Facts of the Case

Alabama had an interior design practice act that required any person that called themselves an interior designer to be certified by the state. The law, enacted in 2001, was challenged by someone who was doing interior decorating and had no certification and no degree. The Supreme Court of Alabama invalidated the law for two reasons. The first is that there are other laws both federal and state that insure only safe materials are available for use by consumers and the second reason is that there is no requirement in the state of Alabama that a homeowner or a business retain any interior decorator or designer to decorate their own space. The Supreme Court reasoned that there was no threat to the public if an uncertified designer decorated a space.

Rights as a property owner

I believe that my rights as a property owner is that I should have say in what happens with my property all together. If I don’t like something I should be able to change it. As well as if someone is doing something that doesn’t appeal to me, I should have a say in that situation. When I own property I expect it to be the way I want it. I shouldn’t have to worry about someone or something barging in and messing it up. As a property owner, I would expect that I should be comfortable with what is happening around me.

If I were to have a squatter, like in the movie, I would just contact an attorney. I feel like my attorney could help me figure out the steps to take to get rid of him or her better than I ever could. Although, if I were in that exact situation, I would have made sure that I got him to give me his information for a background check. Also I would have made sure I got the money first.

Instant Extra Credit

3 Names I have been Called:
Coriandra,
Cori,
Small fry
3 Jobs I have had:
Capezio,
Abercrombie,
Dance teacher
3 places I have lived:
Mesa, Arizona,
Las Vegas, NV,
Fort Collins, Colorado
3 TV shows that I watch:
Gossip Girl
Greek
Sonny with a chance
3 places I have been:
Hawaii
California
Chicago
3 People that email me regularly:
Sara
My mom
Rianna
3 of my favorite foods:
Steak
Pizza
Cold Stone ice cream
3 cars that I have driven:
Toyota Eco
Saturn Ion
Mustang
3 things I am looking forward to:
The beach
Old friends
Shopping

Greed Is Good week 6

I don' t have much of an opinion about the stock market. I probably feel that way because at this moment it doesn't affect me. I do, however, have an opinion about greedy people. I believe that greed brings out the worst in people. Any kind of greed will have some effect on another person or persons. Also what goes around comes around and greedy people will get there's in the end.

I think that there needs to be a distinction made between greedy people and highly motivated people. People who work hard and are successful deserve to be compensated. However, I don’t think that the managers and decision makers at the top of these failed Wall Street companies should be given bonuses. If their decisions caused the companies to fail, then why should they be given taxpayers’ money for a job that was not well done?

I understand the concern coming from the government over these huge bonuses. If the people currently running these companies manage to turn them around and they start making money, then those executives should be rewarded. I believe the whole situation changed the minute these companies took money from our government. As taxpayers we now own a piece of these companies. They can no longer go about their ‘business’ and not tell us what they are doing. Their ‘business’ is our business as long as they are spending the taxpayers’ money. If these companies start making money and pay back the U.S. government, then I think the executives who make that happen have done a good job and they should be rewarded.

Bong hits for Jesus

This case is an interesting but challenging one. I believe the child should not have been suspended for displaying the banner across the street from the school. Yes it was during school hours and that shouldn’t have happened but to get suspended was a little harsh. I believe that Frederick was allowed to make his speech and not have an issue with it because of the First Amendment. It says that the Fourth Amendment was in violation but I think if it was across the street it should be as big of a deal.