Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Marriage Protection Act of 2004 Moves Forward
Congress approved legislation on July 22 that aims to strip the federal courts of the ability to decide cases challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Proponents of the largely Republican-backed bill, the Marriage Protection Act of 2004 (H.R. 3313), indicate it is necessary to keep federal courts from invalidating the part of the act that says states can't be forced to recognize same-sex marriages entered into in other states. They say state courts should be the exclusive forums for challenges to the act because states have traditionally decided who shall be allowed to marry within their jurisdictions. Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN), the bill's sponsor, said after the House Judiciary Committee approved the bill July 14, “I'm pleased that the Committee took this action to prevent the federal courts from imposing homosexual marriages on Indiana and other states. The Committee recognized the constitutional right of Congress to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts. This bill will protect the right of states to define marriage without interference from the federal judiciary.” Hostettler dismisses constitutional separation of powers challenges to the proposed law, saying, “Article I, Section 8 and Article III Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution grant Congress explicit and exclusive authority to create the inferior federal courts, regulate their jurisdiction and regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.”
The Opposing View
Opponents of the legislation assert that the legislation does violate the concept of a separation of powers. In an impassioned statement on the Senate floor before votes were taken, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA) chastised the body for wasting its energies on the topic of same-sex marriage when more pressing world problems should be their focus. Instead, he said, “We are taking up a bill to strip the federal courts of the power to hear cases challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Apparently, the Republican Congress is so concerned that a gay or lesbian couple might some day have their marriage in one state recognized in another state that they are prepared to take the extreme measure of preventing judges from interpreting the law. While every other American will continue to enjoy the checks and balances that come from three branches of government, the Republicans have decided that if you are gay, you should be able to get along with just two branches of government!”
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.