Menacing spy craft... unmanned aerial vehicles... and missile laden predators. These are the images that come to mind when the word "drone" is spoken. Taken to new heights during the Global War on Terror, military drones have struck fear into the hearts of America's enemies. Now the U.S. government is starting to look inward toward its next target: the American people. Already starting along the US/Mexico border, big brother is indiscriminately watching whole neighborhoods via high tech zoom and heat imaging technology. There is even a debate in congress as to whether it is lawful for an American citizen to be killed by a missile firing drone. These actions and debates have caused legitimate concerns for the American people in regards to governmental intrusions. Now that debate has moved on to include civilian radio controlled aircraft enthusiasts who use small video recorders as a part of their hobby. Recently, there has been new legislation enacted called the Texas Privacy Act; commonly referred to as the "drone bill." Debated under the premise of privacy, the drone bill is aimed primarily at the civilian hobbyist. Moreover, this legislation has no effect on the numerous types of governmental drones that "We the People" actually fear. Simply stated, the Texas Privacy Act is unjust, virtually unenforceable, and limits First Amendment rights.
In 2012, news broke that one of the Dallas’ oldest businesses, Columbia Meat Packing, was dumping huge amounts of pig blood into the Trinity River via a nearby stream (Lee). When tests also confirmed that hazardous chemicals were also flowing into the river from the plant, there was a general sense of outrage and disgust. However, it seems that what outraged the Texas legislature the most, ...
... middle of paper ...
... protect First Amendment rights in the areas of art, expression, or the freedom of the press. This bill does not address the public's concerns about governmental drones. People are not afraid of fathers that film loop to loop maneuver with their children at the city park. They fear governments that can call down hell fire from 5000 miles away with the push of a button.
Works Cited
Black, Henry C, and Joseph R. Nolan. Black's Law Dictionary: Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence Ancient and Modern; [with Pronunciations]. St. Paul, Minn: West Publ, 1993. 1486. Print.
Kaminski, Margot E. “Drone Federalism: Civilian Drones and the Things They Carry.” California Law Review Circuit. (2013): 63. Print.
Lee, Timothy. “Can State Laws protect You From Being Watched By Drones?” The Washington Post, 18 June 2013. Web. 17 April 2014.
Sweeney, B, O'Reilly, J & Coleman, A 2013, Law in Commerce, 5th edition, Lexis Nexis, Australia.
Controversy has plagued America’s presence in the Middle East and America’s usage of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) contributes vastly to this controversy. Their usefulness and ability to keep allied troops out of harm’s reach is hardly disputed. However, their presence in countries that are not at war with America, such as Pakistan and Yemen, is something contested. People that see the implications of drone use are paying special attention to the civilian casualty count, world perspective, and the legality of drone operations in non-combative states. The use of drone technology in the countries of Yemen and Pakistan are having negative consequences. In a broad spectrum, unconsented drone strikes are illegal according to the laws of armed conflict, unethical, and are imposing a moral obligation upon those who use them. These issues are all of great importance and need to be addressed. Their legality is also something of great importance and begins with abiding to the Laws of Armed Conflict.
The case was Texas v. White. The state of Texas brought suit in the United States Supreme Court to have certain United States government bonds declared the property of the state, and to prevent the present holders of the bonds from collecting upon them. Texas had owned the bonds before the Civil War. As a means of financing during the war, while Texas was a member of the Confederacy, the bonds were sold. Texas now claimed that the sale was void and the bonds still belonged to the state.
Texas is big! From the size of the state, to our trucks, and to our pride, there are countless examples of why “everything is bigger in Texas”. Even our state constitution is bigger! With approximately 87,000 words and 474 amendments, the current Texas Constitution of 1876 is one of the longest state constitutions in the United States. Compared to the United States Constitution with only 4,400 words and 27 amendments, one wonders how the Texas state and local governments can operate efficiently with such an overwhelming document. The length and detail of the constitution stem from the specific policies written into the document, making it statutory in nature. This specificity has resulted in a restrictive document that requires frequent amending.
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
Lawrence v. Texas In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults who were acting in privacy.
