Module 1 Discussion
Discussion Topic
In the United States, the Supreme Court has the final say concerning any law or dispute in the land. The decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court may not be appealed and become the law of the land the instant the opinions are made public by publication of the document. No other branch of the government has the absolute final say on any issue, legal or otherwise.
Further, members of the Supreme Court are not elected by the public but rather are appointed for life by the President and Senate and cannot be removed by less than a 2/3 vote of the United States Congress.
For your discussion in this module, we will use the basic debate form. The proposition set forth is this: “The United States Supreme Court powers are appropriate and essential. No other legal form or entity could exist superior to our system.”
If you are posting your initial response, click the “Start a new thread” button. If you are responding, click the “Reply to Thread” button for the thread you wish to respond to.
In your primary post, affirm or oppose the proposition by no later than Thursday 11:59 PM EST/EDT.
Module 2 Discussion
Unlike many English language constitutions, the United States Constitution specifically provides for a mechanism for the government to involuntarily take private real property from its citizens. The only requirement that the government must show is that the taking is for a “public” purpose. There is no requirement that the taking be “necessary” or even “reasonable.” Any stated government purpose suffices. If the public purpose is demonstrated, then the government, state or federal, may take the property and provide the previous owner with “fair value” or compensation for the taking.
For your discussion in this module, we will use the basic debate form. The proposition set forth is this: “The United States Supreme Court taking powers for real property are just and necessary. No modifications need exist to the takings clause at this time.”
If you are posting your initial response, click the “Start a new thread” button. If you are responding, click the “Reply to Thread” button for the thread you wish to respond to.
In your primary post, affirm or oppose the proposition by no later than Thursday 11:59 PM EST/EDT.
Module 3 Discussion
Until 1677 and the creation of the Statute of Frauds in England, all contracts could be either written or oral and yet be equally binding on the parties. After 1677, the law required certain types of contracts (such as contracts to buy or sell land) to be both made in writing and executed with the physical signatures of all of the parties involved. At any time thereafter, either party could challenge authenticity of the physical signature of his/her own handwriting or the handwriting of the other party. Recently, with the increase of eCommerce, electronic signature (non-physical) has become as equally binding as the physical signature with severe limitation allowed in challenging the authenticity. Has this developed out of necessity, or have we simply moved too far with the law accommodating the digital age?
If you are posting your initial response, click the “Start a new thread” button. If you are responding, click the “Reply to Thread” button for the thread you wish to respond to.
