would allow a House of Representatives position to be created for the residents of the District of Columbia.  This is a complete shock to some, who analyze the situation and state that technically the District of Columbia is not a state and has no right to a representative in the house.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In previous years, generations ago women were considered property of the husband or father to whom they belonged.  Now as we have progressed into the 21st century women have stepped up to the plate and are an integral part of society and politics, on an entirely equal footing with men.  In the past, women were considered as belonging to their husbands or fathers, now they are the CEO’s of major corporations.  Women today are a very important part of society, with women in jobs such as judges, Senators, Congress, and even Governors – a feat that would have been highly surprising even twenty years ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The debate of gay marriages has been a very hot political topic for many years and with being such a hot topic it is almost astounding the number of places that have come out publicly either for or against the topic.  While there are few states who allow the idea of a gay or same-sex marriage there are those more liberal affording almost equal rights.  Massachusetts is the only state currently in the United States that allows same-sex marriages.  The state of Rhode Island is generous enough to recognize as legal marriage any same-sex marriage that is performed in Massachusetts, which is a major victory for many same-sex supporters.

The elections of recent years have seen this as a very hot topic button, and with the White House, stressing that marriage involves a man and a woman only, not same-sexes many states have been very reluctant to allow the same-sex marriages. However, a few states have come forward and allowed same-sex civil unions, which are very similar to a marriage.

These states are California, Hawaii, Maine, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Vermont.  The District of Columbia also recognizes same-sex unions and soon the Governor of New Hampshire has stated publicly that he will sign a bill giving the ok to same-sex unions.  This is a major victory for those who are supporting the movement.

While many states have not given the green light on the same-sex issue, there are states who are sitting around discussing the issues.  Many couples who are fighting for their rights have argued that there is no difference in the way they run their households compared to their heterosexual counterparts.  They have also stated that while they may be with a partner who is the same sex as them, they do still love their partner and should have the right to get married.

This has always been a hot topic, and likely will continue to be a hot topic for many years to come.  With the issues raging within the states and at the national level it will likely be a very long time before the gay and lesbian rights groups are able to truly declare a victory for their cause.  Nevertheless, there is some solace to be taken in the small victories as they occur, and another Governor of a state being willing to allow a civil union is at least a step in the direction towards a victory.

The fact remains that often the views of the individual states tend to reflect the views of the President.  With a President in office who is a staunch opponent to the concept of same-sex marriage as well as civil unions it is unlikely to allow much room for many victories until a more accommodating, or rather liberal, President is in the White House.

Once the bill passes all of the channels, it can go into effect as early as next year for the New Hampshire residence who have long been awaiting this victory.  With each state that gives this right to its residents, it opens the doors to more states to start becoming more tolerant of all their inhabitants.  Finally, this is paving the way for America to join the bulk of Europe in recognizing the legal inequalities between straight and gay couples nationwide.

In attempting to garner an understanding of the nature of law, early legal philosophers and academics formulated what has come to be known as the natural law theory, and has become a literal cornerstone of the development of modern legal thinking.  Although somewhat limited in modern jurisprudential thinking, natural law has had a tremendous impact on our understanding of what law means in society as a baseline from which to build more complex theories.  In this article, we will look at some of the major propositions underpinning the concept of natural law, and the corresponding strengths and weaknesses of this fundamental interpretation of the legal function.

Natural law starts with the basic premise that the law is driven by morality, and consequently is affected by it.  With a history extending back to Aristotle and other early philosophers, the natural law theory has traditionally linked the law with religion and an innate sense of justice, rather than the more pragmatic approaches of some other theories.  Although this might sound rather basic, the principals have been developed and refined through academic debate for centuries ultimately leading to a far more sophisticated theory of the nature of law.  The idea that all law is subject to an unwritten code of morality is fundamental to natural law.  This also throws up some potential problems in terms of civil regulation.  Certain natural law theorists suggest that for a law to be binding on the citizen, it must conform to this sense of natural justice.  However, there is clearly no definitive objective concept of morality, which casts doubt over this principle.  Additionally, the prospect that a law may be disregarded in favour of some higher sense of morality doesn’t conform in reality, considering the potential implications of consistently disregarding law on the grounds of the subjective concept of justice.

Furthermore on this primitive understanding of natural law, the citizen in contravention to the laws of his state, could attempt to excuse his actions through a justification of ‘immoral’ laws.  This would also create a state of disorder, given the natural variation of personal opinions, which would ultimately render society unworkable.  For this reason, the natural law scheme has failed to garner modern academic acceptance, of course with a few exceptions.

Natural law has been proposed as a consideration in trying war criminals, on the basis of the retrospectivity principle, i.e. no man can be tried for a crime that was not a crime when he committed it.  Many war criminals are merely cogs in the machine of a legal regime, which ultimately permits their actions, however unjustifiable morally.  Natural law theories give a basis for challenge on these grounds, whilst avoiding the awkward question of direct legal contravention, which ultimately works to serve justice.  In this sense, it is perhaps useful as a canon of interpretation and in determining just and equitable outcomes in ‘difficult’ cases.  However, as a wider legal concept, natural law and the proposed intersection between law and morality seems too awkward to reconcile with considered academic legal understandings.  Having said that, natural law has provided an excellent starting position for further advanced argumentation, and has provided a platform for critique that has been essential to the development of the more sophisticated ideas held in regard in this modern day.