Evidence: Drones have many beneficial uses, including in search-and-rescue missions, scientific research, mapping, and more. But deployed without proper regulation, drones equipped with facial recognition software, infrared technology, and speakers capable of monitoring personal conversations would cause unprecedented invasions of our privacy rights. Interconnected drones could enable mass tracking of vehicles and people in wide areas. Tiny drones could go completely unnoticed while peering into the window of a home or place of worship.
A modification within the paradigm of armed conflict has begun to manifest itself, due to no small part of the United States self-proclaimed war on terror; it is the use of military drones. In addition, this war is being conducted on a global scale, these drones provide a more nimble and swifter approach, however, can these devices be compliant under IHL? In addition, the case against drones includes violations of sovereignty, excess death of civilian along with destruction of civilian infra structures and extra-judicial killings. These are legitimate concerns and depend-ing on how these devices re used will determine how these concerns are dealt with
The U.S. constitution contains no expression of valued rights in considering privacy. Therefore, the Supreme Court has adopted a rather narrow interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically in regards to the term liberty, as established in the due process clause . Earlier Supreme Court decisions were not concerned with how states constituted their residents. Thus, any state, at this time, was at the liberty to deprive its residents of their first amendment, freedom of speech, religion, and press. However, this is much leniency and room for interpretation in the Due Process Clause, because it may be stretched to constitute not only at federal level but the state level. Reinterpretation under the 14th amendment bonded the first ten Bill of Rights within state governments to protect the citizens’ liberty. State governments are then prohibited from denying persons within their jurisdictions the Privileges and Immunities of a United State citizen, and guarantees that all natural born citizens have Due Process and Equal Protection of their rights, this binding, in turn, created the incorporation doctrine . Thus, the due process clause does not govern how a state sets the rules for specific disciplinary procedures. For example, in the Bill of Rights it specifies that if a citizen were accused of a crime, then that citizen would have the right to defense from a lawyer. But, suppose the state, or federal, government did not privilege that citizen to a lawyer. Then, that government would have violated this citizen the right to due process that is assured in the constitution.
The Chesapeake Bay is polluted with agricultural waste. We see things like 1.5 billion pounds of chicken waste that no one wants to take responsibility for. Ignoring standards, a waterway was tested for E. coli; the standard is 125 FCU/100ml of water. Yet this waterway’s level was at 48392 FCU/100ml. An industry that will go to great lengths to make sure that Congress doesn’t impose sanction against them.
...Gale Encyclopedia of Everyday Law. Ed. Shirelle Phelps. Vol. 1. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 265-271. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale. Tarrant County College. 2 Mar. 2011 .
In movies, aliens are always seen and monsters shooting innocent people and taking over their land. Since 2001 this has become reality, but the alien ships have turned into military drones shooting down civilians, and the monster turn into the country in control of these machines. Drones are unmanned aircraft which may be armed for hazardous missions that endangers many lives; this has impacted our military in many ways. The usage of drones was the results of the attacks on the world trade center of Sep 11. 2001. The United States has used drones to kill terrorists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, among countries. This has ended many innocents’ lives and has provoked more issues than have solved. Drones should be removed from our military services. America would be safer without drones; they create more enemies than they destroy. Drones have also caused numerous civilians casualties, which violates international laws. Not to mention that this
In the United States, people worried that drones would be used near their home because they equip with a camera and that make people feel restless or uncomfortable when a drone nearby. A lot of people don’t realize that drones flying around neighbor are not much,
Drones are the Future One of the latest and most controversial topics that has risen over the past five to ten years is whether or not drones should be used as a means of war, surveillance, and delivery systems. Common misconceptions usually lead to people’s opposition to the use of drones which is the reason it is important for people to know the facts about how and why they are used. Wartime capabilities will provide for fewer casualties and more effective strikes. New delivery and surveillance systems in Africa, the United Air Emirates and the United States will cut costs and increase efficiency across the board. Rules and regulations on drones may be difficult to enforce, but will not be impossible to achieve.
Martine, Elizabeth A., Jonathon, Law. (2006) Oxford Dictionary of Law, 6th Ed, Oxford University Press.